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)

124

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I didn't say a father wanting custody was stealing the child, I said a gay couple wanting to raise a child wasn't. Nor did I say that birth mothers should get preference merely due to their breasts. Have a word with yourself, yeah?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    katralla wrote: »
    I said a gay couple wanting to raise a child wasn't.

    Which implied that you thought the father wanting custody of child the mother also wants custody of was stealing?
    Why else did you you bring it up?

    katralla wrote: »
    Nor did I say that birth mothers should get preference merely due to their breasts.

    Well you you were making more of an issue of it than it deserves.

    Father do have a hard time of it. A couple of mates have a very hard time because they're no longer with the mother of there child/children. Neither of them think that they should custody but both say they don't get to see they're children enough, or don't have enough of a role in their kids lives.

    katralla wrote: »
    Have a word with yourself, yeah?

    Get fucked.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is ridiculous. "It's natural" is not an argument. It's exactly the same reason that was used to justify why women couldn't perform certain roles for centuries. And now the prospect of a man who wants the opportunity to perform a female role, and you use exactly the same arguments against him. It's hypocritical.

    Nobody here is arguing that a man should get custody 50% of the time, or anything like that. We are arguing that he should have the right to have his case heard without any preconception or prejudices based on his gender. Now in employment, that still means that for manual jobs, more often than not, a man will be the most suitable person for the role. But it's absolutely not acceptable to insist on a man, just because he's a man. Just like it's not acceptable to insist on the mother, just because she's the mother. The case should be made on an individual basis. Everyone hear has admitted that there are some circumstances where a woman would be a bad person to allow custody of the child. If the mother's a crack addict, and the father's a qualified nursery nurse, I don't think many people would have trouble calling that one. 99% of the time, the mother will be the best person for the job, and 99% of the time, the father will be allowed access, because 99% of the time it's in the interests of the child to know both parents. But that doesn't mean that it should be case closed before you've even heard the circumstances, which is what you two seem to be arguing. If you can think of any concievable situation in which a baby should be taken away from it's mother, then you have to accept the right for a father to challenge for custody in all cases.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    This is ridiculous. "It's natural" is not an argument. It's exactly the same reason that was used to justify why women couldn't perform certain roles for centuries. And now the prospect of a man who wants the opportunity to perform a female role, and you use exactly the same arguments against him. It's hypocritical.

    Nobody here is arguing that a man should get custody 50% of the time, or anything like that. We are arguing that he should have the right to have his case heard without any preconception or prejudices based on his gender. Now in employment, that still means that for manual jobs, more often than not, a man will be the most suitable person for the role. But it's absolutely not acceptable to insist on a man, just because he's a man. Just like it's not acceptable to insist on the mother, just because she's the mother. The case should be made on an individual basis. Everyone hear has admitted that there are some circumstances where a woman would be a bad person to allow custody of the child. If the mother's a crack addict, and the father's a qualified nursery nurse, I don't think many people would have trouble calling that one. 99% of the time, the mother will be the best person for the job, and 99% of the time, the father will be allowed access, because 99% of the time it's in the interests of the child to know both parents. But that doesn't mean that it should be case closed before you've even heard the circumstances, which is what you two seem to be arguing. If you can think of any concievable situation in which a baby should be taken away from it's mother, then you have to accept the right for a father to challenge for custody in all cases.

    Word. :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is ridiculous. "It's natural" is not an argument. It's exactly the same reason that was used to justify why women couldn't perform certain roles for centuries. And now the prospect of a man who wants the opportunity to perform a female role, and you use exactly the same arguments against him. It's hypocritical.

    Nobody here is arguing that a man should get custody 50% of the time, or anything like that. We are arguing that he should have the right to have his case heard without any preconception or prejudices based on his gender. Now in employment, that still means that for manual jobs, more often than not, a man will be the most suitable person for the role. But it's absolutely not acceptable to insist on a man, just because he's a man. Just like it's not acceptable to insist on the mother, just because she's the mother. The case should be made on an individual basis. Everyone hear has admitted that there are some circumstances where a woman would be a bad person to allow custody of the child. If the mother's a crack addict, and the father's a qualified nursery nurse, I don't think many people would have trouble calling that one. 99% of the time, the mother will be the best person for the job, and 99% of the time, the father will be allowed access, because 99% of the time it's in the interests of the child to know both parents. But that doesn't mean that it should be case closed before you've even heard the circumstances, which is what you two seem to be arguing. If you can think of any concievable situation in which a baby should be taken away from it's mother, then you have to accept the right for a father to challenge for custody in all cases.

