Repeal Section 97 Children Act1989

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Why is this idea important?

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

ALLOW PARENTS TO CONTEST EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDERS

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

Why is this idea important?

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

ban injunctions preventing non criminal parents contacting their children

Parents with no criminal records  are often served with injunctions forbidding them to contact their own children by email,phone,or face to face.I refer especially to cases where children have been taken from them for "risk of emotional abuse",or for "witnessing domestic violence" (often only verbal) and then forcibly adopted by strangers.

Parents who find out where their adopted children have got to, via facebook,utube,twitter,and other sites are jailed if they so much as wave at their children as they pass by in a car ! The father concerned was a month in jail but eventually his daughter returned to him.

A mother was recently handcuffed publicly and jailed for sending her son a birthday card,and yet another mother was jailed because her brother (without her permission) put photographs of mother and children on a video for utube !

I believe that any judge serving an injunction on any parent who has no criminal record forbidding them even long distance contact with their own children is breaching the Human Rights of both children and parents and there should be legislation to prevent similar injunctions in the future.  

Why is this idea important?

Parents with no criminal records  are often served with injunctions forbidding them to contact their own children by email,phone,or face to face.I refer especially to cases where children have been taken from them for "risk of emotional abuse",or for "witnessing domestic violence" (often only verbal) and then forcibly adopted by strangers.

Parents who find out where their adopted children have got to, via facebook,utube,twitter,and other sites are jailed if they so much as wave at their children as they pass by in a car ! The father concerned was a month in jail but eventually his daughter returned to him.

A mother was recently handcuffed publicly and jailed for sending her son a birthday card,and yet another mother was jailed because her brother (without her permission) put photographs of mother and children on a video for utube !

I believe that any judge serving an injunction on any parent who has no criminal record forbidding them even long distance contact with their own children is breaching the Human Rights of both children and parents and there should be legislation to prevent similar injunctions in the future.  

Childcare and tax allowance

The law could be changed to allow a working parent to take on the pre-tax earning allowance of a home-based parent, in families with children under 5. It might also be helpful to single parents in particular if a grandparent providing unpaid care for child(ren) under 5 could be designated as the 'partner' for this purpose.

Why is this idea important?

The law could be changed to allow a working parent to take on the pre-tax earning allowance of a home-based parent, in families with children under 5. It might also be helpful to single parents in particular if a grandparent providing unpaid care for child(ren) under 5 could be designated as the 'partner' for this purpose.

School funding

There always seems to be a shortage of funding for schools for repairs, cleaning, painting, extensions, extra-curricular activities etc.

However every child has 2 parents. For each child at school both parents should be obliged to contribute 1 hour of free labour per week if required. This could usefully be carried out alongside their children to give a sense of involvement and 'ownership' of the school to reduce vandalism. Paying a fee to opt out should not be allowed to maintain participation regardless of wealth. (obvious exceptions for certain jobs, eg sailors, deployed servicemen)

It would also help parents understand that their children are their responsibility and not something to be dumped on the taxpayer.

Why is this idea important?

There always seems to be a shortage of funding for schools for repairs, cleaning, painting, extensions, extra-curricular activities etc.

However every child has 2 parents. For each child at school both parents should be obliged to contribute 1 hour of free labour per week if required. This could usefully be carried out alongside their children to give a sense of involvement and 'ownership' of the school to reduce vandalism. Paying a fee to opt out should not be allowed to maintain participation regardless of wealth. (obvious exceptions for certain jobs, eg sailors, deployed servicemen)

It would also help parents understand that their children are their responsibility and not something to be dumped on the taxpayer.

Improve local choice for parents to send their children to non-faith, co-educational schools

In some areas almost half the local schools are either faith schools or single-sex. This restricts the choice for parents who wish their children to attend a non-faith, co-educational school. Camden and Hackney are two examples. Often these schools are successful leaving parents with a small choice of less good schools. It has been proven that faith schools discriminate against non-middle class families, increasing social division. The state education system should ensure full choice for all by limiting the number of faith and single-sex schools and ensuring a balance of boys’ and girls’ schools in each area, if indeed we need them at all. Non-faith, co-educational schools attracting fewer applicants should be supported financially to improve, until parents no longer feel the need to pretend to go to church to get their children into a better school.

Why is this idea important?

In some areas almost half the local schools are either faith schools or single-sex. This restricts the choice for parents who wish their children to attend a non-faith, co-educational school. Camden and Hackney are two examples. Often these schools are successful leaving parents with a small choice of less good schools. It has been proven that faith schools discriminate against non-middle class families, increasing social division. The state education system should ensure full choice for all by limiting the number of faith and single-sex schools and ensuring a balance of boys’ and girls’ schools in each area, if indeed we need them at all. Non-faith, co-educational schools attracting fewer applicants should be supported financially to improve, until parents no longer feel the need to pretend to go to church to get their children into a better school.

Family Law: reform needed for divorcing partners

Dear Nick

Having gone through a divorce lasting almost three years, which ended up with a Final Hearing, I think the time has come for a complete overhaul of the law in England and Wales.  The process is not only exceedingly expensive, in part as there is a conflict of interest, in as much as solicitors seem to have little interest in wrapping things up early, hence draining hard earned family resources (money as well as the time and anxiety of one or both parties), but also it lacks any sort of clarity.  For instance, and what stood out in particular for me, was that the law in E&W does not clarify what is and isn't counted as family assets.  Secondly, that after going to court the first time, and having agreed verbally with the judge on certain things, my opposite number changed her mind a week later, resulting in considerable delay and additional expense.  And thirdly, it seems that although it may be fair for the courts to make sure that the welfare and interests of children are given priority, it seems to me that this consideration comes only at the end of the process, after both sides have spent a small fortune on legal fees (money which is no longer available for the family), and the children, despite both sides trying their best to shield them from the process, bearing witness to both parents being put under huge amounts of stress and anxiety as things are dragged on.  I cannot help but contrast our laws in E&W with many other countries in Europe, and even just to look across the border to Scotland, where things are dealt with far more efficiently, and where the law makes it much clearer how divorcing parties should handle their affairs.  In Sweden (just one example), the family assets are split 50:50 in virtually all cases.  Such clarity makes the process both short and cost-eefective.  There is minimal loss of family resources and the strain on parents is minimised.  Changes in the Family Law in E&W are desperately needed but will meet huge resistance from the legal profession as they still see it as a significant part of their work and a big money spinner.  It is too late for me to benefit any changes in this law, but I appeal here for changes to be made as I am sure that it will be in the interests of many many families in the future.  I am also quite certain that it is also in the best interests of children to change family law so the process of divorce is less complicated, provides clarity of process, and so that divorce (in particular the process of splitting assets) is done with minimal of fuss and on a time scale that should take no longer than six months in all but the most complicated (or high value) of cases.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Nick

Having gone through a divorce lasting almost three years, which ended up with a Final Hearing, I think the time has come for a complete overhaul of the law in England and Wales.  The process is not only exceedingly expensive, in part as there is a conflict of interest, in as much as solicitors seem to have little interest in wrapping things up early, hence draining hard earned family resources (money as well as the time and anxiety of one or both parties), but also it lacks any sort of clarity.  For instance, and what stood out in particular for me, was that the law in E&W does not clarify what is and isn't counted as family assets.  Secondly, that after going to court the first time, and having agreed verbally with the judge on certain things, my opposite number changed her mind a week later, resulting in considerable delay and additional expense.  And thirdly, it seems that although it may be fair for the courts to make sure that the welfare and interests of children are given priority, it seems to me that this consideration comes only at the end of the process, after both sides have spent a small fortune on legal fees (money which is no longer available for the family), and the children, despite both sides trying their best to shield them from the process, bearing witness to both parents being put under huge amounts of stress and anxiety as things are dragged on.  I cannot help but contrast our laws in E&W with many other countries in Europe, and even just to look across the border to Scotland, where things are dealt with far more efficiently, and where the law makes it much clearer how divorcing parties should handle their affairs.  In Sweden (just one example), the family assets are split 50:50 in virtually all cases.  Such clarity makes the process both short and cost-eefective.  There is minimal loss of family resources and the strain on parents is minimised.  Changes in the Family Law in E&W are desperately needed but will meet huge resistance from the legal profession as they still see it as a significant part of their work and a big money spinner.  It is too late for me to benefit any changes in this law, but I appeal here for changes to be made as I am sure that it will be in the interests of many many families in the future.  I am also quite certain that it is also in the best interests of children to change family law so the process of divorce is less complicated, provides clarity of process, and so that divorce (in particular the process of splitting assets) is done with minimal of fuss and on a time scale that should take no longer than six months in all but the most complicated (or high value) of cases.

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).

Prosecute The Parents, Not The Child.

Instead of blaming the child and following the, frankly, abusive and immoral policy of child criminal responsibility, perhaps societies attention should be more drawn to the adult parent(s). A child who comits any crime could not possibly have understood, grasped or been influenced by the law due to their age and mental ability.

A child's upbringing is absolutely dependant on their parenting. It defies logic that a child could possibly be guilty of a crime. If a child commits an act of crime it is solely the responsibility of the parent for not bringing them up properly. If the argument is that the parent could not control the child then the adult(s) concerned should not be permitted to keep their children as they are unable to parent properly.

Parenting is the single largest responsibility of life and should be met as such by responsible adults.

In addition, the government must repeal the madness of legislation that utterly prevents them dispensing appropriate and responsible discipline. A child cannot be brought up correctly in society if they have no limitations set before them by their parents and influential adults.

There is no excuse for bad parenting, ever. A child can barely understand the concept of the self much before their teenage years let alone criminal responsibility. It is simply unjust to accuse children of crimes that they cannot even attempt to understand.

the criminal age of responsibility should be 18 and not a moment sooner. Until then the child should be the 100% responsibility of the adult parent(s).

Why is this idea important?

Instead of blaming the child and following the, frankly, abusive and immoral policy of child criminal responsibility, perhaps societies attention should be more drawn to the adult parent(s). A child who comits any crime could not possibly have understood, grasped or been influenced by the law due to their age and mental ability.

A child's upbringing is absolutely dependant on their parenting. It defies logic that a child could possibly be guilty of a crime. If a child commits an act of crime it is solely the responsibility of the parent for not bringing them up properly. If the argument is that the parent could not control the child then the adult(s) concerned should not be permitted to keep their children as they are unable to parent properly.

Parenting is the single largest responsibility of life and should be met as such by responsible adults.

In addition, the government must repeal the madness of legislation that utterly prevents them dispensing appropriate and responsible discipline. A child cannot be brought up correctly in society if they have no limitations set before them by their parents and influential adults.

There is no excuse for bad parenting, ever. A child can barely understand the concept of the self much before their teenage years let alone criminal responsibility. It is simply unjust to accuse children of crimes that they cannot even attempt to understand.

the criminal age of responsibility should be 18 and not a moment sooner. Until then the child should be the 100% responsibility of the adult parent(s).

Education should not be compulsory – at any age

Education should not be compulsory – at any age.

The fact that it is complusory until the age of majority speaks volumes about how unsuitable and unpalatable it is.

Why is this idea important?

Education should not be compulsory – at any age.

The fact that it is complusory until the age of majority speaks volumes about how unsuitable and unpalatable it is.

Parenting Skills v. ASBO’s

First time parents should be made to carry out Parenting Skills courses or Family Nurturing as Sure Start call them.  It should also apply to parents whose children repeatedly offend.  I know this is probably the opposite to what you wish to hear.  However, I strongly feel that anti-social behaviour stems from poor parenting skills and unfortunately, if your parent had poor skills how is the next generation going to thrive or develop.  I came from an upbringing where you were shouted at and hit first and guess what, when I found myself a single parent I did exactly that.  A child mimics its parents behaviour and attitude and if the parent is ill-prepared how can the child be expected to be any better.  I was intelligent enough to know what was happening had to change, but I didn't know how to.  I asked for help, but it took numerous accounts of phoning and asking health visitors before I was referred, I was desperate, if I had been that way inclined, well I don't really want to go there.  These courses should be made more accessible, I went on a 10 week course and made new friends and found new support systems that, just weren't available to me prior because my parents were set in their ways.  I was so set in my ways, I attended the course twice and why not? 

