Written evidence from Frances Carr, Contemporary Family Magazine (CFA0092)
HOUSE OF LORDS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014 SELECT COMMITTEE INQURY
“Contemporary Family Magazine reaches an international audience of several thousand readers from across professional, research, and academic disciplines. The magazine seeks to be a forum for those professionals working to improve child outcomes across the globe.
Many of our readers are parents seeking guidance to improve their co-parenting relationships, to better advocate for court reform and to intervene when parental alienation may be apparent in their child custody case.”
Frances Carr is the UK Regional Ambassador for Contemporary Family Magazine. She is also one of the 6 founding mothers of Recover Our Kids (RoK)
Over the last 2 years, she has publically advocated for victim parents and children who have been affected by Parental Alienation, trying to raise awareness of this abuse and the lifelong damage that it inflicts on victims. She has personal experience of the family court failing her daughter and herself. Since she has started lobbying to raise awareness of Parental Alienation, she has had contact with thousands of victims, whose experiences have been far worse than her own, however for a variety of reasons these victims are unable to speak out.
Is the Children and Families Act 2014 fit for purpose?
Families that need to go to court to resolve issues have found that the court process since 2014 has made the process MORE adversarial. The introduction of mediation, in theory, would appear logical, but the reality is that if both parents wanted to avoid court, they would want to resolve issues before taking court action. So instead of being a beneficial step to avoid court, it has become another money-making step for mediators, and rarely avoids court and the costs incurred there.
Where Parental Alienation is cited, the act does nothing to prevent harm, as there is no definition in law that defines alienating behaviours. CAFCASS have a definition, but it appears that this is rarely acknowledged in proceedings. On the contrary, victims are encouraged NOT to mention the term, for fear that Court will then be prejudiced against them. Instead, they are encouraged to describe the alienating behaviours. This is problematic since the individual behaviours can appear insignificant, however when these are brought together there is a clear pattern of behaviour, that can be dismissed by a court that is untrained to recognise the insidious nature of Parental Alienation.
CAFCASS has a framework to identify Parental Alienation, but it is rarely used. Even when this abuse is identified, any rulings Judges make are rarely enforced, when they are broken. This renders the court proceeding futile, and plays into the hand of the abuser.
Gillick Competency has been cited to allow the child’s voice to be heard. However if one reads CAFCASS’s “in our shoes” the children make it clear they want to be heard, but one Take Away Comment resounded with me:
Our message to professionals: Listen and genuinely hear us, because it has real life impact. Trust that we know what we want, even if we’re young. Represent what we are saying no matter what your interpretation. Also, think about what a child is not saying to you, do they feel afraid to talk to you?
A common thread among adult children of Parental Alienation is that they were unable to speak up about how they really felt, when interviewed for court proceedings. They would be under pressure from their abuser to say what they wanted them to say, and there would be consequences for them when they returned home if they did not. This is why Gillick Competency should NOT override the judge's decision. Of course, the child must be involved in the process, but protocols should be in place to ensure that the authentic voice of the child is heard. One only needs to consider the quote above, to understand why this is so imperative.
This is why training to recognise patterns of Alienting behaviours, must be included in any court proceeding so that the child’s voice is truly heard.
The new Children and Families Act 2022 must include Parental Alienation, as defined by Cafcass. Alienating behaviours must be clearly outlined so that it is easy for a court to recognise patterns of coercive control that are widely acknowledged as Parental Alienation. (Baker, Harman, Bernet have extensively studied this form of abuse and their research is peer-reviewed and stands up to scientific scrutiny)
50:50 rebuttable presumption of shared care between parents. Research shows that children who have regular contact with both parents have the best outcomes after divorce. Their involvement in their lives should be encouraged. Anything other than a 50:50 rebuttable presumption of shared care, must be agreed to by both parents, or if other extenuating circumstances would dictate that this is not safe to do so.
CMS payments should not have any bearing on any court proceeding. Both parents have a responsibility to provide for their child. Currently, CMS payments can be used to blackmail the non-resident parent. Contact with their child is withheld unless the CMS payment the resident parent demands is made. The non-resident parent often has no way of recourse to counter this. If they don’t pay they don’t have any contact with their child.
Supervised visits for parents should only be instructed where:
a) There is evidence to show that the parent poses a significant risk of harm to the child
b) It is clear that the child has concerns over meeting their parent. In this case, family members known by both parents can act as supervisors to ensure that the contact is natural and conducive to a positive experience for both parent and child.
