Families need fathers all over the news today

[Sheila]

Bloody Louis de Bernieres also on R4 sounding off about his rights. It all seems so remote - I just wish XP was interested enough to demand contact with DS - usullay it's me naggaing him becuase he sees so little of his son. :(

You mean, Julia, that I won't be able to stay out of the situation, rather than the discussion? Well yes and no. As it stands I comment on these things because they affect my family and friends, but I don't live in the UK now. However, as these things tend to go global these days, something similar will no doubt come my way eventually - and in the meantime, yes, my family are affected.

But I chose not to get involved in the discussion you were having on this thread.

The Tories don't hate women more than men.
They dislike most people, and expect you to sort your own life out irrespective of what is going on in the world.

During the 2008-9 recession, it was called a mancession as men were affected worse than women. Tory swings-and-roundabouts.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8954370/Women-do-better-than-men-as-mancession-hits.html

I think we (apart from the rich) are all in this together.

Gingerbread and Cafcass

Gingerbread has actually done research on contact probs. Real research. We don't know numbers, but it does look very much as if the probs of NRP's being denied contact unreasonably, are far outweighed by hte probs of NRP's trying to control contact and withholding it unreasonably.

And of course, we know that NRP's lie about being denied contact. Many men have such a startling sense of entitlement, that they genuinely believe that a simple request that you set up regular, reasonable contact (ie, no, not when you're drunk and it's 10 0"clock on a thursday night) and you stick to that and don't expect your xp and dcs to stay in all day doing crafts on the off-chance that you won't let your DC's down again, is a denial of contact. IE, if they don't control it and it's not all done on their terms, they're being denied contact.

I don't dispute for a moment that there are genuine cases out there, of men who are being denied contact totally unreasonably. But my experience and knowledge from Gingerbread is that there are a far larger number of men who lie about it. Many more than women who lie about being the victims of DV.

notfluffy And?
You pointed out it will benefit men but left out that it will do so at the expense of women.

Some of us think that's not fair.
Why do you think it's acceptable?

"Gingerbread has actually done research on contact probs. Real research. We don't know numbers, but it does look very much as if the probs of NRP's being denied contact unreasonably, are far outweighed by hte probs of NRP's trying to control contact and withholding it unreasonably."

Can you not accept though that these are two separate issues and that the good guys shouldn't be penalised because of the bad guys?

"Many men have such a startling sense of entitlement"

And many men just want good contact with their kids, why should there be blocks in their way?

"You pointed out it will benefit men but left out that it will do so at the expense of women. "

How will fathers having equal access with their kids be detrimental to women? And surely it is what is best for the children that is the important factor, and that is the point I prioritised.

ThisIsExtreamly.

Sorry I misunderstood your earlier post. I got the impression that he'd just disappeared.

So he pays CM at least then. ( I assume you'd like that to continue once you've removed his pr ) He does want contact but it's that it's too irregular and unsettling for dc, you didn't want to give one update every month but you do call him once a week but he's antagonistic, he's crap at returning emails which upsets your son, you wish he'd bugger off for ever.

Sounds a bit more complicated. Sounds like despite him being a 'dick' he is making an attempt at contact but it's too irregular and infrequent. Well that's a start. And despite what you say, you have plenty of rights.

Truckulent women are affected more than men because of the structural causes of inequality which are reflected in and reinforced by attitudes to gender roles. Hence, cuts in public sector have disproportionate effect on women, and Tories aren't too bothered because they believe in a cornflakes box view of The Family

notfluffy your questions have been answered ^^

notfluffy of course I accept that, wholeheartedly.

I just don't accept that this legislation, within this framework of discussion, is the right way to do it.

The government needs to address ALL aspects of this, not just one. You could argue that this legislation will punish women for the bad behaviour of a minority of RP's - why doesn't that bother you just as much?

It bothers me and I think something should be done about it. But not in isolation. You cannot target one problem area and not another, and get a good outcome.

Do you know what? I just strongly believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty. It's the basis of any good justice system. Effectively children should NEVER be in a position where contact with their NRP is jeapordised so to argue that something that should never have been in place in the first place should now be removed is a no-brainer.

Notfluffy, I don't think all NRPs should be tarred with the same brush, but equally neither should all RPs. This legislation is completely one sided and that is why I am against it. I realise that I cannot force my XP to see his children or to behave responsibly towards them, but what I should be able to do is take him to court for a contact order and a) have his contact with the children legally set out, so he can no longer threaten me and then refuse to respond, b) if he fails to stick to the contact have him punished for it and c) if he chooses no visits or fails to respond or appear then I have a court order saying I do not have to facilitate contact, meaning I can give my children answers.

You say that if a father refuses to be responsible for his children then the mother just has to suck it up and get on with it. I don't disagree that this is usually the end result, but I find it interesting that much of this thread is filled with how vital it is for children to have a relationship with both parents and that it is damaging when they don't yet when a parent chooses not to be involved then we shrug our shoulders and say it doesn't really matter, he's the one losing out and the mother will reap the rewards. Which is it? A vital relationship for a child, so vital that the sabotage of it is abuse? Or a nice extra that most kids would get on fine without?

MrGin "that's a start" is a really, really low expectation of fathers.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand just how emotionally abusive, is the behaviour Thisisextremely is describing. Some children are robust resilient and able to cope with being treated like this, but some are seriously damaged by it. We tend to take physical abuse seriously because we can see it; but emotional abuse is something we're still very much at the beginning of the learning curve about.

Being treated in the way that Thisisextremely describes her xp treating her children, can be devastating to a child's self-esteem and can lead to bad relationships, shit results at school (because of lack of self-confidence) and therefore less earning power, etc. It really needs to be taken seriously. Your assumption that a man's right to see his kids and have this emotional abuse tolerated, at the expense of his child's sense of self-worth, is absolute classic male entitlement. No decent parent would do this to their child, or argue that it's really not that big a deal.

Yes thisis, good point, it's extremely interesting that it's abuse to withhold contact from a NRP when a mother does it, but when a father does it, it's a parenting "start".

".....how vital it is for children to have a relationship with both parents and that it is damaging when they don't yet when a parent chooses not to be involved then we shrug our shoulders and say it doesn't really matter..."

I never said it doesn't matter, that's putting words in my mouth. Of course it matters very much to the children. I still would NEVER send my kids to visit a parent that had been forced by a court to do so.

I said the rest in my previous post.

Is there any research on the effects on children of unreliable nrp's? I know there's lots about poverty, not paying maintenance etc, but what about not replying to e-mails, not turning up for contact visits etc?

The claim of this proposal being 'in the best interests of children' is where you drag in all issues with contact/maintenance etc. It's disingenuous to claim this is about children's rights when it only addresses some childrens's rights i.e. thos who have NRP's interested. That is pretty much the crux of basil's points, and with every person who claims this is all about the rights of children, there then follows the collective shrug about the children and RP's who are not covered by this proposal.

notfluffy - would you still refuse to send your kids to an ex who couldn't be arsed, if your kids were begging you to let them go? Would you think it right to deny your kids contact with an NRP under those circumstances? Where there are no issues with neglect/welfare etc. do you still think a child in those circumstances, who wants contact, should be denied that contact? Because that's what the collective shrug for all those kids means - they don't matter, and their wish/right to a relationship with their other parent is not as important. My ex occasionally bothers with our DD, DD would love more contact but there isn't a court I can apply to, to make that happen. Is that fair?

I'm delighted for any parent who has help with contact issues, but my gripe, and many like me, are pissed off with the one-sided slant on this proposal. My DD's rights matter too, but not according to any legislation or proposals being made.

my xh .Took me to court aying i was with holding contact( ignoring the fact he went through stage when he was to busy to see them or dicuss it ( he refused mediation ) we had seperate mediation with cafcas .Agreedmennt agreed .He had legal aid for this .I did not qualify

And he was told to write to the dc first , then contact centre than open contac t .I was happy we agreed came home talked to the dc about seeing their dad( dd was reuctant as he had let them down before ) but in end talked her round as a postive thing

And guess what 3 weeks now and he has not written to them at all and i now have a upset dd who want to know why

wh,Ifat do i telll her

So I have contact order to stick to yet he was one that wnated but then he lets them down .I expected taht at open contact but not this early

And he got lega aid paid for and yet no intention of sticking to it .If he lets them down and when we go back to court in July and he has solictor there .Thi time Im going ask for order to be wripped up unless dd indicates she wants contact when is older

Basil. well I'm not sure what the situation with ThisIsExtremelyVeryNotGood actually is to be honest. She seems to be drip feeding and it leaves me reminding myself that there are always two sides to the story. Clearly she's bitter. Quite possibly it's totally justified but I don't know, or want to know the details of her and her XP's situation tbh.

Seeing as she lives in Scotland I can't see why she's het up about this unless she regularly gets emotional about English legislation that doesn't affect her.

I think it's a fine line isn't it, between whether you should send your DC's to a parent who is not remotely bothered about them.

I can see notfluffy's POV - I would hate to send my DC's somewhere regularly, where I knew they weren't being cared for or taken notice of. And in some cases, where you knew they were being seriously neglected. In many cases of course, it would be to send them to be looked after by the father's new girlfriend, or his mother - because perish the thought that he might actually do a bit of parenting himself.

But otoh if it's just a not-bovvered lazy git, who would have to bestir himself to look after the DC's if they were sent to him and in fact would care for them properly while they were with him and show interest in them and do stuff with them, even if he never thought about them in between contact visits, then I agree with Banana, it would be in their interests to go and see him more often and the law should facilitate that.

If you're so interested in the child's rights, you should be in favour of that.

Clearly she's bitter.

Oh FFS. Really? Are we really getting that pathetic with our arguments here?

MrGin your posts drip with misogyny.

Thisis isn't "clearly" bitter. She is describing factually, the behaviour of her XP. Any woman who ever describes bad behaviour by a man in a less than positive fashion, is always "bitter" according to woman-haters.

Also, that damning word "emotional" whcih again, woman-haters always use to undermine women arguing a different POV from them.

Because many men have some kind of absurd and quite funny idea, that they own logic and reason and women are emotional and hysterical and unable to be rational. Because of their hormones, or wombs or something. And also, because emotion, is invalid. And they completely ignore the emotion that drives their arguments, because they don't recognise they've got any.

Bless 'em.

It's possible to look at something that won't affect you, and see that it's wrong.

This legislation won't affect me in the slightest. My XP has always had the ability to see his children if he wanted to and he's still able to do that with or without this legislation. I can still see it's wrong though, whether it affects me or not. And my ability to see that it's wrong isn't just driven by emotion (though there is nothing wrong with emotion) it's driven by reason.

But otoh if it's just a not-bovvered lazy git, who would have to bestir himself to look after the DC's if they were sent to him and in fact would care for them properly while they were with him and show interest in them and do stuff with them, even if he never thought about them in between contact visits, then I agree with Banana, it would be in their interests to go and see him more often and the law should facilitate

Well that pretty much describes my ex. When contact happens, they get on great. DD loves him and their time, and wants more. But, because there is no imperative, nothing I can do to force the issue, ex rolls ups every 6/8/10 weeks or longer, and remembers he has a DD. I know for a fact if there were consequences to his behaviour, not of my doing, but what would be expected of him under the law, he'd sort himself out. He refuses to agree to any structured contact as he doesn't want to be 'told when to see his own DD'. Me 'telling him' is me asking him to see her because she asks.

Someone who 'can't be arsed' isn't always someone who would actually ignore or neglect their own child. The NRP's who are obssessed with not doing anything that will benefit their ex, despite the cost to their own child, are those who I'm talking about. It's a lot harder to be a total bastard to your own child, when it's your hatred of your ex that consumes you, not your own child. And I dare say, there are plenty of NRP's out there who fall into that category.

As I expect thisis's is. (Her opposition to the legislation that is)

"My ex occasionally bothers with our DD, DD would love more contact but there isn't a court I can apply to, to make that happen. Is that fair? "

Each case has to be looked at on an individual basis, obviously, but not from the starting point that all NRP's cannot be trusted and should not have automatic access. That would be discriminatory against all the bloody good NRP's out there who just want to continue seeing their kids.