"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.

I'm not sure what you don't get sardine. At present the childrens act says that a child has the right to a full and uninterrupted relationship with both parents unless there is a risk of harm to the child.

Currently, a parent can obstruct contact by claiming a risk of harm. The non resident parent has to go through a lengthy process to get any form of contact and it is often continually frustrated. Many can't even afford that process.

As I understand it, the new legislation will back up the childrens act. It will set far clearer guidelines for magistrates and county courts. At the moment advice and good practice is woolly at best which is why decisions vary so much from case to case. You can have two exceedingly similar cases but two massively differing decisions.

I have been through the family court system as both a resident parent for my dd and as a non resident parent for my dsd. I have pr for dsd which is why I am party to all proceedings for her.
I do think that it might be useful for you to read through the childrens act and research some first hand accounts of the family court system from all perspectives if you truly wish to gain an understanding of the implications here.

Kenhallroad - you will not suddenly be expected to facilitate increased contact if there is a risk to your child. If your ex asked for more contact you would be able to request risk assessments via cafcass reports.

miniwedge so you have knowledge of the full proposal?

It would be great if you could link to it.

I am sure I am reading your tone wrong but it comes across as slightly rude. If the law is to be changed that that children have a legal right to a relationship with both parents then that has wide ranging consequences, far more than the example of a RP blocking access, which is the only example I have seen in the press.

So a different situation.

DH walks out tomorrow. He does not want to see the children. The children are keen to see him as they love him. They now have a legal right to a relationship with him. How will that be enforced?

I have not seen this mentioned anywhere at all.

I suppose what I am getting it is that people are welcoming this as they think it means that fathers get more rights to see their children. That idea was in fact considered and rejected. The law actually says that the child has a right to a relationship with both parents, which is a very different thing indeed. And does raise a lot of questions in my view.

I'm not being rude at all. I am however beginning to think you have a pre-determined agenda. Happy debating, I'm not happy to engage with you further.

I don;t have an agenda

What I am interested in is how situations will be worked - given that now the child will have a legal right to a relationship with both parents.

Things like

• My DH leaves and the childen want to see him and he doesn't want to see them. How will the relationship be enforced?
• A 12 yo decides that they want a relationship with a parent who they have not seen for many year - maybe they have moved to a different part of the country. How is that going to work?
• A NRP is unreliable with contact. What remedies are there for the children?

And so on and so on. No-one has given answers as to how situations like these will be handled, only talking about one very specific situation where the RP is blocking access.

I like the idea of the pre-detemined agenda though

Like what sort of agenda? One that sees a new law and thinks "what on earth will this mean in practice? It seems very wide-reaching".

Or are we not supposed to think about the proposals the government makes to see if they make sense or not?

Sardine "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?

My solicitor advised me to apply for a variation, because unbelievably XP was not prepared to pay for a solicitor, and I was getting legal aid. XP was not seeing DD at all, and it was seen to be in the best interests of DD for contact to be made more convenient for XP, thus benefitting DD.

XP has never paid a penny towards the court appearances. The first time we went to court, it was to establish residency as well as access, so I instigated that, because XP had removed DD from my home and was refusing to return her unless I resumed a relationship with him, which I was not prepared to do.

I would also like to know the answer to the questions you have raised Sardine

DH walks out tomorrow. He does not want to see the children. The children are keen to see him as they love him. They now have a legal right to a relationship with him. How will that be enforced?

My DH leaves and the childen want to see him and he doesn't want to see them. How will the relationship be enforced?
A 12 yo decides that they want a relationship with a parent who they have not seen for many year - maybe they have moved to a different part of the country. How is that going to work?
A NRP is unreliable with contact. What remedies are there for the children?

I am watching this thread with interest hoping someone can explain how we claim to put the welfare of the children first, when there are still parents who opt out of their DC's lives for as long as they wish to, and there are absolutely no consequences.

