To amend the law which automatically gives Parental Responsibility to mothers

To restore the civil liberty of fathers, where their name was entered onto their child’s Birth Certificate prior to 01/12/2003, so that they automatically receive Parental Responsibility for that child (as they would have done if their child was born after 01/12/2003).

Why is this idea important?

To restore the civil liberty of fathers, where their name was entered onto their child’s Birth Certificate prior to 01/12/2003, so that they automatically receive Parental Responsibility for that child (as they would have done if their child was born after 01/12/2003).

parents responsibility for their children

Many parents these days do not back the school when their children are accused of wrong doing. 

We should adopt the same system as used in France, where parents have to sign a contract to the effect that they,(the parents), will ensure their children will obey the school rules. The school rules are set out in full on the contract. It is also written into the contract what the consequences will be if the rules are not upheld.

In this way the parents, the children and the school know where they stand. 

Why is this idea important?

Many parents these days do not back the school when their children are accused of wrong doing. 

We should adopt the same system as used in France, where parents have to sign a contract to the effect that they,(the parents), will ensure their children will obey the school rules. The school rules are set out in full on the contract. It is also written into the contract what the consequences will be if the rules are not upheld.

In this way the parents, the children and the school know where they stand. 

Remove the requirement to notify the government of “private fostering”

If I were to arrange for my 15 year old child to stay with a friend for 28 days over the summer holidays, I would be legally obliged ot notify the government, and a social services would need to assess the friends my child is staying with.

Parents should be able  to make arrangements for their childrens' care without unnescessary interference from the government. The requirement to notify the government of "private fostering" should be removed.

Parents are responsible for the welfare of their children and the government should not intervene in private child care arrangenents unless there is reason to suspect a child may be at risk of harm.

There is even a government web site which encourages citzens to snoop on each other in order to report suspected cases of "private fostering" which the government may be unaware of.

This site should be abolished to save costs.

Why is this idea important?

If I were to arrange for my 15 year old child to stay with a friend for 28 days over the summer holidays, I would be legally obliged ot notify the government, and a social services would need to assess the friends my child is staying with.

Parents should be able  to make arrangements for their childrens' care without unnescessary interference from the government. The requirement to notify the government of "private fostering" should be removed.

Parents are responsible for the welfare of their children and the government should not intervene in private child care arrangenents unless there is reason to suspect a child may be at risk of harm.

There is even a government web site which encourages citzens to snoop on each other in order to report suspected cases of "private fostering" which the government may be unaware of.

This site should be abolished to save costs.

Bring back the cane to restore order in schools

 
 

More than 20 years after corporal punishment was banned in state schools, many teachers said it was acceptable to hit children "in extreme cases".

The majority of those backing the cane said it was needed to crackdown on bad behaviour in British schools.

It follows a Government-backed study last year which found many parents believed discipline had deteriorated since the cane was abolished.

In the latest poll, 20.3 per cent of teachers said it should be reintroduced.

One supply teacher told researchers: "Children's behaviour is now absolutely outrageous in the majority of schools. I am a supply teacher, so I see very many schools and there are no sanctions. There are too many anger management people and their ilk who give children the idea that it is their right to flounce out of lessons for time out because they have problems with their temper. They should be caned instead."

And a primary teacher, said: "There is justification, or an argument, for bringing back corporal punishment, if only as a deterrent. I believe some children just don't respond to the current sanctions."

The Times Educational Supplement surveyed 6,162 teachers.

Support for a return to corporal punishment was strongest among secondary teachers, with 22 per cent backing the idea compared with 16 per cent of those in primary schools.

But support was lower among senior staff – head teachers and deputies – with just 12 per cent supported the caning of pupils.

The cane was abolished in state schools in 1987 and 1998 in the fee-paying sector.

John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Thankfully, corporal punishment is no longer on the agenda, except in the most uncivilised countries. I am sure that this barbaric punishment has disappeared forever."

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "Violence against children is clearly unacceptable and illegal."

Why is this idea important?

 
 

More than 20 years after corporal punishment was banned in state schools, many teachers said it was acceptable to hit children "in extreme cases".

The majority of those backing the cane said it was needed to crackdown on bad behaviour in British schools.

It follows a Government-backed study last year which found many parents believed discipline had deteriorated since the cane was abolished.

In the latest poll, 20.3 per cent of teachers said it should be reintroduced.

One supply teacher told researchers: "Children's behaviour is now absolutely outrageous in the majority of schools. I am a supply teacher, so I see very many schools and there are no sanctions. There are too many anger management people and their ilk who give children the idea that it is their right to flounce out of lessons for time out because they have problems with their temper. They should be caned instead."

And a primary teacher, said: "There is justification, or an argument, for bringing back corporal punishment, if only as a deterrent. I believe some children just don't respond to the current sanctions."

The Times Educational Supplement surveyed 6,162 teachers.

Support for a return to corporal punishment was strongest among secondary teachers, with 22 per cent backing the idea compared with 16 per cent of those in primary schools.

But support was lower among senior staff – head teachers and deputies – with just 12 per cent supported the caning of pupils.

The cane was abolished in state schools in 1987 and 1998 in the fee-paying sector.

John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Thankfully, corporal punishment is no longer on the agenda, except in the most uncivilised countries. I am sure that this barbaric punishment has disappeared forever."

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "Violence against children is clearly unacceptable and illegal."

Abolish laws which prevent the disabled from parenting

The disabled can parent with support. Currently the mentally disabled parent is not allowed to live with their child nor to see there child regularly. This causes emotional and mental harm to children and there parents.. This defeats the objective of the the law in itself of preventing harm to children. So it should be abolished

Why is this idea important?