 

However, my point is yes, at first it may sound as though the government may be infringing on other peoples liberties but, in fact if there were some law or policy drawn up where you had to comply with attending these courses, it does in fact liberate the parent.  It could also be introduced into schools as a preventative measure to teenage pregnancies.

Why is this idea important?

First time parents should be made to carry out Parenting Skills courses or Family Nurturing as Sure Start call them.  It should also apply to parents whose children repeatedly offend.  I know this is probably the opposite to what you wish to hear.  However, I strongly feel that anti-social behaviour stems from poor parenting skills and unfortunately, if your parent had poor skills how is the next generation going to thrive or develop.  I came from an upbringing where you were shouted at and hit first and guess what, when I found myself a single parent I did exactly that.  A child mimics its parents behaviour and attitude and if the parent is ill-prepared how can the child be expected to be any better.  I was intelligent enough to know what was happening had to change, but I didn't know how to.  I asked for help, but it took numerous accounts of phoning and asking health visitors before I was referred, I was desperate, if I had been that way inclined, well I don't really want to go there.  These courses should be made more accessible, I went on a 10 week course and made new friends and found new support systems that, just weren't available to me prior because my parents were set in their ways.  I was so set in my ways, I attended the course twice and why not? 

 

However, my point is yes, at first it may sound as though the government may be infringing on other peoples liberties but, in fact if there were some law or policy drawn up where you had to comply with attending these courses, it does in fact liberate the parent.  It could also be introduced into schools as a preventative measure to teenage pregnancies.

Scrap the law that forces all schools to hold an act of (broadly Christian) collective worship every day

Scrap the law that says that all schools must hold an act of (broadly Christian) collective worship every day.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the law that says that all schools must hold an act of (broadly Christian) collective worship every day.

Remove the financial incentive for breaking up families

In our secular society there is no expectation on women to make the relationship with the father of her children work.

On the other hand there are huge financial incentives for a woman to break up her family.

  1. Unless there are singular circumstances, women get custody of the children. For each child of a different father this brings 15% of each of the father's net salary. If the woman has two or more children by a man, then she is entitled to 25% of the father's net salary.
  2. The woman may encourge the attention of another man, because she will gain financially from the money from the father of her children,but also the money from her new man.(This is likely to make the father of her children angry and support her aspirations for more money.)

The woman additionallly received child benefit and usually tax credits. Being a mother is a nice litle earner!!

These are huge financial incentives to break up a family and these benefits are spelt out by the Citizens' Advice Bureau and Relate.

The justification is that "the child's needs must come first", but these arrangements are purely for the benefit of the mother. I have seen my children put into the hands of selfish men who have not a care for my children.

Recommendations

  1. There should be a presumtion that children will spend half their time with their father and their mother and there must be a very strong reason why this is not the outcome.
  2. Women should only receive funding from the father when the mother has been granted more than half of the care of the child.
  3. If a mother co-habits with another man then the woman should not be entitled to payments from the father(s)

The outcome of these recommendations would be as follows.

Women would think carefully before they put their personal wants before the needs of their children.

It would mean that orgasnisations, like Relate would begin to focus on repairing relationships, rather than offering the woman the financial incentives of breaking up their families.

The needs of children would actually be put first and the financial aspirations of selfish women would be the secondary consideration.

Why is this idea important?

In our secular society there is no expectation on women to make the relationship with the father of her children work.

On the other hand there are huge financial incentives for a woman to break up her family.

