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

When you say the RP should have "more rights", how far does that go? The RP gets to decide schools? The RP gets to decide if they're going to move a couple of hundred miles away? The RP gets to decide what the children are named? Please be specific about what decisions you want the RP to have sole authority for.

I agree that it would make sense that the resident parent has a tie breaker vote.
I am going through a nightmare now with the children's father trying to agree on the secondary school choice, and it is likely to end up in court - I just pray that some solution is found before the application date. He does not really see them (a few times a year), does not pay maintenance, lives on the opposite side of the country, but has a very strong opinion apparently on which school suits them.
The only valid choice apparently is either private or a superselective state 90 minutes away - for a very sensitive non-independent child with SEN who is below average academically in most areas. It is absolutely nuts that our opinion has the same weight in this matter.

Both parents have parental responsibility and should, therefore, parent. That's in the child's interest. Of course YABU.

This.

My partner was non resident parent. He lost his home, rented nearby, financially supported, saw his children almost every day. She cheated, kept family home, he had to rent then gradually started at the bottom again. Adults now and they have a fantastic relationship with him.

Also, some people weaponise children, they use them, they aren't honest in why they broke up. His children still don't know she had an affair and kicked him out. He's not bitter and telling them serves no purpose.

My brother had a terrible marriage she beat him, he also lost everything. He held onto the relationship with his children though. He still rents whereas ex wife again kept family home.

There are lots of lovely men who lose out massively. They are still fathers to their children.

Of course both parents should have shared advocacy.

Yes, what everyone else says!

Sorry op.... not going how you wanted it too really is it

This would just hurt loving and involved non-resident parents and tbh just add even more responsibility to resident parents who are dealing with a deadbeat ex.

One of the real fixes for single parents with a reluctant or absent non-resident partner/ex would be to massively beef up the amount of CMS and the ability to collect it from the other parent.

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

That's not going to end well for women!

A resident parent with a lives with CAO has certain extra rights - no need for consent to take the child abroad for example.

But yes I agree. Its absolutely ridiculous that an deadbeat father can be absent for years and demand equal say.

But some "non resident" parents can be 50/50 care. They aren't all deadbeats who take their child begrudgingly for one night a week

They also deserve to advocate for their child...

In a world where mothers can be overly anxious and make decisions based on that rather than the best interests of the children or where mothers can use their children to hurt non resident parents after they have been hurt themselves. Sometimes loving and involved parents don’t live with their children though no fault of their own.

Parents don’t have rights. Children have rights. If children need an advocate in the legal system, where parents aren’t in agreement, that advocate should be independent.