CG submission to Ministerial Group on the Family

to : Katharine Bramwell, Voluntary and Community Unit

Room 230, Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London, SW1P 2AW

Contents

0. Introduction

The Cheltenham Group welcomes the attention given to support for the family by the Ministerial Group on the Family.

The background situation in the UK includes :

• the UK has probably the worst record within Europe of protection and support for families;

• in the last 30 years there have been no legal or social policy developments, or even proposals from Government, which have had the slightest effect on the demise of the family;

• the demise of the family has gone hand in hand with the almost entire removal of men’s and father’s rights within the family;

• lone mothers, both those never married and those divorced (most of whom have got rid of perfectly acceptable husbands using the usual fabricated ‘unreasonable behaviour’ route) are greatly supported by the state and enjoy privileges not even accorded to married mothers;

• the single parent lobby is massively supported by central Government and others, while men’s and father’s groups receive almost no support.

Most recent developments, and we may mention the Child Support Act 1991 and Family Law Act 1996, neither of which support families, were passed with all-party support. Initiatives from recent Governments, and the present Labour government is no exception, have had no benefit.

This is the background situation against which Supporting Families is presented. There is therefore considerable scepticism among men’s groups about the benefits to their lives, to the family, or to society in general, about any new proposals.

This response to Supporting Families is intended to introduce Government to :

• the substantive issues in this area missing from the proposals in this Consultation Document (section 1 and 2); these issues are :

• matrimonial and family law,

• and social and financial policy in support of the family;

• other marginal issues missing (section 3);

• a critique of the proposals through answers to the Consultation Questions (section 4);

• an overview in conclusions (section 5).

The scope of this section

We can only provide an outline of this area, and to make reference to other Cheltenham Group publications for further details. We provide below a synopsis of :

• the significance of this issue;

• how this situation came about;

• the effects of current matrimonial and family law;

• a review of the social effects of these issues.

The significance of this issue

The importance of this area cannot be overestimated. It is the knowledge of the likely outcome of divorce, determined by courts of law, which to a large extent drives the process. The outcomes we refer to are control of children and asset allocation, and ongoing maintenance for children - all of which are allocated in the woman’s favour, whatever her past behaviour.

We explain below that :

• marriage has been destroyed as a legal institution;

• the interpretation of matrimonial and family law is comprehensively and seriously compromised;

• the principles applied in the dissolution of a marriage are degenerate;

• the principles have been introduced without any consultation or even knowledge of the public;

• the legal system involved in matrimonial and family law is not effectively controlled by responsible authority;

• the only unit supported by the legal system is a woman and ‘her’ children, and whichever ‘partner’ she cares to live with from time to time.

The last major reform of matrimonial law was in 1969. Case law decisions in 1973 based on this law in fact overturned Parliament’s intentions, and this was compounded with the introduction of the ‘special procedure’ in 1976. Since this time the divorce rate has increased four-fold. There are now approximately 180,000 divorces per year in the UK, and of these about 100,000 men and 120,000 children have their lives seriously damaged in a process they did not cause and were helpless to prevent.

Due to the changes which we outline, most divorces are now brought using trivial and fabricated reasons. It is no surprise that more than 70% of divorces are now brought by the woman, and that marriage rates have declined.

How this situation came about

This history is explained in full in other Cheltenham Group publications, notably The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process and Consequence [2], Marriage and Fatherhood : Important Information for Young Men [3], and The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies [4].

The principal causes are :

• corruption of the written law, and the principles which Parliament intended should apply, by the senior judges in case law decisions, over children (Allen case in 1948) and over assets (Wachtel case in 1973) [2, 3];

• the introduction of the ‘special procedure’ in 1976 to facilitate uncontested divorces, since then normal practice : this, combined with the accommodation of this by solicitors and barristers, completed the introduction of no-fault divorce, in which the parties’ conduct was largely irrelevant to the outcome, and this was introduced by ‘back-door’ methods i.e. without the public being consulted or even informed [2, 3];

• legal aid provided to women but withheld from men to defend a divorce petition;

• this situation is exacerbated by professional malpractices of solicitors, barristers, and court welfare officers, and particularly by female radical feminists who use the situation to further their political objectives against men [2];

• the introduction of the NAPO Anti-sexism Policy, applicable to court welfare officers, which is intended to provide support for women while avoiding the rights of men and their children [4];

• the lack of control by responsible authority over these issues [2, 4].

The most significant aspect of the law which has changed is that concerned with the basis for divorce and the allocation of assets. The provisions concerning the parties’ behaviour and the relevance of this to the outcome of divorce are defined in the Matrimonial Causes Act and the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act. The corruption of Parliament’s intentions were introduced by case law in 1973 over assets, and this date coincides with the dramatically increased rate of divorce. Previous case law decisions about children, from 1948, had already ensured that women had priority over children.

