Step-families Day

On the 16^th September it will be National Step Family Day in the U.S – there is not, as far as I am aware, an equivalent day in the UK.

One in three American citizens live in a stepfamily and 30% of children in the U.S are currently growing up in a stepfamily. In the UK in 2008, more than 10% of families with dependent children were step families and stepfamilies were the fastest growing type of family. It has even been previously estimated that there are more step families than “nuclear” families.

Having a step-parent suggests that the family has previously been through a divorce, which will have been a huge ordeal, especially for the children, and the changes and emotions that are felt when a new step-parent comes into the family can be difficult. Resentment, anger and divided loyalty can see previously amicable relationships damaged with the consequences felt by the children and all involved.

And yet there are many step families who work hard with these issues every day, foster good relationships between the children and new step parent and between the adults involved and who, despite the difficulties, remain together and provide a stable environment for the children in the family unit.

So, if your family is a step family, on the 16^th September (even if you are not in the U.S) take a moment to think about the positives and some time together.

What’s in a name?

Yesterday saw a case reported from the Tennessee Courts which involved 2 parents who could not agree on their child’s surname and who, as a result, issued an application for the Court to determine the matter.  

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hes-not-the-messiah-hes-just-a-little-boy-tennessee-judge-changes-childs-name-from-messiah-to-martin-8757085.html

Unfortunately for the parents, in deciding the matter, the judge learnt of the child’s first name (on which the parents did agree, presumably) being Messiah. The Court has ordered that the child’s first name be changed to “Martin” and that both parents’ surnames be used as the child’s surname, leaving the child’s name now as Martin DeShawn McCullough.

Whether the mother’s appeal against the change of the child’s first name will be successful remains to be seen, the mother alleging that the judge took more account of her own religious beliefs than considering the child’s interests or the parents’ right to choose a name for their child.

But what this case does highlight is just one of the issues that might arise between parents of children who are separated and have different views.

In this country, if both parents have Parental Responsibility for their child (the mother gets that automatically on the child’s birth and the father may obtain it either by being married to the child’s mother, entering a Parental Responsibility Agreement or being named on the child’s birth certificate post December 2003) then there are certain things that cannot be done without both parties’ consent and several decisions in which both parents should be consulted/have a say.

The changing of a child’s name is one action that cannot be taken without the consent of all people with Parental Responsibility for that child and, if parents cannot agree, then an application to the Court for a “specific issue order” will be necessary.

The Court will have to have regard to the “Welfare Checklist” as with all applications concerning children and balance the following, taking into account that the child’s best interests are paramount in these kinds of applications:

a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);

(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs;

(c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;

(d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;

(e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;

(f) how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;

(g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.

I have made several such applications on behalf of clients over the years and whilst there are exceptions, notably where association with a particular name is likely to cause the child distress or harm or where change to incorporate a particular name is likely to be against the child’s best interests, the Court has favoured the incorporation of both parents’ surnames into the child’s name, sometimes hyphenated, sometimes not.

That appears to be because this allows the child’s link with their biological parents to be kept intact – which in terms of a child understanding its paternity and history can be very important, perhaps even more so if a child is having limited or no contact with one parent.

It appears that the Court in Tennessee has come to the same conclusion in this recently reported case.

Summer – Will it become too heated?

Finally, some sunshine and high temperatures after the distinctly too cool Spring and soon enough schools will break up, children will be off for the summer….

The pressure that many can feel to have the “perfect Summer”, to spend time with family, arrange and host BBQs and other events and ensure that the children have plenty of days out and fun activities can lead to tremendous stress and fractured relationships.

It has long been acknowledged that there is a noticeable link between holiday periods and the number of enquiries that Solicitors receive about Divorce following those and whilst many consider that a bad joke I can assure you that for the clients that I see it is anything but.

Now I am not suggesting that one less than perfect Summer leads to Divorce, families and relationships are far more complex than that, but it can be a significant stressor on a relationship that perhaps is already in difficulty or on couples who are not seeing eye to eye.

There are some things that you can consider to make the whole period less stressful. Try the following:

1.      Plan in advance and acknowledge what you can and can’t do – limit the number of BBQs or events you are going to host over the holidays and “book” them in early, speak with other parents at School or with family members about their plans early so you don’t feel pressured to accept any last minute invites.

