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. :(

Courts rarely enforce breached contact orders because there's little that the court can do to the RP that wouldn't adversely affect the DCs as well.

Very occasionally some RP will piss off the court so much, over so many years, that the judge will order that the DC(s) should move and go to live with who was the NRP. But it's so rare that it makes headlines when it does happen.

It took less than a year in my sister's case. It was the year after her ex's exclusion order finished (obv he wasn't allowed to come anywhere near her or the children for that year under pain of prison). He claimed legal aid although he was earning £1000/week cash in hand. She had to pay her own way and represent herself as she was earning £200/year too much for the legal aid cut-off. We managed to scramble together a barrister's fee for her for a really important hearing. To be honest, even financially the whole system was slightly skewed against my sister and in favour of her ex.

I think that Basil is talking a lot of sense and wish that the legal system represented her views as they are far more sane than the present status quo.

Basil 'I'm against this particular legislation, because it's the wrong way to go about it.'
What do you suggest then that would make sure that RP dont prevent their child from havign a relationship with the other parent ?

'I'm talking about the grinding, invisible, thankless day to day stuff which is still mainly done by women - who have to downshift their careers, forego decent pensions, lose social status and put themselves at the mercy of the continued goodwill of the men they live with, to do it.'
Thats total rubbish lots of Men do the day to day stuff too. Lots of men who are prevented from seeign their children by the woman would give their right arm to get to do the day to day stuff that represents real parenting but are prevented from being this involved.

I do not dispute there are men (and women) out there who are rubbish and do not want to see their children or let them down BUT there are women (and men) who control the children and limit the time the child is allowed to see the other parent, or grandparents etc. The current system supports this as it will not enforce court orders/many parents are scared to go up against the RP for more contact due to threats about contact stopping altogther till the court decides. So an overhaul is desperately required of family court system.
The children are suffering with the current system.
Until parents are seen in court as equals and children are granted equal rights to see both parents then it is near imposible to do anything about those who choose to walk away or let the child down.

Once this new status quo is established then the absent fathers (or mothers) can be addressed.

This whole thing is seperate from maintenance - Mantenance should be paid regardless of if the NR parent is wanting to see child or not. The maintenance should be paid regardless of if the RP is preventing contact or supporting contact BUT the RP should not stop contact in order to get more money.

It is fairly obvious that fathers and their organisations are more interested in their own 'rights' than those of their children. The proportion of nrf's who lose touch completely with their children was mentioned ^^,likewise failure to pay maintenance. There is never an equivalent campaign by fathers to actually care for children. When Major opted out of EU rules on paternity leave, where were Fathers for Justice/Families need Fathers? If collection of Student Loans is anything like CM, it's doomed (what a shame).

The widespread view that this debate is about men, not children, is quite clear. I was also impressed by the early appearance of 'all men are potential rapists' as 'evidence' of misandry. When was rape mentioned before that comment? Totally irrelevant. Do you not understand the meaning of the word 'potential'? Any individual man may know that he is not a rapist, but please explain how the rest of us are meant to know that about him? Telepathy?

Julia - I have no idea what you are talking about.

Families need fathers - puts the childrens needs and rights first. It has members that are fathers, mothers, grandparents who are trying to ensure that the child maintains a meaningful relationship with both parents and the wider family.
It states that parents should pay maintenance regularly and properly but that is not their focus to legislate.

They are campaigning for equal rights for the child.

Is it wrong for groups like FNF to campaign like this?

Some DC's are being prevented from having a relationship with their NRP by the RP, and unless I've missed something, that's not good for the DC's, is it?

I understand that there are other DC's (possibly more) that are missing out because the NRP can't be bothered - and that's not good for DC's either -but that isn't the message behind this FNF campaign, is it? FNF are campaigning for a particular cause - that many of it's members experience.
If this campaign results in even a few more DC's seeing their Dads than would otherwise be the case, then that's a good thing, isn't it?

I've read some of the posts on this thread and it's almost as if people are saying that because they don't benefit from this campaign, and their DC's don't see their Dad, then they disagree with FNF and feel that this campaign should be stopped - or have I missed something?

hmm. i thought the guy from Families need fathers on the Today programme was out and out twat.

he also misrepresented the stats...of the 1 in 10 women who go to court to deny access - only 14% are successful - do we really think 86% of women willing to go to court over access don't have a good reason? Check the domestic violence statistics before you answer to the contrary.

So if a case goes to court it is likely that the father is violent?

Although some cases the one parent may want to deny access for violence most cases are not for valid reasons. Most women who use DV as a reason have made it up to try stop their child seeing the other parent. Women can also be guilty of DV - violence isn't a man only characteristic.
It is so sad that some individuals use lies to control their children and it is deverstatign to real victims who are scared to speak out due to there being so many false alegations which results in people being less sure when true cases occur.

Okay. I'm ready to take cover in case the buns start flying, and this might not be the place to ask but it came up in conversation because of this thread -- I would like to know if you think that all RPs should receive maintenance, even if they only have DCs 50% of the time? (Meaning that the NRP has them the other 50% of the time.)

most women make up DV?

I've heard it all now latemates.

laura DD has 50:50 and I get maintenance calculated at CSA rate - but, I'm responsible for paying for everything DD needs - uniform, trips, essential
Clothing, activities etc etc - in effect, I'm financially responsible for DD.
Personally, this is easier than a proportional split of all costs and if exH wanted it, I'd happily swap so he got the maintenance/benefits not me.

Just Laura,

I think if care is shared then maintenance may not be required as child costs would be met by both parents equally. Alternatively, parents may decide one will pay maintenance and the other will pay for uniform, clubs with the money.
If one parent was on minimum wage and the other a millionaire. the one may decide to pay maintenance so that the child has a simular standard in both homes.

CSA would still claim maintenace off NRP if the RP put in a claim. I know a case where the NRP has child 60% of the time and the CSA take maintenace still.

Sinical that is not what i said....

I said ...
Most women who use DV as a reason have made it up to try stop their child seeing the other parent

In that DV only comes into play to stop access when their has not been any reports of DV, the alegations have no evidence and the DV charrges happen when they mother or parent feels that they may have to allow child to see other parent.

I do not think women make up DV - I said that those who do make it harder for those who are truly having DV

Thank you for the response NotADisney (we've actually 'talked' on another thread when I was posting under a different name and I appreciate your perspective). Forgive me for not understanding exactly how it works in this country - but does your exH pay the maintenance? I ask because we've got 50/50 split and neither household gets maintenance payments from the other, but we also share costs for clothes, essentials, etc. and trips are paid for by whoever is taking the DC away with them.

Don't buy it.
Sounds like a crock of shit, it's the word 'most' that does it

oops - xpost with Late

but the implication that fathers who go to court for contact are probably violent is accepted without question.

JLP- We do 50-50 and no one pays the other any money.

Laura I claim via the CSA, they calculate the amount exH should pay, adjusted for the number of nights DD spends with him.
I pay for school trips, uniform, basic clothes at both houses, coat/shoes etc - exH showers her with luxuries buys her extras at his own expense and if he pays for holidays etc that she takes with him.

I consider the maintenance contributes to what she 'needs' the extras are up to the individual households.

Well said truck

Truck Sorry if I'm being nosey, but who has PR? I'm asking because it seems like in the UK even if the split is 50/50 the mother always has PR and I'm curious as to why.

Both parents should have PR but one parent may be on paper the RP and be able to claim child ben. . Only one parent can claim this.

Just to be clear I'm then father.

We both have PR.
I would be classed as RP as the child-benefit is in my name.

i don't understand basil's argument. Because her husband has the right to see his children but chooses not to exercise that right, that means other men who have difficulty exercising that right shouldn't have rights in the first place