Courts to consider making child access to both parents a legal RIGHT?

[HoudiniHissy]

www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8995395/Divorced-mums-and-dads-could-get-legal-right-to-see-their-children.html

Just look at the comments below! The misogyny!

This is BONKERS!

What about in abuse cases? The police, the SS, DV charities, HV are all screaming to get yourself and your children out of the abusive situation, and even now, when there is no legislation, the courts insist on contact with the perpetrator. sometimes even falling for their BS and awarding custody.

To make this a RIGHT means to trample all over the rights of the child and abused partner.

With rights come responsibility. It is all well and good expressing our right to free speech and all that (for example) but it denies the rights of others if we choose to use inflammatory or discriminatory speech.

Likewise, it's a great theory to enshrine equal access to parents in the event of a split, but when is the WELFARE of all involved taken into account. If we give perpetrators of domestic abuse rights they will use them to the letter of the law and beyond to inflict further damage.

Life as an ex partner of a violent/abusive person is hard enough, without giving these monsters a RIGHT to contact.

Abusers, IMHO, should have as little to do with their children as possible. Their poison should die with them, not pollute the next generation.

Can't see anything wrong with it? Surely in abuse cases it should and would be handled differently, but find the idea that any father should be presumed to be violent and/or abusive strange and very wrong.

Also don't like the idea that a mother should always automatically be deemed the more fit parent.

Giving equal rights and moreover giving the child right to access with both parents equally is a very positive step.

Echo what WW said

No, if it's a right it's a right and so far the courts are NOT always protecting the abuse victims from abusers.

Equal rights where a situation is equal is all well and good. The current legal framework (with a massive injection of common sense) could be better used than to deem 50/50 contact a RIGHT.

It's not about presuming a partner is abusive at all, but the fact that IF they are, they can't be treated as a non-abusive person. They are NOT normal and shouldn't be awarded automatic rights to access to ANYONE.

I'm not saying that the mother is the more fit parent, I didn't even specify gender as women DO abuse men. I am saying that an abusive parent should NOT have an automatic right to expect ANYTHING.

Guess you have to have gone through it to understand the issue here.

what WW said

this is a disgusting proposal.

a child is not a property. the only person in a separation case who has rights over a child is the child!

What is right for them is the only person whose rights should be considered.

Can't come in soon enough imo but then I guess you have to have gone through an ex making false allegations to try to prevent contact to see it from my point of view as well.

An assumption of shared parenting as the norm is the way forward and with exceptions being able to apply to the courts if there is a genuine reason why not rather than (usually) the father having to jump through hoops to see the children that love and miss him.

Because a child is not a property the child's right to equal access to both parents is a good thing.

A child has the right to access to both parents obviously if either parent has broken a postion of trust that needs to be reviewed.
But the default position should be that the child should have equal access.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Makes sense for that to be the default position, with each case taken as an individual one, with the rights and safety of the child as the priority.
Safety from emotional manipulation and abuse as well as physical.

Agree with zest01. Well said.

This sort of legislation should have been brought in years ago.

The default presumption should ALWAYS be that both parents are equal.

Hysterical claptrap about DV abusers benefiting from this is ridiculous. The only people who have anything to fear are bitter and twisted contact blockers.

'The only people who have anything to fear are bitter and twisted contact blockers.'

I disagree, there are a lot of people who feel that they are protecting their children from abuse by fighting contact with an ex-partner, not bitter and twisted at all, just with bitter experiences and protective of their children.
Which is why each case should be considered independently, with the rights of the child as paramount. Neither parent should be using the children as cannon fodder in an adult war, which is what so often happens and is both damaging and unacceptable.

Didn't read the article but from your summary sounds like this should have been the law ages ago?

It is only right that children get equal access to their parents.

I doubt any judge would give a known abuser access to any child. And most DV sufferers will continue to have protection so that they do not need to meet their abusers except in court.

I have a huge problem with this concept.

In principle who could argue with the premise that kids should have access to both parents a legal right. Simples eh?

However, in practice family law is a complete mess. Parents often emotionally charged. They often lose sight of what's best and focus on winning.

All this legislation will do is encourage parents to fight over their "rights to equal time"

Right now the courts have a simple premise to consider. What's the best for the child.

Frankly I don't give a flying fuck about the rights of the parents and I don't support anything which makes parents think they have additional rights.

In my opinion, judges only consideration is what's in the best interests of the child. Whether that be 2 hours or 2 days, if that's what's best for the child(ren), then that's all that matters.

I feel it is still putting the rights of the child first, just starting from a different place that's all. At the moment there is a strong presumption in favour of alternate week ends and I think the legislation is just suggesting that we start considering what is best for the child from a different place. There has to be a "standard measure" if you like and I feel equal parenting should be it. Of couse one size doesn't fir all and any parents who still cannot agree with still have the court option to explore, but there will be less bias in favour of (usually) the mother

In an ideal world then yes of course equal parenting would be preferred. But it's not an ideal world.

What you'll find is many parents will get totally lost in their battle and they'll be focused on the 'equal' part. Some abusive parents will use this as a blackmail tool to force the other to back down or fear leaving their children in the hands of an abuser.

I've not seen any evidence that a court starts with a presumption of every other weekend.

That said, often it is the most convenient routine for the child.

Back when me & my ex had near 50-50 access, they were always shuttling between houses. Uniform, homework were logistical nightmares. The kids of course didnt really know any different. But they did seem way more settled once we adopted an alternate weekend routine.

