Failing our fathers
The government has finally decided to unhinge the family justice system. It recently pledged to ensure children have the right to maintain relationships with both parents after separation, in light of recent estimates which have revealed courts currently grant as many as 94 per cent of residencies to mothers, whilst as many as 40 per cent of fathers loose all contact with their children within the first two years of separation.
Britain’s fathers should not legally retain equal financial responsibility, until the law grants them the fundamental right of access. For too long, fathers have been marginalised from their children’s lives, leading to a deep psychological impact on the real victims of this legal battle; the children.
The separation from a parent can lead to fears of abandonment, guilt, rejection and the inevitable insecurity that comes from having your world torn in two. If children are not able to maintain serious contact with both parents, the child will invariably hold one parent in lower esteem, and too frequently children are used as a weapon and a means of exacting revenge against an ex-partner.
At present the legal system is failing our fathers. Family courts are repeatedly awarding custody to the mother, which has led to one in three children living today without a father in their lives. If the father wasn’t married to the mother of his child, and if the father’s name is not on the birth certificate, a father has no right to see their children unless the former partner allows it.
The current system allows for the resident parent to restrict contact between the child and the non-resident guardian. This country needs to secure an arrangement, in which an external body possesses the authority to ensure contact between the child and the non-resident parent is maintained, and legally binding.
Shared parenting need not mean entirely equal access, which may be impractical and unsettling for the child. But the rights of a father need to be protected by our legal system, to be provided with mediation with the mother, and granted regular access to their offspring that is at issue.
Shared parenting, putting the child first, can be painful and inevitably means parents not always getting their own way. The state and the courts have a responsibility to secure a child’s access to both parents; it is as much about responsibility as it is a child’s basic human rights.
Shared custody ensures fathers presence in the lives of their children, seeing them on a regular, extended basis. Let’s hope the proposed examination of potential changes to the Children’s Act of 1989 will certify the equal value of both parents and consecrate it in law.
4 responses below. Comments are open.
Leave a Reply
Laura Hughes
News Editor
Most Read Commented
- Vanbrugh thirds scrape past James in entertaining affair
- How to land a grad job: banking (Goldman Sachs)
- James score eight in demolition of Wentworth
- Alcuin edge out Halifax fourths in close encounter
- A Happy Mundy for Halifax firsts as they defeat Goodricke
- Concern over international academic misconduct cases
Polls
Loading ...
So does that mean that all the non-resident parents who choose not to maintain contact will be made to do so?
It’s easy to blame the resident parent for lack of contact, but it’s appalling how often the non-resident parent gradually reduces contact because its too much hassle, too far to travel or a new partner doesn’t like it. Those are the kids really suffering – where they could and should have two parents but don’t.
Good article, but could have done with some citations, links to studies or anything that would back up your stuff about impact on the children etc.
As Glove says, a good and accurate article, but it is essential to back up controversial views with solid evidence.
In answer to 123secret’s comment, again, where is your evidence? Your comment sounds reasonable and accords with the perception of many, but you won’t find any evidence to support it. Have a look at this: Bradshaw, J., Non-Resident Fathers in Britain, Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Population and Household Change Research Programme, University of York, 1998.
Nick Langford
Director of Research
Fathers 4 Justice
Interesting article for Nouse. Obviously I agree that for good fathers, who actually care about their kids, equal access is an undeniable right for both father and child. However this sentence disturbed me:
“Britain’s fathers should not legally retain equal financial responsibility, until the law grants them the fundamental right of access.”
I think views like this are incredibly dangerous. I think abstaining payment is the most short sighted thing an marginalised father could do. Your children will grow up, and move out of the mother’s home. Your children will realise if the mother was playing a manipulative game and they will not forget that even though you weren’t there, you still wrote them letters/sent them birthday cards/paid for them to go to uni. They won’t forgive you for pushing them under the breadline in a childish game of tit for tat. It confirms everything bad the mother’s saying about you and it causes long-lasting resentment.
I’m now writing personally, my dad was abusive. He’s a schedule one offender which means he’s not allowed to see me (or my siblings) unless he goes on some courses (IPAT or IPAS? not sure) and then it’ll always be under supervision. If I had a child and was in contact with him, the child could get taken away from me because of the danger he poses. So obviously I’m speaking from a TINY tiny tiny part of the population and I’m probably bitter too. But I’m saying this because I don’t trust the current government to safeguard the well being of abuse survivors (for numerous reasons I can go into if any one’s interested but a bit OT here) with laws like this.
I dread to think of fathers who have participated in IPAT courses alongside serving sentences for domestic assaults/rape/whatever, who come out and pay £5 a week out of their JSA then having automatic entitlement to a child for a weekend. It’s common for abusive men to say that because they’re paying they’re some sort of modern day saint (and their past wrongdoings can be completely forgotten about…) so should get to see their kids. They get aggressive and hostile towards social workers and police officers who remind them that it’s not the case. I wish the law would actually tell these men that even though they can’t legally see their kids they have an obligation to do the best by them: your child isn’t a pay per view movie, it’s a being with needs you have an obligation to meet.
It’s only the most severe of cases when the father is completely excluded from contact, by the way, so there will be numerous men who have beaten their wives and children who are given a second chance by the gov’t. It’s disgusting and should be outlawed, and if they do instigate that law it’ll only facilitate this contact. I know these men have rights, and they might have had temporary mental afflictions that caused their behaviour, but it’s wrong imo. I’m 20 and I still have nightmares about my dad and suffer from PTSD…that’s what abuse does, so why any child should have to have prolonged contact with their abusers because they’re paying for them is beyond me. The gov’t allow that currently, so it’d only get worse. Maybe even the sole financial provider would get automatic custody? I’d rather stay broke as fuck than ever have to see my dad again.
I’m more than aware you can’t judge everyone because a minority of men are abusive and may pose risks to their child. The majority need help in getting what they, and their kids, deserve. Please don’t take this as a criticism of the cause or as me slating your article, cos I’m not it was lovely. I’m just concerned what a change in access rights could do to many child/teen/young adult survivors (and their traumatised mothers) because from experience I know that a clause like that can and WILL be exploited by the minority of horrible men out there and there is nothing you can implement in legislation to combat this. It’s just safer to leave thoughts like that out of the argument to protect the fragile minority.