Parenting plans why no reponse from Paul, JW or Kevin Owen
John Hill
Following the discussions of the last few weeks iro ESP et al I would
like to make a few suggestions, modifications, statements
Any comment I make starts from the basis that the ultimate model is an
intact family and that parents have a joint, several and equal
responsibility for their children. Any order is random
1. Parental responsibility is that of the bio parents unless they
or an appropriately qualified authority decide that it should not be
and then only if ratified by the courts
2 The legal system has no place in family matters except
a. To ratify agreements between parents
b. To add a power of enforcement over existing agreements
3. The government has no place in family matters except
a. To, from time to time establish a base line financial
support Standard State Assessment (SSA) figure for children and a
basis of variation. This should be a survival figure for neccesities,
designer trainers, TV's etc are discretionary spending.
b. Any other duties they have to society at large
4 Negotiated Parental Duty should be established post seperation
a. As a matter of urgency
b. From a 50% shared care basis as the default and base line
(1) Variations on 50% can be arbitrated
(2) 50% is a duty and variations need to be funded
(3) Funding should be as a % of care eg 50/50 is
funding neutral, 60/40 10% of the SSA changes hands 70/30 15% changes
hands.
(4) Children should have input to any variations and
this should be scaled according to age.
(5) If one parent is on benefits the state picks up
their share of the SSA
5. There is a duty of spousal maintainence
a. Blame should be allowed as a mitigation
You are constrained from claiming JSA if you quit your job, why
should you claim SM if you quit your family ?
b. There is an equal duty on the maintained spouse to obtain
paid employment and prove the efforts
c. This obligation for spousal maintainance should reduce
as the children age reflecting decreasing needs of childcare.
d. This duty should cease when the children quit the 6th
form or full time education.
e Transfer of assets is a mitigating factor
6. Any form of violence or abuse is criminal matter
a. There needs to be a statutory obligation on the police
and CPS to make a speedy decision on whether there is a case to answer
b. If a case is to go to court for prosecution then that
court may make a direction that supervised contact be ordered. This
based on Police evidence.
c. Adult on adult DV should not normally be recognised as
child abuse.
The parties should be treated as independent, self determining adults.
The only constraints on their behaviour should be a parenting plan and
penalties for failing to conform to that. No social engineering, no
CSA
John Hill
Kevin Owen
intitally. I thought it was a wind up more than anything else. Anyway, I
suppose the gruesome twosome will take me down a peg or two.
John Hill <john...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3779078a...@news.clara.net...
>
> Following the discussions of the last few weeks iro ESP et al I would
> like to make a few suggestions, modifications, statements
>
> Any comment I make starts from the basis that the ultimate model is an
> intact family and that parents have a joint, several and equal
> responsibility for their children. Any order is random
>
> 1. Parental responsibility is that of the bio parents unless they
> or an appropriately qualified authority decide that it should not be
> and then only if ratified by the courts
If I understood what this meant then I may or may not agree with it. Are you
saying that PR is not available to Grand P's, step P's etc.
> 2 The legal system has no place in family matters except
> a. To ratify agreements between parents
> b. To add a power of enforcement over existing agreements
What will be the alternative to sort out contact etc problems?
> 3. The government has no place in family matters except
> a. To, from time to time establish a base line financial
> support Standard State Assessment (SSA) figure for children and a
> basis of variation. This should be a survival figure for neccesities,
> designer trainers, TV's etc are discretionary spending.
Isnt this basically what the CSA do now?
> b. Any other duties they have to society at large
Like at the moment, in theory anyway.
> 4 Negotiated Parental Duty should be established post seperation
> a. As a matter of urgency
Agreed
> b. From a 50% shared care basis as the default and base line
> (1) Variations on 50% can be arbitrated
> (2) 50% is a duty and variations need to be funded
Bullshit, needs of the child first, play with percentages after!
>
> (3) Funding should be as a % of care eg 50/50 is
> funding neutral, 60/40 10% of the SSA changes hands 70/30 15% changes
> hands.
Will there be an ability to pay formula?
> (4) Children should have input to any variations and
> this should be scaled according to age.
Needs to be added to point 2 above.
> (5) If one parent is on benefits the state picks up
> their share of the SSA
where have I heard that one before?
> 5. There is a duty of spousal maintainence
> a. Blame should be allowed as a mitigation
Excellent move for moving forward and looking to the future, NOT! So after
the months of finger pointing etc apportioning blame then agreement will be
reached? Get real.
> You are constrained from claiming JSA if you quit your job, why
> should you claim SM if you quit your family ?
Becuase there could be reasons for quitting the family.
> b. There is an equal duty on the maintained spouse to obtain
> paid employment and prove the efforts
Agreed
> c. This obligation for spousal maintainance should reduce
> as the children age reflecting decreasing needs of childcare.
SM, yes CM no.
> d. This duty should cease when the children quit the 6th
> form or full time education.
Why?
> e Transfer of assets is a mitigating factor
Why?
> 6. Any form of violence or abuse is criminal matter
> a. There needs to be a statutory obligation on the police
> and CPS to make a speedy decision on whether there is a case to answer
Rushed decisions, botched jobs, dangerous people around kids, the present
system needs to be improved not go two steps forwards and two steps back.
> b. If a case is to go to court for prosecution then that
> court may make a direction that supervised contact be ordered. This
> based on Police evidence.
As is the case at the moment.
> c. Adult on adult DV should not normally be recognised as
> child abuse.
Research shows that kids who witness DV become disturbed. If Adult V Adult
occurs then why should that relationship continue?
>
> The parties should be treated as independent, self determining adults.
> The only constraints on their behaviour should be a parenting plan and
> penalties for failing to conform to that. No social engineering,
Paranoia!
no
> CSA
Even less maintenance for some kids and worse press for us Deadbeat Dads.
It was your comment that if I could not be positive about things then i
should not contribute. But then when I dont contribute you get all sarcy.
Come on then girls, come and get me.
Kevin
>
>
> John Hill
John Ward
>
>Following the discussions of the last few weeks iro ESP et al I
>would like to make a few suggestions, modifications, statements
>
>Any comment I make starts from the basis that the ultimate
>model is an intact family and that parents have a joint, several
>and equal responsibility for their children. Any order is random
Nothing in this post appears to be about "Parenting Plans" as I understand
them. And I thought that I had introduced them to the NG.
So I'll follow this post with an updated view of Parenting Plans.
(If you don't see anything - it is because my ISP has lost the posts
again!).
John Ward
John Ward
potentially adversarial approach to deciding residence & contact issues. It
is a composite of existing principles in UK & elsewhere plus a negotiating
scheme proposed for resolving industrial disputes.
Rather than define the objectives in terms of results like "equal shared
care" or whatever, they are in terms of "Co-operative Parenting", where
perhaps "equal shared care" (or some totally different result) would be the
result of co-operation & not be a precondition.
The details below are neither a complete nor a coherent set. They should be
thought of as a starter kit, and can also be cherry-picked for alternative
proposals.
OBJECTIVES
- Provide incentives for co-operative attitudes likely to lead to agreement.
Provide disincentives for extreme attitudes likely to lead to competition &
conflict.
- Courts only become involved when mediation or other methods fail to
achieve agreement.
- Ensure that each parent [1] has an equivalent role in the process. Neither
is to have a "superior" position which the other has to challenge.
- Encourage each parent to consider the future from all perspectives,
including the children and the other parent.
- Restrict the scope of the courts to choosing within the "envelope" of both
parents' proposals, and not dictate other plans.
PROCESS
Where parents can't agree:
- Each parent submits a Parenting Plan. (Otherwise a parent runs the risk of
the other parent's Plan being accepted by default - although this is not
necessarily the case).
- The court hears each parents' arguments for & against.
- The court can select one Parenting Plan & reject the other; or it can
reject both Parenting Plans.
- In the latter case it will give reasons & make suggestions for resolution.
(Eg. "you are close to agreement"; or "the court will not accept your Plan
unless xyz").
- During the process, joint custody of some form continues.
- The court may choose one Plan because the process has gone on too long;
there is no incentive to delay matters indefinitely.
EVALUATION RULES
The Parenting Plans will be judged on:
- Children's wishes where practical.
- Children's social factors.
- Consideration for both parents' wishes where practical.
- Financial considerations.
- Issues of employment, travel, accommodation, etc.
- Local facilities & amenities, etc.
See [2] for some useful lists.
There will be some presumptions:
- Parenting Plans which propose extreme positions will not succeed.
- Unless there are adverse factors (which must be spelled out & are
appealable) parents have residence for between 40% & 60% each.
- Where practical, "Continuity of Parenting" is preferred.
- Financial arrangements should be based on researched costs & expenditure
on children, & take into account ability to pay.
- Parents are expected to have jobs where practical, according to the ages
of the children.
- Financial arrangements where either parent is on means-tested benefits
will conform to benefit law & regulations.
IMPLEMENTATION
- Parenting Plans are only to be enforced if a parent wants it. There is no
court intervention without a complaint.
- Complained-of defaulting on the Plan results in "catch up" within a year.
----------
[1] NOTES
- "Parent" means "person who has been parenting"; not restricted to bio &
adoptive & foster parents.
- Violence & abuse (including joint abuse) needs to be catered for, but are
not considered here.
