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
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
Again I agree in 999/1000 cases. If it would go to court (extremely unfortunate for a newborn! I think most parents would see sense...) I think the judgement based on the age of the baby and its dependence on its mother for nursing and just the chemical hormonal things (I'm sure I read babies calm down when they hear the mothers heartbeat, something about being in the womb... I don't know
Although an example of how the system is biased I read a year or so ago: a father had done everything the court asked of him to get access (technically, its giving the child access to its father) but the mother had a tantrum and the judge said, despite the father doing no wrong at all, his main concern was for the mother and child, and him seeing the child would upset the mother, so he said no access - and barred the father from raising legal proceedings for the next 4 years as it was stressful to the mother.
I want those kind of incidents to stop, where really the father has no rights. Even IF he wins an access battle, the mother can easily just say no or be out when he turns up. What are the courts going to do? Send her to prison? There is no legal consequence to not adhering to the courts ruling unless you're the father.
I don't want babies snatched off the mothers in the delivery room and I don't think thats going to happen. I just want, in the unlikely case that the parents cant agree on a suitable arrangement themselves, and it goes to court, that situations like the above dont happen. That the father is judged on his merits as a parent as well as the mother, rather than it being a case of 'if the mother isnt abusing the kid, sorry but its up to her who sees it, and if she doesnt like you and doesnt want you to be in the childs life... not much you can do'. It's even more shocking if thats the case with grown up children, i.e. 8 or 9 year olds for example, parents get divorced, the bond with both parents is there and very very strong, mother ups and leaves. The court would still say the same thing.
Ok: if it IS stressfull to the mother, then that would affect the child, yes? I can see why the judge thought that, there should perhaps be more counselling and guidance available for both parties in a custody battle, and mediation and stuff. Also, what good is punishing the mother going to do? Put her in jail? I'm sure that wouldn't be in the child's best interests.
I'm sure in lots of cases you don't get the full story and there's a lot more to it than is reported.
I do think though that courts should do more to enforce access to willing loving fathers if the child wants it and the mother is making obstacles unnecessarily.
I know of one case where the guy has been to court many times for this and its a shame.
I know lots, myself, my friends, and it really needs to stop.
I know of two friends who were coached by their mums to hate their fathers after they split. 'Coached' makes it sound very devious but I don't think it was, its just the mums referred to the father as the 'bastard' or whatever. I think the best solution would be for the parents to split ways, hate each other whatever, but always remain cordial around the kids for the sake of the kids.
Again, I would hope in most cases the parents could have the sense to come to a mutually agreeable solution. And in most cases, the solution would be to stay with the mother - thats common sense like SCC says. But in the exceptional cases where the parents cant agree, and it does go to court, it should be weighed up based on the merits of both parents (and I agree that biologically the mother at infant stage does have a big benefit for the child and thats fine) and proceed from there, rather than being a case of 'prove the mother is abusive'.
Although one other note, I feel a bit... iffy about giving greater rights based on nursing alone as that feels like we're implying mothers who dont breastfeed are worse parents. :eek2:
its not that theyre worse parents, but formula milk does not have anything like the health benefits as breastmilk. It is absolutely a worse feeding choice for the child in many many ways. Unfortunately it isnt always possible, granted, but it is a fair issue worth mentioning.
In the above case, even if the mother has been a dick to the father and "coached" the children (which I don't agree with btw but can understand why it happens) then the mother might still be a better parent than the father. You don't know that the judge hasn't weighed up the parents based on merit - you just know that it went in the way of the mother.
Ideally yes, everything would be amicable and it's a shame that it's not.
Territt do you not have access to your child then? I did wonder if you had some sort of ulterior motive in your arguments. I'm sorry to hear that. I take it it wasn't amicable in your case?
Thats the point ive been making, it should be down to who will be best for the child, not that the child will stay with the mother unless the mother is crap or abusive.
No its the other way around, when my mother and father split up in the late 80's there wasnt any choice but for me to live with my mother, with one weekend in two every other with my father, that was untill my mother decided to be a bitch and move me 200 miles from my father, now im 24 and see him once or twice a year, just when i need somewhere to sleep for a night in london, but theres no father/son thing between us which sucks, because from what other family members(from both sides of the family) i was a lot closer to my father then my mother, but now it to late, and i see when friends that have kids with ex's, the woman can pretty much tell him to fuck of when they go to pick the kids up. it sucks,
The point is that the child shouldnt belong to anyone,
While I can see why it wasn't good that you were moved away from your father, I can see it being a right pain in the arse for you mum being totally limited to where you and her could live just because that's where your dad lives. This works both ways of course - would you be so angry if your father had been the one to move away?
Not at all, i think Fathers "rights" are talked about more now, but nothing has changed, mothers can be a right bitch about access and pretty much nothing is done about it.
I think if a person has a child then they need to set limits what they can or cant do, moving the child away from the father is one of those things that shouldnt be done,
Yes a 100% i would, as i said above if two people make the choice to have a child then they need to put the childs needs first.
should the other parent follow?
Once you have a child, should you just live in the same place forever?
If you had read the post above you would know my answer to that, at the end of the day no Perent should move with a child so far that it makes contact with the other perent hard.
Again read above.
Theres nothing wrong with moving around the same area, but to take a child 100's of miles away from there other perent is wrong, i cant see how anyone would see it any other way.
I would have been 10 times better off with my father then my mum, but in the courts that didnt really matter because she was the mother.....
Also these days the non-resident parent can stop the mother from leaving the area.
personal experience - my brother has custody of my nephew. He wanted to move up to glasgow (from SE england). She got a court order preventing him from going.
A few months later, she decided to move up to aberdeen herself. He had no way of stopping this though
So youre obviously upset (understandably) about laws back then, but theyre not even like that now
The way I see it, is the mother is a person too, whos needs should also be taken into account. Its a family unit, and decisions need to be based on everyone and a satisfactory outcome for all. Perfect for the child, yet shit for the parent is not a good answer. Perfect for the parent, yet shit for the child is also not a good answer.
Good or good enough so that everyone is happy is the best outcome.
Circumstances change. A woman whos ex partner left her with the kids, which shes happy about, should not "necessarily" have to stay in the same area forever, as long as reasonable access is facilitated for the absent parent if wanted. To be left, and then only being allowed to live near to her ex, is like being fucked over twice.
If it was that way, mostly nothing about the outcome would change from how things are now. The difference would only be that in the cases that the mother truly isn't suitable but this isn't immediately apparent, it would be found out much sooner. Surely that's better for the baby?
And also, forget about the black/white "mother VS father" thing. Imagine for example a case where the mother is saying "No, I don't want my baby to have any contact with you" and the father is like "For God's sake, I'm not trying to steal him/her, I just want to have a part in his/her life."
If you automatically "believe" the mother in this case, he (supposing he's actually a decent fellow) will have to sue or something before he can have the right to be a father. The way I'm thinking of, this would be found out sooner.
The main point is this: In most cases where the mother is the best choice to be the primary carer (I'm not doubting that for a second) nothing would be different. But in the few cases that she isn't, the right thing would be done much sooner.