Here is the response to our letter, not from Ed Balls (shadow children's secretary) himself but from a member of his campaign team. See here to read the letter we sent to both Ed and to David Cameron.
Dear Clare,
Thank you very much for contacting Ed Balls on behalf of John Rowlinson of Separated Dads. I am a member of Ed's campaign team and he has asked me to get back to you on his behalf.
First, I am very sorry that you have waited so long for a response.
Turning to the questions you have raised, with your letter to Ed you attached another letter that Mr Rowlinson had sent to David Cameron concerning equal rights for fathers and mothers over contact with their children, after separation or divorce. You asked to know what Ed's position is on this.
Ed's position is set out in the Green Paper he published on family policy while Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. The Paper was called 'Support for All' and came out in January this year. You can access it via the Department for Education's website.
In the Paper Ed made it clear that the Labour Government's view was that it is important that children are able to have continuing relationships with both parents after separation and divorce because this is good for them and good for families. The only times when this shouldn't happen are when there are serious concerns about violence or abuse, making contact unsafe and therefore not in the best interests of that individual child. The Paper drew on the available research evidence in explaining why this conclusion had been reached.
The Paper did not include a commitment to change the law so that the starting point in family proceedings is a '50:50 split', as has happened in some other jurisdictions. The Labour Government's position was to encourage a shared parenting approach by agreement between the parties, wherever possible. It did not though seek to achieve this through a legal presumption.
As you probably know, the Green Paper also announced a full and thorough review of the Family Justice system more generally, to be carried out jointly by the Ministry of Justice and DCSF (as it then was). That review is underway and is now the responsibility of the coalition Government to take to a conclusion. I am sure that as part of the review there will be an opportunity for you to submit your views.
I hope this clarifies Ed's position and provides the information you were seeking. Many apologies again for the delay in this response.
Yours sincerely,
Caroline Abrahams.
Ed Balls' campaign team.
--------------------------- Office of Ed Balls MP (contact details not published here)
This is a very emotionally charged issue, and I personally believe that parents should take 50/50 responsibility for their children - in all matters - wherever it is safe to do so.
I've made it as easy as possible for my children to have the access to their father that they need, including changing my job and moving a couple of hundred miles so that their father didn't have to travel that distance and back every other weekend. This was done with the kids' best interests at heart - and in spite of the fact that their father initially said he was only temporarily planning to live that far away and then changed his mind, upsetting the children a great deal.
Money and access are completely separate in my view and should never be connected - I believe a father should pay 50% of the costs of raising his children (but also taking into account however much of the costs if any are paid by the state). If, as has often happened in my case, maintenance is not paid, this should have no effect on access to the children - but this is important - AND VICE VERSA. If you have an unreasonable ex, that is bad for all, but the costs of raising a child remain the same regardless of access. This responsibility does not change.
I would like to see more actual perception in these comments that the children and their welfare comes first. Regardless of any bad behaviour by mothers.
The kids are the ones that end up hurt when people engage in any kind of tug of war - and if you have established that your ex is happy to be unfair - your understanding of this and not doing anything that could inadvertently hurt your kids becomes even more important. The law can and should do much - but you must take responsibility where the other parent will not, and make sure you don't fight in a way that could cause them harm. What is happening to you may not be fair, I understand that - but you are eminently more able to cope with it and deal with it than your child/children.
Red - 30 January 2012 @ 4:19 PM
I am currently going to court again for the 3rd time to fight for my right and more importantly the rights for my girls to see their father. I am constantly amazed that the courts favour the mother when in today's sociality women are having children in order to claim father unknown and get money from the goverment when they have never worked. In my case I thought I was embarking on a loving relationship when in fact all she wanted was the children and not me as soon as the girls were born goodbye Eddy. I have been supporting my girls volunteerly but whem i found out she put father unknown i was furious i went to court to get this amended and had my name put on the birth certificates then informed the DWP department because she was claiming money from the state and getting mega money from me, but when i see the girls they are in rags never have breakfast do not have a very balance diet I took her to court because 20 hours a month is not adequate time with me children. There are many stats on the internet regarding absent fathers in the childrens lives (mainly girls) 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes , 90% of all homeless runaway children are from fatherless homes 85% of all children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
* 80% of rapists motivated by displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
where is the justice who says the mother make better partents ...what a load of rubbish
Eddy - 24 January 2012 @ 1:27 PM
I have had a court order giving me access every other weekend to my children and yet, when I took it to court to try to get it made enforceable the judge ruled in the ex's favour stating that I was trying to get the order changed. I was made to pay her costs for the case and all the preceeding work - money I couldn't afford.The last sleep over they had at my place was Aug 2008 and since then I have seen them only once or twice a year, usually around their birthday. This is hardly equality yet I am still expected to pay my maintanance to the CSA for them. It's about time that the CSA payments were linked to court orders to say that if the orders are ignored then the payments shouldn't be made.
wiltshirebear - 3 January 2012 @ 2:55 PM
Mr Balls colleague simply seems to skirt the more important issues raised in the letter! Such as why mothers often appear to get carte blanche when it comes to family courts, more so for her needs rather than the childrens! I am truly amazed by the way at how many stories on here seem so similar to my own by the way! No happy ending for me yet having waited the best part of three years now and I havent seen my little girls for the entire three years, but al keep fightin as we all should brothers!
