Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

I understand that this is quite informal. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It is important at this stage to debate these very interesting amendments about the role of birth parents in their child’s life, their rights and responsibilities, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said. The noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that we are content with the legislation when it comes to defining rights and responsibilities, but if he wishes to write to us about where he believes there is a gap in the legislation on this important point, we would be delighted. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about the important issue of monitoring, as did the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Monitoring the welfare of the child is very important. CAFCASS intends in future to carry out post-order follow-up to check how the orders are working. Courts will also be able to ask CAFCASS to monitor compliance with contact orders. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said that the Bill should be clear about the rights of fathers without parental responsibility. The Bill refers only to parents, and no distinction or difference is made whether or not they have formal parental responsibility. Perhaps I may go through the amendments in a little more detail. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, wishes to underline the benefits to the child of continuing meaningful contact with his parents where it is safe and to ensure that the child can maintain contact with his birth parents. I also recognise that the noble Lord’s aim is to protect the interests of the child concerned and to ensure that the court and those who will be directed to a contact activity understand that the whole point of the referral is to serve the best interests of the child. I think that I can offer the noble Lord some assurance on each of these amendments. Beginning with Amendment No. 31, I am happy to say that Clause 1(8) already makes clear that the welfare of the child is to be the court’s paramount consideration when considering whether to make a contact activity direction. That means that the court is obligated to have regard to what benefit the contact activity or direction will be to the interests of the child. It is important to underline that obligation, and I believe that it addresses the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment. Although it is a minor issue, I should also alert the noble Lord to a more technical fault with the amendment in that it refers to ““birth parents””. My worry is that the use of this phrase would be overly restrictive and would fail to take account of the possibility that a contact activity can be ordered for any party to a contact case, which, as well as birth parents, might include, for example, other relatives such as grandparents. I now turn to Amendment No. 35. The amendment as tabled would specify explicitly that a child who is a parent of the child concerned—that is, a teenage parent of a child in a contact case—and who, under subsection (2) of new Section 11B, could be subject to a contact activity direction, could include a natural father who may not have parental responsibility for the child concerned. I recognise of course that the noble Lord’s intention was to refer to birth fathers more widely and not just to those under 18. So I shall confine the rest of my remarks to the substance of the noble Lord’s amendment, where, again, I hope that I can offer some reassurance. The Bill already allows for what the noble Lord is proposing. Section 10(4) of the Children Act states that any parent may apply for a Section 8 order. This reference to ““any parent”” applies equally to fathers who do not have parental responsibility for the child concerned and who may therefore apply for contact orders and may be subject to contact activity directions under this Bill. I think that this goes to the heart of some of the rights and responsibility issues that the noble Lord raised. Therefore, I am happy to confirm that the meaning of ““parent”” in the Children Act and in the Bill includes biological fathers who do not have parental responsibility, as is the case when considering contact orders under the Children Act 1989. There is no distinction in the provisions of the Bill between fathers with parental responsibility and fathers without it. I hope that, with that clarification, the noble Lord is persuaded that the amendments are not needed and that he will consent to withdraw them. I thank noble Lords for their contributions.