[PRESIDENTIAL NEWSFLASH 13 OCTOBER 2014 : “Section 11 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (which inserts new sections 1(2A), 1(2B), 1(6) and 1(7) in the Children Act 1989) will come into force on 22 October 2014 – Wednesday next week. Section 11 will NOT apply in respect of proceedings commenced but not disposed of prior to 22 October 2014.” ENDS]
If the presumption of parental involvement (A.K.A. s11 Children & Families Act 2014) is reallygoing to be brought into force “in the autumn” as has been suggested – why is it that there is no mention of it in the TWO recent Commencement Orders that relate to that act which set out implementation dates for most of the rest of the act between now and mid 2015??
I think the presumption that this stuff will be implemented is well and truly rebutted. Just as I predicted. Long grass it is I reck’n.
I thought it had all come in (apart from s 11 of course) so do the delayed provisions have anything in common? I must have a look! But I don’t think s 11 is any different from practice anyway.
No I don’t think the other bits have anything in common – they are all the public law bits and transitional provisions I think. But the point is if you are going to implement most of the rest of an act and you are fixing dates up to a year away you might as well stick in any other provisions you are intending to implement from the same act in the same commencement order. I mean why wouldn’t you?
Long may it rest in peace.
I think you are correct, not that it would have made any difference. What a waste of time and effort.
Oh, isn’t that awfully generous of the state ! !
Parents can now be ‘licenced’ to be “involved” with their children.
Time was when parents had absolute rights over children and the courts trod there at their peril. What a turnaround.
Isn’t this is a classic of ‘the more things change the more they stay the same’? Ref: “In subsection (2A) “involvement” means involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child’s time.”
One could easily be writing about or describing the wondrous powers of ‘contact’ in the 1980s for all the benefit this ‘ground breaking’ (?) legislation of 2014 will give fathers – and it’s fathers who in 99% of instances will be the ones being licenced to associate with their children.
And then the ‘chattering classes’ wonder why both the judiciary and politicians are no longer even viewed with disrepute but instead seen as beneath contempt !
I was wrong – apparently it will commence on the 22nd October.
We was both wrong Nick… Post already amended.
It is sad realisation that families and children are worth less than pets… probably because it is pets that replaces a father once Mummy gets her divorce winning lottery ticket granted. However the children soon appreciate that Rodney the guinea pig or the Fluff the mongrel are not so much fun as doing things with Dad … As some expert said that children get easily resigned to a situation no matter how stressful, unrecoverable long-term damage has been caused to them: the court and the state have failed – shame on them – those children depriving their lives of valuable inputs and opportunities… but who cares on the carrion of a family a number of money grabbing beetles and ravens will have fed to a very full fat belly.
After all it was quoted “the function of the family judge in a child case transcends the need to decide issues of fact …” Discretion with no expertise in most cases, … the typical situation of a cattle auction, not the fine law system that looks after the children.. ASBO judges that take one parent in reserved sympathy probably due to her well rehearsed antics while the other parent is still shell shocked by the tricks he suffered and the his children’s rights being soon trampled on … Shame shame shame especially when a judge then is so ready to “reword” an order according to the new Childrens Act but the substance is the same stinky violation of father and his children’s rights
It is evident that RW has suffered a very bruising experience of the family court.
I am a retired Family Court Adviser with CAFCASS and I can certainly report from experience that in a small proportion of cases fathers were unsuccessful in gaining contact due to maternal vitriol and not due to any conduct problems on their part. However the Court went to great lengths to keep contact going. I devised various strategies to achieve a good outcome but the extreme and sustained hostility of the mothers wore everybody down.
There are a range of interventions to assist in such cases including referral to parental information programmes, use of contact centres, community service, penal notices, prison etc and of course change of residence. The reality is that a very determined parent can obstruct contact. I have never come across a father who asks the Court to lock up the mother and often change of residence is not a realistic option when the children have a very negative view of father, albeit resulting from a mother’s campaign.
As someone who has a critical view of the system I have to say that there are limits to what state intervention can achieve in private law.
