Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Andrew Selous (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 21 December 2010. It occurred during Backbench debate on General matters Christmas Adjournment.


General matters

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He is right. The problem affects every single one of us in the Chamber and is an issue on which we need urgent progress. The input of mothers and fathers, where safe—that is the vast majority of cases—is hugely beneficial to children. The language we use in these cases is extremely unhelpful. I really dislike the terms ““non-resident parent””, which suggests some sort of absentee parent forced to leave their own home, and ““parent with care””—why should one parent have to do all the caring? Is that not unfair to mothers, to whom it often applies? The term ““contact”” is a cold and unfeeling term for what is the strongest of all human bonds. Would ““daddy time”” or ““mummy time”” not be more appropriate? On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), Australia takes a much better approach. Its approach, which was introduced hand-in-hand with reforms to the child maintenance system, is to regard a separated couple as two single parents, with the emphasis, wherever possible, on as much shared parenting as possible, not on one ““parent with care”” and a distant ““non-resident parent””. That matters greatly, because there are very positive results for children when separated parents are involved in their children's lives. Earlier this year, one of the most recent academic studies on this subject, by Fabricius et al, showed that when separated parents are involved to a greater degree with their children, it produces better school results, fewer suspensions and lower drop-out rates. There are clearly positive results to be had, so we need a real change of emphasis in this area. We need people in the public sector, such as general practitioners and teachers, to take the rights of non-resident parents seriously where the latter want to be involved in their children's lives. I would commend Australia again. In Perth in western Australia, it was found that one of the reasons parents with care were giving for not allowing contact time with children was their concern that the fathers would not be able to look after the children properly. As a result, courses in child health were set up for fathers to facilitate greater shared care—a very practical suggestion. I put it to the Minister, therefore, that on this issue we have made too little progress for far too long, causing far too much heartache to too many of our constituents. As I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all Members and staff of the House a very happy Christmas, I ask everyone to reflect briefly on those good parents who long to be with their children this Christmas but who will be denied that opportunity.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
520 c1409-10 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Access Children Enforcement Parents
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk