If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
There is, or should I say was, an old Common Law legal doctrine that the (natural / biological ) father owned the child. That centuries old rule was abolished in 1989 with one sentence in the Children Act.
Part 1 section 2 (4) :The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.
Effectually it makes the State the father of the child.
Yes,afraid so. Legally, a mother could never own the child. That is legal theory behind the father maintaining the child because, in the eyes of the law, he owns the child.
so you saying that you think you have the right to Own a person? like owning a car?
She did not say it. The law says that.
i think it would be fairer for a mother to have "ownership" than the state, although not the same sort of ownership as a car obviously
So you would also think its fairer for the mother to have "ownership" then the father?
Ownership of a child has never actually been the person who gave birth to it - its everyone BUT.
Yes, fairer for it to be the mother if its got to be anyone since shes just grown it from scratch, but babies arent actually owned.
No it's not.
The reason it was the father was a relic of old sexist attitudes. It passed to the state because both mothers and fathers are incapable of being fit parents and someone's sex shouldn't be taken into account when making that judgement.
Fairer for the mother to have 'ownership'.
The natural choice should be the best parent.
Automatically assuming either mother or father is going to be the best parent is not in the best intrests of the child.
We've did this the other week. Both parents should have to proove suitibility, it should not be left up the father to somehow come up with some dirt on the mother before having a fair shot at custody.
A good childhood IS subjective. Some may prioritise having lots of money, others may prioritise affection, others may prioritise academic stuff. There is no such thing as a perfect parent. A very loving mother might lose her child because the ex partner had lots more money to afford a good school for instance and that may be one judges bias. Another judge may have a bias against a certain parenting technique, whereas another may be in favour of it.
I think the fact that someone has just physically birthed a baby out of her own body, shes got milk to feed it and shes got hormones coming out of her ears to care for it, kind of means that 99 times out of 100 shes going to be the most suitable carer.
If she really ISNT a decent carer, then the father should be the next option, then the grandparents
Both parents should have to proove suitibility. That is in the best intrests of the child. I don't know how you can disagree with that
Physically birthing a baby, having breasts or a surge of hormones has no bearing on someone's suitability to be a mother. You're saying it's subjective then ignoring that to favour the mother. It's just as likely the child will have a bad mother as much as a bad father so automatically favouring one doesn't help.
The perfect childhood doesn't exist, and it's likely that anybody deciding what will happen to a child will want them to have whatever was missing from their own childhood. I think the main thing is how many times the parent will get "one more chance" before people start putting the child first. If one parent abuses or neglects a child once they shouldn't have the right to do it again, but a lot of the time they do. The child should be with the parent who will put them first.
You're right, but the current legislation does cater for the mother rather than the child (or else, is lazy) when there is an issue over custody etc. Even if a father has been given legal access the mother can still withhold it and the courts will not do a lot. I know personally of several families where the mum has played silly buggers with the dad, not turning up, being late etc. so it's a two way thing a lot of the time.
But that's beside the point. In a standard civil legal battle, you would expect both sides to be able to give an argument as to why they are right, and there would be no default. In the case of parental custody etc. the default is the mother - fair enough, since in most cases this probably will be the best parent based on the average - but not in all. However, the father must prove beyond doubt practically he is the better parent. The mother just needs to turn up to court and not be visibly abusing her children.
The system should be fair, and take into account - yes the mother birthed, in many cases nursed, the natural bond is there evidently - but considering this and other factors, which parent is most suitable? In most cases, it would still be the mother. In that 1% where it is the father though the father should be able to win custody rather than the magistrate saying 'sorry, but even though you would be a better parent and better able to provide, shes the mum and hasnt done anything wrong, its not fair on her' . The onus should be on the child. (again, this wouldn't be 'stealing' children either, there could be well arranged visitation etc it might just be a shift from the father having the kids on the weekend to the father having the kids in the week and the mother having them at the weekend, maybe because he has a more stable home, or whatever) It is shifting slowly though...
Again you say it's subjective then make what appears to be the objective judgement that the mother is always the best choice. A richer parent is objectively more able to provide a good environment for a child than a poorer one but I am by no means suggesting that it should be the deciding factor on its own nor that it overrides the other factors mentioned. Could you please give some tangible reasons why the mother is the best choice? You imply a baby staying with it's birth mother overrides all other factors, what if the mother is poor, alone and has to work all day to support her baby and hence wouldn't be able to care for it correctly? I really don't think it's as simple as saying "It came out of her vagina, hence she is automatically the best choice".
Yes a mother by nature of the hell that is pregnancy and childbirth, and the fact that mother and baby is THE definitive natural bond and that its most certainly a two way thing and NOT a needy mother clinging desperatly to an infant that cares not who it goes to (which is the picture that seems to be being painted here)
I agree with the law that says that unless the mother is actually doing something tangibly wrong that cant be simply fixed, then she is the natural, most likely best choice. It is not in a babys interests to be removed from its mother - hardly ever. She is all it has known since a seed, her heartbeat, her smell, just her presence, when i say its natural, i dont mean its some romantic story thats laughable and sexist. Its fucking science. Basic maternal care should be a right, to be breastfed should be a right. To not be removed after birth from the very woman that brought it into the world and loves it more than life, becasue some judge decides well the man has a bit more money and a better job or some such shit. Its a hideous proposal.
By all means, the father should be the next choice if the mother cant or doesnt want to or is unable to do it, after that, the grandparents.
Its so hard to explain to someone who hasnt been there. Its a natural thing. its just something that "IS"
We're not arguing that more men should be given custody only that they have a right to fair shot at prooving they're the best parent.
Most of your arguemnt is a selfish one which is understable, but it's not an argument on behalf of the child.
We're not saying ignore the natural aspect. Certainly that's one of if not the most most important aspect, but it's not the be all and end all of good parenting. It's important but not important enough in my mind to automatically assume that the mother is the best parent in all cases.
In this 1 out of a 100 cases, it would be clear that despite the natural bonds of mother and child, residency with the father is better for the child. And it doesn't have to be proved by the mother being abusive or something, what about if shes not abusive but just not in the best circumstances to look after the kids - normally you would hope if she is really really struggling she might arrange residency with the father outside of the courts for the welfare of the child but again I think it would come down to the mother considering her wants to be a mother (which again, are natural) which shouldn't really be a consideration in the childs welfare. Same with the father, he shouldn't have the child even if its better to go with the mother just because he really wants it.
You're right that I haven't been a mother, but isn't that besides the point? We should look at the welfare of the child, not the mother... I wonder what the perspective from a child would be. I'm not sure its automatically biased to the mother, as I was always marginally closer to my dad from as early as I can remember. But I think thats because mum was stricter
In this one percent case that you're talking about in your post above though, if the mother wasn't suitable then yeah, the father would get custody. Surely that already happens though? I would imagine as well that if a father applied for benefits and suchlike in order to be a full time single father then he wouldn't be refused, would he?
Also (and you'll probably shout me down for this) but I know you think you're not being sexist, you still are because why should the father have more right to be a parent than the mother? Surely it's selfish on behalf of the father to want the baby to be taken away from the mother (a mother who hasn't done anything to warrant the child being removed)? You're coming across as quite anti woman.