----------
[2] Some USA Acts & Statutes:
Alabama Joint Custody Statute
http://www.divorceinfo.com/aljtcustodystatute.htm
Arizona Senate Bill 1368
http://www.ananews.com/legislative/bills/SB1368.htm
District of Columbia's New Joint Custody of Children Act
http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/mhndocs/JointCustodyDC97.html
Wisconsin Divorce Law Custody
http://www.wis-law.com/custody.html
----------
John Ward
fried
wrote:
>This is an attempt to sketch out an alternative to the UK's existing
>potentially adversarial approach to deciding residence & contact issues. It
>is a composite of existing principles in UK & elsewhere plus a negotiating
>scheme proposed for resolving industrial disputes.
>
>Rather than define the objectives in terms of results like "equal shared
>care" or whatever, they are in terms of "Co-operative Parenting", where
>perhaps "equal shared care" (or some totally different result) would be the
>result of co-operation & not be a precondition.
ie social engineering, trying to manipulate people by using incentives such
as being able to live with their children (ie blackmail of the worst sort)
as inducements to behave in a way which some outside authority judges to be
the preferable way to bring up children.
Simply on the grounds that over the last half century or so, professionals
in the field of childcare have so often been proved hideously wrong (for
instance in the time when it was thought better to leave children to cry in
silent rooms or feed them at strict intervals, or feed them artificial milk
substitues, etc.), simply on these grounds this sort of plan has got to be
worse than allowing people to bring up children in a free and uncoerced
manner, unless they are severely abusing their children.
Answer these arguments square on, or continue as you have so far done to
ignore them.
Apart from these fundamental caveats, your plan is as good as any other one
which introduces the threat of state coercion into childcare.
Julian
steve.lumb
John Ward wrote in message <3762...@news2.vip.uk.com>...
negotiating
>
>OBJECTIVES
it seems to me that this is actually what happened in my case - the
submissions to the court were based on parenting plans, and yes, we went to
court because we could not agree (which I believe is true in many cases and
I have to say that my experience of mediation left me with a bad taste). The
judge decided based on parenting plans, and the risk to a YOUNG child of an
upheaval in his life.
But in all this I have never attempted to exclude his mother from his life,
and I also truly believe that if she had gained residency she would not have
done that to me either. I just wish from reading the comments on this
newsgroup that this was the case all over.
Steve
fried
wrote:
>But in all this I have never attempted to exclude his mother from his life,
>and I also truly believe that if she had gained residency she would not have
>done that to me either. I just wish from reading the comments on this
>newsgroup that this was the case all over.
Yes it's something that needs to be addressed. There's nothing worse than a
mad judge in conjunction with a parent determined to dominate their child's
life completely.
Julian
>
>Steve
>
>
John Hill
wrote:
>Nothing in this post appears to be about "Parenting Plans" as I understand
>them. And I thought that I had introduced them to the NG.
You had, however they got lost in a fog of pedantry over CS
"4 Negotiated Parental Duty should be established post seperation
a. As a matter of urgency
b. From a 50% shared care basis as the default and base line
(1) Variations on 50% can be arbitrated
(2) 50% is a duty and variations need to be funded
(3) Funding should be as a % of care eg 50/50 is
funding neutral, 60/40 10% of the SSA changes hands 70/30 15% changes
hands.
(4) Children should have input to any variations and
this should be scaled according to age.
John Hill
wrote:
> Where practical, "Continuity of Parenting" is preferred.
Unless there has been a long delay and alternative parenters become
entrenched (mother's boyfriend springs to mind. but not exclusively)
John Hill
John Hill
wrote:
>- Financial arrangements where either parent is on means-tested benefits
>will conform to benefit law & regulations.
And it is all based on child's need not parent's greed
John Hill
John Hill
wrote:
>- Parenting Plans are only to be enforced if a parent wants it. There is no
>court intervention without a complaint.
All Plans to be lodged with an appropriate authority, and "rubber
stamped" to have the force of a court order.
This is not CS and any other system would allow abuse and complicate
matters at a latter date should one parent become awkward. Again the
entrance of M's BF might be a point at which this happens - nothing
like an instant and desertable family eh ?
John Hill
John Hill
wrote:
>- "Parent" means "person who has been parenting"; not restricted to bio &
>adoptive & foster parents.
How would this be defined ? Difficult imo
John Hill
Kevin Owen
John Ward <john...@iclweb.com> wrote in message
news:3762...@news2.vip.uk.com...
>
> OBJECTIVES
>
> - Provide incentives for co-operative attitudes likely to lead to
agreement.
> Provide disincentives for extreme attitudes likely to lead to competition
&
> conflict.
>
> achieve agreement.
Would this not require some formal agency to offer mediation? The last thing
that is needed is people latching on to the fact that there is more money to
be made and mediation services croping up left right and center without a
proper watchdog.
>
> - Ensure that each parent [1] has an equivalent role in the process.
Neither
> is to have a "superior" position which the other has to challenge.
Spot -on!
>
> - Encourage each parent to consider the future from all perspectives,
> including the children and the other parent.
Dont know how you would encourage this though.
>
> - Restrict the scope of the courts to choosing within the "envelope" of
both
> parents' proposals, and not dictate other plans.
And not give blaze comments into the bargain as well.! (sorry, had to get
that one in)
>
> PROCESS
>
> Where parents can't agree:
>
> - Each parent submits a Parenting Plan. (Otherwise a parent runs the risk
of
> the other parent's Plan being accepted by default - although this is not
> necessarily the case).
>
> - The court hears each parents' arguments for & against.
>
> - The court can select one Parenting Plan & reject the other; or it can
> reject both Parenting Plans.
>
> - In the latter case it will give reasons & make suggestions for
resolution.
> (Eg. "you are close to agreement"; or "the court will not accept your Plan
> unless xyz").
>
> - During the process, joint custody of some form continues.
>
> - The court may choose one Plan because the process has gone on too long;
> there is no incentive to delay matters indefinitely.
>
> EVALUATION RULES
>
> The Parenting Plans will be judged on:
>
> - Children's wishes where practical.
Define "practical"
>
> - Children's social factors.
High priority.
>
> - Consideration for both parents' wishes where practical.
Is this a different practical to that above?
>
> - Financial considerations.
Such as? I initially thought you were looking at travel etc but that one's
below.
>
> - Issues of employment, travel, accommodation, etc.
>
> - Local facilities & amenities, etc.
>
> See [2] for some useful lists.
>
> There will be some presumptions:
>
> - Parenting Plans which propose extreme positions will not succeed.
Why not? It may well be that in certain cases it would be best for the
child. Cant think of any but I dont think the door should be closed to any
position.
>
> - Unless there are adverse factors (which must be spelled out & are
> appealable) parents have residence for between 40% & 60% each.
Yuch! is this percentage of the total time (i.e. 365 days per year) or does
it take into account social factors such a the child's social life?
Kevin
John Hill
wrote:
>> - Parenting Plans which propose extreme positions will not succeed.
>
>Why not? It may well be that in certain cases it would be best for the
>child. Cant think of any but I dont think the door should be closed to any
>position.
Only if agreed - perhaps ?
John Hill
John Hill
wrote:
>Yuch! is this percentage of the total time (i.e. 365 days per year) or does
>it take into account social factors such a the child's social life?
>
The child's social life is one consideration. I believe, though that
we are in a society where children's whims have become overriding.
Perhaps all parties need equal input and children need to learn about
compromise amongst other social skills.
>Kevin
Kevin Owen
their parents are seperated. We're back to the situation where it would not
happen in a "normal" family. Of course there are times when the family must
come first but at the end of the day the kids have their own lives as well.
I agree about children's whims though. But kids can longer roam as I was
able to (breakfast in the morning and my parents wouldnt see me till
tea-time) and they need to be compensated for this somehow. They need to be
kids and do childish things. (So do I sometimes!)
Kevin
John Hill
wrote:
>Yes, but should they have to compromise their activities purely because
>their parents are seperated. We're back to the situation where it would not
>happen in a "normal" family. Of course there are times when the family must
>come first but at the end of the day the kids have their own lives as well.
Yes, but in intact families they have to compromise, or the parents
become inn keepers and taxi drivers. It requires a degree of
flexibility from all parties which will not happen in an adversarial
system.
John Hill
John Hill
wrote:
>I agree about children's whims though. But kids can longer roam as I was
>able to (breakfast in the morning and my parents wouldnt see me till
>tea-time) and they need to be compensated for this somehow. They need to be
>kids and do childish things. (So do I sometimes!)
I never understood this. Are kids not roaming because we read more, in
the media, about bad things happening, or because there really are
more bad things to happen ?
John Hill
Kevin Owen
Bit of both really I think.
It's a good question though John. Are there more crimes against children now
than say 20 years ago.
I would think there is.
Kevin
>
> John Hill
>
John Hill
wrote:
>Bit of both really I think.
>
>It's a good question though John. Are there more crimes against children now
>than say 20 years ago.
>
>I would think there is.
I think there, probably isn't. What about 50 years, 100 years ago ?
John Hill
Kevin Owen
Thanks John
For some reason when I tried to open this message my machine crashed, not
once but five times.
Are you going to share your secret? How do you do it?
Kevin
John Hill
wrote:
>Are you going to share your secret? How do you do it?
Voodoo
John Hill
Kevin Owen
Do you do contract work?
Kevin
John Hill
wrote:
>>
>> >Are you going to share your secret? How do you do it?
>>
>> Voodoo
>
>Do you do contract work?
No my venom is pretty unidirectional
John Hill
fried
>
>John Ward <john...@iclweb.com> wrote in message
>news:3762...@news2.vip.uk.com...
