# 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)



## grahamg (Sep 13, 2022)

Quote:
"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)"

As stated above, there are no statutory legal parental rights in the UK, ("and this may infringe human rights legislation concerning the right to a family life").


----------



## Knight (Sep 13, 2022)

Statutory rights as I understand them to be are laws written to offer protection, According to dozens of web sites regarding parental rights there are laws in place to enforce those rights. This example site lists various situations where parental rights are defined.
https://www.kabirfamilylaw.co.uk/what-rights-does-a-father-have-to-see-his-child/


----------



## grahamg (Sep 14, 2022)

Knight said:


> Statutory rights as I understand them to be are laws written to offer protection, According to dozens of web sites regarding parental rights there are laws in place to enforce those rights. This example site lists various situations where parental rights are defined.
> https://www.kabirfamilylaw.co.uk/what-rights-does-a-father-have-to-see-his-child/


This is going to be a problem isn't it, (if not well and truly a problem already!).

On the other recent thread in this section of the forum I mentioned the professor whose paper informed me, (albeit many years ago), that there were no statutory parental rights in the UK, and she said this situation contravenes some sections of human rights legislation, such as the right to a family life.

I then said your argument, (should you disagree, as you obviously do), is with her, or her opinion.

We can run round in circles to the end of time as to when something described as a right, (such as the "right to send your child to school"), is really an obligation, rather than a statutory parental right, (because a parent has no right to refuse of course), but it will be a bigger waste of time than my asking you why you feel unable to support my call for the very meagre statutory parental right (called a "rebuttable presumption in favour of contact for decent parents"), that would mean those decent parents who have split up both continue to enjoy the protection of their role in the child's life the one the child resides with continues to enjoy under the "common law rights" that exist in this country.

I know that's a long paragraph, and apologies to anyone reading it who cannot make sense of it, though what it boils down to is that both divorcing parents have at least some statutory protection of their role in their own children's lives, and there has then to be a "good reason", should the other parent (/residential parent), wish to exclude them. 

At the moment, there are professionals working in family law who state this: "Even if the reason why the residential parent is behaving irrationally when excluding the other parent, it is offensive for the courts to intervene if the child knows their residential parent does not wsh them to have contact with the father"(/non-residential parent).

The judge whose responsibility to conduct a review of UK family law seemed shocked by the response he got to his list of questions, (those giving him the view irrationality could/should rule cases of obstructed contact with children worked at Leeds University), but the law in place today allows this kind of thing to go on unchallenged. 

To give you an example in one calendar year in the UK, (a good while ago now), two women were jailed for obstructing contact with their children's father, and flouting court orders saying the contact was in the child's interests. One women changed her behaviour as a result, and the other did not, and this was considered a failure overall.

Contrast this with the situation in France where a British father approached their family court system in order to get to see his children, (where his ex wife had moved to live with her new partner/husband). That non-resident British father was granted a contact order by the French courts, and the judge presiding told him that if the mother flouted the court order he should not come back to the courts to find remedy but simply go around to the police station, (or "gendarmerie"), and an officer would accompany him to see that the contact order was followed or enforced. 

This sort of action by the police is impossible here, and I've listened to fathers in this country you have had literally hundreds of court appearances trying to gain access or maintain contact with their children, and the residential parents have repeatedly flouted court orders without any repercussions.      

Never mind, as the thread title says or indicates, "so many people wish to deny decent parents any statutory legal rights, (or even the most meagre meaningful parental rights), I'm sorry for you but there is no hope of change here whilst your fellow man or woman wont support even a small (though fundamental) change".


----------



## Knight (Sep 14, 2022)

Your examples show that a legal/court system is in place to address the concerns of parents.

My posts show my example [https://www.kabirfamilylaw.co.uk/what-rights-does-a-father-have-to-see-his-child/] that was only one example, there are many law firms available to seek redress of perceived or real actions contrary to described parental rights. I don't know if a parent can file a complaint & represent themselves.

I'm trying to understand your point of view. Is your point of view that there should be some form of legal action other than what is available now? Specific laws to address every conceivable perceived wrong? 

Did you pursue legal action? Did you have visitation & your daughter wanted to stay with you? Why doesn't your daughter want contact with you? It's one thing to complain the system isn't fair & another not to take advantage of legal means to secure your rights.


----------



## Nathan (Sep 14, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Quote:
> "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)"
> 
> As stated above, there are no statutory legal parental rights in the UK, ("and this may infringe human rights legislation concerning the right to a family life").


@grahamg ,  thanks for the world's longest thread title! 

"and this may infringe human rights legislation"     You know what you folks have to do:


----------



## grahamg (Sep 14, 2022)

Nathan said:


> @grahamg ,  thanks for the world's longest thread title!
> 
> "and this may infringe human rights legislation"     You know what you folks have to do:
> 
> View attachment 239399


Funnily enough protests of all kinds have become more muted over the years, though I put it down to there being such division between the fathers/parents rights groups, not that our family law system is improving at all.
Cleverer people than I have criticised our family law, both in our parliament and outside it, so any possible progress if there is to be any, will have to come should those in power choose to listen to them.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 14, 2022)

Knight said:


> Your examples show that a legal/court system is in place to address the concerns of parents.(Break)
> I'm trying to understand your point of view. Is your point of view that there should be some form of legal action other than what is available now? Specific laws to address every conceivable perceived wrong?
> Did you pursue legal action? Did you have visitation & your daughter wanted to stay with you? Why doesn't your daughter want contact with you? It's one thing to complain the system isn't fair & another not to take advantage of legal means to secure your rights.


Thank you for your interest in this thread.

These are the points I wish to make here:

1). No, not every possible/conceivable perceived wrong to be addressed by our family law system, simply what parents/fathers groups describe as "allowing decent non-resident parents the same rights of contact with their children permitted in our system for whoever the exe's new partner might be."   

2). I've described a success story I can take some credit in, (on numerous occasions). You can choose to believe the success story I've described is in spite of my efforts as a parent, (and I will accept others deserve credit, and my ex-wife deserves by far the most credit). However, the rub is whether I did in fact make a difference, or enough of a difference so that it justifies our family law system, (that can only destroy relationships), being changed so other children not so fortunate as mine, are not getting the contact they might need as she did, because our family law doesn't do enough for non-resident parents, and they end up not forming a relationship in the first place, or giving up, or turning against their own kids, because they are convinced they will not be supported sufficiently.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 15, 2022)

Some research on the subject of whether there are statutory parental rights in the UK, or not as Professor Vanessa Pupavac has contended. I think quote 1. establishes that there is no statutory parental right of contact with your child, (by that I mean a there is no "rebuttable presumption in favour of contact between a decent parent and their child" - see note below):

Quote 1.:
"The law on parents’ and children’s rights and
responsibilities"
"There are some important Acts that try to define the different
rights and responsibilities of parents towards their children. The
law in England and Wales used to talk of a parent having ‘rights’ and
‘duties’, but in recent times, the language has changed to one of
parents having ‘responsibilities’ and parents’ rights being balanced by
children’s rights."

Break

Quote 2.:
"1989 Children Act"
"This Act was a landmark law, redefining the relationship between parent
and child. It changed the previous emphasis from one of duty and rights of
the parent to one of responsibilities. The Act uses the concept of ‘parental
responsibility’ to describe the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and
authority parents have for their child. In this Act, a child is a person under
the age of 18."

Note:
"In common law and civil law, a _rebuttable presumption_ is an assumption made by a court that is taken to be true unless someone proves otherwise."

