Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

Rob Roberts Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 614893, relating to suspension of parental responsibility for people convicted of serious offences.

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this important debate. The petition calls for the automatic suspension of parental responsibility for any parent found guilty of murdering the other during their period of imprisonment. I want to place on record my thanks to Jade Ward’s family and friends and, in particular, Edwin Duggan for their dedication and work in putting together this petition, which has received more than 130,000 signatures. That is a remarkable achievement.

At the heart of this debate is the life and memory of Jade Ward. Jade was an enormously loved mother, daughter and friend. She has been described as the sunshine in the lives of all who knew her. She was bubbly, kind and caring, and truly devoted to her four sons. The last days of Jade’s life were spent caring for her grandmother as she recovered from surgery, laughing with her friends in her garden and providing for her children. These final moments typify the life that Jade led and the kind person she was.

On 26 August 2021, Jade was brutally murdered by her estranged husband, Russell Marsh, in a premeditated attack. On 12 April 2022, Marsh was given a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years in prison. After Jade ended their relationship a week before her murder, Marsh had reportedly told friends that if he could not have Jade, no one could. Marsh was a controlling figure throughout their relationship, who would tell Jade who she could see and speak to, and what she could wear and do. When Jade stood up to him, she was killed as punishment.

Jade was just 27 and lived in Shotton. She had four children with Marsh, who were sleeping nearby as their mother’s life was taken away from her. Jade’s family were horrified to learn that, despite these utterly distressing circumstances, they face the prospect of continued contact with the man who murdered their daughter. Although Marsh will obviously not have custody over the children while he serves his time in prison, despite all his appalling actions, under law, he retains parental responsibility. Jade’s mother, Karen, said that she was “absolutely gobsmacked” to hear that her daughter’s killer could still have a say in the boys’ lives. If you walked down any street today, Mr Hollobone, and told people how the law works on this matter, I think they would be gobsmacked too.

What exactly does the law say about this matter? When a child does not have a parent to care for them, local authorities have a duty to safeguard the child and find an interim or permanent care arrangement. The child’s relatives can seek a court order to care for them, local authorities can initiate proceedings with a view to providing for the child’s upbringing and carers can achieve parental rights through a special guardianship order.

Importantly, where two parties have parental responsibility, one party cannot make decisions unilaterally; they must seek the other party’s agreement. Responsibility is automatically equal so, in law, neither party’s parental responsibility is considered more important than the other’s. That stretches to even the most extreme cases, in which one parent has been convicted of murdering the other.

I understand that Jade’s parents have been told that if they want to take their grandsons on holiday abroad, they need permission from the father. A convicted parent must also be consulted on issues such as where the children go to school and the medical treatment they receive. Effectively, Marsh has the right to veto decisions made by Jade’s parents and pursue a family court hearing.

We can only imagine how traumatic that must be for Jade’s parents. They have already suffered the terrible pain of losing their daughter in that way, yet the process as it stands compels them to interact with their daughter’s killer. It acts as a constant reminder of surely the darkest moment in their lives. As with Jade’s boys, the children are often in the care of the family of the deceased parent. The current process effectively grants the convicted parent the means to continue the control and coercion of the family in the way they did prior to the murder of the victim.

[Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his powerful speech. Does he agree that “re-victimisation” is not too strong a word to describe what would happen to the family in such circumstances?

[Mark Tami]

I agree, because it just does not stop and there is no chance to move on—not that it would ever be easy to move on. It gives the convicted person even more weapons to use against the family of the deceased.

It must be extremely traumatic for the children to know that the person who killed their mother or father knows so much about their lives, particularly if they witnessed the murder. The law surrounding parental responsibility is clearly not fit for purpose and facilitates further unnecessary emotional trauma. It helps perpetrators with a history of domestic abuse to practise their controlling and psychological abuse from inside their prison cell. We often think of domestic abuse as physical violence, which it is in many cases, but at its root is control. It is about the perpetrator controlling their so-called partner, and having control from their prison cell must give them a real buzz.

If parental rights are by default retained, even in the most horrific of circumstances, when can they be restricted? The Children Act 1989 allows the guardian or holders of a residence order to go to a family court to bring a prohibited steps order against a person with parental responsibility, but the onus is still on the family to prove that parental rights should be revoked. It is expensive and time-consuming, and is an emotionally draining process for the families, who have to come to terms with the tragic loss they have just experienced. That is why Jade’s family—Karen, Paul and Pip—and their friends are campaigning to have the parental responsibility of a parent who is found guilty of murdering the other parent automatically suspended.

