"Having spurned a wonderful opportunity, it's backwards to the old, broken model – more punishment, more castigation. That is the mind set – to punish! To continue the cycle and with it, the work load."

Recently a law reform committee was given the vital task of looking into the way children were dealt with in the case of separation or divorce.

Clearly, the rates of divorce, and children born out of wedlock have become totally frightening. More importantly, the children affected by these trends require and deserve action. Action aimed at the root of the problems and not associated with the old world remedy of lock up and beat down anybody thought to be involved without giving them much shrift in a hearing.

The following was taken from an article printed in The Royal Gazette in February 2009 prior to the report being written.

"If we can get this attempt at family reform right, the lost generation may be the last to go so astray. By allowing children to be cared for by the two most instrumental people in his or her life. A parenting plan brokered by a panel trained in dispute resolution and mediation without a court setting would be a winning combination. Seems simple, some may say it won't work. Is the present system working? Or will it go down in history as the most adversarial and costly system ever to put all our children at risk."

Many behind closed doors fear what I will state here. The root cause will remain untouched. Why? Well, it's called money. In my opinion, you can't expect lawyers and social workers to find an end to the family problems that furnish many with a very nice lifestyle.

Mr. Editor, do we know who worked on the reforms? Puisne Judge Norma Wade Miller was the chair but who else? How many lawyers and social workers? What ratio of females to males?

Having spurned a wonderful opportunity to usher in a new philosophy, a system to unite families to eradicate the root and make a huge turn around in our children …. it's backwards to the old broken model more punishment more castigation. That is the mind set – to punish, and maintain the cycle and with it the workload.

I ask these two questions: Is it in the best interests of the child for either one of the two most important people in his or her world to be locked up or to lose the ability to transport that child?

Do you believe when a parent is called a "Deadbeat" and is punished it would endear the parent to that child now seen as the reason for his problems?

Why do I ask? Because overwhelmingly, it's the love, time, and involvement, not money of a parent that is most important to the development of a minor. And when you take one of the parents out of the equation, that does more damage to the child than any amount of money.

Delaey Robinson agrees that social programmes would be the key, so what are they?

1. Educate our daughters that having a child for a guy with cute eyes does not equate to womanhood and, single parenthood is not like the movies (unless it's a horror). Strange as it may seem, fait is fathers who are best able to guide daughters with their relationships, and you guessed it, fathers are in many cases prevented from meaningful involvement hence the cycle of continued need of caseworkers, lawyers and child support officers.

2. Demonstrate to our young men that the games they play can burn and burn for life. Many young men have no idea of the devastating effects of having a baby until the judge states the amount of child support they will pay. Some are left with so little they quit working for lack of interest in the small amount of remaining wage. Both programmes need to be implemented when children are young – during the last years of primary school. Middle school is too late.

Here is an idea: What will the youth do when they can't drive their car or bike or go abroad? Perhaps they will turn to selling drugs or stealing? Remember the cycle: More crime, more lawyers more social reports.

3. It is proven that fathers who are involved in his child's day to day life pay far more child support than those who are not part of the raising process. So it's smart to encourage two parents to make joint decisions, if required, with the help of a mediator. Oh, there I go again, trying to do what's best for the child and save millions on having only one mediator instead of many lawyers, judges, court time, social workers, caseworkers, Westgate staff, police, bailiffs, child support officers, counselors and probation officers.

4. It been suggested by fathers that they would prefer to pay for items (pre-school, insurance etc.) themselves, in the knowledge that their contribution actually was used by their child as opposed to being spent on mum's hair, nails or habits. In this way they become part of the child's life. That is out of the box, but worth a try.

It's been 34 years since a family law review, so many had high hopes for the young children of Bermuda and their future with some changes that would bring families together.

Sad to say, from what we read, this was a missed opportunity to end some of the turmoil we are now experiencing. Punishment alienates, that's not to say some may well enjoy the thought of hurting the once loved partner in a current feud, but our children need a system that understands that two parents must work together in fairness for the good of the child and Bermuda. I trust it won't take another 34 years until somebody says that's enough we have lost too many of our offspring, and our legacy.

Edward (Eddie) Fisher is the past president and co-founder of Heathwatch and Childwatch.