I am shocked having found this new law which will be implemented
In Switzerland starting from 1 st of July.
The nonsense thing about this law is that if you are a single mother , does not matter 3,6,10 years, starting from 1 st of July the father of the child who had never ever lived with the mother and actually had no participation in whatsoever, cud reappear in front of the court and could demand a joint parenthood. The mother, who spent the pregnancy alone , all the birthdays and all the Christmas, all the ilnesseses and all the sleepless nights, will have to
start asking the father who until then did not want to be bothered by the child
his permission / consent on this or that . If not you go to the court. I find this utterly rediculous. Unless the judges do not have a job , and you have to give them one, because I imagine how many people will run to the Court .
I can understand that they give jointed parenthood to divorced or separated people . When you marry , you give vows to each other , so once you are divorced not that I agree but I can understand that the parents should take decisions together . Mind you , couples which are divorced 5 and more years , are excluded from this law. And again the absurd thing , that if you have been divorced for 5 years , the full parenthood will stay with the mother , father has no rights in this case , but if you are a single mother for 7 years , and the only thing that your father did for you to recognize the fatherhood, with this law you need to have the approval of tha father for all the important things con evening the child. I cannot believe such a gross mistake cud have been made by the the Swiss parliament . Any idea of women association / protection of interests?
Not so many such dads will "reappear in front of court". As the court then will bill him for everything not yet paid since the birth of the child, He also will need the approval of the mother for this and that. Swiss courts generally decide in favour of the mother/wife
So that a clear majority of such fathers will keep a good distance from courts Exceptions however may happen. A chap who left as mechanic or plumber and then became an oil-engineer or hotel manager in the Middle East or became a seamn and gradually moved up to the rank of Captain of vessels like
Well, if you went through the pregancy alone, don't put the father on the birth certificate.
Other than that, child custody is sorted at divorce in this country, so another good reason to be married to the father of your child.
In the UK, where I was divorced, child custody is not sorted at divorce, and my ex was being a pain over contact etc so I went to court here and got full custody, BUT, as he is still the father of my child, he still has the right to know what is going on in her life and see her.
Children are 50% each parent, so if you hate the child's other parent, does that mean you hate half your child?
Children have rights, parents have responsibilities, two people made a child, and the child has the right to know both of them, and both of them have the responsibility for raising that child. Wether they like it or not.
P.s. In the UK the default is that both parents need to give consent for 'this and that' and only in court could that be changed.
That most young mothers in such cases have illusions about the future is obvious and totally understandable. And authorities ask about the identity of the father.
To give a positive example. A schoolfriend had to see how his parent divorced when he was 5 to 6. He thereafter lived with his grandmother motherside. His Dad however paid everything, and his grandmum and his aunt preferred to discuss matters with his Dad instead of with his Mum. Whomever knew that family understood WHY !
no no no, you cannot expect mothers to be clairvoyants and the officials mentioned do their duty
It seems an ideology , pure ideology . It s not a real life !
Any responsibility in this life you need to deserve , when you do not do anything , you should not get any responsibility .this is it , because it s very easy to take decisions when you are not directly involved or touched .
In Switzerland lots of men do not want to marry : this is a perfect law for them ,
They can make the child, then disappear for a period of pamperses and sleepless nights , and they can reappear once the child is 5-7 years old .
And in general these sort of men avoid any type of responsibilities , so it s just perfect for them .
And normally the parents do not agree on lots of things that
concern the child while they live together , imagine parents that have no contact finding solutions together .
I think it will be very difficult to implement this law , and this will cause a lot of pain to a lot of people
Well, no one is talking about hating the father of the child and hate in general .
And maybe again , you missed the point, I am saying that according to this law if you are
A divorced mother for 5 and more years , you will keep the full parentship . Because this law says that if for 5 years you stayed alone with the child as a divorced mother , you
Should not be bothered by the joint parenthood . So this category makes exception .
But at the same time if you were a single mother for 5 years, you do not enter in this category . This is just a nonsense
If they're prepared to pay high legal fees, and pay for the expenses of the years they missed.
Children have a right to know their father. Fathers have a right to repent of their wastralness and seek access to their child. I don't see a problem with this law. This law encourages fathers to be involved with their offspring - a good thing.
