Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

I feel that I must say something at this point. Clearly, we are all agreed that what we need is positive, frequent contact. I ask the noble Baroness how we should define ““safety””. That is the really difficult issue. We know that many children already live in violent households where parents are not necessarily living together but where violence occurs when they meet—and that is supervised. Arnon Bentovim’s most recent research indicates that that is the most detrimental situation for a child’s emotional development. Indeed, research on sexually abused boys shows that they have not necessarily been abused but have observed domestic violence. We need to be clear that the situation is not all one way and that contact with both parents can be difficult. It is not necessarily a matter of the child’s safety appearing on the surface to be at risk. Safety has to take into account the whole emotional development of the child, which my noble friend Lord Listowel described so eloquently earlier. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that each case is looked at on its merits. One of the problems with statute is that it does not necessarily affect implementation and practice. In those circumstances, what really counts is doing good work with families to try to help them with some of the difficulties that we are discussing. Those skills are being developed. No doubt, we shall discuss skill sets when we discuss training issues. That is why I have great ill ease about anything that sets the court on a defined prescriptive route. It is also somewhat presumptuous, as we have some excellent family law judges who are absolutely clear about how they would take a case forward. I refer to a skill set rather than a task set. We are in danger of getting a list comprising a task set and not carrying out the vital assessment. Although I understand what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve—we all seek to achieve it—I have a great sense of unease about the proposed path.