Iuchi_Zien Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Another example of how the rules work. If you are a father and have the children, for example, during the weekend. You may need to put them in daycare over part of the weekend whilst working. You are not allowed to claim the tax rebate for that daycare, the mother has to. So obviously if you are not friendly with the mother then you are stuffed. A friend of mine had to quit his job because of that little problem. He paid the CSA for his childrens upkeep, then paid again looking after his children during the week-end. By the time he'd paid the CSA and the childcare, he could barely afford to feed himself, let alone his children. Now the DWP are telling him he should stop his children visiting him if he can't afford the childcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Here goes! That provides no information about why he was denied access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 That provides no information about why he was denied access. But that's not the question that was asked:confused:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 But that's not the question that was asked:confused:. It's highly relevant, though. If he has been unfairly banned from access, then everyone will be up in arms over the decision. If it turns out that he has sexually abused his son in the past, then people's views would be radically different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 But that's not the question that was asked:confused:. That is the next question following on from the report. Anyone know why was he denied access? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snook Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 It's highly relevant, though. If he has been unfairly banned from access, then everyone will be up in arms over the decision. If it turns out that he has sexually abused his son in the past, then people's views would be radically different. I completely agree. Also, turning up with 100 (image 100 ballons carried by one person for a moment!) outside a school to surprise an eight year old boy who has no idea who you are (hasn't seen him for seven years) must be frightening and confusing for the child. As you said, we have no idea why he lost access and without that information it is hard to decide if the reaction of the police was justified or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 As far as I'm concerned denying fathers (in general) access to their children is just plain wrong, but it's also completely the right thing to do when you're talking about fathers (in specifics) who have done things which are abusive, dangerous or harmful to their children, and the report above does not include any of the information about that. I can well understand a father who has previously abused a child being denied access for the whole of that child's life- and rightly so. I would expect exactly the same to be decided about a mother who did similar. And if that father broke the injunction repeatedly then yes, the penalty for that includes jail, just like it did for Andy Kershaw, when he broke an injunction which stopped him from seeing his ex-wife. That doesn't stop it being wrong denying fathers (in general) the right to see their children, but in this case we don't have the facts and we can't make that judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 As far as I'm concerned denying fathers (in general) access to their children is just plain wrong, but it's also completely the right thing to do when you're talking about fathers (in specifics) who have done things which are abusive, dangerous or harmful to their children, and the report above does not include any of the information about that. I can well understand a father who has previously abused a child being denied access for the whole of that child's life- and rightly so. I would expect exactly the same to be decided about a mother who did similar. And if that father broke the injunction repeatedly then yes, the penalty for that includes jail, just like it did for Andy Kershaw, when he broke an injunction which stopped him from seeing his ex-wife. That doesn't stop it being wrong denying fathers (in general) the right to see their children, but in this case we don't have the facts and we can't make that judgement. exactly we dont have all the facts about the story, we dont know why he was stopped from seeing his son in the first place, theres obviously a reason why. in some cases its legitimate, in some cases its purely used against the father for no good reason however if you deliberetly go out of your way to defy the ban then well im sorry you take the punishment like all lawbreaking. you does the crime you does the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clownaround Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 This is the problem, you will never really find out why his contact was stopped this what happens in a secret family court. In my case it was pure spite. Just because a man dosent see his child dosent mean he has stopped loving it. How else can he show his child that he hasent been forgotton by his Daddy on his birthday and that he is still loved by him even though he dosent see him. All family court cases are done in secret for the simple fact that if the public found out how much money they make by dragging cases out there would be uproar. When you do publish any part of your case you are held in contempt. The reasons for with holding contact are decided on the "word" of the resident parent and no evidence is needed any accusations can be made and as long as you are convincing that is good enough. This man should not be in a jail never mind cat A jail with murderers and rapists all for the sake of loving his son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I happen to to know that in 9 out of 10 custody cases, they give the kid to the Mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.