Louis de Berniers and parental rights

[Xenia]

Sunday Times 15.8.10. I do support his position of 50% rights to fathers post divorce particularly fi they did 50% of the homestic work and childcare before the divorce and never had their wife working or not at all.

Of course you reap what you sow and househusbands perhaps fairly get child residence.

Legions of men choose not to help post divorce and if the default where 50% each they could be forced into childcare, clearing up sick, cleaning, dealing with child issues.

Also if a mother loves her children and knows how she would feel if she saw them rarely how can she want to hurt their other parent by denying them a fair 50% contact time?

"We've got to overturn this idea abiout the sacredness of motherhood as if being a mother give you the diviine right to own the chidlren and it's up to you to decide how you share them out. That' just got to stort. It shoudl be assumed automaticalyl that there iwll be shared peenitng, basically equal parenting, unless there's a damn good reason not to. The assumption should be that it's equal rights fomr hte start".

I would agree with that,. My only caveat would be if you've enjoyed a happy little housewife set up where you do nothing and seh does all, you haven't bonded and she has then more fool yo on divorce - you may have less contact. If instead you've done your fair share of scrubbing the loos and the babies' bottoms on a 50% basis then that de facto reality shoudl be reflected in contact orders and de fault positions post divorce. In other words men shoudlnt' have it all ways - a non earning domestic slave totally bonded toh er babies during a marriage, babies you hardly saw and never helped with and then after divorce suddenly you're Mr very involved who would love to be washing and mending clothes and getting things ready for school on a daily basis.

My brother and his ex wife have this arrangement and seems to work well for them, they only live in next door villages and both are flexible on changing if they have something specific that they want to do with the boys.

Yes, I know a couple where they have the chidlren alternate weeks etc. I don't understand why mothers who love their children can't put themselves into the shoes of men who are also closely connected to them and even if they hate their husband and want to hurt him surely their love for their child and desire that the child sees its parent is stronger than wanting to keep the child only unto themself.

One of the problems I see in RL when it comes to school-age children is that one parent (generally the mother) does the lion's share of things like school runs, ferrying to after-school activities, etc. Unless both parents work and have a nanny who does these things. So from a practical pov, it is not possible for each parent to do 50% unless the one working fulltime hires someone to do their share while they are at work - which seems silly if the other parent is available.

Xenia- I don't think you'll get much agreement with you on this. I think it should, where possible, be 50/50. But I think it means people have to pick a partner who is willing and capable of this,and not have children with a twat.

Oh I agree, I also have a friend who is separated from his wife and it kills him everytime he has to take them back, his eldest daughter also wants to spend more time with him but his ex is so very inflexible but still wants him to pay.

Well, I don't agree from a personal perspective as my ex is not a good father and didn't do anything when he had the chance. He abused me and then abused the children once I left him and he had contact with them. Had court hearing and he has supervised contact but the children don't want to go, they hate him for hurting them. He's also a liar and will say anything to still try to control me, luckily he hasn't been listened to so far but it's causing a hell of a lot of stress all round and my poor poor dd (8 and a half) has been self harming over him and saying she wants to kill herself so that she doesn't have to see him :(

Most men though aren't like that and I also think it's important men realise women don't 100% all want children taken frmo fathers in divorce. If you support parents' and mothers' rights you also support fathers' rights too.

i agree about practicalities. Some daily or even live in nannies can work for both families where both parents work full time and if I can find childcare when I'm away on business with the children 100% of the time then I'm sure divorced fathers can.

Of they can share an au pair too.

I also think there shoudl be a restrictino on moving children after divorce from the area the couple settled in. So that if the mother wants say to move to New Zealand - fine she can but the children stay in London with their father. Obviously once children are abotu 13 they can make their own choices as to where and how they live so it's only a few years where this is an issue at all.

It all sounds great in theory but in reality, most divorced people would not be able to afford a nanny/au pair or enough bedrooms in two homes to keep the children for half of a year surely? Also, for example, my ex does not get home until at least 7.30pm in the evenings-so they wouldn't even see him-so what would the point be? If he does not work those hours he will have no job at all, so it really cannot be so straight forward for all families.

Also, for all too many couples it would be impossible to live at opposite ends of the same street/close by, after divorce.

Where living between two homes may suit some children, it may not be enjoyed by others as relationships between parents and children can vary.

It is such a complicated area, maybe 50/50 would be a starting place, but i cannot see how that would settle any arguments between couples-in fact it may induce a whole lot more stress upon the children if both parties cannot agree so nothing would change?

About moving away, I don't think that is fair. Any good parent would carefuly weigh up pros and cons before upheaving a family and discuss with all parties anyway unless for very good reason. 13 years could be impossible to bear for some people who long to move back to family once they are divorced for example and who have no other means of support nearby. And, then I think that is a very difficult choice for kids to make even at 13 years old and would carry some guilt on their little shoulders.

Thats just my opinion. I know of so many different set ups with divorced families, it just seems to be what suits one may not suit another. I dont know what the answer is!

