House of Lords clarify shared parenting clause within Children and Familes Bill
A controversial “shared parenting” clause in the Children and Families Bill has been clarified after campaigners argued it could inadvertently harm child welfare.
Clause 11 states that the courts should “presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare”, when deciding access cases.
However, a consortium of children’s charities, led by Coram Children’s Legal Centre, argued the clause could lead to separating parents assuming they are legally bound to equally share access to their children.
The House of Lords has now voted to introduce a clarification that “involvement” means involvement of some kind, whether direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child’s time or particular arrangement.
Kirsten Anderson, legal research and policy manager, Coram, says: “Our concern in general was that it may operate to undermine the welfare paramountcy principle so that the focus is less on the welfare of the child.
“The 10% of cases that go to court will be dealt with very competently, but in the other 90% of cases parents may misinterpret cl 11 as meaning both parents should have equal access. Research in Australia [where a similar presumption exists] showed that parents would see the starting point for discussions—the default position—as 50-50 shared time, and think they had a right to that time rather than going from what was in the best interests of the child.”
The Bill has now returned to the Commons.
