http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13825737

I personally think 'runaway dads' are scummy as all hell, but the notion of shaming them (like drink drivers?!) is just laughable. It's also worth remembering that there are any number of mothers who make life incredibly difficult for the father, and that the system has long found in favour of the mother, even when that made little sense

Hence why I've not seen my niece for years.

My brother took his ex to court and they told her he had to have access but was it ever enforced? No. Poor bugger hasn't seen her for so long now.

Why not take an equal stance against mothers who make it impossible for fathers to see their kids?

Yes it cuts both ways. So many women go crazy especially if they have been dumped. My uncle left his wife and two kids to live with another woman. She basically blocked all access, telling the kids that he did not care about them. Eventually when the kids were old enough they tracked him down and asked why he did not contact them. He showed them the huge pile of cards, letters and presents that had been returned to sender. It had backfired against her in that respect. Calling all absent fathers scum is like saying all mothers are saints. Complete rubbish. There are other factors which sound bite politicians fail to consider. So this really should be a failboat.

Most of the comments in this thread are nearing the fail boat arena by going off topic. The thrust of the proposal is to"shame" those who through choice have no interest in their own children (this should apply to women as well as men). This would exclude those who through actions of others cant get involved but would still like to be. But lets just shoot it down and ignore any merit it might have.

I do agree that the family law are needs a radical overhaul where the old fashioned notion that the child is always better if it is with the mother needs to be removed, any access granted must be enforced and any monetary maintenance must be taken (going automatically up with inflation) with sanctions that are actually applied.
Its that funny thing called responsibility. If you father or mother a child you have sacrificed some of your "rights" because you have a child that trumps those rights.

Why not make payment mandatory only if access is granted, unless child abuse is the issue. So if ex-wives block access then maintenance payments are not required. Also make sure it cannot be back dated as women will block access till the child is nearly 18 and then claim back years of non payment. So still getting the benefit but being still able to deny access.

I think in your own post you highlight yourself how this hasn't gone off topic when you say it has by mentioning the responsibility of both mothers and fathers.

He comments on fathers, why not any parent?