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.
Options
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
You're off track. They are not well thought out at all.
We were talking about Territ's responce to this;
Now obviously these are fathers with as much right to the child as the mother(not by law obviously).
What if the mother was a danger to the child and the father had no control over what happens to the child even though he is the childs father and has been with the child since birth? Do you still think they are very thought out laws? Imagine spending more time raising a daughter than your partner, looking after her only to find when you split up your partner has control over your child and can tell you WHERE WHEN AND HOW you're going to pick him/her up or when you can see him/her even if he/she is not suitable to look after her.
Do you still think they are very thought through? I guess you must not care for your children much, i know few people who would not have a violent reaction to someone denying them access to their children when they have been there since from birth and raised the child.
What if the woman is a drunker loser and the man sticks by her, raises the child alone, dealing with her drinking problems in the same household, then one day she decides she's had enough of him and throws him out, takes the child with her but by law he has not rights to collect the child without her permission.
Maybe because she thinks "an ejaculation gives you no rights"
It's very wrong and i can see why a man may become stressed and violent because of it.
Interesting point. "you have no rights for an ejaculation, but you have to start paying me for that fuck we had"
I think if a woman doesnt want the father of the child to have any responsibilty or access, then its a bit much to expect money, except in certain circumstances, although legally, access and maintenance are two seperate issues.
I think the issue of fathers shirking their responsibilities to their child when the mother would be happy for them to share the responsibility is a much much MUCH more common problem tbh
an ejaculation in itself gives someone no rights IMO, but being a father gives you plenty of rights, but theres a hell of a lot more to being a father than an ejaculation.
For example, if a man got with a woman in pregnancy and then co-parented the child as his own, by your logic, youd say the sperm donor had more rights than the guy that had actually raised the child.
No he wouldn't have more rights, the father figure would in my eyes. The point i'm making, in the example i gave is that he would have to enter the courts first, until then he would have to watch as nursery assistants call the police to arrest him as he tries to pick his daughter up from nursery yet the mother could be missing, pissed drunk, not picking the child up but just not wanting him to so causing ti all.
You know, just think of the worst type of mother possible and a father that stuck with her to raise the child but now they split she has authority over his interactions with her. Obviously violence will not solve it but lets reverse the situation with your own child and watch as your husband tells you that you can't see your child today or pick him/her up, even if you're at the nursery now and he's blind drunk sitting at home.
It would be absolutely horrible wouldn't it? i'm sure you'd feel like shouting, maybe even trying tot ake your own son/dughter so you can keep him/her safe because you've had enough of watching him/her go to that disgusting home.
This is just a scenario, but one that probably has occurred and the law fails to protect the child.
Sometimes i think women forget how strongly a man can feel about this child. we're meant to be claiming equality for both sexes, women protested for this but it still seems for men it hasn't happened yet when it comes to children.
Well by your definition, surely you wouldn't have a problem with this? If the mother is perfectly within her rights to decide whether she wants the father to be involved, then surely the father is perfectly within his rights to decline that offer when it comes?
The court isnt interested in whether a man has rights or a woman has rights. Theyre interested in whats best for the child, and in the vast majority of cases the mother has been/ is generally the primary carer and unless there is specific cause to uproot everything, then the decision would be to keep the child with the mother. I think this is right to be the default option.
If you have a particular problem and think your child is in danger, then you have EVERY right to contest this, and if it is necessary, you will get residency.
If its just about getting access, then you stand a very good chance of being granted access rights if your ex is being a pain about it for no reason. I dont know how good courts are at enforcing that. Its not a perfect system, but I dont see how there possibly could be?
just to add im talking about the issue i mentioned earlier about if the man wasnt even in a relationship with the woman.
To think if i split now and my child would be with the mother who denied me to pick her up would be such a blow, i don't think i could take it when being there from the very start.
I think it's odd you talk about the man's rights and the woman's rights, while missing the most important person of the lot. Surely you've missed the child's rights. When people talk about a father's right to see their child, what they really mean is a child's right to know their father (or more accurately, their right to know both parents). Would you argue that the rights of the mother not to have a father involved override the rights of the child to know their father?
ETA: Do you reckon this should be switched to P&D because we're kinda pissing on someone's thread asking for advice?
