|
|
Dear Bruce,
Thanks for your email requesting information about the Family
Resolutions project. I'm happy to oblige. The material you
need is contained in the 26th May letter from your chair Althea
Efunschile. I've attached it to this email in case you haven't
yet seen it.
I am sure you will soon understand what the Family Resolutions
project is all about.
As Althea says, the project "will promote good quality
contact" - and here's how: "It is the quality of
contact rather than the simple quantum that is the more important
issue. Further it is a key aim of the Project to encourage
parents to step back from the adult conflict and the focus
on quality ahead of quantity will feature in the Planning
Sessions".
I'm sure that sounds fine and dandy to those who simply don't
know how the courts work. So perhaps I can explain what will
happen. I don't suppose anyone has told you this yet - but
contact cases ARE about quantum. That's the sole point in
issue, but what you're saying is that quantum simply dose
not matter. So when a child is being starved of contact by
the resident parent - let's say there's contact at two hours
a week - and I apply for more, what you'll do is send us off
to "Planning Sessions".
And these Planning Sessions will tell parents, loud and clear,
that mere quantity simply doesn't matter. Instead we'll be
told to focus on quality. Contact applications will stop right
there - with an endless arguments about whether I pay enough
attention to my child when I do see them. In fact what you
have devised is a perfect recipe for perpetual litigation.
The resident parent is going to criticise my imagined handling
of the child despite the fact that happens when she is not
there - and simply cannot know what happens - and her misgivings
will lead to a denial of any more contact and she has every
incentive to find fault. And every incentive to offer very
low contact. And if the contact is "assessed"as
good - by God knows who - then I won't need any more contact!
And if it's said to be bad, I shouldn't have any more contact
either! And no-one will have any idea of what "good quality"
contact is, or how it's to be assessed, and each year it'll
be done differently.
In other words, Bruce - and I hate to be the one to tell you
this - you've masterminded an infinitely more repressive version
of the present system. It's a Great Leap Backwards.
Instead of it being very difficult to attain reasonable contact,
you're going to make it impossible. This pilot is a major
disaster for children, parents and of course the DfES - who
will quite rightly get all the blame.
What do you think will happen when people find out and what
on earth do you think lawyers will make of this project?
In your reply can you please explain what happened to the
Early Interventions pilot which everyone supported. And, by
the way, with your scheme it really doesn't matter whether
mediation is voluntary or mandatory. According to you, its
main purpose is to remind resident parents that they can get
away with offering almost no contact on the pretext that this
is "high-quality".
Please let me have your comments.
Best regards
Dave Mortimer
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce.CLARK@dfes.gsi.gov.uk
To: dave.mortimer@tiscali.co.uk
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 8:08 AM
Subject: Margaret Hodge - mediation
Thanks for your e-mail. I am afraid that I am
not aware of the context in which Mrs Hodge is "recommending
voluntary mediation as a solution to contact disputes"
, as you state. Please will you provide me with further information
to enable me to respond more fully.
Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: dave.mortimer@tiscali.co.uk
To: Bruce.CLARK@dfes.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 8:28 AM
Subject: The original EI project, based on the presumption
of reasonable
contact, has been scrapped by Hodge
Dear Bruce,
Thank you for your reply. We have all been told that Margaret
Hodge is effectively killing off all Family Law reform. At
the foot of this email is a document we are told Whitehall
doesn't want us to see. All the proposals submitted have either
been thwarted or replaced. These are the manoeuvrings which
have been happening that few of us were able to see - until
now. The leaked document below sets out details of the CAFCASS
/ DfES project which the Government swapped for the original
NATC Early Interventions (E.I.) project. The reformist NATC
E.I. project was based on the presumption of reasonable contact
and co-parenting. We were told that the Early Interventions
project had the support of the legal profession, court experts,
child development psychiatrists, and even the judges. It had
been worked out and was ready to go. So why has Margaret Hodge
and her dept told senior ministers and the media they are
cracking on with the project when it is simply not true. She
has replaced the Early Interventions project with her so-called
"Family Resolutions" project, which she is trying
to pass off as the Early Interventions project. Down below
are the leaked specifications for the Hodge fiasco - her so-called
"Family Resolutions" project. The CAFCASS inspired
"Family Resolutions" project, we believe is simply
a 'spoiler' used to confuse the media. It has no judicial
support. It has only recently been dreamed up. It has no pedigree;
no years in the formulation. It has no particular purpose;
and no grasp of policy or contact issues. Those working on
it are unfamiliar with the subject area. The Family Resolutions
specifications are contained in an unsent draft letter by
the Design Team Chair, Mavis Maclean. This letter was intended
for the Coalition for Equal Parenting in reply to their letter
of 23 March. As far as we know, it was never sent. But it
has been issued to navigates as a project 'brief'.
Best regards
David Mortimer
The main headlines are that :-
1- The DfES Family Resolutions project
is a sham
2- there isn't actually 'a project'
3- the big DfES idea was merely to start a Talking Shop about
a project
4- contact is only mentioned as an afterthought on the last
line... where it's reduced to the idea of... more funding
for supervised contact centres (and as one of several options)
It's now official. The original EI project, based on the presumption
of reasonable contact, has been scrapped by Hodge. Here's
what our children will get instead The aim of the Family Resolutions
Pilot is to support and help parents to reach agreement about
how to share responsibility for co-operative parenting, after
divorce or separation. Evidence clearly demonstrates that
parents are happiest with arrangements that they themselves
agree. This pilot project will evaluate the options for helping
all parents to understand that contested hearings in court
are a last resort, and that contact and residence arrangements
negotiated outside of the court process are the best way of
helping them to go forward together as parents, even if they
are no longer a couple. We have given careful consideration
to the experience of other countries in dealing with child
contact disputes, including that set out in the detailed advice
paper prepared by the ad hoc group chaired by Nicholas Crichton
DJ in 2003. This paper was included in recommendations made
by officials to Ministers in both the Department for Education
and Skills, and the Department for Constitutional Affairs,
for taking forward exploratory work on how couples could best
be helped to reach settlement over parenting issues without
turning to the courts. In late 2003 Margaret Hodge, Minister
for Children, asked officials to investigate options for improving
the ways in which child contact and residence applications
to court are dealt with, including through conciliation and
intervention measures to increase agreement between the disputing
parents. We are taking this work forward under the overall
direction of a cross-cutting Steering Group, which I chair.
Detailed recommendations for the practical delivery of options
will be made by a Design Group, which also includes representation
from other Government Departments, the judiciary, voluntary
service providers and family research. Two of the members
of the Design Group were also members of the ad hoc group
- one of them being Judge Crichton himself. The Design Group
is not working to any pre-determined intervention plan - of
the ad hoc group, of CAFCASS, or any other individual or body.
It will develop recommendations based on the collective expertise
of its members [see below], and the contacts and advice those
members will draw on from outside the Group. Mediation is
one of the available methods of intervention, among a wider
range of conciliation and family support services that are
under consideration. It is however essential to bear in mind
that no two countries are the same, either in terms of their
social cultures or their jurisdictions: what works well in
one environment offers no guarantee of success elsewhere.
In the U.S., for example, the law makes the rights of the
adult the paramount concern [untrue]. The law in England and
Wales states that the child's interests are paramount. In
developing the Family Resolutions Pilot proposals, we understand
the importance of devising solutions that can and will work
best in this country at this time. The primary aim of the
Design Group, and of this pilot as a whole, is to ensure that
couples in dispute understand fully the impact of separation
on their children, and what will be the most effective, and
most satisfactory way for them to reach agreement about their
future roles as co-operative parents. A key part of the success
of this project is the direct involvement of the judiciary.
I am pleased that we have received strong and positive support
from family court judges. In addition to Judge Crichton on
the Design Group, Mrs Justice Bracewell is a member of the
Steering Group, and the judges in the pilot areas have indicated
their support and will be directly involved in implementation.
Judicial support will be instrumental to the success of the
pilot project, in encouraging disputing couples to seek to
settle their differences away from the confrontational surroundings
of the court. It is important that this initiative is designed
in a way that takes into account the needs of all family members.
This means, for example, that we accept this initiative will
not be not suitable in cases where domestic violence is a
factor. The truth is that court-imposed orders generate the
least satisfactory outcomes in terms of what parents themselves
have told us. Even when an order is made, disagreements can
and do continue to prevent the family moving forward. Enforcing
contact orders is difficult; judges are understandably reluctant
to jail or heavily fine parents who do not comply with contact
orders, as that would often harm the child. However, we are
considering this difficult issue as a separate matter, and
will come forward with proposals in the summer. Finally, where
it is safe to do so, we want children to have contact with
both parents after divorce or separation. To support this,
we have committed an additional £3.5m for child contact
services including the funding of 14 new supervised contact
services." "Collective Expertise of its members"
Aside from DJ Crichton, none of the nine members of the Design
Team who are (according to the Minister, taking forward the
NATC EI project) know anything about the EI project and have
had no dealings with the NATC. For the most part the membership
consists of middle-ranking civil servants unfamiliar with
family law, the family courts or contact issues. A reforming
project approved by the Minister in one Department the DCA
has been scrapped by Hodge's civil servants. The EI project
papers were thrown away and still have not been seen by the
Design Team.
|
