TRANSCRIPT OF LETTER RECEIVED FROM MS BRIDGET PRENTICE

"Thank you for your letter sent on behalf of your constituent, Miss .............., regarding child contact and the approach taken in a particular case by a Canadian Court.

I do understand that children’s' cases involving who a child should live with and who a child should have contact with after parental separation can be very distressing for everyone involved.  However, I cannot comment on the circumstances of individual cases in any jurisdiction but I hope the following general comments on the policy and law on family justice in England and Wales will be useful regarding the issues raised.

Under the Children Act 1989, where a court determines a matter relating to the upbringing of a child, including residence and contact cases, the child's welfare must be the court's paramount consideration.  In contested cases, the court must take account to the list of factors in section 1(3) of the Act, called the "welfare checklist".  This includes the wishes and feelings of the child, in the light of the child's age and understanding; the child's physical, emotional and educational needs; the likely effect of any change of circumstances; how capable each parent is of meeting the child's needs and any harm the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering.  This list is not exhaustive, other factors may be taken into account and one factor is not more important than others (although some may be more relevant than others in a particular case).

The emphasis in he courts is on the circumstances of the particular case, rather than on 'parental alienation syndrome' (PAS) as first described by (the late).  Richard Gardner, a child psychiatrist in the United States.  PAS is not recognised as a syndrome by many professionals in this country.  That said, the courts do recognise that some resident parents are responsible for alienating their children from non-resident parents without good reason.  The term 'parental alienation' is sometimes used.

The court has a wide discretion to take account of all of the relevant factors in each case and may ask a CAFCASS officer to make enquiries about the child's circumstances and provide a report for the court.  The court will only make a decision after it has heard evidence provided by all the parties and any other witnesses, including experts, where necessary.

The Government is aware of the difficulties that can be faced by non-resident parents when trying to maintain contact with their children because of the obstructive behaviour of the parent with whom the child resides.  We firmly believe in the principle that a child's best interests are usually met by both parents continuing to have a meaningful relationship with and responsibility for, their child after parental separation, as long as it is safe to do so.

Where the court has decided that contact is in the best interests of the child and makes a Contact Order, we believe that it is unsatisfactory for the Order to be breached.  The judiciary have said that they are reluctant to impose sanctions for contempt of court in such cases, which allow for fines or imprisonment, because it would often have an adverse effect on the child at the centre of the dispute.  However, the Children & Adoption Act 2006 provides greater flexibility for the courts to resolve contact disputes between parents and ensure that Contact Orders are complied with.

The Act, due to be fully implemented in the autumn, will enable the courts to direct parties to undertake a 'contact activity', such as attending an information session, a parenting programme or class, or other activity designed to help in dealing with contact disputes.  If Contact Orders have been breached without reasonable excuse, there are provisions in the Act to enforce Contact Orders, enabling the courts to impose unpaid work on the person who breaches the Order.  There are also provisions to enable the court to award compensation or financial loss from one person to another.  For example, when the cost of a holiday has been lost as a result of failure to comply with a Contact Order.  These provisions will give the courts greater flexibility in dealing with breaches of Contact Orders and will be in addition to the existing powers to treat the breach of the Order as a contempt of the court.  The courts will also retain their existing powers to award residence to the other parent, if this is in the best interests of the child concerned.

I hope this letter is helpful.  I am enclosing a copy of it for you to forward to Miss ..........., should you wish to do so".

Bridget Prentice

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Herewith my response to Ms Prentice’s letter, which I will attempt to keep as succinct as possible.  Please also see attachments:  “Comments from Members of MATCH” and  “Cardiff University Research on Family Law”.

My twin sons were only 9 years old at the time of  commencement of the protracted residency court hearing.  Although the judge (who was a senior partner of the small law firm representing my ex husband – a conflict of interest?) had numerous statements placed before him (one of which attesting to his "aggressive"  personality and "aggressive outbursts") including the Cafcass officer’s report, which demonstrated that alienation /brainwashing tactics were being deployed, my sons being controlled by their father and having to report as instructed: “we want to live with dad”, in parrot fashion.  The judge merely acquiesced, nevertheless describing my ex husband as a “malign, malevolent man”.  Does the Minister consider it is “just” to place such a responsibility, as to residence, onto 9 year old children, who are clearly being manipulated and coerced?

When the Minister asserts that PAS is not recognised by professionals in this country, I would refer her to Hamish Cameron, an eminent child psychologist, who is based in London.

The Minister speaks about the “financial cost” – what about the emotional/psychological cost to the child?!  Where is the ‘duty of care’ and responsibility as to “aftercare”?  Even department stores give us warranties with goods purchased, we are not immediately abandoned after the sale and yet our children are cast adrift, by all the so-called “professionals”, who are reportedly in the positions they hold, to protect the “child’s interests”!  There are no follow-up meetings by Cafcass, as to the child’s well-being with the RP, no confirmation that access/contact visits are being  enjoyed by the children with the NRP.  

