Really? we think that "that organisation" are representative of fathers in general? really?

So there's a court contact order? He can apply for a variation. SOunds like he poorly represented first time round.

By the time these cases get to court, there is no stability or continuity of care.

Again, there is no "blanket policy". There is an attempt to maintain the stability and continuity of care, that was in place prior to the break-up.

And, of course, there's the double kick in the teeth that the more she witholds contact, the less claim he has to 50/50. Can't win.

She moved back onto the council scheme where her large, extended family still live; she has three siblings and upmteen cousins. When they lived together it was in a village a five minute busride away; her mother told her this made her an outcast (even though her mother helped choose it.) She does not work and never has, so does not need childcare for that. And if she really needs a night out, DS is expected to drop everything (including shifts at work) and take his ds. If he cannot (too many dropped shifts and he'll be out on his ear) then the oft-repeated words, "You'll never see him again" are uttered, contact is witheld for a few days/weeks, and the whole shebang starts again... I know many dads walk away, but my ds is genuinely distraught when she buggers about like this, it breaks my heart to see it.

And yes, best of luck to all of us.

I don't understand, OLKN, If the mother relied on him (your son) for 50% parenting when they were together, how on earth is she managing now they are apart?

I know you can't answer that because you aren't her; it's just rhetorical, really.

Anyway, I wish us all the best of luck trying to find a way through it all.

LineRunner, I know your ex is a nasty one. But my DS genuinely does want 50/50, and he genuinely did do 50/50 when they were together even though he was also working, because she would go out visiting friends/family/to the bingo/on the piss and leave him with the child. He was happy to do this because getting out of the house made her happy; they became parents as teenagers and are still very young.

I'm not saying that every dad is as hands-on, I know they're not and I know the stats for dads who don't see their dc and who don't pay for them either.

If a dad was only doing 10% of the childcare before the split, fair enough that he only gets 10% after (though if the reason for that was that he was working all hours to put a roof over their heads etc, I do think he should get some "credit" for that) but it's a big difference for the dc too, if post-split they only see daddy every other Saturday instead of every day at bed/breakfast time and every weekend.

I simply think that courts should start at 50/50 and adjust as appropriate for each family, rather than an apparent blanket policy.

Thanks to feminism, more young dads are taking more responsibility. It would be a shame to kick them in the teeth because of the actions of their fathers.

OLKN, Basil is right - where that is what the father wants and says he wants.

My ExH walked away from all his parenting responsibilites, after he left, and nothing could persuade him to see his own children more than one night a fortnight (now reduced by his own choice to one night a month).

I suspect a lot of men, like my ExH, bullshit their own families and partners about the amount of parenting they actually asked to do and arranged to do prior to, and at the time of, and post the split. I am fairly sure he tells his work colleagues that he has been denied access, hence the pathetic contact order that he obtained yet ignores.

The best way for a man to ensure he gets 50 50 c&c, is to ensure that he does at least 40% of the parenting. That will be seen as the majority.

No Oldlady, that's simply not correct.

For a man to get 50 50 care and control, he only needs to show he did 30% of the work - to paraphrase Dr.Johnson, the fact that a dog talks is so remarkable, that he doesn't need to do it well, to show that a man has done any significant parenting at all, is so remarkable, that he doesn't need to have done even a third of it, to have the court, himself, society and even for chrissakes, his wife, to imagine that he's doing 50 50 and to be awarded that in the event of a split.

It's just not true to say htat courts award c&c on the basis of sex. they award on the basis of how much day to day involvement in the actual logistics of parenting, that each parent has done and along with everyone else, they give more credit to men for doing any parenting duties at all, than they do to women doing it because women doing it isn't noticed. But even so, mostly women get c&c, because mostly, even now, even courts recognise that it's women who are doing that drudge work, while the men get the kudos of reading the bedtime story and they get to call that parenting.

I think we already have families where childcare is more evenly shared than, say, 50 years ago. But how does it encourage men to get more involved when they know that in the event of a split (what's the % of marriages that end in divorce these days? Then there are couples who never married, I believe their breakup rate is even higher) they'll have their contact reduced to the point when they have little option than to "disney dad"?

OLKN I see where you're coming from and I desire the same end result, but I don't think changing to 50/50 at separation is the answer. I think it will simply use children as tools in an attempt at social engineering.

If we really want fathers to play an active role and get rid of the assumption that mum is always primary carer then we need to do that before anybody separates.

Most children are brought up in families. If we have families where parenting is more equally divided, that will do more to change the status quo than resetting the gender balance among single parents. All that will do is simply uproot children from the person they are most dependent on at the time they need it most, which isn't fair on the children.

The government plans that adult children should live with their parents.

Perhaps all the fathers could step up then? And have their 18-25s living with them full-time. here

I would agree with that, but simply think that a start point of 50/50 is appropriate. Whereas atm, the staus quo start point is an assumption that the mother "gets" the dc most of the time, and the father often only one night a week, every other weekend and half the holidays.

OldLady, by status quo, I mean status quo for the couple - ie if it's 50 50, there should be 50 50 afterwards and if it's 90 10, it should be 90 10 afterwards - this is so that the child experiences stability in the midst of change.

Basil, I do agree.

My 'status quo' was working full-time, just as ExH worked full-time. On break-up though, there was a definite assumption by all involved that he needn't do any actual parenting. It was sickening how I got shat on.

But if we stick with the staus quo, how do we ever move on? Back in the mists of time when I was a baby, my father wouldn't have been seen dead pushing a pram (though he was good at playing with us and so on.) Now, my own son is completely hands-on with his son, and has been since birth. He did nappy changes, nightfeeds (ff), bathtime, bedtime, toilet-training and all the rest of it. Why should the start point still be the same?

50/50 puts the onus of childcare on both parents, instead of assuming that mummy knows best. It can only be a positive thing.

(And might encourage less responsible men to be a bit more careful about contraception in the first place.)

I think a starting point of continuing the status quo, which is what we currently have, is the only starting point that prioritises the interests of the child, rather than the parent.

Back in the day when my ExH had the children to stay with him every other weekend, he often used to palm them off onto his mother.

Now he sees them once a month. So much more convenient for him, apparently.

I feel sad that his parents let him behave like this. He is in his forties; he's not a kid.

How would forcing an uninterested parent to have 50% benefit a child?

yes - we have the choice between being a cleaner and serving OR going out and earning a fortune.

which world is this in?

many women go out and clean and serve too you know and earn a pittance for it - much like the people you rely on in order to go and earn your fortune.

beyond naive.

so basically that starting point would mean men who want to get 50% and men who don't want to still get to do fuck all.

not seeing that as progress personally.

A starting assumption of 50/50 works very well in lots of countries and it is only the sexist UK which assumes women serve and clean and do childcare rather than go out tyhere and earn a fortune perpetuates sexist patterns and decides a father seeing his child once a fortnight is right.

A starting assumption of 50/50, with adjustments as appropriate, eg 100% to mum if he's never seen the child, 100% to dad if she's a pissed-up junkie. And anywhere in between.