Fathers rights still in the limelight

4th Apr 2006

The Fathers 4 Justice campaign highlighted dads? concerns over inequalities in the way parents are treated by the legal system while the soaps are full of dads fighting for their children. But according to family lawyers at BHP, the playing field has neve

FROM Coronation Street to the Tyne Bridge, the profile of fathers has rarely been so great nor their rights been so carefully scrutinised.

The now defunct Fathers 4 Justice campaign was successful in raising awareness of the plight of some dads who claimed they had been denied access to their children through the courts.

While there was sympathy from some quarters, their high-profile tactics caused dismay elsewhere with claims that their dangerous gimmicks ? including scaling the Tyne Bridge during the Labour Party conference ? alienated the people they were trying to persuade and did average dads a disservice.

Meanwhile, recent soap storylines have Coronation Street?s Steve McDonald fighting to see his daughter and Dev Alahan hurtling to the register office to make sure his name was on the birth certificates of his twins.

Meanwhile, the real father of Joshua, the little boy Ashley Peacock has brought up as his own, has recently returned to claim custody of the youngster.

The rights of fathers are high on the agenda, not least in the courts, reflecting a change that considers the influence of two parents, even when apart, as being vital to a child?s well being.

Terry Hamer, Partner and head of family law at Blackett Hart & Pratt LLP, says: ?The perception is that there is injustice in the system that denies fathers, but in fairness fathers have a pretty good deal these days. The law sees both parents as having the same rights and there?s no automatic assumption that mums should have custody.

?That said, if dad works full-time and mum has brought up the children since they were very young then the court generally will not go off at a tangent and say the children should live with their father from now on.

?But judges are very keen to give shared responsibilities and to grant joint residence orders, especially for older children who can cope with splitting their time between both parents.?

Individual circumstances will be taken into account so a father with his own business may be allowed more flexible contact arrangements, while a weekend with the non-resident parent may be extended to the following Tuesday.

Solicitor Cheryl Burgess, who specialises in divorce and children matters for BHP in Newton Aycliffe, says the responsibility for smooth contact lies with parents themselves.


She explains: ?The most important people in children?s lives are their two parents. If the parents pass on the right messages children will cope extremely well with intermittent contact. But if a mother says ?I have to send you to your father?s this weekend but I don?t really want to? that sends a negative message to the child who will feel guilt and divided loyalty.

?Parents must learn to overcome their own feelings for the sake of their children. If it?s done positively, 95 per cent of the time it works.?

The courts too are attuned to parental power struggles and will quiz a parent who claims their child does not want to visit the ex-partner to ensure no undue influence is being exerted.

Mr Hamer, who is based in Darlington, explains: ?The courts are more aggressive now. If they consider an order to be in the best interests of the child they will flex their muscle.?

Ultimately a court can use the sanction of prison.

?Ten years ago, whilst the judge could impose a prison sentence on a hostile parent, often the mother who said they didn?t care what the court ordered, in reality they wouldn?t because it would deprive the child. That?s not the case any more,? says Mr Hamer.

?The judge will decide what is in the best interests of the child in the long run, which may be regular contact with the father. While a very short period in custody for the mother might be detrimental to the child in the short term, the judge will do it to give her time to contemplate her actions when it?s set against the long term positive benefit of a child having contact with their father.

?In the past judges felt frustrated but they have High Court authority now to make these orders and enforce them. They have the freedom to be innovative and inventive, and the orders they can impose have teeth.?

It?s not quite turning the clock back 100 years to the days when fathers had all the rights and the mother none, but it does represent yet another shift.

In the 1940s and 50s, new legislation gave both parents equal rights but custody and access required a court order in every divorce case.
With divorce on the increase by the 1980s, the court system was slowly grinding to a halt with the sheer numbers of cases.

The Children Act 1989 introduced legislation that shifted the responsibilities back onto parents to agree arrangements as far as possible between themselves, with the courts intervening only when negotiations reached deadlock. Today, divorcing couples have to provide a Statement of Arrangements for the Children, signed by both parents. Proceedings will only begin if the court is not satisfied with the statement.

Mrs Burgess says: ?Court is slow, it?s expensive and it doesn?t always provide the solution that parents want. It?s important that they keep talking to avoid going to court. The way to achieve that is always to put the children first, their interests are paramount. If that is your starting point then the rest of it will run more smoothly.?

It is especially important to keep money out it.

?Parents should never equate the amount of financial contribution they make to a child?s upbringing with their contact or custody rights. It?s a real misconception to think the two are related. Contact deals with the emotional needs of the child, not the practical,? she says.

Some parents have been known to reduce the amount of contact they allow an ex-partner in order to claim more money through the Child Support Agency. Conversely, non-resident parents have be known to agree to more contact so have they to pay less maintenance.

When it comes to parents who live together or separately but are unmarried, fathers who want to have any rights at all in case of a split must ensure their name is on the child?s birth certificate ? Corrie?s Dev Alahan clearly had the right legal advice.

If the father is not registered but wants to maintain contact with his children, there are two courses of action he can take: if the mother will agree to sign a parental responsibility agreement before magistrates which a solicitor then registers with the Supreme Court; or if he can prove to the court that he has played an active role in the child?s upbringing and persuade the court to grant a parental responsibility order.

Mr Hamer explains: ?It?s fair to say that it?s not particularly difficult for the father to satisfy the court on these grounds if he has been an attentive parent, especially set against the courts? inclination for giving fathers responsibility.?

Fathers 4 Justice or not, it seems dads are having their day.

Author: Bryan Hoare