Labour making it harder for divorced dads
Discussion
Is there anything Labour can do that is positive?
[url]Labour to remove presumption that children need both parents| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2lxgp58j5o [\url]
As someone who had to fight hard at great financial and emotional cost so ensure my children continued to have their dad in their life I am beyond angry at this.
The family courts need a massive overhaul but this isn’t it. Fathers shouldn’t have to fight greedy ex wives who use their children as pawns for financial gain in a
system inherently biased against fathers.
I’d be interested to know if anyone thinks this is a good thing.
[url]Labour to remove presumption that children need both parents| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2lxgp58j5o [\url]
As someone who had to fight hard at great financial and emotional cost so ensure my children continued to have their dad in their life I am beyond angry at this.
The family courts need a massive overhaul but this isn’t it. Fathers shouldn’t have to fight greedy ex wives who use their children as pawns for financial gain in a
system inherently biased against fathers.
I’d be interested to know if anyone thinks this is a good thing.
I'm not that powerful or wealthy and I drive an older car and live just outside Hull in the back of beyond
Whilst I got shafted over private school fees, other than that, I'm working, male, 53, white, quiet, keep my head down, never do anything illegal, try and stay away from conflict, rarely have contentious views and never express controversial ones.
Having said all that, I expect it's only a matter of time before the Government come for me in one way or another!
In all seriousness, I expect to get significantly more shafted financially, I expect crime to get measurably worse (even though the stats will say otherwise), I expect the NHS to get significantly poorer to the point of it becoming almost unusable and I expect the general feeling in the Country of everyone being really pissed off to also increase.
TLDR: I'll be shocked if and when anything is ever done that appears to make people's lives better!
Whilst I got shafted over private school fees, other than that, I'm working, male, 53, white, quiet, keep my head down, never do anything illegal, try and stay away from conflict, rarely have contentious views and never express controversial ones.
Having said all that, I expect it's only a matter of time before the Government come for me in one way or another!
In all seriousness, I expect to get significantly more shafted financially, I expect crime to get measurably worse (even though the stats will say otherwise), I expect the NHS to get significantly poorer to the point of it becoming almost unusable and I expect the general feeling in the Country of everyone being really pissed off to also increase.
TLDR: I'll be shocked if and when anything is ever done that appears to make people's lives better!
You are all missing the point, the presumption of contact was leading courts to force children to see parents who were perpetrators of domestic abuse. As anyone who thinks knows, children exposed to domestic abuse are victims in their own right.
This is a good thing and a much needed change in emphasis on the law. It was always coming, it was just taking a long time to get here.
This is a good thing and a much needed change in emphasis on the law. It was always coming, it was just taking a long time to get here.
MikeM6 said:
You are all missing the point, the presumption of contact was leading courts to force children to see parents who were perpetrators of domestic abuse. As anyone who thinks knows, children exposed to domestic abuse are victims in their own right.
This is a good thing and a much needed change in emphasis on the law. It was always coming, it was just taking a long time to get here.
That as maybe however on a headline reading “Family court law will be changed so it is no longer based on the idea that contact with both parents is usually in a child's best interest, the government has said”This is a good thing and a much needed change in emphasis on the law. It was always coming, it was just taking a long time to get here.
It is *usually* in the best interest.
As noted above however now there will be a powerful incentive to suggest, without that broad principle, that an ex partner is abusive.
I’ve seen all sorts of s
t being pulled as part of unamicable breakups; I’m sure the intention of the change is sound however I’d be interested in the line level detail as it appears to be a charter for unfounded allegations that are leveraged to gain full custody. That kind of crap *does* go on…MikeM6 said:
You are all missing the point, the presumption of contact was leading courts to force children to see parents who were perpetrators of domestic abuse. As anyone who thinks knows, children exposed to domestic abuse are victims in their own right.
This is a good thing and a much needed change in emphasis on the law. It was always coming, it was just taking a long time to get here.
I assume you have no experience of the family courts because I, and others, have missed nothing. This is a good thing and a much needed change in emphasis on the law. It was always coming, it was just taking a long time to get here.
The hurdles dad has to jump through to prove they are worthy of being in their children’s lives are not insignificant. The isn’t isn’t the presumption that a child is better off with both parents, as the reality isn’t this anyway. The issue is that in a tiny minority of cases the existing, available safeguards were not out in place.
Thousands of children and their fathers will be unfairly punished, over and above those that already are, because of this change.
Ridgemont said:
That as maybe however on a headline reading Family court law will be changed so it is no longer based on the idea that contact with both parents is usually in a child's best interest, the government has said
It is *usually* in the best interest.
As noted above however now there will be a powerful incentive to suggest, without that broad principle, that an ex partner is abusive.
I ve seen all sorts of st being pulled as part of unamicable breakups; I m sure the intention of the change is sound however I d be interested in the line level detail as it appears to be a charter for unfounded allegations that are leveraged to gain full custody. That kind of crap *does* go on
This won't change that at all, and yes it does go on. This just shifts the emphasis away from assuming that abusive parents, of which there are a lot, are by default safe to see children. It is *usually* in the best interest.
