Mark Tami – 2022 Speech on Parental Responsibility for People Convicted of Serious Offences

The speech made by Mark Tami, the Labour MP for Alyn and Deeside, in Westminster Hall on 7 November 2022.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 614893, relating to suspension of parental responsibility for people convicted of serious offences.

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this important debate. The petition calls for the automatic suspension of parental responsibility for any parent found guilty of murdering the other during their period of imprisonment. I want to place on record my thanks to Jade Ward’s family and friends and, in particular, Edwin Duggan for their dedication and work in putting together this petition, which has received more than 130,000 signatures. That is a remarkable achievement.

At the heart of this debate is the life and memory of Jade Ward. Jade was an enormously loved mother, daughter and friend. She has been described as the sunshine in the lives of all who knew her. She was bubbly, kind and caring, and truly devoted to her four sons. The last days of Jade’s life were spent caring for her grandmother as she recovered from surgery, laughing with her friends in her garden and providing for her children. These final moments typify the life that Jade led and the kind person she was.

On 26 August 2021, Jade was brutally murdered by her estranged husband, Russell Marsh, in a premeditated attack. On 12 April 2022, Marsh was given a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years in prison. After Jade ended their relationship a week before her murder, Marsh had reportedly told friends that if he could not have Jade, no one could. Marsh was a controlling figure throughout their relationship, who would tell Jade who she could see and speak to, and what she could wear and do. When Jade stood up to him, she was killed as punishment.

Jade was just 27 and lived in Shotton. She had four children with Marsh, who were sleeping nearby as their mother’s life was taken away from her. Jade’s family were horrified to learn that, despite these utterly distressing circumstances, they face the prospect of continued contact with the man who murdered their daughter. Although Marsh will obviously not have custody over the children while he serves his time in prison, despite all his appalling actions, under law, he retains parental responsibility. Jade’s mother, Karen, said that she was “absolutely gobsmacked” to hear that her daughter’s killer could still have a say in the boys’ lives. If you walked down any street today, Mr Hollobone, and told people how the law works on this matter, I think they would be gobsmacked too.

What exactly does the law say about this matter? When a child does not have a parent to care for them, local authorities have a duty to safeguard the child and find an interim or permanent care arrangement. The child’s relatives can seek a court order to care for them, local authorities can initiate proceedings with a view to providing for the child’s upbringing and carers can achieve parental rights through a special guardianship order.

Importantly, where two parties have parental responsibility, one party cannot make decisions unilaterally; they must seek the other party’s agreement. Responsibility is automatically equal so, in law, neither party’s parental responsibility is considered more important than the other’s. That stretches to even the most extreme cases, in which one parent has been convicted of murdering the other.

I understand that Jade’s parents have been told that if they want to take their grandsons on holiday abroad, they need permission from the father. A convicted parent must also be consulted on issues such as where the children go to school and the medical treatment they receive. Effectively, Marsh has the right to veto decisions made by Jade’s parents and pursue a family court hearing.

We can only imagine how traumatic that must be for Jade’s parents. They have already suffered the terrible pain of losing their daughter in that way, yet the process as it stands compels them to interact with their daughter’s killer. It acts as a constant reminder of surely the darkest moment in their lives. As with Jade’s boys, the children are often in the care of the family of the deceased parent. The current process effectively grants the convicted parent the means to continue the control and coercion of the family in the way they did prior to the murder of the victim.

Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his powerful speech. Does he agree that “re-victimisation” is not too strong a word to describe what would happen to the family in such circumstances?

Mark Tami

I agree, because it just does not stop and there is no chance to move on—not that it would ever be easy to move on. It gives the convicted person even more weapons to use against the family of the deceased.

It must be extremely traumatic for the children to know that the person who killed their mother or father knows so much about their lives, particularly if they witnessed the murder. The law surrounding parental responsibility is clearly not fit for purpose and facilitates further unnecessary emotional trauma. It helps perpetrators with a history of domestic abuse to practise their controlling and psychological abuse from inside their prison cell. We often think of domestic abuse as physical violence, which it is in many cases, but at its root is control. It is about the perpetrator controlling their so-called partner, and having control from their prison cell must give them a real buzz.

If parental rights are by default retained, even in the most horrific of circumstances, when can they be restricted? The Children Act 1989 allows the guardian or holders of a residence order to go to a family court to bring a prohibited steps order against a person with parental responsibility, but the onus is still on the family to prove that parental rights should be revoked. It is expensive and time-consuming, and is an emotionally draining process for the families, who have to come to terms with the tragic loss they have just experienced. That is why Jade’s family—Karen, Paul and Pip—and their friends are campaigning to have the parental responsibility of a parent who is found guilty of murdering the other parent automatically suspended.

Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)

I am very moved by the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. As someone who brought up a child on my own, I often worried about what would happen if something happened to me. Does he agree that the current system fails to put the child at the centre of the legislation?

Mark Tami

I agree with the hon. Lady. I will go on to talk about family courts, including some of their problems and the lack of connection between what happens there and in other courts. In this case, and indeed in many other cases, children can be effectively weaponised by the person who has committed the offence, who can carry on their control and abuse.

Currently, the onus is on the family to prove why Marsh’s parental responsibility should be revoked or restricted, whereas Jade’s law calls for parental responsibility to be automatically suspended in circumstances such as these, putting the onus on the killer to go through the legal hoops of proving they deserve parental responsibility, freeing the victim’s family of the traumatic burden they currently carry. As Jade’s mother said:

“We are going through enough without having him looming over our heads.”

That really sums up the situation we find in the law today.

Unfortunately, Jade’s family are not the only ones. Ahead of the debate, the Chair of the Petitions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), spoke to survivors of domestic abuse who are experiencing ongoing issues relating to the retention of parental responsibility by ex-partners. Their experiences highlighted just how far our laws on parental responsibilities and the family court system are failing children and victims of domestic violence.

One issue that came out strongly from the discussions was that violence committed against a parent is not distinct from violence against a child. Indeed, allowing a child to witness or be surrounded by violent behaviour is inherently abusive in itself. A parent’s willingness to subject their child to that surely calls into question their ability to act in that child’s best interests.

Yet women who spoke to the Committee felt that family courts do not recognise that. Despite all the convictions for traumatic sexual, physical and emotional abuse, the threat those men pose to their own children’s welfare does not seem to be acknowledged. Over and over again, the Committee heard that the abuser’s right to be a parent was prioritised over the children’s right to safety. A woman whose former partner was convicted of sexual abuse offences asked what I think is a perfectly reasonable question: why should he be allowed to access their children when he was considered too dangerous to work with or be around other people’s children?

For victims of domestic violence and for families who have lost loved ones to an abusive partner, the criminal justice process is often just too traumatic. Not only are they forced to relive harrowing experiences, but they have to come back into contact with the person responsible for them. One might think that once proceedings have ended and a criminal charge has been made and proven, they could begin to move on, but since family and criminal courts are distinct from each other, victims are forced to restart the emotional and burdensome process to restrict parental rights.

One of the women who spoke to the Chair of the Petitions Committee found the family court system itself to be abusive. With renewed contact with her ex-partner, it became a new avenue through which he continued his controlling behaviour. A common opinion was that family courts are not equipped to deal with traumatic cases of murder and domestic abuse.

Both Jade’s family and the women who spoke to the Committee also emphasised the financial pressure imposed on them by the current system. Pursuing a case in the family court is expensive, and the lack of funding for legal aid is a longstanding issue, as we all know. Victims and their families are forced into thousands of pounds of debt to restrict parental responsibility, or they face compromising on the safety of their children.

Since the beginning of the family’s campaign, the Government have stated that there is already scope for courts to exercise powers

“to effectively remove all parental powers and authority in appropriate cases.”

However, the Government are missing the point. Jade’s family and friends are already aware of the law as it stands and the current process of restricting parental responsibility, but they, and we, are saying that the process is wrong. The onus should be on the convicted murderer to prove they should have parental responsibility, rather than the family having to make the case for why that person should not. Jade’s law would be a simple, common-sense way of shifting the burden away from a victim’s family and friends, who have already suffered the anguish of the murder of their loved one. Jade’s law would put an end to the endless cycle of psychological torment, lengthy and costly court processes and the constant harrowing reminders that the current system puts on a victim’s family and friends.

Let us be clear: Jade’s law does not demand the automatic removal of parental responsibility for cases such as these; it demands an automatic suspension, giving the perpetrator the opportunity to go through the legal hoops themselves to prove that they should be entitled to those parental powers. The perpetrator will have to prove they have changed their ways and admitted to their crimes, and that they have gone on a long journey to have the right to be involved in their children’s lives, not the other way round.

The petitioners recognise that there are nuances. For instance, they recognise that there are specific circumstances where it would be right to exempt someone convicted of killing the other parent from an automatic suspension of parental responsibilities. These would include where a convicted person could prove that there was a history of domestic abuse in their relationship and that, although the murder cannot be condoned, the murder trial concluded that provocation was a mitigating factor. However, the principle of shifting the burden of proof is the key message that we are sending the Government today.

Rob Roberts

The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. To expand on this interesting idea, does he envisage this measure being akin to a parole board, where somebody fights their case for early release, or would there be some kind of additional legal process, such as requiring them to go back to court and fight for their rights?

Mark Tami

As I said, I believe the process should be turned round, so that it puts the onus on the convicted person, and they would have to go through the same process that the victim’s family are effectively forced to go through now.

I am delighted that Labour supports this change, but I do not want it to be a party political matter because it is not. I do not think that anyone in this room, regardless of their party, would stand up and defend the current system or say: “It’s absolutely fine. I don’t know what the fuss is about.” As I have said, if we went out on the streets, almost everybody would say, “That seems to be the correct thing to do”. I hope we can move forward across the House and add a mechanism to existing legislation, such as the Children Act 1989, whereby one parent found guilty of murdering the other parent would have their responsibility rights automatically suspended throughout their term of imprisonment—which, again, would impose the burden on the convicted person.

I am not prejudging what the Minister will say, but I am sure his officials will say, as they always do: “This is very difficult. It’s going to take a long time. We can’t do this; we can’t do that”. I have always believed that where there is a will, there is a way, and I am sure that the appropriate legislation can be amended to ensure that this change actually happens. The implementation of Jade’s law would not add additional costs to the public purse. In fact, it might save local authorities money, because they would no longer have to send social workers to visit convicted parents to obtain permission for things. It is a cost-free or even money-saving reform that would relieve the traumatic burden that the families of victims currently carry, and it is the morally right thing to do. To me, it is simple and common sense.

Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)

I had a similar, horrific case in my constituency that related to the parental rights of someone who was convicted of sexual offences against my constituent’s children. This is a cross-party issue, and I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who at that time made change happen and was very supportive. I urge the Minister to make change happen today for Jade.

Mark Tami

I share in those words.

To conclude, I read a statement issued by Jade’s parents after their daughter’s killer was sentenced:

“Jade was the sunshine in our lives, she was the glue that held us all together. She was also a devoted mum who would do anything for her children, a much-loved friend, daughter, sister, aunty, niece and granddaughter. Jade’s whole life was ahead of her, and her death has left a void in all our lives.”

Sadly, it is now too late for Jade. But her children, and others in the same situation, still have their whole lives before them. We owe it to them to ensure that the system is on the side of the victims.