Mum jailed for three months after refusing to let ex see their daughter

Zara33

stokefan wrote: »

no but, if the pwc is stoping the nrp from seeing the kid for no good reason they deserve it.

it took two to make the child it should also take two to bring the baba up

if the nrp snatched THEIR child im sure the police could bring charges (not 100% sure)

so whats the diffence with the pwc stopping the nrp from seeing there baby???

In an ideal world there would be no NRP and no PWC but we live in a not so ideal world. So when either NRP/PWC ends up in jail what exactly do you tell the child it's ok they deserve it because they didn't pay child support or they denied access.

Yes it may take two to make a child, but it can take one person to raise a child. Some PWC are desperate for their child to have contact with the NRP but some NRP don't give a dam about that child. Sadly not everything in this world is black and white.

What happens if the child doesn't want to see the other parent?

blimey40

If the child doesn't want to see the parent, guessing that would be down to the PWC brainwashing the child how bad the NRP is, then what do I know

Pee

AsknAnswer wrote: »

Some parents keep their children away from the other parent for good reason, but it definately doesn't appear to be the case here. It's awful when parents deny the other parent and their child the right to have a relationship without good cause, so I am very glad to see a precedent being set against people like this, who don't have their children's best interests at heart.

And some good reasons? If the father or non-resident parent was violent or a child abuser or an alcoholic then it is possible to have supervised contact.

Zara33

blimey40 wrote: »

If the child doesn't want to see the parent, guessing that would be down to the PWC brainwashing the child how bad the NRP is, then what do I know

Or maybe the child not liking the new setup, new partner,new siblings, new family

Pee

I know a case where the NRP took one of his two daughters for a contact visit and kept her. The judge decided that she was better off living with the father and his new wife and half sister. The poor mother still had to send the second daughter for contact, even though she was terrified it would happen to her, too. If I hadn't been involved in that one, I wouldn't have believed it. there was no suggestion in court that the mother was a bad mother - or indeed that the father was a bad father.

Children should see both parents and both parents should be responsible for their maintenance.

Blonde_Bint

Pee wrote: »

I know a case where the NRP took one of his two daughters for a contact visit and kept her. The judge decided that she was better off living with the father and his new wife and half sister. The poor mother still had to send the second daughter for contact, even though she was terrified it would happen to her, too. If I hadn't been involved in that one, I wouldn't have believed it. there was no suggestion in court that the mother was a bad mother - or indeed that the father was a bad father.

Children should see both parents and both parents should be responsible for their maintenance.

Aw the poor mother, does the mother pay maintenance for this child then? and what about this child visiting her I suppose in that case can the mother not just do what the father did and keep the child?

So its not possible then is that what we are saying? a parent cannot be done for the abduction of their own child? bit of clarification for ole dumbo over here would be appreciated:o

AsknAnswer

Pee wrote: »

And some good reasons? If the father or non-resident parent was violent or a child abuser or an alcoholic then it is possible to have supervised contact.

Oh, right I see.....so a father who has abused or been violent towards his child should be permitted supervised contact....what about the effect on the child who has suffered at his hands? Is it acceptable to put a child through the traumatic experience of contact with an abuser just to ensure the father's parental rights are fulfilled, when the child has specified an objection to this contact? Of course it's not.

I think what a lot of people forget is that with parental rights come parental responsibility and that children have rights too.

What is important in cases of contact is the child.

marksoton

AsknAnswer wrote: »

Oh, right I see.....so a father who has abused or been violent towards his child should be permitted supervised contact....what about the effect on the child who has suffered at his hands? Is it acceptable to put a child through the traumatic experience of contact with an abuser just to ensure the father's parental rights are fulfilled, when the child has specified an objection to this contact? Of course it's not.

I think what a lot of people forget is that with parental rights come parental responsibility and that children have rights too.

What is important in cases of contact is the child.

Yes, but any such claims should be substantiated.

blimey40

Thats why the system is flawed in many respects.

You will find reasons for both sides of the argument. Normally it comes down to how the PWC or NRP feels. Legitimate reasons, but brainwashing does go on.

kelloggs36

DUTR wrote: »

Seems like you want all NRPs to pay twice then?
Or that you want a nation of everybody claiming benefits than working for a living, and those that do work, are in great fear of having children in case the split occurs .

I think we will have to agree to differ on your logic in this instance :A

They wouldn't be paying twice would they? They need to still have the liability whilst in jail so that they don't get any time off for their choice to ignore their children. It merely means that they have a liability which they must pay all the time - no ducking or diving will change that. Only genuine changes in circumstances such as change of job (not to avoid paying), redundancy and such circumstances would be allowed. If they don't pay for say, this year and go to jail next year, next year would still build up arrears - not get a period of grace whilst in prison. That's all I'm saying - it doesn't double up in any way.