You may be asked to reset your password when you try to login. This is part of a system update and is genuine, so it's safe to go ahead and do that. If you no longer have access to the email address you used to register, please email us at [email protected] rather than creating a new account. Apologies for the inconvenience.

Rights to my child (as father)

135

Comments

  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    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.

    For 9 months she has total control over the life growing in her body and that is fair enough. Once it's born however, the responsiblity of for the child is shared equally between mother and father, and so are the rights.
    A lot of men try and get take their exes to court over their children out of pure spite.

    And a lot of women use they're children against they're fathers.

    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.

    Custody should lie with the figure who'll give the best parenting. Often that is the mother but it doesn't mean it should be the default.
    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.

    I find this rather offensive to be honest. Are you're implying that men generally care less about they're children?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well i cant speak for everyone obviously, but i think evidence seems to show that men have a much easier time upping and leaving the lot of them if the relationship with the mother breaks down. I think a man who hasnt invested anything in the pregnancy or baby to the point of birth, would care a million times less than the mother (usually)

    To give an example to the way i feel on the issue - my partner I think he must feel as much or nearly as much for our children as I do. Although hes happier to spend more time away from the children than I would be, if god forbid anything happened to the relationship I would say he had every right to as much access as possible, although no rights to take them from me, whether he would do a better job or not - im their mother, thats the way it goes and thats the way it should be.

    Compare that to a close friend of mine, who has a daughter who the biological father has shown little to no interest in.
    If he turned up wanting to see the child now 8 years later, im sure shed tell him where to go tbh, and quite rightly. He has, and should have no rights at all, even if she is genetically his.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Compare that to a close friend of mine, who has a daughter who the biological father has shown little to no interest in.
    If he turned up wanting to see the child now 8 years later, im sure shed tell him where to go tbh, and quite rightly. He has, and should have no rights at all, even if she is genetically his.

    What about the kid? If she's 8 years old, she's old enough to voice her own opinion on whether she wants to meet him or not.

    If she's not interested, fair enough. But I think when the kid's old enough to have an opinion, its their right to decide on that.

    I don't see it as the rights of the mom vs. the dad, but the kid's. The adults chose to have sex, the kid have no choice in their conception or birth. They shouldn't be forced to live with parents they hate (except when they're teenagers and they hate all adults! :razz:) but they should have the right to meet and know BOTH of their parents if they so wish, at any age.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nope, at eight years old, after 8 years of nothing the bloke can go swivel and see what the courts say if he's really that bothered.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Nope, at eight years old, after 8 years of nothing the bloke can go swivel and see what the courts say if he's really that bothered.

    Just out of interest, what if you had an eight-year-old daughter whose dad hasn't been around at all but he popped up after 8 years wanting to get to know his daughter?

    I'm not talking about his rights here. What if your daughter wanted to know her dad? What if she begged you to let her meet him?

    In cases like that, its not his rights that are relevant, but the child's. The child's right to know his/her biological parent, their medical history, their social history, all their relatives on his side of the family like grandparents, maybe even half-brothers and sisters, so much more than they might never otherwise have.

    If she wanted to meet him, even if he'd never been around at all, would you let her?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I DO have an eight year old daughter who hasn't seen her father since she was a baby. She wants a father figure, he is not a good role model, if he turned up now, he could take me to court...
    Pringle wrote: »
    What if she begged you to let her meet him?

    She begs me for loads of stuff. What an eight year old begs for and what is good for them are often two different things.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru

    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.

    So the reason why a child should not be brought up in the best environment is because it would hurt the woman's feelings, but men can take it on the chin?

    I understand your example of a father having nothing to do and then demanding custody when a mother has just been through it on her own for 9 months. I doubt he would win custody.

    But what if a baby is conceived, they split up but remain amicable, up until birth and the father takes the baby two days a week maybe but it's clear that he is clearly catering for the childs needs better.

    According to your interpretation of things, this is irrelevant. the mother should have custody unless there is some extreme case that even in a normal family circumstance would mean the kids would be taken from her.

    Allowing the father to be the primary carer if he is better suited to it does not exclude the mother from the childs upbringing, either.

    As you said "thats the way it goes", because you're the mother. I think there is some sense of self-entitlement... which is more than likely justified, but my argument is why should the mother get automatic rights because she thinks she should have it, vs. the child who the state thinks should get the best care and go with the parent who will best provide it.

    They very often correlate because of a number of circumstances you have mentioned (deadbeat fathers), but we should not make a law based on this because it prejudices against all fathers. It should be done case-by-case. If I am a father, why should I be prejudiced against because of the wrongdoing of other fathers. That's sexual discrimination of the highest degree right there, giving diminished parental rights and legal recourse because you are the wrong gender.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    So the reason why a child should not be brought up in the best environment is because it would hurt the woman's feelings, but men can take it on the chin?

