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.

So according to your argument the least worst option for a child would be to lose all contact with the NRP, if there's any argument with how the RP wants it?
Gruesome.

Nice guy we'll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion the legislation is not designed to enforce 50/50 - people will still be free to either agree to less between themselves and the courts will still be free to make an order that varies from 50/50 shared care if they feel that is in the interests of the child. By the same token the leglislation will not be able to force parents who don't want that contact to spend time with the child - sad as it is, that wold not be in the child's best interests either.

All the legislation is there to do is change the starting point. The last situation I know of involved the Mum and the Dad agreeing to a level of contact (not 50/50 in this case), it working well for a year, then the mother deciding to suddenly reduce the time without giving notice or a reason. In court, despite the fact the arrangement had previously worked fine and NO REASON was given at first, the father was expected to demonstate why the arrangements should be kept as they were. When the courts agreed, the mother THEN made an false allegation and the whole thing had to be investigated which took 12 months.

I think the legislation is there to protect against this bias by saying that in most cases both parents are fit and the child should be able to spend time with both equally - IF either parent feels this is unworkable and the other disagrees then the courts can look at it on a case by case basis and make an informed decision.

If the parents live far apart for example, or if one works hours thta make it hard to arrange childcare then it may not be workable and shouldn't be forced. However if it is workable and both parents are able to share the time then there is no reason for it not to happen.

I would like to hear from posters who have / whose children have been st abuse by the NRP. You cannot really understand why OP is so against this unless you have been in that situation yourself. I don't care if you work in safeguarding/had a sister/friend who went through it - so did I, but personal experience is another thing altogether. Personally, I am all for innocent until proven guilty but once the interviews have been carried out and the reports filed, Significant guilt should mean NO CONTACT. The stress, hurt and humiliation caused by having to treat an abuser as a decent father/ex is wrong on so many levels. When my bastard of a DH uses the phrase 'I love you' to my DCs in phone messages, I am sometimes physically sick soon after.

Niceguy, the courts cannot order a non-resident father to have 50-50 care, or indeed even to see his DCs at all, if the father is not minded to do so.

I wish it were not the case.

That's the point line runner, the resident parent doesn't have a choice to just do 50% of the parenting. If the non resident parent only wants to do 20% of the parenting as in my case, the NRP has to pick up the remaining 80%. That's why it's a nonsense to say it's a right to do 50/50.

Where are my rights when my ex doesn't give her medicine when she's sick, returns her overtired and starving hungry, let's her down by failing to turn up on the school trips he promised?

Asa resident parent I would be happy to do 100% of the parenting however regocnise that it is best for my DC that they spend as much time as possible with both of their parents. It's not about "my rights" or "his rights" but about the children needing both parental figures in their lives as much as possible where this is posible and practical. Queen of whatever, if your ex does those things then the legislation wouldn't be an issue for you anyway because your ex doesn't want the time and doesn't make the effort. Some NRPS do want the time and will make the effort and should be able to, rather than be penalised because some NRP's have chosen to opt out!

Actually, I do have rights.

I have just chosen to put my children's well-being first.

Their father has chosen to put his own interests and convenience first.

I have no idea whether he is is a tiny minority or not.

I have no problem with this in principle, but there must be provision made for DV/abuse situations (by either parent), and where the children are of an age to express a reasoned preference, this has to be taken into account. There also needs to be flexibility for when the dynamics change, i.e. one or both former parents get a new partner and this causes distress.

Which is why I think legislating like this will be a disaster because it is just too simplistic. Real life isn't like that.

Linerunner, I'm perfectly aware that courts cannot order a unwilling parent to do 50-50, I think you misunderstand my point. Although it does remind me of the time my ex once threatened to take me to court because she didn't want the kids so much but I digress.

Anyway, I've said my point which is I fear the 50-50 will make parents focus on that with tunnel vision and restrict court's ability to vary orders accordingly. And that also some parents will use this new law to further abuse their ex-partners.

As a dad I'm naturally very concerned that fathers get a fair crack at the whip. At someone who has first hand knowledge of how biased the court system can be towards dad's, I know full well it's not perfect. But I just don't see how this change helps in the greater scheme of things.

So, when are they going to bring in the counterpart legislation to say that absent fathers (or tiny minority of absent mothers) who don't show up for contact are prosecuted for neglect? Oh that's right, never, because only women have responsibilities and only men have rights, and children have nothing at all and should just put up with being treated like objects. OK thanks for that tories.

No no no it is just horrific!!!

Giving my ex anymore RIGHTS over his property children is unheathy for them and leave virtually no chance of exH recognising he has responsibilities to the children not just rights. Abusive ex's will be given yet another tool in their toolbox with which to damage their children and ex's

There is evidence that 50/50 joint residency does not work unless it is something that both parents agree too. Chances are his is because the Dad was a decent dad in the first place and the break up was inherently non conflictual. There is suggestions that studies that show 50/50 to be best and most successful for he child are inherently flawed because the case studies are self selecting for the very reason stated above.

I'm sure my ex tell his current partner the allegations against him were false, they were not false just unprovable. Unfortunately Exh make good use of stupid attitudes like those voiced above.

Also If I bought expensive clothes, new mobiles phones and expensive holidays, but didn't save any money to feed or clothes my kids I would be accused of child abuse.

Yet fathers do this all the time (non compliance through the CSA) and still are called competent Dads.

Anything that rewards further rights to these awful men giving yet more excuses to haul there poor ex's through the court system is just unspeakable is just

I get so cross with the court system at the moment. We teach our children to get out of abusive relationships that the harm done by abuse physical and emotional is immense. We have organisations and organisations devoted to getting women out.

But then courts send the children back, often unsupervised, or supervised by relatives that have enabled the abuse to occur throughout the abusers lifetime.

I often wonder whether the children wouldn't actually be safer if the mother had stayed and that is a truly horrific thought.

sorry supervised should have been in inverted commas

actually I know a case where the dad isn't allowed to keep animals because he is considered a danger to them, but has been awarded unsupervised access to his kids.

One in four women suffers from domestic violence at some point in her life. Two women a week are killed. That's a LOT of violent men out there, many of whom will have children with their victim. So any presumption about contact has to take account of the fact that DV is frighteningly common.

The first duty of any decent parent, or any court, should be to keep the child safe. Yet at the moment, children and women fleeing violence are forced into contact with their abusers - and often beaten, abused or even killed as a result.

I can't see how imposing a rule that contact is 50:50 unless the court feels differently will do anything other than add to the danger for very many women and children - and some male victims, too.

There is a solid, practical, sensible and logical reason for women doing the lion's share of childcare after divorce - because that's the case pre-divorce in the majority of families. If men want to change that, they need to start taking responsibility while they are in relationships with the mothers of their children. Not enforce some ludicrous, dangerous and inappropriate notion of splitting a child down the middle.

This is nothing more then legalising child abuse...

edam - but that's sexist. You'll never change the status quo of women doing the lion's share wrt child rearing, if men actually are not given rights to take responsibility.

Seems to me rather myopic that sexism is deemed ok and even positive, as long as it is to the advantage of women.

(and would dispute how advantageous the perceived advantage actually is) sticking to the status actually bad for men and women alike.

it's the signals it sends out and the confusion it will cause which worries me. And the fact that certain abusers will use this to their advantage.

So picture a woman with a violent ex. She's managed to leave him and is opposing contact on the grounds he's violent with her AND the kids in the past. Now the ex comes rocking along and says "If you don't do xyz, then I'm gonna take you to court." Right now he can take his chances. However, soon he'll be able to say "If you don't do xyz, then I'm gonna take you to court. And look at the new law....I'm legally entitled to 50-50 care".

Now let's say YOU are the battered ex-wife and have witnessed your kids getting a beating. Will you:

a) Call his bluff and take your chances in court

b) Give in?

And which would make you more likely to take option b). A law which puts the start point at 50-50 or one which puts the child's interests first?

I believe the system should be fairer in respect of visitation and custody but maybe the new law isn't practical because of the way childcare is perceived to be the mothers job.
Maybe the childs best interests would be better served by removing abusive parents from the equation permanently and also enforcing spiteful contact stopping from the parents with care.

widow - the sexism is in the situation that mothers will do the lion's (lionesses) share of child-rearing. If men did 50% of the tedious chores - not just the fun, hey, let's play in the park but the tedious business of making packed lunches, remembering recorder bags and everything else - while they were actually living as part of a family unit, they'd be in a much stronger position to argue for shared care. The current situation, where children usually live mainly with their mothers post-divorce, merely reflects the fact that in most families the mother is the primary carer, the one who gives up any hope of a career, the one who goes part-time, or the one who has to do all the housework and childcare on top of a full-time job.

However, even if we did have a brave new world where men took on half of the domestic responsibility and did half of the unpaid household and childcare work, you'd still come up against the fact that you can't chop a child in half. Shuttling back and forth between two houses, spending half the week with one parent and half with the other, might work for some families, but I doubt it's best for the majority of children.

It's them and us by your definition Edam.

That's what I don't like about the undertone of the argument against 50-50 it's got this selfish sexist twist to it.

Judging by your posts it doesn't look like men could possibly fit into the position of sole carer......that's the impression I get anyway.

foglike- nice way to try an minimise and disregard the importance of something that studies have shown to be fact, nothing at all to do with them and us or sexism. Woman have been shown to do a significantly higher share of the housework and childrearing (even in homes that claim to have a 50/50 split)

When exH acts like a parent with equal responsibility I will seek to treat him as such.

However when for (very old) example he texted me five minutes before he's meant to be picked kids from nursery to ask where the nursery is and what it's called cos he'd forgotten (despite the kids having been there for three months and the brochure provided at the start) or he misses an day of contact because he hadn't been bothered to check the dates of school holiday (apparently my fault as I didn't remind him), I will continue to treat him as the shit part-time dad he is.

However he continues to pursue his "rights" through the court. Giving men like him any more rights when his responsibilities as a father aren't vigorously enforced does nothing more than treat a child as a peice of meat, an objec to be owned

LunarRose using your specific situation and statistics which are very society dependent to generalise about all fathers and mothers is a bit