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. :(

Piella- If you have all that evidence I'll take your word for it.

My sister's (sis 2) ex's ex was a nasty vindictive bitch though, who'd kicked him and not allowed him to see his 1 and 3 yo children and basically had it in for him. My other sister (sis 1) and I were . Sis 2 told us that we were snobs and didn't like him because he was a carpenter.

We sadly turned out to be right, but she only found the true extent of it years later when she was trying to extricate herself from that catastrophe of a "relationship".

And these children were not the only ones he had (by a long chalk) and he'd actually been banned by a court order from having any further contact with an older son (clearly the court was in the pay of that vindictive ex) as the boy had developed a secure attachment to his stepfather and his own father (my sister's BastardEx) was frankly toxic.

If you listen to BastardEx though all these women are just out to get him.

Perfectly understand that there are really difficult women out there as well.

I'm just saying, you can't always tell what someone's like from what they say about themselves.

AThingInYourLife "If someone was blithely claiming that their ex was a "nutter" and that it was just "unfortunate" that they got involved with them and had a baby with them, I might well, yes"

But piellabakewell wasn't just blithely claiming anything, she explained the situation. On MN, or any other internet forum, you only ever have that. If you want to assume that anyone who posts about issues you've not experienced must be lying, then there's probably not much point participating in the discussion.

Link?

If it's true it means all members of FNF are violent.
So really all men who have access problems are violent.

That is the only possible explanation.

"So it is the majority of all Non Resident Parents who are supposed to pay maintenance, who don't. The majority. Shameful. And nobody considers that an urgent issue to address."

What, you mean apart from having an entire section of the civil service whose job it is to pursuing such non-payers? And, as this service is still not doing a particularly good job, they're revamping it for the third (or is it fourth) time? One expected result of which is that those who avoid payment by being self-employed will hopefully now not be able to avoid it quite so easily?

Yes and don't they do that job badly Snorbs?

And they're going to charge resident parents #100 to use the service. That's how important they think it is to solve the problem. If they charged victims of crime for using the services of the police, that would send out a similar message.

If the Inland Revenue had the levels of the success the CSA has, there would be uproar (and an even worse financial crisis).

Please don't tell me that the government takes the collection of maintenance seriously, Snorbs, I find that really deeply offensive, given that in ten years they've managed to get me about 40 quid in maintenance and that if I want to try and get more, I've got to invest 100 quid.

As I said, the financial abuse the majority of Non Resident Parents perpetrate upon their children, is shameful.

'As I said, the financial abuse the majority of Non Resident Parents perpetrate upon their children, is shameful.'

Here are somefacts.

2.3 Million households are eligible for Child Maintenance.

1.3 million use the CSA of which the collection rate ie

Of the remaining 1.2 million.

6 in 10 have no arrangement.
2 in 10 have a private arrangement.
1 in 10 have a court order.

It doesn't state anywhere factually that 6 in 10 NRP refuse to pay maintenance.

So the 60% figure is for parents who don't use the CSA.
and also includes the 6% of fathers who don't even know they've had a child.

www.gingerbread.org.uk/uploads/media/17/6850.pdf

Gingerbread website.
'There are around 2.5 million households in Great Britain who are eligible to receive child maintenance.

4 Around 97 per cent of parents with the main responsibility for children
following separation (called ?parents with care? in the statutory child support system) are women.

5 Two-thirds of parents with care are aged between 30 and 44 years.

6 At present, 1.2 million of eligible households use the statutory maintenance service, run by the Child Support Agency (CSA), which is part of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC).

7 Of the families who do not use the CSA, a largescale survey found that around six in ten had no arrangements at all (and therefore receive no child maintenance); about three in ten had a private arrangement; and one in ten received child maintenance via a court order.'

Who cares who the 60% figure is for?

The fact is, over half of non resident parents who ought to be paying maintenance, are not.

3/5 of lone parents with care and control, don't get maintenance.

Those figures don't add up, but I don't know why - I'm guessing it's different sources.

I can't be arsed to continue to waste my time arguing with people who appear to have a vested interest in denying that financial abuse by NRP's, is more common than not.

More than one issue can be addressed at the time. While there are some NRP's who don't pay maintenence there are equally some RP's who prevent contact. If there wasn't then organisations like families need fathers wouldn't exist because there would be no members.

NRP's who are denied fair and reasonable contact with their children, where it is in the child's interest should have the right to campaign as should RP's who are not getting child support payments - both issues can be addressed.

I always wonder why people are so against this sort of campaigning. If you have a useless ex who doesn't make the effort to see your DC, that isn't going to be made better or worse by leglislation that allows NRP's who DO want to be involved so why get your knickers in a twist. Should some children be denied the right to contact with both parents just because other children have to as their NRP shows little interest?

As an RP and a DW of a NRP I am supportive of any legislation that supports children's rights to meaningful relationships with both parents (where it is beneficial) and also any legislation that supports RP's rights to fair child support payments because I think both are important.

Makes me feel that people who against one or the other are either denying contact for spurrious reasons themselves or are trying to wriggle out of paying child maintenence themselves, depending on which thing you are against.

Fathers for justice is a TOTALLY separate orgainsation from Families need Fathers and the latter feel that the former don't help the cause - just thought I'd mention that as well.

my x took me to court for contact ( he refused medation firt but then we did through Caf .He wanted every other saturday for 4 hours i agreed offered more , but all he wanted . He was told due to time since he seen them ( his choice) had start with a letter then contact centre with just him at first no new partner .Judge ruled this he agreed

for a man that said he was desperate been 3 weeks and no letter nothing in the meantime i now have a very confuse d9year old .I called him let him know ds3 in hospital and is poorly .He refused to coem as his new wife not allowed in and he is busy with his new baby

To answer
your question about why people might be against this legislation elvis, I am for the following:

a) I fundamentally disagree that putting the right of non-resident parents to see their children, is better than the current philosophical starting point of the courts, which is that neither parent has rights, only the child does.

b) I think if we are going to change the philosophical basis of contact, by giving parents rights instead of children, then both parents need to have equal rights. My beef with this legislation, is that it gives NRP's rights without responsiblities.

c) At what stage is a NRP who wilfully and constantly lets his or her children down and messes the RP around, not turning up for contact visits, or turning up four hours later than arranged, or bringing the DC's back five hours earlier or one day later than arranged, going to be penalised for such behaviour? What about abusive parents who use their contact to abuse their children or their exes? Is s/he to be allowed to emotionally abuse his or her children and seriously inconvenience the RP indefinitely, or will there be some sort of responsibilty attached to this right?

If the government's intention was to sort out contact, maintenance etc. and give both parents equal rights, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But they're not. They're only giving NRP's rights without responsibilities, while attacking resident parents by cutting child tax credits and charging for using the CSA.

As for your pathetic comment about parents who are opposed to this legislation being opposed because they are withholding contact unreasonably - meh.

Basil
A. Currently the starting point isn't the child tho. It is in most instances the mother or RP. If it was the Childs interest then the starting point would be 50:50 right to see both parents.
B. There is no rights without responsibilities in reality. If society expects both parents to be fully involved then thoses mothers or fathers who fall short would stand out. Whereas now society is expecting fathers to not be as involved as mothers. So when a father tries to see more of child or be involved in decisions effecting child he receives coments such as. At least you see your child sometimes, and be happy with that. Don't rock boat etc....

It also allows rubbish fathers the opportunities to say they are prevented from being a proper parent. In true equality(where 50:50 equal parenting existed) that would never wash as society would recognize that the rubbish parent was making excuses. Good parents would also have the legal support to ensure they could be fully involved in Childs upbringing.

C. As above -a parent who let's child down would be far more transparent in a true shared parenting arrangements

If you allow the child to be involved with the other parent (baring any major issues in which instance the are social services and other such organisations which can step in as they would in unseperated families) then no logical person could deny that shared and equal parenting is in best interest of child. I agree the only people who oppose such legislation are either; uneducated on the topic, or wanting to control the child access to the other parent.

The best interests of the child, are served by maintaining continuity and stability in his or her life.

The reason Care and Control is mostly given to mothers, is because they do most of the parenting.

If men did 50 50 parenting while they were actually in the relationship with the mothers of their children

a) they would be given 50 50 on divorce, because that would be continuing the status quo and therefore maintaining continuity and stability for the child and therefore be in the best interests of that child and

b) fewer relationships would break down, because men and women would have a far more similar experience of parenting and would work better together IMO.

c) The workplace would have to change dramatically to accomodate the fact that both fathers AND mothers wanted flexi-time, part time work and time off to look after sick children, go to sports days, etc.

And again this nonsense of people only opposing this legislation because they don't have knowledge of it or are wanting to control access. The father of my children never bothers to come and see them. Frankly I could do with some time off while he did a bit of parenting, but I'm not allowed that, because he has no responsibility whatsoever to see them, but this leglisation will give him the right to. (Without the responsibility to - oh and he still won't need to pay maintenance either, and if I want the state to force him to, they will a) charge me a hundred quid for it, b) take between 7 and 12% off each payment and c) not get me any money anyway, if their past performance is anything to go by. Looks like this government is in the pocket of father's rights organisations, but hey, who's surprised by that).

The number of men being SAHDs is on the rise so I think we are seeing a change.

I see a lot of fathers more involved than ever before. My children stay with me a lot, this wouldn't have happened so much for my father's generation.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052979/The-rise-stay-home-dad-One-seven-families-father-primary-carer-children.html

Ime there is a misguided view amongst some men that when they separate from the mother (especially where the circumstances are less than amicable) it's 'better' for the children if he walks away.

FNF may be flawed but at least they are trying to debunk this myth.

Is there thebest?

