"Child's right to see an absent father"

[SardineQueen]

Sorry it's the wail

link

This was discussed recently when the new provision was being framed as a right for the parent to see the child. The general consensus was that the rights of the child should be paramount and why change this.

So it seems they have reframed the law to say the child has rights to a relationship with both parents. Which seems OK but

In the article it says that a recent report said this would do more harm than good

It still doesn't mention what the consequences will be for NRPs who repeatedly fail to show / are late for contact, or don't want to see the child at all.

It seems that this is being looked at from one side only. However if the framing is that the child has a right to see the parents, surely this means that NRPs will be forced to have contact. That is the only logical thing.

Incidentally I have no experience of this myself but know that it is a topic of interest to many on MN and I couldn't see that it has already been posted.

BBC says much the same thing.

It seems that they will enforce contact where the NRP wants it but not where they don't?

I don't understand that. If it is the right of the child to have contact with both parents then surely reluctant NRPs have to be included? And ones who say they will do stuff and don't, and let their children down.

The way this is being reported it seems they have only considered one situaiton - where RP makes access difficult for NRP - and not considered any other situations. I don't understand that.

There is also no mention of what happens in cases of DV etc.

The more I think about this, the more confused I get

There are all these different situations where a child having a right to a relationship with both parents (presume this means biological parents) would raise issues

What if child is adopted
What if child was conceived through donors
What if child wants to have relationship with parent but there are things about that parent they don't know as they have been kept from them to spare them
What if parent has no interest in seeing child
What if parent has moved to the other side of the world

And so on and so on

The other big question is - so the child has a right to a relationship with both parents. How do they exercise and enforce that right? Children don't usually have access to money / lawyers etc and in fact who is even going to tell them about this right?

I don't really understand how this is intended to work, what it is intended to do.

in summary....if a parent with a residency order doesn't want the child to see the NRP, that is wrong and the state will enforce contact unless there are mitigating circumstances. (which I do broadly agree with...)

If a NRP doesn't want to see the child, tough. we can't do anything about it.

Thank you snapes for not letting me feel like I was talking to myself!

I think that this proposal sounds like yet another one that has not been thought through.

snort like removing child benefit from families with single earners in the higher tax bracket, but not from dual earners just under the higher tax bracket? Yep, really thought that one through too. Ridiculous policies dreamed up on the back of fag packets in black cabs on the way to the commons...

Like just about all of them I think

I went to hosp today and the consultant was telling me about the new way the clinic is run under private management and it was just crazy.

More on the BBC now

"Ken Sanderson, of Families Need Fathers, said a move to introduce legislation enshrining a child's rights to an ongoing relationship with both parents "would be a victory for children".

"For too long, we have seen children of many separating couples across the country lose out on the emotional and social benefits of a loving relationship with both parents following separation and divorce, and we are delighted that the government intends to address this situation," he said.

"This is not a question of fathers' or mothers' rights; it is about protecting the rights of children to have two loving parents fully involved in their lives wherever possible, to the benefit of the children, their families, and wider society," he added."

How is this to be enforced? So the child wants to see the NRP, the child has a right to this. The NRP is not interested. How are they going to enforce the relationship?

Quote from someone else:

" I would welcome a system whereby there is an agency outside of the court system with the authority to ensure contact between children and non-resident parents goes ahead as ordered. As it stands, if a resident parent breaks a court order for contact, they are likely to get a slap on the wrist and not a lot else."

HOW are they going to ensure that NRPs show up when they are supposed to, and continue the contact? It has not been mentioned anywhere, it seems to be entirely coming from an idea that it is always, only and ever the case that RP denies contact illegally to NRP, and that all NRPs are keen, available and interested.

I don't understand why they have overlooked the other side of this?

It's really confusing

Will be great for my friends son who has fought for 3 years til he's nearly bankrupt to see his children, but their mother, on legal aid , has done everything to prevent it.

She's accused him of drug taking, abusing the children, abusing her, and so on. Hes had to disprove every wild accusation.

