Equality? Not for fathers ...

[PurpleMoonlight]

The report says: ‘No legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents.'

The final report flatly rejected claims by fathers’ rights groups that the current system is biased – despite figures showing that 93 per cent of custody battles are won by the mother.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056869/Fa...



I comment on this from personal experience.

It saddens me deeply that rather then making life easier for fathers struggling to maintain a relationship with their children, the Government appears to be making it more difficult for them.

Most children are still planned and born to a family unit. Most fathers want to be fathers to their children. Most did not agree to be fathers on the proviso it was on a part time or nil basis. Why oh why can the Government not see this?

Why do we have the sledgehammer of the CSA/CMEC to force fathers (yes the odd mother too) to contribute financially towards their children, and at the same time kick fathers in the teeth that desperately want a relationship with their children but are obstructed from having it by the mother?

Why are fathers constantly seen by the Government as a mere consequence of a childs life and not a meaningful part of it?

I think about my sons every single day.

I have not seen them since March 2006.

I do not know what they look like. I have no right to.

I do not know where they live. I have no right to.

There are hundreds of thousands of excluded fathers like me.

We need help from the Government not hindrance.

Why do we not matter?

[Du1point8]

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)

[stitched]

When it became apparent my marriage had failed, ie my wife was seeing someone else I nearly went off the rails. I bought a pre pay mobile phone and registered it with a tracking firm. Once this was set up I wired it into her dashboard and so acquired the address of the bloke she was seeing.
I nearly killed him.
Fortunately for me circumstances led to us not meeting and so I looked at my options and left the marital home, I signed it all over to her in the certain knowledge she could not afford to run it on her own.
I changed my hours at work to permanent nights so that I could collect my son from school each day and had a better relationship with him after divorce than before
Ways and means

[Puggit]

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.

[Justayellowbadge]

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.

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

[andyroo]

Du1point8 said:

I can see a lot of dads telling the CSA to do one...

The CSA have the power to approach employer and take straight from pay packet.

OP, man's equality as a parent is quashed right from the start. A woman's primal need to be impregnate is applauded, yet a man's primal need to impregnate is considered perverse.

A woman who sells her body to fulfill another woman's need to have a child is applauded, but a woman who sells her body to fulfil a mans need to spread his seed is considered perverse.

A women who enjoys spending time with children is considered a maternal figure, a man who enjoys spending time with children is considered a pervert.

Yes, the prime minister may be a man, but where it really matters, men are really strung up by the balls. The amount of men I know who have lost eveything because their partner decided to have an affair and ruin a marriage with children in it (including my own father) is quite frankly, scary.

[cymtriks]

PurpleMoonlight said:

The report says: ‘No legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents.'

Why do they make this stipulation?
What is the problem?

Justayellowbadge said:

You don't pay to rent your child. You just pay. Seeing them is, and should always remain, an entirely separate manner.

Personally I think

No access = No maintenance

is entirely fair and reasonable.

[Justayellowbadge]

cymtriks said:

Personally I think

No access = No maintenance

is entirely fair and reasonable.

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.

[randlemarcus]

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.

Very very very true.

This is not saying that the current pro-mother bias in regard to access is a good thing, but the two issues must remain separate.

[ATG]

cymtriks said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

The report says: ‘No legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents.'

Why do they make this stipulation?
What is the problem?

Because the system quite rightly puts the child at the centre of these cases, and every case should be judged on its own merits. There shouldn't be any presumption of equality of access for the parents. In a specific case, if the evidence shows that equal access is in the child's best interest, then fine. And if in a specific case the evidence suggests that either the mother or father should have no access in the interest of the child, then that is also fine. An assumption of equality would contradict the idea of the child's interests being key.

[turbobloke]

ATG said:

cymtriks said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

The report says: ‘No legislation should be introduced that creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents.'

Why do they make this stipulation?
What is the problem?

Because the system quite rightly puts the child at the centre of these cases, and every case should be judged on its own merits. There shouldn't be any presumption of equality of access for the parents. In a specific case, if the evidence shows that equal access is in the child's best interest, then fine. And if in a specific case the evidence suggests that either the mother or father should have no access in the interest of the child, then that is also fine. An assumption of equality would contradict the idea of the child's interests being key.

Presumably so long as, given the child is mature enough to express an opinion, TPTB take the child's view fully into account, rather than just the word of one half of a probably feuding ex-couple.

[Plotloss]

ATG said:

Because the system quite rightly puts the child at the centre of these cases, and every case should be judged on its own merits. There shouldn't be any presumption of equality of access for the parents. In a specific case, if the evidence shows that equal access is in the child's best interest, then fine. And if in a specific case the evidence suggests that either the mother or father should have no access in the interest of the child, then that is also fine. An assumption of equality would contradict the idea of the child's interests being key.

There is a presumption of equality in Australia, as a result, proportionally, they hear 10% of the Family Law cases that we do.

No one is saying that there should not be the option for review or the option to settle disagreement about the presumption of equality formally, there must always be those checks and measures.

The system as it currently stands pitches by it's very nature, one parent against the other, thus actively creating conflict. This is a pointless and indefensible standpoint from a child welfare perspective as whilst the breakdown of a family is a trying time for children they can and will adjust to having seperated parents. What harms them however is conflict. The very thing our court system, without the presumption of equality creates.

