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 agree that a father who puts in as much as a mother in terms of childcare should have an equal say, but why should any parent, (father OR mother), have a say when they contribute very little? Boy am I tired of hearing about fathers' rights -what about fathers' responsibilities? And I don't mean just paying the bills, I mean doing their fair share of nappy changing, getting up in the night, feeding, washing, dressing and just generally being there for their kids. How many of us know many fathers who really put in as much as mothers in all these areas, whether they live with their kids or not?

I'm aware I'm veering off the rights and wrongs of this particular case, about which we probably don't know enough to judge, and moving on to the general subject of fathers' rights - an even hotter topic than jabs, I suspect!

I appreciate your individual situation Shelia but in the majority of cases women do the majority of childcare because fathers tend to work longer hours outside the home than mothers. In the overall context of a family, the economic contribution from the man can be just as important as the mothers just in a different way.

I think it is relevant that there's no law to make parents vaccinate since in this case the court has decided that the fathers' views are legally valid and the mothers' aren't (well, they can hold them but it won't make any difference) despite there being no law which says "parents must vaccinate their children." The court have followed government advice, which is that it's safest to vaccinate. One of them had to lose in this case though since they are so opposed.

So whilst I generally agree that both parents have a right to make medical decisions on behalf of their joint children I don't agree in this case. We're not talking about certain death if vaccination doesn't take place and we're not talking about switching off a life support machine or giving a blood transfusion or anything of that order, we're talking about administering a vaccine that has only been around for 15 odd years, which many (most?) of us didn't have (because it didn't exist, I know) and which many parents object to and have opted out of (although the majority do vaccinate). So I can understand the mothers' point of view.

What if the mother truly believes the MMR may cause harm? (as opposed to the father believing that not vaccinating will cause harm) Isn't her view equally valid? Realistically the parent with residence does carry out most of the work (and joy, admittedly) of looking after a child and so that parent would be responsible for care should any damage occur as a result of MMR. And surely in this case the mothers must believe it's a possibility if they're fighting their cases? I know the fathers must equally believe that death from measles is a possibility too. I just know which I think is more likely (and no wish to get into MMR all over again really, thanks!)

Although shared residence is a lovely idea in practice it rarely happens since it is often unworkable practically. For children as much as anything, since they need some stability in their lives and that is unlikely to be afforded by spending alternate nights in 2 different houses or 3 days in one house/4 days in another. I suppose if you managed (and wanted to!) to live in the same street after a divorce or separation then maybe it could work.

I also think it's worth considering that jabbing a 10 year old who doesn't want the injection is surely not on? (Not to mention seeing her parents fight in court like this) OK, so she's only 10 and is probably influenced by her mother too but she doesn't want it, her mother doesn't either and her father is prepared to fight his daughter and her mother in court. Hmm, what kind of man does this? I don't know that I buy the 'a deeply concerned father'argument since I wonder what's happened recently to cause the court case? If the girl is 10 they've had a long time to make these decisions and she was presumably first called for MMR at what, 2? So the father presumably agreed with not vaccinating at this point? I just wonder what's happened in between.

Well said www - much more coherently put than my post.

On the general issue of fathers' rights and in response to Gracie's comments, I'm not convinced that a father's greater (generalising here) economic contribution should let him off the hook as far as doing an equal share of parenting goes. Using my experience as an example again (but I stress that I don't think I'm unusual) when we were together DP spent all his available time at work - evenings, weekends and lots of long overseas business trips. Sometimes he had to work like this but a lot of the time it was his choice. He had a very responsible job that he loved and that was well rewarded, he worked with people he liked and generally had a great time doing something he enjoyed and getting very well paid for it. We lived very well on his salary while I stayed at home and looked after DS. But given the choice I (and I'm sure DS too) would rather have lived a little less well and had him around a lot more.

I've worked full time and done full-time childcare and I know that being at home all day with a small child is the hardest job of all and one which gets the least recognition. It's one that given the choice many men don't want to do. Fair enough but they shouldn't then expect to get an equal say in their child's destiny. This isn't a situation where he who pays the piper calls the tune - or at least it shouldn't be.

As Tom explained earlier on, where parents disagree on a parenting decision, the judge is compelled to make a decision based on what is in the best interests of the child. Current medical and scientific evidence the world over overwhelmingly points to the conclusion that for the vast majority of children, having MMR is in the child's best interests. I don't see how he could have ruled anything else.

I would be very uncomfortable with a move towards awarding parental "rights" based on who is at home more with a child.

Am I wrong in thinking that in the past there have been cases where Doctors have taken parents who have refused a treatment for their child to court and won?

I only ask, because as Tom points out, a court is duty bound to look at what's best for the child irrespective of what the parents want. And in the case of the MMR current medical establishment thinking is in favour, hence the judges ruling. This is why the father won the case, if medical opinion were otherwise then the mother would have, for both parents what they wanted actually came secondary to what the court decided was in the best interests in the child.

If both parents had not wanted the MMR and their doctor had and it was the doctor who had taken the whole family to court the doctor would still have won surely? Because the court ruled based on medical evidence not the priority of one parent over the other.

