Coming Soon on Kindle - 'Applying for Shared Residence'

In edit/design/formatting stage at present, and content all but complete. An 80,000 word guide to shared residence, making applications to court and the legal process. We have doubled the content of our existing e-book, and will be significantly reducing the price to make it more accessible for adults on benefits. Further content is added to assist litigants-in-person (parents unable to afford a solicitor, who will not qualify for legal aid from April 2013).

This new guide will be in a kindle format from Amazon, and is intended for parents (both represented and litigants-in-person) making applications to the family courts in England and Wales. 

Why this format?
Kindle reading software is free of charge, and can be downloaded to PCs, Macs, smartphones and tablet readers as well as kindle reading devices. Kindle has the added advantage of a text to speech feature, increasing accessibility for the visually impaired and adults with specific learning difficulties.

Chapter Headings

Chapter 1 - Shared Residence

Chapter 2 - The Development of Shared Residence

Chapter 3 - The Welfare Checklist

Chapter 4 - Flexible Working

Chapter 5 - Mediation

Chapter 6 - Legal Assistance

Chapter 7 - Tips on Paperwork

Chapter 8 - Applying for Shared Residence

Chapter 9 - Writing a Position Statement

Chapter 10 - The First Hearings and Dispute Resolution Appointment

Chapter 11 - Tips When Attending Court

Chapter 12 - Courts and Judges

Chapter 13 - Courts and Confidentiality

Chapter 14 - CAFCASS

Chapter 15 - Tips for Assessment Interviews

Chapter 16 - Writing a Statement

Chapter 17 - Writing a Skeleton Argument

Chapter 18 - Court Bundles

Chapter 19 - Contested,  Split and Finding of Fact Hearings

Chapter 20 - Forms and Templates

Glossary

Case Law

Summary of Judgments

D v D (Shared Residence Order) [2001] 1 FLR 495

Re A (Children) (Shared Residence) [2002] EWCA Civ 1343

Re F (Children) [2003] EWCA Civ 592

A v A [2004] EWHC 142 (Fam)

C (A Child) [2006] EWCA Civ 235

Re K (Shared Residence Order) [2008] EWCA Civ 526

Re W (Shared Residence Order) [2009] EWCA Civ 370

AR (A Child: Relocation) [2010] EWHC 1346 (Fam)

URLs to download judgments in a format for printing

Our submission to the Low Commission on the needs of litigants-in-person

Today we published our submission to the Low Commission regarding the role of IT in providing support tools for litigants-in-person.

To read our submission, click on the image to the left to download.

Sharing Mum and Dad on iplayer

If you missed Channel 4's Sharing Mum and Dad programme, you can watch it now on 4od

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3468399

Shared Parenting - Are you too thick to understand it?

My apologies for the somewhat insulting question in the title, but the question is not mine.

Having seen their other arguments against a presumption of shared parenting dissolve, the opponents now seem to pin their hopes on an argument that the British public are too thick to understand what shared parenting means.

Dame Butler-Sloss features in an article in the Express today, and will appear on tonight's C4 Programme, Sharing Mum and Dad. Surprisingly, the Express refer to her as the top Judge? I hadn't realised she'd come out of retirement? Nor that the Family Division now looks down upon their lowly brethren in the civil and criminal courts in terms of seniority?1

The last time I remember Butler-Sloss in the media was when she raised grave concerns about women from ethnic minorities holding judicial office.

"It will be very important that women – particularly those from ethnic minorities – who may not be able to bear the strain of the judicial process are not placed in a position where they may find themselves failing because there has been too much enthusiasm for diversity and not enough for merit. This is very important. I have a vivid recollection of a woman judge many years ago who was a very fine pianist. She should have remained a pianist".2

Count that as a further opinion of hers which we view as a little antiquated. Ex Prime Ministers do best to quietly remove themselves from the back benches rather than muddying the waters for the next generation who have somewhat more progressive views... but akin to dear Maggie wading in to post retirement Conservative Conferences, it seems that dear Elizabeth is somewhat unwilling to let go of the reins. The question arises, is her opinion really relevant? Three successors have now filled her heels, and arguably, her misinterpretation of Parliament's intention within the Children Act 1989 (Parliament intended shared residence to be commonplace, which Butler-Sloss interpreted as only being made in exceptional circumstances) contributed to this societal mess in the first place...

