Putting children’s safety first will protect them from abusive parents | Family law

I felt a mixture of emotions when I read your news report ( Shift in family law hailed as victory for children facing domestic abuse, 21 October) and Charlotte Broadman’s opinion piece ( I’ve seen the courts return children to their abusers. Today that horror is finally over, 22 October) on the extent of the crisis in the family courts, but not surprisingly. The horror left many children and mothers shocked and disbelieved, and in the case of Claire Throssell, worse. It is possible that change will finally occur and that the child’s safety and best interests will override contact at all costs. Although that is no consolation to those with prior experience in this chaotic, unjust system that rewards abusive parents.

Protective fathers, and usually mothers, only go to court when there is no other option. When a child repeatedly refuses contact with a parent, hides, or cries, something is clearly wrong. They expect their children’s safety and well-being to be paramount, and they assume that legal action exists to protect the victim.

Instead, the perpetrator charges “parental isolation,” a term widely discredited internationally, to undermine the victim. This leads to decisions that violate the best interests of children, and this has happened to many mothers who are simply trying to protect their children. Some will never see their child again.
Anne Moore
(Stockfield, Northumberland).

Any moves that protect children from an abusive parent are, of course, essential. But I fear for the many loving parents who will have to fight even harder to connect with their children as a result of this new court ruling. Previously, parents were only contacted if the child was not in danger, so why didn’t that work?

Now, the courts have to assume that contact with both parents as a starting point is not in the best interests of the child. truly? I think research has shown that communication with caring parents is very important for children’s emotional development. Most estranged parents may be loving and caring, but they are easily alienated or their children are held back by spiteful partners. How many loving parents can afford to go to court, costing tens of thousands and taking up to a year or more, to get fair contact with their children? It is hoped that this shift in the law will protect children from a few dangerous parents, but at the expense of many good parents who deserve to be taken into account.
Wendy Hop
Bristol

The Supreme Court of Canada decided 30 years ago that family law decisions should be based on the best interests of the child, not the “rights” of the parents. The result is that children have rights, and parents have responsibilities. There is an assumption that, in general, it is in the child’s best interests to have contact with both parents, but this also depends on the interests of the child, not his or her parents.
Lucretia Martinet
Calgary, Canada