This is the way I see it anyway, don't know if anyone else agrees, and as I see it this is what makes me feel so uneasy. You may as well make having the MMR compulsory if you are going to allow a court to make this decision.

I have to say that I too feel uncomfortable with the suggestion that if a man is less involved in day to day childcare that he should necessarily have less say in parenting matters. I am about to give up work to be a SAHM and am very grateful to by husband for being willing to continue working long hours in a stressful and ultimately unfulfilling career in order to allow me to do so. I see my contribution to the family as just as important as his, but I wouldn't be able to make it without his support, financially and otherwise.

While it is a tragedy that there are so many children out there who suffer from uninvolved fathers, I wouldn't like to see this translate into diminished rights for fathers as such. I do agree though in general parents should earn their rights through their demonostrated commitment to their children but I'm not sure that time spent at hone would be the fairest measure.

But pie that simply isn't the case. There is no law to vaccinate in this country so a doctor could not take parents to court in order to enforce a vaccination. Such decisions in the UK are left to the parents to make and when they can't reach a decision, they ask a court to make it for them on the basis of what is in the childs best interests. So it was the parents asking for the ruling, not anyone else.

Gracie, there is no law forcing a person to have a blood transfusion, but doctors have taken parents children who are certain religions (Jehovahs Witness for examply) and won their case.

I understand that it was the father asking the court to make a decision, but if a doctor can do it for medical treatment why not the MMR??

A doctor can only take the case for a blood transfusion to court when to deny it to a patient it would in all probably cause their death. This is of course within the scope of current legislation (unlike vaccination).

Ok, I don't know what the law says about medical intervention vs an individual's rights and beliefs, but my point was that as the Judge went with medical opinion, not who has more rights, anyone, such as a grandparent could bring a similar case. The case wasn't about whose parental rights were paramount, it was about what was 'best' for the children according to medical opinion.

And in terms of the father's role in the child's life, one of the mothers says that the father has NEVER paid any maintance .

Does this make a difference to how much involvment he should have?

But it was the parents who asked the court to make the decision. Grandparents wouldn't have had the right to do that given that it is parents who are responsible for making decisions on behalf of minors (which only in very exceptional circumstances such as almost certain death can be overruled). The case was about what was 'best' for the children only because the parents disagreed and the court was asked to make a decision on their behalf.

If he is a position to pay maintenance and refused to do so then my own view is that yes, he should have less involvement in day to day decisions.

According to the BMA :

24. Where a child under 16 years old is not competent to give or withhold their informed consent, a person with parental responsibility may authorise investigations or treatment which are in the child's best interests13. This person may also refuse any intervention, where they consider that refusal to be in the child's best interests, but you are not bound by such a refusal and may seek a ruling from the court. In an emergency where you consider that it is in the child's best interests to proceed, you may treat the child, provided it is limited to that treatment which is reasonably required in that emergency.

The latter half of this is I think applicable to the Jehovah's Witness and refusing a blood transfusion senario, but the first half, where emergencies are NOT mentioned, is open to interpretation, a doctor could put the case before the court. This is taken from the general guide lines to consent from the BMA, they have a whole separate section on life threatening condtions and consent.

But this is going around in circles. There is no law in this country to enforce vaccination. Instead the decision to vaccinate or not is left to those with parental rights. So therefore a court could not overrule the parents' wishes and enforce something which is entirely up to them to decide in the first place under current legislation. Obviously there are a number of circumstances where parents wishes could be overruled (the conjoined twins come to mind) but vaccination would not be one of them.

The only point I'm trying to make is that there could be such a case, not that there would be. And this is why I feel uncomfortable with the ruling.

If you feel that there would not be such a case Gracie is it because of a legal reason, or do you feel that it is a common sense reason? Where there is no precedent I don't see how you can say catagorically that there is no way there would be such a case.

And if there is no law to enforce vaccination then isn't the judge's ruling hypocritical, should this case have even got to court?

This case has the potential to open up a whole can of worms over medical consent, not just parental consent.

"...a court could not overrule the parents' wishes and enforce something which is entirely up to them to decide in the first place under current legislation", however they can over rule one parent in favour of the other and medical opinion when there is no legislation is place?

I won't say anymore though, if I'm just going round in cicles then maybe I'm just biting my own arse, right?

I'm no expert but I was always under the impression that there was a fundamental difference between a court deciding on a child's best interests in a situation where the two parents cannot agree and in enforcing medical intervention against parental will. In the latter case, I thogu intervention could only be insisted upon if the child's life could be demonstrated to be at immediate risk if the procedure wasn't carried out.

Sorry if I have upset you. The court can overrule one parent simply because in circumstances such as these, a decision must be made and as the two people who are responsible for making that decision cannot reach agreement, the court is asked to make a ruling. So there will obviously be a winner and a loser. Court decisions in these circumstances happen all the time and can relate to things such as which school a child attends. There have in fact been many many rulings upholding one parents decision to send a child to a private school for example when parents haven't been able to agree and yet nobody has interpreted that to mean that children generally could be forced by courts to attend particular schools.
Anyway, I'll bow out now.

Interesting debate folks, but a few misconceptions.

The ruling made absolutely NO new decisions about fathers rights. None at all. Zip.

I said in my other post that I assumed that the father had legal parental responsibility (as defined in the children's act) - this means that he was either married to the mother when the child was born or subsequently, OR that a PR agreement was taken out between the mum and dad, or the courts gave a pr order. It was probably the first.

Having PR (parental responsibility) means that institutions (such as hospitals, schools) have a legal obligation to consult you with issues about your children, and that you have the legal right to authorise medical treatment etc.

Given 2 parents with PR, disagreeing over a treatment, the matter was placed in the courts hands. The courts took medical advice and conluded that the vaccine was in the best interests of the child. Simple as that.

If the mother had wanted the vaccine and the father had not, it would have gone to court, the court would have taken medical advice and concluded that the vaccine was in the best interests of the child.

No special priviledges are given to resident parents in this regard - if they were, there would be a considerable outcry by non-resident parents - (96% of whom are fathers).

Incidently, you may be interested to know that when you add up all the time spent on working, childcare and housework by men and women, it is almost identical. The amount of leisure time that men and women have after these 'responsibilities' are met are the same. Interestingly, men spend more of their time doing sports and down the pub, and women spend more of their leisure time in bed. Men do more paid work and women do more unpaid work, but let's not get into sterile arguments about who does most - ever noticed that mums and dads are BOTH knackered all the time!?. It's a free country, and couples are more or less free to decide who does the earning and who does the childcare. (Apart from the unfortunate allocation of a years maternity leave and 2 weeks paternity leave, which, it seems to me, pushes men into breadwinning, women into childcare and strengthens the pay gap, but that's another issue!)

A few other points:

1. Doctors don't have pr, so can't take parents to court over a child's welfare unless the child is threatened with death - doctors have an obligation to protect life, and can go to court if they are prevented doing so.
2. Paying maintainance has no bearing on responsibility levels, and the main advocates of that have been single mothers groups - if it had, then the man who could pay more would have more decision making power and control over his ex - and most single mothers do not want that.

Oh - and I found this SCARY:
"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."

a. chldren are not ours - they're borrowed!! They don't belong to anyone.
b. the decisions about children are the responsibility of both parents, in my view, and both parents, if they have PR, in the law's view.

Finally... if you diminish fathers rights, you'll succeed in lowering fathers' involvement. Men will not get involved with their children if there is a high liklihood of the children being taken away from them. There is too much heartache in that. If you weaken fathers' rights to involvement in their childrens lives, and make it easier for courts/mothers to exclude fathers, then fathers simply won't get involved from the beginning.

And if anyone is interested in how to get him involved, I wrote an article for Mumsnet a while back - I think it's still in the big issues section.

Actually Tom, if the mother wanted the vaccine and the father didn't, 99.9% of mothers would just go ahead and get the MMR. My dh's ex doesn't consult him on anything, despite his having PR and being the most devoted, loving, committed father imaginable. And yes, he did the nights and the nappies with her, and does so with our son. Probably more than me, to be honest. And guess what? His ex left him because he didn't earn enough money. It does seem to me sometimes that men can't win. Work too much and you aren't doing your share at home, do your share (& more) and your partner leaves you for a very wealthy corporate lawyer who spends half the week abroad, but earns enough to buy a £2million house and pay for a nanny.

I agree with your posts Tom but can't resist pointing out that of the "year's maternity leave" for women, only 6 weeks is effectively paid. While its great that SMP has been extended now, at £100 a week I don't think that for many women it is a subsititute for working outisde the home from a financial perspective. So the difference between men and women really only amounts to 6 weeks, surely not many couples base the breadwinning decision on this?

It was very much my choice to work part time to spend more time with ds, but my dh also works as flexibly as he can and comes home early, gets up with him and spends a lot of time with him. I agree though that statutory maternity leave pay is rubbish but in my last job it was OK, definitely better than dh's (nothing!). However, I also think the difference is essential because women can breastfeed so care isn't equal in the early months/years because of that. If the gvmt is serious about encouraging breastfeeding they should beef up maternity pay properly so it is a real choice for all women. I think it would pay for itself in reduced allergies, infections etc anyway.

lol aloha - that's about the sum of it!

bells 2 - at least there's the option. Most women do take at least 6 months maternity leave, despite the low pay - guess who gets to make up the earnings gap - dads, whose working hours rocket when they become fathers.

Personally, I think women should get 3 months maternity leave (at 90% of wages), men should get 2 weeks paternity leave (at 90% of wages), and then each parent should get 3 months paid parental leave (at AMP levels) and 6 months unpaid parental leave. Under this arrangement, women would not loose any entitlement, but at least couples would have a choice about who does what. (and it might have half a chance of being legal under the Sex Discrimination Act, which I don't think the current arrangements are, but that's another issue for the courts, as soon as we find a couple who want the mum to return to work and the dad to take a year off! Anyone know a couple like that??!)