Mr. G. LOOKER-LAMPSON, Under-Secretary, Home Office (Wood Green), moved the second reading of a Bill to amend the law with respect to the guardianship, custody, and marriage of infants. He said the Bill was prepared by the late Labour Government as a compromise arising out of a conference in which all parties interested in the question were represented, and was a considerable step towards the equalization of the law as to the rights of the mother and father in regard to the guardianship of an infant which was a matter of controversy in previous Parliaments. The Bill provided that in any proceedings in the Courts affecting the custody of an infant or the administration of any property belonging to the infant, the Court should regard the welfare of the infant as the paramount consideration, and should not take into account any claim of the father over the mother or of the mother over the father. It conferred on the mother the same right of applying to the Court in any matter affecting the infant as was now possessed by the father. The mother was also enabled to obtain an order as to the custody and maintenance of an infant while she was residing with the father, but such order was not to be enforceable while the parents lived together.
SIR H. SLESSER (Leeds, S.E., Lab.) said that he presided over the conference out of which the Bill arose, and hoped it would be accepted by the House. The Bill specifically gave to married women a valued right which they had never before possessed, and was a reasonable compromise between the old idea that the father was the sole possible guardian, and the idea that they should have such legislation that the comity of every family would be in peril.
Mr. HURST (Manchester, Moss Side, U.) said that in nine out of ten cases which came before the Court the differences between the parents arose from difference in religion. The present system was absolutely bad, but the new proposals did not provide an adequate remedy for the abuse. Miss WILKINSON (Middlesbrough, Lab.) welcomed the Bill as an instalment towards complete equality between men and women. SIR H. CRAIK (Scottish Universities, U.) said that he had no sympathy with or interest in the measure. Mr. R.J. DAVIES (Westhoughton, Lab.) supported the Bill as a great step in favour of the mother, who was at a disadvantage at the present time.
Mr. RUNCIMAN (Swansea, W., L.) said the Bill met with the general support of the Liberal Party. He hoped that on the Committee stage, however, the Government would be prepared to consider certain additions to the Bill.
The Bill was read a second time.
Guardianship of infants
The Times,
26 March 1925: letter to the editor
Sir,-Mr. Arnold Herbert draws attention in your issue of the 21st inst. to Clause 3 of the Government Guardianship of Infants Bill, and proceeds to raise a magnificent bogy in connexion with it, which I prefer to think is due more to a careless perusal of the Bill than to wilful misrepresentation.
The burden of his complaint is that the clause would permit a wife to come to the Court and say: "Though my husband's conduct at present is not such that I can ask the Court to deprive him of the custody of the children and give it to me, yet I ask for an order which I can put into operation when I think it desirable." Clause 3 does in fact give the Court power to make orders relating to the custody or maintenance of children when the parents are still living together. But in making such orders the Court is directed to consider solely the welfare of the child. Unless, therefore, the mother can prove that to give her the custody would be for the welfare of the child, no order would be made by the Court. The advantages of being able to apply for this custody while still living with her husband are twofold. First, it is impossible for financial reasons for an ordinary working-class woman to leave her husband first before making such an application. Her going away can be construed as desertion, which would bring with it the loss of her right to maintenance by her husband. The power to have such an order made, therefore, while living with him is essential if the Act is not to be a dead letter for the great majority of those mothers who may need the help it offers. Secondly, in many cases the possession of an order by the mother will serve as a means of bringing the father to a sense of his parental responsibilities, especially with regard to the maintenance of his children, in order to avoid a break up of the home.
Mr. Arnold Herbert speaks as if the Bill provides that the mother could obtain an order now in respect of possible unsuitable behaviour on the part of the father later. On the contrary, it only enables a mother to obtain an order for conduct which is unsuitable now, but which might be remedied in the future by such a warning.
I am, Sir, yours faithfully, Margaret Wintringham,
Little Grimsby Hall, Nr. Louth, Lincolnshire, March 24.
.lcBefore the Guardianship of Infants Act, custody of children in divorce cases automatically went to the father. The Act was an attempt to give mothers an equal claim to custody.
