Proposed home curfews/ travel bans for Mothers banning their ex's from seeing the children?

[WorraLiberty]

AIBU to think that the proposed amendments to the Children's Act is a bit strange when they're talking about 'Home Curfews' for Mothers who break court orders over contact?

How would this help?

I'm absolutely all for fairness and equal parenting but how will a Curfew help and I wonder how it would be Policed?

Link here

Bochead and Spero, the emphasis on a real possibility of a transfer in residency is part of the consultation :

"While the Government and the courts are clear that such orders are exceptional, different from a punitive enforcement measure and can only be made where a change in living arrangements is consistent with the child's welfare, it is important for parents to understand that this is a real possibility. We therefore intend to amend the warning notices on court forms and change court information materials to emphasise to parents, from the outset of the court process, the potential consequences of breaching an order."

well it does seem if fathers get such a hard time in this country
mothers get custody and all the financial benefits by default (in reality) in this country (regardless of the law)

Cerfew lots of single parents have no babysitter if they are out in an evening it's taxiing older DCs home from youth groups that end at 9.

They aren't off down the pub

DH pays his maintenance. He offered more but because of past problems with the mothers capability to tell the truth needed reassurance that SD was his. So, when she refused this and went to the CSA, he had to pay for a DNA test instead.

When she rarely if ever, showed up for contact, DH had no option but to take her to court, fir which he had to pay quite substantial amounts in fees and charges. She showed up, agreed to everything and then ignored the lot.

More fees and advice, back in court six weeks later. She 'apologised' as it was unfair if her to have yo di this 'short notice'. This was August, she was ordered to endure enough contact took place that staying contact took place by October. Back in court November, no staying contact, she cried and her mum shouted DH down everytime he tried to speak. Ordered to allow staying contact, but to begin with full days.

Back in court January, still no staying contact, ex has decided this might start in February. Case discharged with a reasonable contact order. To start with one night and buildup.

Two and a half years later, still at one night per week. DH will have to pay yet again to get increased contact with SD, who has asked her mum for more contact. He gets max of a weeks notice when she takes her in holiday, so not only misses his one night a week contact, but stops us from arranging anything too. An increase, say of a one-off two night visit will only ever be approved at a few days notice, so either way we can't plan anything.

Two weeks ago this impoverished single mum left her daughter without telling DH or offering increased contact. She didn't come home when SD needed lifesaving surgery, refused staying contact as she didn't trust DH to give SD her medicines (left her with grandma while she went out partying).

DH will have to go back to court (paying yet again) in order to get more contact. What will happen to the mother? She'll cry, say she didn't understand, promise to comply, ignore the orders as much as she can get away with. She'll not face any sanctions, they simply wouldn't do it. Its the same with the CSA, she was supposed to tell them when staying contact started, six months later we told them instead. We couldn't tell them sooner because she would use it in court to refuse increased contact.

Everyone loses in these cases. There needs to be a overhaul, a presumption of 50:50 and zero maintenance.

*DH pays his maintenance. He offered more but because of past problems with the mothers capability to tell the truth needed reassurance that SD was his. So, when she refused this and went to the CSA, he had to pay for a DNA test instead.

When she rarely if ever, showed up for contact, DH had no option but to take her to court, fir which he had to pay quite substantial amounts in fees and charges. She showed up, agreed to everything and then ignored the lot.

More fees and advice, back in court six weeks later. She 'apologised' as it was unfair if her to have yo di this 'short notice'. This was August, she was ordered to endure enough contact took place that staying contact took place by October. Back in court November, no staying contact, she cried and her mum shouted DH down everytime he tried to speak. Ordered to allow staying contact, but to begin with full days.

Back in court January, still no staying contact, ex has decided this might start in February. Case discharged with a reasonable contact order. To start with one night and buildup.

Two and a half years later, still at one night per week. DH will have to pay yet again to get increased contact with SD, who has asked her mum for more contact. He gets max of a weeks notice when she takes her in holiday, so not only misses his one night a week contact, but stops us from arranging anything too. An increase, say of a one-off two night visit will only ever be approved at a few days notice, so either way we can't plan anything.

Two weeks ago this impoverished single mum left her daughter without telling DH or offering increased contact. She didn't come home when SD needed lifesaving surgery, refused staying contact as she didn't trust DH to give SD her medicines (left her with grandma while she went out partying).

DH will have to go back to court (paying yet again) in order to get more contact. What will happen to the mother? She'll cry, say she didn't understand, promise to comply, ignore the orders as much as she can get away with. She'll not face any sanctions, they simply wouldn't do it. Its the same with the CSA, she was supposed to tell them when staying contact started, six months later we told them instead. We couldn't tell them sooner because she would use it in court to refuse increased contact.

Everyone loses in these cases. There needs to be a overhaul, a presumption of 50:50 and zero maintenance.*

Exactly the sort of case where you'd like to think these sanctions would be used. And anyone who thinks this sort of thing is rare is very sadly deluded.

Actually on the subject of absent fathers not paying maintenance....

I've always found it puzzling, like there's a huge imbalance on MN.