>>
>> OBJECTIVES
>>
>> - Provide incentives for co-operative attitudes likely to lead to
>agreement.
>> Provide disincentives for extreme attitudes likely to lead to competition
>&
>> conflict.
>>
>> - Courts only become involved when mediation or other methods fail to
>> achieve agreement.
>
>Would this not require some formal agency to offer mediation? The last thing
>that is needed is people latching on to the fact that there is more money to
>be made and mediation services croping up left right and center without a
>proper watchdog.
Personally I think the fraework, the rights and responsibilities framework,
is all important here. It will shape the sort of services which are needed.
>> - Ensure that each parent [1] has an equivalent role in the process.
>Neither
>> is to have a "superior" position which the other has to challenge.
>
>Spot -on!
This implies some sort of equality - ie equal choices ....
>> - Encourage each parent to consider the future from all perspectives,
>> including the children and the other parent.
>
>Dont know how you would encourage this though.
The parenting plan and joint residence stuff from the US does encourage
this...
>> EVALUATION RULES
>>
>> The Parenting Plans will be judged on:
>>
>> - Children's wishes where practical.
>
>Define "practical"
Exactly.
>> - Unless there are adverse factors (which must be spelled out & are
>> appealable) parents have residence for between 40% & 60% each.
>
>Yuch! is this percentage of the total time (i.e. 365 days per year) or does
>it take into account social factors such a the child's social life?
And what is the child's social life? At least for the first years of a
child's life, social life is under the watchful eye or actively engaged with
the adults who look after the child, their friends and families.
Julian
Kevin Owen
fried <fr...@aesops.force9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3764e6d8...@usenet.force9.net...
> On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:23:41 +0100, "Kevin Owen" <ke...@nowhere.near>
wrote:
does
> >it take into account social factors such a the child's social life?
>
> And what is the child's social life? At least for the first years of a
> child's life, social life is under the watchful eye or actively engaged
with
> the adults who look after the child, their friends and families.
>
> Julian
>
It's a difficult one as, like the point you have made, kids under say five
are under the wing, three yeasr later they can (taking boys for example)
start playing football, rubgy, scouts (do they still exist?) etc.
These are an important part of the make-up of the child as they promote
independence and improved interaction with other children (idealy anyway)
Kevin
fried
>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:30:46 +0100, "Kevin Owen" <ke...@nowhere.near>
>wrote:
>
>>I agree about children's whims though. But kids can longer roam as I was
>>able to (breakfast in the morning and my parents wouldnt see me till
>>tea-time) and they need to be compensated for this somehow. They need to be
>>kids and do childish things. (So do I sometimes!)
>
>I never understood this. Are kids not roaming because we read more, in
>the media, about bad things happening, or because there really are
>more bad things to happen ?
1. Because of cars and box-lives - lack of public safe you feel secure in.
2. Because of changing perspectives
3. Because of breakdown, social attack on small bonded human units
We are brought up to be individually self-centred. This is actually one
reason why I disagree fundamentally with giving children a separate or
competing voice to their parents, arbitrated by some public authority.
Speaking as a parent and a person who would always, always want encourage my
daughter to kow and speak her own mind, and would treat her wishes as just
as valid as my own in most cases.
Julian
>
>John Hill
>
Pat Winstanley
wrote:
>And what is the child's social life? At least for the first years of a
>child's life, social life is under the watchful eye or actively engaged with
>the adults who look after the child, their friends and families.
And from the time the child is about 4 or 5 years old the balance
swings madly the other way!
Pat Winstanley
fried
>> And what is the child's social life? At least for the first years of a
>> child's life, social life is under the watchful eye or actively engaged
>with the adults who look after the child, their friends and families.
>>
>It's a difficult one as, like the point you have made, kids under say five
>are under the wing, three yeasr later they can (taking boys for example)
>start playing football, rubgy, scouts (do they still exist?) etc.
They can, yes, but in fact they may still do better if quite a large amount
(not all) of this time is semi-within the sphere of adult carers.
>
>These are an important part of the make-up of the child as they promote
>independence and improved interaction with other children (idealy anyway)
I think you have to have a balance, and I actualy think that with mandatory
public schooling (1880s) we already went far too far in the direction of
making the unmoderated peer group of children only your own age (and
normally only your own sex) the main thing.
Julian
>
>Kevin
>
>
>
fried
Winstanley) wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:29:53 GMT, fr...@aesops.force9.co.uk (fried)
>wrote:
>
>>And what is the child's social life? At least for the first years of a
>>child's life, social life is under the watchful eye or actively engaged with
>>the adults who look after the child, their friends and families.
>
>And from the time the child is about 4 or 5 years old the balance
>swings madly the other way!
Or another way of looking at it may be that suddenly the child is in "big
school". Surely a complete coincidence?
