Divorce, MMR, fathers' rights... I declare the debate OPEN

[ScummyMummy]

Look here for more info. Sounds like a hot mumsnet debate topic to me if ever I heard one!

I know that in the case of one child at least things WILL be taken further.

sofiaAmes, I can see how unfair the court system must seem for your Dh. It sounds like the law interferes too much already (in your case anti absent parent and pro resident parent).

As a general question to anyone, should laws governing parents rights after a break up be changed or at least loosened?

tigermoth, interesting question. I think it's a good thing that the courts don't intervene if arrangements are amicable i.e. I have residence and since ex dh doesn't dispute it and never has done the courts don't want to know. They refuse to formalise it unless there's a dispute, which suits us fine and seems to be a rare case of beaurocracy being sensible re intervention. Oakmaiden, which one is going to be taken further and what's going to happen, do you know?

The mother of the younger child is certainly going to appeal. Trying to remember what she said to me about it....

I think it would go to the high court next, and I believe she said she is prepared to go to the European Courts if she has to. I seem to recall that the higher up the court system you go, the more likely your case is to be looked at as an individual case, rather than as a case of a certain type.

I do know that she is VERY unwilling to get it done (obviously - hence the court case). She is a student midwife in England (although she previously qualified and worked for some time as a Midwife in the States) so this is an informed decision from someone with a medical background, not a knee jerk reaction to the bad publicity that vaccinations have regularly had.

Yes I can imagine it could become a Human Rights issue, I wouldn't let anyone including a judge dictate whether my chid had a vaccine or not.

Tigermoth, I actually believe that provided the father has been involved in the child's life in a meaningful way and has not been violent or take drugs or be involved in criminal activity, then shared care should be the rule, with parents treated as equals and the ideal being equal time with both parents (if the father wants this - quite a few probably wouldn't). I think the near-automatic granting of parental responsibility is a good thing as it recognises that fathers are parents too. Parental responsibility, however, offers fathers important equal rights on how their children are educated, their medical treatment, religion etc etc, which means mothers do have to take their views into account. I think this is a good thing. I suppose in these cases we may feel differently because the fathers are not involved in their children's lives, but as I don't know the women involved, I can't say if that is the fault of the mother or the father. If we are looking at loving fathers pushed out of their children's lives, but who honestly believe their children are being put dangerously at risk by their mother's behaviour (there are mothers on these boards who have argued passionately about the risks of deafness, meningitis and even death connected to measles) why shouldn't they have their view upheld by law? As it happens my dh and I agreed to give ds single vaccines so we didn't want MMR ourselves, but I can see the court's decision isn't out of order in principle. On the other hand, these men may be willingly absent parents who just want to upset their former partners... I don't know.

Interesting discussion. If it had been the other way around - ie if it were the FATHERS who objected to the MMR and the mothers who were insisting on giving it, what would people think?

I am sure if the government's policy on MMR was that they were against it the judge would not have ruled as he has.

I believe that the father should have an equal say but if the child had devloped autism it certainly would not have been him looking after him!!

Seems to me that...

a) the fathers had legal parental responsibililty, so they legally have as much say in this issue as the mother..despite residency

b) thus faced with a 50/50 situation, where both parents had equal rights before the law to determine what should happen, the decision was forced onto the court, which is duty bound to consider the best interests of the child, under the 1989 children's act

c) thus the court looked at the evidence and concluded the best interests of the child were served by getting the vaccine. Case closed.

Not sure what the problem is - seems all above board to me.

Have to agree with Tom, but also think it very sad that the case ever came to court. Not sure though that legal parental responsibility equates to real responsibility, and the court should have taken into account how involved the fathers were and only allowed them this much say in the MMR decision if they regularly took this much responsibility on a day to day (and financial) basis.

I agree with Claireandrich and Tom - essentially the judge had his hands tied with the judgement he laid down. Current medical advice (whether you agree with it or not) is that vaccination is in the best interests of the child.

I still wonder if there would have been the same debate/outcry had the positions been reversed and it was the fathers who were opposing the MMR. Would everyone have been as quick to jump to their defense?

Quite JanZ. Think I said early on in this thread that mothers must regularly choose to have their child vaccinated without the consent of the father.

I think the full-time carers' views should be given more weight than the absentee parents on the grounds that they will have to live with the potential fall-out of this judgement. Will these concerned fathers be around to do the really hard work of looking after a brain-damaged child in the event of an adverse reaction to the vaccine? I don't think so!

