Maureen Freely writing in the, Guardian, describes the principle of shared parenting in the following way,
"Shared parenting as practised today is a flexible concept. It can mean that all care is shared 50-50, or that children spend 80% of the time in one house and 20% in the other. Most families do the fine print by themselves. Its only when they can't agree they end up in court. When they do, their case will be considered according to its own merits. But certain rules of thumb remain. When making their decisions, many British judges still shy away from the ideal of shared parenting as described in the Children Act and are guided by the 'Tender Years doctrine'. Dr Hamish Cameron, a consultant child psychiatrist who has served as an expert witness in many cases, describes this as the belief that young children are best off with the parent with the closest resemblance to the Madonna. Where judges sees their first duty as preserving the mother-child dyad, their solution in some intractable cases will be to remove the father from the picture."(Guardian, 'Children first', 27 March, 2002).
Fathers and the
Department of Social
Policy and Intervention
at Oxford University
According to Baroness Richmond, an architect of the Children Act 1989, one of the principles of the legislation was to,
"Redress the balance: to promote a more equal sharing of responsibility for children between mothers and fathers and to promote the maintenance a good relationship as possible between children and each of their parents should, unhappily, their parents not be living together"(4 February 2003).
Yet unfortunately the situation has not changed since Maureen Freely's article was published and British judges still shy away from the ideal of shared parenting as described in the Children Act and are instead guided by the 'Tender Years doctrine' reinforced by Case Laws.
Two Private Members’ Bills were introduced to Parliament in 2011 that although different in content, sought to introduce a default position that children should spend a substantial amount of time with both parents in the event of separation. However the the Family Justice Committee decided on the basis of a review of the operation of the Family Courts in 2011 that,
Two Private Members’ Bills were introduced to Parliament in 2011 that although different in content, sought to introduce a default position that children should spend a substantial amount of time with both parents in the event of separation. However the the Family Justice Committee decided on the basis of a review of the operation of the Family Courts in 2011 that,
9. We do not see any value in inserting a legislative statement reinforcing the importance of the child continuing to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, alongside the need to protect the child from harm, into the Children Act 1989. Such a statement is not intended to change the current position as the law already acknowledges that a meaningful, engaged relationship with both parents is generally in a child's best interests. The Panel has concluded that the family court system is allowing contact in the right cases; in our view nothing should be done that could undermine the paramount importance of the welfare of the child. (Paragraph 71)As a result a minority of children in private family law proceedings live in shared care, with one study showing that roughly 90% lived with their mother following divorce or separation.
