Yup, it’s today. The House of Commons is holding the second reading for the Children and Families Bill, and you can catch all the action here.
The debate on the Bill will start at around 4-4.30pm today and you can watch the action live on Parliament TV. Don’t worry if you miss it live though, as the channel usually records their debates and can be watched again.
And don’t forget you can get fully interactive with the new Parliamentary pilot for public readings which allows the public to leave direct feedback about the bill on its website.
Researching Reform 
A very interesting watch!
Tim Loughton spoke passionately and with much insight about the very real problems many non-resident parents (usually fathers) face in trying to maintain meaningful contact with their children. He was particularly scathing of resident parents who use the ‘system’ to exclude non-resident parents, and of the ‘system’ itself which fails to deter or prevent such abhorrent behaviour.
In contrast, Sir Alan Beith appeared completely ignorant of these realities. He maintained that no shared parenting amendment was necessary.
Beith suggested that the Paramountcy Principle would be undermined by the proposed shared parenting amendment.
Loughton made it very clear to Beith that the proposed amendment plainly specifies that the paramountcy principle remains ‘paramount’ and that contact would not be ordered by the court if there was a verifiable risk of harm to the child. This plain explanation did not seem to satisfy Beith.
Loughton recounted the fact that, of 3 million family breakdowns in one particular year, 1 million fathers lost all contact with their children. Plainly, this cannot be good for the welfare of those hapless children.
Loughton explained that the shared parenting amendment was designed to serve the Right of a child to be parented by both its parents.
In contract, Beith intimated that the amendment served the Rights of Parents rather than those of their children.
Beith suggested that the amendment would cause non-resident parents to expect 50% parenting time with their children.
Loughton made clear that the amendment was qualitative rather than quantitative in its design, and that it was plainly non-prescriptive regarding parenting time.
Beith stated that the popular press was touting the idea of 50/50 time, and that non-resident parents would therefore arrive at the same understanding.
Loughton stated that the misrepresentation of the amendment by the polular press would not prevent the Government from going ahead in the interests of child welfare.
As the new legislation is enacted, the press and the general public will need to be educated as to exactly what it entails and what parenting arrangements can be expected by separating parents.
Over all, I’d say Loughton won the argument.
Beith’s position remains very closely wedded to that of the Law Society.
It is no too difficult to speculate as to why the Law Society favours the current status quo and why it is against shared parenting legislation. Plainly, there are considerable vested financial interests in the continuation of non-resident parents going to court to re-establish or enforce contact with their children.
Precisely why Sir Alan Beith follows the Law Society’s stance requires a little more fanciful speculation, perhaps concerning the methodology and efficacy of lobbying by special interest groups!
Regards
Bruno D’Itri
LikeLike
Mr. John Hemming MP asked a very specific question to Mr. Timpson MP. There was no answer just a load of waffle. R&R could you please show us the EXACT question by Mr Hemmings question and E. Timpsons answer. The entire Bill is to speed up adoption as a cost cutting exercise. Some of the MPs are also mentioning mediation as another body. Mediation should be between the ss and the Family involved that the concerns of BOTH are rectified that is BEFORE the confrontation that is par for the course. I would love to name all the MPs to who I have written and who did not reply.
.
LikeLike
Hi Phil, I believe the question you were looking for is this one:
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): I refer the House to my declaration of interest as chairman of the Justice for Families campaign. Does the Minister accept that there are some people, including myself and some in foreign countries, who believe that sometimes children are adopted who should not be adopted?
Mr Timpson: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend’s views and have conversed with him on a number of occasions. I always listen to and am mindful of the words that he speaks on this subject, but I have a strong view that for those children who, for whatever reason, are unable to find any other permanent placement, we ought seriously to consider adoption as a way of giving them that stability, that routine, that loving, stable family home which far too often they miss out on because we have not managed to move them through the adoption system in enough time, commensurate with their best interests.
You can find the full transcript of the debate on Monday here and I will add it in a post, too.
LikeLike
T. Loughton MP. While a MINISTER got every piece of information about a very serious case. NO REPLY. Did not even use the excuse of you are not my constituant. As once said in a movie. He looks fair but feels foul..
LikeLike
EXACTLY that was the question asked PLEASE read the reply again. Was any of that waffling answer a reply to Mr. Hemmings question. I would also like to think that the Bill was originated because of the representation of Mr. John Hemming MP . It was because of the many complaints by people who had been ill-treated by social services and the miscarriages of Justice in their Families cases that many went to Mr. John Hemming MP for help who raised their concerns in Parliament.. Then there was the Norgrove report.(99.9% were Judges, Magistrates, Lawyers, social workers) how were the people who were wronged heard ?. I repeat that I was the creature who mentioned the phrase at that meeting” mediation not confrontation” .Now we have this Bill which does not seek to remedy the failings of the ss but to jumble it up with various other subjects. Thank you AGAIN R&R for LISTENING.
LikeLike
Phil, I gave everything to you in my last response.
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike