To think that Resident Parents should have more rights than Non Resident Parents.

[Theemeperorsnewclothes]

I think we’ve gone too far into the patriarchy of the UK, political systems, family Courts, CMS. Non resident parents (over 90% male/fathers) have exactly the same rights as resident parents (over 90% female/mothers). A child centred approach is allowing the person who knows the child best to advocate for them. The resident parent should have more rights, with regards to making decisions/advocating for their child/children in the political/legal system in the UK. They, and their children should be protected in legislation.

You are being unreasonable has now tipped into the majority. I am really keen to understand why that would be the thought process. In what world would you advocate for a child not having their main care giver advocate for them? Their mother

In a world where mothers can be overly anxious and make decisions based on that rather than the best interests of the children or where mothers can use their children to hurt non resident parents after they have been hurt themselves. Sometimes loving and involved parents don’t live with their children though no fault of their own.

Parents don’t have rights. Children have rights. If children need an advocate in the legal system, where parents aren’t in agreement, that advocate should be independent.

But some "non resident" parents can be 50/50 care. They aren't all deadbeats who take their child begrudgingly for one night a week

They also deserve to advocate for their child...

A resident parent with a lives with CAO has certain extra rights - no need for consent to take the child abroad for example.

But yes I agree. Its absolutely ridiculous that an deadbeat father can be absent for years and demand equal say.

I think this is pretty close to saying fathers should have fewer responsibilities than mothers.

That's not going to end well for women!

This would just hurt loving and involved non-resident parents and tbh just add even more responsibility to resident parents who are dealing with a deadbeat ex.

One of the real fixes for single parents with a reluctant or absent non-resident partner/ex would be to massively beef up the amount of CMS and the ability to collect it from the other parent.

Yes, what everyone else says!

Sorry op.... not going how you wanted it too really is it

Of course both parents should have shared advocacy.

This.

My partner was non resident parent. He lost his home, rented nearby, financially supported, saw his children almost every day. She cheated, kept family home, he had to rent then gradually started at the bottom again. Adults now and they have a fantastic relationship with him.

Also, some people weaponise children, they use them, they aren't honest in why they broke up. His children still don't know she had an affair and kicked him out. He's not bitter and telling them serves no purpose.

My brother had a terrible marriage she beat him, he also lost everything. He held onto the relationship with his children though. He still rents whereas ex wife again kept family home.

There are lots of lovely men who lose out massively. They are still fathers to their children.

Both parents have parental responsibility and should, therefore, parent. That's in the child's interest. Of course YABU.

I agree that it would make sense that the resident parent has a tie breaker vote.
I am going through a nightmare now with the children's father trying to agree on the secondary school choice, and it is likely to end up in court - I just pray that some solution is found before the application date. He does not really see them (a few times a year), does not pay maintenance, lives on the opposite side of the country, but has a very strong opinion apparently on which school suits them.
The only valid choice apparently is either private or a superselective state 90 minutes away - for a very sensitive non-independent child with SEN who is below average academically in most areas. It is absolutely nuts that our opinion has the same weight in this matter.

When you say the RP should have "more rights", how far does that go? The RP gets to decide schools? The RP gets to decide if they're going to move a couple of hundred miles away? The RP gets to decide what the children are named? Please be specific about what decisions you want the RP to have sole authority for.

Because just because you're the main care giver does not mean you are always right!

And you don't have parental rights you have parental responsibilities. It's about the child, not you.

No, parents have responsibilities and children should be able to benefit from two parents meeting those responsibilities.

However, I would support some system in which deadbeat parents, or ones who weaponise their responsibility, can have their say removed or reduced.

You don't encourage/force people to take responsibility for their own child by taking away their responsibility for their own child.

Where most of the issues that are covered on threads on MN are raised, they seem to be where there is no formal arrangement. Where the non-resident parent threatens to use the law to bully or just take out ill-feeling on the resident parent.

It depends on the situation. For parents who are separated but both in the child's life and acting in their best interests YABU. In cases like @zendeveloper where the other parent is largely absent and using their "rights" for being obstructive YANBU.

I am not sure why that wouldn’t end well for women. Over 90% of resident parents are mothers/women. Many receive no financial support. The statistics tell us men do have fewer responsibilities than mothers, married, living together, or not. No court in the UK ‘forces’ those responsibilities on fathers, but mothers live with overwhelming responsibilities for children every single day. I’d advocate for more rights for resident parents/mothers. I don’t think it would be detrimental at all, but liberating for many women.

The inability to advocate for the child you know best because you don’t have the ‘rights’ to properly advocate for them, in the current legal structure in the UK, in my opinion, is unjust for resident parents. Every piece of legislation around the child, is supposed to put the child at the centre. From experience, this is almost never the case. It is about protecting parental rights. In my humble opinion, parental rights should be assessed on who is actually ‘parenting’. I don’t mean to give non resident parents/fathers less rights if they just happen to have the child less (in the majority of cases) but still are very active and supportive, and child centred. Where there is proof that the non resident parent takes very little to do with the day to day care, the logistics, the emotional and financial responsibilities of bringing up that child. They should not have the same rights and say over that child. That is putting the child at the centre and ultimately keeping them safe.

A child isn’t a play thing that one person is allowed to play with more than someone else.

A parent who thinks they should have more rights than the other parent, is likely the one who isn’t putting the needs of the child first, but instead their need for power and control over the other parent.

Both I and my DH have my children's best interests at heart. If we split up and he was good enough to let me have the children for more than 50 percent of the time making me the resident parent, that would not make him a lesser parent who should have no significant input on their lives. Some parents should have less influence but I don't agree this should always be based on whether they are the resident parent or not.

Exactly, the parent who is actually ‘parenting’ should have more say regarding the welfare of that child. There would be no need for power and control as the non resident parent would be working with the resident parent to put the child’s needs at the centre.

Well a fair few reading comprehension issues right there.

@Eeeden I agree, but unfortunately things can change very quickly when a relationship breaks down. Children must be put at the centre. In the current system in the UK, they are not.

No. For a start, you appear to be suggesting that resident parents should have 'more rights' because they're usually female? The day to day stuff is the responsibility of the parent in care at the time. The only things where both parents have rights are and major decisions about the child's upbringing - school selection etc. And even then, only if they both have PR. So what extra rights do you propose the resident parent should have anyway?