The Family Justice Minister, the Marx Brothers, and Parental Involvement

"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes" - Groucho

Justice Minister, Simon Hughes, said "We have made bold reforms so that the welfare of the children is at the heart of the family justice system, and there can be no doubt that parents play a very important role in every child's life. Following break up of relationships we are encouraging all parents to focus on the needs of the child rather than what they want for themselves."

Excting isn't it? Isn't it? Before you grab your vuvuzela and have a tootle in the streets, it might just be worth having a look at what the reform, introduced today, means in real terms, and how the Government fought against a presumption that parents play a 'very' important role in their (not every surely) child's life and succeeded in defeating it.

I may criticise his accuracy, his sense of reality, his intelligence, his poor use of spin, but one almost has to admire his imagination.

To suggest that the Coalition have placed the welfare of the children at the heart of the family justice system ignores the fact that this principle has been enshrined in law for decades. Look... it's there at s.1 of the 1989 Act. Perhaps this Coalition invented the wheel too?

His second claim, that there can be no doubt that parents play a 'very' important role in every child's life isn't introduced into family law at all. The level of importance, and involvement was qualified by the Coalition having specifically dropped there being a presumption of shared parenting (a Conservative manifesto commitment), and then further diluted the importance of involvement by removing the word 'meaningful', and finally giving up entirely by saying involvement could be 'direct or indirect' (meaning a Christmas card once a year might surfice).

His third claim that "Following break up of relationships we are encouraging all parents to focus on the needs of the child rather than what they want for themselves" misses the point that if the paramountcy priniciple and welfare checklist contained in the 1989 Act failed to achieve this, how will saying that a post card might be sufficient satisfy the psychological shift that children's needs come first.

Other claims that the notion of residence and contact are abolished are simply wrong. The new Child Arrangements Order dispenses with the word residence, it's true, but replaces that word with the more tortuous phrase "the person with whom the child lives", and contact remains as plain as the nose on my face (which sadly, is a rather large nose, and hard to miss).

So the reform missed in its goal to make child welfare more key (this was not necessary), and missed in its goal to give parents less to battle over upon the point of separation.  What we have is 'look, we've done something' where in reality, they've done nothing other than make the wording a little bit more tortuous, and saddled the courts, HMCTS, the legal profession, legal writers etc with a huge administrative burden by having to rewrite what was there before in a slightly different way. An abject waste of time, money and opportunity.

This lack of a grasp of legislation, which our Justice Minister so ably demonstrates, is also demonstrated by claims that the Coalition have introduced shared parental responsibility. Parental responsibility was shared under the old wording, so long as both parents were named on the birth certificate, were married, or parental responsibility was acquired by formal agreement or court order. Again, no change whatsoever.

While the new wording isn't a cause for celebration, I also don't think it's a cause for panic. Those judges who believed before that children need a proper relationship with both parents will continue to do so. Those who hold a more antiquated view of the man as breadwinner and the woman as care giver are slowly retiring with a younger breed coming through who have a better understanding of parental involvement in today's society. For the dinosaurs, misogynists and misandrysts who remain, the wording does nothing to limit their 'wide ambit of discretion' to decide what they wish (so long as there is some justification for the judgment, which again, was required before anyway).

The Government's belief that mediation and this gentle approach would bring about a sea change in how post-separation disputes are handled shows a lack of understanding of human nature (and history). Since King Solomon's time (and we guess before), some adults are capricious, self-centered, hostile, possessive, angry, anxious, malicious and we could go on and on. Allegations of abuse, at separation, are incredibly common. It never ceases to surprise me that the man or woman who was trusted to babysit and provide childcare throughout the child's life suddenly becomes Myra Hindley or Fred West on the day the parents separate.

The Government are still scratching their heads because, despite mediation being cheaper for the parents, potentially far quicker and less traumatic, the number of parents choosing mediation has fallen since legal aid was withdrawn. I'm still scratching my head at the Government being incapable of understanding that an adversarial legal system encourages parental dispute. A presumption of shared parenting would have more heavily emphasised that parents need to focus on the upbringing of their children, and the role both parents have. It would have given less reason for a prolongued court battle. What a shame Mr Hughes and his Coalition buddies rejected this... despite that a presumption is only that, and if unsuitable due to proven neglect, violence or abuse, would have been rejected if the individual case circumstances merited such.

This Government, by way of the Bedroom Tax, handed on a plate ammunition for malicious, alienating resident parents to thwart contact, being that the children didn't want staying contact because the non-resident parent didn't have a bedroom for them (and weren't entitled to one). Mr Hughes and his colleagues voted against the tax at party conference, but then went on to support it or abstain.  As Groucho said "those are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have others!" (a theme which ran through family law reform and politicians' promises). The gaff beset Lord Freud suggested that children stay on their non-resident parent's sofa bed (even when there are three teenage kids of different gender) which ably demonstrated the lack of practical thought which underpins Government policy, and underlines that child welfare matters not at all.

In light of his fanciful claims, I'm awaiting Mr Hughes announcing that his party is proud of their role in stopping the introduction of tuition fees.

The Lords' Children and Families Bill Hansard Debate: Chinese Whispers and Dodgy Evidence

The House of Lords is currently debating the Children and Families Bill.

Chinese Whisper No.1 - The high incidence of domestic violence
Reading through the Hansard debate, I was struck by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch's stating "the Children’s Commissioner for England has highlighted research showing that around 50% of all private law cases involve domestic violence or child abuse." [Lords Hansard: 16 Oct 2013 : Column GC262].

The context was her motion that mediators be trained in spotting domestic violence.

50%? Really? 50%??

I doubted this, so thought I would check what the Children's Commissioner actually said.

A quick glance at other debates in Hansard showed "A high proportion of contested private law cases already involve child abuse or domestic violence allegations. The Children’s Commissioner for England points to research indicating that this happens in around 50% of all cases." [Public Bill Committee: 14 March 2013: Column number: 264]

That there are allegations in 50% of cases does not surprise me. Parental anxiety may be the cause of the allegation. The allegation may be entirely false, caused by hostility, spite or an attempt to secure legal aid. In some cases, the allegations will be genuine, but to assume that all allegations are genuine is somewhat concerning, and especially when our noble House of Lords are to formulate our laws on Chinese whispers.

I am somewhat puzzled that Baroness Jones seems to wish Mediators to have the same skillset and role as CAFCASS in terms of identifying whether domestic violence has taken place (and finding fact on this?). If one takes this to its natural conclusion, one wonders if the Mediator is also to be a social worker and judge? Nonsense reasoning based on Chinese whispers... but these people are deciding our laws on such a basis.

Chinese Whisper no.2 - The majority of parents resolve disputes without the court
The next whisper was based around the number of parents who settle arrangements themselves (also in the context of mediation and its role, and the role of courts in family dispute resolution).

"Finally, since the majority of parents settle contact arrangements between themselves, the cases which go through to the courts process are by necessity the most complex and the most likely to involve abuse"

Really? Are they sure?

This Chinese whisper has been perpetuated for some years, with an oft quoted statistic that
90% of separating parents reach agreement without the involvement of the courts. Consider how widespread the use of this rather dodgy statistic:

• CAFCASS - Following separation of families 90% decide their own contact arrangements without court involvement and this way of deciding a parenting plan has the best chance of working well.¹ 
• Family Justice Review -  90% of people resolve parenting arrangements for themselves without litigation.
• Resolution (The Law Society) - ONS findings indicate that 90% of separating parents make their own contact and parenting arrangement.³ 
• Relate - Around 90% of separating couples make their own arrangements by which both parents maintain contact and an active relationship with their children. The other 10% are settled through the court.⁴

This last comment is on Relate's website citing a 2004 HMG Green Paper as the source. In that same year, an ONS study (Blackwell and Dawe, 2004) found that only 50% to 60% of parents had agreed arrangements and around 30% were dissatisfied with the current position.

Where does Resolution get its facts from? The Office of National Statistics study did indeed find that in 2007, only 8% of the sample of resident parents (weighted to population) had court-ordered arrangements; but the corresponding figure for non-resident parents was 17%? A further group of 7% of resident parents and 8% of non-resident parents reported that arrangements had been made with the assistance of mediators or lawyers. What about the remainder? Surprisingly, an additional 43% of resident parents and 20% of non-resident parents reported that there was no agreement at all (Lader, 2008, Table 2.9 p.23).

Consider too that a wide range of studies find that within two years of parental separation 25% to 60% of separated parents lose contact with their children (the latter, and higher figure being quoted by Dame Butler Sloss at the Paul Sieghart Memorial Lecture in 2003).

The statistics actually point to a vast number of parents and children not accessing the court (for whatever reason, be it cost, apathy, confusion, lack of financial means etc). An equally unqualified assumption would be that only parents committed to an ongoing relationship with their children approach the family courts. Why do so few parents approach the courts? No-one knows, and no research on this has been done as to why (as no doubt, the Government doesn't want the burden of increased applications).

It may well be that society and child welfare is poorly served by the inaccessibility of the family court, the sparsity of legal aid and high cost of litigation. The statistics relating to post-separation contact breakdown would surely suggest this a strong possibility (as would the Centre for Social Justice's findings on 'Broken Britain' and the increasing incidence of 'fatherlessness' in society).

I do scratch my head in puzzlement as to why I, and not the Law Society, question this 'statistic' that some 90% of parents don't need the assistance of the courts. [Regardless, next time you hear this daft statistic mentioned by one of these bodies, please say 'bollocks']

When is Mediation not mediation?

Baroness Butler-Sloss seeks to take the word mediation out of Mediation, and Information Assessment Meetings (MIAMs) included in the Children and Families Bill. Baroness Howarth of Breckwish  explains that "The problem with the word “mediation” is that it conveys a range of different concepts, even within the professional world, and certainly if you are a warring parent. I am not saying that we should not indicate what is going to happen in the meeting and that people may be asked to look at how they can approach their relationships, if not mend them, but “mediation” is a difficult word for everybody, inside and outside the profession, and I think that we should look for another one."

Is the word mediation truly a difficult word to understand and define? I don't think so. A Google search defines it thus:

An attempt to bring about a peaceful settlement or compromise between disputants through the objective intervention of a neutral party.

So what do they propose? Luring the unsuspecting parent into a meeting, and then attempting to get them to agree to enter into mediation? Wouldn't that be mediating towards a mediated meeting? Good grief! Why not add another month or more to a child's broken contact while the parents leap that hurdle too.

The confusion and opposition seems related to the issue that under the Bill, an attempt at mediation is meant to be compulsory unless the case circumstances meet an exemption criteria (little different to the existing pre-action protocol on mediation, which lists 15 exemptions ranging from domestic violence to applications for enforcement of orders). Why meddle with the existing pre-action protocol (which seems pretty reasonable).

How does Butler-Sloss end her rather confused, perception rather than fact based thinking? With the following statement:

You do not go to court if you can reach agreement. Some 90% do not go to court or go to court only to obtain an agreed order, 5% can be persuaded to go through mediation, and probably mediation is just what they need, but 5% cannot.

She misses the point that far more parents do not go to court who cannot reach an agreement. True, mediation will not work for many, but what solution does she propose for the other parents and children (she later worries about more time spent in court too... read on!). These get ignored during such a critical debate. Lots of statistics, but none of them facts, and most of them nothing more than subjective Chinese whispers, and upon such woolly thinking, family policy is based.

Involvement of Parents?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford breaks ranks, and speaks of September's published judgment in Re A, and in particular systemic failings in the family court contributing to “an unjustified violation of M’s and the father’s rights to respect for family life under ECHR”. She goes on to say "It would be a mistake to regard this case as wholly exceptional. It is exceptional only in that it is now in the public domain."

She goes on to discuss Amendment 53 which would not include parental involvement as a legal presumption (but without definition it is a fairly pointless phrase) in Section 1 of the Children Act but instead inserts into the welfare checklist in Section 1(3) an additional criterion, namely,“the quality of the relationship that the child has with each of his parents, both currently and in the foreseeable future" and that this would "require the courts to focus on the current and future involvement of both parents without making it a legal presumption and therefore subject to the debate."

I do scratch my head somewhat, as one would assume 'the status quo' within the welfare checklist should have achieved the same, but has not! Why not? That question has not been answered (or investigated). Still... further linking the role of both parents within the overall context of child welfare is a small step forwards. However, it seems to me she seeks to remove the rebuttal presumption concerning parental involvement (proposed in the Bill) and replace it with parental involvement being included within the matters a court must consider within the paramountcy principle (child welfare being the paramount consideration). Isn't this really just moving the presumption down a few lines, and including it within the welfare checklist? [If I scratch my head any more, people will think I have lice!]

There are two further proposed amendments.

54. Butler-Sloss asks that the proposal that parental involvement be a (rebuttal) presumption in law be amended to the court paying particular regard, unless the contrary is show, to parental involvement.

55. Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (remember, she's the one who seemingly believes that all allegations of domestic violence are true) seek parental involvement to include direct and indirect involvement and that involvement should not be taken to mean any particular division of a child's time. In otherwords, no change whatsoever, and a Christmas card once a year satisfying the courts obligation to 'pay particular regard' to parental involvement.

Butler-Sloss naturally opposed a presumption of parental involvement. She goes positively knock kneed at the thought of shared parenting, citing that the child's welfare must be the court's paramount consideration (no one ever disagreed, and many research studies find the two to be inextricably linked). Other points she raises includes "The courts are already beginning to be clogged up as a result of the absence of legal aid in private family law cases, particularly at district judge level, where, I am told, district judge first appointments, which used to last half an hour, now go on for at least 45 minutes. The backlog of cases is bound to grow. Of course, the children will suffer while the parents go on fighting and carrying on their dispute about child arrangements because it will take longer for these cases to be heard."

She seems to contradict herself. A more certain outcome from the outset makes litigation less likely.  It is the very uncertainty of outcome which encourages parents to litigate. If she wants to safeguard child welfare, there needs to be a more inquisitory role by the judiciary, especially with the increase in litigants in person. Statistics suggest many more parents need access to the courts! Further, mandatory mediation would not increase, but lessen demands on the courts if only 1 additional dispute were settled via mediation.

The Children's Society 2010 research points to child depression being 40% more likely as a result of contact denial. Butler-Sloss has previously stated that 60% of children (of separated parents) lose contact with the non-resident parent after two years of separation. Surely, greater access to the courts, and longer hearings, and parents 'fighting' for (or seeking as we prefer to call it) child arrangements might safeguard child welfare. Butler-Sloss fails to see that the paramountcy principle in the Children Act has been diluted by court closures, legal aid cuts, and the inaccessibility of the family courts to so many parents. Also, the historic and systemic failure by the courts to address the issue of contact denial.  If welfare, rather than budgets was the issue, she should be arguing as stridently for greater funding for dispute resolution (whether via the court or mediation).

Butler-Sloss goes on... "There is no evidence of bias in the courts in favour of one parent. Therefore, the changes appear to be based on perceived rather than actual bias. I hope that the Minister and those behind him will look at the experience in Australia. At this stage of the evening, I shall not go into that, but it has been unhappy, and it has used similar phraseology. Much of this otherwise admirable Bill is very much based on the Norgrove report, which interestingly does not support a change to the Children Act."

...and once again, we return to Professor Parkinson of the Sydney Law School having condemned Norgrove for his misrepresenting the actual experiences in Australia to justify his opposition to shared parenting (a view which Butler-Sloss shares). Another demonstration of cognitive dissonance by those who make our laws.

Chinese Whisper no.3
The Earl of Listowel wades in at this point, stating 'By the time these cases come to court, there are often mental health or substance misuse issues within the family.' So on top of the 50% of cases which involve domestic violence (let's ignore the matter that this statistic only relates to allegations, and that legal aid is only available where domestic violence is alleged), we are to assume that among the remaining number of parents are a vast swathe of alcoholic/drug taking lunatics.

...and without bothering to look at the proposed amendments, I reach the conclusion that whatever the diluted wording in the Children and Families Bill, the House of Lords bases their reasoning on a mix of hysteria, Chinese whispers, bias and dodgy perceptions rather than fact. Something not uncommon in those who influence our family law.

Reading the Hansard debate raised three questions.

• Does anyone involved in the Children and Families Bill stop to accept and address the matter that family justice remains inaccessible to many (a situation which is becoming worse), and the system's failings? 
• Where, within this mess, are the best interests of the child? 
• Whose interests are the House of Lords serving?

The paramountcy principle? Don't make me laugh.