2.      Make a note of local activities for children or for you and your partner that will keep you all interested. If you have different interests, acknowledge those and plan activities accordingly.

3.      Arrange for the children to spend time at their friends’ homes – I’m sure their parents will gratefully accept if the reverse is also offered and it will allow you some time alone or together as a couple to discuss any issues without the children around.

4.      Pencil in some relaxation or free time so that you can do as you please – talk to your partner, accept that last minute invite if you want to, spend time as a family at home.

5.      If you are really struggling to speak with your partner without arguing then don’t. Take time to walk away and compose yourself and raise any issues when you are both calmer and away from any family members or children.

6.      Perspective – it’s Summer, yes we don’t have great weather all the time and you want to make the most of it but the memories that I have of Summer, both in my childhood and adulthood, are not of what the weather was doing or even what I was doing but who I was with and the atmosphere that there was – make that your focus.

One too many days of Christmas?

So the festive season is nearly here, there are Christmas displays in shop windows and the build-up has well and truly begun.

Whilst this for many is a happy time of year the added stress and debt can put strain on relationships and cracks may start to appear or become more apparent for those who are not used to spending long periods with their partner or children.

The constant planning and pressure for everything to be perfect can leave couples at breaking point and it is a sad fact that reports of Domestic Violence and people seeking advice for relationship breakdown often double in the post-Christmas period.

With the recession still in force, this year may seem particularly difficult for many but nobody wants to suffer upset at Christmas so how can you try to Christmas proof your relationship?

1. Keep a check on your alcohol consumption – excessive alcohol can frequently lead to people being more aggressive/argumentative or expressing views that they may later regret – alcohol and the pressure of a family Christmas can be a disaster

2. Agree a budget for each family member or for the children and stick to it – financial pressures are one of the biggest strains at Christmas and can be source of many arguments, even in to the New Year when debts need to be paid off

3. If you’re struggling, refusing to speak to one another, whether that is because you simply can’t bear it or because you fear it will cause a row, will see tensions build – try and clear the air about issues as quickly as possible and away from family members.

4. Perspective – with the added stress and pressure the smallest of things can become a source of major irritation. Stand back and count to 10, is it that big an issue? If it is then speak about it, if not, let it go.

It is rare that Christmas is the cause for a relationship breaking down but it can magnify cracks in a relationship and be the last straw – if that is the case, seek out specialist advice in the New Year and remember that friends may be well meaning but they are frequently wrong or influenced by their own experiences.

For those couples already separated, particularly with children, the issue of how to deal with Christmas can raise other difficulties, here are a few tips to help…

1. If you have recently separated, or even if you have been for some time, rely on your friends and family for support. Surrounding yourself with close friends will lift your mood and stop you dwelling on matters.

2. Make Christmas your own – often when there are children involved, a family will have certain traditions done each year. Don’t focus on what has always been done, make your own traditions and memories and move forward

3. Forget the emotion – maybe you are still processing emotions from the breakdown of your marriage/relationship try not to let your children sense that over Christmas. Remember this, as long as children see both of their parents over the Christmas period they won’t be too concerned about who they see on Christmas Day – Christmas starts when the presents start and ends when the presents end – who said Santa can’t leave their presents in 2 houses?

4. Communication is key – when you separate there will be all sorts of emotions to process and you will both be feeling them, not necessarily the same ones at the same time. Communicating with your ex about Christmas presents, arrangements etc. will enable you and the children to have an enjoyable break.

Child Maintenance - Changes ahead.

This month saw a new child maintenance formula introduced for the CSA to calculate child maintenance. There has been little detail published about the new scheme so I thought I’d do a bit on this.

Initially, the scheme will apply to all new cases where there are 4 or more children and will be opened up gradually, with all cases falling under the new formula from early 2014.

The new formula uses gross income instead of net income, which has been used for some time to form the basis of the calculations by the CSA.

It is hoped that in using gross income figures this will avoid delays and make it easier to establish self-employed income, by using tax returns and information submitted to HM Revenue & Customs instead of relying on documentation and information from the parent themselves. It should also help to make it more difficult for parents to minimise the income assessed in order to reduce their child maintenance liability.

The new formula is to be applied in 2 parts, one for the first £800 of gross weekly income (12% for one child, 16% for 2 children and 19% for three or more) and the second for any gross weekly income over £800 (9% for one child, 12% for two children and 15% for three or more). There is a cap of £3,000 per week gross income, beyond which parents shall have to apply to the Court.

