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. :(

It's incredibly convenient for Non Resident Parents, that maintenance and contact are separate issues.

Non payment of maintenance is financial abuse of your child. If you don't understand that financial support for your child is an absolute basic of parenting, then frankly, society is entitled to wonder what else you don't understand about parenting and to treat you the same way they treat any other parent who abuses their child - with suspicion and a presumption that automatic contact with your child, is not necessarily in that child's interest.

The father's rights groups have been incredibly successful at persuading decent people, that non-payment of maintenance is nothing to do with a parent's attitude to the welfare of their child. But it is absolutely basic - it shows that you don't feel any responsibility towards that child and are therefore a really unfit parent.

It's not even about the child's standard of living - sometimes, people only have to pay a fiver a week, which wouldn't make much real difference to the child's welfare, but it is a recognition that the NRP has responsibility. Any parent who doesn't grasp that, is a shit parent and that's why the father's rights groups are so keen to ensure that we all buy that shit about maintenance being nothing to do with contact. Rights without responsibilities.

Father rights groups say maintenance should be paid. They frown on parents who do not pay maintenance.

They however are fighting for the right for the child to have a full and meaningful relationship with both parents and the wider family. That is their aim and focus.

The only thing they do say is that children should not be pay per view as in situations where one parent holds child to ransom and will not allow child to see other parent without additional payment on top of maintenance. Because the other parent should not be demanding extra money before child can see a parent. This is blackmail and illegal.

There is a difference. And I will say it again any decent parent should pay maintenance for their child. Always no excuses. A decent parent should always make time for their child and not walk away form the child or let the child down. A decent parent should not prevent the child form having a relationship with the other decent parent.

But the number of parents who are not decent, because they have walked away from their children or don't pay maintenance, far outweigh the number who withhold contact maliciously. (Only 10% of parents end up in court re contact, versus more than half of NRP's not paying maintenance.)

And the government is not interested in dealing with their lack of decency, only with the lack of decency of the minority.

Why might that be?

Father's rights group may pay lip service to the idea that everyone should pay maintenance; what they don 't do, is call a spade a spade and state straight out, that NRP's who don't, are unfit parents.

You do not know that the parents who withhold contact are outweighed by those who are not decent - that is your opinion based on your experience

And think about the innocent children who are suffering because of parents who prevent access. They have a chance of full relationship with both parents do they not need someone looking out for their rights.
(Bangs head against brick wall)

It is not my opinion based on my experience and it is patronising to assume that.

It is based on figures.

More than 50% of NRP's don't pay maintenance.

Only 10% of couples disagree so violently about contact issues, that they end up in court. 90% are perfectly able to come to an agreed solution without the intervention of the courts.

That tells me that the number of RP's denying contact unreasonably (and I doubt if all those 10% are in that category) are far less than the number of NRP's who financially abuse their children.

I reckon there will be a very large number of NRP's who don't go to court because they can't afford to. It's thousands. And most people just don't have it.

men that don't pay maintence are wankers.
men that don't want to see their children are wankers.
women that don't let men see their kids out of malice are wankers.

I wish all exes would stop being lumped together. You can't argue that 3/5 fathers do this or half of mothers do that...it's nothing to do with each indivdual case.

No one should be denied seeing their parent if that parent is decent. No matter if they were a rubbish partner.

The fundamental problem is that the phrase 'unfit parent' is bandied around with little consideration as to what this means. Some people think this could mean a parent who leaves the family for a new partner. For others it means somebody who has been violent. It's also been suggested that a parent who doesn't pay maintenance is an unfit parent. But who decides? The mother? The courts? The children? What if a father refuses to pay maintenance or is a bit unreliable on contact weekends but the child still wants a relationship with him.

90% come to an agreed solution is a bit rose tinted isn't it?

But figures give us a broad overview of where the problems are greatest, tralala.

And I still don't get why some people want legislation which will make one form of emotional abuse easier, while doing nothing about another form of emotional abuse and financial abuse.

What is wrong with the presumption that the rights of the child should be central to any case, rather than the rights of one of the parents?

Seriously, nobody has successfully explained why the philosophical position that the rights of one of the parents (the non-resident one) being prioritised over the rights of the other parent and the child, is a superior one, to prioritising the rights of the child, which is the legal position we start from at the moment.

I know that the theory isn't always borne out by practice, but I'm bewildered as to why as a starting point, that principle seems to be being thrown out. Why? What is wrong with that principle, and why is this new one better? No one has yet explained this.

I believe the right of the child to have access to both parents is central but I'm not entering into a big debate about it with you Basil. I do empathise with you but you're too personally, emotionally involved to really see the bigger picture.

They are not saying the fathers rights are more important than mothers rights. They are saying mothers are fathers rights will be equal. The Childs needs will still be the basis of any court order. But neither parent will have more rights or less responsibilities than the other.

In cases where a child is removed the parents lose their rights in the best interest of the child. If a parent or both parents are deemed unfit by the court they will also lose their rights if that is in Childs best interest. These laws already exist and are not being abolished.

LOL at me being too emotionally involved.

And no one who is arguing against me has any emotional involvement in this at all, do they? Nice bit of patronising there, Sweetie.

Thebest, children nearly always want a relationship with unfit parents, even where those parents have been horribly cruel and abusive to them. Speak to any social worker who has witnessed the heartbreak a child being taken away from his or her abusive parent feels, the longing to be back with the parent who has already done him or her so much damage.

Our duty as adults, is not to give children what they want, but what they need.

And obviously that is a fine balance. Someone who financially abuses his or her children, but is actually regular as clockwork for contact visits and spends quality time with their DC's, is abusive but on balance, it may be in the child's best interests to have a relationship with them.

In most cases I would argue that as long as the parent isn't physically or verbally abusive and isn't consistently battering the child's self-esteem and confidence, then however shit s/he is as a parent, it's better for the child to have contact with them. But there has got to be a line where we as a society say, no, no parent has the right to have contact or residence with their child, if on balance, that contact or residence has a more detrimental than beneficial effect. That cannot be dependent on the wishes of a child, it has to be dependent on the needs of the child.

It is simply not true to say that one parent is not going to have more rights than the other.

If the NRP does not have the obligation to financially support their child, or to actually comply with the times and dates of contact, then s/he will have more rights than the RP.

How is that not obvious?

"Nice bit of patronising there, Sweetie."

FFS, I said I can empathise. How can that be construed as anything but positive?

As soon as you bring your personal experience into the argument you're onto a loser. Everything you say after that will be clouded by the feeling that you only think that way because your ex is a dick. Anecdotal evidence is worse than useless.

It's stopping you seeing the wood for the trees.

"i advise that the RP keeps NRP weekends free. As in the children are available should the NRP turn up. Maybe without child knowing - such as a quiet weekend doing crafts etc at home. If the NRP arrives the child is told how lovely mummy/daddy is here to see you. If the parent doesn't arrive the child is not aware."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry that you think this is any way reasonable, Latemates.

I advise that the NRP turns up at the time that has been agreed, come back at the time that has been agreed, pay the maintenance that has been agreed. Then the child will be aware that both parents actually give a shit about them. What is really so difficult about that? Lots of divorced parents manage it. What's so special about those that don't that you think that RPs should spend every weekend waiting for them to deign to turn up? What kind of life is that for the child/ren?

Basil is only using her experience for illustrative purposes to show how this law is nonsense.

Aye that wasn't exactly what I meant. I appriciate that my first attempt at explain didn't come across right but if you read on you will hopefully see that I explained my self better.

I was trying to illustrate that a parents role is to work together with other parent to facilitate contact as much as possible. Naturally if one parent is useless then you have to protect child and act in the Childs best interest and draw the line somewhere

No, that's a silencing technique, to tell people that their experience, which is actually shared by thousands of other women, is irrelevant.

The fact that I've backed up my arguments with figures, is irrelevant I suppose.

And the fact that people here have asserted, without any evidence whatsoever, myths along the lines of most women who claim DV in family court are lying, goes unnoticed and accepted as rational I suppose?

Pah.

And the other people are using their experiences to demonstrate that current law is worse than useless and that change that will allow children the right to see both parents and to put both parents on a starting point of equality has got to be a good thing.
We all draw on our experiences and our own interpretation of research and statistics

Hold on, you don't just protect the child.

The RP also has a right to her time - her life.

She has the right to expect the NRP to turn up on time so that she can go to work, or go to the library to work on her dissertation, or do the weekly shop she planned to do without the kids that day, or go and have sensuous fun with her lover.

But that would be about her rights, wouldn't it, as well as the child's, so let's ignore that shall we? Because after all, how dare she expect to do anything but sit down with a few crafts? How often do we think men are advised to wait around and patiently do a few crafts when a woman fucks him about?

No we don't actually.

This is Mumsnet, not Netmums.

We're all intelligent enough to know that statistics don't always reflect our own experience, but that they put our experience in context; we're either unusual or part of a widespread phenomenon.

Anyway in keeping with my new year's resolution (aren't you impressed, it's February and I'm still keeping it) I'm off t'interweb now to do some improving reading.

Night all.

Don't put words into my mouth.

Of course you should have your own life, of course you should have your own rights. Did I say otherwise. Nooooooooooo I did not

Do I think parents should do everything they can for their Childs best interest. Yes I do.

Does that mean having to make some concessions some of the time. Yes possibly both parents may need to adapt., sometime a parent has to put their plans on hold to drive the child to a party. That's being a parent. Did I suggest that a parent try to encourage the other parent to have contact and support this. Yes I did. If that parent continues to not be involved. Did I say that the other parent can use their own judgement to know when enough is enough. Yes I did.

Look you clearly can only see your view point. There is little point continuing to discuss. I know my views opinions are valid. I respect your views also have value. I recognise I will be unable to get you to see other views. So I will wish you and yours the best and hope that at some point the father steps up as he should and takes responsibility for his child or children.

Regards