The basis for divorce, until 1969, that is on the grounds of desertion, cruelty and adultery, were replaced by irretrievable breakdown as evidenced by five factors. One of the five factors was ‘unreasonable behaviour’, and it was for a court to decide what was unreasonable. The senior judges overturned this principle in 1973, by allowing the term ‘unreasonable’ to apply to whatever the person making the allegation thought was ‘unreasonable’, that is to provide a subjective test as to what was ‘unreasonable’. Since then trivial and fabricated grounds have become common, and the unreasonable behaviour petition accounts for most divorces. Solicitors and barristers have accommodated this practice by ensuring that few divorces are contested.

More recent changes to matrimonial and family law have included the Child Support Act 1991, which for the first time ever caused mass public demonstrations due to the unjust treatment of fathers, and the Family Law Act 1996, which incorporates the ‘no-fault’ principle, already introduced by stealth and without public knowledge, into the written law for the first time ever. The architects of this include Brenda Hoggett, former Law Commissioner, now a judge in the Court of Appeal who has expressed clear feminist and anti-male views which we describe in Marriage and Fatherhood : Important Information for Young Men [3]. During the passage of FLA96, a MORI poll indicated that 64% of the public did not support no-fault divorce.

There have been attempts by feminists (see section 3.5 of [3]), to obtain the same outcomes of separation for cohabiting couples as for married couples.

The effects of current matrimonial and family law

The effect of this corruption of the laws has been to marginalise men and fathers within the family. The extent to which this has already been achieved is unknown to most of the public. The response of individuals, when presented with the facts, is often one of disbelief, except for those who have been subjected to these ‘laws’.

The public however are increasingly aware of the rate of divorce, but are unaware of the practices and likely outcomes in detail. It was for this reason that the Cheltenham Group have described the situation in Marriage and Fatherhood : Important Information for Young Men [3], and we can do no better than to quote sections from this work. We do this in the Annex to this reponse. It should be noted that much of the information we present has never been collected by any Government department. The derivation of the statistics may be obtained from the Cheltenham Group on request.

A review of the social effects of these issues

While most young men do not have access to the information collected by the Cheltenham Group, there is nevertheless some appreciation by the public that men have few rights in marriage. The increase in cohabitation, and falling marriage rate are linked to this knowledge.

A matrilineal society is being produced, with about one third of children raised by single mothers [7].

A young man now contemplating marriage :

• cannot rely on the law to protect his investment in his children, home, life savings or future income, if fact these investments are seriously threatened by marriage;

• cannot know what laws will apply during his marriage, as they may be changed from time to time by the senior judges without Parliamentary or public approval;

• cannot obtain remedy to the problems we outline here.

Further, such young men live in a society in which an increasing proportion of employment opportunities are outside of the roles suited to males.

Proposals in Supporting Families

There are no proposals in Supporting Families which address the fundamental issues of support and protection for men and fathers through matrimonial and family law.

Definition of ‘family’

It is worth defining the term ‘family’. The Cheltenham Group are concerned solely with the usual two-parent family, i.e. a father and a mother who raise their own children. We refer to this as a ‘normal’ family. We do not recognise any other grouping as requiring the level of protection which should be afforded to the ‘normal’ family.

Some background

The single-parent unit has expanded due to both the illegitimate birth rate, which has grown from 3.2% to 34% of live births in 30 years, and the divorce rate having increased four fold in the same period. However, about one half of single-parent units are of divorced women, the majority of whom have abandoned a husband using trivial and fabricated grounds.

We know from statistics that the cost to the nation of single-parent units is approximately £15 billion per annum. If polled the taxpayer would not support this arrangement to which they each have to contribute an estimated £422 per year. Even if they do not agree with the lifestyle, the subsidised payment for the single-parent unit is enforced through the taxation system. The nation is burdened financially and socially with the single parent unit, and those who have acted responsibly are the very people asked to support the irresponsible.

What has led to this situation in the last 30 years is the abandoning of the previous rules of society, particularly of responsible behaviour and loyalty towards others. Inappropriate role models are now provided to children as they grow up. Further, and equally importantly, social policy has been devised without reference to men and fathers and without input from their organisations.

entral and local government grants, funding and community aid is made available to all types of organisations - primarily women’s, and rarely men’s or father’s. Organisation and funding of men’s groups is minimal, and this must surely change. Assistance and protection sought from the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) to protect men’s and father’s interests is rejected. Since its inception some 25 years ago the EOC has only become involved in 7 men’s related cases.

Social policy, in recognising mothers and women as ‘primary carers’, excluded those men who are also primary carers. Lone fathers get a far rougher deal than lone mothers with fewer services and amenities notified or made available to them. This indirect discrimination pervades the benefits system and continues into pension provision and minimum NI contributions and multifarious state entitlements. Direct discrimination leaves families with a father poorer for all levels of income [8] than fatherless lone parent families.