[Mark Tami]

I agree with the hon. Lady. I will go on to talk about family courts, including some of their problems and the lack of connection between what happens there and in other courts. In this case, and indeed in many other cases, children can be effectively weaponised by the person who has committed the offence, who can carry on their control and abuse.

Currently, the onus is on the family to prove why Marsh’s parental responsibility should be revoked or restricted, whereas Jade’s law calls for parental responsibility to be automatically suspended in circumstances such as these, putting the onus on the killer to go through the legal hoops of proving they deserve parental responsibility, freeing the victim’s family of the traumatic burden they currently carry. As Jade’s mother said:

“We are going through enough without having him looming over our heads.”

That really sums up the situation we find in the law today.

Unfortunately, Jade’s family are not the only ones. Ahead of the debate, the Chair of the Petitions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), spoke to survivors of domestic abuse who are experiencing ongoing issues relating to the retention of parental responsibility by ex-partners. Their experiences highlighted just how far our laws on parental responsibilities and the family court system are failing children and victims of domestic violence.

One issue that came out strongly from the discussions was that violence committed against a parent is not distinct from violence against a child. Indeed, allowing a child to witness or be surrounded by violent behaviour is inherently abusive in itself. A parent’s willingness to subject their child to that surely calls into question their ability to act in that child’s best interests.

Yet women who spoke to the Committee felt that family courts do not recognise that. Despite all the convictions for traumatic sexual, physical and emotional abuse, the threat those men pose to their own children’s welfare does not seem to be acknowledged. Over and over again, the Committee heard that the abuser’s right to be a parent was prioritised over the children’s right to safety. A woman whose former partner was convicted of sexual abuse offences asked what I think is a perfectly reasonable question: why should he be allowed to access their children when he was considered too dangerous to work with or be around other people’s children?

For victims of domestic violence and for families who have lost loved ones to an abusive partner, the criminal justice process is often just too traumatic. Not only are they forced to relive harrowing experiences, but they have to come back into contact with the person responsible for them. One might think that once proceedings have ended and a criminal charge has been made and proven, they could begin to move on, but since family and criminal courts are distinct from each other, victims are forced to restart the emotional and burdensome process to restrict parental rights.

One of the women who spoke to the Chair of the Petitions Committee found the family court system itself to be abusive. With renewed contact with her ex-partner, it became a new avenue through which he continued his controlling behaviour. A common opinion was that family courts are not equipped to deal with traumatic cases of murder and domestic abuse.

Both Jade’s family and the women who spoke to the Committee also emphasised the financial pressure imposed on them by the current system. Pursuing a case in the family court is expensive, and the lack of funding for legal aid is a longstanding issue, as we all know. Victims and their families are forced into thousands of pounds of debt to restrict parental responsibility, or they face compromising on the safety of their children.

Since the beginning of the family’s campaign, the Government have stated that there is already scope for courts to exercise powers

“to effectively remove all parental powers and authority in appropriate cases.”

However, the Government are missing the point. Jade’s family and friends are already aware of the law as it stands and the current process of restricting parental responsibility, but they, and we, are saying that the process is wrong. The onus should be on the convicted murderer to prove they should have parental responsibility, rather than the family having to make the case for why that person should not. Jade’s law would be a simple, common-sense way of shifting the burden away from a victim’s family and friends, who have already suffered the anguish of the murder of their loved one. Jade’s law would put an end to the endless cycle of psychological torment, lengthy and costly court processes and the constant harrowing reminders that the current system puts on a victim’s family and friends.

Let us be clear: Jade’s law does not demand the automatic removal of parental responsibility for cases such as these; it demands an automatic suspension, giving the perpetrator the opportunity to go through the legal hoops themselves to prove that they should be entitled to those parental powers. The perpetrator will have to prove they have changed their ways and admitted to their crimes, and that they have gone on a long journey to have the right to be involved in their children’s lives, not the other way round.

The petitioners recognise that there are nuances. For instance, they recognise that there are specific circumstances where it would be right to exempt someone convicted of killing the other parent from an automatic suspension of parental responsibilities. These would include where a convicted person could prove that there was a history of domestic abuse in their relationship and that, although the murder cannot be condoned, the murder trial concluded that provocation was a mitigating factor. However, the principle of shifting the burden of proof is the key message that we are sending the Government today.

