Comments on: Amending the Register http://pinktape.co.uk/2008/06/amending-the-register/ a blog from the family bar Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:14:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: familoo http://pinktape.co.uk/2008/06/amending-the-register/#comment-271 familoo Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:59:13 +0000 http://legalfamily.wordpress.com/?p=110#comment-271 @Nick Langford - but from your last para I take it you are actually in favour of the proposals? @Nick Langford – but from your last para I take it you are actually in favour of the proposals?

]]> By: Nick Langford http://pinktape.co.uk/2008/06/amending-the-register/#comment-270 Nick Langford Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:42:55 +0000 http://legalfamily.wordpress.com/?p=110#comment-270 In addition to wondering how the legislation will work in practice, I am puzzled why the government is introducing this at all and why it is introducing it now. It would seem at odds with all other family policy from this government. It has arisen as a child support enforcement issue, but PR is not a prerequisite for child support liability and the CSA will chase you regardless, though this may make their jobs a little easier. It is certainly the case that in contested contact disputes fathers without PR have an additional hurdle to jump and experience further delay, but I can't see this government being inspired to make life simpler for fathers in the courts. The introduction of the PR legislation in the Children Act by Hale (or whover it was) gives mothers the option to erase fathers (but not vice versa) and I would have thought a government which talks about 'women's equality' would approve of that. My view is that both parents should be recorded on a birth certificate as a straightforward matter of fact, and the issue should not be turned into a child support, child protection or any other form of political football. In addition to wondering how the legislation will work in practice, I am puzzled why the government is introducing this at all and why it is introducing it now. It would seem at odds with all other family policy from this government.

It has arisen as a child support enforcement issue, but PR is not a prerequisite for child support liability and the CSA will chase you regardless, though this may make their jobs a little easier.

It is certainly the case that in contested contact disputes fathers without PR have an additional hurdle to jump and experience further delay, but I can’t see this government being inspired to make life simpler for fathers in the courts.

The introduction of the PR legislation in the Children Act by Hale (or whover it was) gives mothers the option to erase fathers (but not vice versa) and I would have thought a government which talks about ‘women’s equality’ would approve of that.

My view is that both parents should be recorded on a birth certificate as a straightforward matter of fact, and the issue should not be turned into a child support, child protection or any other form of political football.

]]>