Tuesday, June 12, 2012


Real Fathers for Justice - News » The GREAT SHARED PARENTING  SWINDLE

Posted by: Stu G

The industry of kiddy - fiddling        marches on:
The only changes coming are the slogans used

    After years of delays, Committees, Family Justice Reviews etc etc    the Government plans to amend Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 by    inserting a couple of little prompts.
    The changes to the Act will be along the lines of that parenting    should be "shared" - and that children should have a "meaningful    relationship" with both parents.

And that’s it.

No definition of “shared        parenting.”
No definition of a “meaningful relationship”
No definition of when it should or should not happen.

    In other words, we're back where we started. We have gone full    circle without travelling anywhere, which is what normally happens    if you don't think to unstick the brakes on one side of an old    vehicle. Sometimes you need to use a hammer when the brakes are    particularly stubborn. After several million years of evolution, a    few Whitehall supremos and politicians are unable to define the    concepts they themselves propose.
    So, instead of endless wrangles in the courts, about what the    undefined "best interests of the child" are, there's a New Era    coming. Where we can have endless disputes about what the undefined    concept of "sharing" means. Where obstructive resident parents will    have free rein to say "there's a meaningful relationship - already".   
    Plus ca change...
    Yesterday, a senior source likened the equivocal amendments to    proclaiming that all washing machines should function perfectly -    without providing a way to actually mend their standard fault. No    principals are to be stated, no tools are to be issued, nothing is    to be put right. Cases will still be maladministered en masse. There    will be no significant change. Parents will still be advised not to    litigate: and, parents will still not be given the tools (in the    form of a workable definition) to enable them not to litigate. Every    case will still be different. CAFCASS, unable to define how much    contact there should be in contact cases, will still be flummoxed by    how much contact there should be in shared parenting disputes.
    Lord Justice Coleridge’s warnings were prophetic. New procedures;    old principals i.e. none at all. The current and next generations of    children now head for the same past: lots of untrained, meddling    court officers and social workers and judges operating without clear    guidance and principles. And, even before an applicant-parent gets    to a court system that won’t have changed a bit, there’ll be the    barriers and severe delays of “Mediation” and “Parental Information    Programs.” Where mediation favours the obstructive parent, and the    PIP courses lecture parents on the concepts of shared parenting and    meaningful contact - without being able to define them. Children    will continue to be separated from their non resident parents for    long enough to succumb to parental alienation; then social workers    and judges will decide cases using the discredited “wishes and    feelings” doctrine - aided and abetted by CAFCASS. Which still won't    have worked out what sort of recommendations it should make in what    circumstances.
    The Government never needed a new Act of Parliament to change the    way that the Courts applied the law. All it needed was to change the    way that the courts applied it. That task is and was    straightfortward. It's procedure. A template for a new model-court    system to deliver shared parenting sits neatly within the current    legal framework. The proposal had and has the support of senior    judges, two governments, the Family Law Bar Association and leading    child development specialists. But, instead of useful change, it    looks like we're heading for more talk. But no trousers. It's empty    spin. The same old procrastination. The same old bollocks.

No comments: