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.

New laws are all well and good, it’s enforcing them that’s the problem 🤔

How would that work?

Ridiculous notion. An absent parent being forced to see their child or children will be resentful and bitter if they previously chose to stay away doe whatever reason.

How would it work with all the bitter women who out of spite make it as difficult as possible for the father of their child or children to see his children?

Can you please show me where I’ve said that?

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. Again please show me where I’ve said that?

Funny that as people say on here all the time maintenance and contact aren’t linked.

My ex got someone pregnant while cheating on me with her during a short lived affair. She decided to keep the child and he was guilt tripped by family into being a father to it. He was awful to both the mother and child because he was so resentful and uninterested. He eventually stepped away when the child was a toddler and hasn’t seen him since because he eventually realised that it was better for the child to have no father than a father that actively resented his existence. He pays child maintenance because he has to not because he wants to! I feel sorry for the child having a father who couldn’t care less and a mother who should have thought more carefully who she chose as the father of her child.

What I think people are resentful about is that people can have children without taking responsibility for them. They can essentially abandon them and waltz away, leaving others to pick up the pieces.

So what we really want is accountability, without forcing children to endure the company of disinterested or actively harmful parents.

I'd be in favour of a minimum level of child maintenance, set at a reasonably high level.

If absent parents can't pay it, then the state pays it for them and the absent parents do compulsory community work at the weekend to contribute towards the cost of this.

Absolutely not. If they don't want time with their children, they shouldn't be forced. That is not beneficial to the children in question at all.

I would support changing the law to force absent parents to go to work enough that they can pay a decent amount of childcare support to the resident parent, for their children.

If absent parents aren't doing any childcare whatsoever, they have plenty of time to make a decent living. That obviously goes for mums as well as dads

No, because it would be harmful to the child, and the child should always be the priority.

I bet there are enough council jobs like cleaning the chewing gum off streets, graffitti off walls for these men to do and earn. We should be getting the ones without jobs out to do community work.
I actually think most are lying about income anyway so they might cough up if the option was to do so or do litter picking for the week.

No. Aside from the fact that I don’t see how anyone could physically force anyone else to parent the way they should, children deserve better than having to be parented by people who are only doing it because they are being legally made to. The law already exists to give parental responsibility. Perhaps more consequences for not fulfilling them?
There could be tighter laws around things like contact and better legal processes. So for a kid whose parent is in and out of their lives as they please with no consistency, a parent should be able go to court quickly to put something in place to take away their right to contact unless they can evidence that they are able to stick to something regular. Even it is only monthly or whatever, better than a child being dicked around by someone who pops up when they fancy being dad.

Nobody should be forced to care for a child male or female its extremely dangerous for the child.

I don't think they should be forced to have contact. As PP have said it's damaging to a child to have contact with someone who resents their existence or does the bare minimum in their contact time.

I do however think that all fathers should be forced to pay for their children - as PP said, a minimum amount that does not take income into account - so many feckless men decide to work the bare minimum or manipulate their finances so they only have to pay tiny amounts of maintenance. My friend has a child with such a feckless man - he is currently cocklodging with a woman, working 8hrs a week (previously worked full time before splitting up with friend) and sees his son for 30 minutes every month under duress from his own mother. Instead it should be a minimum of £x a month regardless of income. Then income based cm on top. In cases of ONS or disputes DNA tests would be required but ultimately once it is proven the child is yours, you have to pay for them. It would make men take responsibility for contraception if they think they will have to pay for any offspring created. So many men "hate" or are "unable" to wear condoms, however if they thought they may have to pay for children created, I imagine they might suddenly have a change of heart regarding condoms.

People are mentioning maintenance as a caveat to saying No.

But if all you want is a blunt answer: No.

You've had your answer....you cannot make an unwilling person effectively parent. The only thing you can enforce is financial support. Whilst I agree in theory that a parent who chooses not to be physically present ought to do more in terms of paying for childcare, you then run the risk of uninterested and neglectful parents "stepping up" to avoid that.

Oh do sod off with this. Every bloody time. How many testimonies would you like from those of us who were in years long, married relationships with planned children who were very suddenly left high and dry? Or can't you hear us from up on your pedestal?

Wanting an absent parent to step up so the active parent gets a ‘break’ is missing the real point. That is a conversation about the parent’s needs, not the child’s needs.
Does the child need a shitty uninterested parent? No.
Does the active parent need a break? Yes.
Answer = absent parent is held financially responsible for up to 50% childcare (to include holiday clubs, childminder / aupair etc, as required)

Because there are already many, many threads complaining about the lack of maintenance, and I agree maintenance is not a substitute. People want their exes to take responsibility. Anyway yes I’ve had the answer and this thread is going on about maintenance which isn’t what I wanted to discuss so I’m not really reading anymore anyway so feel free to stop commenting. This was purely about contact.

Not the same thing at all.

Agree with others, no, a law “forcing” someone to be a parent would be a disaster for the children involved and absolutely wouldn’t work or be in their best interests.

BUT the maintenance side of things should be a lot tighter and stricter so that the parent left holding the reins has at least got the money to buy themselves some help- whether that is childcare, a cleaner etc.

They should definitely be forced to pay much more than some absent parents do. A real cost that actually covers necessities, even if it makes them poor. For instance, at least half childcare costs, to enable the present parent to work more easily, including if the shifts aren't weekday 9 - 5.
Being forced to be physically present, I don't think it would work. It could create a negative environment which children are forced to be in.

No.
Forcing anyone usually doesn't produce the desired result.
Glad I don't have dependants.

I understand what you mean. But many exes are not local to their children (mine moved more than 1000s of miles away!). And trying to force someone who doesn't want to be present causes animosity, which then creates a negative relationship for the children. Money, on the other hand, creates a more comfortable and less stressful life for the present parent and children.

Is it some US states where parents get arrested for non payment of maintenance? But I don’t think trying to force absent parents to step up is ideal: what if it was a blessing to get them out of the picture?