Rights to my child (as father)

245

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Are you asking me if my right to parent my child overrides an innocent persons right to go about their life in a free and non-violent envirnment whilst carefully exectuting their job in accordance with the law and child safety measures?

    I don't think a person should punch an innocent childcarer in the face for adhering to what I consider to be well thought out safety laws, nope. As a parent I'd be more than distressed if the people I entrusted my child's care to then handed my child over to a person other than myself or persons nonimated by myself whose identity has been verified with that childcarer. Thankfully the school and afterschool club I do send my child to agree with me. If the 'sperm donor' of my child turned up at my child's shool or after school club or babysitters door he would be turned away and then the police notified if he caused any more fuss, and I would hope charges would be pressed if he resorted to violence. I take it you dissagree?

    You're off track. They are not well thought out at all.

    We were talking about Territ's responce to this;
    donut wrote: »
    I totally agree. Up until a few years ago it didnt even count if you registered the birth together. I work in a nursery andif the parents split up and the mother came in saying that she didnt want the father to collect them, we had to refuse the father if they weren't married or didnt have it from the courts. It still happens sometimes now, and i always feel really sorry for the fathers.

    Now obviously these are fathers with as much right to the child as the mother(not by law obviously).

    What if the mother was a danger to the child and the father had no control over what happens to the child even though he is the childs father and has been with the child since birth? Do you still think they are very thought out laws? Imagine spending more time raising a daughter than your partner, looking after her only to find when you split up your partner has control over your child and can tell you WHERE WHEN AND HOW you're going to pick him/her up or when you can see him/her even if he/she is not suitable to look after her.

    Do you still think they are very thought through? I guess you must not care for your children much, i know few people who would not have a violent reaction to someone denying them access to their children when they have been there since from birth and raised the child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I do mean that.

    If two people have sex, and are not in a relationship, never see each other, she bears that child for 40 long weeks, then gives birth, she is its mother. She is 99% of the time the best person to parent that child.
    The man could come up and say, hey I came inside you 9mths ago, I have as much rights as you do. Id be very tempted to tell them to fuck off.

    What if the woman is a drunker loser and the man sticks by her, raises the child alone, dealing with her drinking problems in the same household, then one day she decides she's had enough of him and throws him out, takes the child with her but by law he has not rights to collect the child without her permission.

    Maybe because she thinks "an ejaculation gives you no rights"

    It's very wrong and i can see why a man may become stressed and violent because of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Presumably you feel that the bloke should be able to tell her to fuck off, when she comes up to him and says "you came in me 9 months ago, I want X% of your salary in child support?" The father either has responsibilities and rights, or neither. The idea that an ejaculation gives you no rights is an interesting one, but it has the inevitable consequence that it also gives you no responsibilities. If your belief is that a father who wasn't involved in the pregnancy doesn't have any rights, then you have absolutely no right to complain about any man who ever dodged child support payments.

    Interesting point. "you have no rights for an ejaculation, but you have to start paying me for that fuck we had"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well to be fair im not hypocritical about that, because even my ex husband who we planned the child together and were together till my son was 4, doesnt give me any child support, yet I willingly let him have plenty of access to the child.
    I think if a woman doesnt want the father of the child to have any responsibilty or access, then its a bit much to expect money, except in certain circumstances, although legally, access and maintenance are two seperate issues.

    I think the issue of fathers shirking their responsibilities to their child when the mother would be happy for them to share the responsibility is a much much MUCH more common problem tbh
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What if the woman is a drunker loser and the man sticks by her, raises the child alone, dealing with her drinking problems in the same household, then one day she decides she's had enough of him and throws him out, takes the child with her but by law he has not rights to collect the child without her permission.

    Maybe because she thinks "an ejaculation gives you no rights"

    It's very wrong and i can see why a man may become stressed and violent because of it.
    If the woman was an unfit mother/alcoholic etc, then the father could well have a good case for getting residency of the child in those circumstances, and I would probably urge that he did if his name was on the birth certificate or he could prove paternity. (although the violence bit you mention would probably go against you)

    an ejaculation in itself gives someone no rights IMO, but being a father gives you plenty of rights, but theres a hell of a lot more to being a father than an ejaculation.
    For example, if a man got with a woman in pregnancy and then co-parented the child as his own, by your logic, youd say the sperm donor had more rights than the guy that had actually raised the child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the woman was an unfit mother/alcoholic etc, then the father could well have a good case for getting residency of the child in those circumstances, and I would probably urge that he did if his name was on the birth certificate or he could prove paternity. (although the violence bit you mention would probably go against you)

    an ejaculation in itself gives someone no rights IMO, but being a father gives you plenty of rights, but theres a hell of a lot more to being a father than an ejaculation.
    For example, if a man got with a woman in pregnancy and then co-parented the child as his own, by your logic, youd say the sperm donor had more rights than the guy that had actually raised the child.

    No he wouldn't have more rights, the father figure would in my eyes. The point i'm making, in the example i gave is that he would have to enter the courts first, until then he would have to watch as nursery assistants call the police to arrest him as he tries to pick his daughter up from nursery yet the mother could be missing, pissed drunk, not picking the child up but just not wanting him to so causing ti all.

    You know, just think of the worst type of mother possible and a father that stuck with her to raise the child but now they split she has authority over his interactions with her. Obviously violence will not solve it but lets reverse the situation with your own child and watch as your husband tells you that you can't see your child today or pick him/her up, even if you're at the nursery now and he's blind drunk sitting at home.

    It would be absolutely horrible wouldn't it? i'm sure you'd feel like shouting, maybe even trying tot ake your own son/dughter so you can keep him/her safe because you've had enough of watching him/her go to that disgusting home.

    This is just a scenario, but one that probably has occurred and the law fails to protect the child.

    Sometimes i think women forget how strongly a man can feel about this child. we're meant to be claiming equality for both sexes, women protested for this but it still seems for men it hasn't happened yet when it comes to children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the issue of fathers shirking their responsibilities to their child when the mother would be happy for them to share the responsibility is a much much MUCH more common problem tbh

    Well by your definition, surely you wouldn't have a problem with this? If the mother is perfectly within her rights to decide whether she wants the father to be involved, then surely the father is perfectly within his rights to decline that offer when it comes?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ok, by law, the father would be VERY likely to get residency in those circumstances, and tbh, probably for much less too. I know several men who have custody of their children.

    The court isnt interested in whether a man has rights or a woman has rights. Theyre interested in whats best for the child, and in the vast majority of cases the mother has been/ is generally the primary carer and unless there is specific cause to uproot everything, then the decision would be to keep the child with the mother. I think this is right to be the default option.
    If you have a particular problem and think your child is in danger, then you have EVERY right to contest this, and if it is necessary, you will get residency.
    If its just about getting access, then you stand a very good chance of being granted access rights if your ex is being a pain about it for no reason. I dont know how good courts are at enforcing that. Its not a perfect system, but I dont see how there possibly could be?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    tbh, i can see that this is maybe ONE of very few areas in life in which women are by default more likely to have a few more rights by nature of the fact that they grow the child from nothing in their own body and then give birth, nurture it at their breast, and obviously in the animal kingdom too, its the mother who is generally the natural carer too (ok, i know about seahorses) and im sure the whole thing does get your goat a bit, but I cant imagine how it could possibly be a safe system for men to automatically just be able to say theyre the father, and have rights over a child.

    just to add im talking about the issue i mentioned earlier about if the man wasnt even in a relationship with the woman.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ok i think you're right about defaulted to the mother, it's just so hard sometimes to even imagine being denied access to your child. It would tear me to shreds.

    To think if i split now and my child would be with the mother who denied me to pick her up would be such a blow, i don't think i could take it when being there from the very start.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    that would be an incredibly heartbreaking situation for sure
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    tbh, i can see that this is maybe ONE of very few areas in life in which women are by default more likely to have a few more rights by nature of the fact that they grow the child from nothing in their own body and then give birth, nurture it at their breast, and obviously in the animal kingdom too, its the mother who is generally the natural carer too (ok, i know about seahorses) and im sure the whole thing does get your goat a bit, but I cant imagine how it could possibly be a safe system for men to automatically just be able to say theyre the father, and have rights over a child.

    just to add im talking about the issue i mentioned earlier about if the man wasnt even in a relationship with the woman.

    I think it's odd you talk about the man's rights and the woman's rights, while missing the most important person of the lot. Surely you've missed the child's rights. When people talk about a father's right to see their child, what they really mean is a child's right to know their father (or more accurately, their right to know both parents). Would you argue that the rights of the mother not to have a father involved override the rights of the child to know their father?

    ETA: Do you reckon this should be switched to P&D because we're kinda pissing on someone's thread asking for advice?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no, which you would have seen if youd read the post directly before the one you quoted
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you still think they are very thought through? I guess you must not care for your children much,

    You are quite obviously retarded then.
    i know few people who would not have a violent reaction to someone denying them access to their children when they have been there since from birth and raised the child.

    bet they get far like that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're calling a fathers love retarded?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're calling a fathers love retarded?

    I think katralla's saying you're retarded since you said that her comments on here indicate that she doesn't love her children.

    But to be honest, I think you're both in the wrong. You, Nameless, shouldn't accuse any parent (female OR male) of not loving their child, and katralla shouldn't have started name-calling.

    The OP started this thread to ask about the legal issues surrounding rights to a child. Name-calling and accusations of people not loving their children are irrelevant and rude, so stop it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Now obviously these are fathers with as much right to the child as the mother(not by law obviously).

    What if the mother was a danger to the child and the father had no control over what happens to the child even though he is the childs father and has been with the child since birth? Do you still think they are very thought out laws? Imagine spending more time raising a daughter than your partner, looking after her only to find when you split up your partner has control over your child and can tell you WHERE WHEN AND HOW you're going to pick him/her up or when you can see him/her even if he/she is not suitable to look after her.

    Do you still think they are very thought through? I guess you must not care for your children much, i know few people who would not have a violent reaction to someone denying them access to their children when they have been there since from birth and raised the child.

    As a nursery by law we have to abide by the wishes of whoever has parental responsability, whether we think its the right choice or not. What goes on between the parents is not to do with us, If the father wants rights he has to take it through the courts, thats just the law. How can you attack someone for abiding by the law. If we were to allow the father to collect the child it is then seen as kidnapping in the eyes of the law.

    And I really resent the fact that you say we must not care for the children we look after, as this is something beyond our control.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Pringle wrote: »
    I think katralla's saying you're retarded since you said that her comments on here indicate that she doesn't love her children.

    But to be honest, I think you're both in the wrong. You, Nameless, shouldn't accuse any parent (female OR male) of not loving their child, and katralla shouldn't have started name-calling.

    The OP started this thread to ask about the legal issues surrounding rights to a child. Name-calling and accusations of people not loving their children are irrelevant and rude, so stop it.

    I think you've missed the point. I said that in reference to the fact that any loving parent who has raised their child from birth would have an irrational reaction to having their child taken from them.

    It was not an accusation, it was an attempt to make her understand.

    Hope that clears it up for you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    donut wrote: »
    As a nursery by law we have to abide by the wishes of whoever has parental responsability, whether we think its the right choice or not. What goes on between the parents is not to do with us, If the father wants rights he has to take it through the courts, thats just the law. How can you attack someone for abiding by the law. If we were to allow the father to collect the child it is then seen as kidnapping in the eyes of the law.

    And I really resent the fact that you say we must not care for the children we look after, as this is something beyond our control.

    It should not be seen as kidnapping, that man could have raised that child form birth, more so than the mother, why does he not have as much responsibility by law to the child? It makes a parental split much more devastating for the father since he has a lot more to lose.

    I didn't say you must not care for the children... maybe you misread something :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unless they have been told how are whoever works at the nursery going to know the man is the father? he could be a stranger trying to kidnap the child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I do mean that.

    If two people have sex, and are not in a relationship, never see each other, she bears that child for 40 long weeks, then gives birth, she is its mother. She is 99% of the time the best person to parent that child.
    The man could come up and say, hey I came inside you 9mths ago, I have as much rights as you do. Id be very tempted to tell them to fuck off.
    Regardless of that, he's still the father and with that comes rights (as well as responsibilities as everyone else has pointed out).

    In any event, why wouldn't the mother have said anything to the father? The situation you've presented takes the guy vanishing from the scene not because he wants to, but because he doesn't know anything about the woman being pregnant.

    Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that most of the time the mother should be the one who is the main caregiver (I'm speaking as a child of divorce here who ended up living with my mum), but you just seem to be completely rejecting the fact that actually regardless of the amount of time that goes in to a child being produced from both the mother and the father, it takes two to tango and the father should have rights to see his child and if need be challenge for custody. Particularly in this day and age when patterns of care giving are changing, I think we need to be more open to the fact that the mother isn't always the best option for the welfare of the child.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline! No morality! No respect! New ForestPosts: 14,928 Part of the furniture
    If two people have sex, and are not in a relationship, never see each other, she bears that child for 40 long weeks, then gives birth, she is its mother. She is 99% of the time the best person to parent that child.
    The man could come up and say, hey I came inside you 9mths ago, I have as much rights as you do. Id be very tempted to tell them to fuck off.

    Well I believe he does. He certainly shoudl have access to the child if he wants it.
    Whilst the the mother carries a baby her rights and wishes have to be put first, because any decisions affect her body aswell.
    After the birth though the father has as much rights to the baby as her.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So if a couple split up, then the father is well within his rights to just take the baby away from the mother at birth yes? :eek:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If he's the more suitable parent then why should he not gain custody?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    there is hardly ever any more suitable parent for a newborn baby than its own mother.
    To change the law to allow a man to just take the baby without the woman wanting him to, even if he is the father, would be horrific. If the mother is actually unfit to do the job or doesnt want to do it, then thats one thing, but "being more suitable" is NOT a good enough reason to seperate mother and baby.

    fucking hell, i cant even believe thats debatable!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    there is hardly ever any more suitable parent for a newborn baby than its own mother.
    To change the law to allow a man to just take the baby without the woman wanting him to, even if he is the father, would be horrific. If the mother is actually unfit to do the job or doesnt want to do it, then thats one thing, but "being more suitable" is NOT a good enough reason to seperate mother and baby.

    fucking hell, i cant even believe thats debatable!!

    I agree with that, and in that case the mother would have to be proved to be unsuitable, not just because the father says so.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline! No morality! No respect! New ForestPosts: 14,928 Part of the furniture
    So if a couple split up, then the father is well within his rights to just take the baby away from the mother at birth yes? :eek:

    That is not what I'm saying.

    He has a very real right to have access and demand to be part of the childs life. If the mother has the right to demand support than the fater has the right to demand access. I was taking issue with your attitude that the mother can tell the father to get fucked if she wants and that no rights come with ejaculation.

    Not many people will argue that a mother is often the more suitable parent if the parents arn't together, but that's not to say that the father doesn't have any rights.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline! No morality! No respect! New ForestPosts: 14,928 Part of the furniture
    there is hardly ever any more suitable parent for a newborn baby than its own mother.
    To change the law to allow a man to just take the baby without the woman wanting him to, even if he is the father, would be horrific. If the mother is actually unfit to do the job or doesnt want to do it, then thats one thing, but "being more suitable" is NOT a good enough reason to seperate mother and baby.

    Just because the mother is more than often the better choice for custody doesn't mean she should automatically be given it. Decisions should be made on a case by case basis.

    More suitable is good enough reason for me. Both father and mother have equal rights once the baby is born.

    You seem to think that because a mother carries the baby for 40 weeks she shoudl have more rights. I don't agree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    there is hardly ever any more suitable parent for a newborn baby than its own mother.
    To change the law to allow a man to just take the baby without the woman wanting him to, even if he is the father, would be horrific. If the mother is actually unfit to do the job or doesnt want to do it, then thats one thing, but "being more suitable" is NOT a good enough reason to seperate mother and baby.

    fucking hell, i cant even believe thats debatable!!

    Lets consider this for a second.

    If the father is more suitable, that means the baby will be better off with the father. I think it's important not to confuse that it is seldom the case that a newborn will be better off since the mother usually is more suitable, but if it would be for any of a host of reasons why should the child be forced to stay with the mother even if it's worse off in terms of welfare and all the other factors that are inevitably taken into account.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think this is an issue we just probably wont agree on. Im not against fathers having custody IF the mother really isnt suitable, and i really take a dim view of women denying their exes access if the ex wants it and theres no good reason to deny it, but I still think that a mother should have overall rights to bring up her own child that she has grown and borne more than anyone else. Father is second choice.

    I do see WHY you think fathers should have equal choice in the respect that they both share equal genetics but its a rare case where a man has put as much into the creation of a child as a woman - physically or mentally.
    A lot of men try and get take their exes to court over their children out of pure spite.
    There may even be cases where awoman isnt actually the best possible parent in the short term - ie post natal depression maybe, but that doesnt mean custody should be handed over.

    *best* parent is VERY subjective anyway.

    To be able to just take a womans baby away - youd have an awful lot of dead women on your hands - seriously. How to just rip someones heart in two!!
    The amount of men in comparison who seem to find it fairly easy to just up and walk away from a family. It makes me think that in most cases its not nearly the same thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.