Legal helps here please :)

[SK1ER]

Until my son's father, if he does, gets Parental Responsibilities given to him by court, or even after, can I as the mum, the parent with care (and at the moment the only person with parental responsibility) make a formal parental responsibility agreement with another person?

My ex (after son's father) was my son's common-law step-father and still remains so in my and my son's eyes.

We (me, my son and my mum) would like it if I make a formal parental responsibility agreement with him as it will give my son added security in the very likely event of his natural father abusing the court system once he has PR, as a legitimised whipping stick against me.

So, Question A: Can I make that formal agreement now and without my son's fathers permission?

B: As my son's father has made an application to the court but a hearing has not yet been held, although one is arranged, can the fact that proceedings have started in a way prevent me from doing so?

Who ever does or does not have PR will make not one iota of difference to the unhappy situation you find yourself in.

This is about adult emotional difficulties, an arena the family courts are very ill equipped to enter.

If SS are advising you to do or not to do things, that is tough shit for dad. I just don't understand your post. If his house isn't safe, and SS have intervened, you don't allow your son to go there, this has nothing to do with PR at all.

But of course, if your son is 15 he may well chose to do what he wants when he wants, and there is very little anyone can do about that.

You've just got to hope you bought him up well enough for him to make the right decisions for his well being, most of the time.

Resolution/ anyone with else with legal knowledge or similar experience:

DS's dad has lied to his solicitor, he said he knew of no other court case, including previously, and so, if what I've googled is right, his application would have been made on a C1?

As there WAS a previous court case, what happens now his solicitor knows? (I emailed her directly regarding it as I had no representation)

As we, me and an appointed solicitor (once legal aid comes through) want the court date changed (I have medical treatment which cannot be avoided) can we use this situation to enable that?

Will DS's dad have to fill out a C2 instead?

If so, will the application have to court again from the start i.e another several weeks wait for a court date?

I was only infirmed by his solicitor on January 12th yet his staement was signed november 9th, that has given them 3 months but me, especially with limited health, only 3 weeks, is that grounds to request the court set a later date?

My son understands the medical situation and is okay with a later date for a court hearing.

Thank you all so much for your time :)

Spero:

My not allowing my son to go into his house is what has forced contact to stop, given that his dad has said he can't afford to take him anywhere and can only see him in his home.

As well as asking for PR from the court DS's dad has made an application for contact, stating he has been refused contact, but omitting why.

I can't bring the SS into it, I did speak with them last week but A: They say contact is a matter for the courts not them and B: They find no reason to become involved as they do not believe my son is at risk from me.

Ask the other side to agree to an adjournment, both sides can then write to the court requesting another hearing date.

If the other side won't agree, write to court yourself and request adjournment. Enclose medical evidence.

Hopefully court will agree to relist, but it doesn't have to.

I don't think him not ticking box re other court proceedings will make any difference. He may have got confused. Applications are made on a C1, I think a C2 is for supplemental information but I am not sure.

O I see, sorry I thought this was just about PR.

If SS have given you advise re house, then they are involved and should at least confirm their advice to your solicitor.

But what is so wrong with his house that a 15 year old is at risk in it?

Spero: I don't think he got confused, his solicitor sent me a copy of his statement and it asks quite clearly and simply, no room for confusion, whether he is aware of any court hearing past or present, it also asks what the outcome was.

As the outcome of the previous hearing was not in his favour in anyway I believe this is why he has omitted this information.

Will the family court or archives, whereever they keep information on past cases, still have this case on file? It was in 1998

Sorry I have got to get back to work now.

given the age of your child, this should all be over with pretty swiftly. Courts hate making orders re Gillick competent teenagers, I can't remember the last time I got a contact order for anyone over 14.

Spero:

DS's dad's house has loose wiring hanging into the kitchen directly underneath the bathroom.

It has a lrge front window, which cannot be avoided when entering the living room, that is badly cracked and the frame is just about rotted through.

There is no working heating system in the house.

DS's dad, on the rare occasions he is at home (he has a girlfriend who lives a distance away) lives in his back bedroom because of the problems.

I found out that when DS was visiting him there they were sitting in a small back bedroom where his dad 'lives'.

I don't believe this is a suitable environment physically for a lad who is clumsy as most teenagers are and I don't believe it's a good example.

There is also rotting rusty furniture in the back garden.

When his father has been working he has not paid for repairs and when on benefits when he could have received a social fund loan or grant he has not applied for it.

Because I was the one who asked him.

That takes precidence with him above his son's safety :(

Spero I don't agree. If the father hasn't got pr and wants it a court is extremely likely to give it to him. I can't imagine why they wouldn't and I know most DJs share my view. He is the parent, give him parental responsibility. I think most might take a dim view of the mother resisting tbh, whether or not he has paid maintenance.

I'd agree to it if I were you OP.

