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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
All this misses some important points:
Most custody arrangements are arrived at amicably anyway.
The court will only deny custody if there is a reason for it- a pre-con for affray won't be enough in many cases. Four pre-cons for DV would.
Imagine that the woman says the man is abusive, the man says he's never hurt her and that she always drinks. No proof can be found for either accusation.
What do you think will happen then?
In theory, each allegation will be dealt with separately, and each one will be decided on balance of probabilities.
family law really is such an inexact science, it isn't a case of guilty/not guilty, its all about who is the better person to look after the child most of the time.
The system isn't perfect, of course it isn't, but I have yet to hear a sensible suggestion as to how to improve it. Instead of carping about how the courts don't do A and don't do B, perhaps people should be suggesting how to improve the system so that those who are dangers will be kept away from children, and those who lie will be made not to.
Once again, sorry if you'd said it earlier too.
Fathers4Justice, on the whole, are a very good group with a very good aim. Yes there are a small minority of irresponsible ones who have rightly been given restricted access to their children due to their behaviour but I stress they are the minority but because of their actions, they are the ones who makes the headlines.
More often than not their members are people who feel the courts have let them down badly. It would be too convenient to blame women for this but personaly I feel the fault lies with the family court liaison officers.
It is generally accepted by many that children are better off with their mother - absolute tosh of the highest order. I'm not saying they are better off with their father (or any other family member) but there is no reason to suggest that children are any worse off with them.
Family courts are not there to see personal squabbles between ex-husbands/wives (I refuse to use the word 'partner'), their concern is (or should be) for the child(ren). However it is far easier for the liaison to portray the female as the victim of the male's unreasonable behaviour. In lots of cases before the break up of the relationship the father will work long and hard hours to provide for his family whilst the mother stays at home to look after the child. The liaison officer will then use this as a good reason why he should not get sole custody of the child as how can he be the carer if he's not there - if he offers to give up work then how can he provide?
By this time the court is leaning towards the woman.
In my situation, I won't go in to specifics but my ex feels life would be a lot easier for all concerned if my daughter lives with me - in other words she's damn lazy (a good example I give people is the character of Denise in the BBC series The Royle Family). I initially gave up my job as an IT support worker to look after my girl and now I'm working part-time in a pub. My ex? Who knows where she is.
When I have this discussion I'm often told that not all dads are like me or are as responsible or active in their child's life. True not all but that's not to say I'm in the minority - courts are simply unwilling to take a chance on fathers being good carers.
There was a recent proposal that women who break court orders and stop fathers from seeing their children on court-appointed dates should be subjected to weekends in prison and whilst there, the father has custody of the child. Fantastic idea in my opinion, give power back (back? We never had it in the first place) to the dads. This is of course on the basis that the father is fit enough to be a dad.
Sorry for the rambling post but this is something I feel very strongly about!
if a parent get the main custody and the other has a visiting or occasional custody order, and the one with the visiting order is denied access - what happens?
that is the point i was trying to put across (i think)
ive read some distressing cases about 2 parents who both see the kid through their own arrangements, and then one meets new other half and they want to move abroad and take the kids with them (and in most cases its the woman it seems to be, but that is quite irrelevant) thinking they have every right to
Oh, that'd be a splendid idea.
Mummy goes to prison, comes out and says that daddy put her there.
Children know that bad people go to prison, and that mummy isn't a bad person. So they will blame daddy for putting her there when she shouldn't be.
Great way to keep familial relations cordial for the children!
placebo, are you actually going to show some conclusive proof that the courts inherently favour women, or are you just going to spout off a load of "my mate says" experiences?
Children should stay with their primary carer. If the mother stays at home and is the primary carer then it is important for stability that the child stays with her. Losing daddy is enough upheaval without losing mummy too.
And I've yet to hear a sensible suggestion from anybody to deal with the tiny tiny problem of the handful of people who won't obey custody arrangements.
You are of course forgetting the mothers who tell their children that the reason they don't see daddy is not because she's stopping it happening, but that daddy is being a 'bad person' by not coming.
If the mother is stopping the father from having access purely to be awkward and bloody minded then yes she IS a bad person.
Sometimes mummy IS the bad person.
I don't have a problem with any of that - I'm not saying fathers should automatically get custody. I agree the child should be with the primary carer whoever that turns out to be. My gripe is with the ones who deliberately prevent the fathers from having contact because they enjoy the power it gives them whilst making their ex's life maddeningly frustrating.
You might not think jail is sensible but the branch of the family courts who suggested it certainly do.
What bollocks is that supposed to be? What about a house husband? That's an inherently sexist comment. Why should the man be the primary earner in the household and why should he have no rights to his child if he isn't?
I'm not forgetting them at all.
If mummy says daddy is a bad person, and then daddy gets mummy sent to prison, just what is the child going to think?
I don't think prison works in this instance, and I have Dame Butler-Sloss agreeing with me. All it does is harm the child; so, for that matter, does fining the mother.
It isn't as big a problem as the media and f4j like to pretend it is. Most parents who don't get custody do so because they are bad parents- they are violent, they are drug abusers, they cannot hold down jobs, etc etc. There are some women who abuse the system- of course there are- but the agenda of f4j saying that all women who prevent custody do it is a complete and total fabricated lie.
As I've said, for all the personal examples of "my mate's gf lied to the court and kept him from his kids", I can choose loads of examples where the court didn't believe the mother, and the father just ran off with the kid- either somewhere in this country, or to the US, Turkey, Pakistan or some other far-flung place.
Way to miss the point.
People who cannot hold down a job are not suitable for permanent custody.
You won't find many households where both parents are "house parents" unless one of them can't get a job.
That's a bit contentious these days, innit? Not being able to stay employed is what modern living is all about for certain income groups - i.e. professionals and anyone with few qualifications. That's not going into the russian roullette of self employment, short term contracts and other financial difficulties people can find themselves in through no fault of their own.
Ooof, hearing those three in the same sentence like the are equivalent makes me feel more than queasy, Kermit.
Delay the fines until the kid is 16/18? How about tagging? That will keep her at home with baby where she should be, neh? As for Mummy lying/Daddy lying perhaps the anti-social loonie called "judge" could tell the kid the truth of the matter. In public. In front of both parents.
It's not missing the point at all. By the statement made if you have a household with a female primary earner and a male that doesn't work but raises the children he wont have a job. Now you and Moonrat are saying he is not suitable for permanent custody. Does this mean a woman that stays at home and looks after the kids is not suitable to look after children?
:eek2:
I can understand kermit coming out with type of shit, but MOONRAT? Blimey!!!
You know what - the protestant work ethic is relatively new in the grand scheme of things. Go back a few centuries and work is usually combined with home life, and kids play an econimically active role from a fairly young age....... so its highly unlikely that an adults ability to be a wage slave determines their ability to parent a child.
I know quite a number of fathers who have been seriously fucked over by their former partners through the family courts - and I think its really funny that kermit has such rose tinted spectacles when it comes to viewing the courts.
:nervous:
It isn't rocket science to see that kids benefit from having input from both parents. Nor is it difficult to see that ex-partners will use whatever ammunition they can to get revenge on the preceived misdeeds of their former partners and all too often that ammunition is the kids. And in a court system that IS sexist and biased in favour of the mother, fathers are going to cop it.
The way to change it is through giving parents equal rights and to encourage shared parenting wherever possible. That doesn't happen yet, and it needs to. If a parent lies in court and is caught out - then they have committed perjury and should be dealt with accordingly. A few high profile cases and it won't be such an easy option.
:wave:
I don't know how you've managed to not get banned. I think you're a mod taking the piss out of us all.
On goes the block button.
Will someone let me know if freethemoron ever comes out with a decent point? he's been here two years, and his one joke is very tiresome.
It's clearly a matter of opinion whether what I say is joke or not.
I can say that I have experience of sharing parenting of a child 50/50, Can kermit? kermit has always found my posts a challenge and has insisted that I am a fool. Fuck him. I don't see any reason that I should be banned for his intolerance.
ho hum
But I will say this... we can let this man have his opinion, as he often presents a ludicrous argument (Often backed up from websites such as www.animalrights.com/scientistsareevil or such unbiased sources ;p - not a URL - tags automatically added. Arg!") but he isn't as bad as dear old Rich Kid.
Fuck it. Let's all go Plato style on this I think... he knew how to deal with Kids upbringing ;p Or we could be like Brave New World... hmm...
I think Parenting is a tricky matter. Unltimatley some parents are unsuitable, adn some are better than others. But how can we tell before they have Children? What is the answer... is it like Plato proposed? Is it that bad? I doubt it... most of us tend to get along alright... a few people don't, but how do we deal with this? Spying on everyone at home? Removing the parenting role form Adults? I doubt either of these are acceptable answers, and as such, it is a necessary evil, I feel saddened by this, but realise it all the same. Some Children will just suffer... unless anyone else can think of something?
So, erm, which part do you not agree with? And why?
Thats how discussions tend to progress .......