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.

It's a horrible phrase because it's a horrible concept.

Sharing out children's time like they are holiday apartments with no thought to what it actually better for them.

It's Solomon chopping the baby in two in a show of "fairness".

It would be less horrible in cases where sex/gender were ignored and courts gave clear instructions and consequences.

But the Solomon analogy could very well be more apt than you think.

In the case of Solomon and his famous decision one mother was genuine and the other mother wasn't.

In real life both parents are genuine.

The point of the Solomon story, was that the real mother put her child's interests first, not insisting on something that would not be in the child's best interests because logically it was "fair".

It's a pretty reactionary story tbh. I prefer Brecht's version in CCC where he's clear that it's not biological relationship which determines who should have custody of a child, it's love and a willingness to put that child's interests before your own. (Even though he was only using it as an allegory for soviets having a right to the land, which was the real point of the story...)

And this has what bearing on the proposed govt legislation Basil?

I hope you're not suggesting that dad takes a back seat whilst mother dictates the father child relationship.

The bearing on the legislation, is that children's interests should be at the centre of any legislation.

Not that of parents.

I'm still at a loss to understand why people think that putting a parent's interests at the centre of a custody case, is better than putting a child's interests at the centre of a custody case.

Which is what this legislation proposes.

So tell me, why is it better to prioritise the interests of parents, before that of children?

The only valid argument I've heard for that, is that you can pretend that you're doing something in a child's interest, when actually it's in an adult's and is masquerading as that of the child. Which happens already, for example when courts force resident parents to send their children to abusive non-resident parents for contact, on the assumption that this is in the best interests of a child, when in fact it's in the best interests of an abusive parent. But the fact that the best interests of a child can be wrongly defined in some cases, surely doesn't negate the principle that that's what courts should be aspiring to achieve?

So the resident parent (Usually the mother) is being forced?
You're not exactly hiding your thoughts on this...if the courts actually did their job and more fathers were awarded custody those views would change.

Hence the thought of new and welcomed legislation.

Many many full time working single mothers would love men to be forced to have chidlren 50% pf the time even if they didn't want it. Give children the right to force their father to have them. Jail mothers who won't abide by contact orders. Compel men to have children and turn up on time and have them 50% of the time and things would be a lot fairer.

Alos if either side is late more than say 3 times or misses a time or messes up an arrangement penalise them - a sort of three strikes and you're out rule to apply both to men and women.

MJ - you are talking about how working full time and not being a full time carer to their children doesn't make your partner love his children less than you. that's not what is being said. the point is though that it is the interests of the children that are looked at - not the father or mother. continuity and stability are considered and that is the basis that they tend to live with the person who has been the main carer, to stay in keeping with what they are used to. and practically that also means the person who has already adapted their lives to take care of those children.

it's not to do with loving more or punishing/rewarding men. it's to do solely with what is best for the children.

foglike I still haven't quite grasped why it is a philosophically better position, to put parent's rights at the centre of a custody case, than children's rights.

I understand that for parents who want their interests to be put before their children's, this new legislation is a Good Thing. But I'm still not getting the theoretical basis of why it is a Good Thing and "I would get my own way at last" is just not a very robust philosophical position.

I have been out

Foglike you asked me to clarify a post, even though I had been quite clear earlier on when I asked the original question:

""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?"

As for the idea you are talking about my posts, you aren't. It was a different poster entirely who expressed an idea that there was an innate bond between mother and baby that should not be broken. Please do read what is written, it is annoying to have to cut and post and repeat in this way.

And you STILL haven't answered the question.

Oh it didn't cut and paste the whole thing will try again

SardineQueen Sat 14-Jan-12 11:54:10
""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?"

Oh whoops it did. Sorry for repeating!

Usually mothers who are a danger to their newborn infants are so, because they have a history of abuse of previous children and/ or because they are drug addicts.

Generally speaking, they don't tend to take up with lovely, compassionate, caring men who are going to make better parents than them.

Most children are older when there are disputes over contact. At the moment I thought the child's best interests were paramount so I'm sure what the difference is. We do need a change as at present you can say pathetic things like the mother won't be happy if husband sees the children more and so that will damage the children or she needs to move to NZ where her family is so they let her go.

There is nothing to stop a breastfed very small baby going out with his father for 2 hours on a Saturday morning and again in the afternoon.

There is nothing to stop if the parents agree that father even staying over night where the baby is if they can both agree that.

I do think it's about a Childs rights, I believe that your relationship with your parents is of fundamental importance to your long term emotional well being.

Therefore a good relationship and quality time with both would be essential.

Plus I don't like the message that "the working parent" is less important or less of a parent.

Furthermore using the example of my friend - the court didn't care who had been main carer all the chlordane lives to that point - it was more concerned about maintaining the status quo.

A non interested NRP should have no rights - I have advised people before now to stand their children in front of that days news and photograph them - to prove contact (CSA dispute).

I am not saying 50/50 can or should be rigidly applied but hat it should be the starting point (excluding abuse).

We cannot have a guilty until proven innocent system. There are parents of both genders who abuse the current syst, the benefits system does not recognise any sort of shared care or the NRPs needs to support and home their child.

It was to do with a theoretical situation upthread, xenia, where a situation was mooted where a couple split up before the baby was born and it was BF, in that case would people insist on 50/50 being the right thing to do.

Whether it is a likely scenario or not (and I'm sure it happens), foglike has yet to say whether they think it would be appropriate for a father to have the baby for half the week in this situation.

What does guilty and innocent have to do with anything

When one parent is awarded custody it does not mean that they are "innocent" and the other parent is "guilty"

What strange language to use.

No people don't see it as innocent or guilty.

But they seem to see it as winners and losers.

Sorry - it was clear in my head - re abuse claims.

Children should not be handed over to abusive parents, but claims of abuse should not be falsely used either.

They would need a properly resources service wouldn't they.

And in fact if they had one - there would probably be no need to change legisalation.

There should also be mote child centred compulsory mediation with experienced staff so both parents are forced to DVD how their behaviour is impacting their children.

*forced to face

And does it work?

I do feel we're behind in the UK.

SQ, I've spoken to three men with babies. One I think he was saying the mother was still breastfeeindg at 7 months to spite him (which was ridiculous) and that affects contact. I think he might have got an over night with her doing some expressing. The other one baby by mistake bought her a house in Chelsea (!) and set up a trust fund for the accidental child and went round once a week to bath it from birth at the house but that was consensual no dispute and will all be well. Third one another accidental birth no fight, expects to have over nights when breastfeeding has stopped both getting on and reguarly sees the baby but in the day.

I doubt any law change is likely to result in breastfeedingm others having to express over night but it would certainly need to be considered. I worked full time from 2 weeks and could express during the day every few hours although it is not ideal but possbile to kep up breastfeeding for over a year that way as I did.

Just because you could express, doesn't mean every woman can.

And the World Health Organisation recommends that babies are breastfed until they are at least 2 years old.

What an egotist, to think that breastfeeding your baby, is all about him.

And actually, what a prick not to be glad that his baby is getting a miraculous superfood which will stand them in good stead for life.