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/FPI is it legal Feb_08.pdf


----------



## grahamg (Sep 15, 2022)

Here is a website giving the views of professionals who appear to believe our UK family law is functioning as intended, though not going far enough in various ways, and the family law system is underfunded:

https://www.themj.co.uk/Reflecting-on-the-Children-Acts-of-1989-and-2004/216219

Quote:
"This year (2019) marks 30 years and 15 years respectively since the Children Acts 1989 and 2004 received Royal Assent.
The 1989 Act marked a turning point in children’s rights legislation in England and Wales. It introduced comprehensive change concerning the welfare of children. Central to this was the idea that children’s wishes and feelings must be taken into account when making decisions that affect them. Traditionally, parents were seen to have rights over their children, but the Act reversed this stating that children had free standing right. These welcome child centred principles remain at the heart of all local authorities do.

It is important to celebrate the successes of the Acts. Children are safer now than they were 30 years ago for example.  However, many of the challenges faced by children, their families and the services they rely on today could not have been foreseen by the legislators such as the levels of pressure currently in the system or the use of Section 20 voluntary accommodation arrangements for unaccompanied migrant and asylum-seeking children arriving in this country with no family ties.

Over the past decade, the preventative principles underpinning the ‘89 Act have been eroded by austerity, chronically underfunded children’s services and rising need. We continue to call on government to work with us to reclaim and resource the core principles of prevention in the Act, backed by adequate new funding.

The 2004 Act went further to create, amongst other things, the concept of a clear, single point of professional accountability for children and young people’s outcomes in the director of children’s services (DCS). A single individual uniquely centred in the local place in which they work, to bring together different parts of the systems in the best interests of children. It also provided the legal underpinning for the Every Child Matters outcomes framework.

To mark the anniversary of the Acts we have invited the ADCS President, Vice President and Past Presidents to reflect on the Children Acts of 1989 and 2004, the successes and what has changed since they became law."


----------



## Knight (Sep 15, 2022)

Quote:
"This year (2019) marks 30 years and 15 years respectively since the Children Acts 1989 and 2004 received Royal Assent.
The 1989 Act marked a turning point in children’s rights legislation in England and Wales. It introduced comprehensive change concerning the welfare of children. Central to this was the idea that children’s wishes and feelings must be taken into account when making decisions that affect them. Traditionally, parents were seen to have rights over their children, but the Act reversed this stating that children had free standing right. These welcome child centred principles remain at the heart of all local authorities do.

To mark the anniversary of the Acts we have invited the ADCS President, Vice President and Past Presidents to reflect on the Children Acts of 1989 and 2004, the successes and what has changed since they became law."


https://www.themj.co.uk/Reflecting-on-the-Children-Acts-of-1989-and-2004/216219


This section sums up the law.

"Central to this was the idea that children’s wishes and feelings must be taken into account when making decisions that affect them. Traditionally, parents were seen to have rights over their children, but the Act reversed this stating that children had free standing right."

Do you have the comments by the ADCS President, Vice President and Past Presidents? What successes and what has changed since they became law." 

My understanding is parents have certain responsibilities but children have protection under the law. My preference is with children having protection & parents having responsibilities.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 15, 2022)

Knight said:


> My understanding is parents have certain responsibilities but children have protection under the law. My preference is with children having protection & parents having responsibilities.


If all the responsibilities are carried by the parents, and this is the general consensus, then the anomaly in our legal system is why there are such things as "common law rights".

So long as the two parents stay together they are deemed to have rights meaning that those in authority cannot interfere in their parenting unless there is a likelihood of abuse being perpetrated, (known as the "harm standard" here, a threshold to be overcome meaning that the authorities have to accept the parents have the freedom to decide what is best for their child so long as they dont harm them).

When experts have examined the repercussions of a system where it is assumed those in authority have all the power to decide what goes on therre are very many negative connotations and situations thrown up.


----------



## Knight (Sep 15, 2022)

grahamg said:


> So long as the two parents stay together they are deemed to have rights meaning that those in authority cannot interfere in their parenting unless there is a likelihood of abuse being perpetrated, (known as the "harm standard" here, a threshold to be overcome meaning that the authorities have to accept the parents have the freedom to decide what is best for their child so long as they dont harm them).