There will continue to be reductions in maintenance if the paying parent is financially responsible for other children, is a step parent to other children in his/her household or to take account of overnight stays.

Controversially, there will be a charge for using the CSA to assess and collect child maintenance, whereas at the moment this is free. The charge is likely to come in once the new formula is being applied to all cases.

Consultations on the level of that charge shall end shortly but some critics say that charges may not be affordable for all parents and will see money effectively taken from the children it was meant to support.

Existing cases will not be affected until late 2013 but when they are it will mean that all currently paying parents will be given an opportunity to establish a direct payment to the other parent (even those parents who are paying through the CSA at the moment because of their history of non-payment). The CSA has a direct payment scheme, which would mean that the paying parent can make their payments direct but without the receiving parent having to disclose bank details etc.

Failing any agreement or direct payment, a fresh application will have to be made to the CSA by the parent with care of the children.

Critics of this part of the scheme have suggested that this may allow perpetrators of domestic violence to manipulate or financially control their ex-partners by making direct payments but changing the dates or missing payments, the only other option for the victim to be to apply to the CSA once again and be charged.

The move to use gross income figures is likely to help with accurate assessment and enforcement of child maintenance but the proposed charges may, for many, be an obstacle to obtaining a secure financial future for their children, which ironically is exactly what the child maintenance scheme is supposed to achieve.

As with many of these things, the devil is in the detail so I think we’ll have to wait and see how it all works in practice.

Real life drama – Part 2

Following on from my last post here’s the next storyline….

 1. The non-biological mother and Residence

Ashley is Gaby’s biological father, her mother not being around (although if she were matters might be different again). Ashley and Laurel (his wife and Gaby’s step-mother) have separated and Gabby and her half-brother (Ashley and Laurel’s son) Arthur have remained living with Laurel and have had Contact with their father until recently.

Gaby expressed a wish to stay with her father and, although he does not have appropriate housing at the moment and has suffered anger management issues, which manifested themselves in him physically attacking his own father and controlling his money, he has taken Gaby to live with him.

Much as with Paddy’s situation, the fact that Laurel married Gaby’s father does not provide her automatically with PR for Gaby – I must confess that I cannot remember far back enough to know whether there was some PR agreement made between Ashley and Laurel so I assume that there is not. Ordinarily that would mean that Gaby’s school might be in difficulty providing information about Gaby to Laurel without Ashley’s agreement. In addition, it means that technically Ashley is able to decide the big issues in Gaby’s life without consulting Laurel, including where she resides. Ashley should be consulting with Gaby’s biological mother.

Ashley is perfectly able to remove Gaby from Laurel’s care but of course he must consider Gaby’s best interests. If Laurel wished to prevent Gaby’s removal from her care or seek her return then she would need to make an application to the Court for a Residence Order in her favour – as she is Gaby’s step-parent.

In determining Gaby’s Residence, the Court would need to have regard to the “welfare checklist” under the Children Act 1989, which includes the child’s wishes and feelings (considered in the light of their age and understanding), the child’s physical and emotional needs, the likely effect of any change of circumstances, how capable each party is of meeting the child’s needs and any harm or risk of harm to the child.

Gaby, as I understand it, is about 10 years old and is clearly capable of expressing a view. Her wishes will not be the overriding factor, given her age, and although she is aware of the difficulties that her father has had as regards his anger she is probably not old enough to understand any on-going risk to her – if indeed there is any, on the basis that he has been having unsupervised Contact with the children.

The Court would have to assess any anger management issues that Ashley continues to have and any risk that he might pose. In addition, they would have to weigh into the balance Arthur’s best interests and whether it would be appropriate to split the siblings or whether this is likely to cause them more harm. If it is decided that to split the siblings is not appropriate, and it is unusual, then the Court will need to balance the needs of both children in coming to a solution.

The fact that Ashley is Gaby’s biological parent is a factor that the Court will have to consider but it is not determinative. It is certainly a contributor to the Court’s balancing exercise, as will be the length of time that Gaby has been with her father by the time any Court application is made. Laurel has, however, parented Gaby for some significant time and her relationship with Laurel will also need to be considered.

