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.

Cheese wrote:
"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."
---------

See there's your problem and the courts problem too.

None of what you say is substantiated. The court has nothing to go on except the allegations of the children, who may be showing emotional problems due to being abused by their father or they may be showing emotional problems by being alienated from their father by you.

Well I haven't alienated (not that courts in this country even accept this exists anyway) them at all. Are you suggesting I'm making this up? Things are difficult enough as it is right now without people judging me. All I've ever done throughout this whole process is tell the truth, fully and regarding everything.

I guess the judge must have had some misgiving as his solicitor asked for contact at his house.

The children have spoke to enough people about what he did to them and they weren't shown as being liars (the doctor in particular was asked by the police if he thought they were lying and the dr said he thought they were telling the truth and gave reasons why). Every agency that I spoke to told me to stop contact, ss even told me to break any contact order that may be made!

*spoken not spoke

My comment was about the difficulty the court has in cases such as these.

I am not judging you nor indeed was I asking you to justify yourself.

SS told you break court orders, disgusting but not surprising. What LA are you under?

Ah OK. I have trouble even believing in myself most of the time, he even denied abusing me at all, it really messed with my head as I knew he had hurt me but then he turn round the next day and say I was mad.

I'm in Cambs, name changed a while back but I've been around for years, haven't linked my profile back yet though as I wanted to feel able to talk about things without worrying who was reading.

They said I should break it as then we'd have to see if he called the police or not, they said the police would then come and take the children to him and at that point they would have to investigate. Now, that sounded odd to me, but is exactly what I was told.

CheeseAndGherkins, I hear you completely. I haven't been through what you and your children have been through, thankfully, the abuse was not of that sort. It was 'only' straightforward verbal, emotional, physical and financial. But I actually extremely fortunate in that one of my children was born prior to automatic PR for fathers named on the birth cert.

There will be an awful lot of mothers who are going to be powerless to protect their children, powerless to remove a controlling madman from out of their lives.

YES of course I feel sorry for decent fathers who are pushed out. I do, that is awful. But the legislations which best protects children (from the MOST likely and the most severe forms of abuse) is legislation which favours women.

I think that this is something which is quite hard for liberal progressive people who have equal relationships with decent men to grasp. They think all men are like their husbands, and they understandably want the law changed to protect the only kind of man they are familiar with - decent men.

I have seen the dark side...

I always assume most of what the resident parent says may well be untrue even if they believe it. Most 8 year olds if say they say I don't want to go to school you pack them in the car and force them and I think contact with their grandparents and their father shoudl be in the same category but that will sound absolutely dreadful to the mother.

The supervised contact if the father's treatment of the children happened is obviously the best solution for now. I alawys feel very sorry for paternal grandparents too. I think they should have easier enforceable rights s well even if they have to be supervised by say the other set of grandparents to ensure their son is never alone with the children when the children stay with the paternal grandparents.

Not sure if that was to me or not but if so then it isn't as simple as that at all. I have had to take dd in to school late because she was self harming so it isn't exactly a "normal" situation. It easy as easy as a set of rules suits all.

You have no reason to feel sorry for paternal grandparents in my case as they are, and have always been, welcome to see the children here but have never bothered. My father is paralysed and my mother is a carer for him so they can't supervise anything either. So, as you can see, it really isn't that simple.

Where abuse is involved it isn't always in the best interest of the child/ren to enforce contact. I've seen what happens when contact is in place with an abusive father and the effects will more than likely by long lasting. It should be about the children, not the father, mother, grandparents or anybody else. Clearly this isn't the case.

My ex has his hands round my throat at one point right before I left him so I know first hand that he is quite capable of abuse; I just never knew he would hurt the children. I find it disappointing if people don't believe what I say but he had me doubting myself for years and I'm trying hard to overcome that now. Plenty of people have been very reassuring and sympathetic towards me including police, gp, family and friends; and of course my partner so I finally have some self belief back and confidence.

He's still trying to control me now both with the children and also financially but that's unrelated to contact.

No idea why you'd say you assume what the resident parent says is untrue, how patronising.

ElenorRigby I'm really sorry you're going through all of that and that your daughter can't see her sister. It's an awful situation to be in. I don't think there is enough time put into things at all, if everything was done properly and thoroughly it wouldn't be as hard as this. I still have a lot ahead of me with the children but I felt completely bullied by cafcass at the court. Without even reading the file submitted by my solicitor she was recommending supported contact, nearly at his house. It all seems a farce.

I've been totally reassuring to my children over the supervised contact and it's that reason alone that had ds1 saying he actually wants to give it a go, but dd is too terrified for it. I'm not sure what else I can physically do as I've tried my best and always tried to be fair and not slagged ex off but things have certainly changed from 1 year ago. It isn't my fault that he can't control his temper so why should I feel like it is and that he isn't trying to sort himself out in the slightest?

I've bent over backwards, in the past, and now, to facilitate the best contact possible but he abused the trust he had. I'm rambling now but think what you will.

CheeseandGherkins, I agree, that is such a ridiculous position - assuming that everything the resident parent says is untrue'. My x also tried to strangle me and I literally couldn't process it. I put it out of my mind. I hardly believed myself by the time I left. He had me almost believing his version of events even though my neck/back/eye hurt. I would never mention it now, even rl or in court, because people think you're being dramatic. 'These things don't happen! and if they do, you must have brought them upon yourself'

You hear two sides of so many stories and unless there is real evidence and someone films it (which is a great idea in the age of mobiles with recording functions) it must be hard to convince people and sadly legions of women thwart contact every weekend, thousands and thousands of them many on entirely spurious grounds. That doesn't mean some aren't justified in resisting it just as some fathers are right to deny mothers contact with their children too.

If the grandparents could see the children where you are then that's great. Perhaps just keep asking them so that they know the door is always open and children can talk to a parent every night free on Skype or MSN which presumably is a great way to help fathers and chidlren have contact where the sole risk is physical harm and the children want to give it a go.

I think in de Berniers case his own friend has said that he was rarely at their nice secluded home - he was off playing his mandolin around the country leaving his partner to it.

Thing is, yes, there are hateful mothers out there who use their kids as a vendetta against the ex, however there are even more mothers out there who continue to be controlled and bullied by the ex as no one will be believe their stories - they parenting is being undermind, their kids poisoned by the ex and the makes for damaged mother and damaged kids.

I don't see what the courts can do - if more parents could come to an amicable and workable compromise it would be less stressfull for the children.

I've met Louis de Berniers. He didn't come accross as woman-friendly and I think this is portrayed in his literature: lots of fantasies about really old decrepit men and young women etc.

The idea that children go to the mother upon divorce is a very very recent idea. Before women's lib, the children belonged to the father, and still do all over the world, including Japan where I live.

This recent idea that has come in allowing the children to go to the mother is not only new, but it has nothing to do with mother's rights. It's about the children's best interest.

All well and good. The children's rights are of primary importance.

But you have to be careful, because as far as I understand it there already are no mother's rights under the law.

I think the mother's role of pregnancy, childbirth and lactation should be taken into consideration.

Also, it's very difficult to prove that the father did 50% of the childcare. Lots of men think they're doing 50% but when you break it all down into excell, it turns out they're doing much less than they think they are, and the woman is doing much more than she thinks she is.

Yes, MaamRuby, I always find it interesting that they care about doing 50% of the childcare after they have divorced.

If they'd have said "NO, LOve, no, you go out Friday while I babysit. I want to do 50% of the childcare", chances are there'd be no divorce anyway.

It is overwhelmingly women who instigate divorce.

I said as much above. There should be fairness but if you work more than your ex which perhaps I did then you know as a woman or man that you risk losing your children on divorce whatever your sex and plenty of high earning full time working mothers with househusbands or husbands at home who are arists and the like lost contact.

Had Mr DB done most of the childcaer whilst his children's mother was out earning a crust as plenty of women do then (whch I assume was not the case) he might have had residence of the chidlren. the law genuinely is sexually neutral. It maintains the status quo. Those who find it convenient to have a domestic servant type housewife at home reap what they sow and as indeed almost did I. Also depends on the age of the chidlren. 13+ year olds can choose on the whole.