You didn't stay together.   Then you give all the credit for raising your daughter to your ex. 

This is about your daughter not wanting you in her life. The why of that falls under the child's choice doesn't it? 

From your posts it sounds like your daughter's decision was in her best interest.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 15, 2022)

Knight said:


> You didn't stay together.   (Break)


The point I'm making about our UK law applies to everyone, hence my making the argument I'm making against those of you willing t assume the authorities know what is best, and should have overriding authority (all the time from the looks of your arguments, even when there is no question of harm)>

Your insistence on bring everything back to what you believe applies in my relationships, is the clearest indication I can give anyone of the need for those law makers in our parliament to provide greater protection of parental rights than currently exist here.


----------



## Knight (Sep 15, 2022)

@grahamg
from your post #9

Quote
"To mark the anniversary of the Acts we have invited the ADCS President, Vice President and Past Presidents to reflect on the Children Acts of 1989 and 2004, the successes and what has changed since they became law."

Do you have documentation of the failures since 2004?

I'm relating to your posts about how your wife left you & what you post about your daughter not wanting you in her life. Looking for how the system works in the UK & applying that to what you have described is the only logical thing to do. You obviously don't like explaining all that you did to fulfill your responsibilities or all the time, effort or money spent securing your rights as a parent.

Citing the system as unfair without showing all you did during your life to get laws to cover every possible situation concerning parents is easy. Doing something to cause change is hard.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 15, 2022)

Knight said:


> (Break)
> Citing the system as unfair without showing all you did during your life to get laws to cover every possible situation concerning parents is easy. Doing something to cause change is hard.


If all I'm asking for is a modest change to the family law, (and it is to the extent its a "rebuttable" presumption in favour of contact, meaning there has to be a "good reason" why a decent parent gets excluded, and my arguments have been supported even in our UK parliament on occasion, by far cleverer people than I), then I'd argue it is a minimal change I'm seeking, and I believe the system would benefit overall if it were enacted. I admit many feel differently, and will accept if our populations dont wish to have meaningful statutory parental rights, it has no chance of progressing, and would accept too the argument there would be some risks associated with what I've described as "decent parents" being given meaningful rights, because it may mean some irresponsible ones meet whatever criteria is used or set.

Moving on now I wish to take you and a few other members of this forum to task for your attitudes displayed on this thread.

It is extremely out of order of anyone here basing their views on whatever I've told the forum, or twisting what I've said around to use against me, to think you really understand anything worthy of condemning me as a parent. I've been lectured by others saying "you come on here looking for opinions and then wont listen to them or accept them when they're given.

In response to those other forum members to start with, I know whether I'm telling the truth, and therefore anyone telling me I'm wrong in whatever way (and doubting me and my word or saying they can see why a child would reject me etc.), is just talking nonsense, and attacking someone for no good reason or "for the fun of it".

A father or mother cannot carry on as though you, or other forum members, or even those in authority know what is the right thing concerning their child, (where there is no question of harm). If I believe my child should be corrected when for example she is behaving in a selfish fashion, it is not for anyone to tell me this should not happen, or what I should have said. If a parent accepts others telling them what to say and do concerning their own child they automatically abdicate their role as a loving parent in my view. The one thing the child should be able to rely upon is that when it matters you will tell them what you are thinking, and not what someone else has told you to think, say or do.

I've come across someone who wished to say "they knew what others were going to say or think before they did so", and so has my daughter, and that kind of control freakery should be opposed and stood up to, because just as the nonsense talked on this thread I'm having a go at here, it is just nonsense, and unnecessary and self-serving nonsense, and worse than that it is ultimately harmful behaviour to convince your child you know what they are going to think before they think it etc.

"The world is full of trickery", this thread and others I've started in a similar vein are full of trickery, (such as trying to lure me into discussing matters I've given enough details about in the past, and ignoring my statements I wont be drawn further, and ignoring half the points I've made if they dont suit whatever narrative someone wants to promulgate regardless of the rights and wrongs of the matter.

