Fathers Rights

mat2113

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

You'll only be able to go onto long term sick if your GP is prepared to sign you off long term sick.

And, TBH, I wouldn't recommend that for the medium to longer term. Because if you take your 6 months full paid sick leave, your employer may quite reasonably ask what's going to change at the end of the 6 months, and if there's doubt about the likelihood of you going back to work, you may find yourself out of work.

I would start with EITHER short-term sick leave, if you aren't well enough to work, OR emergency dependents' leave (which may be unpaid). And immediately ask about reducing your hours - think about how you could combine work with childcare, what support you'll get, whether there are childminders / nurseries / out of school clubs you could use. Then you need to make a case for how the business can still get done if you're part-time - you don't have a RIGHT to reduce your hours, you have to make a case for it, and your employer can turn you down if they can say it's necessary for the business that you work full-time.

And however much of a daddy's boy your son is, please make sure he gets to see his mum regularly, and that you and she remain civil and assure him that it's not his fault you've split up.

I am going back to work on monday morning - i am bored in the house once my son has gone to school. She is hoping to get her own place and that my son will want to spend time with her. He is in bed at 8 pm and i am here on my own, i feel alone!

Once this is all sorted we are going to try and share the childcare between us. I have put the house up for sale and i am hoping to move closer to his school and all his friends.

tsstss7

arthur_dent wrote: »

Get it all down in some sort of legal document that she is happy to let you have main parental responsability.

Arther there is no such thing as "main parental reponsibility" both parents are assumed to have equal rights providing they both have parental responsibility

OP - this means that you would have to agree between you where your son should be living (ie who will be the parent with care) or else you will need to get it decided in court as when both parents have parental responsibility in the early days at least (before either parent becomes an established PWC) either parent is entitled to have their child living with them. (which is why parent kidnap cases become so complicated).

I implore you to sit down and really think through the prospect of keeping your son with you full time - you say that your ex wishes to share care and that is to be commended but that doesn't put her at your beck and call as a childminder she will also have a life to lead and may find that she now needs to work full time in order to make ends meet (as she will not be entitled to any child related benefits - presuming they are to be transfered to you).

It really isn't advisable to shuttle a young child between parents as they need stability and most "shared care" situations only work if the parents get on really well despite the split - otherwise they can just cause increasing amounts of conflict which will invariably spill over to affect a childs well being.

Being a PWC isn't all bad I cannot say that, but there is many a PWC sitting at home unable to afford things other people (including their ex) take for granted and it is no easy option. If you work you will be "on call" to cover school absences and regular training days/holidays and this time may well have to come out of your paid holiday time.

If you don't work you will be poorer than you could ever have imagined possible.

Most of all though please do not ask your son to chose between you or his mother - I believe that it for the two of you to make this decision and tell him. It is really unfair to ask a 6 year old to chose between his parents. How is he supposed to rationalise making such a decision and then live with any consequences that may entail (losing closeness with the parent he has not chosen for example). What happens if he then changes his mind? What happens if YOU change your mind. The grownups in this equation should take the brunt of the decisions to be made here - at least then if it doesn't work out as expected your young man will not have the need to blame himeslf.

arthur_dent_2

In theory if you have parental consent then the rights are equal. In reality the father gets shafted utterly and completely. Often the PWC (ie mother) will move to the other side of the country or at best the father will gt every other weekend. I am not suggesting for one second that the mother should not see her son, I am just saying that seeing as the father wishes to have the sddress at which the boy is considered to live as his then this should all be set in stone legally. If the lad is given into the custody of the mother then the father may aswell say goodbye to any sort of real access and a life of bowing down to the demands of the mother. You are almost implying that the lad should automatically be with his mother because the non PWC is used as a babysitter, and a second best parent. Therefore why if this is the case would he not want to choose his son over any possible poverty that may come into it. Children are not a resource and to be perfectly honest they aren't actually a strain on the resources either as the chiild benefit covers most things.

There are no fathers rights and whilst I appreciate that not all mothers are nasty when it comes to the access rights of the fathers, many are. Therefore it is sensible to get everything secured legally just in case.

tsstss7

arthur_dent wrote: »

In theory if you have parental consent then the rights are equal. In reality the father gets shafted utterly and completely. Often the PWC (ie mother) will move to the other side of the country or at best the father will gt every other weekend. I am not suggesting for one second that the mother should not see her son, I am just saying that seeing as the father wishes to have the sddress at which the boy is considered to live as his then this should all be set in stone legally. If the lad is given into the custody of the mother then the father may aswell say goodbye to any sort of real access and a life of bowing down to the demands of the mother. You are almost implying that the lad should automatically be with his mother because the non PWC is used as a babysitter, and a second best parent. Therefore why if this is the case would he not want to choose his son over any possible poverty that may come into it. Children are not a resource and to be perfectly honest they aren't actually a strain on the resources either as the chiild benefit covers most things.

There are no fathers rights and whilst I appreciate that not all mothers are nasty when it comes to the access rights of the fathers, many are. Therefore it is sensible to get everything secured legally just in case.

I'm sorry Arthur but what you have suggested above (in red) could equally well be attributed to fathers with care - and for your information there are no mothers RIGHTS either ...if my ex chose to he could take me to court on some ISSUE or other regarding our child every year and there would be nothing I could do about it. Neither can I establish my right to be the pwc with custody of my child unless it has been fought for and won in court. For this to happen I would have to wait for him to challenge me for custody I cannot do this myself just to establish a right of residence.

I would suggest that a bad experience on your part has coloured your judgement on this issue to such an extent that you now seem to feel that in MOST if not ALL cases a father needs to become the pwc to aviod the near certainty of a "shafting" from the mother is she is a pwc....

In reality most mothers would do whatever it takes to make their children happy (see op's partner willing to give up care as she believes that is what their son wants) and the same goes for fathers (with or without care).

I'm not denying it is often hard for nrp's to maintain an often fractured (in time at least) relationship with their children but many do exactly that because they want their children to grow up feeling secure and within a structured routine....when a child is at school that is their "work" to an extent and having to always be aware of their parents needs should not be a child's priority...

And no child benefit does not cover "most things" - When I first became a "single mum" I was forced to live on income support etc until my son was old enough for school (you could not get help with childcare costs in those days so I did not have the choice to work) and I had to juggle bills and do without on a regular basis...I had no family holiday until I went back to work full time and when my washing machine broke I had to drive 10 miles to a laundrette as I could not afford to replace it...there are many other examples I could give but suffice it to say that it is only the recent gov't changes with the introduction of childcare tax credit etc that have made working parents better off, AND allowed single parents to be able to afford to work...however most non working parents still struggle to make end meet and often see their children go without.

Lastly I did not suggest that the nrp is almost a babysitter - I said that they have a life if their own to lead and cannot be used as a babysitter. A working pwc will need to be aware of the fact that there are MANY times when they will need to stay home from work or find paid childcare for their child - you cannot rely on a shared care type situation to cover all eventualities of this type esp. as one parent (nrp) will be economically disadvantaged by this more as they will not be recieving csa, childbenefit and tax credits and are therefore far more dependant upon their ability to command a wage.

Loopy_Girl

arthur_dent wrote: »

they aren't actually a strain on the resources either as the chiild benefit covers most things.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

£18.80 covers most things for one child?!!!!!!! Aye, no bother!!!!!!!!!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Barely covers my daughter's smoothies and porridge in the morning!!!:D

arthur_dent_2

Firstly, in my house it certainly does cover all the extra expenses that a child brings. Most costs you would have any way. My children have toast and jam and a banana, not smoothies. 2ndly I personally have not as you assume had a bad experience of couples having to decide on custody, but I can name you many many more of my friends that have been shafted than looked after. In fact the only case I can recall where this didn't happen the father became the pcw.


"I'm sorry Arthur but what you have suggested above (in red) could equally well be attributed to fathers with care - and for your information there are no mothers RIGHTS either ...if my ex chose to he could take me to court on some ISSUE or other regarding our child every year and there would be nothing I could do about it. Neither can I establish my right to be the pwc with custody of my child unless it has been fought for and won in court. For this to happen I would have to wait for him to challenge me for custody I cannot do this myself just to establish a right of residence."

In this respect I do not disagree with you, however most men would not bother as generally men are far more laid back and a lot less vindictive. If they feel they are treated well men will generally just go with the flow.

It may not be possible to get custody without going to court but if he lets the child live with the mother then he has lost. The mother will in every case win custody. I take it then that you would rather have had the new washing machine than your children? No despite all the hardship your children will always come first and foremost and that applies to all parents.

By the way it has already been decided that in the extremely unlikely event that my husbans and I should split, he will get the main custody not me. I love my children more than anything in the world but I could not and would not put OH through that.

keithkeith

If I could give you one bit of advice that hasn't already been mentioned, it would be to keep a diary of everything. I wish I had, it might stop my ex making things up to suit her.

Savvy_Sue

MOVING THREADS FOR BETTER RESPONSES

Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: I’ve asked Board Guides to move threads if they’ll receive a better response elsewhere (please see this rule) so this post/thread has been moved to the Child Support board, where it should get more replies. If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

seven-day-weekend

milliebear00001 wrote: »

I think the point is being missed that this is not about who should stay in the house, the issue is that it's his son's HOME. If he wants his son to suffer as little disruption as possible, he will allow his son to stay in his home with the parent his son would be better off with. I'm not saying that's his mum rather than his dad, but that's how most Courts will see it. There is a moral issue here as well as a legal one - and for me, that would also include whether the gf has a right to some of the equity from what is her home too.

Some friends of ours have got it sorted out pretty well imho.

The children stay in the marital home and each parent lives there for half the week with the children. The rest of the time he has a rented flat nearby and she stays with her boyfriend.

I suppose if there is no-one else AND you can afford the rent on two flats as well as the mortgage on the marital home, it's a civilised way of doing things.

galvanizersbaby

mat2113 sorry you are having to go through all this!

My ex husband and I split up 3 years ago now and initially he ended up staying in the family home with my 2 children as he wanted to be the PWC and though he instigated the split he couldn't bear to be apart from the children.
Though he was a great father I could not be without my children either so the arrangement we came to was shared care for our 2 children.
We sold the property and brought our own places and now I have the children 4 nights a week and him 3 (we are very amicable and we live near each other) so at the moment this arrangement seems to suit the children best.
Legally when I divorced him we had an extra statement for the children which detailed the arrangements we had agreed to but I am guessing we would have had to get something drawn up between a solicitor if we had not been married.

I hope things improve for you soon though I realise it is early days for you and your son x