www.familylaw.co.uk/system/uploads/attachments/0003/4421/FamilyJusticeReview.pdf
I've just had a quick look at the lengthy report, and this seems to be the section that has caused such consternation:
109. The child’s welfare should be the court’s paramount consideration, as required by the Children Act 1989. No change should be made that might compromise this principle. Accordingly, no legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents. For that reason and taking account of further evidence we also do not recommend a change canvassed in our interim report that legislation might state the importance to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents after their separation where this is safe. While true, and indeed a principle that guides court decisions, we have concluded that this would do more harm than good.
110. The need for grandparents to apply for leave of the court before making an application for contact should remain. This prevents hopeless or vexatious applications that are not in the interests of the child. We note that it does not, contrary to some views, lead to a need to pay two sets of fees.
111. To support shared parental responsibility separating parents should be encouraged, in consultation with their children, to develop flexible agreements to fit their circumstances. Parents should be encouraged to develop a Parenting Agreement to set out arrangements for the care of their children post separation. Government and the judiciary should consider how a signed Parenting Agreement could have evidential weight in any subsequent parental dispute.
The gist of this, as I read it, is that the report urges for parents to reach agreement about the care of their child/ren with a Parenting Agreement that could be examined in the event of dispute, and that automatic rights of parents and gransparents are not in the child/ren's interest, as some child contact may not be safe for, or in the best interest of, the child/ren. Nor should children be led to believe that there is a legal right of parents to have a 'meaningful relationship' with them, if it isn't a safe prospect where parents have split and there has been mistreatment of the child/ren, who may be relieved that the relationship has ended. I don't quibble with this, but unfortunately there is a presumption in the report that discounts responsible, loving fathers and grandparents being able to continue their relationship with the child/ren, unless there is good will from the mother. Disruption to contact can be so harmful. It does acknowledge that the system can be biased towards mothers.
If we want to proceed with supporting a campaign, we need carefully chosen words to express our support for the rights of children to have contact with responsible grandparents, without arguing for those grandparents who do not have their grandchildren's best interests at heart. Sorry if I'm waffling, I'm trying to unravel my own thoughts at the same time.