Faced with behaviour such as this, as I'm sure most unjustly excluded parents are, this is why there needs to be a change to our UK family law, to help fend off such behaviour when decent mums and dads try their best to be just that, and approach the family legal system for support..


----------



## RadishRose (Sep 15, 2022)

It's been years. Your daughter is a middle aged or senior woman by now. Move forward, Graham.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 16, 2022)

RadishRose said:


> It's been years. Your daughter is a middle aged or senior woman by now. Move forward, Graham.


It's very hard to move forward when rejected by one's own child.  Maybe even impossible.


----------



## Della (Sep 16, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Quote:
> "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)"
> 
> As stated above, there are no statutory legal parental rights in the UK, ("and this may infringe human rights legislation concerning the right to a family life").


Who are you quoting?

I'm sorry, but quite often you put something in quotes when you're replying to another poster so that it appears they said it -- when they didn't.

Other times you put scare quotes around a certain word implying that the word is only what people say and you don't agree with it, when actually you do agree with it.

This time you've quoted an entire line of text and added no clue as to who first said it.

I'm the last person who should be acting as the grammar police, but you make your posts hard to read with all these random quotation marks.
--------------------------------------

Graham, I am actually on your side when it comes to men not getting a fair shake in custody battles:

  They have an unfair situation from the moment of conception when they only have one form of birth control, one that has to be used at the last minute and is subject to failure.  Women, on the other hand, have dozens of birth control options, some that can be used once and not needed to be thought of again for several years.

If conception results, the woman gets total control on the decision of whether or not to seek an abortion.

If she decides to carry the baby to term she gets to choose whether or not to keep the baby or put it up for adoption.  Sometimes without even telling the father a baby exists.

In the case of divorce, courts are almost always on the side of the mother when custody is determined.

I have seen mothers turn their children against their fathers many times so I definitely believe in alienation of affection and I believe that may have happened in your case. Children believe what their mothers tell them and what is learned at a very young age goes deep.

I understand your frustration.

{Edited because I used an apostrophe incorrectly.  I knew that would happen.}


----------



## grahamg (Sep 16, 2022)

Grahamg wrote:
"Quote:
"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)"
As stated above, there are no statutory legal parental rights in the UK, ("and this may infringe human rights legislation concerning the right to a family life")."


Della said:


> Who are you quoting?
> I'm sorry, but quite often you put something in quotes when you're replying to another poster so that it appears they said it -- when they didn't.
> Other times you put scare quotes around a certain word implying that the word is only what people say and you don't agree with it, when actually you do agree with it.
> This time you've quoted an entire line of text and added no clue as to who first said it.
> ...


The quotation about the lack of any statutory parental rights in the UK, and this infringing human rights legislation, is from a paper published by Professor Vanessa Pupavac of Nottingham University who published a paper entitled "The infantilisation of citizenship".
(thanks for your positive comments btw and my apologies for any confusion I've created).


----------



## grahamg (Sep 16, 2022)

RadishRose said:


> It's been years. Your daughter is a middle aged or senior woman by now. Move forward, Graham.


Moving backwards is the way to go, (hasn't anyone told you?!).


----------



## grahamg (Sep 16, 2022)

Pepper said:


> It's very hard to move forward when rejected by one's own child.  Maybe even impossible.


Bill McLaren, the great BBC broadcaster, known as "the voice of rugby union" is the man I follow so far as moving on, (his response when told to move on regarding the loss of one of his two daughters to cancer at a young age, was that he would never move on from that loss).
In truth though, as mentioned to another forum member in a private message recently, referring to my daughter here has some benefits I feel, (so there's some method to the apparent madness!).


