Time for Biological father to pay the bill

[HughinBandon]

If you really have as much experience with family law as you say you must be aware that the issue is incredibly complex and that a system which at least tries to put the interests of the child first is the only workable one. That has little to do with the all men are bstards scenario and everything to do with trying to ensure some measure of stability and comfort for the child.

I think the concept of involving the courts in negotiating access is a reasonable one when the parents are not in ready agreement. The courts seem to have progressed over the years both in terms of providing for fathers rights and in enforcing fathers obligations.

Incredibly complex and invariably adversarial long before the issue ever gets before a judge, but in many ways the discrimination contained in Family Law simply adds to the problem.

Unfortunately the best interests of the child, in reality, take second stage to the best interests of the mother as the constitutional protection afforded to the mother takes priority.

What is required, apart from affording unmarried fathers the same rights as married fathers, is legislation that affords rights directly to the child and not via the mother.

This would stop the widespread abuse of children being denied access to their fathers for no justifiable reason other than to blackmail him into paying unreasonable amounts of maintenance.

[Clanrickard]

Incredibly complex and invariably adversarial long before the issue ever gets before a judge, but in many ways the discrimination contained in Family Law simply adds to the problem.

Unfortunately the best interests of the child, in reality, take second stage to the best interests of the mother as the constitutional protection afforded to the mother takes priority.

What is required, apart from affording unmarried fathers the same rights as married fathers, is legislation that affords rights directly to the child and not via the mother.

This would stop the widespread abuse of children being denied access to their fathers for no justifiable reason other than to blackmail him into paying unreasonable amounts of maintenance.

Bravo! +1

[myksav]

What?!?! The quote is not by me.

That is because you guys were too damn lazy to quote properly. Everyone gets confused as to who is replying to whom.
And I'm too damn lazy to go back and forth finding who wrote what.

[imokyrok]

Incredibly complex and invariably adversarial long before the issue ever gets before a judge, but in many ways the discrimination contained in Family Law simply adds to the problem.

Unfortunately the best interests of the child, in reality, take second stage to the best interests of the mother as the constitutional protection afforded to the mother takes priority.

What is required, apart from affording unmarried fathers the same rights as married fathers, is legislation that affords rights directly to the child and not via the mother.

This would stop the widespread abuse of children being denied access to their fathers for no justifiable reason other than to blackmail him into paying unreasonable amounts of maintenance.

I agree entirely with this concept. At present I think the courts tend to assume that the rights of the child and the rights of the mother achieve the same goal - and in reality they often do. Unlike in the Solomon story a child cannot be divided in two. The child requires a stable home environment.

With regard to the rights of an unmarried father being automatically the same as those of a married father I would have reservations. A married father has demonstrated some level of commitment to the child. An unmarried fathers commitment ranges from being little more than the sperm donor of the opening post to one as good as or better than a married father. I don't really see an alternative to an individual determination of the best interests of the child in those circumstances.

[Boggle]

I agree entirely with this concept. At present I think the courts tend to assume that the rights of the child and the rights of the mother achieve the same goal - and in reality they often do. Unlike in the Solomon story a child cannot be divided in two. The child requires a stable home environment.

With regard to the rights of an unmarried father being automatically the same as those of a married father I would have reservations. A married father has demonstrated some level of commitment to the child. An unmarried fathers commitment ranges from being little more than the sperm donor of the opening post to one as good as or better than a married father. I don't really see an alternative to an individual determination of the best interests of the child in those circumstances.

Also agree with the concept mentioned above but I have reservations about discriminating against fathers.And the idea of doing it based on individual review - how old will the child be before the review is finalised? 18??
On what basis would you then allocate rights? Based on how long he spends with the mother? Based on his circumstances? Based on what the mum thinks?

Surely everyone should be allowed the same rights of access, unless there is a specific and compelling reason why one of them should be excluded.

[imokyrok]

Also agree with the concept mentioned above but I have reservations about discriminating against fathers.And the idea of doing it based on individual review - how old will the child be before the review is finalised? 18??
On what basis would you then allocate rights? Based on how long he spends with the mother? Based on his circumstances? Based on what the mum thinks?

Surely everyone should be allowed the same rights of access, unless there is a specific and compelling reason why one of them should be excluded.

This why I say that it is a complex issue. There are no glib answers. If you say that everyone should have exactly the same rights of access are you saying the child must spend 3.5 days a week with each parent or every second week?. That smacks of putting the child last in the equation. Also while it may not be popular to say so either with those who feel strongly about fathers rights on one hand and mothers rights on the other, those who believe the childs rights are paramount need to take account of the fact that changes in attitudes to parental roles in the last few decades are not reflected in the reality of evolutionary fitness to perform the fundamental care giving role.