Ultimately blame rests with the parent who sets out to destroy the relationship between the child and the non-resident parent……not with the Court or the professionals
I am sorry I have to disagree about the statement “Ultimately blame rests with the parent who sets out to destroy the relationship between the child and the non-resident parent……not with the Court or the professionals”.
Mother’s lawyers state to abide to SRA’s principles and code of conduct and Resolution’s code of practice. Go and check what is said there…. Any lawyers that allow Mum’s vitriolic tantrums air out unopposed are liable against ECHR! Any professional whether at CAFCASS or Social Services or even a judge not so versed in child psychology or prone on high testosterone surges that decide to follow unilateral unchecked statements or allegations from Mum or her counsel should in my view be removed for incompetence in failing the children involved. There is no doubt that female sorority plays a huge HUGE factor in making Dad dog mince …. Fathers respond to manly psychology and they do not stand harassment with impunity but divorcing mums do often indulge in sycophantic antics… I am not discussing the sad cases but rather the majority of plain bread and butter families when things are over and mum is looking for a cheap winning lottery out… at her children’s expenses.
The Resolution Code of Practice doesn’t alter the fact that lawyers must act on instructions. They can and should advise but they are constrained by their instructions, which should be informed but may be unwise. If a party, through their lawyer, makes an allegation that is disputed – the other party will have a chance to dispute that.
I don’t really understand what “manly psychology is”.
I spot an element of legal profession marketing 😉 which is alas not reflected in the reality of many cases and the widely cited imperfect overloaded under-resourced court system. I appreciate the political correctness of flying the flag but some antics alas do only come out of a lawyer’s mind with dubious professional ethics to find rich ground in their client’s emotionally charged mind thus to inflame litigation. What I am saying is that some client instructions are more realistically solicitor self-instructions: after all in a divorce the only winners are the lawyers.
‘Manly psychology’ – a divorce is where “men from Mars women from Venus” is artfully played by the legal representatives … under the paternalistic [sometimes patronizing] eye of the court… When form and appearance prevail on substance of fact to justify discretion there are no real rules in place …
Sorry, I’ve read that three times and don’t understand a word of it….I think that one thing you might be saying is that some lawyers don’t really advise but just blindly accept instructions. Sadly that is true of some. But it is not true of the good ones. And some clients just will not be told!
I do not intend to hijack the thread as it is important to know about how the new Children’s Act eventually develops. However the quote “some lawyers don’t really advise but just blindly accept instructions” is probably incorrect. There are indeed bad laywers and good lawyers. The bad lawyers need the good ones, but the good ones should not need the bad ones. A client becomes knowledgeable only down the line of his/her case, after sieving plenty of system platitudes and learning about solicitors. Only then the client can issue sound instructions for him/her to be wholly and solely responsible. Resolution’s code of practice is thought and theoretically worded to prevent unwise instructions from an ’emotional’ client to reach the system, which however happens oftener than one wishes to admit because it is for profitable ‘cartel’ type economics. Resolution should the base for consumer protection, as in other industries, alas it is just marketing for most. When family lawyers market themselves about their clear advice and creative, pro-active approach to negotiating settlement (….) whether by mediation, negotiation, litigation … they are describing themselves as ready to write their own instructions to win at all costs. That, together with system positions e.g. Supreme Court re. Re B [2013] 1 FLR 1075 over the exercise of judicial discretion above fact finding and issues of fact, makes a football match such as Serbia v Albania probably more lawful than a children’s case with emotional opponents. As subjectivity enters a system by displacing rules, chaos kicks in but children are not pets in a dispute between neighbours or council tenants playing loud music… Parents bring children into this world, the state better waits for their adulthood before parents may be considered off duty. ‘Licensing’ parents is worrying social engineering … Thx.
Sorry to be a pedant, but there is no such thing as the Children’s Act new or old. There is The Children Act 1989 and The Children and Families Act 2014 which amends it.
Where is the original of the ‘Presidential Directive?
don’t know. came via email. may be on judiciary website but they are slow getting things up.