Children and families bill: our panel responds

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/children-family-bill-panel-responds

Version 0 of 1.

Jack O'Sullivan: 'Fathers' rights remain confused and blurred'

The big challenge for family policy is how to foster joint ownership of parenthood. In most cases, sharing of this role by mothers and fathers is best for children. With ownership of parenthood comes responsibility, development of parental skill, and long-term commitment. It also encourages partnership and mutual understanding that protects the parents' relationship. The more that each parent displays all these qualities, the better for them – and the child. All this should start from conception and be built on firm foundations for the rest of a child's life.

So how does the children and families bill measure up to the challenge? It feels confused and blurred. The bill extends Labour's system of transferable maternity leave. So employed mothers can transfer their leave, if they wish, to the father from soon after the birth. But, unlike other countries, there are no "daddy months" – which are "use-it-or-lose-it" additional fathers' benefits that could underpin joint ownership. And Dad's entitlement remains dependent on the mother's employment status and her willingness to share her entitlement. Mum, says the children and families bill, is firmly in charge from the start.

The bill is then silent on supporting joint ownership of parenting until divorce (a bit late). But, at that point, it does get interesting. It provides a presumption about each parent "that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child's welfare".

This does not put both parents on an equal footing. However, it does establish the principle that children are, typically, better off when both their parents are involved with them. And the bill's sound talk of mediation and speedier justice might help to ensure that.

The language is much less robust than that advocated by Tim Loughton, the sacked children's minister, who demanded strong wording in favour of shared parenting after divorce. As with the maternity leave provisions, family policy continues to tiptoe around joint ownership of parenthood. Why? Largely because fathers, apart from a minority of divorced dads, fail to contribute effectively to the discussion. Contrast this with gay men who are planning to get married and can adopt children – this group achieves so much because they are dedicated, conscious and collectively organised. Unfortunately, too many heterosexual fathers, apart from those who are divorced, are sleeping through these debates. The confusion and muddled nature of family policy highlights their absence.

Nicola Clark: 'Hope for disabled children is being fatally eroded'

When you have a child diagnosed with a disability you are given lots of information; prognosis, medical interventions, information on professionals, details of qualifying benefits and descriptions of support services available. What they don't tell you and should, is that from now on as a parent you will have to fight for your child in a way that parents of non-disabled children will never be able to conceive of. You'll have to fight for an education, a place in society and against the constraints of budget holders and service providers.

You are also battling against the ignorance and increasing discriminatory attitudes of the people on the street towards disabled people.

We are facing an unprecedented level of cuts to services and educational provision of disabled children between the ages of 16 and 25. Currently, children accessing residential schools or young adult assisted living units are often sent hundreds of miles away from home. Maintaining crucial contact with family in these circumstances is often impossible.

The children and families bill assures us that the government has a commitment to children and young people with disabilities, yet Richard Hawkes, the chief executive of disability charity Scope says that "parents of disabled children have been badly let down".

"The government said its special educational needs (SEN) reform would prevent parents being forced to go from 'pillar to post' in a battle between different authorities and agencies. This was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform SEN. The bill is a huge missed opportunity," says Hawkes.

Disabled children are not a budgetary inconvenience – they have as much right to an education and life chances as any other member of society, but without meaningful support, accessible education and adequate services, this cannot happen.

As provision is being decimated nationally, our hope for our children's future and trust in the government to make this a reality is being fatally eroded.

Liz Edwards: 'The bill could raise false hope for separated parents'

Where it is safe to do so, it is almost always in the best interests of children to have a relationship with and retain involvement with both their parents. This has always been at the heart of the advice that the 6,500 family lawyers who are members of Resolution provide.

But this can be incredibly challenging for parents who are, inevitably, going through a difficult, highly emotionally charged time. So good family lawyers will do whatever they can to ensure parents put the needs of their children first. But there is a real danger that by enshrining such a presumption in the law, the children and families bill could cause misunderstanding, raise expectations or build false hope among separated parents – particularly for those where there is already an imbalance of power or understanding about what is in the child's best interests.

As a family lawyer, I will always advise parents to forget the labels around residence and contact, which imply winners and losers. Issues are often so much easier to resolve if discussions or negotiations are about co-parenting and parenting time in the context of the child's best interests.

Otherwise parents can easily get into arguments about the label, when there is in fact general agreement around what are the best arrangements for the child. We therefore hope that the new children arrangements orders, as outlined in the bill, will help make these situations easier to resolve. After all, it's far more important that parents retain the labels that their children already know them by, such as "Mum" and "Dad".

The bill also introduces a six-month time limit for completing care cases. Again, we need to look at the detail, but we agree that making decisions – and communicating this decision to the child – within 26 weeks will be in the interests of most children. The government needs to ensure, of course, that there is continued focus on the needs of the child rather than simply meeting an arbitrary deadline, and we look forward to hearing more about the resources that will be made available to achieve this.

Martin Narey: 'Avoiding delay in adoption is a priority'

The children and families bill delivers on this government's determination to radically and permanently reform adoption so that neglected and abused children get the stable and loving homes they need. It has been a difficult road and undoubtedly a controversial one. The most controversial issue has been the move to reduce the emphasis given to ethnicity, culture, linguistic background and religion when matching a child to adopters. That there is a problem is not in doubt. Black children wait a year longer to be adopted than white children, and some black children simply grow out of the chance of adoption, losing for all time the chance of the love and stability that every child needs. It is frequently – sometimes mischievously – suggested that in changing the law on ethnicity and adoption, the government is suggesting ethnicity doesn't matter. That is simply not true. What the government is doing – and partly as a result of my urging – is ensuring that ethnicity and cultural considerations do not unnecessarily veto an otherwise satisfactory adoption. Labour's 2002 Adoption and Children Act made it plain that avoiding delay in adoption was the priority and that children should not wait in order to be adopted by parents of the same ethnicity, culture, religion or linguistic background. But local authorities have been slow to change. It is not that race does not matter. The advice I have given to Michael Gove is that if there are two sets of adopters interested in adopting a black child, black adopters have an advantage. But when, as is so often the case, there are not enough black adopters available, then to continue to emphasise race is cruelly disadvantageous to black children.

Local authorities have been commendably brave in supporting the adoption of children by gay parents. And they are right to do so because the evidence is clear that the disadvantage of a child growing up in a home where they are unlikely to share the sexuality of either of their parents is easily overcome. The evidence that white parents can, with sensitivity and support, similarly compensate for a difference in ethnicity between themselves and an adopted child is just as compelling. This bill, will, I hope, ensure that social work practice responds to that reality.

• For more on this issue read Martin Narey on Comment is free