Family Law

Having posted a somewhat emotional rant on my other blog, I thought I'd put something a bit more rational in this one.

Family law as it stands is not family law. It's protect-the-mother-unless-she's-a-proven-nutcase law.

This legal judgement catagoricaly proves this. The father has no legal rights concerning his own child but should the mother choose to care for it, he has a financial obligation to pay her to do so.

Whenever a controversial child custody ruling (or Fathers 4 Justice) make it onto the news, we always hear the standard generalisation that 'most men' abandon their children and then don't contribute towards their upbringing.

Do we know this or is it assumed? I'd like to see some metrics to back this up. I'd like to know what percentage of fathers in the UK walked out on their children (not booted out) never to return (not wanting dual custody) and making no maintenance of any kind.

Many fathers refuse to pay maintenance because the mother doesn't give them any access. Others are the ones that are left with the children and without a penny of support. Unfortunately the assumption is that because the perceived majority fall into the above paragraph, the rest can suffer as a result.

Family law is supposed to be about the child.

If the parents split up amicably but then the mother wants to move away and take the children with her, is that best for the children?

If both parents live in the same area and both want to look after the children, should the state even intervene?

If a woman wants an abortion but the would-be-father doesn't, is it fair for the woman to be able to make the choice without his consent?

And in the case of the story that has gotten my heckles up so much, is it fair for the mother to put the child up for adoption without the father having a right of first refusal?

If I ruled Britain I would put the needs of the child/children at the centre of the issue. Children need parents. The relationship between the parents seems to be the core issue rather than that of the relationship between the individual parents and their children.
Therefore parents would have equal rights in child custody. I find it appalling that a father has no rights unless he is married to the mother. Custody would not be awarded to the mother by default and adoption would have to have the consent of both parents.

Something really needs to be done about the issue of payments and access. If I ruled Britain you wouldn't get maintenance payments without allowing access and vice-versa.
Rather than placing the emphasis on the cowardly courts*, if a parent cannot get access to their children, they can suspend their payments until the access has been allowed. Likewise if a parent doesn't pay then they get no access.

*I'd say toothless but they have the teeth and choose not to use them very often.