Absent fathers to be made into scape goats

[ivykaty44]

absent fathers

as a single mother who has lived without maintenence for periods of time and at times struggled to make ends meet I still think it is awful to suggest making a group of people stigmatised.

there are good NoneResidentParents and there are useless NRP, it isn't just absent fathers but sometimes absent mothers. What sort of country do we live in thuogh where we would want to stigmatise a whole group of people.

Better to keep the CSA free and make it work rather than the clerical mess it is at the moment.

For some reason this whole debate has mostly centred on money, when the speech in actual fact also referred to the father taking a fully active role in the child's life. Yet I maintain that most PWCs don't want the NRP to have any (or much) more than the standard 1 eve a week/every other weekend (and indeed the court system doesn't grant any more than that_. No-one can be a fully involved parent within that timescale, it's just not possible

"Actually it does exist in RL.

Men who want 50 50 residence on divorce, should do 50% of the childcare during the course of the relationship. Then they'd get it."

Well my DH did more than 50% of the childcare in marriage (including working part time to let the mother study as well as working). He still got awarded 1 afternoon a week and every other weekend. So your argument doesn't stack up. Courts (and most mothers) don't care who did what childcare in marriage - the mother (in most cases) still gets residence.

What condescending crap.

Enjoy being a victim, it seems to suit.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions allnew?

I think a lot of lone parents would love their exes to have the kids more often purely and simply so they could have a break - if of course, they knew they were going to be properly looked after.

If you know that when they go round there, they're going to be allowed to stay up until midnight and take drugs, then naturally you'd be slightly less keen on increasing contact time.

I don't believe anyone mentioned being a victim luvvinlife.

I find it a bit odd that you should think that expecting a parent to financially support their child, equates to having a victim mentality.

What odd places some people's minds are.

Yes I do - and the evidence is that most PWCs are indeed happy, as you say, for the NRP to have the kids every other weekend, to give them a break, plus 1 eve a week. But I know a lot of NRPs and a lot of PWCs, and in addition to reading hundres of threads on the subject on MN, it is clear that most mothers think that they should have residence, and fathers should have 'access'

But yawn, you're suggesting that a mother will only be reluctant to 'allow' more contact if a father isn't properly looking after the child, is up until midnight or is on drugs.

Well DH is in nither category, yet despite his ex having an affair and throwing him out of his own home, he is still only 'allowed' the court stipulated access (which she fought viciously the whole way)

"wtf has this got to do with absent fathers who pay no maintenance and have no intention of parenting their children allnew?"

It's totally relevant. David Cameron's speech not only referred to money, but equally to the need for fathers to be an involved parent in their childrens' lives.

My whole point (if you read my posts instead of assuming it's a personal attack) is that the legal system, and indeed a hell of a lot of PWCs, do not want or indeed allow a father to be an equally involved parent

But clearly you'd prefer the discussion to centre around money, because the idea of fathers having equal involvement in parenting post-divorce is actually Not what most PWCs want

I agree that fathers should be "equally involved parents" but from what I have learnt on this thread abiout 60% bugger off and never pay a penny towards their dcs. If half of those actuallly have their dc 50% of the time and need pay no maintenance, I would be surprised. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

You do understand that your own experience isn't a reliable guide to what the rest of the world is like, don't you?

Eons ago sunshineandbooks made the point that whatever our personal experiences, the best way we can evaluate what's going on, is to look at overall trends.

So your DH's XW isn't a very good guide, as to how all or even the majority, of xw's are.

Whereas figures from bodies who have done some systematic research into this, are a better guide.

And research shows that most lone parents would prefer the NRP to have more contact with their DC's, not less.

I can't prove you wrong, because 50% is so absolutely unusual in this country. The stats aren't there because it's very rare. Mothers (in general) don't want it, and courts don't grant it

So HerBeX - do you honestly believe that most PWCs want the NRP to have 50:50 residence and involvment, and that I'm hugely naive to think otherwise?

"And research shows that most lone parents would prefer the NRP to have more contact with their DC's, not less" - obviously more than nothing, yes, and obviously more than a ridiculous 1 or 2 times a year. But not, for the most part, reaching the levels of involvement DC was suggesting should be the norm.

David Cameron specifically said that fathers who don't have significant involvement (he gave examples) in their childrens' lives were beyond the pale, or whatever. Yet the fact is that most mothers (despite wanting fathers to have a certain level of 'access') do not want a level of involvement which takes them out of the position of being the main carer/resident parent.

I don't think you're naieve allnew, I think you're ignoring facts. Most mothers wouldn't prefer their XH to have the kids 50% fo the time because they know that the kids aren't going to be looked after by the XH for that time, because he never did it before they split. There are obviously exceptions to that, such as your DH, but we know that most women do most of the childcare in their relationships, however much we may wish to change that.

"what has this got to do with men who don't WANT to see their children and don't WANT to pay a penny?"

It's not a vendetta. Like I've said repeatedly, DC was not only referring to those 2 aspects you quote. He quite clearly put into the same category any father who did not have heavy involvement in the childs' life. It's you who's limiting the discussion to fathers who don't pay anything or don't have any invovlement. But DC, about whose speech this thread was started, went much wider than that and included in his net those fathers who do not play a very active part in the child's life.

It's his vendetta, not mine. And my point it that fathers are simply not allowed to have the level of involvement (in most cases) to not be part of DC's sweeping statement.

And you've just said you don't want 50:50. Would you be happy then for the father to have an equal chance at being the PWC? How about 60:40, or 70:30? I've guessed it - the answer is no. So how on earth can someone granted less than that level of 'access' have any hope of having any significant level of involvment. Yet if they don't achieve this, then according to DC, they are as bad as those fathers who don't pay a penny or don't try to see their children at all.

DC made a sweeping statement which ignored practical realities. I don't disagree cases of not paying anything and not wanting to be involved at all, but he made sure that, in his speech, that a significant majority of well-meaning fathers also fell into the same category

Luvvinlife, there is no way women who have been awarded a certain amount in support should have to run after a possibly abusive exH or any other sort of exH trying to chase it down. Essentially what you are advocating is women begging a man to do what he has been ordered to do.

I agree with SAF, 50/50 is a disaster for the children most of the time, because it does not address the needs of children.

"I agree with SAF, 50/50 is a disaster for the children most of the time, because it does not address the needs of children"

You see, as a woman and a mother, I agree with you. There is no way I would 'let' my DH have 50:50 access if we split. But I do accept that this, on my part, would be very sexist. As a woman, it is my opinion that DS would be better off with me. For me to have majority care and actually, make all the really important decisions in his life as a child.

But I still recognise that this is sexist on my part, and that in choosing this path, I would simultaneously be denying DH the ability to take a fully active role, even if he wanted to (which he would).

So I can see your point, but I still maintain that in making this assertion, I would be effectively forcing DH to fall into David Cameron's sweeping net of fathers who weren't significantly involved

HerBex, you are so right. I have a 7 yo rather than a tiny one, but dh has never. ever concerned himself with dinner money, new shoes, organising holiday cover, presents for parties etc. And yet I would consider him a very hands on dad - he's the one who plays scrabble, does jigsaws etc Basically he does the fun stuff. In the event of a hypothetical split - hmmm.