Please sign and share?

[howdeydudey]

I've noticed over the years that various individuals and organisations create petitions that sound really promising, but the support gets fragmented across them.

If we all pulled together and supported just one petition, we might get enough signatures and traction to actually make something happen?

With that in mind, could we perhaps all sign and share the following? Share with family, friends, anyone who might possibly sign. And ask them to make sure they share too?

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/603110

I'm not sure that I agree tbh.

Parents may deserve the right to this, but 5050 care rarely is in the best interest for young children in my experience, professionally and personally.

That does not, however, mean that the default resident parent is always the mother either.

There's a reason that 90% of the single parent households are headed by women, and a lot of that will does come down to how much fathers are willing to sacrifice. Many haven't been the primary caregivers for years, haven't made sacrifices with their careers etc. Many have also admitted that they often seek greater care solely driven by financial reasons and that if the maintenance wasn't pursued they would drop this! So I don't think that it should be the starting point in a cao.

@ChoiceMummy of course people will have different opinions and experiences. And I expect many women will have a similar view to you.

However studies globally are increasingly finding that equal time is actually proving to be beneficial to children.

www.linkedin.com/pulse/study-finds-children-benefit-from-equal-time-both-parents-craven

momsforsharedparenting.org/shared-parenting-research/

(there are many, many more...)

It isn't parents that "deserve the right" to this. It is the children who, if the parents both want to care for a raise the children, deserve equal access to both parents.

I would happily have sacrificed my career in order to raise the children. But it made no sense as a family, as I was the higher earner. So I actually consider it that I made the higher sacrifice. To be penalised for this by courts seems incredibly unreasonable.

Also, many mothers admit that they have contested equal time because equal time would mean they wouldn't receive any child maintenance. Your argument works both ways...

While I agree that 50/50 isn't right in every case (for example where there are safeguarding issues, or where the parents live far apart) I think in cases where both parents are willing, able and capable of providing care, it is in the children's best interests to have this.

If its agreed by the parents and the children then it's a non issue

There are also studies that say in the early years children need the security of a main home

I cannot see how constantly moving back and forth is good for anyone's mental health least of all a child's

Hi, OP. We're going to move your thread to our Petitions and Activism topic now.

I understand the argument about constantly going back and forth, and I agree that if it isn't done with consideration, it could be a bad situation for the children.

However I'd still say that with the right setup, this is "less bad" than having one "primary" parent and one subordinate one. I think that dynamic is far more damaging for children in the long run.

Damaging for children or parents? Because there is no such thing as "less damaging"

Yes I'm coming at it from the POV my ex is damaging but he is still deemed good enough for access purposes if he had 50/50 he would do so much more damage and I would be powerless to help them because "the threshold hasn't been reached" (literal quote from children services)

allow me to be clear

Arrested for sexual assault on a child=still allowed to see there child because there's is a boy and molesters don't "often" swing both ways so it was deemed "safe"
Rape=not a murmer from children services
Assault=same
Racially motivated assault=same

I could go on but I won't bother the point is he can do all this and still have access and in your view get 50/50 because "the threshold hasn't been reached"

@Theunamedcat not at all. The petition does state that there should be no safeguarding concerns.

Every case is different, and I'm really sorry to hear what you've been through. It sounds awful.

If anyone is ever found guilty of any sexual assault then of course that should be a huge factor in things when it comes to child contact.

On the flip side, an awful lot of people (and it seems to be women, although I can't provide evidence) make false allegations in court too. I had it done against me so I know it happens.

Unfortunately, these people make it much less likely for people who've genuinely been wronged to be believed. It is a real shame.

But yes - the evidence is increasing that having unbalanced parenting is damaging to both the children AND the parents. But lets focus solely on the children here - yes - studies are increasingly showing that children who spend the same amount of time with both parents after separation end up happier than those that don't.

The vast, vast majority of fathers trying to get equal time with their children in the courts are not child molesters, rapists or violent thugs.

The loving, caring decent people are the ones I'm referring to here. Why should they not be viewed as equals in the lives of their children?

