What % of NRPs are denied access to children?

[joaninha]

Hi fellow LPs! I was reading an article on Yahoo about DCs recent initiative regarding making absent parents pay and scrolled down to the comments which, as usual, go along the lines of accusing mothers of denying the father access to their children (plus the whole single mothers having sex with lots of men in order to have lavish lifestyle type comments ).

It seems the whole heated debate -of access, maintenance, NRP rights etc- has so many accusations, myths, generalizations flying about that I decided I needed some concrete FACTS before I formulate an opinion on the whole shebang. So where better to come except here?

So....does anyone know or have a link to any official type website that contains the following data:

• the % of NRPs that are denied access to children

and

• the % of NRPs that don't pay maintenance ( I've seen the figure 40% flying about but not too sure)

Much obliged!

I do believe all nrps should pay maintenance, however, I understand that those who are totally separated from their children by a rp who has done false allegations, relocated miles away, subjected the children to a horrible situation by bad mouthing the NRP all the time. The NRP and children are no longer able to feel like parents, child of the person. So it is completely understandable that for some they just walk away in every sense of the word. If you can no longer be a parent, then who are you paying for. I don't agree with this but I understand the complete devastation some NRP have.

Interestingly, on a side note research shows that children are abused more by mothers than fathers.
40.5% of abuse is committed solely by mothers. 17.7 solely by fathers. Will get the link for you later. But interesting facts considering fathers are often blamed for things like this in media and on these boards

Latemates I don't dispute those findings. However, a further look into the figures will show you that things are not that straightforward. The nature of abuse and its severity vary by gender. A large proportion of female abuse is neglect for example. Male abuse is often more 'serious' (though it's all wrong and I am in no way trying to say that mothers should not be held accountable for neglect) and sexual abuse is perpetrated far more by males. Also, when you factor in the amount of time each child spends with adults of either gender, the figures balance out noticeably. Given the fact that most children spend the majority of their time with female care-givers, the surprise is that male abuse figures are so high IMO.

Either way, abuse cannot be condoned and family courts must do more to protect children who are at risk/are being abused - whether that means preventing unsupervised contact for a NRP or getting social services to investigate claims of neglect or abuse against a RP.

I see what you're saying about NRPs who have no relationship with their child, but I still don't think it's an excuse. Before having children I wasn't getting very much personally for paying my taxes (never ill, private dentistry, not using schools etc) but I still saw the point in paying them. Also, while we definitely need more research to find out how many NRPs definitely are denied access unfairly, and it definitely is a problem that needs addressing, it certainly won't explain all NRPs not paying maintenance. There are simply too many of them to claim that many RPs are 'spiteful mothers'.

I agree sunshine, the whole lot needs looking at because none of the scenarios are doing the children any good. I don't know enough about statistics to know whether the sample was large enough to be considered relevant but it's a start.

What jumped out at me was that it was felt that some of those questioned may have been saying what the interviewer wanted to hear in order to paint themselves in a good light, rather than being truthful. Or maybe they believe they are being truthful because of their perception of the situation. There was also the disparity between RPs and NRPs answers to the same question, and I think that all the time that people's perceptions and filters on situations get in the way then there will never be a completely true picture. And I'm not sure if anything can be done about that.

These topics seem to come up a lot on mumsnet, and it strikes me that instead of focussing on the topic being discusssed, threads often get bogged down in trying to prove that it's more or less prevalent that another scenario by quoting statistics and arguing whether they're representative or not. Or whether NRPs are harder done by than RPs because the statistics show x% - and I'm not sure that getting tied up in those discussions are that helpful.

I think most people who get involved in the discussions are just wanting things to change and be fairer and equitable for the children and themselves.

I don't think it has anything to do with amount of time with the child, you can still abuse in evenings an weekends if your at work during the day. Most children are a school during the day too so in actual fat in most non separate homes the mother does not have that much more contact than the father. Or type of abuse. As most abuse goes without reporting so this is based on known cases. And any type of abuse is devastating to the child. One example of this is problems at school - a child gets punched by a different child. School reacts and deals with this abuse. The child gets low level bullying over a period of 2 years, school can not pin point what's happening, child does not speack out because feels that these little instances on their own don't sound bad. This is far more long term consequences than the first example. Interestingly ... In cases of what is considered a high risk person(mental health, drug taking etc) the courts will not remove the child from the mother (in most instances) but they will use this as a reason to not award contact with a father. It is is complete imbalance that needs to be addressed - if a father is not safe if they take drugs then a mother is not safe for the same logic or vice versus.

The difference is in your tax example to a NRP is how can you be a parent without a child. I do not think people realise how devastating it is for NRP who are denied contact, spend thousands in courts trying to readress the balance, finally get a court order that the mother disregards and nothing will happen to RP. I do think they should carry on paying but I also understand that many of these NRP feel so completely destroyed that they are broken people, financially destroyed, with nothing left to lose.

Latemates - In cases of what is considered a high risk person(mental health, drug taking etc) the courts will not remove the child from the mother (in most instances) but they will use this as a reason to not award contact with a father. It is is complete imbalance that needs to be addressed - if a father is not safe if they take drugs then a mother is not safe for the same logic or vice versus.

I agree with you there.

OTOH, it's unusual for a father to actually be completely denied contact with a child even when he is considered high-risk.

Yes, and I could see how someone would get so bogged down in the fight with the system, and their ex that they lose sight of the fact that it's about the child and not about the ex. All sorts of emotions are running around at times like that and it's not easy to see the wood for the trees.

I'm sure that's the situation I'm in - it's not that he doesn't love dd to bits, but what he has focussed on is "how dare she leave and I hope she fails" and he's not going to do anything to make my life easier. Initially that was "I'm not being your babysitter" when I was offering 50:50 etc" - it was about me not being able to go out or away for weekends. Luckily he did start to miss dd and started asking to have her for extra that we'd decided upon (which of course I was happy with). But now money is a sticking point because he is so blinkered about the fact that he doesn't want to give me any money - I do think he's genuinely not thinking about dd in his skewed view of things. What he doesn't realise is that I'm a bit shruggy shoulders about it and patting myself on the back for being the sole provider for the past year. Maybe when he does realise that it's not a button he can press he'll become more reasonable, which seems to be his pattern.

That was in response to Latemates last paragraph.

Hi all,

thanks for those who have taken the time to read the report.

Erm, regarding Latemates, the information you provided about children suffering abuse you are indeed correct, i've seen something fairly similar myself.

I will say i'm glad that this figure is going down from 2006-2007 levels relating to female on child abuse.

I think the report serves as a good indicator to the vast range of thoughts and feelings of parents (both RP and NRP). As a general circumstance i'd like to see a much more expansive research criteria. For example race and fatherlessness. Asian men for example i read are most likely to remain involved in their childs life (possibly because of cultural aspects relating to family and marriage) and also evidence suggests in some areas in London 50% of black children do not know or have had no contact with their fathers.

There's much to agree and disagree on the report. However let me make a recommendation that as someone put somewhere the truth is between that somewhere. What i'm saying is if a RP says 25% and NRP says 35%, just compromise and say the figure is about 30%? Does that seem too general or does the law of averages factor nicely does anyone think?

Might post back in here later if and when i get back from Court!

I once denied my ex contact because I was pissed off with him for not signing some papers to do with selling the house. It didn't work as he turned it round on me and said he wouldn't sign them unless I let him have the children.

It's not something I'm proud of and I wouldn't do it again. Emotions were still very high at that point and neither of us were very rational.

Ex has regular access every week.

So would I count in that 37% of mothers who have denied access? If so, it's very different to those who completely deny fathers access.

I take statistics with a pinch of salt they can never give the full picture and no-one can make sweeping statements based on statistics.

On the back of mrscolour's example, I've also "denied access" - my ex's visa situation was non-existent, emotions were running very high, she'd already shown minimal regard for agreed arrangements, and then she took DD to her new friend's house for a long weekend. I (eventually) got back a traumatised DD.

IMO I went understandably spare, and wouldn't allow her contact until it could be done at a contact centre. That only took about four weeks or so to sort out.

Fast forward to now, the court order gives her contact for 8 hours every weekend. As of two weeks ago she has stopped all contact. I will continue to be ready for her to ask for contact, and I'll happily make DD available (within reason), but I'll be damned if I'll chase her to have something she's willingly decided not to have.

I'll bet she'd still claim I'm denying access, though.

Hi mrscolour,

You quite possibly would as technically its barring contact for a reason out of spite. I'm glad your children have regular contact with their Dad.

Had a funny one the other day.

Dad taking his ex to court to be able to take his daughter away on a fantastic holiday (he's spent a small fortune), but his ex is denying him contact saying he isn't a good father. She agreed he had never missed maintenance and had 2 nights per week / 3 nights per week (fortnightly plan).

He has residence of his eldest daughter from a previous relationship since separation.

He says that rather than loose the money he spent for his daughters place for the holiday its more cost effective to pay for court to grant him to be able to take his daughter on holiday.

The court, rather than simply grant the order to a clearly capable and involved loving father have sent him on a PIPs course?

Who here agree's with that?

sorry for the above situation where it says but his ex is denying him contact she's denying him being able to take his daughter away with him. She's 5 btw.

I can only give anecdotal info based on 25 years as a family lawyer.

I have had cases of dads who have done time for murder still seeing their children.

Ditto time for serious sexual assault (not on the child)

Ditto pretty much everything else.

The only case I've ever handled where the dad had contact suspended (not revoked for ever), was when he repeatedly fed his child dairy products on contact visits notwithstanding that the child has a lactose allergy, so was made ill every time there was contact. That was only after a court case which went on for over two years and our costs (I was for mum) were over £20k. The dad was on legal aid so didn't pay a penny.

It's extremely unusual for the court to stop contact altogether.

Riakin, don't get me started on PIPs courses and parenting courses. I had one the other day where the dad has managed to bring up two teenagers alone (their mum died), but has now to go on a PIP course and parenting course to see his 5 yr old child from a recent relationship.

The phrase "out of spite" is so wildly inflammatory and subjective that I can't really believe it has been included in official stats, unless the point is to see how the language used skews the data.

'Denied access' is also pretty subjective, especially if there are raw feelings involved on either side, not to mention the obvious fact that everyone likes to come out of things looking as good as they can, so if a NRP is questioned on their lack of contact, are they more likely to say "I couldn't be arsed" or "RP won't let me"? There is a vast difference between denying all contact and refusing to be at the beck and call of a NRP as well.

I'm quite sure that if you asked my XP, he would say I have denied him contact, whereas I would say I have offered him plenty of contact that he has refused. It is partly a matter of perception, partly based on the outlook of the person you ask and the exact circumstances they are thinking of when answering.

I live quite a distance away from my XP so contact has always been in school holidays as it necessitates quite a trip. This has worked out well because he can usually hold it together for a day every now and again, but not if it is frequent. TBH he is only really capable of being an occasional DisneyDad, but that is better than nothing at all and at least those contact sessions are, for the most part, enjoyable for the DC and he actually remembers to turn up for them. I'm sure that if he were asked, he would say i was denying him contact by moving so far away whereas I would be inclined to say that slightly more frequent, but still sporadic visits from him were not enough of a reason to remain in an area that offered no benefits or opportunities for the DC on a daily basis and where we had no support network. One situation, 2 viewpoints, 2 different answers.

Equally, he is currently making noises about me denying him contact this summer. We had arranged at Xmas that he would come up at Easter. 2 days before he was due, he decided it wasn't convenient for him, so gave me 24 hours to give him a definite date in the summer holidays instead. Some of the things we had put off doing at Easter due to his visit were rearranged for the summer so there was no free time to arrange a meet up. To his mind that is me stopping contact since i won't acquiesce to his whim and accommodate his change in plans. To me it isn't, it is him stopping contact for his convenience and expecting it to be rearranged on his terms. Again, same situation but utterly different views which would lead to utterly different answers if we were questioned on it.

i didnt find teh word spite or spiteful anywhere in the report - tho bad feeling" was referred to.

Parental relationships
27 Many parents are on reasonably good terms with each other although some have
no relationship at all and a sizeable minority are hostile.
28 The quality of the parental relationship is an important factor in whether there is
any contact and its frequency. However, some children are having quite
substantial contact despite a hostile parental relationship.

note the last sentence.

there is usually a story behind no contact or breakdown in contact - and each may view it differently.... my exP says he ash been prevented contact for months - it was stopped for good reason (he was having regulalr contact ahving moved gradually from supervised as per court order but then attacked DD when descending into his anxiety phase of his MH illness) and opportunities for contact have been missed because he refuses to accept the person propsoed to supervised, or wont accept seeing one DD but not the other, (one dd willing to see him the other is not) or etcetc . court order stills tands - provides for supervised "unless otherwise agreed" - i did otherwise agree ie to unsupervised as things were going well - he was in "non depressed" phase of his MH illness - but when they went downhill again i had no choice but to go back to the letter of supervised contact only.... which due to his lack of agreeement to supervisors i have offered, means he sees only DS and only once per forttnight.

he has not sought to apply to court to vary the order or to otherwise officially complain...

where there are no abuse issues or DV or MH issues or xxxx etc then it is hard to see why/how contact is stopped - but maybe even in those cases there may be MH issues or other non-rational thinking on behalf of parent denying contact. if it was literally just "spite" etc - then a bit of CBT/family therapy/counselling should solve it? maybe PWC in that situation needs good counselling/being encouraged to think of child etc?

I have to hold my hands up and say I haven't read the report, i was going by posts here so the spite part of my post related to this:

50% of Mothers (RP) have denied contact with Fathers (NRP) out of spite on at least one occasion
40% of Fathers lose all meaningful contact with their child in 2years

From a post by raikin.

The perception part of my post applies to any study made using questionnaires or interviews though, regardless of terminology used in the questions as everyone views things to their own advantage so there can never be a truly accurate result based solely on talking to people.

I agree that mediation should be mandatory incases where there is no history or allegation of DV etc, but it would be hard to enforce as of course many DV victims never report it to the police so there is no evidence to back up their claims and there are always those who might claim DV simply to avoid mediation so I don't see how it is possible to legislate for.

Mumblechum1 exactly. I do feel pips have a place for parents not involved or returning to involvement with their chief. But even in this instance myself, he and even his ex's barrister were taken aback. Hardly a cost effective order to put forward.

One thing I omitted to say was originally his ex had agreed to the holiday hence him booking it.

Have only skim read the thread, but one thing that came to mind was that where contact is denied (or made unreasonably difficult) without good reason even once, it is not the same as any other arrangement being cancelled. The NRP is horribly aware that they have no control over the situation and that this could happen at any time. Let's be honest, there is no real sanction for breach of a court order if the RP can come up with some even halfway plausible story. Also, if the alternate weekend pattern is being followed, a missed weekend means a month without seeing your child. So, a single instance of denied contact doesn't sound much on paper, but means a great deal to a parent.

I don't think looking for statistics is easy (or possible?) for NRP contact as the levels of contact covers the whole range from never seeing the child to 50/50 shared care. Likewise, the reasons for non-contact will range from the no-brainer NRP is violent/alcoholic etc, through minor cough to RP just doesn't want to share the child. And on the NRP side, it could be that they can't be bothered or that the RP has made contact impossible eg moving a long distance. Both sides will always think they have justification and right on their side and it would take far too much investigating to get a balanced view of every situation.

Pious I think we could (at a cost) change the system to protect against DV. If mediators were trained in DV awareness, even if a case wasn't known to the police, they could pick up on it and refer to a specialist. I believe it is vital to start doing this. DV perpetrators abuse their children as well as their partners/ex-partners, even if they claim they would never hurt the child. Hurting the other parent in eye or ear shot of the child is abuse of the child. These people should not be allowed unsupervised access to their child, and emotional abusers actually constitute a bigger risk to the child because of the insidious nature of emotional abuse.

Mediation with DV awareness and courses on how to minimise the negative effects of separation on a child would go a long way toward improving outcomes for children and creating fairness for parents. Despite a few idiots on both sides, most parents are decent people who love their children. They may be temporarily blinded by anger and emotion but a system that forces them to confront that and deal with it can only be good for everyone, especially the child.

Get these things in place and suddenly the RPs who really are preventing contact unfairly will stand out like a sore thumb. It makes them much easier to spot and much easier to deal with.