Today John Hutton proposed new ‘name and shame measures’ to penalise absent parents for non payment of child support.

The new CMEC proposals fail to consider and promote the principle of shared parenting, and provide another incentive for parents to enter the courts and battle over their children rather than reaching a consensus through mediation. Instead of promoting parental agreement (which benefits the children both financially and emotionally), the new proposals provide a further incentive for parents to fight from the outset.

The proposed naming and shaming policy cannot be used against those parents whose cases were heard in the family courts. Family law prevents there from being any form of publicity which could identify a child who has been subject to a court ruling.

Common sense dictates that parents who reached agreement over arrangements for the children are more likely to be those who financially support them, but these are the only ones who can be punished with this  policy! Only the reasonable can be punished!

What the government refuses to accept is that our current legal system promotes and increases parental hostility with its ‘winner takes all’ judgments and the awarding of sole residence as the prize. Non payment by non resident parents is undoubtedly a byproduct of this.

Is shared parenting beneficial for children and will it increase the likelihood of both parents meeting their financial commitments?

You may remember the recent UNICEF Report on Child Wellbeing that found the United Kingdom to have the unhappiest children in the developed world. Interestingly, three of the four countries that topped the child wellbeing league had shared residence as the norm following parental separation.

Sweden, among the top three, fully funds mediation, and with there being a presumption of shared residence under Swedish law, unsurprisingly 90% of Swedish parents come to an agreement without needing to go to court.

In 2002, the American Psychological Association published an article in their Journal of Family Psychology found that:

‘Children in joint custody arrangements had less behaviour and emotional problems, had higher self-esteem, better family relations and school performance than children in sole custody arrangements. And these children were as well-adjusted as intact family children on the same measures’.

It’s only a few months since the UNICEF Report was published and Labour promised they would tackle the issue of the United Kingdom’s unhappy children. We’re still waiting.

Michael Robinson

Michael Robinson is the author of The Custody Minefield and is a regular contributor to legal, parenting and psychotherapeutic magazines. www.thecustodyminefield.com

Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it