Family Justice Review Final Report

I was sickened to read about this the other day,
Having spent almost 7yrs trawling through the family courts (and still at it) I am saddened that more and more parents will have to suffer the ordeals that I have, with no end in sight.

The first thing that came into my mind after reading it is that someone should organise the biggest demonstration on the houses of parliament ever seen in this country.
I for one would be right there with my placard, telling them what I think of their review and that lying smarmy faced sod David Camercon.

We and our friends and families should also threathen to hit them where it really hurts, in the ballot box.

Just moaning about it won't get us anywhere.

Can someone explain to me how a welfare state deals with a presumed 50/50 split of care when parents separate? I struggle to understand how we would fund it.

A simple example as follows:

2 parents working full time on minimum wage. 2 children, split between the pair of them on a 50/50 basis - simple decision to split the child benefit between them and each side gets the same tax credit top up on their minimum salaries. All very fair until you realise that instead of one parent being eligible for housing benefit/council housing to house themselves and two children (2 beds, potentially 3 if children of different sexes and of an age where they are deemed unsuitable to share), you end up with two parents with that same eligibility at a cost to the tax payer. If both children lived with one parent, you would get a 2/3 bed eligibility and a 1 bed eligibility at less cost to the tax payer.

How is a judge going to deal with the financial side of a split where the children need equal housing with both parents and there isn't enough money to go around to house them even with one?

What happens when the nursing assistant marries the consultant doctor and a 50/50 split of care is assumed upon divorce? how does the nursing assistant keep a roof over their children's head 50% of the time if they're not eligible for full housing allowances, tax credits etc.?

I get the need for a presumed 50/50 of care. But I find it so hard to visualise (not sure that's the right word?) how that works in practise when it is usually one parent who has given up work/gone part time/taken a hit in terms of career development, when one parent earns considerably more than the other, where the tax payer if funding a welfare state, where despite legislation preventing it women still earn less for doing the same job as men etc.etc.etc. Surely with an overhaul of how it works legally, there would need to be a corresponding overhaul of how welfare works? or by suggesting 50/50 as default, are we really saying the person who earns most 'wins' the children?

Tom, you have my wholehearted support in what you suggest.

mumtoboys wrote:

Can someone explain to me how a welfare state deals with a presumed 50/50 split of care when parents separate? I struggle to understand how we would fund it.

A simple example as follows:

2 parents working full time on minimum wage. 2 children, split between the pair of them on a 50/50 basis - simple decision to split the child benefit between them and each side gets the same tax credit top up on their minimum salaries. All very fair until you realise that instead of one parent being eligible for housing benefit/council housing to house themselves and two children (2 beds, potentially 3 if children of different sexes and of an age where they are deemed unsuitable to share), you end up with two parents with that same eligibility at a cost to the tax payer. If both children lived with one parent, you would get a 2/3 bed eligibility and a 1 bed eligibility at less cost to the tax payer.

How is a judge going to deal with the financial side of a split where the children need equal housing with both parents and there isn't enough money to go around to house them even with one?

What happens when the nursing assistant marries the consultant doctor and a 50/50 split of care is assumed upon divorce? how does the nursing assistant keep a roof over their children's head 50% of the time if they're not eligible for full housing allowances, tax credits etc.?

I get the need for a presumed 50/50 of care. But I find it so hard to visualise (not sure that's the right word?) how that works in practise when it is usually one parent who has given up work/gone part time/taken a hit in terms of career development, when one parent earns considerably more than the other, where the tax payer if funding a welfare state, where despite legislation preventing it women still earn less for doing the same job as men etc.etc.etc. Surely with an overhaul of how it works legally, there would need to be a corresponding overhaul of how welfare works? or by suggesting 50/50 as default, are we really saying the person who earns most 'wins' the children?

Hi Mumtoboys
I would immagine that having the presumed 50%50 split would at least be a starting point before the courts would take into consideration the circumstances of the parents.
This would at least give an equal footing to both parents instead of one of them having an instant advantage and the other an uphill struggle from the very start.

When I split from my ex I ran my own business, a business which allowed me to do as I pleased every day, if I didn't want to open my office the business ran itself anyway (residential marina) while she worked a 9-6 job.

I picked my daughter up every day before her mum went to work, looked after her all day and dropped her back when her mum came home.this went on for nearly 3yrs until she decided to withold contact.

I am still in the same position regarding my work although it's a different business, I can do as I please regarding hours or days of work.
I can devote as much time to my daughter as she needs yet her mother sees her only for a few short hours every evening, my daughter is put into an after school club on the days I don't have her.
Why should I have to prove time and time again to social worker, CAFCASS officers, courts etc: that I deserve more time with my daughter and the mother needs to prove absolutely nothing.

Why can my time with my child be reduced at a whim or as the result of a report by someone who barely know either me or my daughter when the mother would practically need to be caught with a syringe full of heroin in her arm and my daughter covered in bruises before these agencies would consider cutting her contact time down?

So why shouldn't someone like me have 50%50 residence as a starting point?
Why should I be treated any differently than my ex where the courts are concerned just because 1-I am a man and 2- because the mother is automatically deemed "the parent with care irrespective of her employment/ financial status?

Why should I have to fight for years just to get the 35% I have with my daughter?,

I've been/can be more of a parent than her mother has.

I am been Litigant in Person for the past two years for Child Contact case against my ex-partner (my boys' father) having had legal aid. To say it is a a disgrace at the dirty tricks of his solicitor and barrister to intimidate because I self represent, is putting it mildly!

Acfair - I know exactly what you mean. i'm a lip[ too. Last hearing ex's Barrister came in to where I was waiting despite me asking the usher to tell him not to and started saying "I know you haven't got much money but you really do need to get some representation" What an Absolute T*****. My McKenzie told me later I should get rep as I was getting ambushed. Think there are pro's and con's to being a lip.

Phoenix

I was a lip in a court case in relation to my ex and his solicitor came to me and said the same as your ex' barrister! Quite intimidating. However, the Judge was really lovely and asked me about myself and was really very supportive, so I represented myself at the next hearing and again ex' solicitor came to talk to me but I told her where to get off. And again the Judge (a different one this time) was really supportive.