It never can be in the interests of a child not to experience a good relationship with both devoted parents.

The exercise of parental rights and the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitute fundamental elements of family life. I consider this right to be very much a mutual right of Mother and Father. Evidence can be shown that the Family Court does not place any value on this mutuality.

The Family Court, through its regular failure to uphold the interests of the children does not act in a manner which enables family ties to be maintained. It is not only the obligation to refrain from measures that cause family ties to rupture that is violated. The right, as affirmed by the Court, to be positively supported in maintaining family relations between the children and their good fathers is also violated. Instead, the court’s actions consist of a double negative, in that it supports and sustains the conditions leading to children’s fathers being removed from their lives.

The natural link between a parent and a child is of fundamental importance and, where the actual ‘family life’ in the sense of ‘living together’ has come to an end, continued contact between them is desirable and should remain possible. Respect for family life implies that this contact should not be denied unless there are strong reasons which justify such interference. There is too often no justification whatsoever in denying many children their own loving fathers.

The procedural failings, failure to take into account the interests of the children and all the issues taken into consideration above lead to one conclusion: the negative interference of the police and family court in private family lives, in the family lives of children, and even -- on a broader view -- in the lives of many mothers, constitutes, all too often, a comprehensive violation.

Equal Shared Parenting must begin to be recognised by the Family Court as best outcome for all custody dispute resolutions in the very best interests of our children.