    I understand your example of a father having nothing to do and then demanding custody when a mother has just been through it on her own for 9 months. I doubt he would win custody.

    But what if a baby is conceived, they split up but remain amicable, up until birth and the father takes the baby two days a week maybe but it's clear that he is clearly catering for the childs needs better.

    According to your interpretation of things, this is irrelevant. the mother should have custody unless there is some extreme case that even in a normal family circumstance would mean the kids would be taken from her.

    Allowing the father to be the primary carer if he is better suited to it does not exclude the mother from the childs upbringing, either.

    As you said "thats the way it goes", because you're the mother. I think there is some sense of self-entitlement... which is more than likely justified, but my argument is why should the mother get automatic rights because she thinks she should have it, vs. the child who the state thinks should get the best care and go with the parent who will best provide it.

    They very often correlate because of a number of circumstances you have mentioned (deadbeat fathers), but we should not make a law based on this because it prejudices against all fathers. It should be done case-by-case. If I am a father, why should I be prejudiced against because of the wrongdoing of other fathers. That's sexual discrimination of the highest degree right there, giving diminished parental rights and legal recourse because you are the wrong gender.


    Excellent post.

    I don't see how anybody can argue with the fact decisions should be made with the childs intrest in mind.
    If the father is more suitable then he should have custody.
    If the father has been absent (even for a number of years) but wishes to get access to his child, then he should have it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    surely it's less self-entitlement and more the natural order of life?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    surely it's less self-entitlement and more the natural order of life?

    Sorry by natural of order in life you mean..? I'm a bit sleep deprived :blush:

    I think the self entitlement is probably natural I'm not blaming mothers for it. But that doesn't mean in all cases it's justified. There are plenty of naturally occurring circumstances that as a society we 'fix' because they create unfairness. That doesn't mean making it unfair the other way, it just means in my eyes removing pre judgements especially when there is a custody battle that because the mother is a mother that is obviously the best parent.

    I think naturally the mother would want to assume custody of the child and I expect in a lot of cases the father would be happy with her as a primary carer. So for the vast majority of cases it's not going to be a case of the father coming back and snatching children at a later date at all.

    In the minority of cases were an amicable agreement can't be met and a custody battle ensues, it should be based solely on the welfare of the child, not that it would break the mothers heart, or 'thats the way its supposed to be' and so on.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, 'naturally', the child is going to have to be near the mother every few hours in order to eat, at least for the first year or however long she has milk for, so the natural order means the child would be with the mother the majority of the time for at least that period.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yeah exactly. Im a bit confused about how the father can be best carer for a baby when he doesnt have breasts.

    Im trying to think of where else in the animal kingdom the father would be seen as a superior carer than the mother for a small infant??
    I do know two men who have custody of their children because the mother was a danger to them. Thats one thing (access is another issue)
    I can also think of one guy who I would think he should get custody if they split up, because hes been the main carer of the child since very very young, since she went back to work full time and he stayed at home. I dont know if he would though (its only theoretical anyway, theyre very strong;) ) but i can see your point in the odd rare case like that
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Male lions and tigers have virtually nothing to do with their offspring. Unless they are not theirs (in which case they will kill or try to kill them) there is amost no contact between the two. I doubt that it would be something odd for many other animals as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do male seahorses do most of the childrearing? They carry the babies anyway, don't they?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yeah exactly. Im a bit confused about how the father can be best carer for a baby when he doesnt have breasts.

    Err... obvious point here: Not all babies are breast-fed. :yeees:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But, if they can be they should be, so in the best interests of the child... yada yada yada
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    g_angel wrote: »
    Err... obvious point here: Not all babies are breast-fed. :yeees:

    yeah but we're talking about whats best for the child arent we
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yeah but we're talking about whats best for the child arent we

    ... and?

    Some parents DON'T choose to breastfeed for whatever reason - so obviously to them it's NOT best for the child in their particular circumstances. It's a very valid point in this discussion, and a perfect foil to you using it in your argument that women are the best carer as they have breasts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    But, if they can be they should be, so in the best interests of the child... yada yada yada

    Perhaps they should, but many don't - hence it's a valid point...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, like I said, it's the natural order of things, the fact that it doesn't always go like that doesn't make it any less so.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not really a valid point at all, though.

    When deciding who is the "best" parent consideration should be given to who is the "best" parent. The one who can breastfeed is the "best" parent as breast is "best". It's not exactly rocket science.

    The mother should have custody unless there is a good reason not to have custody (e.g. she has a chaotic life, misuses drugs or alcohol, etc). If there is nothing to choose between the parents, the mother should win.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    It's not really a valid point at all, though.

    When deciding who is the "best" parent consideration should be given to who is the "best" parent. The one who can breastfeed is the "best" parent as breast is "best". It's not exactly rocket science.

    The mother should have custody unless there is a good reason not to have custody (e.g. she has a chaotic life, misuses drugs or alcohol, etc). If there is nothing to choose between the parents, the mother should win.

    :yeees:

    It certainly is valid if the parents choose not to breast feed. Breast is 'best' at the end of the day, but some people simply don't choose to. Negates the 'breast' angle on this. Simple.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It doesn't at all. If we are choosing the "best" parent then access to the "best" should be considered.

    Some women choose to murder their babies; that's not relevant either, for the same reason.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    It doesn't at all. If we are choosing the "best" parent then access to the "best" should be considered.


    Utter shit if they've already chosen not to breast feed. It's irrelevant.
    Some women choose to murder their babies; that's not relevant either, for the same reason.

    Irrelevant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well I think in my estimate it would be weighted in the mothers favour anyway, when making an assessment as to what is best for the child you would take into account things like breast feeding I guess, although you could argue that's setting some kind of precedent saying mothers who dont breast feed aren't as suitable as mothers who do... but that's aside from my point.

    If you tallied up (a difficult task, granted) ALL the factors that were likely to affect the wellbeing of an infant, it should go to the best parent. The mother has factors built in, so it's likely she has a better chance to gain custody. However, regardless of this, the current law is still biased, even if with the woman's natural advantage the father is still a better candidate, unless there are exceptional circumstances custody will go to the mother.

    But I think in most cases the court could arbitrate some kind of shared custody scheme as I believe a child has a right to both parents if they are willing to take part of course. If the father was clearly the best candidate but the parents had decided breast feeding was the best option then the breast milk could be bottled, no?

    I guess the whole argument is weighted because often it's the parents considering their own need to see their child, vs. the childs best interest. That will nearly always be the motivation to take things to court, because they want custody, rather than because they sincerely think it's better for the child.

    All I am suggesting is that the bias is removed, the natural factors do bear some relevence and should be considered, but it shouldn't be an automatic assumption unless the mother is getting high or drunk every night and forgetting where she put the baby, that the mother is the best carer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because it is the natural order of things, I think it should be the automatic assumption that unless the mother is off getting high or whatever, that she is the most appropriate parent tbh. The breast feeding was just an example but there are other factors like the comfort of a mother's heartbeat, the hormonal rush and initial bonding that is physical and emotional for both mother and baby, et cetera et cetera et cetera.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    Because it is the natural order of things, I think it should be the automatic assumption that unless the mother is off getting high or whatever, that she is the most appropriate parent tbh. The breast feeding was just an example but there are other factors like the comfort of a mother's heartbeat, the hormonal rush and initial bonding that is physical and emotional for both mother and baby, et cetera et cetera et cetera.

    exactly.The sound, the smell, everything. The baby has been part of its mothers body for 9 months. Its all it knows. It hasnt been grown in a test-tube. Even at birth a baby recognises its mother and will crawl to its mothers breast if allowed. To give it to someone else - ANYONE else, is not in the best interests of the child unless theres a pretty major reason she cant do it as it will be alien to it
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    exactly.The sound, the smell, everything. The baby has been part of its mothers body for 9 months. Its all it knows. It hasnt been grown in a test-tube. Even at birth a baby recognises its mother and will crawl to its mothers breast if allowed. To give it to someone else - ANYONE else, is not in the best interests of the child unless theres a pretty major reason she cant do it as it will be alien to it

    Yet you quite happy to argue for the right of gay couples to have children?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, absolutely, where's the contradiction? It's not as though the gay couple are stealing a child from a mother who can/wants to take care of it!
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    katralla wrote: »
    Yes, absolutely, where's the contradiction? It's not as though the gay couple are stealing a child from a mother who can/wants to take care of it!

    Stealiing a child from it's mother?
    Is that what you think father wanting custody of his kid is doing, stealing the child?

    Everybody here has agreed that in most cases the mother is going to be the most suitable parent. More often than not it is, but the best intrestes of the child do not come down to breasts. It's soemthing to consider but it's hardly something to build your whole argument around.

    Case should be looked at individually.

    There are issues with fathers getting access to their children which need to be fixed. This attitude that father don't have any rights to there children is bullshit.
Sign In or Register to comment.