Press Releases

Article’s link can be found here.

It was back in 2022 when Sir Andrew McFarlane (President of the Family Division) announced that Fact Finding hearings should no longer be the default in cases involving abuse allegations. It has taken some time for this idea to filter down to the lower courts but filter it has. More and more FNF members are reporting that judges are deciding the allegations made by the other parent do not justify a fact finding and will not affect the future plans for child-care. 

In practice fact finding hearings can often present serious problems. They encourage allegations. They exacerbate conflict. They make things more complicated. They are always backward looking when the need is to discuss what is best for the children’s future. This is usually in new situations (the parents no longer trying to live together for example). Above all they cause additional delay already outrageous by anybody’s standards. During this time things change, nearly always to the disadvantage of the children, who may be prevented from seeing one of their parents while the court finds the time and judges to deal with the issues. In addition, the ‘burden of proof,’ the ‘balance of probabilities’ is not the right one. The relevant questions are – are we sure enough that things happened that are serious enough to decide the future of the children? These things are best decided on a holistic basis by one sequence of hearings.  

One of the ways in which parents in control of the children ‘win’, is not by winning the case legally, but by exhausting the capacity of the excluded parent to continue. FoF are sometimes necessary (and even useful on occasions), but they can be misused. 

The good news, the judiciary has decided there are too many of them. Current guidance (LINK)

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

It is not often we promote a book but Lucy Reed’s ‘Family Courts without a Lawyer’; A handbook for Litigants in Person’ is one. It has become such an acknowledged reference it’s difficult to imagine doing without it. The third edition was published in July 2022 and remains right up to date. 

Clearly organised with a 9-page index, a good ‘jargon buster’, complemented with a comprehensive website with useful clips explaining basics, including what to expect in court, and including some excellent videos. Something to ease the fears of people in court for the first time and often in straight panic. Highly recommended. 

She is also Chair of the ‘Transparency Project’ (LINK), an attempt to make family court proceedings more understandable. A brave attempt at the seemingly impossible. The most recent guide that we know of is about the handling of domestic violence. It sets out what ought to happen and maybe does when a barrister of her calibre is there, but unfortunately not what often actually happens, especially in the lower courts. 

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

The views of the enemies of shared parenting on PA is simple: they contend it’s a fictitious concept used by abusive fathers to get residence of children instead of their loving mothers. 

Our reply is this. We are a children’s rights organisation, half of them girls. It is not normal for children not to want a relationship with their ‘other parent’. If they say this, it should be looked at. Is there a good reason for it - there can be – or has it been created, sometimes deliberately but sometimes unwittingly, by the parent with whom they spend most or sometimes all of their time? 

It is mothers who are mostly accused of PA, usually because they are in a position to do it. When control of the children is given to their father, they can be just as likely to do it. 

A recent legal case illustrates this (LINK). It concerns a 9-year-old girl, Eve, who was living with her father. He had poisoned her against her mother and behaved in other unacceptable, on occasion extreme, ways. Multiple attempts had been made to get him to change. All had failed. The court, on the advice of the girl’s Guardian who had changed her mind about the prospects of alternatives, ordered that, despite her objections, Eve’s residence should be changed to her mother. The father should not be allowed contact because he would not use it positively.

The judge’s (her Honour Judge Patel) reasoning and approach is, in our view, totally convincing. Should it be applied more often? As a shared parenting outfit, we don’t - and nor do most excluded parents want - transfers of residence except (as in this case) in extreme circumstances. We want children to have a good relationship with both parents and their wider families both sides. 

We do not expect, however, the anti-PA lobby to leap to this father’s defence. 

Thanks, Vinay, for the info. 

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

Have you been a helpline volunteer in the past? Have you helped at support meetings or chaired any Teams or Zoom meetings? Well, FNF may well need your help over the Christmas period. We are proposing to maximise our support for separated parents who aren’t seeing their children this Christmas and who may need emotional support or just need to reach out for a touch of camaraderie. Could you help on our on-line video call in or phone helpline for a few hours over Christmas Day? If so, please email paul.ocallaghan.trustee@fnf.org.uk

What do you think?

Send us feedback!

The Labour Party have committed in extending maternity and paternity leave in a green paper published earlier in the year. The commitment is hidden in a single paragraph on page 9 of a 14 page document (LINK) on employment rights. 

The Lib Dems would double shared parental pay and increase leave. This was published in a policy statement called A Better Start in Life for Every Child, following their recent party conference (LINK)

The government published their plans in June this year following a 2019 consultation in a document called The Good Work Plan – Proposals to support Families (LINK). Their proposals concentrate on greater flexibility for employers and fathers. 

Few fathers take up paternity leave at present, often due to the financial pressures of parenthood. Equal and fully funded parental leave, with a non-transferable, “use it or lose it” quota for dads, is key to encouraging men’s uptake and equal participation in caregiving; such an uptake would benefit all, children, dads and mums, the latter by helping their employability and reducing the domestic burden. 

Whilst the above are steps in the right direction, none of the political parties are close to matching the generous leave arrangements in Finland (LINK).  

What do you think?

Send us feedback!