Aibu to think men have got this very wrong

[pleasemothermay1]

Just watching a thing about these f4j clowns and the guy is going on about how the courts are biased towards women

If fact if he new anything about the law judges will always opt of the status quo they will were they can keep a child in the main home in there own room, school they always known and opt for the parent who dose the majority of childcare 9 times out of 10 that's the mother

So we're has moaning about 50/50 come from often from men who would have been hard pushed to do 20/80 when married but now think they can do 50/50

The rise of more women being bread winners has seen more men get residence however it's till mainly women

So bar mental health issues or neglect I am alway bemused when men say right I am going for custody when they have not don't s jot of childcare the school barely knows who they and would need to up root the children from there home to achieve this

My ex thought he could get ds off me we had never even lived together

He wouldn't even pick up ds for me so I could work saw ds sporadicly and thought he would win lol

Well it depends. My dh, my dad and my dbro (the 3 men I know best) were definitely known at school. They are all hands on parents and so far more than 20%.

I have always worked so dh always does at least 50:50.

My mum worked part time, so dad had us alone when she worked and did loads with us while not at work.

Dbros wife is a sahm but he always does all bath, dinner and bedtimes with both kids and often takes them for entire weekends to give his wife some down time. Her hobbies are on weekends so he is the one that takes them to their hobbies and does school drop off everyday.

Dsil even says that if they split up it would have to be 50:50 because the kids do so much with their dad.

All my kids friends also have hands on dads. I am friends with the parents so know them well, not as well as my family though.

While I don't agree with f4j at all, I also don't agree that most men do the very minimum with their kids.

I don't think sweeping generalisations help anyone.

I think some people say things through fear and hurt and worry and some say the same things through spite.

It's not just men ive heard the same comments from women where the dad is a SAHP.

And one of the very worst examples of shocking but none violent behaviour after a relationship breakdown was from a none resident mother who when she finally ended up in court actually screamed at the judge "you've just got it in for me" then told her solicitor she was a cunt because she was advised not to tell lies.

No I am not saying all men you have to conseed that most women do the majority of child care even with working women the majority will take the bulk of mertianty leave Ect or are often the ones to take a drop in salary to get the hours that suit school Ect

At my sons school it's still a majority of mums who do the school run there are some dads but it's mainly mums still

So you can be surprised when the residence is awarded to the mother

I think my point is This

judges don't have it in for men the court sytem is not conspiring against men

It just favours the satus quo

But you are assuming that all men who are part of f4j haven't done the minimum.

As pp says Generalising isn't helpful. You can't claim an entire group has got it wrong, because many of those men may well have done much more than the minimum. I am sure plenty did only do the minimum.

But fwiw I think any not very active parent who attempts to insist on 50/50 when it is likely to change everything the children know is not putting the kids needs first

And yes I agree that the courts are not biased in favour of women

.poster davos Mon 08-Aug-16 08:54:27
But you are assuming that all men who are part of f4j haven't done the minimum.

As pp says Generalising isn't helpful. You can't claim an entire group has got it wrong, because many of those men may well have done much more than the minimum. I am sure plenty did only do the minimum.

no I am saying that the f4j lot seem to think that courts are biased towards men that is nit the case and we have to be honest about the reasons why women primarily get residence in 2016 if you don't belive that it's because women still do the bulk of child care then you must feel it's because the courts are biased and that is false

My husband is fab and helps a lot however he works long hours for example he is away for 4 days this week and he worked 70 last I do the majority of child care he often can't get time off work for school functions though he is engaged and wants to be kept updated it would be odd if we split of up start off with 50/ 50 his working hours just don't permit it

Men do get a raw deal by the courts in many cases.

They are more likely to be the main or sole earner so therefore are naturally not at home as much as the mum. So despite doing what they need to support the child they lose out, both in time with the child and in a split. They are likley very hands on when they can be.

It should be a stark warning before having children not to agree to the other adult working less hours. That way both are equal and more chance of 50/50 residency.

Hmmm Often the status que is set when someone chooses to leave a marriage they are unhappy with. either taking their children or moving with them. Either way we sometimes have a person who did not wish for that marriage to end who then suddenly also end up loosing out on time with their children.

I have not been near a court for stuff like this in years however I don't think there should be ANY type of favourism in these cases.

My parents divorced in the 70s. My dad was then a 20-80 type parent but after a long battle he and my mother split their 3 children (well 2 as 12 year old sister refused to even communicate with our mother who she firmly blamed for the split) my father ended up with my 12 year old sister and 2 1/2 year old brother. He learnt went from a 20% to a 98% (the visitation was one weekend every 3 weeks hence my 98 comment) He later told me he did not even know how to cook when they split so bought a " how to cook" cook book and slowly learnt from there. Now in his 70's he is a exceptional cook and as a grandparent he was far fairer than my mother was. Interested and involved in all of his grandchildren.

I don't think if my mother had left and taken all 3 children with her that should have been favoured simply because the status que had been he was not that involved, However nor do I think if she had (as she did) left NOT taking any of her children that should have = her not being able to have any of her children with her.

So in short I think that we should completely focus on what the children need, that IMO may sometimes mean saying ok currently this is the arrangement but we could move towards a different arrangement.

I'm in court over residence of my son this week. It's a joke, me and ex never lived together and he has no idea of how full on taking care of a toddler is. He had never attended a doctors appointment, never bought him clothes or nappies so doesn't even know his size etc but thinks that our son would be better off with him. When my solicitor asked him outside court what he would do if the judge granted him full residence, he said that he was busy so I'd have to go to his home every day to look after our son while he worked and did his hobbies!

