The Government has recently published proposals giving four different options to amend the Children Act 1989 whereby the Court when considering making a decision in relation to a child:
Option 1 : requires the Court to presume that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through safe involvement with both parents – unless the evidence shows this not to be safe or in the child’s best interests. This is the Government’s preferred option.
Option 2: requires the Court to have regard to a principle that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through involvement with both parents.
Option 3: provides that the starting point for the Court is that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through involvement with both parents.
Option 4: adds an additional factor to the welfare check list in the Children Act 1989.
There has been a very mixed reception to these proposals from various interested groups. The Law Society Gazette carried the headline “Lawyers slam shared parenting plan”. The Head of the Famil Law Bar Association described the proposals as “political posturing” and a spokeman for the family lawyers’ group Resolution said the proposal would have little effect on the law but risked placing the demands of parents over those of children. The Chair of the Law Society’s Family Law Committee has gone further and described the change as “unnecessary” and “populist” and would undermine the safety of children. On the other side of the argument the founder of Fathers 4 Justice has described the proposas as “the worst Father’s Day card ever for dads” because the Government “simply could not strengthen something when the court of family law is absolutely rotten”.
There are many cases involving children where it is not appropriate for both parents to be involved and evidence can be brought supporting this. Not all parents are good parents and should be allowed to be involved with their children. However, my experience is that many parents are good and the law should support a position whereby they are both involved in their child’s upbringing. This does not necessarily mean shared care, and if shared care that it should be 50/50 but it is important for the law to be clear so that parents can, if possible, make decisions about their children.
Shared parenting does not necessitate a precise 50/50 sharing of parenting time. This would be highly impractical in many cases and not in a child’s best interests. Flexibility is important as is communication between parents about issues concerning their children. So many disputes between parents could be resolved if parents could find a way of communicating which considered each other and most importantly their child.