Only 23 couples take part in pilot plan to help separated parents
resolve child contact disputes
Plans to introduce a child-friendly way of dealing with
battles between separated parents have been derailed after a pilot
procedure was completed by just 23 couples in nine months.
The
figure is far below the 1,000 that ministers expected would use the
system, which is set to be expanded in legislation before
parliament. Three family courts in London, Brighton and Sunderland
were chosen to try out a one-year project due to end in September,
which could have become the norm in England and Wales for resolving
child contact disputes after parents split up.
The project
is based on programmes in the US and Scandinavia which have reduced
the harmful effects of family break-ups on children. But in
a parliamentary answer, the children's minister, Maria Eagle, has
revealed the extent to which the project, which has cost nearly
£200,000 so far, has fallen short of expectations.
Only 47
couples had begun the procedure, of whom 23 had completed the
programme of classes followed by mediation - which the government
prefers to call "parent planning" - to agree a parenting schedule.
The classes give information about the children's need for
frequent and continuing contact with both parents and the adverse
effects conflict can have on their lives. Parents are taught how to
manage post-divorce battles and sit down with a mediator to
apportion children's time between them.
The failure of the
scheme is a disappointment to judges who backed it, and will anger
fathers' groups whose lobbying helped persuade the government to set
it up.
Critics say the flaw is that the programme is not
compulsory and parents are simply opting to bypass it. Ministers say
mediation cannot be made mandatory without primary legislation.
The government's children and adoption bill, which is due
for second reading in the House of Lords on Wednesday, contains no
provision for compulsory mediation. The Conservatives said they
would try to amend the bill to make mediation mandatory and to spell
out in the statute, as in the US and Norway, that children have the
right to spend substantial time with both parents after family
break-up.
Theresa May, shadow secretary of state for the
family, said: "It is obvious that this pilot project was simply a
sham to get the government out of a political hole. Ministers wanted
to neutralise the protests from fathers' groups, and this project
was the plan they cooked up to do it.
"However, while the
government have wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds on a phoney
project, children are being denied contact with parents who love
them.
"It is time that the government admitted defeat,
scrapped the pilot project and addressed the real problem, that the
family justice system needs a complete and radical overhaul."
Experience in the US, where many states passed laws
providing for mandatory mediation nearly 25 years ago, shows that it
defuses parental battles and dramatically reduces the number of
court cases.
Among those supporting compulsory mediation are
district judge Nicholas Crichton, who oversees the family
resolutions pilot at Wells Street magistrates' court in London, and
Dr Hamish Cameron, a child psychiatrist who, with Judge Crichton,
helped devise the "early intervention" scheme, which was scrapped in
favour of the government's family resolutions project.
Dr
Cameron, who has nearly 35 years' experience in court cases
involving children, said: "We're 10 to 15 years behind best practice
in other countries. We're still failing many children in this
country."
The national family law solicitors' group,
Resolution, and a number of high court family judges also support a
mandatory scheme. Some senior judges are unconvinced that the
present law bars compulsory mediation.
A spokesman for the
Department for Education said: "In the absence of legal powers to
compel participation, we did not expect every eligible couple to
take part in the pilot."