Maybe more affordable, easier more accessible mediation after split ups, counceling for both parents [emotional, social, financial etc] covering all aspects and possible future decisions etc? affordable solicitors? pre-nups?

parents dont have any rights when it comes to this,only responsibilities....as per the childrens act......its the children who have the rights!

That's the way it's supposed to be but my (limited) experience shows otherwise so far unfortunately.

yeah elenor.....have been through 2 years of courts myself. but its the general idea....the childrens act is implemented....have never seen a 'mothers act' or 'fathers act'...

Most contact works best when courts aren't involved. If you involve the courts you've lose as presumably De Berniers has found. Mediation can help though. Gvein we dont' jail mothers who refuse contact and rarely take a child from a parent refusing contact to the other parent there is little sanctino if someone completely ignores a court order (whether they are male or female).

My children's father could get an order to require him to see them but they ahve no right to go to court and force him to see them. that seems to be father's rights but no child right to force contact.

We could have a 50% starting point which would be fairer on fathers. We could then depart from that in cases where the parents' agree or the court holds otherwise.

once children are 13 they can largely choose what they do so some parents wait until that age before divorcing. Few courts will order a teenager to go to the other parent where the teenager has moved themselves from one to the other. So if you sit it out usually the teenager gets their preference in the end.

As for rights to move away it is very very rare a mother would be stopped from moving the chidlren to New Zealand. that is very wrong in my view. Often the children are settled here and their parents took a joint decision to bring them up here. If you think about if the father was going to take them away you might not like it and put yourself into his shoes then surely mothers can see that moving chidlren so they cannot see their father is very very wrong in many cases.

I agree xenia.

The practicalities may not always be easy to sort out, but the principle shouldn't be driven by practicalities, it should be driven by equity for the children and parents.

Difficult issues though as most adults and children don't want to live in two places. As the children never asked for the break up perhaps the fair solution is children stay in marital home and parents when not at home in their 50% of time camp out in a room in a hostel rather than having children moving from pillar to post.

Anyway most parents manage to work it out without going to court and older children reach their own decisions.

"Two women came before Solomon, both claiming to be the
mother of a baby born a few days earlier in the house where
they both lived.
The first told how she had given birth, then three days
later so had the other woman. No one else was in the house
with them. She stated that the other woman?s baby died
during the night, and that woman switched the babies while
the mother of the living child slept. When she awoke, the
deceived mother realized that the dead baby was not hers.
The other woman refuted the first woman?s claim.
Solomon announced his plan for settling the dispute: He
ordered that the living child be divided in two with a sword,
with each woman being given half.
The first woman responded, ?O my lord, give her the
living child, and in no wise slay it.? The second responded,
?Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.?
Then Solomon decreed, ?Give her the living child, and in
no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof.?"

I was talking about my personal experience too, with my children and abuse. I've posted on here about it so I won't go into it again. Needless to say, the children aren't being treated in their best interests...

Yes, of course. What did their father do to the children that amounted to abuse? Supervised contact surely is pretty safe and couldn't they have contact but only when they are also say with his parents?

It was physical and emotional. He called them names ie little bastards, swore at them lots, shouted at them until they cried (they are 3 and a half, almost 7 and 8 and a half). When dd didn't want to go to his house he screamed and shouted at ds1 and ds2 (the younger two) asking that they explain why she wasn't there :( plus dragged them up the stairs by their arms, hit them (leaving red marks), picked them up and threw them against the sofa (which they said was hard at the back and hurt a lot) and also picked them up and threw them on the floor. There were other things two but it was things like that. There was also a concern over the lack of care, I had to give them food to take a number of times, gave him money to buy them food (he told them he couldn't afford to buy fruit for example), they said he wouldn't get up in the mornings until they'd been up for a couple of hours and they were hungry and thirsty as they weren't allowed to get their own food or drinks there etc.

The police took a statement from me but because of no physical evidence by then (they were too scared to tell me for a year and a half) they couldn't do anything but file it and contact ss. Advised me to call in anything else that happened though and he came round the house screaming, shouting, swearing, banging on the door and got a harassment warning after that.

Yes supervised is but it's 3 sessions and then back to court, supported would be next I assume and seeing as he hasn't accepted any responsibility for any of it how can he change? I've asked that he attend a parenting course and some sort of anger course but that is all to come at court. The children are terrified of him. I explained everything to them and ds1 is happy to try to see him as long as he is safe and it's supervised. I assured him that someone will be there watching all the time. Ds1 even said that he thinks he needs to try, he's handling it really well.

Dd on the other hand isn't at all and has been self harming because of it all and threatening to kill herself.

Obviously my worries are about what happens when the supervised contact ends, plus before this they all said they didn't want to see him. I think they needed this time to get things straight in their own heads and have the space. It's something they shouldn't have to think about at their age.

His parents live about 45 mins away and the children don't see much of them so I don't know how safe they'd feel with just his parents and him, plus there are lots of negative associations with his house as that's where it all happened.

