To not believe no dad is better

[NotConvincedd]

I often hear people say "no dad is better than a crap dad", and I'm not sure I completely agree.
What strikes me is that a lot of the people who say this then go on to explain that their child has an amazing stepdad who's raised them as his own. But that's not really the same as having no father figure at all, is it?
To be clear, I'm not talking about abusive fathers in those situations, no contact is obviously the better option. I'm thinking more about fathers who are unreliable, inconsistent, or just a bit rubbish.
My thoughts are that for many children, some sort of relationship is better than none. It's often said children who grow up with absent fathers tend to have worse outcomes overall, and most children seem to want a relationship with their parent, even if that parent isn't perfect. Being rejected or feeling unwanted can be incredibly painful and I think a lot of people are dismissive of how hurtful this can be.
AIBU to think that "no dad is better than a crap dad" is often too simplistic?

I get that but wanting someone in your life who as you put it yourself doesn't deserve any relationship with them and was emotionally abusive isn't the sign of a healthy securely attached adult. Just as many abused women think they'd rather have the relationship than being alone. I completely get why they feel that way, but it's a sign of damage not a sign that having an emotionally abusive dad did them no harm, it's just a valid example that how you're treated when you're young fucks you up into adulthood and accepting the bare minimum.

So again I ask, is that genuinely your parenting standard? “As long as SS won’t take my kids for this it’s okay”?

Of course it’s harmed them there’s no denying that. Unless one has actually been in that situation it’s hard to imagine how we’d feel about a parent. They know they deserved more growing up.. they have healthy secure relationships with their partners so I’m not sure them wanting a cordial relationship with him is a sign of abuse itself.

did I say it was I said abusive is referring to safeguarding. Inconsistent isnt abuse no matter how
much you claim it is.

I genuinely can't believe a mother would write this about their child's wellbeing, only more convinced that you're a father who has been told your inconsistent presence isn't welcome. It doesn't make sense otherwise why you're so quick to refute any possibility of it being harmful for your child despite people's lived experiences and now abuse is only abuse if SS get involved??

I think this is over simplistic thinking op.

There's a certain level of rejection in having an unreliable or crap dad because that's a dad who could show up but chooses not to do so consistently. I think that's just as harmful as not showing up at all in many ways especially when they've met and got to know their child and still chosen to not step up properly.

We do talk about children having worse outcomes with no dad involved but that doesn't take into account how many of those children experienced trauma due to that dad before he became uninvolved. Or the impact the relationship had on the mother or what support networks are around them as a family.

I'm a lone mother and I'd love for my son to have a genuinely great role model in his life as his dad can't be that as he's a risk to him. But equally I'm not naieve about the risks carried by a step parent- specifically a step father to my son.

Lots of children need time to prepare for a visit with an unreliable parent and not knowing when or why or where that parent might turn up can create real anxiety. It also makes it impossible for the mother to plan anything in reality. I think lone parents like myself shield our kids from as much as possible but the reality is that their dad isn't safe/ able/ willing to be around in a meaningful way. For my child I've explained that's because his daddy has some grown up problems but he does love him very much and it's not my sons fault or anything he needs to worry about. As he gets older he'll understand more as I think he's able to handle.

I'd say a big part of the problem is the lack of representation of single family homes in positive ways. Mum dad 2 kids and dog is still very much what's marketed at kids.

It can be emotionally abusive.

It’s emotional abuse and neglect if a parent is unreliable and inconsistent. It can cause trauma.

You don’t think emotional abuse is abuse then? As long as he’s not hitting them he hasn’t hurt them at all? Again, a very low bar from you OP, you need to do way way better for your kids than this.

So can an absent father 😔

Yes! Which is exactly what we are saying! Both are harmful. Having a shit dad is harmful, however that shitness manifests itself.

No that's wrong. While it can of course be emotionally damaged to have a totally absent father for whatever reason, by being consistently absent they're not abusing their child. You seem to not want to recognise the active decision and actions that is a man showing up and disappearing on repeat, showing interest and withdrawing it,.making promises and not keeping them which is abusive.

ETA: you can do nothing about the former whereas the latter you do actually have responsibility for child's best interests.

I don't have a Dad - I have an amazing job, bread winner, 2 cars, my own house, children, husband, dogs, holiday's, about to start my 2nd degree.

Ex-relative we have cut off, friends we know of with dad's - Prison, dead, junkies, no job.

It doesn't matter whether you have a dad or not; it's your own, personal choices. However, their Dad's were awful...so you can see that a crap Dad does indeed have a negative, knock-on effect. I'm talking from the perspective of a Social Scientist who researches these studies and has done for a long time.

It certainly can be considered abusive

Statistically it does matter, of course it won’t apply to every person but statics say children that grow up without fathers have worse outcomes

i think no dad is better than a lot of drama and conflict.

That said, you often see children with absent dads really idolise them. At least if they’re in their lives then they can see how shit they are and more informed decisions around their relationship with them.

If your kids only see their sperm donor every few months then they are still included in that statistic OP. A visit once every few months is FAR from being a child with both parents in their lives.

No that isnt an absent father and even then most kids want to know where they came from and have connections to their other side, it’s only mums that think it isn’t important

Just had a look at those stats you were talking about and actually the kids with poorer outcomes statistically were from families not just with no father present but with

1. Low contact with father- father does not live with kids and has little contact e.g. rarely see’s them
2. Low responsibility from father- father rarely involved in supervision, childcare, financial or caregiving responsibilities
3. Low engagement with father- father does not spend much time physically with or interacting with the child

As well as

4. Father absent from the household

So respectfully OP, if you’re going to rely on those statistics to prove your point, you should probably realise that regardless of whether you let him rock up every few months or not your children are still in that statistic of “fatherless homes”. A few hours every few months doesn’t make them exempt.

Your kids dad has fucked off and only now decided to “come back”- he’s the one who thinks his relationship with his own kids isn’t important.

Be honest, what does this actually boil down to? Are you just desperate for a break from your kids? Because I genuinely can’t believe any mother could believe the stuff you’re saying here.

No they won’t be going anywhere with him well not staying at his overnight anyway

Of course not, but a coparenting father isn't an absent one.

Depends how much money you've got.

The main variable for good outcomes is income.

The reason children of single parents have statistically worse outcomes, is because they are poorer on average, than the children of parents who live together.

When you weight the figures for income, the results are pretty much the same - it's not being single that's the issue, it's the fact that you only have a single income and it's often low because it's more difficult to do high-fallutin', high earning jobs because of your childcare commitments. If you earn the same as a couple or have a degree, the differences in outcomes flatten.

So all down to money basically.

You're really oversimplifying that data to match what you wanna do though. They have worse outcomes for a variety of reasons not because having occasional contact with their biological dad would have some magic effect. The stats also show that having a grandmother in a child's life greatly improves outcomes but it doesn't mean keeping an abusive troublesome grandma in their life would work. You seem to want to completely overlooked the evidence that inconsistent, unreliable fathers cause just as much damage.

It would really help OP for people to give more nuanced advise if you would give any info about how long this man has been absent and how old your children are. Has he been paying maintenance for them in his absence? Does he has parental responsibility? Is there a reason why of he's so keen to be back in their lives he isn't formally approaching the family court to work something official out?