Under no circumstance should a parent be made to pay for contact with their own child, paying hundreds of pounds for an hour of supervised contact in a sterile contact centre, especially where the parent does not pose a risk to the child in any way. Parents who work in childcare environments with enhanced DBS certificates often mention that they are forced to have supervised visits in contact centres with third parties that are unknown to them.
3. Is the Act enabling faster, more secure and stable adoptions which are in the best interests of the child?
As a member of the Matchmothers support group, I have been made aware of circumstances that would suggest that the fostering and adoption process has been traumatic for mothers involved in the process. Many mothers have shared that they have not felt supported through fostering or adoption. Mums have sought further support from Matchmothers following a false removal of a child to foster care or adoption. Matchmothers have fought Social Services and won by challenging the Subject Access Report. This trauma could have been avoided had the correct support been given at the outset.
4. Have the reforms to the family justice system succeeded in making the system faster, simpler and less adversarial? How has the Act interacted with other reforms to the family justice system, for example, the changes to legal aid?
26 week limit on care and placement: Most parents are unaware of any time limits on proceeding, and unfortunately the pandemic has meant that the length of court proceedings often far exceeds the 26-week limit. However, I would like to see due diligence displayed at the first hearing, so that decisions are not made at that point, that will have permanent changes in circumstances that will be impossible to rectify at a later date. With Parental Alienation, the abuser's ability to brainwash a child to comply with their wishes can happen within days.
Limitations on expert evidence: To limit experts with proven credentials when their experience could shed light on the damaging alienating behaviours seems ludicrous.
Mediation: Parents often claimed that the other parent was narcissistic, and getting them to engage in mediation was impossible. One mother said, “It’s their way or no way”. Another parent said that mediation was a complete waste of time and money. Yet another mother said that their ex had refused to engage with the process. My solicitor suggested shuttle mediation but in my case, my ex refused to pay. He would only attend mediation if I was willing to pay his costs.
Presumption of involvement of both parents: As stated in question 3, 50:50 rebuttable presumption of shared care has been shown that children who have regular contact with both parents have the best outcomes after divorce. Both parents should be actively involved in their children’s lives. Anything other than a 50:50 rebuttable presumption of shared care, must be agreed to by both parents, or if other extenuating circumstances would dictate that this is not safe to do so.
5. Has the Act achieved its goal of improving provision for children and young people with SEND, in all settings including mainstream schools, special schools and further education colleges? If changes are needed, could they be achieved under the framework of the Children and Families Act 2014 or is new legislation required?
Improving provision can only occur if the child is correctly diagnosed. Parents often face problems getting a diagnosis due to waiting lists times. This can seriously impede their ability to access the correct provision for their child. I am aware of parents with a non-verbal autistic child with challenging behaviour who have been unable to get a diagnosis to inform their school placement despite being fully engaged in the process. Other parents feel that there is a stigma attached to getting a diagnosis, and they are poorly supported to realize that the diagnosis would be beneficial to the child.
6. Have the reforms to childcare agencies and childcare provision introduced by the Act improved the quality and availability of childcare? Are the reforms introduced by Part 5 of the Act sufficient to safeguard the welfare of children?
Since the 2014 Children’s Act, GDPR protocols have been introduced. Parents who have been alienated from their children, often recount that even though they have Parental Responsibility, they have been removed from childcare providers (such as school, and medical records) as a contact for the child. Apparently, only a court order can remove parental responsibility, however, GDPR protocols in school do not reflect this. When they then try to get information from the school or doctor, they are denied. The school in this situation has unwittingly enabled the abuser to alienate the other parent. This must stop.
7. Does the Children’s Commissioner have the correct remit and powers? Are the correct accountability structures in place to ensure they discharge their duties effectively?
I would like the see the Children’s Commissioner engage with victims of Parental Alienation so that she can address this abuse, ensure that children are educated about healthy family dynamics, and minimise the opportunities for alienating behaviours to devastate children’s lives, and attachment to their parents.
8. Is the system of shared parental leave and statutory shared parental pay functioning adequately? Is the system of flexible working functioning adequately? In light of the changes to working styles brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, what changes, if any, are needed to provisions in the Act on flexible working?
Unable to comment, since this is outside the experience of the groups that I am involved with.
Frances Carr
25th April 2022
May 2022