Government backs 'shared parenting' legislation after separation Both fathers and mothers should be entitled to a legally binding "presumption of shared parenting" after separation, the government has announced, in defiance of advice by an independent review on family justice. While the interests of the child are to remain paramount, a ministerial group will report back in two months on what form of words will be inserted into legislation ensuring that children maintain a "meaningful relationship" with both parents. The proposal was dismissed by David Norgrove, whose report last year warned of the situation in Australia after it introduced shared parenting rights. A landslide of legal claims and counter-claims led to severe delays in child custody cases. In advance of the government's formal response to his family justice report, Norgrove, who chairs the Low Pay Commission, last week re-emphasised his opposition, explaining that his review "thoroughly considered the issue of shared parenting and concluded the law should not be changed. If the government has decided to legislate, I regret that and it will be vital to find words that avoid the difficulties encountered in Australia. Stressing that the government "agreed with 99.9%" of Norgrove's conclusions, the justice minister Jonathan Djanogly told the Guardian there should be a legal presumption of shared parenting. "Mr Norgrove [agreed with] that position in his interim report," Djanogly said. He did not disagree with it conceptually in his final report but he saw there were possible problems in Australia. We agree with that too; we see there are real problems and that's why we have set up a ministerial review (reporting in April) to look at ways of dealing with those issues. The particular problem [in Australia] was equal parenting time. The courts started getting a lot of equal time applications. The UK government is not in favour of giving separated parents rights to equal time nor will it consider setting legally enforceable "minimum amounts of time" for fathers or mothers, Djanogly added. We are not violently moving away from what the current law is. The government response declares: "Any changes will be complementary to, not in conflict with, the principle in the Children Act 1989 that the welfare needs of the child are the paramount consideration. The court should consider an ongoing relationship with both parents as something that in most cases will contribute to the child's welfare - and should look at the question through this lens, of what is best for the child - rather than as a 'right' for the parents. Asked whether the plans reflected the impact of groups like Fathers4Justice, Djanogly insisted it was not a question of "favouring" either fathers or mothers in custody cases. Although "we have heard harrowing experiences from fathers with which we have sympathised, we need a system that is fair," he added. Other government proposals focus on speeding up child custody disputes where the number awaiting decision has almost doubled in the past four years to 20,000 cases. Care and supervision cases currently take an average of 55 weeks. A six-month time limit will be set on child custody disputes to ensure cases are processed more quickly. It will also become mandatory for separating couples to attend a mediation hearing initially in the hope of persuading them to reach agreement without going to court. In order to ensure that it works, an extra £10m in legal aid is being made available for mediation. Ministers will also examine whether "more robust enforcement tools" are needed to encourage errant parents to comply with settlements. Parents who defy court orders can already be imprisoned; any change is likely to look at less draconian but more practical punishments that will curb misbehaviour. There will be a better deal for grandparents, the government maintains, but it will not be enshrined in law. Djanogly said: "When going through the check list for a parental agreement, the role of grandparents should appear and the same thing in mediation. So we do think the role of grandparents should be extended in the system. The Ministry of Justice will eventually absorb Cafcass, the government agency that looks after children involved in family proceedings, into a new Family Justice Board to ensure the agencies work closer together. Most family lawyers and children's rights charities gave the proposals a cautious welcome. Nicholas Cusworth QC, chairman of the Bar Council and Family Law Bar Association, said: "There are parts of the government's response, which we welcome, such as strengthening the court's enforcement rules, for which we have called for some time. Current rules are piecemeal and ineffective, and a cohesive approach to revising them would be a positive step. However ... on shared parenthood, we agree with the Family Justice Review's finding that, learning lessons from the Australian experience, legislating on this issue risks creating the perception that there is a right to substantially shared or equal time, for both parents. It is already widely understood and applied by the courts that children benefit from having a relationship with both parents and legislation would be unnecessary and may do more harm than good. The government must consider this with the greatest of care. Maggie Atkinson, children's commissioner for England, said: "Many children are caught up, through no fault of their own, for months at a time in a system that is hindered by delays and still fails to give them an adequate voice. A statutory six-month time limit on care and supervision proceedings will mean speedier decision making and resolution for the children involved. We welcome the government's confirmation that legislating in this area will focus on parents' shared responsibility for their child and it is not about guaranteeing each parent an equal amount of time with children. Nadine O'Connr, campaign director of Fathers4Justice, said: "This is more a limp, than a step, in the right direction. It's a bit of a damp squib. We would have liked them to stick to their pre-election promises and guaranteed fathers rights of access. This will not make out campaign go away. Fiona Weir, chief executive of Gingerbread, the single parents' charity, commented: "Any move to change the legislation would only result in confusion and risks more, rather than less, litigation. Instead we would like to see more practical support to help parents share caring responsibilities more equally, both within couples and after separation. Legislation is not the way to get more fathers engaged with their children. Anne Hurst, spokesperson for Maypole Women, a organisation that supports women through divorce, said: "The idea that the law can give a child a right to a meaningful relationship is an empty promise, no law can do that. The proposed change will increase children's exposure to conflict and abuse, increase economic inequality, and create no incentive for fathers' increased involvement from their child's birth. Children who actively reject a parent - either the abusive or non-abusive parent - usually do so in a context of high parental conflict and domestic abuse. Cutting off contact can be a response to alienation tactics, or a coping mechanism. The lord chief justice Lord Judge said: "The judiciary will continue to play its part in modernising the system of family justice." Steve Matthews, chairman of the Magistrates' Association's family courts committee, said he was "pleased that [the government] recognised the need for a unified family court and that it has maintained the key principle of the Children Act 1989 that children's needs are paramount. We support in principle the aim of limiting the length of the majority of care cases to six months, but courts must retain sufficient flexibility where the interests of children require an extension. Desmond Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, which represents solicitors, said: "Reducing delays in care proceedings is crucial, and we welcome the government's commitment to provide the necessary legislative impetus for change. [But] to effectively halve the time which cases take now will require additional resources - but court facilities are being closed and the number of solicitors available to help families is likely to reduce in the wake of legal aid cuts.