 1. Time for Children
2.  Family Justice Review, Final Report, 2011, p.133
 3. Proposals for the reform of legal aid in England and Wales: Summary of Resolution’s response to the Ministry of Justice.
4. Parenting troubled teenagers.

The Children and Families Bill, Parental Involvement and Timescales

Remember the hoo-hah about a change to the law, and there being a presumption of shared parenting in law? Remember the C4 Dispatches programme and the broo-hah following that?  A poll by the TV programme found that 84% of respondents believed that the family justice system favours mothers over fathers, and 88% believed that the law needs updating.

Such matters were due to be addressed in the Children and Families Bill.

Where stands the Bill now, and what does it actually say?

Where stands the Bill now?
Slow progress has been made (at least in terms of timescale, if not of content, where the word 'little' seems more apt than 'slow'), with the next stage being the Committee Stage in the House of Lords. This meeting is set for 9th October 2013. For those with a Tolkeinesque vocabulary, the progress of legislative reform is positively entish.

What next? Then comes the reporting and third reading stages, and we enter the world of ping/pong (this is actually an official term, since the Bill and amendments are subsequently batted backwards and forwards between our two Houses of Parliament).

If it passes this stage, then we see Royal Assent granted BUT, that does not mean that the new legislation immediately comes into force. Consider that the parts of the Children and Adoption Act 2006 concerning contact enforcement didn't come into force until December 2008.

So it's safe to say my, and others' guides, don't need updating yet.


What does the Bill actually say?
You may remember that campaigners' wishes varied. Some called for:

• a presumption of shared parenting; others
• a minimum amount of contact; others
• a presumption of equal parenting time; others
• wished no change; while others
• thought all men were dangerous, and should have to prove they were safe before any contact was granted.

Most campaigners agreed that safeguards needed to be in place to ensure face to face parenting was restricted where there were proven risks to the child. Some believed that the presumption of shared parenting should only be removed where the similar circumstances applied as would require a child being taken into local authority care... where the child was at risk of significant harm, if placed in a shared care arrangement.

My view was a rebuttal presumption should exist concerning shared parenting, and that research showed that shared parenting was routinely in a child's best interests. The 'rebuttal' part allowing a challenge to this, in individual cases, where there was evidence of risk to the child from such an arrangement. Further, I believed both parents should have the opportunity for midweek as well as weekend parenting time, to facilitate involvement in schooling and extra-curricular activities (proven to have positive benefits for child development). If you like, I wanted a definition of 'involvement'.

So back to the sub-heading. What does the bill actually say? Which lobbying group was successful? I'd argue, those who don't want any change at all (with a perceptual exception).

The changes in the Bill which currently relate to presumptions are set out below. Gone is the word 'meaningful' that others argued for. There is no definition of what 'involvement' actually means. I once wrote that without, at the very least, the word meaningful, the word involvement was meaningless.

11 Welfare of the child: parental involvement

(1) Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 (welfare of the child) is amended as follows.

(2) 15After subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) A court, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (7), is as respects each parent within subsection (6)(a) to presume, unless the
contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child
concerned will further the child’s welfare.”

(3) 20After subsection (5) insert—

“(6) In subsection (2A) “parent” means parent of the child concerned; and,
for the purposes of that subsection, a parent of the child concerned—

(a) is within this paragraph if that parent can be involved in the
child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk of
suffering harm; and

(b) is to be treated as being within paragraph (a) unless there is
some evidence before the court in the particular proceedings to
suggest that involvement of that parent in the child’s life would
put the child at risk of suffering harm whatever the form of the
involvement.

(7) The circumstances referred to are that the court is considering whether
to make an order under section 4(1)(c) or (2A) or 4ZA(1)(c) or (5)
(parental responsibility of parent other than mother).”

So the current proposal, as it stands, is that there will be a presumption that parents have an involvement in their children's lives (with the usual safeguards), but without any definition, or emphasis with the word meaningful? At the lower end of the scale, one would imagine involvement would be having been present at the point of conception (whether in person, or via test tube). At the upper end of the scale, what most people understand to be 'shared care', meaning both parents are fully involved in schooling, leisure time, overnights, and all aspects of the children's routine, day in, day out, school week and weekend care as well as having holiday time with the children. This does get granted in some courts, but there continues to be inconsistency from judge to judge and region to region in very similar cases. Well worded legislation cuts down on such inconsistency.

A red herring in this debate was that the presumption would grant parents the right to inclusion in important decisions which affect the children. As any 1st year student in law should know, the existing legal status of parental responsibility already grants that right and responsibility (albeit ensuring that right is upheld is an entirely different matter).

So does a presumption of involvement actually change anything? No. Everything rests on the decision of the individual judge and their selective and personal definition of what involvement means, whether a card four times a year, alternate weekend staying contact, or a mathematical division of the child's time. All could be considered 'involvement' due to such loose legislative wording.

Another part of the bill relates to a change in legal terminology for post separation child arrangements. We see the unpleasant and controversial term 'contact' (and residence) order replaced with 'child arrangement' order.

Aside from the heading on the top of a court order, does this actually change anything? Not really, and questions remain unanswered. A few examples for you:

1. Currently, a parent with contact can make an application for contact enforcement, and the assisting or punative measures set out in the Children and Adoption Act 2006. These measures only apply to contact, and a parent with shared residence cannot apply for 'contact' to be enforced (as they share residence rather than having a right to contact. A fatuous state of affairs, which the new bill doesn't appear to address (unless I've missed it?). With the contact orders disappearing, it would seem that the Children and Adoption Act 2006 will become defunct (sections 11A to 11P of the Children Act 1989 as amended by the Children and Adoption Act 2006), as there is no amendment of wording related to enforcement of orders (whether contact, residence or child arrangement);
2. Under existing legislation, a parent with residence can take the children abroad without the non-resident (contact) parent's consent for up to a month (while the non-resident parent may not). Will either, or neither parent have this right under a child arrangement order (section 13(1)b of the Children Act 1989)? Who knows, as the Bill misses this point.

What concerns me, is that unless I'm missing something, the Children and Families Bill appears to be a sloppy piece of legislation.

The scope of sections 11A to 11P of the Children Act 1989 should ALWAYS have covered shared residence. A parent with shared residence should not be limited to seeking the committal of the parent in breach, which the court is rarely if ever likely to do.

I'm less concerned about whether a change in legal definition impacts on international instruments such as the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and Brussels II Revised Regulations, as these make reference to custody and access (replaced by the terms residence and contact). It might however be wise to ensure that the new bill clearly states that the terms custody and access, and residence and contact are encompassed by child arrangement orders, granting equal legal status to both parents (for the avoidance of doubt!). 

The parts of the Bill related to the change in legal status appear limited to:

12 Child arrangements orders

(1) 35Section 8(1) of the Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit the definitions of “contact order” and “residence order”.

(3) After “In this Act—” insert—

““child arrangements order” means an order regulating
arrangements relating to any of the following—
(a)

40with whom a child is to live, spend time or otherwise
have contact, and
(b)

when a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have
contact with any person;”.

While a single legal status for both parents appears welcome, I imagine we will see the term 'primary carer' used in place of resident parent, as a stick to beat the other parent with. Will parents fight over which is the resident or contact parent? No (yay). Will they soon be back to court when the 'primary carer' (call them what you will... majority carer, parent with care and all those other terms already substituted for resident parent) wishes to limit time with the children as a means of torture, or due to a belief that they are the 'expert' parent, or a whole host of other reasons? We suspect yes (oh!). If the granting of parental responsibility to both parents ensured that both were involved in selection of schools, we'd be less pessimistic.

The Children Act replaced the concepts of custody and access with the terms residence and contact. This didn't reduce separation conflict. The battleground in court will continue to see the parents armed with exaggerated or entirely false allegations. Those who believe that the Bill's weak presumption (or mediation) are a cure to the belief in bias in the courts, or parental warfare are naive. A carrot, without the stick is of little use and especially when dealing with the human nastiness which exists when a couple's relationship implodes.

Unless there are some sanctions for perjury, and you make it so court outcomes are more certain before parties enter, the warfare will continue. There were grounds for more equal arrangements, since the quantum of parenting time between the sexes has balanced since the inception of the Children Act, and a presumption of shared parenting reflects the normal arrangements for intact families. More so, child welfare research confirms shared parenting to be in children's best interests.

What a waste of an opportunity.