In 2003, Butler-Sloss herself said 60% of fathers go on to lose meaningful contact within two years of separation (more than a decade since she took the role as President of the Family Courts) and according to MoJ research, overnight staying contact is only awarded in 60% of cases. Compare this to the fact (according to the Equalities Commission in 2007) that mothers and fathers share care equally in intact families (there is a small difference but only 15 minutes a day on average). The judiciary need much more closely defined law, which is less open to interpretation, as decisions in court need to reflect society today rather than that in the 1970s.

The law needs to change. We are entitled to a little democracy in this country... to have Parliament set our laws, and the judiciary see them upheld. Judges wish to retain independence, but the price for that is keeping out of politics. The law needs to change because the courts have been inadequate, which has harmed child welfare and caused damage to society as a whole. Read back through our previous blog posts where we provide ample evidence for this.

Her argument in the paper today seems that parents will misunderstand what 'shared' means, and believe it means an 'equal' division of a child's time. Clearly, women, ethnic minorities, and now parents all need Dame Elizabeth to protect them from their ignorance. 'It can't be explained to them, don'tcha know'.

Now prepare yourself... I will en-devour to resolve this weighty intellectual conundrum to all you half wits out there.

The word shared means a 'part', rather than one half

Was that really so difficult, Elizabeth dear?

Now, can we move on to protecting children's relationships, which the judiciary has manifestly failed to do, which is the reason why legislative change is necessary.

Blunt, but sometimes, a little bluntness is necessary.

1. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/370559/No-50-50-sharing-of-children-in-new-divorce-law-says-top-judge

2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/may/31/butler-sloss-women-ethnic-minority-judges

Shared Parenting Legislation, the effects on Judicial Perceptions

Can a Presumption in Family Law alter judicial thinking?
Some have argued that a presumption of shared parenting in law won't change perceptions. Professor Parkinson (from the Sydney Law School) spoke at the Palace of Westminster last May, explaining the effects in Australia of similar legislative changes to those proposed by the Government:

"There is certainly evidence, from statements of the judges themselves, that the legislation has had an effect on the outcomes by changing the process of their decision making. There is also the evidence of outcomes of contested cases. In its evaluation of the 2006 reforms, the AIFS found that there had been a substantial increase in shared care in judicially determined cases, compared to cases decided prior to 2006. These were cases where the trial judge reached a decision concerning what was in the best interests of the children concerned, but the conclusion that a shared care arrangement was in the best interests of the child in so many cases was not one which, it seems, many judges had seriously considered before 2006."1

... if the UK does follow Australia, the evidence is that presumptions of a meaningful relationship have led to changed perceptions and approaches within the judiciary, and that 'child welfare' hasn't been compromised. A change in the law CAN change judicial perceptions, if our domestic judiciary are as open minded as their antipodean cousins. 

Dame Butler-Sloss, a previous President of the Family Division of the Court and now a member of the House of Lords, acknowledged in 2003 that '60% of fathers lose meaningful contact within 2 years of separation'.2

Will that piece of information (if one accepts such a senior judge would only cite accurate statistics) lead her to accept that our family law system is flawed and needs change, or will it be ignored in defense of a system over which she presided? It puzzles us as to how such appalling statistics do not demand change. We'll wait and see, but tonight's Channel 4 programme, 'Sharing Mum and Dad' at 8pm may be enlightening on this point.

Also see our blog post on Judicial Opposition to Shared Parenting
 
1. Paul Sieghart Memorial Lecture - Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss 'Are we failing children' - page 11 last paragraph - 2003
2.  Palace of Westminster - Professor Patrick Parkinson - 'Meaningful Reform to the Children Act 1989 - Learning from the Australian Experience' - May 2012

International Child Abduction and Legal Aid

The Government is beta testing its new legal aid eligibility calculator (which can be accessed via our Family Law Application).

