Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

112 replies

Theemeperorsnewclothes · 21/07/2024 01:39

I think we’ve gone too far into the patriarchy of the UK, political systems, family Courts, CMS. Non resident parents (over 90% male/fathers) have exactly the same rights as resident parents (over 90% female/mothers). A child centred approach is allowing the person who knows the child best to advocate for them. The resident parent should have more rights, with regards to making decisions/advocating for their child/children in the political/legal system in the UK. They, and their children should be protected in legislation.

OP posts:
TheOriginalEmu · 22/07/2024 01:50

Theemeperorsnewclothes · 21/07/2024 01:39

I think we’ve gone too far into the patriarchy of the UK, political systems, family Courts, CMS. Non resident parents (over 90% male/fathers) have exactly the same rights as resident parents (over 90% female/mothers). A child centred approach is allowing the person who knows the child best to advocate for them. The resident parent should have more rights, with regards to making decisions/advocating for their child/children in the political/legal system in the UK. They, and their children should be protected in legislation.

That presumes that the RP knows the child ‘better’ which isn’t necessarily the case. They also don’t necessarily have the child’s best interest at heart. Both parents should be consulted, as much as practicable.

Original poster
Theemeperorsnewclothes · 22/07/2024 01:38

VerySadCase · 22/07/2024 01:38

This.

Show quote history

Agreed ❤️

OP posts:
VerySadCase · 22/07/2024 01:38

urbanbuddha · 22/07/2024 01:31

Parents don’t have rights. Children have rights.

Parents have responsibilities.

This.

Original poster
Theemeperorsnewclothes · 22/07/2024 01:34

OhHelloMiss · 22/07/2024 01:33

Exactly y this....and as it should be

Show quote history

Agreed ❤️

OP posts:
Original poster
Theemeperorsnewclothes · 22/07/2024 01:34

urbanbuddha · 22/07/2024 01:31

Parents don’t have rights. Children have rights.

Parents have responsibilities.

Agreed ❤️

OP posts:
OhHelloMiss · 22/07/2024 01:33

urbanbuddha · 22/07/2024 01:31

Parents don’t have rights. Children have rights.

Parents have responsibilities.

Exactly y this....and as it should be

urbanbuddha · 22/07/2024 01:31

Parents don’t have rights. Children have rights.

Parents have responsibilities.

Original poster
Theemeperorsnewclothes · 22/07/2024 01:24

Meadowfinch · 22/07/2024 01:17

As a single mum with primary care of my ds, I decide everything on a daily basis and do not refer to ds' dad. DS lives with me and sees his dad for a few hours a week. Ex' contribution is mainly financial, he has ds about 20 nights a year. His choice.

My 'greater rights' over the absent father are that I get to raise my son with decent values, have the opportunity to instill ds with a decent work ethic, teach him the kindness, fairness and equality that I regard as important. Ds & I chose his school, ex was not involved.

Ex has never done a school run, a parent's evening, a gp or dentist run. When ds was in paed ICU, he couldn't be bothered to get the car out (he'd been drinking) and said he was 'sure I could cope'.

I have never worried about ex's legal rights as a parent because he is too lazy to make a fuss about anything. I take ds abroad whenever I wish and generally I regard ex's views as irrelevant. He is a lazy and selfish father.

However, I accept that there is value in ex being able to, IF IT PROVED NECESSARY, go to court and exercise his rights as a parent, simply because it gives ds a second parent to fall back on - for example if I developed an addiction or chose a dodgy boyfriend etc. Ex may be a crap fall-back option but he is better than nothing.

Edited

Yeah, I’m still advocating for the single mums over here, who’s exes are using the power and control to not put their child at the centre and won’t coparent because they can, and the UK legal system supports them in that. I really hope your kids never have to experience the “fall back” option.

OP posts:
Edingril · 22/07/2024 01:20

Maybe parents should put the idea of what each would be like as parents before sex

The idea that sex comes before children should be reversed

If 2 parents create a child they should realise it is about the child not the parents and their point scoring

Original poster
Theemeperorsnewclothes · 22/07/2024 01:19

cheshirebloke · 22/07/2024 00:51

No. For a start, you appear to be suggesting that resident parents should have 'more rights' because they're usually female? The day to day stuff is the responsibility of the parent in care at the time. The only things where both parents have rights are and major decisions about the child's upbringing - school selection etc. And even then, only if they both have PR. So what extra rights do you propose the resident parent should have anyway?

@cheshirebloke I am not suggesting that resident parents should have more rights because they are “usually female” I am suggesting that they should have more rights because they are the ones upholding the welfare of the child. Only in the cases where the non resident parent mainly men/fathers, are not fulfilling their parental responsibilities/obligations.

OP posts:
Meadowfinch · 22/07/2024 01:17

As a single mum with primary care of my ds, I decide everything on a daily basis and do not refer to ds' dad. DS lives with me and sees his dad for a few hours a week. Ex' contribution is mainly financial, he has ds about 20 nights a year. His choice.

My 'greater rights' over the absent father are that I get to raise my son with decent values, have the opportunity to instill ds with a decent work ethic, teach him the kindness, fairness and equality that I regard as important. Ds & I chose his school, ex was not involved.

Ex has never done a school run, a parent's evening, a gp or dentist run. When ds was in paed ICU, he couldn't be bothered to get the car out (he'd been drinking) and said he was 'sure I could cope'.

I have never worried about ex's legal rights as a parent because he is too lazy to make a fuss about anything. I take ds abroad whenever I wish and generally I regard ex's views as irrelevant. He is a lazy and selfish father.

However, I accept that there is value in ex being able to, IF IT PROVED NECESSARY, go to court and exercise his rights as a parent, simply because it gives ds a second parent to fall back on - for example if I developed an addiction or chose a dodgy boyfriend etc. Ex may be a crap fall-back option but he is better than nothing.

Original poster
Theemeperorsnewclothes · 22/07/2024 00:55

Simonjt · 22/07/2024 00:48

Well a fair few reading comprehension issues right there.

Show quote history

Thanks for pointing out my “reading comprehension issues” it does not take away from my original point, or what I am trying to say. I am very used to these power and control tactics though.

OP posts:
cheshirebloke · 22/07/2024 00:51

No. For a start, you appear to be suggesting that resident parents should have 'more rights' because they're usually female? The day to day stuff is the responsibility of the parent in care at the time. The only things where both parents have rights are and major decisions about the child's upbringing - school selection etc. And even then, only if they both have PR. So what extra rights do you propose the resident parent should have anyway?

Original poster
Theemeperorsnewclothes · 22/07/2024 00:49

Eeeden · 22/07/2024 00:42

Both I and my DH have my children's best interests at heart. If we split up and he was good enough to let me have the children for more than 50 percent of the time making me the resident parent, that would not make him a lesser parent who should have no significant input on their lives. Some parents should have less influence but I don't agree this should always be based on whether they are the resident parent or not.

@Eeeden I agree, but unfortunately things can change very quickly when a relationship breaks down. Children must be put at the centre. In the current system in the UK, they are not.

OP posts:
Simonjt · 22/07/2024 00:48

Theemeperorsnewclothes · 22/07/2024 00:46

Exactly, the parent who is actually ‘parenting’ should have more say regarding the welfare of that child. There would be no need for power and control as the non resident parent would be working with the resident parent to put the child’s needs at the centre.

Show quote history

Well a fair few reading comprehension issues right there.

Original poster
Theemeperorsnewclothes · 22/07/2024 00:46

Simonjt · 22/07/2024 00:40

A child isn’t a play thing that one person is allowed to play with more than someone else.

A parent who thinks they should have more rights than the other parent, is likely the one who isn’t putting the needs of the child first, but instead their need for power and control over the other parent.

Exactly, the parent who is actually ‘parenting’ should have more say regarding the welfare of that child. There would be no need for power and control as the non resident parent would be working with the resident parent to put the child’s needs at the centre.

OP posts:
Eeeden · 22/07/2024 00:42

Both I and my DH have my children's best interests at heart. If we split up and he was good enough to let me have the children for more than 50 percent of the time making me the resident parent, that would not make him a lesser parent who should have no significant input on their lives. Some parents should have less influence but I don't agree this should always be based on whether they are the resident parent or not.

Simonjt · 22/07/2024 00:40

A child isn’t a play thing that one person is allowed to play with more than someone else.

A parent who thinks they should have more rights than the other parent, is likely the one who isn’t putting the needs of the child first, but instead their need for power and control over the other parent.

Original poster
Theemeperorsnewclothes · 22/07/2024 00:37

The inability to advocate for the child you know best because you don’t have the ‘rights’ to properly advocate for them, in the current legal structure in the UK, in my opinion, is unjust for resident parents. Every piece of legislation around the child, is supposed to put the child at the centre. From experience, this is almost never the case. It is about protecting parental rights. In my humble opinion, parental rights should be assessed on who is actually ‘parenting’. I don’t mean to give non resident parents/fathers less rights if they just happen to have the child less (in the majority of cases) but still are very active and supportive, and child centred. Where there is proof that the non resident parent takes very little to do with the day to day care, the logistics, the emotional and financial responsibilities of bringing up that child. They should not have the same rights and say over that child. That is putting the child at the centre and ultimately keeping them safe.

OP posts:
Original poster
Theemeperorsnewclothes · 22/07/2024 00:35

Hateam · 21/07/2024 05:57

I think this is pretty close to saying fathers should have fewer responsibilities than mothers.

That's not going to end well for women!

I am not sure why that wouldn’t end well for women. Over 90% of resident parents are mothers/women. Many receive no financial support. The statistics tell us men do have fewer responsibilities than mothers, married, living together, or not. No court in the UK ‘forces’ those responsibilities on fathers, but mothers live with overwhelming responsibilities for children every single day. I’d advocate for more rights for resident parents/mothers. I don’t think it would be detrimental at all, but liberating for many women.

OP posts:
DrCoconut · 21/07/2024 09:20

It depends on the situation. For parents who are separated but both in the child's life and acting in their best interests YABU. In cases like @zendeveloper where the other parent is largely absent and using their "rights" for being obstructive YANBU.

LlynTegid · 21/07/2024 09:14

Where most of the issues that are covered on threads on MN are raised, they seem to be where there is no formal arrangement. Where the non-resident parent threatens to use the law to bully or just take out ill-feeling on the resident parent.

CranfordScones · 21/07/2024 09:14

You don't encourage/force people to take responsibility for their own child by taking away their responsibility for their own child.

MulberryBushRoundabout · 21/07/2024 09:11

No, parents have responsibilities and children should be able to benefit from two parents meeting those responsibilities.

However, I would support some system in which deadbeat parents, or ones who weaponise their responsibility, can have their say removed or reduced.

KrisAkabusi · 21/07/2024 09:08

Theemeperorsnewclothes · 21/07/2024 02:07

You are being unreasonable has now tipped into the majority. I am really keen to understand why that would be the thought process. In what world would you advocate for a child not having their main care giver advocate for them? Their mother

Because just because you're the main care giver does not mean you are always right!

And you don't have parental rights you have parental responsibilities. It's about the child, not you.