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.
Options
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
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?
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.
Get fucked.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
:yes:
You noticed that it's a theme from certain posters...?
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:
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?
I dont think youll ever understand tbh.
Ditto.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Our prejudices?
What might they be then?
"pre-judging the ideas on mother baby bonding" 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?