I think that was true 30 years ago, and you did get cases where fathers had a "clean break" divorce where they genuinely believed that they were doing the best thing for their child by cutting off all contact and leaving the mother to get on with it, but I can't believe there are many men left in the country, who genuinely believe that walking away from their children completely, is the best thing for those children. I'm in my mid forties now and certainly from the time of my teens, grew up knowing that children losing contact with their birth parents was a Bad Thing for them in general, that message was put out in the media all the time and it was at that stage that courts starting taking the child's need to maintain the relationship with the NRP, more seriously.

I just don't believe that there can possibly be many fathers - or mothers - left who don't know that as long as the children are not subjected to abuse, it is in their best interests to maintain a relationship with both their parents. I guess there will be some people over about the age of 50 who might still have that idea, but I'd be very surprised if very few people younger than that, believed it.

As I said in my post, in my experience some men do still believe this to be true.

Basil.... I agree about maintaining relationship and surely legislation that supports this is a good thing for the child. Just because your ex isn't bothered about seeing his child does not mean other fathers shouldn't be allowed to see their children or that the children should be prevented from shoeing both their parents.

I don't get why you are against making it fair for child to see both parents fully with the support of the law. If a father or mother neglects or walks away from child then they would be seen as unresponsible by law and society. But the current system means that many parents are prevented from maintaining a relationship by bitter ex partners who withhold contact and this neither gives stability or continuity.

Also I find your that the fathers aren't contributing 50%during the relationship with the mother very offensive to men that are fully involved and much more common place these days. Yes there may be men and women out there who don't but most relationships have both adults contributing to the family. A father who goes out to work may not be at that time as hands on during the day is still contributing to the family. However, when a relationship breaks down both parents have to contribute in every way - previously they may have split contributions with one taking more responsibility for one aspect and the other for a different one.
After separation it is very important that both parents contribute finically, with schooling, trips/holidays (quality time), day to day mundane activities, healthy lifestyle, morals etc etc etc.

I'm against this particular legislation, because it's the wrong way to go about it.

As I said before, I believe it gives Non Resident Parents rights without responsibilities. My ex already has the right to see his children. Theoretically, they have the right to see him. However, no-one enforces that right and there are no penalties for him or men like him, when they deny their children the right to have a relationship with them.

If this right were being enshrined in law as part of a package of measures to improve things for children when relationships break down, I'd have no problem with it. There is a philosophical argument for giving parents as well as children, rights. As part of an overhaul which had as part of contact, the obligation to turn up at the correct time and not let your kids down, to pay maintenance etc., I'd have no objection to it.

However, there is absolutely no philosophical argument, for giving one parent rights without responsibilities, while the other parent has responsibilities without rights.

I also don't buy the argument that men are contributing to the family by working and bringing in cash. I'm talking about the grinding, invisible, thankless day to day stuff which is still mainly done by women - who have to downshift their careers, forego decent pensions, lose social status and put themselves at the mercy of the continued goodwill of the men they live with, to do it.

I want to see more men doing it, so that couples have a similar experience of parenthood. This would only be a good thing, for men, women and children. Children would see more of their fathers, men and women would have more equality in their relationships and in the event of the relationship breakdown, both parents would have had equal input into the actual work of parenting, so it would make total sense to have 50 50 custody. It would be the best solution all round.

Why not leave all your preconceptions aside, including personal anecdotes about what a tosser your sister's ex was and how he's a good indication of ALL non resident fathers, and think about what thus group is all about? There are very obviously women out there ( although I'm more than aware of the fathers who have custody) who are denying the fathers access to their children. I'm not going to assume that any of them were denied access because they were bastards and did something to piss off the RP.

If you personally are having trouble getting your ex to pay maintenance or have decent access then start your own group. That's not what this group is about. Easy!

My use of my sister's case to illustrate was not as a generalisation from her case to the entire country, but to illustrate that even utter bastards seem to get a pretty good deal in the circumstances from the courts. There are virtually no circumstances now in which it seems a father will not be given access, not if they are in prison, have a history of violence, both towards the mother and the children, are unreliable at turning up, contribute nothing towards their children's upkeep. My sister felt scrutinised at every point along the way, and the assumption was (despite the police evidence backing her) that it was her word against his.

Which is why I don't understand why there are supposedly so many men being denied access. Surely if you have been granted access to your children on a schedule, and when you arrive to collect them the mother says that you cannot see them, then you go back to court and ask for the order to be enforced. I can't see what the problem is. Maybe someone could enlighten me.

My post wasn't aimed at you in particular, sorry if you got that impression

Because the family court system takes years.

And in my brothers case he didn't want to stress his children by years of court cases and hostility. And the drip drip of your dads useless and horrible didn't help.

So he stopped seeing his children, now the childen are older they can make their own decisions and they are together again, but all those missed years. I'm sure his ex calls him a feckless father, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

But I don't think all mothers are like this.

Its not helpful either to deny that there aren't lots of mothers who use their kids to whoop their ex. We could all provide examples if that.

It's a shame your brother lost that time with his kids, it's time you can never make up.