Alligatorob
SF VIP
One would hope so, but not sure it always works like that. And proving "unfit" often ain't easy.
I'm sorry all decent excluded fathers/mothers/grandparents have no statutory rights in the UK, (+ many are content those in authority deny you rights)
- Thread starter grahamg
- Start date
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
No arguments there, (in this country that situation is referred to in legal circles as "the harm standard" and applies in just the same way whether the parents are still together, so very different to the legal system criteria once they've split, and hence as far as I know, no one including myself is calling for a change in the law where "the harm standard" applies).
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
You'd expect the authorities to take a great deal of care when assessing parents as "unfit", (not least because very often there will be criminal charges to follow!), but if you dont mind my saying its a discussion for another thread, where the possibility of harm to the child is in question, not where there is no such suggestion, (hence we're discussing what anyone would usually mean by the term "decent parent/parents"). I accept definitions as to who the term "decent parent" applies to might be problematic, (but some similar judgements are already made in the cases of unmarried parents for example). .
jimintoronto
Well-known Member
The bit that gets me laughing is when Grand Parents think they can do a great job of raising their Grand Children, when their own sons or daughters are such utter screw ups that the children have to be taken away by child welfare authorities. My point of view is that if your OWN grown children are drug users, or abusive idiots, why are they like that ? Obviously the parents made a mess of raising their own off spring, so why should they now get a chance to screw up the next generation ? JimB.
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
These are good questions, though of course some grandparents step in when there has been no fault of their own, or in their parenting, just that their daughter has died early due to cancer or something like that causing the grandchildren to become homeless, (where the children's father isn't around or capable/willing to take over sole responsibility).
You have to be physically very fit and of course a good parent to take such a step as a grandparent, even providing daycare to very young children/babies can be quite an ask, but some I've met have taken to it like a duck to water!
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
I hope you dont mind my responding to your post again because another thought has popped into my head.
I've tried to deal with the central point of children being abused already, so putting that to one side, I'll try to focus again on the disparity between the legal position of the "residential parent", (usually the mother in this country, should I say obviously?), and "non-residential parent".
Our world has progressed you'd have to say in terms of the way different sections of the community are treated, and the word we've all heard so often, and will continue to hear where there remains disparity is "equality", and folks who feel they are not getting equal treatment or rights keep on calling for them to be granted dont they.
It will take too long for me to attempt to go into all the aspects of this, and express my views adequately as to why I'm in favour overall of the situation where mothers get granted custody, (or become the sole resident parent), when the couple split up.
However, you may have read some of my long discussion as to whether there are parental rights in the UK, and I mentioned a number of times the fact that there are "common law parental rights" in the UK, but no statutory parental rights, (the difference being statutory rights are written into law, whilst common law rights refers to the way our courts generally behave, treating residential parents as though they have rights, and not interfering unless there is suspected harm to the child).
My resisting calls for what so many father's groups call "equal parenting" offends a good many of them, but its just my view, and to date in this country it would appear our courts and our government take the same view as I do on this one, (strange I know that I should find myself in the "mainstream" on this topic!).
The last point to make though concerns my oft repeated call for decent parents to be granted statutory rights in this country in the form of a rebuttable presumption in favour of contact. Now you may be surprised to learn that the provision of just those rights was something our government left open the door to when drafting the legislation known here as "The Children's Act 1989". This legislation has been brought in in stages after it was enacted, and though introducing the rebuttable presumption in favour of contact has been considered I believe, it has never been brought in, (for whatever reason).
There we are, you have my arguments more or less completed to consider, and as I think \I've said a number of times the situation in many US states is different, so some of the arguments I'm using wont apply over there, and this may confuse folks somewhat.
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
Can I just chuck in a couple more comments, just to tidy up my feelings on the relationship between decent loving parents and grandparents and their offspring (/descendants).
Both maybe quite obvious, the first being your feelings towards your child are not a tap to be turned on and off and someone else's behest, and the second being that the description "decent dad/mum/grandparent" only really applies "if you're doing your best to be there for your child"!
It is in the light of those two factors that our government's (/family law) policy of denying decent parents statutory legal rights should be judged in my view.
If you tried to explain to your child why you did not meekly accept the role the other parent wanted to grant you, (for example by being dictated to as to the contact you were allowed), you'd struggle because a child doesn't know, and is never going to know by definition or until its far too late, what it means to try to be a loving parent, who should be dismissed lightly. A Canadian Lawyer called Goldwater put it this way, "there is a moral failure in smugly asserting children have rights without taking into consideration their vulnerability to manipulation and control".
