Shared Parenting


Mid 2002. Produced on behalf of the Coalition of Shared Parenting by ManKind


Principles of Equal Parenting



Two years ago English Law adopted the Human Rights Act. For the first time human rights protection came into line with our European counterpart who had long ago signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights.


In the European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 7, Article 5 states that spouses shall enjoy equality of rights and responsibilities of a private law character between them, and in their relations with their children, as to marriage, during marriage and in the event of its dissolution ("Equality between Spouses").


At present this does not happen in the UK. There is no equality of parenting and there is concern over the amount of court time and public money spent on adjudicating on trying to make ‘contact’ work.


Currently the family courts effectively “gift” all the parenting power to one parent, ie with whom the child resides. The other parent becomes condemned to a mere appendage and is excluded from that child’s life. To attempt to overcome this oblivion, every aspect of the non-resident parents is scrutinised in order to justify restriction or exclusion of parenting time. Court practice appears to always placate the wishes of the custodial parent to the detriment of the other parent.


The solution to this ‘mothers veto’ is to treat each parent as an equal partner in the raising of their children unless there is good reason not to. We call this the “good reason principle.”

In the absence of good reason, the State should not unnecessarily burden itself with involvement in the child/parent relationship, particularly when marginal advantage can lead to months and years of unnecessary litigation and effectively only results in tearing apart the lives of children.



The Coalition of Equal Parenting asks that the following principles are applied in the Family Courts


1                    Equal Parenting - The principles of equal parenting be re-introduced as the first option for caring for children after divorce or separation (ref. joint custody awards levels prior to Children Act 1989).


2                    Parenting Plan - the primary task of a suitably qualified Court Reporter should be to assist both parents to develop a practical allocation of care time for the children which would range from 50/50 to around 30/70 depending on circumstances.


3                    Risk assessment - A parent making criminal allegations, which would affect the other parent’s, status as an equal parent must be obliged to prove this in a criminal court.


4                    False allegations / perjury - If these allegations are found to be false or the parent has committed perjury he/she would lose their status as an equal parent, be obliged to apply for contact and would face criminal charges,


5                    Sanctions - Either parent who obstructs this process or subsequently does not adhere to the Care Programme, should be denied equal parent status, leaving the other parent as the Sole Parent with Care. The parent obstructing the process would be obliged to apply for contact.



Draft of proposed new procedure



Normal cases    that is to say, where there is automatic presumption to shared residence based

on the ‘good enough’ (ie to be a parent) principle.

Only in cases where ‘good reason’ exists to preclude the assumption of ‘good enough’ parents will this not apply (see page iv below).



Stage 1- Parent files for divorce.


Robust early intervention is required by the judge. The children's time with each parent must be apportioned immediately on a reasonable basis to help the children adjust to the family transition. This will not apply if both parents are still residing in the marital home.


The parent seeking to oppose this reasonable time apportionment or wishing to oust the other parent must be required to give good reason to the court why this should happen. The judge must be proactive and prepared to read the riot act to the recalcitrant parent. If there is good reason to oppose shared residence, see good reason cases.



Stage 2 - Parent has issued application


On receipt of the application, the court should automatically refer the parents to CAFCASS/ Mediation for mandatory mediation.


CAFCASS/Mediation should provide the parents with a sound Parent Information Pack, which will explain the process, the Court's overriding objective, and how not to damage their children by conflict, alienating conduct, undermining the other parent etc.


The Officer should support the principle of the children's relationship with both parents.


In these normal cases, the Officer's goal should be to help the parents agree a Parenting Plan, which would set out the time apportionment between parents, holiday arrangements, sharing of festivities, how major decisions are to be made. The timetable for achieving this should be short - around three weeks.


It is vital that the Officer should ensure that the children maintain frequent and meaningful contact with both parents during mediation. They should also ensure that minor issues are not turned into good reasons for prohibiting joint residence. Both parents need to understand that this crucial period of time is for developing a Parenting Plan for their children and not settling old scores.


The primary purpose of the Officer is to ensure that the two fit parents develop a Parenting Plan, which is both practical and designed to serve the children's best interests. The Officer must be scrupulously even-handed and should not involve him/herself in personal differences between the parents.



Stage 3 - Court appointment


This should occur within a maximum of four weeks after receipt of the application.


Most cases should have been resolved by this point, freeing up resources for difficult cases.

