Relocation Campaign - E-mail your MP

If you are not sure who your MP is, you can find out by clicking here. (opens new tab / window)

Select your MPs name:

Select your constituency:

Your full name :

House & Street :

Town / City :

Post Code :

Your e-mail address :

MPs Salutation:

Mr Someone

MPs e-mail address:

something@parliament.uk

Please review the generated e-mail message. You may make changes before sending if you wish.

Message:

<pre>
##Salutation##

I am a constituent living in ##Address## and would like to draw your to Early Day Motion 373 and hope you will support this by signing the EDM. It reads:

“That this House believes that a child’s relationship with its parents requires greater legislative protection with regard to the Family Court’s current application of precedent in international and national relocation cases; further believes that the Family Courts of England and Wales' position on the importance of the father / child relationship does not reflect the current authoritative research on the importance of father involvement in educational and psychological development in relocation cases; that the Courts in practice place too great an emphasis on the unsubstantiated emotional risk to the child from the mother's possible distress and disappointment if not allowed to relocate; that this emphasis over-rides all other considerations including the needs and rights of the child; and calls upon the Government to respond positively to the research report by the charity Reunite entitled Relocation and funded by the Ministry of Justice and published in July 2009.”

I would draw your attention to the attached report from which fully supports that Early Day Motion and sets out why and how the law needs to change.

Generally, decisions regarding relocation in the courts are led by Lord Justice Thorpe who set the leading precedent in 2001 in the case Payne v Payne. That judgment faces widespread criticism both nationally and internationally, as ranking a resident parent’s wishes above their child’s needs and rights. Furthermore many professionals involved in the Court process have suggested that the current legal precedents are possibly not representative of the true situation in practical family situations”.

I would also like to draw your attention to the following:

1. The Centre for Social Justice in their report ‘Every Family Matters’ published in July 2009 stated: “Currently the resident parent has disproportionate ‘rights’ in this area, with their desire to move away being the sole or primary consideration...This accords with what many see as the outdated notion that the child has one psychological parent, and the continuation of living with them best serves the interests of the child.”

2. Also in July 2009, the charity REUNITE published their findings in a report entitled ‘Relocation’ which was funded by the Ministry of Justice. Speaking of the effects on children of relocation, Dr Marilyn Freeman, in the section entitled Systemic Problems, writes ‘Generally, it was felt that children are not well served by the current relocation system and that insufficient attention has been paid, to date, to the effects of relocation on the child. At the same time, the over-emphasis on the happiness of the mother means that the system is apparently stacked against fathers, even custodial fathers, who feel that they suffer a serious legal injustice through the relocation system in this country.’

3. I understand that the court’s stance on relocation cases was the subject of a debate at The Law Society by Resolution in September 2005 with the motion ‘leave to remove is too easily granted’. The motion was carried by 77 votes to 19 with 10 abstentions

4. LJ Thorpe’s reasoning for his favouring the mother in relocation cases was set out in his leading case law, Payne v Payne at point 32, ‘Thus in most relocation cases the most crucial assessment and finding for the judge is likely to be the effect of the refusal of the application on the mother's future psychological and emotional stability.’

In the Law Society debate in 2005, Dr Mark Berlowitz, a child psychologist, argued that no scientific research exists to support the belief that either distress or depression are assisted by allowing relocation (as detailed in the Reunite Report). Legal precedent seems based on an unqualified, out-of-date, unsubstantiated and gender prejudiced belief which remains resolutely held even when challenged by psychological professionals.

Given the systemic problems and bias in relocation cases, I believe that it is not possible to receive a fair trial, and this is in breach of Article 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act. I further believe that appealing a judgment in a relocation case, as a father, is a futile exercise.

In relocation cases, the courts’ adherence to possibly biased legal precedent over-rides their statutory duty to uphold a child’s welfare as the court’s paramount consideration. This duty is set out in the Children Act 1989. That the courts fail in this is not simply our opinion, but one shared by the charity REUNITE (whose research was funded by the Ministry of Justice) and by the Centre for Social Justice. Internationally, the Court of Appeal in New Zealand, in the case D v S in 2005 rejected the case law Payne v Payne as a leading precedent on the grounds that it put the mother’s needs above the child’s (as detailed in the Reunite Report).

It is of great concern to us that the courts continue to ignore widespread and authoritative research which concludes that children suffer both educationally and emotionally when deprived of paternal involvement in their day-to-day lives. This research was not available at the time of LJ Thorpe’s judgement in Payne v Payne. Among that research are the following findings:

According to a report by the Department for Education and Skills in 2003 entitled ‘The Importance of Parental Involvement in Children’s Education’ 'Father involvement in children's education at age 7 independently predicts higher educational attainment by age 20, in both boys and girls.' This research came from the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at the University of Oxford, in 2002.

According to a report by the Children’s Society in February 2009, ‘a child's performance at secondary school, self-esteem and well being as an adult is linked especially to the father's input’ and 'children are 40% more likely to suffer mental health problems when separated from their fathers' and 'On average, children are less likely to fail at school or suffer depression the more they see their separated father.'

Additional studies are set out in the attached document.

In Summary

It would appear the court’s current position of upholding a mother’s wishes and the basis for this is not supported by scientific evidence and would appear to be contrary to the rights and needs of the child.
As a result, there is little opportunity for a fair trial for a father who seeks to prevent his child relocating.
The child’s best interests are not the paramount consideration of the court and therefore the courts are not properly considering the welfare needs of children

The court’s position of upholding a mother’s wishes and the basis for this is not supported by scientific evidence and goes contrary to the rights and needs of the child

Relocation applications follow, all too frequently, in the wake of a history of implacable hostility to contact on the part of the parent wishing to relocate. It is an acknowledged fact that contact orders made, even across jurisdictions within the UK, are easily thwarted and all but unenforceable. In short, relocation is used as a trump card by one parent wishing to prevent a child having a meaningful relationship with the other.

I believe that in so readily granting these applications, the courts are possibly, in effect, rewarding the hostility of one parent and potentially failing in their duty to act in the best interests of the child.

I sincerely hope you will support EDM 373 and look forward to your reply.

Kind regards,

##Name##

Dear ##Salutation##

I’m a constituent living in ##Town## and am writing to ask if you would support Early Day Motion 373.

In July 2009, Ministry of Justice funded research found that the family courts were routinely biased in cases which concerned one parent wishing to relocate with a child following separation. Worse, the outcomes in such cases carry psychological and developmental risks to children.

It may surprise you to learn that, in this area of law, the courts of New Zealand have discarded UK legal precedent since it fails to properly consider child welfare. In a debate on this subject in the UK held by the Law Society, 85% of solicitors who took part disagreed with the courts’ routine decisions in this area. In the last year, there have been three articles in Family Law Week by solicitors and barristers which express concern and two studies calling for change.

Many in Parliament are unaware of these issues, and for that reason, I would very much appreciate your taking time to read the attached report which sets out how current legal precedent does not adequately protect children from harm. This report goes on to make legislative recommendations to better protect child welfare.

I support EDM 373, and am sure that on reading the briefing report, you will too.

The report can be downloaded at the following address: http://www.savanah-jade.org/relocation/relocation.pdf

It sets out studies by organisations such as Oxford University, the Department for Education and Skills, the Children’s Society, and Newcastle University which demonstrate how children are harmed.

Again, I hope that you will share my concerns and sign EDM 373 to help better protect child welfare.

