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.

Thanks for pointing out my “reading comprehension issues” it does not take away from my original point, or what I am trying to say. I am very used to these power and control tactics though.

As a single mum with primary care of my ds, I decide everything on a daily basis and do not refer to ds' dad. DS lives with me and sees his dad for a few hours a week. Ex' contribution is mainly financial, he has ds about 20 nights a year. His choice.

My 'greater rights' over the absent father are that I get to raise my son with decent values, have the opportunity to instill ds with a decent work ethic, teach him the kindness, fairness and equality that I regard as important. Ds & I chose his school, ex was not involved.

Ex has never done a school run, a parent's evening, a gp or dentist run. When ds was in paed ICU, he couldn't be bothered to get the car out (he'd been drinking) and said he was 'sure I could cope'.

I have never worried about ex's legal rights as a parent because he is too lazy to make a fuss about anything. I take ds abroad whenever I wish and generally I regard ex's views as irrelevant. He is a lazy and selfish father.

However, I accept that there is value in ex being able to, IF IT PROVED NECESSARY, go to court and exercise his rights as a parent, simply because it gives ds a second parent to fall back on - for example if I developed an addiction or chose a dodgy boyfriend etc. Ex may be a crap fall-back option but he is better than nothing.

@cheshirebloke I am not suggesting that resident parents should have more rights because they are “usually female” I am suggesting that they should have more rights because they are the ones upholding the welfare of the child. Only in the cases where the non resident parent mainly men/fathers, are not fulfilling their parental responsibilities/obligations.

Maybe parents should put the idea of what each would be like as parents before sex

The idea that sex comes before children should be reversed

If 2 parents create a child they should realise it is about the child not the parents and their point scoring

Yeah, I’m still advocating for the single mums over here, who’s exes are using the power and control to not put their child at the centre and won’t coparent because they can, and the UK legal system supports them in that. I really hope your kids never have to experience the “fall back” option.

Parents don’t have rights. Children have rights.

Parents have responsibilities.

Exactly y this....and as it should be

Agreed ❤️

Agreed ❤️

This.

Agreed ❤️

That presumes that the RP knows the child ‘better’ which isn’t necessarily the case. They also don’t necessarily have the child’s best interest at heart. Both parents should be consulted, as much as practicable.

except it won't have the same weight and the court will decide in your favour unless he is going to pay private school fees which you will be able to prove he won't because he doesn't even pay maintenance.

Yes they are. It starts with the welfare of the child being paramount.

Well of course it presumes that the RP knows the child better. They do. We don’t need to conflate the issue. I completely agree, where both parents are active and present and putting the child at the centre, then both parents should be equally consulted. If one parent does not put the child at the centre, logistically (in agreed terms), financially or emotionally then there should be protections for the child and parent.

Don’t be ridiculous. It starts with the parents, and a patriarchal system that now will almost alway default to 50/50 care as a starting point despite many children spending 80/90% care with their RP before a split. After a split it often remains the same and an issue is only raised when the NRP has been told to pay child support. Nothing child centred about any of this.

You stated in the current system in the UK children are not put at the centre. I quoted what the courts starting point is in law ie. the welfare of the child is paramount. This is the actual legal position and therefore I am not being ridiculous.

You are correct, that is the starting point in law, and many other government systems, CMS for example. Despite what they say, the child is never put at the centre. That is my whole argument.

S1 Children Act 1989
the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration. (2)In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.

So the starting point is that both parents have equal say. If you believe your co parent should not go to court and make an application setting out why for the child's welfare they should not.

And the courts and CMS do not uphold this right. The child is not put at the centre. Parental rights trump child’s rights currently in the UK system, this is my whole argument. We need to put the child at the centre. Currently this is not happening. Legislation is only good if it is being administered properly. It is not. Therefore do we need a change in legislation to allow active parents more rights to advocate for their child, that they know, and have full responsibility and accountability for?

You are clearly clouded by an adverse experience in your own situation but they are indeed put at the centre. If you have had issues and been to court about this and a ruling has been made against you then the court has decided it is not in your child's interest. If you haven't been to court then do so.

I am not clouded by an adverse experience and I’ve actually successfully won a CMS tribunal. My concern is the hundreds of thousands of women who live with constant prejudice, worry and anxiety over just wanting to keep their children safe, and advocate for their rights, and know they can be settled in a reasonable routine. They are not out to persecute the non resident parent (over 90% fathers) they just want their child to be happy and settled. Many walk this fine line of the non resident parent using power and control for years, never actually going to court. Some get to court and are utterly terrified to say the wrong this because if you dare to advocate for your child, you’re accused of parental alienation. This is all too common and it’s about time children and resident parents are protected in legislation.

In your opinion. Fortunately the law prevents one parent from taking over and making it all about what they want.

Of course you're right. But Pickme manpanderers and MRAs are thick on the ground here.

Who is going to decide who deserves more 'rights'? There is already a system to resolve parental disputes in the best interests of the child through the courts. Of course they don't always get it right but that will still be true of whoever you think should decide who gets more rights too. Although removing PR is really hard to do parents can more easily apply for a specific issue order to cover things like schooling, medical care, moving abroad or a prohibited steps order to prevent the other parent from taking specific actions you believe are detrimental to the child/children.