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 you. Just because your ex may not pay maintenance, mayn't make effort to see child does not mean all men are the same"

Sorry, but are you accusing me of being as unable to apply critical thinking as you are?

The point about my post, which you ignored (deliberately, or because you didn't get it?), was to demonstrate that it doesn't matter how badly a NRP behaves, the court will still grant him the right to contact at any time. Even after 10 years of not functioning as a father, if he chose to go to court tomorrow to gain contact (not that he would need to because I've never denied him contact) no court in the land would say: "Actually, you've proved beyond reasonable doubt, that you don't function as a father".

That's not about me me me. That's about the way courts assume that no matter how crap a father is, he has the right to see his children on his terms. Not just in my case - in the case of most NRP's who behave like this.

"However, i advise that the RP keeps NRP weekends free. As in the children are available should the NRP turn up. Maybe without child knowing - such as a quiet weekend doing crafts etc at home. If the NRP arrives the child is told how lovely mummy/daddy is here to see you. If the parent doesn't arrive the child is not aware. A strongly worded letter from a solicitor making NRP aware that you will support contact as detailed and that you would like warning if NRP is planing on accessing this contact. Also highlight the importance of structure and routine and the importance to the child of having both parents involved."

Are you living in la-la land Latemates? You expect the RP to basically give up their life and arrangements, stay indoors all weekend and then praise the NRP if they deign to turn up? WTAF??? And then hire a solicitor at their expense to write an unenforceable letter which would be a complete waste of time and money.

Nobody has said that ALL relationship breakdowns involve DV.

Only a disproportionate amount of them.

Are you really not able to read properly or are you just dishonest? Are you pretending that you believe people have said things they haven't?

Here's a tip: everything is there in blakc and white. People can check what other people have posted.

Should he be denied access as some sort of punishment? Is he allowed at any point to change his ways?

Oh you'd advise that the RP keeps the NRP weekend free would you?

She's not allowed to go to work, or meet her friends, or her new lover, or get on with her dissertation?

She's supposed to bend over backwards for a deadbeat who may or may not turn up?

How long for? 3 months? Six months? 10 years?

Incredible sense of entitlement there. Incredible.

But it is not the case that NRP can have contact on their terms. That's your experience and opinion.

I just don't understand why you are so against a law that will allow the child to have a right to a relationship with both parents where both parents don't pose a risk and want to be involved.

If he is as rubbish as you say I hardly think he will take you to court for contact anyway.

The other extreme is the cases where court do not endorse contact orders due to RP getting too upset at the child having a good relationship with NRP and the court not wanting to upset the RP. I don't know how many cases of this there is but it does happen. And that isn't right either

Are you really arguing for the right of NRP's to emotionally abuse their children by not turning up regularly for contact visits and to actually screw the RP's around so that she can't get on with her life that weekend?

And now we get to the real agenda.

Surprise surprise.

Really?

You don't understand why I might be against a law which would force me to stay at home with my children all day every two weeks on the offchance that their father might deign to turn up? And that I'd be required to do that for years?

Really?

Women aren't really human to you, are they?

No I mean get on with life do nice things etc etc but give opportunities for access. Yes bend over backwards where possible. Because a good parent will try to build and support a relationship between their child and the other parent. Naturally if the other parent continues to show no interest you have evidence of this built up. Then if they grow up in time and realise what they have done and approach you for contact. Give them the opportunity to prove they have changed. They will never get the missed time back but the child will get to develop a relationship with the parent.

Basil - for goodness sake I can't keep up with your messages...

I am certainly nor saying a RP or a NRP should emotionally abuse their child. I think that the child should come first.

I think that both parents should be fully involved in Childs life. I think a parents should be reliable and turn up every time they are meant to, I think a parent should never prevent the child having contact with the other parent when that parent is trying to have contact and is relaible etc.
If had an unreliable ex I would do everything I could to try and build their relationship if this proved fruitless I would know I had given everything I could for my child. If it worked my child would have 2 parents in her life.

Um where have I said it will be a law to force you to stay at home. .?

No I think I said that both parents should encourage and support the child having 2 involved parents, not obstruct access etc.and that if one or both can not support building Childs relationship then court should split contact in the best interest of child.

Um I think I am human, I think all us women are human and I also think men are human too but most importantly I think the child is human and not a bullet or stick to attack the other parent with.

Once again - a parent who is not interested and walks away from a child will not go to court for access. They have walked away that means they do not want access. Terrible yes.
A parent that is trying to maintain a full relationship with their child but being prevented or limited by the other parent may go to court. They are fighting for their right and their Childs right to a relationship with them. These are 2 very different situations.

How many times do you think a feckless NRP who keeps letting his/ her kids down and screwing up the RP's social/ study/ work arrangements, should be given the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to continue to emotionally abuse his children?

Because some people do this over and over and over again.

And the current law supports them.

No Latemates.

There are masses of NRP's who go to court for access, then never visit.

Then when they are denied access because they have spent six months screwing around with the access arrangements, and the RP decides s/he's not prepared to tolerate this emotional abuse of the DC's and the deliberate sabotage of their weekends, they wail about being denied access by harpy bitter ex.

Then they go back to court and the court tells RP off for denying access.

