You are the Judge...

[Billy the Fish]

When the thread started though I thought the outcome was going to be something ludicrous that no one would guess. It's a bit like me saying "guess what I did when I got home from work last night"

*Leaves one day*






I had dinner and watched telly

 

[Uncle Buck]

Frankly I feel even that would be something of an anti-climax, TLO.

Maybe it explains the military helicopters?

 

[The Large One]

Frankly I feel even that would be something of an anti-climax, TLO.

Really? When I was told the story, I thought it incredible that a woman is being hindered in starting a new job and a new life with her son by the fact that there is someone else who has a lot of money, and who wants nothing to do with the woman, but everything to do with her (not his) son. How can someone who is not the parent have claims on a child over and above someone who is?

It's probably just the way I tell the story.

 

[bhanutz]

what a load of old shit that was!

 

[The Large One]

what a load of old shit that was!

What's it to you?

 

[bhanutz]

a load of old shit!

 

[Yorkie]

Really? When I was told the story, I thought it incredible that a woman is being hindered in starting a new job and a new life with her son by the fact that there is someone else who has a lot of money, and who wants nothing to do with the woman, but everything to do with her (not his) son. How can someone who is not the parent have claims on a child over and above someone who is?

I agree. It is a strange judgement.

 

[DTES]

Really? When I was told the story, I thought it incredible that a woman is being hindered in starting a new job and a new life with her son by the fact that there is someone else who has a lot of money, and who wants nothing to do with the woman, but everything to do with her (not his) son. How can someone who is not the parent have claims on a child over and above someone who is?

It's probably just the way I tell the story.

Well I'm with you TLO, at least. I think that's a bit wierd.

 

[cjd]

It would be great if the woman moves away and refuses access, so man B gets custody................then woman rekindles love for man A. So woman and man A (the biological parents) have no child, but pay maintenance, and man B has child.........Brilliant...!

 

[tedebear]

Really? When I was told the story, I thought it incredible that a woman is being hindered in starting a new job and a new life with her son by the fact that there is someone else who has a lot of money, and who wants nothing to do with the woman, but everything to do with her (not his) son. How can someone who is not the parent have claims on a child over and above someone who is?

It's probably just the way I tell the story.

How bizarre - it is incredible - was the judge trying to "create" a Dad for this poor kid? Be interesting to hear/read his judgement to see if there are any clues as to his reasoning...

To be honest I did ponder that that was what the judgement would be...

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The answer...

Man B has been granted access rights, and the woman has a court order banning her from moving away from the area with her child. There is no judgement regarding Man A.

That's not dissimilar to my judgement.

It's interesting that the biological father has no obligations placed upon him. I think most people would assume that the law would require him to "accept his responsibilities". In this case, it hasn't.

And - on the facts of the case - quite right too. In my opinion.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

It should get exciting when the woman breaks the court order and moves her and her child to somewhere where she wants to be, rather than where the court tells her to be.

I would deal with that by giving custody of the child to Man B.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

It would be great if the woman moves away and refuses access, so man B gets custody................then woman rekindles love for man A. So woman and man A (the biological parents) have no child, but pay maintenance, and man B has child.........Brilliant...!

And - quite plainly - this is the outcome that would be "in the best interests of the child".

Which is how the law SHOULD work.

Living with a biological parent who doesn't want to look after the child's interests is hardly the basis for a good life.

 

[Buzzer]

Living with a biological parent who doesn't want to look after the child's interests is hardly the basis for a good life.

completely agree. On a wider point, what's best for any child is to grow up in an environment where they are loved and cherished. Gay, lesbian, mormon, single parent whatever. f***ing pisses me right off when my fellow Tories get on their high horses about heterosexual relationships within a marriage being best for a child.

 

[NMH]

So, exactly what I SAID would be the outcome

 

[ditchy]

That will almost certainly be challenged as it infringes her human rights !!

Quick get Cherie on the case !!

 

[The Large One]

Interestingly, the wishes of the child do not come into play here, as he is considered too young. If the child was older (not sure how much older he has to be before the law states his opinion can be taken into conisderation), it's possible he may have chosen differently.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Interestingly, the wishes of the child do not come into play here, as he is considered too young. If the child was older (not sure how much older he has to be before the law states his opinion can be taken into conisderation), it's possible he may have chosen differently.

But why would he considering that he has never met Man A, and considers Man B to be his father