As noted above however now there will be a powerful incentive to suggest, without that broad principle, that an ex partner is abusive.
I ve seen all sorts of s
t being pulled as part of unamicable breakups; I m sure the intention of the change is sound however I d be interested in the line level detail as it appears to be a charter for unfounded allegations that are leveraged to gain full custody. That kind of crap *does* go on By the way, the media will get hold of this as a father's issue, and the majority of reported abuse is from fathers, however the principle in law is the same for either mothers or fathers. We are also talking about abuse, not conflict, and the need for individual assessments, not a blanket approach.
wiggy001 said:
MikeM6 said:
You are all missing the point, the presumption of contact was leading courts to force children to see parents who were perpetrators of domestic abuse. As anyone who thinks knows, children exposed to domestic abuse are victims in their own right.
This is a good thing and a much needed change in emphasis on the law. It was always coming, it was just taking a long time to get here.
I assume you have no experience of the family courts because I, and others, have missed nothing. This is a good thing and a much needed change in emphasis on the law. It was always coming, it was just taking a long time to get here.
The hurdles dad has to jump through to prove they are worthy of being in their children s lives are not insignificant. The isn t isn t the presumption that a child is better off with both parents, as the reality isn t this anyway. The issue is that in a tiny minority of cases the existing, available safeguards were not out in place.
Thousands of children and their fathers will be unfairly punished, over and above those that already are, because of this change.
Domestic abuse is not a tiny minority of cases, it is highly prevalent throughout society and it is deeply corrosive.
MikeM6 said:
You are all missing the point, the presumption of contact was leading courts to force children to see parents who were perpetrators of domestic abuse. As anyone who thinks knows, children exposed to domestic abuse are victims in their own right.
This is a good thing and a much needed change in emphasis on the law. It was always coming, it was just taking a long time to get here.
Mike, you're missing the point.This is a good thing and a much needed change in emphasis on the law. It was always coming, it was just taking a long time to get here.
The case quoted was an exception. There were already sound reasons to refuse the father's access.
No need to change the whole thing.
MikeM6 said:
I have plenty of understanding about the family courts. Your frame of reference wrong. Don't think of this from a parent's view and especially not your own experience, think of it from the perspective of the child and what they need.
Domestic abuse is not a tiny minority of cases, it is highly prevalent throughout society and it is deeply corrosive.
I’m just not thinking about this from the point of view of the children that will be adversely affected by this change in policy. The current system is already failing many children by preventing them having a relationship with decent fathers. This will make things worse. Domestic abuse is not a tiny minority of cases, it is highly prevalent throughout society and it is deeply corrosive.
As already said, the case that this change in policy is based upon was an exception that the current safeguards should have caught.
CoolHands said:
MikeM6 said:
Domestic abuse is not a tiny minority of cases, it is highly prevalent throughout society and it is deeply corrosive.
Eh? Is this the all men are rapists school of thoughtM4cruiser said:
Mike, you're missing the point.
The case quoted was an exception. There were already sound reasons to refuse the father's access.
No need to change the whole thing.
Not at all, I'm not talking about the quoted case. I'm talking about the reason why the law is changing and I can assure you, it does need changing.The case quoted was an exception. There were already sound reasons to refuse the father's access.
No need to change the whole thing.
wiggy001 said:
Is there anything Labour can do that is positive?
[url]Labour to remove presumption that children need both parents| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2lxgp58j5o [\url]
As someone who had to fight hard at great financial and emotional cost so ensure my children continued to have their dad in their life I am beyond angry at this.
The family courts need a massive overhaul but this isn t it. Fathers shouldn t have to fight greedy ex wives who use their children as pawns for financial gain in a
system inherently biased against fathers.
I d be interested to know if anyone thinks this is a good thing.
What is interesting is that the direction of travel in the US is very much in the opposite direction. Five states have now adopted an automatic assumption of 50/50 custody unless there are circumstances that would/should prevent this. Others are considering doing the same. [url]Labour to remove presumption that children need both parents| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2lxgp58j5o [\url]
As someone who had to fight hard at great financial and emotional cost so ensure my children continued to have their dad in their life I am beyond angry at this.
The family courts need a massive overhaul but this isn t it. Fathers shouldn t have to fight greedy ex wives who use their children as pawns for financial gain in a
system inherently biased against fathers.
I d be interested to know if anyone thinks this is a good thing.
That to me is "equality". In that men are not regarded only as sperm donors and ATMs
Things here are different as Labour are wedded to the women as "victims" narrative. See also the rumoured changes to give unmarried partners access to the assets of their partners on separation.
Gargamel said:
I assume that if the father is no longer allowed contact, he is no longer required to pay Child Maintenance ?
Why would that follow?As a parent you are responsible for the upbringing of your child. That includes paying for it.
If you are too dangerous to be allowed access to the child, you don't get access to the child.
Those are two separate things. Being dangerous means you can't fulfil ONE of your responsibilities. It doesn't mean you shed all your other responsibilities.
Dad's aren't buying access to their kids by paying child maintenance.
Stop thinking about rights and start thinking about responsibilities.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff