Repeal Section 97 Children Act1989

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Why is this idea important?

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

ALLOW PARENTS TO CONTEST EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDERS

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

Why is this idea important?

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

Stop jailing parents for contacting their own children !

Very recently parents have been handcuffed and jailed for contacting their own children,by sending a birthday card,waving as they passed by,or communicating via u-tube !

Judges should NO LONGER have the power to issue injunctions forbidding contact between parents and children unless the parent in question has been convicted of a criminal offence on a child .

Right now, the power of family court judges over parents is overwhelming,intimidating,and unjust.If a parent has never been convicted of an offence on any child there is no reason why they should be refused all contact for up to 18 years and sometimes for life , and worse still jailed if they so much as wave a hand  or send a card !

The law that allows judges to issue draconian injuctions forbidding parents from contacting their own children should be repealed ! Only if a criminal offence has been committed against a child (any child) can such an injunction be justified.

Why is this idea important?

Very recently parents have been handcuffed and jailed for contacting their own children,by sending a birthday card,waving as they passed by,or communicating via u-tube !

Judges should NO LONGER have the power to issue injunctions forbidding contact between parents and children unless the parent in question has been convicted of a criminal offence on a child .

Right now, the power of family court judges over parents is overwhelming,intimidating,and unjust.If a parent has never been convicted of an offence on any child there is no reason why they should be refused all contact for up to 18 years and sometimes for life , and worse still jailed if they so much as wave a hand  or send a card !

The law that allows judges to issue draconian injuctions forbidding parents from contacting their own children should be repealed ! Only if a criminal offence has been committed against a child (any child) can such an injunction be justified.

Stop the Government Stealing ‘Adoptable’ Children

Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.

Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.

The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.

No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.

If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.

If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.

While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.

Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.

EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.

A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.

A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.

If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.

The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.

Interim Care Orders should be abolished.

No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.

Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.

A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.

While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.

The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.

The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.

The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.

Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!

Why is this idea important?

Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.

Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.

The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.

No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.

If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.

If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.

While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.

Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.

EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.

A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.

A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.

If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.

The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.

Interim Care Orders should be abolished.

No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.

Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.

A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.

While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.

The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.

The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.

The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.

Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!

ban injunctions preventing non criminal parents contacting their children

Parents with no criminal records  are often served with injunctions forbidding them to contact their own children by email,phone,or face to face.I refer especially to cases where children have been taken from them for "risk of emotional abuse",or for "witnessing domestic violence" (often only verbal) and then forcibly adopted by strangers.

Parents who find out where their adopted children have got to, via facebook,utube,twitter,and other sites are jailed if they so much as wave at their children as they pass by in a car ! The father concerned was a month in jail but eventually his daughter returned to him.

A mother was recently handcuffed publicly and jailed for sending her son a birthday card,and yet another mother was jailed because her brother (without her permission) put photographs of mother and children on a video for utube !

I believe that any judge serving an injunction on any parent who has no criminal record forbidding them even long distance contact with their own children is breaching the Human Rights of both children and parents and there should be legislation to prevent similar injunctions in the future.  

Why is this idea important?

Parents with no criminal records  are often served with injunctions forbidding them to contact their own children by email,phone,or face to face.I refer especially to cases where children have been taken from them for "risk of emotional abuse",or for "witnessing domestic violence" (often only verbal) and then forcibly adopted by strangers.

Parents who find out where their adopted children have got to, via facebook,utube,twitter,and other sites are jailed if they so much as wave at their children as they pass by in a car ! The father concerned was a month in jail but eventually his daughter returned to him.

A mother was recently handcuffed publicly and jailed for sending her son a birthday card,and yet another mother was jailed because her brother (without her permission) put photographs of mother and children on a video for utube !

I believe that any judge serving an injunction on any parent who has no criminal record forbidding them even long distance contact with their own children is breaching the Human Rights of both children and parents and there should be legislation to prevent similar injunctions in the future.  

GIVE JUDGES MORE DISCRETION

Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 fetters trial judges unnecessarily in handing down sentences for murder. They are the ones who have sat through the case and they are the experts as to the level of sentencing. The last government listened to fears in the tabloid press and passed this populist measure. They should not have interfered as they are amateurs in this important decision-making process. Leave sentencing to the professionals. The schedule is vague, complicated and unnecessary.

Why is this idea important?

Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 fetters trial judges unnecessarily in handing down sentences for murder. They are the ones who have sat through the case and they are the experts as to the level of sentencing. The last government listened to fears in the tabloid press and passed this populist measure. They should not have interfered as they are amateurs in this important decision-making process. Leave sentencing to the professionals. The schedule is vague, complicated and unnecessary.

Reform family courts and the conduct of social workers

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Why is this idea important?

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Gagged.

Britain's secret family courts are able to gag our citizens and force adoptions and other injustices. The secret courts can issue injunctions to prevent people speaking and even talking to each other. We routinely gag our own people and proclaim our wonderful system to the world at large. Repeal and clean up the secret courts and the evil mindsets that devised and put in place the enabling legislation.

Why is this idea important?

Britain's secret family courts are able to gag our citizens and force adoptions and other injustices. The secret courts can issue injunctions to prevent people speaking and even talking to each other. We routinely gag our own people and proclaim our wonderful system to the world at large. Repeal and clean up the secret courts and the evil mindsets that devised and put in place the enabling legislation.

Family courts and social services

Open up Family Courts, place emphasis on children-in-families not children on their own, and severely reduce the power of the social services. Even police and lawyers comment on their powers.

Why is this idea important?

Open up Family Courts, place emphasis on children-in-families not children on their own, and severely reduce the power of the social services. Even police and lawyers comment on their powers.

replace the adversarial Family Court process

Adversarial combat is an inappropriate methodology for deciding the fate of children who are the victims of family break-up. Get rid of the Family Courts and the supporting infrastructure. Replace it with a system that asserts equality between the parents and endeavours to find a win-win-win solution for the parents and the children.

Why is this idea important?

Adversarial combat is an inappropriate methodology for deciding the fate of children who are the victims of family break-up. Get rid of the Family Courts and the supporting infrastructure. Replace it with a system that asserts equality between the parents and endeavours to find a win-win-win solution for the parents and the children.

Racing to the wrong divorce courts in Europe: Brussels II

The Brussels II regulation had the aim of helping couples from different parts of Europe cope with divorce. Unfortunately the way it was drafted meant that instead of finding the most appropriate forum for divorce, where the couple lived, owned property, raised children, the partner who got to a court in Europe first could hold the other to ransom by dragging them through inappropriate court proceedings at great expense in foreign courts.

This regulation has caused considerable hardship for couples. The weaker, poorer partner, usually the wife, is put under great strain before she can get proper relief in a court which is best suited to hear the case.

The regulation must be revised or the UK should withdraw from its regime.

Why is this idea important?

The Brussels II regulation had the aim of helping couples from different parts of Europe cope with divorce. Unfortunately the way it was drafted meant that instead of finding the most appropriate forum for divorce, where the couple lived, owned property, raised children, the partner who got to a court in Europe first could hold the other to ransom by dragging them through inappropriate court proceedings at great expense in foreign courts.

This regulation has caused considerable hardship for couples. The weaker, poorer partner, usually the wife, is put under great strain before she can get proper relief in a court which is best suited to hear the case.

The regulation must be revised or the UK should withdraw from its regime.

Scrap forced adoption and allow birth parents free speech !

Thousand of babies and young children are taken by social workers from their mothers for "risk of emotional abuse".These children are then ordered by compliant judges to be freed for adoption by complete strangers.If parents complain publicly they are jailed (around 200/year according to Harriet Harman) ,and more recently for sending birthday cards or waving as their children passed by in a taxi ! The UK is the only EU country with forced adoption(against the will of parents)  except "possibly Portugal" according to Baroness Hale in a House of Lords case and it is time for 3 reforms to remedy these flagrant injustices.

1:- In the interests of free speech the legal GAG on parents involved in family courts must be scrapped.Parents like rape victims should be FREE to make public the details of their personal histories and experiences in the family courts if they choose to do so.Parents visiting children in care should not have their conversations censored by social workers or their contact stopped if they dare to disciuss their case.

2:-Forced adoption  where parents oppose adoption in the courts) should be scrapped and all adoptions should be "open" so that birth parents know where their children are and cannot be jailed for communicating with them.Closed adoptions often mean that blameless loving parents lose track of their children for the rest of their lives because one parent may have mild learning difficulties,or be the victim of domestic violence,or quite simply being perceived likely in the future to emotionally abuse their children.FORCED ADOPTIONS AND CLOSED ADOPTIONS should be banned.

3:-A burglar facing  a possible 6 months jail can demand trial by jury ,but a mother can lose her children for life without that possibility.Judges hesitate to overule social services even when they criticise them in court probably because they themselves fear subsequent criticism whilst a jury becomes anonymous after the trial and would have no such inhibitions.In any case involving long term separation of parents and children the parents should have the right to demand hearing by a jury.Juries already act in the civil courts in libel cases and would be more than capable of deciding if children should or should not remain in the care of their parents. 

Why is this idea important?

Thousand of babies and young children are taken by social workers from their mothers for "risk of emotional abuse".These children are then ordered by compliant judges to be freed for adoption by complete strangers.If parents complain publicly they are jailed (around 200/year according to Harriet Harman) ,and more recently for sending birthday cards or waving as their children passed by in a taxi ! The UK is the only EU country with forced adoption(against the will of parents)  except "possibly Portugal" according to Baroness Hale in a House of Lords case and it is time for 3 reforms to remedy these flagrant injustices.

1:- In the interests of free speech the legal GAG on parents involved in family courts must be scrapped.Parents like rape victims should be FREE to make public the details of their personal histories and experiences in the family courts if they choose to do so.Parents visiting children in care should not have their conversations censored by social workers or their contact stopped if they dare to disciuss their case.

2:-Forced adoption  where parents oppose adoption in the courts) should be scrapped and all adoptions should be "open" so that birth parents know where their children are and cannot be jailed for communicating with them.Closed adoptions often mean that blameless loving parents lose track of their children for the rest of their lives because one parent may have mild learning difficulties,or be the victim of domestic violence,or quite simply being perceived likely in the future to emotionally abuse their children.FORCED ADOPTIONS AND CLOSED ADOPTIONS should be banned.

3:-A burglar facing  a possible 6 months jail can demand trial by jury ,but a mother can lose her children for life without that possibility.Judges hesitate to overule social services even when they criticise them in court probably because they themselves fear subsequent criticism whilst a jury becomes anonymous after the trial and would have no such inhibitions.In any case involving long term separation of parents and children the parents should have the right to demand hearing by a jury.Juries already act in the civil courts in libel cases and would be more than capable of deciding if children should or should not remain in the care of their parents. 

Equal Rights for Fathers

In the event of separation/divorce, joint residency should be the norm rather than the exception. Under current rules, it is absurd that a father may have to still pay child maintenance to the mother even if the children have more overnight stays with him because historically the mother has been the one in receipt of child allowance (the Child Support Agency use this to determine who the resident parent is and therefore who pays (or not) child maintenance).

Why is this idea important?

In the event of separation/divorce, joint residency should be the norm rather than the exception. Under current rules, it is absurd that a father may have to still pay child maintenance to the mother even if the children have more overnight stays with him because historically the mother has been the one in receipt of child allowance (the Child Support Agency use this to determine who the resident parent is and therefore who pays (or not) child maintenance).

Reform of Family Law

A family legal system which fails to acknowledge fathers as having equal status with mothers fails to protect the best interests of children.

We need to "degender" the issue. There should be no presumption that one parent is better than the other. Sometimes the mother will be best, sometimes the father, hopefully both will be able to play an equal and meaningful roll.

We need to remove the notion that simply because one parent has been the child's prime carer that that parent is necessarily more able or more important than the other. The fact that that prime carer frequently prevents the other parent from having contacvt with the child or makes it as difficult as possible needs to be recognised and acknowledged. In such situations the courts allowing this situation to continue is often not acting in the child's best interest at all.

Legal costs are astronomical and this prevents many very willing fathers who wish to be involved with their children from having teh relationship which not only they but the child would like to enjoy.

Tens of thousands of pounds are spent by fathers (predominently) who do not have this kind of money because that is the level of importance they place on their children. 

You can't give anybody their childhood back, you can't give them back the time they have lost with their father growing up. We need to wake up and act NOW. Little wonder people resort to dressing up in super heroe costumes. I don't think that this neccesarily serves the cause well but my word, what else does one  do when nobody ever listens? This is an issue affecting thousands of very loving and capable fathers. PLEASE listen, please address these issues meaningfully. 

Why is this idea important?

A family legal system which fails to acknowledge fathers as having equal status with mothers fails to protect the best interests of children.

We need to "degender" the issue. There should be no presumption that one parent is better than the other. Sometimes the mother will be best, sometimes the father, hopefully both will be able to play an equal and meaningful roll.

We need to remove the notion that simply because one parent has been the child's prime carer that that parent is necessarily more able or more important than the other. The fact that that prime carer frequently prevents the other parent from having contacvt with the child or makes it as difficult as possible needs to be recognised and acknowledged. In such situations the courts allowing this situation to continue is often not acting in the child's best interest at all.

Legal costs are astronomical and this prevents many very willing fathers who wish to be involved with their children from having teh relationship which not only they but the child would like to enjoy.

Tens of thousands of pounds are spent by fathers (predominently) who do not have this kind of money because that is the level of importance they place on their children. 

You can't give anybody their childhood back, you can't give them back the time they have lost with their father growing up. We need to wake up and act NOW. Little wonder people resort to dressing up in super heroe costumes. I don't think that this neccesarily serves the cause well but my word, what else does one  do when nobody ever listens? This is an issue affecting thousands of very loving and capable fathers. PLEASE listen, please address these issues meaningfully.