  1. Unless there are singular circumstances, women get custody of the children. For each child of a different father this brings 15% of each of the father's net salary. If the woman has two or more children by a man, then she is entitled to 25% of the father's net salary.
  2. The woman may encourge the attention of another man, because she will gain financially from the money from the father of her children,but also the money from her new man.(This is likely to make the father of her children angry and support her aspirations for more money.)

The woman additionallly received child benefit and usually tax credits. Being a mother is a nice litle earner!!

These are huge financial incentives to break up a family and these benefits are spelt out by the Citizens' Advice Bureau and Relate.

The justification is that "the child's needs must come first", but these arrangements are purely for the benefit of the mother. I have seen my children put into the hands of selfish men who have not a care for my children.

Recommendations

  1. There should be a presumtion that children will spend half their time with their father and their mother and there must be a very strong reason why this is not the outcome.
  2. Women should only receive funding from the father when the mother has been granted more than half of the care of the child.
  3. If a mother co-habits with another man then the woman should not be entitled to payments from the father(s)

The outcome of these recommendations would be as follows.

Women would think carefully before they put their personal wants before the needs of their children.

It would mean that orgasnisations, like Relate would begin to focus on repairing relationships, rather than offering the woman the financial incentives of breaking up their families.

The needs of children would actually be put first and the financial aspirations of selfish women would be the secondary consideration.

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.

All parents should pay for school trips

As a parent I am dismayed that schools have  to ask for a "voluntary contribution" for a school trip. Some parents then do not pay, yet if the school is to run the trip, all children go on the trip. This means that parents who do pay, subsidise the children of the parents who don't, or the school has to subsidise the trip. Clearly, there are families who are unable to fund school visits due to their financial position, but there are others who take advantage of this situation, and consistently refuse to pay.

I recommend that the law requiring schools to only request this voluntary contribution be repealed, and head teachers be given the power of discression in this matter.

If the current situation remains, the paying parents are  being mocked and a handful of parents take advantage of the situaition to their benefit.

Why is this idea important?

As a parent I am dismayed that schools have  to ask for a "voluntary contribution" for a school trip. Some parents then do not pay, yet if the school is to run the trip, all children go on the trip. This means that parents who do pay, subsidise the children of the parents who don't, or the school has to subsidise the trip. Clearly, there are families who are unable to fund school visits due to their financial position, but there are others who take advantage of this situation, and consistently refuse to pay.

I recommend that the law requiring schools to only request this voluntary contribution be repealed, and head teachers be given the power of discression in this matter.

If the current situation remains, the paying parents are  being mocked and a handful of parents take advantage of the situaition to their benefit.

equal parenting

The law which allows a woman to leave the marital home for no good reason, taking the child or children with her and refusing the father contact should be abolished.

It is an anti-social law and grossly unfair contributing to broken families. Children deprived of their loving father lose a valuable contribution to their lives, do not usually do so well at school and grow up with an unbalanced view of life. Responsibility of a child's upbringing should be shared equally as is the law in other countries.

Put this right now !.

Why is this idea important?

The law which allows a woman to leave the marital home for no good reason, taking the child or children with her and refusing the father contact should be abolished.

It is an anti-social law and grossly unfair contributing to broken families. Children deprived of their loving father lose a valuable contribution to their lives, do not usually do so well at school and grow up with an unbalanced view of life. Responsibility of a child's upbringing should be shared equally as is the law in other countries.

Put this right now !.

Parents Debts

When parents die why do the children have to pay the debts that have been incurred and signed for by the parents when alive, it's not really fare that the children have to pay them when there is no money after everything is sold, the children did not incur the debts, so why should they be held responsible and have to pay them. I believe that when you die so do the debts you have outstanding.

Why is this idea important?

When parents die why do the children have to pay the debts that have been incurred and signed for by the parents when alive, it's not really fare that the children have to pay them when there is no money after everything is sold, the children did not incur the debts, so why should they be held responsible and have to pay them. I believe that when you die so do the debts you have outstanding.

Allow separated parents choice to divide the benefits.

