On family courts –
Insert new clauses into Part 3: Family Proceedings following Clause 75 on cross examination:
- Remove Section 11 (2A) of the Children and Families Act 2014 which presumes that it is always in a child’s best interest to have contact with both parents.
RATIONALE: This has resulted in a presumption of contact for fathers regardless of any history of rape and/or Domestic Abuse. For the welfare of children to be paramount, their safety and the safety of the mother, who is usually the primary carer, must be prioritised over father’s residence and contact. Fathers who are violent to their children or their partners should not have contact with their children. Thousands of children are being harmed physically and psychologically by being forced into contact with fathers they are terrified of.
- Reduce the threshold of official evidence required when domestic violence is raised as an issue in the family courts.
RATIONALE: Evidence must include reports to GP, midwife, counsellor, etc., as well as non-molestation and/or occupation order. This is even more crucial now that the level of convictions for rape and DA are at an all-time low and violent men have near impunity from prosecution. The majority of victims do not report domestic abuse or rape to the police and when they do they can expect little or no protection.
- Remove Clause 120 in the Adoption & Children Act 2002 which extended the definition of significant harm (Children Act 1989) to include “impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another”.
RATIONALE: This addition to the definition of significant harm was meant to protect children. It has instead been used to take children from mothers who are victims of DA, further victimising the child and the mother instead of providing the help and support they need to leave violent men. It is unbearably cruel and discriminatory. DA has become the most common reason to remove children from their mother, thus isolating children from their only protector. Violent men know this and taunt telling them, ‘Go ahead and report me and they’ll take the kids from you.’ There is evidence from the US, and we must look for evidence here, that separation from one’s mother causes more serious harm than witnessing DA. For this reason, the New York courts have ruled that children should not be removed from mothers who are victims of DA.
- End the use of ‘parental alienation’ to remove children from their mothers. Ensure that courts take seriously children’s allegations of sexual abuse by fathers.
RATIONALE: Children and mothers who make accusations
of violence are disbelieved or dismissed even when these incidents have been
reported to the police or others in authority and despite evidence of how pervasive
Mothers are routinely accused of poisoning their children’s minds when they report what the children are telling them. It is horrifying that mothers are instructed by the court to force their children, whom they know are being abused, often sexually, to have contact with the man who is abusing them. The law is supposed to protect children not rapists. Mothers who defy the court in order to protect their children risk having their children taken from them and left without protection. As a result, mothers are increasingly wary of mentioning DA.
‘Parental alienation’ is the discredited theory of Dr Richard A Gardner, a US misogynist psychiatrist who dismissed domestic abuse and defended paedophilia. It is shocking that CAFCASS which was created to protect children is using this. It shows the impact that organisations of domestic abuse deniers have had on the family courts.
- Prioritise implementation of Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 so that resources are made available to mothers and children facing domestic abuse, in particular access to benefits and housing, without which many women are trapped with violent men.
RATIONALE: Section 17 exists to help ensure that children are raised by their family and therefore provides for local authorities to use their resources to keep children within the family. But it is not being implemented. This is particularly outrageous given that austerity policies have targeted single mother families: over 4 million children are living in poverty, single mothers are 75% of those affected by Universal Credit, and 86% of austerity cuts have been borne by women. Section 17 is needed more than ever and could make a massive difference to DA victims. Instead huge amounts of money are spent wrenching screaming children from their mothers’ arms, causing significant and lifelong harm. An increasingly privatised industry is profiting from the pain of children and mothers. This must stop and the original purpose of the law must be adhered to.
- Open the family courts to public scrutiny.
RATIONALE: End the secrecy which has shielded the family courts from public scrutiny, and delayed the introduction of protections the women’s movement won in other civil and criminal courts. Transparency can be safely introduced with reference to the law protecting the anonymity of victims of sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Amendment Act 1994. The same should be done in the family courts. In many US states family courts are open and this has not been detrimental to children.
INSERT in Part 3, Section 31W:
- Reinstate legal aid in family cases, so that women are not forced to represent themselves.
- Implement Practice Direction 12j and 3AA. Do risk assessments and findings of fact whenever violence is an issue.
Proposed amendments to other parts of the Bill
INSERT in Part 1 Chapter 3, in orderto improve protection by the criminal justice system and civil courts:
- The police should prioritise investigating crimes of violence against women over minor offences they suspect women of committing.
- The police should arrest, charge and prosecute violent men, especially when they commit a second or third offence.
This is urgent as the rape and DA conviction rates
are at rock bottom granting violent men impunity from prosecution.
Community Resolutions or Out of Court Resolutions are not appropriate for a violent crime and are dangerous.
To make police officers more accountable, take disciplinary action if a woman is murdered after repeated calls to police for help and protection.
- End the hostile environment for immigrant women: stop women being detained and/or deported when they report DA.
- End domestic abuse being classed as an either way offence, which results in many cases being closed after 6 months.
- Make it easier for women to get a non-molestation order (e.g. abolish the costs) and routinely add power of arrest.
DELETE in PART 1, Ch. 4, section 54, section on polygraph conditions:
- Delete the clause on lie detector tests, which are notoriously unreliable.
INSERT IN PART 1, Ch. 4, section 54:
- Provide protection from the offender when he is released from prison.
INSERT in PART 1, Chapter 4, Section 56, Clause 1 where the Bill refers to housing (keeping a lifetime council tenancy).
- Economic abuse and economic independence.
The Bill includes economic abuse in the definition of Domestic Abuse, but to tackle economic abuse thoroughly, the Bill must also enable a woman’s economic independence from men, regardless of her social class, so that she can leave a violent man. The government must properly fund women’s vital escape routes beginning with: welfare benefits, social housing, and refuges.