The new rule in Switzerland about the joint parenthood

Daily Life, Swiss News and General Topics
21
Not all mothers are bitter. My mother was and still is. She did everything possible to cut my dad off my life and succeed for many many unforgivable years.

You know what? At the end, it came back and bite her in the rear.

Spitting hatred to the father, brainwashing the kids will never end up well. My dad was (still) a great father and didn't deserve that. But let's not foul ourselves here, there are bad fathers out there and not every angry mother are the bad ones trying to destroy the bound with the father.

22
Please use a proper language . Noone is trying to impede father from seeing the child .

Nonsense . I find it sick that the fathers abandon their children, in 90 pct of the cases it is the fathers who abandon , not mothers

23
Indeed, when I was in court in September, 50/50 was already the ideal, but it was not possible in our case because we live too far apart.

The rule is mainly to stop parents deciding they are going to take their child to places outside the Geneva convention to live without the other parent knowing about it (international child abduction). Or refusing life saving surgery because it's against their religion (a recent case in the UK). and also to provide a legal median between two waring parties that will put the child where it should be, at the centre.

24
Seems like a lot of underwear is becoming seriously entangled for no good reason.

As I understand it... all that's changed is that CH now follows most of Europe in that the custody (i.e. lawful 'ownership') of children is - by default - now jointly shared by both parents.

It used to be the case that the default position was that the mother was awarded sole custody.

This has nothing to do with visitation or support payments which are negotiated (and can be renegotiated) separately.

25
Dario,

Focus on keeping your child and yourself happy. You don't have to like the miserable b**d but try to keep those energy-wasting emotions in a small drawer that you can pull out and then shut again.

Life isn't fair. Some people get lucky and some don't. Accept that fact and consider having your wonderful child as one of the luckiest moments in your life. Be good and fair to your child and love it to bits. Don't ever use it as a pawn in a power struggle for you will lose, as Nil pointed this out well.

Let it go and focus on now and the future. Peace.

26
If, as you say, it is 90% of fathers that abandon, (I can't be bothered to look up the statistics here) that means that 10% of abandoned children have been abandoned by the mother.

I am an active member of a single parents group in the UK, and the heartbreaking stories I hear from the fathers, either those whose partners up and left the kid, or those whose partners up and left with the kid. Both sides of desertion are terrible, but I think it is harder for men on both sides. Those left bringing up baby do not get the support from society that women do, and those that are blocked from seeing their kids are attacked with the double sword of not being able to see their child and being regarded as a deadbeat dad.

I find it sick that PARENTS abandon their children, and I find it sick that PARENTS use children as a weapon.

27
Using children as a weapon is sick. Using your child's nappies as a weapon is more effective and doesn't result in injury to the child.

28

Assuming you remove the nappy from the child first...?

29
Daria - your stated bone of contention is the unequal treatment for divorced as opposed to never-married mothers.

For divorced people there is a 5 year window for the ex-spouse to apply for rights. For never-married parents there is no such limit - the other parent can apply for rights up until the child is 18.

Is that your sole issue? Would you have any problem with this law if it also applied a five year limit for separated unmarried couples?

30
Divorce couple have had child custody etc already discussed in court during the divorce (assuming a Swiss divorce). Hence the limit. So they have already gone and argued their case, their circumstances might have changed a little (divorce is a stressful time and many divorces are highly antagonistic, or the might have dealt with issues that caused the divorce) but if that hasn't happened in the 5 years since the divorce it is unlikely to later.

Separated people do not have this legal history so it is only fair to allow the non-resident parent the same rights a a divorced NRP, that is, a day in court if there is contention.

It sounds to me, in OP's case, the fact that she has tried without success to get NRP to spend time with the child(ren), that the NRP isn't going to go to court to get parental rights enforced. And if he does, she has a evidence of his prior lack of interest in the child(ren) and so could present an alternative to 50-50 based on the status quo.

31
I guess I am a tad confused why OP is so upset. Based on her description of her situation, the father is absent and has no intention of turning up magically just because the law is changing. So this should not affect her (unless he changes his mind).

Also, unless I misunderstand it, the new law doesn't just "flip the switch" on every existing custodial arrangement out there such that every parent magically has joint custody of all their kids, regardless of which parent currently has custody. All it does is allow the non-custodial parent to start proceedings to get joint custody and puts them on an even footing. And in the case of custody issues in the future , it is clearly split 50-50. Or am I wrong?

32
Maybe what's upsetting is the part about being able to make and/or veto decisions about the child, in absentia, without having to live with the consequences of the decisions?

33
If the father has already acknowledged paternity, this is already the case here.

Tom

34
Unless court decides otherwise.

35
Unless there is a reason not too, i.e. Parent is abusive, parents live too far apart etc.

36
No marriage, no court.

Which is why my lawyer friend always recommends that unmarried women do NOT have the father on the birth certificate.

Tom

37
People are confusing custody and authority.

As far as custody is concerned, nothing has changed: it's shared only if both parents agree and it is realistically possible (the parents must live close to each other so the child can easily go to school, etc.).

What is now automatically shared is authority. It means that MAIN decisions (health, education and religion) must be made in agreement between both parents.

38
I guess I'm confused because this is the case in the UK, where whomever is on the birth certificate has these responsibilities automatically (which is why you can not add a father's name unless you are married or the father is present or has sworn something).

Oh, and no divorce = no court? Is that the case here? In the UK parenthood is not related to marital status, and custody is not either, so parents that do not agree will go to court if married or not.

39
In the case of unmarried parents, the mother has to agree to the father claiming paternity.

Also, if the wrong person claims paternity, it can't be changed.

No paternity, no court.

Tom

40
The paternity must be established during the pregnancy, or right after birth. If the mother declares 'father unknown' the judge is allowed to start a procedure to see if he can be found.

And the decisions concerning custody and alimony must be made right after birth, and approved by a judge, whether you live with the father or not.

My OH and I live together and got a baby together, but what will happen in case we split up has already been decided and approved by the judge. It's a bit weird, but why not.