As for the ex-partner - no. He won't get PR because you are no longer together and you were never married. There is no reason for him to have it. The fact that you think it might be nice is not a reason.

skier you are confusing pr with contact.

He WILL get PR. Whether or not he has contact should really be up to your son. He is 15, he should decide. The state of his house hasn't got much to do with it. Of course you could go to court, have a fight and resist staying contact but if your son wants to go, what are you going to do, carry him home?

You need to let this lie, difficult as you may find it

The red book states "the order confers on the comitted father the status of parenthood for which nature has already ordained he must bear responsibility"

As for contact, CAFCASS will ask your son, and dad will get the contact your son says he wants. I must say the perceived danger in dad's place will count for little unless social services step in in a big way.

What will really count is the boy's view. Agree with freshmint - better to allow PR. If you want to give it to your ex, at least make it the ex that's the lad's father.

If the overriding test for PR is that it is in the best interests of the child, if that child himself doesn't want the father to have it, I can't see a Judge ordering it... BUT as I continue to stress, it is almost utterly irrelevant to everything that matters at this stage.

If your son was a toddler, would agree completely about the house. But he is not. In a year's time he can go off and join the army. I don't think the house as you describe it is reason to refuse to agree to contact.

I am sorry, but I think this whole thing sounds like a bit waste of your precious time and emotional energy.

It certainly isn't up to the child to decide if his father gets PR!

I honestly would struggle to think of a reason why it wouldn't be granted if the father was around and wanted to interact with his child, absent mental incapacity, serious misconduct issues eg sexual abuse etc. The father IS the parent - withholding PR should not be used as a punishment and child's wishes should not be enormously relevant. Granting it reflects the reality of the situation - he is the parent.

I think I need to clarify here.

All of my son's life his dad has had all the same benefits as if he had PR

It was the courts decision in 1998 to not allow him PR, we were all in agreement that he trying to abuse, not use, what rights he had.

One of the big concerns now is why he's chosen to apply when he's had 13 years to do so.

His application was signed the week after he was informed by the CSA that he now had to pay child support.

This isn't about him wanting to take responsibility for his son, he's shown quite clearly he's not prepared to do that, it's trying to have a go at me because I involved the CSA

What we have to do now is prevent him getting PR because the only thing it will give him different to what he already has is a legally endorsed whipping stick with which to cause trouble because he is angry.

Pr and knowing his dad could potentially override his decisions concerns my son greatly, it would be a big change from the way his life is usually run, he's allowed to make all his own decisions with me and my mum providing support where needed, to feel the court, people he does not know, now potentially being able to override his decisions is something my son is very unhappy about.

I appreciate, and am thankful, that the court will listen to my son's wishes

But

It is the fact that if his dad has PR there will always be the underlying thought and it is that psychological effect on my son that I am most concerned about.

If I thought for one minute his dad had his best interests at heart I would have given him PR years ago,

Who the heck wants to tell their kid they've got a deadbeat dad??

Spero: re the house

My son has (medically diagnosed) very low blood pressure, he can lose his bearings for seconds at a time and the large broken window cannot be avoided, it has to be passed, and closely, to get into the living room.

What are your suggestions re the lack of heat in the house? Am I to ask my son to take a portable heater with him??

His dad's house is desperately neglected, he will not spend a penny on it or his son unless forced to do so although he seems to have adequate funds to be able to go out and party, both things my son very sadly is able to see and has drawn his own conclusions from :(

We will have to agree to disagree about whether a court would award PR in face of child's objections. I would have thought that child would have a pretty strong Article 8 right to object.

Anyhoo. It really doesn't matter.

What matters op is that you constantly refer to PR as giving the father a 'legally endorsed whipping stick' giving him the 'potential to overide your decisions'.

This just isn't true, but I know it is what so many of my clients believe. The whole issue of PR is a pain in the arse and I wish they would just abolish the whole concept.

The bottom line is - he is your child's FATHER. He and your child have rights enforceable under domestic and international law to know each other and have a relationship, in so far as that is compatible with your son's safety.

The psychological impact on your child which you should be more concerned about, is how he is going to cope growing up with the knowledge that his parents hate each other. You both made him, he can't chose between you without having to acknowledge that half his DNA is rubbish.

If his dad is an arse he will know and probably does know. But he really doesn't need all this.

PR, complete dead letter. let it go. Contact, for your son to decide. He is big enough to cope with a dodgy house.

This really isn't a legal problem, but I sense I am repeating myself so will probably bow out now.

Best of luck, I do hope this gets resolved one way or another.

My son would prefer to go to his dad's and not have to sit up in the back bedroom where his dad 'lives' due to problems with the other rooms.
He would prefer to see his dad in a warm house.
If he asks his dad his dad thinks I've put him up to it, if I ask his dad his dad won't do it simply because I've asked.

What's heart breaking in this is he is only a few houses away so it feels terrible to have to refuse access there (recommendation by social worker).

Cafcass are now getting involved and it looks like they will do a home visit to his dad's house so here's hoping when they say it's best to get it repaired he, finally, will listen :)

sorry, just had to reply seeing your last comment.

I don't understand what blood pressure has to do with it. If your son is disabled to such an extent that he really can't go into this house, a doctor should back you up with medical evidence.

Of course he doesn't need a portable heater. He can put a jumper on.

I am sorry, but your objections are getting increasingly more bizarre.

i'm unsure as to how I seem to have become something of a bad parent here.

I'm not objecting to access, it's his dad who's said he can't afford to take him anywhere else but his house but will not make his house safe thereby causing access to stop by his actions.

Are you suggesting (no sarcasm here) I go against the recommendation of the social worker?

You seem to have the impression I'm going against my son's wishes but I am not, I'm the one who is going to have to voice them.

Live, WET electrical wiring should not be dangling, body height into the room of a house a person of any age is in.

I don't understand what a 'dead' letter is, please explain?

And how can I agree with a document on which he's lied without pointing the lies out as it will be discovered in court and I don't want to get into trouble.

I don't, and my son doesn't, want this to go to court! his dad's the one who's refused mediation, I stated quite clearly to his solicitor I was open to mediation, it's about compromise and although I want my son to be happy and his just seems to want revenge surely people at mediation are experienced anough to be able to recognise that situation, they must have seen it many times before and give the appropriate guidance? or is that not what mediation does?

Spero:

'Increasingly more bizarre'? they are the same objections as I've voiced from the beginning.

A jumper? We live in an area nicknamed 'Little Siberia' a jumper doesn't cut it, admittedly a quilted coat would but that's not really a desirable scenario is it? son sat in his dad's bedroom instead of a living room, broken windows, gale blowing, live wet wiring hanging loose.

What is so unreasonable, or bizzarre, in wanting my son to be able to go to his dad's house, sit in the living room, be warm, be comfortable and more importantly be safe, why is it wrong to want that for him? Why is it wrong for him to want that and not to have to sit there in a coat.

As for low blood pressure at the level my son's is, when he loses his bearings he also loses his balance, if he stood too soon and fell against the window the window, and he, would have no chance, unfortunately the window is unavoidable anyway, it's a very large window in a very small front room there's just no way round it.

Spero bow out is my advice. She won't listen if she doesn't like what you say. As I have already found on this thread and the other...

If the social worker has made recommendations, why are they now refusing to get involved?

If the house is dangerous, that is one thing, but you are also objecting to the fact that it is cold. Why can't your son just wear a jumper?

By 'dead letter' I mean that PR is an unhelpful concept which just causes confusion. It is about recognising 'status' of a parent, it was insisted upon by a conservative government who basically wanted to punish the unmarried. It does not give either parent the right to overide or veto the other parent.

Mediators are not there to give guidance. They are there to provide a safe space for you BOTH to articulate what you need and work out a solution that suits you both. Given that you are calling your ex a liar, I can't see mediation working out for either or you.

I am not calling you a bad parent. You are clearly a very concerned and loving parent. But I still think you are missing the point. These kind of proceedings hurt children. I appreciate that you aren't pushing to go to court but it does look as though you are pushing for a fight.

Spero:

Yes, the doctor can, and if she's called upon by Cafcass, she will, backup what I'm saying with evidence.

It's me and my son who want him to have contact with his dad yet it's his dad who's causing the problems, why do I get the impression from replies on here that somehow that equates to me refusing contact, I don't understand.

As I said in a post a few minutes ago Cafcass will hopefully sort this out with their visit to his home over concerns.

Thank you all for your time but I came here for advice and to try and find a way round this so my son can see his dad yet I'm coming away feeling like I'm the one being viewed as being unfair.

I think one of the problems on this page is it looks like some people haven't refreshed the page before replying so the posts cross each other.

I know gillybean, I know!! I just can't help myself.

From the last response I don't think this op is for real. I have never heard of teenagers falling thru windows due to their blood pressure.

Pity the poor CAFCASS officer who takes this on.

Over and out.

[Spero having duff parents isn't a human rights issue IMO. What about dad's rights to have his status as a parent fully recognised in law? In all other respects I agree with you entirely!]

anyway skier you asked for legal help, you've been given it by lots of sensible people but you don't want to hear it. He is 15. His dad is his dad. If you fight the PR you will probably lose and you need to consider what effect constant battling will do to your teenage son. If he wants contact with his dad he should have it. If he doesn't he shouldn't have it. It is much more to do with his feelings than with yours at this stage IMO.

You might not want to hear it from us but you will probably hear it from a judge, after the expenditure of quite a lot of public money on his side and private? or public? money on yours.