Messages

Dear Mixedbag,

I know there arer not many people on thios forum who can sign the No.10 Downing Street petitions, if they wanted to, but I still think they may be of interest anyway, as example of opinion in one country of the Western world.  

I've been discussing all this with a UK father (one who refuses to support my petition because he believes faulty court welfare service training and attitudes are the root cause of all failings in our family legal system).

He told me yesterday that maybe he should have relocated to live closer to his son, or was advised to do so, as a way of avoiding the alienation he's experienced (the son shows him very little respect and he gets the odd phone call only, usually asking for money, and hasn't seen him in over a year).

I told him his feelings of guilt or that he hadn't done enough, criticisng himself, are feelings that those who wish to exclude him from his son's life will always use or be prepared to use, like his ex. or her supporters. I then said it was another reason why my rebuttable presumption in favour of contact was so needed, because then those opposing decent parents getting contact would have to come up with good reasons to justify their actions.

I think it will be wasted effort, but after all why shouldn't I waste my time if I wish - we all do that from time to time surely.

I hope all my efforts here arte not wasted, and someone sees what I'm trying to get at.

Very best regards and wishes, Graham

Dear All,

I think the issue of money is always going to come up, as seen in these petitions, both from the point of view of the residential parent, and the non-residential parent/father denied contact/access.

When reforming the CSA in the UK was being discussed in our media recently there we many examples of aggrieved residential parents and a few fathers saying they were being over-charged.

The TV presenteers failed to mention how many of us fathers are obstructed from seeing our children and/or have them alienated from us, and still expected to pay and behave as though we have been treated fairly.

As a cross section of opinion in the UK I guess this random selection it makes you think doesn't it (well its not random of course, because only those affected by family law or in some way connected to it bother to raise petitions obviously). No one has got a monopoly on feeling they have been badly done to during family law proceedings and therefore wishes to see change.

I'm one of the few people calling for real rights for parents, in my petition to No.10 Downing Street posted here earlier, and the fact that so many of those fourteen avoid asking for more parental rights is glaring to my eyes. I don't think people realise how disenfranchised we are, or certainly non-custodial/non-residential parents are.

The woman I married chose to behave as she did (hostile, always trying to prove she was the best/most perfect parent, controlling everything you tried to do as a parent, or trying to do so - there's no end to the level of interference they feel entitled to participate in), so cooperation over contact was always going to be limited with her. Nowadays I hear of women's groups who say that a father's relationship[ with their child is always going to be dependant upon the mothers wishes, or whims, so even more difficult for those fathers than I experienced I guess (I managed ten years of regular contact. My emphasis on the obligation of children to respect parents who love them and have cared for them doesn't seem to resonate with too many people, although I see it as vital.

The grandparents who wish to be given more rights (which I'd support too actually) would be given as much legal recognition as any non-residential parent/father if their petition became enacted and parents rights were not increased at the same time. I wonder if they realise that.

Anyway, must go, thanks for your interest - have you signed up to any of those petitions by the way?

Very best regards and wishes, Graham
   

Fourteen petitions taken from the No.10 Downing Street website, out of eight hundred and fifty posted there over the last three months. From serious ones any of us might sign to ones which show that someone there still has a sense of humour (the more outlandish ones make you wonder what those not gaining approval must have been like). ATB, Graham

Petition No.1
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to introduce legislation granting legal rights to grandparents.

 http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/grandparents/
Grandparents play a substantial and vital role in the care of children, providing 60% of childcare, but their role is not recognised in law. A grandparent may have provided daycare for the children 5 days a week, but have no right to apply for contact in the event parents separate or die. We propose an amendment to the Children Act granting the automatic right for grandparents to apply to the court for Contact or Residence Orders. Grandparents should automatically be granted Parental Responsibility in the event of the death of the holder(s) of parental responsibility.We ask for the automatic right to involvement in care and adoption proceedings and the automatic right to apply. We ask that the Adoption and Children Act 2002 be amended to include grandparents alongside parents and guardians. These measures recognise the role and importance of grandparents while adhering to the principle that the child's welfare is of paramount importance.

Petition No.2

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop the misuse of the Family Court rulings in relation to Court Orders for non-resident parents

 http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/RP-NRPMISUSE/
Misuse of family court orders: This is in relation to Family Court Rulings that when a Resident Parent stop the Non- Resident Parent from seeing their children. It is about time the Family Court started looking at the misuse of their rulings by Resident Parents and Family Court Solicitors for breaking these conditions and advising the Resident Parent that they will never be Jailed, Fined or whatever. It is time that the family court becomes an equilateral party in the lives of families suffering in this way and started treating non resident parents the same as resident parents

Petition N.3

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop absent fathers ruining childrens lives.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/absent-dads/
If an unmarried couple part prior to the birth of a child due to a fear of harm or abuse and the father takes no interest in the child, we need to protect that child from future harm, current law allows a "father" to walk into a child life any time upto it's 16th birthday, this is detroying children and mothers lives, we need to make a stand to protect our children and grandchildren. I am asking the government to re look at the childrens act and take more interest in the effects on the caring parent and child. mothers are being threatend by the courts with seperation from there children and even imprisonment if they stand in the way of contact, even if the absent dad has taken no interest in the child until the day he went to court. the child on the other hand has no rights of contact with an absent father. I am looking for a change in the law . please help me

Petition No.4

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to pass a law to enforce absent parents to pay maintenance.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/law4maintenance/

It 'IS' against the law to not pay maintenance, yet there is no law in place to make parents pay...This is a contradiction in terms and this needs dealing with, with immediate effect to ensure that 'children' receive maintenance in order for them to not fall into the poverty trap hence enabling single parents to return to work. This is the sort of enforement this country needs to 'GET TOUGH WITH ABSENT PARENTS' by NOT allowing huge debts to accumulate and spiral out of control....these children need this money NOW not when they are in there 20's.

Petition No.5

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure that all absent fathers are made to pay towards their childrens upkeep and the c.s.a should not hold a womans second husband accountable for someone else's children.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/absentfathers/
the c.s.a should not discriminate against self employed absent fathers by letting them get away without paying TOWARDS (not FOR) their childrens upbringing. Remember the mother still pays more in the longrun, we only ask for HELP. My son has been refused the £30 weekly payment whilst at college because his step-father earns over £30,000-even though his birth father pays us nothing. Why do they assume the 'new' partner takes 100% financial responsibility. are we being penalised because my 2nd husband happens to earn well at the moment, even though he hes provided us all with a larger house to accomodate my children from a previous marriage. does the fact that i found happiness with another man mean my children dont deserve anything from their real father? had I still been alone would they have made more effort to force him to pay because then i would have help from the state towards my income.this is not acceptable. absent .fathers need to live up to their responsibilities

Petition No.6

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure that when a claim for Child Maintenance is made,that all the children in the household are mentioned on the forms
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/parenting/
The parent with care does not always put all the children down on their forms when dealing with the CSA. Therefore some fathers are getting away scot free while the rest of us get fleeced! The Child Support Agency or it's new title must ensure that all information is on file to ensure fairness to the Non Resident Parent.

Petition No.7

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to close the Csa.Let the non resident parent decide what they can pay
 http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/dictator/
I beleive it should be up to the individal on how much they wish to contribute to the up bring of thier own child.Not to be forced to pay what you cannot afford or what a third party decides. Your Child Your Responsibility!..

Petition No.8

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Scrap the Child Maintenance and other payments bill and return the subject to the Courts.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/abolishcsac-mec/
To support and improve families the Bill to be scrapped. Power to be given back to the family law courts and away from the CSA. If you did that, then you would be promoting family life and happier society. If you chase nrps for load of money all you will get will be lots of unhappy people and disenfranchised absent from their children nomadic men. In the first instance it should be up to families to sort their own issues out, if not then the court, not government promoting family breakdown.

Petition No.9

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Change the law to ensure it is the norm for there to be joint custody when parents divorce/separate.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Family-equality/
At present the law favours women in terms of custody of children, taking it as the norm that children remain with the mother. I feel this breaches human rights and equal opportunity laws discriminating against the rights of children and men. In many European countries the norm is joint custody by law. If the UK law were reversed and men were the beneficiaries then I am certain womens' lobbists would decry this as sexual discrimination. We are often told Fathers are equal parents when referrring to financial responsibilities but this is also the case in terms of emotional development for children. As such they deserve equal footing with mothers. Men and women are supposed to be treated with equality for employment, education and criminal law and women's rights are protected by UK, European and Interantional law as well as a host of campaigners. Should not family law then provide for the same equal treatment regardless of gender?

