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.

I have just watched this documentary and I must say that it broke my heart so so sad. I dont know how anyone can come on here and say that these kids were not stolen !!!! They were taken without the permission of the mother which is wrong on every level as would be if it was other way around. No parent regardless of sex should be allowed to do this it is life shattering for both the children and parents as was visible on the programme. These men are calcullated and know exactly what they doing when they take the kids back to Libya as they know the law there is totally on there side. maybe the uk should enforce a law where no kid can be taken out of the country without both parents consent - something which countries such as Cuba and Dominican Repbulic do. Also on the point of a mother and child bond it is very strong but you cant take away the bond between father and son or father and daughter that is so ignorant.

Exactly, youknownothingofthecrunch. And that's 100pc how it should be. Surely anyone thinking of the child would agree.

And as for the idea of a child being split 50/50 between parents, how fair is that on the child? It just can't be about what's right for the parents, but sadly some are completely blind to that concept

There is an arguement for the child living with the primary care giver i.e.in most cases the mother because it is she who has been at home with the child while dad works...

But that set up is often not the father's choice.. So he has no chioce but to be the one out of the house not seeing the child whilst he's in his relationship.. and then no choice but to not see the child a lot when he's out of the relationship..

If we're looking at fairest for the child, then both oarents should be taking equal responsibility fromt he outset.. and there after if the relationship breaks down.

I am pretty clued up on the level of inequality women face through various levels of their lives but I do feel that in this particular area men get the raw end of the deal.. Well, at least the ones that do love their children a nd want to play an equal part in their lives as the mother.

I do think access should be as close to fifty fifty as is possible under normal circumstances (i.e. Where both parents are hands-parents). Again, just to keep things normal.

But I don't see how it can be keeping things normal to have a child splitting their time 50/50 between 2 different homes. It happened to me and it was horrendous. I wanted to have a regular home and to see my dad as often as possible, not actually live with him half the time. It's just not workable in practice.

My DH is incredibly hands on, but he doesn't see them 50pc of the time now, so why should he do so if we ever split? That certainly wouldn't be keeping things normal for our children

I see what you're saying moral, but it is always a choice.

At the moment h and I both work full time. But I do the majority of school contact and would be the one to stay off work if they were ill. My employer is no more understanding that his about this (in fact mine is less so) but this is the arrangement we have both agreed to.

If we split I would expect to split things as close to fifty fifty as possible since he is very hands on, as am I.

It's a tricky one, but it is a choice. Men are allowed to be stay at home parents. We even discussed h doing this at one point, but he admitted that he values his career too highly and enjoys the time he has with them as it is.

I don't think a knee jerk "fathers have a right to steal children" OP is helpful. This should be a reasoned debate about an emotive issue, not a sensationalist rant for its own sake.

Oh and I believe op has been banned for trolling.

But Cerys maybe your mum was 'normal' and you are 'normal'
In a lot of cases its not good for the child to spend more time with the mother.

Personally I think my DPs split from his ex was a perfect opportunity for their child to spend more time with him and less time with her odd mother.

The fact she was in her mothers pocket was definitely not a good thing!

Sorry cerys, xpost. I think dcs should have one "base" home, with the primary carer, and then spend as near to fifty pc of their spare time with the other parent. It sounds like it wasn't a good thing for you though, did you feel rather homeless? Rather than having two homes?

Oh god I hate a troll OP..!

Men are 'allowed' to be stay at home parents yes.. but in practise how often is a women going to say 'i'll work and you stay at home dear'

As always I am not blaming individuals.. its this ridiculos society we live in.

I agree that it should be an equal starting point for stay at home parents. One day! I can dream that it will be.

I did say that to h, btw :). I didn't want him to miss out on the good bits (or the bad bits!) of day to day parenting.

Oops, what happened to all of Terry's charming posts? I did savour them so.

Believe me, I really understand that in some cases children should have less contact with the mother, but we can all agree there are a lot of terrible fathers out there, and hence there could be very good reasons why mothers (and courts) feel it is better to restrict their access. Just remind yourself of Terry's posts to see what an unhealthy attitude some men can have. A woman disagrees with him and straightaway it's 'bitches' this and 'fuck yourself' that. Not the best advocate for men's rights!

But I think most of us are in agreement, that it's not about gender per se, but who has been the primary caregiver, and would be in the best interests of the child. Parents' wishes should come a very far second.

I personally found it incredibly disruptive switching between 2 homes, and I finally put my foot down at 14 as I couldn't do it anymore. I did feel essentially homeless, and was sick to the back teeth of packing up my things every couple of days. In fact I really came to resent my dad, as I felt it was much more for his sake than mine...

Sorry, I meant what would be in the interest of the child!

From what I know of the OP, he's hardly in any position to be putting down mothers not allowing fathers near their children.
An entirely justifiable position in his case, IMO.

Cerys, out of interest why did you choose your mum when it came to putting your foot down about who's house to stay at?

Im curious about all of this issue because my stepdaughter would say se would prefer to be at her mums more than here and feels that her dad and I are selfish for making her split her time 50/50 but she is a child and so my partner (and I, although I am of less consequence of course) feels he needs to make the decision for her. Her mum doesnt neglect her or anything but isnt a good parental influence.

She has a while home here though so never has to 'pack anything up'

oops, DSD has a whole home here.

I supose what I am saying is, what if the exisiting 'primary care giver' isn't actually the person who is the best influence on the child?

I had a whole other home too, but still needed to transfer things between the 2 houses. Not everything could be in duplicate.

Please, please understand that I am only talking about my own experience, and remembering what I felt when I was young, but it was simple. Although I loved my dad, and worried about him being lonely, my mum was my mum. And yes, that must be hard for dads to hear but it was the simple truth. My mum was number one

I am scared of sounding really un PC, but I still think essentially most (NOT all) kids have a unique bond with their mum, and have done since time immemorial. Maybe it's evolutionary programming, or imprinting, or whatever you like, but it's there. For example, if a child's mother dies it is always seen as particularly tragic.

But I would never deny that a father's love is incredibly important, and a critical part of a child's development too. I am moved every day by the love my DH has for our children, and vice versa

I do understand.

I guess I feel frustrated that DSD has this 'bond' with her mother who really is shoddy but gets all the glory purely because she is mum.. when my partner is loving and supportive and sets boundaries and keeps a roof over DSDs head etc etc Maybe it's time the notion of mum being number one should be challenged rather than just accepted.

The thing is I'm not sure it can be challenged. It seems kind of innate. Some mothers have abused their children terribly and their children would still walk over hot coals to be with them.

So what would be the answer.. let DSD stay with her mum most of the time and miss out on the influence of her father purely because emotionally thats what she (at 11) beleives is best for her?

DSD mother doesnt abuse or neglect her by the way but she is a racist, homophobe who doesnt work and beleives that her daughters sole aim in life should be to marry a rich man... school isnt important and neither is punctuality, nothing really.. execpt personal presentation.. which should take presidence over anything else in life.

(excuse rant, just putting you in the picture and didnt want it to sound like her mother abuses her or anything as of course if that was the case we would insist she stayed with us!)

Blimey, what did I miss?

I presume MN was jealous of all the compliments Arthur Terry was giving us and deleted his posts in a fit of envy?

moraldisorder, as someone further upthread said, even children horribly abused by their parent still love them- that, in a way, is often the biggest tragedy of child abuse- but in the absence of abuse, a parent is deemed to be 'good enough', even if their views and values are different.

So it's not a case of letting the child decide, but more a case of offsetting the impact of being separated from the less good parent- in your DSD's case, the mother- with the benefit of spending time with the 'better' parent.

Often, the damage done by separating a child from an adequate but not brilliant parent far outweighs any advantages gained by spending more time with the 'better' parent.

I think it's important for children to have a stable base, and this is a factor which often influences court decisions not to give 50/50 custody. The mother is usually the primary caregiver, so it follows that she is more likely to gain a greater % of custody.

I would like to see it made easier for men to be the primary caregiver, and for raising children to be financially rewarded on a par with WOH, which I think would have a huge knock-on effect on the amount of men gaining custody of their children.

Often, the damage done by separating a child from an adequate but not brilliant parent far outweighs any advantages gained by spending more time with the 'better' parent

I really hope this is not true in our case but it is food for thought.

I think tether put it very well. Of course racism and homophobia are particularly abhorrent, but that aside, we could all be judged and found wanting by others who hold different values or beliefs, so it doesn't necessarily follow that they make someone a bad mother. There are probably many parents of either gender who espouse such views, and all we can hope is that the child grows up to form their own opinions, with all the wealth of information available to them in this day and age. I may be naive but I find it hard to believe that a child of the 21st Century would not figure out pretty early in life that those are very outdated and unacceptable viewpoints, and distance themselves from them pretty damn quick!

And your DSD, at 11, would probably never forgive you or her father for forcibly separating her from her mother. She would never see that you were doing what you thought was best for her. At her age she's doubtless pretty certain of her own mind!

And as for her future, remember that your DSD's mum will likely have very little input in reality. My parents tried to push me in many a direction, to absolutely no avail

Thnaks cerys, that was a comforting post.