Families need fathers all over the news today

[Sheila]

Bloody Louis de Bernieres also on R4 sounding off about his rights. It all seems so remote - I just wish XP was interested enough to demand contact with DS - usullay it's me naggaing him becuase he sees so little of his son. :(

Yes that is how you seam to see things. Maybe you could read through exactly what I have said. Then you will see I am pro child, and against behaviour that is negative to the child
Negative behaviour to the children is...
. Not paying maintenance
. Not having contact with your child
. Committing PA
. Preventing a parent from seeing their child
. Making false allegations against the other parent
. Preventing a child from a relationship with the extended family
. Controling every aspect of the child
. Emotionally, verbally, physically abusing a child or adult in the family

To name but a few. These can be committed by either parent irrelevant of which parent caused the breakup or reasons behind breakup.

However, this topic is about changes in law to ensure children are not victims of one parent preventing the other parent from having a full relationship with their child.

Now if there is a topic about a parent not pay maintenance and the changes to law in that regard I will discuss that, if the topic is about parents who let their children down then I will discuss that in full. But as this topic is about enabling contact for the child where bother parents can and want to be fully involved then although other issues may be touched upon the main focus remains.

Latemates, in response to your 18:18 post, where has anyone in this thread said that men make bad parents? I haven't seen Basil or anyone else say that, and I certainly don't think that myself. I don't think my XP is a bad parent because he is a man, I think he is a bad parent because of the actions he has taken. He certainly was not short of opportunity to parent well, we switched the SAHP role between us several times while we were together mainly because he wouldn't look for a job and after we split my door was open for him to see them whenever he liked - he had nowhere to take them so he looked after them in my home for three days a week while I worked. Had he found accommodation locally I would have happily shifted that to him taking the children to his own home, despite the fact that he parented differently to me. Instead, he moved away, and doesn't see them at all, and yes I think that makes him a bad parent, and I think I should be able to take him to court to have his PR removed. Why should the law class him as an equal parent when he blatantly isn't?

What Basil has said is that if the want to be equal parents then they have to make equal sacrifices whilst in the relationship with the mother, they have to take an equal share in the crappy, boring bits, they have to take an equal hit in the workplace, they have to give up some of their leisure time. If the care has already been fairly equally split then of course that should continue after the split. But if the children are the ones that matter, then if they are used to having one primary carer who cares for them well, why should that be disrupted in order to serve the rights of the other parent?

This isextremly - that is what basil says if you read her posts.

I am not disputing that you ex hasn't put children first and that is not on.
But in a together family the child will see (in most cases) at a minimum both parents everyday and every weekend. The child has their life disrupted when parents split but the current system means they see significantly less of one of those parents and that is very unfair for that child.

And what about fathers who are making sacrifices and still being refused contact by the mother - should it be tough kids mummy isn't happy and wants to do it all so you can only see dad when mum says so

Kudos to LateMates and MrGin for hanging in there against overwhelming odds. Thanks for your sensible voices willing to speak up against the MN tirade.

Where has Basil said that men make bad parents? As opposed to saying that if men want to be equal parents they have to put in equal work and make equal sacrifices? She hasn't, at all.

And I have not said that fathers should be denied contact I have said that the care arrangements that were in place before the split should be part of the consideration because, whether or not the parents were in full agreement about them, that is what the children are accustomed to.

NotYet that's right. And if you would now lower your gaze to the posts you will notice the aforementioned tirade.
Hence what I said: MN...Tirade.

ThisisExtreamltNotVeryGood

What you are describing is an XP who doesn't give a fig, sadly, tragically, and has gone off the map.

I'd say the likelyhood of him re-appearing and going to court to argue his childs new rights to see their dad would be pretty slim.

And if he does how would he convince a judge that it's in the childs interests to suddenly live with him half the time ?

I don't see why you feel threatened by this legislation.

If your deadbeat ex did re-appear , well it's debatable how much and how soon he'd be judged to build up a relationship with his kids . But to roll out a cliche, it's in the childs interests to have a good relationship with both parents.

As I see it the legislation is aimed partly at stopping someone crying wolf resulting in the child not seeing one parent for a year.

But whatever the children were accustomed to will change - mum and dad will no longer reside in the same house. Both parents will no longer be able to them goodnight, bedtime stories from dad are not possible every night if children are with mum or vice versus. Meal times will be different.
That's reality of separated families - the childrens life will change - but the children should be able to experience as much as possible of life with each parent, they should be able to to involved in both sides of the family customs and traditions. See family both maternal and paternal and build the relationships with both sides. The child should know that both parents are capable and love them. Both parents should be fully involved in school, clubs and medical issues.

I agree, LateMates. I think separated parents need to work together regardless of their own issues, to make things as "normal" as possible for their DC. When DH and I talked about separating (we didn't) we said we would always stay close to each other so that DS could see both of us most days.

I know plenty of deadbeat dads. Or actually, I don't know them because they're not around. But I know quite a few women raising children on their own with no support from the father.

I do also know women who wield control over their exes by using their children though, and that's horrible. One of my very good friends, even, has told her husband (though they weren't married at the time) that if he cheats on her he will not see their children. I tried to tell her that even if he is a shit husband (which he isn't), that doesn't make him a bad father, but to no avail.

MrGin, I don't feel personally threatened by the legislation, it won't apply to my children because they are resident in Scotland. What I object to is that he has basically left all his responsibilities behind yet still has his PRR and will keep them regardless of his behaviour, as do many other NRPs like him. I think any new legislation should tackle the problems on both sides.

Thisis - sorry if vie missed this - does he pay maintenance at this time? Does he have no contact at all now?
I do believe that removing PR is unusual but if he is absent I don't suppose it makes any difference to your day to day life either way, although I can appriacate why it irritates. You can apply for PR for additional adults (step parent/ godparent) who could make decisions for you child in the unfortunate situation that you were unable to. Although, I am not 100% on all the details of options with this.

Oh, and I imagine he's probably rubbing his hands with glee at this news and feeling totally vindicated in his view that I am some sort of harpy who has stolen his children away from him. In reality he is free to have as much contact as he likes with them, but would rather threaten me with court when I don't do as I'm told and then ignore all the letters my solicitor writes to him asking to arrange contact. I have no idea if it's still his intention to go to court tbh, I doubt he'd get legal aid so I am hoping the cost has had an offputting effect on him.

Thisis - he would have little joy in court as it would cost him and you have evidence due to letters your solicitor has written that you have tried to facilitate and support contact so he would look a tit in court if he has not responded to your suggestions or proposals

He pays maintenance via the CSA and we call him once a week, the oldest always speaks to him, the middle one usually does and the youngest usually doesn't. He still thinks he should have the same rights over them as he did when taking an active role in their life, he demanded monthly updates on their "progress" at one point (this was a compromise apparently, he wanted this to be fortnightly) but by that time the solicitor was involved and since then I have tried to avoid responding to him because he becomes very antagonistic. My solicitor has written basically saying that he could have regular contact at any sort of frequency, his response (to me) was that he couldn't commit to regular visits. My eldest has ASD, and he struggled enormously when his Dad moved, adhoc visits would be disastrous for him in terms of his stability and behaviour. My solicitor also said that I would like to start web cam contact and again there has been no response.

I am aware he is unlikely to get everything he wants in court, but it is currently an enormous shadow hanging over me. He doesn't respond to the solicitor so I have no idea what his intentions are re: contact, and my oldest struggles with the limited contact (he's been waiting for a reply to an email for a week, he makes me check it twice a day and his face just falls every time when there's no response) and I have no answers for him. I sometimes wish XP would just say he's never coming back to visit them, because at least I could give DS an answer, help him through it and move on, and the younger two would be spared the same confusion as they get older. I feel completely helpless, there is nothing I can do about it. I have no legal redress against him, yet he does against me. It does feel completely one-sided.

Thisis - it feels extremely one-sided because it is extremely one sided.

There are masses of absent parents out there, who are only interested in contact, if they can completely control it.

The government and the media and FNF, recognises that there are some RP's one there who are intent on controlling the contact and having it done all on their terms and they are addressing that by htis legislation. None of them is remotely interested in recognising the huge number of NRP's who are intent on controlling contact and withdraw it if they can't have it on their terms and dealing with them, then go around declaring that their harpy bitch ex won't let them see the kids.

It's perfectly understandable that you feel it's one sided.

I don't know what's so difficult to understand?

These NPR's, quite rightly, do not feel that they should be tarred with the same brush as the NRP's who don't give a shit. They feel very strongly that they haven't done anything wrong so why should they in effect be penalised. Asking them to take responsibility for the NRP's who don't fulfill their parent role is like asking you to take responsibility for all/other parents who abuse their role.

Thumbwitch I'm not so egocentric as to regard the argument I and Mr Gin were having as being the major influence on your life in the near future. However, that political debate and its outcome will have huge effects on us as individuals and as a society.
Latemates I don't see your point - of course I am affected by the current political and economic situation. I do not believe that all sections of society are affected to the same extent. So I don't believe we're all in this together. The Condem govt have made their intention quite clear: they wish to dismantle the Welfare State and return society to what they consider to be its natural order.

It's not that we don't understand notfluffy, it's that we disagree.

The thing is, legislation which deals with only one problem, is always bad legislation - bore bore bore on about the dangerous dogs act, the classic example of crap legislation.

I've stated several times, I have no objection to the govt. addressing ALL the issues surrounding contact, maintenance and the welfare of children in the wake of the breakdown of couples relationships. I have massive objections to the govt. only tackling one aspect, which sends out a very clear, misogynist message that there is only one problem worth tackling. Lone parents already have to contend with massive misogynist shit out there about them, we don't need the govt. to add to it by only tackling one issue instead of ALL the issues that need to be tackled.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

And to add to what JS is saying: we are not all bearing the brunt of the cuts equally.

The cuts fall disproportionately on women - the Fawcett Society's figures show that we are bearing 72% of the impact of the cuts.

Thumbwitch the end of that got lost - my point is that you won't be able to stay out of it; none of us will.

'Some' RPs are a problem

'Masses' and a 'huge number' of NRPs are a problem.

What evidence is this based on?

Yes Basil - read Responsible Reform (Spartacus Report) on what these bastards this govt has planned for disabled people

BasilRathbone

I think what's bugging you about this one is that it's going to benefit men, in the main. Otherwise I can't really understand why you have nothing positive to say about the move at all. It is a very positive move, not only for the rights of the child but for the rights of the NRP who isn't an abuser etc etc.

As it happens I agree with much of what you're saying, although not all. NRP's should be chased down to the ends of the earth to make sure they pay for their kids, but who is going to finance this? As we know, we're skint! No I don't think NRP's should be forced by courts to have contact with their children, I wouldn't be sending my kids to a father who couldn't be arsed. That is absolutely NOT in the child's best interest. Some PEOPLE are just arseholes, no amount of tellings off by the judge will make some parents good parents. Unfortunately this comes down on the RP, well she just has to get on with her duty and do it alone, they will get their reward in the love of their children. I agree though that if a court agreement is broken then the father should be fined, maybe this money could be plowed back into the system to aid other families circumstances.

The single-parent tag needs to stop being worn as a badge, it doesn't define who you are. I was one for 15 years, I never used the term. I never felt victimised. I went to work and paid the bills and brought up my kids just the same as all the millions of other families all over the country.