From Parmjit Dhanda

First, from John Redwood:

Further to our previous correspondence on the subject of the Children Act and reform of the family courts, I have now received the attached reply from the relevant minister at the Department for Education and Skills. I am afraid the Government does not agree with your suggestion to open up the proceedings of family courts, and they are unsympathetic to the Conservative Party position of a legal presumption of equal parenting time.

I am sorry for the disappointing reply. My Parliamentary colleagues will keep up the pressure.

Yours sincerely,

from Parmjit Dhanda

Thank you for your letter of 26 April addressed to Maria Eagle MP on behalf of your constituent, Mr L Y, about child contact. Following the ministerial reshuffle of 5 May, I have taken over responsibility for this policy area.

I hope Mr Y will understand that I cannot comment on the specific details of the case. You raise a number of points in relation to child contact which are linked to an individual case that has been [or is currently] before the courts. It is important that I or officials should not comment on the facts of such cases, in order that there can be no risk of perceived or actual interference in the independence of the judicially. Where parents, or other parties, who are involved in cases have concerns about issues, including those such as contact and residence, it is important that they seek, and then consider, legal advice.

However, l would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about government policy on the issue of contact between children arid their divorced or separated parents.

Of the twelve million children in our country, some three million will experience the separation of their parents during the course of their childhoods. The aftermath of that separation can be devastating. While many parents separate amicably and handle the subsequent parenting arrangements well, there are cases where the conflict arising from a separation, and the hurt felt by the adults at the end of their relationship, can have terrible consequences for the children. We know that where children are drawn into their parents' conflict they are likely to do less well at school, and more likely to truant or to run away from home.

The Government believes that children benefit from a continuing relationship with both parents following divorce or separation, where it is safe and in the child's best interests. The Children Act 1989 supports this and, most importantly, it makes the welfare of the child concerned, rather than the rights of the parents, its paramount consideration. While most parents can and do resolve issues about contact and residence following separation or divorce, the court becomes involved if either parent applies for an order for residence or contact. The court has a wide discretion to take account of all the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Decisions are made after the judge has heard and considered ail the evidence provided by both parties and any other witnesses, including experts, Both parties are entitled to have their views heard and have the opportunity to respond to any evidence put before the Court. If arrangements under a court order do not work out, either parent may, according to the circumstances, apply to the court for the order to be varied, revoked, or enforced.

The Government understands that some people believe a legal presumption of contact is needed to stop the courts from denying contact to perfectly fit parents without good reason. However, the Government does not believe a presumption of contact could ever be the solution in contact cases. Inevitably, such a presumption would move the starting point of the courts, requiring them to make a particular kind of order unless presented with strong evidence why they should not. That is fundamentally different to starting from the position of the "best interests of the child", and, most importantly, it would move the courts away from making the welfare of the child its paramount consideration.

Turning to the points Mr Y has raised about the family courts. The interests of the child are the family court's paramount consideration. Children should have their privacy protected. Opening the family courts to the Press and public is likely to cause additional stress to those giving evidence, particularly parents and other vulnerable adults. If people giving evidence have to talk about intimate details of their family life in public they may not be frank. Courts need all the facts when making decisions affecting the lives of families and children.

Nevertheless we recognise that it is important that people can understand how the family courts work. The basic rule in the High Court and the County Court is that the proceedings are 'private', that is to say closed to the Press and to the public unless the court specifically directs that any part should be open The basic rule in the Family proceedings Court (the FPC) is to exclude the public but to allow the Press to attend. Adoption Act 1976 proceedings are always held in Private. Applications for permission to appeal and appeals to the Court of Appeal are almost invariably heard in public. Recently the practice whereby anonymity was given automatically in judgements has changed to a decision being taken on a case by case basis. While the majority of cases are heard in private, an increasing number of judgements in the High Court are given in open court or made available to the law reporters and the Press.

PARMJIT DHANDA MP

Note [LY]: PARMJIT DHANDA was not given any details about my “case”, I don’t even have one yet.