Divorce, MMR, fathers' rights... I declare the debate OPEN

[ScummyMummy]

Look here for more info. Sounds like a hot mumsnet debate topic to me if ever I heard one!

Interesting issue Aloha - I've had a few debates with the TUC over that - at the moment, the Sex Discrimination Act allows exemptions for women for pregnancy and childbirth, NOT breastfeeding (or childcare). The arrangement I would propose would still give women the choice to take up to a year off to bf. The question is - if mat leave was breastfeeding based (you'd need to change euro law for that btw), would women who chose not to breastfeed qualify for extended leave?

Tom, I agree with your maternity pay proposals. Sounds far fairer than the current system which is crap for both mothers and fathers.

Tom, I am absolutley fuming - I am in the position where I was beaten and abused by my husband and kicked out of our home being forced to leave my daughter behind and I am not the only WOMAN I have heard of who is in this position. Yes I agree that families need fathers but this is surely not a gender issue - this is about both parties being sensible enough to understand what the child needs. I am being excluded from my daughter's life and there is not one support group for me because I am a WOMAN.

Who said that quote that you found 'SCAREY'???? - it sounded just like my husband - in fact I am sure he has spouted the same nonense on more than one occassion!!

My god, I am sorry to sound so angry (actually I am not - I am just used to apologising because my pig of a husband used to give me a spank when I disagreed with him!!) Lots of people have said to me that they understand why I do not want my daughter to see my husband - no I do not say that I just feel that my daughter should reside with me. My husband is using my daughter as a stick to beat me with now that he can no longer use his fists and in this regard I think men are very alike - if a woman makes a decision to end a relationship the man that they leave behaves like the nastiest people going and will use whatever to hurt you including your children, they are also more than willing to shout about there misfortune to anyone that will listen - that to me is what bloody families need fathers is all about - well Tom my daughter needs me - you think I can join??

What you've been through sounds horrendous and you've every right to be fuming - I am totally against contact between any parent and child if that contact puts the child at risk of violence, and I think you are absolutely right to walk out on an abusive relationship.

Agreed, it's not a gender issue, it's a children's welfare and protection issue. The only gender issue I can see involves the assumptions held by judges about men's abillity to care for children (assuming no abuse etc), which tend to be the assumptions of a different generation (before women asserted their rights in the workplace)

The Equal Parenting Council may be supportive to you - they take a less gendered approach and support all non-resident parents. FNF addresses fathers primarily because 96% of residence orders are given to mothers, so by and large the excluded group is fathers. However, you may find that your local FNF group is willing and able to support you as well. Presumably Womans Aid would be able to offer you some referal help as well.

Please don't assume all men are alike with respect to the use of violence - that's like assuming all women are alike with respect to manipulation - it's a stereotype we could all do without. Having been hit several times by my wife I resent the implication that violence is only one way - I think ALL forms of violence in the home are unacceptable - whoever does it. Thats what I teach my kids anyway.

Tom - 2 points

Firstly it is very easy nowadays for a father to get parental responsibility (so I am told - by the mother of one of the children in this case). In her instance she was never married to him, and was separated from him before the baby was born. Apparently he then applied for PR and was granted it by the courts - she was told that unless there was a good reason NOT to do so, this is what the courts would always do for a biological parent. The child has never lived in the same house as him, although does visit on some weekends (there is no official joint custody - the mother has full custody) and I do not believe that he contributes financially to the child's upbringing at all (apart from during said weekend visits). I'm sorry for all those absent father's, but I can't help feeling that in such a case (and I agree they are not all the same - a couple who have split up after the birth of a child should be regarded differently) the mother's wishes should be more important than the father's.

I also think that this issue in essence has not been about the comparative rights of the parents, nor about the welfare of the individual children. I think it is a political decision. As I said before, I feel that if it had really considered the children's welfare (and ignored the medical obsession with "herd immunity" then they would have ordered a selective regime of vaccination.

Also - out of interest - I think that it would be better if The mother of a baby was given 8 weeks Maternit at 90% (2 weeks before birth and 6 after), the father 4 weeks at 90% - (after obviously) and there should be a further 9 months which can be taken by either parent - deopending upon the desires of the family.

Hey Boe, I totally agree with you (as you know) about your appalling exclusion from your daughter's life and your ex's vile behaviour. But believe me, there are good men being pushed out of their kids' lives, and I know because I'm married to one. And my dh's ex left their daughter behind when she went off with the man she's now married to, and only retrieved her when she was living with the new bloke (two years later). My dh gave his daughter up without a fight partly because of schools being better in her mother's area and partly because he thought a girl needed her mother, but didn't know at the time how vindictive his ex would be and how difficult about contact. It truly cuts both ways.

I think it is just natural for a mother to be put first especially when it comes to maternity leave - my god it is not only for the babies benefit but for that of the mother in terms of regaining her health and strength. Women are not supposed to do anything strenuous after giving birth for 4-6 weeks when they have given birth vaginally and longer than that when they have had a c section. You want to go through it Tom - men would be a lot more sympathetic, think you should menstruate too whilst we are about it.