So…..we’ll see what action Laurel decides to take - will the children continue to grow up in separate households, will Arthur move also to reside with his father or will Gaby have to return to Laurel’s care…you never know, although far less appealing as a soap storyline than a Courtroom battle, the show might favour an amicable resolution in the children’s best interests as the real world does!

Real life drama – Part 1

Ok, so I admit it – I do watch soaps at home – Emmerdale and Coronation St are my guilty secrets – I still struggle to believe that so much drama can happen in one small village/street…

Anyway, for those of you not aware, recently Emmerdale has seen its fair share of family breakups – children caught in all of them – and Coronation St. sees an abusive relationship play out, baby in tow.

The current storylines highlight issues that we see frequently when families separate and so I shall go through them and the legal points they raise over a couple of posts…

1. The Step-family and removal from the jurisdiction

Marlon fathered baby Leo with his then partner Rhona – they separated when she was pregnant and she formed a relationship with Paddy, whom she married. All was well and Marlon was seeing Leo (who has Downs Syndrome) regularly. Paddy was offered a job in New Zealand and they all agreed to go with Leo. Marlon changed his mind and wanted baby Leo to stay in the UK – all hell broke loose….

There are several issues that this potentially throws up. Firstly, Marlon and Rhona were not married when Leo was born – unless Rhona named Marlon on Leo’s birth certificate (which from memory she did) he would not have Parental Responsibility for Leo and she would be the only person to have this. This would have meant that there would be nothing legally to prevent her changing his name, removing him from the jurisdiction or taking other important decisions in his life without consulting Marlon.

Paddy’s status in Leo’s life as his step-father is also an issue. Simply marrying Leo’s mother does not of itself provide Paddy with Parental Responsibility for Leo. Marlon (assuming he has PR) and Rhona could have agreed to execute a PR Agreement to provide Paddy with PR for Leo but unless they did that he would have to apply to the Court for an Order to obtain PR.

This doesn’t affect matters day to day because Rhona has PR for Leo and it is unlikely that Paddy would ever have to make any important decision for Leo alone – consider though if Rhona were to die – Paddy would almost certainly need PR were Leo to remain with him.

Marlon commenced Court proceedings for Residence of Leo when he changed his mind about leaving for New Zealand and the Court granted an interim order to prevent any removal called a Prohibited Steps Order. Rhona left the jurisdiction with Leo anyway. Not only has Rhona breached the terms of the interim Order that the Court made, she also has committed an offence under the Child Abduction Act if Marlon has PR and she removes Leo for more than a month.

She also is potentially is liable to be prosecuted for “child abduction”.

To some that seems odd on the basis that Leo is her child but “child abduction” is the wrongful removal or retention of a child. That removal or retention is considered “wrongful” where it breaches the rights of custody of the other person, institution or other body under the law of the country in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal/retention.

Where that has happened, the Hague Convention will come into play – assuming that the other country, where the child has been removed to or retained in, is a signatory.

New Zealand is a signatory of the Hague Convention and, as Marlon had Parental Responsibility for Leo (being named on his birth certificate) his rights of custody had been breached. The term “rights of custody” do not necessarily refer to who the child was living with – there has been case law on this point that has established that it is a wider term that can encompasses both rights given by Court Order, PR and where care is being given on a daily basis and for all intents and purposes a person is exercising PR and caring for the child, irrespective of any Court Orders.

The other argument in this case could be that Rhona had in any event breached the Court’s rights of custody – as there were pending proceedings for Residence of Leo in front of the Courts here and in removing the child, she has interfered with the Court’s right to determine Leo’s residence.

Marlon’s correct course of action would be to approach the Central Authority for Child Abduction, who will in turn contact the Central Authority in New Zealand to secure Leo’s immediate return to England….whether he has done so or not is something I am not clear on, having missed a few episodes recently!!

………

Cancellation of National Family Week

National Family Week was to run from 25^th to 31^st August 2012 but has had to sadly be cancelled this year as a result of all of the other big events gripping the nation.

We, for the most part, see our families every day but how much time do we actually spend together?

It is widely accepted that spending quality time with children is important and that this aids their development, sense of worth and belonging and allows for a closer relationship to develop with their parents.

In a world where children are faced with so much at such a young age I believe that it has never been more important for families to be close, to spend time together and for children to feel able to approach their parents about any issue, big or small.

