Why fathers deserve justice

FATHERS 4 Justice hit the headlines again this week, when Batman made an unexpected appearance at Buckingham Palace and in doing so achieved instant worldwide publicity.

Batman was in fact Jason Hatch, 32, a painter and decorator from Cheltenham, who is a national co-ordinator for the activist group. In recent months the campaigners for equal rights for fathers have grabbed the public's attention through antics including demonstrations at York Minster, purple powder-filled condoms hurled at the Prime Minister from the public gallery in the House of Commons and comic book superheroes dangling from bridges.

At first I thought they were just extremists deserving of my condemnation. I certainly don't support lawbreaking - a view I recently expressed in The Times. My comments generated a torrent of angry emails from angry fathers across the UK and several countries around the world blocking our office systems, a non-stop barrage of faxes clogging up our machines, hundreds of telephone calls with no-one on the line swamping our switchboard, even threatening letters to my home.

These men were clearly very angry at the treatment they had received from the courts over access to their children after a divorce.

My first thought was that this was nothing less than electronic harassment by those I had challenged and further proof of what I had been saying. I was annoyed and frustrated at this onslaught from faceless adversaries.

Despite toying with the idea of calling in the police, I decided instead to begin a dialogue with the angry men who had contacted me and I wrote to every one of them. In so doing, I changed my mind about the validity of their cause.

There was the school teacher whose access to his son was suddenly changed by a court from every other day to every other weekend; the father who has had no contact with his daughters for two years; the numerous fathers who have been reduced to mere visitors in their children's lives and fathers and grandparents too afraid to go to court because they fear it will reduce their previous contact even further.

I have been a practising family lawyer for more than 20 years. I have dealt with every type of relationship breakdown. I represent equal numbers of men and women and, because I work to get my clients the satisfactory conclusion they seek, I have been sheltered from the kind of resentment and sense of injustice that men in organisations like Fathers 4 Justice and others who contacted me, clearly feel.

What became abundantly apparent, as I heard their stories, was that here were men who had practised what successive governments had preached: taking an active, sharing role in the upbringing of their children and who suddenly found themselves expunged from the daily lives of their offspring. It isn't a problem confined to men. It is a problem for non-resident parents, male and female.

I believe the time is right to consider the introduction of laws where, on a relationship breakdown, there is a presumption that the children involved have a right to equal access to both parents. This is under examination in countries across the world, where the same situation is rearing its ugly head. Western societies have changed. Today women go out to work. Child care is shared. On divorce the battle for care of the children is worse than ever. I believe equal care is the answer.

This position is based on the understanding that contact is a positive experience and that, on average, children experiencing equal time with both parents are better adjusted than those in sole custody. It eliminates the question of whether parents are entitled to see their children and instead focuses on the logistics of them doing so through a parenting plan. If one parent wants to change the joint residency they have to convince a court of the merit of their case.

I believe that our law should enshrine this principal of equality. We do it now for financial settlements, we can do it with children.

The extent to which we need to change was summed up recently in a statement by the new Chairman of the SFLA (Solicitors Family Law Association). Addressing a conference she said that solicitors were regularly recommending "generous" parenting time which, typically, was alternate weekends, a mid-week visit and shared holidays.

Those who contacted me would not regard such arrangements as "generous" when they have been used to equally sharing every day with their children.

To the dismay of fathers' rights groups, the Government has rejected calls to make equal access to children after a divorce a legally enforceable right. Automatic 50-50 access to children would be inappropriate because children cannot be divided "like property", the Government says.

In too many divorces, the child is viewed by one or both of the parties as a weapon. Government statistics say that 40 per cent of mothers thwart contact arrangements, with many fathers complaining that contact is damaged by their former partner's conduct.

There are around 160,000 children a year affected by divorce and some surveys report that up to 40 per cent of fathers lose all contact with their children after two years.

Some 90 per cent of child arrangements are settled by separating couples without court intervention based on advice as to the likely unhappy outcome. The number of contact orders made by the courts has increased 50 per cent in five years to a total of 61,000 in 2002. However, enforcing contact orders is often not practicable since imprisonment and fines on the offending parent often impact on the welfare of the children at the heart of the dispute. It is the law itself, not prison, that should provide the answer.

We need to ask ourselves: why on family breakdown should routinely the resident parent (not always the mother) be able to dictate how much time the children spend with the non-resident parent?

Some mothers flatly refuse contact at all or place restrictions that are unsupportable. Yet fathers will still have to pay the full financial consideration of child support.

However, judges at the highest level are now taking it upon themselves to apologise in court for the perceived defects in the law in this area.

Mr Justice Munby called for changes to the system in April, saying: "There is much wrong with our system and the time has come for us to recognise that fact and face up to it honestly."

The time is right to consider an alternative approach. Putting the children first should now mean a presumption of equal parenting in practice as well as theory.

This will eliminate the question of how long a non-resident father should see his children and instead focus on the logistics of both parents doing so through a joint parenting plan and sharing the time with children equally. If one parent wants to change this they have to convince a court of their case. In some cases, not every parent will want equal time.

We may not have a great deal of sympathy for Batman and his friends. But at the same time we mustn't make the mistake of forgetting that they are driven to these desperate means because the law has failed them. It is time for a bold change. As one of them said to me "Do you know how freezing cold it is to stand on the top of a bridge? Just because I want to see my son?"

* Marilyn Stowe is head of the Family Law Unit at solicitors Grahame Stowe Bateson of Harrogate and Leeds. She is also chief assessor/chief examiner of the Law Society's family law panel .