Regular needs advice please regarding contact arrangements for non-resident parent

[WillSeeYouAnon]

Hi. This is on behalf of my husband and my teenage stepdaughter who is unfortunately pregnant. She has split up with her boyfriend and is now asking our advice as to how she can limit contact. I've namechanged because I have previously recommended this site to her and wouldn't want to be recognised!

We're not sure exactly what the problem is with her ex and, having been on the receiving end of her mother's attempts to maximise maintenance and restrict contact, are none too keen on her going the same route. But we would like to be able to point her to official sources of information rather than just moralise at her.

Her questions are as follows:
how can she get his visits restricted and stipulated?
what happens if he takes her to court?

I'd be very grateful if anyone can point us to some reliable sources of information regarding the legal rights of both parents. TIA.

Hi, well the first thing she needs to consider is whether to name her ex on the birth certificate. If she does, he will automatically have Parental Responsibility (PR)which is basically defined as a bundle of rights and duties towards the child to include the right to be involved in important decisions such as chosing their religion, education, medical decisions etc. This is therefore an important decision for her whether to name him on the certificate (bearing in mind it cannot be changed later) if she doesn't name him, it will need to be father unknown so she will have to consider how she would feel about this.
If she doesn't name him, he can apply to the Court for a Parental Responsibility Order but in order for the Court to grant him this, he would need to illustrate that he had been a responsible parent!
with regards to contact, if she is not happy to allow him contact with the baby his only option is to make an application to the Court for a defined Contact Order. (if he wasn't named on the birth certificate he would need to apply for PR at the same time). The court would look at the whole situation and would encourage contact but hopefully if she had concerns, any contact would start off as superivsed contact, either by a family member or friend or possibly at a contact centre) only once everyone was happy with the contact should it proceed to unsupervised but I imagine it would not be for some time. If there is a dispute regarding contact then the Court will usually appoint a CAFCASS officer (a government appointed official) who would look into the matter and visit both parties separately and then make a report and recommendation regarding contact.
As the mother, she automatically has PR and he doesn't unless she puts him on the birth certificate so this is what she should consider first. Then, when baby is born, she can then consider what contact she is happy with. Obviously when baby very small (or if breastfed) any contact would need to be for a very limited amount of time which could then potentially be built up if she is happy with this.
To sum up, at this time, she has all the rights and he doesn't but obviously this can change. Good luck to her

Hi MumOverSeas and thanks for replying. I didn't realise it was quite so cut and dried as that. Given her circumstances and how she feels about him it doesn't sound like it would be a good idea for him to be on the birth certificate. But presumably she won't be able to claim maintenance from him if he's not named as the father? I'm not sure how she'd feel about that.

Do you happen to know a good weblink to the current law on this?

Hi Willseeyouanon, I don't think that there is any reason why she can't claim maintenance just because he isn't named on the birth certificate, I'm sure it must happen a lot. Previously the CSA dealt with all child maintenance applications and based their assessment on a percentage of the non-resident parents net income (gross less tax, national insurance and pension contributions) for one child it was 15%. (however if he is on a low income they sometimes apply a ridiculous flat rate of around 5 pounds per week!) However the CSA were replaced on the 1st November 2008 by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. They will have greater powers than the CSA and maintenance will be assessed on gross as opposed to net income (although at this early stage I do not know if they are applying percentages) Their enforcement options include the removal of passports from non payers and there will no longer be a need to acquire a liability order from the Courts before enforcement action can be taken.
I haven't actually looked at their website yet (if indeed they have one up and running at the moment but maybe if you google it you might find some more information).
I would imagine, just because he is not on the birth certificate this should not be a problem and if he denies being the father, then potentially paternity tests could be carried out. Please however note that the Courts treat maintenance and Contact as two separate issues so just because he may be paying child maintenance doesn't automatically mean he SHOULD have contact although the starting point of the courts is the welfare of the child and that it is usually in the childs best interests to have contact with both parents. As said above, this would almost certainly start off as supervised and may then build up to unsupervised over a period of months/years.

Hi, no direct experience. I'm sure that you are aware that unless she has a really good reason for denying contact he will be granted PR (eg abuser or substance addicted and even then could still be granted supervised contact by the courts). Just not liking him anymore or being feckless isn't enough.

Hi Theochris - yes we are aware of that, and if she was thinking that way we would not condone her actions one bit. I think there is a very strong element of wanting to move on, but unfortunately she has to realise that she will be forever linked with her ex via her DC and she must remember that he has rights as the father of her child.

mumoverseas - that's interesting about the maintenance thing, but I must say I think it is wrong. I actually have a fair amount of knowledge of the CSA but because DH was a father well before the law on PR changed I didn't know their stand on it. I would be very unhappy with SD if she was to deny her ex PR and then expect him to pay her maintenance. It's comforting about the supervised contact though, as I could completely understand her being unhappy to just hand the baby over.
A little more questioning has revealed that her ex and his mother are thinking of taking her to court to get custody, on the grounds that she has been having counselling for anger management. I think that's stooping pretty low and I'm hoping they wouldn't have a leg to stand on unless concerns had been raised independently? (that's a rhetorical question I think).

I probably shan't be back tonight as it's a complete PITA having to namechange.

All sounds tricky and messy

The custody thing - surely just having counselling isn't grounds? Hopefully something said in anger that won't come to pass.

Wishing you and you family all the best.

willseeyouanon, what exactly do you think is wrong about the maintenance thing? I appreciate you may well have knowledge of the CSA, but they have been replaced so as far as I am aware, it is all new rules and probably many people don't fully know them or understand them yet (possibly including the new commission!)

ref custody (BTW, its not been called custody since 1989, is now residence) I would say your SD's ex and his mother have a snowballs chance in hell of getting it on the basis of what you've said. I find it very hard to belive that any District Judge would remove a newborn baby from its mother on the basis of what her ex boyfriend has said. I would imagine tha the anger management counselling may well be connected to the ex boyfriend anyway and there is no reason to believe any anger would be directed at the baby. Also, his mother would have no rights to make an application on her own although she could push him into it. The only way she could make an application for Residence is by seeking leave of the Court (permission) which would be unlikely unless there were real concerns for the safety of the baby.

Hi again mumoverseas. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound ungrateful - you're right I don't know much about the new CMEC. But as regards maintenance and PR, I don't see what can possibly be right about denying all knowledge of the child's parentage for the purposes of the birth certificate, but then going and pursuing the bloke for the contents of his wallet. In my book that is having one's cake and eating it. I would hope that, having seen what her own father has gone through at the hands of her mother, SD would think twice before behaving in the same way, but time will tell I guess. DH and I are not exactly impartial on that particular point as you may have guessed, but this is precisely why I posted this thread as we don't just want to give her our own personal view of things.

I didn't realise custody isn't called custody any more! But anyhow it is reassuring to hear both of your reactions to that one. I just feel desperately sorry for SD finding herself in this position. She's only 17 and she's too young to be having a baby, let alone to find herself in legal wrangles with the father's family. It's just a horrible situation all round. Plus she's having to live in a B&B as she's fallen out with her mother and SF and is no longer welcome at her home. We've offered her a home with us but it would involve a move of hundreds of miles away from everything and everyone she knows so I don't think she's very likely to take us up on it. The poor, poor kid.

Hi WSYA, to be honest, I don't think anyone really knows too much about the knew CMEC as they are only just up and running and will probably take a little while to find their feet (hopefully not as long as the CSA took though!) With regards to the PR and maintenance issue, I totally agree with you. I think it is wrong for so many women to want the money but refuse contact. I was just trying to illustrate that the Courts treat the payment of maintenance and contact as two separate issues as obviously the Courts no longer have the jurisdication to make child maintenance orders.
I think a lot of people don't know that the terminology has changed and I'm forever hearing people refer to residence as custody and contact as access. Old habits etc.
Like you say, poor girl, she is very young to be dealing with all this without having fallen out with half her family. I hope that she gets the help and support that she needs but it sounds like she is lucky to have you.