Julian
>
>Pat Winstanley
>
John Ward
[snip]
>John,
>it seems to me that this is actually what happened in my case -
>the submissions to the court were based on parenting plans,
>and yes, we went to court because we could not agree (which
>I believe is true in many cases and I have to say that my
>experience of mediation left me with a bad taste). The judge
>decided based on parenting plans, and the risk to a
>YOUNG child of an upheaval in his life.
PLEASE post more!
Nearly everything I know about Parenting Plans came from the USA (plus what
I've added myself). I now have lots of URLs about Parenting Plans, including
the District of Columbia standard form for a Parenting Plan.
Parenting Plans appear to play a significant part in their Joint Custody
acts & statutes. I feel that they are moving away from trivia such as
details of amounts of parenting time, etc, and trying to gain a more
complete picture of what benefits the child & its parents. (And all three
are important).
My knowledge of Parenting Plans in the UK is really based on what SPIG say
about Parenting Plans:
http://home.clara.net/spig/p-plans/plans.htm
Perhaps Parenting Plans will be another crazy idea which will fall on its
brains in the next few years. But at the moment, they appear to be an
approach with some experience behind them. And we are in need of this.
>But in all this I have never attempted to exclude his mother from
>his life, and I also truly believe that if she had gained residency
>she would not have done that to me either. I just wish from
>reading the comments on this newsgroup that this was the case all over.
Increasingly it appears to be the case that courts will take into account
WHO will be most co-operative in enabling the involvement of the other
parent, & who will thwart the other parent's involvement. And will act
accordingly. And quite right!!
John Ward
John Ward
>
>Unless there has been a long delay and alternative parenters
>become entrenched (mother's boyfriend springs to mind. but
>not exclusively)
Yes. The process needs to reduce delays (eg. to less than 6 weeks, but
certainly to the point where it CANNOT be claimed that there is a de facto
case for continuity).
It is appalling when the legal process itself is so slow that it results in
de facto decisions even before it comes to its own decision. (In USA terms -
this fails "due process").
"Continuity of Parenting" needs to apply continuously (as its name implies).
John Ward
John Ward
>to bio & adoptive & foster parents.
>
>How would this be defined ? Difficult imo
Yes, hard.
Probably 90% (or 99% - I don't know) of the time it will be the biological
parents or the legal substitute such as adoptive parents.
Then in 1% or 10% of the time the people who have the emotional attachment
to the children, & who the children themselves see as their
supporters/upbringers, may be someone else. So we need a separate process to
identify these people & establish their rights, whatever they are. I think
we have this in part - cf. the Bramleys.
But we can't manage without this extra process. Hard, yes - but we can't
duck - we need it.
John Ward
John Ward
>> is no >court intervention without a complaint.
>
>All Plans to be lodged with an appropriate authority, and
>"rubber stamped" to have the force of a court order.
Probably, yes.
One USA state says "it is not required that parents are perfect". A Plan is
not in breach for the odd cock-up. But persistent breaches DO need to be
taken into account.
Presumably the court would need a more convincing Parenting Plan next time!
John Ward
John Ward
[snip]
>> - Courts only become involved when mediation or other methods
>>fail to achieve agreement.
>
>Would this not require some formal agency to offer mediation? The
>last thing that is needed is people latching on to the fact that there
>is more money to be made and mediation services croping up left
>right and center without a proper watchdog.
No idea. I haven't thought about mediation.
>> - Ensure that each parent [1] has an equivalent role in the
>>process. Neither > is to have a "superior" position
>>which the other has to challenge.
>
>Spot -on!
I suspect that this is one of the key features here. Not one parent trying
to obtain contact, but two parents presenting their own views of the future,
with neither in the driving seat.
>> - Encourage each parent to consider the future from all
>>perspectives, including the children and the other parent.
>
>Dont know how you would encourage this though.
Parenting Plans which considered this would be more likely to be accepted
rather than rejected. THAT will concentrate the mind!
[snip]
>> EVALUATION RULES
>>
>> The Parenting Plans will be judged on:
>>
>> - Children's wishes where practical.
>
>Define "practical"
Can't say. I haven't thought enough about it. What do YOU think?
>> - Children's social factors.
>
>High priority.
Depends on age. When older, high priority. When younger - they may not even
remember the disruption.
>> - Consideration for both parents' wishes where practical.
>
>Is this a different practical to that above?
Can't say. I haven't thought enough about it.
>> - Financial considerations.
>
>Such as? I initially thought you were looking at travel etc
>but that one's below.
Child Support (a better off parent with 40% time may need to pay money to a
60% parent on benefits).
>> There will be some presumptions:
>>
>> - Parenting Plans which propose extreme positions will
>>not succeed.
>
>Why not? It may well be that in certain cases it would be
>best for the child. Cant think of any but I dont think the
>door should be closed to any position.
True. There should be standard evaluation criteria (eg. "within the range
40%-60%") but these are simply factors to be taken into account.
If a a parent says "65% & ŁX & these holidays & I'll get him to very
important football match & I'll send the other parent a box of chocolates on
Mo/Father's Day" ... this may turn out to be the best Parenting Plan!
(And the other parent is free to try again next year!)
>> - Unless there are adverse factors (which must be spelled out
>>& are appealable) parents have residence for between 40% &
>>60% each.
>
>Yuch! is this percentage of the total time (i.e. 365 days per year)
>or does it take into account social factors such a the child's
>social life?
To be justified in the Parenting Plan. It is a sales brochure - why you
should buy my Plan, not the the one. "I'm good for the children & both
parents, more so that then other parent who is only interested in
him/herself."
John Ward
John Hill
wrote:
>Yes. The process needs to reduce delays (eg. to less than 6 weeks, but
>certainly to the point where it CANNOT be claimed that there is a de facto
>case for continuity).
>
>It is appalling when the legal process itself is so slow that it results in
>de facto decisions even before it comes to its own decision. (In USA terms -
>this fails "due process").
This should not be a legal issue. Why involve lawyers ?
John Hill
wrote:
>Then in 1% or 10% of the time the people who have the emotional attachment
>to the children, & who the children themselves see as their
>supporters/upbringers, may be someone else. So we need a separate process to
>identify these people & establish their rights, whatever they are. I think
>we have this in part - cf. the Bramleys.
Did they ever get to adopt the children ?
John Hill
John Ward
>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:23:41 +0100, "Kevin Owen" <ke...@nowhere.near>
>wrote:
>
>>> - Parenting Plans which propose extreme positions will not
>>>succeed.
>>
>>Why not? It may well be that in certain cases it would be
>>best for the child. Cant think of any but I dont think the
>>door should be closed to any position.
>
This is the most likely case, yes.
The court should be judging within the "envelope" of both parents Parenting
Plans. If both Plans are largely in agreement, but the agreement isn't
within 40% - 60%, it looks as though the result needs to outside 40% - 60%.
Otherwise BOTH parents will be pissed off, and the children are not likely
to be happy with that. (There are reports that joint custody is to the
advantage of the children only where the parents are co-operative).
John Ward
John Ward
[snip]
>This is actually one reason why I disagree fundamentally
>with giving children a separate or competing voice to
>their parents, arbitrated by some public authority.
>
>Speaking as a parent and a person who would always,
>always want encourage my daughter to kow and speak
>her own mind, and would treat her wishes as just as valid
>as my own in most cases.
Para 1 says that children's voices can't be arbitrated by some public
authority.
Para 2 says that your daughter's views are as valid as yours in most cases.
So although her views have this validity - she is forced to rely on you for
her views to be expressed.
And what if you didn't express them? Then someone whose views were mostly as
valid as yours would be suppressed by you.
What is the solution? It sounds as though we need a public authority to
enable your daughter's views, which as you say are mostly as valid as yours,
to be expressed even if you choose not to let be expressed. (Indeed - what
right would you have not to let them be expressed?)
John Ward
John Ward
>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:23:41 +0100, "Kevin Owen" <ke...@nowhere.near>
>wrote:
>
>>does it take into account social factors such a the child's social life?
>>
>we are in a society where children's whims have become overriding.
>Perhaps all parties need equal input and children need to learn about
>compromise amongst other social skills.
One of the purposes behind Parenting Plans is to take into account, and
present, the views & needs of all parties.
None should have an overwhelming view - not the mother, not the father, not
the children.
John Ward
fried
wrote:
>John Hill wrote in message <377ecc74....@news.clara.net>...
You are suggesting that children should have the right and responsibility to
make their own decisions, partially?
At what age?
What decisions?
On what basis?
Julian
fried
wrote:
>>>> - Parenting Plans which propose extreme positions will not
>>>>succeed.
>>>
>>>Why not? It may well be that in certain cases it would be
>>>best for the child. Cant think of any but I dont think the
>>>door should be closed to any position.
>>
>>Only if agreed - perhaps ?
>
>
>This is the most likely case, yes.
>
>The court should be judging within the "envelope" of both parents Parenting
>Plans. If both Plans are largely in agreement, but the agreement isn't
>within 40% - 60%, it looks as though the result needs to outside 40% - 60%.
>Otherwise BOTH parents will be pissed off, and the children are not likely
>to be happy with that. (There are reports that joint custody is to the
>advantage of the children only where the parents are co-operative).
Which planet did you say you came from? This is essentially the law as it
presently stands.
Julian
fried
wrote:
>fried wrote in message <37652cc4...@usenet.force9.net>...
Kindly elucidate. I "think" you are on the right track in your
understanding, although you are putting it in extreme terms which are not
helpful to any reasoned debate.
Julian
John Ward
>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:33:18 +0100, "Kevin Owen" <ke...@nowhere.near>
>wrote:
[snip]
>>It's a good question though John. Are there more crimes against
>>children now than say 20 years ago.
>>
>>I would think there is.
>
>I think there, probably isn't. What about 50 years, 100 years ago ?
[I've changed the title because someone in news:uk.legal was asking about
the definition of murder/homicide].
It is worth a periodic visit to the House of Commons Library Research pages:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98.htm
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99.htm
A recent topic concerned Homicide Statistics (and defined homicide).
I won't post its contents (go look for yourself), & it doesn't actually give
a definitive answer.
It says that most homicide against children is against those under 1, which
is not about murdering children walking in the park. The next group is
against boys of (I think) 16 or more.
I think there is a growth in such murders, but there is also a significant
growth in the numbers of these children.
My guess is that on the whole there hasn't been a massive increase, but with
cars there is increased opportunity both to commit murder & for parents to
avoid the risk; and the media needs to sell column inches. There is also a
greater focus on blame.
I suspect that children are NOT at greater risk, but parents ARE. So they
cover their backside (or avoid the microscopic chance of a crime, while
leaving their children to grow up without an adequate experience of life &
its adventures).
John Ward
Pat Winstanley
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:50:47 +0100, "John Ward" <john...@iclweb.com>
>wrote:
>
>>John Hill wrote in message <377ecc74....@news.clara.net>...
>>>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:23:41 +0100, "Kevin Owen" <ke...@nowhere.near>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yuch! is this percentage of the total time (i.e. 365 days per year) or
>>>>does it take into account social factors such a the child's social life?
>>>>
>>>The child's social life is one consideration. I believe, though that
>>>we are in a society where children's whims have become overriding.
>>>Perhaps all parties need equal input and children need to learn about
>>>compromise amongst other social skills.
>>
>>
>>One of the purposes behind Parenting Plans is to take into account, and
>>present, the views & needs of all parties.
>>
>>None should have an overwhelming view - not the mother, not the father, not
>>the children.
>
>You are suggesting that children should have the right and responsibility to
>make their own decisions, partially?
>
Why not? They are people in their own right after all and have their
own likes and dislikes. They aren't robots!
>At what age?
At the level of maturity commensurate with the decisions in question.
For instance even a toddler can have preferences of, say, apples over
bananas, Dad rather than Mum to do the cooking and Mum rather than Dad
to do the bedtime story etc!
As they get older the relevant decisions are more likely to lie with
what their peer group is doing and their own personal interests...
should the child join the brownies or the football team, learn to
ice-skate or learn to play the piano etc.
>
>What decisions?
As above. It will vary from time to time and vary across children and
vary across age/maturity.
>
>On what basis?
On the basis that the children are people too. They should have an
input into decisions about their lives, even if they are overruled.
Kids generally don't have sufficient judgement yet to discern which
decisions are important for their welfare and which are simply
decisions about unimportant (to others) things.
Kids gradually learn not only that going to school isn't negotiable
but which leisure activities they undertake can be, they also
gradually learn why one is negotiable and not the other.
Similarly they can learn that some decisions regarding what they do
and with whom and when in split families may not be negotiable, but
others are.
However they should always have the right and opportunity to express
preferences and expect their preferences to be taken into account
where it is reasonable to do so.
Pat Winstanley
fried
Sounds about the same as what I said.
At every point you are basically showing clearly that the parent is deciding
which decisions a child can or cannot make.
This is as opposed to vague, pleasant-sounding generalities about children's
rights and views. The child doesn't seem to have many rights not moderated
by their parent, but the right to express their views and have them listened
to.
We can all talk about these things in a vague and sweet-sounding way, but
this is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the law.
Julian
Pat Winstanley
wrote:
>At every point you are basically showing clearly that the parent is deciding
>which decisions a child can or cannot make.
Yes.
However I would assume the child's preferences matter as default and
THEN look at why they might *have* to be overruled.
You appear to be looking at it from the other way round - assume the
child's preferences don't matter unless you happen, as a parent, to be
feeling generous that particular day.
Pat Winstanley
fried
No, that's not the way I think. But maybe I'm setting the framework with a
view to what adults (including those not even in the family) may do to
circumscribe the adults' lives with the child.
Julian
>
>Pat Winstanley
>
John Hill
Winstanley) wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:31:45 GMT, fr...@aesops.force9.co.uk (fried)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:50:47 +0100, "John Ward" <john...@iclweb.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>John Hill wrote in message <377ecc74....@news.clara.net>...
>>>>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:23:41 +0100, "Kevin Owen" <ke...@nowhere.near>
What do young goats have to do with this ?
>Pat Winstanley