If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Equal rights/ Fathers (lack of) rights
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Ok I don’t usually post on politics because I’d rather deal with criminals than a MP, criminals seem to have better morals!
This IS LONG, But please read it as you will be surprised at some of the facts, and the media attiude.
Some is from the net, some info packs I’ve paid for, some I’ve been told by my solicitor.
As some of you may know I have recently split from my partner of 5 years and it involves a 2-year-old girl.
I have trawled the net for info and TBH I am now a meal ticket for my ex-partner nothing more. We weren’t married
And despite being on the birth certificate (and daughter having my surname) I, in the eyes of the law, am not recognized as the father, yet am still liable for CSA payments! Fair? -NO Equal rights? - Don’t make me fucking laugh! Sexual discrimination? - YES! Can I do anything about it? – Not really, So far It has cost me £250 just to apply for parental responsibility which will give me most (not all) of the rights she has automatically and for free!
Newspapers
Newspapers regularly feature articles by such journalists as Polly Toynbee (Independent) that whine about men. The newspapers do have a press complaints body but these complaints will only be accepted if you are personally mentioned in the article or the complaint is perceived to be in the public interest. For example, one recent complaint the Press Complaints received was about two articles in the Yorkshire Evening Post: "Battle to free child snatcher-sentence on dad too harsh, says campaign" (8-Mar-96) and "Court ruling looms - Mum in fight for children" (4-Jan-96). The father and the mother both committed the same offence. They travelled with their children to another country against a court order. Same offence, different headline in the newspaper, and completely different tone in the body of the text The reply stated:
"....Only in exceptional circumstances a complaint from a third party may be investigated should the Commission consider that a significant issue involving the public interest is raised....the Commissioners do not find your complaint raises such an issue under the Code."
Obviously the fate of 45000 fathers who loose all contact with their children every year is not considered a significant issue. It is according to the press acceptable to present a mother as a heroine and a father as a child snatcher.
Advertising
Advertisements regularly feature men as foolish. The main aim of the advertisers is to appeal to women who control and make the majority of purchases. There has been a recent disturbing trend of using images of violence against men to sell products to young women (Sunday Telegraph 14-Sep-97).
The car company Nissan recently placed advertisements in women's magazines for a car called the Micra targeting younger women who make up 70 percent of the cars buyers. The heading was 'Hate Male'. The advertisement encouraged women readers to write in and get sent postcard pictures of a man who had been compromised by a women after he had borrowed her car without asking. The pictures are: A man bent in agony holding his crutch, a mans jacket in tatters with both the arms cut off, a male watch being fried in a pan, a man sleeping with half his hair and beard cut off, a women holding a can of opened dog food behind her back and in the background a man is sitting eating, a paper clipping lying on a table of the Bobbitt case entitled: a night to dismember, and a book with the last few pages cut out.
In an advertisement on television by Volkswagen a divorcing husband tries to claim that his VW car is worth a great deal more money than it really is. The wife discovers this overvaluation and gets her own back on the husband by "taking him to the cleaners". The wife is seen crowing over her victory and thanking VW for their cheapness. The husband is left standing at the kerb side and gets his clothes back from the cleaners torn to shreds (presumably by his wife).
A billboard advertisement for Lee jeans features a naked man lying on the floor. A woman wearing Lee jeans is shown with her stiletto above the man's buttocks. The caption reads "Put the boot in".
An advertisement for Wallis clothes featuring in women's magazines, shows men about to be killed because they are staring at women. In one, a man is about to have his throat cut because his barber is staring at a pretty girl.
Marriage
At present 75% of all divorces are called for by wives. The Emperor's New Clothes survey of divorce men found that a man pays £29,306 to his lawyers and transfers £57,966 to his wife of which she then pays £20,000 to her lawyers. Thus lawyers benefit by £49,306 on average per divorce.
If a man takes the step of marrying and has children:
He has a 50/50 chance of: divorcing, losing custody of his children and paying £87,272 (avg)
He will have a 2 in 3 chance of losing his home
He will have a 1 in 10 chance of loosing contact with his children for ever
If a women takes the step of marrying and has children:
It is almost certain she will keep her children
She will also have a 1 in 3 chance of losing her home
Have a 50/50 chance she will benefit by £37,966 (avg. figure)
Lifestyle Opportunities
Women have multiple lifestyle opportunities versus men's single opportunity i.e. work. At present women have the option to:
Work
Stay at home as a housewife
Stay home with children
Work part time and care for children part time
Family courts
Family courts have a powerful default of awarding custody to the mothers in 91% of the cases. This is regardless of the mothers conduct, or of her ability to support and care for the children. A great deal of research has established high correlation's between fatherless families and child poverty, family violence, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, and juvenile crime.
