An open letter to someone in authority in the UK concerning families and the law

[grahamg]

Dear ........,
"I would like to see it assumed that those who were married for a number of years and planned their family, should be worthy of the support of the family courts. However legislation passed in England in 1989 contained the necessary provisions, but they have never been brought into force.

It should be possible to be consider yourself as unique in terms of your relationship with your child, and without this it is possible the relationship with the child will not develop or be as loving as it should be.

The courts in England demonstrated a likelihood to support non-resident parents prior to legislation brought in here during 1989. I feel many benefitted from the legal system as it used to operate, (including myself). There may be many other parents encountering our legal system now, who lack the unequivocal assurances that were once given here.

By persuading the child to consider themselves above all else, including one of their parents, they are led to say they wish to exclude one parent from their life. Any minor perceived shortcoming of their parent may be sufficient justification. There may even be criticism of the parent for any attempt they might make to seek assistance from the courts. They may be told by the child they should “stop causing all the trouble they are for everyone”.

I acknowledge, in seeking the support of anyone in a position of authority who agrees with the qualified presumption in favour of contact our government thought necessary (when our law was changed), a balance has to be found. This measure would bring the necessary balance to our family law."

 

[grahamg]

My latest attempt to write a letter to someone in authority in the UK, (I hope this has more charm to it):

"It is obviously understandable that there should be attempts made to improve the lot of children in our society.

However, in doing so I would like to point to a possible pitfall whilst focusing only on the needs of children.

Put simply I believe a child told their interests matter above the interests of everyone else can lead to their relationship with a parent being compromised and the parent concerned can be rejected altogether. This may or may not be thought to be in the child’s interests, though I argue for the interests of the rejected parent to be considered in any event, and on occasion given precedence.

The hope in doing so is that the relationship between more parents and their child can be sustained, and the parent in this situation be more fairly treated when questions are raised.

One likely consequence to the child maintaining contact with both their parents more often, even a child well cared for by the parent where they reside, is the opportunity for the second parent to give the child a different perspective. Even if they provide no other benefit to the child, knowing that there may be another side to whatever it might be, can be useful.

At the same time this parent should get a first-hand impression as to the wellbeing of their child.

I acknowledge those making decisions about public policy often have very difficult decisions to make, and my views may not convince them to make any changes. It would be welcome though to hear support for excluded parents who believe they did their best, accepted their child as they were, and deserved this to be reciprocated."

 

[grahamg]

My latest attempt to write a letter to someone in authority in the UK, (I hope this has more charm to it):

"It is obviously understandable that there should be attempts made to improve the lot of children in our society.

However, in doing so I would like to point to a possible pitfall whilst focusing only on the needs of children.

Put simply I believe a child told their interests matter above the interests of everyone else can lead to their relationship with a parent being compromised and the parent concerned can be rejected altogether. This may or may not be thought to be in the child’s interests, though I argue for the interests of the rejected parent to be considered in any event, and on occasion given precedence.

The hope in doing so is that the relationship between more parents and their child can be sustained, and the parent in this situation be more fairly treated when questions are raised.

One likely consequence to the child maintaining contact with both their parents more often, even a child well cared for by the parent where they reside, is the opportunity for the second parent to give the child a different perspective. Even if they provide no other benefit to the child, knowing that there may be another side to whatever it might be, can be useful.

At the same time this parent should get a first-hand impression as to the wellbeing of their child.

I acknowledge those making decisions about public policy often have very difficult decisions to make, and my views may not convince them to make any changes. It would be welcome though to hear support for excluded parents who believe they did their best, accepted their child as they were, and deserved this to be reciprocated."

My last refinement of the open letter, (hopefully):
"It is understandable that there should be attempts made to improve the lot of children in our society, and everyone should wish to see this aim achieved.

However, in doing so, I would like to point to a possible pitfall whilst focusing only on the needs of children.

Put simply I believe a child told their interests matter above the interests of everyone else can lead to their relationship with a parent being compromised. The parent concerned can be rejected altogether. This may or may not be thought to be in the child’s interests.

I argue for the interests of the rejected parent to be considered in any event, and on occasion given precedence.

The hope in doing so is that the relationship between more parents and their child can be sustained, and the parent in this situation be more fairly treated by the courts, (when questions are raised about their involvement).

One likely consequence to the child more often maintaining contact with both their parents, even a child well cared for by the parent where they reside, is the opportunity for the second parent to give the child a different perspective occasionally.

Even if they provide no other benefit to the child, knowing that there may be another side to whatever it might be, can be useful. At the same time this parent should get a first-hand impression as to the wellbeing of their child.

Looking at anyone’s relationship as a matter of the use they are to the other person is reductionist. It assumes love between the parent and child can be assessed without causing harm, and in terms of the benefit to one side.

I acknowledge those making decisions about public policy often have difficult decisions to make. My views may not convince them to make any changes.

It would be welcome though to hear support for excluded parents who believe they did their best, accepted their child as they were, and I suggest deserve this to be reciprocated."