View Full Version : Fathers in the modern age
Can I refer you all to this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7109774.stm
The killer quote for me is:
Lady Justice Arden said the father's rights had not been violated because he did not have any to violate.
So a father of an unborn child has no rights to decide what happens to the child. Even before this case, a father had no say in an abortion. Beyond impregnation I wonder exactly what the father's role is.
What a tragic day for families: whatever is the country turning into. IMHO fathers have every right to be consulted and to share in the decision making. I wonder whether the fact of the father's ignorance precludes the CSA from knocking on the door.
I'm truly shocked by this decision.
kwak zzr
23-11-07, 11:22 PM
when my wife had our kids the midwife said to me "well your just the father, Mom makes all the decisions"
it is disgusting really it is.
Pedro68
23-11-07, 11:30 PM
Hate to say it Ed but it doesn't surprise me actually :(
Family Law in relation to fathers is a complete f****g joke!
So as if persecution by the CSA isn't bad enough, you then have to fight to see your kids because "the law" won't impose any sanctions on a mother who blatantly disregards "the law" (re: contact orders - which aren't worth the paper they are written on).
Reminds me of the case where a judge refused to award child benefit to a father who had sole custody of a child because at the time child benefit could ONLY be paid to the mother!?!? I don't remember much else about it, but Family Law needs updating.
Mothers need to be sent a warning message. All this stuff about "we must do what's best for the children" (of course we do), but sometimes the children may have to be temporarily disadvantaged so that the law can be seen to be upheld!
:rant:
I shall vacate my soap box now ... thank you :oops:
Hate to say it Ed but it doesn't surprise me actually :(
Family Law in relation to fathers is a complete f*****g joke!
So as if persecution by the CSA isn't bad enough, you then have to fight to see your kids because "the law" won't impose any sanctions on a mother who blatantly disregards "the law" (re: contact orders - which aren't worth the paper they are written on).
Reminds me of the case where a judge refused to award child benefit to a father who had sole custody of a child because at the time child benefit could ONLY be paid to the mother!?!? I don't remember much else about it, but Family Law needs updating.
Mothers need to be sent a warning message. All this stuff about "we must do what's best for the children" (of course we do), but sometimes the children may have to be temporarily disadvantaged so that the law can be seen to be upheld!
:rant:
I shall vacate my soap box now ... thank you :oops:
been there ,seen it ,done it
Applause for the above
Balky001
23-11-07, 11:42 PM
this woman was putting her child up for adoption wasn't she? Man, can you imagine if you found your child had been taken in to care without giving you the option of looking after your own flesh and blood. It's weird only 'the correct' humans seem to have human rights. I'm sure there are cases where it may be in the best interest to keep the father out of it but it should be the exception, not the rule
timwilky
24-11-07, 12:00 AM
Whilst I agree the father has the right to know of the childs existence. I think the original order that this girl must disclose the childs birth to her parents was a terribly flawed judgement. A 20 year old is not a child, she has the right to privacy and there is no way a court would know how the grandparents would behave towards their daughter etc.
I would also add that many of us have probably had a one night stand. Little head rules big head and possibility of pregnancy etc is the last thing on your mind (Certainly from my own male perspective). I would guess that this poor kid was scared, embarrassed and just wanted to put the whole sorry episode behind them. The last thing anyone should be doing in these circumstances is public washing of others dirty laundry.
1. Sorry boys but NO MAN SHOULD EVER have the right to decide whether a woman carries a child to term or not. It's NOT YOUR BODY.
2. I also think the KEY words in this particular case are: ONE NIGHT STAND.
He did NOT lay with her with the intent of procreation. He had no lifetime relationship with her. He slept with her to get his jollies. Heat of the moment, etc. How often do we hear you all proclaim how 'I'd give her one'. Now, referring back to point 1 following up with point 2, why the hell should he have any say in her decision let alone knowledge of it's existence???
If they were in a serious relationship then by rights, if she chose to have the child, he'd have a say in it's future... but it's all her decision up to that point and any man who thinks otherwise is delusional.
why the hell should he have any say in her decision let alone knowledge of it's existence???
Errmmmm Because hes the a father? just the off chance he might be a good man? and do the right thing?