Although not mentioned as eligible within the Government's Legal Aid Calculator, applications for the return of a child (where unlawfully removed to or unlawfully retained in a foreign country which is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction or the Brussels II Revised Regulations) may qualify for legal aid. In response to this specific question, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office assured us:

'Legal Aid provision is made in line with the requirements of both conventions. An application made in a UK court will therefore be in scope. An application made within another signatory country will be funded by that state, subject to the scheme operated by that country. This will continue to be the case after the legal aid reforms are implemented in 2013."

To check where a country is a member of either the Hague Convention or Brussels II Revised Regulations, you can use the following resources:

1980 Hague Convention Member States

Brussels II Member States

If the country to which a child has been abducted is not a signatory to the Hague Convention or Brussels II, the UK parent must pursue matters via the courts in the foreign country. The UK Government does not assist with a parent's foreign legal costs, travel and accommodation to secure the return of a British Child who has been unlawfully abducted. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office replied on this point:

'In relation to your question about parent's foreign legal costs, in general terms no funding will be available under the legal aid scheme'.

Advice can be found, in these circumstances, by contacting the charity Reunite.

You may also wish to read our guide:

International Child Abduction

Do we believe that the British Government should fund the legal costs of any parent seeking the return of a British subject child who has been abducted abroad? We struggle to think what civilised person could not...

Rise in Non Resident Parents Accessing Medical Records

Yesterday, there was news that more and more non-resident parents are approaching GPs to see their children's medical records.

Rise in separating parents disputing over child's medical records

We see this as positive news, and a step forward in the Government's goal to see more fathers involved in important aspects of their children's lives, and our goal to provide them with the information to do so.

For several years, we have provided template letters to assist non-resident parents in involving themselves in their children's health, and gaining access to their children's medical records. That GPs write to MPs due to confusion over whether non-resident parents have this right, comes as no surprise. It does however surprise us that 800 have seemingly contacted their MP rather than referred to the General Medical Council's guidance.

General Medical Council
0-18 years guidance: Principles of confidentiality55. Divorce or separation does not affect parental responsibility and you should allow both parents reasonable access to their children's health records.

For parents wishing access to their children's medical records, please feel free to make use of the following resources:

Our Guide on Parental Responsibility and Medical Matters
Our Template Letter for Non-Resident Parents to send to their GP

Should parents similarly have difficulty in involving themselves in their children's education, please refer to the following:

Our Guide on Parental Responsibility and Education
Our Template Letter for Non-Resident Parents to send to their GP

Driving Non-Resident Parents into Poverty

Yesterday we wrote concerning the introduction of the bedroom tax, by which non-resident parents and those who share residence (but are not entitled to child benefits) will see their housing benefit substantially cut this year.

Coalition to tax children out of fathers' lives

The Government is introducing new measures which (from a benefits standpoint) do not treat your children as having a home with you, even if, legally, they do. These changes will affect anyone on housing benefit who shares residence but is not the main carer, those who have their children for 50% of the time (but are not in receipt of child benefits which go to the holder of the child benefit book), and non-resident parents who have overnight staying contact.

The Government on the one hand accepts the argument that father involvement secures child welfare (and the reverse of the argument that a lack of involvement causes harm), but via the benefits system, are to make fatherlessness significantly more likely.

Consider that this setback comes on top of a system which is already manifestly biased:

• Only one separated parent can claim child benefit... the main carer;
• Only one separated parent can claim family tax credits... the main carer;
• Changes introduced in 2012 made it so a non-resident parent would only receive benefits to cover multiple occupancy (e.g. a single bedroom in a shared house).

We have a manifestly unequal benefits system. For the unemployed or disabled parent, these inequalities are devastating. Overnight staying contact becomes problematic, if not impossible where the main carer argues that the other parent lacks suitable accommodation.

The non-resident parent and child must often spend their time in a cramped bedroom. Going to a park is an option, but not on days when it rains... and the British weather is not an ally. Routinely, the parent lacks the funds to take their children to 'paying' venues. Such problems may lead the child to be more reluctant to stay with the non-resident parent, and encourages a hostile main carer to interfere with contact. Inevitably, this is resulting in more returns to court for enforcement and incidences of a child being alienated from a parent. From April 2013, a parent on benefits faces a double hit of additionally losing legal aid.