    no, im not arguing against any of that. I think in most cases it is in the childs interest to have a relationship with their father, especially if they already did for a time before the parental relationship broke up

    I got the impression that you (or whoever it was) thinks its perfectly ok for a father to just take custody of the child at birth if he thinks hed be a better parent
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    I got the impression that you (or whoever it was) thinks its perfectly ok for a father to just take custody of the child at birth if he thinks he'd be a better parent
    When both parents are around, neither of them should "just take custody of the child at birth" just because he/she thinks they're a better parent. I think
    everyone here was saying that it needs to be decided on an individual case basis, instead of giving custody to the mother by default and then afterwards letting the father argue for getting it if he wants to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When both parents are around, neither of them should "just take custody of the child at birth" just because he/she thinks they're a better parent. I think
    everyone here was saying that it needs to be decided on an individual case basis, instead of giving custody to the mother by default and then afterwards letting the father argue for getting it if he wants to.

    no i disagree with that. Mother should be default
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    There should be no default.

    Cases should be looked at individually with the father having the right to challenge for custody.

    After all considerations including the issue of what's 'natural' if the father is the most suitable parent then he shoudl have custody.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Should ;)
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    Why?

    The mother will get custody of the child in 9 out of 10 situations anyway simply based on merit, no default is needed.

    It should be up to both parents to proove suitilbility, not simply up to the father to proove why he is the more suitable or why the mother is unsuitable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    becaused she gave birth to the child. The same reason as you dont just give children up to ANYONE else possibly more suitable. The act of growing that child in your own body and eventually birthing it means it is more part of you than anything else. Even the genetics dont match up to that. My children are my own flesh and blood. I grew them. A person who donates sperm or eggs isnt necessarily a parent
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    And they are the flesh and blood of there father aswell. In genetic terms parents are equal. You talk about it as though the mother has ownership rights or something?

    For 9 months whilst the child is inside the mother the decisions made for it quite rightly rest with her alone, because any decisions affect her body also. After that though the physical reasons become far less important in the raising of child.



    Both parents should have to proove suitibility in a custody battle, I'm not sure how you can argue with that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    if no parent has ownership (not the word i would have chosen) then why not just give the child up to anyone who can look after it? property of the state?
    You speak as though the gestating of a child and giving birth, is nothing? Im not fucking rent-a-womb!! Pregnancy and childbirth is the hardest thing ive ever had to do in my life. You go through it because you get your child at the end of it
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    You speak as though the gestating of a child and giving birth, is nothing? Im not fucking rent-a-womb!! Pregnancy and childbirth is the hardest thing ive ever had to do in my life. You go through it because you get your child at the end of it

    But that argument is a purely selfish argument, rather than one that adresses the best intrests of the child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    But that argument is a purely selfish argument, rather than one that adresses the best intrests of the child.

    :yes:

    You noticed that it's a theme from certain posters...?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    I think the main thing I have issue with is that fathers do often get a raw deal and it's something that needs to be adressed.

    That both parents should have to proove suitibility is something I think you'll find it very hard to argue against. The fact that the mother carried the child for 9 months is obnviously a big consideration and in most cases the mother will be the most suitable parent. That does not mean it shoudl be automatic.
    Fathers and the children have the right to have cases looked at on an individual basis.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    I think the main thing I have issue with is that fathers do often get a raw deal and it's something that needs to be adressed.

    That both parents should have to proove suitibility is something I think you'll find it very hard to argue against. The fact that the mother carried the child for 9 months is obnviously a big consideration and in most cases the mother will be the most suitable parent. That does not mean it shoudl be automatic.
    Fathers and the children have the right to have cases looked at on an individual basis.

    :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    But that argument is a purely selfish argument, rather than one that adresses the best intrests of the child.

    its selfish now to want to keep the child that youve carried??

    Its selfish to think you should have some sort of right to keep it unless youre proved unfit to?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i despair.

    I dont think youll ever understand tbh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i despair.

    I dont think youll ever understand tbh.

    Ditto.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    its selfish now to want to keep the child that youve carried??