Cases will fall into one of two categories. The first will be where the children's time with each parent has been agreed and approved. The second where agreement cannot be reached and or where there may be some factors that preclude this.



a). Agreed and Approved – these represent probably 80% of cases.


In these cases the court should make a consent order for shared residence with the agreed Parenting Plan annexed to it.



b). No Agreement Cases - probably 20% of cases.


These cases will require the court to make an Order embodying a court-imposed Parenting Plan based on the recommendations from the Family Court Reporter (CASFCASS officer).

If it is discovered that there is an absence of good reason why the children should not have normal ongoing relations with both parents, the Officer's recommendation to the judge should be for shared residence with the time apportionment between parents falling within a 50/50 to 70/30 range, depending on specific circumstances.


The recommendation should usually be for shared residence in accordance with the primary intention of the CA 1989, as voted for by Parliament, that this should be the common form of order.


These cases must come before the court promptly to force an early resolution and to ensure that the pattern of frequency and continuing contact with both parents is not allowed to break down.

CAFCASS should assist with the implementation of the Order and should monitor compliance in these cases.


Incidents of non-compliance will require the imposition of escalating sanctions by the court, with consideration given to mandatory parent education classes.

The last resort in these marginal cases would be the withdrawal of the shared residence order and the issuing of a Residence Order to the parent who had been complying with the Parenting Plan. The recalcitrant parent would be obliged to apply for ‘contact’.







Good reason exists, or is alleged to exist



Stage 1 - Parent files for a divorce and one or both make a serious criminal allegation(s).


In this situation one parent will be seeking to limit the other parent's relationship with the children on the basis of an allegation of significant violence or abuse. The allegation should be the subject of an expedited investigation by the criminal courts. As in the normal case scenario, robust early intervention is required by the judge. Such offences, if proven, are criminal and should be treated as such.


In the case of mental health, alcohol/drug abuse allegations a referral to a suitable professional is the most likely recommendation with the appointment of a CAFCASS Officer to supervise the case.


In the event that the allegation is found to be false, the accusing parent should face severe sanctions in order to deter further false allegations and others.


During, for instance, the criminal investigation or mental health and mental stability checks, every effort should be made to maintain the parent's frequent and continuing contact with the children. Consideration could be given to the utilisation of care centres or a programme of supervision. Where the parents can afford it, the cost of this supervision should be shared.


The keynote of this stage is to reach a rapid and accurate conclusion of the allegations being made.


Stage 2 - Court appointment


The subsequent CAFCASS Officer‘s report to the judge should contain the results of the criminal investigation and/ or the mental health checks.


The report will conclude: -


a). The Allegations are false


The accusing parent will then face sanctions for wasting police / professional / court time.


The accused parent is granted a Residence Order and the accusing parent is required to apply for appropriate contact.


b). The Allegations are true


The accusing parent is granted a Residence Order. The accused parent faces the penalties of the now proven allegations and will have to apply for the appropriate contact order.









Notes: -


1.     Successful implementation depends on the CAFCASS Officers having effective guidelines, standards and training. These will need to be shaped so that they serve the overriding objective namely that maintaining the children's relationship with both parents from the earliest opportunity is paramount.


2.     The design of the ‘Parent Information Pack’ and the format of the mediation meetings with parents will be crucial.


3.     The objective of the proposed procedure is to prevent normal cases from becoming complex (and costly) simply for want of early, effective intervention.


4.     A pilot scheme would be essential for assessing and perfecting the new procedure.


5.     Shared parenting is not new to Britain. Prior to the CA 1989 all courts were empowered to award joint custody orders. Some courts were able to raise the ‘shared’ aspect of parenting to over 40%, e.g. Oxford court 1986.








Pilot Scheme



A pilot scheme would be essential for testing and refining the proposed procedures outlined in the preceding pages.


We now have the opportunity inasmuch that “Making Contact Work” (Children Act Sub-Committee Report to the Lord Chancellor), clearly states that :-


“Accordingly, while we question the practical application of the principle of Shared Parenting, we would certainly wish to encourage it. If the Government thinks the concept of joint or shared residence orders worth pursuing, it might consider setting up a pilot scheme based on a small number of courts to test the effect of such orders in practice.”


The essential ingredients of the pilot scheme would be :-


1. Complete circuits - two complete circuits - possibly one in the north and one in the south-west - would be a good test for the system. Clearly all of the cases and their outcomes would have to be rigorously recorded but two geographically distinct circuits would be a better test than a few isolated courts.


