The Daily Fail ‘commenters’ are having a field day with this. :|
Yep the Daily Wail is having a field day. But I don’t understand this. Parent B – who apparently does not have to pay maintainance and presumably had gone to court to get this result- had also gone to court earlier to gain a shared residence order with the child. So if she is living in the same house as the child why is she not helping to support the child?
“So if she is living in the same house as the child why is she not helping to support the child?”
It doesn’t mean that. ‘Residence’ is a more acceptable term for ‘custody’. In general, it means that the parent can have continued contact with the child. Nothing to do with houses or residences in the commonly understood way.
I do think it’s strange that B doesn’t wish to help support the child though.
I just dont get this, its a most bazaar ruling.
Could not a unmarried heterosexual parent now challenge paying maintenance under the equality act?
Outraged – If the unmarried hetrosexual partner is not on the birth certificate then no. It’s like if I have a child but then break up with my boyfriend he has no legal right to the child and I can’t ask for payment. It’s fair enough.
This ruling is under the law of England and Wales, and the law in Scotland is very different (I’m glad to say!).
The rule in Scotland is that anyone who has “accepted a child as a child of their family” owes that child a duty of aliment (maintenance) from then onwards. Whether the person is or is not the legal parent of the child does not change that.
So I think it’s very unlikely that a ruling like this would happen in Scotland – I would strongly expect any ruling here in a similar case to go the other way.
I think the Judge got it right in this case – He said it was not for him to change the law, but that the law needed to adapt to changing times.
“If I were to extend the definition to include anyone who has acted as a parent, I do not see how I could properly define the limits of such an extended definition in a way which would provide sufficient legal certainty.”
His hands were tied, but he sent a clear message that this situation needs to be reexamined by the ‘powers that be’.
so one court recognises a special relationship and enforces it through a court order, while another dismisses that relationship but still supports the original order.
At least one of the judges is a total tosser
Cake? Eat it?
That is a conundrum, because the usual case is “this guy knocked up this woman, and they had a kid, because he was the one who get her pregnant it is his child as well and he HAS to pay child support”
I can see how with a gay couple since one of them had no physical part in making the child, AND was not even in any way joined with this other woman aside being a girlfriend (so it seems) it really does set the stage for this outcome. Cause it almost does boil down to a case of one getting pregnant and the other being there as just a partner but not legally bound so to speak.
I don’t know how to work it without sounding like a cold hearted dick, but this does make sense.. If I was with a girl as a boyfriend and she got pregnant through some other means, it would be a horrible abuse of said boyfriend to try and pin him with the child care costs when he had no part.
the (now-ex) girlfriend doesn’t want to contribute to the costs incurred therough a mutual decision, but does want tohave, and legally has, access rights despite having washed her hands of any responsibilities. That is the contradiction here
- ” I want to be a parent , I want equal visitation rites- I have left and moved on . I don’t want to pay but what I do want to do is bang the equal parent drum every day- confusing the heck out of my babies ( that I now call mine) but don’t pay towards their upkeep. I have paperwork giving me the title of ‘parent’ but not the responsibility .