Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 3: "Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—"    ““FREQUENT AND CONTINUING CONTACT    In section 11(1) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41), after paragraph (b) insert— ““(c)   work from the presumption that, where the safety of the child is not an issue, the non-resident parent will be allowed frequent and continuing contact with the child.”””” The noble Baroness said: After the clamour of asking where the time frame is and saying that all the amendments should be together, I shall now give the Committee the second part. The two amendments provide different ways of defining contact time. We have tabled two different amendments to stimulate what I now know, from an hour of the Committee’s proceedings, will be a very interesting debate. A definition of contact time is vital to provide the courts with guidance. In moving my first amendment, I said that the current process was seen as ill co-ordinated, with no consistent procedure around the country. Throughout the country, those involved in our family law system must have confidence that they are treated in the same way, according to transparent standards. Otherwise they will feel that they are being treated capriciously and unfairly. Of course, the argument against defining contact time—we have already heard it—is that every case is different. However, the fact that every case is different does not mean that we cannot have guidelines. The Equal Parenting Council, one of the main stakeholders representing parents and grandparents on contact issues, has been campaigning for all fit parents—for ““fit”” we could use ““safe””—to have access to substantial parenting time with their children following separation. Substantial parenting time should be defined as at least one-third of the available parenting time on a year-round basis. That suggested division of time does not literally mean a third of a child’s time each day, each week or each month, but that overall access should be equivalent to around a third of the time over the year in a manner agreed by the parents. A less prescriptive and more flexible way could be achieved by making Amendment No. 3, which works on the presumption that the non-resident parent will be allowed frequent and continuing contact with their child. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that is one of the things prescribed in statute in America. For many years, it has been widely recognised that too many children lose contact with their non-resident parent. I believe that is the exact opposite of Parliament’s intention and, indeed, of the Government’s stated aim—where the safety of the child is not an issue both parents should continue to be fully involved in their children’s upbringing. Universal research shows that children do better in life on all measures where they are raised by both parents. They do better academically, socially and in their adult relationships later in life. However, the legal machinery is not delivering what the Government and all of us would like to achieve, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Howe when discussing an earlier amendment. We hear time and time again of cases where hostile parents have been able to exclude the non-resident parents. The Bill’s suggested answer is simply enforcement orders, but that is enforcing the current system. If reasonable contact, which, as I said, was so eloquently and persuasively described by my noble friend Lord Howe, is allowed, along with one of these amendments detailing a baseline for substantial parenting time, we could address the basic flaw that allows resident parents to deny time to their former partner. Across the world of family law, there has been a call for a change in the system. By accepting the amendments, the Government could effect the change that so many had hoped for in the Bill. I beg to move.