[Rob Roberts]

The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. To expand on this interesting idea, does he envisage this measure being akin to a parole board, where somebody fights their case for early release, or would there be some kind of additional legal process, such as requiring them to go back to court and fight for their rights?

[Mark Tami]

As I said, I believe the process should be turned round, so that it puts the onus on the convicted person, and they would have to go through the same process that the victim’s family are effectively forced to go through now.

I am delighted that Labour supports this change, but I do not want it to be a party political matter because it is not. I do not think that anyone in this room, regardless of their party, would stand up and defend the current system or say: “It’s absolutely fine. I don’t know what the fuss is about.” As I have said, if we went out on the streets, almost everybody would say, “That seems to be the correct thing to do”. I hope we can move forward across the House and add a mechanism to existing legislation, such as the Children Act 1989, whereby one parent found guilty of murdering the other parent would have their responsibility rights automatically suspended throughout their term of imprisonment—which, again, would impose the burden on the convicted person.

I am not prejudging what the Minister will say, but I am sure his officials will say, as they always do: “This is very difficult. It’s going to take a long time. We can’t do this; we can’t do that”. I have always believed that where there is a will, there is a way, and I am sure that the appropriate legislation can be amended to ensure that this change actually happens. The implementation of Jade’s law would not add additional costs to the public purse. In fact, it might save local authorities money, because they would no longer have to send social workers to visit convicted parents to obtain permission for things. It is a cost-free or even money-saving reform that would relieve the traumatic burden that the families of victims currently carry, and it is the morally right thing to do. To me, it is simple and common sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)]

Thank you for calling me to speak in this important and solemn debate, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, and to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I commend my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for securing this debate on such a vital issue for our Flintshire community. I will also take this opportunity to butter up the Minister a bit and welcome him to his portfolio. I am sure he is the right person in the right role at the right time to drive this forward and obtain the justice that that family and families across the country deserve.

Crime will always exist in communities. Whatever we do in society and whatever laws we pass in this place, there will always be various crimes of varying degrees of severity. Rarely—thankfully, it is rare—there is a crime that the headline writers say has rocked the community. In August 2021, the Deeside and wider Flintshire community was rocked. This is north-east Wales; this type of thing does not happen in our communities.

The words we use in this place to debate things are important. “Erskine May” tells us that moderate language is of the utmost importance in parliamentary discourse, so I always do my best to keep within the boundaries of that principle. I try to avoid extremes such as “evil” and “hate”. But when Russell Marsh—for the record, that will be the last time I do him the courtesy of using his name in this speech—killed Jade Ward, the egregious act taking place in her home in Shotton, the nature of his crime could quite easily and fairly be described as evil. In the aftermath of that horrific event, Jade’s friends and family, and indeed our entirely community, could certainly be justified in having feelings of hate. It is fair to commend the North Wales police and the court system for bringing him to justice, as he was handed a minimum 25-year sentence in April. For all the delays and issues we hear about in our justice system, the investigation, trial and sentencing took only seven months. I say “only” seven months, but it was no doubt a lifetime for Jade’s family and friends.

Justice was served and was seen to be served swiftly. But was it? Of course, seeing that vile wretch of a human carted off for at least 25 years is justice in one respect, but a lingering problem remains, which we must address. I commend Mr Duggan, the family friend who set up the petition. I am not sure whether he is aware that it attracted signatures from every single one of the 650 constituencies in the UK, from the far reaches of Orkney and Shetland off the north coast of Scotland, down to St Ives in the south of England, on its way to more than 130,000 signatures, including 2,808 from my constituency of Delyn. Considering that Delyn’s numbers for national petitions are normally in their low teens, that is a great indication of the depth of feeling in our community about the issue.

Jade’s sons are now in the loving care of her family. I do not think there is a single person among us who can comprehend not only having to attend the funeral of their child, as Jade’s parents had to, but having to somehow hold everything together in the aftermath and provide a stable, loving home for their grandchildren.

The difficulties of being faced by the nature of the crime itself are compounded by the fact that the perpetrator has rights. We hear a lot about rights in this building, and how one person’s rights are being infringed in favour of someone else’s rights. In this case, the perpetrator’s rights are being held to have, in some way, some relevance. He has to be consulted; he can take decisions about where the children live, go on holiday or attend school. and he is kept up to date on their progress.

Just to be clear, we take away parental responsibility in cases of serious neglect and in cases of serious cruelty. What more neglectful action could there be than depriving four children of their mother? What more cruelty would we need to see than taking a young lady and murdering her in a brutal and vicious way while her children slept in their bedrooms next door?

I read the Government’s response to the petition when it passed 10,000 signatures and I echo the comments made by the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), in expressing my disappointment with that response. I appreciate the statement that we already have the means in existing law to take these steps, but as has already been mentioned several times, that is time-consuming and expensive, and puts even more strain on the victim’s family, who have to deal with an already impossible situation.

In a case in 2013 when parental responsibility was terminated because a father had been convicted of violently attacking a mother, it took years to terminate his rights—something that would have been obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense about them. In this case, we are talking about a violent murder. It should be an absolute no-brainer that the perpetrator should forfeit his parental rights immediately when convicted of such a horrific crime. There can be no greater cruelty. He should play no further part in the lives of these children. If I had my way, he would play no further part in society for the remainder of his natural life; for what he did, he should have been given a whole life sentence, not 25 years.

People might think that this happens extremely rarely in society, so I did a bit of digging. The House of Commons Library tells me that there were 542 homicides —murders—recorded in England and Wales in the 2020-21 fiscal year. In 414 of those cases, the relationship between victim and offender was known and of those cases, 67 were recorded as being committed by a partner or ex-partner. Assuming that figure carries through to the other cases where we do not know the relationship between victim and offender, that is 87 murders per year by partners or ex-partners where there may be children. To be clear for the record, that is not the number of confirmed cases where parental responsibility is a factor; it is just an estimate of the number of cases where it might be a factor. Potentially, there are 87 cases a year where the nightmare of a murder is compounded by the additional cruelty of the perpetrator controlling from prison the lives of the children. That is absolutely unconscionable. The statistics do not matter though. I would be making all the same arguments if there was just one family or 10,000 families who are affected. Currently, the law allows the status quo to persist unless a long and laborious process is carried out to change it.

A switch of priorities is required. As the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said earlier, put the burden back on the murderer. If someone is found guilty of murder, the suspension of parental rights should be made automatic at the date of conviction. Make him fight to get those rights back, rather than make the victim’s family fight to block him. Social services and the local authorities will already be intrinsically involved by that point, as there will inevitably be months between offence and conviction. The children will already be in the care of the remaining family or in a suitable foster placement, where that is appropriate. The law simply needs to be changed to give social services the power that they would have if, for example, both parents died.

I come back to the opening words of my speech. I try to avoid extremes of language, but in cases such as this one, in which one parent has unlawfully killed another, the perpetrators should be counted, for the purposes of parental responsibility, as having died as well. It seems to be a complete no-brainer that, rather than put the victim’s family through a horrendous process of trying to get parental responsibility removed, re-victimising them and keeping a killer in their lives, we should automatically remove the perpetrator.

We need to bear in mind that according to the Sentencing Council the starting point for the minimum time to be served in prison by an adult guilty of murder ranges from 15 years to 30 years, before taking into account any aggravating or mitigating factors. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the vast majority of cases will lead to a minimum of 15 years in prison for the perpetrator. By the time that sentence has been served, most children are likely to be over the age of 18, so I see no reason not to say that the perpetrator’s parental rights should be taken away at conviction and never restored, unless there is a specific and significant reason to do so. My hon. Friend the Minister can work out what “specific and significant” might mean—we will leave that up to the law writers. Should the children decide upon reaching adulthood that they want to have contact with the perpetrator, that of course remains their right, because there will no longer be an element of control over their lives.

The families of victims have suffered enough; there is no reason to prolong their suffering. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) said about some of the potential pitfalls that may occur in cases such as these. This is one of those instances where unintended consequences can have wide-ranging implications. We need to keep in mind that the best interests of the children are paramount every time. That said, I believe the change proposed is a simple one, steeped in common sense, that could be made through a relatively short Bill, and I implore the Minister to make it happen with all due speed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

I begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) for his work, and to the Petitions Committee for securing the opportunity for us to debate this very important subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to refer to him almost as a conduit for the work that has been done by Jade’s family and by Mr Duggan, who I pay tribute to for his campaigning work on this hugely upsetting and challenging issue. I think it was the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) who highlighted that the petition has attracted signatures from every constituency across the country. I do not know if that is unique, but it is a pretty high bar to pass. There were over 100 signatures from my constituency in rural north Leicestershire. That reflects the impact that the issue has had across the country, and the strength of feeling among people from all walks of life. I offer my most sincere condolences to Jade’s family on the loss of their daughter and mother, and to her friends on the loss of a friend, in such horrific circumstances, at the hands of someone whose name I—like the hon. Gentleman—do not propose to use.

The thoughts of everyone in this Chamber will remain with Jade’s family. The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside did something quite extraordinary: he managed to articulate the circumstances, their impact, and the feelings of Jade’s family in an incredibly moving and clear way; I am sure I could not have done it. That does not happen as often as it should in this place, especially in the main Chamber, but in this Chamber we sometimes adopt a more measured tone that does more justice to the subjects that we discuss. The right hon. Gentleman’s constituents—this is not about party politics—are extremely lucky to have such a dedicated and caring Member of Parliament representing their interests.

I stand here with mixed emotions. In one sense, it is a pleasure to be back in this Department. For almost a year and half, between 2018 and 2019, I was the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State responsible for victims and witnesses. I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) in her role at the Home Office to commission the rape review, bring forward a victim strategy, get rid of the “same roof” rule for compensation, and look at the victims code. We worked closely with victims of violence, particularly in the context of domestic abuse, and coercive and controlling relationships.

[Rob Roberts]

I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is about to give us a reason why he is not able to commit to legislation, so I thought I would intervene to give him a few more seconds to reconsider, and to think of extra ways in which he might squeeze this change into a bit of legislation.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who seeks to gently nudge me. When I held my former brief, working cross-party, I saw the lengths that people will go to in their attempts to manipulate, coerce and control, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), highlighted. Even when a victim or their family are told that they are physically safe because the perpetrator is in prison, that does not address the challenges that they face in feeling psychologically safe. I think the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) highlighted that children are victims too. Those who witness these events, and those who may not have witnessed them but who live with the consequences, are also victims of the crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I will answer briefly to avoid straying too far from the premise of the debate. Although I am no longer responsible for the female offender strategy, I will certainly ensure that the Minister of State for Prisons, Parole and Probation is made aware of my hon. Friend’s point.

As the hon. Member for Bristol East said, we must look at the issues case by case; there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Each case is different. That is one of the reasons why there are reservations about having an automatic presumption, rather than letting the courts consider each case. It is important to note that under the Children Act 1989, the welfare of the child, rather than the views or interests of any adult, is the uppermost consideration in cases that come before the court.

In determining a child’s welfare needs, the court will have regard to the factors set out in the welfare checklist in the Children Act, including the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child, the impact on the child of any change in circumstances, any harm that they have suffered or are at risk of suffering, and how capable an individual with parental responsibility is of genuinely meeting that child’s needs and best interests.

In tragic cases such as Jade’s, where one parent has been convicted of murdering the other, the responsible local authority has a duty to protect the child and ensure that they are safeguarded from harm. That may include initiating care proceedings to provide the child with a permanent or interim care arrangement. Such arrangements, as has been set out, can include family members such as grandparents being granted parental responsibility for the child, for example through the granting of a special guardianship order by the court.

The process needs the involvement of the court. Under the principles of the Children Act, and also under our law’s underpinning principles, only a court can restrict or change parental rights. When it is in the child’s best interests, and appropriate given the circumstances of the case, there are mechanisms whereby the court can restrict the parental responsibility of a parent, but that must be done through the court.

[Rob Roberts]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. On that point, he will know better than I do whether there is any mechanism to ask, for example, a bunch of family court judges or High Court judges whether they would be in favour of making the suspension of parental responsibility apply automatically. That would mean that if they hand down a conviction for the murder of another parent, it would automatically form part of the sentence. Could we ask judges that and see what their opinion is, or is that not something that we do?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. He is kind to presume that I am as expert 11 days in as I was when I had held this brief for many years, but there is a fair amount that I have kept close to. It is challenging. We must recognise the independence of our judiciary and the very clear delineation between judiciary and politics, but we routinely seek the views and advice of the judiciary. In a moment, I will turn to something that we may be able to do in this space.