"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.

As for the RP's who prevent contact taking place, this should be dealt with first through a mediation service, where the mediator makes the decision as to whether the DC have contact, after listening to both the NRP and the RP. A decision should be made within one month imo (and that's a maximum.)

If the decision is taken that the DC are to have contact, then the burden of proof should be on both parents to prove that they did or did not make the DC ready for contact/see the DC at the appointed time. If neither parent can prove contact did/didn't take place, then a contact centre should be able to act as a thrid party, where the DC are dropped off (so RP has dropped them off) and NRP picks them up 20 minutes later (so NRP arrived to pick them up) and so no disputing which parent is reneging on the agreement made by the mediator.

Whichever parent is found to be reneging on the agreement should be dealt with appropriately, and if that means explaining to a judge why they refuse to let their DC have contact, or they refuse to show up for contact without a good enough reason, then that is what should happen.

Erm - I continued to send DS1 with clothes because othwerwise he was going BACK to schoolon Monday morning in the uniform he had worn on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. WTF else can I do? Let my DS1 stink all day at school in 4-day-old clothes? Or absorb the cost of having to buy 15 pairs of trousers in each and every fucking bastarding size AND never being able to pass them down to my DS2? It's just a good job that my Ex-P, DS2 and DS3's dad, isn't quite such a wank-monkey as my Ex-H, and he pays enough maintenance that I can buy clothes for DS2 as well. Other wise I'd be fucked.

I am hopeful that my friend will benefit from this. he has a great reltionship with his exwife, and sees his daughter. however he since got into a relationship with a lady, they decided not to get married, had a child and split up, she calls him at short notice (always less than 24 hours) so see his son and if he can't make it she says he has refused contact. he pays maintenance, he adores his son and sees him as often as he can, but she is very obstructive.
It is a horrid state of affairs.

Hunty, I was assuming the EX would let DS1 wear what had been left behind the previous week - apologies if he was that bad.
Re punishment - If you neglect your kids they are, rightfully, taken away, but no further punishment unless abuse (I think). I don't see how you can punish a NRP more than this as they have voluntarily taken themselves away from the children. Elsewise you would have 1 group of neglectful parents banned from seeing their kids and another group of NRP who are punished for not seeing the kids - doesn't make sense.
There is currently punishment for a resident parent who refuses contact for NRP that has been ordered, but anything effective (such as fines/prison) is considered to have too much of an impact on the children, so not used. I think a RP who refuses to help make work contact should lose residency and become the NRP.

But the point is that NRP's who withdraw from their children are not punished for neglecting their children's emotional and physical welfare are they?

If they choose to withdraw from the relationship, that is a choice they have made because they don't want anything to do with their children at that point. Therefore they are getting exactly what they want at the expense of what their children need!! Where's the punishment in getting what you want?? Furthermore, they have the option of dipping back into their child's life whenever they like, whether that is once every 6 months, or once every 10 years. That is unsettling for children.

Why should a NRP who cba and withdraws from their children still have the option to dip in and out of their child's life, for as many years as they want. Why should they retain PR for the children they have chosen not to bother with?
Why should they be able to walk in and out of their children's lives, when no one else would be able to treat their children so flippantly and get away with it?
In this country, NRP's only seem to suffer if they want to do the right thing for their DC and the RP stands in the way of that. Those that don't want to do the right thing, well, I can't see where the deterrent is, they retain full PR over their children, they are given endless opportunities by the family courts to start contact yet again, when they clearly have no intention of keeping up with it, and all along, it is the children who are getting hurt, and distressed and emotionally damaged. But never mind, we'll just concentrate on how we can punish the RP's more, strip them of residency of their children, punish them (even when it means uprooting a child from the only home they've ever known, as you are suggesting) just so long as the RP does get punished when they don't stand up to their responsibilities.

