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

OP my only experience of f4j is a friend who saw her exH on a f4j march on the TV even though the man had never paid a penny in maintenance or even seen his child for months by his own choice.

Working in a school, I can guarantee that in many families the dad is the 'main carer' and known as first contact for the child. Interestingly though, from memory in most these families mum isn't on the scene. There are much fewer fathers with the 'main carer/known to school' than mothers. Huge proportion of kids don't have a dad at home.
However, we don't see what happens at home so the dads may well be doing 50/50!

I think what's very worrying about groups like F4J is that time and again there have been very vocal F4J spokesmen who it's turned out have been refused custody for very, very, very good reasons. If I was part of a campaigning group and it turned out that the numerous 'leaders' of the group were lying lawbreakers who's behaviour made a lie of their platform and was in fact using the platform to attempt to continue the bad behaviour, I would immediately leave the group and set up my own, stringently monitored group. The fact that so many men have no problem with being part of a group that was taken over by men who were essentially using it as a means to further their mental abuse of the people the courts had protected. By being in that group you are essentially enabling abuse. So while I have sympathy for good fathers who are denied custody/access to their children, I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone in F4J. Start a different group and root out any abusers who join, then people will get behind you.

On a personal level I have a close relative who is in F4J. The fact is that he actually has quite a bit of shared custody of his children but is a terrible parent. If he was my partner I'd move to south America to keep my children from being in his custody. He pretends like he is all sweet gentleness but I've seen him strike his children in anger for simple mistakes. His house is a dangerous shithole that I won't allow my child into even when I'm present. He refuses to get a job so he can't be made to give 'her' any money. He stalked his ex wife for a couple of years after she ended their marriage and posted things about her all over the internet. He badmouths her to his children all the time and interrogates them about what she is up to. His oldest child has started to refuse to spend any time with him and instead of realising that his behaviour and the horrible state of his house is at the root of that, he blames his ex. But he laments to everyone he can corner about how much he loves and misses his children and how he never gets to see them. And campaigns hard with F4J. It's disgusting.

Is it though. Once children are school age the economics change and before and after school care is a very different prospect to full time care. That said the tax credits child care element is not designed to accomadate 50/50 care as far as I can see. With one or three children then one parent loses out. With two I suppose the parents could claim CB for one child apiece and tax credit childcare element for that child ?

i think it's worse than that as maybe the combined incomes are taken sa the family income meaning no one gets any.

I have friends who've been fighting abusive XHs through the courts for years. The system really doesn't favour mothers - or the children, when one partner's using them to control the other. Yes, I know there are women who do it too. However, those women haven't organised themselves into a high-profile political group.

F4J are quite a lot like MRA (men's rights activists) in that they appear reasonable, but are actually trying to reduce women's rights and gain supremacy. There's a saying that "loss of privilege feels like oppression". Many of these activists are trying to reassert the level of authority they had - or, sometimes, authority they imagine they might have had in the past.

If I was part of a campaigning group and it turned out that the numerous 'leaders' of the group were lying lawbreakers whose behaviour made a lie of their platform and was in fact using the platform to attempt to continue the bad behaviour, I would immediately leave the group - Yes, this. It tends to imply that men who stay in the group have no interest in equal parenting; only control.

There are plenty of more reasonable activist groups. Gingerbread, for one.

I used to work school hours in a pub . There was a gang of regulars , some worked (although not much) others didn't work. They all moaned about how their exs were so dreadful and how they so rarely got to see their kids . They all had an absolute entitlement issue and really didn't see that good Dad's wouldn't be pissing it all away in the pub most weekday afternoons. I used to call them the first husbands club . Sad thing was some of them were on their second or third marriage with more kids and it was inevitable where it was all leading ....again.

They all thought F4J was marvellous.

traf

That's my experance as well, I shall never forget the day I saw one of our local very well known serious sex offenders on a televised protest

F4J are an irritating distraction from the real issues inherent in family breakup.

Failure of so many fathers to pay a penny towards their kids

Failure of a (probably small) number of mothers who deny any contact, or who deliberately make it difficult to try and write the Dad out of their kid's lives.

No effective sanction is imposed in either of these circumstances if the miscreant is determined.

There should be stiffer penalties for failing to financially support a child, whether the resident or non resident parent. Where possible, 50/50 should be given so both parents can have an equal relationship with their child and then there's no need for child support as each pays there share of costs.

I'd agree with penalties for parents who restrict access, move away etc to limit contact (where there is no agreed reason by the courts) or decide they won't declare the father on the birth certificate despite choosing said man as the father of their child.

I think that's fair, Dragon

I do know two women, both of whom instigated the split, who have behaved in a way I would say was unfair and can understand their ex husbands being upset about.

I think given how commonplace divorce and split are a major overhaul of the whole system is needed.

Add message | Report | Message poster DragonsEggsAreAllMine Mon 08-Aug-16 13:52:54
There should be stiffer penalties for failing to financially support a child, whether the resident or non resident parent. Where possible, 50/50 should be given so both parents can have an equal relationship with their child and then there's no need for child support as each pays there share of costs.

this wouldn't work the feckless parent would simply just do nothing for example my sister gets nothing for my nephew never has but he insists on having him every Holiday

Last summer my sister got a text saying this

Activities are very prices went to take him to soft play its nearly A tenner can't keep this up for the whole summer oh and he needs new sandles can you send me £150 to my pay pal account

She actually thought thus was a joke sadly not she has residency and recives nit a penny from him she told him to naff off my nephew spent last summer and this one doing nothing just playing on the balcony of his flat it's unlikely if they had 60/50 he would do anything more than feed him and it would still be left to my sister to pick up the slack

She sent him with one out fir this summer in the hope he would by him some cloths he simply washed the outfit every day that is the level your often dealing with

Also you should not be able t keep making a comeback like fucking valdermore

My ex try's to take me to court every few years not because he wants contact because in his words he likes to mix things up a bit and thinks I get to comfy sitting in my ivory tower he thinks it dose me good to live in fear I might loose my son 😳

Good lord, please. I hope you got that in writing! Courts just love being used by "vexatious" parents.