Petition No.10

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Give fathers an equal chance to be awarded custody of children in event of divorce
 http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custody4fathers/
At the moment, when a marriage breaks down, if the couple have children, the law states that, "Officially", the custody is chosen on the basis of each individual case. However, a disproportionate number of women are given sole custody, depriving thousands of loving fathers of seeing their children. The law should be enforced properly, so that the courts are not biased towards the mother in these cases.

Petition No.11

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to End the secrecy of the family courts
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/secrecyfamily/
Many cases brought before the family courts involve domestic violence and other crimes against women and children. Some perpetrators use child contact cases to continue abuse of these people without fear of conviction or exposure in public. They can do this because victims are made to remain silent about their cases for fear of losing custody of their children. This should not be allowed to continue. If secrecy of family courts were ended, the continuing abuse of victims would be reduced.

Petition No.12

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to reinstate the fault clause and care, custody and control of children in divorce law
 http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/fairdivorcelaw/
This is in order that the guilty party in a divorce case bears overall responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage and is treated as such, i.e. the innocent party should get care, custody and control of any children. Similarly, they should get the greater share of the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home and not have to suffer the unfairness and indignity of the guilty party getting the same treatment as them.

Petition No.13

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to STOP ALLOWING JUST ANYONE TO GIVE BIRTH!!.
 http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ChildrensFuture/
How hard is it to take home an animal from a shelter?Endless personal checks &weekly visits before you can think about taking that animal home!Adopting a child?Not just anyonecan do it &there're very good reasons why Think about it anybody can give birth, anybody can have a child Anybody!?No checks no way of ensuring the child will be cared for &provided for No way of checking if that child is being born into a life of drug &alcohol abuse or if the mother is stable &can offer her child a secure home &give her child what it needs Let's not be ignorant, in the world we live in today if a child is to survive it needs more than love Let's give the children of the future what they deserve & stop the starving, homeless &emotionally screwed up children suffering anymoreStop allowing anyone to have a childWhen you& I are no more &the generations after that &after that who will be here?? We need to make a big change &where better to start than with the beginning of a life Please support me

Petition No.14

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to change the ruling on cockrels being able to live in housing areas.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/cockrels/
I would like the legislation on owning cockrels to change. I think cockrels should only be able to live in areas such as the country or on farms. People have human rights to sleep but you wont do anything about people who own cockrels on main roads where there are over 200 houses. I work, pay taxes so why shouldnt I be able to sleep?

So far, only kate dewsnap, the Petition Creator, has signed this petition.

Dear All,

Many thanks for your responses here.

I obtained the letter I used to start this thread from a friend on another forum, who was responding to yet another friend of mine, a father's rights campaigner who was of the opinion that all non-custodial mothers were unfit parents.

I think he was squarely put right on that score, don't you!

I was also trying to get him to support my petition to No. 10 Downing Street, but he's turned me down flat unfortunately, claiming that by bringing child abuse into the petition will only make matters worse or playing into the hands of those making false allegations.

In that respect I have found other father's campaigners across the globe (I use forums in the US and Australia) who have the same fears. However I feel they may all be wrong because if false allegations are made, and then withdrawn or proved to be false or unfounded then the rebuttable presumption in favour of contact would then be avalable or beneficial to that parent, along with all those who didn't have any allegations made against them. I think it is a curious stance to take, especially by father's rights campaigners, saying you can't have more parental rights for those who are known to be safe, or no one is saying are not safe to be with their children, because that will possibly prejudice others who are not so fortunate (or indeed not safe).

If I cannot get much support for my petition so be it, I am only one individual trying to raise an issue I feel may assist others, but I may be wrong in my thinking and/or may not be making my arguments well enough.

I will tell you that "instinctively" I am in favour of sole custody arrangements - I don't want to go into the reasons for you, although I do also accept that where parents agree, equal parenting can be fine too.

My petition would not contradict legal measures for 50%:50% legal and physical custody arrangements though, so I would hope those of you who do not like sole custody and see it as the root of all evil, will nonetheless feel able to support my petition.

The custodial parent's ability to curtail the involvement of the other parent even further, or totally exclude them, is of course the aim of my petition. I think fear of exclusion is fuelling all kinds of reactions or attitudes - if you think as a parent "if I don't go for 50%:50% custody then I will end up with no contact at all with my children" - this presents dilemma's doesn't it? You may even think your child would be better off in the custody of the other parent, but afraid to say so in case stating that might be used against you as justification for your exclusion.


