I’m off to Manchester in November to talk at a smashing conference organised by MMU. I’m of the generation where gigs in Manchester are supposed to be all about indie pop, but fortunately I won’t be doing my Oasis impression, but instead will be talking about something transparency-ish (for those of you who are interested in that sort of thing), whilst other far more impressive speakers are covering a range of really interesting topics. It looks set to be a wonderwall day.
I’m told that you need to book by 31 October, and you can book here.
Co-hosted by the Sylvia Pankhurst Gender Research Centre, details here:
http://www.law.mmu.ac.uk/family-law-conference/
Includes
Rebecca Probert
Warwick University
‘The women who did: feminism, free love and freedom’
Eddie Higgins and Kathryn Newton
Manchester Metropolitan University
‘The parental involvement presumption: “unnecessary risk for too little gain?”’
That last one was the will of Parliament wasn’t it? More Women’s Aid 19 Child Homicides propaganda?
Thanks, but I’ll pass
Brian,
How boring to only go to conferences where you agree with all the speakers! Never mind.
Lucy
I’m sorry but Edwina Higgins and Kathryn Newton seem to be at odds with the Council of Europe over the parental involvement presumption
http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=22220
“3. The Assembly wishes to point out that respect for family life is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5) and numerous international legal instruments. For a parent and child, being together is an essential part of family life. Parent–child separation has irremediable effects on their relationship. Such separation should only be ordered by a court and only in exceptional circumstances entailing grave risks to the interest of the child. ”
I agree with the Council for Europe.
Brian,
I’ve no idea what Eddie Higgins and Kathryn Newton are going to say and have no axe to grind. But I do note that the title of their talk is expressed as a question not an answer (perhaps they’d answer it in agreement with you, perhaps not) – ‘The parental involvement presumption: “unnecessary risk for too little gain?”’ – and the question of balancing risk against benefits is one which is central to article 8, as your quote demonstrates. Perhaps you and/or I will agree with them, perhaps not but I’d prefer to listen first. I don’t think one can say that they are at odds with the council of Europe without listening to what they have to say.
Personally I think the question is a false premise since I don’t really see that the presumption of involvement has had any legal impact at all, but I know there are others (Womens’ Aid for example) who assert it has had a harmful impact and has exposed children to risk. I’ve not seen any evidence to back that up either from my own first hand experience at work or from research study or even any compelling anecdote.
I think the Q isn’t whether the Council of Europe are right but whether the parental involvement presumption was the appropriate way to achieve that goal.
The phrase “unnecessary risk for too little gain” comes from para 4.40 of the Family Justice Review’s final report:
“We have concluded that the core principle of the paramountcy of the welfare of the child is sufficient and that to insert any additional statements brings with it unnecessary risk for little gain. As a result, we withdraw the recommendation that a statement of ‘meaningful relationship’ be inserted in legislation.”
The FJR concluded that “No legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents.”
I don’t know what Eddie and Kathryn are going to say but I do know that the intention is to have a discussion about whether the presumption has actually proved to be an unnecessary risk for too little gain, with particular emphasis on the impact the presumption has/may have on the consideration given to the child’s wishes and feelings if the child doesn’t want the parent to be involved.
No propaganda but a reasoned discussion about an important topic. This country would be a much poorer place if no debate was allowed about whether the will of Parliament was appropriately exercised.
Thanks Lucy. I’d forgotten that is where the title came from but it does now ring a bell…
Well that is the Women’s Aid “Child First” campaign. Did you know wishes and feelings reports are being done on children as young as 3? Of course you do, you see them all the time!
The Child First Campaign post dates the FJR by several years.
I have to say I’ve never seen a W&F report on a 3 year old. I can’t imagine they are very illuminating. They certainly aren’t done in my neck of the woods.
Women’s Aid Federation of England report Twenty Nine Child Homicides Lessons still to be learnt on domestic violence and
child protection 2004
Hilary Saunders
“Women’s Aid questions: 4. Were children listened to and taken seriously?”
It is a recurring theme.
Yes, familiar with earlier report and fact of recurring themes. You aren’t suggesting that children *shouldn’t* be listened to and taken seriously though I presume?
I simply don’t see that the asking of a question about how effective a particular piece of legislation (which I should say neither fathers rights nor dv campaigners nor lawyers thought was a good piece of law (for different reasons) has been – is objectionable.
But I confess to having slightly lost the thread of your comments, and don’t think this discussion is going to get either of us anywhere so I’m going to call it a night.
Congratulations on the gig in Manchester, Lucy!
Same 29 Child Homicides report:
“However, there is a further consideration. If a child says that he or she wants to see or live with a violent parent, should a ‘child-centred’ statutory agency always accede to the child’s wishes?”
I.e. don’t listen to the child unless they say they don’t want to see the “perpetrator”.
the quote bears little resemblance to your interpretation of it!