The disabled can parent with support. Currently the mentally disabled parent is not allowed to live with their child nor to see there child regularly. This causes emotional and mental harm to children and there parents.. This defeats the objective of the the law in itself of preventing harm to children. So it should be abolished

Right of each and every child born in UK to know his/her biological parents

I believe the very first right of a child is being able to know who his or her biological parents (i stress parents, both man and woman) are. I can understand that there are exceptional circumstances like rape in which case the identity of one parent may be concealed from the child.

 

It is weird that we live in an age where we have the right to know details as to who manufactured a product worth less than a pound. However, a child born outside wedlock is in the dark as to the two individuals responsible for his/her birth, unless born to a married couple or those in civil partnership.

 

Current Law: As i understand, under current UK (and i presume most of Europe) law, if a couple is married or in civil partnership both parents have to register their names as parents of the child. However, if the couple is neither in marriage nor civil partnership, the mother has the right to decide whether or not to include the father's (man) name.

 

My Petition: My conviction and argument is that each and every child (irrespective of whether he or she is born to parents who are married, in civil partnership or neither) has the right to know both biological parents. I know in many cases the mother may herself not know who the father is but shouldn't every effort be made under law to ensure that every child born in this country (and hopefully in the world) knows both biological parents? Does not the right of the child in this case supersede the rights of one parent who does not wish to disclose the information about the other parent? I use the term mother and father for everyone who has a child.

 

In a nutshell, are we not discriminating against children born outside wedlock or civil partnership by letting their mother choose whether or not to disclose the father's name? Also, it is possibly a discrimination against women as well in that they are forced to have parental responsibility of a child whereas the father (man) goes scot-free.

 

In cases where the woman fears her or the child’s safety, the man (father) should lose the privilege of having contact with either of them but continue to bear the responsibility of supporting the child just as it happens in certain divorce cases. This way the child’s expenses is taken care first by his/her biological or adopted parents and only in exceptional cases by others. This would also reduce burden of the taxpayer as there will be no single parent anymore as even if the second parent of the child is not physically present, he/she will be forced to support the maintenance of the child, just as a divorced parent would.

I believe if this is set right, a lot of social ills blighting our society will be a thing of the past.

Why is this idea important?

I believe the very first right of a child is being able to know who his or her biological parents (i stress parents, both man and woman) are. I can understand that there are exceptional circumstances like rape in which case the identity of one parent may be concealed from the child.

 

It is weird that we live in an age where we have the right to know details as to who manufactured a product worth less than a pound. However, a child born outside wedlock is in the dark as to the two individuals responsible for his/her birth, unless born to a married couple or those in civil partnership.

 

Current Law: As i understand, under current UK (and i presume most of Europe) law, if a couple is married or in civil partnership both parents have to register their names as parents of the child. However, if the couple is neither in marriage nor civil partnership, the mother has the right to decide whether or not to include the father's (man) name.

 

My Petition: My conviction and argument is that each and every child (irrespective of whether he or she is born to parents who are married, in civil partnership or neither) has the right to know both biological parents. I know in many cases the mother may herself not know who the father is but shouldn't every effort be made under law to ensure that every child born in this country (and hopefully in the world) knows both biological parents? Does not the right of the child in this case supersede the rights of one parent who does not wish to disclose the information about the other parent? I use the term mother and father for everyone who has a child.

 

In a nutshell, are we not discriminating against children born outside wedlock or civil partnership by letting their mother choose whether or not to disclose the father's name? Also, it is possibly a discrimination against women as well in that they are forced to have parental responsibility of a child whereas the father (man) goes scot-free.

 

In cases where the woman fears her or the child’s safety, the man (father) should lose the privilege of having contact with either of them but continue to bear the responsibility of supporting the child just as it happens in certain divorce cases. This way the child’s expenses is taken care first by his/her biological or adopted parents and only in exceptional cases by others. This would also reduce burden of the taxpayer as there will be no single parent anymore as even if the second parent of the child is not physically present, he/she will be forced to support the maintenance of the child, just as a divorced parent would.

I believe if this is set right, a lot of social ills blighting our society will be a thing of the past.

dont ell me how to disipline my kids

we should not be told we cannot smack our children,obviosly i dont like physical punishment,iwas smacked it has not hurt me any,most kids now cause trouble and crime because there is no dicipline

Why is this idea important?

we should not be told we cannot smack our children,obviosly i dont like physical punishment,iwas smacked it has not hurt me any,most kids now cause trouble and crime because there is no dicipline

Scrap perverse laws extending parental rights past age of majority

Amend the general definition of "parent" in education law, by replacing the phrase "parent" with the phrase "relevant person", as defined below:

"relevant person" means –

(a) in relation to a pupil under the age of 18, a parent of the pupil;
(b) in relation to a pupil who has attained that age, the pupil. 

The definition of "parent" in section 576 of the Education Act 1996 would remain the same.

This simple change would allow 18-year-old men and women attending school to take their own decisions over their own education, as the adults they are.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the general definition of "parent" in education law, by replacing the phrase "parent" with the phrase "relevant person", as defined below:

"relevant person" means –

(a) in relation to a pupil under the age of 18, a parent of the pupil;
(b) in relation to a pupil who has attained that age, the pupil. 

The definition of "parent" in section 576 of the Education Act 1996 would remain the same.

This simple change would allow 18-year-old men and women attending school to take their own decisions over their own education, as the adults they are.