Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
If the Met was institutionally racist, the family law system is institutionally sexist and it's shocking that this state of affairs is allowed to persist. On the one hand men are frequently told they're rubbish at being parents and absent fathers are a major factor in youth crime etc. but, on the other, the system prevents those who want to take that role as responsibly as it should be from doing so by denying them any enforceable rights to see their children. Catch 22 or what?
I really fail to see how anyone can dispute the need for children to have proper access to both their parents and preventing that right being recognised and enshrined in law is as unfair as it is bizarre.  |
Great Post
---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
This is where those pesky human rights, esp the right to family life, might well come in useful for some - irrespective of cat ownership.
|
Not Really
Quote:
ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
|
If it's in accordance with the law? Could be argued it's for the protection of the rights of the Mother.
Either way, it's a legal minefield in which the only winner will be a lawyer and the only loser will be the child.