The ideal of maternal-preference originates from the period when two parent families were the norm. Marriage and children are great civilisers and motivaters for men. Women benefit from the man's pay check and from the male qualities he instills in the children. In two parent families the children are mostly cared for by the mother, but this is becomming less common. By contrast a mother-headed family is often far from ideal. For example, one of the best predictors of child abuse is the presence in the home of a boyfriend or step-father. Some studies have put the rate of abuse as 77 times greater in lone-mother households with a boyfriend / stepfather compared to families where both biological parents are present.
Family court judges are advised by Court Welfare officers who are supposed to make recommendations 'in the best interest of the child'. These officers often operate without a complaints procedure. Since a welfare report cannot be acknowledged as wrong it can only be right. A report that is by definition right can only be endorsed by the court, which as it happens sit in secret. It is almost impossible for fathers to appeal against bad decisions. Even appeals where there is outrageous justice against fathers are very rarely granted.
There is a widespread misconception that children get over the effects of divorce. This is not the case. There is much evidence that children from broken families are severely disadvantaged [Telegraph 01-Dec-96]. In some children these wounds never heal.
Parental alienation
If a child resides only with one parent and the other parent only has limited visiting rights then a process called parental alienation is possible. This is basically where the children are turned against the other parent. Since children are awarded custody to the mothers in 91% of the cases then the alienation is mostly against fathers.
A mother inducing alienation may say that the father is always harassing us with phone calls, always trying to bribe us with gifts and toys, or getting solicitors onto us. Inducing parents may often cut off the extended family as well. A common form of critism is how little maintainance money is given. Inducing parents often use baby sitters, with excuses like the non-resident parent can't see the children at these times because it is outside routine. The inducing parent would rather the child be with friends or neighbours or playing outside unsupervised than with the non-resident parent. An inducing parent will not forward school reports, school photographs or want the non-resident parent to go to school concerts etc. Inducing parents often wont cooperate in joint interviews or mediation and they are often blinded by rage and don't appreciate the emotional damage they are doing to their children. They are often convincing and are master manipulators.
The CSA
This one is huge (equal to 50% of the whole post) so I wont post this one.
A simple point, If the mother is on benefits She has to apply for it. (Unless she says she will be endanger of violence, in which 52% are false cases, the father wont get any visiting rights)
If the father has costody it is VERY RARE that the CSA will chase the mother for any payments, even if the father is on benefits and/or has applied for it.
Passports
An unmarried man cannot apply for a passport for a child unless he has the permission of the mother. This means that an unmarried father is unable to take his own children on any foreign holidays.
A mother does not need the father’s permission to apply for a passport since nationality for children of unmarried parents is via the mother.
Despite repeated applications to the Equal Opportunities Commission, a body that has been specifically setup to redress discrimination, they have refused to assist in this matter.
Taxes
Men have to pay the majority of the taxes (men: 77B£/year women: 39B£/year) but benefit the least from these taxes especially since they die 7 years earlier than women.
Married men are especially discriminated against compared to lone parents. For every level of earnings a lone-parent with children has more left in her pocket than a married man with the same number of children who has to support one extra adult (P. Morgan: Farewell to the Family). This is because lone parents have earnings disregards and extra benefits.
Personal allowances can be transferred from the husband to the wife, but they can not be transferred from the wife to the husband.
Pensions and benefits
The retiring pension ages for men and women are unequal i.e. women retire at 60 and men have to retire at 65. This will not be corrected until the year 2020. Since women live 7 years longer than men it can be said that men receive 12 years less benefits for 5 years more work.
Widows are able to claim bereavement benefit, but there is no equivalent benefit for widowers.
Lone parents (i.e. mothers) have a number of benefits especially since many i.e. 60% do not work, they may be entitle to the following: housing benefit, income support, family credit
In this era of feminist's demands for equality they should get it. If men for example pay 75% of the taxes then they must get 75% of the benefits. Even more useful would be divide funds into two social pots. Then men pay into one social pot and women pay into another. This would then correct the unfairness that men die 7 years earlier than women
Wealth
Although men earn most of the wealth, it is women who control and spend the majority of wealth. Fortune magazine reports that 65% of US wealth is owned by women [Fortune Magazine].
Spending on men and women can be demonstrated by comparing the shop area dedicated to male and female products, alternatively the number of advertisements targeted at each group can be compared.
*how many of you in relationships and she 'does the money'?*
Men
What with the long running campain for women rights (fairly so) Laws have been changed, made and once the ball started rolling it hasn’t stopped. Now it’s at the point where women HAVE more rights than men.
Men are often their own worst enemies. Men will often not seek help when they need it. Men comprise the majority of judges who are so unfair to fathers in family courts. Most of the politicians who make the laws are men. At a time when self interest is the watchword, qualities such as chivalry now seem outdated.
Criminal Law
Time after time we see women who commit crimes get off scott free. This is especially true for mothers who have children. What is completely wrong is that a mother who kills her young baby in the UK is not held responsible for murder but the lesser crime of infanticide. This helps mothers but does nothing to protect the vulnerable children. By contrast there is never any mercy for fathers with children who have equal care responsibilities and the judges show no concern for the feelings of the children who need their fathers. Here are just some examples:
Suzane Oatley 37 a depressed mother who killed her 11 day old baby by hitting his head against a stair walked free from court yesterday after a judge ruled that she should be helped not punished. [Times 1-Sep-95]
A father was jailed for taking his daughter and starting a new life with her in America...the 18-month sentence imposed on Martin Hallam at Leeds Crown Court was hailed by his former wife and her lawyer as a powerful deterrent to would-be parental abductors [Telegraph 14-Nov-95]
A mother who tried to throw her five-year-old son off a bridge above a fast flowing river was placed on probation [Telegraph 28-Oct-9])
A cruel mother who deliberately caused agonising injuries to her baby son walked free, because the judge said, her son 'needed' her [Telegraph 18-Mar-95].
A mother who killed her 11-month-old baby daughter to stop her crying was jailed for 18 months, but her drug-addict boyfriend was jailed for 30 months *are illeagle drugs worse than murder?[Telegraph 29-Apr-95].
Women who snatch babies from parents are usually treated leniently and placed on probation (Telegraph 16-Oct-94).
In 1994 a research finding published by the home office concluded that women offenders are treated more leniently than men by the police and courts (Research Findings No 10 Home Office Research and Stats May 1994). Of all women convicted of indictable offences 7% were given custodial sentences. The figure for men was 20% [Telegraph 16-Oct-95].
Date-rape allegations cases have surged. Very often these allegations have turned out to be completely false. A study conducted by the FBI with subjects already in jail for rape used DNA findings to show that 30% of the convicted men were innocent according to the DNA evidence [Newsweek 11-Jan-93]. A study by Eugene Kanin in a small community over a nine year period indicated that over 40% were officially declared completely and wilfully false [Archives of Sexual Behavior]. In 1985 US Air Force Criminal Investigator Charles McDowell [Chicago Lawyer June 1985] studied 1218 cases initially investigated as rapes; 460 were proven rapes, 212 were disproved allegations, and 546 cases remained unsolved.
Sarah Thornton stabbed and murdered her husband in cold blood as he lay sleeping and then claimed that he had provoked her because of domestic violence [Guardian 29-Jul-95].
Removal of all governmental involvement in family life
(this is may feeling and comments) Governments do not raise families, parents do. The removal of government recognises the severe harm done to families by meal-ticket/agenda-infested professionals. Parents have a direct genetic investment in the best upbringing of their child. The only incentive government agents have to be involved in family life is money. The Cleveland and Orkney Island affairs have shown that social workers remove children without good reason. The Rosemary West and Rikki Neave affairs have shown that social workers do not intervene when they should. Where then is the benefit in having social worker involvement? There are so many times when they never get it right. Recent reports have highlighted the huge number of abuses that take place when the state takes the place of parents. The best protector of a child is the biological father.
At present the hearing in secret behind closed doors by chivalrous male judges results in what has been called the 'rape of the male' in British courts.
I have got stats. On all sorts for ppl who think I’m being bias or have become a woman hater, I havent.
I accept some men are real barstards , But I’m on about fathers who are wanting to care for their children but cant because the vindictive mother has used the courts bias-ness and her rights to ‘punish/seek revenge for the failed relationship – because thay can!
Now it will never wash with me when a woman tells me 'your lucky your a man'
I'd trade doormat status for PMT, child birth, periods, breasts <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> and RIGHTS- anyday!
[ 28-02-2002: Message edited by: Ibbow ]
[ 28-02-2002: Message edited by: Ibbow ]
This IS LONG, But please read it as you will be surprised at some of the facts, and the media attiude.
Some is from the net, some info packs I’ve paid for, some I’ve been told by my solicitor.
As some of you may know I have recently split from my partner of 5 years and it involves a 2-year-old girl.
I have trawled the net for info and TBH I am now a meal ticket for my ex-partner nothing more. We weren’t married
And despite being on the birth certificate (and daughter having my surname) I, in the eyes of the law, am not recognized as the father, yet am still liable for CSA payments! Fair? -NO Equal rights? - Don’t make me fucking laugh! Sexual discrimination? - YES! Can I do anything about it? – Not really, So far It has cost me £250 just to apply for parental responsibility which will give me most (not all) of the rights she has automatically and for free!
