Improve laws relating to guardianship rights
A Planning Commission working group has recommended that a mother should be listed as the first official guardian in all official documents. This, according to the group, will help redress the official bias against the mother. The panel has proposed sweeping changes in existing laws thereby giving mothers equal guardianship rights over their children. The panel's objective is to rectify the legislative as well as larger gender imbalances in society.
At present fathers are mentioned as first guardians in all relevant official documents - birth certificates, school admission forms and passports. Mothers, on the other hand, have to run from pillar to post, overcoming a host of bureaucratic hurdles to be accepted as legitimate guardians of their children. They have to either get the father's signature or take recourse to legal measures.
If the mother is listed as the first official guardian and if it becomes law then it will be difficult for conservative authorities, whether at government or school level, to deny mothers their guardianship rights.
If this law is implemented, the government panel's proposed amendments will surely go a long way in ensuring that mothers have an equal say, not only as caregivers in families, but also in significant decision-making processes that impact their children's lives.
The government panel's efforts to replace the father as the first guardian of a child with the mother in all legal documents is a good example of well-meant but pointless change. It's a hopelessly muddled approach. Having the mother as first guardian is tantamount to disempowering men. This is hardly conducive to equality. Replacing one parent by another would only shift the problems and perpetuate the gender bias in the law.
Secondly, the panel argues that since it is the mother who looks after the children it should be her natural right to be listed as the first guardian. This argument only reinforces the patriarchal view that a woman's role should be confined to her household and rearing children.
Deciding custody of children in divorce cases is skewed in favour of the mother since it is believed that the mother plays a greater role in rearing children than the father does. It is not necessary that the mother will rear the child better than the father will in all cases - this has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Guardianship rights and other laws affecting children should be in fact completely rewritten with the child's right at the core and not looked at merely in terms of the rights of the mother or the father.
A Planning Commission working group has recommended that a mother should be listed as the first official guardian in all official documents. This, according to the group, will help redress the official bias against the mother. The panel has proposed sweeping changes in existing laws thereby giving mothers equal guardianship rights over their children. The panel's objective is to rectify the legislative as well as larger gender imbalances in society.
At present fathers are mentioned as first guardians in all relevant official documents - birth certificates, school admission forms and passports. Mothers, on the other hand, have to run from pillar to post, overcoming a host of bureaucratic hurdles to be accepted as legitimate guardians of their children. They have to either get the father's signature or take recourse to legal measures.
If the mother is listed as the first official guardian and if it becomes law then it will be difficult for conservative authorities, whether at government or school level, to deny mothers their guardianship rights.
If this law is implemented, the government panel's proposed amendments will surely go a long way in ensuring that mothers have an equal say, not only as caregivers in families, but also in significant decision-making processes that impact their children's lives.
The government panel's efforts to replace the father as the first guardian of a child with the mother in all legal documents is a good example of well-meant but pointless change. It's a hopelessly muddled approach. Having the mother as first guardian is tantamount to disempowering men. This is hardly conducive to equality. Replacing one parent by another would only shift the problems and perpetuate the gender bias in the law.
Secondly, the panel argues that since it is the mother who looks after the children it should be her natural right to be listed as the first guardian. This argument only reinforces the patriarchal view that a woman's role should be confined to her household and rearing children.
Deciding custody of children in divorce cases is skewed in favour of the mother since it is believed that the mother plays a greater role in rearing children than the father does. It is not necessary that the mother will rear the child better than the father will in all cases - this has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Guardianship rights and other laws affecting children should be in fact completely rewritten with the child's right at the core and not looked at merely in terms of the rights of the mother or the father.
No comments:
Post a Comment