A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020
Mon/Fri 9am-8pm       Sat/Sun 2pm-8pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info

Refusal by persons unconnected to child to handove

  • Fiona
  • Fiona's Avatar
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
More
4 years 9 months ago #471384 by Fiona
Regardless of gender this is a matter for the family courts rather than the police/criminal courts. The onus is on your ex to comply with the court order & make the children available at the time ordered. Having PR means she can delegate childcare to someone else & it isn''t child abduction or unlawful retention. Although temporary carers do not have parental responsibility they may do what is reasonable in the circumstances.

Frustrating though it is if it was a once off the best thing is to let it go. It''s usually only worth going back to the family court when recent contact has been flouted at least 3 times without good reason.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • JN48
  • JN48's Avatar Topic Author
  • Expert Boarder
  • Expert Boarder
More
4 years 9 months ago #471393 by JN48
With respect I already am well informed about duty to comply with a court order and the concept of PR. If the mother had been there and not complied and witheld transfer then that would be a breach and remedy would be in the Family Court. That is the Civil issue. Where it potentially changes to something else is when persons ''unconnected" to the child keep or conceal the child. That is not a Civil issue. The mother can delegate authority in some matters she has responsibility for in lieu of her being there herself but I don''t know why you would think it ''reasonable'' for these people to then withold when the dad shows up. That''s very unreasonable. The fact that dad is divorced from their friend is irrelevant. It''s not for them to judge the dad''s fitness on the doorstep or to think about doing the mother a turn and defy dad who supercedes their delegated authority . There isn''t a remedy in the Civil Court I think as it''s not about the mother it''s about those persons ''unconnected'' which the law distinguishes from those with PR. It''s not a particularly good fit for s2 Child Abduction Act admittedly but does fit the definition Prima Facie. There are only limited defences given. Again I''m somewhat shocked that you might think that it''s reasonable conduct for a third party to defy a parent especially one with Residence and a Court order backing him up. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it''s ''reasonable'' to defy the person you know to be the parent entitled to lawful control. And unfortunately it''s not a one off.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Fiona
  • Fiona's Avatar
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
More
4 years 9 months ago #471396 by Fiona
The general policy of the law is that parental disputes about the care of children should be pursued in civil rather than criminal proceedings.

It isn''t unreasonable or a criminal offence to keep children with consent from a parent with PR. If there is a dispute about the consent or how PR is exercised it is a matter for the family courts to resolve.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • JN48
  • JN48's Avatar Topic Author
  • Expert Boarder
  • Expert Boarder
More
4 years 9 months ago #471399 by JN48
Again, as I already stated I do know that Parental disputes over contact and residence are a matter for civil proceedings in the Family Court. The issue is that whilst consent may have been given at an earlier point it is surely extinguished when either parent revokes it. What would you say if the mother who had given that consent had turned up to reclaim them and these people decided that in their judgement the Father should be the one the kids were handed to instead. These are not issues for these third parties to contemplate. The principle of PR supercedes that. It doesn''t matter which parent shows up. For example, children are in Loco Parentis at school . The school is aware that even though the parents are divorced it has no authority in law to withold from a person it knows to be the parent after school is dismissed. They know that to do so is risking a prosecution (and not in the Family Court). Again, I disagree I''m afraid. Whilst consent may have been given earlier there came a point when the children no longer needed to be in their care and it was unreasonable to defy the parent who was entitled to take that responsibility back. It''s not for them to consider any other issues between the parents.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • hadenoughnow
  • hadenoughnow's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
4 years 9 months ago #471402 by hadenoughnow
JN48 you are coming across as pretty hostile. I appreciate you are upset by what happened. It seems to me the main problem is that the mother apparently did not remember the arrangements. She had therefore not made those who were looking after the children aware that you would be coming to collect them. Without an express instruction from the mother to hand them over, they refused to comply.
This is further compounded by the fact it was Christmas when emotions can run high. It does sound like there is still a lot of anger surrounding your ex and her new relationship. This is perfectly understandable.
However, I don''t think threats of legal action and delving through statutes is going to help the situation.
Why not just accept that there was a misunderstanding and discuss with your ex a better way to communicate so this kind of thing doesn''t happen again? It isn''t great for the children to be caught up in all this and they need to be the priority here.
If it is a recurrent problem that you cannot sort out between you, the family courts are there as fall back.

Hadenoughnow

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • JN48
  • JN48's Avatar Topic Author
  • Expert Boarder
  • Expert Boarder
More
4 years 9 months ago #471695 by JN48
There is no intent to be hostile but you and some others appear to miss the point.Being an apologist for the mothers actions or her friends isn''t helping. I asked a simple question. This is because it is NOT the first time and whilst you may find it acceptable to let this sort of behavior pass repeatedly and be humiliated in front of my own children by those without any right to act in this way I take a different view. Believe me I have spent the best part of 4 years trying to reason with the mother and got nowhere. The mother is uncommunicative. Therefore your false assumption that I either do not or am unwilling to act reasonably or to seek cooperation is just that. Should I wish to explore options beyond that to prevent a recurrence from these third parties that is my choice. Should you also believe that it is okay for someone who is not a parent to withold their child from them then you are labouring under a misapprehension. Telling me to in effect suck it up is not really going to work. Basically you are telling me to go yet again cap in hand to the mother who is controlling. Do you imagine for one minute I wanted my children caught up in this. It is amazing. Not one of you appears to have any criticisms of these third parties.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • rubytuesday
  • rubytuesday's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
4 years 9 months ago #471696 by rubytuesday
What action, if any, are you seeking to take against the friend and boyfriend?

You say that there are on-going issues, perhaps if you explain in more details, our members could help you.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11