The father in the case Re D responds to Sir Nicholas Wall's recent u-turn.19 June 2011
Continued psychological, developmental and educational harm and disadvantage to hundreds of British children in ‘Leave to Remove’ Relocation cases, as a direct consequence of the continued application of and reliance upon the outdated and discredited principles, suppositions and ideology of Payne v Payne (2001)
Dear Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen
I address this letter to all of the following recipients. For the benefit of new recipients, I have attached my open letters dated 20 December 2009, 14 February 2010, 14 March 2010, 18 November 2010 and 5 April 2011.
After reserving judgment in Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50 and giving himself three weeks in which to “reflect carefully” on the arguments presented by the litigant-in-person father, and to read the fifteen contemporary scientific papers exhibited - giving detailed evidence of the psychological, developmental and educational harm and disadvantage children are likely to experience in the absence of a close, frequent and meaningful relationship with both parents - Sir Nicholas Wall wrote in his publicised judgment that…“…there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that [Payne v Payne] places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and… relegates the harm done of children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left behind parent… As I say, this is a perfectly respectable argument, and would, I have no doubt, in the right case constitute a ‘compelling reason’ for an appeal to be heard.”
However, one year later, in Re W (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 345, Sir Nicholas Wall performed an inexplicable U-Turn on the issue of Payne v Payne, declaring:
“I fear that too much weight may have been given to some words of mine spoken in a judgment which I gave in an application to this court for permission to appeal in a relocation case. Whilst I do not resile from most of what I have said, I am of the clear view that undue prominence has been accorded to Re D…”
WHO, though, had been guilty of according “too much weight” and “undue prominence” to Re D????? Let’s find out…
a) SIR NICHOLAS WALL himself on at least 2 occasions!
Firstly, in an interview Sir Nicholas gave to ‘Family Affairs’ on 12 August 2010:
“In light of a) your comments in Re D, b) the Washington Declaration c) the new research from Dr Marilyn Freeman and Professor Parkinson and now d) the comments of Mostyn J in Re AR, where are we now on international child relocation? Is it still a question of finding a rich or tenacious (or both) litigant to push the right case to the Supreme Court before any effective review of Payne v Payne can take place?
"As I said recently in Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50, (which I am delighted to see that you have all read) there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that Payne v Payne places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and ignores or relegates the harm done to children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left behind parent. However, all relocation cases are (1) very difficult; and (2) highly fact specific. Re D was plainly not the case upon which to base a re-appraisal of Payne. Furthermore, as I also made clear in Re D, we operate a doctrine of precedent and it will be either for the government to change the law or for the Supreme Court to reconsider the issue in a suitable case. I do not think that a litigant would necessarily have to be either rich or tenacious to get to the Supreme Court, but a finely balanced case is likely to turn on the trial judge's exercise of discretion, with which it may be difficult to interfere."
http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/Sir-Nicholas-Interview-120810
Secondly, in a speech Sir Nicholas gave to the AGM of the ‘Families Need Fathers’ on 20 September 2010:
“I recently had to decide an application for permission to appeal in a “relocation” case [Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50]. The case did not involve Australia or New Zealand, but what used to be called Eastern Europe, and in my view the application had to be refused. The father who argued it, however, launched a “root and branch attack” on Payne v Payne, and I reserved judgment so that I could consider his arguments carefully.
“I went on to deal with whether or not there was a “compelling reason” for the Court of Appeal to hear the case. …There has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent and… relegates the harm done to children by a permanent breach of the relationship which the children have with the left-behind parent…as I say, this is a perfectly reasonable argument and would, I have no doubt, in the right case constitute a “compelling reason” for an appeal to be heard…”
http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/Wall200910
b) ANDREW SHAW of the Ministry of Justice.
Following an open letter I had sent to the Justice Minister and to the Prime Minister concerning the issue of Relocation, Mr Shaw replied on behalf of the Government on 8 March 2010 as follows:
“I confirm that the Ministry of Justice are carrying out a Review of the Family Justice System. The Review will aim to ensure that the Family Justice System supports good quality contact with both parents, as it is this which contributes to better outcomes.
Where precedent is cited, it is for the Courts to decide whether that is relevant. In your letter you mentioned Payne v Payne which is the leading judgment in Relocation cases. For Payne v Payne to be challenged and potentially overturned this would have to go to the Supreme Court in a case where there was genuine reason for an appeal to challenge the precedent set in Payne v Payne on the basis that the principles were mis-stated. With that in mind, you may be interested to learn that Nicholas Wall LJ in his judgment in Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50 on 9 February 2010 acknowledged that there is a respectable argument that the Court of Appeal judgment in Payne places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent (paragraph 33):
‘There has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and… relegates the harm done to children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left-behind parent.’
LJ Wall went on to say (paragraph 34):
‘This is a perfectly respectable argument, and would, I have no doubt, in the right case constitute a “compelling reason” for an appeal to be heard.’
Lastly, you mention in your letter about various scientific research papers… Whether any research influences future court decisions is a matter for the judiciary. The Lord Chief Justice has responsibility for judicial training. His responsibility is exercised through the Judicial Studies Board, which is an independent body chaired by Lord Justice Maurice Kay.
c) SIR NICHOLAS MOSTYN / High Court Judge of the Family Division.
“Mostyn J considered the authorities including Poel v Poel [1970] 1 WLR 1469, Payne v Payne [2001] 1 FLR 1052… and Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50”.
Paragraph 9 from Mostyn’s judgment in Re AR (A Child: Relocation) [2010] EWHC 1346 reads as follows: “More recently, in Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50 Wall LJ (as he then was) acknowledged the strength of the criticisms mentioned above. He stated at paragraph 33 that: There has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and ignores or relegates the harm done of children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left behind parent.”
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed60336
d) PROFESSOR MARILYN FREEMAN / Professor of Family Law at London Metropolitan University, co-director of ‘The Centre of Family Law and Practice’ and Head of the Reunite Research Unit. In a speech to the University of Western Cape Conference on 18 March 2010, the learned Professor stated:
“Lord Justice Wall, in a hearing for permission to appeal a leave to remove (relocation) order, added his qualified support for a review of Payne v Payne on 9th February 2010 when, although deciding that the case he was hearing was not the right case for a challenge to Payne before the Supreme Court and thus refused the father’s permission to appeal, he stated:
"There has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and ignores or relegates the harm done of children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left behind parent”. He went on to say: "This is a perfectly respectable argument, and would, I have no doubt, in the right case constitute a 'compelling reason' for an appeal to be heard” (Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50). There are therefore signs that the Court of Appeal may be willing to revisit this position.”
http://www.millerdutoitcloeteinc.co.za/Paper%20-%20Freeman%20Marilyn.doc
e) HENRY SETRIGHT QC / Recorder and Deputy High Court Judge (Family Division)
In a presentation at the London Metropolitan University the eminent QC reiterated Wall’s critique of Payne v Payne in Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50
(see slide 19 of 26)
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/fms/MRSite/acad/lgri/CFLP/Relocation/Relocation%2023%20Powerpoint%20May%202011.ppt#272,13,Sharef) ANNE THOMAS / Senior Partner at International Family Law Group, member of Reunite, past Chair of the Family Law Steering Group and member of the International Bar Association.
“In early 2010, in Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50, Wall LJ, now President of the Family Division, stated that “there has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly reasonable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent and… relegates the harm done to children by a permanent breach of the relationship which the children have with the left-behind parent.” He went on: “this would, I have no doubt, in the right case constitute a compelling reason for an appeal to be heard.”’
http://www.iflg.uk.com/en/news/parliament-considers-reform-of-child-relocation-law
g) SANDRA DAVIS / Partner and Head of Family Law at Mishcon de Reya LLP, a Fellow of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, the author of International Child Abduction (Sweet & Maxwell, 1993) and a member of the Lord Chancellor’s Child Abduction Panel.
“In Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50 Sir Nicholas Wall said there was a perfectly respectable argument that Payne places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent. "In doing so", he said "it ignores or relegates the harm done to children [by the dislocation of their relationship with the parent left behind]". This, according to Sir Nicholas, would, in the right case, constitute a compelling reason for the Supreme Court to review the law on relocation. A couple of weeks ago the President of the Family Division gave the lead judgment in another relocation case, Re W (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 345, in which he appeared to row back from his earlier decision in Re D. In the postscript to his judgment, Sir Nicholas retracted his use of the word "ignores" in Re D, adding "unless and until Parliament imposes a different test to that set out in section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 relocation cases will remain... governed by Payne v Payne."
http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/SandraDavis14032011
h) DAVID HODSON / Deputy District Judge at the Principal Registry of the Family Division, High Court, London, a Fellow of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, author of A Practical Guide to International Family Law and chair of the Family Law Review Group of the Centre for Social Justice.
“England has probably the world's most liberal and generous relocation law and which has attracted much criticism from English lobbying groups, family lawyers and some judges. Lord Justice Thorpe writing in June Family Law (at p 565) about the conference says that if England were to subscribe to the [Washington] Declaration it would represent a significant departure from English relocation law principles. Yet he also accepts that it is not difficult to argue for a change in the law given the changes in parenting patterns over the past 40 years or so. Perhaps with a new President [Sir Nicholas Wall] who has been previously critical of English relocation law [Re D (Children)], we can have a new direction very soon, giving greater weight to continuity and ongoing relationship with the so-called "left behind parent". A change is very overdue.”
http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/david-hodson-on-international-family-law-0
i) HONG KONG FAMILY LAW ASSOCIATION
“Mr Justice Mostyn has said a review of Payne v Payne by the Supreme Court is urgently needed. It follows Lord Justice Wall, now President of the Family Division, adding his support last February in Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50 for a review of Payne.”
j) JORDAN’S PUBLISHING
“In his judgment [Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50], Lord Justice Wall commented: "There has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and ignores or relegates the harm done of children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left behind parent."
He went on to say: "This is a perfectly respectable argument, and would, I have no doubt, in the right case constitute a 'compelling reason' for an appeal to be heard."
k) CATHERINE TAYLOR / Associate Solicitor / Healys LLP
“In February, Lord Justice Wall had called for a review of Payne v Payne [2001]. Lord Justice Wall had been hearing an application for permission to appeal a leave to remove order. He refused the father's permission to appeal, but said in his judgement, "There has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and ignores or relegates the harm done of children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left-behind parent [Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50)].”
http://www.healys.com/site/srvprivate/family_law_solicitors/family_law_further_information/family_law_review_of_payne_and_poel.htmll) JMW SOLICITORS LLP
“In the first six months of 2010, various high ranking family law judges made calls for a review of [Payne v Payne]. LJ Wall said, “There has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and… relegates the harm done of children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left-behind parent [Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50)].”
http://www.jmw.co.uk/services-for-you/family-law/articles/poel-and-payne/
m) WITHERS WORLDWIDE LLP
“…A recent Court of Appeal case Re D (2010) acknowledges that there has been considerable criticism of the leading case law which is widely seen as weighted in favour of relocating mothers. In his recent Judgment in Re D (Children), reported in February 2010, Wall LJ expressed his view that the Payne principles are ripe for review: "There has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and ignores or relegates the harm done to children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the ‘left behind' parent." However, Lord Justice Wall did not feel that this particular case was the ‘right one' to pursue this argument, and refused the father permission to appeal the decision that the mother be allowed to remove the children to Slovakia.
County Court and High Court Judges are duty bound to follow the Court of Appeal in Payne and as Lord Justice Wall acknowledged in Re D, the principles and guidelines laid down in that case can only be altered by legislation or overruled by a decision of the Supreme Court.”
n) KIM BEATSON / Partner & Head of Family Law at Anthony Gold LLP
“…there is now considerable momentum for a change of law in this area. In Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50 Wall LJ (as he was) acknowledged the criticisms of Payne and stated at para 33: “There has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and… relegates the harm done of children by permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left behind parent.”
http://www.anthonygold.co.uk/site/ang_articles/leave.html
o) AMANDEEP GILL / Jordan Publishing
“There has been considerable debate concerning leave to remove (LTR) cases following the comments made by Lord Justice Wall and Mr Justice Mostyn in Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50 and Re AR (A Child: Relocation) [2010] EWHC 1346 (Fam) respectively.
http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/amandeep-gill-s-analysis-0
p) VO LAW LLP
“Despite certain dissenting commentary amongst lower Court judges, these questions have remained largely untouched until very recently. In Re D [2010] EWCA Civ 50, Lord Justice Wall stated that there is a perfectly reasonable argument for the proposition that Payne places too much emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the parent seeking to remove the child. In his judgment, Wall LJ commented, “there has been considerable criticism of Payne -v- Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and… relegates the harm done of children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left behind parent ... there is a perfectly respectable argument, and would, I have no doubt, in the right case constitute a “compelling reason” for an appeal to be heard”
http://www.volaw.com/default.asp?contentID=1101
q) BRENDAN ROCHE / Barrister, 7 Bedford Row
“In February 2010, in the case of Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50, LJ Wall [noted] that there is a perfectly respectable argument that Payne v Payne “places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and… relegates the harm done to the children by a permanent breach of the relationship which the children have with the left-behind parent”. He had no doubt that, in the “right” case, this argument would constitute a compelling reason for an appeal to be heard.”
http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/flj0910BRENDANROCHEr) DUNCAN LEWIS LLP
In Re D (Children) Lord Justice Wall has stated that there is a perfectly reasonable argument for the proposition that the Court of Appeal judgment in Payne v Payne places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent. In his judgment in Re D (Children), Lord Justice Wall commented: ‘There has been considerable criticism of Payne v Payne in certain quarters, and there is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposition that it places too great an emphasis on the wishes and feelings of the relocating parent, and ignores or relegates the harm done of children by a permanent breach of the relationship which children have with the left behind parent.’
Conclusion: The courts have engaged in a war between prioritisation between the Children Act 1989 and the Principles of Payne. The court has continuously observed the Childs welfare as paramount but there has been a vibrant and incoherent approach to these applications…”
http://www.duncanlewis.co.uk/childcare_news/Relocation_of_Children__(18_April_2011).html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, those who Sir Nicholas Wall accuses of placing “too much weight” and “undue prominence” on his critique of Payne v Payne, as expressed in Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50 are:
a) Himself
b) The Ministry of Justice
c) A Professor of Family Law
d) The Judiciary of the High Court Family Division, and
e) Several eminently qualified and highly experienced Family Law practitioners
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It surely behoves Sir Nicholas Wall to proffer a comprehensive explanation for his apparent U-turn on the issue of Payne v Payne.
For example, does Sir Nicholas now consider that the child-welfare arguments presented to him by the litigant-in-person father in Re D have lost their original potency?
The arguments against Payne, as presented in Re D, can be found at:
Alternatively, does Sir Nicholas now no longer consider the scientific evidence, as presented to him in Re D, to be as powerful and persuasive as it was in 2010?
The scientific evidence, presented in Re D, can be found within the Custody Minefield Report, entitled ‘Family Law: Relocation: The Case for Reform’ at:
http://www.relocationcampaign.co.uk/index.html
Of course, Sir Nicholas has absolutely no obligation to provide comprehensive answers! He remains completely unaccountable for his actions and views, both to Parliament and to the General Public. He is untouchable.
Furthermore, Sir Nicholas expressed his critique of Payne v Payne in a second completely un-publicised judgment.
In April 2010, 2 months after Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50, Sir Nicholas Wall gave judgment in Re D (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 593.
In this second judgment, Wall stated that:“…there is a powerful body of opinion which takes the view that the traditional English way of dealing with [Relocation cases, as set out in Payne v Payne] pays too little attention to the damage caused to the child by the loss of the relationship which the child has with the left-behind parent and too much attention to the views of the departing parent, who invariably tells the court that she (and it is usually she) will be devastated if she is not allowed to go”.
Quite remarkably, Wall acknowledges the fact that, when acting for mothers wishing to remove their children overseas, their lawyers and barristers “invariably” seek to claim in court that their clients will be devastated if they are not allowed to go!
It is perhaps little wonder why Sir Nicholas decided NOT to make this second Relocation judgment public! Indeed, it was only brought to my personal attention by Lord McNally’s researchers.
Sir Nicholas Wall continues to decline to make any comment on this second judgment, and upon the implications it obviously has for his stance on Payne v Payne.
If the President of the British Medical Association had stated that there was a “perfectly reasonable”, “compelling” and “powerful” argument that Food Additive X relegated the harm done to children, but then proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it for nearly two years, I have no doubt that such a criminal dereliction of duty would have resulted in lengthy imprisonment!
The President of the Family Division stated that there was a “compelling” and “powerful” argument that Payne v Payne relegated the harm done to children, and yet has done absolutely nothing about it for nearly 2 years! Did Sir Nicholas have no professional or ethical duty to act without haste, and in accordance with the Precautionary Principle, particularly when the matter relates to the well-being of our children?
And how can it be that, after having been presented, last year, with all of the arguments and all of the powerful scientific evidence for the serious risk of child harm in Relocation cases, the Children’s Commissioner can still refuse to involve herself in this matter? Dr Atkinson has now even refused to deal with any further correspondence from me concerning Relocation cases!
In the recent case of Re W (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 345, Sir Nicholas Wall abdicated responsibility for judge-made law and ‘passed the buck’ to Parliament. He distanced himself from his previous critique of Relocation law, attempted to suggest that people had mistakenly given his critique ‘undue prominence’, and reaffirmed Payne v Payne, stating that:
“…unless and until Parliament imposes a different test, relocation cases will remain… governed by Payne v Payne.”
…what is the position of Parliament???
A Summary of the Position of the Government:
Following my open letters, addressed to the Justice Minister, Mr Ken Clarke, and to the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron, Lord McNally stepped forward to claim “ministerial responsibility” for Relocation law.
The position of the Government concerning Relocation law was clearly set out by Lord McNally in his letter to me (via my MP, Alistair Burt) dated 22 December 2010 (see attached):
“The Children Act 1989 already provides statutory protection to safeguard the welfare of children in cases of Relocation…the Act clearly requires the court to make the welfare of the child its paramount consideration…”
In other words, Lord McNally places responsibility for Relocation law firmly in the lap of the judiciary.
However, crucially, when assessing the ‘paramount’ welfare of the child, the judiciary is not in any way compelled by the Children Act to give full and proper weight to:
a) contemporary scientific research, and
b) the modern-day involvement of the so-called “non-primary carer” [the father] in the optimal development of the child.
The judiciary are thus at complete liberty to continue to assess the ‘paramount’ welfare of the child by adopting wholly un-scientific and plainly out-of-date suppositions and assumptions, originally pontificated upon by a judge in 1970.
In his letter, Lord McNally also affirmed that the Government is concerned and is interested in the issue of Relocation law, but that it wished to await recommendations for reform of Relocation law from the Family Justice Review before reaching any conclusions. To this end, Lord McNally confirmed that the FJR had been made aware of recent developments in Relocation law, and that it had been passed the latest Report from the Custody Minefield for its consideration. Lord McNally stated that it would be “premature” for the Government to reach any conclusions about legislative changes in Relocation law before it had seen the recommendations from the FJR. Quoting from his December letter:
“The Government has no current plans to change the substantive law on relocation. This is not due to any lack of concern or interest but because a Family Justice Review…has been launched… to make recommendations for reform.
The independent review panel has collected evidence from a wide range of sources and will have the opportunity to consider a wide range of issues, including Relocation cases. Policy officials working on the family justice review have been made aware of developments on Relocation including the latest Custody Minefield Report ‘Family Law: Relocation: The Case for Reform’. The review team is currently considering the evidence and will produce an interim report in Spring 2011, with a final report following in Autumn 2011.
I appreciate from his comments that Mr D’Itri is disappointed with this timetable. I hope, however, that you will agree that it would be premature for the Government to reach any conclusions about possible legislative measures before it has had the opportunity to consider the overall findings and recommendations from the review.”
Despite Lord McNally’s assurances, the FJR’s Interim Report, published at the end of March 2011, failed to address the issue of Relocation in any manner whatsoever.
In my open letter of 5 April 2011, I asked Lord McNally how the Government proposed to address the issue of Relocation law, in light of the disappointing Interim response from the FJR.
Lord McNally responded (again via my MP, Alistair Burt) by saying that Sir David Norgrove of the Family Justice Review – who had been copied in to my letter of 5 April 2011 – would be replying in detail to my concerns.
I received a reply from Sir David Norgrove on 1 June 2011 (see attached) as follows:
“With regards to the specifics of Relocation law, I am not able to comment in any depth on the issues you raise…
The specific issue of Relocation, and particularly the legislation surrounding the issue, was not within our remit and we did not take evidence on this question. I am grateful to you for passing on a copy of The Custody Minefield’s Report into the issue, but it would be remiss of me to make any judgments based on a limited understanding of the complexities involved.”
In short, Sir David has stated quite categorically that the FJR panel will NOT be addressing the issue of Relocation, and nor will it be making any recommendations. The ‘Relocation ball’ is now well and truly in the court of the Government!On receipt of the letter from Sir David Norgrove, I immediately asked my MP, Alistair Burt, to request a full response from Lord McNally, as to the Government’s position on Relocation law. To date, no response has been received.
In the meantime, however, I was given a copy of a letter sent by Lord McNally to a concerned father, Mr K, on 23 May 2011 (see attached). In this letter, Lord McNally stated that:
“The Family Justice Review panel was not specifically asked to look at this issue [Relocation] in their terms of reference and therefore did not seek evidence on this”
I was naturally flabbergasted to read this new declaration by Lord McNally, because it flew in the face of his previous declaration, as detailed in his December letter to me.
How can Lord McNally have been so mistaken concerning the remit of the FJR? Surely he must have been in regular contact with Sir David Norgrove?
It is quite evident that the judiciary and the Government’s handling of the issue of Relocation is, at best, extremely shambolic, and, at worst, grossly negligent.
In either case, we must not accept it.I therefore look forward to receiving an urgent and comprehensive response from Lord McNally to the issues raised in this letter, and full details of how the Government now proposes to address the issue of Relocation law, including a time-table for such action.
While we wait for the judiciary and the Government to act, hundreds of British children continue to be removed overseas each year, leaving behind their fathers, their extended families, their homes, their schools, their friends and their general way of life. These young and vulnerable children - who are already having to cope with the separation of their parents - are then expected to exhibit steely mental resilience in the face of the significant trauma of an overseas relocation.
Further unnecessary delay is completely unacceptable.
The Government has accepted the premise that children fare significantly better when they are permitted to remain in a meaningful relationship with BOTH of their parents. Yet it has consistently failed to address the most severe of all child/parent separations: that of overseas relocation.
While Mr Cameron sees fit to castigate ‘runaway fathers’ this Father’s Day - no doubt to the approval of the extremely powerful women’s lobby - his Government continues to ignore the issue of ‘runaway mothers’ in Relocation cases.
Cameron speaks of the vital influence played by his father in his own upbringing: lucky him! He would not have been so fortunate if his parents had separated when he was young and his mother had been given leave to emigrate!
Why does Mr Cameron stand idly by when hundreds of British children are routinely taken overseas, following the divorce of their parents, to be denied their Right to maintain a close, loving and meaningful relationship with their father?
What is good for children with married parents is surely also good for children with separated parents? I asked Mr Cameron this question a year ago. I still have not had an answer.
Yours most sincerely