Newspapers
Newspapers regularly feature articles by such journalists as Polly Toynbee (Independent) that whine about men. The newspapers do have a press complaints body but these complaints will only be accepted if you are personally mentioned in the article or the complaint is perceived to be in the public interest. For example, one recent complaint the Press Complaints received was about two articles in the Yorkshire Evening Post: "Battle to free child snatcher-sentence on dad too harsh, says campaign" (8-Mar-96) and "Court ruling looms - Mum in fight for children" (4-Jan-96). The father and the mother both committed the same offence. They travelled with their children to another country against a court order. Same offence, different headline in the newspaper, and completely different tone in the body of the text The reply stated:
"....Only in exceptional circumstances a complaint from a third party may be investigated should the Commission consider that a significant issue involving the public interest is raised....the Commissioners do not find your complaint raises such an issue under the Code."
Obviously the fate of 45000 fathers who loose all contact with their children every year is not considered a significant issue. It is according to the press acceptable to present a mother as a heroine and a father as a child snatcher.
Advertising
Advertisements regularly feature men as foolish. The main aim of the advertisers is to appeal to women who control and make the majority of purchases. There has been a recent disturbing trend of using images of violence against men to sell products to young women (Sunday Telegraph 14-Sep-97).
The car company Nissan recently placed advertisements in women's magazines for a car called the Micra targeting younger women who make up 70 percent of the cars buyers. The heading was 'Hate Male'. The advertisement encouraged women readers to write in and get sent postcard pictures of a man who had been compromised by a women after he had borrowed her car without asking. The pictures are: A man bent in agony holding his crutch, a mans jacket in tatters with both the arms cut off, a male watch being fried in a pan, a man sleeping with half his hair and beard cut off, a women holding a can of opened dog food behind her back and in the background a man is sitting eating, a paper clipping lying on a table of the Bobbitt case entitled: a night to dismember, and a book with the last few pages cut out.
In an advertisement on television by Volkswagen a divorcing husband tries to claim that his VW car is worth a great deal more money than it really is. The wife discovers this overvaluation and gets her own back on the husband by "taking him to the cleaners". The wife is seen crowing over her victory and thanking VW for their cheapness. The husband is left standing at the kerb side and gets his clothes back from the cleaners torn to shreds (presumably by his wife).
A billboard advertisement for Lee jeans features a naked man lying on the floor. A woman wearing Lee jeans is shown with her stiletto above the man's buttocks. The caption reads "Put the boot in".
An advertisement for Wallis clothes featuring in women's magazines, shows men about to be killed because they are staring at women. In one, a man is about to have his throat cut because his barber is staring at a pretty girl.
Marriage
At present 75% of all divorces are called for by wives. The Emperor's New Clothes survey of divorce men found that a man pays £29,306 to his lawyers and transfers £57,966 to his wife of which she then pays £20,000 to her lawyers. Thus lawyers benefit by £49,306 on average per divorce.
If a man takes the step of marrying and has children:
He has a 50/50 chance of: divorcing, losing custody of his children and paying £87,272 (avg)
He will have a 2 in 3 chance of losing his home
He will have a 1 in 10 chance of loosing contact with his children for ever
If a women takes the step of marrying and has children:
It is almost certain she will keep her children
She will also have a 1 in 3 chance of losing her home
Have a 50/50 chance she will benefit by £37,966 (avg. figure)
Lifestyle Opportunities
Women have multiple lifestyle opportunities versus men's single opportunity i.e. work. At present women have the option to:
Work
Stay at home as a housewife
Stay home with children
Work part time and care for children part time
Family courts
Family courts have a powerful default of awarding custody to the mothers in 91% of the cases. This is regardless of the mothers conduct, or of her ability to support and care for the children. A great deal of research has established high correlation's between fatherless families and child poverty, family violence, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, and juvenile crime.
The ideal of maternal-preference originates from the period when two parent families were the norm. Marriage and children are great civilisers and motivaters for men. Women benefit from the man's pay check and from the male qualities he instills in the children. In two parent families the children are mostly cared for by the mother, but this is becomming less common. By contrast a mother-headed family is often far from ideal. For example, one of the best predictors of child abuse is the presence in the home of a boyfriend or step-father. Some studies have put the rate of abuse as 77 times greater in lone-mother households with a boyfriend / stepfather compared to families where both biological parents are present.
Family court judges are advised by Court Welfare officers who are supposed to make recommendations 'in the best interest of the child'. These officers often operate without a complaints procedure. Since a welfare report cannot be acknowledged as wrong it can only be right. A report that is by definition right can only be endorsed by the court, which as it happens sit in secret. It is almost impossible for fathers to appeal against bad decisions. Even appeals where there is outrageous justice against fathers are very rarely granted.
There is a widespread misconception that children get over the effects of divorce. This is not the case. There is much evidence that children from broken families are severely disadvantaged [Telegraph 01-Dec-96]. In some children these wounds never heal.
Parental alienation
If a child resides only with one parent and the other parent only has limited visiting rights then a process called parental alienation is possible. This is basically where the children are turned against the other parent. Since children are awarded custody to the mothers in 91% of the cases then the alienation is mostly against fathers.
A mother inducing alienation may say that the father is always harassing us with phone calls, always trying to bribe us with gifts and toys, or getting solicitors onto us. Inducing parents may often cut off the extended family as well. A common form of critism is how little maintainance money is given. Inducing parents often use baby sitters, with excuses like the non-resident parent can't see the children at these times because it is outside routine. The inducing parent would rather the child be with friends or neighbours or playing outside unsupervised than with the non-resident parent. An inducing parent will not forward school reports, school photographs or want the non-resident parent to go to school concerts etc. Inducing parents often wont cooperate in joint interviews or mediation and they are often blinded by rage and don't appreciate the emotional damage they are doing to their children. They are often convincing and are master manipulators.
The CSA
This one is huge (equal to 50% of the whole post) so I wont post this one.
A simple point, If the mother is on benefits She has to apply for it. (Unless she says she will be endanger of violence, in which 52% are false cases, the father wont get any visiting rights)
If the father has costody it is VERY RARE that the CSA will chase the mother for any payments, even if the father is on benefits and/or has applied for it.
Passports
An unmarried man cannot apply for a passport for a child unless he has the permission of the mother. This means that an unmarried father is unable to take his own children on any foreign holidays.
A mother does not need the father’s permission to apply for a passport since nationality for children of unmarried parents is via the mother.
Despite repeated applications to the Equal Opportunities Commission, a body that has been specifically setup to redress discrimination, they have refused to assist in this matter.
Taxes
Men have to pay the majority of the taxes (men: 77B£/year women: 39B£/year) but benefit the least from these taxes especially since they die 7 years earlier than women.
Married men are especially discriminated against compared to lone parents. For every level of earnings a lone-parent with children has more left in her pocket than a married man with the same number of children who has to support one extra adult (P. Morgan: Farewell to the Family). This is because lone parents have earnings disregards and extra benefits.
Personal allowances can be transferred from the husband to the wife, but they can not be transferred from the wife to the husband.
Pensions and benefits
The retiring pension ages for men and women are unequal i.e. women retire at 60 and men have to retire at 65. This will not be corrected until the year 2020. Since women live 7 years longer than men it can be said that men receive 12 years less benefits for 5 years more work.
Widows are able to claim bereavement benefit, but there is no equivalent benefit for widowers.
Lone parents (i.e. mothers) have a number of benefits especially since many i.e. 60% do not work, they may be entitle to the following: housing benefit, income support, family credit
In this era of feminist's demands for equality they should get it. If men for example pay 75% of the taxes then they must get 75% of the benefits. Even more useful would be divide funds into two social pots. Then men pay into one social pot and women pay into another. This would then correct the unfairness that men die 7 years earlier than women
Wealth
Although men earn most of the wealth, it is women who control and spend the majority of wealth. Fortune magazine reports that 65% of US wealth is owned by women [Fortune Magazine].
Spending on men and women can be demonstrated by comparing the shop area dedicated to male and female products, alternatively the number of advertisements targeted at each group can be compared.
*how many of you in relationships and she 'does the money'?*
Men
What with the long running campain for women rights (fairly so) Laws have been changed, made and once the ball started rolling it hasn’t stopped. Now it’s at the point where women HAVE more rights than men.
Men are often their own worst enemies. Men will often not seek help when they need it. Men comprise the majority of judges who are so unfair to fathers in family courts. Most of the politicians who make the laws are men. At a time when self interest is the watchword, qualities such as chivalry now seem outdated.
Criminal Law
Time after time we see women who commit crimes get off scott free. This is especially true for mothers who have children. What is completely wrong is that a mother who kills her young baby in the UK is not held responsible for murder but the lesser crime of infanticide. This helps mothers but does nothing to protect the vulnerable children. By contrast there is never any mercy for fathers with children who have equal care responsibilities and the judges show no concern for the feelings of the children who need their fathers. Here are just some examples:
Suzane Oatley 37 a depressed mother who killed her 11 day old baby by hitting his head against a stair walked free from court yesterday after a judge ruled that she should be helped not punished. [Times 1-Sep-95]
A father was jailed for taking his daughter and starting a new life with her in America...the 18-month sentence imposed on Martin Hallam at Leeds Crown Court was hailed by his former wife and her lawyer as a powerful deterrent to would-be parental abductors [Telegraph 14-Nov-95]
A mother who tried to throw her five-year-old son off a bridge above a fast flowing river was placed on probation [Telegraph 28-Oct-9])
A cruel mother who deliberately caused agonising injuries to her baby son walked free, because the judge said, her son 'needed' her [Telegraph 18-Mar-95].
A mother who killed her 11-month-old baby daughter to stop her crying was jailed for 18 months, but her drug-addict boyfriend was jailed for 30 months *are illeagle drugs worse than murder?[Telegraph 29-Apr-95].
Women who snatch babies from parents are usually treated leniently and placed on probation (Telegraph 16-Oct-94).
In 1994 a research finding published by the home office concluded that women offenders are treated more leniently than men by the police and courts (Research Findings No 10 Home Office Research and Stats May 1994). Of all women convicted of indictable offences 7% were given custodial sentences. The figure for men was 20% [Telegraph 16-Oct-95].
Date-rape allegations cases have surged. Very often these allegations have turned out to be completely false. A study conducted by the FBI with subjects already in jail for rape used DNA findings to show that 30% of the convicted men were innocent according to the DNA evidence [Newsweek 11-Jan-93]. A study by Eugene Kanin in a small community over a nine year period indicated that over 40% were officially declared completely and wilfully false [Archives of Sexual Behavior]. In 1985 US Air Force Criminal Investigator Charles McDowell [Chicago Lawyer June 1985] studied 1218 cases initially investigated as rapes; 460 were proven rapes, 212 were disproved allegations, and 546 cases remained unsolved.
Sarah Thornton stabbed and murdered her husband in cold blood as he lay sleeping and then claimed that he had provoked her because of domestic violence [Guardian 29-Jul-95].
Removal of all governmental involvement in family life
(this is may feeling and comments) Governments do not raise families, parents do. The removal of government recognises the severe harm done to families by meal-ticket/agenda-infested professionals. Parents have a direct genetic investment in the best upbringing of their child. The only incentive government agents have to be involved in family life is money. The Cleveland and Orkney Island affairs have shown that social workers remove children without good reason. The Rosemary West and Rikki Neave affairs have shown that social workers do not intervene when they should. Where then is the benefit in having social worker involvement? There are so many times when they never get it right. Recent reports have highlighted the huge number of abuses that take place when the state takes the place of parents. The best protector of a child is the biological father.
At present the hearing in secret behind closed doors by chivalrous male judges results in what has been called the 'rape of the male' in British courts.
I have got stats. On all sorts for ppl who think I’m being bias or have become a woman hater, I havent.
I accept some men are real barstards , But I’m on about fathers who are wanting to care for their children but cant because the vindictive mother has used the courts bias-ness and her rights to ‘punish/seek revenge for the failed relationship – because thay can!
Now it will never wash with me when a woman tells me 'your lucky your a man'
I'd trade doormat status for PMT, child birth, periods, breasts <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> and RIGHTS- anyday!
[ 28-02-2002: Message edited by: Ibbow ]
[ 28-02-2002: Message edited by: Ibbow ]
0
Comments
More and more men now stay home with their kids now so you can't say it's not an option because it is.
I could just as easily rake up 100 or so articles showing inequality against women.
But I do see your point.
I am not meaning to have a go at you but maybe you should read around a bit more and get a more balanced view of life. I am not a man hater, there are horrible men and there are horrible women.
Oh, and 50% chance of divorce? That's gone up <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
I'am in the process of losing my daughter because my ex is angry that we'r over!
she is being as difficult as possible even to the point her parents are ASHAMED of her!
I'm paying though the nose for a solicitor just to have 85% of the rights of her (which is free with every pair of overys)
As I said I'm losing my daughter I have read around for weeks I have inches of papers and leflets I have 9 internet sites on the stuff saved in my favorites at the mo. Officall facts and figures, inquest reports, survays, and on and on.
the Criminal law part was posted in its whole form as I found it. and the full story is in the paper dated 19 jul 95 ( I try and find it if need be.)
I'm sure you could. inequality is a huge subject, I was looking at children and seperation hench the title.
and in this field women win hands down.
Gaining custody for a male means extreme circumstances. The mother has to be proved unfit i.e. more than just drug addictions (cos they'll just give her help for that)
we need to be talking serious abuse b4 the man (who has to be whiter the white) gets considered.
and to be honest most of the few men with custody are so because the 'otherhalf' died
and that was not distingused in the survey.
which is what?
without posting indervidual cases it seems
even in a mutual split, the mother WILL get the child.and otherwise the mother gets the child in 80% of the cases.
I just when and found the real figure (i knew i had it some where)
My Mum and Dad divorced when I was a baby. My Dad couldn't have full custody of me because he worked full time to support me financially. My grandparents (Dad's side) applied for custody of me instead of my Dad. I had spent a great deal of time with them, I love them like my parents. My Gran is more of a Mum than my real Mum has ever been.
Unfortunatly the judge was a fool and of the thinking that a child is always better off with it's Mum. Not so I'm afriad. Maybe in the majority of cases this is true but not in all.
My Mum proceeded to meet man after man after man. I attended numerous schools, lived all over the place, and was physically and mentally abused by my Mum's boyfriends.
I wish I knew who that judge was because he condemed me to an utterly miserable childhood. If he had given custody to my Dad and grandparents I know for a fact I would have had a wonderful childhood.
I hope things turn out well for you and you don't end up with a judge as stupid as the one in my Dad's case.
I had bent over backward for her, lent her money, gave her a home when she was homeless, helped her off speed, repaired her relationship with her parents(she had run away)had a child with her (years later) Accepted she didnt want an abortion-and stayed around!, after the birth she wanted to move back near her parents so I gave up my job and moved from brighton to Oxford ( leaving all friend behind) and a year down the line its all over and she hates me. within 3 weeks she's shagging a new man, and she (as I have now found out was calling him b4 we'd split. I'd payed for the lot she stayed at home. when she did go out to work she wasted her money run up huge bills on store cards ( some in my name!) got me a CCJ! and wont pay me back any of the money, Instead wants money form me for Toni!
I'd rather serve 25 years for killing her than get back with her!!
I think you should contact the CSA and inform them of how much money SHE owes you. Tell them the situation.
I think it is disgustin that men should have to stay around but have no rights. People say it takes 2 to tango, sure it does, but come baby time the 50% thing doesn't matter anymore. What the woman says goes. And if the woman decides to keep it the man is fucked.
You will have rights but unfortunately the law does generally feel that a child is better off with it's mother.
She may have had a drug problem in the past, and been a using, money grabbing person but this isn't really relevant to the case now and I doubt if it will do you any good if you use the past to try to make her look like a bad mother.
If she is not a good mother now, and you maintain contact then you may have a chance you have more imput when things go wrong with her.
Did you leave her? Unfortunately if you were the one doing the leaving then she could basically claim abandonment.
I don't think you can bring in the fact that she now has a new partner (however casual) if you are the one who left her.
Agreed, and if necessary a DNA would confirm it, but I don;t think that was his point.
<STRONG>
and this is his point. Based on WHAT?
</STRONG>
Of course it's fucking relevant. It certainly gives you an insight into character and into who was the stablising force in the relationship. It would also be a good indicator into who would be the more stable parent...
~~~~~
I would point out though, at this stage we do only have one side of the story...and that is what all our comments are based on.
I've read through all of the first post now and I think perhaps people would do well to visit the site all htese facts come from
www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/manifest.htm
Which includes a place to click so you can hear "The harrowing sounds of a 5 year old calling for her father in-exile" (!!!)
I also worry about the bit in the post that talks about child abuse being common with boyfriends and stepfathers! yes it may be but it is more common in men full stop so whats the point? The article you posted manages to suggest that if kids are abused by their mothers boyfriends then it is mostly their mother's fault! We have to get real on this ... who is to blame for abuse? The abuser of course and we are letting them get away with it if we start blaming other people.
Ibbow - obviously the situation you find yourself in is causing you a lot of heartache and you have every right to feel hard done-by.
When a family divides the situaltion is very hard - by giving one partner residential custody the courts automatically 'favour' one parent against the other and, yes, more often than not it is the mother who gets residential custody.
In the past it was the father, then somewhere along the line the 'rights' of mothers was recognised and the pendulum swung too far in 'favour' of the mother.
The truth is that when there are two homes, two parents and two lifestyles it isn't always possible for a court to award joint, equal custody and they have to make a decision that they feel will most benefit the child.
In many cases the mother has been the primary carer, the fault of Biology and economics.
What you need to do is try and let some of the anger you are feeling go. It is not going to help the situation and will certainly have an effect on the child. You are more likely to win the 'moral' battle if you learn how show your EX that her actions are not feeding any need for revenge and animosity.
If you start to put up a huge big angry fight and act with aggression, your childs mother will begin to wonder if it is safe to leave the child with you and she will become less likely to come to mutual beneficial arrangements for the care of your child.
You may feel that you have every need and right to fight as hard and as dirty as you can - but you have to think of the ultimate goal and the benfit to your daughter. Isn't it better for her to have two parrents who can be amicable rather than get the feeling that she is a problem the two of you cannot solve.
