This article was recently shared by one of the Mens Rights groups in the US. They were feeling quite positive about it, from the perspective of fathers, but the truth is probably somewhat different... The original drafts included the phrase, presumption of shared parenting. What finally came out of the wash was a significantly diluted version, using a lot of words to say very little, e.g. there is neither a definition of what constitutes involvement nor what the initial starting point should be. To explain why the presumption of shared parenting clause disappeared, you should understand the current feminist dominated political system here, as well as the overwhelmingly blinkered Fathers Rights movement, dominated by one organisation. Whilst no sane person would ever insist that a presumption of a 50:50 split in parental time was a realistic or practical move, that is exactly what over enthusiastic campaigners did, fuelled by the rantings of the head of the dominant fathers rights group of the day. The feminists groups, (one of the largest recipient groups of govt funding in the UK, of which the govt would appear terrified) happily grasped this unrealistic definition of shared parenting. In doing so, they were able to argue, quite logically, that it would be totally impractical legislation, even though the presumption of shared parenting does not mean 50:50. Unfortunately, naive fathers rights campaigners dug their heels in, rather than put forwards a reasonable counter argument. It is widely accepted that children should spend at least 30% of their time with either parent, in order to nurture a positive parent-child relationship. Clearly, a more reasoned approach to the Children & Families Bill, would have been to argue that the presumption of shared parenting was vital, but that this should be a minimum of 30% with either parent. Straight 50:50 arrangements will, of course, work for some families post-separation, but for many, a more flexible approach is the only way it could work. Unfortunately, this is a clear example of how unrealistic campaign objectives result in abject failure. Change is a slow process and whilst the ultimate aim of fathers rights movements may laudably be 50:50, there are clear steps to take along the way.
Posted on: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:29:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015