Friday, July 25, 2008

Labour to force fathers to be named.


Does anybody like a busy body? By that I mean those awful, interfering, nosy gossips who spend their whole time trying to tell other people how to live their lives. They think nothing of glibly telling one how to run one's business, love life, home......whilst any close examination of their own situation would leave most people thinking they would never take their advice. However, these people don't wait to be asked for advice or they would wait for ever.

The labour party has become a classic interferer in my opinion. Their time should be spent sorting out their own dismal party. Instead they have decided to legislate that all mothers should be forced to name the father on the birth certificate of their child. Apparently 50 000 children are born each year in Britain and the father's details are missing. Why? Is it not obvious - because either the mother or the father or both do not want his name on the certificate. Why is that then? I can think of a number of reasons:

1. Rape (these men are known as animals)
2. The mother does not know who the father is - either because there is more than one candidate or the parties did not exchange names (these women are often called slags and the men players)
3. SIR (Shag I Regret) unofficial social work term which means that the mother made a mistake and is usually accompanied by -
4. The father does not know of the birth
5. The parents are not speaking - usually because of the pregnancy and the father has already done his best to force the mother to have an abortion (these men are known as PIGS)
6. The pregnancy was an accident - perhaps the father is already in a relationship with someone else (these men are known as bas..... and the women as bitches)

Already there are a lot of judgements made by society attached to single motherhood. Now labour want to force fathers to take responsibility for their children by putting their name on the birth certificate. If only life were that simple! If the mother or father does not comply they will be fined £200.00. Big deal, just take it off my benefits and the only one that will get hurt is the newborn.

The work and pensions secretary James Purnell has outlined his proposed legislation and it is hilarious. See the attached article in the Daily Mail

Mothers who do not want to name the father will have to have GP, Social worker or police backing to prove domestic violence - does Mr Purnell know how much the police cannot stand being dragged into domestic disputes, how overworked they are, how women usually endure 36 episodes of violence before they call the police, how difficult it is to get a conviction? But women will have to prove domestic violence. How? Will there be another trial? Who will be the judge? The registrar?

Apparently, if the mother claims she does not know the father she will have to convince the registrar. How? I suggest that the only way a registrar would know whether a woman was lying or not was if he was there at the point of conception!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Government's aim is to make the collection of child maintenance easier!! Given that the Child Support Agency has failed dismally in collecting from the absent fathers they do know about (95% of absent parents are fathers) then adding to their to do list is not going to increase the amount of money collected.

At the moment it is a relatively straightforward process to register a child's birth which must be done within 42 days of the child's birth and, if the parties are not married the father must accompany the mother or sign a statutory declaration that he is the father. Will they start issuing temporary birth certificates until a full investigation into the mother's claims has taken place? Will the police be sent to arrest a reluctant father who does not want to attend? Will a judge sign the declaration on his behalf? Will the mother have the right to simply name who she chooses? The potential litigation is boundless!!!

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

You forgot reason no 7: You can be forgiven. The same can't be said of the Mail - it was their invention in the first place!!

Mum wants a council flat and a 16-year benefit claim.

Anonymous said...

"95% of absent parents are fathers"

Wow - that is a staggering statistic.

Why are men SO MUCH more likely to be absent parents than women?

Is it because...
1) Men don't love their children as much?
2) Society stereotypes women as childcarers?
3) The law is biased against men in contact and residency hearings?
4) Men have more demanding work commitments?

Maybe it is all of the above?

Wow what a mess we (society) made.

magarlick said...

"95% of absent parents are fathers"

Wow - that is a staggering statistic.

Why are men SO MUCH more likely to be absent parents than women?

Is it because...
1) Men don't love their children as much?
2) Society stereotypes women as childcarers?
3) The law is biased against men in contact and residency hearings?
4) Men have more demanding work commitments?

Maybe it is all of the above?

Wow what a mess we (society) made.



From a Man's view I agree with you.
Maybe it is all of the above?
but not with all men. In my case it was more like number three. The courts hammered me, I believe, for all the other alleged and proven deadbeats that came before me. I always was there for my children financially and more importantly emotionally

checkout http://stopcryingduringdivorce.com