Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T17:26:55.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clause 106 of the Adoption and Children Bill: legislation for the ‘good’ father?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Julie Wallbank
Julie Wallbank*
Affiliation:
Lancaster University Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper critically evaluates clause 106 of the Adoption and Children Bill that permits for unmarried fathers to acquire parental responsibility on joint registration of the child's birth. I will argue that there are two factors influencing the proposed expansion of the ways in which fathers may acquire parental responsibility. First, current law recognises the automatic parental responsibility of mothers but only of married fathers, and so is said to contain an imbalance in favour of mothers. Secondly, there is a perceived need to recognise the father's commitment to the child, which is allegedly demonstrated through the act of registration. This paper examines these two themes by reviewing recent case law relating to section 4 applications. It will show that the current law does at least place an emphasis on fathers showing some merit to the court and will argue that the reform in itself will do little to enhance and promote the relationships between children and fathers. However, as a result considerable incursion will be made into the control that women, as primary carers, have in relation to their children.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 276 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Jane Kennedy (2001). http://2.../b472a251le825f7∼80256alb00539c61

2. J Wallbank ‘Castigating Mothers: the Judicial Response to Wilful Women in Cases Concerning Contact’ ( 1998) 20 (4) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 357-77.

3. A McCall Smith and Sutherland, A (eds) Family Rights(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990) p 10 Google Scholar.

4. McMichnelv UK[1995] 20 EHHR 205 ECtHR; B vUK [2000]1FLR.

5. Child Support Act 1991; Child Support Act 1995; and the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.

6. Children Come First: a new approach to child support(1998) Cm 3992.

7. For an exposition on the relationship between men and family in a criminological context, see R Collier Masculinities, Crime and Criminology(London: Sage, 1998). The phrase ‘other’ is borrowed from p 96. See also the government's concern that 40% of fathers lose contact with their children within two years of separating: Cm 3992 (1998) at 11. See further on governmental and media constructions of non-residential fathers J Wallbank, ‘The Campaign for Change of the Child Support Act 1991 : Reconstituting the “Absent” Father’ (1997) 6 (2) Social and Legal Studies 191-216; and Wallbank, J Challenging Motherhood(s) (London: Longman, 2001 Google Scholar) ch 4.

8. Sevenhuijsen, S Citizenship and the Ethics of Care: Feminist Considerations about Justice, Morality and Politics (London: Routledge,1997)p 107 Google Scholar.

9. Re P (Parental Responsibility) [1998] 2 FLR 96.

10. [1998] 2 FLR 96, para F107.

11. Law Commission Report No 1 18 Illegitimacy(1982) para 4.50.

12. ABainham ‘When is a Parent not a Parent? Reflections on the Unmarried Father andHisChild in English Law’ (1989) 3 International Journal of Law and the Family 208 at 230-231.

13. J Eekelaar ‘Second Thoughtson Illegitimacy Reform’ (1985) 15 Family Law 261,262

14. Bainham, n 12 above, at 23 1.

15. M Hester and L Radford ‘Contradictions and compromises: the impactofthe Children Act on women and children's safety’ in M Hester, L Kelly and Radford, J (eds) Women, Violence and Male Power: Feminist Activism. Research and Practice (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996)p89 Google Scholar.

16. R Deech ‘The Rights of Fathers: Social and Biological Concepts of Parenthood’ in J Eekelaar and Sarcevic, P (eds) Parenthood in Modern Sociev(London: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993)p30 Google Scholar.

17. Tronto, J Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an EthicofCare (London: Routledge, 1993)pp108-109 Google Scholar.

18. See further C Smart and Neale, B Family Fragments (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999) pp 170-171 Google Scholar for an eloquent discussion of the distinction.

19. Sevenhuijsen, n 8 above,p107.

20. Smart and Neale, n 18 above,p17 I .

21. Sevenhuijsen, n 8 above,p107.

22. Sevenhuijsen, n 8 above.

23. Smart and Neale, n 18 above,p17 I .

24. Smart and Neale, n 18 above,p17 1.

25. D Sharp ‘Parental Responsibility-Where Next?’[2001]Family Law606-610.

26. Re S (Parental Responsibility)[1995] 2 FLR 648,paraB657.

27. As formulated by Balcombe LJ in ReH (Minors) (Local Authority: Parental Rights) (No 3)[1991] Fam 151.

28. In1996of the649,485births registered in England and Wales, of which232,663(35.8%) were outside marriage, the father's details were included on the birth certificate for181,647 (78%)of births outside marriage.