As a mother, my children are cared for by myself and their father (we are no longer together). Currently he receives all the child tax credits and child benefit. i receive nothing. Although whilst in my care i still have to provide food, clothing, shoes, uniforms etc…..

As a result, I have to struggle to make ends meet.

If the government allowed parents to work out, what proportion of the year the child stays with each parent, and then give each parent the appropriate share of their time having the children in accordance to the set amount for that year,

I believe that most families would be better off, and be able to provide alot more for their children. Family life would be happier as, money would no longer be such a major problem in supporting the children.

Why is this idea important?

As a mother, my children are cared for by myself and their father (we are no longer together). Currently he receives all the child tax credits and child benefit. i receive nothing. Although whilst in my care i still have to provide food, clothing, shoes, uniforms etc…..

As a result, I have to struggle to make ends meet.

If the government allowed parents to work out, what proportion of the year the child stays with each parent, and then give each parent the appropriate share of their time having the children in accordance to the set amount for that year,

I believe that most families would be better off, and be able to provide alot more for their children. Family life would be happier as, money would no longer be such a major problem in supporting the children.

Restore parental rights.

Over the last decade we've seen an erosion of parental rights and in a general move toward a "nanny state".

I feel it is outrageous that educational and medical institutions are permitted to offer councilling and products (such as Drug, Bullying, sexual relationship councilling and Condoms or even abortions) to children (I.E under 16 years old) without perental knowledge, let alone their permission.

Whilst I understand some kids seek support where they feel they cannot approach their parents, they are still minors until the age of 16, and are the responsibility of those parents.Some parents may not be interested, but that is no reason to interfere with the overwhelming majority of parents who can make a much bigger, more lasting and more positive difference to their childs' life.

Why is this idea important?

Over the last decade we've seen an erosion of parental rights and in a general move toward a "nanny state".

I feel it is outrageous that educational and medical institutions are permitted to offer councilling and products (such as Drug, Bullying, sexual relationship councilling and Condoms or even abortions) to children (I.E under 16 years old) without perental knowledge, let alone their permission.

Whilst I understand some kids seek support where they feel they cannot approach their parents, they are still minors until the age of 16, and are the responsibility of those parents.Some parents may not be interested, but that is no reason to interfere with the overwhelming majority of parents who can make a much bigger, more lasting and more positive difference to their childs' life.

Fathers Rights and Childrens Rights

I have a few ideas set out below due to the fact that parent and childrens rights require a huge overhaul. The system is in such a mess that more that one change is required.

The process of family breakdown needs to be addressed to ensure that children never loose contact with either parent. Apparently parents have equal rights but this is rarely enforced within a court of law. Changes are to be made if the UK is to progress into a modern state and the following are implemented:

1. The government should make it impossible for resident parents to refuse non-resident parents access to their children. 

 2. Parents should be penalised for discouraging or prohibiting contact between their child and the other parent.

4. Parents who make false allegations on domestic violence should be asked to publicly apologise.

 5. Child maintenance should be withdrawn from parents who refuse non-resident parents access to their child/ren.

 6. Make the process of mediation compulsory and only go to court in exceptional circumstances.

 7. in light on 6. CAFCASS officers to be awarded more power in decision making and act as a representative to the child. Makes the need for an expensive judge, solicitor and barrister unnecessary.

Why is this idea important?

I have a few ideas set out below due to the fact that parent and childrens rights require a huge overhaul. The system is in such a mess that more that one change is required.

The process of family breakdown needs to be addressed to ensure that children never loose contact with either parent. Apparently parents have equal rights but this is rarely enforced within a court of law. Changes are to be made if the UK is to progress into a modern state and the following are implemented:

1. The government should make it impossible for resident parents to refuse non-resident parents access to their children. 

 2. Parents should be penalised for discouraging or prohibiting contact between their child and the other parent.

4. Parents who make false allegations on domestic violence should be asked to publicly apologise.

 5. Child maintenance should be withdrawn from parents who refuse non-resident parents access to their child/ren.

 6. Make the process of mediation compulsory and only go to court in exceptional circumstances.

 7. in light on 6. CAFCASS officers to be awarded more power in decision making and act as a representative to the child. Makes the need for an expensive judge, solicitor and barrister unnecessary.

Rewriting family law to give parents equal rights

Family law is a disgrace and an injustice to thousands of children and their parents.  This must be addressed to give parents equal rights over their children.  Currently many parents lose contact with their children as a result of absurd legislation and a judiciary that is ignorant of the outcomes of their decisions.  The family is an essential element of society and is being totally undermined by the law which serves to divide families and generate hardship for many parents – hardly working in the best interests of children as is claimed.

The Child Support Agency is totally inefficient, the staff intrusive and offensive.  Agencies such as CAFCASS are not acting in the interests of children at all and help to split families.

Major overhaul of the law is needed, not tinkering at the margins.  The idea that grandparents should be considered more fully is laughable given the fact that parents are often divided from their children and the law does nothing to help.

Why is this idea important?

Family law is a disgrace and an injustice to thousands of children and their parents.  This must be addressed to give parents equal rights over their children.  Currently many parents lose contact with their children as a result of absurd legislation and a judiciary that is ignorant of the outcomes of their decisions.  The family is an essential element of society and is being totally undermined by the law which serves to divide families and generate hardship for many parents – hardly working in the best interests of children as is claimed.

The Child Support Agency is totally inefficient, the staff intrusive and offensive.  Agencies such as CAFCASS are not acting in the interests of children at all and help to split families.

Major overhaul of the law is needed, not tinkering at the margins.  The idea that grandparents should be considered more fully is laughable given the fact that parents are often divided from their children and the law does nothing to help.

Mentally disabled parents in Islington not allowed to rear children

I am disgusted that  parents in Islington who have / had a mental condition, or who have a mental disability, are not allowed to live with their child / children, because of recent legistlation changes by the Labour Party, which orders that these children be removed from their disabled parent and offered up for adoption. (ref: Adoption and Childrens' Act, Safeguarding Children Legistlation Islington, Mental Health Act, Disablility Choice and Control Islington, Personal Budgets……)

This is discrimination against the disabled, and infringes on their right to be integrated into society and not to be treated unfavourably, because of  their disability. It is a form of mental abuse of both parent and child, who wish to live with each other, and want to be able to see each other regularly. 

Legistlation should be changed, to allow mentally / physically disabled parents, the right to function with all the support they need ie in the home, as parents. Local authorities should be compelled to provide support of the parent in the home eg a live in Childcarer.

Scorning the mentally disabled has got to stop, starting with abolishing the legistlation, that forces the removal of children from parents, often by aggressive Police and Social Workers. The forced adoption of these children caused by legistlation / laws, should also be abolished. It is simply inhumane and fails to recognise the mental wellbeing of the disabled parent. It discriminates and is not  in line with the parenting allowed by the physically disabled.

Why is this idea important?

I am disgusted that  parents in Islington who have / had a mental condition, or who have a mental disability, are not allowed to live with their child / children, because of recent legistlation changes by the Labour Party, which orders that these children be removed from their disabled parent and offered up for adoption. (ref: Adoption and Childrens' Act, Safeguarding Children Legistlation Islington, Mental Health Act, Disablility Choice and Control Islington, Personal Budgets……)

This is discrimination against the disabled, and infringes on their right to be integrated into society and not to be treated unfavourably, because of  their disability. It is a form of mental abuse of both parent and child, who wish to live with each other, and want to be able to see each other regularly. 

Legistlation should be changed, to allow mentally / physically disabled parents, the right to function with all the support they need ie in the home, as parents. Local authorities should be compelled to provide support of the parent in the home eg a live in Childcarer.

Scorning the mentally disabled has got to stop, starting with abolishing the legistlation, that forces the removal of children from parents, often by aggressive Police and Social Workers. The forced adoption of these children caused by legistlation / laws, should also be abolished. It is simply inhumane and fails to recognise the mental wellbeing of the disabled parent. It discriminates and is not  in line with the parenting allowed by the physically disabled.