The following attempts to cope are already commonplace:

• Only heating your home when your child is with you;
• Not eating when your child is not with you.

Teachers report that half of children come to school hungry, and a third of children don't have breakfast... and this coming from homes which are in receipt of full housing benefit, child benefit, and family tax credits.

MPs are calling for a 32% pay rise. Andrew Bridge MP, speaking of his salary, recently said on Radio 4 that a lot of people wouldn't think £66,000 a year is a lot of money, and such a sum meant children going without at Christmas.

The sad result is that this Government, through tax cuts, has perhaps contributed more to the fatherless society than any other. This, despite being aware of the harm caused to children and society as a whole. We would urge them to reconsider their policy.

Coalition to tax children out of fathers' lives

While the Government's proposals to introduce a presumption of shared parenting and tackle fatherlessness in Britain are laudable, changes to the housing benefit system are to make the situation far, far worse for non-resident parents (and those who share residence, but are not the majority carer). 

Overnight staying contact will become an unattainable dream for those in social housing. Some mothers will be affected too, but it's mainly non-resident fathers and those who share care who will be affected.

The change impacts on any separated parent in social housing who isn't the 'main carer' (by which we assume doesn't hold the child benefit book). Come April 2013, and upon the introduction of the The Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012, there will be a:

• 14% cut in housing benefits for a second bedroom;
• 25% cut in housing benefits for a third bedroom.

Welcome to the bedroom tax.

The central idea for children subject to shared residence arrangements, that they have a home with each parent, is somewhat defeated when Dad or Mum has to sleep on the sofa for the children to have a bedroom door to close. If you have several children, perhaps you can cram them all into one bed... regardless of their gender or age. How will this impact on a child's enjoyment at seeing and staying with their non-resident parent?

If you are a non-resident parent on low pay, unable to work, or unable to find work, a foster parent, and in social housing, heaven help you.

The DWP guidance for councils is as follows:

45. Where parents who don’t live together have shared care of their children the children are only treated as living with the parent that is treated as responsible for them and provides their main home. For a person to be treated as responsible for a child or young person, the child or young person must normally be living with that person. If a child or young person spends equal amounts of time in different households, or there is a question as to whom they normally live with, they will be treated as living with the person who is receiving child benefit for them. This is consistent with those living in the private rented sector.1

Does the DWP not understand the legal concept of parental responsibility being a separate consideration to parenting time allocation? From their guidance, it would appear not.

Will you be affected if you were previously allocated an extra bedroom to reflect the fact that you share care?

Yes.

If you have a pre-1989 tenancy agreement, will you be affected?

Yes.

Will foster carers be affected?

Yes...  because foster children are not counted as part of the household for benefit purposes.

  

What are the effects of fatherlessness on children and society?

• A child is 40% more likely to suffer depression.2
• It has a direct, adverse affect on child wellbeing.3
• It has a direct, adverse affect on a child's mental health in later life.4
• It has a direct, adverse affect on a child's attainment at school.5
• There is a strong association with diminished self-concepts in children.6
• It has a measurable and adverse affect on a child's IQ.7
• It has a direct impact on criminal behaviour, teenage pregnancy, suicide and substance abuse in adolescents.8

Resident Parents and their children do not escape unscathed

To gain an exemption from the cuts, your children's sleeping arrangements are going to have to change...

• Same sex children under the age of 16 are expected to share;
• Children under the age of 10 are expected to share regardless of their gender

Should the DWP not be subject to the principles of the Children Act 1989... that child welfare is the paramount consideration?

Apparently not. The DWP cuts will damage society and cause harm to children. We believe they represent a false economy.

In 2007, the United Nations reported that Britain had the unhappiest children in the developed world.9 It seems that Government policy will ensure that Britain will continue to be a world leader in this area. Not though, a matter for pride.

