 |
| Response
to Consultation Paper on Domestic Violence and Contact |
|
|
Veronica
Swenson, Guardian ad Litem and governor of the UK College of Family
Mediators, and Carol Edwards, Guardian ad Litem and Family Therapist. |
|
|
| Previous
Page |
|
| Responses
to Questions |
|
| Section
2: The
Current Law |
|
|
| 1. |
Do
you agree with the general principle that, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, the welfare of children will be best served by (i)
their having regular contact with their parents and other members of
their family; and (ii) the maintenance of as good a continuing
relationship with their parents as is possible ?
|
|
|
|
Response:
Yes, but we suggest it should read: i) the maintenance of as good a
continuing relationship with their parents and other family members as
is possible and ii) their having regular contact with their parents
and other members of their family. |
|
|
|
2. |
If
you do not agree with the general principle set out in question 1,
please give your reasons for not doing so. |
|
|
|
Response:
Not applicable. |
|
|
| 3. |
Do
you think that too much weight is placed by the courts on the
importance of parental contact with children after the relationship
between the mother and the father has broken down, and that as a
consequence the courts do not properly address the issue of domestic
violence when it is raised in the context of an application for
contact ? |
|
|
|
Response:
No, but there are deficits in the way domestic violence is addressed (see Notes 1 & 2
). |
|
|
|
4. |
If
your answer to question 3 is ‘yes’, what test would you suggest
the courts should apply when deciding whether or not to order contact
? |
|
|
|
Response:
The test must be the best interests of the child, carefully assessed
for long- as well as short-term consequences (see Notes 1 & 2).
|
|
|
|
| Next
Page |
|
|
| back to top |