Face to Face Support - FNF Central London

The primary goal of The Custody Minefield is to provide family law information for those without legal representation, lay advisers and charity sector staff (some in the legal profession and other professionals find it quite handy too).

Other organisations provide 1-to-1 support, and one of these is the charity Families Need Fathers (FNF). FNF, despite its name, helps both mums and dads, and in addition to a helpline and internet based forums, has local branches across the country where you can meet with other parents going through separation and find face-to-face support. A vital lifeline for many litigants-in-person.

Much of this work is done by volunteers, who receive no plaudits, little public recognition, but who work to help others, year in, year out.

One such is Vincent McGovern, Chair of Families Need Fathers' largest and oldest branch, who we've invited to explain what his branch does, his personal role and work, and that of the Central London Committee.

FNF's Central London Branch have their own web page, with details of Branch Meetings.

Visit: Families Need Fathers - Central London Branch

We're happy to publicise details of organisations which support parents ...and after this brief introduction, I'll leave you in Vincent's hands...

Branch Meetings

The Central London Branch of Families Need Fathers is the founding branch of FNF established in 1974. It is also the busiest and largest with between 900-1,000+ attendees each year. 

We have meetings to offer separating and separated parents support, every Monday at 8 pm apart from Bank Holidays and Christmas. Meetings are held in a private function room at the Crosse Keys Pub, 9 Gracechurch Street, and near Bank underground station.

Newcomers are not obliged to speak and are welcome to observe – we like to provide a relaxed, pressure free forum for discussion.

Our Attendees

People often ask me what type of person attends our meetings. My reply always is “normal people unfortunate enough to find themselves in unfortunate circumstances.”

The majority of our attendees are dads, but we are gender blind and help any mother who is the non-resident parent. Quite often younger dads have their mothers or sisters accompanying them. Our whole raison d’etre is to support the children having a proper involvement with both parents, post divorce or separation, unless there is proven danger.

The Crosse Keys Meeting Venue

Legal Support at our Meetings

We have a specialist Solicitor clinic on the first Monday of every month for members only from 6-8 pm. We owe a deep appreciation to the family law firm Anthony Gold and Co, who have provided this important pro bono service for decades. Quite often we have the benefit of a senior partner from that firm which is very helpful for nervous frightened attendees.

For the past year at most meetings we have also benefitted from the assistance of Austin Chessell, a family law solicitor and mediator, also a Trustee of FNF, which enables whoever is Chairing the meeting that night, giving advice, to have a professional referee for validity of comment.

As well as solicitor support, McKenzie Friends (lay legal advisers) are on hand to provide support and assistance.

We wish to make clear that no adviser (solicitor or otherwise) charges for their time at our meetings, and again sincerely thank all, who over many years have given up their time to help thousands of parents and their children.

Confidentiality

All of our meetings are held under Chatham House rules, no repetition of discussions outside of the meeting, no recording, first names only and NEVER ever reveal the names and addresses of parties to anyone. This basic housekeeping causes some problems for newcomers who are quite often emotional (understandably) but it is an absolute requirement for us as a branch and helps the attendee to focus as sometimes they are in deep shock. Confidentiality is important not just to these parents, but their children as well.

Work of the Central London Branch (CLB) Committee

We hold committee meetings every three months dealing with such matters as housekeeping, rota for chairing meetings, liaising between ourselves and FNF HQ, also other branches, financial management etc. The committee of CLB never charges expenses for attending all these meetings, a considerable burden in itself. However, this means CLB has the funds for limited campaigning, assisting some truly desperate members with court fees, train fare to and from meetings, etc and on occasions helping the national charity at AGM’s etc. 

We normally have the full contingent of seven committee members at each branch meeting, as meeting every week requires considerable time input from officers.

Committee members are elected, each year, at the Branch AGM. We're a democratic group!

About Me

I first joined FNF/CLB in December 2007. Ironically I delayed joining as I discovered they met above a pub and I incorrectly assumed they were just a bunch of angry dads drinking and "sounding off". That false impression was quickly dispelled at my first meeting. A few months later I was invited onto CLB committee.

My views on post-separation and our legal and welfare system

It remains a perversity that, especially when parents are likely to be in heightened emotional state following a relationship break up, the court too often encourages post-separation dispute by handing control and a means of punishment to one over the other.

As Sir Nicholas Mostyn, a judge in the High Court, said in a past judgment, "if parents were behaving well, they'd probably still be together" but ours is an adversarial legal system. My own view is that the term adversial should have no place in the family courts. Our family courts should be inquisitorial and facilitative.

I can say, with clarity, that too often our family law system does fail children and still contains elements of gender bias. I've seen house husbands relegated to alternate weekend contact parents after separation, with little thought to maintaining the status quo for the children. Why... because of their gender and some judges remaining out of touch with the contemporary household. In so many homes across the country, both parents take an active role in their children's lives. In the new millennium, research finds mums and dads equally involved (Equalities Commission Research, 2008), yet after court, too often arrangements are imposed which hark back to a 1970s ethos. Countless studies confirm child welfare benefits when both parents are fully involved in their children's lives.

I've seen too many instances where there has been malpractice in welfare services, and four Ombudsman Investigations (with findings against) in a single case I've had involvement with. Findings confirmed institutional malpractice within children’s and legal services. Two of these were Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman investigations with findings against Brent Primary Care Trust and Cafcass. Sadly, findings such as these, while a moral victory, result in zero change on the ground. We need an ethos within UK Children's Services where the primary motivation is raising standards rather than defending reputations.

Too often, our courts fail to safeguard a child's relationships, or protect them from the emotional harm caused by an alienating parent. There is too little enforcement of Court Orders (Ref Hansard 25 February 2013, column 113).

So much opportunity for a more family friendly legal system was lost with the final revisions to the Children Act in 2014. UK MPs were too influenced by powerful lobby groups, and misinformed. An example being their holding that a presumption of shared parenting was unsuccessful in Australia, when no such finding existed. Such was the opinion of Professor Parkinson of the Sydney Law School, whose criticism included that the UK Family Justice Review misrepresented the findings of Australian research. At our branch, we deal with the fall out of political failure.

The expression ‘Welfare of the Child’ has become an expression of convenience quite often unrelated to children’s welfare or needs but most beneficial, ideologically and financially, to the myriad virtually unregulated and effectively unaccountable services involved. Big business meets a nigh on unaccountable public sector lacking in checks and balances. As an MEP said to me in Brussels, “when income generation is more important than welfare of children then we have systemic failing.”

This is the reason why I moved my energies to lobbying in the European Parliament. The difference with Westminster could not have been more stark. The MEP’s have extensive knowledge of the shortcomings within UK Family Courts and associated services. Fortunately Ombudsman Investigations mean something in Brussels, and the fact I could submit details of four (mentioned above) leant weight to my submissions. On March 19th this year I had the privilege of briefly addressing the petitions Commission of the European Parliament on it’s motion ‘Systemic Failings within UK Family Courts and Children’s Services.’ The title was apt. I am deeply grateful to FNF's Central London Branch for always supporting my work attempting to bring about the much needed improvements in these services.

Our branch and other FNF branches help parents navigate the courts as they stand today. My hope remains for a better system in the future.

Mediation... Addressing the Failure

My thanks to Marilyn Stowe for her recent blog highlighting a Guardian article. That article raises the concern that the number of couples attending mediation has fallen by 47% since legal aid was abolished.

Marilyn's view was that with fewer solicitors involved in legal cases, as few parents now qualify for legal aid, litigants-in-person are unaware of the need to attempt mediation (unless one of the exemption criteria are met - details of which are included in the 'pre-action protocol' and within our guide on mediation) prior to attending court .

When working out why fewer couple are attempting mediation, it's worth looking at the experience of a parent, applying to court in person. The C100 application form used for most family court proceedings (residence, contact, specific issue and prohibited steps orders) contains no information about mediation. It does not mention that couples should attempt mediation before applying to court (unless one of the 15 exemption criteria are met). Its only reference to mediation is asking the applicant if an FM1 form is included (with no description as to what an FM1 form is!)

In short, the likely reason for parents not attempting mediation is a failure by the courts to notify them of the need. I suspect that the main culprit for the drop in numbers is chaos in the family proceedings courts caused by court closures and mergers (under-resourcing, overload), combined with magistrates not being aware of Practice Direction 3A (the Pre-Action Protocol for Mediation Information and Assessment, which supplements Part 3 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010) and the requirements regarding mediation. Does anyone in the court check if an FM1 has been provided, or ask why not? Do the magistrates tell the parents to attempt mediation first? Has the court clerk advised the magistrates that mediation should be attempted first? Given the cut backs imposed on the courts, it's hard to attribute blame to the beleaguered staff, and perhaps responsibility should rest with the Ministry of Justice for poor planning. It seems that the process has gaping holes.

We had hoped (somewhat naively) that the Low Commission review into the impact of legal aid cuts might come up with some solutions to help parents, but were disappointed to see so many of their recommendations starting 'the next Government should...'. The horse has bolted, and the recommendation is that the next farmer who owns the land should close the stable door. We need to wait for another election, a new Government, committee meetings and more debate and consultation despite there being an immediate need, and one which we've known was coming for years. The failure, again, must rest with the Ministry of Justice.

Online legal resources, despite having received considerable state funding, scratch their virtual heads in confusion when asked simple things like 'what is a statement'... and point the parent to matters relating to schools and children with special needs.  Try for yourself... ask Lisa (and then ask yourself if this resource meets the needs of the litigant-in-person who attempts to navigate the courts, lacking a solicitor to guide them).

We received no state funding. We've had no help. We've tackled the problem but the MoJ does nothing to advertise the in-depth resource we provide. Because our main online app(lication) is free (to ensure information is available to the unemployed, low paid and disabled) and self funded, we lack an advertising budget. We have approached the MoJ for funding but had no reply. Despite this, more people download the C100 court form from our site than from Her Majesty's Court and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) website. We had approaching half a million hits last year BUT, many still do not know of our existence.

We suspect that our site doesn't meet the Government's objective to have fewer parents in court (despite ours giving the strongest recommendation for mediation) to cut costs. We perhaps offer too much legal information, making the courts more accessible, which defeats the Government's objective. However, a more informed, more prepared, and better organised litigant often cuts court time! Regardless, the reason why too few parents attempt mediation must be that the courts fail to implement Practice Direction 3A.

Other legal information resources for parents either fail to notify parents of the need for mediation, or use language which suggests mediation is a nice idea rather than a requirement. The Coram's Legal Centre uses the following language 'Most parents who apply to court for a Contact Order try mediation first. The courts generally like to see that the parents have attempted to resolve the problems themselves. In many instances, legal aid will only be granted where mediation has been tried.' The language is out-of-date, and does not set out the requirement criteria set out in the pre-action protocol (ours does!).

Parents too often fail to get detailed and accurate information which satisfies the complexities of their case. I came across one recently (experiencing some horror) which involved risk of international child abduction. The parent had been told by a solicitor (wrongly) that mediation must be attempted before he applied to` court for a prohibited steps order due to flight risk. Mediation is NOT required when the application is urgent (the 10th exemption in the pre-action protocol). In a situation where there is risk of flight abroad, it is appropriate (and wise) to apply for an ex-parte prohibited steps order. To do otherwise... to advise a course of action which tips off the parent who represents a real flight risk via an invitation to mediation... was, in my opinion, negligent. 

Advice deserts are bad. The wrong advice can be fatal.

We provide guides on prohibited steps orders, and making applications in urgent situations, including where there is risk of international child abduction. Also information on defending against a leave to remove application (where the parent who wishes to emigrate seeks the court's permission to relocate abroad with the children). We don't give the parent a list of mind boggling forms to complete and send them off to the HMCTS site (to try to find the well hidden court forms). We link directly.

If HMCTS referred parents to our site, and asked courts to do the same, there wouldn't be these problems, but instead they refer parents to the Citizen's Advice Bureau (whose staff are overloaded or lacking in training in some of the complexities of court proceedings).

The statistic often bandied about is that only 10% of separating parents access the courts, suggesting this is a good thing. We don't believe so. Between 25% and 60% of children (depending on the source of the statistics) lose contact with their non-resident parent after two years of parental separation. The low number of parents who access the court may be a success for the Government's budget, but it is an abject failure for child welfare.

The immediate solution

• CAB staff should use our online resources to assist them. Other charity staff do. Endorsements can be viewed on Linkedin; which include the President for the International Federation for Parenting Education, various CEOs of charities, barristers, social workers, mediators etc.


• The Family Proceedings Court should ensure that every applicant to court is pointed to our Family Law App, and in particular, our guide on mediation;


• If the Government wanted parents to attempt mediation before court (subject to exemption criteria), the clerk of the court should ensure that in every case, magistrates are informed of the requirements set out in Practice Direction 3A (paying particular attention to sub-paragraph 4.1). It should be checked whether FM1 accompanied the application form. If no FM1 form was received, at the First Hearing and Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA), the circumstances should be considered, and if no exemption criteria is met, the parents should be referred back to mediation before court proceedings continue;


• At County Court level, the Court Administration department should check if an FM1 form was included. If not, a follow up form should be sent out to the applicant asking why there was an omission. Depending on the reply, the court then has the option of referring the matter to mediation before the FHDRA (which would reduce court time);


•  The C100 form should be redesigned to include a section explaining the requirement for mediation, and setting out the exemption criteria. The applicant should have a box to tick, if circumstances make the case inappropriate for mediation. If this is found not to be so, the court has the option of awarding costs against the applicant, if the applicant unreasonably failed to attempt mediation before applying to court. If the respondent is unwilling to attend, then this should be recorded on the FM1 form.

Government advice for separating parents - the legal equivalent of Spot the Dog

If you saw me on twitter today, you'd have caught a degree of irritation about the fanfare concerning the Government's new app to help separating parents.

Consider the backdrop. Next year, 45,000 cases are to lose legal aid (according to the Government's own impact assessment). The President of the Family Courts is warning of a system in meltdown. Others are panicking over thousands of litigants in person approaching the courts with no knowledge of a legal system which is undoubtedly overly complex. Others are warning of many more non-resident parents losing contact as they simply don't know what to do.

We're now 5 months from legal aid being all but withdrawn (except for cases where domestic violence is alleged, which brings its own risks in terms of an increase in false allegations). The Government gives us an app for separating parents... little more than a useful links page.

Let's look at some of their sage and considered advice. The sum of their advice on being prevented from having a relationship with your child is shown below:

That's it! Lovely ideas... but what happens if you can't afford a solicitor (forget legal aid). What happens if your ex-partner says "no" or something more rude. The advice is little more than meaningless platitudes from people with no understanding of the complexity of separation, or human nature. What about leave to remove, international child abduction... given that over half of births in London are to foreign born mothers? What do you do if the other parent disappears with the children?

Don't you get it... 45,000 cases are to lose legal aid next year. The parents don't have the money for a solicitor. They and their children are stuffed if the other parent is unreasonable, and if they can't find the information they need to access the courts for themselves.

It's not so much what this app is, but what it should have been that is the issue.We started building our own two years ago because we feared the Government would put insufficient thought into providing sufficiently detailed family law information.

What parents need is detailed advice. What they've been given is the legal equivalent of Spot the Dog.

Reshuffles, Reform and Predictions

It seems at first glance that Sir Humphrey Appleby is alive and well at the Palace of Westminster. Sir Humphrey, a senior civil servant, is a natural opponent of shared parenting. He shares the view of Lord Justice Ormrod that it is unnatural for men to want to involve themselves in child care. To accept that the current system is wrong, is to question his own spartan involvement in his children's upbringing, which ne'er interfered with club, profession or glorious 12th. Besides which, those jolly chaps in the legal profession, who happen to be a member of his club, don't want the great unwashed to challenge judicial discretion.

You may remember an episode (if you are of a certain age) when he discussed the need to 'move' a Minister who was too genned up on a situation. This week, at first glance, Sir Humphrey has achieved more moves than Pickfords.

A sigh of gloom came as Tim Loughton was removed from his position as Minister for Children. Why? Sir Humphrey surely. Tim is liked, respected, principled and the responses on twitter universally praise him. Tim is a long term advocate of shared parenting. Ahha... the first scalp. So far, there are articles saying Liz Truss and Edward Timpson have replaced Tim. Liz is focused on child care reform, while Edward Timpson is a family law barrister. Fingers crossed, but Tim will be a hard act to follow. Stories of Edward's work with organisations involved in finding missing children give us some hope. Maybe he'll help us to find Steve Moseley's daughter, or secure legal aid for parents fighting to recover their abducted children.

The law society and judiciary would have you believe that children are well served by the system. Only 60% of applications to the court for contact are successful. Of those which are successful, many see contact orders flouted within months (or days!), and it can then take months or years to go through the enforcement process. The system doesn't serve families, but it does serve itself, and certainly protect itself, rather well... but I digress.

Maria Miller is moved to the position of Culture Secretary in the midst of the important work she's been doing to provide replacement services for when legal aid is abolished. Maria had announced very publicly in the press that the number of fathers who lose contact with their children is scandalous (she certainly appeared committed on this subject). She had clearly developed views on this matter. A scalp for Sir Humphrey? Well... maybe not. It may be a panic move by Cameron since her role as Minister for the Disabled meant her role was becoming toxic. The campaigning against ATOS and disability benefit cuts is growing every day. It's clear that Dave Cameron is 'bricking it' about the negative press from disability benefit reform (and the boos towards George Osborne at the Paralympics won't have helped that anxiety). People in wheelchairs campaigning is an election loser. Move on Maria, and bring in the media savvy Esther McVey.

Esther's an interesting one (no, she's not pictured here with F4J, or at least we don't think so!). Clearly intelligent, with an excellent media and business background, a TV presenter, she was also instrumental in setting up the Madelaine McCann fund. She has a law degree. She's won plenty of awards, so a switched on cookie in terms of not only succeeding, but making sure others know she has succeeded, and managing the media as she does. Just what the disabled benefits axeman ordered!

The one certain positive from the reshuffle is Ken Clarke's exit as Justice Secretary... raise a glass (albeit, he's still floating about advising Dave)... and he's replaced by Chris Grayling, the last Culture Secretary. Chris... a non-lawyer (that will rock the MoJ tower but may give Sir Humphrey's wig wearing chums the opportunity to run rings round him). An interesting comment by Tim Dutton QC, former chairman of the bar, who said that Chris must fight hard for all the elements that make up the rule of law. Ah... but he isn't one of your chaps... and hopefully, he will fight for reform and change as the current system doesn't serve its users. Chris is known as the jackal of the Tory party, but let's remember that the MoJ and judiciary wore down Jack Straw. Our bet on Chris Grayling's motives? Cost cutting and reform... but likely related to economic rather justice improvements.

Funny how words are used... jackal... supposedly meaning savage, but the dictionary definition is more humorous a. An accomplice or a lackey who aids in the commission of base or disreputable acts. b. One who performs menial tasks for another. Let us hope he doesn't become the jackal of the MoJ.

What conclusion do we draw from the reshuffle? Is it a civil service plot to knobble family law reform? Possibly in terms of Tim Loughton's execution, but looking at the whole, the sensible conclusion is that this Government believes other matters take priority. Shared parenting has briefly fallen out of fashion as the Government deals with other crisis; with a strong lobby from the legal profession, MoJ and a small handful of third sector organisations. If it's to come back into fashion, there needs to be noise.

My prediction:

Children have a right to a meaningful relationship with both parents (or similar waffle) will be introduced to the Children Act. Children already have the right to family life, enshrined in the Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, we see that statistically, only 60% of applications for contact orders result in staying contact? Without more prescriptive legislation setting out what meaningful family life actually means, nothing will change.

The second red herring. Politicians will tell us there is a presumption of shared parental responsibility. They think this means shared parenting... of course it doesn't. The idiot politician is befuddled on this matter and badly (or misleadingly) advised. Most parents have parental responsibility, but many don't even see their children, aren't included on decisions regarding choice of school, or medical treatment. Shared parental responsibility has no connection with shared care. An utter, and shameful red herring.

The campaigner who thinks he's achieved something needs to clear the wool out from in front of his eyes.

But all is not lost, in terms of reform...

Change must come. There must be more prescriptive legislation, and the way in which family law works will have to change. The days ARE numbered for the jolly, old boy's club of judicial discretion and the status that it carries. Why? After April 2013, the family courts will start to seize up. There will be an increasing number of litigants-in-person, when legal aid is pulled. The courts are barely coping as it is.

A harsh economic climate puts more stresses on families, and parental separations increase.

The naivety of no sanctions for false allegations of domestic violence, but legal aid for the accusers in Children Act cases means we will see a marked increase in cases involving domestic violence. The accuser gets all the help in the world, while the accused, if he/she cannot afford a solicitor, gets no protection or assistance at all. No doubt there will be a rush by either party to make the domestic violence allegation first? So much for Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.

We have already forecast that the courts will seize up due to an increase in more complex private law cases. Inevitably, we're going to see a marked increase in international relocation, abduction and retention cases as our demographics are changing rapidly. More than half of children born in London in 2010 were born to foreign born mothers. Nationally, that figure is 25%. 

A less attractive economic climate in the UK will make some foreign migrants rethink their place of habitual residence. A return becomes more likely.

All these factors will place a greater pressure on the courts, and Ryder's recommended judicial reforms fail to give adequate thought to increasing capacity.

Legislation must become more prescriptive, the courts less adversarial, and judicial discretion must be curtailed. Economically, it's inevitable, and that is something that no lobby or special interest group can block, regardless of whose friends they are. We will either have thoughtful, planned change, or panicked reaction. At the moment, the latter is more likely, and children and families will suffer.