Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 113:"Page 9, line 42, at end insert—" ““11Q   COMPENSATION ORDERS: NON-RESIDENT PARENTS (1)   Before making an order for compensation in favour of a non-resident parent, the court shall establish— (a)   whether the person who has suffered financial loss by reason of the breach of the contact order has any liability for child support in respect of the child; and (b)   whether that liability is fully satisfied. (2)   No court shall make any compensation order under section 110(2) in favour of any person in arrears in their child support payments.”””” The noble Baroness said: The amendment is consistent with those moved earlier by me and my noble friend Lady Gould. It is about the court being seen to be even-handed in its treatment of non-resident and resident parents. We have acknowledged several times that most of the measures outlined in the Bill are likely to be used against mothers because in the vast majority of cases mothers will be the resident parent providing everyday care for a child. So she is the person who will be ordered to hand the child over for contact visits and may be ordered to pay compensation if her ex-partner suffers financial loss because she has breached the contact order. It is important to note that the Bill does not contain—perhaps it does; my noble friend has already explained this to us but it did not appear to me to contain—measures that require the non-resident parent to turn up for contact visits or to behave reasonably to their ex-partner or to the child. In many cases, the mother and child may already be suffering financial hardship because the non-resident parent has not made child support payments or may be behind with them. It seems to me unfair to require one parent to pay compensation to the other without establishing whether that is the case or whether the other parent has in some way failed to meet their responsibilities to the child for child support payments. I beg to move.