This is a personal blog, and not an official Association one.

the start of this is less 'Shared Parenting' than it becomes.

No-one is going to dissent from views about how vile this man is, but the objections to the way his defence was run mostly seem to miss the point.

He was not conducting his own case, that was in the hands of his lawyer. Now lawyers, supposedly, have an ethical code which puts promoting 'Justice' and - in the family courts, child welfare, above the interests of their client or themselves.

David Cameron has laid into fathers who do not support their children financially. Saying that they should be stimatised like drunk drivers.

He is right to this extent. They are a disgrace. Anyone who comes seeking the support of the Shared Parenting Movement will be advised to pay. Its a moral duty to help the children. Its also tactical. If you are seeking a relationship with your child and are not paying, it will be used against you. If your child is denied a relationship with you its going to help in the long run if you can tell them that you were paying for them.

Sir Nicholas Wall is President of the Family Division of the High Court. In lay language, boss of the family courts.

He is introducing a 'Protocol' , or ruling on how cases be handled, which expects certain people to attend a meeting about whether they can solve their cases by 'mediation' (discussion led by a person trained to try and get agreement) rather than having a full, hostile, hearing.

The shared parenting aspect of this film is only at the very end. A good and loving father figure, whose toddler is trying to pull him back, tells her to go to her mother, and walks out in evident  distress. Maybe the child ahd he would have been successful in keeping a joint life....but the mother wanted the man out of her life and held all the cards.

Sir Nicholas Wall, Britain's most senior judge, has called for changes on the law on co-habitation. Unless there is a radical change in social trends - and there is no sign or reason to think there will be one - a majority of children will soon be born to unmarried couples. If that is not the case already.

Ramifications all over the place of course.

But two things above all.

1) changing the starting place over the parenting of children whose parents live apart.

Currently one parent usually gets possession of the children, often at the very moment of parental separation.

No suggestion that the Baroness is one.

She is the UK appointment as 'foreign minister' of the European Union and an EU commissioner, and has other appointments.

She is under fire for twagging roughly two out of five meetings of the Commissioners. Reportedly they will not allow deputies to come instead, or attendance to be by skype or anything like that, lest it encourage others, so the UK voice has, seemingly been unheard.

he died a few days ago. A 'colourful', 'controversial' judge, even in obituaries which respect the convention of speaking no ill of the dead

But an important character in 'demystifying' the law. The reputation of the law is surely on a firmer long term basis if it is seen to be made by frail humans who can, however, admit to mistakes than if they pretend to be demi-gods above scrutiny or criticism.

Lessons there for our secret family courts.

No comment on whether the Eastenders plot line is welcome publicity for a tragic condition or a tacky treatment of it.

A  spokeswoman for the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths - the charity to support parents and to study and reduce the problem - was on the radio at lunchtime today to debate this issue.

She said repeatedly how distressing the death of her baby was to mothers. Excuse me, but didn't the babies have two parents? What about full understanding and support for both?

Wretchedly a common enough assumption in all sorts of situations

This snippet is provoked by  the criticism by the group 'Rights of Women' of the withdrawal of legal aid from domestic disputes -except where they involve g domestic violence - on the grounds that the definition of DV for this purpose is far too narrow. It only encmpasses physical violence.

There are a lot of unpleasant things people could be on the wrong end of, but that does not mean they are 'violent'. Some of them surely are unacceptable even if not violent, and some surely need to be sanctioned.

Having said in the last post how arrogant Judges can be, need to back it up.

The immediate incident is trying to help someone who has got the back up of a judge, and whose every comment is now dismissed.

But the most vivid example is some years back. I was talking to an all day conference of family law practitioners but had to leave at lunch to do the school run.

Courtspeak is the official language of those in the family justice business.

In our diverse society the family justice system - and others thoroughly imbued with 'traditional English' beliefs - may be called on the make decisions based on beliefs that they little of.

In this case the attitude of Moslem men towards girls.

This seems to have contributed towards er, shall we say, scepticism about how caring a Moslem father would be towards his baby girl.

The withdrawal of legal aid for litigation in family disputes is - subject to qualifications below - to be welcomed.

Its good entertainment, even if perhaps a bit tacky.

Reading about whether politicians or the press are telling lies.

There were fine statements that 'justice'  requires that people do not lie to the courts.

Good rhetoric.

But how much does it really matter whether a newspaper report that a politician went to a sex club is true or false?

Why its more important than other celebrity gossip? Why should the police have bothered with it? 

Its not as if either party has a reputation worth defending.  

The 'rights' or otherwise of homosexuals to be parents is a contested issue.

There are passionately held moral, and sometimes religious,  views on both sides.

The first part of this is perhaps for the 'general reader'. The second is more technical, to do with a successful appeal against enforcement of a contact order in a 'parental alienation' case.

Part one.

Language shapes thought.

 Of all the attempts to use this to shape society's view of the relationship of children in divided families  to their parents, few are more offensive than describing one as the 'caring parent' and the other as 'absent'.

These terms have mostly now disappeared, and rightly so.

Utterly wrong to describe a parent seeking a relationship with a child, or a better relationship of even, occasionally, to become the residential parent as being 'absent'.

All applications for contact and residence orders now have to be checked for possible risks to the children. Nearly all of these are from natural fathers who are seeking to overcome their exclusion from the lives of their children. It is sometimes the other way around. Fathers who have achieved control of their children can also be possessive and hostile to the children's mother.

In all but a few cases what is best for the children is the full involvement of both parents. The issue is not which parent should have them, but the best blend of both

New powers to tackle domestic violence are to be piloted.

Its the utter banality of this incident that is the point.

Probably quite a few clubs about whom these events are told.

But I heard it from a Sunderland fan.

The child had been removed from a violent mother under an emergency order and was before the judge for a decision as to where he should live.

The judge proposed the father. No! said the child, he beats me even harder!

'Your grandparents? 'No! no! no! they are the most violent of the lot!'

The first of what may be a series of posts on the ways shared parenting can both reduce child poverty and save public money.

The major advantages, however, is the improvement in child welfare. Not dealt with here.

I am currently trying to offer comments on a family situation in which one of the parents has seriously upset a 'professional'.

 Now in the 'real world' if either experts or ordinary people were to assess what qualities made for a good parent, the item 'being obsequious to people trying to meddle in your life' would probably not rate very highly.

Having spoken in favour of CAFCASS when they were unfairly criticised, there have to be 'balancing items'

 I have been told by a Family Court Advisor in private law that in most cases both parents were perfectly good ones.

So it did not matter much which one the children were allocated to.

Well the recognition of gender equality is progress.

But the implication that there has to be one parent is, well, chilling.

The outcome in these situations should not be to toss for it (though that is probably a bit cheap with the attitude) but BOTH.

Pretty well all 'developed' countries have seen a major increase in women on their own having children.

In everywhere (pretty well) apart from Britain and the United States the mothers doing this are in their 20s and 30s and reasonably well off, well housed and so on.

In Britain and the USA they are commonly teenagers without education, training, work, income or housing.

The Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service exists to help Judges in the family courts to make the best decisions about the children whose cases are brought before them.

 They deal with both 'private' and 'public' law cases. Broadly the first is where parents cannot agree on the parenting of their children and go to law about it. The second is where state authorities feel they have to intervene to protect children who may have been abused or neglected.

This is a greeting and an opening statement.