I Am Angry
I was doing some research for my post about marriage, and I came across one of the many things that annoys me. I think I'll be posting in this group a lot with my rants. So without further ado, my first proper rant:
[u][b]Parental Responsibility Law in the UK[/b][/u]
So let's begin with the simple stuff: Fathers don't get automatic Parental Responsibility.
[quote]"All mothers and [u]most fathers[/u] have legal rights and responsibilities as a parent - known as ‘parental responsibility’."[/quote]
What then, does it mean by "Most Fathers"? Well, let's see:
[quote]"A father usually has parental responsibility if he’s either:
- married to the child’s mother
- listed on the birth certificate (after a certain date, depending on which part of the UK the child was born in)"[/quote]
So immediately, we have a problem. The father's DNA makes up half of the baby, just like the mother. But simply because the mother was the one that carried the baby;
[quote]"A mother automatically has parental responsibility for her child from birth."[/quote]
That's just plain wrong. I mean just so, [i]so[/i], wrong. I can't fathom why anyone would think that's a good idea! A father should not have less responsibility for a child simply because he's a man!
But, I will give them some credit.
[quote]"You will have parental responsibility if you're:
- the child's birth mother, or
- the husband of the child's birth mother, or
- the female married partner of the child's birth mother and you are treated as the child's legal - parent, or
- an adoptive parent."[/quote]
So now we see that at least they have equality in their inequality. But this raises questions. If they treat female partners of the birth mother the same way they treat husbands, then it [i]isn't[/i] a gender thing. So what could it possibly be?
Here is where I'm stumped. It's not sexism, so what is it? Seriously, what are you people playing at? Genuinely, I want to know.
But now, to move on to the part of Parental Responsibility law in the UK that [i]really[/i] scares me. The definition. No I'm not kidding. Take a read:
[quote]"Parents with parental responsibility are entitled to have a say in important decisions about a child's life such as the child's home, health, education, religion, name, money and property. Parental responsibility lasts until a child reaches 18 or marries between the ages of 16 and 18."[/quote]
The home, health, and education part is obvious, and fine. I'm not talking about that. What I will talk about is religion, name, money, and property.
[u]Religion[/u]
This is not only scary, but absolutely illogical. It says that "Parents are entitled to have a say in important decisions about a childs life such as the child's [...] religion," and that is terrifying. So parents are allowed to have a say not only in a child's religion, but in decisions about religion too? how does that work? How can a parent possibly decide for a child what they believe? And if they have a say in important decisions, then that can lead to a whole host of problems. But it's so vague, we literally can't know what that means.
[u]Name[/u]
Some of you may be confused by this one. Yes, I'm going to argue that parents shouldn't have a say in their child's name. hear me out. I get choosing a name at birth, that only makes sense. But as is said, this lasts until the age of 18. That means changing your name at the age of 17 requires parental permission. That's crazy! I coud drive a car at 17, but I couldn't change my name without my mum's ok. Speaking of cars...
[u]Money and Property[/u]
This one scares me the most. Parents have a say in important decisions about money and property? So does that mean that my parents, at the age of 17, could have [u]legally[/u] stopped me from buying something? Does that mean that they could have confiscated my car? That's mad! That gives parents far too much power, and for people who were stingy with giving fathers parental responsibility, they're certainly lax with what parental responsibility entails! There really are no freedoms until being 18 or getting married before reaching 18.
And that's my issue. Why does getting married pull people out of this? Surely if they can have responsibility for themselves while married at 16, they can have that responsibility when they're not and they're 16. How does that work? Since when does marrying someone while you're still doing your GCSE's (exams when you're 16 for you non-British people) somehow mean you're a responsible person?
So, Mr David Cameron, I am calling you out on this crap. Do something about it. This is unbelievably unfair to the teenage people of the UK. Controlling their name, money and property is a massive no, but religion is just crossing the final line. Trying to control someone's beliefs is so far beyond wrong I can't even fully express my anger at this right now.
Sources:
- https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/what-is-parental-responsibility
- https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/
[u][b]Parental Responsibility Law in the UK[/b][/u]
So let's begin with the simple stuff: Fathers don't get automatic Parental Responsibility.
[quote]"All mothers and [u]most fathers[/u] have legal rights and responsibilities as a parent - known as ‘parental responsibility’."[/quote]
What then, does it mean by "Most Fathers"? Well, let's see:
[quote]"A father usually has parental responsibility if he’s either:
- married to the child’s mother
- listed on the birth certificate (after a certain date, depending on which part of the UK the child was born in)"[/quote]
So immediately, we have a problem. The father's DNA makes up half of the baby, just like the mother. But simply because the mother was the one that carried the baby;
[quote]"A mother automatically has parental responsibility for her child from birth."[/quote]
That's just plain wrong. I mean just so, [i]so[/i], wrong. I can't fathom why anyone would think that's a good idea! A father should not have less responsibility for a child simply because he's a man!
But, I will give them some credit.
[quote]"You will have parental responsibility if you're:
- the child's birth mother, or
- the husband of the child's birth mother, or
- the female married partner of the child's birth mother and you are treated as the child's legal - parent, or
- an adoptive parent."[/quote]
So now we see that at least they have equality in their inequality. But this raises questions. If they treat female partners of the birth mother the same way they treat husbands, then it [i]isn't[/i] a gender thing. So what could it possibly be?
Here is where I'm stumped. It's not sexism, so what is it? Seriously, what are you people playing at? Genuinely, I want to know.
But now, to move on to the part of Parental Responsibility law in the UK that [i]really[/i] scares me. The definition. No I'm not kidding. Take a read:
[quote]"Parents with parental responsibility are entitled to have a say in important decisions about a child's life such as the child's home, health, education, religion, name, money and property. Parental responsibility lasts until a child reaches 18 or marries between the ages of 16 and 18."[/quote]
The home, health, and education part is obvious, and fine. I'm not talking about that. What I will talk about is religion, name, money, and property.
[u]Religion[/u]
This is not only scary, but absolutely illogical. It says that "Parents are entitled to have a say in important decisions about a childs life such as the child's [...] religion," and that is terrifying. So parents are allowed to have a say not only in a child's religion, but in decisions about religion too? how does that work? How can a parent possibly decide for a child what they believe? And if they have a say in important decisions, then that can lead to a whole host of problems. But it's so vague, we literally can't know what that means.
[u]Name[/u]
Some of you may be confused by this one. Yes, I'm going to argue that parents shouldn't have a say in their child's name. hear me out. I get choosing a name at birth, that only makes sense. But as is said, this lasts until the age of 18. That means changing your name at the age of 17 requires parental permission. That's crazy! I coud drive a car at 17, but I couldn't change my name without my mum's ok. Speaking of cars...
[u]Money and Property[/u]
This one scares me the most. Parents have a say in important decisions about money and property? So does that mean that my parents, at the age of 17, could have [u]legally[/u] stopped me from buying something? Does that mean that they could have confiscated my car? That's mad! That gives parents far too much power, and for people who were stingy with giving fathers parental responsibility, they're certainly lax with what parental responsibility entails! There really are no freedoms until being 18 or getting married before reaching 18.
And that's my issue. Why does getting married pull people out of this? Surely if they can have responsibility for themselves while married at 16, they can have that responsibility when they're not and they're 16. How does that work? Since when does marrying someone while you're still doing your GCSE's (exams when you're 16 for you non-British people) somehow mean you're a responsible person?
So, Mr David Cameron, I am calling you out on this crap. Do something about it. This is unbelievably unfair to the teenage people of the UK. Controlling their name, money and property is a massive no, but religion is just crossing the final line. Trying to control someone's beliefs is so far beyond wrong I can't even fully express my anger at this right now.
Sources:
- https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/what-is-parental-responsibility
- https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/