Categories: uncategorized
Date: 03 November 2011 11:20:03
Today the Ministry of Justice has published its Family Justice Review Report which is seeking to reform the way family law cases are conducted. I need to download it and look at it in more detail and will probably comment in more detail elsewhere.
I think it is good to note, though, that a young persons version is going to be published in the near future. This is important because not only will it help young people understand the changes but it will also provide a resource for those who may have lower literacy skills.
Looking briefly at the report I was interested in the section entitled "Making Parental Responsibility Work". This contains an interesting set of responsibilities which parents have for a child and ideally both parents should be involved in:
naming the child;
providing a home for the child;
having contact with the child;
protecting and maintaining the child;
administering the child’s property;
consenting to the taking of blood for testing;
allowing the child to be interviewed;
taking the child outside of the jurisdiction of the UK and consenting to emigration;
agreeing to and vetoing the issue of the child’s passport;
agreeing to the child’s adoption;
agreeing to the child’s change of surname;
consenting to the child’s medical treatment; and
arranging the child’s education.
Reading through the list I was struck by how this list works in practice though and where it might yet again be an excuse for the legal system to actually cause more problems and make more money than may otherwise have to be the case. I say this as somebody whose only involvement with the legal system during my divorce and seperation was getting an actual divorce. The rest was done through my ex and I just sitting down like adults talking about stuff.
The naming of the child is something interesting. Think that the stories of people who end up with different names than that intended when the father or mother goes to register the birth and inexplicably writes down something that has been agreed is more than an urban myth. Are people now going to be able to take their partner to court if that happens?
In regards to the necessity to provide a child with the home. That is right and proper but I do worry that due to the way things are going that if a main carer becomes homeless than the other partner will be seen as responsible for then becoming the main carer and housing the child, thus making the chances of the main carer finding an appropriate home and being able to continue as the main carer more difficult.
Having contact with the child when appropriate is a good thing. However, I don't think they are going to be putting in what I wanted going through part of my daughters growing up the right of the main carer to take the other parent to court to make them see their offspring more.
Protecting and maintaining the child is a good but complex one where we see the problems and contradictions of this whole area coming in to play. I know of cases where the refusual to go along with what these proposals are trying to introduce comes from exactly this principal. I think it needs further clarification and exploration, although I suspect that is what the report focuses upon in its main detail. Also in terms of the word "maintaining" I worry about whether this term is going to be used to change benefit systems and so forth to disadvantage single parents and families where the parent who is not the main carer for their child has remarried.
Administering the child's property...yes, good. But sometimes this can be complicated. There were a few cases when my daughter came home from her dad's with things I felt were totally inappropriate and so I disposed of them. Under this would my ex have been able to take me to court for not properly administering the property he had provided my daughter with?
Consenting for blood testing....very tricky area. Personally I think that the NHS should be able to take a blood test if it is in the child's interests whether they want to or not. Also if there is a dispute over paternity then I think that one parent should automatically have the right to choose without having to seek the consent of the other parent.
In terms of allowing the child to be interviewed I had never thought of this as being something that both parties should consent to. Surely that is the decision of the main carer.
Taking the child out of the UK is one where I can see, because of the cases which are often publicised, where this makes perfect sense for both parties to need to consent. The question is, though, in the case of divorced children are we going to see post-offices or something holding passports for these children and a form needing both parents signatures to be signed before it can be released? Otherwise really don't get how this one can ever work in practice.
The issue of a passport ties in with the above but is more complicated, often passports are needed for ID now and so it can be necessary for the resident parent to get one quickly.
Adoption and change of surname makes sense.
As for the medical treatment and education stuff it never ever occurred to me to seek my ex's consent on these things. My daughter lived with me and so I made those decisions. I would have very much resented my ex having a right to veto my decisions for my child in these areas, particularly as I say I would have wanted him to see her more.
Anyway main message here is it is complicated. Will be interesting to read the report in full.