[servo1969]

The Children Act of 1989 specifically declares: ‘The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.’

A year later, a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research called The Family Way saw Harman declare: ‘It cannot be assumed men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion.’

Even now, the Children and Families Act of 2014 doesn’t mention the word ‘father’ once. Not once.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Since when was it rule of law that fathers are “natural” guardians? Women have been given the assumption for a very long time.

(In all mammalian species, females ARE the natural guardians, just by virtue that their belly protects the fetus rather than merely depending on adults watching eggs, but I digress....)

I don’t know about this Child act stuff, but it is indeed a shame if fathers are not mentioned.

I know personally several times where the woman is a total ass, but father had to fight like hell to have custody. It should have been obvious, but default was with the woman, even if she really only went to court to have some kind of status symbol. I don’t really mind the default, but it should not be hard to wrest the child from a fool woman.