Will the UK Court of Appeal Back or End Shared Parenting Arrangements of Broken Families?

"Getting a fair deal for fathers is going to be an uphill struggle. It threatens deep emotions and entrenched interests. But the case is overwhelming." - Anna Coote, Deputy Director, Institute of Public Policy Research, IPPR, "Feminists must back fathers", The Independent, 17may96

Breaking News, London, Court of Appeal:
REVOLUTIONARY FATHERS' RIGHTS SOCIAL SECURITY PRECEDENT TO BE SET TODAY 21st DECEMBER 2004 -

ATTEND COURT 74, ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, AT 0915 FOR THE HANDING DOWN OF JUDGMENT IN HOCKENJOS v. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORK & PENSIONS
(Court of Appeal: Ward, Arden, Scott Baker LJJ).

After a 7 year battle Eugen Hockenjos is expected tomorrow to obtain a legal ruling that as a parent with a Joint Residence order in respect of his children he was entitled to Jobseeker's Dependants' Allowances for them, notwithstanding the mother had the Child Benefit and Eugen cared for the children less than 50% of the time.

This ruling will apply equally to all parents in shared care situations, whether or not there is a Children Act Residence order, and although not directly applicable to Child and Working Tax Credits, it is likely to lead rapidly to the end of the present unjust system in which a parent (usually the father) with substantial minority care of children is denied Tax Credits for them while the majority carer (usually the mother) obtains 100% of the Credits. At present even if care were split exactly 50-50 the State will select one parent to receive 100% Credits and the other 0%. This system will not be sustainable after tomorrow's Judgment.

COURT 74
Before LORD JUSTICE WARD
LADY JUSTICE ARDEN and
LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
Tuesday, 21st December, 2004
At 9:15
FOR JUDGMENT
APPEAL
From Appeal Tribunals
(Social Security Commissioners)
FINAL DECISIONS
C3/2003/0893 Hockenjos -v- Secretary of State for Work & Pensions.
Appeal of Applicant from the order of The Social Security Commissioner,
dated 13th January 2003, filed 14th April 2003.
________

"I readily appreciate the argument that in today’s climate shared parenting is an ideal, and that both parents participating in the child's upbringing is the best for the child." ... so said LORD JUSTICE WARD in the Court of Appeal, 29 Feb 2000

<-- MILLENIUM-UPDATE -->
Read about the intricacies of how the state deals with fathers who continue to actively provide involved fathering and childcare after parental split........ Case C3/2003/0893 ...... Following the May 20, 2004 Court of Appeal Hearing on the day the UK Prime Minister was flower bombed
in the House of Commons, the UK Appeal Court reserved judgement...LATEST NEWS

Court of Appeal about to pass judgement

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 childcare, the law relating to Social Security states:

"Only one parent can be treated as responsible for a child". (Times Law Report, May 17, 2001)

The result is that fathers who provide childcare within shared care arrangements are not deemed to be the one parent responsible for a child, and when in trouble (unemployment, sickness) get excluded from access to child-related welfare benefit payments in times of need. It's no big deal if you don't need them, but disastrous if you do. And it's blatantly discriminatory, and harms children.

Case C3/2003/0893 challenges regulations pertaining to Social Security Law, the sole area of UK legislation that fails to recognise shared parenting. Social security law is stuck in a time warp, its parenting model based on the long gone social structure of 1948, rather than the social realities of the 21st century.

The Independent, 17May1996:
"Getting a fair deal for fathers is going to be an uphill struggle. It threatens
deep emotions and entrenched interests. But the case is overwhelming."
Anna Coote, Deputy Director Institute of Public Policy Research, IPPR, "Feminists must back fathers"

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 fact that there is a 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?

Black Journalist Briefing:

Blame the system not black fathers

Blighted Black Childhood

Social Security law is built, perversely and absurdly, on the assumption that they will never become ill, disabled, injured or unemployed.

These reactionary laws remain on the statute book in spite of EU law banning discrimination on the grounds of gender. A key test case that took six years to prepare, climaxed with a 2 day hearing at the UK Court of Appeal. There the UK Government stating the case in favour of discriminatory, sexist and racist treatment of fathers who are engaged in co-parenting after parental separation or divorce ended May 20, 2004.

Lord Justice Ward stated that judgment is reserved and will be handed down as soon as possible.

The test case outlined: The case for ending discrimination