Two Public Scandals

Jacqui Gilliatt has already posted about Lord Justice Ward's comments the other day about the impotence of the courts to help fathers to see their children if 'vengeful mothers' stood in the way, both on her own blog and on the Family Law Week blog, but I can't let it be.

Lord Justice Ward called the situation a 'public scandal', and Jacqui Gilliatt indicates another: the Children & Adoption Act 2006 was passed nearly two years ago and would provide the courts with significant new powers in relation to contact orders, but there appears to have been no word from the Government for the last year as to when the relevant provisions will be implemented.

Would the Act have made any difference to the outcome of the case in which Lord Justice Ward was sitting? This seems unlikely to me. The Act includes various provisions, including enforcement orders (essentially requiring the parent in breach of the contact order to do community service), the power to order one parent to pay the other compensation for any financial loss caused by the breach, and the ability of the court to request a CAFCASS officer to monitor compliance with contact orders without the parents' consent, but would such powers have helped the court here? The problem, of course, as pointed out by Lord Justice Ward, is that in the end the welfare of the child is always paramount, and it would often be too distressing for a child to force them to have contact with a parent against whom their mind has been completely poisoned.

So, do I think that the Act is a waste of time? Certainly not. I'm sure that the additional tools that it will provide will assist the courts in many cases, and help to ensure that a considerably higher proportion of its orders are complied with. All of which, of course, is subject to the caveat that the Government actually implements it.

* * *

Update: The Ministry of Justice has now published a consultation paper seeking views on draft court rules and forms to support the implementation of the remaining provisions of the Act. Thanks, as so often, to Current Awareness for this.


  1. Thanks John - this is an important issue. I am pleased to say that a question has already been asked in the house about the progress of the Act's implementation. Don't know whether it would have helped in this case but can't have hindered.


  2. That's good. I did check Hansard, but could find no reference. Now we must await the answer.

  3. When the circumstances are so entrenched I don't think the 2006 Act would make any difference, although I would hope the measures in the Act used decisively would in many cases resolve matters early on and prevent the rejection of a parent.


Post a comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.