Libyan "stolen" children

[Arthur62]

There seems to be a lot of hype concerning children who are living with their fathers' in Libya. Mothers' are claiming that these children are stolen but surely these children are just simply living with one of their parents. It happens all the time in England when the mother steals the children from the father.

'They are still with one of the parents. As would be if in this country, albeit with the mother' I disagree they have been stolen because when women in this country are given cusotdy they don't do it by illegally taking the child to another country and in most cases the father has reassonable access.

If the Libyan Father stayed and fought for residence in this country he would lose. End of. Why should this automatically happen? The children in the documentary looked very well and educated and looked as though they were doing very well indeed. Surely that is all that matters?

And what of the child's right to see both parents, Arthur? Surely the priority is the child and not the need of the adult?

You don't address the issue of being a primary carer either. Surely a child should main resident with the parent that gives them primary care? With as much access to both parents as is possible?

Right. I must go and look after my lot. Thanks aristo. I've just noticed I'm still in my Halloween name change too!

I don't think its a matter of mother vs father, you've got to look at who is better placed to care and provide for the child and then give custody to that person whether its the mother or the father.

The libyan father would lose custody in this country because he has not been the primary care giver, and because divorce is never fair but all we can do is try to make it fair on the children removing a child from their primary care giver is not fair, any parent who gives a shit about their child would gladly put thier own feelings aside to dowhat is best for their child.

If the libyan fathers wanted custody of the children after divorce perhaps they should of given up their careers and done the boring early bit and been the primary carer

I'd like to see you argue the "mother is the most important person because they carry them" argument in relationships where there is a mother and an adopted child........

agree with huddspur.

At least in this country if both parents are in here the courts decide on access. If the father just snatches them off to another country the mother has no chance. Snatching your kids to another country, especially one where they can hide behind their laws, by a mother or a father, is cowardly and weak. Any parent who can do that to their kids and not think they are going to hate them when they are older is totally deluded.

I've recently struggled to get my daughters father to even speak to her on the phone, never mind actually see her.

I hate him with a passion, I would love it if he were never a part of our lives - but I know that it would be best for my daughter to have her father be a part of her life, so I bit the bullet and contacted him, and was even nice to him!

I always want what's best for my children, and that over-rides everything else. That's primeval.

Ah, so now you are saying that the qualification for being a primary carer is that they have to be unemployed now. That's easy. many fathers are unemployed and are the primary carer. The default of the women being a primary carer should not be based on who is at home because many children end up in child care arrangements whilst at work. is the child minder now blessed as the primary carer by your argument?

and I'd love someone to come and tell my boys that their father isn't important. And that really if I whisked them off to the other end of the country never to see their fuckwit father again it wouldn't matter as the bond between me and them is more superior to that of their bond with their father

carocaro Sat 06-Nov-10 11:05:57
At least in this country if both parents are in here the courts decide on access.....

my point is that if he went to court he would lose. Sure the judge decides, they decide against the father in 90 % of the cases. it's no wonder these Libyans take the initiative and take them abroad.

I never said the father isn't important!! that's just a strawman fallacy.

Nature rules that mothers are the main carer/protecter of children.

Maybe not fair,maybe not PC but that's just how it is I'm afraid

Actually even if I thought my partner was going to get the majority of access I still would not drag my children off to another country, fair or not on me if I were to drag my DC to another country I would be denying them access with their dad and I could not do that to my children.

I just realised that I said I was done with this

Because I love them dearly and i would sacrifice myself any day of the week without a second thought to do what is best for my children and ripping them from their home and denying a parent access is a horrible thing to do to your own DC

^^ primeval

"I just realised that I said I was done with this" lol

aristomache Sat 06-Nov-10 11:21:15
^^ primeval

or primevil?

did you even watch the program arthur62?

How could you not be moved by the kids(and mothers) crying their hearts out at the aiport? do you really think that's ok and in the best interest of the children?

It broke my heart

When Libya treats women and children as individuals with equal human, financial and legal rights to men and not as objects to own then people might have more sympathy for your plight

When these men are the primary carers for the children they have taken and are not giving them to other members of their family to look after then people might have more sympathy for your plight

When the children are not indoctrinated into a chauvinistic society and a forced religion then people might have more .... oh forget it

Arthur - but why would he lose in court? Is that because he isn't the primary carer i.e. The person who does the majority of the childcare out of the two parents?

scallopsrgreat to be fair the woman does nearly always win whether she's the primary carer or not.

Taking a child away from its other parent, except in situations of abuse, makes you a selfish arsehole. Regardless of which genitals you happen to be in possession of. There is no justification. And actually, I don't think taking a child from its mother is any worse than deliberately taking it from its father. In both situations you are dealing with horrendously selfish adults who are treating the child as a thing, and behaving like a stroppy child taking their ball home because things aren't going their way.

Spot on Chicken...