So many posters have ex's who don't pay a penny, yet they nearly all have DPs who always pay maintenance for their kids.

Either there's a huge imbalance or some people don't like to admit the men they live with, don't pay their ex's for their kids either

Financial benefits? Raising your children - you know, the small people who need feeding and clothing - on 1 wage? There's many of us juggling n struggling in reality not just name.

Yeah, I love the financial benefits of relying on income support because my ex fucked off and I can't afford childcare for three kids (had 50/50 when we first split meaning that I only paid for part time childcare for my full time, NMW job. Until he dicked around with contact deliberately to cause problems for me at work, and then finally cottoned on that we weren't getting back together, moved 400 miles away to live with a woman he barely knew and hasn't seen the kids since).

Either there's a huge imbalance or some people don't like to admit the men they live with, don't pay their ex's for their kids either

I'm sure you are right, but I also suspect that most who cheat on access or maintenance are ex-P's of nice people, rather than of each other.

Problem with both this issue and non payment of maintenance is that both are almost impossible to enforce - or at least enforcement is often a worse solution than the status quo - and those who do want to cheat the system know that only too well.

Problem with both this issue and non payment of maintenance is that both are almost impossible to enforce - or at least enforcement is often a worse solution than the status quo - and those who do want to cheat the system know that only too well.

I actually disagree. Both are enforceable. It just seems the courts / agencies tasked with the work of doing so are under resourced and or so inept and inefficient it's almost become accepted the task is impossible.

It's not, and it'll be a very sad day when the fight to get children both the access and maintenance they deserve is completely given up.

jugglinstrugglin - the financial benefits of being a lone parent? You are either having a laugh or simply totally deluded.

For every "Heather Mills" there are least 200 single Mums or Dads living in poverty with their children in the UK. (eg heat or food?, substandard accomodation, poor nutrition, no money for "luxuries" such as books or well-fitting shoes).

Having spent a few years stewing over the current practical application of the current de facto status quo - I just don't buy that enforcement is soooo difficult if the will is there. The relevant authorities have had the abiity to use effective sanctions for decades now against wilful miscreants.

If the authorities applied the same rigour to collecting maintenance payments as they do to parking fines, counci tax & VAT, societal attitudes would change over night. Likewise individuals do not routinely act in direct contempt of any other court with the same depressing regularity as they do the family court.

Expecting the tax payer to support a child that has two able-bodied parents in a family with no disabilities will be seen by future generations as the utter nonsensical approach to child-rearing that it is. As will the act of willfully denying a child the ability to foster a harmonious relationship with both parents in the abscence of any risk of abuse.

The changes would no doubt be unpopular with voters for the first couple of years, but within 12 months I honestly think the massive benefits to ALL of society, not just individual children woud start to become apparent.

I honestly think that the mid-term government that applies real rigour (not just more empty posturing) would win the whole hearted support of the British public by election time. Virtually everyone knows a family suffering the negative consequences of the current shoddy mess.

I actually disagree. Both are enforceable. It just seems the courts / agencies tasked with the work of doing so are under resourced and or so inept and inefficient it's almost become accepted the task is impossible.

I'd go along with inefficient, but what would you enforce for non access? Or the shiftless dad on the dole?

I wholeheartedly agree that a parent who repeatedly breaches a contact court order should face sanctions!!
There is no point in issuing a court order if it can be breached with no consequences for the person breaching it.

However, I strongly object to the way this is aimed at mothers!

RP's did not need to be singled out in this way. It could be as simple as 'If a person for whom a contact court order was issued is found to be breaching the order, then they will face punitive measures such as XYZ.'

Both RP's and NRP's could be held accountable then, but as usual, the RP is under attack again.

I also agree with the other posters who say that nothing has ever been done to enforce NRP's who can't be arsed with their DC's to take responsibility.

Govt had a chance here to ensure parents were made to take responsibility but instead all they have done is apportioned blame to RP's for the absent father's who don't see their DC. It is not always the RP's choice!!

FWIW, I am not convinced this will change much anyway. RP's have always known it is a possibility that they could lose residency/incur fines/be imprisoned for defying court contact orders, but the truth imo is that this rarely happens. I cannot see these new measures will happen, but for a minority of severe repeat contact blocking RP's tbh.

I've always found it puzzling, like there's a huge imbalance on MN.

So many posters have ex's who don't pay a penny, yet they nearly all have DPs who always pay maintenance for their kids.

Either there's a huge imbalance or some people don't like to admit the men they live with, don't pay their ex's for their kids either

Can I also add how strange it seems that so many mners have abusive exs, yet whenever a mner speaks about her dps ex SHE was lying about him being abusive. Strange that.

Also it's a shame that you don't have to pass a test to become a parent, it sure would solve a lot of problems.

"Having been on MN for a couple of years now, and seeing what ordinary women go through to get there ex's to actually give a shit, then yes I agree that this is a ridiculous policy."

I wrote a supporting letter to the court for a ncp father who was being given really restrictive access to his son. Whenever I saw him with his son he was fantastic with him but the boy's mother wanted to hold the reins and be in charge and she did not like the new wife (I knew her from school so this was not a he-said) and the fact they had a baby. He ended up getting joint custody, both residential and legal (because she didn't want him making any decisions about school etc either).