Oh and if lets say she kept the baby, whats the odds the CSA (or whoever it is now) come knocking at his door for money to help with upbringing etc
I just don't think it's fair we should have to get involved when you want to keep the baby and we don't.....but it takes two to tango!!! funny how that gets used
Yeah your right it is her body, but at least give the guy the chance to do the right thing first
P.s yes there is more to this then meets the eye
Not an easy one, this. I do believe that if a woman has a one night stand and becomes pregnant she is the only one who has the right to decide whether to abort or not, but by choosing to go through with the pregnancy that changes things.
Not wanting her parents to know is also her choice to make. She could have had very valid reasons for that, we don't know anything about her childhood and up-bringing, and she could have had many reasons for not considering them suitable guardians of a baby.
Not telling the father is a different thing IMO. Even if she knew he would run away in horror at the thought of being a father, she should I think have at least told him. By not doing so, and by getting the court of appeal to back her in this, I truly think she has negated any rights to seek money from him for the up-bringing of the child, as it seems clear she has now changed her mind and kept the baby.
Just my thoughts.
Whats the deal with child maintenance in the UK - If she had kept the baby would the father be forced to pay child maintenance?
Whats the deal with child maintenance in the UK - If she had kept the baby would the father be forced to pay child maintenance?
Yes, normally. This case is different though, IMO. She refused to tell the father, she used the courts to back her on this. I think the guy shouldn't have to pay a penny, personally.
JessicaRabbit
24-11-07, 09:10 AM
Whats the deal with child maintenance in the UK - If she had kept the baby would the father be forced to pay child maintenance?
If she wanted it. Yup. Can 'o' worms this, innit?
Tiger 55
24-11-07, 11:33 AM
He slept with her to get his jollies.
They slept with each other to get mutual jollies. Important distinction I think.
This is not about abortion (big can, lots of worms) this is about a man not being given the opportunity to raise his own flesh and blood. Dreadful.
yorkie_chris
24-11-07, 01:16 PM
It's NOT YOUR BODY.
But the child is not your body either, it is a seperate being.
whats the odds the CSA (or whoever it is now) come knocking at his door for money to help with upbringing etc
And its not your money, tart gets knocked up on a one night stand.
Doesn't deserve a penny.
And its not your money, tart gets knocked up on a one night stand.
Doesn't deserve a penny.
Hang on a minute.................so I presume it's ok for a guy to have a one night stand.................that makes him a stud, right? But if a woman does it, she's a tart?
That's the kind of double standards that makes me sick!
missyburd
24-11-07, 01:32 PM
And its not your money, tart gets knocked up on a one night stand.
Doesn't deserve a penny.
Think tart is a bit harsh considering we don't know the circumstances involved. Tart is a word used to describe a lass who does this sorta thing often and we just dont know.
I don't think the guy should have to pay if she's bothered to go through the courts but then i dont really understand why the courts needed to be consulted at all, sounds like she'd already pretty much made up her mind by not telling parents etc. However, she should have told the father, people can change in that space of time between having had the one night stand and actually having the baby and who knows, maybe underneath he still might want to be a dad but sometimes, until you are given that oppurtunity you donlt know how you'll react.
oooh this is a tricky one.
If they were in a serious relationship, they should sit down together and discuss issue. I do no feel a guy has a right to force a girl to have a baby just because he wants to play daddy. he may be the best dad in the world. he should put the incident behind him, split with girl if he could not agree with her decision and find someone else to have babies with.
Its the person carrying the baby that should have the decision, these matters should not get to court.
I also do not feel babies born from result of a one night stand should be financially supported by dad, the girl has the option of getting rid whatever way she wants.
people who choose to have a baby together and then dad does a runner, well yes he should be chased for cash. but on the other hand if he does a runner and doesnt want to pay, probably better of without him in your kids life.
yorkie_chris
24-11-07, 01:33 PM
That's the kind of double standards that makes me sick!
What about the sort of double standard that gives the father no choice in any matter but still responsible for handing over cash?
What about the sort of double standard that gives the father no choice in any matter but still responsible for handing over cash?
If you'd read my previous post you'd have seen I said she shouldn't receive a penny from the father. And that is a different matter from calling a girl a tart just because she chooses to act the way guys have been for years.
yorkie_chris
24-11-07, 01:40 PM
OK tart was harsh I admit.
I don't think guys should act that way either without :safe:. Whenever my mates have been so silly I've laughed and told them I hope they live close to the clap clinic.
missyburd
24-11-07, 01:47 PM
And that is a different matter from calling a girl a tart just because she chooses to act the way guys have been for years.
well said. one night stands are so much more serious for a lass which a lot of guys dont seem to take into account just cos they can roll over and forget about it in the morning.
OK tart was harsh I admit.
I don't think guys should act that way either without :safe:. Whenever my mates have been so silly I've laughed and told them I hope they live close to the clap clinic.
Well, that is another can of worms............why did she end up pregnant in the first place? Sounds like the safe sex message still isn't getting through to some people:rolleyes:
yorkie_chris
24-11-07, 01:52 PM
Or to put yet another slant on it...
An acquaintance of mine had a one night stand, a year or so later the council contacts him as he now owed 3 months of child benefits!
Cheeky b1tch had slept with someone else a week after him (they'd used protection) and fell pregnant.
Ended up he had to get DNA proof of not being the father.
On the flip side, my ex did a runner when my lads were 6 and 7 and I was 3 months pregnant with my daughter. I never received a penny from him, because the CSA couldn't find him:rolleyes:
slark01
24-11-07, 02:20 PM
A section from the human rights law :-
You have the right to enjoy your family relationships without interference from the government. This includes the right to live with your family and, where this is not possible, the right to regular contact.
‘Family life’ can include the relationship between an unmarried couple, an adopted child and the adoptive parent, and a foster parent and fostered child.
This is small section but the father can use this to allow himself to have contact with the child.
As a father who looks after a child while the mother goes to work, I find it very difficult for anyone to tell me that I don't have any rights. Especially when i'm the one that makes the decisions of what the child eats, plays with, dresses, etc.
In effect I have taken the mothers role and my wife has taken the fathers role.
MeridiaNx
24-11-07, 05:46 PM
Not telling the father is a different thing IMO. Even if she knew he would run away in horror at the thought of being a father, she should I think have at least told him.
I'm with Lissa on this one. The choice to abort (or not) should be the mother's if push comes to shove and a legal 'right' is required. Would be nice if that wasn't needed, but not everyone has a stable relationship, reasonable partners etc. etc. I believe it would be wrong for a father to be in a position to veto a woman's choice to abort, in effect forcing her to carry the child.
However, a mother should NOT be allowed to have a child without the father knowing IMO. Forget all the waffle about the rights of the mother, the child and so on, I think it completely one-sided and downright immoral to give a mother sole discretion over disclosure of the pregnancy. And certainly if the law does come down on her side in this matter, as Lissa says that must also represent the anulment of all legal and financial responsibility on the part of the father. There can't be any 'having cake and eating it'.
What I find so objectionable is that the father wasn't entitled to be told. My guess is that given the circumstances he would have run a mile if he knew, but nonetheless the father ought to have the oppo to be able to bring up the child if he wanted to. If mother didn't want to bring up the child - and she definitely didn't - fine. But how would the father feel if in say 25 years time the child traced him and he never even knew that s/he existed, because mother had never told him.
I think that in an effort to be politically correct, the Court of Appeal is storing up some serious problems. It isn't - or rather shouldn't - be a one way street here. After all, it takes two to play football.
What I find so objectionable is that the father wasn't entitled to be told. My guess is that given the circumstances he would have run a mile if he knew, but nonetheless the father ought to have the oppo to be able to bring up the child if he wanted to. If mother didn't want to bring up the child - and she definitely didn't - fine. But how would the father feel if in say 25 years time the child traced him and he never even knew that s/he existed, because mother had never told him.
I think that in an effort to be politically correct, the Court of Appeal is storing up some serious problems. It isn't - or rather shouldn't - be a one way street here. After all, it takes two to play football.
Hm. That's got me thinking. In this case, yeah, I believe you have an incredibly valid point there. I hadn't looked at it that way.
-Ralph-
24-11-07, 07:30 PM
1. Sorry boys but NO MAN SHOULD EVER have the right to decide whether a woman carries a child to term or not. It's NOT YOUR BODY.
