Options
Vegetarian mother told to let son see meat-eater father or risk losing custody
UKMikey
Posts: 28,728 Forum Member
✭✭✭
http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/11/vegetarian-mother-told-to-let-son-see-meat-eater-father-or-risk-losing-custody-3960109/
Does this lady have a leg to stand on? Surely the boy needs to see his father as well. If he's not vegetarian as she would like that sounds like a poor reason to cut off all contact.Metro wrote:A vegetarian mother who stopped her son from seeing his father for a year in case he was fed meat has been told to let them see each other or risk losing custody.
The unnamed woman said she had legitimate concerns that the strict vegetarian diet of her five-year-old son would compromised.
She challenged a ruling by a family court judge who said the child must be allowed regular overnight and weekend stays with his father.
But at London’s civil appeals court, Lord Justice Underhill said there was ‘nothing even arguably wrong’ with the order.
He also warned the mother that this was her ‘last opportunity’ to remain her son’s primary carer.
The ruling comes after the bitter relationship between the Bristol parents was explored. In court, her barrister, Bryon James, said she believed the father would not make sure their son wore a seat belt.
She had also claimed her former partner insisted on calling their son by another name.
Mr James argued that giving the young boy so much time with his father after a year of separation was ‘too sudden and too steep a progression’ and added the boy and his mother were at risk of emotional harm.
Before the ruling, the barrister also criticised the family judge who handled their case. He said the court had been wrong to hold a gun to the mother’s head after making the ‘latent threat’ of her son being taken from home.
0
Comments
Such as?
why so?
I'm a vegetarian but i've always fed my daughter meat.
FGS don't generalise please. Some are actually normal reasonable people and meat eaters can be just as bad. But it's nutters like this woman and those that go around attacking meat eaters that give vegetarians a bad name. It's so tiring.
I don't know
but it's hard to imagine that any 'not crackers' person would stop their child from seeing their father for such banal reasons.
I'm glad to see the courts starting to at least consider men as suitable primary carers for young children.
It's been a long time coming - though I don't doubt that men's rights still have a long way to go before we can claim any kind of equality.
i can`t see that it`s any different to not liking sprouts [though that is weird right enough] or coffee.
and, conversely, the mother could have agreed that her son could eat meat whilst staying with his father.
Not eating meat is, generally, a life-style choice, not a medical necessity
The prime carer tends to hold all the cards, though, and If I wanted to see my child then I don't see anything wrong with agreeing. As long as the child is healthy then I don't see why the father would make a fuss. I'd say the same if it was the other way around and the father was the main carer.
Also, just to point out that my posts are with regards to this being a genuine concern for the mother, rather than just for spiteful purposes.
poor kid.
edit: missed the gun bit, poor kid x2
Personally, I think men are very bit as capable of taking on those responsibilities and the courts should make no assumptions based on gender.
In this case, as a non-meat/fish-eater, I agree it's a bad reason for trying to deny contact with the father. The report says it's a bitter custody battle so this may be a proxy for the rest of it or just a strand of it. Shame all round.
Is it? Parents who split up can be quite vindictive, spiteful, controlling, etc, etc. It's surely not so hard to imagine that we have to imagine parts of the story that make this justified?