Dads - All Rights, no Responsibility?

[Highlandheath]

Just looked on the Gov.UK website, and realised that my ex, who is a Great Enforcer when it comes to his Parental Rights, fails in ALL AREAS of Parental Responsibility.
The Government states on their Gov.UK website that Parental Responsibility requires that

1. You provide a home for your children (he does not, I do)
2. He protects and maintains the children (he does not, I do)
3. Supports them financially whether he has PR or not (he does not, I do)
4. Disciplines the children (he does not, I do)
5. Chooses and provides for the children's education (he does not, I do)
6. Agrees to child's medical treatment (has been known to disagree, otherwise he does not, I do)
7. Looks after the children's property (he does not, I do)

AIBU to think given his failure in all key areas of Parental Responsibility, his Parental Rights should be forfeit?

You are right. It's totally shit.

And despite all of that it is apparently one of the hardest things to get PR revoked from a deadbeat

i do think absent fathers should have pr removed.

I agree with you.

Has anyone ever tried to remove PR from the NRP thro courts?

My one fear is if I die twatface will want my children as he knows they’ll inherit from me he’ll do anything for money.

I think any parent who fails there parental responsibility should have the right removed

Yep. Mine doesn't do any of that either. And yet I couldn't get an emergency travel document without asking him to sign for it, he could have refused, luckily he didn't. Luckily I could find him - that wasn't necessarily a given. Estrangement doesn't seem to be a valid thing according to the government. If I didn't happen to be in contact with his mother, I would not have known if he was living or dead.

He won't let me change DS's name despite the fact he hasn't had anything to do with him for seven years. I will have to go to court to do it which will be a ballache. And ex will still have PR.

If I die DS will be taken from DH, who does all of these things and who DS actually described as being "Like a mummy, but a man" when he was three because at the time his concept of what a "daddy" was was so utterly shit, and plonked on this stranger who he only knows from photos, which I have kept because I feel it's important to be honest when DS asks questions about him.

Unless a parent is actually prevented from doing these things by way of mental/physical health, imprisonment or alienation by the other parent, PR should expire after a certain period, make it lengthy, several years, but still. I can add DH as an additional person with PR apparently but I have no legal right to request that XP's is terminated, and I don't think he can even ask for it to be terminated. Yet there is absolutely no legal recourse to make him do any of the things he's meant to be responsible for! DS's opinion holds no weight at all as he is under 11 but he doesn't want anything to do with him (for now) either.

Agree. If you don't see your kids for a number of years, PR should be taken away.

fuzzywuzzy i spoke to a solicitor about it, but basically got told it won't happen. I know of one mother who had PR removed from dad...it was removed because he violently assaulted her, physically & sexually, held her & his daughter prisoner for a week in a caravan & threatened to hand the daughter to his mates if mum tried anything 😱

I know dads who have physically or sexually assaulted their kids still be given supervised access - and keep PR - once they have left prison. Sick or what

YANBU. One of DD's friends had PR removed from her ex, but only after a sustained campaign of violence, repeated arrests, bail jumping and imprisonment. I reckon it should be set at 3 years no contact or failure to to pay maintenance on time and in full.

I think abuse, failure to pay maintenance, failure to see the child, failure to house, support etc all should lead to removal of PR, it's just control freakery if they want to retain it without any of the responsibilities....

What does failure to house mean though?
If they're not resident parent is that failure to house?

Fuzzy - I have put into my will that my sister is the trustee of money that DD inherits from me. DD can't touch it until she is 18 and my sister will have some income to make sure she is ok until then. There is a clause in it so DD can request money for something important for herself such as driving lessons and car but it won't be possible for anyone to waste it before she is old enough to get it.
Might be worth looking into for you.

Failure to house would be failure to contribute towards putting a roof over their heads, so if he isn't paying Child Maintenance then he is failing to house....

I would have thought that paying maintenance to the RP would count as contributing towards housing the child.