----------



## Been There (Sep 17, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Bill McLaren, the great BBC broadcaster, known as "the voice of rugby union" is the man I follow so far as moving on, (his response when told to move on regarding the loss of one of his two daughters to cancer at a young age, was that he would never move on from that loss).
> In truth though, as mentioned to another forum member in a private message recently, referring to my daughter here has some benefits I feel, (so there's some method to the apparent madness!).


I agree with Mr. McLaren. I have attended several funerals of fallen brothers in the military. Some natural causes, some during conflict. During one of these funerals, the Chaplain made a statement that will probably linger with me forever. He said, "When death occurs unexpectedly, there is very seldom any closure or even near closure. People that say it's time to move on really are insensitive to another's feelings. These people truly lack empathy." 

I think you are comparing the lack of ability to visit with your daughter to a death of a friend. Here's the way I see it. A loss is a loss, regardless if it's a death on an inability to be with someone you can't due to legal precedence. There is a loss there, that should not be disputed. I am going through a loss of a very close friend who died unexpectedly. I am not doing well with healing and absolutely cannot move on at this time. My friend died on 7/5 of this year, so you can tell by the length of time that I have already spent agonizing over this loss and being able to heal is not coming easily. It would be great to have a magic pill that one could take to have problems disappear, don't you think? 

If I have in any way misconstrued your posts, I apologize. Sometimes, I scan over a long list of posts just to get through the thread, so I may have misinterpreted your intended responses.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 17, 2022)

This is a hard issue, but in the end I agree with @grahamg when he said:


grahamg said:


> not every possible/conceivable perceived wrong to be addressed by our family law system


I think it best that the rights to raise and make decisions concerning children should legally reside with the parents.  Unless they do something quite egregious proving their evil.  The law simply can't fix everything.  

I believe having grandparents and a good family relation is best for children, but am skeptical that when parents make bad decisions the law can make it any better.  However grandparents should have the right to keep trying, and they should do it!


----------



## grahamg (Sep 18, 2022)

Alligatorob said:


> This is a hard issue, but in the end I agree with @grahamg when he said:
> I think it best that the rights to raise and make decisions concerning children should legally reside with the parents.  Unless they do something quite egregious proving their evil.  The law simply can't fix everything.
> I believe having grandparents and a good family relation is best for children, but am skeptical that when parents make bad decisions the law can make it any better.  However grandparents should have the right to keep trying, and they should do it!


You'll like this poem by a lady called Pam Ayres, who you my not have come across over there, writing about seeing her grandson for the first time, (I saw her on stage abut twenty years ago, but she's been famous here since winning a talent show called "Opportunity Knocks" when I was a young man):
https://www.greatbritishlife.co.uk/things-to-do/whats-on/pam-ayres-waxes-lyrical-7116350

And here a BBC interview and reading of the poem:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0...CP-0x-1Ihv1wS-L1mL0jCfeRObEs3dCt__Ug2QppAT3Ao


----------



## Lavinia (Sep 18, 2022)

If a parent proves him/herself as unfit to have the care of a child, surely they forfeit any parental rights?


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 18, 2022)

Lavinia said:


> If a parent proves him/herself as unfit to have the care of a child, surely they forfeit any parental rights?


One would hope so, but not sure it always works like that.  And proving "unfit" often ain't easy.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 18, 2022)

Lavinia said:


> If a parent proves him/herself as unfit to have the care of a child, surely they forfeit any parental rights?


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 (Sep 18, 2022)

Alligatorob said:


> One would hope so, but not sure it always works like that.  And proving "unfit" often ain't easy.


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 (Sep 18, 2022)

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 (Sep 19, 2022)

jimintoronto said:


> 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.


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 (Sep 19, 2022)

Lavinia said:


> If a parent proves him/herself as unfit to have the care of a child, surely they forfeit any parental rights?


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 (Sep 19, 2022)

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.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 20, 2022)

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!)


----------



## grahamg (Sep 21, 2022)

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."


----------



## grahamg (Sep 22, 2022)

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.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 30, 2022)

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!)


----------

