Complaint
The programme included an interview with family law barrister and campaigner Dr Charlotte Proudman about the Government’s decision to remove the presumption of parental involvement from family court law. A listener complained that Dr Proudman had “stated that fathers had to be prevented from having contact with their children”, implying that it was always fathers who were the problem, and that there had been no challenge to the assumption that the planned change in the law was either necessary or in the best interests of most children.
Outcome
Dr Proudman did not make the statement complained of and, in the ECU’s view, did not imply that it was always fathers who were the problem. Her remarks were confined to fathers who were known to be abusive, supported by examples from her own experience, and the interviewer made the point that the change would apply to “both fathers, to mothers, to anybody who is in a situation where they could cause harm to that child”. As to challenging an assumption that the change was necessary or beneficial, the programme-makers knew of no significant groups which had expressed opposition to the proposal and the ECU was unable to identify any significant body which had spoken publicly against it. So, although there have been subsequent reports of differing opinions within the legal profession, it did not appear to the ECU that, at the time of transmission, the matter was controversial in a way which would have engaged the requirement in the guidelines to give “due weight” to an opposing view
Not upheld