I agree about that one, if the woman doesn't want the baby thats the end of it. But who said he should have that right in the first place? :confused:
He has the right to be told IMO. Especially if the kids going up for adoption, give the guy the option of applying for custody.
Personally I think he should be be consulted not just told, so long as there's not a mitigating circumstance (ie: the guys not a serial killer)
Who knows, if the "what do you think?" conversation takes place with the father, perhaps the frightened, all alone, pregnant 20 year old may just become a proud mother with a supporting father. OK, it's not ideal to be a single parent, but it's the best of a bad situation IMO. Who knows they might find they have lots in common and decide to give a relationship a go? There's nothing better for resolving problems than talking about them.
In effect I have taken the mothers role and my wife has taken the fathers role.
Well done you guys! :thumleft:
Not sure a lot of couples could do that.
Flamin_Squirrel
24-11-07, 09:28 PM
In effect I have taken the mothers role and my wife has taken the fathers role.
Does she come in, ask where dinner is, sit down in front of the TV and demand dinner? :P
I've gotta admit when I read this I couldn't believe it. Two (presumably) consenting adults have a one night stand. On discovering she is pregnant woman decides to first continue with the pregnancy and then secondly not tell the father or her parents. Now for her own reasnons she decides that she doesn't want the baby and it needs to go to fostering/adoption.
And the kicker is that the father has NO rights :smt097
This truely is a really sad outcome. What decisions will there be next?
If i've missed something then please tell me what because this is crazy:confused:
slark01
25-11-07, 11:20 AM
Does she come in, ask where dinner is, sit down in front of the TV and demand dinner? :P
Dinner is already for her when she comes home :thumbsup::smt038
grh1904
25-11-07, 02:03 PM
Okay, slightly different slant here.
I don't have kids, don't like or want kids, can't stand kids, and hate the way that those with kids automatically assume that everyone likes kids.
Personally I have no interest what-so-ever in kids, and noted with interest the comment earlier about the human rights "family life" etc.
If as people on here would want the law is changed to give the father the right, and that father is contacted, and he is of the don't like or want kids scenario, then what................
That puts us back to square one doesn't it.
Biker Biggles
25-11-07, 02:21 PM
I think the essential point is that he should have the right to be contacted and asked,not to have no rights at all as the noble lady with the head up where the sun dont shine stated.
If he doesnt want to know,then he abdicates his rights.
It does sometimes happen that an event like this becomes the making of a previously useless individual,and I mean both men and women.A bit of responsibility can cause an awful lot of growing up to occur very quickly.
Okay, slightly different slant here.
I don't have kids, don't like or want kids, can't stand kids, and hate the way that those with kids automatically assume that everyone likes kids.
Personally I have no interest what-so-ever in kids, and noted with interest the comment earlier about the human rights "family life" etc.
If as people on here would want the law is changed to give the father the right, and that father is contacted, and he is of the don't like or want kids scenario, then what................
That puts us back to square one doesn't it.
Well you're entitled to your views I spose.
missyburd
25-11-07, 04:46 PM
If as people on here would want the law is changed to give the father the right, and that father is contacted, and he is of the don't like or want kids scenario, then what................
then as least he's had the chance, better than not knowing at all. as long as he doesn't come back in 20 years and demand rights otherwise :smt062
chazzyb
25-11-07, 04:47 PM
Well you're entitled to your views I spose.
Well, you can off kids. I have - mostly. I can't wait until they've left home. Nor I suspect, can the missus.
I'm sure I'll miss them when they've finally moved out. :rolleyes: No, really!
I'm sure I'll miss them when they've finally moved out. :rolleyes: No, really!
Yes, you will.
For all of 5 minutes:D
Okay, slightly different slant here.
I don't have kids, don't like or want kids, can't stand kids, and hate the way that those with kids automatically assume that everyone likes kids.
Personally I have no interest what-so-ever in kids, and noted with interest the comment earlier about the human rights "family life" etc.
If as people on here would want the law is changed to give the father the right, and that father is contacted, and he is of the don't like or want kids scenario, then what................
That puts us back to square one doesn't it.
I dont think so - square one was the question. You have a decision that has now been made so you can easily move on given the response. The ojective was to consult the male.
