25% RISK OF LOOSING THE CHILDREN
It is apparent from the parliamentary report preceding the law (Parental Responsibility Act) that the purpose of this law is to build a new norm. The law is made with the purpose of sending a signal to the population. Thus, it is a “signal law”.
The aim it to prevent that men are marginalized following a divorce.
The primary purpose thus is equal rights. The primary purpose is NOT the best interst of the child. This partly explains that the discourse has shifted. We used to talk about “nurturing, stability and protection” when we talked about “the best interst of the child”. Now, we talk about “rights”.
Even if the law is an equal rights law, where you should be able to talk about gender, a taboo against discussing gender was introduced at the same time. To the public institutions of divorce, there is no difference between a mother and a father. They do not consider who has been the primary bondholder or the primary caretaker. In other words: When placing the children, there is an advantage given to the parent who spent the least time at home. Otherwise, this parent would not have equal rights.
This principle is demonstrated by our Minister of Equal Rights, Mr Manu Sareen, when he is quoted by women’s magazines for saying that now, following his divorce, his kids sometimes eat in the Parliament’s restaurant with his secretary. Because divorce has taught him that one should spend time with ones children… To the Minister, this seems to mean that one should exercise ones “rights” over the children. Not, that one should offer them emotional presence and care.
In other words: When placing the children, it is completely irrelevant if one parent didn’t spend any time in the home or in the lives of the children. This is what the State Administration calls “drawing a line in the sand”.
It is difficult for younger women to take a stance, because they do not imagine what the law entails. And perhaps, it doesn’t interest them so much. But it SHOULD: Almost half of all marriages end with divorce.
And it looks like the strategic target is that half of all children should live with their father following divorce.
In practice, that means that you have at least 25% risk of loosing the child, you carry under your heart. This goes even if you are the children’s primary bondperson. And even if you are their primary caretaker. This is irrelevant to the law.
(This post is part of the series “DO NOT HAVE A CHILD WITH A MAN IN DENMARK”, which is uploaded over a long period of time in separate posts. In the Mom Network, we ackowledge the significance of good fathers. However, on this page, we write to women. Please see our post of June 6th for further explanation. It is called “Why the ‘Mom’ Network”.)
DO NOT HAVE A CHILD WITH A MAN IN DENMARK [ 1:2 ]
[ Dansk ]