British custody law - is it really that bad?
Discussion
Friend of mine is married to a complete psycho - she sleeps with anyone and is basically a bad egg. He, on the other hand, is a model father who cares for a looks after his two young kids. He's finally had enough of psycho and wants out but he's been advised that, pretty much, whatever the difference in two personalities she will get custody of the kids. Is this really the case in The UK in 2010? If so, enough to make you dress up as Batman and climb up Big Ben!
MrV said:
How old are the kids ?I am pretty certain they get a say in it if they want to stay with him,he could go down the unfit mother route to if he can prove it.
if they are over 10 it is deemed they are old enough to know who they want to live with.And to answer the OP, yes it is f
king disgraceful how the system sees it fit to just hand over kids tot he mother without any rational thought what so ever.From my own experience regarding custody and access.....I was told that until a court order is in force there is nothing to stop either parent having custody of the children (assuming they have parental responsibility).
Therefore I would be committing no offense in the eyes of the law if I had taken my child with me when I split from their mother. However the usual status quo is the children stay with the Mother.
The situation regarding fathers and access etc is slowly shifting nearer a more equal solution, but there is still a long way to go.
Funnily enough the more difficult the mother is then the easier it is for you to prove your case (as I'm now finding out
)
However it's still taken me nearly two years to get the ex to show her true colours, and hopefully I'll have the situation resolved by the end of the year (Wheels of Justice turn VERY slowly)
Therefore I would be committing no offense in the eyes of the law if I had taken my child with me when I split from their mother. However the usual status quo is the children stay with the Mother.
The situation regarding fathers and access etc is slowly shifting nearer a more equal solution, but there is still a long way to go.
Funnily enough the more difficult the mother is then the easier it is for you to prove your case (as I'm now finding out
)However it's still taken me nearly two years to get the ex to show her true colours, and hopefully I'll have the situation resolved by the end of the year (Wheels of Justice turn VERY slowly)
streaky said:
Plotloss said:
It's accuracy depends on the situation as it stands today.
Eh? - StreakyIf in the course of daily life, when the parents are still a couple, if the Mother is the primary carer, tending to the daily needs of the child etc then if the Mother does not wish to relinquish residency and it is unable that she can be proved unfit (which isn't the best strategy from the off unless complete delinquency can be proved) then the court will always tend towards the maintenance of that status quo.
Likewise if the father is the primary carer, stay at home Dad etc.
So whether obtaining custody for a father is an impossibility is potentially an inaccurate statement based on the above, as the facts that would make it possible havent been disclosed by the OP.
For Info, see "The Children Act 1989" - some key bits summarised below.
i.e. child's welfare is a Court's 1st consideration & in any dispute the Court needs to consider:
the wishes / feelings of the child where they can be demonstrated.
the child's physical, emotional and educational needs.
the likely effect on child of any change to circumstances.
the child's age, sex, etc + characteristics the Court finds to be relevant.
if the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering harm
the capability of the parents and their ability to meet needs of child - see also likely impact of any linked adults!
Court is only supposed to make an Order if doing so will be better for the child than not
The 1989 Act got rid of the previous custody and access orders of bringing in 4 new types of Order that can be made singly or in combination, including temporary Interim Orders and Emergency Orders (and does not have to give notice of such to the other side in such cases)
1. A Contact Order: meaning an Order requires the person child lives with to allow the child to have contact with other person including visit or stay overs
2. A Prohibited Steps Order = stops a person doing any identified action unless permission is granted by the Court.
3. A Residence Order: meaning an order defining the arrangements about where/with whom the child is to live (= for the majority of his/her time)
4. A Specific Issue Order = meaning an Order setting out the solution/permission around a particular issue that has been brought into question/ needs sorting and when agreement can't be reached between the parents/responsible adults.
Legal definition of parental responsibility = "all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property". I.E the right to be consulted about any aspect around the child's up bringing and welfare. Parental responsibility cannot be used in any way which will disrupt a child's residence or in any way which will be contrary to the principles set out above.
Parents of a child who are married to each other automatically have parental responsibility. Anyone who has a Residence Order has parental responsibility with the Residence Order. A father who is not married to the child's mother has parental responsibility if registered as the father after 1/12/2003
Courts should maintain the importance of the concept that the parent with whom a child does not live still maintains a role in the child's life.
Also, Local Authorities have a statutory duty to ascertain whether a child is "in need" and are to provide for the child's protection & needs.
If it is deemed that the family cannot do this then the LA can apply for either a Care Order or a Supervision Order, demonstrating to a Court that guaranteeing the child's welfare means an Order needs to be made as the conditions of the Act (re. the needs & protection of the child) cannot be met and the child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the lack of care that would be provided if the Order were not made.
i.e. child's welfare is a Court's 1st consideration & in any dispute the Court needs to consider:
the wishes / feelings of the child where they can be demonstrated.
the child's physical, emotional and educational needs.
the likely effect on child of any change to circumstances.
the child's age, sex, etc + characteristics the Court finds to be relevant.
if the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering harm
the capability of the parents and their ability to meet needs of child - see also likely impact of any linked adults!