The fundamental issue with the lack of presumption of equality is that one parent (usually the mother) is elevated above the other when in reality the best outcome for the child in practically all cases is that they have an equal and open relationship with both parents following the breakdown of a family which cannot reasonably happen without long, protracted and invasive journeys through an archaic and fundamentally flawed court system.

This review has taken a brilliant opportunity and thrown it away on the basis of nothing more than bias.

Edited by Plotloss on Thursday 3rd November 09:30

[clonmult]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Why are fathers constantly seen by the Government as a mere consequence of a childs life and not a meaningful part of it?

I think about my sons every single day.

I have not seen them since March 2006.

I do not know what they look like. I have no right to.

I do not know where they live. I have no right to.

There are hundreds of thousands of excluded fathers like me.

We need help from the Government not hindrance.

Why do we not matter?

The whole bloody "system" is so badly fked up, but compared to you I've been quite scarily lucky.

Early on in my divorce, I wasn't sure that I'd be seeing my son that much at all, but despite her occasionally erratic behaviour, the ex wife has been totally reasonable at almost every point over the last few years.

We didn't get the CSA involved in payments, I see our son every weekend, and every other weekend he stays over with me. We split any major birthday/christmas present costs 50:50.

Unless you've been proven to be violent towards the kids, you should have the right to see them on an agreed schedule. Not knowing where they are, or what they look like must be absolutely terrible.

A friend was trying to get custody of his youngest many years back, he had two sons with different mothers. The eldest lived with him, and was a sensible, well sorted lad. The mum of the youngest had been proven to beat her children, and some of them had been taken into care at times, yet despite this history he wasn't able to get custody.

Its horrendously biased towards the mother under pretty much all circumstances, and has been in desparate need of change for too many years. No signs whatsoever of it ever changing.

[IainT]

Puggit said:

13 years of Labour

Odd, it felt longer...

[Soovy]

Equality = white able bodies males worth zero.

[Chrisw666]

Soovy said:

Equality = white able bodies males worth zero.

Have you ever said that to a died in the wool lefty? I still have the scars.

[ATG]

Plotloss said:

ATG said:

Because the system quite rightly puts the child at the centre of these cases, and every case should be judged on its own merits. There shouldn't be any presumption of equality of access for the parents. In a specific case, if the evidence shows that equal access is in the child's best interest, then fine. And if in a specific case the evidence suggests that either the mother or father should have no access in the interest of the child, then that is also fine. An assumption of equality would contradict the idea of the child's interests being key.

There is a presumption of equality in Australia, as a result, proportionally, they hear 10% of the Family Law cases that we do.

No one is saying that there should not be the option for review or the option to settle disagreement about the presumption of equality formally, there must always be those checks and measures.

The system as it currently stands pitches by it's very nature, one parent against the other, thus actively creating conflict. This is a pointless and indefensible standpoint from a child welfare perspective as whilst the breakdown of a family is a trying time for children they can and will adjust to having seperated parents. What harms them however is conflict. The very thing our court system, without the presumption of equality creates.

The fundamental issue with the lack of presumption of equality is that one parent (usually the mother) is elevated above the other when in reality the best outcome for the child in practically all cases is that they have an equal and open relationship with both parents following the breakdown of a family which cannot reasonably happen without long, protracted and invasive journeys through an archaic and fundamentally flawed court system.

This review has taken a brilliant opportunity and thrown it away on the basis of nothing more than bias.

Edited by Plotloss on Thursday 3rd November 09:30

It seems a little odd that a bunch of experts in this field who've had the chance to compare the UK's systems with those of other countries didn't come to that conclusion if it's so obvious.

[bobbylondonuk]

Equality?

Women can not handle equality...what they mean is positive discrimination in their favour.

Simple fact...any woman respected as an equal by any man, is usually the ones that just act normal with none of the feminist bullst and proove to everyone that they are equal by their action and thoughts. And the irony is...in most cases...all the other women will hate the one who gets the respect from men.


Face it...you become a father..you are fked for life. The odds are stacked against you by default.

[Plotloss]

ATG said:

It seems a little odd that a bunch of experts in this field who've had the chance to compare the UK's systems with those of other countries didn't come to that conclusion if it's so obvious.

Might it surprise you to learn that a Family Court Judge who went through a family breakdown and was himself subjected to the Family Court system wrote a piece for The Telegraph that he had no idea whatsoever how difficult and far reaching the decisions that he made on a daily basis actually were?

It might also surprise you to learn that even those Fathers who have had a happy result in the Family Court system do not have a single good word to say about it.

Feel free to look into the numerous studies as far as what actually causes harm to children in family breakdown, disagree with the logic that an inequal starting point creates conflict between parents (at a time when there's probably enough of that already) all you like.

This report was compiled by an economist and the conclusions it draws are a disgrace.

[Happy82]

Chrisw666 said:

Soovy said:

Equality = white able bodies males worth zero.

Have you ever said that to a died in the wool lefty? I still have the scars.

Scars? I usually find that their head implodes from the idea that someone does not agree with their views