"Listening to and taking seriously" the views of children, as our courts are required to do now, cannot do any other than put the child in the middle of the disagreements between their parents, and can any child be said to be lying if they say they didn't enjoy contact, (if by enjoying it they'd already feel they were disloyal to the parent they lived with most of the time, if you see what I mean), though they do just that very often I believe.
Both maybe quite obvious, the first being your feelings towards your child are not a tap to be turned on and off and someone else's behest, and the second being that the description "decent dad/mum/grandparent" only really applies "if you're doing your best to be there for your child"!
It is in the light of those two factors that our government's (/family law) policy of denying decent parents statutory legal rights should be judged in my view.
If you tried to explain to your child why you did not meekly accept the role the other parent wanted to grant you, (for example by being dictated to as to the contact you were allowed), you'd struggle because a child doesn't know, and is never going to know by definition or until its far too late, what it means to try to be a loving parent, who should be dismissed lightly. A Canadian Lawyer called Goldwater put it this way, "there is a moral failure in smugly asserting children have rights without taking into consideration their vulnerability to manipulation and control".
"Listening to and taking seriously" the views of children, as our courts are required to do now, cannot do any other than put the child in the middle of the disagreements between their parents, and can any child be said to be lying if they say they didn't enjoy contact, (if by enjoying it they'd already feel they were disloyal to the parent they lived with most of the time, if you see what I mean), though they do just that very often I believe.
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
I've thought of a title to use for a thread concerning contact with children for decent parents/grandparents, and just wanted to share it here:
"I'm not just your father when it suits you"
(used as a retort to those children, and their supporters who seem to think otherwise,....., I kniw, I know, I've gone on about this topic quite enough, but it is a good title in my view!)
"I'm not just your father when it suits you"
(used as a retort to those children, and their supporters who seem to think otherwise,....., I kniw, I know, I've gone on about this topic quite enough, but it is a good title in my view!)
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
I've mentioned on this thread a UK government appointed body responsible for advising our family courts (CAFCASS), who have long had a very bad reputation, (according to all the fathers/parents/grandparents groups I've encountered).
The following is a subject they're required to investigate, and below is a link to a website where they give their analysis, (and an extract showing the level of intrusion they feel free to make into the private lives of both the parent and the child):
"Parental alienation is a strategy whereby one parent intentionally displays to the child unjustified negativity aimed at the other parent. The purpose of this strategy is to damage the child's relationship with the other parent and to turn the child's emotions against that other parent."
https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/grown-up...to-expect-from-cafcass/alienating-behaviours/
Quote:
"All of our assessments focus on what is happening for each child. In our work, we try to help parents and the court understand the impact of the separation and adult behaviours on individual children and what the child needs as a consequence. This requires both parents to engage with our work, who are encouraged to exercise their parental responsibility wherever safe and beneficial for the child.
The starting point of assessment is always to identify risk, which includes risk of emotional harm, which may amount to a child protection issue. We recognise that exposure to alienating behaviours can be emotionally harmful to children.
Where a child is experiencing alienating behaviours, our practitioners will use their professional judgement to assess whether it is safe and what is in the best interests of the child, taking into account any other identified risks, the child’s diverse needs, their resilience and vulnerabilities and where appropriate, the child’s views. We then report our recommendations to the court for the judge to consider before they make the final decision about whether a child should spend time with a parent."
The following is a subject they're required to investigate, and below is a link to a website where they give their analysis, (and an extract showing the level of intrusion they feel free to make into the private lives of both the parent and the child):
"Parental alienation is a strategy whereby one parent intentionally displays to the child unjustified negativity aimed at the other parent. The purpose of this strategy is to damage the child's relationship with the other parent and to turn the child's emotions against that other parent."
https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/grown-up...to-expect-from-cafcass/alienating-behaviours/
Quote:
"All of our assessments focus on what is happening for each child. In our work, we try to help parents and the court understand the impact of the separation and adult behaviours on individual children and what the child needs as a consequence. This requires both parents to engage with our work, who are encouraged to exercise their parental responsibility wherever safe and beneficial for the child.
The starting point of assessment is always to identify risk, which includes risk of emotional harm, which may amount to a child protection issue. We recognise that exposure to alienating behaviours can be emotionally harmful to children.
Where a child is experiencing alienating behaviours, our practitioners will use their professional judgement to assess whether it is safe and what is in the best interests of the child, taking into account any other identified risks, the child’s diverse needs, their resilience and vulnerabilities and where appropriate, the child’s views. We then report our recommendations to the court for the judge to consider before they make the final decision about whether a child should spend time with a parent."
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
Can I just focus attention on this one sentence from the CAFCASS extract in the last post:
"Where a child is experiencing alienating behaviours, our practitioners will use their professional judgement to assess whether it is safe and what is in the best interests of the child, taking into account any other identified risks, the child’s diverse needs, their resilience and vulnerabilities and where appropriate, the child’s views."
Grahamg comments:
As you can see once you become a non-resident parent this is what you can expect, should you have to turn to the courts in the hope/expectation of getting their support, court appointed officials will consider it their right to intrude in your "private life", and the "private life" of your child. As you see they assess if they think you're a safe person to have contact with your child, (though as far as I know no such assessment was ever put in place when you were still living with your spouse), and this is done whether or not there has ever been any doubts put forward as to whether it was safe for you to have contact with your child. Then they look for "any other identified risks", (could be anything therefore), "the child's diverse needs", (whatever that means?), "their resilience and vulnerabilities", (pretty wide ranging criteria there!), and then if they decide its appropriate "the child's views", (opening up a whole can of worms there in my view).
In the face of all this scrutiny my request "outsiders" are constrained by the family law to th extent permitted by a rebuttable presumption in favour of contact for "decent parents", so that our dear children, (and "our dear selves"), have this yoke removed from us and protections from intrusions by state officials thought necessary for all couples/parents in intact relationships, are extended to those who no longer lives with our spouses.
"Where a child is experiencing alienating behaviours, our practitioners will use their professional judgement to assess whether it is safe and what is in the best interests of the child, taking into account any other identified risks, the child’s diverse needs, their resilience and vulnerabilities and where appropriate, the child’s views."
Grahamg comments:
As you can see once you become a non-resident parent this is what you can expect, should you have to turn to the courts in the hope/expectation of getting their support, court appointed officials will consider it their right to intrude in your "private life", and the "private life" of your child. As you see they assess if they think you're a safe person to have contact with your child, (though as far as I know no such assessment was ever put in place when you were still living with your spouse), and this is done whether or not there has ever been any doubts put forward as to whether it was safe for you to have contact with your child. Then they look for "any other identified risks", (could be anything therefore), "the child's diverse needs", (whatever that means?), "their resilience and vulnerabilities", (pretty wide ranging criteria there!), and then if they decide its appropriate "the child's views", (opening up a whole can of worms there in my view).
In the face of all this scrutiny my request "outsiders" are constrained by the family law to th extent permitted by a rebuttable presumption in favour of contact for "decent parents", so that our dear children, (and "our dear selves"), have this yoke removed from us and protections from intrusions by state officials thought necessary for all couples/parents in intact relationships, are extended to those who no longer lives with our spouses.
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
I listened to a woman who is a GP in the UK, (a local doctor, seeing people in a small surgery), who was being interviewed about the numbers of children she sees each day reporting mental health issues.
She stated the numbers had risen dramatically in the last few years, "four or five fold" she said, and when asked about the possible cause of this very negative change, she said it was difficult to be sure, but she felt social media had a very negative impact.
At the same time in a daily newspaper the numbers of those filing for divorce was said to be at record levels, (a surge occurring since "no fault divorce" legislation has come into force here). If all this trouble isn't due in some degree to the marginalisation of non resident fathers/parents "I'm a monkey's uncle"!
But what do I known hey, and they used to say parents stayed together for the good of their children, until someone "debunked" that as an idea,..., (doesn't seem totally foolish to me though given the damage apparently being wrought in young peoples mental health!)
She stated the numbers had risen dramatically in the last few years, "four or five fold" she said, and when asked about the possible cause of this very negative change, she said it was difficult to be sure, but she felt social media had a very negative impact.
At the same time in a daily newspaper the numbers of those filing for divorce was said to be at record levels, (a surge occurring since "no fault divorce" legislation has come into force here). If all this trouble isn't due in some degree to the marginalisation of non resident fathers/parents "I'm a monkey's uncle"!
But what do I known hey, and they used to say parents stayed together for the good of their children, until someone "debunked" that as an idea,..., (doesn't seem totally foolish to me though given the damage apparently being wrought in young peoples mental health!)