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

Totally agree Spero.

Is it likely that all parents will ever be held accountable rather than just mothers though? And what could make that happen?

I think you start young. Try to get children thinking about relationships, what's good for them, what they want. Improve interventions for struggling families before they break up. Make it socially unacceptable for men to father children then walk away.

I dunno. Unless you forcibly sterilise some people I can't see what the easy answer is. But I know that blaming and shaming mothers only will achieve nothing other than give Matt O'Connor a nice warm feeling in his pants.

Compulsory psychotherapy? More family judges so tha cases can be heard quickly? It's the long wait for hearings that cause problems to become entrenched.

People need more emotional intelligence basically. And I don't know how we can improve on that. But there are many ways to make it worse, and we will be living thru quite a few of them it seems.

The point of this legislation is to equalise the potential consequences of actions by each sude. You want fathers picking up litter for missing material possessions? Ok, then mothers should be picking up litter while the father is actually allowed contact with the child.

Sorry I sound like I'm drip-feeding, I'm trying to info in one post. Again, in our case, DHs ex rarely has her child overnight on a weekend, and SD stays out one weeknight also. Her mother looks after her four nights a week, her grandmother two nights a week, and us one night a week. She refuses any further contact with us because she doesn't get much time with SD and claims its too confusing for SD to be taken to school by anyone but her greatgrandfather. DH wasn't even allowed to defend against anything she said in court. Told to communicate with her better. This woman tells DH nothing (SDs school, who is looking after her, her health a week after lifesaving surgery).

The CSA are straight on him if he's even a day late with his payments (a free service to her), but if she withholds contact he has to pay to return to court and try to get change. There needs to be a prescriptive starting point of contact in law (as there is in financial provision) which can then be altered in individual circumstances, which proper sanctions, rather than the 'you can have what I tell you' situation both myself and chocolatehobnob find ourselves in.

lets start with a presumption of innocence on both sides. Each parent equally capable of looking after the children. Each parent responsible for the children 50% of the time, so no money need change hands. Rather than the current 'mother responsible fir care, father responsible for money' situation we have.

I personally do not think 50/50 is necessarily a good thing. I would have hated it as a child, I would hate having to do similar as an adult, it would not be the right thing for my children and I would fight hard against it.

When we did 50/50 it was all in my home (XP was homeless) which suited the kids fine, but it imploded for a variety of reasons. XP now lives too far away even for basic contact visits, but if it was hypothetically on the table I would rather be the NRP than the children have to do 50/50.

I absolutely wanted to co-parent with him, unfortunately he saw this as me "using" him, and felt that as it was my decision to end the relationship the children were now entirely my responsibility. He used his contact with the children to punish and control me, and he absolutely damaged our eldest just as much as if I had withheld contact. Yet if he took it court, this would likely be ignored in favour of giving him another chance because of their right to a relationship with him. And I don't even have the option of taking him to court first, however expensive an option that may be. Because he isn't seeing them, I have nothing to seek a court order for, so I just have to wait and hope that his new family is enough distraction for him. I have spent over 6 months chasing him to see them, and now I am done and I would like some legal closure on it. I don't want him punished for "missing material possessions", I want him punished for the damage he has done to them and I want him kept as far away as possible so he never has the chance to do it again. There are no consequences for what he's done.

Aside from that, if 50/50 is what is going to be used as a base mark upon separation then surely it has to be from the point the baby is born? If one parent has given up their job and career progression due to a mutual decision for them to be the main carer (and in the process enabling the other parent to maintain their career progression by the provision of free and flexible childcare) then that parent absolutely should be compensated for their financial sacrifice by the other parent.

For 50/50 to be the "norm" on separation, it first has to be the norm in together families. Both parents need to make use of flexible working requests, part time hours, unpaid parental leave, taking annual leave to cover childcare in the summer holidays. Both parents need to take equal roles at home, not one parent "helping" the other. I am not referring to your case specifically Anita as obviously I know nothing about it other than what has been posted here, but thinking of cases that have been in the media such as that of Louis de Bernieres who spent a lot of time travelling away from home leaving his wife at home looking after the house and children, yet expected that when he and his wife split he should get 50/50 custody of them. I find that to be a ridiculous assertion, and I fail to see how removing children from their main carer 50% of the time is in their best interests, especially when those children might already be confused and upset at their parents' split.

Totally agree optimistic.

Anita - missing a birthday has nothingnto do with being materialistic, and I am sorry you interpret it in that way.

A father who fails to acknowledge his child on their birthday is basically telling that child he doesn't care, they don't matter. A child doesn't need expensive presents. A child needs love and time from both parents. I am sorry you are in such a painful position but you see unable to recognise the other side of the equation.

Fathers are often seen as the money providers because they don't give up work to have children, they don't tend to step off the career ladder for several years to raise them. And that is probably the biggest reason why 50/50 care will never work - we just don't have the employment structure in this country to make it feasible.

We do 50-50 and have shared-care and it works wonderfully.

But I married a feminist who, didn't see the children as more hers than mine, was no way in a million years going to become financially dependent on me, and was very happy for me to take on a very active role in the raising of the children, so it wasn't important that I had to be ambitious at work, so I could reduce my hours.

And I didn't have children with an arse, and I'd like to think nor did she.
So men, marry a feminist.

I think 50-50 will become the norm eventually, but men and women will need to want it to work, and at the moment not many do.

And I didn't have children with an arse, and I'd like to think nor did she.

I think this is the key, I did have children with an arse

I'm not saying 50/50 an never work btw, I'm sure it works great for some families/children, just that I don't think it should be the "starting point" in all contact disputes.