The present thrust of law which underpins those principles is to reward bad behaviour in women, and to hold men responsible whatever the events which led up to separation and divorce. At the same time social and financial policy supports such women. The terminology used hides the reality. Examples include :

• ‘the marriage broke up’ - a semantically meaningless phrase which covers the reality that almost all marriages are destroyed on the wishes of one spouse, usually the woman;

• ‘absent parent’ is synonymous with a never-married or deserting father when the reality is that most non-resident fathers have been excluded from the children’s lives by the actions of the mother assisted by a court.

The one common denominator in all this sea of trouble and incompetence is the omission, or rather the deliberate exclusion, from debate and policy formulation of father’s representatives and men’s groups.

Feminist campaigns

It is now clear that feminist ideals, of promoting women’s rights, and of removing men’s equitable rights within the family, have been massively successful. The public are only beginning to be aware of just how successful the feminist campaign has been [2, 3, 4].

Aspects of concern

In the present situation, we have two aspects of concern :

• the legal system and social policies reward irresponsibility;

• the average taxpayer contributes about £422 p.a. towards maintenance of single-parent families - about half of whom have deliberately placed themselves in that position.

The Cheltenham Group have concern for two major principles :

1. that responsible behaviour within the family should be rewarded, and that irresponsible behaviour should not be rewarded as it is at present;

2. that self supporting families, who are net taxpayers, should not be burdened financially with support for other units.

The Home Secretary’s speech at the launch of Family Matters (a report from the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group, July 1998)

We shall not critique this in depth, but simply point out that none of the fundamental principles which we identify here have been addressed, and mention two examples of lack of integrity.

Mr Straw says "It is not for governments to lay down how adults conduct their personal relationships" and "We are not in the business of telling law-abiding adults how to lead their lives", but all recent legislation and his proposals do and will interfere.

Mr Straw says, of some fathers who have complained about the CSA, that they "no longer want to meet their responsibilities" when in fact these fathers are the innocent victims of a vastly unjust system, and when they are forced to send monies to someone who has become a stranger, if not an enemy, and who has gained by the process and is better off than a normal family, at the expense of the men who Mr Straw claims ‘don’t want responsibility’.

We regard this latter comment from Mr Straw is one example of the confused if not deliberately misinforming statements made by government which obscure the reality of the present situation.

Proposals in Supporting Families

To summarise the social and financial issues of concern, we currently have :

• the availability of massive support for lone mothers without fathers;

• the almost complete lack of support for excluded fathers;

• the financial burden on ordinary families of supporting lone mothers;

• the rewarding of badly behaving mothers.

There are no proposals in Supporting Families which address these social and financial policy problems in this area.

3. Other issues not addressed in Supporting Families

Support for excluded fathers

There is very little support for excluded fathers, in terms of legal, financial and practical support from lawyers, welfare officers, judges, schools, doctors and hospitals, social services, etc, etc. In fact they are treated in many cases with direct abuse.

Many excluded fathers report to the men’s and father’s groups the neglect and abuse to which they are subjected from those in authority. Examples are available in Cheltenham Group publications, especially The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process and Consequence [2].

Child benefit available to excluded fathers

Many excluded fathers care for their children throughout the year, usually during weekends and holidays. These periods usually amount to a significant proportion of the year. For example, weekend care of two days and nights every week amounts to a total period of care of 104 days or 15 weeks or more than 3 months.

The father rarely obtains any share of the child benefit for this period of care. The mother usually receiving all of the benefit, even though, with child maintenance from the excluded father, she is usually financially better off than the mother in any normal family.

Lone mothers are supported by the state with special provisions which are not available to the excluded father, and child benefit is only one example. Other benefits include housing benefit.

Local support and networking which is available to single mothers

Many voluntary groups provide support for lone mothers, while excluded fathers obtain little or no support, even though they may be in a far more difficult domestic and financial situation.

4. Response to individual Consultation Questions

Significance of the Issues

It is impossible to overestimate the importance of the issues that surround family life and the way in which 50% of the population have been adversely affected and been effectively silenced in the national debate on this matter.

Likely benefits of the proposals in Supporting Families

The proposals in Supporting Families are likely to have a very marginal effect in support for the family, and particularly men’s position within the family. They provide support primarily for the unit consisting of a woman and ‘her’ children, and her current ‘partner’.

The proposals no nothing to define ‘family’ in an appropriate manner.

All Government initiatives in recent years have likewise failed to address the basic issues, and as we know, have failed to have any significant effect on family breakdown and stability. The UK is rightly known to have one of the worst records in Europe in the area of the family, and these proposals will benefit the situation little if at all.