Little Johnny will have to move in with his sister, and will lose his bedroom at Dad's house. So much for maintaining the status quo (another welfare principle of the Children Act). One wonders if that cut in tax for the wealthiest in society might have been better spent... or the £12billion spent on the Olympics. It seems the poorest in society and their children are to bear the cost now, and society will bear the cost later.

End notes
1.  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Circular - HB/CTB A4/2012
2. ‘A Good Childhood: Searching for Values in a Competitive Age’. Richard Layard and Judy Dunn. The Children’s Society (2009)
3. ‘The Role of Father Involvement and Mother Involvement in Adolescents' Psychological Wellbeing’ Dr Eirini Flouri and Prof Ann Buchanan. British Journal of Social Work 2003; 33: 399-406
4. ‘The role of father involvement in children's later mental health’. Dr Eirini Flouri and Prof Ann Buchanan. Journal of Adolescents 2003; 26; 63-78
5. ‘The Impact of Parental Involvement on Children’s Education’. The Department for Education and Skills 2003, and ‘Early father's and mother's involvement and child's later educational outcomes’. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2004; 74: 141-53.
6. Parish (1987)
8. ‘Father's Day: The Importance of Dads’. Dr Daniel Nettle of Newcastle University and the Institute of Neuroscience in the Journal of Evolution and Human Behaviour. 
8. Child Custody, Access and Parental Responsibility: The Search for a Just and Equitable Standard. Erik Kruk M.S.W. Ph.D. The University of British Columbia. December 2008.
9. An Overview of Child Well Being in the Richest Countries. UNICEF 2008.

Domestic Violence, Legal Aid and Evidence from April 2013

Many people are aware that legal aid is to be cut from April 2013, but believe funding for domestic violence is unaffected. This is only partially true, in that evidence will be required to support an application for a funding certificate... an allegation alone will not be enough.

Examples of evidence include:

• an existing protective order or injunction in respect of the other party, against the applicant; 
• an undertaking having been given by the other party in lieu of a protective order or injunction for the protection of the applicant;
• a police caution for domestic violence against the applicant;
• appropriate evidence of admission to a domestic violence refuge;
• appropriate evidence from a social services department confirming the provision of services to the victim in relation to alleged domestic violence;
• evidence from GPs;
• a criminal conviction for domestic violence by the other party against the applicant;
• evidence of a multi-agency risk assessment conference having been referred as at risk of domestic violence, with action recommended;
• a finding of fact by the courts of domestic violence by the other party against the applicant.

The alleged victim is responsible to compiling this evidence, prior to legal aid being granted.

Our domestic violence guide has been updated to include the above evidence list.

Justice Committee Pre-Legislative Scrutiny - Private family law matters

My thanks to Ross Jones of Families Need Fathers for having waded through this today and picked out the salient points, saving the rest of us from going cross-eyed!

Justice Committee Pre-Legislative Scrutiny of The Children and Families Bill: Shared Parenting Section Summary (pages 35-67)

MEDIATION:

• The Committee heard evidence that expressed concerns about the role of mediators in filtering out domestic violence cases from mediation at the Mediation Information Assessment Meeting (MIAM) stage. 

•  The Government has clarified to the Committee that they will ask the President of the Family Division to agree to amend the current definition of domestic abuse in the Pre-Action Protocol to mirror that in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in the provision for exemptions from MIAMs (paragraph 96)

• The Committee recommends that the Government should work with mediation organisations to consider how the child’s voice could be heard within MIAMs (paragraph 101).

• Concerns were expressed about training and national standards for privately-funded mediators. The committee recommends that privately-funded mediators should have to meet the current requirements for mediators undertaking legal aid work set by the Legal Services Commission. (paragraphs 102-104) 

• Clarification is needed on the role of court officers in deciding whether the MIAM process has been complied with. The Government needs to clarify that decisions about the merits of compliance should lie with a judge (paragraph 107) 

• The Government has confirmed that legal aid funding will be available to cover MIAMs, as well as mediation (paragraph 115)

• The Committee recommends that where agreements made in mediation have broken down within 6 months, parents should be exempt from undertaking (and paying for) the MIAM process again before applying to court (paragraph 119) 

• The Committee requests clarification on the policies and practical measures to be put in place to assist litigants in person who are not entitled to legal aid nor considered suitable for mediation (for reasons unrelated to domestic violence). 