But what about if the child caught measles and was left deaf?
(not a big fan of MMR, but trying to see this from a caring, loving father's pov - he may be an obsessive bully in reality!)

Whatever the rights or wrongs of this case I just don't see how they can force the mothers to have their children vaccinated when it is not compulsory by law for everyone else. Both my two were given the MMR, by the way, but I can't say that I was completely worry free over it.

That's the pertinent point, its not a legal issue. The forcing of the giving of MMR cannot be upheld by law as there is no law to support it. The judge cannot just invent a law because he happens to believe the current government opinion.

Exactly Cam.

But I don't read it that the judge has forced the kids to have the MMR. He has forced them to follow the fathers wishes, because of the two parents choices this is the one seen as following conventional medical opinion. The judge has not laid down a legal precedent that all children should be forced to have the MMR - in legal terms it's actualy quite irrelevent what the injection is. he has simply said that the fathers have an equal right to make decisions, and that where parents cannot agree, the courts will enforce "best practice". Now you can argue all you like about whether MMR is best practice ( and we all have), but once the case got to court because the parents couldn't compromise, there wasn't going to be any other outcome

Sheila, how do you know whether the fathers will be around or not? And in my dh's case, the ONLY reason that the children live with their mother is that he can't get a court to say that they can live with him and this is purely because he is a MAN who works (if he didn't work he would have a better chance of getting custody). My dh would give his right arm to be the full time carer of his children.
Unfortunately, although parental responsibility does in theory offer equal rights to both parents, in reality it is virtually impossible to enforce unless you are rich and educated enough to go to court about it. Not to mention the trauma incurred by the children by going to court.

Whichever way you try to look at it, the judge is using the law to force the MMR on these children. As there has to be parental consent to have any medical procedure carried out, I see it as taking the rights of the mother away in these cases.

SofiaAmes, I don't - like everyone else I'm making assumptions based on what's been said here and in the papers. I'm also making judgements based on my experience (both personal and anecdotal from friends) about the amount of childcare done by fathers in general. Obviously I don't know your DH and I'm sure it must be an intolerable situation for him, but I suspect he's in the minority.

When I broke up with my former DP he expressed no desire for custody of our son, and I have constant battles to make him come and spend even one day a week with our DS. I would welcome his engagement with issues such as vaccinations, education and childcare and frequently try to get his input on this but it's almost always left to me to bear the burden of making the decisions and living with the consequences.

Guess I'm not very objective on this subject, but I don't think my story is unusual.

i think mothers should have the priority in most circumstances - there are always the exceptions
but this decision is mine not the courts, not my husbands - mine. the children are mine - if we split up they would be mine - their day to day welfare would be mine - the finances and duty of care, moral dilemmas, advice, crying, shouting happy times sad times - all mine.

I have to say, if I split up with my dh our son would still be our son. He's his flesh and blood every bit as mine, his genes are just as important as mine. I could never think of taking that away from him. In fact, I don't think I would have any right to claim anything except total shared residence - he's just as much his parent as I am.
The point about law is the fact there is no law making it illegal to refuse to vaccinate is irrelevant. Both parents have the right to make decisions on medical matters for children. For example, if a child was in hospital and its father was the person with care and was a devout Jehovah's Witness and refused to let the child have a blood transfusion, the mother could go to court to permit it . In this case the judge was merely deciding whose opinion took priority where there was no agreement. If both parents agree not to vaccinate, then the law wouldn't intervene.
I suppose in this case the fathers genuinely (I hope) believe this is a life or death situation, with their daughters being put at risk by not being vaccinated. I don't necessarily agree with them (though I have vaccinated ds) but surely their feelings are valid? After all, if they girls did die (which I know is very, very unlikely), he would grieve as much as their mother. Actually, as I understand the law, the father could have taken the child for the MMR without consulting the mother. However, I would not approve of that at all.
I think it is a terrible shame this has come to court and that they couldn't come to an agreement between them.

Totally agree with your comments and sentiments Aloha. It is irrelevant that it is MMR and of course the judgement has no implications whatsoever for enforcing vaccinations. It is just a long overdue recognition that fathers should have as many rights as mothers when it comes to making decisions about their children.

I agree with Aloha. Ds1 & 2 aren't "mine", they're "ours". They would not be here without DH and he loves them and will love them just as much as I do irrespective of whether we still love each other.