29. [1995] 2 FLR 648.

30. [1995] 2 FLR 648,paraG648.

31. FKaganas ‘Responsibleorfeckless fathers? ReS (Parental Responsibility)’(1996) 8 (2)Child and Family Law Quarterly 165.173.

32. Kaganas, n 31 above, at 167.

33. Kaganas, n 31 above, at 168.

34. [1995] 2 FLR 648, paraH653.

35. Re P (Parental Responsibility)[1998] 2 FLR 96.

36. [1998] 2FLR96.

37. [1998] 2FLR96, paraC108.

38. [1995]2FLR 648, para (3648

39. [1998] 2 FLR 96,paraG 107.

40. [I995] 2 FLR 648,paraF657. Seefurther FKaganas, n 31 above, at168.

41. [1998] 2 FLR 96,paraA99.

42. Re H (ParentalResponsibility)[1998] I FLR 855.

43. [1998]1FLR 855.

44. [1998] 1 FLR 855,para B859.

45. [1998]1FLR 855,para H857.

46. [1995] 2FLR publication-type648, para E649.

47. [1995] 2 FLR 648, para G3649.

48. [1995] 2 FLR 648, paras A-D651.

49. [1995] 2 FLR 648, para B 652.

50. RCollier Masculinity, Law and the Family(London: Routledge 1995).

51. [1995] 2 FLR 648, para H657.

52. Kaganas, n 3 1 above, at 17 1.

53. [1998]1FLR 855.

54. [1998] 1 FLR 855, para H856.

55. [1998] 1 FLR 855,para A860.

56. LordChancellor's Department Consultation Paper Procedures for The Determination of Paternityandon The Law on Parental Responsibility for Unmarried Fatherswww.lcd.gov.uk/consuIt/general/pat-con.htrpublication-typepn ,4 .

57. Lord Chancellor's Department, n 56 above, p 24.

58. In my reading of the aims of the presentation of statistics I am greatly influenced by D Morgan ‘Riskand Family Practices: Accounting for Change and Fluidity in Family Life’ in E Silva and Smart, C (eds) The newfamily? (Sage: London, 1999) pp 13-30 Google Scholar at 14.

59. Lord Chancellor's Department, n 56 above, p 22.

60. Morgan, n 58 above, pp 14-15.

61. Lord Chancellor's Department, n 56 above, pp 24-26.

62. Lord Chancellor's Department, n 56 above, p 23.

63. Ihave made extensive use of this argument elsewhere in relation to the Child Support Act 199 I . See eg, J Wallbank ‘The Campaign for Change of the Child Support Act 199 1: Reconstituting the “Absent” Father’ (1997) 6(2) Social and Legal Studies 191; and J Wallbank Challenging Motherhood(s)(Longman: London, 2001). See also R Collier ‘The Campaign Against the Child Support Act’, “Errant Fatherhood” and “Family Men”’ [I9941 Family Law 384 and [1998] I FLR 855, para B859. See also S Sheldon on the subject of birth control fraud: “‘Sperm Bandits”, birth control fraud and the battle of the sexes’ (2001) 21 LS 460-480.

64. See eg J Bradshaw and Millar, J Lone Parent Families in the UK (London: HMSO, 1991 Google Scholar); K Kiernan, H Land and Lewis, J Lone Motherhood in Twentieth Century Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997 Google Scholar); and G Allen and G Crow Families, Households and Sociery(Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001).

65. Smartin Silva andSmart,n 58 above, pp 100-1 14.

66. ‘Review’ Observer,21 publication-typeOctober 2001, p1; Guardian,29 October 200 1, p 1; Guardian,30 October 2001, p 13 consecutively.

67. Guardian,30 October 2001, p 13.

68. Collier, n50above.

69. J Dewar ‘FamilyLaw andits Discontents’ (2000) 14 Int J Law, Policy and the Family 59 at 63. Above ibid.

70. Dewar, n 69 above.

71. Dewar, n 69 above, at 66.

72. [1995] 2 FLR 648, para C657.

73. Dewar, n 69 above, at 68.

74. B v UK [2000]1FLR.

75. See further K Rowlingson and McKay, S Lone Parent Families: Gender, Class and State (London: Pearson Education, 2002 Google Scholar).