It does suck. I worry that if I die my absent in everything ex will just be able to trott up and take my youngest. It's a waste of benefits apparently he said to me once when he tried to take the kids off me legally.

Ok then I 100% agree. It was on a thread a while back that if people don't pay maintenance then there passport, driving license should be revoked until they do.

Seems to me that the Govt and Courts are happy as long as one parent, generally the mother, is fulfilling all areas of responsibility, will take no steps to ensure both parents fulfil their duty of Responsibility but will step in and protect completely unearned rights on behalf of fathers...

I don't particularly want people to be forced into paying, or interacting with a child. If they don't want to be involved in their life then don't be - but I do resent the fact that I still have to go back and ask for permission for things. And I can't believe that document which states that you're supposed to give updates about the child! WTF? Gladly! If they are asked for!

OP I think you have hit the nail on the head.

The US has a bit of a fucked up situation in terms of adoption but their stepparent adoption laws make much more sense than they do here. If one person doesn't want to have responsibility for a child any more and another person does, there should be the option to state this legally.

I think they should be forced to legally pay. Even of they don't want to be involved they created it so tough.

It sucks OP. My son’s dad isn’t currently involved and as he has PR he could just appear at his school and pick him up.

@NoProbLlama78 I think I’ll sort out something similar in my will too.

@mustbemad17 that’s utterly horrific.

AIBU to think given his failure in all key areas of Parental Responsibility, his Parental Rights should be forfeit?

What parental rights does he have?

I'm with you OP

I wish I could relieve my exH of PR since he clearly can't be arsed with it

But I won't ever be allowed to, and he won't ever bother to.

I've actually been screamed at before for letting him know when a school play was... because you know, that guilt tripped him into feeling bad that he didn't want to come and never had any intention even if he had of been able to. Poor him

It's the same in Australia. They have a tonne of rights but don't actually have to take responsibility. Doesn't even have to pay maintenance, but I have to ask permission to go on holiday or move cities for a better job.

Which he will say no to every time, despite having no contact. Because he loves the control. And if I want to fight it of course I'll have to send myself broke going to court, and it all depends on the judge on the day anyway - no guarantee of anything.

He has full parental rights, so, for example, he can block the children attending school, without fulfilling his parental responsibility to find them an alternative..... In my case this led to one of my children being out of school for a whole year, to another of my children being in a school where he was deeply unhappy for 18 months, while there was a place for him available at another school for that period, and writing to the head of the school to which my daughter wished to go, stating she did not qualify. He used his rights, but did not come up with or offer any alternative educational provision.... Just to be clear, all the schools are state - so no need for him to pay anything towards them, and all the schools are outstanding, so no objections based on quality of education - just being THE GREAT ENFORCER he was using his Parental Rights in these cases to maintain control, and to perpetuate abuse - and yes, the children suffered immensely from his actions, but that's not the point, he has his Parental Rights and he's going to use them!!! In relation to two of my children I had to get permission in Court to send the children to the schools they wanted to go to, and that was by no means easy, the Judge had clearly never been near a state school and had no idea that you can't keep places at any outstanding school you choose for any length of time... so at one point she told me I should go away and come back with three alternative schools for the Great Enforcer to choose from, because I have nothing better to do than act on the whims of the Great Enforcer!!! It took some really tactful and careful explaining to make her understand that it doesn't work like that. On dentists, he just refused to let the children go to the dentist they had always gone to, because: reasons.... I had to find another NHS dentist, at the moment he isn't throwing his Enforcement Powers around on that, but there's time, and I anticipate when he is bored one day that he will object to that dentist and oblige me to find another... and so on..... He has a right to contact with them, which I don't object to, but this does not come with a Responsibility to ensure that they attend GCSE exams while in his care, or even school, period! With the result that one of my children had multiple truancies while he exercised his Contact Rights, but as the parent who has residency the Truancy Officer could only fine me..... Hope you get the picture! State approved abuse....