For adults to, spending time with a partner or spouse is important. We rush through our days fitting in work, household chores, children’s parties/dance classes/sports etc. but where is the time set aside to enjoy quality time together?

Much has been made recently by the government about the importance of stability in families and the effect that broken family life can have on children and adults alike.

I for one hope that despite National Family Week having been cancelled this year, people will step back and think about how they could spend even just a little more quality time together.

Summer Holidays – will it be a breeze or cause a storm?

Well, the weather certainly looks like it’s here and soon enough the schools will break up and children will be off for the summer.

The great British tradition of summer holidays is a happy and carefree time for many (leaving aside the eternal issues of childcare and annual leave) but it can be a time of great upset, anger and hostility for separated parents with children.

For those who could not agree when they separated on the arrangements for the children, they are likely to have a Court Order that provides for the children to spend time with each of them and, whilst no 2 Orders are the same, frequently they provide for extended or additional time over school holiday periods.

If possible, the Court will try not to be too prescriptive in the wording of the orders, after all best laid plans etc. but this means that instead the arrangements as regards dates and times are left to the parents to sort out year on year.

I can say from experience of these kinds of cases that this sometimes doesn’t work well, one party being too rigid on dates and times, dates being provided too late by one with the result that the other has already booked flights etc. etc.

The key thing to remember, and often now I insert a provision in the Order for this, is to discuss holidays at the very outset of the year and, where possible, agree the specifics early on. I know no-body likes talking about October ½ term in January but the reality is that if parents can agree dates in advance (or even some structure that rolls from year to year or alternates from year to year) it allows them also to plan in advance - to book their annual leave, budget for holidays, book flights cheaper and so on.

It amazes me still that parents who have suffered the trauma of Court proceedings to deal with arrangements for their children and have secured an Order for their trouble put off discussing holiday arrangements with the other until the last minute.

Frequently, what this achieves is further dispute, hostility and if they’re really unlucky, a return to Court to resolve the matter. A bit of forward thinking could avoid all of that.

Quite apart from advance planning, compromise and some flexibility is also essential. The fact is that commonly now parents both work – they may each have commitments to employers and other draws on their time – with some communication, it can actually be easier for both parents to manage the holiday time. Of course, the further ahead of time discussions take place the more potential for flexibility – although that does have to start as a state of mind.

With summer rapidly approaching then, my thoughts turn to those parents who are separated, with or without Court Orders, newly separated or long since divorced and I hope that arrangements for the children to spend time with each of them over the holiday period have been made already.

If that isn’t the case then discussions need to start happening now.

Avoid the disputes and bad feeling – remember, for the most part children really just want to spend time with each of their parents and enjoy that time.

Shared Parenting – Necessary changes?

The Queen’s speech announced the plan for a new Children and Families Bill and, amongst other reforms, the government’s plan to change the law in such a way that it will ensure that, where it is safe and in the child’s best interests, both parents are able to have a relationship with their children after they separate.

The media has billed this as:

“father-friendly access arrangements following relationship breakups” – guardian

“Fathers look set to be given additional rights to see their children after family break-up or divorce” - Independent

Ken Sanderson, chief executive of the charity Families Need Fathers, said the plans would “send a clear message” that children need “the full involvement of two loving parents in their lives”.

I’m left asking myself whether (a) the fact that children require or at the very least do much better with the full involvement of two loving parents has ever been in question and (b) whether it has been suggested in recent times by the public, the legal community, the judiciary or the government that the idea that children should have an ongoing relationship with both parents on separation or divorce, where it is safe and in their best interests is flawed?

Certainly I am aware that the public perception of such matters is that mothers are somehow favoured over fathers and that not enough emphasis is placed on a child’s relationship with both parents. My experience, having dealt with such issues for some significant time is that case law in this area is very clear about the importance of children maintaining a good quality, close relationship with both parents on separation, where it safe for the child and in the child’s best interests, and for parents to play a full role.

Tim Loughton, the Children’s Minister, said “We need to clarify and restore public confidence that the courts properly recognise the joint nature of parenting,”. The public perception has not gone unnoticed by the government, whatever the reality – I will hold back my views that this proposed “change” to legislation – yet to be clarified – will be a popular one with the public, however unnecessary, and one that they will be hoping may help stem the red tide that we saw at recent local levels.

