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.

Why plumbing influences 'child experts'?

Why, oh why, is family law still influenced by those who are out of touch with post 1980's parenting and who cling to social models which died a generation ago. I was saddened this week, not at Penelope Leach's book (there's all sorts of questionable material on bookshelves), but the impact she's having on cases. In two cases I'm aware of this week, the mother has snatched at this badly researched work as justification to refuse overnights. The outcome from her latest musings is that, for those parents and I suspect many more (overly-anxious or vexatious litigants), she's consigned them and their children to additional months of litigation.

Firstly, we're not pro-father or mother at The Custody Minefield. We're pro-child welfare and gender neutral (2014 site demographics in the image to the left). We're very proud that we help both mums and dads. We see the importance of both 'attachment figures' (if we must use these sterile terms), and have read volumes of research which inform our opinions. A parent's plumbing is inconsequential when compared to the reality of their parenting ability as people. 

Parenting has changed since Ms Leach's day. The mother will have been the main attachment figure 40 years ago but today, men and women share childcare equally (the last statistics I saw put the difference at only 15 minutes a day for under 5s).[1] This shouldn't be news. These shifts in parenting and early years' attachment have been known for well over a decade! We've known for even longer that even for very young children, overnights have positive benefits rather than scarring children for life.[2] For the majority of children, Ms Leach's proposals would represent a dramatic change to the status quo. Her world doesn't exist for the vast majority of children.

Since the height of Ms Leach's past fame, there's been a marked shift in the role of men and women, not just in childcare, but all aspects of life. Mums now work. Dads work too. Household bills are shared. Childcare is shared. The perfection(?) of the stay at home middle-class Margot is largely gone. Since the 1970s, the level of paternal childcare time has increased 9 fold, so the mother as the "primary" attachment figure has become largely historical, yet still influences the quango committee member on the periphery of family law.[3]

Ms Leach wrongly claims justification for her beliefs by claiming 92% of mothers, at separation, are the primary carer. Not true at all, and whomever courts award 'residence' or its post April 2014 equivalent to, the reality is that the norm is for care to be shared before separation.

Research is quite clear that Ms Leach is out of touch, not just with parenting in this millennium, but with her peer group. Indeed, she's faced more criticism from psychologists than from non-resident parent groups. Professor Charlie Lewis from Lancaster University was one of 100 psychologists who condemned her misrepresentation of research. "The evidence unfortunately does not support her [Leach]," he said. "Metanalyses [reviews combining the results of large numbers of studies] that look at whether or not it is better for the non-resident parent to have contact with the child show that the more contact there is with the non-resident parent, the better the outcome for the child."[4]

Ms Leach said her concern is for children who "are being used as weapons in the marital war when actually they are its victims". She's right to have that concern, but defeats herself by implying there are WMDs in children's nurseries.

The sooner we stop having women's services, men's services, men's experts, women's experts and call men and women parents rather than mums or dads, we'll be a step closer to securing the welfare outcomes that Ms Leach purports to want. We'll remove bias and subjectivity from policy making. True, it will kill a very lucrative industry, but today, it's an industry based on discrimination and bias rather than anything to do with child welfare. Should we expect gender experts to change? Career wise, it's like asking them to shoot themselves in the head. Leave them to their cognitive dissonance.

End Notes

1. ’Working Fathers, Earning and Caring’, Equal Opportunities Commission 2003, London

2.  'Using child development research to make appropriate custody and access decisions for young children', Kelly J B & Lamb M E (2000) Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 39, 297-311.

3. 'Completing the Revolution: The Leading Indications’, Equal Opportunities Commission 2007, London

4. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jun/20/penelope-leach-denies-against-fathers-new-book

Judicial Errors over CAP Draft Orders concerning living arrangements

In sympathy with the verbosely worded Children and Families Act, our headline should read 'the lack of need for decisions determining the person(s) with whom the child should live as part of applications for contact within child arrangements orders' but we thought you might nod off before you got to the interesting bits!

A discussion with a legal adviser this week raised an issue we've seen before, albeit since 2014 with the new twist of judges needlessly completing parts of the draft court order paperwork related to 'the person with whom the child lives' when only matters related to contact are at issue. So again, the question:

Does a decision as to residence need to be made prior to, or as part of, a decision relating to contact, when the court is making a child arrangements order?

The answer is no, but there is confusion, and confusion due to a judgment made without care (per incuriam) by Lord Justice Thorpe (now retired) in the case S (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 705 when he said (at paragraph 9):

"a contact order cannot be made unless it can be attached to a residence order providing there for a child to live with a person."

LJ Thorpe believed himself to be repeating comments made by Lord Justice Ward in 2001 in the case Re B (A Child) [2001] EWCA Civ 1968. However, in that case, LJ Ward was correcting a trial judge's error in oddly making a shared contact order, and Ward also commented that the more appropriate order would be one for shared residence.

Lord Justice Ward did however give clarification on the lack of necessity for a residence order when making a contact order, in the case Re G (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 1468. Thorpe's judgment, in the 2010 case was therefore made per incuriam (without care), as he failed to make reference to this later judgment by Ward, and misdirected himself. Indeed, in the 2008 appeal case, Lord Justice Ward had discharged a residence order on the grounds the trial judge havd made an unnecessary residence order (where the contact order WAS granted).

Judicial guidance contained within the 2008 judgment supports that the part of the new CAP draft order paperwork relating to 'the person with whom the child lives' need not be completed when contact is the issue before the court. Thorpe was wrong, and the courts today might need reminding of this history.

As for Lord Justice Ward and his wisdom, we'll leave you with further comments he made in that 2008 judgment on the 1989 wording of the Children Act, and one can only wish that that sentiment was echoed through the courts again and again, and repeated today:

17. The whole purpose of the Act in getting rid of the concept of custody and access, with concomitant thoughts that they each carry different rights and power and authority and regulation and control, all of that should have been swept away, so that you have an order which conveys no right but simply regulates a factual state of affairs. The rights over the child are now conferred by parental responsibility. Each has parental responsibility and each is as fully entitled to exercise that responsibility while the child is in his or her care as the other. So when the child is with father he will determine when she goes to bed, when she is to brush her teeth and what she is to eat for breakfast, and the mother has no power of control nor does he. So it is about time that those practical lessons were learned. Re G (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 1468

...as it's 2:46 in the morning, forgive me if I wax lyrical, and just in fun:

Oh distinguished, wise and noble Lord,
Don't heed old Thorpe but LJ Ward!

Listen...

A powerful video from a young lady called Aimee.



For those who might think she's been coerced into saying what she does in the video, please accept my assurance that she hasn't, and for her, this is her 'reality' of the legal system which kept her apart from her father, and keeps her apart from her sister.

I don't agree with her that the situation has got worse. I think things are improving in the family courts... BUT... for many children, and often regionally, things haven't got any better, and other children's reality will be no different from hers. Improvements aren't universal.

Why? Simply because so much of court outcome is dependent on subjective interpretation of what is in a child's best interests and interpretation (or misinterpretation) of what a child or the parents say. Where decisions are subjective, opinions are informed by perceptions based on our own, personal and historic reality. These may lead people to believe that a child is 'better off' with one parent. It might make us view one gender as more honest and reliable than the other. The motives for someone entering social work or psychology as a profession might be their own bad experiences as a child (which continue to shape their perceptions). Another word for this is bias (but bias often isn't deliberate, but subconscious). Many professionals in the system maintain their objectivity BUT... you only need one to derail the outcome in a case. It may be a CAFCASS Officer, or a social worker, a judge or an expert witness. One opinion, in one report, which becomes evidence... and then may be treated as 'fact'.

Just one opinion... one misinterpretation of what a child has said... one misguided assumption as to motive or intention of a parent... just one opinion, to cause a child like Aimee to spend 11 years waiting to see their father, and harmed by a system which is intended to protect them.

I see cases where the father has successful contact with one child, with no concerns, but is stopped from seeing their other child due to the intransigence of the other child's parents or carers. One mother says they're a good parent. The other casts them as a demon. The courts fail to act. A circus develops of assessment after assessment... contact centres used to appease the hostility of the non-complying parent... and when the non-complying parent refuses to send the child to the contact centre, rather than enforcement, welfare services excuse themselves from recommending enforcement by saying they need to maintain the relationship with the non-complying parent. This causes more delay, and the status quo becomes imbedded. More hearings happen... more judges involved (rather than there being judicial continuity). Years pass. Two children harmed... one parent devastated... a family failed.

There is improvement... but the improvement is not universal, and voices such as Aimee's need to be heard in the family law debate. An example of the high standards which do exist in the family courts is set by Mrs Justice Parker... and an article about a case before her comes as no surprise either in the way she handled it, or that among the social workers involved, allegations of domestic violence had been taken as fact. It takes a judge of her calibre to take an inquisitorial stance to evidence of both parents AND professionals involved in proceedings. This is not a judge who takes things at face measure (but others do, and will be cautious of going against recommendations of welfare officers).

To those politicians who believe the Children and Families Bill, in its weakened form, protects the welfare of children like Aimee... and to those who think that the standards set by judges such as Mrs Justice Parker mean the system is fixed... you're so very wrong.

How often do we hear from children how their lives were affected by the decisions made in court? Rarely... so please listen to this rare voice (and if you think this 'experience' is unique, read this... it's not). Some, in the upper courts are starting to listen... a shame politicians haven't quite got it!