Governing Parenting: Is There a Case for a Policy Review and Statement of Parenting Rights and Responsibilities?
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
| Published date | 01 March 2008 |
| Author | Clem Henricson |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00419.x |
JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY
VOLUME 35, NUMBER 1, MARCH 2008
ISSN: 0263-323X, pp. 150±65
Governing Parenting: Is There a Case for a Policy Review
and Statement of Parenting Rights and Responsibilities?
Clem Henricson*
This paper addresses the governance of families in the context of a
political philosophy that endorses a rights perspective in social policy
and the need to promote transparent government. The status of
parenting as a function of government has grown substantially under
the present Labour administration and now commands cross-party
support as a priority issue. However, it would be wrong to claim that
there is a national consensus regarding the role of the state in
supporting and regulating families in their upbringing of children. This
paper assesses current parental rights and responsibilities in relation
to financial support, and the physical and emotional care and control
of children. Emerging themes and ambiguities are drawn out, and
consideration is given to the need for a strategic policy statement
embracing the broad ambit of government legislation, discussion
documents, and commentaries. In conclusion, the case is made for a
regular policy review and for a national debate as to whether there
should an official statement of parents' rights and responsibilities.
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE?
Apreoccupation with the governance of parenting, its support and control, has
been a distinctive feature of the New Labour project which has taken root,
manifested in something of a national consensus across the political spectrum.
It now holds centre stage and is unlikely to be shunted to the sidelines by a
change of administration. The government and parenting axis is an accepted
feature of social policy to an unprecedented degree, and as the government
embarks on something of a new phase of development with a new prime
minister, it is worth taking stock and positing where the deficits lie and where,
building on all that has been achieved, positive shifts might be made.
150
ß2008 Family and Parenting Institute. Editorial organization ß2008 Cardiff University Law School. Published by
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
*Family and Parenting Institute, 430 Highgate Studios, 53±79 Highgate
Road, London NW5 1TL, England
henricson@nfpi.org
In making that assessment, a preliminary glance at early intentions seems
apposite. A policy piece that encapsulates the underlying conceptions of the
New Labour administration as it came to power is the report of the left-of-
centre Commission on Social Justice:
1
as the Prime Minister, Tony Blair,
described it in the preamble, `Essential reading for everyone who wants a
new way forward for our country'. Much of the thesis of this think piece has
been embraced, but despite the government's radical concern with parenting,
one of the Commission's significant proposals for transparency has been
kicked into the long grass:
Although the law alone cannot transform people's attitudes, a clear legal
statement of parental responsibilities would help to underline a new
commitment to children. Almost every other European Union country has a
statement of parents' responsibilities: the United Kingdom needs one too.
This country needs a new statement of parents' responsibilities. The
development of such a statement should draw on the work of organisations
concerned with all aspects and stages of family life, on suggestions such as
that made by Lord Michael Young and Professor A.H. Halsey for a `Family
Covenant' to be entered into by parents at the birth of a child, and on the work
of the Scottish Law Commission which has proposed and drafted a statutory
statement of parental responsibilities.
2
Here one has the seed for open government in family policy, albeit with a
disproportionate emphasis on parental responsibilities and scant reference to
rights and the obligations of the governmental partner in the compact.
Its limitations aside, why should such a strongly argued and apparently
justifiable proposition have been dropped in contrast to the many recom-
mendations that have come to fruition? Might anxiety over the enhancement
of legalistic control be the demotivating force? At first sight, this seems an
unlikely scenario if one simply reflects on the volume of legislation that has
come onto the statute book in recent years. Nevertheless, fear may be part of
the reason ± fears, not of lawyers as such, but of lawyers in a private space,
fears perhaps of having to deliver on rights as well as responsibilities, and
even possibly fears of the complexity of parenting policy, scattered as it is in
a raft of government communications, documents, and legislation emanating
from umpteen Whitehall departments.
There is a pertinent quote in the government's early strategic document,
Supporting Families:
...governments have to be wary about intervening in areas of private life and
intimate emotion. We in government need to approach family policy with a
strong dose of humility. We must not preach and we must not give the
impression that members of the government are any better than the rest of the
population in meeting the challenge of family life. They are not.
3
151
1 Commission on Social Justice, Social Justice Strategies for Social Renewal (1994).
2 id., pp. 320, 321.
3 Home Office, Supporting Families: A Consultation Document (1998) 4.
ß2008 Family and Parenting Institute. Editorial organization ß2008 Cardiff University Law School
To continue reading
Request your trial