Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 3:"Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—" ““DEFAULT CONTACT ARRANGEMENTS (1)   In the case of any child, following the separation of those having parental responsibility for that child, default contact arrangements appropriate for that child shall be deemed to have been agreed between those having parental responsibility for the child unless and until either— (a)   those with parental responsibility for the child agree any other contact arrangements for the child (with or without the assistance of a mediator or other outside agency); or (b)   the court otherwise determines having regard to section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (welfare of the child). (2)   Those having parental responsibility, in making an agreement on contact arrangements, and the court in making any order, shall have regard to the child’s right for its views to be heard under article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (3)   If a person having parental responsibility for a child applies for an order which would have the effect of excluding contact between the child and any other such person, the court shall deal with any such application as quickly as reasonably practical, (having regard to the requirements of section 7 of the Children Act 1989 (welfare reports).”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise for the last time to move this amendment. We come now to the issue of contact, which has not yet been resolved. I therefore apologise that I will have to take a little longer than I would normally wish at Third Reading to explain carefully what we are trying to do in this amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that, immediately on separation, those with parental responsibility for a child will communicate with each other by some means and try to reach an agreement about contact arrangements for their children, and, in doing so, will consult the children themselves and take advice about what is appropriate. The communication between the couple need not be face-to-face, especially if there has been any violence. It could be by correspondence or through their solicitors, but it must be done, and soon, so that, no matter how long they wrangle about money, property or other matters, the child will not be deprived in the mean time of its relationship with the non-resident parent while they await their day in court—unless there are concerns about harm, to which I will return in a minute. Your Lordships will know that it often takes a long time for very contentious cases to get into court, by which time the child may have lost its relationship with a non-violent non-resident parent, and the status quo is then regarded as being in the best interests of the child’s stability. Before explaining how this would work, perhaps I may say a word about what the amendment would not do. The amendment does not in any way fetter the ability of the couple to agree any arrangement they wish that suits them and, more importantly, their children, even one which might seem unreasonable to a third party. It does not fetter the ability of either parent to seek a decision from a court if they cannot agree between themselves. Neither does it fetter in any way the discretion of the court to take into account the particulars of the case and make any judgment it sees fit in the interests of the welfare of the child. Your Lordships will note that we have referred in subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause to the primacy of the welfare of the child as enshrined in the Children Act 1989. I do not believe that anything in this amendment would interfere with that. If I did, I would not, as an NSPCC ambassador and trustee of UNICEF, be pressing this amendment. I should emphasise, however, that the amendment has not been proposed by either of those or any other organisation. Neither does this amendment force any parent concerned about the safety of the child or her own safety to allow contact until this concern has been properly investigated. If she has such concerns, she will go to the court. So how would the amendment work in practice? If a couple split up and go to their solicitor or a CAB or any other family support organisation for advice, they would be told that the first thing they have to focus on are the contact arrangements for their children, that those arrangements have to be appropriate for the child, that they have to consult the child, if he is competent according to Article 12 of the UNCRC, and that they are quite free to agree anything that suits them. They will also be told what are their rights and those of the child if there are any concerns about the safety of the child or either of the parents in a contact situation. That is where subsection (3) of the proposed new clause in our amendment comes in. What they cannot do is just hang on to the child and do nothing about contact. All this they would be told before they got anywhere near a court. It would mean that if there are concerns about safety, or if one or other parent wishes to deny any contact for any other reason, the matter must immediately go before the court, which will hear the case quickly. There needs to be no contact until this has happened. Where will the couple find out what is considered to be ““appropriate for that child”” to guide them in their agreement? They will be given for their consideration and guidance examples of what child welfare experts, courts and other couples have considered to be appropriate for a child of the age of theirs. They may get this from materials currently being prepared for parents by government departments. They may get it from an NGO such as any of the children’s organisations which all agree that it is usually in a child’s best interests to have a relationship with both of its parents. This information may appear on one of these organisations’ websites. If so, I would challenge them to ensure it is absolutely up-front that parents are not obliged to agree to any contact at all if they are afraid for their own safety at the handover point, or that of the child at any time. It is up to those organisations to do that effectively. It is not up to CAFCASS at this point because it is hoped that most of these couples will not go near a court but will sort things out for themselves. Your Lordships will note that this amendment has no sanctions as we do not want to criminalise parents, neither is it monitored, any more than the many cases are monitored where parents currently agree between themselves. It is assumed that, of all the cases which do not go to court, the contact arrangements are in the best interests of the child and both parents are satisfied with the level of contact they are achieving. I do not believe that is so at all. There are many cases where children are being deprived of a good relationship through contact with the non-resident parent but that parent is reluctant to go through the trauma of court proceedings, and therefore sadly gives up. This amendment is aimed at those parents to get them to seek advice on what is appropriate for their child and then to do it. I do not believe either that we have effectively addressed this issue so far during the whole of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House; hence this last ditch attempt. In a way, that is the fault of the extreme parents’ rights groups whose irresponsible behaviour has ensured that we have no respect for them and which has therefore masked the genuine and serious issue that they raise, and I very much regret that. However, this issue will not go away and we on these Benches are trying our best responsibly to look behind that behaviour and do something to address the issue in a way which ensures the safety of the child and the primacy of every other aspect of its welfare. It has not been easy. In fact everything we have suggested has been rejected in the interests of protecting those few children who are at risk. We have struggled properly to address the matter of contact throughout the passage of the Bill in a way which is more positive than the sanctions in Clause 1, so far without success, but we are not giving up yet. I believe that in Amendment No. 3 we are getting close to what needs to be done. It may be that legislation is not the most appropriate way of dealing with this, but this legislation is the only opportunity opposition parties feel they have to put pressure on the Government on this matter. The Bill with its new sanctions does not put everything right about child contact, far from it. Something more needs to be done. I look forward to hearing how the Minister intends to pick up the important issues this amendment highlights and take them forward. I beg to move.