Kind regards,

##Name##

##Address1##
##Town##
##PostCode##

Dear ##Salutation##

I am a constituent living in ##Town## and would like to draw your to Early Day Motion 373 and hope you will support this by signing the EDM. It reads:

“That this House believes that a child’s relationship with its parents requires greater legislative protection with regard to the Family Court’s current application of precedent in international and national relocation cases; further believes that the Family Courts of England and Wales’ position on the importance of the father / child relationship does not reflect the current authoritative research on the importance of father involvement in educational and psychological development in relocation cases; that the Courts in practice place too great an emphasis on the unsubstantiated emotional risk to the child from the mother’s possible distress and disappointment if not allowed to relocate; that this emphasis over-rides all other considerations including the needs and rights of the child; and calls upon the Government to respond positively to the research report by the charity Reunite entitled Relocation and funded by the Ministry of Justice and published in July 2009.”

I would draw your attention to the briefing report, which fully supports that Early Day Motion and sets out why and how the law needs to change. The report can be downloaded at the following address:

http://www.savanah-jade.org/relocation/relocation.pdf

Generally, decisions regarding relocation in the courts are led by Lord Justice Thorpe who set the leading precedent in 2001 in the case Payne v Payne. That judgment faces widespread criticism both nationally and internationally, as ranking a resident parent’s wishes above their child’s needs and rights. Furthermore many professionals involved in the Court process have suggested that the current legal precedents are possibly not representative of the true situation in practical family situations”.

I would also like to draw your attention to the following:

1. The Centre for Social Justice in their report ‘Every Family Matters’ published in July 2009 stated: “Currently the resident parent has disproportionate ‘rights’ in this area, with their desire to move away being the sole or primary consideration...This accords with what many see as the outdated notion that the child has one psychological parent, and the continuation of living with them best serves the interests of the child.”

2. Also in July 2009, the charity REUNITE published their findings in a report entitled ‘Relocation’ which was funded by the Ministry of Justice. Speaking of the effects on children of relocation, Dr Marilyn Freeman, in the section entitled Systemic Problems, writes ‘Generally, it was felt that children are not well served by the current relocation system and that insufficient attention has been paid, to date, to the effects of relocation on the child. At the same time, the over-emphasis on the happiness of the mother means that the system is apparently stacked against fathers, even custodial fathers, who feel that they suffer a serious legal injustice through the relocation system in this country.’

3. I understand that the court’s stance on relocation cases was the subject of a debate at The Law Society by Resolution in September 2005 with the motion ‘leave to remove is too easily granted’. The motion was carried by 77 votes to 19 with 10 abstentions

4. LJ Thorpe’s reasoning for his favouring the mother in relocation cases was set out in his leading case law, Payne v Payne at point 32, ‘Thus in most relocation cases the most crucial assessment and finding for the judge is likely to be the effect of the refusal of the application on the mother’s future psychological and emotional stability.’

In the Law Society debate in 2005, Dr Mark Berlowitz, a child psychologist, argued that no scientific research exists to support the belief that either distress or depression are assisted by allowing relocation (as detailed in the Reunite Report). Legal precedent seems based on an unqualified, out-of-date, unsubstantiated and gender prejudiced belief which remains resolutely held even when challenged by psychological professionals.

Given the systemic problems and bias in relocation cases, I believe that it is not possible to receive a fair trial, and this is in breach of Article 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act. I further believe that appealing a judgment in a relocation case, as a father, is a futile exercise.

In relocation cases, the courts’ adherence to possibly biased legal precedent over-rides their statutory duty to uphold a child’s welfare as the court’s paramount consideration. This duty is set out in the Children Act 1989. That the courts fail in this is not simply our opinion, but one shared by the charity REUNITE (whose research was funded by the Ministry of Justice) and by the Centre for Social Justice. Internationally, the Court of Appeal in New Zealand, in the case D v S in 2005 rejected the case law Payne v Payne as a leading precedent on the grounds that it put the mother’s needs above the child’s (as detailed in the Reunite Report).

It is of great concern to us that the courts continue to ignore widespread and authoritative research which concludes that children suffer both educationally and emotionally when deprived of paternal involvement in their day-to-day lives. This research was not available at the time of LJ Thorpe’s judgement in Payne v Payne. Among that research are the following findings:

According to a report by the Department for Education and Skills in 2003 entitled ‘The Importance of Parental Involvement in Children’s Education’ ’Father involvement in children’s education at age 7 independently predicts higher educational attainment by age 20, in both boys and girls.’ This research came from the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at the University of Oxford, in 2002.

According to a report by the Children’s Society in February 2009, ‘a child’s performance at secondary school, self-esteem and well being as an adult is linked especially to the father’s input’ and ’children are 40% more likely to suffer mental health problems when separated from their fathers’ and ’On average, children are less likely to fail at school or suffer depression the more they see their separated father.’

Additional studies are set out in the briefing document mentioned above.

In Summary

It would appear the court’s current position of upholding a mother’s wishes and the basis for this is not supported by scientific evidence and would appear to be contrary to the rights and needs of the child.
As a result, there is little opportunity for a fair trial for a father who seeks to prevent his child relocating.
The child’s best interests are not the paramount consideration of the court and therefore the courts are not properly considering the welfare needs of children

The court’s position of upholding a mother’s wishes and the basis for this is not supported by scientific evidence and goes contrary to the rights and needs of the child

Relocation applications follow, all too frequently, in the wake of a history of implacable hostility to contact on the part of the parent wishing to relocate. It is an acknowledged fact that contact orders made, even across jurisdictions within the UK, are easily thwarted and all but unenforceable. In short, relocation is used as a trump card by one parent wishing to prevent a child having a meaningful relationship with the other.

I believe that in so readily granting these applications, the courts are possibly, in effect, rewarding the hostility of one parent and potentially failing in their duty to act in the best interests of the child.

I sincerely hope you will support EDM 373 and look forward to your reply.

Kind regards,

##Name##

##Address1##
##Town##
##PostCode##

Dear ##Salutation##

I’m a constituent living in ##Town## and am writing to ask if you would support Early Day Motion 373.

I am concerned by the plight of parents, almost invariably fathers, who are losing contact with their children as a result of the courts granting an application by the mother to relocate.

Increased freedom of movement in recent years, both within the UK and internationally, has led to an exponential boom in relocation applications and these applications are almost invariably granted by the courts.

The resulting loss of a meaningful child/parent relationship is, I believe, a failure on the part of the courts to protect the welfare of the child.

The decision of the courts to so readily grant these applications is based on outdated case law precedents which have already been dismissed in other parts of the commonwealth, most notably New Zealand .

That these relocation applications are too readily granted is a belief shared by the majority of family lawyers and supported by two recent and authoritative reports by the Ministry of Justice and The Centre for Social Justice.

Below is a link to a briefing report on these issues and I would ask that you give consideration to the serious child welfare concerns raised therein.

http://www.savanah-jade.org/relocation/relocation.pdf

I hope that you will recognize the gravity of this issue and its implications for the welfare of our children.

I would ask that you lend your support and sign EDM 373.

Kind regards,

##Name##

##Address1##
##Town##
##PostCode##

Dear ##Salutation##

I am a constituent living in ##Town## and would like to draw your attention to Early Day Motion 373 and hope you will support it. It reads:

“That this House believes that a child’s relationship with its parents requires greater legislative protection with regard to the Family Court’s current application of precedent in international and national relocation cases; further believes that the Family Courts of England and Wales’ position on the importance of the father / child relationship does not reflect the current authoritative research on the importance of father involvement in educational and psychological development in relocation cases; that the Courts in practice place too great an emphasis on the unsubstantiated emotional risk to the child from the mother’s possible distress and disappointment if not allowed to relocate; that this emphasis over-rides all other considerations including the needs and rights of the child; and calls upon the Government to respond positively to the research report by the charity Reunite entitled Relocation and funded by the Ministry of Justice and published in July 2009.”

You may not be aware, but the courts’ application in leave to remove and relocation cases has been criticised by the Law Society, the Centre for Social Justice and more recently in a Ministry of Justice funded research report published in July 2009.

I would be very grateful if you would sign EDM 373, and for further information about these issues, a briefing report can be downloaded at:

http://www.savanah-jade.org/relocation/relocation.pdf

Kind regards,

##Name##

##Address1##
##Town##
##PostCode##

Dear ##Salutation##,

I wonder if you would be prepared to sign Early Day Motion 373, which relates to family law in relocation cases. I would also be grateful if you would make fellow MPs aware of these issues, and ask them to support the EDM as well.

I was appalled when I learned that despite criticism from the Law Society and the courts of New Zealand, that the current laws in this country cause children harm. I would welcome your reading a briefing report which can be found at http://www.savanah-jade.org/relocation/relocation.pdf.

I am a constituent and live in ##Town##.

The EDM reads:

“That this House believes that a child’s relationship with its parents requires greater legislative protection with regard to the Family Court’s current application of precedent in international and national relocation cases; further believes that the Family Courts of England and Wales’ position on the importance of the father / child relationship does not reflect the current authoritative research on the importance of father involvement in educational and psychological development in relocation cases; that the Courts in practice place too great an emphasis on the unsubstantiated emotional risk to the child from the mother’s possible distress and disappointment if not allowed to relocate; that this emphasis over-rides all other considerations including the needs and rights of the child; and calls upon the Government to respond positively to the research report by the charity Reunite entitled Relocation and funded by the Ministry of Justice and published in July 2009.”

Kind regards,

##Name##

##Address1##
##Town##
##PostCode##

Dear ##Salutation##

I am writing to you to ask if you were aware that the family courts are coming under increasing criticism for failings in child relocation cases.

In July 2009, the charity REUNITE published their findings in a report entitled ‘Relocation’ which was funded by the Ministry of Justice. Speaking of the effects on children of relocation, Dr Marilyn Freeman, in the section entitled Systemic Problems, writes ‘Generally, it was felt that children are not well served by the current relocation system and that insufficient attention has been paid, to date, to the effects of relocation on the child. At the same time, the over-emphasis on the happiness of the mother means that the system is apparently stacked against fathers, even custodial fathers, who feel that they suffer a serious legal injustice through the relocation system in this country.’

Early Day Motion 373 is highlighting the poor outcomes for children, and calling for a change to the law. As a constituent living in ##Town##, I would be very grateful if you would take the time to support that EDM, and also read a parliamentary briefing report on these matters which can be downloaded at: http://www.savanah-jade.org/relocation/relocation.pdf.

The call for new legislation is supported by charities, and the Law Society, New Zealand courts and the Centre for Social Justice have similarly criticised what is currently happening in relocation cases before the courts.

Kind regards,

##Name##

##Address1##
##Town##
##PostCode##

Dear ##Salutation##

I’ve just been made aware that an Early Day Motion has been tabled calling for a change to family law in relocation cases.

The current system, as found by a recently published and funded by the Ministry of Justice, holds that the current legislation does not serve children well. A further Parliamentary Briefing Report highlights that the current outcomes in the courts make it likely that children will suffer harm. That report can be downloaded at http://www.savanah-jade.org/relocation/relocation.pdf.

I am a constituent living in ##Town## and would sincerely ask you to sign EDM 373, and make your parliamentary colleagues aware of that EDM, and also the briefing report.

Kind regards,

##Name##

##Address1##
##Town##
##PostCode##

Dear ##Salutation##

I am emailing you to ask if you would support Early Day Motion 373. That EDM calls for new legislation to better protect children’s needs and rights in relocation cases before the family courts.

The charity REUNITE published a report in July 2009 which concluded that children are not well served by the current system. A further report published this month highlights that children may well suffer significant harm due to the judiciary not taking into account how relocation affects children.

There is a parliamentary briefing report which can be downloaded at http://www.savanah-jade.org/relocation/relocation.pdf and while I appreciate you are very busy, I hope you will find the time to read this and support the Early Day Motion.

I live in ##Town## and am aware that these issues are affecting local constituents. Please support a change to the law.

Kind regards,

##Name##

##Address1##
##Town##
##PostCode##

Dear ##Salutation##,

I am a constituent living in ##Town## and would be grateful if you would sign and support Early Day Motion 373.

Thousands of children each year are affected by applications to the court by one parent, who seeks to relocate with the children. The courts do not take into account research which shows that following relocation away from one parent, the child is 40% more likely to suffer mental health problems, suffer academically, and get into trouble with the police.

In 2005, the Law Society raised concerns about the outcomes in relocation cases in the family courts. The appeal court of New Zealand has thrown out the legal precedent our own courts follow, as it does not pay sufficient regard to child welfare. In July 2009, a Ministry of Justice funded report further criticised the courts, as did the Centre for Social Justice in their Family Law Review.

Early Day Motion 373 calls for greater legislative protection for child welfare in these legal cases, and a parliamentary briefing report can be downloaded at http://www.savanah-jade.org/relocation/relocation.pdf.

Kind regards,

##Name##

##Address1##
##Town##
##PostCode##

Dear ##Salutation##,

I am a constituent living in ##Town## and would be grateful if you would sign Early Day Motion 373 and also ask your colleagues to support this very worthwhile cause.

Thousands of children each year are affected by applications to the court by one parent, who seeks to relocate with the children. The courts do not take into account research which shows that following relocation away from one parent, the child is 40% more likely to suffer mental health problems, suffer academically, and get into trouble with the police.

In 2005, the Law Society raised concerns about the outcomes in relocation cases in the family courts. The appeal court of New Zealand has thrown out the legal precedent our own courts follow, as it does not pay sufficient regard to child welfare. In July 2009, a Ministry of Justice funded report further criticised the courts, as did the Centre for Social Justice in their Family Law Review.

Early Day Motion 373 calls for greater legislative protection for child welfare in these legal cases, and a parliamentary briefing report can be downloaded at http://www.savanah-jade.org/relocation/relocation.pdf.

Kind regards,

##Name##

##Address1##
##Town##
##PostCode##

Dear ##Salutation##,

I am contacting you to ask if you would sign, and support, Early Day Motion 373.

The courts currently allow 90% of relocation applications, where one separated parent wishes to emigrate and remove the child from the UK, their other parent, their friends, school and wider family. Such applications are often motivated by a desire to cut out the other parent from children’s lives.

Once the emigration has happened, the courts are powerless to intervene if contact between the UK based parent and their children breaks down, or is deliberately sabotaged by the other parent. Worse, the courts ignore expert evidence that highlights the harm children are likely to suffer by the loss of a full relationship with the left behind parent.

There is a Parliamentary Briefing Report which has been endorsed by Sir Bob Geldof, and which further supports and expands upon the Ministry of Justice funded report released by the charity Reunite in July 2009. This second report can be downloaded at http://www.savanah-jade.org/relocation/relocation.pdf.

Early Day Motion 373 is based upon the findings of those two reports, and reads:

“That this House believes that a child’s relationship with its parents requires greater legislative protection with regard to the Family Court’s current application of precedent in international and national relocation cases; further believes that the Family Courts of England and Wales’ position on the importance of the father / child relationship does not reflect the current authoritative research on the importance of father involvement in educational and psychological development in relocation cases; that the Courts in practice place too great an emphasis on the unsubstantiated emotional risk to the child from the mother’s possible distress and disappointment if not allowed to relocate; that this emphasis over-rides all other considerations including the needs and rights of the child; and calls upon the Government to respond positively to the research report by the charity Reunite entitled Relocation and funded by the Ministry of Justice and published in July 2009.”

I am a constituent living in ##Town##, and hope you will show your support for these serious matters. I would also be grateful if you would make your colleagues aware of EDM 373, and the Parliamentary Briefing Report which supports it.

Kind regards,

##Name##

##Address1##
##Town##
##PostCode##