The children have a whole other family desperate to get to know them and a spiteful mother who not stop at anything to prevent it.

I'm glad to hear that these sort of mothers can no longer use children for their own spiteful needs.

I'd happily allow ds to see his father. You can't make someone interested when they are not though.

Eve how will your friends son access this law do you think? Children are not usually allowed legal aid etc AFAIK I'm not sure how it's going to work?

LadySybil that's the big question isn't it. If a child wants a relationship with a parent who is not around, and this is their legal right, how is that to be enforced?

If a child is very young and unable to say for themselves, is it automatic that they must have a relationship with both parents even if one is unwilling?

What happens if they have moved away?

What about adoption etc?

It's a real minefield I think.

Sardine, I don't see how you can force a NRP to be involved, and if they had to be forced, then it would probably not be good for the child.
They can only force the parent with residence to allow NRP contact - I do not see how this can be a bad thing?

Will this new law undermine the position of adoptive parents in law, given that the law will be changed presumably to recognise biological parents as having a specific relevance to their offspring whether they have met them or not and whether they want to meet them or not?

If eg a child has never met their father and wishes to do so, and that is their legal right, who is going to pay for the father to be tracked down and how will the relationship be enforced?

Ds is 12 now and isn't interested. I'm not going to force him to see a father that only wants to see him for an hour every year when he can fit him in, a father who tells him to 'fuck off' and never contacts him.

youngermother it is the right of the child to have a relationship with both their parents. So logically it must include these scenarios.

If it were a right for parents to have contact with their children it would mean something different. But it isn't that - it is a right for the child to have a relationship with both (biological, presumably) parents.

i've been trying to get my head round this too. my observation would be, purely from my own & friends' experiences, that in many (most?) separated/divorced families, the parents manage to work out access/custody between themselves.

for the families who aren't able to work it out between themselves, things are usually so bloody awful already that frankly enshrining a child's right to see both parents is a total waste of time, unenforceable and likely to cause even more disruption to a child/children who may well need stability more than anything else.

I must admit the whole thing has me a bit confused.

We have two DC 3 and 5. Say DH walks out tomorrow and said he didn't want to see them. They would say they want to see him, they love him. And now it will be their legal right to see him. How will this be enforced?

Is it the case that they seem only to have considered one specific situation with this law (RP blocking NRP access) and overlooked all of the others?

yes, exactly, it's just a sort of headline thing as far as i can tell that makes no actual sense and has no basis in reality

It would have been brilliant for DH. His XW stopped him seeing DSS because it was upsetting her P. DH wasn't even allowed to phone. She lied through her teeth about DH and got legal aid so could keep going through solicitors. We could afford to keep fighting her so had to give up. It wasn't in DSS's intrests and caused alot of heartache.

I am only glad that DSS is back in DH's/our life and doesn't hold it against DH.

If a child has been adopted then the biological parents are no longer parents by law. The only parents an adopted child have will be the ones that adopted them. This will not affect an adopted child

It is a child's right to have a relationship with both parents. This is addressing the RP blocking the NRP who wants a good relationship with their child from achieving that. Which is a good thing

Jolly good - are they going to enforce absent father's to pay maintenence? Think not.

My ex-h was given more opportunity than he deserved when we split however he spent more time feathering his nest with the ow than maintaining a relationship with his dts. As a result neither are bothered if they don't hear from him at all.

As someone who had a brilliant dad I can't imagine how hurtful it must be for them to have him act the way he is. I have never once stopped him seeing them but, for example, he saw them twice last year. Yet I know I'm portrayed as the one who keeps them from him - it is a good excuse for him to use.

It feels that the law is always on the side of the wrong, the one who walked off, the one who left his debts, the one who does nothing gets all the rights. Yes children need a father, what they don't need is someone who drops them at the say so of his ow.

You can't make fathers who don't want to be fathers be fathers.

Unfortunately

Given that children already have a right to a relationship with both parents I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to achieve