To ask if you would agree with a law forcing absent parents to step up?

Absolutely not. If they don't want time with their children, they shouldn't be forced. That is not beneficial to the children in question at all.

I would support changing the law to force absent parents to go to work enough that they can pay a decent amount of childcare support to the resident parent, for their children.

If absent parents aren't doing any childcare whatsoever, they have plenty of time to make a decent living. That obviously goes for mums as well as dads

What I think people are resentful about is that people can have children without taking responsibility for them. They can essentially abandon them and waltz away, leaving others to pick up the pieces.

So what we really want is accountability, without forcing children to endure the company of disinterested or actively harmful parents.

I'd be in favour of a minimum level of child maintenance, set at a reasonably high level.

If absent parents can't pay it, then the state pays it for them and the absent parents do compulsory community work at the weekend to contribute towards the cost of this.

My ex got someone pregnant while cheating on me with her during a short lived affair. She decided to keep the child and he was guilt tripped by family into being a father to it. He was awful to both the mother and child because he was so resentful and uninterested. He eventually stepped away when the child was a toddler and hasn’t seen him since because he eventually realised that it was better for the child to have no father than a father that actively resented his existence. He pays child maintenance because he has to not because he wants to! I feel sorry for the child having a father who couldn’t care less and a mother who should have thought more carefully who she chose as the father of her child.

Ridiculous notion. An absent parent being forced to see their child or children will be resentful and bitter if they previously chose to stay away doe whatever reason.

How would it work with all the bitter women who out of spite make it as difficult as possible for the father of their child or children to see his children?

How would that work?

New laws are all well and good, it’s enforcing them that’s the problem 🤔

How on earth is that ever going to work and who is going to police it?!? 😆🤦🏻‍♀️

Oh god no, if there was a law saying parents HAVE to see their children i would have to move countries, i stopped contact with my ex 2 years ago and no way i would allow him contact again even if it was law xx

I think its hard to generalise. Perhaps there are cases where it would be beneficial, because the parent being compelled to spend time their their child is actually a decent person who just lost their nerve and panicked when they found out they were going to be q parent. And once they meet their child, they will actually settle into the role and do well.

(Mr ExH very nearly left me when I was pregnant as he could not cope with the idea of being a dad. But he stayed and is now an absolutely excellent parent who gladly shares 50/50 care of our child).

However, in some cases it would put the child at emotional or physical risk to force a reluctant parent to be around them.

(I found out when I was too deep into my most recent failed relationship, that the man had a child he never saw - he blamed the mother but of course I quickly saw through him - he was a man who never took responsibility for anything. I genuinely believe, had he been forced to be in his child's life, he would have damaged her, he was such a controlling, manipulative, nasty man. Thank God I got away from him before he could harm me further, and I imagine the mom of his child felt the same, and was delighted to be NC with him. Certainly I believ she never pursued him, even for maintenance. Probably did not date..... )

100% no! And if a parent doesn't want to engage with their kids forcing time on them won't help. Best thing my ex did for his children was walk away

This. If they haven't paid maintenance their name should be listed with their banks, marked in the same way as someone who is bankrupt, so that a set % of incoming funds are immediately filtered out to support their kids.

No, not for parenting - we have only just managed to change the law from assuming both parents are safe around kids because they are related.
Having been through the Court system it is depressing how young kids aren't given a voice if they are scared of a parent and mental health issues (even if clearly unmedicated) for example are completely ignored unless they have been in trouble with the law. Now the agencies can look at the safety of the child, which should have always been paramount.

Absolutely not.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately as DD8's father left a year ago and has seen her only erratically since. Up until that point he was a very present, loving father. I agree that it is incredibly unfair that he has been allowed to abandon her with no consequences, forcing me into being a single parent, when if I also walked out I would (rightly) be held accountable by law. However, the presumption of the Family Court is that it's damaging for a child for a parent to be forced to see them, for many reasons, and I agree with this.

But I do think that are ways the process could be improved a lot. There's currently no requirement in a divorce process for there to be a child arrangements order or even a parenting plan submitted to the court. I do think that if my exH was required to put in writing his (lack of) contact arrangements and give a reason for this, then that would help quite a lot.

Absolutely not. If a parent doesnt want to be a parent, being forced to parent only causes resentment & possibly putting the child in the line of being abused or neglected.

No, ime, as a child, i was very pleased he fucked off abroad, never to be seen again.
Same with my friend, her childrens "dad" hung around, constantly letting them down, very damaging, they hate him now.

Fathers and Mothers should want to be parents, no amount of "forcing" will make a shit parent a decent one.

BUT it should be made v easy for an absent parent to have contact with their child when they truly want too and act properly.

We have a formula for deciding the cost of children’s basic needs: the national foster care allowance. That should be the minimum for every child, split in half between parents.

benefits for children would go to both parents on a 50/50 basis so a non resident parent on benefits would no longer be paying a paltry £5 a week.

The penalties for not paying maintenance would be high

If you want to encourage parents to physically step up for their children you mandate an additional payment for parents who do less than X percent childcare.

At the same time it also makes all families consider the impact of another child in a new relationship as maintenance doesn’t drop.

Increases tax receipts as no motivation to hide income if for example self employed

The downside is families where the other parent is genuinely able to avoid paying eg dead, are not known eg donor conceptions, move abroad and there would have to be benefit adjustments for these families to ensure children had sufficient money as these parents were paying alone.

The biggest downside for the government is that benefits would also genuinely have to meet children’s needs. On the other hand it would tackle child poverty most effectively and highlight how many families raise children on insufficient income for their needs.

Whilst I agree that it isn’t in a child’s best interest to spend time with an unsuitable parent, I think it’s often less clear-cut than that.

My children’s father is fine with them whilst he has them every other weekend. They definitely benefit with having a relationship with their dad and I benefit a lot from having a small amount of child free time.

It is very difficult to be a great parent while having young children full time and working full time.

Their dad won’t have them during the week because he doesn’t like doing the morning routine and school run or homework, bedtime etc. I don’t particularly like some of these bits either and having to do all the parenting in the week is hugely detrimental to my career but I can’t force him. If their dad doesn’t want to have them on his weekend, he can just not pick them up and there’s nothing I can do about that.

There are countries which have a legal presumption of 50/50 custody. In those circumstances it is probably much harder for fathers to wriggle out of the harder parts of parenting - they would have to argue in court that they don’t want the children 50/50 if the mum agreed it. I’m not sure that this is the best approach legally - there are lots of issues with it. But there are also issues with a system which basically forces all the day to day parenting on (usually) the mum with the father being allowed to choose to do the nice parts as and when they want to.

They should definitely be forced to pay up. Children are a bit too fragile to be forced onto useless adults.

I think it should be a flat rate that then rises for higher earners. We are always seeing people on here who are getting around £2 per week for a child, which is ridiculous and insulting. If you made a child, they should be the priority, if you have to go without something or sell something to support them then that's what you do. That's what parents should do.

It is actually quite disturbing to think the op thinks a law forcing a shit parent to spend time with his children is a good idea

Of course not.
Maintenance should be enforced, not contact.