Equality? Not for fathers ...
Discussion
When I was in my early twenties I really wanted children, not necessarily then you understand as I was well aware of how young I was but I knew that I did want them at some point. Fast forward to now (30) and I can safely say that I've reversed my stance 
A few of my friends have kids and I love spending time with them but I don't think I would risk having any of my own and then potentially finding myself in a situation like the OP's - I honestly think it would completely destroy me.
A few of my friends have kids and I love spending time with them but I don't think I would risk having any of my own and then potentially finding myself in a situation like the OP's - I honestly think it would completely destroy me.
bobbylondonuk said:
Face it...you become a father..you are f
ked for life. The odds are stacked against you by default.
If your relationship with the mother breaks down...ked for life. The odds are stacked against you by default.I'm a new(ish) father (aged 35 with a 1 year old daughter) and don't think that I'm "f
ked for life" as I believe I'm in a strong stable relationship. Obviously circumstances can change but I'd never get anywhere in life if I always concentrated on the negative rather than the positive.Puggit said:
In response to the OP, and without wishing to copy it in its entirety...
13 years of Labour supporting the single mother and generally left wing public sector organisations means that fathers will always have a fight.
Perhaps, but at least Labour put funding into childcare and youth services. 13 years of Labour supporting the single mother and generally left wing public sector organisations means that fathers will always have a fight.
Conservatives haven't enforced the changes they promised and infact, with the cuts made, may as well have done away with childcare and youth services altogether!
What's interesting to me though, is just how many failed relationships there are. Surely this is the issue...why are people have children when they're quite obviously incompatible as parents? I appreciate it happens and sometimes for the best, but the numbers are staggering...
SpeedMattersNot said:
What's interesting to me though, is just how many failed relationships there are. Surely this is the issue...why are people have children when they're quite obviously incompatible as parents? I appreciate it happens and sometimes for the best, but the numbers are staggering...
Coz its what ya do innit! Gotta stay top of the caancil house list bruv.Justayellowbadge said:
Absolutely not.
It allows for the converse to be true.
You lose your job - ex denies you access untill you start paying again.
You want more time - you have to pay more, even though it is now going to cost the ex less as you are supporting your child in your home for more nights.
Monetizing your children is a very, very, bad idea.
But But But It allows for the converse to be true.
You lose your job - ex denies you access untill you start paying again.
You want more time - you have to pay more, even though it is now going to cost the ex less as you are supporting your child in your home for more nights.
Monetizing your children is a very, very, bad idea.
The feminine community are the Earth givers. Our loving and supportive sisters would never dream of being vindictive and holding their children to ranson. They are all our futures after all.
All these stories I hear about them acusing the father of kiddy fidling just to exact some wierd form of revenge is just propaganda a woman would never withold access. If women were in power all would be rainbows and smiles.
Even yesterday in PMQs' CMD siad if more women were in power huge pay rises would not be made! Everybody would be happy.
How dare you suggest a woman would be so petty over money
Justayellowbadge said:
ewenm said:
Coz its what ya do innit! Gotta stay top of the caancil house list bruv.
You are so right. You'll often find me hanging out at the bookies with me roll ups and a can of special brew. ewenm said:
bobbylondonuk said:
Face it...you become a father..you are fked for life. The odds are stacked against you by default.
If your relationship with the mother breaks down...ked for life. The odds are stacked against you by default.I'm a new(ish) father (aged 35 with a 1 year old daughter) and don't think that I'm "f
ked for life" as I believe I'm in a strong stable relationship. Obviously circumstances can change but I'd never get anywhere in life if I always concentrated on the negative rather than the positive.ked. 99% of the time the women will make life miserable for us men. And the system is obviously biased against us. Since the thread is about couples splitting up and fathers getting the boot. Our love for our children is probably the only thing keeping us from going mental. Even that love in some cases is manipulated and denied forever as stated in PH many times.
I heard an interview this morning with the chap who compiled the report. He stated that he started out asking for equality to be written into the law. However, after performing his review he has changed his mind as no two cases are the same and he has recommended that each case be dealt with on merit.
His argument was that in most cases each parent is not equal.
His argument was that in most cases each parent is not equal.
russ_a said:
I heard an interview this morning with the chap who compiled the report. He stated that he started out asking for equality to be written into the law. However, after performing his review he has changed his mind as no two cases are the same and he has recommended that each case be dealt with on merit.
His argument was that in most cases each parent is not equal.
Which sounds rather sensible.His argument was that in most cases each parent is not equal.
ewenm said:
Which sounds rather sensible.
Possibly.But there should be a presumption that they are as it removes the additional conflict.
If one parent can't for economic or whatever other reasons be an equal part of their child's life then they should have the option to relinquish that presumption. The situation that exists at the moment and the one that is supported by this disgraceful report is that if one parent chooses to exclude the other from their child's life then the subjugated parent by means of presumed inequality has to fight to obtain equality. Which leads to conflict and consequently suffering for the child.
That's the fundamental issue.
Plotloss said:
ewenm said:
Which sounds rather sensible.
Possibly.But there should be a presumption that they are as it removes the additional conflict.
If one parent can't for economic or whatever other reasons be an equal part of their child's life then they should have the option to relinquish that presumption. The situation that exists at the moment and the one that is supported by this disgraceful report is that if one parent chooses to exclude the other from their child's life then the subjugated parent by means of presumed inequality has to fight to obtain equality. Which leads to conflict and consequently suffering for the child.
That's the fundamental issue.
I'd like the family courts to presume equality and then look at the facts to validate or reject that presumption and see what is best for the child.russ_a said:
I heard an interview this morning with the chap who compiled the report. He stated that he started out asking for equality to be written into the law. However, after performing his review he has changed his mind as no two cases are the same and he has recommended that each case be dealt with on merit.
His argument was that in most cases each parent is not equal.
Of course its not but just which f*ckwits will decide this? His argument was that in most cases each parent is not equal.
I have not seen my children for years. I have won numerous court cases which of course cost me thousands but it never got me access, hate that word.
The only thing the authorities were ever interested in was making sure that I paid the CSA. Its absolutely laughable.
This all because my ex wanted to hurt me by denying her kids from having a relationship with there father.
Surely, to do this, is some form of child neglect! The power is all with the mother, sometimes the very same person who does not have the childrens best interests at heart.
Justayellowbadge said:
Du1point8 said:
if this means that fathers can't see their own child because it would upset the child itself, I can see a lot of dads telling the CSA to do one... after all why support someone if you are not allowed to see them.
(yes I do sound harsh but that article is just wrong)
Because they still need supporting. (yes I do sound harsh but that article is just wrong)
You don't pay to rent your child. You just pay. Seeing them is, and should always remain, an entirely separate manner.
Edited by Justayellowbadge on Thursday 3rd November 07:57
As a father i feel utterly helpless as the children, when asked, say they don't want to see me and they are teenagers so a court won't rule on contact, but i can't even get the chance to speak to them directly to try and resolve anything.
To the OP regarding the location of the children, when i asked my solicitor about this he said employ a private detective to find them, i was a bit surprised that that was his professional advice and there was no way that correspondence etc could be passed on any other way. I found mine after trawling the housing estates of a town for a day, it was just pure luck that i guessed the town and the car was on the drive.
Loving the ingenuity of the mobile attatched to the car with a tracker on
Good luck with contact someday to you OP and everyone else in this situation.
I heard the bod twice this morning on the Radio (5 and 4) and in both cases, I found his answers disturbing.. He kept repeating that if parental rights were equal then this can damage the children.
I think he was saying that in those cases where parents are fighting like cat and dog, having the kids in the middle is bad for them. He mentioned violence, but it was unclear whether he meant allegations of spousal violence, or violence directed towards the kids. However he did go on to say that the courts can still decide... which is surely a contradiction in itself, because as the law stands, the parents do not come before the court as equals. There IS an in-built predisposition towards the mother. By leaving the law as it is, it is effectively bolstering a situation where a vindictive woman can erase a father from the lives of his children. Even if the man has done nothing wrong, and has been a model father and husband, he can still be excluded if the woman maintains that by allowing him access it will unreasonably disrupt her life and/or the life of her child. If she rants enough and the judge sees that this could damage the child she will get her own way (unless she is some kind of crack-we violent monster, and even then it's not a sure fire thing that she would lose custody)
It may only be a tiny minority of cases (is it?) but the injustice is massive. I strongly feel that BOTH parents rights should rank pari passu when coming before the court and from there the court can decide what is best based on the evidence.
I think he was saying that in those cases where parents are fighting like cat and dog, having the kids in the middle is bad for them. He mentioned violence, but it was unclear whether he meant allegations of spousal violence, or violence directed towards the kids. However he did go on to say that the courts can still decide... which is surely a contradiction in itself, because as the law stands, the parents do not come before the court as equals. There IS an in-built predisposition towards the mother. By leaving the law as it is, it is effectively bolstering a situation where a vindictive woman can erase a father from the lives of his children. Even if the man has done nothing wrong, and has been a model father and husband, he can still be excluded if the woman maintains that by allowing him access it will unreasonably disrupt her life and/or the life of her child. If she rants enough and the judge sees that this could damage the child she will get her own way (unless she is some kind of crack-w
e violent monster, and even then it's not a sure fire thing that she would lose custody) It may only be a tiny minority of cases (is it?) but the injustice is massive. I strongly feel that BOTH parents rights should rank pari passu when coming before the court and from there the court can decide what is best based on the evidence.
Pre-Nup agreements regards children should be made compulsory and both parties AND their families should sign it pledging to support proper paternal access and NOT to turn into spiteful,vindictive nasty snide bhes that do everything possible to turn the children against the father/ mother and or any person that gets involved in a subsequent relationship. This should enforceable by law and punishable by beheading at the least.
The only ones who really suffer in this are kids. I am 40 and have only just really come to terms with how my mother and her side of the family twisted things and poisoned the minds of myself and my brother. I didn't see my dad between the ages of 11 and 16. At the same time my mum married a complete arse who used to throw me around if I smartmouthed him (he was stupid, I'm not).
My brother still doesn't talk to my dad. I've only seen my two boys once in the last 18 months.
People who aren't involved ALLWAYS have an opinion. Unfortunately, they couldn't give a st whether what comes out of their mouths ruins the lives of the KIDS in whose best interests they should be acting.
OK - Rant over
hes that do everything possible to turn the children against the father/ mother and or any person that gets involved in a subsequent relationship. This should enforceable by law and punishable by beheading at the least.The only ones who really suffer in this are kids. I am 40 and have only just really come to terms with how my mother and her side of the family twisted things and poisoned the minds of myself and my brother. I didn't see my dad between the ages of 11 and 16. At the same time my mum married a complete arse who used to throw me around if I smartmouthed him (he was stupid, I'm not).
My brother still doesn't talk to my dad. I've only seen my two boys once in the last 18 months.
People who aren't involved ALLWAYS have an opinion. Unfortunately, they couldn't give a s
t whether what comes out of their mouths ruins the lives of the KIDS in whose best interests they should be acting.OK - Rant over
my three older brothers all got divorced - the older two never had any problems with access to their kids, saw them regularly and made reasonable financial contributions (I know that my eldest brother in fact gave much more money that he was required to). My other brother hardly sees his daughter even though he is allowed to (I speak to her more often than he does), has hardly given a penny to the mother over the years and has generally acted like a complete arse despite telling anyone who would listen how hard done by he is.
Oh, this isn’t good.
Was talking with a few mates the other day given that we are all now in our early to mid 30’s.
With one exception they have all said that whilst they are likely to get married they are not likely to have children because, should anything go wrong, they could find themselves never seeing their child and paying for the lifestyle of an ex and her new partner.
Very scary, and all the more so when you look at them and realise that it is exactly these sorts of blokes who should be fathering the future, not the no brain no hopers who are knocking up 5, 10, 15 women as to do so makes them a big man in the eyes of their friends.
Was talking with a few mates the other day given that we are all now in our early to mid 30’s.
With one exception they have all said that whilst they are likely to get married they are not likely to have children because, should anything go wrong, they could find themselves never seeing their child and paying for the lifestyle of an ex and her new partner.
Very scary, and all the more so when you look at them and realise that it is exactly these sorts of blokes who should be fathering the future, not the no brain no hopers who are knocking up 5, 10, 15 women as to do so makes them a big man in the eyes of their friends.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff