UK: Victory for divorced dads is a victory for children

Submitted by anthony on Sun, 2012-02-05 06:48

Article here. Excerpt:

'Fathers matter, and the law now recognises this. The government is rewriting the law so that children will have a legal right to see their father, even when their parents have split up. Fathers' rights campaigners will hail this as a victory for fathers – but in fact, it's a victory for children.

One in three children grow up without a father. In some cases, this is because the father bolted, or is behind bars. But in many cases it is because mother banned him after an acrimonious divorce. This could be because he was a child abuser, or a wife-batterer – or because his drinking makes him dangerous. But often it is down to mother's anger. I pray that if ever my husband and I were to break up I would prove saintly and wise, and let him see the children. I hope that, in the midst of my fury and hatred, I would be able to put the children's interests above mine. But I can't swear that I'd be any different from the hundreds of thousands of women who each year go to the family court to wrangle with their former spouse over his access to the kids. (Some don't even do that: they accept in principle his right to see the children, but in practice place obstacles to any visit.)'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

What law is it and where in the UK legislative process is it, in a subcommittee? What should people in the UK (or outside it for that matter) do to keep an eye on it and keep it moving along and in the right direction? But finally, the real matter here is not what the law says but whether or not the judiciary will actually enforce it. In legal theory (here in the US), fathers have the same parental rights as mothers but in practice, do not. That is because of the courts' findings and attitudes rooted in nymphotropism. Will any new law actually change that? Let me say I am skeptical, based on previous experience.

A legal body can pass the same law outlawing soda pop 1,000,000 times a day, unequivocally making it illegal to sell or use it, but if there are no cops there to enforce it and if the people at large don't agree with the laws, guess what? Soda vendors on every street corner, that's what. Now what if there are cops who will arrest people with soda but judges who will not hear cases where there are people brought before them charged with that crime? Net result? Eventually, no enforcement, as police see it is a lost cause, and again, soda vendors everywhere.

Same thing here. Pass laws 'til you're blue in the statute-book, makes no difference if there are not *de facto* changes in outcomes and in judicial attitudes/rulings. *De jure* changes are not worth the paper they are written on without their being reflected in reality.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2012-02-05 20:19

This is sensationalizing a promise made to reform family law, nothing more, but that promise was made when they campaigned for election.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kratch on Mon, 2012-02-06 19:46