Comments on: Fathers Not Required http://www.equalparentingalliance.org/2008/11/fathers-not-required.html Putting equal parenting on the agenda Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:19:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: GREATGWYNETH http://www.equalparentingalliance.org/2008/11/fathers-not-required.html/comment-page-1#comment-33 GREATGWYNETH Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:56:44 +0000 http://localhost/wp/?p=8#comment-33 Dear Miss Wilkinson it was so refreshing to read an article that is not sexist. This year I have had the unhappy experience of watching a scenario unfurl that almost defies belief. My granddaughter was born 6 weeks before an amendment to the Family Law (Scotland)act came into effect on 4th May 2006. As it was determined beneficial to the welfare of children the Family Law (Scotland) Act was amended by a previous executive to give unmarried fathers who have signed their child's(rens) birth certificate equal parenting rights. They then for no valid reason (none that is obvious to the benefit of children) declined to make the amendment retrospective. In fact the reasons given for not making the amendment retrospective are discriminatory against men, their human rights and those of their children As a result of this amendment not being made retrospective my granddaughter and her father (my son) are privy to the old law where unmarried fathers irrespective of having signed their child's birth certificate, irrespective of whether they had been a constant and good parent and provider have no parental rights whatsoever. My sons fiancé very suddenly (in April this year) and without any prior notice decided that she no longer wanted my son in her life and equally as suddenly denied him access to his beloved daughter. He was forced to walk away from his daughter while she was crying for him and he was never given an opportunity to try to explain to her why he had to suddenly disappear from her life. He was then separated from his daughter for six weeks while he went through the courts where after he was granted access to her for 2 hours a week at a less than appropriate contact centre. He now has contact for 5 hours every weekend and is still in lengthy and costly court wrangles to seek 'Parental Rights' and further access. My family and I find what happened as a consequence incomprehensible that without cause and without evidence a man can overnight lose all that he held dear and on top of that find he is in a position of having to prove his worth as a father and his innocence to false allegations made by his ex. However his and our main concern is and always has been for my granddaughter who is a beautiful bright and perceptive child now 31/2 year old. It is now obvious to us that she has been traumatised by all the sudden changes to her wee life that this unjust law has imposed on her. In a previous Scottish Executive 'Family Law White Paper - Parents and Children - Analysis of Responses' the then executive states that the reason for not making the amendment retrospective was to 'protect the position of families whose arrangements had been settled under the existing law'. What of those that haven't been settled, what of the countless fathers who gave up in despair. Fathers who did not have the strength nor the support of firm families around them to endure the harrowing and costly legal wrangles necessary to obtain access and rights. What of their poor children who will go through life not knowing the important role a father plays. I could almost see why it would have been relatively futile for the amendment to have been made completely retrospective as children born more than 10 years prior to the introduction of the amendment are now at the age of reason and have a voice. Age however of the child(dren) concerned was not taken into consideration. Our wee one is only 31/2 and I wonder what she will think of Scottish justice when she reaches the age of reason. The current law for unmarried fathers of children born before 4 May 2006 assumes a mother to be the better parent and this itself is discrimination on a grand scale. How too can a line be drawn in the sand to determine the rights of a child. To one side its 'beneficial to children' and to the other its not. It either is or isn't. This is not a law about the rules of the road, which if not made retrospective has no real significance, this unjust law impacts on families and children's futures. Not making this law retrospective has condemned children their fathers and their father’s families for no good reason other than when their child (ren) was born and this is simply wrong. I often wonder how many other children and their fathers are and have suffered as a consequence of this diabolical injustice. Dear Miss Wilkinson it was so refreshing to read an article that is not sexist. This year I have had the unhappy experience of watching a scenario unfurl that almost defies belief. My granddaughter was born 6 weeks before an amendment to the Family Law (Scotland)act came into effect on 4th May 2006. As it was determined beneficial to the welfare of children the Family Law (Scotland) Act was amended by a previous executive to give unmarried fathers who have signed their child’s(rens) birth certificate equal parenting rights. They then for no valid reason (none that is obvious to the benefit of children) declined to make the amendment retrospective. In fact the reasons given for not making the amendment retrospective are discriminatory against men, their human rights and those of their children
As a result of this amendment not being made retrospective my granddaughter and her father (my son) are privy to the old law where unmarried fathers irrespective of having signed their child’s birth certificate, irrespective of whether they had been a constant and good parent and provider have no parental rights whatsoever.
My sons fiancé very suddenly (in April this year) and without any prior notice decided that she no longer wanted my son in her life and equally as suddenly denied him access to his beloved daughter. He was forced to walk away from his daughter while she was crying for him and he was never given an opportunity to try to explain to her why he had to suddenly disappear from her life. He was then separated from his daughter for six weeks while he went through the courts where after he was granted access to her for 2 hours a week at a less than appropriate contact centre. He now has contact for 5 hours every weekend and is still in lengthy and costly court wrangles to seek ‘Parental Rights’ and further access.
My family and I find what happened as a consequence incomprehensible that without cause and without evidence a man can overnight lose all that he held dear and on top of that find he is in a position of having to prove his worth as a father and his innocence to false allegations made by his ex. However his and our main concern is and always has been for my granddaughter who is a beautiful bright and perceptive child now 31/2 year old. It is now obvious to us that she has been traumatised by all the sudden changes to her wee life that this unjust law has imposed on her.
In a previous Scottish Executive ‘Family Law White Paper – Parents and Children – Analysis of Responses’ the then executive states that the reason for not making the amendment retrospective was to ‘protect the position of families whose arrangements had been settled under the existing law’. What of those that haven’t been settled, what of the countless fathers who gave up in despair. Fathers who did not have the strength nor the support of firm families around them to endure the harrowing and costly legal wrangles necessary to obtain access and rights. What of their poor children who will go through life not knowing the important role a father plays.
I could almost see why it would have been relatively futile for the amendment to have been made completely retrospective as children born more than 10 years prior to the introduction of the amendment are now at the age of reason and have a voice. Age however of the child(dren) concerned was not taken into consideration. Our wee one is only 31/2 and I wonder what she will think of Scottish justice when she reaches the age of reason.

The current law for unmarried fathers of children born before 4 May 2006 assumes a mother to be the better parent and this itself is discrimination on a grand scale.
How too can a line be drawn in the sand to determine the rights of a child. To one side its ‘beneficial to children’ and to the other its not. It either is or isn’t. This is not a law about the rules of the road, which if not made retrospective has no real significance, this unjust law impacts on families and children’s futures. Not making this law retrospective has condemned children their fathers and their father’s families for no good reason other than when their child (ren) was born and this is simply wrong.

I often wonder how many other children and their fathers are and have suffered as a consequence of this diabolical injustice.

]]> By: mac676 http://www.equalparentingalliance.org/2008/11/fathers-not-required.html/comment-page-1#comment-5 mac676 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:31:46 +0000 http://localhost/wp/?p=8#comment-5 I think this article is absolutely bang on with all the issues addressed. Its about time the idiots within the government and the family courts started listening to the above type views. I dont use the term idiots liberally either. They really are. The best interests of the mother is what is currently their underlying motive. Its no surprise that a feminist is running the show. Shame on her for ruining the lives of so many children and fathers. Shame on her for all the blood on her hands. I think this article is absolutely bang on with all the issues addressed. Its about time the idiots within the government and the family courts started listening to the above type views. I dont use the term idiots liberally either. They really are. The best interests of the mother is what is currently their underlying motive. Its no surprise that a feminist is running the show. Shame on her for ruining the lives of so many children and fathers. Shame on her for all the blood on her hands.

]]>