Children and Families Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

14: Clause 11, page 11, line 5, at end insert—
“(2B) Involvement is any kind of direct or indirect involvement that promotes the welfare of the child; it shall not be taken to mean any particular division of a child’s time.”

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, it is with some regret that I have not sought to remove the presumption from the wording of Clause 11, although I still think it is unfortunate. I recognise the good intentions of the Government and their genuine desire to involve both parents, and more often the father, in a continuing relationship with the children after the separation of the parents. I entirely support that important aspiration. A serious part of the parting of parents is the failure of one parent, often the father, to have any future relationship with his children, who are then brought up in a one-parent family without the advantages of knowledge of and support by the absent parent.

I am, however, concerned about the message that separating parents may receive from the current wording of Clause 11. Originally the heading for this clause was “Shared parenting”. That heading, thank goodness, was removed, but it had been picked up by the press, and this clause may be seen by some as containing the right to equal access to children. There is concern, not just on my part but on that of many of the agencies, including the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and Coram.

The department has issued excellent guidance for those who choose to read it. I have no concern about the courts, judges and magistrates doing their best with litigants in person, in the absence of legal aid, to come to the least detrimental decision about the arrangements for the children. Most parents will be sensible about arrangements. However, there is a small percentage of parents—sometimes one parent, male or female, and sometimes both parents—who are utterly unreasonable, and no arrangements will be easy to achieve; sometimes it will be impossible to achieve any arrangements.

The groups of parents whom I worry about in relation to Clause 11 are those who try to settle the arrangements for the children without going to court. In the absence of lawyers to advise either side, the stronger, more dominant parent may insist on an arrangement based on equality, or at least on disproportion which is not appropriate for the welfare of the children. We know from the Norgrove report of the fine line between children at risk in the private law sector and those seriously at risk in public law. The parents of some of those children at risk may well make their decisions outside court. I want the weaker parent to have something in statute to hold on to if browbeaten.

I also worry about those who would go to court with an erroneous view of what this clause actually means, and with an inbuilt sense of their rights rather than the best arrangements for the children. The purpose of this amendment is to give some clarity to the clause and to help the public come to terms with putting the welfare of their children first. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

I hope that the noble Baroness takes what she has said to heart; what I am trying to avoid is replacing one perception with another. There is equal danger that, after a debate such as this, another perception gets flagged. What I want is to emphasise what is in the legislation and what is intended by the legislation and to use all the means at our disposal to make sure that that is fully understood by all the agencies involved and the widest range of public opinion as possible. As my noble friend has indicated, that also means that there is a certain sense of responsibility on the part of the media in reporting the intentions of Parliament.

When a case is before the court, neither parent has a right to any specific level of contact, direct or otherwise. The court must consider the child’s welfare above all else and make its decision on that basis, weighing up the evidence before it. That will continue to be the case, and nothing in Clause 11 changes that. The wording of the clause is deliberately neutral; it does not seek to pre-empt court decisions and, as now, it gives courts the flexibility to determine the arrangements that they believe are best for the child, taking account of all the evidence before them. We think that that is the right approach.

However, I agree wholeheartedly with those who have highlighted the need for a clear understanding of the policy. The reality is that any provision which impacts on parents and their private family relationships is extremely sensitive. Even the wording of the amendment could be misinterpreted in the media and give rise to unintended consequences. There is no guarantee that it would not. For example, as I said, a parent who already has very limited contact through no fault of their own may interpret the wording as endorsing that position. Our priority must be to draft legislation which achieves our intended effect and to take other steps to communicate to society more widely what that effect is. As I said, it is unlikely that separating couples will look to the Children Act 1989 to try to predict the outcome of their dispute. They will look for information online or talk to their friends and family, to organisations which they trust or their legal advisers.

The Government’s “Sorting out Separation” web app will be the first port of call for many parents looking for information about any aspect of separation and it will then signpost them to further sources of help. The app itself will set out clear information for parents about the law, and this information will make it plain that the change is not intended to be about the division of the child’s time. We will also ensure that organisations with the Help and Support for Separated Families kitemark have clear and accurate information about the changes. The web app will be embedded on the sites of organisations that have this kitemark, including, for example, Relate. This means that people accessing these websites will be able to click on a link and access information on the web app. In addition, the minority of separating parents who turn to the courts will need, first, to have attended a MIAM, and they will be encouraged to find a different way of resolving their dispute. Parents will be given information through all these routes and through other services that they may engage with.

The way to ensure an accurate understanding of the policy is for the Government to work with organisations in the sector to develop clear information which can be disseminated through these routes, not to reword the clause in an attempt to prevent inaccurate reporting of what we want to achieve. Officials have already begun discussions about the information to be developed and these will continue. We want to work with relevant voluntary organisations so that we are confident that we can address the concerns.

Right from the beginning I have never been in any doubt about the intentions of the various—in this case—noble Baronesses who have contributed to this debate. However, it is a matter of judgment, and I am asking for the House’s support this afternoon for the Government’s position. I have thought long and hard about how we can address the problems of misperception and misrepresentation, and I honestly believe that the solution put forward by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, may lead us into the same problems but via a different route. We have tried very hard to get the balance right and, even at this late stage, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I thank all noble Baronesses for their contributions and I hope that the Minister will forgive me for not thanking him. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Howarth, who has put right the perception that in some way the courts are unfair to fathers. It is a perception which has, from the beginning, been inaccurate. When I was President of the Family Division, I went round the courts and made a lot of inquiries. After I had retired, I was very grateful for the CAFCASS report, which absolutely clarified what I had understood to be the case from judges right across the country—that they try cases fairly and that there is no prejudice against fathers.

I find it difficult to understand why the Minister thinks that what I think is a very modest amendment for clarification is going to be widely misinterpreted and somehow bring back the situation before Clause 11 was put forward. I take issue with him on one point. He talks about going to legal advisers. How many people in this country have the money to go to legal advisers if they do not have legal aid? It is this Government who have taken legal aid away from private law cases. When he talks about going to legal advisers, it will be a very small minority of that very small minority who actually fight cases who will get to lawyers at all. They may or may not go on the web and they may or may not read what I consider to be the excellent advice that the Government give. They will look at what the press has said and, despite the wonderfully impassioned suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, may or may not choose to take any interest in this particular debate, and may perpetuate a very dangerous perception.

I must say that I worry about ordinary people on the ground who cannot get on and decide to separate. I sometimes used to say to warring parents, “You are the last people who should be making decisions about your own children because you cannot think straight about what is happening next”. Those are people—without legal advice, lawyers in court or probably ever going to court—where one of them will be dominating the other and the arrangements for the children will be unsatisfactory and, in some cases, positively dangerous. All I am asking for is some clarification, particularly for a mother because there may well be a more dominant father, although there can be a dominant mother. I have certainly seen dominant mothers and not only in the American press. It is possible that the mother or father who is not the dominant parent will look at the law and see that there is an explanation of what is in Clause 11 with this amendment.

I am truly sad that the Minister thinks that that will create some misinterpretation. Speaking for myself, I cannot see it and I rather hope that noble Lords will not see it either. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Undoubtedly, there is a need somehow to make it clear to parents and prospective parents that, whether they like it or not, all parents have an onerous responsibility to provide for the well-being of any child whom they bring into the world. During our meeting the noble Lord, Lord McNally, suggested that the Government may be able to come forward with other proposals to encourage responsible and committed parenting that might be even more effective than changing the law as it defines the duties of a parent. If the Government are able to achieve that objective without changing the law, I accept that that may be the best way forward. I look forward to hearing the Government’s proposals. I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Marriage Foundation. I express my admiration for the tenacity of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in pursuing this difficult, worrying and extremely important issue. Parenting must be a matter of responsibility rather than rights; that point needs to be put forward again and again in every single place where it can possibly be put. The admirable proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, put in Amendment 15 ought to be placed somewhere by the Government. Whether they should be in primary legislation, I am not convinced, but certainly they should be in guidance and, possibly, in part of the pack given to parents when they separate so that they can recognise their responsibilities after separation. I should like to see this sort of thing in libraries, as part of the school pack in the sixth form and in sixth form colleges, and in universities and colleges of further education. The duties of parents that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has set out here should be part of what all young and not so young people who are of an age to be parents should have in their minds.