You are quite obviously retarded then.
bet they get far like that.
I think katralla's saying you're retarded since you said that her comments on here indicate that she doesn't love her children.
But to be honest, I think you're both in the wrong. You, Nameless, shouldn't accuse any parent (female OR male) of not loving their child, and katralla shouldn't have started name-calling.
The OP started this thread to ask about the legal issues surrounding rights to a child. Name-calling and accusations of people not loving their children are irrelevant and rude, so stop it.
As a nursery by law we have to abide by the wishes of whoever has parental responsability, whether we think its the right choice or not. What goes on between the parents is not to do with us, If the father wants rights he has to take it through the courts, thats just the law. How can you attack someone for abiding by the law. If we were to allow the father to collect the child it is then seen as kidnapping in the eyes of the law.
And I really resent the fact that you say we must not care for the children we look after, as this is something beyond our control.
I think you've missed the point. I said that in reference to the fact that any loving parent who has raised their child from birth would have an irrational reaction to having their child taken from them.
It was not an accusation, it was an attempt to make her understand.
Hope that clears it up for you.
It should not be seen as kidnapping, that man could have raised that child form birth, more so than the mother, why does he not have as much responsibility by law to the child? It makes a parental split much more devastating for the father since he has a lot more to lose.
I didn't say you must not care for the children... maybe you misread something
In any event, why wouldn't the mother have said anything to the father? The situation you've presented takes the guy vanishing from the scene not because he wants to, but because he doesn't know anything about the woman being pregnant.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that most of the time the mother should be the one who is the main caregiver (I'm speaking as a child of divorce here who ended up living with my mum), but you just seem to be completely rejecting the fact that actually regardless of the amount of time that goes in to a child being produced from both the mother and the father, it takes two to tango and the father should have rights to see his child and if need be challenge for custody. Particularly in this day and age when patterns of care giving are changing, I think we need to be more open to the fact that the mother isn't always the best option for the welfare of the child.
Well I believe he does. He certainly shoudl have access to the child if he wants it.
Whilst the the mother carries a baby her rights and wishes have to be put first, because any decisions affect her body aswell.
After the birth though the father has as much rights to the baby as her.
To change the law to allow a man to just take the baby without the woman wanting him to, even if he is the father, would be horrific. If the mother is actually unfit to do the job or doesnt want to do it, then thats one thing, but "being more suitable" is NOT a good enough reason to seperate mother and baby.
fucking hell, i cant even believe thats debatable!!
I agree with that, and in that case the mother would have to be proved to be unsuitable, not just because the father says so.
That is not what I'm saying.
He has a very real right to have access and demand to be part of the childs life. If the mother has the right to demand support than the fater has the right to demand access. I was taking issue with your attitude that the mother can tell the father to get fucked if she wants and that no rights come with ejaculation.
Not many people will argue that a mother is often the more suitable parent if the parents arn't together, but that's not to say that the father doesn't have any rights.
Just because the mother is more than often the better choice for custody doesn't mean she should automatically be given it. Decisions should be made on a case by case basis.
More suitable is good enough reason for me. Both father and mother have equal rights once the baby is born.
You seem to think that because a mother carries the baby for 40 weeks she shoudl have more rights. I don't agree.
Lets consider this for a second.
If the father is more suitable, that means the baby will be better off with the father. I think it's important not to confuse that it is seldom the case that a newborn will be better off since the mother usually is more suitable, but if it would be for any of a host of reasons why should the child be forced to stay with the mother even if it's worse off in terms of welfare and all the other factors that are inevitably taken into account.
I do see WHY you think fathers should have equal choice in the respect that they both share equal genetics but its a rare case where a man has put as much into the creation of a child as a woman - physically or mentally.
A lot of men try and get take their exes to court over their children out of pure spite.
There may even be cases where awoman isnt actually the best possible parent in the short term - ie post natal depression maybe, but that doesnt mean custody should be handed over.
*best* parent is VERY subjective anyway.
To be able to just take a womans baby away - youd have an awful lot of dead women on your hands - seriously. How to just rip someones heart in two!!
The amount of men in comparison who seem to find it fairly easy to just up and walk away from a family. It makes me think that in most cases its not nearly the same thing.