Legal guardanship

metrovelvet

Im not going to argue the toss with you about it but obviously a parent who does not live with their child nor sees them that often will not know their child better than a regular baby sitter would. Parents who live with their child, will still have a bond and familiarity [note the root] regardless of how much they work than an absentee parent who pops in once in a while. The bond the child feels will also be quite different. While the absentee parent may feel love for the child, there is no guarantee or even likely hood that the child will have any attachment or regard for that parent if time wasn't spend bonding. The parent will be like like the god who foresook him, admired but not loved.

It's not for me to say about 50 50 access. Every situation is different, it's unfair and inappropriate to make a blanket judgement on it. And what's good for one child may not be good for another. As a child of divorce myself, I can say that 50/50 would have been a great pain in the ass for us as children logistically, if it were divided up equally in a split week, but our father was such a regular part of our lives we didn't need to stick to these things so rigidly and we knew he was there for us, and our mother never interfered, despite having many good causes to. There were of course problems, like in any family, but managed to avoid court.

And then there were some kids who did have very regimented custody regimes, where it was every other weekend or whatever, which could get in the way of their lives, like missing friends birthday parties or trips because that was their dad's weekend, and then there were the kids who got bullied and teased at school for having no daddies.

So everybody, please try to remember what this is like from a child's perspective who is the one getting tossed around like a beanbag. This is hard for them and SHOULD BE about the CHILD'S right to a mother and father who respect each other, regardless of what their marital status is or isn't. They did not ask to be born to a pair of immature assholes stuck in a power struggle. They have the right to be fed, loved, nurtured and protected, whatever that takes.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote:

Im not going to argue the toss with you about it but obviously a parent who does not live with their child nor sees them that often will not know their child better than a regular baby sitter would. Parents who live with their child, will still have a bond and familiarity [note the root] regardless of how much they work than an absentee parent who pops in once in a while. The bond the child feels will also be quite different. While the absentee parent may feel love for the child, there is no guarantee or even likely hood that the child will have any attachment or regard for that parent if time wasn't spend bonding. The parent will be like like the god who foresook him, admired but not loved.

Thats you're personal perspective. My childs babysitter/childminder is excellent. So I'm not saying childminders can't be excellent. Thats not the issue here.

However it was my choice when me and my ex was together to make decisions so that the babysitter did not see the child more than the parents. Luckily enough the chance came up and I was able to come back to see the child at 5.00 after he was with the childminder from 3 after school. Where as my ex was working or studying to 9/10 O'Clock at night and seen the child far less than I did. Not blaming her or anything,but unfortunately when the relationship ended, because we weren't married it didn't matter how close I was to the child, more who was the mother.

Who cares who spent most time with the child? Not the courts anyway, Mothers rights are more important than who spent the most time with the child.

I can see your point, but unfortunately the absentee parent(well more so than me in this situation) had more rights than me.

So if as an unmarried father you try to play an important part in the childs life, it doesn't really matter, because the mother gets all the rights. No guardianship for the father automatically, you have to apply for it.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote:

It's not for me to say about 50 50 access. Every situation is different, it's unfair and inappropriate to make a blanket judgement on it. And what's good for one child may not be good for another. As a child of divorce myself, I can say that 50/50 would have been a great pain in the ass for us as children logistically, if it were divided up equally in a split week, but our father was such a regular part of our lives we didn't need to stick to these things so rigidly and we knew he was there for us, and our mother never interfered, despite having many good causes to. There were of course problems, like in any family, but managed to avoid court.

So everybody, please try to remember what this is like from a child's perspective who is the one getting tossed around like a beanbag. This is hard for them and SHOULD BE about the CHILD'S right to a mother and father who respect each other, regardless of what their marital status is or isn't. They did not ask to be born to a pair of immature assholes stuck in a power struggle. They have the right to be fed, loved, nurtured and protected, whatever that takes.

Well said, it's not about a power struggle. 50/50 mightn't be practical for the the child and that works for the mother just as much as the father. Every case on its individual merits but unfortunately the courts don't see that.

Unfortunately, mothers are given the most rights by the legal system and fathers feel victimised by it. The court system definitely does not help in childs rights. It promotes the power struggle. Mothers feel they have some sort of control over the child and fathers feel victimised.

I know in my case it made more sense for me to have 50/50 access, but sure what does the court care.

metrovelvet

Unfortunately, the courts do have their victims, some men, some women and often children, on every scale of justice from family to tort to criminal law.

The other bias you need to remember here is that, the mother often has to take primary custody while the father cannot be forced into access or to see the child at all while the woman is "left holding the baby." This, too is an injustice and bias, as is the E20 a week in maintenance awarded you hear about. You have to remember that the burden as well as the privalege of care is placed on the mother.

A primary custodian [most of the time, the mother] can not take the absentee parent to court to force him to see his kids, but the absentee or secondary custodian can sue for more access? How fair does that sound?

Do you think marriage would have really earned you 50/50 access? There's lots of divorced dads who also dont have 50/50 [nor want it I might add.]

And I would agree that the issue is not about babysitters, but the reference to them was used in a somewhat demotive manner, and I wanted to point out that they are there for these kids in many instances more than the fathers [or absentee parent ]are, obviously in your instance this is not the case, but in many it is.

I think what you're trying to say is that guardianship should be automatic but have a proceedure in place to petition to remove it?

The Corinthian

limklad wrote:

That really depends on the mother!
Remember child minders cost lost of money and she needs some time for herself to socialize etc..

Of course, but what you’ve posted has little or nothing to do with my comment.

metrovelvet wrote:

The other bias you need to remember here is that, the mother often has to take primary custody while the father cannot be forced into access or to see the child at all while the woman is "left holding the baby." This, too is an injustice and bias, as is the E20 a week in maintenance awarded you hear about.

Feel free to come back and make that argument when mothers are legally obliged to bring to term and raise a child under all circumstances.

If on the other hand that is not the case and you support a woman’s right to choose (not necessarily abortion, but other options such as adoption) while suggesting that a father should then be ‘forced into access’ if that choice is to keep it, then you’re just looking to have your cake and eat it.

Beruthiel

Deliverance wrote:

She has no reason whatsover not to give it to me which raises my alarm bells.

You're not wrong to be worried about that. You are the childs father, I don't understand her issue as you are there for your daughter and want to be involved.
When I seperated from my daughters father we got a standard legal seperation drawn up by our solicitors (didn't bother going to court) where we just shared the guardanship 50/50.
Perhaps just broach the subject again, tell your ex that you would just like to have the whole thing down on paper in the event of her untimely death you'd like there to be no problem with your daughter living with you under such circumstances. Imo it's actually a sensible move to get that sorted as none of us can predict the future.
hope it works out for you.

metrovelvet

Automatic guardianship would take away those options and still not put in place any measurements to guarantee the child would have a present and responsible father who would be around for his child. So in effect what you could end up with is a "father" who never sees his child, maybe never met him or her, but still has rights over where the mother and child live, where its educated, how it should be treated medically, and what happens to it if the mother dies?

And don't put words in my mouth. I did not suggest what the courts should and should not do, I am pointing out there are injustices on all sides.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote:

Automatic guardianship would take away those options and still not put in place any measurements to guarantee the child would have a present and responsible father who would be around for his child. So in effect what you could end up with is a "father" who never sees his child, maybe never met him or her, but still has rights over where the mother and child live, where its educated, how it should be treated medically, and what happens to it if the mother dies?

And don't put words in my mouth. I did not suggest what the courts should and should not do, I am pointing out there are injustices on all sides.

Of course there are injustices in all sides. My idea behind automatic guardianship is that absentee/irresponsible fathers would then be brought to court to explain their actions/inactions.

Maybe a parenting course or something similar could be introduced for them to try and correct their failures. Maybe if there was a threat of taking away automatic rights it might concentrate minds more for absentee/irresponsible fathers.

I don't think it would be any worse than the situation at the minute and might actually get more fathers to stick around and not leave the mother "holding the baby".

metrovelvet

Seanies 32 -Ive often thought that too - that fathers would feel more involved but I do wonder and thereby step up and do the right thing, but I dont know.

Thats a really interesting idea though - that with guardianship you could be held accountible to a court for your absenteeism or your lousy parenting?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote:

And don't put words in my mouth. I did not suggest what the courts should and should not do, I am pointing out there are injustices on all sides.

You were not particularly clear in your post that you were referring only to those cases where guardianship was awarded, but fair enough.

As an addendum, if fathers who disappear from their children’s lives should lose their guardianship status, should this not also happen to mothers who do the same? It certainly does not happen as often as the reverse, but it does still happen and as the law stands a mother cannot lose guardianship, no matter how neglectful or even abusive she is.

This, too is an injustice and bias, as is the E20 a week in maintenance awarded you hear about.

Returning to this point you made earlier, it depends on the circumstances. It may well be that a father really cannot afford much (especially if unemployed). Why do mothers how can’t financially afford to be mothers to begin with get upset if the fathers can’t afford it either?

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote:

You were not particularly clear in your post that you were referring only to those cases where guardianship was awarded, but fair enough.

No. I was talking about a theoretical future where guardianship was automatic, to the extent that it didn't exist as a status and that the rights were assumed once paternity was established.

The Corinthian wrote:

As an addendum, if fathers who disappear from their children’s lives should lose their guardianship status, should this not also happen to mothers who do the same? It certainly does not happen as often as the reverse, but it does still happen and as the law stands a mother cannot lose guardianship, no matter how neglectful or even abusive she is.

Sure she can. She can lose all custodial and parental rights. The state can take her kids and put them in foster care. And she can be put in jail.

And its not like you can charge abandoning or absentee fathers with "neglect" either, guardianship or no guardianship.

The Corinthian wrote:

Returning to this point you made earlier, it depends on the circumstances. It may well be that a father really cannot afford much (especially if unemployed). Why do mothers how can’t financially afford to be mothers to begin with get upset if the fathers can’t afford it either?

Well that may be. Or it could be that he has three kids and a wife that he failed to mention or a hefty payments left on his Jeep or just lied in court about how much money he makes.

As for mothers who cant afford it but get upset with fathers who cant either - it is most likely because the men are perceived to be in a better position to accrue or resource funds since they are not taking care of children.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote:

As an addendum, if fathers who disappear from their children’s lives should lose their guardianship status, should this not also happen to mothers who do the same? It certainly does not happen as often as the reverse, but it does still happen and as the law stands a mother cannot lose guardianship, no matter how neglectful or even abusive she is.

As metrovelvet has said, kids can be taken into care or the father siven custody. Definitely guardianship should be taken of the mother in cases like this and regranted depending on the mothers progress.

metrovelevet wrote:

And its not like you can charge abandoning or absentee fathers with "neglect" either, guardianship or no guardianship.

Unfortunately not. But if guardianship was granted automatically for fathers, questions could be asked by the courts as to why the mother is applying to have it removed. Education or counselling could be provided to the father to try and help his attitude. Would be better than just letting them getting away with ignoring their children/responsibilities.

metrovelvet wrote:

Well that may be. Or it could be that he has three kids and a wife that he failed to mention or a hefty payments left on his Jeep or just lied in court about how much money he makes.

I think the other mother would know about a father having another three kids. Of course if he had 4 kids altogether, in this example, he would have to look after all 4, hopefully equally. As you say I hate that argument, ah sure I have to pay for my SUV,3 holidays a year. The Courts should demand that he sells the SUV and repay the finance thus freeing up more money for maintenance.

And if the father lies about earnings, there are ways to prove he is earning more.