You cannot have your cake and eat it - conveinience of a housewife and not pulling your weight at home and then 100% of residence later. However we don't know the facts - we need him on the thread. One imagines writers, even male fat middle aged ones spend hours a day looking after toddlers and need the income of a City wife to keep the family going as most writers earn a pittance ( should know I've written more books than he has although it's a tiny bit of what I do).. anyway his wife may be an equity partner at Ernst & Young on £1m a year and he duid 90% of the childcare and housework for all we know. Acyually I'm not sdure if he did marry - did they live in sin?

Xenia - DB is a wealty man.

His partner was in theatre.

Ah so he married or its equivalent if you don't marry, down, a lower earner and enjoyed having someone who was in a kind of service role and then after the separation complains as they had bonded more before the status quo should not be maintained or someone can now tell me he does 10 hours childcare a day whilst his wife is out working and he is more bonded than she is. I hope so.

Okay, more facts rather than my speculation (if newspapers ever have facts that is...) she does work, she left him as most women do their men these days

www.thecourtyard.org.uk/actors/8/cathy-gill
www.telegraph.co.uk/family/7949006/Desolate-life-of-a-single-dad.html

property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/buying_and_selling/article4538635.ece
(before the break up and not they weren't married which means a completely different financial position for the lower earner whichever of them that is)

He married 'down' - the mother of his kids might have something to say about that.

Xenia - are you now in lawyer mode? Does down mean less income?

I have two friends who've been part of a 50/50 deal when their parents divorced quite amicably.
You cannot underestimate how unstable it is to go from one parent to another week after week, month after month. One friend feels she basically never had a home, never had a place to relax: she always had to be 'on' for her father and new stepmother, and she never had enough time to relax at her mother's house (where she would have chosen to be).
The other friend did year about from about age 9 - I am gobsmacked that anyone would think this was a good idea. One year in one country, one in another. It was not good.

Both of them said that they would never repeat this pattern if they got divorced.

I know some for whom it has worked as children like consistently and no changes on the whole and if it's Thursday to Saturday night with daddy and Sunday to Wed with mummy etc it can work fine but depends on the family.

Donw? Most men marry someone they feel superior to and 4 in 5 men earn more than their wives. Most women unlike me go subconsciously for richer men and thus are paid out to on divorce. If they do what I did and marry someoen who earns less then they pay out to their husband on divorce as I did. I'm not sure I got much benefit or thanks for that but I wouldn't want to change the sexual neutrality of hte law even if it meant I hadn't had to pay.

It sounds to me more like he wasn't cost househusband author at home all the time with children whilst wife away who was then wrested from the chidlren. he qwas Mr not often at home hardly bonded away with other women who got his come uppance but would be delighted to be found wrong and I would always continue to lobby for fairness to both sexes for couples to organise things so they both do as much at home in marriage and after and that in such equal marriages you then have a fair sharing after of children and the dross jobs to do with them post divorce, clearning up the sick doing the homework night after night and not just silly playing around taking them out for a few hours things.

Xenia - I saw this in the paper and my initial thought was "Huh - suddenly wants to be an equal parent AFTER the split - bet he didn't before.....". Obviously can't know if that's true or not, but I'm really sceptical about a lot of the Fathers 4 Justice kind of campaigns because they focus so relentlessly on their own rights - as LdB seems to be doing here - and the needs of their children seem to be secondary.

I take your word for it that lots of women prevent their exes from having contact, in defiance of court orders, but my feeling is that we take that too much at face value. It's always blamed on the woman - she's bitter that the relationship broke up - but CheeseAndGherkins posts remind us that there could be some very good reasons why mothers want to prevent their children from seeing their dad - they would even defy a court order if that's what they had to do to protect their children.

Someone else mentioned that the majority of splits are initiated by women, which doesn't square with the idea that all these women are bitter and vengeful about the relationship ending. My assumption - unlike yours (and I was to read that you always assume the resident parent is lying!) - is that the relationship probably ended because one party was a bad spouse and parent. And while I agree that the law is and should be gender neutral when considering these issues, it's not prejudiced to point out that it's more often the men who are at fault. Hence why women end relationships more often.

Anyway, nothing LdB said made me think that he's been in any way unfairly treated. Like so many other stories you read, I think he's just throwing his toys out of his pram because he's been denied something he feels he 'owns' but (probably) isn't prepared to face up to the aspects of his own behaviour that led him to this situation. And I've heard of very few child custody cases where I haven't reached the same conclusion.