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

Thing is, the family court does try to decide things on an individual, case by case basis. It doesn't have blanket rules.

That's waht f4j want - a blanket assumption of 50 50, even where that it totally inappropriate and bad for a child.

Some men are good parents, some men are shit parents. We somehow need a legal system that is flexible enough to cope with either scenario. If it relies on assumptions either way, it is automatically unfair in the other cases. It would be good if there was more reliable fact-finding built into the system, but it is always going to be hard to know the truth in a he said/she said scenario.

You know what, I don't need to shout from the rooftops that it's wrong, because everyone else in society is shouting it from the rooftops. I'd prefer to shout about the stuff that no-one else gives a shit about - the non-payment of maintenance by the majority of NRP's, the screwing aroun d with contact arrangements by many NRP's, the court refusals to protect children from violent men - I personally think those issues need more shouting about a) because they are more common and therefore a bigger probelm and b) because the media are not shouting about them like they are about contact blocking.

''Most men are good to their children. Most couplse share the children in some fashion or other afterwards. Some parents male and female deny contact and that can be very very wrong and I hope all mothers and feminists can put themselves in the shoes of the parent denying contact and shout from the roof tops that it is wrong.''

Exactly, most couples do manage to sort out satisfactory contact/custody arrangements, so when I hear of somebody who has denied contact to their ex - I usually like to know the full story before I jump on the ''they're evil and vindictive and they doing to be spiteful'' bandwagon.

not if they're denying contact for the safety of themselves and their child/ren. i totally support someone's right to protect themselves and their child however they need to given how often courts fail to do this.

Most men are good to their children. Most couplse share the children in some fashion or other afterwards. Some parents male and female deny contact and that can be very very wrong and I hope all mothers and feminists can put themselves in the shoes of the parent denying contact and shout from the roof tops that it is wrong.

Xenia, are you attempting a subversive parody? Because only in your universe do many women earn 10x their partner's salary. You and women like you are the exceptions that prove the rule. Good on you I say, but your reality is not that of most women's.

Likewise, I challenge you to find one single study among the countless that have been done that show most men pull their weight at home. They just don't. Some - a minority - do, which is fabulous. But again, they are not representative of men as a whole.

With the exception of a small minority, I think most women are so terrified of depriving their child of a father that they bend over backwards to facilitate contact, even when this is sometimes plainly not in the child's best interests. Of those witholding it, there is often a good reason and whether reasonable or spiteful, they are far outnumbered by the number of men who so "devastated" at losing their child (as you put it) that they cannot be bothered either to turn up for contact or to pay anything toward that 'much-loved' child's upkeep.

the fact that some slave's white owners were nice to them didn't mean that slavery didn't exist or that all slaves conditions were fine. the fact that some, relatively few by the looks of all research, women manage to achieve a relationship of relative equality within the patriarchal institution of marriage likewise does not prove anything about conditions as a whole.

i never said anything about 'always' xenia. i said that 'as a group' men take less responsibility than women.

That is not always so. Plenty of women don't tolerate sexist men and sexist sets up. If you earn 10x your man as I did then it's not that hard to ensure you don't become some kind of door mat at home. Most men are very good. Many many men are very loving and helpful with their children. Plenty do lots of childcare.

If you love a child and can imagine how it would be if it were not with you you can begin to imagine the devastation some men feel after divorce when deprived of being with their child. Thus if you love the child who benefits from being with its father then of course you want fair contact for both and indeed most couples reach agreement and don't go near courts thankfully.

oh and obviously some of that other 74% of households will be headed by lesbian couples.

some of your coupled households will contain women who have remarried and have children from their previous marriage huan - worth considering as it changes the figures rather.

and it is a fact that even within coupled families women do disproportionately more of the childcare and more of the life adjustments required for children to be cared for even when both parents work full time - let alone in those where women are sahms or work part time to fit around childcare needs which are still commonly perceived as their responsibility.

I would have said men as a group are taking responsibility for their children.

Most children live with their parents.

26% of households with dependent children are single parent families.

I think you're on about fathers that are separated I don't see how they can represent men as a group.

xenia huge amounts of men pay £5 a week maintenance and don't see their kids at all. they're not going to be taking 50% care or coughing up a nanny's wage. the sad truth is that as a group men are taking very little responsibility for their children and giving them more and more rights has made no impact on that. so i agree we need to get to a point of talking about and enforcing responsibility and scrapping the whole bs rights rhetoric but i doubt we can jump from thousands of men paying nothing and doing nothing towards the upkeep of their children and 50/50 residency (or pay financially the equivalent of 50% of care).

we need some steps along the way.

and the reality is that currently we're just going backwards re: as sunshine points out the charges and changes to the csa that will mean even less women getting maintenance and the maintenance they do get being less than ever due to the stealth tax to be levied on it by the csa.

Nice idea. Except all this talk of extending father's rights is not being accompanied by anything to improve the number of fathers paying maintenance (let alone at a level that actually means anything). Indeed, maintenance is being eroded thanks to the new CSA charges.

If he won't have them he can pay the cost of a week's nanny care I suppose and if his conduct means she can't work then he will have all the more support to pay for.

See I think men who treat their kids like that, should not then be allowed to demand that they have more contact time when they split up with their girlfriends and are at a bit of a loose end.

It's incredible that they're allowed to behave like this. Incredible. And yet people just shrug and say, well at least he sees them sometimes and pays a bit of maintenance.

What we expect of men as parents, vs what we expect of women, is so paltry.

I went to see a friend today and she was stressing over childcare arrangements. Her ex is a teacher and is at home for the next two weeks, my friend works in an office and isn't. They have worked out an arrangement that as well as weekends, he will have them over the holidays - this was what happened before the separation and it made sense to continue afterwards. Ex has now got a new girlfriend, wants to spend his holidays with new girlfriend, wants to go to the lakes for a few days, wants to go out drinking on the weekends, doesn't want to be hampered by his kiddies. He's dropped my friend in it by announcing as of today that he can't have the kids next week, he'll have them this week 'as a favour'.

They're his kids but he doesn't see looking after them as his responsibility, he's doing it for her so she can work. They're not a priority to him, seeing his kids is a 2nd best after sending time with his new girlfriend. It's incredibly sad and the kids are aware of it because they resent this other woman and think she's taking their dad away from him. They should be resenting the dad but I guess it doesn't work that way.

"The problem is the law assumes father do nothing and then they give them every other weekend."

Er, the problem is that that is generally true. Study after study after study shows that women still do the lion's share of parenting. The law assumes nothing - it merely maintains the status quo and guess what, the status quo is that er...fathers don't do as much as mothers.

Poor menz eh.

Xenia, you're forgetting that 90% of separating parents do not go to court. Possibly some because they don't want to alienate the other parent, but even so that would still imply that the majority of so-called weekend dads are more than happy with the arrangement. Meanwhile, in relationships where parents are still together, study after study shows that women are doing the lion's share of childcare.

So it isn't true to say that judges are assuming that fathers do nothing and it's unfair, because it's actually based on evidence.

However surely most of us accept that most fathers, the husbands of mumsnetters andthe like and even ex husbands are loving and good, even if the marriage has broken up. Most of them love and want to be with their chidlren and most parents agree contact amicably. Thus we must accept it is as important the child sees and is with the father as the mother in those cases, which are most cases and a system which provides that a child does not see much of one or other parent regardless of gender is a wrong system.

The problem is the law assumes father do nothing and then they give them every other weekend. Imagine as a mother being allowed only every other weekend. It's dradful, really dreadful. Whereas in fact many many fatrher particularly where both parents work full time are as close to and do as much for the children as the mother.

Same here. It's not just because women love their children that they want to be with them; it's because they know that the fathers of their children, simply wouldn't look after them.

In many cases, a 50 50 presumption would simply mean their ex-MILs or the new girlfriend of their children's father looking after their children.

It's just madness to ignore that. If the majority of fathers were doing an equal amount of parenting as mothers, this would be a sensible conversation. But until they are, this is really esoteric and sorry but hard cases make bad law. The law can't be framed to pretend that a situation that actually, feminists want far more than F4J do - fathers to genuinely do 50 50 parenting of their children as a norm, when they are living with the mothers of those children as well as when they're not - is actually happening now. All that would do, is take children away from their mothers and give them to their grandmothers or whichever woman is currently in their father's life. It's crazy talk.

Re: wills. Also make sure any money/assets are protected for your DC; don't let an adult be in a position to help themselves as 'expenses'. I've seen a friend's DD's trust fund obliterated by a trustee's 'expenses' and the girl is only 15 now - if it had been sealed till she was 18 it would have been better all round.

despite all the 'rights' there's no responsibillity is there?

i must get round to making a will - unless i set legal guardians ds would be put into care rather than my family being allowed to care for him.

No, saf, it's definitely not the same.

I have worried myself stupid over the years that if I ever have to go into hospital, my children would end up 'in the system', as their father would just keep parroting, 'It's your responsibility to make arrangements. I've got work.' (I have work, too, but that seems irrelevant to him and the family court tbh.)

that really IS a major difference.

for most men buggering off and not bothering to see their children ever again means their children living the same life as before pretty much with just as good a quality of care as before.

for most women it means children being traumatised by abandonment, taken into care, left without any parental care, losing their home, school, extended family relationships etc.

not the same is it?