Divorced/Separated Parents, access.

[Ms Macbeth]

I feel for parents who aren't allowed access to their children - and most often its the fathers. Even more I feel for the children who miss their absent parent. Regardless of what the law says, when two people decide to have a child together, then the child should be paramount in any decisions made regarding his or her future. Its not just the child or absent parent who's denied, its often grandparents and wider family that the child may love and miss.

 

I also feel for parents (usually the mums) who would like the non resident parent to be involved without success. Why do (mainly young) men feel its ok to impregnate someone and then walk away from the consequences?

 

What has happened to moral obligation? Regardless of fault when a relationship breaks down, unless the other parent isn't fit to have contact with their child, shouuldn't both parties try to give their child the most stable upbringing they can?

 

I've been fortunate, my marriage didn't break down. But if it had, I'd like to think we'd both have put our children first, at least until they were old enough to choose for themselves.

 

Just seen your last post GC, and I agree about these laws from the US, they seem much fairer!

[BBanzai]

Cyclone I suggest you google the Hague convention, parents DO NOT have the right to move anywhere they choose, taking a child out of the country is called parental abduction. As others have said though the UK generally has outdated rather bigotted views regarding father's rights. As a 'foreigner' dual nationality actually, not one agency in this country would listen, nor take seriously the parental abduction that my ex partner did, however my adopted country would, I even spoke to a highly placed civil servant who was willing to pursue this but as I had family here maybe the best thing ie. not pee off the ex, would be for me to move over here.

 

The biased system where to begin, maybe this incident sums it up, one night the bailliffs knocked on my door to collect a years back maintenance, which the ex said I hadn't paid, I would in fact go hungry to pay it, but luckily I kept the Postal order receipts which someone had advised me to do, I had to take yet another day off work to produce these at court the ex didn't even get a slap on the wrist for misleading the court, in fact she didn't even attend.

 

After five years of mediation and court appearances, access that was always at the whim of the ex, I'd travel the three hours to pick him up to find them out, I would be unable to contact him by telephone at the allotted time. I couldn't bear to see my child crying and so upset yet again on returning him home, because his mother and new partner were making it as difficult as possible that I gave in, to my shame I haven't seen him now for over ten years. It's easy I think for people who haven't been through the system to make glib statements about having the will to see your kids means you can overcome all obstacles not true.

 

I moved 5000 miles, I put up with being assaulted (yes I did go to the police, they refused to take it further, if I pressed the matter the police to prevent further violence would bar me from picking up my child), but with all the will in the world fighting a system that was biased towards the mother, and an intransigent ex was too much.

[Dottys]

This is interesting.....over here, if I have children and I go after their father for child support, if he denies they are his, he can receive a court order to be tested for paternity. So even if he didn't want to take responsibility, the state would hunt him down and find out for sure. As a side note, there is a public channel here that shows pictures of "dead beat parents" who owe child support. It lists how much they owe as well, if I'm not mistaken. It allows members of the public to phone in if they know the where abouts of these people who shirk responsibility to provide monetary care for their children.

 

Thanks, I will give it a try - though this man seems to be trying very hard not to be found. Be careful, he is very active on this site, and he seems to prey on American women.

[Dottys]

Just in case you are wondering, it wasn't a fling, and we are older parents - Don't really know why he changed his mind about the baby

[CottonTop]

Thanks, I will give it a try - though this man seems to be trying very hard not to be found. Be careful, he is very active on this site, and he seems to prey on American women.

 

No worries....I am happily attached. No preying on me!!

[DragonofAna]

I also feel for parents (usually the mums) who would like the non resident parent to be involved without success. Why do (mainly young) men feel its ok to impregnate someone and then walk away from the consequences?

 

What has happened to moral obligation? Regardless of fault when a relationship breaks down, unless the other parent isn't fit to have contact with their child, shouldn't both parties try to give their child the most stable upbringing they can?

 

I do not think anyone disagrees with you about the absent fathers you mention. It is wrong for a man to father a child and then to just move on to the next person.

As I said before - no-one is attacking women. It is the law that is wrong and needs changing to make things more equal.

 

Sorry to hear about your case BBanzai. People seem to think it is a comfort when they tell you that in time, when the child is old enough, he/she will come looking for you to hear your side or at least to know you. That is great, but by then you have lost out on so much, and so have they. You can never get back those years. It would be better for all involved if those years were not lost in the first place.

