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

The question I suggest is how a non resident parents rights can be enforced.

Clearly we dont want NRP's able to plat the fool over things like holidays abroad without good reason.

On the other hand my ex believed our son had a milk allergy and sent him off to a practitioner whose techniques were unsupported by scientific literature rather than the GP so I put my foot down, talked to the School and GP and made the quack aware that she was not to see my son again.

Discuss

I hear you OP. My ex was outraged I divorced him and despite doing the absolute bare minimum of parenting, moving 3 hours away and never ever having anything to do with the life admin of his kids, he has derailed some extra curricular stuff for one of them as he doesn’t want my partner paying for his kids. He could pay himself - he’s minted, but if there’s a way to have a dig at me then he will.

I’ve had to do a specific issues order, and drag him to court just for a fecking school trip, for which he has no other objections.

I agree with you op . I was in a situation where my ex had an affair when dd1 was 3 months old . He then saw her every few months, then dropped contact when she was 5 . She hasn’t seen or heard from him for 20 years. If he had reappeared when she was say 14, it would have been ridiculous for him to have had input into schooling etc .

Yes - another example of here resistant parent needs a system to support their day to count more. Forgot to mention schooling in my post.

If it's a case that parents live 10 miles apart and parent a wants a school 1 mile from their home and parent 2 wants one in the middle generally catchment and space available will sort that. But where a latent lives hours away and wants to dictate something that doesn't impact them but negatively impacts the parent and child involved there's need to be a mediation system set up to resolve in a timely manner.

I think both parents should have a say to protect the child.

However there does need to be a better system regards parents who don't agree with- whether they live together or not.

An example of this is where a parent refuses a child an assessment for send, medical tests recommended by a dr, braces etc.

Because in that example it could work against the child's best interests if one parent refusing means it can't happen.

@MulberryBushRoundabout Yes, agreed.

While I’m not fully on board with OP’s suggestion, I think you’re in a better position than she describes because your ex may be awful, but at least he just stays out of your way. The PR system as it stands means that if he ex suddenly decided he did have a view, and rang the Local Authority to say that he does not agree with the secondary school you and DS have chosen, or if god forbid your DS was hospitalised again and he turned up at the hospital demanding a different course of treatment then the LA or hospital would have to treat your views equally, and you would have to drag it through the courts to resolve.

In general, it's good to have two people having input into big decisions about children. One person might miss something obvious or get a bee in their bonnet or whatever. Obviously there will be situations where that's not the case because one person is being obstructive, difficult, delusional etc. And I suspect OP is right to think that's more likely to be the non resident parent, because they won't know the kids as well.

But I don't think the advantages to the majority of children of having two parents involved in decision making should be lost because of a minority of unreasonable parents. It would also put children where the resident parent is the unreasonable one at heightened risk as the other parent can't advocate for them as effectively.

Yanbu, the current system allows to many abusive fathers to much access and control. It's a disgrace! I speak as someone who experienced this as a child, and from everything I've read, the system hasn't improved, it's arguably gotten worse.

Seriously sorry I didn't release my XH was abusive before I was pregnant with our third. Sorry my friend didn't work out her XH was abusive until she was divorced and in therapy for a year. You have no idea how abuse works if you can post victim blaming crap like this. Lucky you.

You say the legislation isn't being administered correctly then say there needs to be a change in legislation to fix this. How will a change in legislation effect administration by courts and judges? You need a systemic approach. Things like increased funding for legal aide and family courts so its easier for parents to access the courts, removal of barriers to access, simplified language guides to the relevant laws and systems. Maybe some small changes to the law if you have to currently apply seperately for each disputed issue. Some increase in judicial ability to extend the application or specific issue orders on a wider and ongoing basis.

These women that you say have constant worry and anxiety how much effort did they take in ensuring their partner was totally on board and willing to me a normal functioning parent before they had a child with them?

How many threads on here and issues away from MN with women who have long term issues with partners before they have children but ignore all because 'I want a baby' and then want more children

Then after the fact complain?

Who is going to decide who deserves more 'rights'? There is already a system to resolve parental disputes in the best interests of the child through the courts. Of course they don't always get it right but that will still be true of whoever you think should decide who gets more rights too. Although removing PR is really hard to do parents can more easily apply for a specific issue order to cover things like schooling, medical care, moving abroad or a prohibited steps order to prevent the other parent from taking specific actions you believe are detrimental to the child/children.

Of course you're right. But Pickme manpanderers and MRAs are thick on the ground here.

In your opinion. Fortunately the law prevents one parent from taking over and making it all about what they want.

You are clearly clouded by an adverse experience in your own situation but they are indeed put at the centre. If you have had issues and been to court about this and a ruling has been made against you then the court has decided it is not in your child's interest. If you haven't been to court then do so.

S1 Children Act 1989
the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration. (2)In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.

So the starting point is that both parents have equal say. If you believe your co parent should not go to court and make an application setting out why for the child's welfare they should not.

You stated in the current system in the UK children are not put at the centre. I quoted what the courts starting point is in law ie. the welfare of the child is paramount. This is the actual legal position and therefore I am not being ridiculous.

Yes they are. It starts with the welfare of the child being paramount.

except it won't have the same weight and the court will decide in your favour unless he is going to pay private school fees which you will be able to prove he won't because he doesn't even pay maintenance.