        Phone: 0131 558 8137 |
|
A group of church representatives has started to explore some of these possibilities, following a meeting with Paul Parr of the Scottish Executive; the group will reconvene in January to take this forward by considering policy proposals to put to the Executive. 3. Parental Rights and Responsibilities The proposals here agree with most of the church respondents, that unmarried fathers named on the birth certificate should have "PRRs" (ie Parental Responsibilities and Rights, which include the responsibilities to: (a) safeguard and promote the child's health, development and welfare (b) provide direction and guidance to the child (c) maintain personal relations and direct contact with the child on a regular basis (d) act as the child's legal representative. Such rights are given in order to allow a person to fulfil his or her parental responsibilities. Having PRRs entitles a parent to take major decisions relating to the child, such as schooling and place of residence). Although many respondents suggested that all parents should have such rights automatically, concerns about the position of women in abusive relationships led the Executive to safeguard this by tying rights to joint registration of the birth. Further views are still sought on whether this should apply automatically to all children, or only to those registered after a cut-off date; the latter would avoid a retrospective effect, and is in line with the views of many who argued that, for this to be effective in promoting "stable relationships within families" it will have to be accompanied by clear information at the time of registration, and development of awareness-raising programmes to encourage involvement by fathers. Indeed, the CofS Board of Social Responsibility argued for a time-lag, with mothers informed after registration that these PRRs would come into effect after, say, ten months unless they (mothers) objected. It is also proposed that step-parents should be able to acquire PRRs, by registering an agreement jointly with others having such rights (a simpler procedure than at present). Views are being sought on whether this should be available to the spouse of someone who has sole PRRs, and whether such agreements should only be able to be terminated by a court. No conclusions have been reached regarding the balancing of concerns involved after domestic abuse, as to whether PRRs should be affected by this. The Executive will await the conclusions of the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Abuse before deciding on further action. No proposals are made regarding rights of grandparents (which were raised by several MSPs when the proposals were announced); the Executive would need to be persuaded that any such moves are in the interests of the child. 4. Rights of Cohabitees Some (including Cardinal Winning) had opposed extending rights to cohabitees (almost as if they had been married), on the ground that this would undermine marriage; others came to a similar conclusion on the basis that people had made a choice not to marry and should not therefore be treated as if they had done so. But some wanted some protection for a vulnerable partner "so long as the objective remains to clarify legal issues and not to undermine the institution of marriage" (Board of Social Responsibility). The Executive believes that the measures now proposed "provide a fairer property regime … without replicating the arrangements that exist for the sharing of matrimonial property on divorce", ie there remain appropriate legal differences between cohabitation and marriage. The proposal to abolish the Scots recognition of marriage by cohabitation and repute has been dropped, despite majority support, because it has been found "occasionally useful, especially for older couples".
|
Home Page | Briefings |
FAQs
Staff | Links Page
| Reflection | Update