What the ex wants is every other weekend, overnight contact instantly and I just don't think that is appropriate.

There was domestic violence in the relationship (children witnessed some) so this also affects them and tbh I feel unable to have contact with him anymore myself after he came to the door acting so aggressively. I'm 5 months pregnant and have already been in hospital a couple of times due to stress and I nearly collapsed at the court on Friday. It's causing a lot of problems all round but I just want to make sure the children are safe.

Sorry for the epic post!

Didn't you notice the children were bruised and/or were disturbed behaviourally after seeing him? After all you said this went on for at least 1 1/2 years.

Did you report DV when you were together? Or are there doctors reports/hospital visits for suspicious injuries that could give weight to your allegation?

They are very difficult situations. Supervised contact seems the best way. Sounds like they could do with a mobile phone with camera and then post on youtube if he ever does it again. Presumably his parents very much miss them too though so perhaps even just visits to the grandparents with you staying there would be nice for that side of the family and I imagine he can attend school and watch sports days and things like that.

Anyway it sounds very difficult. Poor you and poor them (and in a way poor him too - imagine if you didn't see your children to the same extent he doesn't see them - he must feel awful about that too).

No bruises, yes they seemed different but I didn't put that down to them being abused. It's easier to add things up now but at the time I didn't know. No I didn't report, I was too scared. All I have are the gp reports as the dcs spoke to the drs, school report as dd broke down crying and told the school about what her father had been doing and obviously as soon as I found out I called social services myself, regardless of whether that meant I would be investigated or not.

I also involved the police and gave statements about what I was told and the dcs have been referred to camhs, had an assessment this morning. Both dd and ds1 are seeing a play therapist at school from Sept I believe and generally being supported as much as possible.

It's only been since they spoke out about it all that we're seeing the full effect of it on them as they can actually talk about it and their feelings.

Xenia - It's complicated as they don't want him at their school, well dd doesn't, ds1 changes his mind about what he wants understandably given his age. She refused to attend sports day if he showed up. Grandparents are welcome here but I can't take them there as I find travelling hard, I have spd and other pregnancy related problems (dizziness, headaches etc) and having a new partner now who I doubt would be welcome there. Plus it would probably just be uncomfortable for everyone. I don't know how much he's told them, but I can only assume nothing about what has actually happened. I don't think they'd be very supportive. Even said, they could see them any time but to be honest with you, they only ever saw them a few times a year, if that, even when I was with the ex. He didn't like his parents or any family and chose not to spend time with them and ignored calls etc.

Obviously I feel very conflicted about it, I can see how hurt, scared and upset they are but I can see it would be hard to not see your children; especially if they don't want to see you. All I want to do is keep them safe and I've already failed at that. I find it hard at times to see how he can possibly love them and treat them so badly. I know a lot of it is about control over me, as his c100 form to the court showed. He didn't write at all about wanting to see the children, just about "stopping me from preventing access". Solicitor said that was very telling and that he was very blaze in court and sat lounged in his chair.

I just hope he realises what he's done to them and put them through as it isn't something they are going to forget and is likely to affect them into adulthood. How can you get through to someone that refuses to listen?

I sent him numerous emails previous to all this asking about the lack or care and issues the children raised but he ignored and denied every single one of them. It was like talking to a brick wall. Of course I also talking in person but that was even harder so I took the email route as it is easier to get everything down and be factual.

Oh and the allegations aren't mine, they come from the children. I know he's capable of acting in that way as he did the same to me and spoke to me in the same way (and worse) for years but after years of it you're ground down. I had no self esteem and he told me noone else would ever want me. Called me stupid, lazy, should lose weight (I'm a size 8 and was then), idiot, bitch, cunt to name a few....

hard to give a fuck what de Bernières thinks given how rubbish most of his books are

although in birds without wings I got the impression he actually did have something to say for once

Sorry forgot to say dd has a mobile now but she does not want to see him at all. She isn't interested in contact with him. Their father has never apologised or said he'd get help for his behaviour but, as I said before, that will hopefully be addressed at court next time.

He actually lives diagonally opposite us and to watch your children cower and be terrified when a car of his colour passes is heartbreaking, it's worse when we actually do pass him. Last time dd almost ran home and she hid behind me as she was so scared.

She has problems sleeping and runs downstairs at any noise after he came to the door making trouble too, reason being she is scared he will come back and get it and hurt them. Children their age shouldn't be scared like this by someone that supposedly loves them.

Sorry, I've completely hijacked your thread. These are just my personal issues and obviously not applicable to every man or woman that splits up from their partner.

But here we go again - it is about the children of the marriage - not the mother and the father first. Why should the mother put heself in the fathers shoes? Or the father do what he thinks is right for him

Why can't divorced parents look at what the children need first?

So much talk about fathers rights and mother aswell

lets start looking at what is right for the children and that is different for all the different children concerned - thats why parents divorcing need to look at what is best and is going to work to bring up the chidlren to feel loved and secure