Children and Adoption Act Legislation Evaluation

Children and credence Act Legislation EvaluationLooking at The Children and toleration Act identify and trace the development of the policy in its present formatIntroductionIn 2005 the Children and borrowing Act was created in response to a green paper entitled P bental separation Childrens Needs and P atomic numeral 18nts Responsibilities (2004). This new bill addresses issues both in the acres of while away betwixt nipperren and separated erects, and foreign adoption issues. However, for the purposes of this essay the investigator volition focus on the issues of interlocutor, as these atomic number 18 the most jam and widely talked to the highest degree aspects of the bill.Firstly, we result outline the major points of this edict. As a response to the green paper and an update on both the 2002 do Contact Work report and the 1989 Children Act, the Children and borrowing Act (2005) aims to address certain(p) key issues of while away between separated or divo rced p atomic number 18nts and electric s beatrren.The major part of the rule deals with new processes and powers break inn to taps when issuing and enforcing advert coiffes. Firstly, a new initiative k outrightn as edge activity readions is at present available to the acts. These directions allow the mash to help promote refer between non- occupant parents and children by means of various courses or counselling. For example, by freeing for psychiatric or physical treatment to remedy the likeliness of cooperation between children and the separated parents. spare powers granted to the courts are as well as an burning(prenominal) part of this bill. The court now has added power to monitor have-to doe with and to report binding to the court about the maintenance of more(prenominal)(prenominal) orders. Further, the court now exacts to attach a nonice of warning to fill orders stating the consequences of a bankrupt of the order. Family assistance orders sight now be issued in to a greater extent than just exceptional circumstances, allowing for a greater opportunity to develop cooperation and gather arrangements.The way in which a breach of a contact order clear be penalise has also changed. In the past, options open to the court were to put the parent in breach in prison or fine them an inwardness of money, exchange residence of the children to the other parent, or do nonhing. These options were often inadequate or not available in all sheaths, and so the rectitudes bemuse been changed. A parent in breach of a contact order empennage now face what is known as an enforcement order which bathroom be applied for by either parent or the children concerned. This enforcement order will invoke a requirement for unpaid bring in on the offender, heart and soul they will sacrifice to carry out a certain amount of duties or work for no fee much like society service. The court inevitably to be satisfied beyond reasonable distrust that the person is failing or has failed to comply, and that the making of an order is necessary to furbish up conformance with the order. Once an order is initiated, a Children and Family Court Advisory and tide over Service (CAFCASS) officer will monitor the spotlight and report back to the court about compliance. If breach continues again then the order can be extended or increased as the court carry outs paroxysm.another(prenominal) way in which a breach can be penalize by the court is with compensation to the other party for financial loss suffered as a consequence of the breach. This is meant to be compensation preferably than a punitive payment, and is based upon the financial bureau of the offender as well as the needs of the child.These are the main areas of interest in the new Children and Adoption Act in terms of contact, and will be discussed in detail throughout the rest of the essay. In order to do this, the reasoning and objectives behind this new bill fi rst need to be look at. The three main objectives are as followsTo promote and induce contact activity between children and non-occupier parentsTo improve the observe of compliance with contact orders and reduce delays in complying with these orders.To give the courts increased powers to punish breaches of contact orders that punish the offender and result in compliance rather than harming the welfare of the child.These objectives are in response to a number of issues raised over the give-up the ghost few geezerhood. Of these issues, the most notable is the incline towards renders in terms of contact, with the absolute majority of female parents being the occupier parent later on separation. Many examples of laminitiss being denied contact by mothers are documented, and rough of these will be discussed later in the essay. The main aim of this essay is to compare the real Children and Adoption superlative to antecedent jurisprudence, and whether or not it manages to m eet its objectives and address the issues that have caused statement over the last 15 years. The researcher aims to show that whilst this new legislation does go almost way to improve the preceding(prenominal) situation and alter the chances of contact between children and non-resident parents, it good-tempered lacks sexuality specific policies to deal with the socio-cultural incline towards mothers in parental disputes over contact.Comparisons with previous legislationThe original legislation put in place to deal with issues of parental separation and child contact were outlined in the 1989 Children Act. The major problems with this legislation were that it didnt give bounteous powers to courts to enforce compliance of contact orders, and that contact was not generally promoted outside of the orders. This resulted in umteen orders being breached and lengthy delays in getting breached orders enforced. The powers open to the courts meant that umpteen non-resident parent s, usually pay offs, were ineffectual to see their children due(p) to mothers denying access. another(prenominal) problem is that the 1989 Act gave parental responsibility automatically to the mother if the parents were not married at the time of the childs birth, and the father had to open for responsibility if an declarement could not be reached with the mother. Basically, the rights of a non-married father were sanely limited under this bill. Also, thither was a severe lack of monitoring in terms of compliance with the bill and the general contact situation. This left the door open for un proveed allegations by mothers against the fathers in order to settlement or delay contact. Even those fathers that all the way established themselves as fit to have contact often found they were unable to obtain contact in the face of hostility from the resident parent. Even with court intervention, not much could often be through.The options open to the court were to put the mother in prison, fine the mother, hand over residence to the father or do nothing. Prison and monetary sanctions were often not practical as they harmed the welfare of the child, and residence passing to the father was not always viable if their residence was unsuitable for the child. In many cases, a severely non-compliant mother would face no penalties for breaching the contact order, and so the father would be unable to see the child at all. Although it wasnt always the case that the father lost out, even when he was able to get contact there were often large delays and extreme stress twisty to do so, and the situation could change.Examples of just how difficult it was for the courts to brand decisions about contact under this legislation can be seen in the following two case examples.1 Family Law Reform 1279 (2004). In S (A Child) (Contact Promoting descent with Absent Parent). The collections court looked at a father appeal against the dismissal of an application for direct conta ct with his daughter, aged six. in that location had been separation between parents five years previously, and voluntary arrangements that had worked in the beginning had since broken down. The child was reluctant to have contact, mainly due to the mothers extreme reluctance to book any form of contact work, and there were unproven allegations of domestic force-out by the mother against the father. The president of the FLR put the dilemma as followsIf a mother is truly recalcitrant, the court can commit to prison for discourtesy or fine the mother. Most mothers do not have enough money to pay a significant fine and this sanction is seldom used, particularly since she is the primary carer of the child. equately the sanction of prison for mothers who refuse to allow contact is a heavy one and may well be a self-defeating oneAt this stage also the court may have the evidence that the continuing efforts to persuade the mother to agree to contact are having a disproportionately adv erse effect upon the child whose welfare is paramount and the court may find it necessary, however reluctantly, to nab trying to promote contact. That is a very(prenominal) sad situation fluent may be necessary for a short or for a longer time if the welfare of the child requires it.In this case, she granted the appeal to allow the parties to jointly instruct a consultant child psychiatrist to asses the family and the contact prospects. Although this is in some way positive, it doesnt help the father see his child at all, and delays contact even shape up.This bordering case of 1 FLR 1226 (2004) D (A Child) (Intractable Contact Dispute Publicity) shows even further the problems that occur for fathers when the mother denies access. The mother had in this case had not allowed the father to see his daughter at all for 2.5 years, and it was clear this situation was not going to change. Munby J concluded that the father would have to abandon his contact application because the mot her was clearly not going to change her mind, and there was very little the courts could do to change this situation. He saidThere are no simple final results. And it is idle to imagine that even the best agreement can over watch over all problems. The bitter truth is that there will always be some contact cases so intractable that they will defeat even the best and most committed attempts of judges. But that is no reason for not taking steps urgent steps to improve the system as best we can.This was clearly a injustice, and many pressure groups have formed over the years to combat such issues and greatly improve the rights of fathers in these proceedings. This has come about due to such cases as well as the clear desire of modern fathers to be more involved in the lives and upbringing of their children (OBrien Shemilt, 2003).Two of the main groups or so today are Families Need Fathers and Fathers For jurist (see websites www.fnf.org.uk and www.fathers-4-justice.org/home/index .html). Families Need Fathers have tried to combat these issues by appealing for change, and are the largest such beneficence in the UK. Fathers For Justice are quite different in their approach, and have staged aggressive protests over recent years involving climbing up buildings dressed as superheroes and often getting arrested for their troubles. However, their controversial protests have change integrity the community on these issues, with many believing their actions show sincere heating system whilst others believing their reckless behaviour does nothing for the cause and simply damages the reputations of other fathers (Kelly, 2006). Although these groups vary radically in their ways of tackling the issues, their existence clearly shows the