We ought to stop talking about the rights of parents and start talking about the responsibilities referred to in the Children Act, and also about duties. It is interesting that the word “duty” is almost never used, but it is as important today as it was in the 19th century. It is time we started to use it again. I express again my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I hope that what he has said will be taken further.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

I declare an interest as a vice-president of the charity Relate. I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is trying to achieve through this amendment, although I feel that primary legislation is probably not quite the right place to put across this very important message. I agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that it is important to emphasise at every opportunity that this is about parental responsibilities rather than rights. That must flow through all the messaging and communications that we talked about when we discussed the earlier amendment.

I, too, should like to see this guidance offered at many different opportunities. I should like to see this sort of guidance as an integral part of relationship education. We talked about the importance of relationship education in Committee, and I suspect that we shall return to it later. I should also like to see it included in the various pilots for birth registration in different venues. It would be good to see it included there, and in the various packs—Bounty packs and others—that are prepared for new parents. I should like to see it at the new-parent stage, at the education stage and especially in the various advice and guidance packs that are available for separating parents. It has a lot to offer. It is a very important set of messages. I just happen to think that primary legislation is not quite the right place for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, this amendment raises an issue that has engaged academic legal discussion for about 18 years. I hear with some surprise the fact that some dramatic change was made in the case of Re J. That is not my impression.

There are, of course, two schools of thought, as there are in so many issues, even in family law. During the many years when I was a family judge, I heard many child injury and death cases and agonised over where the line was to be drawn between the protection of a child from significant harm and the importance for the child and the rest of the family of not removing that child from the family home on insufficient evidence. In the case that precipitated this amendment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, pointed out, the seven members of the Supreme Court were in fact unanimous on this issue although they disagreed on some less important points, as I would respectfully call them. They decided on the balance of the bare facts of the case that they were against the removal of the children and that the threshold had not been crossed. Put at its simplest, this is a question of whether you remove a child on suspicion or go to the welfare stage on suspicion or whether you have to have evidence before you cross the threshold.

I was never a Supreme Court judge, but I respectfully agreed with the seven—

[Lord Elton (Con)]

I have one difficulty. I understood that it was not at this stage a question of removing the child—I thought that it was a question only of moving to the welfare stage. The noble and learned Baroness has just said the contrary.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I am sorry—I was talking about the removal of the child or looking at other aspects of the welfare stage. I am sorry if I conflated that, but the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is a question as to whether the court can make decisions which include the removal of the children or the removal of the parent or putting in place supervision orders or various other intrusive orders into the family.

I suggest that this House should be cautious, when seven judges have said that the threshold has not been reached and crossed, about passing an amendment to the contrary effect. I was going to go through at some length the two cases that I think are relevant, because we go back to 1996—we do not start in 2009—but it is probably unnecessary. However, it was unrealistic for the Supreme Court to be given the one bare fact and not the surrounding circumstances, although it was undoubtedly intentional. In my experience of 26 years sitting as a family judge, 15 of them spent hearing this sort of case—many children who died and many who were seriously injured—as well as eight years spent hearing them on appeal, then going back to hearing them again as a first-instance judge, I do not remember a single case where this bare fact was the only point that the court had to deal with. So I believe that the cases are rare, although I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord says—that even the rare cases, naturally, have to be protected. But if there is nothing but suspicion, I would suggest to your Lordships’ House, as the Supreme Court judges said, that you should not remove the child on suspicion.

The court has the jurisdiction to look at the entire case, although it is not able to make a decision on welfare in looking at the threshold point. There may have been some degree of confusion in Grand Committee as to what in fact the local authority and the court could do. I hope the House will forgive me if I go through briefly what I understand the situation to be. I would be astonished if it has changed from the days when I was sitting as a judge.

If you have a person, whom I will call P, who has been in a pool of possible perpetrators but not identified as the actual perpetrator of the injury or death of a child, the social workers are not precluded from investigation. I respectfully disagree with my most experienced noble friend Lady Howarth in saying that the social workers might not be able to enter the house or make the proper investigations. With the person, P, having been in a pool of possible perpetrators of the death or injury of a child—in the particular case of J, the child aged, I think, three weeks died of asphyxia but also had terrible injuries—the social services, if they had been alerted that P was in a new family, would see that as a highly relevant factor and naturally very worrying. The local authority has a duty under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the area who are in need. It is almost certain that the sole fact available, that P had been in a pool of perpetrators, would trigger immediate action by a local authority.

Under Section 47(1)(b), a local authority in circumstances such as these would have a duty to make inquiries. A social worker would investigate and be likely to visit the family. If the inquiries are frustrated by access to the children being unreasonably refused, there may therefore be grounds for seeking an emergency protection order under Section 44(1)(b) or (a), for possible removal of the children from the home because of what is going wrong if they are not being allowed to see the children.

The local authority could also seek a child assessment order under Section 42(3). In any event, the local authority would be likely to seek an interim care order from a family judge under Section 38(2) in respect of the children. It would not look well to the judge if the parents refused access to the children; that would be a major marker against what was going on in the family. The children might be taken into interim care but, in the case of J, the mother very properly left the home so that the children could continue to live with the father. She moved out.

There would be a directions hearing by the judge of the care application and a CAFCASS guardian would almost certainly be appointed. During the period leading to the substantive care hearing, the family would no doubt be examined in depth. At the main hearing, P would clearly have to give evidence and be cross-examined as to what happened in the first family when the child was injured and died. She—it was a woman in that case—and J would be cross-examined up hill and down dale as to why she had not protected the child, whether she was actually the perpetrator, why she had not seen the injuries to the child, what she was doing while this child was being hurt, and whether she covered up for the other parent. Those are terribly relevant factors and, I would suggest, relevant factors to crossing the threshold if she gave unsatisfactory answers and if she was not believed by the judge. There would be assessment reports from the social worker, and of course the guardian would give his or her own report on the family’s position. All the circumstances would be very carefully considered by the judge in deciding whether the evidence available to him or her was sufficient to cross the threshold barrier.

Clearly, how well the new family were getting on and the care given to the new family by P and by the other partner were relevant to identifying whether there were other concerns that might tip the evidence over the threshold. Only if there were no evidence at all other than the bare fact of P having been in the pool but not having been proved to be the perpetrator would the evidence be insufficient to cross the threshold, and the judge would not make a care order or some other order excluding P from the care of the children. That is the point at which, if you do not cross the threshold, you cannot make a decision about removing the children or putting in a supervision order or any other sort of order.

I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving me the opportunity to read the opinion of John Hayes. Of course, I respect his experience as an advocate in care proceedings but I disagree with his conclusions. Perhaps I may make a number of points on his opinion. He talks about a case of twins where the unharmed twin would be in danger if not removed from the family where the first child had been injured. In that case, the unharmed child would certainly be removed. However, we are considering a new family where one adult member is a possible perpetrator but there is now a new family unit with an adult against whom there are no allegations at all. It may also be relevant that in the J case the injuries perpetrated on the child took place seven or eight years before, and undoubtedly P would have matured. I believe that in that case she was extremely young—16 or 17 years old. She was in a much more stable and supportive environment and therefore might not pose a threat.

Taking the other points made by Mr Hayes, if a local authority becomes aware that a possible perpetrator is in the new family, I have no doubt that it will issue the proceedings even if there are no other concerns, and I am surprised to hear John Hayes say something to the contrary. I do not believe that the judge at the interim care stage would dismiss the proceedings before having the opportunity to see all the reports and examine all the evidence. If counsel for the parents applied at the interim directions stage to have the case dismissed, I would be equally surprised if the judge dismissed the case before the full hearing. I certainly would not have done that because I would have been worried. Of course, you would be worried until all the facts were in front of you. I would hope that the child’s guardian would look at the best interests of the child in the broadest sense and take into account the need for a balance between protection and the right of the child to have a normal life with the natural family. Interestingly, Mr Hayes talks about the balance between protection of the child and the rights of the parents to have a family life. For goodness’ sake, the right of the child to have a family life is much more important than the right of the child’s parents. What we have here is a balance between protection and the right to family life.

It seems to me that there has been an overreaction by academics, some social workers, some lawyers and some judges. The other side of the coin is the real danger that, if this amendment is passed, children may be permanently removed from their parents, their homes, their schools and their friends on a suspicion that the person concerned was in the pool of perpetrators, although he or she cannot be proved to have done the harm. That would be a great injustice to children, it would cause significant harm where there was no serious threat to children’s well-being and it would tilt too far towards intrusion by the state into family life.