To think that Resident Parents should have more rights than Non Resident Parents.

Catch up with him? No need to. He paid it and more. One child lived with us for several years. Idk what to say.

She didn't need to hold him accountable, what she wanted was for him to fund her lifestyle, on top of paying for the kids.

He wasn't "absent" either but you carry on with your big rant hun.

OK. We get it. It's not enough for you that RPs already have total say over the day-to-day and emergency decisions. You hate your ex so much that you think he shouldn't have any say over the big stuff either. And because you despise him so much, you think that not only should he not be allowed any involvement in these big decisions, no NRP should be allowed just in case they might remind you of your ex.

I'll use dhs ex as an example. She hated me more than she loves her own children. She didn't have their best interests at heart whatsoever. She had her own interests well ahead of them. Under your rules dh would have had even less say than he actually did.

Yanbu. My dc's never saw their dad. I still couldn't double barrel their surnames in his absence.

I suggest you have a look through the Stately Homes threads and realise that a lot of mothers (as well as a lot of fathers) do not necessarily have their children's best interests at heart.

What if the non resident parent believes the child should be vaccinated and the resident parent doesn't?

Well good.
But your proposal in the OP would tar them all with the same brush, decent and awful alike.

I have a BIL who is a brilliant dad, and is definitely the parent who knows the child best. His ex isn't a great mum tbh. She's not very engaged with parenting and has form for putting both her career and her relationship with her new bloke as more iimportant than her child. However she's officially the RP (although child's time is actually very close to 50:50) because her home is closer to the good school in their town. It's dad who sorts out Dr and Dentist and shoe fittings etc.

This is just one family that doesn't fit the majority that you are talking about. I don't dispute that it's a majority but a law that assumes the majority circumstances apply to everyone is a bad law.

Being the resident parent doesn’t automatically mean you know your child best.
being the resident parent doesn’t automatically mean you care about your child more. Nor does it mean you care about your child at all, in fact.
Not all RP are fanastic parents. Not all NRP are terrible/work shy/disinterested etc.

The law should make no assumptions about the parenting capacity of the non resident parent. In your case OP the resident parent may be better able to make important decisions but in other families it could be the other way around.

If parents can't agree what is in the child's best interests they need a neutral 3rd party, not any automatic bias in favour of one.

When there are only 2 people involved it can't be a democracy - you either agree or disagree and any rule that assumes more weight to one person's opinion is therefore totally removing all power from the other - if a choice is binary then it makes no difference if the weighting was 51:49 or 80:20 or 99:1 - there will always be one winner and one loser. So 50:50 weight of opinion with a neutral 3rd party to arbitrate is the only fair way unless one parent is so utterly awful that the courts strip then of their parental status.

What rights do you think you are not being afforded as the RP?

You say advocating for the child, What exactly do you mean by this, what is preventing you from doing so?

I can see how some of the men written about on MN would make this attractive, but I don't think I can get onboard with one parent having all the rights.

Saying that, if I believe you are a danger to my child's physical or menta well-being (with good reason), I will disengage and you can take me to court.

But if ops rules were in place, then one parent would have the power. What if it was the parent who you deem to be in the wrong. Then what?

Or is used to being the one to carry out the lion's share of EVERYTHING and is being constantly obstructed by the deadbeat non resident non maintenance paying parent who uses their rights to further control their ex.

see. it works both ways.

It does have the same weight at the moment though. I.e. I cannot register a school choice unless the second parent is in agreement.

I agree that the court is likely to side with me once it comes in front of the judge, but the current delay in just getting the first directions hearing is around 12 months - and then 6 to 12 months to next hearings.

@AgileGreenSeal "In reality she can’t protect them at all. SS will take his lies over the children’s testimony every time."

Really? Every time? You've been involved in every SS case so you've seen this first-hand? Wow, you must have been busy.

I think it’s impossible to generalise for all divorced couples as there’s so many different patterns of living post divorce.

However I think that there should be some sort of document that a RP can fill out after say 2 years no contact which allows them solo rights over stuff like schooling, taking kids abroad etc A surprising number of stories involve a NRP having control over issues like schools when they haven’t even seen the kids in years.

In my case it looks like I have more power but that’s because my ex leaves all the decisions to me and wouldn’t be arsed to discuss or research things. He knows I will make the best decision I can and I’m not spiting him with my choices. I suspect that it’s a common scenario that works well because the NRP isn’t abusive just cba.

“Parental alienation” is the most terrifying phrase a caring, protective parent can ever hear in a family court setting.

It is the trump card played by an abuser to silence genuine concerns coming from the parent who is only trying to protect her child - often she has left him for domestic abuse and yet her children are forced by court to be with him, unsupervised and overnight.

When they come home traumatised and disclosing abusive behaviours she has a dilemma - to report to SS will add fuel to his allegations of parental alienation, yet how else can she protect them?

In reality she can’t protect them at all. SS will take his lies over the children’s testimony every time.

They then turn their attention on the protective parent, using the “parental alienation” accusation to effectively shut her up.

The court will follow the tone set by SS.

Behind closed doors the abuser will punish the children for “telling tales” and the children learn that there is no point telling anyone about what they are suffering because absolutely no one will make it stop. 😭