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.

geekette- first paragraph general conclusion supported by many studies.

second paragraph - the general conclusion graphically illustrated with a personal example. I don't thing that given those examples anyone would claim my ex takes equal responsibility.

Conclusion - Why should there be a blanket a blanket legal assumption of 50/50 rights when it clearly isn't a case of enforced 50/50 responsibility.

The upshot: children of abusive fathers are the ones who will suffer, They already suffer at the hands father's that use their rights to drag their children's mothers through he courts for years and years causing untold damage in emotional financial and just about every way possible. Use their rights to minimise and disregard years of abuse.

Now really, we really want to give these men more rights?

I'm not getting into this sexist self serving nonsense.

You're way too shouty to be interesting and worth conversing with.

They are getting more rights you'll just have to suck that up I suppose.

Good for them and it's great for the children too.

Ok let me get this straight -

first person disagrees it's "them and us" and "sexist"

Second person disagrees with your point of view (giving general and personal reasons why), and they're shouty and not worth conversing with?

You have as yet not provided any justification personal or otherwise for your stance, which I would actually be interested to explore with you further.

yes if my kids dad does get more rights I will suck it up and be there to support my children. I will also have to suck up horrendous ongoing legal bills and consoling my daughter when she come back from visiting her dad and hearing her dad pontificate over how about how important his rights are over her feelings. I can't imagine how much worse that will be if his "rights" get enshrined in law.

I so feel strongly that this is damaging to children, they are not property to have rights over. and I am very sorry is my passion is too shouty

But suck it up all the above I will because I take my responsibilities as a mum seriously.

So children are no property, and that's the reason why mothers should be the ones who own them and can call the shots. Rightyo.

You don't believe that your view that the mother is the better parent is a sexist view? And then you tar all fathers with the same view using your own anecdotal evidence?

As WW said children are not property to be owned by either parent they are human beings who need both parents to be in their lives.

Unless as said above a parent brings risk and or danger to the table in which case other options should be explored.

You wouldn't disagree with that would you?

There has to be some sort of change whether it is 50/50 or not. I know a number of men who are desperate to see their kids but live under the whims of their ex. One drove down from Scotland to Cornwall to find the ex had moved house the previous day to LOndon without telling him, another has taken the kids to Oz without telling him and a third, the worst one of all won't even admit to the child that the ex is the father and goes to contact visits just to bully and abuse. I do know of fathers who have buggered of and left their kids high and dry, but for those who want to do the right thing they really do need some support in law.

foglike - of course men can be the primary carer, where they wish and are able. Fact is that very few choose to do this. The tendency for the woman to be the primary carer after divorce just reflects the norm of our society, which is that women, in general, are the primary carers whatever the relationship with the father.

Individual situations may differ from the norm, that's why you can't have a blanket rule such as the presumption of 50:50. Parents must make the decision for their own family circumstances and their own individual children, and if they can't agree, seek mediation or legal help - and if the courts have to resolve it, they should look at the facts of that case, not apply a one-size-fits all solution that is not in the best interests of that paritcular child and family.

It's so misleading to describe this as a new right for children.

If a parent doesn't want contact, they can't be forced to see their child. You can compel someone to give up a portion of their income but not to be a parent. So if this "right" to access cannot be enforced and is dependent on the wishes of the parent, how is it a right?

This is a right for PARENTS. Not children.

And that's why it's a bad idea. Court decisions shouldn't be about what suits parents but about what is best for children.

I agree that this has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the child(ren); it's all about parents' rights (and I'd imagine a product of hardcore lobbying by fathers' rights groups).

I think family law should start from the actual circumstances of individual families, rather than making assumptions from the start. That's not just in the case of families where one parent has been abusive; it should be how things are done in all cases.

Holdmecloser - why is 50/50 as the default detrimental to children?

There is also a fundamental difference between "access" and "residency".

Children can still see plenty of both parents with necessarily needing to be regularly packed up to live in another house. I remain to be convinced that 50/50 residency is in the children's best interests

My parents divorced when I was a teenager. I would have hated 50-50 residency. It would have been awful. Spending most weekends with my dad on the other side of the city was bad enough for my social life. I didn't feel I could object to that (for fear of upsetting my dad), and I'm very glad that no one expected a norm of 50-50 (which my dad would have loved, purely because he wouldn't have been liable for child maintenance).

"Without necessarily" that should have read.

I'm sure 50-50 residency is the best outcome for some children. But equally there are many like Damsel for whom packing up their lives every Wednesday night (or whatever) would be disruptive and upsetting.

How many adults divide their lives between two houses 50-50? A few, certainly, but it's not how most of us want to live.

For that matter, how many parents divide caregiving 50-50? Again, a few, and great if it works for that family. But most families have one parent take on more of the caregiving. And that's why the access system has developed the way it has - it mirrors how people actually choose to live their lives, rather than dividing real life down the middle. [cue cliche about King Solomon].

This might seem insignificant but can I just point out that THERE IS NOTHING IN THE REPORT TO SUGGEST THAT THEY'RE GOING TO IMPOSE 50:50 RESIDENCE OR EVEN THINKING ABOUT IT

In fact, this is so important I'm going to repeat it: THERE IS NOTHING IN THE REPORT TO SUGGEST THAT THEY'RE GOING TO IMPOSE 50:50 RESIDENCE

"Shared residency" (which is in the report) as a concept is NOT about 50:50. It's about allowing both parents to be treated more-or-less equally.

Eg: You have a sole residency order. Your ex has a contact order. That means you get to choose schools, medical care, take your DCs abroad for up to a month with no notice, consultation or discussion with your ex etc. Your ex cannot do any of that. With a shared res order, both parents will be able to take foreign holidays with the DCs, and both parents will have an input into choice of schools etc. In other words, making sure that both parents are involved in their DCs' lives.

It's still got nothing to do with children's rights and everything to do with parents' rights, Sorbs. I commented on the 50-50 thing because people seem to think that's How It Should Be (which I don't agree).

I think it's tragic that people can't be decent enough to cooperate with each other as parents (and I know from personal experience that it's very damaging when your parents treat you as a weapon against each other - thanks mum and dad!). DS1's dad has no legal parental rights, but I consult him about things to do with DS because he cares about these things. Generally ExP is happy to go with my decisions, but he likes to know what's going on/have the opportunity to have some input into DS's life (beyond taking him on awesome holidays that I can only dream of).

edam that's not exactly the way it is is it?

How many fathers would love to enjoy custody of their children after a separation but how does the law look a that?

This thread is quickly becoming just supposition and point scoring.

I'm no legal eagle so I can't comment on any of the prev comments. BUT - what I will say, is, thAt "default" settings in courts, strike me as potentially very dangerous.
It wasn't that long ago the default sentence for murder was death -
And where would Barry George or Colin Stagg be now if that were still the case?
So putting aside mysogyny , misandry, and general bitterness---
I'd say NOT a good idea.

There are a lot of Mum's on here so we have a pretty one sided view. I am on both sides of this in a way and would point out that there is another side of every coin.

For example I know of one woman who wanted to be a sahm so much that without any consultation or discussion she quit her job, not telling her DH until she came home on her last day. This left him having to work longer hours to try to keep a roof over their head and she would not give up her car or make lifestyle changes. This led to the breakdown of the marriage and I fail to see why he should be punished and the children punished for the fact he was effectively prevented from being a key carer. yet he had to go to court to fight to contact.....

In my own situation I am the primary breadwinner with DH doing the lions share of the childcare. This is a decision that DH and I reached together like many other married couples based on who was in a position to bring home the greater salary and therefore pay the bills. You could argue that I get to do the "fun parts" of childcare but if we were to separate there is no way I would want to have alternate week ends with my precious children. At the moment I get to to bath them and put them to bed every night, hear about their day and help with homework...etc. those things are valuable to them and me and why should we all lose out on them because the marriage breaks down?

I have experience of a DV situation and agree that better protections is needed for genuine cases of domestic violence. However society also needs to realise that men are just as capable as women of being great parents and make grounded decisions and this law goes some way towards that.

Of course some people are bad parents but you get those in both genders and parents will still be able to go to court to challange shared parenting if they can demonstrate that it is not right for the child.

Thank God for common sense and equality. An end to all those feminists and female bigots who see only themselves as the parent to the children. Did you know that most domestic violence is perpetrated by women. Sorry to all those girls I have upset. Lets hope it puts a final nail in the coffin of all those wicked women who continue to undermine their childrens relationship with their father.

Whoopee sounds like liberation to me. The best news since Ms. Pankhurst won us the vote. Love ya Dads.

phew, thank god you're here nongenderbias9 (!), good to see someone prepared to Fight the Good Fight.

Im with Zest01, and will go futher, although there are violent men, who absolutely shouldnt have access to their children, there are also women who do use their children as pawns in their war against their ex.

In fact scrub that, because I have a female friend who was also in this position, so shall we refer to the RP rather than the sex of the RP.

The courts do not protect children from this kind of emotional abuse either.

How many fathers would love to enjoy custody of their children after a separation but how does the law look a that?

Quite.

I have no problem with this so long as those involved know that "rights" come with "responsibilities". We seem to be developing a culture of folk who scream "I have rights" without accepting that they also have "responsibilites".