Family lawyers say root causes of disputed contact arrangements need to be addressed
Lawyers say more work must be done by the Family Court to improve circumstances surrounding joint residence and shared parenting, despite claims that non-residential parents are not treated unfairly.
The independent study, Outcomes of Applications to Court for Contact Orders after Parental Separation or Divorce, found that no evidence existed that courts were biased against non-residents as a group and try to encourage contact from an early stage. In most cases the courts were successful in securing contact for the nonresident parent.
However, Julius Brookman, a partner at the specialised Family Law firm, Brookman, says that the root causes of contact issues still need to be addressed.
“A resident parent who makes allegations, whether substantiated or not, can usually delay contact thus ensuring the old expression, `possession is nine tenths of the law’ remains alive, unjust and well in some interlocutory applications,” he says.
Brookman believes more should be done to ensure that evidence is heard from nonresident parents at an earlier stage, so that sustained periods of reduced contact can be avoided.
“It is not acceptable that a non-resident parent and young child should have to wait 14 weeks or longer for a Cafcass [Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service] report to be written before any final decision is made,” he says. “Court time and resources should be dedicated to a short fact finding hearing before a Cafcass report, in effect serving as something of an interim contact hearing.”
