Why Shared Parenting Legislation Matters: A Response to Zoe Saunders
Zoe Saunders, a family barrister at St John’s Chambers, recently published an article in The Lawyer titled “Why the Government is Wrong About Shared Parenting Legislation.” While Zoe presents a case against shared parenting laws, her arguments fail to hold up under scrutiny. Below, we’ll address her key points and explain why shared parenting legislation is not only necessary but beneficial for children, families, and society.
The Case for Shared Parenting Legislation
1. Terminology Shouldn’t Be an Obstacle
Zoe suggests that confusion over terms like custody, access, residence, and contact makes shared parenting legislation impractical. She argues that the public and media's continued use of outdated terms reflects a broader challenge in changing societal perceptions.
Response:
Language evolves. Just as custody and access have given way to residence and contact, terms like shared parenting can become widely understood. What matters isn’t the terminology itself but the principles it represents. Shared parenting signals equality and the importance of both parents in a child’s life—values that resonate with modern parenting norms.
Other countries, like Australia, have successfully introduced shared parenting laws despite initial concerns over terminology. The confusion Zoe predicts is not a sufficient reason to dismiss legislation that prioritises children’s welfare and equal parental involvement.
2. The Current System Fails Many Families
Zoe claims the Children Act 1989 already supports contact with both parents, making shared parenting legislation unnecessary.
Response:
While the Children Act acknowledges the importance of both parents, in practice, the system often fails to deliver. Many fathers report being marginalised, with family courts granting sole residence to mothers in the majority of cases. As Lord Justice Munby and others have highlighted, the courts are often powerless to enforce meaningful contact when one parent obstructs it.
A presumption of shared parenting would set a clear expectation for parents, courts, and society: both parents matter. It would discourage adversarial litigation and create a framework where cooperative parenting is the norm, not the exception.
3. Evidence from Australia Supports Shared Parenting
Zoe references Australian academic Helen Rhoades, who highlighted some concerns with Australia’s 2006 shared parenting reforms.
Response:
The comprehensive evaluation by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) found the reforms to be a “substantial success.” Key benefits included reduced litigation, increased parental cooperation, and better outcomes for children.
While no system is perfect, the concerns raised by Rhoades could be addressed in the UK context through thoughtful legislation. Ignoring the overall positive impact of shared parenting reforms in Australia is a missed opportunity to learn from their experience.
4. Addressing Domestic Abuse Concerns
Zoe argues that shared parenting legislation could be weaponised by domestic abusers to further harm their victims.
Response:
Domestic abuse is a serious issue, but it is already addressed within the family court system. Judges retain the ability to make decisions based on the child’s welfare, including protecting victims of abuse. Shared parenting laws wouldn’t change this.
Research suggests that shared parenting legislation can reduce conflict, including domestic violence, by fostering cooperation and reducing the perceived “winner-takes-all” stakes of custody battles. Clear legal frameworks that prioritise children’s rights can help mitigate misuse by abusers.
5. Quantity and Quality of Time Both Matter
Zoe repeats the argument that quality of time is more important than quantity of time in parenting arrangements, suggesting that shared parenting may place undue focus on splitting time evenly.
Response:
While quality matters, it’s unrealistic to separate it entirely from quantity. Being a hands-on parent requires regular, meaningful interaction—helping with homework, attending school events, and sharing daily routines. Limited contact time often reduces a parent’s role to that of a visitor, which is neither beneficial for the child nor reflective of modern parenting roles.
Shared parenting doesn’t necessarily mean a 50/50 split but rather ensures that both parents remain actively involved in their child’s life. Mediators, family professionals, and courts can tailor arrangements to suit each family’s unique circumstances.
The Benefits of Shared Parenting
1. Reduces Conflict and Litigation
- Evidence from Australia shows shared parenting laws lead to fewer court applications and reduced litigation.
- Parents are more likely to cooperate when they know the system values both equally.
2. Promotes Child Welfare
- Children thrive when they have meaningful relationships with both parents.
- Shared parenting ensures children maintain bonds with both sides of their family, including extended relatives.
3. Reflects Modern Parenting Norms
- Today’s parents often share caregiving responsibilities. Shared parenting laws align with these norms, emphasising equality and collaboration.
4. Decreases Parental Alienation
- By reducing the “winner-takes-all” dynamic, shared parenting laws can help prevent one parent from alienating the child from the other.
Conclusion
Zoe Saunders’ arguments against shared parenting legislation fail to address the core issues within the current system. The adversarial nature of family courts, unequal parenting outcomes, and the marginalisation of non-resident parents call for bold legislative reform.
Shared parenting laws wouldn’t eliminate all disputes, but they would set a clear expectation: children deserve meaningful relationships with both parents. By learning from international examples like Australia and addressing valid concerns through thoughtful implementation, the UK can create a family law system that truly prioritises the best interests of children.
The Government’s commitment to shared parenting legislation is a step in the right direction. Let’s hope they stay the course for the sake of children and families across the country.
Further Reading:
Subscribe to receive updates
Subscribe to receive the latest blog posts to your inbox every week.