As for who should be put first in terms of residence - I really think - and always have even before I had my daughter - that mothers should be put first. I in no way back up anyone who has denied there partner seeing there child but do hate it when men get all maleist on us - god we are different sexes - you want sore nipples, to bleed for 6 weeks after giving birth and have stitches where the sun doesn't shine???

Oakmaiden
PR is not hard to get - easy, in fact, if mother and father agree - they just sign an agreement. If the mother disagrees, then, like your contact, the father has to apply to the court for a PR order.

As with ALL LAW governing the welfare of children, the 1989 Children's Act comes into play, which says that the best interests of the child need to be paramount in any decision.

Research into the role of fathers in child development and welfare is very clear - in the vast majority of cases (i.e. excluding alcoholic or abusive fathers), the involvement of a father in their children's lives will have a significant impact on that child's cognitive, social, educational and physical development. So it's hardly surprising that PR orders are granted.

The governing principle of the law is the best interest of the child, not the wishes of the mother (or father), in spite of how often these can become confused.

I think you may be right about the politics - the judge was put in the position of assertaining the best interests of the child - vaccine or no vaccine - and there would have been political hell to pay if he'd gone for the non-MMR vaccines.

Your transferable idea is OK, but in all European countries where leave has been transferable, it is the child's relationship with the father that suffers, as the couples tend to chose the mother to take the leave. We still have a ridiculous pay gap between men and women here in the UK, and I'm afraid that would be the case here. Only when it's non-transferable do children not lose out on their dads.

BOE

The Sex discrimination Act is very clear. There is an exemption for pregnancy and childbirth. Maternity leave is, in European law, rooted in Health and Safety law I.e. Maternity leave is there for the very purpose you call for - to recover physically from pregnancy and birth.

It is NOT legal, however, to give women rights for the purpose of childCARE that you deny to men. This is why case law backs fathers who want to work part time in companies that have allowed mothers to do so. i.e. you can't give women leave in order to look after babies or children and then deny that leave to men - it's sex discrimination, because men and women are equally capable at caring for children, and the law does not want to entrench childcare as 'women's work'.

The question is, how long does it take to recover from pregnancy and childbirth? I would suggest that 3 months covers the last 6 weeks of pregnancy and the first 6 weeks after childbirth. My wife had an emergency ceasarean, and was advised that after 6 weeks, she could start to drive and do normal things as well. So it seems like this is a sensible period based on the worst-case "Normal" scenario - i.e. an emergency caeser.

If recovery is going to be longer than this, then it is usually for reasons of medical complication and normal sickness leave covers all of those issues.

I think the issue of residence is complicated.
There was a case a couple of years ago, when a couple separated. The guy had given up work and raised the children as a homedad for 5 years, while the mother worked in a high powered job in the city. When they separated, she suddenly turned round to the judge and announced that she was going to give up work and look after the children full time. She was given residence and the father ordered to pay child support. Personally, I think that's disgusting - and it would be just as bad if the sexes were reversed. There was clearly one full time parent who had become the most competent carer and sacrificed his career potential, while his wife went off and earnt money (and did NOT develop childcare skills at the same rate). If it had happened to a Stay at home mum, most people here would be absolutely STUNNED.

Boe, the "scarey quote" was by Custardo on this thread (Tuesday, 17 June, 2003 12:17:33 PM ).

this is a fascinating debate, very well articulated.

tom, i have to ask you to explain further your assertion that fathers' hours increase after the baby is born to fund loss of earnings. why? i am the main earner in our house (bring in 80% of the household income) but i have reduced my hours since going back to work. don't see why my situation is dissimilar from a working dad - as you point out yourself the law does not discriminate between men and women in the childcare stakes.

would it be too cynical of me to suggest that some fathers, unlike you, have less than pure reasons for staying longer at the office when children arrive to disrupt the home front...

btw - welcome back, it has been a pleasure to read your contributions on this thread.

Hi bossykate (great name!)
I'm not sure of the reasons - but it is a solid research finding - check EOC's recent research report by Margaret O'Brien if you need proof.

Why? I can only hypothesise...I think because there is a drop of income in the household, and because many men still cling onto the notion of father as breadwinner - whereas breadwinning women (like yourself) are much more conscious of their parenting responsibilities, because nurturing has been at the heart of women's identity for the last 300 years, just as providing has been at the heart of mens'.

What is WIERD is that dads with boys tend to work longer hours than dads with girls! NO idea why!

Tom - I've read that stuff about men working longer hours when a) have kids and b) especially when have boys. Is it something to do with men valuing boys more and wanting to provide more for them? I think there is also a view that girls seem to do ok without as much help and men do seem to see providing money as their way of helping.

