Skip to main content

FNF and the Lib Dems

Families Need Fathers (an organisation which has a number of mothers as members) has been in existance for a number of years.

There was a joint meeting between FNF and the Lib Dems yesterday at which they raised a number of questions including that of grandparents where relationships come to an end.

I have tended to concentrate on public family law, but the problems there are often similar to those in private family law and cases often overlap.

The party does not have a detailed policy in this area and perhaps we should look at doing this. However, there are some principles that I think should apply.

Firstly, as it stands the system of laws etc create an environment which encourages paople to split up. Benefits and taxes all encourage splits rather than encouraging people to remain together. A priority has to be to avoid instability.

Secondly, if people do split up there needs to be a default position which encourages both parents to cooperate in the interests of children. Far too often children are used as pawns to continue a relationship dispute. Those situations that end up best are those where parents cooperate.

Thirdly, basic rights of involvement need to exist without going to court. There should be an assumption that it is a duty for separated parents to facilitiate the other parent being involved in their child's life.

Fourthly, the three aspects of relationship breakdown that of the divorce settlement, the funding for child support and any remaining issues in respect of child care should be resolved together. The default may be a more forumulaic approach with any variations from this by agreement.

As a consequence of these principles schools and doctors should involve both parents. Obviously there will be some circumstances under which one parent should be excluded, but these circumstances should be established on the basis of evidence as a reason to move from the default position.

It is also important to ensure that people are not rewarded for false allegations.

Other issues such as the rights of grandparents are shared with public family law.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…