And then they do it all over again.

And the court looks askance at the RP and indulgently at the NRP.

And this legislation is not looking to tackle that abuse.

Why not?

"Because some people do this over and over and over again."

And what about the people who don't? Because of your experience every child in the country should be denied automatic access to their father?

How does the current law support them and if it does why oppose changes to this law?

I think that the parent will make the best decision he/she can for how long/how many chances based on many factors. I think you just have to be able to look child in the eye and know that you are not responsible for the lack of contact with the other parent. Only individuals can make that call. But by giving some contact chances you know you have tried. This may be one available weekend a year offered. It may be liaising with grandparents/aunts/uncles and giving the child contact with them so that they still have access with that side of the family.
It may be sending photos and updates to grandparents.

"i advise that the RP keeps NRP weekends free. As in the children are available should the NRP turn up. Maybe without child knowing - such as a quiet weekend doing crafts etc at home. If the NRP arrives the child is told how lovely mummy/daddy is here to see you. If the parent doesn't arrive the child is not aware."

That's what most RP's do in this situation. They cover up the shit behaviour of the RP. That's what women are supposed to do for men, isn't it?

And if you think that's an acceptable solution, you really don't think the lives of the RP (90% of whom are women) are as valuable and worthwhile as that of the NRP (most of whom are men). What a coincidence.

Also, you can only get away with that when your DC's are very small. Once they hit about seven or eight, you can't do that anymore. Funnily enough, children develop their own lives and social situations - they want to go on playdates, they want to do sleepovers etc. And how long do you think it is reasonable to deny them this, because some deadbeat can't make up his mind to actually do what he tells everyone he wants to do and see his children?

Basically you are arguing for emotionally abusive immature men to be given chance after chance after chance to fuck up their children's self-esteem.

Disgraceful.

It's not my experience notfluffy.

It's the experience of many, many RP's.

Who said I think children should be denied automatic access to their fathers?

Where have I said that?

I haven't said that at all. I support the right of children to have access to their fathers, when that is in their best interests - that is already the law. (In reality of course, it doesn't exist, because if the father doesn't want to see the children, that right is irrelevant).

I don't believe it is in the best interests of children, to be let down over and over again, to be shown that they are just a little hobby occasionally, way down the list of Mummy/ Daddy's priorities. Which is the message they are given, when parents don't stick to regular contact times. And that is devastating to children's sense of self-worth and self-esteem - it is a fucking DREADFUL thing to do to a child.

What does this legislation propose to address that?

Um no not saying they should be given chance after chance after chance.

I would like to see a new way in which both parents share care fully, are fully involved in Childs life. Where regardless of if it is a father or mother they do the best by the child. I know you find it hard to believe but some mother do prevent good fathers from being involved and that is not fair on the child. The mother in this instance is also abusing the child by preventing the good father from being involved.

This is just as damaging as a father who can't be bothered and doesn't turn up. Let's aim for a world in which all parents step up, all parents are expected to be fully involved and that neither above are acceptable by society

The law supports them because very rarely is a father denied contact for behaving in this way.

All he has to do is go back to court and say htat he's reformed and he wants another chance.

and the court will order new contact, because the child's right to see him, however devastating that will be for his or her sense of self, is considered an over-riding consideration.

I know people who took years to recover from the emotional pounding that years of being regularly let down by their NRP's caused them. The law should protect children from that emotional abuse.

But this law isn't aiming to do that is it.

I have no difficulty whatsoever in believing that some RP's withhold contact unreasonably.

I don't believe that the law should only target that form of emotional abuse though.

It needs to target emotional abuse by both parents.

That is why I'm against this law.

Have I mentioned that? Oh yes, I think I have. You're in favour of a law which only targets the emotional abuse perpetrated by one parent. I'm in favour of a law which would target any emotional abuse, by either parent. And also any financial abuse as well.

Yes that is dreadful situation but so is the situation that NRP who are prevented form involvement by obstructive RP

They will go back to court and the RP will continue to obstruct contact and commit PAS onto the child.

This child will grow up thinking and feeling all the things the abandoned child feels and struggle with these challenges. If they find out the one parent prevented the other parents relationship and tried to alienate them from the other parent this further causes emotional harm as they now feel deserted by both parents and they have lost all those years.

Yes and this law is only proposing to deal with that form of abuse and isn't interested in the other sort of abuse, on the contrary, it is proposing making the other form of abuse, easier to perpetrate.

Whcih is why I oppose it.

But this topic is about families need fathers and the latest news. You will also find that I have stated NRP should financially support their children, that both parents should be fully involved in each aspect of the child.

I have not said anywhere that NRP should be able to walk away if they want, or NRP should not have to pay maintenance.

Maintenance and contact are separate issues and can not be dealt with as one issue.

Let's just agree to disagree, I have my opinions and experiences and you have yours. Both are valid and happen:
I respect that your ex is unreliable and not responsible for his child. I think he is wrong and should step up and be a proper parent. I understand this is awful for your child.
I wish this want your or your child situation.

I also wish that some parents didn't obstruct contact or alienate their children from the other parent

It is possible to feel both these ways. I hope that changes to law will make improvements to at least one type of situation