Written evidence from Rajan Russell (CFA0122)

HOUSE OF LORDS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014 SELECT COMMITTEE INQURY

To Whom it may concern

I write in response to the call for evidence referred to above.

I have been in the Family Court since 199 with the three children.  All have been the subject of parentally alienation, and one lives with me full time as a result. No court has ever found that my parenting lacking in any respect, I have been described as a “brilliant dad” and was found to be the primary parental relationship of my middle son when it was examined in court between 2011 and 2016.

I have had 3 guardians ad litem, attended court more than 150 times, spent £1.3 million on solicitors, had 7 or 8 section 7 reports, and have court again next week in the hope I can get my youngest daughter back from alienation.  I note here that, according to HHJ Cobb's note, What About Me (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FamilySolutionsGroupReport_WhatAboutMe_12November2020.pdf-final.pdf) that only 1% of cases involve a guardian.  This makes me a rare case.  I further note that the order for me to see my children was on the basis of 50/50 shared time.  This also makes me unusual, shared care being the case in 1% of total cases.  This order has been repeatedly breached and no action has ever been taken on the other party.

I note Suella Braverman attempted to simplify family law in 2017, with the 2017 Family Justice Bill.  That bill was dropped due to the election in June 2017 and has not been resuscitated in the next Parliament.

I have comments only on private family law and not the adoption process and am fully available to speak at the inquiry on 25 April should that be of interest to any party.

1.  To what extent has the Act improved the situation for the most vulnerable children, young people and families in England?

There has been no change as a result of the 2014 Act.  Family conflict is incredibly difficult to manage to the the pace of the court.  Having spent 6 years in litigation most recently, my ex-partner again instigated proceedings in 2020, and I have had another 2 years in current proceedings.  The courts are overloaded with family cases, and the bulk of litigants, where the matter even comes to court in the first place, run out of money quickly, if they were even prepared for the court process at the outset (which the vast majority are not).

In some parts of the country, CAFCASS have a waiting list that currently runs almost to the 26 week legal duration, with the the uncertainty generated by this wait is unbearable.   NYAS has been set up in an attempt to take some of the pressure off CAFCASS, but there is no training or vetting available at NYAS, with the consequence that completely inexperienced guardians are being offer large salaries to participate in the family court system where they are not qualified to do so.

the service offered by both CAFCASS and NYAS is dependent on the personality of the assessor, and hence there is little “law” involved in the process.  It is a matter of luck as to whether or not an applicant to court ends up being able to have a relationship with their children, simultaneously with having the obligation to maintain their children.  This situation may be the single largest driver of parental suicide, with parents in arrears in at the CMS having a 14 fold higher incidence of death than the general population, and 60% of £3.8 Bn arrears at the CMS being from parents themselves who live in poverty.

I have found no advocates of the current status quo.  Both Lord Farmer as well as HHJ Cobb indicate the current family law system to be unsuitable for families.

Indeed, the very process of court is contrary to the needs of children where each side is expected to appear in court and show the other party to be inadequate as a parent, with judges being expected to decipher which is the appropriate parent.  Co-operation is discouraged by the current family court system, this factor being exacerbated by the financial incentive for the parent with care to be able to lodge a claim with the Child Maintenance Service against the other parent.  I note here that 80% of maintenance is paid voluntarily and of the balance, the running costs of the CMS is roughly the same as the amount collected by enforcement action.

My submission is the 2014 Act hence has not helped the most vulnerable children, young people and families, even where the intention of the Act was clearly to help

2.  Has the Act enabled faster more secure, and more stable adoptions which are in the best interests of the child.

No comment.

3. What has been the effect of the repeal of the requirement to consider ethnicity, religion, race, culture and language in England when placing a child for adoption?

No comment.

4. Have the reforms to the family justice system succeeded in making the system faster, simpler and less adversarial.

The requirement to engage in mediation makes no difference.  A parent intent on stopping the other parents from seeing their child due to the financial incentive, does not alter that as a result of mediation.  Indeed, where mediation slows the course of family justice, it makes matters worse.  There has been no reduction in the amount of children with no relationship with one parent, and the court system cannot cope with the number, or in-experience of the bulk of applicants where it still takes months or years to be able to hear most cases . This delay reinforces alienation of parents for children, which may be the case in 30% of all children in the country.

Family law being law, involves parents having to appear in court, make a case, make allegations against the other parent, and hope the outcome is in their favour.  This is a disaster for long term relationships that involve children.

Despite the requirement that a relationship with both parents is seen as being in the interests of children, this make practically no difference in proceedings.

There has been no change in the system as a result of the 2014 Act.

5. Has the Act achieved its goals for improving provision with special educational needs and disability needs and disabilities?

The action of litigation does not help anybody with needs at all.  The necessity to employ a lawyer, hope they have a similar view as the applicant, and then proceed to a court system unable to deal with the volume of cases it has, the 2003 Courts Act notwithstanding, is fundamentally flawed.

6. Have the reforms to childcare agencies and cgildcare provision introduced by the Act improved the quality and availability of childcare.

No comment

7.   Does the Children’s Commissioner have the correct remit and powers? 

Set up as a result of the Victoria Climbie enquiry, I have never heard of the childrens commissioner, having been in court 150 times.  There is a limited amount that a body exogenous to the family can do in abuse, and it is notable that the recent cases involving Star Hobson, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Kemarni Watson Darby, Peter Connolly, Hamza Khan, Kyrell Matthews, Logan Mwangi, Daniel Green and host of others all died when one of their parents were absent.  A relationship with both parents is natures validation process.  This cannot be replicated by a children commissioner.

8.  Are the systems of shared parental leave, statutory shared parental pay and flexible working functioning adequately?

This is a meaningless hope when 30% of all children do not see an absent parent.  

In summary, the 2014 Act does not achieve what it set out to achieve.  The court process is conflictual in its nature, and where there is a financial incentive for one of the parents not to co-operate with the process, which is enforced through time, there cannot be a positive outcome from making this a matter for court.  It is a surprise that the state is prepared to litigate of one party where finance is concerned (via the CMS) but does not litigate where contact is the case on behalf of the other party.

A simple 50/50 shared care assumption after the age, of, say, 3 years old, would reduce contact disputes and incentivise all parents to put the interests of their children first.  An assumption of the cost of raising a child, where that calculation is already made via the Child Benefit system, with each parent being expected to contribute toward the cost of raising that child, and where 80% is in any case paid voluntarily, would free up enormous resource in the courts as well as the Child Maintenance Service, and put parents back where they should be, responsible for their own children, where the State cannot possibly do that job as well.  One of the roles of parenting cannot be representation in court, parenting is hard enough as it is.

Rajan Russell

April 2022