The legislation at present, and long-established, provides for the child’s welfare to be the court’s paramount consideration in determining such cases and sets out certain factors called the “welfare checklist” (non-exhaustive) that the Court must have regard to when making decisions. It appears agreed all round that the child’s welfare should remain paramount and I hope that whatever the detail of any proposed changes that this remains undiluted.

As well as the principle that a child’s welfare is paramount, current legislation deals with “Parental Responsibility”, defined as “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property..” It allows for involvement in the child’s upbringing and in major long term issues for the child.

Father’s married to the child’s mother will have PR by virtue of their marriage and, since late 2003, unmarried father’s named on the child’s birth certificate will also have PR. Case law suggests that those fathers who do not have PR for whatever reason, will have it granted by Court Order on application.

Save for specific mention of the element of time that a child spends with both parents, you could be forgiven for thinking that PR provides exactly what the government is suggesting, full involvement in the child’s life after separation.

However, quite what the public’s knowledge is of PR and what rights and powers it confers is unclear. The Norgrove review did recommend that the government find means of strengthening the importance of a good understanding of parental responsibility in information it gives to parents.

Quite apart from the apparent lack of understanding about PR, the perception of some sort of unfairness or bias towards one parent over the other in cases concerning children has not been helped by the jargon/vocabulary that has developed. The concepts of “Residence” and “Contact”, whilst much better than the previous terms of “custody” and “access” still cause difficulty for parents, them seeing the parent with “Residence” as somehow in a superior position. The Court does not use Residence and Contact to distinguish one parent over the other in any way but as a way of identifying the arrangements for the child.

There is legislation in any event to enable the Court to deal with any concern – the Shared Residence Order. These orders don’t necessarily reflect an equal division of time but have been made where the Court has sought to reflect that the 2 different homes offered equal status and importance, where a sole residence order may have been misinterpreted by one of the parents as allowing more control or where it would be psychologically of benefit to the child or parents. In other words, to send a message to the parents that neither has the upper hand and that both are of equal importance to the child and their upbringing – the Court recognising the joint nature of parenting.

The Norgrove review of family law last year warned against introducing a legal presumption in favour of shared parenting, warning that it could pose an “unacceptable risk of damage to children”. The thinking behind this recommendation was that such a presumption may encourage parents to feel that children should spend equal time with each of them and this was borne out by the framework that has been in Australia since 2006 (that children should have a “meaningful relationship” with both parents) having led to increased litigation and the word “meaningful” being applied to the time a child spends with each parent.

It is with some concern that I note phrases such as “father friendly access” and “father’s additional rights” being used in the media so soon after the Queen’s speech – I can well foresee difficulties ahead if the media is insistent on speaking about parenting and arrangements for children in terms centred on parents’ “rights”.

The Court, in my view, already has as its starting point that a child should have a full and on-going relationship with both parents, where it is safe and in the child’s best interests. It has at its disposal a range of orders that may be made under the current legislation to give effect to that principle.

In my experience, those disputes around child arrangements that end up before the Court are hostile and frequently parents are entrenched in their views early on – often one fearing that they are going to be marginalised in their child’s life.

And yet, I would be concerned if there was to be any suggestion that the starting point for children should be equality of time with both parents – although I acknowledge that this is not even what the government are saying at this stage (despite what the media might suggest).

It is rare that dividing time on a week by week basis or 3 days and 4 days a week between parents is in a child’s best interests. I would be concerned about an increase in litigation and, more particularly, an increase in the bitterness of litigation if the public perception was that equality of time was the starting point.

I think this issue would be better dealt with by putting in more support services for separating parents and by educating parents on separation about PR and the Court's approach but I would hope that, if changes are made to the existing legislation, they are carefully thought through and worded to avoid misinterpretation and the possibility for increased argument over the time that children spend with each parent.

In addition, given the lack of real understanding about PR, despite this principle having been around for some time, I would hope that any changes are explained fully to the public so that there is no confusion or expectation by parents that goes beyond the changes made.

Ultimately, if this does not happen, I can foresee increased appeals and a continued perception (however incorrect) that the Court does not recognise shared parenting – exactly what the government is trying to eliminate.

The consultation on the proposed bill will commence shortly and no doubt interested parties from all angles will have their say. I hope that amid all the forthcoming negotiations and posturing that we don’t lose focus on those who will be affected most– the children.