AIBU to think that parental responsibility should become dormant if an absent parent doesn't bother?

[TurnTurnTurn]

My mind has been turning this over all morning now after another thread on this board about a single parent being asked for a "consent to travel" letter from the other (absent, alcoholic) parent.

From the wider replies on the other thread, it seems that the current law in this area is a blunt instrument and not always fit for purpose. It sounds like those with ill-intent could easily get around it (fake letters and other comms) but that many traveling as part of normal life are being adversely affected, esp. single parents.

I do agree with the principle of the law requiring input and oversight of decision-making around DC overall, and generally it benefits the child to keep both parents involved, but I know how insulting and demeaning it can feel as the sole parent to be asked repeatedly for the permission of a "deadbeat" or otherwise permanently absent ex for some DC life-decision. These requests can come from schools, GPs, clubs as well as staff at airports and other border points.

From a single parent perspective, it would be useful if there was a way in which parental responsibility went into "dormancy" if the absent parent were entirely uninvolved in the child's life. So, for example, if there were no shared residency, no attempt to arrange or maintain contact, and no child maintenance paid over a certain number of years, PR would automatically become dormant, unless the absent parent later successfully applied for a court order to revive it.

As a poster on the other thread indicated, this isn't just about people being irritated at another layer of bureaucracy and box ticking to satisfy a one-size-fits-all law, there are single parents who are afraid to contact ex partners because they are dangerous or unable to contact them because they're entirely off the radar.

I understand that it is very, very hard to get PR permanently removed. I imagine it would also be a long, involved and expensive process which would likely inflame some already volatile situations.

Would a "use it or lose it" approach to PR with a dormancy option be fairer, simpler and easier to administer?

NB I'm not a lawyer. I'm a single parent wondering if and how the current system could be improved so that normal people living normal lives aren't pointlessly stymied and restricted to no one's benefit.

This is the thread that got me thinking:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3830476-Aibu-requiring-consent-of-deadbeat-exh-to-travel?pg=1

YANBU, it would need to be done carefully but there should be a way to make your idea workable.

It's a difficult one, my ex husband is absent of his own choice, my daughter is moving schools, so even though he isn't involved day to day or even month to month I had to put him down as he is legally her parent. My husband on the other hand can be an emergency contact yet he does everything for her. I could have left the field blank or lied and put my dh but she's his dad and one day may just come through for her and its for me to take that away. So I agree no but it's how it is

IMO if there has been no contact or maintenance for over 2 years PRR should be removed.

If that parent later wants it back they can apply to court and show good reason.

Not for me to take that away it should read

I know what you mean with the school forms, Chenin. It's very frustrating and doesn't reflect DC's actual life and care.

My ex hasn’t seen my child in over 6 years! His choice! He also pays nothing towards him.
I didn’t put him down on the school forms and will not in the next school he goes to as it’s a ‘stranger’ to my child. The school have not questioned it at all and I have just added 2 other family members as emergency contacts.
The only problem we have is holidays! I am seeing a solicitor this week to find out where I stand, it’s not fair on a child not to be able to go abroad because of a absent parent and enjoy holidays with family but the absent parent can do what they want when they want without any consideration to ‘their child’.
I strongly agree that a Parents responsibility should be withdrawn if they provide nothing towards the child in any way after a set period of time. No one should be allowed that power over another human being without doing the day to day stuff

I would love this to happen. My ex has been fully absent for coming up to 3 years now. He has not seen my children at all, and doesn’t pay a penny in maintenance (doesn’t work or claim benefits Apparently ) he was physically abusive also. He decided himself that he didn’t want anymore contact with them. But he is on the BC so by law I need his permission for travelling abroad. Due to his abusive behaviour I do not wish to contact him and I don’t even want to give him the satisfaction as he would love to know that he still had “control” even though he is absent. There really does need to be some kind of law around parental responsibility and absent parents. My youngest is almost 3 and he hasn’t seen her since she was a new born.

Couldn't agree more. My teens have actively opted for NC with their father for several years. Yet PR means he can access their school records against their wishes. School told them until 18 he can keep seeing info about them... It should absolutely go dormant particularly where 'children' old enough to choose are concerned. It really bugs me but is of course a very fixed legal principle.

Actually if anyone knows if school here is being unreasonable let me know... They said it's 'complicated'...

Oh I wish

My ex didn't see his kids for 8 years, he didn't pay a penny maintenance at all (13 yrs) he didn't even visit his dd when she was on life support in hospital, but he still took me court and succeeded in getting a court order to prevent me from taking them or letting them go out of the country, basically I couldn't get a passport for either until they turned 18. I know damn well he only did it to get at me but it was his children that suffered, they couldn't go on school trips, with the schools support I went back to the courts for that one but they upheld the original order. We were offered a week in Miami tagging along with a now ex bf and his work, we couldn't go.

I dont get why he had to do it, regardless I've never had any intention of leaving the country and if we had it would have been for holidays only. I don't know who I was more angry at though. My kids dad or the magistrates for allowing this nonsense.

Obviously it's too late for my now grown up children but if there is anyone out there being treated how we were then it's wrong and seriously needs sorting.

I believe it would be reasonable to have a dormancy rule built in. If you don’t pay maintenance or use your visitation for x number of years, then resident parent can go to court and get a judge to say that parental rights are now restricted. So the resident parent would not be obligated to hand over a child for visitation when an absent parent turned up out of the blue, resident parent would get free permission to make medical and education decisions, etc. also, in event of resident parent death, custody would not automatically revert to deadbeat parent.

At any point in time deadbeat would be able to go to court and ask for rights and responsibilities to be restored and judge could do things like require supervised visitation to start and have deadbeat show consistency before really being let back into child’s life.

Actually, I think it should be standard that when anyone can prove abusive or controlling behaviour from the ex, the ex should automatically have their ability to exercise their parental rights rescinded. Perhaps that is the next stage for legislation, now that the law accepts emotional abuse and coercion as abusive behaviour as, as PP have pointed out, abusive NRPs will use the children to continue to abuse and control whenever possible.

@DimplesToadfoot

Oh I’m so sorry that happened to you and your children! That has scared me that my ex will do the same

How could a court let him stop you from going when he had no contact with your children or paid anything!!?!? That’s just crazy!

Oh that’s awful ControlledScouse I refuse to get the court order As I don’t see why I should have to pay that money. My ex actually told me not to contact him unless it’s an emergency, holidays aren’t emergencies. He doesn’t want contact so I can’t chase him for it. Maybe you should be able to give up your own PR? Though he wouldn’t do that either just to spite me.

@cactus2020 Actually if anyone knows if school here is being unreasonable let me know... They said it's 'complicated'...

The school are correct. Anyone with PR is legally entitled to copies of letters or reports.

I would just like to put it our there that under GDPR children are deemed to have control over their data from age 13 and can stop both or one parents having access to it.

I agree, but disagree it should be tied in with whether or not maintenance is paid, it should solely be based on whether they see/parent their DC or not. So say no contact for over 2 years = lose PR. My ex doesn't have PR but still has to legally pay maintenance. He hasn't seen his child for over 11 years so even if he did have PR he shouldn't, Imo, have any say in anything to do with ds's life, be that education, healthcare or travel.
It's the reason I always advise other lone parents to be not to put their child's father on the birth certificate. If they step up then they can be added or go to court for PR, if they don't then the parent with care can get on with raising their DC how they see fit. You always get idiots with no clue of the consequences trying to guilt the op into putting deadbeat fathers on the BC because you know 'they deserve to know who their father is'. Well yes, mine does know quite a bit about his father, they don't need to be on the BC for this to be the case.

I totally agree, although haven't encountered any problems. My daughter is 10, her father saw her twice when she was born and I have never heard from him nor had a penny from. I wouldn't know where to find him either. I have always taken my child abroad on holidays and even moved abroad for a year, nobody questioned a thing and they never have. Maybe I've just been lucky.

My ds "sperm donor" hasn't seen him since he was 9mths. He is 9 now. Hasn't contributed, sent him a bday card ever etc. I've taken my ds away loads of times with the birth cert to prove he's mine...as he has the other surname etc. Never had any trouble, even going to to the US when he was 4. They said it was good I had the birth cert. For that trip I panicked and faked his permission (sent a letter and reply to myself). Not my finest moment at all but there was no way on earth I would ask HIM for permission when he hasn't been around. He has no say in what we do! Luckily I didnt have to pull it out for my trip as they chatted to my son and were friendly, and so have never done it since. I just think the birth cert is enough, along with a happy child who is clearly travelling with his mother.

I really do wish PR could be more easily removed when a parent is just simply not around and parenting in any shape or form!

I think the intentions behind this maybe positive for many. They are confusing many unrelated issues.

Lack of shared residency/contact can be for many reasons. And a fact that is often ignored is that there are resident parents, predominantly mums, who do everything that they can to avoid the other parent having contact. From moving and not revealing location, to being as awkward as possible with regards permitting contact to downright lies and reporting to ss etc with unfounded allegations. Grinding down the nrp to the point that for their own sanity they give up trying to see the children, hoping they can explain this is in the future.

A lack of maintenance is an entirely separate issue to contact. Children aren't pay per view and losing pr over lack of maintenance is imo an incredibly blunt tool.

As a resident parent, there are very few limits on what the parent cannot do as a result of an absent parent.

Yes the travel issue is a bummer, but can be got around by going to court or getting an open ended letter permitting travelnas long as not ieo 28 days and a return ticket has been purchased. None of that is excessive if a rp wishes to travel abroad. Obviously you can go without, but then have to accept quite rightly that you maybe challenged by border control.

Beyond that maintaining pr is imo the right thing to do, except in those few, very rare, legal cases where its removed. In the event of parental death of the rp, the nrp should still have the right to step up and raise the child with the only blood parent. Even if this means assessment via ss.

And more importantly, I do not believe that the door for parenting should never be shut, especially in effect based on the rps timescale.

It's shit for the child having an absent nrp. But that doesn't justify removal of pr imo.

YANBU

It really fucked me off that I had to my ex's permission to move abroad with my 14 year old DD. He'd had zero contact with her since she was a few weeks old and had never paid a penny towards her upkeep. She could've been dead for all he knew, and he gets the power to decide our future like that.

YANBU

So glad neither of my DC's dads had/have PR.