The courts are an unwieldy tool which could be improved upon by having an legal advocacy role for the child combined with a mandated mediation process but while it can seem like an eternity when going through the process even at their worst they seem to arrive at some level of access for the father even when it is fought all the way by the mother. At least that has been my experience. I think a man would have to have a very unsavory character altogether not to gain any access at all these days.

It can't be easy though for all concerned in the instance where the father is essentially a stranger to the mother as in the situation the op refers to. Imagine if you can being willing to take the chance of giving access to a male stranger to your own child (whether you are father or mother) on a weekly basis knowing as we do that serious abuse is generally carried out by the male of our species. Imagine having to decide to give weekly access to a man who you know has raised his fist to you or gets drunk regularly and gets behind the wheel of a car? A mother might be forgiven for thinking such a man should never have access to her child even though in reality the child might be better to have access to an imperfect father than not. It is just too complicated and individual in many cases for those who are emotionally involved to make the decision that best suits the child. Really under such circumstances I think an objective third party is necessary.

[HughinBandon]

I With regard to the rights of an unmarried father being automatically the same as those of a married father I would have reservations. A married father has demonstrated some level of commitment to the child. An unmarried fathers commitment ranges from being little more than the sperm donor of the opening post to one as good as or better than a married father. I don't really see an alternative to an individual determination of the best interests of the child in those circumstances.

How has a married father demonstrated a level of commitment to a child simply by getting married??? Presumably he got married because he was in love, or whatever term you wish to apply, with the childs mother and not simply because he wanted to have children. Besides, we are living in the 21st Century. People are choosing not to get married for many reasons. That doesn't nean they are not committed either to their partners or to their children. Not being married does not mean that you are more likely to be a bad father to your children and being married does not mean you will be a better father to your children. It makes no difference at all.

What you are highlighting here is the institutional and societal prejudice that exists towards unmarried couples and in particular unmarried fathers. It is the last bastion of the prejudice that saw countless single mothers carted off to workhouses and religious institutions to pay for their "crimes" against society and god.

I know plenty of married men, and women, who are so indifferent to their children that it borders on abuse and I know plenty of unmarried men, and women who are wonderful, caring and loving parents. What it amounts to is that marital status has absolutely no influence on wether a person cares for their children or not.

The sooner the legislators work that out the sooner we will have parental equality.

[imokyrok]

How has a married father demonstrated a level of commitment to a child simply by getting married??? Presumably he got married because he was in love, or whatever term you wish to apply, with the childs mother and not simply because he wanted to have children. Besides, we are living in the 21st Century. People are choosing not to get married for many reasons. That doesn't nean they are not committed either to their partners or to their children. Not being married does not mean that you are more likely to be a bad father to your children and being married does not mean you will be a better father to your children. It makes no difference at all.

What you are highlighting here is the institutional and societal prejudice that exists towards unmarried couples and in particular unmarried fathers. It is the last bastion of the prejudice that saw countless single mothers carted off to workhouses and religious institutions to pay for their "crimes" against society and god.

I know plenty of married men, and women, who are so indifferent to their children that it borders on abuse and I know plenty of unmarried men, and women who are wonderful, caring and loving parents. What it amounts to is that marital status has absolutely no influence on wether a person cares for their children or not.

The sooner the legislators work that out the sooner we will have parental equality.

I think you need to read my post again. I'm not implying that marraige is the defining issue. I specifically said that the relationship of unmarried fathers ranges from that of a stranger passing in the night to one which can surpass that of an married father. Go back and read the post more slowly.

[HughinBandon]

I think you need to read my post again. I'm not implying that marraige is the defining issue. I specificaaly said that the relationship of unmarried fathers ranges from that of a starnger passing in the night to one which can surpass that of an married father. Go back and read the post more slowly.

I think I read the post very well thank you, and I think I made my point that such prejudice also exists in Family Law and society. Whatever happened to the "innocent until proven guilty" precident, and how do unmarried mothers whose pregnancy may have come about from a drunken party romp or may have been concieved in a loving long term relation embrace escape legal discrimination??? It takes two people to make a baby you know.

So why does the system only discriminate against unmarried fathers???

[imokyrok]

I think I read the post very well thank you, and I think I made my point that such prejudice also exists in Family Law and society. Whatever happened to the "innocent until proven guilty" precident, and how do unmarried mothers whose pregnancy may have come about from a drunken party romp or may have been concieved in a loving long term relation embrace escape legal discrimination??? It takes two people to make a baby you know.

So why does the system only discriminate against unmarried fathers???

I think the "it takes two to tango" was the primary reason for starting this thread in the first place.

If a woman proceeds with a pregnancy she has already made a substantial commitment to the child and has spent 9 months developing a bond. Most women who continue with a pregnancy these days have made a decision to put the child first in their lives.