There are ordinary mother's who love their kids but want their ex's to go away and leave their kids alone. There are mother's who divorce because of differences in parenting and that often only gets worse when you divorce.

I think there's a clear difference between forcing someone who doesn't want contact to have contact, and preventing someone who DOES want contact from having it.

How beneficial is it for the children if the NRP is forced by the courts to see their kids? How will kids deal with the resentment and anger that the NRP will be carrying because they're the type of person who clearly cba with their own children? If someone if so far beneath being a caring human being with an active interest in their children, then are we really prepared to face the psychological effect that forced contact with these unwilling parents will have on vulnerable, hopeful children?

Chochobnob - the courts already have the power to transfer residence and have been doing it for years. Admittedly it is rare, but it can be very effective, the threa of it broke the deadlock in a particularly upleasant case where the mother had told the child he was going to be kidnapped and he had developed fear of father.

But there was also a very sad recent case where court transferred residence of an older boy, he reused to eat, so went back to his mum.

The point Is that the courts ALREADY know what the law is - a child has a right to a relationship with both parents and this should be enforced.

The problem is, the courts are NOT the agency to deal with psychological problems and the distinct lack of emotional intelligence showed by lots of parents. No adult can be forced into therapy for eg.

I go back to what I said earlier - without intervention focussed where it might actually change things, the family court system will continue to be a handy football for posturing fuckwits politicians to kick about to make it seem like they are DOING something.

I agree, they need to address both sides of the coin if they are going to try anything. You can't simply focus on mothers.

NoWay I don't want my XP to be forced to see the children, I want him charged and punished for the emotional neglect he has inflicted on them, I want to be able to seek some sort of order to say that he can't suddenly decide he wants contact and be given it and I want the ability to go to court and have his PRRs revoked.

I think there's a clear difference between forcing someone who doesn't want contact to have contact, and preventing someone who DOES want contact from having it.

I agree - and just because the deadbeat NRP is hard to solve doesn't mean we shouldn't try and solve the dificult RP problem.

Whatmeworry but I don't think you can or should separate the two issues. It is like a seesaw, the whole thing must balance. There is no point just going after unpleasant mothers if you leave the issue of fathers who walk away untouched.

Don't you ever wonder how some of these mothers got so oppositional to these fathers? On the face of it the fathers look like 'nice' guys but looking back over the history of their relationship and how they treated their ex and their children, I sometimes have some sympathy for the 'hostile' mothers who are often left in poverty.

There is a massive amount of hurt and bitterness floating around the end of relationship break downs and again, the court is woefully ill equipped to manage this. I am fed up of hearing judges telling my clients just to get on with it, when a mother may be facing the end of a relationship through no choice of her own, a father who showed little interest in caring for his child pre separation and is now in competition for daddy of the year etc, etc.

Its not just the Jeremey Kyle regulars who find it hard to cope with parenting alongside an ex. We as a society seem very unprepared to educate our children about relationships and all their consequences, both good and bad.

If stringent measures are going to be taken to enforce court orders, then we'd better be bloody sure that the court orders re contact are appropriate. And that means putting more resources into CAFCASS so that they can ensure that safeguards are put into place around contact with a parent who has a history of abuse. I think there are some mother portrayed as withholding contact out of spite who are doing it out of genuine concern for the welfare of the dcs (not denying that some are acting just out of spite). It's a kind of self-help measure where they feel let down by CAFCASS.

As it happens, I am not one of those women, but part of me thinks I should be. I have never denied contact, even though I am genuinely concerned about DD's emotional welfare with her father. He is prone to rages, puts himself first, and at the moment is engaged in an outright campaign to brainwash DD (4) against me, telling her that her mummy doesn't love her, doesn't feed her properly, lies to her etc. He is a toxic person to be around, but the more I try to resist contact, the more he gets the battle-light in his eye. I'm trying to take the path of least harm. The idea that throwing in a few legal sanctions would help this situation - ha.

Laws can't make families better. We need family law, but there's no point in having unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved.

I've always found it puzzling, like there's a huge imbalance on MN.

So many posters have ex's who don't pay a penny, yet they nearly all have DPs who always pay maintenance for their kids.

I've always found it puzzling, like there's a huge imbalance on MN. So many posters have ex's who don't pay a penny, yet they nearly all have DPs who always pay maintenance for their kids.

I suspect once bitten twice shy!

But, I did a little lunchtime experiment which may be useful.

Imagine that 1/3rd of all ex partners (of either sex, residency etc) are "Difficult". By the balance of probability, 2/3 x 2/3 = 4/9 would have "non difficult" relationships with an Ex as neither are difficult people.

But - that implies that even if "difficult" Exes are a minority - 1/3rd or 3/9ths here - you would still have a far larger number - 5/9ths (a majority of relationships in this case) - who would have a "difficult" Ex-P in one form or another.

...and that 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/9 you would have 2 difficult people, so a certain proportion of those on MN moaning about feckless ex-partners are bound to be difficult cahs themselves :)