Children and Families Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As she said, we all know that when parents are in conflict they become engrossed in their own battle and lose sight of everything else of value, including the children. I apologise for my voice; I have just had the flu and therefore missed the first day on Report—some noble Lords will have been relieved about that.

I have talked to many children over the years, through my work at Childline and CAFCASS, who found themselves in that situation. They often feel that they are at the centre of that battle and not individuals themselves. I remember another famous quote that the noble and learned Baroness made at another time: we should never see children as objects of concern but as subjects in their own right. When parents haggle over children as property, it is our responsibility to ensure that their welfare is seen to. What has happened in the outside world is that in our attempt to focus, mainly on fathers, I have to say—there is not a balance between mothers and fathers, but a particular focus on the needs of fathers—we have lost some of that understanding of welfare, and the press really believe that fathers have had a bad deal.

I draw attention to a piece of research that was carried out recently by the University of Warwick under the auspices of the Nuffield Foundation. It looked at a large number of cases—197 were analysed— and determined how the county courts used a number of orders. It found that in contact orders,

“the courts are actively promoting involvement with the non-resident parent under the welfare paramountcy principle without the need for any further additional legislation. In 50% of all parental disputes studied, the post court care arrangement included regular, overnight contact allowing both parents to have involvement in the child’s day to day routine. 25% of cases ended in daytime only contact with the non-resident parent. Contact is often built up gradually by the courts using interim orders. This allows the courts to find an arrangement that works for the parent and the children”.

However, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out, our great concern is for the families who do not go to court. Courts will often find a good solution and be able to work through it. However, there is sometimes a perception among families that there is a presumption that children will be shared. I sometimes think of that picture from the Old Testament of the child being held up by one leg with the sword of Damocles held over it; it was the good parent who said, “No, I don’t want my child to be shared”. That is often what you find: it is the good parent who gives in and gives the child to the other parent, because they want the best for their child. It is therefore on that basis—and before my voice gives out—that I support the noble and learned Baroness’s amendment.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who knows more about children’s law than practically anyone in this House. There is one real problem after divorce, which is that fathers, for whom the door is open, do not come and visit their children. We cannot do anything much about that. The clause may give such absent fathers the notion that they have rights but no responsibilities. If there is one thing that our family courts have got right in recent years, it is the welfare of the child. I very much hope that the House will listen to the wisdom of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and will let the courts get on with the good job that they have been doing without resorting to a rather artificial notion as set out in the clause as it stands.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to which I have added my name. We had a very good debate in Committee on Clause 11 about the status of the presumption that is enshrined in that clause. Concerns about preserving the overriding status of the presumption of the best interests of the child in the Children Act have been largely assuaged.

By definition it is very difficult for both parents and children when a family breaks up, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has underlined, things can get very heated and parents can get very focused on coming out of that conflict with what they regard as the best arrangements for them.

As I made clear in Committee, I start from the position of sharing the Government’s desire to enshrine in public policy the principle of joint parental involvement in a child’s life, including after separation. I argue that for most children, the paramount principle of the child’s welfare, as enshrined in the Children Act 1989, cannot be fully met unless both parents are fully involved in the child’s life and have a continuing relationship with the child. Perhaps slightly differently to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I think that there is an issue to be addressed here, particularly for fathers. I agree with the Government that the principle of parental involvement needs strengthening.

However, if we agree—as I think we all do—that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, and that this principle should not be jeopardised or diluted, then we must also ensure that the presumption in Clause 11 is not misinterpreted and applied in ways that can be detrimental to children. Specifically, Clause 11 must not send the signal that parental involvement, which regrettably the Government initially called “shared parental responsibility”, is taken to mean that the child is divided according to some a priori formula, whether that is 50-50 or something else. Clause 11 gives a right to the child to expect continued meaningful involvement by both parents after separation. It must not be interpreted as giving a right to both parents for equal—or near equal as possible—time with the child. I know that the Government’s Explanatory Notes make clear their intentions. But there are a number of reasons why the Minister must take seriously the possibility, indeed the likelihood, of such misinterpretation.

First, the experience in Australia is that 65% of fathers interpreted “shared parental responsibility” to mean equal time. Litigation between parents increased as a result, and they had to change the system. Secondly, as touched on by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth: the clause, unless it is qualified on the face of the Bill in the way that this amendment seeks, could inadvertently increase the risk of harm to children, because only 10% of separating couples resort to the courts to resolve their contact disputes, with the majority of parents reaching agreements privately. There is concern that if it is the expectation of those parents that the law now says that the child’s time has to be carved up, then some parents may seek to use the new changes as a bargaining tool and put pressure on the other parent into making contact arrangements which are not in the best interests of the child.

Again, evidence from Australia suggests that similar reforms resulted in an increased reluctance for mothers to disclose abuse, for example, with many feeling that if there is a legal presumption of shared contact, there was little point in disclosing problems in the family. Given that the vast majority of cases do not go to court, if as a result of Clause 11 there is a common perception that having the child’s time shared out will be the norm in future, then even in families where there is no abuse or there are not problems we may still see the unintended consequence of nomadic arrangements, with a child moving between homes in a way that we would all want to avoid for obvious reasons. This would not be in the interests of most children.

Finally, and very significantly, we have to respond strongly to those parts of the media, which have promoted the interpretation which we are discussing now, despite the best efforts of the Government. I do not believe that any amount of communication or clarification can shift this now. This is why Amendment 14 is so necessary—the Government’s intention and interpretation would be quite clearly on the face of the Bill, and enshrined not in guidance but in law.

Last night we received a policy statement from the Government about Clause 11 and Amendment 14. This makes clear the Government’s intention—it is not to promote a particular division of time, but they feel that the most effective way of dealing with this is through a wider communication strategy to explain to parents what the interpretation is. This is wholly inadequate, for the reason I have just expressed; this view is already well entrenched, partly because of the initial nomenclature of shared parental responsibility and partly because parts of the media have triumphantly proclaimed that this means an equal proportion of the child’s time is to be spent with father and mother. That view is now so well entrenched that I am very concerned about the impact on expectations and, therefore, on negotiations between parents, particularly those not going to court. The most emphatic and unambiguous way of disabusing people of that false impression is to put the amendment alongside Clause 11 into the Bill. The Government will then have something in law that they can go to town about in communications, explaining Amendment 14 if it became part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I have grappled long and hard with this tricky issue. I should like to reduce it to three brief propositions, which have led me to agree with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Brown. First, it is sadly too frequent that we do not know which of two parents may have harmed a child. Each blames the other; it is not provable; and one of them goes on to form another family. There must, therefore, be some danger because the parent either did it or stood by while it happened. Secondly, we are talking about only reaching a threshold. It is not a question of leaping to the conclusion that the child must be removed. It simply triggers the ability of the courts and social workers to investigate what is going on. Thirdly, there is absolutely no possibility of harm ensuing from the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lords, whereas there is a distinct possibility of harm if this amendment is not agreed. A number of distinguished academics have written with great alarm calling for a change in the current situation and in support of the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, with which I hope that the House will agree.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I find myself in a maelstrom of lawyers with no voice. My position is that we been asking two questions which do not necessarily have the same answer. When I read the response from the department about this proposal, it became clear that we are considering two different issues. One is whether a local authority has enough powers to move into a family and take action if it believes that there is significant harm or the likelihood of significant harm. Of course, the ADSS and everyone else will say that they do have enough powers because that is clearly so. The criticism comes when local authorities do not move when they have that capacity.

The question we are considering is when two people have been in a situation where a child has been harmed. Perhaps I may put a bracket around that thought for a moment while we remind ourselves of the time when, if a child was murdered and you could not prove which of two people had done it, both were acquitted. There was a huge campaign by the NSPCC to ensure that that could not happen; that is, if a child was dead and clearly it was one person or the other, both people involved were likely to find themselves found guilty until such time as there was greater clarification. We can close the bracket there and say, “Here we are: we find ourselves in a situation where there are two people involved, someone has committed harm and maybe killed the child”. Recently, I spoke to a serious lawyer and a previous Attorney-General, who I probably should not name at the moment, who said, “If there is the slightest margin that there is a risk that the child might end up dead, what action do you take?

My noble friend Lady Deech has made the speech which I would have liked to have made. She has made important points. This amendment will do no harm. This afternoon, your Lordships have had a real seminar on Section 31 of the Children Act and the level of thresholds. It is important that we take action that protects children if it does no harm. I am more concerned that action is not taken by local authorities than that they are likely to whip children into care. To use a word we heard earlier, the “presumption” that local authorities take children into care wantonly is just not true. In fact, it is very difficult to get your child into care if you want to. A great deal of work and assessment thresholds should be considered.

All we are saying is that to get to the threshold of Section 31 where there has been this risk and there is possible danger, the local authority should be enabled to take some action, which will not necessarily, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, result in the child being removed from home. In fact, it is unlikely, unless there are serious risks, that the child will be removed from home. The amendment will clarify this bit of law. Do not worry if you feel confused: sometimes I find it extremely confusing and, despite what their bosses say, quite a lot of social workers on the ground find it confusing, too.