But it isn't an ideal world now is it? So many parents already get caught up in the battle of rights and so on and the "control" can be handed to the resident parent to the detriment of the child. I know this first hand and there is more than one form of abuse. In my opinion (and experience) it is damaging to the children to have contact witheld on the whim of one parent when there is no reason at all for it to be stopped. That situation is very common. I know of situations where 50/50 works, alternate week ends works and all sorts of arrangements in between work.

No one is suggesting that one size fits all but in this country we do need to regognise that children benefit the most when both parents (where appropriate) play an active role in shaping their lives.

Starting from shared care as the norm with very much the option of agreeing to differentiate from that when appropriate is the best way of going about it.

It's never going to be an ideal world but equality in parenting makes the best of a bad situation in my opinion

I would like there to be a law that says that the father has to dedicate as much time to bringing up the children as the mother does.

In fact, how about as much time and money?

Line runner there are many many fathers who actually devote MORE money to raising their child and would LOVE to be able to dedicate as much time but are prevented from doing so.

Of couse the financial side of things should also be reviewed as the current system is failing miserably and there are some NRP's out there not paying their way.......but a presumption of shared cared would mean shared costs pretty much as both parents would then be contributing to food, clothing, housing, transport, activities....etc

I know, zest, I'm just pissed off woth my own ExH who lives a couple of miles away and manages to see his DCs once a month, and only a week out of 13 weeks of school holidays. His choice.

And I work hard to pay the bills and own a house and make sure the DCs have what they need. They get 100% of my income. He gives £35 a week each - and he works full time in a public service management role.

Like I said, I'm just pissed off I haven't got one of the good 'uns.

Zest01, but there are many more fathers (or non resident parent, not automatically the mother) who do to spend anything close to 50% time or money on their kids. Why does the CSA exit, why do (I think) only 40% of parents get maintenance. Clearly maintenance and contact are not the same things.

Also the NRP can drop out of their child's life at any time, can move away etc. at any time but the RP needs the NRP's written permission. The NRP can be late, unreliable, abusive, lazy and yet the legal position is that the NRP is obliged to continue facilitating contact.

Geekette said: I doubt any judge would give a known abuser access to any child. And most DV sufferers will continue to have protection so that they do not need to meet their abusers except in court.

This shows just how little is understood of abuse. My ex was abusive, Women's Aid and the police helped me get away because they said he was so dangerous. But he never hit me, no charges were ever pressed so none of that would count in court. He thinks it's OK to let my parents see my daughter even though he knows this is against my wishes and my Dad sexually abused me as a child (again no charges ever pressed so none of it counts in court). And my situation really isn't exceptional.

We do shared-care and split the costs 50-50 it can be done.

This is really an area I know nothing about other than through the children in my class with separated parents.
If the child is legally entitled to access to both parents, then why shouldn't the responsibility for that be 50/50 in law? So that the NRP was held to the agreement, had to maintain contact, couldn't move away without discussion and a written agreement, had to provide parenting to a reasonable standard and that this;
'The NRP can be late, unreliable, abusive, lazy and yet the legal position is that the NRP is obliged to continue facilitating contact.'
would be challenged by an independent adjudicator.

The other issue is that if the RP is saying that there has been abuse, that the NRP should be denied access and that they are dangerous, it is unreasonable to expect one person's word to be taken as truth against another's without any evidence. Horrific abuse does take place on an hourly basis, I'm not denying that. But so does lying and manipulation and wanting to punish a partner when a relationship is breaking down.
That's not how the law works here, you surely can't be accused and punished for a crime on one person's opinion with no corroboration or evidence. If the safety and wellbeing of the children is of prime importance, then both partners need to be investigated if they can't come to common ground about what should happen with regards to access. So that if someone is a danger to their children, then the proof is there and used against them.

Dust, the problem with 50/50 in law is that one size doesn't fit all. Right now the court has only one thing to consider. What is in the best interests of the child. If courts decide that it should be 50-50, then it can already be ordered so. If they decide it's alternate weekends, that can order that too. No contact....yep, that can also be done.

What bringing this into law will inevitably mean is parents fighting over their 50%. A child isn't a parcel that can be split and as someone who had to go through the torture of family court, I just don't think any good can come of defining this.

People do not all act rationally when it comes to the kids. I have a friend who has to track the hours in an Excel spreadsheet and any changes she wants has to be made up in hours for him. Her ex has become utterly obsessed with making sure he has 50% of time. Funnily enough if he wants to change, he's not so keen to make up that time. It's not rational, not good for the child either.

Zest, yes some parents withhold contact. That's wrong too of course and court's can already deal with that. Enshrining 50-50 makes no difference at all. If a court wanted to order that, they can do so.

So what you are in fact doing is making it harder for courts to decide by tying one arm behind their back.

I remember one case from another forum I used to be on. The dad fought a long & hard battle to see his kids against a mother who was completely against contact. We only ever heard his side of things. But ultimately after years, the court put an end to it by deciding to order no contact for dad. On the surface that is TOTALLY unfair. But it was clear the kids were being emotionally damaged by the all the fighting. In that context, I can totally understand that perhaps the best thing to stop the fighting is for one parent not to see their children anymore. Of course that's unfair on the poor dad (and the children) but arguably it's the least worst option for the kids. And that's the problem with family disputes. Usually there's no 'fair' option which suits every party.