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.

You don’t seem to grasp that a shit parent is not going to change by being forced to have his / her children. Who suffers? The children.

No, but more should be done to stop the fiddling of numbers and excuses for not paying to feed and clothe etc your child. Too many pathetic men not paying properly. There should be a minimum amount that absolutely must be paid per child, regardless of who you choose to make a new family with, how many children you go on to have and whether you choose not to work. More accountability would likely make such characters think a little more before making choices others have to make up for.

Yes that’s fair and could work in some cases. I feel that the law should tip more in favour of the child’s welfare and less in favour of the non resident parent .

I can’t see any benefit to try to force a child to be with a parent to doesn’t want to be there

what I would support is a return to society where family is really valued, people stay together and divorce /separation is rare because people value their families. Not sure how we get there either

It shouldn’t be based on what they earn / what numbers they give, it should be based on what the child needs to get their basic needs met.

Let’s let the non resident parent worry about how they are going to pay their rent for a change.

“WiltedLettuce · Today 01:56

Looking at this dispassionately, some people aren't fit to parent. They find it difficult to put their own selfish wants aside and to centre their children's needs. And a larger proportion of these people are men than are women.

I suspect uninvolved parents fall into two categories - there are those who are too lazy to do their share when there is someone else who will pick up their slack but do love and want a good life for their kids so will step in if forced to, and there are those who won't do their share even if there isn't anyone who will do it for them, but are happy to let their children suffer rather than step up.

Your plan might help with the first group but not the second. Not only will the second group never add anything to their children's lives but they often create work, divert attention away from their children and create stress and tension in their children's lives. Their children are often poorer for having them around. Where a mother is a barely adequate parent herself, often a stressful and abusive relationship is what pushes her over the edge into becoming inadequate. Men like these are parasites and no one, especially not children, should have to endure them. It might be galling that no demands are made of this group but it's because they are so useless and toxic that actually they're best kept at arms-length.”

This with bells on. So well put by @WiltedLettuce.

Deliberately having a child with someone you know is going to be a shitty dad is pretty shitty behaviour too, towards the child.

Yes exactly. Paying for your own children should be a legal requirement, not optional based on flimsy 'circumstances' . The children need to eat whether or not you are working.

Who decides a child’s basic needs in £ terms? Everyone will have a different view on that

there are also many non resident parents who. Do worry about how to pay rent etc.

the problem with this , whether in terms of desire or not to be a parent and what that looks like or whether financial, it’s nuanced to each case hence show horning a one size fits all policy tends to not work. And whether we like it or not, or think it’s best way, single/resident parents get a lot more support ( ie uc, help with rent, free childcare, tax credits etc) than the non resident parent

so is it resident parent who decides costs? Govt ? Some other body ? Is it a flat rate per child ? What if mum
has another child with someelse and stops work? What if it’s flat fee for everyone at an arbitrary amount - eg 250 a month per child - a low earner on min wage can’t support that, while a high earner on 150k it’s pittance ….

Of course not.
Maintenance should be enforced, not contact.

It is actually quite disturbing to think the op thinks a law forcing a shit parent to spend time with his children is a good idea

I think it should be a flat rate that then rises for higher earners. We are always seeing people on here who are getting around £2 per week for a child, which is ridiculous and insulting. If you made a child, they should be the priority, if you have to go without something or sell something to support them then that's what you do. That's what parents should do.

They should definitely be forced to pay up. Children are a bit too fragile to be forced onto useless adults.

Whilst I agree that it isn’t in a child’s best interest to spend time with an unsuitable parent, I think it’s often less clear-cut than that.

My children’s father is fine with them whilst he has them every other weekend. They definitely benefit with having a relationship with their dad and I benefit a lot from having a small amount of child free time.

It is very difficult to be a great parent while having young children full time and working full time.

Their dad won’t have them during the week because he doesn’t like doing the morning routine and school run or homework, bedtime etc. I don’t particularly like some of these bits either and having to do all the parenting in the week is hugely detrimental to my career but I can’t force him. If their dad doesn’t want to have them on his weekend, he can just not pick them up and there’s nothing I can do about that.

