Getting the Law wrong

GETTING THE LAW WRONG Policy Built on Nothing - Section 8 Contact Disputes _______________________________________ Prelude: 2003 The principles in the NATC 'Early Interventions' project formed the basis of the 2004 Green Paper and the 2006 Children and Adoption Act. But the DfES never implemented the EI project. Instead, DfES officials announced the changes that EIwould have introduced - as though they already constituted the existing legal framework. This fundamental mistake was promulgated nationwide: THE MISTAKE: Started in the Green Paper “ After separation, both parents should have responsibility for, and a meaningful relationship with, their children, so long as it is safe. This is the view of most people in our society. And it is the current legal position” Green Paper, Parental Separation, Summary, p 2 THE MISTAKE: Repeated in Parliament “We fully support the position established in case law that children normally benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents following separation, so long as it is safe and in their best interests for that to happen.” The Government, Hansard, 29.6.05 Col 251 THE MISTAKE: Propounded by Parliament “We note that the present law regards it to be in a child’s best interests to sustain a full relationship with both parents, unless there are good reasons to the contrary. We consider that a clear statutory statement of this principle would encourage resident parents to assume in most cases that contact should be taking place” Constitutional Affairs Committee, Family Justice Inquiry, Para 2, p 44, March 2005 This is wrong .There is NO such case law & NO such principle. This is NOT the law It is NOT the current legal position. The existing legal system is the OPPOSITE This mistake undermines ALL Section 8 policy (and much children’s policy generally TWO OPPOSITE-AND-CONTRASTING LEGAL SYSTEMS Presumption of Reasonable Contact As Intended and Announced Presumption of Contact The Way the Actual Legal System Works A good reason is need to stop all-material-contact Any reason, no matter how trivial, can stop all material contact The principle of reasonable or meaningful contact is protected (in absence of good reason to the contrary) The principle of reasonable, or meaningful, or full, child-parents relations is notprotected ‘Good-enough’ parents should have reasonable contact (in absence of good reason to the contrary) Even perfect parents have no entitlement to anything more than almost-no-contact-at all The stoppage of normal contact has to be justified - by a good reason - before the case begins The reinstatement of normal contact has to be justified after the start of the case (during which, any reason, no matter how trivial, can stop all material contact) Most cases end before they start Cases continue indefinitely The system facilitates meaningful contact The system impedes meaningful contact We do not have the legal system that we say we have, want and need. New policies, predicated on the basis of this non-existent system, will continue to fail as they are put to the test.