Court is only supposed to make an Order if doing so will be better for the child than not
The 1989 Act got rid of the previous custody and access orders of bringing in 4 new types of Order that can be made singly or in combination, including temporary Interim Orders and Emergency Orders (and does not have to give notice of such to the other side in such cases)
1. A Contact Order: meaning an Order requires the person child lives with to allow the child to have contact with other person including visit or stay overs
2. A Prohibited Steps Order = stops a person doing any identified action unless permission is granted by the Court.
3. A Residence Order: meaning an order defining the arrangements about where/with whom the child is to live (= for the majority of his/her time)
4. A Specific Issue Order = meaning an Order setting out the solution/permission around a particular issue that has been brought into question/ needs sorting and when agreement can't be reached between the parents/responsible adults.
Legal definition of parental responsibility = "all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property". I.E the right to be consulted about any aspect around the child's up bringing and welfare. Parental responsibility cannot be used in any way which will disrupt a child's residence or in any way which will be contrary to the principles set out above.
Parents of a child who are married to each other automatically have parental responsibility. Anyone who has a Residence Order has parental responsibility with the Residence Order. A father who is not married to the child's mother has parental responsibility if registered as the father after 1/12/2003
Courts should maintain the importance of the concept that the parent with whom a child does not live still maintains a role in the child's life.
Also, Local Authorities have a statutory duty to ascertain whether a child is "in need" and are to provide for the child's protection & needs.
If it is deemed that the family cannot do this then the LA can apply for either a Care Order or a Supervision Order, demonstrating to a Court that guaranteeing the child's welfare means an Order needs to be made as the conditions of the Act (re. the needs & protection of the child) cannot be met and the child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the lack of care that would be provided if the Order were not made.
As an "absent father", its all a complete joke.
I paid a complete fortune to gain a contact order. On way out of court, i overhear ex's solictor tell her "don't worry, ignore it - completely uneforceable."
That was 18 months ago. Despite sending cards, xmas and b'day gifts, emails etc, i've had absolutely no contact. I don't even know what school he attends. (The judge said i had no need to know.)
Spoke to my solictor who relieved me of 3.5K for a worthless, spineless order, who told me "best not to throw any more money at it."
BTW, i've found out i need to apply to "vary the order." Anyone with advice on procedure, please PM me.
I paid a complete fortune to gain a contact order. On way out of court, i overhear ex's solictor tell her "don't worry, ignore it - completely uneforceable."
That was 18 months ago. Despite sending cards, xmas and b'day gifts, emails etc, i've had absolutely no contact. I don't even know what school he attends. (The judge said i had no need to know.)
Spoke to my solictor who relieved me of 3.5K for a worthless, spineless order, who told me "best not to throw any more money at it."
BTW, i've found out i need to apply to "vary the order." Anyone with advice on procedure, please PM me.
peterguk M500 said:
As an "absent father", its all a complete joke.
I paid a complete fortune to gain a contact order. On way out of court, i overhear ex's solictor tell her "don't worry, ignore it - completely uneforceable."
That was 18 months ago. Despite sending cards, xmas and b'day gifts, emails etc, i've had absolutely no contact. I don't even know what school he attends. (The judge said i had no need to know.)
Spoke to my solictor who relieved me of 3.5K for a worthless, spineless order, who told me "best not to throw any more money at it."
BTW, i've found out i need to apply to "vary the order." Anyone with advice on procedure, please PM me.
Worrying but not unsurprising + so bloody maddening. It's one reason why I have bent over backwards and offered far more than I need to or would have I didn't have kids. I paid a complete fortune to gain a contact order. On way out of court, i overhear ex's solictor tell her "don't worry, ignore it - completely uneforceable."
That was 18 months ago. Despite sending cards, xmas and b'day gifts, emails etc, i've had absolutely no contact. I don't even know what school he attends. (The judge said i had no need to know.)
Spoke to my solictor who relieved me of 3.5K for a worthless, spineless order, who told me "best not to throw any more money at it."
BTW, i've found out i need to apply to "vary the order." Anyone with advice on procedure, please PM me.
I'd rather screw myself than risk the likelihood of 'her' getting the hump and making things difficult even though I'm the 'injured party'. It really pisses me off that women can use/hurt their kids by using them as weapons to get back at the father.
Apparently that counts for f
k all according to my solicitor and I was advised to be cautious as she'd most likely be granted the residency (something she threw at me from her solicitor too) whatever.According to my solicitor he reckoned that if she didn't follow the terms of any agreement/order I could take her to court and have them enforce the order (as I know one other bloke did) so could that work for you?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff