From Harriet Harman

Thank you for your letter of 25 April to Lord Falconer on behalf of your constituent Mr Cox, regarding contact with his daughter. I am replying as minister with responsibility for family policy. I do understand that cases which involve residence and contact of children can be very distressing, for both the parents and for their children. When contact orders are made, the Children Act 1989 requires the court at all times to make the welfare of the child concerned its paramount consideration, The Government firmly believes in the principle that the child's best interests are paramount and that those interests are usually met by both parents continuing to have a meaningful relationship with, and responsibility for, their children after separation, so long as It is safe to do so. That said, as a Government Minister I am unable to comment or advise on the circumstances of an individual case. I can assure Mr Cox that this is not due to any lack of concern, but because to do so would undermine the principle that the judiciary are entirely independent of Government.

In deciding what would be in me best interests of the child, the court has a wide discretion to take account of ail the facts and circumstances of each individual case and to study all evidence put before it- Eradicating harm or the risk of it, from families, children and parents, Is a paramount priority for the Government. it forms a crucial part of the current review of family justice, which aims to achieve the best outcomes for children and their parents involved in relationship breakdown.

As Mr Cox probably knows, if he is unhappy with the court's decision he may wish to seek legal advice about the merits of making a further application to the court to ask for the current order to be varied or revoked, or about appealing to a higher court, A solicitor, Law Centre, or the Citizen Advice Bureau would be able to advise.

You mention EDM Nos. 128 and 869 which relate to "legal presumption of contact" and the 'Workings of the Children Act 2004" which refers to the Children Act 1989. ECM 128 refers to a 'legal presumption' of contact between parents. The Government believes that the current legal position is right the welfare of the child must be paramount in any question relating to their upbringing. We intend, therefore, to retain the principle set out in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 that requires that the court give paramount consideration to the welfare of the child at all times. A legal presumption of contact would be putting the parents rights before the welfare of the children,

EDM 869 refers specifically to the statutory provisions, which restrict both public and press attendance in family courts, and the sharing information in family proceedings involving children, which are heard in private. Essentially, these provisions are designed to protect the anonymity of children involved in proceedings. This supports the centred' locus of the Children Act. which promotes the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. Whilst this principle must be preserved, the Government is committed to a review of openness within the -family system and will be consulting soon. Whatever chances are made, the interests of children remain paramount. I trust this clarifies the matter. I have enclosed a copy of my letter tor you to send to Mr Cox, if you wish to do so.