A STORY - my Sister met her boyfriend 8 years ago. He had just split up with his wife who had left him for his best friend. They had a small child and over the years my sisters boyfriend didn't really keep in much contact with his daughter. Realising how important it was my sister encouraged him to make more time to see her. As the years passed his relationship with his daughter became stronger and although his ex-wife re-married (Since divorced) and had another child his Daughter has always known that he is her dad. She also has the benefit of knowing and loving my sister.
The story is not yet complete though because before his marriage my sisters boyfriend had another child, a boy, with another girlfriend but he doesn't even know where his son is. He has visions of him turning up on his doorstep, full of bitterness because they didn't keep in touch and wishes he had made more effort.
You can still be a father and a good one, the best. But you may be in danger of ruining it all by letting your feelings explode into unpleasantness.
Yes the system does suck, specially if you are the one who feels you are being descriminated against but within the time scale you have surely it would be better to concentrate your efforts on the needs of your child rather than act in a way that could cause even more damage to her life.
It has stemed from Her ring up to gloat about him, (using biggest male insercuity) I've been told he is 'bigger' and better in bed (I dont give a monkeys, its just said for effect) He's kind, caring, has money (not for long if he stays!) She is an arsehole when I call, saying things like "Stop calling me, just accept it, its over!" in the company of her friends (btw this is at a time agreed so I can talk to toni) Then calls me (on her own) 'nice as pie' chit-chats for abit then useuly asks to borrow money! In front of her parents we agreed to repair the car then sell it and split the money 50/50,- She then called (on her own of course) expecting me to pay for (all) the repairs and she wanted to keep all the money!
Calling her is risky if she's on her own it's Ok, If she's out with someone she put on the 'I'm the hassling ex attitude'
She's thrown all sorts of insults around and I am indiffrent to her. I am not a nasty person, example- today her pay didnt go in (true or not) I have offered to lend her £50 tonite. (note £170 has left my account yesterday on standing order 4 her but it takes 2-3days) If I were a **** I'd say its nothing to do with me and make her wait!
I have toni weekday nights (except weds and thurs) and every weekend inclusive ie. picked up friday returned monday morning and have her back monday after work.
So I dont need the reasurance I'm a good dad.
However the ex is leaving for work early (nearly) every night to have a few drinks B4 starting work! leaving toni with her parents untill I pick her up!
I dont play these silly mind games (but I'm writting em all down)
My gripe is Why she need to be so vindictive?
and the courts will take her word for it I'm an arshole (when I'm not)
I am also shareing the care of toni YET am still considered the AP (dispite Im in the house we had) and she (who left) is the PWC
Let me point out:-
YES I am on the birth cert.
YES she has my surname
NO we werent married
BUT ,in the eyes of the law, I am not 'legally' regonised as her father FACT.
I need a parental responsiblity agreement for that.
The ex has refused her consent for that.
I now have to (and have) to pay a solicitor to apply for a parental responsiblity ORDER.
I still have to await the courts decsion on that.
I at the weekend buy the clothes and stuff she needs Yet am expected to still pay CSA, Which I know will pay for the exs lifestyle and not benifit Toni.
She has left me large debts yet there is no recourse for me the recover that money from her.
Am I angry YES I fucking am! <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
at her directly NO
at the situ. YES!
SHe does seem to have the law on her side as faras she knows she can ask you for anything and if you refuse (Ie loans) she might use it against you later.
I hope that she doesn't manage to wind you up and split yoou from your daughter and that you get some kind of closure eventually.
I guess you will never be free of her because she is your daughters mother.
Could you get a call minder thing - one that lets you know who is calling, and an answer machine so that if she is phoning for something urgent she can leave a message and you can pick up straight away but at least you can decide when you want to speak to her.
It sounds to me like she is still depending on you being at her beck and call when really it is only your daughter who needs you, not her as she has moved on to another partner.
As soon as she realises that you are not going to be available all the time then perhaps she will realise it would be more to her (and her daughters) benefit if she were to start behaving like a decent person!
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: byny ]
I'm now a meal ticket,
anything she asks for and I say no, I would be seen in the eyes of the courts as unreasonable,
the flip side is if I ask I'm seen as too demanding.
today I have printed off 20 somthing cases that are simalar to my stiu. I will read them tonight. I have read a couple and howz this sound:-
seperated parents (were married)
shared care, then the mother appeals the arrangement to a court to lessen the time the father has her (a 4 year old)
Its approved, The fathers contact now falls under the Shared care Qualification and is now liable to £63.04 CSA payments a week.
The case notes even state the "Mother wants to keep the total below the qualification period for shared care."
so it seems this dicssion was based soley on the finnacial gain of the mother with no regard for the child or the fathers intrest in the child or his finances.
Fair and just and in the intrests of the child? not this time!