But the idea of making both parents equally responsible??
That isn't going to happen. The NRP's who walk away (and quite often don't pay maintenance either) will just be accepted in society as something we are powerless to do anything about, and we are powerless to punish them, strip them of PR, make them have a relationship with their children etc etc.

And then we wonder why we do have a problem with NRP's who cba to pay maintenance, who cba to see their children???

We are not considering the best needs of the child, by allowing parents to shirk their responsibilities. How anyone thinks we can look out for the best needs of the child whilst simultaneously turning a blind eye to the parent who is neglecting that child is beyond me. It doesn't make sense.

If you can't be responsible for a child, then you lose the right to be responsible for that child and you lose the right to a relationship with that child and you are punished for your neglect by whatever means is necessary. If you are a RP who blocks contact, I don't agree that you should lose residency and become the NRP. It would not work in many cases anyway, but you should be punished, yes, and again, that should be by whatever means is necessary to get the message through that children do come first!

OTOH, maybe I was right first time, and children don't come first at all.

I'm not entirely sure that removing children from their home and primary carer is in the best interests of children either youngermother tbh.

Like LittleMissSarcastic I would like to see abandonment by NRPs to be classed as neglect, and for NRPs who do so to lose their PR. I don't see why my XP should be classed as an equal parent in law, with the ability to make medical, educational and religious choices on their behalf, when he has effectively abandoned them. I would say that NRPs who repeatedly fail to turn up for contact are committing repeated neglect of their DC's emotional well being and any contact order should state that repeated failure on the part of the NRP to turn up will render the court order void, so that people like LMS don't have to continue to make their DC available at court ordered times. I would go as far as prosecuting for neglect in some cases.

Where is the protection for my DC? Where is the ability to uphold their right to a relationship with their father? If he hadn't moved away, he could have applied to court to stop me moving away with the children, but I was utterly powerless to stop him moving away and keeping minimal contact with them (ie, enough to remind them he exists but not enough to actually mean anything, or to comfort my oldest who misses his Daddy and wants to see him). I can't make him visit, I can't cut all contact, so we are stuck in a continuing limbo with no answers to give to my children about if or when they'll see him. How is that in their best interests?

Don't disagree with stripping a NRP who cba of their PR.
Would like to see what punishment you think suitable for a RP who prevents contact.

What about the fathers who want to be involved but get threatened and the mother moves around to aviod contact?

We fought and fought hard to get access to weeone only for find her neglected and mentally/ physically abused luckily 2 yrs on we have her full time and the "mother" doesnt even want access

We have the fallout though of a very scared, confused and damaged 10 yr old

I don't think the current system where courts generally rely on the goodwill of parents to implement the court ordered contact is a good one. As we hear time and time again, it doesn't work where the seperated parents are working against each other rather than with each other for the benefit of their children.

As I said before, in the case of RP's who prevent contact taking place, this should be dealt with first through a mediation service, (which should be free of charge) where the mediator makes the decision as to whether the DC have contact, after listening to both the NRP and the RP. A decision should be made within one month imo (and that's a maximum.)

If the decision is taken that the DC are to have contact, then the burden of proof should be on both parents to prove that they did or did not make the DC ready for contact/see the DC at the appointed time. If neither parent can prove contact did/didn't take place, then a contact centre should be able to act as a thrid party, where the DC are dropped off (so RP has dropped them off) and NRP picks them up 20 minutes later (so NRP arrived to pick them up) and so no disputing which parent is reneging on the agreement made by the mediator. Imo, this should not take more than 3 months to get to this point, giving adequate time for both NRP and RP to get their act together for the sake of the DC.

Whichever parent is found to be reneging on the agreement should be dealt with appropriately, and if that means explaining to a judge why they refuse to let their DC have contact, or they refuse to show up for contact without a good enough reason, then that is what should happen.

If after returning to court (with the mediators unbiased evidence as well as the parents POV) the judge decides that the RP is not considering the best needs of the child, and for want of a better way of explaining, has put their spite before their child's best needs, then no, I don't think they should be guaranteed to walk out of court with residency.

If a parent has deliberately, over the course of months, denied their child the right to a loving healthy relationship with the NRP, then they must be made to see that ignoring a court order, as well as the multiple chances they have had to turn it around with the help of a mediator, has to have consequences.

But for as long as the court ordered access is ignored by some parents with absolutely no consequences whatsoever, we will never progress in these situations imo. There is no deterrent at the moment, and until there is, children will continue to suffer.

Smurfy1 I am afraid that had my XP got residency (which he wanted) I would have forfeited access too.

Can I ask why? your child is still your child

the court didn't give us residency we got a txt from the "mother" telling us to get her or she goes into care due to her new boyfriend not liking kids (out of 4 kids she has the eldest 1 left) the youngest ones aged 2 & 4 got given to their dad (same txt)

That sounds like a very hard and very sad situation Smurfy1.

From your previous post, it would appear that the mother was having problems parenting her child, if she was neglected and physically/mentally abused.

Unfortunately, in many cases, there are no winners, only losers and when parents use their DC to win or to score points against the other parent, that is abhorrent to me.

Certainly not saying this is what has happened in your case, just saying in some cases.

Yeah I know my situation is very different LOL

Unfortunately you are very right it's a shame when either parent uses the child as a tool to hurt the other but it happens more and more and the parent will always justify it when no1 wins especially the child stuck in the middle

What if the child(ren) doesn't want contact with the absent 'father'? Courts won't listen to my friend's 8 and 4 year old who don't want to see their biological father because they've spent the last 4 years running away from him (due to abuse that the police/court won't act on because the children can't/won't tell them exactly what happened!). They have to see him every 6 weeks with a contact order (under supervision tho due to his past abuse of another little girl) even though they don't want to. He's not interested in seeing them now, but does it so that it stresses out my friend and keeps a hold over her.
However, I did want contact with my dad when I was little but my spiteful psycho 'mother' threatened/blackmailed/abused me and did everything possible to destroy the relationship with my dad and I didn't see him for years. Thankfully, now its the other way around, we haven't seen her in over 15 years (thank goodness!) and I and my family see my dad and stepmum regularly.

The children have spent the last 4 years running away from the father?

If the system really did think of the children first, then no child would have to spend unsupervised access with a parent they feared or felt strongly that they didn't want to see.

We, as a society, make a big point of claiming that we do listen to the children, that we do want what is best for the children...but as I said before, when it comes to the crunch, children don't have a say at all, not if what the children want conflicts with what the adults want.
When it is a choice between what the adults want, and what the children want, the children almost always lose out.

OTOH, There are parents who will threaten/blackmail/abuse their children to destroy the realtionship between NRP and children, as you have experienced Dragonet. This is why it is so important to exhaust every avenue imo before cutting all contact completely. If it is later found that the children were blackmailed/abused/threatened into refusing contact, then the extra time that they could have built a good relationship with the NRP is gone.

It is not an easy situation and in your friends case, with no evidence, and the children aren't explaining why they don't want to see the NRP, how can the authorities be sure they are making the right choice by cutting contact completely?? Based on what you have said, supervised contact surely is better than unsupervised and gives the children the opportunity to see the NRP in a safe environment??

This will have no effect on cases where the NRP lacks the inclination or willingness to be part of their abandoned children's lives.

It will have no effect on cases where there is violence or abuse by the NRP.

It will have no effect on the vast majority of cases where the RP and NRP come to an agreement about contact.

It is not about 50/50 parenting, or finances or benefits. It is simply stating that a child has a right to maintain a meaningful relationship with the NRP. Which is already the case!

It's simply a PR sop to the fathers' rights movement in recognition of the tiny minority of cases where the RP blocks contact with the NRP for no valid reason other than for the sake of a new life without the NRP.

However, the status quo will prevail as the difficulty and expense of enforcement will not change.

In other words, it is pretty meaningless.

