Outsiders' comments on court cases are usually inappropriate. Those directly involved have heard the cases and seen the evidence. Their views should normally be respected? Others are usually dependent on information from commentators with an agenda – even if only to get attention to their story. The Depp v Heard case comes to mind. LINK
Kaylea Titford was above all else a distressing tragedy. A disabled 16-year-old who died because of ‘shocking and prolonged neglect’.
We must surely welcome the rejection of the argument that her father put. That he was innocent because caring for her was her mother’s responsibility.
He was given a longer prison sentence than she was.
It is almost invariably mothers who are prosecuted for neglect. No child is neglected to this extent without it being by both parents.
So, what to do about ‘deadbeat dads’ (and the occasional mum)? They are a liability to the shared parenting cause. In bus stop type conversations – and sometimes elsewhere - they are often cited as a reason for denying children the right to a relationship with loved and loving parents. A clear case of ‘Whataboutery’ and a prejudiced one at that. Like saying to a job applicant who complains about racism being a factor in not getting promotion in their profession. ‘What about knife crime in ‘sink estates?
But this for starters. Changing the culture. Removing the excuse of ‘deadbeat dads'. They are simply responding to signals that nothing was expected from them - except their money. Fathers (and the occasional mother) who wilfully refuse to care for their children should be made to feel ashamed.
Perhaps starting from the top. Of all the criticisms and descriptions of a recent Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, deadbeat dad has barely featured. Those people bringing up several of his children, would be forced to say to them: ‘Would you like to see your dad?’. He’s on the TV’.
What do you think?
Send us feedback!