I wonder if the man would be in a position to seek financial compensation from the female in 10-20 years time - for not been given the opportunity to foster his own child - loss of enjoyment or something along those lines.... :confused:
missyburd
25-11-07, 05:00 PM
I wonder if the man would be in a position to seek financial compensation from the female in 10-20 years time - for not been given the opportunity to foster his own child - loss of enjoyment or something along those lines.... :confused:
if he wanted financial compensation then that be a bit odd... i'd have thought wanting rights to the kid be more important, money doesn't substitute a child.
if he wanted financial compensation then that be a bit odd... i'd have thought wanting rights to the kid be more important, money doesn't substitute a child.
Sure it doesnt - but was thinking about 20 years on. If he didnt know about it as he wasnt informed due to a court decision supporting the mother not to say anything.
missyburd
25-11-07, 05:16 PM
Sure it doesnt - but was thinking about 20 years on. If he didnt know about it as he wasnt informed due to a court decision supporting the mother not to say anything.
hmm yes i see what you mean. in that case i think he would have a justifiable argument especially as there would be ample time for circumstances to change e.g. if there was a health issue involved whereby he couldn't have children.
-Ralph-
25-11-07, 08:50 PM
that father is contacted, and he is of the don't like or want kids scenario, then what................
That puts us back to square one doesn't it
"then what........"
then he says "well, to be honest mate, I don't really like kids, so it's OK with me if she wants to put it up for adoption, but thanks for letting me know all the same"
Whats wrong with being back at square one? Everyone ends up at square one from time to time, you scratch your chin and try plan B! Better surely than not trying to get to square two at all.
SVeeedy Gonzales
26-11-07, 12:58 PM
That's a bit mental, you know they'd be after him for the cash if she was keeping the kid (though then he'd be able to trace and meet it) and the kid is legally entitled to access records to trace the mum & dad later on if it chooses. Seems daddy is the only one without a choice in this case.
Mind you, if you're going to stick it in random strangers on one night stands do you want responsibility for every kid produced? If they applied that rule a lot of men would be quite unhappy.
The "no rights to violate" thing is disgusting coming from a supposed judge, ought to be booted out for spouting stuff like that. Ultimately the father should have access if he decides he wants to keep the kid even if the mother doesn't - but would he want to.
Ultimately what the judge said takes us doen the route where every child born out of wedlock is only under the control of the mother and if she gives up interest/dies then the child goes to the orphanage and not to the father. Hmm.
Ceri JC
26-11-07, 02:51 PM
What about the sort of double standard that gives the father no choice in any matter but still responsible for handing over cash?
:winner:
The courts should decide, "Is the father responsible?" There are two (equally fair and I wouldn't really mind either situation) possibilities that I can see:
1. Yes. The father is obliged to at least partially support the child until they are 18. The father can reasonably expect some degree of say in matters concerning the child. Whether or not it should be the same as the mother is open to debate, but they should have at least some.
2. No. The father has no say in matters concerning the child. Likewise, he has no (legal) obligation to it, fiscal or otherwise.
The current situation is extremely unfair to men.
As an aside, I agree with Tim's comment that this girl was 20, how the hell do the court think they have the right to get he parents involved against her will?
Jools'SV Now
27-11-07, 12:45 AM
It's all very well the women talking about their rights
but it's about time they talked about their 'responibilities' too.
yes, it's her right (in law, rightly or wrongly) to decide whether to have the child
at the same time it is her responsibility to tell the father.
It seems in [out dated, pre-sexual revolution] English law, fathers only become part of the equation when something needs paying for.
Not all rushing out to burn their bras so they can work to pay for their ex boyfriend to look after the kids, that they're not allowed to see (just because you're female) though, are they?
Family law is totally sexist.
You couldn't get away with legislating - "you can't see your child because you're black" but you can legislate for - "you can't see your child (or even know it's been born) because you're male"
UNBELIEVABLE JEFF !
If the laws were being brought in now rather than being long standing it would never get through.
I'm looking forward to cases where a gay couples have a child and split up - who gets the kid then, the campest one?
yorkie_chris
27-11-07, 10:11 AM
I'm looking forward to cases where a gay couples have a child and split up - who gets the kid then, the campest one?
Lmao!
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.