Olgaga,

There are by no means a " tiny minority of cases where the RP blocks contact with the NRP for no valid reason other than for the sake of a new life without the NRP"

I am completely sure you do not have one iota of evidence to support your statement and it illustrates just how naive many people are on the subject.

I agree with your other points, although cases of violence or abuse are under effect when noting the changes in legal aid and I do believe that the many, many mothers making false or hugely exaggerated allegations, that often in reality are nothing more than six on one, half a dozen on the other scenarios, have made life extremely difficult for genuine cases.

Raeday Well please put all us naive people in the picture by linking to the statistics which show the number of cases you describe.

here

Thanks youngermother1 - very interesting if you have an interest in highly subjective, misogynistic propaganda. But I was asking for the data which shows that cases of blocked contact were anything more than a tiny minority of cases, which is the issue disputed by Raeday.

Was first link found, this is the govts response to the question

'Mr Djanogly: Information about contact applications in respect of breaches of a contact order, contact orders issued in response to the breach of an existing contact order, or about to which party contact orders are issued is not held centrally. This information can be obtained only through the inspection of individual files at disproportionate cost.

Found here

So the answer is no-one knows, However, if it was a small minority, why is it all over the news?

Well it is evidently a small minority then, isn't it.

In 2010 there were 119,589 divorces. Roughly half of those divorces involved at least one child of the family. So say approximately 60,000 couples with children divorced in a year.

In the figures provided in Djanogly's answer, 28,777 FPC applications were made by the father. See note 2, which says "The figures reflect the number of applications made, counted by child. This means that where an application was made for contact with two children the case will be counted twice". That means where there are three children, the number will be counted three times, etc. So these are not individual applications per family.

We also know that "in 2009 FPCs represented about 26% of private law contact order applications". That is one in 4 FPC's.

That is a small minority. So I can say, quite safely, that in the vast majority of cases, the RP and NRP come to an agreement about contact.

You ask "However, if it was a small minority, why is it all over the news?"

Now that is a very good question. I would point you to the kind of propaganda which organisations like FFJ, FNF are responsible for. The kind of propaganda which you linked to. Subjective, anecdotal and unrepresentative of the vast majority of cases.

That is not to say there is no problem whatsoever for separated fathers. But this constant portrayal of dads as victims and mums as evil bitches is extremely biased.

You are right to say that figures are not easily available. In recognition of this, in 2008 the Government ordered a study to be undertaken by the Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford. This is an extract from the Key Points section:

"There was no evidence that non resident parents as a group are
systematically unreasonably treated by the family courts. On the contrary, the study shows that the courts start from the position that contact is generally in the interests of the child, they make great efforts to achieve this and in most instances they are successful. In a small minority of cases, however, it might be argued that the outcome was unfair to the non-resident parent."

You can read the full report here:
www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/outcomes-contact-orders-briefing-note.pdf

If you neglect your children and have them removed for their own welfare and safety, you do not get them back until you have proved that you have sorted your life out. Why is this not the same for NRPs who are sporadic with contact? It's very distressing for the child. They should be allowed another chance, yes, but not on a whim - they should have to prove that they have worked through or sorted out the issues or situation which was preventing them from committing to their child.

In all cases the first port of call should be to find out why the NRP is not having contact or why the RP is refusing contact, and see if there is anything which can be done to help.

I would support any woman who refused her ex access to the children on the grounds that she was concerned for their safety while they were with him. I cannot think of ANY other situation where a parent would be encouraged to send their child to someone who they had concerns about. Unfortunately, the courts don't seem to see it this way.

Well said BertieBotts

Most parents sort out contact amicably.
I think a presumption of 50% time with each parents is a fairer system but I doubt that will happen. That would give fathers denied proper contact more and would help all those mothers whose chidlren's fathers choose not to be involved at all.
I would also like a rule that you cannot move children. By all means move to Australia but the children stay in England with their father in the same schools type of thing.