[go4it]

I'm watching something called Who needs a dad, it's basically about how dads are coping with trying to see their kids, and I have to be honest there is a woman on there who doesn't need to be treating her ex husband like she is.

 

Basically it got to the day before he was meant to take his kids camping to france and she wouldn't let him take them, she barred his calls and sent him texts saying he was stupid. Also he had to get involved with court just to get his kids for the holiday, he's been waiting 4 years for the holiday cause she hasn't let him have them before.

 

What does everyone here think? Is it important for children to have two parents (obviously there are situations which will mean they don't) and for those parents to get along well or at least be civil?

 

Exactly what rights do fathers get because it seems the courts are mainly on the mother's side.

 

That sounds horrible. No doubt the mother will claim later on in life that she's had no support and will demand medical help for behaviour difficulties with her children.

 

Is it any wonder so many kids in single parent families have 'ADHD'?

 

Too many women have the attitude 'I'm the mother, I know everything'. To them a child just needs a mother, nothing else. Too many see their child as a mate to make up for the lack of friendship in their own life, and not a child who has their own life ahead of them. Because of this I do feel sorry for fathers in this case as they don't get a look in and are made to look like they are not important.

 

I appreciate this is not always the case.

[DragonofAna]

Until the law changes - nothing changes.

Too many females rant about how they would not do such a thing and then go ahead and do it. Maybe because they see a life of continued contact with the ex as too great a problem to overcome. Having the childs father maintain regular contact with the child is a bit like having someone looking over their shoulder, checking up on everything they do, and possibly arguing about every little thing. But it does not have to be that way.

 

All too often I have seen females use their children as a weapon - something to beat the man with because of the failed relationship. Often this becomes more likely when one or the other parent acquires a new partner.

 

Please note: This is not an attack on females. I am commenting only on those females who see fit to refuse access by a father to his child(ren) for no reason other than as a means of punishing him, or making life easier for herself.

 

And as has been stated over and again - there are men out there who think it is fine to sow their oats and then move on, accepting little or no responsibility for their offspring. To be honest not only should they be forced to pay for those children, but should have a vesectomy.

 

This is not about control for the male. One of my ex's has had several partners and that is her business and we get on great, and she has never stopped me seeing the children we had. It can work. But the children have to come first - and children should be allowed to know their biological fathers.

[kered9]

Moving geographically is always just going to be tough luck, you can't tell a parent who has custody not to leave the area just to maintain easy contact for the non custodial parent.

 

Your kidding right? Tough luck!?! It is practically stealing. Imagine your share a business and the other partner makes a change which means the only way you even get to find out how the business is going takes a 1.5 days of travelling (there and back) and weeks wage on petrol.

And a business has no value compared to children.

*Adults have the right to move where ever they want, but it doesn't mean they can take a shared child with them. You want to go live $200 and a full day away thats fine, but leave the child behind.

 

*Wow, i didn't realise i was 8 pages away from the conversation, thought I was just skipping one page.

[kered9]

It's alright that I missed it all anyway, turns out nothing new was said.

*Sorry, there were a few quality posts in between the junk spouted by in the name of human rights nuttiness. You know the kind that chooses one random and inconvenient 'right' and tries to back it and empower it no matter what that means to ethics, common sense and any rights other people shoudl have.

 

Heres the thing, stop using men and women and use parent A and Parent B, that way you can't bring your own blatant prejudices into the discussion. (notice underlining, italics and bold and the notice bringing notice to this.)

 

A takes the kids first up if A wants, because if B resists (even in a passive manner such as locking A out of the house) B can get arrested.

 

A controls Bs contact with children, A maintains custody of children until a decision is reached in court which takes min. 1 year. Meanwhile A can cancel B's visits at anytime.

 

A can take the kids to any part of the country A likes, regardless of the implications to B's shared investment in the children.

 

A gets paid by B to maintain the children, and there is no monitoring of A's use of the money.

 

A gets the benefit of the doubt regarding any claims made about B, and B has to disprove it (example "B is violent towards the children") where as should B make a claim about A; B needs to prove it.

 

During the custody, everytime B doesn't get to see the kids, misses a cafcass call or gets upset in the least its a strike aginst B.

Everytime A misses a meeting or prevents B from seeing the children it is swept under the carpet. Should A get upset at any time it is B's fault and a point goes against B.

 

Soo.... unless your elitist and happen to be A or a judge, which of the above is getting the raw deal?