To: John Doe Subject: RE: Media Query re: 'Shared Parenting Consortium' Date: 14 February 2014

Dear John

Thanks for your response. We have read your points; however, we stand by our position as detailed in our policy documents that I referred you to in my previous email.

Kind regards,

Name Deleted

Feb 14 2014

Dear Jane,

Firstly, may I say I am genuinely very grateful for you taking the time to respond.

The proposed legislation had the effect of providing children with the legal right to a relationship with both parents, it only referred to 'involvement', it did not specify any particular division of time. The NSPCC and Coram's achievement was to place some form of direct or indirect contact, such as a letter once a month, on a par with actual time with a parent.

As you are aware, the vast majority of separating or divorced parents reach agreements between themselves, operating 'in the shadow of the law' and never enter the family court system - in effect, the majority of fathers acquiesce to a reduced role in their children's lives because they are aware through personal experience, information in the media and politics that in practice most non-resident parents will be fathers, and that the 'best interest of the child' will be interpreted as acceding to the wishes of the primary caregiver, usually the mother. Fathers often end up drifting out of the lives of their children.

The results are very negative. Children who have a relationship with their father do better at school, are less likely to become involved in crime, are less likely to experiment with drugs, are less likely to have sex below legal age, girls are more likely to become pregnant under-age etc. I could go on, but the research is utterly conclusive: on every single indicator the life outcomes are worse. Children are more likely to be abused by a man 'who is not biologically related to them' (i.e. their mother's new partner). Mothers are also likely to experience domestic abuse.

I am therefore still unclear as to why Coram and the NSPCC have so actively supported a lobbying campaign to derail legislation which would appear to reduce negative outcomes for children, mothers and fathers.

I have read your policy documents, they make interesting, though I must say somewhat disturbing, reading. They're a very peculiar mix of misrepresentation, unsupported assertions and ideologically-motivated research.

This document for instance:

http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/userfiles/NSPCC%20and%20Coram%20Children%20and%20Families%20Bill%20Report%20Stage%20Briefing%20Parental%20Involvement%20Children_December13(1).pdf

Point 1 says 'There is an increased risk of harm to the child', but then goes on to say 'Misinterpretation of the term 'parental involvement' by separating couples could lead to children being subjected to inapproprate and even risk contact arrangements'

So the clause is wrong only if it's misunderstood or wrongly interpreted? Surely this applies to any law?

Point 2 says: 'It would lead to increased litigation' because fathers 'may' feel emboldened to attempt to have contact with their children. It quotes as evidence the Australian Institute of Family Studies review of the 2006 Australian legislation.

The document selectively quotes from the review, because the review also said "Most parents who had reached agreements, or were in the process of reaching agreements via discussions between themselves, felt the process worked for them, for their former partners and for their children. Parents separating pre-reform were considerably more likely to have used lawyers and courts to help them resolve matters or make decisions than parents who separated after the reforms.

Point 3 says 'The media continue to misrepresent the proposals' and quotes in evidence a single article in the Daily Mail which it says promotes the viewpoint that the clause is about '50/50' shared time.

The article quoted is this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095671/Childs-right-absent-father-Law-help-millions-broken-homes.html The article makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of '50/50 shared time' or anything remotely like it. In fact, it quotes Children's Minister Tim Laughton as saying exactly the opposite.

As an aside, in giving evidence to the committee, Dame Butler-Sloss criticised the clause's use of the word 'involvement', saying it was 'unclear' and 'required definition'. However the Australian Institute of Family Studies report quoted earlier is quite clear: “Involvement” entails such matters as: (a) taking primary care of the children, including overnight where possible; (b) contributing to decisions affecting children’s general lifestyle and welfare; and (c) providing financial support. The concept of “parental involvement” thus overlaps with the exercise of “parental responsibility”, although involvement may be understood as “what happens”, whereas “responsibility” conveys notions of accountability or obligation.

That seems perfectly clear and understandable to me, and I'm not a barrister or judge or sociologist.

In another submission to the Committee, part of the Consortium's evidence relied on this report 'Taking a Longer View of Contact'

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=nuffield-foundation-final-report-16nov2012.pdf&site=28

The stance of the authors is perhaps best illustrated by the two 'case studies' used on the first page. 'Susan' now aged 29, has 'very positive memories' of having contact with 'her non-resident mother' [note: there aren't many of them]. 'In contrast', the report goes on, 'Anna' recalls her experience with her non resident father' as being 'very negative'.

Even though the rest of the report does its best to minimise and disparage the role of fathers, it still can't avoid reluctantly admitting; "In terms of frequency, in common with most previous research studies we found that a substantial number of respondents would have liked more contact [with non-resident fathers] than they had had."

I could go on, but the research 'evidence base' used by the 'Shared Parenting Consortium' is so riddled with cherry-picked and one-sided data, and in many cases outright misrepresentation, that it's an exhausting, and frankly depressing, job going through it. It's clear that there's some sort of ideological agenda distorting the research and conclusions reached, but it's completely unclear what this is. Not a single piece of research quoted is peer-reviewed and none independently published in a legitimate academic journal.

Finally, I'm left with the following thought: if the NSPCC and Coram are so sure you're right, why call your campaign the 'Shared Parenting Consortium'? I'm left with the suspicion that, knowing that the the overwhelming majority of the public support shared parenting, the name was chosen to obscure the fact that the consortium was actually working to the opposite end.

I fully appreciate that my take on NSPCC and Coram's work on this campaign is very negative, and I'm grateful that your response has been so un-defensive. I would would very much appreciate your response to my observations - it may well be that there is more evidence I'm unaware of that supports the Consortium's efforts.

Yours sincerely,

John Doe