This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18412396#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Contact plans for separating parents are unveiled Warring parents 'play the system' to deny access, minister says
(about 2 hours later)
  
Children's rights to maintain contact with both parents following separation or divorce are to be strengthened under government proposals. Divorced or separated parents who play the system to "freeze" their ex-partner out of a "meaningful relationship" with their children should face tougher penalties, a minister says.
Under the plans, family courts in England and Wales must assume the child's welfare is best served by remaining involved with both parents. Children's Minister Tim Loughton said too many parents were "sticking two fingers up" to court rulings on access.
But ministers say parents will not have a right to equal time with children. He told the Justice Committee children's rights to contact with both parents would be strengthened.
Family law expert Prof Liz Trinder warned the change would make it harder for courts to focus on child welfare. Plans for the family courts in England and Wales have divided opinion.
And campaign group Fathers 4 Justice described the plans as "vacuous". Family law expert Professor Liz Trinder warned that the changes would make it harder for courts to focus on child welfare.
The government has launched a consultation on amending the Children Act 1989 to enshrine shared parenting in law. But campaign group Fathers 4 Justice described the plans as "vacuous".
Ministers believe this will encourage more separated parents to resolve disputes out of court and agree care arrangements that fully involve them both. Under the plans, which have just gone out for href="http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=1825&external=no&menu=1" title="link to government consultation documents " >public consultation, family courts in England and Wales would have to assume that it was in a child's best interest to see both parents.
The consultation paper also proposes extending the powers to fine or jail parents, or require them to carry out unpaid work, for wilful refusal to comply with care arrangements. Ministers say this would not mean both parents had the right to equal time with their children.
Children's Minister Tim Loughton told the BBC: "If parents decide to go all the way to the courtroom after they split to decide what happens to the future of their children... then it should be made very, very clear, before they go into the courtroom in law, that playing the sort of winner takes all game that many parents have done in the past - where one parent can be completely excluded from the life of that child - is just not going to happen." The consultation paper also proposes extending the powers to fine, jail, or require parents to carry out unpaid work, if they refuse to comply with care arrangements.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said: "Both parents have a responsibility and a role to play in their children's upbringing and we want to make sure that, when parents separate, the law recognises that. Children's Minister Tim Loughton told the BBC: "If parents decide to go all the way to the courtroom after they split to decide what happens to the future of their children... it should be made very, very clear, before they go into the courtroom in law, that playing the sort of winner takes all game that many parents have done in the past - where one parent can be completely excluded from the life of that child - is just not going to happen."
"Children should have the benefit of contact with both of their parents through an ongoing relationship with them. Later, he told the Justice Committee that parents have used delays in the system to "freeze out" the other parent, so that by the time judgements on access were being made, contact with the children had been broken.
"This is why we are publishing proposals today setting out that, where it is safe and in the child's best interest, the law is clear that both parents share responsibility in their upbringing." He wanted tougher penalties for those "who go all the way to court but also stick two fingers up at the judgement".
'Shallow' Ministers say both parents have a responsibility and a role to play in their children's upbringing and the law should recognise that.
Prof Trinder, one of the contributors to a government review of child contact rules led by former senior servant David Norgrove, said the changes were not necessary. 'Shallow'
She told the BBC that in around 99.7% of cases which went to court, judges ruled that both parents should have contact with their children. In the remaining cases, there were almost always "extremely good reasons" why one parent should not have access, she added. Critics of the proposed changes say they are unnecessary, because judges already take the view that children should have contact with both parents where this is in their best interest.
She said: "The beauty of the Children Act, I think most people agree, is it's a very clear and simple piece of legislation and it just focuses on what's going to be right for this child, that's the only consideration for the court. Once you start adding in other principles, then you're diminishing that focus." Prof Trinder, one of the contributors to a government review of access arrangements led by former senior servant David Norgrove, said that in around 99.7% of cases which went to court, judges ruled that both parents should have contact with their children.
In the remaining cases, there were almost always "extremely good reasons" why one parent should not have access, she added.
She said: "The beauty of the Children Act [current legislation governing access], is it is a very clear and simple piece of legislation and it just focuses on what's going to be right for this child, that's the only consideration for the court. Once you start adding in other principles, then you're diminishing that focus."
'Missing out'
Nick Woodall, from the Centre for Separated Families, welcomed the government's proposals.Nick Woodall, from the Centre for Separated Families, welcomed the government's proposals.
"There is a problem in that far too many children are missing out on those vital relationships with both parents after separation," he said."There is a problem in that far too many children are missing out on those vital relationships with both parents after separation," he said.
"The children who fare best and adjust the most easily to life after separation are those who are able to maintain meaningful relationships with both of their parents.""The children who fare best and adjust the most easily to life after separation are those who are able to maintain meaningful relationships with both of their parents."
But the campaign group Fathers 4 Justice said the proposals did not go far enough and fathers had been insulted by the government's failure to ensure they had the same rights as mothers to see their children.But the campaign group Fathers 4 Justice said the proposals did not go far enough and fathers had been insulted by the government's failure to ensure they had the same rights as mothers to see their children.
Nadine O'Connor from the group said: "There have been 10 years of consultations and the only thing that has been changed in that time is the courtroom furniture.Nadine O'Connor from the group said: "There have been 10 years of consultations and the only thing that has been changed in that time is the courtroom furniture.
"These shallow, vacuous proposals are the cruellest type of political deceit, as they are deliberately designed to kick this issue into the long grass for another generation.""These shallow, vacuous proposals are the cruellest type of political deceit, as they are deliberately designed to kick this issue into the long grass for another generation."
Joint responsibility
Launching a consultation on the proposals, Mr Loughton said: "We need to clarify and restore public confidence that the courts fully recognise the joint nature of parenting.
"We want the law to be far more explicit about the importance of children having an ongoing relationship with both their parents after separation, where that is safe and in the child's best interests.
"Where parents are able and willing to play a positive role in their child's care, they should have the chance to do so.
"This is categorically not about giving parents equal right to time with their children - it is about reinforcing society's expectation that mothers and fathers should be jointly responsible for their children's upbringing."
The Norgrove review of the family justice system, published last year, rejected the need for any legal enshrining of the rights of children to maintain contact with both parents, saying it risked "confusion, misinterpretation and false expectations".The Norgrove review of the family justice system, published last year, rejected the need for any legal enshrining of the rights of children to maintain contact with both parents, saying it risked "confusion, misinterpretation and false expectations".