This response to Supporting Families is intended to introduce Government to the facts that :

• the two most significant issues are almost entirely absent from the proposals :

• matrimonial and family law,

• and social and financial policy in support of the family;

• the issues addressed are largely marginal, although some may have a marginal benefit;

• other marginal issues which could have been addressed are absent;

• little or no evidence is provided in Supporting Families to indicate that the measures proposed are known to be beneficial, so the measures are in the main only speculative ideas;

• further to the previous point, there is no definition as to what would constitute success in the future; for example what measures could be applied, in perhaps 5 or 10 years time, to confirm that the policies in support of the family had been a success or not.

Remedies

The law and social policies require radical change, to once more recognise, and to provide incentives for the ‘normal’ two-parent family, involving the re-introduction of men’s and father’s rights within the family, to meet the children’s objective needs, to provide rewards for good behaviour and appropriate role models for children to follow, to provide justice, and above all else, to reinstate social stability in this area.

References

1. Supporting Families : a Consultation Document, Ministerial Group on the Family, late 1998.

2. The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process and Consequence, 2^nd Edition, The Cheltenham Group, February 1998, ISBN 1 900080 03 6.

3. Marriage and Fatherhood : Important Information for Young Men, 2^nd Edition, The Cheltenham Group, 1998, ISBN 1 900080 05 2.

4. The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies, The Cheltenham Group, 11 June 1998.

5. Equal Rights / Anti-sexism, National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO), 4 Chivalry Road, London, SW11 1HT, September 1996.

6. Letter, from Gaenor Kyffin of NAPO Administration, 4 Chivalry Road, London SW11 1HT, 23 April 1997.

7. Divorce Law Practice : The Invisible Engine of a Matrilineal Society, Dr John Campion, The Cheltenham Group, 31 January 1998.

8. Farewell to the Family ?, Patricia Morgan, Institute of Economic Affairs, January 1995, ISBN 0 255 363 56 7.

Quote 1 : some statistics to illustrate the effects

We give here a selection of statistics. The probabilities are out of 1, e.g. 0.53 means that this applies to 53% of the relevant population. The occurrences are those estimated from the probabilities, based on the assumption, and no better information exists at this time, that these probabilities apply to the whole population. The populations are those of all currently married men, and those divorced in one year.

Quote 2 : some simple comparisons to illustrate the effects

It is possible to estimate the probability that a married parent will raise his or her own children, in a normal family setting, to adulthood. We have 47% of parents who raise their children within the usual two-parent family. For the other 53% who divorce, we know from the survey statistics that about 86% of mothers and only 9% of fathers will continue to have custody of all children. Taking 86% and 9% of the 53% who divorce, we obtain data about those divorced couples, that 46% of women and 5% of men retain custody. Adding these figures to 47% we obtain the figures that 93% of mothers and 52% of fathers will be primary carers responsible for raising their own children to adulthood. The probability that a married mother will remain a primary carer of her own children is therefore 0.93, but for a father the figure is 0.52.

Expressed in simple lay terms, if a man takes the step of marrying and has children there is :

• a 50% chance that it will result in him losing his children,

• a 25% chance of losing his home,

• a 50% chance it will cost him about £82,320 (comprised of £53,014 to his ex-wife and £29,306 to lawyers),

• and nearly a 50% chance he will not receive a full pension on retirement.

If a woman takes the step of marrying and has children there is :

• almost a certainty she will keep her children,

• a 25% chance of losing her home,

• a 50% chance she will benefit by about £33,014 (comprised of £53,014 from her ex-husband but of which about £20,000 goes to lawyers)

• and nearly a 50% chance she will benefit on her ex-husband’s retirement from his pension.

If a wife tires of a husband, she may :

• rid herself of him,

• but will usually keep most of the benefits of the marriage i.e. with :

• major control of the children;

• often the home if she wants it;

• most of the life savings;

• an enhanced pension;

• and ongoing unearned money for the next 10-20 years.

However if a husband tires of his wife, he may :

• rid himself of her,

• but will usually keep none of the benefits and will have a difficult ongoing life i.e. with :

• minimal control of the children and can readily be excluded from their lives;

• often loss of his home;

• loss of much of his life savings;

• a reduced pension;

• and ongoing costs for the next 10-20 years for which he receives nothing in return.

It is worth considering the situation of cohabiting couples with children. If a woman tires of a cohabiting man, she may :

• rid herself of him,

• but will usually keep :

• major control of the children;

• and ongoing unearned money for the next 10-20 years.

However if a man tires of a cohabiting woman, he may :

• rid himself of her,

• but will usually suffer a reduced ongoing life i.e. with :

• minimal control of the children and can readily be excluded from their lives;

• and ongoing costs for the next 10-20 years for which he receives nothing in return.

For further information you may contact :

The Cheltenham Group

PO Box 205, Cheltenham, Glos, GL51 0YL

Director : Barry Worrall BSc MSc MBCS CEng