Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Vera Baird (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 2 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Children and Adoption Bill (HL).


Children and Adoption Bill

I will not tangle with the hon. Gentleman about what the NSPCC says. I can see that he has become riled by it. Underlying the courts’ position—I hope that he accepts that historically this has always been the case—there has always been a presumption that there will be joint contact, continuing contact, where that is at all possible. That is not something that CAFCASS or the Courts Service conjured up for the report. That has always been the principle for many years. Child charities worry that if the paramountcy principle is ousted so that the safety of the child stops being the first criterion and we introduce parental rights, too much emphasis is given to the need to guarantee what the hon. Gentleman calls the child’s right to see the parent. There must, of course, be a two-way right. Too much precedence is given to that right and not enough is given to safety. Where domestic violence is raised, that consideration is undervalued.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c439 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Access Children Compensation Adoption CAFCASS Arbitration Contact orders Absent parents Custody Enforcement Domestic abuse Divorce Intercountry adoption Fathers Grandparents Family proceedings Pilot schemes Protection Parents Powers Risk assessment Contempt of court Safety Separation
Legislation
Children and Adoption Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk