the next step???

Dancing_Shoes

enemes wrote: »

Surely jail would be a deterrent to nrp's who deliberately avoid their responsibilities ... it is a crime to neglect your children's needs, both emotional as well as financial)

But to some this wouldn't be a deterrent as they would rather face jail than pay up. Also some nrp's aren't able to maintain a relationship with their children.......should the pwc's go to jail if they withold or poison their children against the nrp?:T:T

Dancing_Shoes

smoothassilk wrote: »

i dont plan on talking to him again but i know he will send me lots of abusive messeges, which i will try to ignore, sometimes thats easier said than done though when someone has brought a situation on themselves then starts trying to play the victim, especially after the chances i gave him, for me it was more about the effort rather than the money.
As for the prison thing i would rather it didnt get to that point but i fear that it will and im just concerned about all the hassle i will get, the CSA have told me that they have a contract for 60 days with a baliffs and if they have no joy then they will go for a commital. didnt realise it would be that quick

If he becomes abusive then notify the police that is NOT acceptable!

enemes

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

should the pwc's go to jail if they withold or poison their children against the nrp?:T:T

... although just as criminal, but no they shouldn't go to jail because then the children will lose out twice.

Dancing_Shoes

enemes wrote: »

... although just as criminal, but no they shouldn't go to jail because then the children will lose out twice.

But you can't have one rule for the nrp and a different one for the pwc

I agree with putting the nrp's in jail if we can also put those pwcs in jail:T

chriszzz

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

But you can't have one rule for the nrp and a different one for the pwc

I agree with putting the nrp's in jail if we can also put those pwcs in jail:T

Absolutely Its got to be fair You go DS!!

LizzieS_2

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

But you can't have one rule for the nrp and a different one for the pwc

I agree with putting the nrp's in jail if we can also put those pwcs in jail:T

It is one of the penal notices for pwc in contact issues - ask Blob!

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

But to some this wouldn't be a deterrent as they would rather face jail than pay up. Also some nrp's aren't able to maintain a relationship with their children.......should the pwc's go to jail if they withold or poison their children against the nrp?:T:T

Worse, if it can be proved that a PWC is deliberately poisoning a child's mind then care should be taken away from the person and given to the NRP.

Sou

Soubrette

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

I am interested in this, as I love taking pictures of my child but you cant even take pictures of them on the beach, I have been asked to put my camera away and there was no one else there except me and her:eek:

the kids did a dancing performance at school and they performed at a theatre near to the school and the teachers were not allowed to take a picture of their pupils in their costumes on the stage :eek: so for me a stranger (thats your pwc bdt) taking pictures of a child she has no relation to and absolutely no involvement with is a police offence and I should think it does not matter why she wants the picture that she cannot take one without permission. we need a solicitor really.

That's because the school or public place are covering themselves in the case of any liability ie they don't want to be sued:eek:

Sueing is not necessarily about breaking the law - it could be about not providing a duty of care, or taking reasonable care in any given situation, for example it is not illegal to spill water on the ground but if you then slipped on that water in a public place then you might have grounds for suing that place for not taking reasonable care.

Schools etc are taking an extremely cautious view on this.

Sou

Dancing_Shoes

Soubrette wrote: »

Worse, if it can be proved that a PWC is deliberately poisoning a child's mind then care should be taken away from the person and given to the NRP.

Sou

If only this amounted to child abuse (which is how I see it!), but if they are old enough to have their own minds then it is very hard to prove:mad:

Soubrette

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

If only this amounted to child abuse (which is how I see it!), but if they are old enough to have their own minds then it is very hard to prove:mad:

I think it depends on their age roughly speaking I don't think under 12s should have the ability to decide 'I'm not seeing Dad ever again' but perhaps 14/15 etc they then become much more entitled to have their own wishes listened to.

I also think it depends on the measures taken by the PWC to maintain contact.

So if a child is 8 and the PWC has made no effort to maintain contact then that seems much more serious (and I agree it is a kind of abuse - children thrive with the love of both parents, almost certainly neither of them perfect) to me than if a child is 16 and declares that they want no relationship. Obviously there will be lots of grey areas inbetween but some cases seem very cut and dried.

Sou