Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Mothers who deny access to children after break-up could be jailed

UK Childrens minister announces Government is to rewrite the 1989 Children Act

Mothers who deny fathers access to the couples children after a break-up could be jailed

Separated parents who fail to allow their partners to maintain a proper relationship with their children could be stripped of driving licences or passports, hit with curfews, ordered to do a period of unpaid work or even jailed.
Ministers will today propose a dramatic extension of punishments for breaches of court orders regarding care arrangements amid concern that millions of youngsters are losing contact with absent fathers.
The move is part of the most radical shake-up of the family courts for decades, with a new right to shared parenting following family breakdown to be enshrined in law.

Read more from the Daily Mail

Very interesting reading, will be interesting to watch this debate unfold.

Article said
"…Ministers have decided reform is necessary in the light of heartbreaking evidence that one in five children from a broken home loses touch with the parent that leaves the family home within just three years and never sees them again.

 Many more lose contact with a parent, most often with fathers when mothers are awarded "cust0dy", as they grow older…."
…and some think this is in the best interests of the child - appalling.

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant."

 
Willfred said
Article said
"…Ministers have decided reform is necessary in the light of heartbreaking evidence that one in five children from a broken home loses touch with the parent that leaves the family home within just three years and never sees them again.

Many more lose contact with a parent, most often with fathers when mothers are awarded "cust0dy", as they grow older…."
…and some think this is in the best interests of the child - appalling.

And how many of those one in five were in DV situation and how many are the result of a deadbeat parent cutting contact with child? I have a large group of friends who are single custodial parents (yes both male and female) and all of them wish the other parent was more involved with the child/ren
All true, but how many are not from those situations? Of all the non custodial parents I know, all of them crave greater/equal time with their kids but all of them are denied either by the courts, FRC's or the other parent.

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant."

 
Willfred said
All true, but how many are not from those situations? Of all the non custodial parents I know, all of them crave greater/equal time with their kids but all of them are denied either by the courts, FRC's or the other parent.

My ex tells everyone that he wants our child more, he is allowed access whenever he wants with 48hrs notice and only bothers to see child every 5-6 months. Yet, I'm sure if you asked his friends, I would be labelled a cold hearted b$tch who denies child his father. You are looking in from the outside. There are 3 sides to every story, hers, his and the truth.
The question I would pose here is - how hard did the father try? Having been deliberately alienated from my child, whom I love more than anything in this world, on the basis of false allegations… I can understand why some fathers could give up and walk away. That doesn't make them 'deadbeat dads'. Sure there are many who don't want any involvement with their kids for whatever reason, but there are so many who do, yet are denied… by the ex-partner, by the courts… it all takes so long, and costs a fortune… only those truly dedicated can bear the emotional and financial expense to fight for their rights to be involved in their children's lives, and I tip my hat to all of them.

It's far too easy in this day and age to make bullshit allegations against the other parent, and the first one to do so tends to win… at least for the short term, because an allegation is the same as a conviction, because the 'assumption of innocence until proven guility' is thrown to the wind because the 'best interests of the children' require keeping them 'safe' from 'abuse', the definition of which has now been so watered down that it can be anything.

There must be ENFORCEABLE PENALTIES for false allegations and for deliberate parental alienation.

Enough said.
These laws seem to aimed at those parents who alienate their children by breaching court orders.

DSnME it doesn't seem to really have much relevance to situations like yours where there are no court orders.

Magistrates obviously will be making the decision on whether or not alienation (abuse) has occurred after hearing both sides of the story. What they are doing is increasing the punishments for those parents who breach orders by with holding the children when it has been previously ordered it's safe for the child to have a relationship with both parents.
The article is very much about a deliberate action on the part of one parent to deny access (access to the children & for the children) to the other parent rather than the situation DSnME describes.

As we know while ever the huge carrot of Child Support is held directly in front of custodial parents many of them will use it as an incentive to children to stay away from the other parent, and as a result the human nature of the alienated parent will in many cases ultimately have them withdraw from the lives of their children.

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant."

 
Willfred said
…. As we know while ever the huge carrot of Child Support is held directly in front of custodial parents many of them will use it as an incentive to children to stay away from the other parent, ….
We had some anecdotal evidence and some cases we were aware of, that this might be the case, however Bruce Smyth at the National University presented a research paper in June on Separated parents knowledge of how changes in parenting time can affect child support payments and Family Tax Benefit splitting in Australia. It was conducted through a large sampling (and from memory some 5000 customers give or take, of the Child Support Agency)

Dr Smyth provided an overview of the studies aim, methodology, research and recommendations.

Key findings included:
 low levels of accurate knowledge, especially in relation to FTB splitting
 higher levels of erroneous knowledge
 fathers more likely than mothers to have erroneous knowledge on child support, whereas mothers more likely than fathers to have erroneous knowledge on FTB splitting (i.e. self-referent pattern)
 some groups of parents may well have higher levels of accurate knowledge after the roll out of the reforms (e.g., fathers who separated in the 2nd half of 2008).
 strategic bargaining likely to be occurring in the context of poor information or misinformation by one or both parties and,
 separated parents might have an awareness of a policy but often do not have a detailed understanding of how it works.

The outcome essentially is that the evidence did not show that parents were negotiating more time to get more money and that we needed to rethink what might be happening as the research definitely confirmed that most did not understand the impact that nights had on payments.

If you have other evidence then we would be hapy to send it on to ANU and ask Bruce to look at it.


Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
The first post says mothers could go to jail. I add-fathers could go to jail. Both are more about the extreme side.

Interesting that the news article says a businessman recommended that children,parents,families be seperated.  From a business point of view, it is more profitable if parents families "war" with each other. One fridge becomes two fridges, continue that theme, now the same number of persons needs two homes, two toasters,etc. Easier to sell drugs to parentless children. Easier to talk people into buying unnecessary medicine, easier to acquire children for purposes of porn,trafficking,fostering, etc when 50% less of family are watching. Now lawyers get paid.etc………………………………………………………….

Bad business for children, good business for some.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets