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:

Originally Posted by Lady Justice Arden

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.

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.

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!



I shall vacate my soap box now ... thank you

Originally Posted by Pedro68

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!



I shall vacate my soap box now ... thank you

been there ,seen it ,done it
Applause for the above

[Balky001]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Ping

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

[Lissa]

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?