Well, as I've said, "Providing" has been at the heart of male cultural identity for 300 years, just as "Nurturing" has been at the heart of female cultural , idenitity, so there is a bit of a knee jerk reaction that tends to kick in for both men and women when they have kids, and these relate to these historical definitions of gender identity. Men tend to think about money, women tend to think about childcare!
But - the theories put forward to explain the research findings are all hypotheses - there are no definitive answers - the research hasn't been done (and probably won't be - there's no funding for it)

Boe and Custardo
I have to agree with you two about the rights of the mother in most cases.
Carrying a child for 9 months and giving birth, being the one who wakes up when the child cries - being a dad is not the same.

How would you know?
How would a dad know what it is to be a mother?
How would a mum know what is is to be a father?
You can't.

I think it is, actually. My dh loves his kids every bit as as much as their mothers do. I thought pregnancy was a breeze for all but four weeks or so (felt fine throughout but stuck in hospital for a month being bored), as was giving birth (c-section) and breastfeeding. So don't I count as a mother? My dh is every bit as much a parent to our ds as I am. Truly.

He does wake up when they cry. He's been up at 5.30- for the last three mornings while I've been in bed.

tom, i just want extra pats on the back because i have the dual pressure of motherhood and the pressure of providing!

seriously, though, don't you think at least some fathers use staying at the office as an escape route from the less attractive aspects of parenthood?

also, if you look at many (sadly too many to actually cite here) mumsnet threads it seems as though the "bread-winning" aspect of fatherhood is used as a stick to beat the mums into taking an unfair share of domestic and childcare tasks?

obviously this is not you...

btw - what do you think about alan milburn's resignation?

My DH gets up when they cry, I'm crap on no sleep and he does a full days work after

BossyKate
I'm sure it happens - and its unfortunate that alot of dads get home at just the time of day the kids can be real terrors - tired and all that. But I think we all know that childcare isn't as easy as work (especially when the kids are crotchety).
I'm only talking about cultural generalities - obviously things are changing and there are plenty of mums who do nurturing and providing, like you, and plenty of dads who do providing and nurturing.
Like I wrote before, if you tot up the total time men and women spend on earning, childcare and domestic tasks, they end up about the same. The average hours worked by fathers in the UK is 48, and the average by mums is 28 - so while I'm not into anyone using a stick to beat anyone else with, I do sympathise with men who feel that they are doing loads of paid work and are entitled to do slightly less domestic work. At the end of the day, what counts is that things "feel fair". The problem many men have is that their work is 'unseen' by other family members, so it can be taken for granted more than work which is done in the house, and therefore visible to the family.
Alan Milburn - good lad - I think the job of a Cabinet Minister would be a nightmare myself - I'd never do it. I think it's an extreme job and completely crap when you've got young children - I bet he'll be back within a decade or so, and with a tremendous amount of support from working parents. I know one cabinet minister, and she always seems stressed out and worried about her kids.

Of course, being a dad is not the same as being a mum, but that doesn't make it any less valid or valuable.
I'm sorry that some of you feel that the fathers of your children have let you and their children down, but they are the men that you chose to be the father of your children. One of the main reasons I never had children with my first husband was because I was never sure that he would be a good father. The warning signs in my mind was the fact that he worked long hours, travelled a lot and wasn't there for me when I needed him emotionally. (He did earn lots of money, but I didn't thinkt that that would make up for his lack of participation) I did not expect his habits to change once he had children. I'm surprised at how many of my friends have expected their hard working, high earning husbands to suddenly change their habits when they have children.

I agree, as someone else mentioned, that many fathers participate less in their children's lives than they should because it has been made so difficult for them. I personally know quite a few men in this situation.
Hey Tom, my dh would happily stay at home with the kids while I returned to work, but as he is self-employed, there is no one to force to pay his paternity leave so I don't think we would work for your court case. In fact, chances are that he will be the one staying at home with the children during the childminder's holidays.

What I need for the court case is the following...
A couple where...
The mum wants to return to work about 3 months after the birth, and then the dad takes over for the rest of the first year, then returns to work.
I'm not sure about a self employed dad - what is the maternity leave provision for a self employed mother?
The basis of the court case would be that it is illegal for the government to give women leave for childcare and deny it to men. It would be taking the government to court, not an employer, under the Sex Discrimination Act. I'd get the EOC to lead the prosecution.

I completely agree with Sofia, I chose my dh to be the father of our children because I saw what he was like with his daughter. It's great to 'preview' your future like that. I just knew he'd be totally committed, because I'd seen it. I also knew that he didn't earn that much money, but hey, why should a man earn all the money? Obviously I'd like to win the lottery (I'm VERY materialistic, apparently, though not so materialistic I've taken the lucrative full time job I've been offered recently) but I'm not banking on it. We will carry on between us, muddling on.

Tom, we're not so unlike your example - I went back after 3.5months, dh took same amount off then massively reduced hours to do childcare. He's self employed, though, so all the really important benefits of right to return don't apply.

Glad to read your posts again.