Lol at Voldemort, though

pleasemother

That nearly made me cry, the thought of that poor child wearing one outfit all summer. God knows how that makes his mother feel .

Something about that story, (whilst certainly not the worst I've heard on mnet) is just so tragic.... The level of self absorption and selfishness, to do that to your own child

Butt

You have no idea my sister picked a prized plum with that one

He often refuse to drop do back home so my sister often has too make the 2 hour drive or send him £30 via pay pal. In order to get him to drop dh back home

So the idea that some people have 50/50 would mean both parents would have to step up is a pipe dream all it means is the child would get neglected 50% of the time instead of even other weekend

Oh just had a thought as well what about those fucking dad who battle like game of thrones for there child to promptly drop them off to there in laws as soon as they get contact and then bugger off

My dad used to drop me to my nana evey week didn't see him for more than a hour evey weekend tbh

They think it's a fucking game is not about seeing the child it's about control

It's often the ones who shout the loudest about not having contact

Who turn up late of at all

Or pay nothing while shouting about the state of the kids shoes Ect

Or moan about you moving the children while plotting to evict you from the family home at every turn

There are shit parents everywhere. You have close experience of a bad father, and I feel sorry for your sister, but around me I can witness horrible parents on both sides.

The mothers refusing for dad to see their kids because said dad has another baby with his new wife (met after the divorce!).
The mothers refusing for kids to visit, because dad went on a Caribbean holiday so he should be "punished for having a life" (dad having a full time job and living in tiny flat whilst mum doesn't work and live in big house)
The mothers refusing for dad to see their kids, because they found out the dad was in a pub with friends, and shock horror a girl was present.

the list goes on.

You cannot say that all mums are angels and dads are evil, it's no true.

There was an interesting item on the Today programme (Radio 4) about paternity leave (shared with mother) and how rare it is. The guy interviewed who shared leave with the mother said it helped him to bond with his son and take equal responsibility. However, his wife only agreed to it because she had negotiated part time work following her maternity leave so did not miss out on time with her son. Sadly, many men don't have the luxury of extended time with their babies.

I'm sure there are mothers out there who are unfair to the father and deny contact, however there are many, many more NRPs (mainly men but some women too) who don't pay child support and seem to think that as they don't physically live in the same house as their child that they're suddenly absolved of any financial responsibility.

Like I said in my previous post my ex is going for full residence but if granted still expects me to do all the child care while he works (cash in hand so my son doesn't get a penny of it), the only reason he's doing it is to hurt me. Even if he got awarded 50/50 I can guarantee that I'd still have our son 90%of the time - except I wouldn't even be eligible for maintenance.

I think everyone - parents who withhold maintenance and parents who prevent contact with another parent - needs to realise that parents don't have rights, we have responsibilities. Children have rights, and this should be the main focus for them. Not winning or punishment for their ex.

Both mothers and fathers have to adjust expectations in the 21st century. I think women have to be prepared to relinquish some control of their children (Mother knows best) which will encourage men to adopt a more responsible approach to childcare. There was a thread on here recently about whether children 'belonged' more to mothers than fathers. That is a dangerous stance if you are trying to make men feel they are equal parents and should be parenting as much as mothers.

I do know two women, both of whom instigated the split, who have behaved in a way I would say was unfair and can understand their ex husbands being upset about

How many times do you hear about some pretty shoddy behaviour like affairs in the space of a few hours a wife founding out and the husband miving in with OW and understandable upset then get people say it does not matter what he did you have to chin up and get on with it.

The other one I see a lot is the bollocks spouted about domestic abusers 'just because he abused you does not mean he's not a great dad blah blah blah'
Women get cut such little slack when dealing with men's bad behaviour and any reaction is apparently spiteful but it's ok for men to hurt and to react from hurt.

My only response to the current 'status quo' bias of courts is that when one parent leaves the home because the relationship has ended it is NOT the status quo that is being maintained, but a very different status because the 'team' approach to earning and childcare has ended.
Until very recently my husband was the big earner and I was a SAHM for 7 years. He often didn't get to see the children on weekdays and when he did it was only for 20 mins or so when he got home early.
However, he had me feeding him anecdotes about their day, discussing minor decisions and filtering the important events for him to prioritise attending. Should we split up, all that communication and second hand access would be gone.
I would think it was grossly unfair if he were penalised by getting minimal access, especially as he HATED his job and was doing it entirely to provide us with financial security as a family. He has given it up now and I will be returning to full time work in the Autumn (the crafty bugger has managed to coincide his 'retirement' with when the kids all started school , and the reality is that he'll be rubbish at lots of things at first, but he'll learn as he goes along like we all do ). However, it would be equally unfair if we split in a few years and I were to be penalised for having a full time job.
We agreed a long time ago that should we ever split we would pool the resources, buy two smaller similar homes close together and work out a broadly 50:50 plan where we both worked and both were available for our kids. But I think courts should recognise that when you have a division of labour working as a team it doesn't automatically follow that it should be maintained after you split.