"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.

Spot on, BertieBotts.

my xh took me to court for contact as was not happy with what i was offering he had not seen in almost 2 years his choice

.we did mediation with cafcas seperatey as he refued to be near me .Ironic thing is when it came to it he wanted less than i offered .It was agreed first stpe he needs to write to the dc and guess what 1 month later not a thing (~

Now i have to explain to dc why !! and he had legal a id all the way through

Yet i been told nothing i can do wait too go back to court in 6 months time

Also from the report:

'Are non-resident parents treated fairly by the courts?
The views of our solicitor interviewees can be summed up as follows:

1. The courts and Cafcass are not biased against non-resident parents, who generally get a fair deal. But,
2. Resident parents start off from a position of strength and it is easy for them to spin things out; some applicants give up because the process is too long and costly, both financially and emotionally;
3. Some resident parents and children remain persistently opposed to contact and the court?s abilities to deal with this are limited, and
4. At the end of the day the court has to act in the interests of the children and sometimes that means the non-resident parent may lose out.'

Your extract states that "Some resident parents and children remain persistently opposed to contact". Not the vast majority - as portrayed by fathers' organisations, and often the media.

Let me give you a few more examples to illustrate the use of that word some:

Some NRP's are violent, controlling abusers who make their children's and ex's lives hell.

Some NRP's insist on a lengthy battle to gain 50-50 contact even though they cannot possibly fulfil it, to avoid paying maintenance.

Some NRP's hide their earnings or assets in order to avoid paying maintenance.

Some NRP's are total losers who will leave their jobs and live off a new partner to avoid paying maintenance - plunging two families into poverty instead of just one.

In relation to some cases, the RP and the children may lose out.

Some is not the vast majority. Some is a small minority.

Nothing will change until family courts stop relying on the goodwill of parents to do what is best for their DC, time and time again.

I have no problem with family courts issuing contact orders/residence orders etc, and hoping parents exercise goodwill and stick to the orders, but when the parents repeatedly fail to adhere to the court order, and the parents return to court to resolve the matter, then the court should step in and do something constructive, rather than just giving another chance and another chance and another chance and another chance and another chance and another chance and another chance and another chance and another chance and another chance and another chance and so on and so on.

I have heard of NRP's taking the RP back to court more than 20 times because the RP has not adhered to the contact order and is blocking contact. The NRP still doesn't see the DC.

I have heard of RP's taking the NRP back to court many many times because the NRP has not adhered to the contact order and is not showing up for contact. The NRP still doesn't bother.

In both cases, the DC are the ones who suffer the most...either way, they are being denied the right to a relationship with a parent, because one of the parents has decided that is so.

When are the courts going to accept that not all parents have their DC's best interests at heart, will not operate on goodwill alone and enforce the orders they are fond of dishing out???

WTF is the point exactly of a court order when it is not enforced if required??

I'm a bit puzzled why fathers organizations are portrayed in such a negative light.

I understood (particularly from MN) that if men wanted their rights they should form their own groups.

They have and they're now called mysogynistic, treated with suspicion and accused of using propaganda to further their aims.

They're accused of having an agenda, what group doesn't have an agenda?

As it ever occurred that fathers might want to see their children more after separation?

Littlemiss.

The problem isn't as straight forward though is it?

Firstly the RP may genuinely feel they have no choice but to break the court order. Perhaps out of safety fears. Some out of vindictiveness I agree. But it's not always easy to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Secondly what options do the courts really have for enforcement? And this is the crux of the problem really. Just what is it they can do? Throw the RP in prison? That's hardly a great thing for the child to see is it? Fine the RP? That just affects the quality of life of the child as he/she now has less money in the pot.

It's not easy at all. I've heard of extreme cases where courts have reversed residency. I think perhaps this is the best solution in certain situations where one parent has been proven to be vindictive and the other is more than capable and willing to take care of the child.

Also bear in mind that many fathers talk the talk, few walk the walk. What I mean is that very few dad's would be willing to actually take on the kids full time. Out of all my mates, I can only think of one who I actually do genuinely believe would. Many say they would.......but their actions don't say that. So my point is that they'd go to court but all they're asking for is access/contact. If mum isn't compliant, court cannot reverse residency since dad doesn't want it in the first place!

Truckulent It's not the organisations themselves which are necessarily misogynistic. But a lot of their propaganda is. As illustrated by the link provided by youngermother.

littlemiss I agree, largely, with what you are saying. But it's a difficult issue. Taking the child's best interests as a starting point, you can see why the courts hold back. They're between a rock and a hard place. How does it serve the children's interests to impose punitive measures (eg fines, custodial or community sentences) on the RP or NRP?

Essentially, in this small number of extremely difficult cases, the courts are reduced to an advisory role, trying to minimise the harm. The real resolution to the case is in the hands of the parents, not the courts.

That is why the Government intends to do nothing more than formalise the current position - which is that children have rights, and parents have responsibilities.

what happens when the Nrp fails to stick to the contact they insisted one.I do think that when that happens the NRp should then lose the right to any more legal aid

Littlemiss for Prime Minister!

Whilst I can appreciate that the courts are indeed between a rock and a hard place, and it is not often easy to work out what is done out of malice and what is done in an attempt to protect the DC AFA RP is concerned, I wonder what the point of court ordered contact is if the court won't implement punitive measures when breached repeatedly??

Surely it would save a lot of time and money if it was to be sorted out by a mediator, by mutual consent of the parents?

I just can't see the point of the judge rubber stamping an order tbh.

I also find it strange that a NRP can retain PR, even if they have not laid eyes on the DC or paid any maintenance for years, and as well as that, once a court order is ordered, the NRP can disappear for years on end, then just turn up unexpectedly one day and resume contact where they left off, because court orders don't expire if the NRP hasn't been in any contact for x amount if time.

So if my XP doesn't show his face or attempt to make contact for 10 years, he can still turn up at the appointed time on the appointed day and I am supposed to wave my child off, not knowing where he is taking my child, or where he is living...because even though 10 years of no contact has passed, the contact order does not expire unless I return to court AGAIN!!

Thanks Spero

littlemiss

If my xh fails to stick to the agreement we actually have a date in 6 months to go back to court and if he stays as he is im going to request that he can not reapply with legal aid( tax payers paying for it when he has no intention of sticking to it ) for a set amount of time and sadly since he can not write a letter to the dc it says it all .

DD now does not want to see him as he has let her down again

As littlemiss says you cannot just breach a court order because you think there's something wrong with it. the process is get it changed. It's the same for money. if a father's (or non resident mother's ) financial position changes - redundancy etc they are not allowed just to stop paying - they have to go back to court and get the order changed.

littlemiss I do agree with you, wholeheartedly. I certainly agree that these issues should be out of the hands of a court, which is pretty useless in the kind of scenario you describe.

Its fine for them to say "we'll help fathers who want to see their kids" but what about ones that dont? What do we do? As a mum whos been through & still going through this its hard. Im representing my child & leaving the door wide open for him to see our child but he says no. What more can i do? I cant force him. I wont be slagging him off to her because i want her to know she can see him & it wont hurt me.

Its "solving" one situation to make themselves look clever. Its not working. Its making this almost laughable.

Did anybody hear this issue crop up again on the Today programme?

This?
www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/13/access-rights-divorce-by-law?newsfeed=true