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.

I think because it appears to me the family courts work on that mothers should be the primary carer and dads the NRP. The CSA, child benefit etc can't deal with shared-care it doesn't exist to them.

And I think for years that has just been accepted.

But times are changing, dads are far more involved than they were. If I think about my parents and grand-parents times really have changed.

But I'm not sure MN is a true reflection on society, for a start I don't know anyone who has been a Sahp, well only one and he was a man.

Everyone works, so maybe that blurs the edges a bit.

I thought that in the courts the starting point is that parents are equal and then they hear all the circs and take it from there? With the interests of the child at the heart of it.

Is that not right? I'm sure I have read that.

It's absolutely not true that the family courts work on the basis that the mother should be the Resident Parent.

They work on the basis that the child's interests come first and that the child's interests are generally served by continuing the arrangement (whatever it was) which existed before the relationship broke down.

In most cases, that means the mother gets residency, purely and simply because she has been the parent who has done the lion's share of the practical, day to day tasks of parenting. But it's not because she's the mother per se, IYSWIM.

This is because the rights of the child are absolutely central. I cannot imagine how anyone thinks the rights of the parent (of whatever sex) being put at the centre instead of those of the child, is in the best interests of children.

But then, this government isn't really all that interested in the interests of children, is it.

Competitiveness and stereotypical generalisations is exactly the reason why the law needs to legislate against this obvious bias against the father in terms of responsibility in respect of child contact.

For mothers who subscribe to the theory that maternal feelings supersede paternal ones because of childbearing and nature yet don't understand that some fathers don't seem to show as much responsibility....is it any wonder when their feelings are marginalised and lessened due to their sex?

Anecdotal evidence and statistics show it's a mixed bag yet when the default position of mother knows best isn't working in the framework of a modern world and fathers are providing more care,where is the adjustment in law making allowances for this awakening to take place and flourish?

My ex is a waster and a deadbeat and my ex stops me seeing the children just doesn't cut it any more does it?

Bollox, DH is a decent man who didnt want to put his exw on the streets despite her shagging someone else for years.

She became RP by default then and the courts are reluctant to change the status quo.

Being RP is bugger all to do with who has been the main carer and everything to do with who stays in the home.

And this works both for and against women - one of my friends left an abusive man and couldnt take the children, he became RP by default and she was never able to get them back.

"Competitiveness and stereotypical generalisations"

What, that parents are equal and the interests of the child should come first?

Are people arguing that fathers should get residency if they have not been the primary carer?

I am not even sure what people on here want TBH.

"For mothers who subscribe to the theory that maternal feelings supersede paternal ones because of childbearing and nature"

That post was talking about BF newborns. Surely no-one would argue that a BF newborn should be separated from its mother, assuming she is not a danger to the child?

Well Im a huge advocate of shared care as a default position.

and I think there needs to a massive overhaul of the benefits system to allow for it and that understands children need a home with both parents, that a DECENT NRP also needs a bedroom for his children etc etc

You don't believe a father can be as good a parent as a mother SQ?

Good points MJB and a helpful way forward.

I'm a huge advocate for shared care before the breakdown of the relationship.

I also believe that if parents did 50 50 childcare while they were together, there would actually be less relationship breakdown.

Most people who are in favour of 50 50 custody as a default, don't even think about what the status was before the breakdown of the relationship. If a child has been brought up mainly by one parent and the other parent hasn't been around and hasn't engaged with the child at all, it is absolutely not in that child's interests to have that parent granted 50% custody.

Particularly if that parent isn't even going to be the one doing most of the caring - his mother or new girlfriend is.

I am sorry but its not possible in most cases for parents to equally share care because of working arrangements.

It does not however mean that fathers do not equally love their children.

In all of this, I feel that somehow, we diminish the role of the full time working parent.

DH for example does not have a job that allows for PT working in a way that would accomodate childcare, he could cut his hours, but it would be on an irregular pattern.

So I went part time, mostly because I work public sector.

Basil, your arguement to me, would mean more mothers being forced into working full time, that way - with 2 full time working parents, then you could say childcare is shared.

I just dont get how working to support your family, is not sharing childcare.

and I should add, it does not mean that children dont equally love their fathers.

No MJ, not necessarily - both parents could do part time work.

Women are constantly being told that it's our own fault we hit the glass ceiling because we prioritise our children and if only we fitted in with the male model of working, we'd have 50% of CEO's being female.

Whereas when men choose to follow the male model of work and don't prioritise childcare, they're given sympathy about the way the workplace is set up.

Well guess what, they need to change it. Women had to fight for the right to earn their own living. Men need to fight for the right to parent. There's one massive advantage that men have that women never had: the majority of of the other half of humanity, will wholeheartedly support and help them in their struggle. We'll give them all the support so many of them begrudge us.

Not being rude, I have to go shopping now....

Seriously, I can say that there are huge steps backward being made to part time and flexible working for women, the recission is having a huge impact on this and more and more female employees are being denied this - especially in the public sector, there is going to be less part time working for both genders not more

I don't believe that a father can BF can BF a newborn, foglike, do you?

Do you think that a BF newborn should spend half the week away from its mother?

I know someone who has 50/50 residency, with an older child it works perfectly well. I am not sure why an advocate for father's rights is now saying that shared residency is not possible, what on earth are you after then?

As a point of interest the 50/50 residency case I know the parents get on well and arrange it all between themselves. if it was court imposed 50/50 residency, would that mean that neither parent were allowed to move away from the locality until the child was 16 or 18? As obviously they would need to be able to reach both homes from their school and see their friends and do their clubs and so on. Practically, how would this work?

Another good post from basil.

MJ so I gather that your DH is fighting to get residency of his DC?

That might colour your views on this somewhat?

The other massive advantage men have in changing things is that they have almost all the power and money.

The world of childcare is organised as it is because that is what suited men. Women didn't set things up this way.

Not any more no - but he was badly let down by court system.

My views are formed by lots of things - see below re my female friend. Once she left the marital home he became RP - and she until then was main carer. She was sahm. It made no difference.

This new law won't improve the court system though. The problems at the moment appear to be with the courts rather than the actual laws, so what needs fixing is the courts, surely.

Basils point is good but naive. My employer is/was family friendly. We have a freeze on pt working requests due to recruitment freeze and not being able to backfill hours.

This is - I know - being replicated throughout the public sector.

So in a time when this is happening - when women are being denied what was so hard fought for - where are all these family friendly jobs to come from?

?

Why can't a man look after a child while he is working full time? Thousands and thousands of families have two full-time working parents or one full time working mum. I don't get what the problem is.