"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.

We've had four years of being constantly let down by dd's father. He repeatedly says he's going to turn up, then doesn't (it was once 9 times in a row). He disappears for months on end, then turns up again. He hurts both of us. So we no longer make arrangements, he just turns up as and when he wants to, I can't see what else I can do. He never ever phones or texts. He doesn't help in any way and he's never paid a penny in maintenance. Is the law going to sort that situation out? Doubt it.

Exactly happybubblebrain, but we'll be made out to be the bad ones regardless. It seems the way of society that the parent who stays and gives the dc a stable, happy home is the one who is punished.

my dad lives 3000 miles away
it suits everybody
please keep the legal sharks out of my personal life

I'm divorced and my ds has had contact with his dad since we separated. I wouldn't have dreamed of anything else and they love each other dearly.
BUT after being on MN for the last couple of years and seen the waste of space partners that mothers have, it makes me so angry that this could be law.
It also makes out women deprive their exes of seeing their children, when in real life it's the opposite.
For every one woman who refuses access, I guarantee there are fifty men who don't pay maintenance, choose when they want to see their children (on their terms) and the rest.
More rights for men?, I think that they're doing fine, thank you very much.

What does it say about TERMS of this access? Will you be forced to send an EBF baby to an ex-P that has walked out on you? How will that situation be dealt with? The baby is EBF, you can't take your norks off to send them on an access visit. What about when huge distances are involved, and the NRP expects access 300 miles away from where the child lives? Does the new law state HOW much access? Is it from a start point of 50-50? If so, how does that work with things like social housing and welfare benefits - which CAN'T be split 50-50? So many questions...

Ladybeagleeyes There are plenty of women out there who DO stop perfectly good dads from seeing their children,and this is what the new law is designed to try and prevent. It is not up to the RP to decide that the NRP can't see their children (bar the usual DV,drugs,abuse scenarios) but this DOES happen. How would you feel if you were not allowed to see your children, and there was nothing you could do about it as courts just didn't take it seriously? It would kill me,plenty of NRPs go through it every day due to their exes denying access for no good reason. I understand your situation,my two SS's haven't seen their birthmum for over 18 months,before that it was sporadic visits.She has never paid anything also but you can't force people to have contact and I don't think that's what this new law is about.

"this is what the new law is designed to try and prevent."

This is not what the new law says
It says that all children have a right to a relationship with both parents
How this will work when one parent does not want a relationship has not been mentioned. How this will work if one parent has moved a long way away? How will this work if one parent has done awful things that have not been disclosed to the child for its own good? Yet if the child wants a relationship with both parents then the law says this is its right and so asking how that will be enforced is perfectly valid.

My children would want to see their dad if he walked out tomorrow.
Now that will be their right in law.

So how will this new law be enforced in that situation. If the children want to see him then surely he has to comply otherwise he is breaking the law, logically.

I might have a google and see if these questions have been responded to anywhere.

if this law is out of a geniune desire to put children's happiness first then in some situations, it would be better for the child to have no contact with their biological father.

i don't want dd within a hundred mile radius of her bio father. he would bring her nothing but pain.

telegraph today

has this quote from government

"One official said the Government wanted to remove any ?inbuilt legal bias against the father or the mother? in the law. The official said: ?This is about the children. Both parents should have a full and continuing role in a child?s life after they separate.
?Where there are no significant welfare issues, we would want to see this principle reinforced through law. We will make a legislative statement emphasising the importance of children having an ongoing relationship with both their parents at separation, when it is safe and in the child?s best interests."

They seem to keep talking about this one situation only - loving a kind NRPs being denied access by RPs for whatever reason. All of the other myriad of situations out there - including where NRPs do not want access or they are unreliable - are simply not being mentioned. They must have thought about this, surely, and realised that not all contact issues are to do with kind men being pushed away by horrible women?

sorry missed the link

here

I think this will be fantastic if it is done properly but it has come far too late for dp and dsd.

We haven't seen or spoken to dsd for over 6 months. We had 50/50 contact until her mum stopped contact the day before our summer holiday.

Since then we have been accused of physical abuse, living in a household where d.v is prevalent and if being drug users.

We have had two hearings so far, both have found that all the allegations are not true, we are backed up by social services, we have obtained a new contact order but dsd mum is refusing to comply and there is nothing we can do.
Dsd is almost twelve now, we have lost her. We write but the letters are returned.
Her phone is answered by her mum or mums husband.

The only contact we have had is a letter sent through cafcAss listing all her belongings in her bedroom and demanding we deliver them to her mums.

Dsd's mum has told her that she has an order that prevents us having any contact ever again. She has told dsd we are monsters basically.

Her mum has admitted to cafcass and the court that she wants dp erased from dsd's life as we interrupt her family set up. She is married with 4 other children, the eldest was removed from their care aged 8. Her husband regularly threatens us. He has a conviction for offences against an adolescent child.

We can get all the orders under the sun but it has taken over six months so far, we have been told that dsd's mother can keep delaying hearings etc for at least a couple of years before any enforcement would happen.
She can lie about us, she can refuse to turn up to hearings, she can refuse to facilitate court ordered contact but the only people being punished for her actions is dsd dp our dd and dsd's extended family.

The courts are toothless and completely over extended. We made an enforcement application this week. It won't be heard for approximately 5 months. That will bring us to over a year since we had any contact.

Something needs to change. People like us need help.

They say that it's not about 50/50 access, the minister who is proposing the changes said

"He added: ?The concept of 'shared parenting? after a break-up often gets confused with the idea of equal time that a child spends with each parent.
?Quite clearly, ordinary living and working arrangements make an equal division impossible, and undesirable, in all but a small minority of cases"

By "ordinary living and working condition" presumably he means that men should not be expected or required to attempt to find lower paid part-time work in order to do the school run, or have to pay through the nose for childcare. That made me pretty angry TBH.

I have been to court twice to arrange contact between DD and XP.

First time, XP wanted to have access 4 days a week, for 6 hours a day. I agreed to 3 days a week, 6 hours a day.
Within weeks, XP didn't bother showing up. Contact became sporadic and then petered out completely.
XP explained that he could not sustain visits 3 days a week, 6 hrs a day, and wanted to change it to alternate weekends, overnight.

Advised by my solicitor, I applied to the courts for a variation in the contact order and we went back to court, where XP stated that he wished to have DD alternate weekends, overnight. I agreed.

Contact resumed for as long as XP's latest relationship lasted for almost a year, then again, contact was sporadic for a few months, until it petered out altogether.

DD has now seen XP less than 5 times in over a year, and for 9 months of that, not at all. He hasn't laid eyes on DD or spoken to her in at least 5 months now, yet if XP were to turn up for contact next weekend, AFA the contact order goes, I should pass DD over, for him to take her overnight as per the court order, to god knows where, with god knows who, and considering he has been homeless or crashing at friends houses regularly, and hasn't had a stable relationship in at least 2 years, I of course will not be happy about this.

Instead of concerning ourselves with what the RP or the NRP would like or what is or isn't fair on the RP or the NRP, why can't we stick to doing what is best for the child??

I thought PR stood for Parental responsibility, but more and more it seems that we talk about doing what is best for the child, and in fact it is no more than a smokescreen to allow some parents to get contact in place that is best for them.

Sardine: not sure if your post was aimed at me?

I'm not advocating blanket 50/50. We had 50/50 because that is what was ordered when dp first went to the family court in 2002 after his ex left him.
He was the primary carer, she stayed with various boyfriends etc from when dsd was 1 until dp applied to the courts fro a defined order to give some stability to dsd.

50/50 doesn't suit every child. In our case it was the best option as it was meant that dsd could stay at her grandparents so that even if her mum was off on another binge that dsd was still having fruitful contact with her much loved grandparents and cousins.

Studies show that children do suffer from difficulty with forming and maintaining relationships as adults if they suffer the sort of difficulties that dsd is currently suffering.

The new legislation is designed as I understand it to help prevent situations like ours from arising.

I really don't think it will include non resident parents who do not want to or are not capable of maintaining a relationship with a child. In that circumstance it would do more harm than good.

miniwedge it was for kenhallroad who was wondering when it was going to work. xposted and haven't read the other posts yet sorry!

Sorry she was wondering how 50/50 was going to work that should say, but they aren't talking about 50/50

"Advised by my solicitor, I applied to the courts for a variation in the contact order and we went back to court"

Why did you have to apply for the variation when it was him who wanted it changed?

"I really don't think it will include non resident parents who do not want to or are not capable of maintaining a relationship with a child."

Why not? It is about the childs right to a relationship with both parents. If the child wants a relationship (not sure who decides that for young children) then a relationship they must have, under this new law.

Also the minister said this "Where there are no significant welfare issues, we would want to see this principle reinforced through law." I am not sure what "significant" means but at present someone like littlemisssarcastic has to hand her child over, by law, even when she has no idea where he is living or anything and has not seen her for months. So presumably more "significant" than concerns of that type.

I wish I could find something more definite in the press about what this really all means

Sardine - because it wouldn't be practical in the case where a non resident parent doesn't want a relationship, it would have the potential to cause significant emotional harm to a child if a parent is forced to have a relationship they don't want.

And in the case where a parent is not capable for a variety of reasons again it could have the potential to do far more harm than good.

For example, dd's natural father had drug and alcohol issues with severe mental health problems. He was not able to be a parent, the courts made an order that he was to have no contact. If contact had been forced upon him it would have exacerbated his problems.

I think that would fall under the "significant welfare concerns" angle, miniwedge?

Someone who just wasn't interested, or was unreliable or whatever - anyway it#s not about the parent it's about the child. Exacerbating probelms for the parent would not be the point - this law is framed as it being the childs right except in exceptional cases.

I don't get it.