My ex-husband arrogantly breached Court Orders.  Another  merry-go-round of court hearings ensued.  My sons becoming more and more alienated from me and suffering immense pressure from their father: it was unbearably painful to see their  psychological torture continue.  They were now approaching 13 years of age and after  18 months,  suffering undue mental turmoil and psychological stress, due to their father projecting all pressures he felt onto them.   A guardian ad litem had been appointed and solicitor, apparently to act on behalf of the boys.  Sadly, this was not the case and they merely steadfastly protected my ex husband, even to the extent of attempting to ‘mislead’ the judge into believing that evidence had not been tape recorded at the full hearing!  It begs the question, WHY??  Res ipsa loquiter!

Surely if the courts and indeed, the Minister  herself, believe that children’s “ best interests” are best served by BOTH parents having a “meaningful relationship” with their child, why does she and the legal fraternity resist the “50/50 principle” with such vigour?

Society in this country is now fragmenting at an alarming rate: we are witnessing  the evolution of a generation of dysfunctional children.  I personally find the situation extremely distressing and abhorrent, particularly when the ‘dilemma’ could easily be avoided by safe-guarding the NRP’s rights to contact, but more importantly the child’s rights to a loving, secure relationship with both his/her parents.

Children are the “innocents” of our society and deserve our protection of their right to enjoy a loving, secure environment in their formative years.  To force children into the ‘court arena’ is barbaric!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIPT OF LETTER REC’D FROM BRIDGET PRENTICE, DATED 15/10/08
 
Dear .........
Thank you for your further letter of 9th September, which was sent on behalf of you constituent, Ms ..... about a residence application regarding her children and the family courts.

I am sorry to hear that Ms ....... is still experiencing difficulties in obtaining contact with her children and feels that she has been let down by the family courts.  I do understand that children’s cases where the parents have separated can be very distressing for everyone involved.  However, as a Minister, I cannot give advice or comment on the circumstances of individual cases because to do so would undermine the independence of the judiciary.  I did respond to issues previously raised by Ms ......... in my letter to you on 8 July but I hope the following further comments will be helpful.

The courts do not automatically assume that one parent is better than the other in contact and residence cases.  The fundamental principle contained in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 is that where the court determines any matter relating to the upbringing of a child, the child’s welfare must be the court’s paramount consideration and not the ‘rights’ of the parents.  Both parents, where they have parental responsibility, are equal before the law.  In some cases the courts may make 50/50 shared residence orders in favour of parents in different households, if it is the court’s view that such an arrangement would be in the best interest of the child in that particular case.  However, the Government does not believe that there should be a presumption by parents that the court will make an order for shared residence as it would not be compatible with the principle that the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration.  Therefore, whether the court does make a 50/50 shared residence or contact order will depend on the individual circumstances of each case.

In all applications involving children, the court must undertake a case-specific consideration of what is in the best interests of the child and may ask a Cafcass officer to undertake a risk assessment of the child’s circumstances and provide a report for the court.  When working with a family, a Cafcass officer can carry out a risk assessment at any stage and submit it to the court, even if the court has not requested an assessment, if he or she has reason to believe a child may be at risk of harm.

Ms ........ expresses concern that there is no support available after a contact order has been made.  The Children and Adoption Act 2006 will enable the court to require Cafcass to monitor contact orders for a period of up to 12 months and report back to the court on whether  the order has been complied with.  The courts can also use the new provisions relating to Family Assistance orders under Section 16 of the Children Act 1989, that came into force on 1 October 2007, which also requires Cafcass to assist families, support contact orders and report back to the court as necessary.

At the present time some courts do recognise that one parent can alienate their child against the other parent.  Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), which I mentioned in my previous letter, is only recognised by a few professionals in the UK.  I also mentioned that the Children and Adoption Act 2006, which should be implemented soon, will give the courts greater powers for dealing with contact disputes and failure to comply with contact orders.

If Ms ...... is unhappy about an order made by the court or feels that the children’s guardian and solicitor have mislead the court, she should seek legal advice about this and whether it would be appropriate for her  to appeal against the order.  If she does not have a solicitor she can obtain legal advice and information about law advice centres from the Community Legal Service Directory (CLS).  Their telephone number is:  0845 345 4345 and their website address is:  www.clsdirect.org.uk.  Advice centres may also be able to refer clients to pro bono organisations that offer legal services at a reduced rate.

I hope this letter is helpful.  I am enclosing a copy of it for you to forward to Ms ....., should you wish to do so.

Bridget Prentice
Minister for Justice