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.

Portofino apparently we're not allowed to give our personal circumstances as examples as they're not respresentative

HAHAHAHAHA -interest in school work? Well most children I know bring schoolwork home. In the case of an NRP, then 9 days (or even 10) out of ten, the child will go to the PWCs house straight from school. In which case NRP doesn't even get sight of schoolwork.

And school plays - this are notified by school, usually via a note to the child in his/her schoolbag. If goodwill exists on the part of the PWC, she will invite the NRP. Although NRPs can insist that all written documentation is also sent to their home, this doesn't usually extend to much beyond school governance matters not of direct relevance to the child. Often even parents evenings are notified to the NRP. To become involved even in a minor way usually takes a hell of a fight, unless the PWC and NRP have a good relationship (which surprise surprise, most divorce parents tend not to have).

Even so far as choice of school is concerned, the choice is all for the PWC to make. NRP has no say in this.

Attendance at things like school plays tends to be limited. PWC hears about it first and usually grant second ticket to her partner/parent. NRP doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance in less she wants him to

I think you are overestimating DC's idea of what "significant involvement" in a child's life means from a father, allnew.

I'd hazard a guess that he doesn't mean doing 50% of the childcare.

Also, let's be clear about this: The majority of non resident parents, 90% of whom are men, do not pay one penny in maintenance. It is not sexist to suppose, that these people are not good parents. If they don't love their chidlren enough to give a penny towards their upkeep, then I have huge difficulty in believeing that they are going to put their children's needs first when they are in charge of them. In what world is it reasonable to look at a group of people who have proved to be shit parents and then say: let's give 'em 50% responsibility for looking after children? How can that possibly be in children's best interests? It's not sexist to say this is a bad idea; it's just looknig at the evidence and making a judgement based on the way people behave.

When men as a group (I'm not referring to the honourable exceptions) stop behaving like this and start behaving like responsible parents and do 50% of the childcare and take the career and financial hits that women do on becoming parents, then 50 50 as a startnig point on relationship breakdwon, will be absolutely right and appropriate. But they haven't done that yet have they? And women fought long and hard for the right to have custody of their chidldren, I dont' understand why some women are so eager to give that right away, when it cannot be demonstrated to be in the interests of our children.

"you haven't given a personal example you've given an outsiders perspective of an example" - what are you talking about now?

If you're referring to me, and suggesting that I am an 'outsider' to the life of my DH, then that in itself shows the disregard towards any view that marriage is a partnership or a meeting of equals

"When men as a group (I'm not referring to the honourable exceptions) stop behaving like this and start behaving like responsible parents and do 50% of the childcare"

Women in general don't want men to do 50% of the childcare. Which bit of this don't you understand?

"When men as a group (I'm not referring to the honourable exceptions) stop behaving like this and start behaving like responsible parents and do 50% of the childcare and take the career and financial hits that women do on becoming parents, then 50 50 as a startnig point on relationship breakdwon, will be absolutely right and appropriate. But they haven't done that yet have they? "

But even when they do, the mother still gets residence

You are simply asserting that allnew, you have no evidence that women as a group don't want men to be equal parents with them and do equal housework.

Most couples fall into the 1950s roles accidentally - they don't start off thinking hat mummy is going to do it all.

Anyway, must go to bed. I get up at 6am whilst DH then gets DS up, dressed and gives him his breakfast. My DH must be so totally unusual in his efforts that I'll be sure to show my appreciation

Whether it's sexist or not is beside the point. The point is what is best for the children.

I don't think it has to be all or nothing (all meaning 'in the circumstances' i.e. 50/50). There can be joint decision-making among divorced parents, wrt matters like medical care, education, extracurricular activities, etc., all discussed and agreed on, each parent can be aware of the children's schedules, and there can be plenty of phone, email, text or skype contact between the NRP and the children, alongside the usual residential parent/weekend practice.

It's up to the NRP to make the most of whatever opportunities they have to develop and maintain a relationship with their children. Some choose not to, which is sad because there are so many ways to keep in touch and be a presence in your child's life. Not the same situation, but my grandfather kept in touch with all of his siblings who had emigrated to Australia, whom he never saw again in RL, but they wrote to each other constantly. Shame there are people who do think a relationship with their own children is worth making an effort for.

The resident parent has to attend to the relationship too as the children grow. There are challenges for parents no matter what their circumstances. You have to put in the effort with children whether you see them every day or not.

A father who lives in the home with the mother and their children can have a very close or very distant relationship with the children, same goes for the mother. To that extent, I think Cameron has scapegoated absent fathers as distinct from neglectful parents in general.

And I simply don't believe that most mothers are chasing daddy out of the bathroom when it's time to do the nappy changing or demanding that they don't hang the baby's laundry on the line, as they want to do it.

.. people who do not think...

It's funny my xh was oh so indignant that he was awarded alternate weekend contact with his dd by the courts, how unfair it was, men were discriminated against, he couldn't play a full part in her life, etc etc.

But when we split up and I offered him 50:50 with our dd he refused it. So I offered 3 weekends out of 4 or alternate weekends and a night or two in the week - he refused it. I offered half the school holidays - he refused it. So when it was offered to him on a plate it was a very different story, he didn't actually want to step up to the mark and share responsibility. But I was apparently stopping him from seeing his dd. Work that one out.

He won't do any school runs, cover teacher training days, and on the very rare occasion he does have a midweek night, I have to send dd with a packed lunch for the next day because he doesn't have time to make it. I work nearly full-time. Oh and guess what, he doesn't think he should pay me maintenance either .