Good luck to all - and I hope one or two of you, who are able and eligible, will feel my petition is worth your support - my main purpose for coming to this forum.

Graham
   

   

That's a shame but many thanks for your support.

Any expats out there?

Graham

You were interested in how/why we became non-custodial mothers. To be honest, the reasons are very varied, but I'll give you a few examples of some women from our organization starting with my own.

My ex husband left our children and myself in March of 2000. It was a loveless marriage for the last 6 years or so, and we both knew that. There was no animosity between us... we simply lived more like roommates than husband and wife yet neither of us wanted to be the one to make the first "move". When he finally did, he moved in with his brother while the children stayed with me. I'd worked throughout our 8 years of marriage but for the last year of it had taken time off for health reasons, and became a stay at home mother. I was still doing that when he left. He'd agreed to continue to pay our bills (mortgage, utilities, etc.). One day he went and took them from school. I didn't find out until the bus ran that afternoon and our children weren't on it. I called the school who told me his mother and him had picked them up. I got in touch with him at his mother's house and he told me "It's cheaper for me to keep them". Nothing I could do as we were still married and had equal custody rights.

I wound up moving in with my father (who lived 100 miles from my husband and children), and eventually got a job waiting tables. I then lived in a hotel room because my husband said that my father's house was too small for the kids to come and visit me there (don't ask me why a hotel room was more acceptable than a small house. I can't answer that.). I would get the children on weekends for visitation. There were times I didn't make enough in tips to house or feed myself, much less my children, and I slept beside a dumpster that was behind the convienence store next to the hotel.

To put it bluntly, I gave my ex custody of our children. I couldn't provide stability for them and he could. I didn't know if they'd have a roof over their heads or food in their stomach from one day to the next. That was no life for a 4, 5, and 6 year old to live; sleeping with mom beside a dumpster. I couldn't put them through that, so I did what they needed instead of what I wanted (and what every parent wants) - to have their children with them. I did what I thought was best at the time, and that was for them to be with their financially stable father instead of their mother.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Another story is of our Founder. Her and her ex husband had a 50/50 custody arrangement. One day he told her he was moving to Pennsylvania (they lived in Florida at the time), 1200 miles away and informed her he was taking the children with him. She immediately filed an injunction to stop the move-away, but on the day of court his attorney pointed out that a legal document had not been signed properly and the judge ruled (based on that technicality) that her ex could move their children 1200 miles away. As soon as court was over, he left with the children and she didn't even get a chance to say goodbye to them. His attorney knew this document wasn't signed properly ahead of time and withheld that from her attorney. As a result of Beverly's case, her attorney quit practicing Family Law because they were so upset over this fact.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Another story is of a mother who moved to a different state after the divorce to better her life. Once she moved, her ex started interferring and practicing PAS on their daughter (who he had custody of). I have been on the phone with her when she called her daughter, I've heard this child's grandmother (her ex's mother) in the background telling the child what to say. I've heard this child go from saying "I love you" to 2 weeks later telling her mother "I hate you, you're nothing but sh**" (and this is a 10 year old, BTW). She hasn't had a visit with her daughter in about 3 years now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


There are many, many reasons....

They simply ran out of money to fight.
The children became so alienated from them that they gave up.
Lies were told in court by the ex and believed.
Evidence was refused to be looked at by the judge.
False allegations of abuse were made.
False allegations of molestation were made (and these were usually made towards the mother's new boyfriend or their husband).
Promises were made, and then withheld by the ex.
Attorneys who were supposed to be working for them were actually aligned more with the ex.
Attorneys that were paid didn't do the work they were paid to do (sloppy representation).
Children were taken by the ex and moved away.

I'm sure most, if not all of those, look sadly familiar to you.

There is one difference between non-custodial mothers and non-custodial fathers, and one difference only - gender. We face the same issues that men face - bias in a courtroom (even though the bias may be "different" we do still have it, and I'll explain that momentarily), trouble even getting our children's school or medical records, the courts not enforcing visitation orders or issuing contempt rulings against the custodial parent, denial of visitation, denial of phone calls, denial of contact at all, having CPS called on us because of a vindictive ex, false allegations being believed despite evidence to the contrary, having to be subjected to supervised visitation based on those false allegations... the list goes on and on.

