The interests of children must come first

Lord Falconer went to great pains yesterday to stress that he does not believe mothers who prevent their former partners from seeing their children in defiance of court orders ought to be made to wear an electronic tagging device. Quite rightly. But this raises the question of why this draconian proposal - originally suggested by a militant fathers' rights group - has been included in the Government's consultation paper on child access? It is difficult to resist the conclusion that it is yet another headline-grabbing initiative from a government addicted to the lure of a quick populist fix.

Lord Falconer went to great pains yesterday to stress that he does not believe mothers who prevent their former partners from seeing their children in defiance of court orders ought to be made to wear an electronic tagging device. Quite rightly. But this raises the question of why this draconian proposal - originally suggested by a militant fathers' rights group - has been included in the Government's consultation paper on child access? It is difficult to resist the conclusion that it is yet another headline-grabbing initiative from a government addicted to the lure of a quick populist fix.

What makes the cynical presentation of this paper especially frustrating is that the issue of access to children is such an important one, affecting some 20,000 couples every year. The childish antics of Fathers 4 Justice have helped to highlight the claims of discrimination against fathers in recent months, but there has actually been a consensus for some years that family courts need to be reformed. Despite improvements, many continue to undervalue the role of a father in a child's upbringing. Only in exceptional circumstances is granting the mother a "clean break" with her ex-partner in a child's best interests - and these should, of course, always be paramount.

Tagging apart, there are actually some constructive proposals in the Government's consultation paper. Parenting plans, for example, which provide separating parents with realistic examples of workable contact arrangements, have enjoyed some success in the US, and ought to be introduced here.

The greatest flaw in the family courts system is their adversarial nature and the "winner takes all" mentality that often infects them. Anything that keeps a separating couple and their children out of a courtroom is to be encouraged, which is why there must be a renewed emphasis on voluntary mediation.

There are no easy solutions in such harrowing situations. And there are no real winners. It would help immeasurably if all parties involved could bring themselves to recognise that the grievances of both mothers and fathers must ultimately take second place to the interests of children.