Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Automatic right
#1
Out of curiosity and to aid equality why has there never been a motion brought forward to save time and money at family courts that states if a father has PR and a place the children can sleep at safely (their home or parents) then he has an automatic right to have custody of his children up to 182days a year.
 
That still gives the mother the right to claim their benefits which is all they really want, and it would help deter some mothers putting up blockades for no real reason. It would mean a father who couldn’t meet the 182night requirement due to location or employment would be able to put forward his proposal of access and unless there is a sufficient reason and facts to validate the reason to refuse it, the mother is legally bound to accept the agreement.
 
Courts would only then be needed if:
 
  • A mother refuses access for no justifiable reason, and if found guilty should face a fine and risk her own access as she isn’t acting in the interest of the children.
  • If the amount of nights is agreeable but how they work is not.  
  • To review a case due to a justifiable reason to deny or limit access to the father.
  • If a father does not have PR.
Reply
#2
This would be absolutely amazing.. Currently going for shared custody because I want 3 nights a week and she wants me to have 2 nights a week because she misses them too much. Although the family law of equal rights has improved.. it still seems to favour women?
Reply
#3
Some political parties dont want this, I know of only one (now technically defunct party) that did advocate this.
The opinions here are not that of Separated Dads, but merely a loving father who has been through the process and has come out the other side.
Reply
#4
(06-20-2017, 02:02 PM)Goetia Wrote: Out of curiosity and to aid equality why has there never been a motion brought forward to save time and money at family courts that states if a father has PR and a place the children can sleep at safely (their home or parents) then he has an automatic right to have custody of his children up to 182days a year.
 
That still gives the mother the right to claim their benefits which is all they really want, and it would help deter some mothers putting up blockades for no real reason. It would mean a father who couldn’t meet the 182night requirement due to location or employment would be able to put forward his proposal of access and unless there is a sufficient reason and facts to validate the reason to refuse it, the mother is legally bound to accept the agreement.
 
Courts would only then be needed if:
 
  • A mother refuses access for no justifiable reason, and if found guilty should face a fine and risk her own access as she isn’t acting in the interest of the children.
  • If the amount of nights is agreeable but how they work is not.  
  • To review a case due to a justifiable reason to deny or limit access to the father.
  • If a father does not have PR.

The problem is that not all non Resident Parents should even see their children, and even when they can, often shared care can not happen due to distance or the availability of the non Resident Parent.

What does need changing is the fact more Child Support is paid, where there is no overnight contact, what in my view gives the Non Resident parent a financial incentive to stop overnight contact.

I will be putting a Petition on the Governments Website soon as its up and running again.
Posts made by me are my opinion and any factual information should be checked out. If you do not have a Solicitor, often your local CAB can get you some initial advice.
Reply
#5
(06-20-2017, 05:27 PM)MarkR Wrote:
(06-20-2017, 02:02 PM)Goetia Wrote: Out of curiosity and to aid equality why has there never been a motion brought forward to save time and money at family courts that states if a father has PR and a place the children can sleep at safely (their home or parents) then he has an automatic right to have custody of his children up to 182days a year.
 
That still gives the mother the right to claim their benefits which is all they really want, and it would help deter some mothers putting up blockades for no real reason. It would mean a father who couldn’t meet the 182night requirement due to location or employment would be able to put forward his proposal of access and unless there is a sufficient reason and facts to validate the reason to refuse it, the mother is legally bound to accept the agreement.
 
Courts would only then be needed if:
 
  • A mother refuses access for no justifiable reason, and if found guilty should face a fine and risk her own access as she isn’t acting in the interest of the children.
  • If the amount of nights is agreeable but how they work is not.  
  • To review a case due to a justifiable reason to deny or limit access to the father.
  • If a father does not have PR.

The problem is that not all non Resident Parents should even see their children, and even when they can, often shared care can not happen due to distance or the availability of the non Resident Parent.

What does need changing is the fact more Child Support is paid, where there is no overnight contact, what in my view gives the Non Resident parent a financial incentive to stop overnight contact.

I will be putting a Petition on the Governments Website soon as its up and running again.

Hi Mark. Thank you for your sharing your views on this.
 
Firstly, I like everyone (I’m sure) agrees with you on the overnight issue for child maintenance, I had to go to court to get my midweek access changed to overnights because she was refusing them for exactly that reason. I would also lump into that issue that currently mediation doesn’t work when legal aid is applicable because the mother again has no financial incentive to find agreement knowing the father will have to pay the court fees which they enjoy making happen.
 
On my point about automatic access, surely the system would work better and more efficient to assume right of access and deal with those cases where it can’t happen separately via the courts or other services? The benefit to the children would also be seen because it would encourage quicker agreements if both parents understood from the start both their legal rights of access, rather than mothers believe they are the gate keepers to access?
Reply
#6
Caveats given by MarkR are important but apart from that Goetia.... you're a GENIUS....

Start in the middle and negotiate down rather than starting (in many cases) at the mothers end and the father trying to fight the mother and the system just to see their kids

There are some states in US that no longer discuss 'custody' as it pertains to one parent winning and the other losing, they only discuss responsbility
Reply
#7
(06-21-2017, 11:59 AM)LTCDAD Wrote: Caveats given by MarkR are important but apart from that Goetia.... you're a GENIUS....

Start in the middle and negotiate down rather than starting (in many cases) at the mothers end and the father trying to fight the mother and the system just to see their kids

There are some states in US that no longer discuss 'custody' as it pertains to one parent winning and the other losing, they only discuss responsbility

Thank you LTCDAD that is very kind, although not sure everyone would agree with the idea of me as a genius lol, the concept just seems like common sense to me.
 
I think dropping the word custody to discuss responsibility is a very sensible one
Reply
#8
Another thing that is common sense is women should not get free legal aid by claiming DV... prove it first!
Or if they do and its proved to be fabricated, they have to pay the legal fees

The current system is morally and financially set up against the guy... if you get accused, she can go to town on legal support and you have to pay to defend or defend yourself against a experienced solictor
Reply
#9
(06-21-2017, 12:41 PM)LTCDAD Wrote: Another thing that is common sense is women should not get free legal aid by claiming DV... prove it first!
Or if they do and its proved to be fabricated, they have to pay the legal fees

The current system is morally and financially set up against the guy... if you get accused, she can go to town on legal support and you have to pay to defend or defend yourself against a experienced solictor

The issue with Legal Aid is its granted by the Solicitor themselves now, under Contract. There is rules on it, and they have to consider the chances of getting an outcome and the Merit of the case. Where its wrong, is only their clients opinion is used in this process.
Posts made by me are my opinion and any factual information should be checked out. If you do not have a Solicitor, often your local CAB can get you some initial advice.
Reply
#10
The system like the CMS has all been voted in by the MP's and it is sickening that in the amount of years time, there will be even worse of fathers and destitute ones driven into poverty by this system.
The whole system surrounding parents needs scrapping and re-writing.
Sadly though we can petition all we like, but the last election showed exactly what MP's are all like, greedy power hungry elitists...yeah even Corbyn, (socialist attitudes and principles, yet says all the rich should give up the empty houses for the Grenfell block people, yet has two houses himself and wouldn't give one of them up!)
We will never change anything, regarding CMS or any other legislation in our lifetimes I doubt. I just bend over the barrel each month and take it up where the monkey shoves his nuts and get robbed blind by an incomprehensibly unjust system, because yanno, frankly, I am tired....tired of fighting for 20 years with my ex, and I cannot keep fighting, I have no will power left.
And I am sure that's what they rely on, to beat us out of our own dignity and keep us where they want us....under the heel!
Advice & opinions on this forum are offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)