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.

If you regard the very, very few Fathers 4 Justice members who scaled Buckingham Palace as representing all thought regarding the promotion of father's involvement in the raising of their children then you are either a) rather lazy in going for stereotypes rather than spending five minutes actually doing a bit of research, or b) willfully misinformed. Or, the third option, as you also seem to be including any promotion of father's involvement under the pejorative banner of "MRA" then it might be c) you're trolling.

Both Familes Need Fathers and The Fatherhood Institute have campaigned to increase paternity leave and to encourage flexible working for both men and women. Eg, this. They don't do it by climbing buildings and hanging out banners because they (quite rightly) regard that kind of stunt as counter-productive and liable to get them labelled as nut-jobs. On the other hand, if people such as yourself ignore all other attempts at such campaigning one can almost start to understand why F4J chose the tactics they did.

My husband does 50-50 childcare and domestic work.

I can't remotely claim to know how I would act were we to split, but I do know this:

Our daughters are used to being cared for by both of us.

It would be very hard for me to get away with trying to enforce an arrangement that meant they saw him every second weekend. They would hate it and complain and be upset, and they are only 3 and nearly 2.

I think where a household already splits things 50-50 this law will be largely unnecessary, and where they don't it is unfair.

I commend niceguy's contributions to this thread. Thank you :)

Great posts Basil.

Don't call me a troll snorbs it's aginst mn rules. I dn't nclude the organisations you mentioned under MRA as it happens so your post is irrelevant.

God almighty this thread is horrific - the assumption that all nrp parents are bad and all women resident parents are the victims of abuse, the fake feminism. Seriously? Children should be the only ones with rights, the adults with responsibilities and the reason it needs to be that way is because seperated parents become combative and lose sight of the truth very quickly. The law should be there to cut through that and get to what children actually need without all this sexist bullshit.

ps seconding niceguys contributions to this thread - really well reasoned.

"Children should be the only ones with rights, the adults with responsibilities"

That's the problem with this new law isn't it.

Quite SQ.

People who support this new law, don't believe in children's rights. Because this law does nothing for children, absolutely nothing.

Children already have the right to see both their parents, unless that would cause them harm. (And even where it causes them harm, the courts still allow them to see them more often than not.)

Unfortunately, where non resident parents can't be bothered to see their children, those rights turn out to be non-existent.

This new law doesn't address any of that.

I am active compaigner for children's rights doing more than just posting on mumsnet. I raise money for the NSPCC and other children's charities and I feel very strongly about equality for children across all aspects of life for example colour, socio-economic background and gender.

I fully support the new law and Basil I think you totally undermine your own point of view by making such sweeping statements and generalisations.

The new law will not encourage better access for abusive parents and RP's will still have the same recouse they have now to demonstrate why they feel shared parenting (which is not necessarily 50/50) is not righ for the child.

However in most cases children need a positive relationship with both children and it is hard for a child to have strong relationship with a parent they see once a fortnight.

I don't think the law should be about forcing children to spend time with a parent who doesn't want to know whether that is the mother or father as that cannot be right for the child at all, sad but true. However where both parents want to be involved they should be able to because it IS better for the child.

I have said my piece on here and can totally accept that others have a different POV but for those on both sides of the argument who make ridiculous assumptions about those who disagree with them and who insist on tarring everyone with the same brush, I think you serve only to undermine your own argument and give weight to the other side.

Well thought out debate and opinions from across the board are useful - some of the posts on here though just come across as a bit "ranty"

What protection against better access for abusive parents does this law propose, Zest?

putting it in capital letters doesn't make it true. where is your evidence that it 'IS' better for children in most cases? quite a sweeping statement in itself.

I thought the current default legal position, is to start from an assumption that both parents are equally vital in the child's life and take it from there

And to act in the best interests of the child

Why does this need changing?

Oh I'm sorry Basil, I must have mis-read your post when you wrote Where are the campaigns? When did anyone ever scale Buckingham Palace to demand the right to six months paid paternity leave and the right to part time work for fathers?

Quite ridiculously I thought that meant you didn't know that there were pro-fatherhood groups that campaign for just such things albeit without the ridiculous stunts. What an idiot I am.

It now appears that you did know of just such campaigning but - for reasons that, I'm sure, make perfect sense on Planet Basil - these somehow don't count and so you chose to pretend that they don't exist.

Well, that seems to clear that up.

Edam
How can fathers do the majority of the care hence gain custody, when your argument that mothers have breasts is something a father can't compete with when it comes to wanting to gain fairer paternity leave?
You're clutching at straws with that and you know you are....fathers don't stand a chance with that mentality.
Mothers don't pay child support after separation either you know?(My link shows the numbers roughly)
All this nonsense about PE kits and packed lunches isn't helping either because as stated above fathers in general do work longer hours and if the argument is that a mother works long hours when does she get the time to wipe snotty noses?
And if both people work full time by the definition of care by some on here the nanny should get custody because both parents do feck all.

The fact that women carry and feed their babies is an unchangeable fact of biology, and one that has a big (and gradually decreasing) impact on children's relationships with their mothers.

I used to believe that DH and I could be interchangeable parental units, but he made me see that this was not the case and that in fact they do still (despite 50-50 care) need me in a way they don't need him.

As they grow that will change, it is changing.

But attempting to erase the biological connection between a mother and a small child in the interest of "fairness" to fathers is not right.

Should a man be able to walk out on his pregnant wife (as we see all the time on here) and then assume he will have the newborn baby 50% of the time, thereby making breastfeeding impossible?

That is manifestly bad for the baby (and the mother) but that is the default position in at least one country where 50-50 timeshare is the assumed starting point.

When my children were babies I did far more of the care (and DH the housework) because that's how it needed to be. That matters, that is a big part of motherhood and I resent any suggestion that it is nothing more than an administrative inconvenience.

The idea that children of separated parents should have that maternal bond disrupted to mollify fathers is appalling.

Good points athing

Interesting that you think the nanny gets on with the childcare without any input from either of the parents foglike.

Which parent do you think usually tells her what the DC's routine is, what food they like, which days they have PE, which friends are a good combination to have round etc.? IE, engages in the mental, emotional and planning part of parenting, the bit that's invisible and unnoticed by those who don't do it?

I have to say - of the 3 female NRPs I know 2 don't pay maintenance.

And 1 of them, unbelievably walked out of the FMH to live with OM, leaving behind 2 heart broken daughters and a shed load of debt, then 10 years later, once there was only 1 school aged child - demanded a share of the equity in the house, when for those 10 years she made no contribution at all.

While some NRPs don't pay, in my (admittedly limited) experience, female NRPs don't pay either.

And which parent has taken the day off work when the nanny is ill or gone to sports days etc., with the consequent impact on perception of commitment, promotion chances, long term pension etc.? Did the parents take it in turns to fulfill these obligations, or was it generally done by only one of the parents?

It's so convenient for the parent who doesn't do all this invisible stuff, to ignore it and pretend it's irrelevant.

In our house if something crops up on the 2 days a week I work - dh takes the day off - on the basis that as I have a family friendly arrangement I need to show a high level of commitment.

'The idea that children of separated parents should have that maternal bond disrupted to mollify fathers is appalling.'

Is this a common view?

Excellent last post by zest01 btw.

youllbewaiting it will be the effect of the law I guess.

That poster put some hypothetical situations down where the law as it seems to stand would not be so positive for the child.

The proposes law, rather.

Does anyone know why they are moving away from courts doing what is best for the child, and the child having rights, to the parents having rights to the child instead?