'Permissive' mother loses custody

[VampyreofTimeandMemory]

news.uk.msn.com/uk/permissive-mother-loses-custody

AIBU to think this can't just be about her so-called parenting style? I genuinely didn't realise that irregular bedtimes and video games were reasons enough to have a child removed from a parent's care. I agree that it seems as though the father should have had increased contact but doesn't it seem a bit harsh on the mother who 'doubtlessly loves her children'?

[RunRabbit]

VampyreofTimeandMemory But you were the primary carer, right?

[WorraLiberty]

Yes they do.

How often do fathers get custody unless there is a problem with the mother's parenting/health etc?

Even on MN (and in general life) if a woman says she's fallen out of love with her DH and wants to leave him...it's always assumed she'll take the kids.

The courts are no different in that view really.

I'm not talking about 50/50 custody, i'm talking about a father getting full custody when there's nothing wrong with the mother's parenting.

It hardly ever happens.

[HmmAnOxfordComma]

I agree completely with Worra.

There's a huge difference between giving custody to the father and taking children into care. If he's the better parent, he should have the children. End of story.

An acquaintance of ours, upstanding member of the community, good job, blah de blah, took 6 years through the courts to get his children from their heroin addicted, neglectful mother.

It's just not right.

[WorraLiberty]

worra, was simply wondering whether this judge would have been concerned enough to rule that they should be taken into care, if the father wasn't around...

Ok but I don't know what that has to do with this case?

The father appears to be the better parent so it makes sense the kids live with him.

The mother appears to be neglectful, unable to discipline or put the kids health first.

But lots of kids live with mothers like that and just end up getting on with it. It's not really a good enough reason to take them into care unless they start raising red flags by committing crime/not attending school etc.

[VampyreofTimeandMemory]

no rabbit why would you make that assumption? there was no primary carer, we just both were.

re the hypothetical situation in which the kids are taken into care. what I'm curious about is whether or not the mother's parenting would be considered - if the father was out of the picture - to be having such a negative impact that she shouldn't be caring for them anymore. what would happen if this were the case, nothing?

I don't think anything I've said warrants any condescending responses, I must say .

[IneedAwittierNickname]

There must be more to this than what's in the article imo.

My ex tells anyone who will listen that I don't bath the dc often enough, I like to think a judge wouldn't take him at hos word.
He also claims I neglect their health as ds1 has a lot.of verrucas, actually I've taken him to the Dr about them more than once, she told me not to worry.

Would the dc in the article be better with their father? Well if the article is true then it looks that way.

[TheCrackFox]

I think there must be much more than in the article too. It is more likely that it was chaotic parenting rather than permissive.

TBH - if it is only permissive and the dad has gained custody because of this then he is in for one huge shitstorm as the eldest is 14yrs old. They are often a law unto themselves.

[VampyreofTimeandMemory]

I think the general consensus is that there is indeed more to this.

that's what I mean though nickname, in this article, it seems to be dad's word vs mum's word. Obviously, it's just not very detailed but when my ex and I were in Court, I was told that issues such as these were trivial in the great scheme of things.

I'm sure they'd be better off with their father, I just thought that going from mother having full 'custody' to having just contact seemed a bit extreme considering the concerns mentioned in the article.

[TheCrackFox]

I wonder if the children's views were taken in to account as is usual for this age group?

[FlockOfTwats]

I think the content in the article alone is enough that residence would be transferred to the father, and i think it is the best decision.

Things such as;

But in 2012 the man asked a court to allow the boys to live with him - complaining that contact was "regularly refused". - If the contact was court ordered especially, this means a court ruled it in the interests of the child to have contact. You need very good reasons and proof that you are reasonable restricting contact - In the form of a doctors note, crime reference etc. If she had been able to demonstrate through these means that she had reason to disallow contact it would not have been taken into account. It was taken into account so she must not have had good reason and therefore she is putting her childrens needs aside to fulfill her ownagenda.

The man said he was worried about his sons' dental and medical needs being neglected He will have had to provide proof for this, which is easily done.

that they were "left to play computer games" and had "irregular bedtimes". This will have probably been backed up by the boys themselves.

For the judge to say what he did and accept the fathers evidence, it will have been proper evidence. There doesn't need to be 'anymore' to it. she was not willing to meet these needs, he was. its as simple as that.

[FlockOfTwats]

I was told that issues such as these were trivial in the great scheme of things.

It depends how they are put across and what sort of evidence they have, and the age of the child. An irregular bedtime for a two year old would be considered insignificant. A child in school though it is significant because they then aren't having a basic need met - which is either education if the child is too tired to go, or sleep if the child is forced to go instead of sleeping.

Dental and medical things, they will only be taken into account with evidence. The court will have requested the childrens records. The Dad would have been found out if he was lying, it is never a good idea to lie about medical things to court.

[DonnaDishwater]

I think custody should be decided by someone that has read reports on both parents without their being any indication of gender involved.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

If both parents want full residency and no 50/50 agreement (or is not in the child's best interests) can be reached then without a doubt the better parent should get full residency.

It sounds very much like that has happened based on the limited information given.

[bochead]

Children have a fundamental right to a relationship with both parents.

If one parent is restricting contact, out of spite and the other parent is willing to facilitate contact then - isn't it only in the children's best interest that they live with the parent who is willing to uphold the CHILD's basic rights?

The only exception to this is obviously in the case of abuse/violence etc, etc.

In this case neither parent was deemed abusive, however one parent was found less suitable than the other in terms of

1/ Ensuring that the child's right to a relationship with both parents was maintained.
2/ Ensuring that the child was given appropriate medical and dental care.
3/ Was of sound enough mental health to ensure the children's emotional security.

(The mother suffering from manic depression was alluded to in the article. If she wasn't taking the kids to the docs when needed, was she taking her own medication? Children stay with their Dad during Mother's illness doesn't have the sleazy tabloid ring to it same as "permissive" does it? ).

If key, documented aspects of their care (notably access to their Dad, and the GP) were OK, then I very much doubt bedtime, disciplinary styles etc would even have been mentioned. It just makes a good headline to call the mother "permissive" for the judgey- panty -suck- a -lemon brigade.

All of these points would have required by the court to have had strong evidence behind them from professionals and independent witnesses. (e.g You can't just declare your ex a loon, a proper qualified shrink has to agree with you & put in writing for the court!).

The mother will still see her children, they just won't live with her full time. The case was always about the welfare of the kids not the egos of the parents.

[WhiskyTangoFoxtrot]

"I am satisfied that there is a failure to provide proper guidance and boundaries essential for the social and emotional development of these pre-adolescent and adolescent boys. Further, I have real concerns about her as a role model.''

This leapt out at me. It is 'code' for these near-teens being so far off the rails already (no proper social boundaries) that a change of course is needed.

What is proposed here is much more in the children's interests than waiting until the criminal justice system is involved.

I do not agree with a lingering presumption that children should remain with a mother after a parental split. And it certainly shouldn't be a news story when children are moved from one parent to another when there is no suggestion that the reasons for the move are unsound in the specific case, nor unreasonable in the abstract.