His only motivation for this is to "win" and for me to "lose", he has no thought for our sons best interests and no respect for the work I've put into raising him, pretty much single handedly. Oh, and he works full time and pays not one penny in child support, but has told me what he expects me to pay if he wins.

It's not really practical though Dragon. We need DPs wage unfortunately. He earns more than me and it wouldn't be feasible for us to split childcare 50/50. I'll reduce my hours because financially that it was makes sense.

In most families one parent HAS to take on the majority care role. Where my ExH was concerned it would have been him who took that on if we'd still lived with him at the point my maternity leave ended.

poster Enkopkaffetak Mon 08-Aug-16 09:05:07

Sorry but disagree there is a lot of evidence about creating as little disruption for a child as possible

Moving a child from mum who say worked pt who can do the school run attend meetings and has school Hoildays off and is still living in the family home

To moving a child to dad who loved the children but has never done any of the childcare duties if often not even home before there in bed and would have to employ childcare would be mad

there are medical and biological reasons why most mothers take the bulk of maternity leave!

You can't compare the split of work and childcare when parents are together and when they are not. If one parent can afford to stay at home, or work part time as part of a couple, that will likely change when the couple split up. A mum might have more free time with the kids, but once divorced she is likely to have to work full time too to support herself. Fair enough her ex has to pay towards the kids, but he won't pay for everything

In many cases, it seems that fathers are being punished for taking care of their family. Yes, they would have to make changes in order to take their kids, but so do the mum. I don't things basing decision on how things were makes sense.

If caring for children was valued there would be more men willing to do the work. If women were paid equally to men then there would be more men willing to look after children. But we live in a world where the work women do is often unpaid and undervalued, who'd want to take that on. F4J is full of men banging on about their rights and not focussing on a child's needs.

whats best for the child is not always what's best for the perants

BuzzzyBeee

Why can't you both reduce your hours?

I kind of see what you are saying. However, dbro was going to be the sahp as he earned less than sil.

Then she got pg and she didn't want dbro to be the sahp. She wouldn't even look into working part time and dbro working part time.

Dbro wanted to make her happy and is a hands on dad. Dbro owned the house for 10 years before he got married. He and sil got married very quickly and had kids quickly. If they were to split tomorrow, she would get to stay in the house and get the kids the majority of the time.

Dbro would likely have to move in my parents to afford the mortgage and have the kids a lot less than sil.

He wanted to be a sahp but agreed to the arrangement to make his wife happy and does what he can. I can see why that would feel unfair, if they were to split.

He adores his kids and has tried to do the best by his wife and children, but could end up in a shit situation because of that.

It's actually the reason both me and dh agreed that neither would be a sahp. Both wanted to have financial independence and neither wanted the other being the 'majority' parent.

I know other women who wouldn't even entertain the idea of not being the sahp or sharing working outside the home.

The simple fact is that someone will feel hard done by. I can see why it feels unfair. From all sides.

But you are assuming the men that didn't get 50:50 didn't get it because they didn't do 50:50. In some cases that wasn't their choice, and in some cases it's not accurate.

On paper sil is a sahp, so would get majority custody. In reality that's not correct.

The satus quo is almost always better for a child

That's why often in chil protection cases the social services have to meet a very high Barr to get a chid re moved because most adults understand just the disruption of a change in cirmatsnce can have such an effect that the status quo must only be changed in the most dramatic of crimstance

And I am shocked some think that upheaval and uncertainly for a child is no issue as long as eveyone is seen to be hang equal contact

I understand what you're saying op & agree that courts make a fair decision about what is best for the child. Organisations like cafcass are there to ensure the child's voice is heard. Unfortunately I think in custody battles the focus shifts from what is best for the child to what parents want or what is fair. I disagree with fathers being stopped from having access to their children unless there are reasons to believe this would be unsafe for the child - but in practise a 50-50 split with no detrimental effect on the child is difficult to achieve.
Having said that I speak from the perspective of someone who has no direct experience of custody battles but have family members who are dads getting a rough deal. I tend to think this is the fault of the mother not the court though.

I'm sure NAMALT but certainly in my experience I found it hard not to crease up laughing when my ex righteously demanded that I moved out of the family home and he would assume full time care of the children seeing as I was the one who wanted to "break up the family" (he had repeated affairs and was heavily abusive). This the man who had changed approximately five nappies over two children's babyhoods and complained bitterly about the entire time, who never lifted a finger in the home and would regularly disappear for up to five days at a time. I did 100% childcare but he was going to take over and do it far better than me no doubt.

I have heard of many similar men. I do not think this is unusual. So broadly I am in agreement with you OP.

poster davos Mon 08-Aug-16 09:19:49

But it's who is doing the majority and the time of the spit

So you could have been a stay at home day for the first 5 years but if your currently working full time and for the last 5 years mum say has been a sham than the satus quo is mum

It's very common Davos, women refusing to work or cutting their hours after children of their own choice not be agreement.

Many want it all their own way, the main earns salary to live on, to not work or do just a bit and then when things go wrong they take the children after all that support from the other person who had no choice. A true fair partnership for many seems alien.

The only reason men's salaries are higher is that most have no choice but to work and earn well therefore they have to have drive and a work ethic. Whilst women opt out of working so easily we will never be seen as equal as employers rightly see a waste of training and recruitment costs.