JUDGES and lawyers will
call on ministers this weekend to act over a growing number of
fathers denied access to their children in defiance of court
orders.
A conference co-chaired by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the
most senior family judge, will be told of a 20 per cent
increase in contact orders made between warring parents. In
2001, the latest figures available, the courts made 55,030
contact orders, 9,000 more than 2000. In 1993 the number was
27,780.
In an estimated 50 per cent of cases at least, orders are
flouted by one or other parent — usually the mother — and the
courts have limited powers to bring the recalcitrant parent to
heel.
Today a group of fathers dressed as Elvis Presley will
deliver a giant inflatable heart to Dame Elizabeth, President
of the Family Division, at the Royal Courts of Justice, which
they call “heartbreak hotel”.
Fathers 4 Justice are critical of the courts which, they
say, leave 40 per cent of fathers without contact with their
children after two years.
Matthew O’Connor, from Cavendish, Suffolk, said that it was
not only fathers who were affected, but also mothers and
grandparents. “For many people the Royal Courts of Justice has
become the heartbreak hotel for fathers, grandparents and some
mums denied access to their kids,” he said.
“We want to send a warning to parents that they are at risk
of being denied access to their children in the event that
when a relationship between parents breaks down, they find
themselves at the mercy of the family courts.”
The Government, represented at the conference by Rosie
Winterton, Minister for Family Law in the Lord Chancellor’s
Department, and co-chairman, faces criticism for failing to
act on reforms put forward a year ago by a committee under Mr
Justice Wall.
The judge, who will be a speaker, is expected to express
his frustration that his committee’s proposals to give courts
greater flexibility in handling contact disputes, including
referring parents to information meetings, parenting
programmes or psychiatric advice, and keeping penal sanctions
as a last resort, are being ignored. He believes that there is
widespread concern at the lack of facilities and resources to
help courts and families to achieve solutions without
resorting to fines and jail.
He sees the law as being of limited help in dealing with
couples whose behaviour can be irrational. He will say that in
acrimonious cases funding is needed so that children can be
represented seprarately to ensure their voices are heard.
The conference has been organised by the Solicitors Family
Law Association, the Family Law Bar Association and the
Association of Lawyer for Child. Andrew McFarlane, QC,
chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, said that the
issue of contact was “an enormous and difficult problem” and
one that was becoming increasingly complex.
Louisa Cross, spokesman for the Solicitors Family Law
Association, said: “Most lawyers report a distinct sinking
feeling when a new client arrives with a difficult contact or
residence case.” The recent report, Making Contact
Work, was a “golden opportunity” for the Lord Chancellor’s
Department to make reforms in the support being provided for
children and families when families split, she said.
Ms Winterton is expected to announce a £2.5 million boost
for contact centres where supervised contact between a parent
and child can take place.
Fathers losing fight for children
Mike is a teacher: he has three children, Lucy,
eight, John, six and Alice, three. He sees them for about an
hour a week. He wanted to see more of them and asked if they
could occasionally stay over night but the mother refused. He
made an application to court for “staying over contact”. The
next time he called to pick up the children, the mother
accused him of sexually abusing Lucy. The accusations were
serious enough to stop all contact. The case came to court
three months later. The court ordered a causation hearing to
establish the facts of the allegation, but it was not heard
for another four months. During this time he did not know the
details of the allegations and could not see the children. By
the time they were dealt with, seven months had elapsed. He is
now trying to re-establish his relationship with the children.
John is an accountant: he has been to court more
than 35 times to arrange and enforce contact with his
son. Contact was initially ordered at a “contact centre”,
where it is supervised. However, the mother would not
bring the child. He returned many times asking for the
court to enforce its order, an order made in the best
interests of the child, but without success. After each
hearing the mother would bring the child (a son) to
the contact centre for perhaps one meeting but then
would stop and the whole process would begin again.
In four years John saw his son about ten times. The
court would not enforce its orders. Eventually he gave
up. 