News

"They fuck you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do." These opening lines to a Philip Larkin poem ring only too true during acrimonious custody battles between separating parents who use contact with their children as a way of settling scores.

Each year between 150,000 and 200,000 couples with children separate. Only 10 per cent of separating couples have their contact arrangements ordered by courts. But more disputes between parents are going that way. Last year, courts in England and Wales made 67,000 contact orders. The non-resident parent - usually the father - initiates most contact cases.

Putting parents who are already at odds with each other into an adversarial court environment is not the obvious way to achieve a harmonious outcome. Earlier this year the government, perhaps recognising this, published a green paper to shake up the way family courts intervene in disputed contact cases.¹ The main gripes against the present system are that:

• The law - or its interpretation - does not encourage non-resident parents to have a strong, continuing relationship with their child.
• Some resident parents feel frustrated that the other parent makes insufficient effort to keep in touch with their child.
• Some non-resident parents feel they have not been given adequate contact when they have been fully involved in their child's care before separation.
• Some non-resident parents feel the courts are biased toward the status quo by favouring the resident parent and that delays in arriving at decisions exacerbate this tendency.

Many believe that intervention to help relationships to survive is needed far earlier. The Family Welfare Association's director of services, Honor Rhodes, says: "If we could intervene earlier we wouldn't be in the position of talking about contact."

Rhodes thinks detailed research is needed on fathering and what it means, and on what makes families stay together. "Often when people talk about parenting they mean mothering," she says. One problem is that social care is a female-dominated profession. "It can be hard for female workers to think about fathers. It's a training issue, a gender issue, a social care issue."

What is not in question are the benefits that fathers' involvement in their children's lives can bring. Conversely, research shows that conflict around custody rights can have a damaging effect.

Some fathers' organisations want a change in the law to include a "presumption of contact" to give parents equal rights to equal time with their child after they have separated. The government disagrees. The green paper states: "What is needed are changes in adult behaviour in settling their disputes and significant changes to the system to provide more effective help to enable them to do so."

Fathers Direct, the national information centre on fatherhood, agrees with the government's call. Rather than a change in the law, it wants a change in the culture and practice of the family courts. Co-founder Jack O'Sullivan says: "The courts aren't operating in the best interests of the child because of the tendency to be slow and to undervalue the relationship between children and the non-resident parent, typically the father.

"We want to work towards a system where children see plenty of both parents after separation and a system which reduces litigation, because children are traumatised by it."

According to O'Sullivan, this is precisely what the green paper aims to do. Crucially, it sets out what the government would consider reasonable contact for a non-resident parent for the first time. "One reason we have so much litigation is because there is no legal definition of 'reasonable time'," says O'Sullivan. "Some non-resident parents fight for years to get what is outlined in the green paper, so it's a huge step forward."

The goal, he says, is to settle contact disputes early on without a court hearing - something he thinks the green paper will achieve. "Our understanding of the green paper is that what is considered reasonable and sensible is giving plenty of time to the non-resident parent."

But, as O'Sullivan acknowledges, not all fathers' groups feel the same. Fathers 4 Justice - the campaigning group known for its demonstrations by fathers dressed as superheroes - falls into this camp.

Founder Matt O'Connor says: "The green paper is a hollow sham of a document. At best it recycles the Children Act and at worst it likens the principles of equality of parents to divvying up a CD collection. In no way does it address any of the key problems that fathers, grandparents and children have demonstrated day in, day out, in courts."

These problems, he says, include courts failing to enforce contact orders. O'Connor has personal experience of the situation. After an acrimonious divorce, his ex-wife, with whom he now gets on well, prevented him seeing his two sons. Eventually, he took her to court. "Nothing can prepare you for the experience. You go from living with them and seeing them all the time to having a court order to see them at specific times. You feel criminalised and that your rights have been violated.

"It's a living bereavement. People don't see the human fallout and that's what makes me so angry. We pick up the pieces and nobody gives a shit."

Because of the conflict, O'Connor saw his sons in a contact centre on alternate weekends. He believes that the plans to expand these centres - outlined in the green paper - perpetuate the myth that fathers cannot be trusted with their own children.

Some argue that dressing as superheroes and scaling buildings or pelting Tony Blair with flour-filled condoms does not exactly help their cause. But O'Connor is quick to justify the group's more extremist action: "What would you do if I took your kids off you in the high street? You would do anything." He continues: "The secrecy of the family courts prevents you discussing your case even after it is over. That makes it impossible for many fathers to highlight miscarriages of justice. Most people think it can't be that bad and they must have done something wrong."

Fathers 4 Justice wants mandatory mediation, so parents are motivated to reach out-of-court solutions. The group also wants stronger enforcement penalties if court orders are flouted. "We need a system where people have respect for the law," O'Connor adds. "We would like to see not just a tinkering with the family courts system. I would like to raze it to the ground and start again. We need a revolution.

"I don't want our campaign to be judged. I want our children to be our judge and if we have to climb buildings and close roads then let the roads be closed. As long as it's peaceful, it's our duty to break the law. Nothing is more important than the bond between parents and children." CC

¹ DfES/DCA/DTI, Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities, 2004

Green paper proposals 

• A revision of existing parenting plans to include examples of good contact arrangements to promote earlier resolution.  
• Changes to the role of Cafcass, including reducing the number of reports it is commissioned to do which contribute to delay.  
• Better case management by the courts so cases do not drift. 
• Legislation to improve enforcement powers if court orders are broken.  
• Access to general legal advice on relationship breakdown through a telephone helpline service, a new family legal aid scheme and accreditation for solicitors who advise on family matters. 
• Run a pilot under collaborative law, where both parents' lawyers are committed to promoting settlements. They cannot take the case to court if this fails; instead another solicitor is instructed.  
• Extension of in-court conciliation services.