do you htink its a BAD thing that fathers 4 Justice has been disbanded or not

[cod]

Message withdrawn

Agree with MOM, Monkeytrouser's 11.25 post said it all.

Ha! Ha! I rather think you've all been taken in by the anti F4J hype! As I said - I have a lot of experience through my friend of how the courts approach residence. It tends not to favour the father!

On the contrary Soapbox. I think there are a good many families in which the mother is the main breadwinner and is still the more appropriate parent to be awarded custody of the children Being a WOH parent is certainly no bar to being a good primary carer. That's not the issue here.

Of course the courts "favour" mothers if by "favour" you mean that in examining each case they more frequently conclude that the children are better off residing with their mother. That's unlikely to change. And neither should it.

MT seems to think that daddy will have to give up work to look after the child though

No, I mean favour in terms of complete lack of suitability of the mother as opposed to the father, yet hte mother still gets residency!

And how many men do you honestly think would give up their careers to take 50% of domestic and childcare responsiblities? - by MT

In some families that may be necessary. For example, when I was a child my mother was forced to give up an extremely good job due to a crisis in the childcare arrangements. I agree with MT that in this instance more men than women would be reluctant to make such a sacrifice. But it is a side issue.

I believe that the number of cases in which the mother is wholly unsuitable to take care of her children while the father is a much better proposition is infinitessimally small. And there is a small minority of cases, of course, in which even I would award custody to the father. But we are talking about tiny minorities. In the bulk of cases residency with the mother is in the best interest of the childre. And the courts are right to recognise that fact.

Soapbox, I think you are talking about a very, very few cases where the mother is 'completely unsuitable' as a parent but still gets residence. In the main, residence is awarded to the primary carer. And that, 9.5 times of of ten, is the mother.

Or take work in a more feminised industry - encompassing all the 'perks' therein. Those who envisioned career projection can safely squash their noses on the glass ceiling.

Soapbox, you can only be talking anecdotally about 'unsuitable' mothers getting custody over 'suitable ' fathers (whatever those terms might encompass in a case by case scenario). It's an urban myth, i.e. a lie invented by misogynists at the expense of women in order to justify the formers prejudice.

Oh no, Monkeytrousers, didn't anyone tell you? The "glass ceiling" is just a vicious feminist myth!!! We're all equal now. And being the one awarded the right to bring up your children on your own, on the breadline, shouldering all the concomitant drudgery, heartache and sheer bloody hard work, when the children may very well stick two fingers up to you when they are teenagers and go off in search of that magical Santa-figure called Daddy...that's a special "favour" the courts are doing you, just to spite loving, decent fathers, because the judiciary is run by vindictive man-eating women. Hmmmmmmmmm.

And I did say 'careers' not simply 'jobs'.

Soz, posts x'ed Mom

Oh MT - I am most certainly not talking anecdotally, in the sense you mean.

Some of us are capable of independent thought you know, without reference to f4J. Good grief, you'd think we were all unable to process any information on this topic for ourselves!

MT - many of us have careers not jobs and manage to look after our children well!

(Can I just say I love the quality of the debate we get here on Mumsnet [smile}

Precisely the point I was making. It is perfectly possible for a mother to be working and still be the primary carer and the right person to take custody of her children.

Unless I have misunderstood that wasn't what MT was meaning though!

If I understood it correctly I thought MT was pointing out that in instances where it was necessary for the primary carer to sacrifice his/her career for the children's needs - which is always a risk when one is responsible for children - most men would be less willing to do so than most women. If that is the point, then I agree with it. But I'm sure MT will happily explain!

It's a fact that very few women manage it Soapbox. You must be one of the lucky ones and all power to you. But again, it's an ecxeption that proves teh rule, and the rule is that most women (or full time carers) find it very difficult.

And you did mention a friend of yours to back up a point, family lawyer or otherwise - that's what I meant by anecdotal.

Yes, that's about it Mom.

But I think it's a cultural thing also. Things could change, but they won't change over night.

Yes - but a real person and real cases! Not the anecdotal friend of a friend not to be taken too seriously kind!

Because people find it hard to have a career and children, that doesn;t mean it can;t be done. Importantly, it doesn;t mean that men cannot be joint carers for their children and have a good career!

My DD's best friend at school lost her mother when she was 4 - her father has a good career and looks after her and her brother marvellously. It can be done, but we have to give men the chance in the first place to show what they are capable of, rather than writing them off as useless before giving them a chance!

Ah...I'm even more of a dinosaur than you MT. I don't think there will ever be the kind of shift Soapbox is talking about. I think mothers will always be primary carers and SAHFs will always be a small minority. I believe the sexes are different.

More anecdotes Soapbox. We all know lovely fathers and men who have brought up children alone. But they are in a small minority. It's not enough to change social policy which reflects the wider picture and the needs of most children.