To ask if you would agree with a law forcing absent parents to step up?

[LisaSimpsonsHamster]

I was reading a post on another group and wondering what other people thought. Should there be laws forcing absent fathers to step up and parent their children? (I’m more referring to absent fathers who have multiple children with the same person/ planned children rather than ONS where father disappears completely before the child is born but can include those if you want) but the post I seen was referring to the former type. I don’t mean financially but should they actually be forced to be a parent? Aibu to say I can’t see how this would work out and I don’t think it’s beneficial for the children which is why there isn’t a law forcing this but people were arguing that they have been forced to be a full time parent.

I don’t see how you can force them, but there should definitely be much stricter laws around paying maintenance - with a decent amount as minimum that has to be our come what may. With prison time as a penalty and the debt is still there when they come out!

(This hasn’t actually happened to me personally but I feel strongly about it!)

Of course I wouldn't agree to that.

Surely you can see the myriad of reasons it could be both damaging and ridiculous?

I'm surprised you're even asking.

No. Think of the child. Being forced to be around an uninterested parent.

They should be made to pay though.

No. Some people are not fit to be around children, let alone be parents. However, the cost of outsourcing your parenting should be higher and unavoidable except in extraordinary circumstances.

Read my post it isnt my opinion I’m wondering what people think as lots of people were saying it should be a law on another group!

Please can we not make this about maintenance that’s an entirely separate issue. I’m wondering purely relating to physical contact.

No. My DB is the de facto dad to his stepdaughter because her bio dad is a feckless piece of shit. She has a caring, responsible, sober father figure in her life and definitely doesn't need some uninterested waste of space hanging around because he's been told he has to. Everyone in that family is better off with the current arrangement.

I'd say no - nothing worse than forcing a child to spend time with someone who resents their presence and would rather be gaming, cycling, watching football, drinking.

I do think maintenance should be enforceable. I was a single parent. When I was made redundant I still had to buy food, pay the childminder, pay the mortgage, utility bills and find the spare change for no uniform days. XH redundant and all money stops. Paying for children shouldn't be optional for one parent.

No. I think a child would be more damaged from having to spend time with a parent that doesn't want them than they would be from having an absent parent. I do think they should be made to contribute financially.

No, because parenting by a reluctant parent would very likely be damaging to the child and in some cases would likely be abusive.

I do however think that absent parents should have to fund 50% childcare.

(eta: even if the mother chooses not to use childcare, father should still pay the mother the going rate.)

(eta again: and if they can’t pay, then they either have custody of the child up to 50% of the time (if deemed safe by court) or they are pursued for the payments just as they would be for any other debt).

cross posted!! Agree 100%

I don't see a way to enforce it without a whole lot of children spending half their lives neglected because a parent who doesn't want them is forced to have them.

I do think child maintenance needs an overhaul with much stronger enforcement and more realistic levels of support. The lives of children will be much better enhanced by this.

I think yes provided it doesn't endanger the child or the other parent. Pay for - yes absolutely- everyone should be financially contributing to a child they've created even if you're on benefits imo. But to actively parent? No because not all absent parents would be safe or good parents.

Taking my own parents situation

They were married, they had a child. Yes he should have stepped up and been responsible (instead of dragging my mum though hell through courts to only pay £18 a week fucking matainence 🙄 though that was only another way he tried to control/abuse her).

Yes I accept there are men who will say they never consented to being a father but then the general Mumsnet consensus on that tends to be use a condom or get a vasectomy if you don't want the responsibility of potentially having kids? 🤔

Maybe women could put more effort into ensuring they breed with the first person they come across

And if they have a history with having children why on earth ad to it then cry about it later?

How many men are absolutely perfect with zero signs beforehand compared to how many women choose not so see?

But both men and women should think how the other will be as a parent before sleeping with them, it is not rocket science

And if they are not good with the first use more than one form of contraception

Also if a parent is so bad of a person why on earth would you want them in your child's life in the first place?

It shouldn’t be mandatory. How would it be enforced, and how awful for a child if they have to spend regular time with a parent who is not interested in them.

But maintenance payments should be mandatory, and taken at source via taxation if necessary. And the amount should be at least what a child needs to live. Let the absent parents use a food bank for a change.

Forcing someone who wants nothing to do with a child to spend time with them is a recipe for disaster. No child deserves that.

Or have both couples sign an financial agreement before conception on what happens when the child is born and they split

Again not talking about maintenance there are plenty of threads about that, just want to stick to what I’ve asked not maintenance related they are not linked.

This makes women accountable for men's shitty behaviour and it is not it.

No.

I wouldn't want someone to be forced to be around my child if they didn't want to - I value them too much.

I'd rather parent alone.

Absolutely not. Having a bitter, angry, resentful parent is way worse than having an absent one. This sort of thing feels like spite on the non-absent parent's part, and I cannot imagine using my own child to spite someone who wants nothing to do with them. It's not in the kids best interests.

Totally agree.

I don't think this is the kind of thing that is very well managed through the law. It's just too blunt an instrument.

What you really need is a strong social belief that it's both significant and worthy to be an involved parent, that fathers are really necessary for kids, that involved fathering is socially valued and satisfying, and that uninvolved fathers are looked down on in what used to be called "good society."

That wouldn't mean there were no bad fathers but it would mean men would be relatively more likely to grow up with the idea it was expected and be ashamed when others looked down on them for not stepping up.

There is a school of thought now too that says that fathers aren't really necessary, so it isn't really surprising that some men actually think that is the case. People want to be able to say it's just fine for women to have kids alone without a dad if they want, no harm to the kids, but society can't say that without tending to lessen the perceived importance of fathers in general.