Text and Design: Oigen Hock --> 04:41 PM, May 14, 2004 --> With thanks to C. Hodges, Ivor and Paddie)

In the present climate of rising gun and drug crime and increasing exclusion rates of black boys from secondary schools, black fathers are often castigated for being poor role models and absentee parents.

Researchers keep telling us that even when the relationship between the two parents has broken down, the father will still be a very big part of the child’s life and his absence or presence will affect how they view themselves.

The law governing divorce courts contains no statutory ban on shared care after parental separation or divorce. Yet when shared care is ordered by the courts on the grounds of welfare needs of the child, or when parents agree to share the care of children, the law relating to Social Security law states: "Only one parent can be treated as responsible for a child". (Times Law Report, May 17 2001, "Jobseekers' allowance sex bias unlawful")

The result is that fathers in shared care arrangements who are not deemed to be the one parent responsible for a child have no access to child-related welfare benefit payments during periods of sickness and unemplyment.

It’s no big deal if you don’t need them, but disastrous if you do. And it’s blatantly discriminatory, and harms children. But it's even worse for black fathers because Labour Force Surveys consistently show that the unemployment rate in black communities is more than twice the rate in the white community.

Social Security law is stuck in a time warp. Its parenting model is based on the long gone social structure of 1948, rather than social realities of the 21st century.

The only area of UK legislation that fails to recognise shared parenting is the law pertaining to Social Security.

The underlying policy which sanctions the injustice within Social Security law has a ripple effect that manifests itself in the attitude displayed towards fathers in Family Courts. The perceived legislative ban on shared parenting within Social Security means that there can be no basis upon which to treat parents equally in Family Courts.

For many fathers, post divorce, the financial demands of parenting are simply out of reach without fair access to child-related benefits. What effect does this have on their relationship with their children?

While vilifying absent black fathers, this ignores the fact that many black fathers have been driven out of their children's lives by vengeful or selfish mothers and the family courts which support them. As one black father notes:

" All the official talk about promoting black fatherhood doesn't amount to anything. I did the best I could as a father but the moment I wasn't convenient anymore I was gone. The courts didn't care about my kids having time with me, all they cared about was my money, and I don't even have much."

Social Security law is built, perversely and absurdly, on the assumption that the male parent will never become ill, disabled, injured or unemployed. These reactionary laws remain on the statute book in spite of EU law banning direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of gender.

A key test case that seeks to bring the UK and its Social Security law into the 21st century will be heard by three Law Lords in the Court of Appeal either the 18th or 19th May. [see this link for latest update]

Monday, May 17, 2004 9:44 AM: John Baker, posted support of the legal challenge:

"The ruling that only one parent per child can be deemed the residential one and thus get Social Security and Tax Credit is in our view quite unacceptable. It is, in the jargon terms used, 'indirect' sex discrimination. It is unfair. State support to parenting should go to all the people providing parenting and not exclusively to just one of them. It prevents a considerable number of parents, especially those of limited means, from having a relationship with their children. It sends out quite the wrong signals - that children have only one parent that matters. It follows that we support your challenges to these rulings."

--------->>> Sources & Links on the web--------->>>

1) FATHERING THE CAUSE- Thousands of Dads are fighting to alter absent father stereotypes, The Voice,
    14 Mai 2004
    (http://www.voice-online.net/content.php?show=3106&type=7)
2) Times Law Report,"Jobseekers' allowance sex bias unlawful",Court of Appeal, May 17 2001
   (hyperlink)
3) CoA Legal Challenge: Court Test Case background material: http://www.fathercare.org/discrim.htm:
   (hyperlink)

Join the fight for a non-racist, non-sexist social security system treatment of shared care after divorce or parental separation.

"They are all working on it" - Nearly seven years since my appeal was first lodged. Nearly seven years while fathers continue to be kept below subsistence levels when providing childcare for their children after separation or divorce. The Uk continues to deem it prudent that we starve fathers out of their children's lives".