It's a pretty common scenario round here that shared care is offered but the men woud prefer to be weekend dads.

How do you know women don't want men to do 50% of the childcare when the relationship is still working?

Sexism in our legislation (extended maternity leave, hardly any paternity leave), centuries old perceptions of 'women's work' and financial necessity have created a situation where the cultural norm is women taking the majority of the responsibility. Women being the main carer is an effect of culture and it's something a lot of women are damn unhappy about (lack of help with childcare and domestic tasks feature quite highly under 'unreasonable behaviour' in divorce cases).

In a world where no one completely sabotaged their career by being the main carer for a baby/child, a world where sexism is not constantly reinforced by advertising and consumerism, a world where maternity and paternity leave was equal and interchangeable, a world where the gender pay gap did not exist, a world where men were encouraged to be involved, it could be very different indeed. I think we'd find many families still chose to have a primary carer and a main earner, but there would be far more men fulfilling that role, while others would have a much more 50/50 split.

I hazard a guess that this would lead to less relationship breakdown in its own right. However, if the parents did then separate, it is in the child's best interest to continue to spend roughly the same amount of time with the parent as was the case before the split, meaning some families would have 60/40 arrangements, some 80/20, some 50/50, with maintenance adjusted to suit and far less polarisation of the sexes. You'd see a lot more male primary carers, unless you believe that men are biologically different to women and just can't do this role, which I most certainly do not believe.

Divorce court is a production line where only the most egregious behaviour on the part of one or other parent gets any notice from the court when it comes to deciding questions of custody or residence. This means that 'the usual' arrangement gets the court stamp of approval the vast majority of the time, and it takes a huge effort to deny one parent or another the usual arrangement no matter how horrible or badly behaved that person might be.

One result is that some children are stuck visiting and trying to have relationships with people in whose care you wouldn't leave a dog while the exWives are subjected to years of torment from men whose main aim in life seems to be playing the role of thorn in the side of their children's mother.

My brother's ex left him. She decided that she wanted full residency and that he should have to sell their house to pay her. My brother fought in the courts for 50:50 residency and to keep the house but buy her out of it. He got it. I admit I don't know what the maintenance situation is, but not all men are denied 50:50 residency - and actually it works for his DC, except that their mother does make it difficult by doing something that I've heard several say their ex-H does - keeping all the DC's clothes, so brother has no school uniform, coat etc. at his house for them.

I'm not saying it's ideal - but when his ex left him she was pg to another man, which may have been a factor in the 50:50 residency - my brother fought to keep the family home so that the DC had some kind of continuity and security left to them. I don't much like my brother but he is demonstrably a good father to his DC and did his best to minimise the impact of the relationship breakup. He did object to her suggestion that she got them every weekend and he had them all through the week though - understandably! So they do half the week and alternate weekends each.

Just wanted to add in another case where 50:50 residency was awarded DESPITE the mother not wanting it (and sorry, it really was vindictiveness in her case)

"you appear to be angry at dh's ex for not giving him more than standard access whilst outright saying that you wouldn't give him more than that either"

swallowed - I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were tired, rather than deliberately misquoting me. I did not say anywhere that I would not 'give more than standard access'. I said I would not be up for 50:50 and would want majority care.

and I'm not personally angry with DH's ex - the fact is that when a human being is given power over someone who they detest, it is often human nature to use that power to the other person's detriment (and in a lot of cases, in a manner which ignores the best interests of the child). I would always, always do the best for my child because I love him above all else on earth. i cannot see a situation whereby I would allow my own dislike for another person come above that - it simply wouldn't happen.

I don't understand what you're trying to say allnew. On the one hand you slate the court system for not encouraging 50/50, say how hard it is for an NRP to be involved with things like schools, even when they want to be - yet if you were to split with your dh you'd refuse to allow 50/50, you'd be making all the really important decisions in your child's life. and would be denying him the the ability to take a fully active role, even if he wanted to (which he would).

I'm slating the court system for awarding power and control to women who can then mis-use that to the detriment of the children.

You weren't misquoted in error allnew, as I wasn't either as its all agenda driven.

If a court or the CSA makes an order and the person is in full time employment and still refuses to pay they make an attachtment of earnings order. Apparently many men prefer this as it is proof positive that they are paying. I do concede it is more difficult for the ex's of self employed people to get anything out of them but not impossible if you make sure you involve HMRC as they are duty bound to pass tax return information to the court/CSA.

Of course sometimes it suits the resident parent to do nothing so they can moan about what a bastard their ex is etc I don't understand the reluctance of people to chase their ex up and make things uncomfortable for them if they are refusing to contribute, but then I must be odd fighting for myself rather than expecting others to do it all for me.

When DH was thrown out of his home by his ex who was having an affair, he made voluntary payments. His ex insisted on going to the CSA regardless. After months and months they finally got it sorted (and the amount was less than the voluntary payment DH had been making). They asked DH to pay the amount backdated to the date of application. DH said he had been making voluntary payments. They asked his ex and she denied all knowledge. DH was struck with a huge bill due to her greed and lies.

At that time, due to her lies, he would no doubt have formed part of the so-called 60% statistic

Of course the posters on here will say this is an extraordinary case, but there are thousands and thousands of mean who have encountered the same.

I know of several instances of that and have ended friendships because of it.

Those people fuck it up for the others that really do need help.