    It's a selfish argurment in that it's an argument for the intrest of the mother rather than an argument on behalf of the intrests of the child. I don't see how you can say otherwise. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing a such, it's just that I thought the child intrests are the most important thing in deciding custody.

    Its selfish to think you should have some sort of right to keep it unless youre proved unfit to?

    You said you're nto rent a womb, well fathers arn't walking banks of sperm for women to help themselves to everytime they want a child. If childs has been planned and concieveand then the relationship has dissolved, then why shouldn' the father have an fair and unbiased challenge for custody?

    We're not arguing that father should get custody half the time, just that he should should get a fair shot at it. Both parents should have to proove suitibility - it's in the intrest of the child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    how would you judge who was most suitable?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    how would you judge who was most suitable?

    That's not my job, and I wouldn't pretend to know how to judge it.
    I do know tht here are lots of factors to take into consideration and believe that the fact that the mother carries the kid for 9 months isn't the be all and end all of custody rights.

    Suitibily should have to be prooved by both parents and not assumed. That is in the intrests of the child surely?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    That's not my job, and I wouldn't pretend to know how to judge it.

    because you cant really judge it, unless one is really shit and one isnt.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    because you cant really judge it, unless one is really shit and one isnt.

    It's never going to be an exaclt science is it, it's not balck and white. That's not what I'm arguing though.

    I don't think our thoughts are that disimilar to be honest. I agree with most of what you say.

    This idea that an ejaculation gives you no right and that the mother should have custody by deault is something I can't agree with though.
    The father should have an fair unbiased challenge to custody. I don't think that'll mean more fathers start getting custody, because as everybody in this thread has said the mother is 9 times out of 10 the more suitable parent.

    Custody is decided in terms of the best intrests of the child. How is the suggestion that both parents have to proove suitibily goign to negatively impact that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    because you cant really judge it, unless one is really shit and one isnt.

    How shit does a mother have to be then?

    Honestly I think you're missing the point... why is it wrong to make judges -in the rare cases where there is a legal battle for custody- decide what is best for the child based on the merits of both parents vs. just an old fashioned 'the mum is best'.

    That's the same kind of assumption that says women shouldn't stay at home because the workplace is a man's place, that men are the breadwinners. It's obviously flawed in the legal system currently, the assumptions that are made. The only reason it hasn't changed is because it's not a big political point.

    Noone is advocating taking babies from mothers at birth because they don't meet standards, just that if there is a custody battle for whatever reason, maybe a divorce or something, that the judge doesn't just give custody to the mother because she's a woman. The only cases where this wouldn't be are when she's clearly unfit to be a parent full stop.

    That clearly is not making a decision in the best interest of the child, but the best interest of the mother.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can ignore reasoning as to why mothers are likely to be most appropriate primary carers and put it down to 'old fashioned' thinking if you like, but doing so means that you haven't considered the facts beyond your prejudices.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    katralla wrote: »
    You can ignore reasoning as to why mothers are likely to be most appropriate primary carers and put it down to 'old fashioned' thinking if you like

    We havn't said it should be ignored, it is an important factor. But it it's not the be all and end all of custody rights.
    katralla wrote: »
    but doing so means that you haven't considered the facts beyond your prejudices.

    Our prejudices? :lol:
    What might they be then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    pre-judging the ideas on mother baby bonding and importance in child development as selfish arguements in the mothers best interests rathe than the childs, and the 'nature' arguement as 'old fashioned' and therefore to be written off without considering it on its merits.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,026 I eat threads for breakfast
    katralla wrote: »
    pre-judging the ideas on mother baby bonding and importance in child development as selfish arguements in the mothers best interests rathe than the childs, and the 'nature' arguement as 'old fashioned' and therefore to be written off without considering it on its merits.

    "pre-judging the ideas on mother baby bonding" :confused: What's that supposed to mean?

    I suggest you read the thread again.

    Nobody here has suggested that there arn't natural and physical factors why a mother is often the best choice for custody. Infact everybody has said otherwise. It is old fashioned to suggest that those factors are the be all and end all of custody rights though.
    It's far more complicated than that. And basing your whole argument aroudn the fact "it's natural" is wrong.

    Just answer this. How does the suggestion that each case be treated indvidually, with both parents having to proove suitibility negatively impact the best intrests of the child?
Sign In or Register to comment.