|
|
 | | From: | MCP | | Subject: | Fathers' Rights Groups Attack 'Parenting Plans' Package | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:19:45 GMT |
|
|
 | http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4017310
By David Barrett and Karen Attwood, PA
Fathers' rights groups today attacked the Government's new "parenting plans"
and said the legislation did not go far enough.
Ministers announced a package of measures which they insisted would improve
the way the legal system deals with children whose parents have suffered a
break-up.
More couples will be encouraged to reach agreements outside court and those
who do begin legal action will be offered improved mediation services,
possibly taking children's views into account.
Parents who ignore child contact orders imposed by the courts will be forced
to do unpaid community work and those who fail to allow former partners to
see their children could also be given curfews.
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said the measures would
"significantly improve the way our courts deal with this issue and
significantly improve, in particular, arrangements for children where there
are separations".
He added: "Our plans will ensure better justice in these cases - that's best
for justice, best for parents but, above all, it's best for the children."
Controversial fathers' rights group Fathers4Justice condemned the proposals.
Spokesman John Ison said: "What we have got is a cynical case of recycling
existing legislation."
He said the group was campaigning for equal parenting on a 50-50 basis but
ministers remain firmly opposed to this idea.
Jim Parton, from Families Need Fathers, said the proposals "lacked
compulsion".
He said: "Parent planning has been talked about since the 70s and 80s and
this prototype seems a little bit airy-fairy and insubstantial."
Duncan Fisher, director of Fathers Direct, the national information centre
on fatherhood, which contributed to the parenting plans, welcomed them as
long as they were enforced properly.
Lord Falconer earlier denied that the reforms had been driven by the
Fathers4Justice group's civil disobedience campaign.
The proposals, contained in the Government's response to the results of a
consultation begun last July, include further options for judges to make
sure parents comply with contact orders.
A mother or father who deliberately makes a child miss a family holiday with
the other parent, for example, will be made to pay compensation.
Judges will also be able to refer parents to relevant counselling and
training programmes.
Education Secretary Ruth Kelly announced that an extra £7.5 million will be
spent on child contact centres in 2006/08.
The buildings allow parents whose relationship has broken down irretrievably
to spend time with their children without visiting the homes of their former
partners.
Lord Falconer announced an extra £10 million a year to ensure the courts
deal with allegations of domestic violence and other harm at the beginning
of court proceedings.
The legal definition of "harm" will be changed to take account of the
effects on children who witness a parent suffering domestic violence.
A legal advice helpline will be piloted to help parents who are breaking up.
The Government also published draft versions of new "Parenting Plans" which
attempt to give realistic examples of workable contact arrangements for
separating parents.
The final versions of the plans are due to be published in April.
Lord Falconer said it was difficult to find suitable ways to enforce child
contact orders because it was almost always not in the interests of the
children to send a parent to jail for breaching a judge's instructions.
But, as under current rules, those who do breach an order may face a fine or
jail for contempt of court as a last resort.
He appeared to reject the idea of electronically tagging parents who fail to
co-operate with family court orders.
Earlier today, the Conservatives said the proposals were completely
inadequate.
Theresa May, shadow secretary of state for the family, said they "lacked any
teeth".
She said the Conservatives would introduce a legal presumption of
co-parenting where both were fit to look after children, along with
compulsory mediation.
--
Men are everywhere that matters!
|
|
| | From: | occupant | | Subject: | Re: Fathers' Rights Groups Attack 'Parenting Plans' Package | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:08:21 GMT |
|
|
| MCP wrote:
> =
> http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3D4017310
> =
> By David Barrett and Karen Attwood, PA
> =
> Fathers' rights groups today attacked the Government's new "parenting p=
lans"
> and said the legislation did not go far enough.
> =
> Ministers announced a package of measures which they insisted would imp=
rove
> the way the legal system deals with children whose parents have suffere=
d a
> break-up.
> =
> More couples will be encouraged to reach agreements outside court and t=
hose
> who do begin legal action will be offered improved mediation services,
> possibly taking children's views into account.
> =
I can't figure out if you are referring to Canada or the USA. Oh, with
the later
mention of Lord it must be Great Briain. Here in Canada
the road has been going in that direction. It really is about forms and
process rather
than judges, decisions and appeals. =
A divorce is really a no fault situation because kids comes first,
parents last. So
Assets are divided 50/50 and parents split support purportionate to
income and the parents
can start over again with more kids with a new spouse. Agreements
reached outside court are =
excellent because it is cost effective and not a burden on the
taxpayer. Mediation is even
better because the spouses pay for the mediation costs and the taxpayer
does not. The views of children
are critical because any child beyond 7 years of age (on average) is
clearly able to say with whom, if any, of the parents they want to live
with. Doesn't sound like it could get any better. Congratuatlions to
whoever
thought up this plan.
> Parents who ignore child contact orders imposed by the courts will be f=
orced
> to do unpaid community work and those who fail to allow former partners=
to
> see their children could also be given curfews.
Sounds strange but it may work for their system. =
> =
> The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said the measures would=
> "significantly improve the way our courts deal with this issue and
> significantly improve, in particular, arrangements for children where t=
here
> are separations".
> =
> He added: "Our plans will ensure better justice in these cases - that's=
best
> for justice, best for parents but, above all, it's best for the childre=
n."
> =
> Controversial fathers' rights group Fathers4Justice condemned the propo=
sals.
> =
> Spokesman John Ison said: "What we have got is a cynical case of recycl=
ing
> existing legislation."
> =
> He said the group was campaigning for equal parenting on a 50-50 basis =
but
> ministers remain firmly opposed to this idea.
>
Oh, yes, this young fathers who fight for 50/50 basis on parenting are
forgtting
that they married a woman (unless it is a same marriage) where the
woman
earned less money, and is probably less educated. Will they ever learn.
=
> Jim Parton, from Families Need Fathers, said the proposals "lacked
> compulsion".
> =
> He said: "Parent planning has been talked about since the 70s and 80s a=
nd
> this prototype seems a little bit airy-fairy and insubstantial."
> =
> Duncan Fisher, director of Fathers Direct, the national information cen=
tre
> on fatherhood, which contributed to the parenting plans, welcomed them =
as
> long as they were enforced properly.
> =
> Lord Falconer earlier denied that the reforms had been driven by the
> Fathers4Justice group's civil disobedience campaign.
> =
> The proposals, contained in the Government's response to the results of=
a
> consultation begun last July, include further options for judges to mak=
e
> sure parents comply with contact orders.
> =
> A mother or father who deliberately makes a child miss a family holiday=
with
> the other parent, for example, will be made to pay compensation.
> =
> Judges will also be able to refer parents to relevant counselling and
> training programmes.
> =
> Education Secretary Ruth Kelly announced that an extra =A37.5 million w=
ill be
> spent on child contact centres in 2006/08.
> =
> The buildings allow parents whose relationship has broken down irretrie=
vably
> to spend time with their children without visiting the homes of their f=
ormer
> partners.
> =
> Lord Falconer announced an extra =A310 million a year to ensure the cou=
rts
> deal with allegations of domestic violence and other harm at the beginn=
ing
> of court proceedings.
> =
> The legal definition of "harm" will be changed to take account of the
> effects on children who witness a parent suffering domestic violence.
> =
> A legal advice helpline will be piloted to help parents who are breakin=
g up.
> =
> The Government also published draft versions of new "Parenting Plans" w=
hich
> attempt to give realistic examples of workable contact arrangements for=
> separating parents.
> =
> The final versions of the plans are due to be published in April.
> =
> Lord Falconer said it was difficult to find suitable ways to enforce ch=
ild
> contact orders because it was almost always not in the interests of the=
> children to send a parent to jail for breaching a judge's instructions.=
> =
> But, as under current rules, those who do breach an order may face a fi=
ne or
> jail for contempt of court as a last resort.
> =
> He appeared to reject the idea of electronically tagging parents who fa=
il to
> co-operate with family court orders.
> =
> Earlier today, the Conservatives said the proposals were completely
> inadequate.
> =
> Theresa May, shadow secretary of state for the family, said they "lacke=
d any
> teeth".
> =
> She said the Conservatives would introduce a legal presumption of
> co-parenting where both were fit to look after children, along with
> compulsory mediation.
> =
> --
> Men are everywhere that matters!
|
|
| | From: | Heidi Graw | | Subject: | Re: Fathers' Rights Groups Attack 'Parenting Plans' Package | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:06:43 GMT |
|
|
|
>"MCP" wrote in message
>news:B6JId.200824$48.200505@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4017310
>
> By David Barrett and Karen Attwood, PA
>
>
>
>
> Fathers' rights groups today attacked the Government's new "parenting
> plans"
> and said the legislation did not go far enough.
>
> Ministers announced a package of measures which they insisted would
> improve
> the way the legal system deals with children whose parents have suffered a
> break-up.
>
> More couples will be encouraged to reach agreements outside court and
> those
> who do begin legal action will be offered improved mediation services,
> possibly taking children's views into account.
>
> Parents who ignore child contact orders imposed by the courts will be
> forced
> to do unpaid community work and those who fail to allow former partners to
> see their children could also be given curfews.
And does this apply to *both* parents? Ie. if Dad doesn't show up on the
day he's supposed to 'cause his new girlfriend or new wife has different
plans for him, Daddy may end up with a curfew?
>
> The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said the measures would
> "significantly improve the way our courts deal with this issue and
> significantly improve, in particular, arrangements for children where
> there
> are separations".
>
> He added: "Our plans will ensure better justice in these cases - that's
> best
> for justice, best for parents but, above all, it's best for the children."
>
> Controversial fathers' rights group Fathers4Justice condemned the
> proposals.
>
> Spokesman John Ison said: "What we have got is a cynical case of recycling
> existing legislation."
>
> He said the group was campaigning for equal parenting on a 50-50 basis but
> ministers remain firmly opposed to this idea.
I think F4J should continue to press on with the 50-50 co-parenting option.
>
> Jim Parton, from Families Need Fathers, said the proposals "lacked
> compulsion".
>
> He said: "Parent planning has been talked about since the 70s and 80s and
> this prototype seems a little bit airy-fairy and insubstantial."
>
> Duncan Fisher, director of Fathers Direct, the national information centre
> on fatherhood, which contributed to the parenting plans, welcomed them as
> long as they were enforced properly.
>
> Lord Falconer earlier denied that the reforms had been driven by the
> Fathers4Justice group's civil disobedience campaign.
>
> The proposals, contained in the Government's response to the results of a
> consultation begun last July, include further options for judges to make
> sure parents comply with contact orders.
>
> A mother or father who deliberately makes a child miss a family holiday
> with
> the other parent, for example, will be made to pay compensation.
Heck, I propose where there is chronic and ongoing recalcitrance on *either*
parent, the parent whose turn it is to have the children should have a
police escort present with a copy of the visitation order in hand. If the
other parent refuses to hand over the children for the agreed upon
visitations, the cop could arrest that parent at that point. And if the
parent refuses to visit the children ... same should happen. Take the kids
or else! Relinquish the kids or else! No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
>
> Judges will also be able to refer parents to relevant counselling and
> training programmes.
>
> Education Secretary Ruth Kelly announced that an extra £7.5 million will
> be
> spent on child contact centres in 2006/08.
Rather than spend that 7.5 million pounds on visitor centres, use that money
instead on police escorts. I think with police presence the recalcitrant or
reluctant parent will most likely comply. It may only need to happen a few
times for people to get the message that a court order is a court order and
must be obeyed!
>
> The buildings allow parents whose relationship has broken down
> irretrievably
> to spend time with their children without visiting the homes of their
> former
> partners.
>
> Lord Falconer announced an extra £10 million a year to ensure the courts
> deal with allegations of domestic violence and other harm at the beginning
> of court proceedings.
> The legal definition of "harm" will be changed to take account of the
> effects on children who witness a parent suffering domestic violence.
>
> A legal advice helpline will be piloted to help parents who are breaking
> up.
>
> The Government also published draft versions of new "Parenting Plans"
> which
> attempt to give realistic examples of workable contact arrangements for
> separating parents.
>
> The final versions of the plans are due to be published in April.
>
> Lord Falconer said it was difficult to find suitable ways to enforce child
> contact orders because it was almost always not in the interests of the
> children to send a parent to jail for breaching a judge's instructions.
With a police escort on hand, jailing a parent may not be necessary. "Yer
coming with me to visit the children." or "Hand over the kids now!"
The British government is prepared to spend 17 million pounds extra to deal
with this issue. Rather than spend it on additional visitation centres or
quasi mumbo jumbo programs that won't actually do anything, spend it on
police presence when the children are to be visited or relinquished. Just
that presence will be enough to get parents to comply. No jail time
necessary, no other punitive measures needed...just police presence.
Can you just imagine what the kids might think?
"Mommy, why is Daddy showing up with a cop at his side?"
Heidi
|
|
| | From: | MCP | | Subject: | Re: Fathers' Rights Groups Attack 'Parenting Plans' Package | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:26:24 GMT |
|
|
|
"Heidi Graw" wrote in message
news:TGKId.148053$8l.24235@pd7tw1no...
>
> >"MCP" wrote in message
> >news:B6JId.200824$48.200505@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4017310
> >
> > By David Barrett and Karen Attwood, PA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Fathers' rights groups today attacked the Government's new "parenting
> > plans"
> > and said the legislation did not go far enough.
> >
> > Ministers announced a package of measures which they insisted would
> > improve
> > the way the legal system deals with children whose parents have suffered
a
> > break-up.
> >
> > More couples will be encouraged to reach agreements outside court and
> > those
> > who do begin legal action will be offered improved mediation services,
> > possibly taking children's views into account.
> >
> > Parents who ignore child contact orders imposed by the courts will be
> > forced
> > to do unpaid community work and those who fail to allow former partners
to
> > see their children could also be given curfews.
>
> And does this apply to *both* parents? Ie. if Dad doesn't show up on the
> day he's supposed to 'cause his new girlfriend or new wife has different
> plans for him, Daddy may end up with a curfew?
>
> >
> > The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said the measures would
> > "significantly improve the way our courts deal with this issue and
> > significantly improve, in particular, arrangements for children where
> > there
> > are separations".
> >
> > He added: "Our plans will ensure better justice in these cases - that's
> > best
> > for justice, best for parents but, above all, it's best for the
children."
> >
> > Controversial fathers' rights group Fathers4Justice condemned the
> > proposals.
> >
> > Spokesman John Ison said: "What we have got is a cynical case of
recycling
> > existing legislation."
> >
> > He said the group was campaigning for equal parenting on a 50-50 basis
but
> > ministers remain firmly opposed to this idea.
>
> I think F4J should continue to press on with the 50-50 co-parenting
option.
>
> >
> > Jim Parton, from Families Need Fathers, said the proposals "lacked
> > compulsion".
> >
> > He said: "Parent planning has been talked about since the 70s and 80s
and
> > this prototype seems a little bit airy-fairy and insubstantial."
> >
> > Duncan Fisher, director of Fathers Direct, the national information
centre
> > on fatherhood, which contributed to the parenting plans, welcomed them
as
> > long as they were enforced properly.
> >
> > Lord Falconer earlier denied that the reforms had been driven by the
> > Fathers4Justice group's civil disobedience campaign.
> >
> > The proposals, contained in the Government's response to the results of
a
> > consultation begun last July, include further options for judges to make
> > sure parents comply with contact orders.
> >
> > A mother or father who deliberately makes a child miss a family holiday
> > with
> > the other parent, for example, will be made to pay compensation.
>
> Heck, I propose where there is chronic and ongoing recalcitrance on
*either*
> parent, the parent whose turn it is to have the children should have a
> police escort present with a copy of the visitation order in hand. If the
> other parent refuses to hand over the children for the agreed upon
> visitations, the cop could arrest that parent at that point. And if the
> parent refuses to visit the children ... same should happen. Take the
kids
> or else! Relinquish the kids or else! No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
>
>
> >
> > Judges will also be able to refer parents to relevant counselling and
> > training programmes.
> >
> > Education Secretary Ruth Kelly announced that an extra £7.5 million will
> > be
> > spent on child contact centres in 2006/08.
>
> Rather than spend that 7.5 million pounds on visitor centres, use that
money
> instead on police escorts. I think with police presence the recalcitrant
or
> reluctant parent will most likely comply. It may only need to happen a
few
> times for people to get the message that a court order is a court order
and
> must be obeyed!
>
> >
> > The buildings allow parents whose relationship has broken down
> > irretrievably
> > to spend time with their children without visiting the homes of their
> > former
> > partners.
> >
> > Lord Falconer announced an extra £10 million a year to ensure the courts
> > deal with allegations of domestic violence and other harm at the
beginning
> > of court proceedings.
>
> > The legal definition of "harm" will be changed to take account of the
> > effects on children who witness a parent suffering domestic violence.
> >
> > A legal advice helpline will be piloted to help parents who are breaking
> > up.
> >
> > The Government also published draft versions of new "Parenting Plans"
> > which
> > attempt to give realistic examples of workable contact arrangements for
> > separating parents.
> >
> > The final versions of the plans are due to be published in April.
> >
> > Lord Falconer said it was difficult to find suitable ways to enforce
child
> > contact orders because it was almost always not in the interests of the
> > children to send a parent to jail for breaching a judge's instructions.
>
> With a police escort on hand, jailing a parent may not be necessary. "Yer
> coming with me to visit the children." or "Hand over the kids now!"
>
> The British government is prepared to spend 17 million pounds extra to
deal
> with this issue. Rather than spend it on additional visitation centres or
> quasi mumbo jumbo programs that won't actually do anything, spend it on
> police presence when the children are to be visited or relinquished. Just
> that presence will be enough to get parents to comply. No jail time
> necessary, no other punitive measures needed...just police presence.
>
> Can you just imagine what the kids might think?
>
> "Mommy, why is Daddy showing up with a cop at his side?"
>
> Heidi
>
Heidi! Why don't you take off your shoes,go into the kitchen and get
yourself "UP THE DUFF"
you really can't play both sides of the fence on soc.men.
MCP
|
|
| | From: | Heidi Graw | | Subject: | Re: Fathers' Rights Groups Attack 'Parenting Plans' Package | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:16:52 GMT |
|
|
|
>"MCP" wrote in message
>news:Qi2Jd.208501$Z7.67819@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
(snip)
>MCP wrote:
> Heidi! Why don't you take off your shoes,go into the kitchen and get
> yourself "UP THE DUFF"
> you really can't play both sides of the fence on soc.men.
Just what is your problem, MCP? The UK F4J group is unhappy with what is
being proposed. *They* can recognize how little of what the government
proposes will affect their access to the children.
I've suggested something with more *teeth* that would allow fathers to get
access from recalcitrant mothers.
The whole point is to make custody more fair and *enforcable.* So, in order
to enforce these orders, automatically *both* parents will be affected: the
one actually has to make an effort to see the kids, the other has to be
prepared to relinquish the kids. It won't work going just one-way...for
only Dad, whenever he feels like it, to get enforcable access. If the
custody orders are enforced for one, it becomes an enforcable order for the
other.
So, instead of only looking at *your own* side of the situation, you *have
to* look at how that situation can be used by the other side. What you do,
affects the other. There is no way of getting around it.
UK F4J already recognizes the 17.5 million pounds will be put to useless and
ineffective ways and means. I came up with an *alternative* to consider.
It is a *suggestion*...and to my mind, a rather good one. ;-)
Heidi
|
|
| | From: | occupant | | Subject: | Re: Fathers' Rights Groups Attack 'Parenting Plans' Package | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:17:11 GMT |
|
|
| Heidi Graw wrote:
> =
> >"MCP" wrote in message
> >news:B6JId.200824$48.200505@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3D4017310
> >
> > By David Barrett and Karen Attwood, PA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Fathers' rights groups today attacked the Government's new "parenting=
> > plans"
> > and said the legislation did not go far enough.
> >
> > Ministers announced a package of measures which they insisted would
> > improve
> > the way the legal system deals with children whose parents have suffe=
red a
> > break-up.
> >
> > More couples will be encouraged to reach agreements outside court and=
> > those
> > who do begin legal action will be offered improved mediation services=
,
> > possibly taking children's views into account.
> >
> > Parents who ignore child contact orders imposed by the courts will be=
> > forced
> > to do unpaid community work and those who fail to allow former partne=
rs to
> > see their children could also be given curfews.
> =
> And does this apply to *both* parents? Ie. if Dad doesn't show up on t=
he
> day he's supposed to 'cause his new girlfriend or new wife has differen=
t
> plans for him, Daddy may end up with a curfew?
> =
> >
> > The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said the measures wou=
ld
> > "significantly improve the way our courts deal with this issue and
> > significantly improve, in particular, arrangements for children where=
> > there
> > are separations".
> >
> > He added: "Our plans will ensure better justice in these cases - that=
's
> > best
> > for justice, best for parents but, above all, it's best for the child=
ren."
> >
> > Controversial fathers' rights group Fathers4Justice condemned the
> > proposals.
> >
> > Spokesman John Ison said: "What we have got is a cynical case of recy=
cling
> > existing legislation."
> >
> > He said the group was campaigning for equal parenting on a 50-50 basi=
s but
> > ministers remain firmly opposed to this idea.
> =
> I think F4J should continue to press on with the 50-50 co-parenting opt=
ion.
> =
As long as guys marry women who earn less, are less eduationed and less
capable of
earning income, there can never be co-parenting. It has to be
proportional to income
else they children will become a burden on society. =
> >
> > Jim Parton, from Families Need Fathers, said the proposals "lacked
> > compulsion".
> >
> > He said: "Parent planning has been talked about since the 70s and 80s=
and
> > this prototype seems a little bit airy-fairy and insubstantial."
> >
> > Duncan Fisher, director of Fathers Direct, the national information c=
entre
> > on fatherhood, which contributed to the parenting plans, welcomed the=
m as
> > long as they were enforced properly.
> >
> > Lord Falconer earlier denied that the reforms had been driven by the
> > Fathers4Justice group's civil disobedience campaign.
> >
> > The proposals, contained in the Government's response to the results =
of a
> > consultation begun last July, include further options for judges to m=
ake
> > sure parents comply with contact orders.
> >
> > A mother or father who deliberately makes a child miss a family holid=
ay
> > with
> > the other parent, for example, will be made to pay compensation.
> =
> Heck, I propose where there is chronic and ongoing recalcitrance on *ei=
ther*
> parent, the parent whose turn it is to have the children should have a
> police escort present with a copy of the visitation order in hand. =
Police are terribly expensive. If you think they should be delivery
visitation orders
then you truly don't know the cost of justice.
> If the
> other parent refuses to hand over the children for the agreed upon
> visitations, the cop could arrest that parent at that point. And if th=
e
> parent refuses to visit the children ... same should happen. Take the =
kids
> or else! Relinquish the kids or else! No ifs, ands, or buts about it.=
> =
>
Remember this guy and this women chose each other. The whole idea from
society's
point of view is to get these parents separated and chasing new spouses
and to =
keep thier joint offspring financially supported until they reach the
age of majority.
That is all society is interested in.
>
> > Judges will also be able to refer parents to relevant counselling and=
> > training programmes.
> >
> > Education Secretary Ruth Kelly announced that an extra =A37.5 million=
will
> > be
> > spent on child contact centres in 2006/08.
> =
> Rather than spend that 7.5 million pounds on visitor centres, use that =
money
> instead on police escorts. =
No. One problem with that is cost of policing is high. Secondly, for
the next million
years there will be millions of divorces of couples who got married way
to young to the wrong person
and they centers will serve their purpose until the end of time.
I think with police presence the recalcitrant or
> reluctant parent will most likely comply. It may only need to happen a=
few
> times for people to get the message that a court order is a court order=
and
> must be obeyed!
> =
> >
> > The buildings allow parents whose relationship has broken down
> > irretrievably
> > to spend time with their children without visiting the homes of their=
> > former
> > partners.
> >
> > Lord Falconer announced an extra =A310 million a year to ensure the c=
ourts
> > deal with allegations of domestic violence and other harm at the begi=
nning
> > of court proceedings.
> =
> > The legal definition of "harm" will be changed to take account of the=
> > effects on children who witness a parent suffering domestic violence.=
> >
> > A legal advice helpline will be piloted to help parents who are break=
ing
> > up.
> >
> > The Government also published draft versions of new "Parenting Plans"=
> > which
> > attempt to give realistic examples of workable contact arrangements f=
or
> > separating parents.
> >
> > The final versions of the plans are due to be published in April.
> >
> > Lord Falconer said it was difficult to find suitable ways to enforce =
child
> > contact orders because it was almost always not in the interests of t=
he
> > children to send a parent to jail for breaching a judge's instruction=
s.
> =
> With a police escort on hand, jailing a parent may not be necessary. "=
Yer
> coming with me to visit the children." or "Hand over the kids now!"
> =
> The British government is prepared to spend 17 million pounds extra to =
deal
> with this issue. Rather than spend it on additional visitation centres=
or
> quasi mumbo jumbo programs that won't actually do anything, spend it on=
> police presence when the children are to be visited or relinquished. J=
ust
> that presence will be enough to get parents to comply. No jail time
> necessary, no other punitive measures needed...just police presence.
> =
> Can you just imagine what the kids might think?
> =
> "Mommy, why is Daddy showing up with a cop at his side?"
> =
> Heidi
|
|
| | From: | Heidi Graw | | Subject: | Re: Fathers' Rights Groups Attack 'Parenting Plans' Package | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:26:14 GMT |
|
|
|
>"occupant" wrote in message
>news:41F3CD7E.A9EE74CE@telus.net...
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
>> I think F4J should continue to press on with the 50-50 co-parenting
>> option.
>occupant wrote:
>As long as guys marry women who earn less, are less eduationed and less
>capable of earning income, there can never be co-parenting. It has to be
>proportional to income else they children will become a burden on society.
Yet, if the lower income earner can still meet the basic necessities to the
children, I don't see why that parent has to give up any part of his/her 50%
allotment. *Both* parents are obligated to provide shelter, food, clothing,
and care. The higher income earner, can, however, contribute
*frills*...these being voluntary ones 'cause he/she has the means to go
above and beyond what is *needed.*
For example: if the father earns $80,000 per year and the mother $50,000,
the mother is in a position to meet and exceed whatever it takes to raise a
child. She should not be punished by giving up any portion of her 50%.
>>Heidi wrote:
>> Heck, I propose where there is chronic and ongoing recalcitrance on
>> *either*
>> parent, the parent whose turn it is to have the children should have a
> >police escort present with a copy of the visitation order in hand.
>occupant wrote:
>Police are terribly expensive. If you think they should be delivery
>visitation orders then you truly don't know the cost of justice.
Bear in mind Britain is willing to allocate an additional 17.5 million
pounds into resolving custody issues. What would it really take for a cop
who is already assigned to a certain route to drop by a certain address to
be merely present to witness the *transfer* of children? His/her presense
is going to be enough to ensure the recalcitrant parent will hand over the
children. And what would it take to just phone a cop and tell them, "Look,
my ex-husband is deliquent in his duty to pick up the kids. He's at such a
such address, can you swing by and remind him of his custodial duties?" If
either parent *refuses* to relinquish and/or show up for visits, they could
be arrested and held for a day or two. These parents would never want to
risk doing that again!
You have to remember we're only dealing with those people who have custody
problems. This eliminates the vast majority of divorcing couples. I'm
willing to bet it would only take one or two police presences to ensure that
no further calls from that particular squabbling divorced couple would be
made.
Such a program might not even cost all that much. If several hundred
difficult cases are made publically known, I'm sure there will be a drop in
the amount of delinquency and recalcitrance.
>occupant wrote:
>Remember this guy and this women chose each other. The whole idea from
>society's point of view is to get these parents separated and chasing new
>spouses
>and to keep thier joint offspring financially supported until they reach
>the
>age of majority. That is all society is interested in.
....yes...and the above program will drive the message home to new spouses
that they cannot interfere with the visitation orders. I've seen far too
many cases where the ex-husband marries a new woman with or without
children, and *his* own children end up being discouraged 'cause the new
spouse doesn't want them there...they're taking away from her own children
or the children she had with the divorced spouse. When the *new* spouse
realizes her husband could end up in jail for a day or two for trying to
wheedle out of taking his own children for the alloted time, *she* is going
to have to face the fact she *has to* put up with *his* children, too.
Anyway, what I see proposed for that 17.5 million pounds is just going to be
another waste of tax-payer funds. It'll be squandered on facilities and
quasi-programs...useless paper work...binders of information that no-one
reads. I would much rather see that money used for *bodies*...people who
can be present to enforce visitation orders. They would only be needed to
witness the transfer...they don't have to stick around for the actual
visitation time.
I would like to see a pilot program started to see how it might work on a
small scale. Pick a town, any town, and have the necessary police presence
available. If within that town this new program makes a difference and we
see the rate of complying with these custody orders *increased*, the program
could be expanded.
Oh well...just a suggestion.
Heidi
|
|
|