As for the bias issue I mentioned earlier, men do generally have a bias going into a courtroom initially and I admit that. I've seen it, and experienced it with my current husband who is a non-custodial father. Custody usually IS granted to a mother, and that's where the bias towards non-custodial mothers come in. The view in society is that no mother could possibly lose custody of their child unless they were unfit, and that is so untrue. Be honest... what was your first thought upon hearing about mothers without custody of their children? That they are druggies, abusers, molestors, had their children taken from them by some government agency..? Those things simply aren't true in today's society as more and more fathers gain custody. In the U.S. alone there are almost 4 million non-custodial mothers (This number is from the U.S. Census Bureau which only tabulates "households with single parent father" though. This isn't counting the 5 million children who are living with grandparents or other family members so another 5 million could be added to that 4 million number, and can also be added to the 15 million non-custodial fathers figures as well. So... about 9 million mothers without custody in the U.S.) Our bias is from society, which then trickles down into the courtrooms. If we don't have custody to begin with, then something must be wrong with us. The term non-custodial is not synonomous with unfit however.

Was I an unfit mother? No. I was a mother that couldn't support her children, true... but unfit? Not at all. Was Beverly an unfit mother? No. The other woman above? No. As a matter of fact, she has 5 other children, all of whom live with her. If she were unfit, wouldn't they have been taken away?

This is no longer an issue that is gender specific. Both women and men are relegated to weekend parents, have our rights stripped away from us, are accused of horrendous things against our own children, and seen as nothing but a wallet. What made us so unfit to care for our children after a divorce (or in the case of unmarried parents, a break up) when before that split, we were totally capable of doing what we're now accused of not being able to do? We took care of our children, read to them, tucked them in at night, fed them, clothed them, took them to school and helped with class projects and homework... and suddenly, almost overnight, we became imbeciles that can no longer do these things? And when I use the term "we" above, I am referring to men and women both. In the case of women, we were usually the primary caregiver in the marriage yet now we're placed on supervised visitations with the same children we cared for day in and day out by a judge who has seen us for 2 hours, based on "supposed" allegations that we or a family member have suddenly turned into raving lunatics and child molesters. We (again referring to both men and women) were good enough parents to take care of our children in a marriage, but now that the marriage is over we suddenly aren't. Why is it that the judges, advocates, attorneys, and lawmakers can't see this as a farce?

I know this has ran long and I apologize for that. I won't take up any more of your time.

NANCM forum leaders, (National Association for Non-Custodial Mothers)

Dear All,

Here is a link to the UK government website, should you wish to sign my petition.

Please be generous and sign it if you feel at all able to, as it may make a difference to someone and will not do harm in my view.

Very best regards and wishes, Graham


Your petition has been approved by the Number 10 web team, and
     is now available on the Number 10 website at the following
     address:

     http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Parental-rights/

     Your petition reads:

     We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Create a
     rebuttable legal presumption in favour of contact between
     parents and their children where there is no question of abuse

     The best interests of the child it has been argued, is to deny
     even decent parents a legal right to contact with them. We want
     to confront that assumption, which does seem intuitively
     incorrect doesn't it, as most parents surely seek to protect
     their child and seek their wellbeing too. Parents failing to
     agree on contact arrangements creates a situation where one or
     other of them can have their role in the child's life
     jeopardised at any time without any fault on their part. We
     believe that parents have legitimate interests that should be
     considered regarding their children, and they should not be
     made to suffer exclusion from their lives where this can be
     avoided.

     Thanks for submitting your petition.

     -- the ePetitions team

Jade wrote:
"Just exactly what are you asking? If it is presumed 50/50 physical custody, my answer would be no. It doesn't take the individual child into consideration. If it is that the other parent can call the child when with the other parent (if that makes sense), then my answer would be yes. Along with both parents having access to school records, health records, etc... "

Dear Jade,

Thank you for your interest in my petition.

My meaning of "contact" is closer to the latter description of contact you've given here, but would also include direct contact or parenting time spent with your child.

I hope that you are still in favour of my petition on that basis.

Very best regards, Graham

Dear All,

I am new to this forum and was recommended to come here by a forum member calling herself MixedBag who has kindly supported my poll/petition elsewhere.

I've come here simply to put forward my question to you, the full version of which is:-

Where there is no question of abuse would you support a rebuttable legal presumption in favour of contact between parents and their children?

Please give me your view on the question I've raised, even if you feel a little unsure about the wording of it. It is the overall opinion of members towards giving parents, particularly non-custodial parents, more rights that I'm trying to assess.  

Many thanks for your consideration.

Very best regards,
Graham