2. Training - all those involved would have to be trained and be quite clear as to the format and expectations required of them.


3. Court Orders - whilst the onus would be on achieving successful joint residence orders, it would not preclude resident/contact orders where there was good / cogent reason for such an order.


4. CAFCASS – with regards their approach to court proceedings there would need to be a programme to encourage a culture and process change. No longer would it be an issue of deciding who is the better parent. Rather it would be one of how to assist and encourage both parents to develop a Parenting Plan.


5. Co-ordinated approach - the judiciary and CAFCASS would need to listen to what court users are really asking and to intellectually provide the answers. They would need to work closely before, and during, the piloting of shared parenting on the various circuits in order to ensure that they were working in tandem.


6. Alternatives - whilst there will be initial difficulties in making such a system work, the alternative of continuing with the current system of hostile Family Courts with their adversarial culture is unthinkable.


7. Benefits - the benefits to children of early intervention would be comprehensive. They would include from improvements in health, crime, drugs and educational attainments which normally suffer when children are subjected to prolonged divorce and custody disputes.


Legal aid, together with the normal costs of ongoing litigation, would diminish, as the primary cause would be replaced by mediation in around 80% of the cases.

Resources freed up in this way would then be available for the genuinely difficult cases rather than locked into normal cases which had become complex due to a lack of early intervention.


Comparing Contact



When introducing the benefits of ‘shared parenting’ it may be helpful to readers to review the present arrangements and the difficulties encountered by both parents and children, and the systems administration.


“Contact” is the shorthand term used by those associated with the divorce industry to describe our existing provisions for allocating children after divorce.

Contact leaves one parent in near total command of the child’s life and in a dominating position over the other parent’s emotional life (usually the father). Contact enables one parent to be the ‘gatekeeper’ for children wishing to see their other parent. Equally, contact effectively grants an unlimited licence to control the other parent in seeing their children


This can give rise to an unchallengeable power, which can lead to capricious use, even abuse, directed at the children, the father, or even the court itself. (‘Implacable hostility’ showed by some mothers towards contact and in defiance of court orders).


The “contact” regime is not unique to Britain. It is a widely accepted model in post divorce situations. All English speaking countries have adopted it at some time, as well as some European countries.

Evidence of the regime’s many shortcomings has resulted in attempts by various countries to make serial amendments. Other countries have copied these repairs but the constant fine-tuning and even legislative changes have largely proved futile.


It is perhaps the persistent and inherent inability of the regime to function combined with vested interests, which has prevented the adoption of a new system and a new direction from being considered. A final clash was inevitable.

However, many English speaking countries that once adopted ‘Residence and Contact’ as the default regime have either changed to Equal Parenting or are actively considering it.


For Britain, 2002 is critical in so far as an opportunity has arisen for the authorities governing these issues to re-assess whether further attempts to make ‘contact’ work is as unproductive as chasing a rainbow. The prevailing view today is that the whole concept of contact is fatally flawed.


At every level the disadvantages of the present system are making themselves manifest. At one level the Internet now informs as never before. Parents groups now keep in close touch, recognise the gross and common inadequacies and work together to bring about change.

At another level, as more divorce occurs, the more the law falls into disrepute. Record numbers of the population now sees Court procedures - and leave very unimpressed. They bear witness to a regime where justice is no longer strictly impartial or unswerving bi-partisan. As ‘victims’ processed by the courts they see for themselves how a dead hand has now fallen across what should be a vibrant British justice system.


Often overlooked is the economic level. Contact is the most labour intensive and therefore expensive regime to operate. It is expensive in court time, legal fees and lawyers fees. In terms of support staff contact is cumbersome, involving the services of Court Welfare Officers (now CAFCASS), judges, solicitors, social service workers, GALRO, contact centres, mediation, counsellors, various Gov’t green papers, local family court forums and a rash of committees. All of the above participants then have to attend in-house training, upgrade seminars and special college courses. The need for training thus involves yet another small army of workers becoming enmeshed.