Anyhow - those that agree, please sign and share :)

Those that don't, don't sign or share. I respect your opinions, and we can agree to disagree :)

If all of these fathers really wanted so to be involved, why weren't they sharing the paternity leave and reducing their hours to part time like majority of women do, often until seoxdnary school age? Why is it acceptable for them to not be doing the hard work of raising the children when "together", yet suddenly splitting means that they should be able to carve their children up when quite frankly many were a fictitious figure in their lives beforehand?

As I said before, not all. But the stats say it all. And of then 10% that are male primary caregivers, majority of these were not so due to the court system. As I understand less than a third of families go via the family courts....

You missed the point totally so I will say it again in the hope it goes in

The safeguarding concerns dont meet threshold

For those of you that don't understand that means they won't intervene the only thing that goes in my favour is his insecure housing but now he has moved in with yet another borderline alcoholic girlfriend he has that sorted

Imagine as an adult you lived in one house one half of the week and in another house with other people the other half of the week. Think about the practicalities for you, the sense of security, stability, knowing where all your stuff is, waking up and having to think ‘what house am I in’, planning for the difference in how long it will take you to get to and from work each day. Would you like it?

@ChoiceMummy

If all of these fathers really wanted so to be involved, why weren't they sharing the paternity leave and reducing their hours to part time like majority of women do, often until seoxdnary school age? Why is it acceptable for them to not be doing the hard work of raising the children when "together", yet suddenly splitting means that they should be able to carve their children up when quite frankly many were a fictitious figure in their lives beforehand?

As I said before, not all. But the stats say it all. And of then 10% that are male primary caregivers, majority of these were not so due to the court system. As I understand less than a third of families go via the family courts....

Because families still have to pay the bills. If everyone could all just go part time and still afford to live, I'm sure they would.

What happened to my ex upon separation? She had to go from not working at all (she had previously basically refused to work at all) to HAVING to work. This meant she too couldn't always be around for the children either.

And suddenly, we're in a much more equal situation that leads itself to much more equal care of the children.

@Theunamedcat

You missed the point totally so I will say it again in the hope it goes in

The safeguarding concerns dont meet threshold

For those of you that don't understand that means they won't intervene the only thing that goes in my favour is his insecure housing but now he has moved in with yet another borderline alcoholic girlfriend he has that sorted

"hope it goes in" is a little patronising, but as I said before, I'm very sorry for your personal situation and agree that it doesn't sound right at all.

I totally respect anyone's right to disagree and not sign the petition if they don't agree.

@Uncomplicated

Imagine as an adult you lived in one house one half of the week and in another house with other people the other half of the week. Think about the practicalities for you, the sense of security, stability, knowing where all your stuff is, waking up and having to think ‘what house am I in’, planning for the difference in how long it will take you to get to and from work each day. Would you like it?

Well, I know my children really enjoy being in both households. We have neighbours with children the same age and they play out front together. They have all the "stuff" they need in both homes. They really aren't affected by it at all. In fact, they are asking me what can be done to make the time more equal.

The houses are very close (5 mins apart) so the "time to work" is no different really.

I totally agree that in some circumstances an equal split of time isn't appropriate. But in many it is, yet simply isn't even considered.

Imagine as an adult only being able to see one of your parents for 30% of the time of the other, even though you'd like to see both the same amount, and being told you can't.

Now imagine one of your parents has cancer (as I do) and you still can't spend more time with them.

All because some people who aren't trained in law made a decision about your life, without you present, without even hearing your views, and you know your time with that parent is running out.

"Would you like it?"

Every situation is different. But I'm convinced that a default of equal shared care is a better starting point than the children having a lop-sided amount of contact with both parents. That is truly what I believe.

Of course, you are totally allowed to have an opposing view.

@howdeydudey
It could be that this is what children in this scenario think.
It could be that children in this scenario know that this is what their father wants so don't feel that they can say differently, be that due to fear, guilt etc.
Just because you have doubled up on "stuff" does not mean that they feel settled and as though they have roots when they're constantly living a nomadic lifestyle. Have you really considered this, be you 5 minutes apart or not, that they never get to have that unconscious thought of "going home", it's always got to be "whose house" am I going to...

The cancer diagnosis, as much as I have great sympathy for anyone with this diagnosis, as we all no doubt do, is, imo irrelevant. And actually, I personally feel that if there are two parents in this situation, 5050 isn't best for the children. For them to see the treatment and repercussions/side effects, whereas if it was eow for example, the timing could be tweaked for the times this is less so the case. Let alone the fact that if the worst happened, the children would have yet another major upheaval of not only losing a parent but also having to move everything and get used to being with the pcg again moving house. I appreciate that this isn't your perspective and my thoughts are with you in that hope that you have a speedy recovery, but the focus should be the children not what's fair for the parents in carving up the children's lives.

[quote ChoiceMummy]@howdeydudey
It could be that this is what children in this scenario think.
It could be that children in this scenario know that this is what their father wants so don't feel that they can say differently, be that due to fear, guilt etc.
Just because you have doubled up on "stuff" does not mean that they feel settled and as though they have roots when they're constantly living a nomadic lifestyle. Have you really considered this, be you 5 minutes apart or not, that they never get to have that unconscious thought of "going home", it's always got to be "whose house" am I going to...

The cancer diagnosis, as much as I have great sympathy for anyone with this diagnosis, as we all no doubt do, is, imo irrelevant. And actually, I personally feel that if there are two parents in this situation, 5050 isn't best for the children. For them to see the treatment and repercussions/side effects, whereas if it was eow for example, the timing could be tweaked for the times this is less so the case. Let alone the fact that if the worst happened, the children would have yet another major upheaval of not only losing a parent but also having to move everything and get used to being with the pcg again moving house. I appreciate that this isn't your perspective and my thoughts are with you in that hope that you have a speedy recovery, but the focus should be the children not what's fair for the parents in carving up the children's lives.[/quote]
And it could be that you are wrong too. In my case, you almost certainly are, but this isn't really relevant.

I believe that in the majority of cases, a default to equally split time would be better for most children. That's my belief.

Anyone who agrees, sign the petition. Anyone that doesn't, don't.

The default position needs to be what is best for the children not best for the adult

From your OP it sounds like you've created a petition to make people only create one petition for a cause.

@SoupDragon

From your OP it sounds like you've created a petition to make people only create one petition for a cause.

I didn't create the petition.

@Uncomplicated

The default position needs to be what is best for the children not best for the adult

Correct.

And as society is moving more towards equality, with women being correctly valued more equally in the workplaces, offices and boardrooms of the UK, the family norms need to adjust too.

Lots of studies are consistently showing that when asked later in life, children who had two loving, caring parents who they had equal access to are happier than those that didn't.

This won't be true in all cases. Sadly, there will always be abusive parents or those that don't take responsibility. And of course there needs to be safeguarding in place.

I'm going to avoid replying to any further comments because quite simply, it wasn't the point of this thread.

If you don't agree, simply don't sign. We all have a choice :)

Do you think that the legal default should be 50/50 from birth?

If not, from when?

@Uncomplicated

The default position needs to be what is best for the children not best for the adult

Absolutely.

And the so called studies are usually biased, very small scale and frequently not in the UK.

Equally, there are increasing stories/studies about how abusive the family Court system is and that this push for 5050 is quite often yet another stretch of manipulative and controlling behaviour, which eventually impacts the children as well.

I didn't create the petition.

Nevertheless, you've started a thread asking people to sign a petition that apparently wants people to only create one petition. You didn't even care enough about the petition to explain what it was about.

@SoupDragon

I didn't create the petition.

Nevertheless, you've started a thread asking people to sign a petition that apparently wants people to only create one petition. You didn't even care enough about the petition to explain what it was about.

This.

I disagree with your premise of the petition you’ve shared anyway.

50/50 from when? Birth? How?

Nope. The courts make the decisions they do for a reason.

My ex has no interest in parenting 50% of the time. He can just about muster 7 hours a week. On the few occasions he does have ds for the weekend, he just offloads him onto someone else, so he can carry on playing sport & drinking. He left him with a festering uncleaned dog bite for four days, that eventually needed IV antibiotics to solve. Then refused to get rid of the dog.

And he is over the limit more than not. Am I supposed to hand my child to a drunk? Yet outwardly he is a 'nice chap', respectable, affluent.

As for the excuse of 'someone has to pay the bills', I've been a single mum now for a decade. I manage to work full time and do everything else. Plenty of mums do.

I don't doubt you are a lovely committed df, but too many are not. What is best for the child, like a secure home, is what counts.