desire for change.The previously mentioned cases and change magnitude coverage in the media led to the 2002 polish up of policy in the 2002 report by the Childrens Act Sub-Committee to the ennoble Chancellor entitled Making Contact Work. Many of the issues raised in cases and through the work of pressure groups came to the fore in this report, including the issues of giving courts more power, reducing delays, promoting contact and increasing monitoring facilities so that contact orders are maintained. This report set the foundation for the 2004 Green paper and the subsequent Children and Adoption Act in 2005. The benefits of this act will be looked at next.Benefits of the Children and Adoption ActThe Children and Adoption Act (2005) has been seen as a possible find in the fight against in make upity for non-resident parents, and a step towards break-dance contact once separation has occurred. In general terms, the Act is an acknowledgement that previous laws were inadequate in terms of contact orders and rights for non-resident parents in the face of non-compliance from resident parents.The first major benefit of this act is the new powers to promote contact through the use of contact direction activities. P reviously, a non-compliant resident parent might feel that the non-resident parent is unfit or unsuitable to be allowed contact with the child or children. However, contact direction activities allow the resident parent to get reassurances that the non-resident parent is altering their behaviour and improving through various treatments and counselling. This can help promote contact and allow the parties involved to work towards an amicable solution.If this does not work, then the consequences of breaching the contact order are far clearer than they were before. Although non-compliant resident parents generally knew the consequences previously, they were not as firm as they are now or as enforceable.The new laws regarding punishment for breach are also a big returns on the previous penalties of fines and imprisonment. The unpaid work punishment via an enforcement order is much more workable, and provides real consequences for the non-compliant parent as well as reducing the harm to the child. The further punishment of compensation is also better than a fine, as this money still stays within the parent unit and the financial situation and welfare of the child are taken into account.However, perhaps the most important benefit associated with this new bill is the increased monitoring facilities on offer, allowing for quick decisions and a reduction in delays for non-resident parents. Through monitoring by CAFCASS and court officials, evidence regarding allegations made against parents can be quickly obtained and the status of compliance with the contact order can also be monitored. This acts as a deterrent against making unfounded allegations and breaching the contact order, and also allows for speedy reestablishment of contact should the order be broken.Overall, the Children and Adoption Act (2005) represents a definite improvement on previous legislation. Despite this, there are still many issues that are not resolved, especially in terms of gender bias. The next section will deal with these specific issues and how they relate to the new bill. sex activity Issues Not Dealt WithAlthough the bill is seen as an improvement on the 1989 legislation, it has still come in for much criticism for not dealing with the gender issues that are at the heart of debate on contact law. The new Children and Adoption Act does make it easier for contact laws to be enforced, only if shies away from issues of gender bias that have been the major cause for concern for many people. The law still fails to deal with the major issue of gender bias towards mothers due to the large percentage of mothers who are the resident parents after separation, and the general socio-cultural bias in favour of the importance of mothers for children. It has also been noted by the said(prenominal) pressure groups that mothers often obstruct or at the very least fail to encourage contact for the non-resident father.It is believed that a more adequate solution to the problem woul d be to give an automatic 5050 theatrical role to parents, thereby eliminating gender bias altogether. Although this is a very good melodic theme in principle, in practical terms it is unlikely to work because of the by chance unsuitability of one parent in such situations, and so a 5050 split might not be in the best interests of the children involved.Although it is generally accepted that the bias is still towards mothers, there is some evidence to suggest that the gender bias goes both ways, and is more a bias towards the non-resident parent than a gender specific issue. In Kielty (2005), the views a small sample of non-resident mothers in the UK, who now number over 130,000, are taken into account. It shows that although many of the non-resident mothers have a good relationship with their children and still have contact, that some are denied access due to the reluctance of the resident father to allow contact. In these cases, it has been no easier for the mothers to gain acce ss than it has for the regular(prenominal) non-resident fathers.This orbit further shows how the Children and Adoption Act fails to deal with all aspects of the gender bias in contact cases, and due to the much higher number of non-resident fathers than non-resident mothers, the legislation can be seen as much more aureate to mothers than it is to fathers. peerless thing that was also made clear in the Kielty (2006) study and Sobolewski and King (2005) study is that these gender bias issues can be overcome, but only if the parents have a good relationship and are willing to work together. In the Kielty (2006) study, the mothers who generally had contact with their children were the ones who had voluntarily become the non-resident parent, and had a good level of cooperation with their ex-partners. The same was true in the Sobolewski and King (2005) study, where it found that high levels of parental cooperation allowed for increased levels of contact and less of a need for court p roceedings. However, the study also found that cooperation after separation was middling uncommon, with 66% of mothers saying the father of their child had no influence on the childs upbringing.It is clear that more needs to be done than the current legislation allows for, and although the objectives of giving more power to the courts, reducing delays and improving monitoring have been met, the issues of gender bias and cooperation still need much work.The findings of this essay will now be concluded, and there will also be a look at what the future holds for parental contact legislation.ConclusionsIt is clear that the problems of the 1989 Children Act seen in various case examples, and the continued electioneering and media coverage of pressure groups have helped to shape the Children and Adoption Act of 2005. In many ways, this bill is a huge step forward in the fight to establish equality of contact with children for resident and non-resident parents after separation. There is a great improvement in the powers of the court to enforce the contact orders, and much more workable punishments for breaches. Also, monitoring has been improved with the cooperation of CAFCASS and so delays in getting contact orders and allegations analysed are being reduced. Also, the ability to promote contact through contact direction activities is a definite step in the right direction. It can be said that the three main objectives of increasing court powers, improving promotion of contact and improve contact order monitoring have all been achieved.However, there are still some major issues that have not been dealt with, namely the gender bias still in place against fathers. With so many more non-resident fathers than non-resident mothers, and the increased likelihood of mothers to deny access to fathers, the legislation still does not give fathers the equal rights to see their children that they deserve.In a bid to address this, the government is now trying to focus on improvi ng cooperation between separated parents so as to ease conflict and reduce the problems of bias in the legislation. One way that this is being done is through fender family resolution projects (Samuel, 2006). These pilot schemes have had a fairly low turnout, but have shown that agreements can be reached through an improvement in mutual parent taste and cooperation. However, there is still a long way to go to make this scheme workable, and so far results are not much better than for in-court conciliation.The gender bias issue definitely needs to be dealt with through future legislation or more effective means of improving cooperation between parents. Also, the involvement of the children in this process is key, especially those older children. Their needs and opinions should be of paramount importance when deciding the outcome of contact disputes. The current legislation is definitely an improvement, but there is still much to be done if fathers are to have the same rights of cont act as mothers after parental separation.BibliographyClarke, C., Falconer, Hewitt, P. (2004) Parental Separation Childrens Needs and Parents Responsibilities Green Paper, The Stationery Office, capital of the United KingdomConnolly, J., Kellet, J., Notley, C., Swift, L. and Trinder, L. (2006) Making contact happen or making contact work? The process and outcomes of in-court conciliation. division for Constitutional Affairs Research Unit, LondonDepartment for Education and Skills DfES (2005) Children and Adoption Bill (HL) Explanatory Notes http//www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/096/eii/06096x-.htmEdwards, J. (2006) Enforcement of Contact Orders A New Era? in Family Law. Vol. 36 pi 25- 130ePolitix (2006) Children and Adoption Bill HL http//www.epolitix.com/EN/Legislauon/200505/9483aedc-eaac-4cla-be3a-4aOdcalOb330.htmFamilies Need Fathers FNF (2005) Parental Responsibility http//www.fnf.org.uk/pro.htmFathers 4 Justice (2005) Fathers 4 Justice Campaign Objectives http//www.fathers-4-justice.org/campaign objectives/indexhtmFathers 4 Justice (2005) Fathers 4 Justice Press Articles http//www.fathers-4-justice.org/press articles/index.htmFawcett Society (2006) Family Courts Fact sheet http//www.fawcettsocietv.org.uk/documents/Family%20courts%20factsheet.doc (Accessed whitethorn 2006)Kelly, L. (2006) Real dads failed by clowns of F4J Opinion in The Sun. 21 January 2006Kielty, S. (2005) Mothers are Non-resident Parents also A Consideration of Mothers Perspectives on Non-residential Parenting in The Journal of Social offbeat and Family Law. Vol 27 No.l p 1-16OBrien, M. Shemilt, I. (2003) Working Fathers Earning and Caring, EOC Research Discussion Series, Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester.OPSI (1989) The Children Act 1989 (c.41) http//www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/actsl989/Ukpga19890041 en 3.htmSamuel, M. (2006) Special Report on Family Resolution Schemes http//www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2006/03/10/53165/special-report-on-family-resoluti on-schemes.htmlSarler, C (1991) Act of kindness for the children Childrens Act in The Sunday Times. London, 13 October 1991 Wall, J (2005) Enforcement of Contact Orders in Family Law. Vol 35 p 26-32Sobolewski, J. and King, V. (2005) The Importance of the Coparental Relationship for Non-resident Fathers ties to Children in The Journal of Marriage and Family. Vol 67 p 1196-1212