In opting for a contact regime we have unleashed a Leviathan. The support systems needed to run the regime spread wide and deep. They encompasses the Dept of Health, the Lord Chancellor’s Dept and the Home Office. All three have traditional areas of influence that impinge on contact. All of them are, therefore, obliged to make provision in their departmental budgets. All three of these Whitehall departments are involved when new legislation is proposed, and when implementing changes, e.g. special ‘disregards’, allowances, premiums, other bureaucracies such as the Dept of Social Security and Job Centres become embroiled. With the recently announced unitary nature of key government departments, the Inland Revenue will also become a key player in future. The cost to the nation of fatherless ‘non-family units’ is around £30 bn pa (at 1996 prices) and rising. The UK’s entire defence budget in 2001 was £45 bn.


In an attempt to make contact work and to limit the Treasury’s monetary haemorrhage legislation was imported 10 years ago. At a cost of over £2 billion pounds a new institution was created - the CSA. Unfortunately, the distinct lack of a successful track record overseas did not dissuade policy makers from importing and adopting it.

In the US, for every tax dollar spent on enforcing contact rights, over 340 million dollars is spent on CSA enforcement. [1]


But perhaps crucially, the regime of contact is the very antithesis of wealth creation and of wealth accumulation. CSA annual statistics now list hundreds of thousands of once working men as non-resident fathers and unemployed. In 2001 there were 936,200 non-resident fathers obliged to pay CSA of which 43.62%, or 408,400, were unemployed. [2]  This should cause any government sleepless nights. Gov’t figures show that between 40% and 50% of fathers lose contact with their children after a few years. Is there a correlation here ?

Contact and the CSA, in combination, dis-incentivises work and deters fathers from the necessary investment of time and emotion into their families and careers. In combination, contact and the CSA represents “taxation without representation”. The mainspring and pre-requisite of any revolution, as Warren Farrell points out, is economic hurt, emotional rejection and perceived legal injustice. Today, too many parents have experienced all 3 of these.


Contact gives rise to problematical ethical and philosophical considerations. Viewed in the long term this can only impact on the ability of any government to govern, the independence of the judiciary, and the potential for civil unrest - any one of which places a severe strain on good governance.


There are some that think, and Baroness Young gave voice to such concerns in a House of Lords debate, that by 2020 the number of married people in the country will be in the minority for the first time in some 3,000 years. We shall then be one of the first countries in history not to have marriage as a basis of its society. We already have over 1 in 4, or 2.7m, of children growing up in homes where there is no father.

Although most people marry and 60 per cent of marriages last a lifetime, 40 per cent end in divorce. The UK has the highest divorce rate in the European Union. While there has been a decline in marriage there has been an increase in couples living together. Cohabitation is not as stable as marriage and this impacts on children’s development. However, both are subject to wide variations which reflect the cultural norms of the indigenous population and ethnic minorities, principally the Asian and Caribbean communities.

The fall in the number of marriages has been accompanied by a fall in birth rate, both of which began in 1971. With only 11 live births for each thousand of the population in 1999, compared with 16 per thousand in 1979, we are just becoming aware of a ‘population crisis’. As the population ages, there will not be enough young people to fill important vacancies. With children living in ‘contact’ households having, in general, lower educational achievements levels, those vacancies will be even harder to fill and we may have to look elsewhere. This will have serious consequences in the future, for among the young there will be always be a disaffected, poorly educated ‘underclass’ unable to secure gainful or well paid employment. This sub-class could then, as in the 1930’s, become attracted toward a charismatic leader. We already know that the skill shortage in some areas has resulted in the need to increase the number of immigrants, e.g. overseas recruitment of hospital nurses, but more ominously and prompted by political correctness, of importing non-white police officers for the London ‘Met’. [3]

The latest evidence from the report ‘Seven Years in the Lives of British Families’, produced by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, found that 70 per cent of young people interviewed in the 1990s opted to co-habit. But the facts show that only a third of cohabiting relationships last. So cohabiting couples are even more likely to break up which in turn has serious implications for the ‘life chances’ for the children of any such union.

Lest all these views are thought to come simply from a political or conservative perspective, Prof. A. H. Halsey, Professor of Social Policy at Nuffield College, Oxford, and co-author of English Ethical Socialism, has written: -


“Children of parents who do not follow on the traditional norm (i.e., taking on personal, active and long term responsibility for the social upbringing of the children they generate) are thereby disadvantaged in many major aspects of their chances of leading a successful life. On the evidence available, such children tend to die earlier, to have more illness, to do less well at school, to exist at a lower level of nutrition, comfort and conviviality, to suffer more unemployment, to be more prone to deviance and crime and, finally, to repeat the cycle of unstable parenting from which they themselves have suffered”.


The same message comes from a report produced in 1998 and reviewed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Indeed, Prof. Norman Dennis authored several books on the topic as long ago as the 1980’s and 1990’s. It is not a new phenomenon. In the 19th century the early sociological surveys showed the same pattern we see today.

In 1994 the then Gov’t estimated that family breakdown was costing £5 billion pa in benefits and other expenditure. A more recent report has put the cost at £16 billion (cf. our more comprehensive costing above). It compares poorly both with the £4 million annual support to marriage and relationships promised by the Lord Chancellor and with the budget for training CAFCASS officers.


A study by Krein & Beller showed that the longer the period of time spent with a lone parent the greater the reduction in educational attainment for the child.

A British study found children with poor linguistic skills and minimal vocabulary were more likely to come from disrupted backgrounds where "paternal (father) absenteeism" was prevalent.

“Permitting” fathers to participate in their children's middle years was found to foster educational achievement and career plans. This can only enhance social integration and minimise the premature leaving of home, especially for negative reasons.

A British longitudinal study of children in the Midlands showed markedly poor results for West Indian children in regards IQ, verbal tests, further education and employment compared with White and Asians. West Indians families were found to have a 41% level of fathers absent from the home and only a 37% marriage rate. The comparable marriage rate for Asians is 98%.

The legacy of educational experimentation, beginning in the 1960's and still on-going, has not been helpful to children’s literacy, regardless of ethnic origin. Britain’s future economic position in the new millennium was acknowledged in the mid 1990’s by Govt' departments “…. to be influenced by the quality and relevance of it's educational system today”.


Contact is not, therefore, of marginal interest, or an esoteric curiosity reserved for the intelligentsia. It has real, concrete and practical impacts on everyday life of millions of parents and children.

The breakdown of discipline in schools is a prime example. Most teachers report that discipline is more difficult today. It is not unusual to hear of four and five year-olds arriving at school “completely out of control”. One reason for that is the absence of supportive parents. Here one can see the effect of the absence of fathers.

In their Green Paper, Supporting Families, the Government acknowledged that, "rising crime and drug abuse are indirect symptoms of problems in the family". And in their publication, published most recently, Fighting Violent Crime Together, An Action Plan, the Government again points to a strong link between crime and broken marriages, stating, "Numerous studies have shown parental separation to be a good predictor of both juvenile and adult offending".

Crack cocaine addicts, many of whom commit crimes to feed their habit (sometimes amounting to around £800.00 per week), are estimated to cost the country over £ 11,000 each per annum (BBC TV News, 24/6/02).

Contact does not begin to address or ameliorate the link between crime and broken marriages. Nor

does contact open the debate on ill health. Indeed, advocates of Contact will not acknowledge any linkage. An uninformed populace cannot make educated judgements that allow the necessary remedial links to be made. For instance, recent research shows that unemployment and early separation from both parents may be key factors behind the higher rates of schizophrenia in British African-Caribbeans. [4]

However, many commentators are beginning to believe that shared or equal parenting while not providing all the solutions, might provide a remedy for the most pressing.


We are now at a particular crossroads. We can either adopt a seemingly new system but which, in reality, is a historic and well proven model that is increasingly being shown to give better result (for families and for children), or we can persist with the old failed model of contact. Should we persevere for another 5 or 10 years with the old model (that has not ‘delivered the goods’ for the last 30 years) in the hope that some small improvement might be secured ?


Reluctance to face this dilemma has until now been largely responsible for holding us back. But we face many others. One of them involves custody law. The entire paradigm is fraught with ideological and quasi-conservative assumptions about the `appropriate' roles of men and women. [5]Lawyers are well aware of these stereotypes and make good use of them in custody disputes. Custody law is anything but child centred with children having no legal status except as "chattels" or as weapons to secure property rights. Custody law needs radical change to reflect the interests of children


Another dilemma is the "the child's best interests" mantra. This has never been objectively stated and is subject no test or measurement. Arguably, if matters are solely decided on the basis of “the child’s best interests” then inevitably this clashes with the Human Rights and interests of both the mother and the father.

The ‘best interests test’ is said to be based in anecdotal reports from Anna Freud and others. These reports were based on her observations of Korean War Orphans living in institutional care during the 1950's. From this emerged concepts such as the tender years doctrine (giving preference to women as primary caregivers of the under 5's). Her books, (“Best Interests of the Child”, and “Beyond the Best Interests of the Child”) were co-authored with lawyers. These texts were highly influential during the 1970's, a period when custody laws were being revised. It is from these legal revisions that the “best interests test” emerged and then became entrenched. It must be recalled that the work and writings of Anna Freud were seriously influential at political and governmental levels. Adherents of Freud were regularly consulted by governments throughout the long years and mind games of the “Cold War”. Perhaps we should not now be surprised that the concept is at times applied very idiosyncratically.


At a domestic violence conference in Nov 2001, Dame Butler-Sloss, President of the Family Division, gave a glimpse of the thinking behind custody awards invariably favouring mothers.

She said :-

“As in other areas of family law where children are concerned, the stability of the placement for the child is of crucial importance since its breakdown, or the undue fragility of the primary carer, can have serious consequences for the child ……… It is clear from the body of mental health and social work research and a long line of authority that the protection of the primary carer for the benefit of the child is of primary importance.” - Regents Park Conference, 6/11/01.


This view excludes the concept that the very instability (the undue fragility) of the primary carer which may have been a pre-existing condition, can pose a very real threat and an on-going risk to any children under her care.


The minister Estelle Morris MP, has faced up to her own entrenched forces in the educational establishment. She has been brave enough to decide that comprehensive schools, and the “One size does not fit all” approach is not the answer. She accepts that too much ideological humbug has surrounded the debate. Her motto of “Reform and Achieve” places the emphasis on product quality, not quantity or political sacred cows (BBC TV news 24/6/02).


Erroneous views of domestic violence, particularly as to scale and prevalence, have been thrust into the custody debate. They have now become entrenched mantras. This has unduly influenced custody awards and badly damaged any prospects for betterment. It has proven very difficult for these lobbyists to take on board the conclusion and implications of HOS 191 and other objective research. They seem unwilling to accept that only 4.2% of men and 4.2% of women experience domestic violence or that it is class (socio-economic) related phenomenon. It is, however, a truth that is becoming more widely accepted. Donna Laframboise of the National Post, quoting ‘StatsCan’ wrote on August 1st, 2000;


“ … Only 8% of women and 7% of men say they've experienced a violent incident with an intimate partner during the past five years. (According to this study, "violence" includes shoving, pushing, grabbing and throwing objects as well as beatings and stabbings).  Since the vast majority of these incidents took place in relationships that people have already left, only 2% of women and men report violence with their present partner during the past year. – “Violence against men deserves attention, too"


Therefore, not only are the figures much smaller than special interest groups would have us suppose, but it is also aggregated into ‘partners’. Without demarcation by age or martial status, ie husbands and wives not dealt with separately, the figures become meaningless.


The recent riots in Oldham, Leeds, and Burnley, have shown that in many areas of social policy we are on the brink of disintegration. Policies are simply not working. Disaffection is rife at street level. ‘Community leaders’ are isolated by events as members of the communities feel under siege and react. If we are to survive relatively intact we have to capture and treat the malaise of both racism and custody sexism. Attention must be focussed on what are the critically important key factors in the coming 5 years and solutions found. Attacking a culture with secular solutions will not go unrebuked.


Custody will have to become ‘outcomes’ based rather then ideologically driven.


The old `reasoned' mantras have led us into a political wilderness. The old paradigms have failed us as, one by one, they reveal themselves to be social policy cul-de-sacs.

For those reasons the one size fits all mentality of ‘Residence and Contact’ must be rejected. The equal parenting model returns society to ‘quality’ over quantity.









[1]  “Father and Child Reunion” – Warren Farrell, 2001, p8.

[2]   Child Support Agency. Benefit - status of resident and non-resident parents for Great Britain :-   169, 500 non-resident   

      parents on Income Support, 113, 100 on JSA (IB), 22, 700 on JSA (cont.), 34, 200 incapacitated or disabled, 128, 500  other, 49, 500 self- employed and 478, 300 employed. - May 2001. How many of the 408,400 cannot work or ‘refuse’ to work ?

[3]  A prediction first envisaged in G.K Chesterton’s  “The Flying Inn” (1914).

[4]  Social factors 'cause ethnic schizophrenia" - BBC News, on line 22 June 2002, King's College London

[5] Thorpe LJ - decision in the “House Husband” case, 2002, reversing custody and awarding it to the mother.