CHILD ARRANGEMENTS ORDERS

•  The intention of the proposed replacement of Contact and Residence Orders with Child Arrangements Orders (CAOs) is to removed the perception of ‘winners and losers’ in family proceedings, which exacerbates the adversarial nature of these cases. 

• The Committee believes that shared residence orders are a better way of removing the perception of winners and losers than CAOs (paragraph 130) 

• To avoid difficulties in cross-jurisdiction cases (where interpretation of CAOs are initially unclear or ambiguous to foreign jurisdictions, creating delays in proceedings), the Committee recommend s that the individual elements of CAOs be separately set out within the draft clause, leaving one order but with clearer contents (who the child lives with, when they see the other parent, etc) (paragraphs 131-139) 

• The draft Clause should set out that the person with whom the child is to live has rights of custody for purposes of the Hague Convention and other relevant international family law treaties (paragraph 138).

SHARED PARENTING

• The Committee, examining Edward Timpson’s evidence, consider the Government’s goal to be to tackle the perception of bias in the system (which the Committee considers to have no basis in fact) and encourage parents to make private shared parenting arrangements, rather than change the content of final orders (paragraph 153) They want the Government to make clear whether they intend the legislation to change the content of Orders or not.

• The Committee considers the problems with enforcement are a greater factor in perception of the courts than legislation on shared parenting, and that a shared parenting clause is unlikely to change perceptions on its own (paragraph 154, 187, 188) 

• Regarding perception of the Courts, the Committee is keen to hear whether the Government plans to legislate to increase transparency and openness in the family courts (paragraph 155) 

• They believe that the clause would operate as a double rebuttal, whereby first a judge must consider whether the parent can be involved without posing a risk of harm, and then (even if they can be so involved), whether that involvement is consistent with the child’s welfare. The Committee do not have concerns about a double rebuttal in theory, but worry about impact on litigants in person (paragraph 171)

• The Committee agrees that the legislation does not give or imply equal time, but are concerned that parents will misunderstand this as ‘involvement’ is left undefined (paragraph 178)

• The Committee believes that to avoid this, the name should be changed from ‘shared parenting’ to ‘parental involvement’, and ‘involvement’ defined in legislation. “If ‘involvement’ is not defined, we expect the Appeal Courts will be required to define it” (paragraph 179) 

• They believe that the amount of cases will increase in the short term as parents, lawyers and courts work out how the clause operates in practice. They draw no conclusions on future affects as they believe other changes (increasing number of litigants-in-person, encouragement of mediation etc) make the UK context very different to jurisdictions where research on the impact on the number of cases has been carried out (paragraph 184) 

• They worry that the impact of the legislation would create a perception amongst those entering the system that there is a right to equal time, and that those outside the system would consider this to be the case (thereby discouraging those suffering abuse from using the family justice system (paragraph 189)

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE LEGISLATION:

• Change name from ‘shared parenting’ to ‘parental involvement’ 

• Introduce following sections to clarify meanings of harm and involvement (page 69-70): (7) In subsection (2A) “unless the contrary is shown” means that the presumption contained in subsection (2A) is rebutted on one or both of these grounds - (a) that the involvement of the child’s parent would put the child at risk of suffering harm; or (b) that the involvement of the child’s parent would not further the welfare of the child. (8) In subsection (2A) “involvement” - (a) means, where the presumption applies, a relationship between child and parent; (b) does not mean or indicate any right of either parent to any specific quantity of time with the child. 

2013 - Is this the year of the fatherless child?

A while ago, Iain Duncan Smith was quoted in the Telegraph on the subject of fatherlessness in society, and how the legal system had failed a third of children who had lost contact over the last 20 years. It's wrong to lay the blame solely at the doors of the courts. Successive Governments haven't treated the issue seriously or with sufficient thought.

Over 2,000 years ago there was a judgment given, where Solomon faced a bitter custody dispute. Not much has changed in the years since. Human nature doesn't change. People behave badly. People get caught up in disputes, and anger, revenge, spite and a long list of other unpleasant human emotions come to the surface. As one sage judge said on the issue of fact findings and allegations (we do love Mostyn's judgments) 'if parents were behaving well, they'd probably still be together'.

The Government is naive if it believes that mediation alone is a panacea to fatherlessness or will soak up the mess left by legal aid cuts. Lay advisers and members of the legal profession see the full ambit of unpleasantness in the courts. I've seen a number of extremely unpleasant cases recently, where before matters had gone to court, one parent was fabricating evidence to stitch up the other, then calling the police or social services. The Jeremy Kyle world sadly exists, and isn't limited to the working classes.

I agree that adversarial family law fans the flames of parental hostility, but it's naive to think that it's the cause of parental hostility, or that the carrot without the stick is sufficient to resolve many parental disputes. Statistics suggest that 10% of separating parents go to court, while a further 30% fail to agree any arrangements (lacking the court's involvement). Could it be that fatherlessness may be reduced by more parents accessing the courts? Could it be that an imperfect system is better than no system at all?

Where is the support for parents who cannot afford a solicitor, whose numbers are to be swelled by tens of thousands next year once legal aid goes? What access to justice for them?

45,000 are to lose legal aid. Courts are closing. Court delay more likely due to inexperienced litigants in person eating up court time. The Government's plans are likely to save some money (if only from the reduced legal aid bill). Has any consideration been given to replacing that support, and giving parents the depth of knowledge they need to make informed decisions should mediation fail? What we saw yesterday was a useful links page to third sector organisations, but nothing in practical terms to support parents whose ex-partner says 'no'. Nothing to support those falsely accused whose world is at risk and who need legal advice. Nothing to support those who come home and find the house empty and their children gone... and the list of more complex but fairly routine scenarios goes on.

...and consider what a falsely accused parent faces, which will become worse next year. The accuser receives Government funded legal representation. The accused not. No equality of arms, and I fail to see how their right to a fair hearing is protected. Consider the risks... loss of children, loss of home, and findings made that destroys their character... all judged on a subjective balance of probability in a court under pressure, and where the accused lacks the legal guidance afforded to their alleged victim. No checks and balances. Will the prospect of free legal aid encourage false allegations?

On a good note... consider the benefit to Government statistics... we'll see headlines that Government policy has led to more successful findings against perpetrators of domestic violence... 

The cost to society could be many times greater than the short term financial savings that the Government hopes for. We know that fatherlessness is linked to higher incidences of crime, teenage pregnancy, poor mental health, addiction, lower performance at school and other societal ills. Such are the findings of Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice. Will mediation fix Broken Britain? Will the Government's new app, which is little more than a useful links page, give parents the tools they need to safeguard their children's relationships? No. Not for many. Not for thousands.

Can those third sector organisations deliver the support that's needed? Will they have the resources to meet demand? Could you fit 1000 parents in your local pub for a monthly support meeting?  Are there sufficient numbers and sufficiently knowledgeable volunteer advisers to offer support to 45,000 parents next year?

We hope the Government has something else up their sleeve, but we found nothing on that app, and have seen nothing in their publications to suggest they have meaningful support for the parents who find mediation doesn't work, and where a solicitor is unaffordable.

Is the Government's policy to hope that thousands of years of human nature can be reversed overnight? Surely the biggest social gamble in my life time. I may be being harsh, but they may be being criminally negligent.

Mediation can work, but there also needs to be access to justice where it fails. Access to justice is about to become harder. I wonder how many parents won't approach the courts because they simply don't know how to, lack the necessary information and feel overwhelmed.

On a good note... consider the benefit to Government statistics... we'll see headlines that fewer parents are resorting to the courts...

What we may see next year are the ranks of fatherless children swelled by those whose parents no longer qualify for legal aid, and a hopeless situation for those whose parents face false allegations. Broken Britain perpetuated, or made worse by this Government due to a mix of poor advice, wishful thinking and a lack of planning and resources.