Proceeding contribution from Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Children and Adoption Bill [HL].
Children and Adoption Bill [HL]
My Lords, the noble Earl quoted research which showed that, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, picked up, the courts were inclined to take the word of the resident parent against the non-resident parent, but many of us would say that that research was selective. We might also quote the recent HMICA report on domestic violence, which showed that, on the contrary, the presumption was rather too much towards assumption of contact. My real difficulty with the noble Earl’s amendment is that it is a mistake to assume that you can have a once-and-for-all decision about what is reasonable contact. I must speak up for CAFCASS workers who work with very difficult parents, not for weeks or months but sometimes for years to establish reasonable contact. I have sheaths of letters that I could quote to your Lordships; I will spare noble Lords that, but I shall quote one, from a parent who says:"““I know now””," at long last,"““that this case is not about what either parent wants, and is all to do with the needs of the children, but it has been my deepest wish that my children would one day see my home and be a part of my life, and it has taken me years to achieve this.""To me the weekend was a huge success and I must give credit to the children’s mother for her complete compliance with the court order and giving every chance for the weekend to work””." Those are parents who until now could not even be in the same room with each other. That kind of work goes on all the time. It seems to me, however, that the amendment tabled by the noble Earl starts and stops with parents, whereas the work done by CAFCASS with resident and non-resident parents starts and stays with the individual children. Of course there is a get-out clause in the amendment, unless a good reason to the contrary is shown; but there are often good reasons, and the problem is that in my view the amendment would weight the legislation and legal advocacy too far towards the parents’ rights and not enough towards the children’s rights.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 675 c857-8
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Access Children Adoption Abuse Children's rights CAFCASS Arbitration Contact orders Absent parents Custody Finance Fees and charges Foster care Enforcement Domestic abuse Divorce Intercountry adoption Family law Abduction Family proceedings Parents Monitoring Staff Parental responsibility Registration Training Safety Separation Risk assessment
- Legislation
- Children and Adoption Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-26 17:03:43 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276407
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276407
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_276407