I agree that a child benefits from having a good relationship with both parents, but where one parent withdraws, what can we do about it? The general consensus seems to be we can do nothing. I have heard IRL many responses to this problem. Whilst people generally agree that children have a right to a relationship with both parents, when one parent withdraws from the relationship, the responses are usually along the lines of "The NRP will regret it/The child is better off without them/They only need a loving RP etc. It seems as a society, we accept that NRP's sometimes withdraw from the relationship, and are apparently powerless to do anything about it.

If that is the case, can we, as a society, please stop pretending, in the case of withdrawal from the NRP, that we, as a society are actually putting the children first, because the evidence does show a child benefits from having a relationship with both parents. If, in the case of non abusive/non violent etc parents, we are not enforcing this, then I don't see how we can simultaneously claim we, as a society are putting the childrens interests and wellbeing first in these cases.

Isn't it more honest in these particular cases to say we are simply relying on the goodwill of the parents, and if they choose not to exercise any goodwill, in the best interests of their DC, then actually, the rights of the children count for nothing?
If children have rights, when are we going to start enforcing those rights in the best interests of the children? And that goes for RP's who refuse contact as well as NRP's who don't bother.

Yes good post littlemiss that is clarifies my thoughts on this.

Actually there is a glimmer of a good idea in this. Obviously you can't force a disinterested NRP to turn up for a contact visit, but you could somehow engineer the supervised contact arrangement that exists for violent and abusive NRP to be extended (albeit in a less labour-intensive way) to all split families. So say once a month, the RP would have to bring the children to a children's centre for example (and either stay or go depending on the circumstances and how well they get on with the other parent), and the NRP would be able to turn up and see the children in a supervised playgroup/youth club type place. If the RP failed to show with the children, action could be taken (I'm thinking talks from a child development specialist as to how important it is for children to know their family rather than sending the cops straight round). If the NRP failed to show, same action could be taken (if they can be tracked down).

This could be implemented at the behest of either parent- meaning that custody and access arrangements that work well already wouldn't need to be upset.

It would be expensive, but possibly less expensive than the damage caused to the children might create long-term.

Tax credits and things are on the way out aren't they? When the universal credit comes in. I think?

Certainly I can't imagine a situation where money for looking after children would be given to a person who did not have them living with them, and especially potentially where that person is not providing any financial assistance towards caring for the children themselves.

I don't think you need to worry about that kenhall, that really would be nuts.

That's also what I am worried about, as I have a 40/60 split in my favour with Ex-H, and when I DID give him 40% of the ChB and TC's, he and the OW were spending it on fags and iphones and stuff, and they were keeping (and still are) ALL of the clothes that DS1 was going there in, that I had paid for, and handing them down to the OW's DS, when I needed to hand them down to DS2.

I stopped giving them any money 1 year ago (I get no maintenance either - it was £1.36 a week before their new baby was born, is fuck all now). I told themthat when they start sending back the clothes that he goes in, so I can hand them down to DS2, and they start buying him clothes themselves, then I won't be splitting the money.

They still haven't started doing either of those things, so I am still keeping ALL of the TC's and ChB.

What worries me is that if they DO split the UC when it comes in - I'll still have to pay for ALL of DS1 clothes and shoes, out of only 60% of the UC, AND I still won't get to hand them down to DS2, because the OW's DS will be wearning them. . That'd better NOT F'ing happen!!

Hunty - not criticising, but they send DS1 home naked?, how do they keep all clothes?
Those who think this is not thought through, what punishment should there be for a NRP who doesn't want to be involved?

School holidays - send 1 weeks worth of clothes with him, but pick him up from school in school uniform - 7 sets of clothes at his dad's. Often he used to get picked up from school on the Friday afternoon, in school uniform, with 2 sets of clothes in his bag for the weekend, I'd pick him up from school on Monday afternoon - another 2 sets of clothes gone.

Now, as soon as they are willing to send back clothes, instead of DS1 having to sneak around and HIDE them in his school bag to bring back to me (and risk getting told off by his SM), I will be willing to start splitting the TC's and ChB again.

It's also things like school clubs, and school trips, and coats and shoes that they pay nothing towards, even when I WAS splitting the TC's. Can't do it indefinately AND bear all the costs!

Oh, yes to sending new clothes and getting old ones back, the worst example of that was when DS1 WENT in an age 12 top but came back in an age 8 one...that was even too small for DS2. And had not been seen here for over 3 years - so instead of being worn by MY DS2, it had been worn by the OW's DS. Who is in the same size as DS2, otherwise I'd pass them back to her when DS2 is finished with them.

They'd rather spend their money on having an iphone each and xbox and ps3 and DSi's and new computer games every week than buy any of their dc clothes - leaving me to pick up the bill for both my dc AND theirs!!

But then that is part of the reason that my Ex-H IS my Ex-H. That and he couldn't keep it in his pants...

If this happened, why continue to send spare sets of clothes?

Sorry, re-read, not meant to sound like I was doubting you - I'm not

If implimented properly I like the idea of this law. AS it would hopefully offer hope to the parents who desperately want to have a constant relationship with their children but are unable to do the whims of their exs.

DH had years of trouble with his ex and access for absoultely no reason ( they both decided to split up, DH always paid maintence/helped out though to be fair ex only asks for more when necessary: clothes/school trips/ extracuricular lessons) . But she would flip from being really friendly to not letting him come for months for absoultely no reason. Now that DSS is 15 he totally chooses when to come and never cuts contact.

DH spent years missing out on chunks of his life. Mind it would properly have to still end up going through court, which would have meant that as DH wouldnt get legal aid would meant that we would have been be unable to afford to live/paymortagage etc as we struggle enough as it is.

youngermother1

Those who think this is not thought through, what punishment should there be for a NRP who doesn't want to be involved?

I think each case should be judged on an individual basis, to make sure NRP's who don't see their DC for a limited time due to illness, location, some other difficulty which can be resolved easily don't get tarred with the same brush as the NRP's who just cba.

However, if the NRP just cba, then perhaps they should be punished, much like someone in the UK is punished if they renege on many other responsibilities.

In the UK, if you don't pay your mortgage, you risk losing your home.
In the UK, if you don't pay your council tax, you risk imprisonment.
In the UK, if you abuse or neglect your child, you risk losing the right to see your child or have them reside with you.
In the UK, if you abuse/neglect your animals, you risk being prosecuted and possibly banned from keeping animals for X amount of time.

So to answer your question, if it is established that you cba with your DC anymore, I think the first thing would be to do what can reasonably be done to re establish contact, and if that fails, instead of endless chances to renegotiate contact that suits the NRP, perhaps the NRP should be punished instead.

Remove their PR.
Prosecute NRP for neglect.
Ensure that NRP's who withdraw cannot dip in and out of a child's life as they see fit. (RP's can't disappear for months/years on end without consequences, and refuse to provide their DC with the basics, so wtf should NRP's have the choice without any consequences.)
Sort out the Can't Sort Anything so NRP's are made to financially support their DC

If a NRP then, after neglecting their child's best interests by not bothering with them, shows willing and makes amends, through proving first that they are a responsible parent, by having contact through a contact centre and being monitored by professionals, then they can reapply at the courts for PR and access, after some time has passed.

I'm sure there are many flaws in my ideas which are off the top of my head atm but it is a sad state of affairs when a child's emotional wellbeing is classed as less important than whether you've paid your council tax or not. And of we go on the punitive measures meted out to non council tax payers as opposed to NRP's who cba, then it speaks for itself doesn't it?

This is such an emotive subject. I feel for nrp who want a relationship with their child. Mn probably not the best place for a balanced argument. Let's face it, most of us single parents probably don't have great experiences with the nrp. The fact remains that many men are not interested in their children. Mine is a cracker. He wanted contact with his son but only if I drop him off and pick him up. That's not the half of it. I only wish there was a magic formula to make men love their children as much as we single mums do.