Huasangain, that is brilliant and and I am am glad it is working for you. Sadly it is rare and I fear will remain so as both parents have to want it and make it work.

I am a feminist, have always paid my way, even when on maternity leave I paid half my exes mortgage because I thought that was 'fair'. Unfortunately I had a child with someone who turned out to be a gigantic arse, a the time I didn't know that, I thought he loved us but just had an unfortunate way of showing it sometimes.

He now lives on the other side of the world and sees his daughter about 4 weeks a year. I would love to do 50/50 care - she grieves for him every day, it is having a massive impact on her self esteem. And selfishly, I would love a lie in every other weekend and the chance to go to the cinema without it costing me loads in babysitting.

I don't think we set out to procreate with arseholes. Sometimes we find out too late someone's true colours or we are so desperate to find love and a family that we stick our heads in the sand. And then it all implodes messily.

I am afraid many fathers just don't want to get involved with the drudgery of full time child care. They want to pickup the children and drop them off at times that suit them, they treat them like toys.Loius de berniers is a case in point. He apparently swanned off for months a a time when in a relationship then expected all his wishes about child care to be granted - and then fantasised about killing his ex when she didn't agree.

Great post Spero.

Can I just point out that these proposals have nothing to do with any notion or assumption of 50/50 contact after separation!

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as fixated. I should probably explain that I am incredibly serious about the focus on material goods. That's a adult issue at the end of the day. As a child my parents split and mum made it very difficult to the point of impossible for my dad to see us (this was told to me by her solicitor btw). He gave up. I didn't care about cards or presents, just for him to be there. My mum took great pleasure in pointing out the lack of cards and presents. At one point she was ordered to give us some cards he had brought to court. She took great pleasure in telling us how she ripped them up and left them on the court steps for him to see.

Now I see a man desperately trying to be there for his daughter, and being frustrated at every turn by a woman whose only care is winning. This, as I see it is the current state of the court system. One parent wins, the other loses. In many cases the child also loses a parent.

Maybe if it was started from a position of equality, and the parents were made or expected to work from there things just might work out for the children.

I know Olgaga, I was responding to Anita's post that she would prefer 50/50 to be the default.

Financial support is absolutely not an adult issue. Deliberately not providing financial support to your children is financial abuse. If I did not ensure my children were well cared for then I would be guilty of neglect. My XP can deliberately make himself not liable for child maintenance and again, face no consequences.

As Spero rightly pointed out, the birthday card issue is not about the card or present itself, but about the message it gives to the child. My kids are lucky that at least their father manages a card on their birthdays and some presents at Christmas, although I think that's more about appearances to him than anything. Easier to get Moonpig to send a card than it is to admit you were wrong, make some financial sacrifices and visit your children regularly.

Maybe if it was started from a position of equality, and the parents were made or expected to work from there things just might work out for the children.

I agree, Optimistic. That's the main issue which dictates residence and contact. There is no equality in child-rearing. In the vast, vast majority of cases it is women who are the primary carers, certainly in the first five years - which is when most couples are likely to separate.

Residence and contact after separation is commonly based on what arrangements were in place before separation, as well as what is actually manageable for the separated parents.

It seems to me that far too many men are under the mistaken impression that they had 50% of the care of children prior to separation, simply because they made up 50% of a couple of parents.

Anita, I just don't think any societal expectations, law or sanctions could have improved your childhood experience.

I have just seen a friend of mine try and pick up his DC for court appointed contact again.

He is having the same success as he has had every fortnight since they split.

His Ex has gone out again, she does a variation on this every fortnight, out for the day, goes to friends, visits her parents for the weekend etc.

The all time low IMHO was when she organised DC's friends to come round for the day, he wasn't/isn't allowed in the house so had to listen to all the laughter and fun from the door step whilst Ex told him that if he took DC he would be spoiling their day.

I saw my mum allowed to legally abuse my dad to the point he gave up. No sanctions were ever imposed against her. I see my DHs ex abuse my DH on a regular basis. There is nothing can be dine about this?

I said make each parent responsible for 50% of care as a starting point. Make parents work together, as they would when together to make it work. My DH has Always worked odd hours, his ex, a fixed 9-5. He offered to save her a fortune in childcare. She preferred day care. My DD spends maybe two sessions in daycare a week where our shifts overlap. When SDs mum is at work DH isn't allowed any extra contact during holidays because the ex doesn't want him to and doesn't have to provide it.

Men are allowed to walk away. There is no expectation that they are involved in the day-to-day care of the child. Give them more responsibility and involvement. Even if it does lead to bizarre non-standard court orders, the children get to spend more time with whichever parent is available, what's wrong with that?

Boneybackjefferson - this is what DHs ex used to do (actually she'd text him 20-30 mins before agreed contact and rearrange). And what my mum would do to my dad too. So, 25years on and responsible fathers still aren't allowed meaningful relationships with children, feckless parents of both sexes can continue to screw up kids whichever way they choose to without fear of repercussions, and the kids still lose :(

I agree with you Anita. The law should be enforced but I think we need to send out the message much earlier about the need and obligation on both parents to care for their children, emotionally, physically and financially.

But I agree with olgaga, I am not sure what could be done about your situation, other than to change residence to the father or put the mother in prison.

This is a good thoughtful article.

pinktape.co.uk/rants/family-justice-narratives-no-5/

Thanks for that link, a very good article, spot on about everything.

Well until 50/50 residence and contact is the norm then something should be done but maybe this is over the top.