There are countries which have a legal presumption of 50/50 custody. In those circumstances it is probably much harder for fathers to wriggle out of the harder parts of parenting - they would have to argue in court that they don’t want the children 50/50 if the mum agreed it. I’m not sure that this is the best approach legally - there are lots of issues with it. But there are also issues with a system which basically forces all the day to day parenting on (usually) the mum with the father being allowed to choose to do the nice parts as and when they want to.

We have a formula for deciding the cost of children’s basic needs: the national foster care allowance. That should be the minimum for every child, split in half between parents.

benefits for children would go to both parents on a 50/50 basis so a non resident parent on benefits would no longer be paying a paltry £5 a week.

The penalties for not paying maintenance would be high

If you want to encourage parents to physically step up for their children you mandate an additional payment for parents who do less than X percent childcare.

At the same time it also makes all families consider the impact of another child in a new relationship as maintenance doesn’t drop.

Increases tax receipts as no motivation to hide income if for example self employed

The downside is families where the other parent is genuinely able to avoid paying eg dead, are not known eg donor conceptions, move abroad and there would have to be benefit adjustments for these families to ensure children had sufficient money as these parents were paying alone.

The biggest downside for the government is that benefits would also genuinely have to meet children’s needs. On the other hand it would tackle child poverty most effectively and highlight how many families raise children on insufficient income for their needs.

No, ime, as a child, i was very pleased he fucked off abroad, never to be seen again.
Same with my friend, her childrens "dad" hung around, constantly letting them down, very damaging, they hate him now.

Fathers and Mothers should want to be parents, no amount of "forcing" will make a shit parent a decent one.

BUT it should be made v easy for an absent parent to have contact with their child when they truly want too and act properly.

Absolutely not. If a parent doesnt want to be a parent, being forced to parent only causes resentment & possibly putting the child in the line of being abused or neglected.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately as DD8's father left a year ago and has seen her only erratically since. Up until that point he was a very present, loving father. I agree that it is incredibly unfair that he has been allowed to abandon her with no consequences, forcing me into being a single parent, when if I also walked out I would (rightly) be held accountable by law. However, the presumption of the Family Court is that it's damaging for a child for a parent to be forced to see them, for many reasons, and I agree with this.

But I do think that are ways the process could be improved a lot. There's currently no requirement in a divorce process for there to be a child arrangements order or even a parenting plan submitted to the court. I do think that if my exH was required to put in writing his (lack of) contact arrangements and give a reason for this, then that would help quite a lot.

Absolutely not.

No, not for parenting - we have only just managed to change the law from assuming both parents are safe around kids because they are related.
Having been through the Court system it is depressing how young kids aren't given a voice if they are scared of a parent and mental health issues (even if clearly unmedicated) for example are completely ignored unless they have been in trouble with the law. Now the agencies can look at the safety of the child, which should have always been paramount.

This. If they haven't paid maintenance their name should be listed with their banks, marked in the same way as someone who is bankrupt, so that a set % of incoming funds are immediately filtered out to support their kids.

100% no! And if a parent doesn't want to engage with their kids forcing time on them won't help. Best thing my ex did for his children was walk away

I think its hard to generalise. Perhaps there are cases where it would be beneficial, because the parent being compelled to spend time their their child is actually a decent person who just lost their nerve and panicked when they found out they were going to be q parent. And once they meet their child, they will actually settle into the role and do well.

(Mr ExH very nearly left me when I was pregnant as he could not cope with the idea of being a dad. But he stayed and is now an absolutely excellent parent who gladly shares 50/50 care of our child).

However, in some cases it would put the child at emotional or physical risk to force a reluctant parent to be around them.

(I found out when I was too deep into my most recent failed relationship, that the man had a child he never saw - he blamed the mother but of course I quickly saw through him - he was a man who never took responsibility for anything. I genuinely believe, had he been forced to be in his child's life, he would have damaged her, he was such a controlling, manipulative, nasty man. Thank God I got away from him before he could harm me further, and I imagine the mom of his child felt the same, and was delighted to be NC with him. Certainly I believ she never pursued him, even for maintenance. Probably did not date..... )

Oh god no, if there was a law saying parents HAVE to see their children i would have to move countries, i stopped contact with my ex 2 years ago and no way i would allow him contact again even if it was law xx

How on earth is that ever going to work and who is going to police it?!? 😆🤦🏻‍♀️