Earlier this morning we posted a piece about Parliament’s latest assault on fathers’ rights, an amendment to the Children and Families Bill:
Ray Barry has just sent over the following piece, and it takes up the rest of this post:
WHO KILLED THE BILL? THE NSPCC DID.
Last week the NSPCC, as part of a consortium, killed off the part of the government’s Children and Families Bill which would have created a presumption in law that children benefit from having contact with their fathers.
The group, calling itself the Shared Parenting Consortium (a misnomer if ever there was one), successfully lobbied to change clause 11 of the bill.
The original Clause 11 said this: “A court… is as respects each parent…, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare.”
So, it is beneficial to a child to have the involvement of both parents, unless the contrary is shown. Where is the harm in that, you might ask?
The consortium argued that this wording did not make it sufficiently plain that the welfare of the child must be paramount, and their lobbying led to the Lords amending clause 11 last week to reflect that the “involvement” of fathers might be no more than indirect contact, e.g. permission to send a card to your child on Christmas and birthdays.
Did they miss the bit that said “unless the contrary is shown?”
That phrase gave all the protection necessary to allow a court, on the facts of an individual case, to rule that contact with one or other parent was unsafe and therefore not in the child’s interests.
With this amendment now accepted, even when a court does conclude that contact is safe and beneficial to a child, it needs to be no more than a minimal amount; an occasional card or letter will now meet the threshold set by this Bill. This amendment will convey to judges that they are obliged to order contact, but not any significant amount.
The role of the NSPCC in this consortium should not be overlooked. They have “previous” on this issue. They were instrumental in opposing a similar clause in the Children and Adoption Bill in 2005. On that occasion, the NSPCC relied on a much discredited report which claimed “Women’s Aid has compiled a list of 29 children in 13 families who were killed as a result of contact (or in one case residence) arrangements in England and Wales between 1994 and 2004.” Apart from the fact that these figures were not verifiable and that much of the report was anecdotal, during the same period 536 children were killed by one or other parent, such that, even on the Women’s Aid figures, a child was less likely to be killed by a parent during contact than at other times!
Last June Mike Buchanan highlighted an NSPCC report, ‘Partner exploitation and violence in intimate personal relationships’, and an excellent rebuttal of it by American psychotherapist, Tom Golden, whose forensic analysis of the report shows quite shameful and deliberate manipulation of research findings to support the relentless anti-male and pro-female narrative spun by feminists.
I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that NSPCC’s agenda is now more anti-men than pro-children. I for one would sooner burn in hell than donate money to them.