The rights of unmarried fathers to custody of their children will be the same as those of mothers if newly tabled legislation is passed by Parliament.

However, Fathers' Resource Centre spokesman Alvin Goulbourne said the Children Amendment Act 2002 "almost seems like a step backwards" because it fails to tackle the ingrained bias that courts seem to show towards mothers when dealing with questions of custody.

But Mr. Goulbourne said he maintained some hope that more far-reaching changes would be introduced by Government, in addition to these amendments, which were introduced to the House of Assembly yesterday.

Health and Social Services Minister Nelson Bascome said the amendments were "important" changes that will allow the law "to better reflect fairness and equality to parents and to children, without regard to the marital status of the parent".

He said the bill aimed to tackle the inequalities in law that currently enshrines custody rights for mothers but does not even recognise the rights of custody for fathers should they happen to be unmarried.

"We're trying to make the situation even under the law," Mr. Bascome told The Royal Gazette. "There is a tendency to lean towards mothers when it comes to the question of access. Mothers right now have more rights that the fathers do."

Mr. Goulbourne said he was unhappy with the legislation because it will not do enough to "correct" the bias towards mothers that is exercised by the courts when it comes to dealing with custody matters.

"I'm actually pretty disappointed. If they're claiming a victory over this then they shouldn't be. It seems to put any further changes on the back burner for another few years."

He said: "This legislation does not look as if it will correct problems that children currently have in being allowed to spend significant amounts of time with their fathers on a regular basis."

Mr. Goulbourne explained that, despite the fact that the amendments enshrine fathers' rights in principle, they still allow too much power for the courts "to make and vary orders".

"While this could be seen as a step forwards in that it gives unmarried fathers rights to custody in principle, it still does not address the real issue. It could be misleading because fathers may go into court thinking that they have equal rights while the outlook of the judge remains that mothers necessarily make better parents."

He said he would like to see a situation where courts have to order a child to stay with either parent for forty per cent of the time at least, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.

"A lot of the time, if fathers are given the chance, then they will step up to the task and do their duty. But right now, they are being bowled out before even being given a chance to protect their wickets."

Mr. Goulbourne said much of the time fathers are dependent on the varying wishes of mothers when it comes to being able to visit their children.

And he said even when a father is granted visitation rights, the courts are not as interested in enforcing them as they are in forcing fathers to pay child support.

"That's because it is very easy to come up with figures about how much money someone owes. But if a father complains that he hasn't been allowed enough visitation hours by the mother, then what is the judge going to do?"

Mr. Goulbourne also noted that bias had failed to be addressed in the amendments because they still allow courts to conduct proceedings in private and so no public records of the judge's decisions are available.

He added: "This almost seems like a step backwards. But I will reserve judgement for the moment and try to be optimistic that more changes will be tabled in the house in upcoming sessions."

The bill also says part of its purpose "is to abolish the status of illegitimacy" for children and remove the concept from the law of Bermuda.

It says: "The underlying philosophy is that the stigma is undeserved, discriminatory, punitive and wrong."

Mr. Goulbourne said: "This change is in the best interests of the children. But its symbolic of a further weakening in the moral fabric of the community. Its sad but I suppose it has to reflect the state of affairs in which people do not feel that they need to get married when they have kids."

Mr. Bascome said he had introduced the bill to the House of Assembly now so that MPs who are interested in it will be able to come up and review it over the summer and form opinions.

"I therefore lay this bill now, with the expectation that all concerned will have an opportunity to study and be prepared for a meaningful debate."