And a lot of hope for others, who had wanted to be parents but were ripped away from their child (thinking of one specific woman on here who had her child taken away by the father).
Also, not all absent parents are male, and not all absent parents are so out of choice. Some parents wrongly try to punish the other parent by blocking access to their child, even using the fact that they do not pay maintenance as a reason for not letting the parent see that child. However, by punishing the parent, you are also punishing the child, and keeping anger inside you which means you are also punishing yourself.
I know how hard it is to have a co-parenting relationship with an ex partner, we still are not exactly there, although we are amicable in front of our child. The things that you fell for in the other parent are things that are in your child, as are the things that you disliked about the other parent. I see my ex husband in my daughter often, good and bad, and I embrace both, because I love her entirely, completely and without any conditions. I know my ex is not the perfect father, but he also loves my daughter, and my daughter loves him. To deny him access to her, or involvement in her life would be to cut a big piece of HER out too.
And, if you are not married, and the father is a wastrel, running off and abandoning you when pregnant, do not put him on the birth certificate. If hope realised, and he does turn good, then parenthood can be proved later. And, like NotAllThere say's, it might take a few years for them to grow up and be ready and willing to take responsibility. But that responsibilty is not just banning the child from going to a ski-trip, but actually BEING there for a child, the courts won't give veto rights to an absent parent unless they show they want to be involved in a child's life, and if the absent parent does go to court, they won't just get the rights wthout mandated contact, maintainance and other responsibilties.
Thank you ! Have done all that is possible to create the contact between the father and the child, as I understand how important it is.
I am not talking about the visiting rights , I have no problem with that .
I would like to know if you have an answer to the following:
If you are a divorced woman for 5 years , you will keep having this full
Parenthood , the father will not have any right to share it .
They say that during 5 years it has been created sort of routine that they do not want to break . However if you are a single mother for seven years , you will start to share the parenthood .. This is the absurd thing .
We are not talking about visiting rights .
Why a divorced woman shud be left in peace and
A single mother no? On the contrary , when you are married you give vows and promises to each other , which then you break for some reason or other
The feckless fathers who abandoned their kids won't bother with this new step. They distanced themselves for a reason and if they float back into their children's lives they will also have to support them financially, so I guess that will put most off.
However, it will give some bite to those fathers who have been deliberately separated from their kids by a spiteful mother. Maybe the fathers don't know where their kids are and would love to have some say in their upbringing, as well as contribute to their lives financially.
Agree it's an emotive subject but there are always two sides.
Let's face it - there are good parents and there are bad. You cannot force a parent to be part of their kid's life nor can you force a parent to not be part of their kid's life (assuming they're estranged from the other parent).
In your particular case with an unwilling father, I would say you should focus on being a good parent and being there for your child.
And before you have children, consider putting something on the end of it until you know you're both ready.
Clearly you are personally affected by this ruling, so this is why you are emotional about it.
But the flip side is that the fathers have a right to know their children, and children have a right to know their fathers. It is not simply a case of a father turning up after 5 years and then getting everything his way... he has to be prepared to go through a lot of effort, both legally and personally, in order to get some results. If he does in fact care that much to do this, then that has to be worth something.
Of course that does not account for situations where the mother or father are acting maliciously or with ill intentions, but then what does? For every layabout worthless parent that does't deserve to see their kids, there are 10 that do. These things just have to work themselves out, and that is why have courts and a legal system.
We don't know the back story to this. The guy could be a loser. She does say she hasn't got a problem with visiting and has been trying (nay, "imploring") for him to come and see the child so it's leaning towards him being a bit crap.
I guess she's just worried that her interpretation of the new law will mean he will wade in and start re-planning his off-spring's future after she's been through the pain of sleepless nights, tummy bugs, supermarket tantrums, etc.
She just sounds kind of pissed off about it all, which I can understand.
But reading the law, I have no idea how that would be possible. Even as it is stands the father has right to access - so the law doesn't change that. It does however set how conditions on how joint custody should work.
The big one, and obviously relevant in this case, is that both parents have to live within the same catchment for the school.
With the continual increase in relationships ending with children present - ensuring that both sides have the rights to access and custody is essential. But as with any law, their may be "winners" and "losers".