The new Guidelines on Shared Parenting produced by FNF: an initial response by Joan Hunt (University of Oxford) and Liz Trinder (Newcastle University)

Families Need Fathers has recently produced three sets of guidelines on Shared Parenting for Cafcass, Surestart and Schools and Teachers. This work was funded by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The precise status of the guidelines is unclear but all three appear to have been accepted by Cafcass and DCSF. The background and the guidelines are available on the FNF website at http://www.fnf.org.uk/publications-and-policy/shared-parenting-shared-benefits

As academics with considerable experience of researching post-separation contact, particularly in high conflict, litigating families, we have grave concerns about the guidelines, particularly those for Cafcass, concerns which we understand to be shared by other academics as well as practitioners.

In brief, our main concerns are threefold:

1. Current Law. Any official guidance must reflect the current law fully and accurately. These new guidelines state that although shared parenting does not mean that the childs time is necessarily divided equally between the parents that is an option which should always be considered as a starting point (by Cafcass officer as well as the parents themselves) unless there is good reason to advise otherwise. This would have the effect of introducing a presumption of a 50/50 division of the childs time. The law, however, currently states that it is the welfare principle (and the welfare checklist including the childs wishes and feelings) that must determine the decisions of the courts and therefore the recommendations that Cafcass officers make to the courts. It does not include any presumption of shared parenting or a 50/50 presumptive starting point. This is not a lacuna: during the passage of the 2006 Children and Adoption Act Parliament consistently rejected proposals that there should even be a statutory presumption of contact or reasonable contact let alone the more radical approach of a 50/50 presumption. If there is to be any change it has to be achieved openly, through the parliamentary process, not through Cafcass guidance.

2. Research Evidence. All three sets of guidelines make extensive reference to research to support or justify the case for shared parenting. However the account of the evidence base in the guidelines is incomplete, inaccurate and deeply misleading. There are, in fact, no robust research studies that find that children in high conflict or litigating populations benefit from 50/50 type arrangements. Rather the evidence is precisely the opposite with research finding poorer outcomes for these children. The guidelines fail to mention these directly relevant and robust studies, (e.g. research by Janet Johnston and Jenn McIntosh) or make unfounded methodological criticisms of them (e.g research by Carol Smart). In the absence of any empirical support the guidelines have to rely on research that is not directly relevant, such as the impact of father involvement in intact families; the general potential benefits of contact and the proportion of the whole separating population who report sharing childrens time equally. Moreover, while domestic violence and child abuse are rightly included as possible contraindications for shared parenting, there is no mention of the extensive research on the negative effects of parental conflict on children.

3. Failure to consult. The guidelines for Cafcass, schools and Sure Start centres appear to have been produced by a single fathers group (FNF) without reference to, or consultation with, any other stakeholders, including the judiciary, Resolution, childrens charities, womens groups or researchers. This is in contrast to the highly consultative approach generally adopted in this field, which is characterised by widely divergent perspectives and a lack of consensus. It is also contrary to the Governments Code of Practice on Consultation (2008, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform). The failure to consult may account for some of the inaccuracies and problems with the document.

Ways Forward
There are two potential ways forward, apart from withdrawing the document entirely as jointly agreed guidance.

The first is to reissue the three papers as consultation documents and to invite comment from all relevant stakeholders. The second is to produce a second edition of the documents which accurately reflects the law; uses research correctly; includes a more balanced analysis of the factors to be considered; and focuses on the interests of children.

There is, of course, also the option of doing nothing. However, given the flaws in both the guidance itself and the process by which it was produced, this option is likely to generate considerable opposition, even perhaps, a challenge to its legality. It is in the hope that it may be possible to retrieve the situation, in the interests of children, that we have decided to submit these comments.


Joan Hunt, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, University of Oxford.

Dr Liz Trinder, Reader in Family Studies, Newcastle University.


15/07/2009