Re: OT: Random Rant

In article <MRxU7TGP3USHFwXr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter@ps-
fisher.demon.co.uk says...
In communiqué <jgcik35ojtd4ibctgiua5pvd5fpum6gf09@xxxxxxx>, Colin Irvine
<Colin.Irvine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> cast forth these pearls of wisdom

You haven't answered the point that I and WUN, among others, are
making. That whether or not you believe the father has rights over the
child, including knowing that it exists and having a say in its
upbringing, and whether or not you believe the mother should be able
to chase the father for maintenance should go hand in hand. And to
take it a stage further, if the court decides that the father has no
rights then it should also be deciding he has no responsibilities -
both decisions being wrong IMHO.


Under current UK legislation there is a clear distinction between
parental responsibility and financial responsibility. There is no
automatic link. So presumably you and others are calling for a change in
the law. In particular, that being held financially responsible should
automatically grant parental responsibility.

At present, even if a father makes an application for parental
responsibility (assuming he knows there is a child in the first place)
the court will decide to accept or reject the application based on what
it believes is in the child's best interest.

So are you saying the father's interests are more important than the
child's? Will there never be situations in which it is better not to
grant responsibility?

The father's interests are equivalent to the child's. Why should it be
different?

If a woman of independent means were to become pregnant as a result of a
one night stand, and decide to give birth to the child then raise it
without any financial support, should she be under a legal obligation to
name the (putative in some cases) father?

Yes, and she should also have the responsibility to absolve him of any
compulsory financial obligation and to allow him the opportunity to be
involved in the child's life. If he chooses to do so, then he should
bear some financial burden for raising it, although I would draw the
line at the current system of simply extracting money from him and
handing it to the mother.

At present she can legally
register the child as father unknown. The Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions has already suggested that this should change, but once
again, only once safeguards to protect vulnerable women and children
have been put in place.

All fair enough, but what about the vulnerable men and children that are
being damaged right now through the actions of vindictive or selfish
women? Why are the rights of women so much more important?

I don't know the right answer, but I do think the welfare of the child ,
and not necessarily paternity rights acquired by a quick shag, should be
the primary consideration whatever changes are made to the law.

The rights of all 3 should be of equal consideration. to do otherwise is
discriminatory and unfair. If I were to advocate that only the rights of
fathers should be considered I'd be rightly howled down as stupidly
biased, so why is it any different when you claim that the rights of
fathers should be excluded from consideration?

.

Relevant Pages