Is Caroline Nokes MP Flip-Flopping On Shared Parenting?
Picture: Caroline Nokes MP, Nadine O’Connor – Fathers4Justice Campaign Director & Matt O’Connor – Fathers4Justice Founder, April 2010.
Does she, doesn’t she? Caroline Nokes MP is flip-flopping on the issue of shared parenting. After a bitter dispute with Fathers4Justice last year where she failed to support shared parenting – effectively breaking her election promises – the MP is now stating that she does support shared parenting. Perhaps it’s next years general election which is focusing her mind. Either way, if Caroline Nokes has changed her position (see links below), perhaps she would like to sign EDM 210 as a mark of her commitment: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/210
CAROLINE NOKES MP POSITION ON SHARED PARENTING
– Caroline Nokes MP has not signed EDM 210 supporting Shared Parenting.
– Caroline Nokes MP refused to attend the Shared Parenting debate in Parliament on 12th June 2013 attended by 10 of her constituents including local Conservatives.
– Not one of the Conservative Party’s election promises to Fathers4Justice is included in the Children and Families Bill.
– Caroline Nokes MP sat on the Children and Families Bill Committee.
READ CAROLINE’S LATEST POSITION HERE:
http://www.carolinenokes.com/uncategorized/caroline-opposes-lords-amendment-to-children-families-bill-on-shared-parenting/
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11003073.MP_hits_out_at_Children_and_Families_Bill_impact/
SHARED PARENTING EARLY DAY MOTION 210 http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/210
That this House notes that many fathers convicted of no criminal offence have very limited access to their children as a result of decisions made by the family courts following separation or divorce; further notes that the family courts operate in conditions of secrecy in which there is a lack of public accountability for the decisions they make; believes that mothers, children and fathers all have rights in relation to family contact and access where there has been family breakdown; further believes there should not be a presumption that family breakdown is the primary responsibility of either parent; further believes that where there is palpably no threat to children from their father in the context of family breakdown, the courts should try to maximise reasonable access in the interests of the children; and calls on the Government to review the operation of the family courts in general and their decision-making in relation to fathers’ access to children in the context of family breakdown in particular, taking into account the testimony of the many thousands of fathers who feel their rights are being ignored or abused in relation to their children and in particular the organisation Fathers4Justice and the 36,000 families it represents.
