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

@EstherMumsnet

Do please remember to keep any discussion about the topic and away from personal attacks.Thank you.

Can I also add - I never once mentioned 2-2-3 The only reason this came up is because someone looked up an old unrelated post of mine and brought it to this one.

I wasn't referring to any specific, personal case. I think the others brought those in.

Wise words from EstherMumsnet.

@SpinningTheSeedsOfLove

Wise words from EstherMumsnet.

I agree.

But I didn't make it personal...

Others went and dug up other threads of mine and started referencing things on those, swearing and name-calling...

Surely it would have been easier to just disagree and not bother commenting?

You said:
Every situation is different.

Correct. Therefore there should be no default position.
Or if there is, it should be to match as closely as possible the existing arrangement. So if parent 1 does 80% of the care then that's what they should continue to do.
I doubt you'll get many men want 50% anyway.

@oviraptor21

You said: Every situation is different.

Correct. Therefore there should be no default position.
Or if there is, it should be to match as closely as possible the existing arrangement. So if parent 1 does 80% of the care then that's what they should continue to do.
I doubt you'll get many men want 50% anyway.

The vast majority of court cases for child contact are brought by fathers attempting to have more contact with their children.

The existing arrangement often isn't possible as the "stay at home" person has to then work more. Between the two parents, you are now supporting 2 homes. This changes things quite often.

Ideally, two people would be able to work together to resolve. But the number of court cases each year shows this isn't the case.

The argument, I think, is that a default position of 50/50, which of course parents could negotiate away from if one or both parties don't want it, would actually avoid a lot of court cases and therefore conflict.

And that's a school of thought that I agree with. We can't know for sure, but I think it's correct.

I think fathers and mothers are a false equivalent when you’re talking about babies and toddlers.

I also think of all of the threads I read on here where women stay with abusive men because they worry about the men having the child alone, if the default were 50:50 then even more women would feel unable to escape.

The idea of 50:50 from birth actually makes me feel quite emotional because the only type of man who would seek that it’s the one putting himself before the needs of the infant.

@Isthatthebestyoucando

The idea of 50:50 from birth actually makes me feel quite emotional because the only type of man who would seek that it’s the one putting himself before the needs of the infant.

People say it shouldn't be 50:50 from birth. They then say that "continuity" should be followed.

You end up with children aged 10+, or 14, 15, who WANT to see both parents equally or sometimes the father more, and can't because of some precedent set when they were 6 months old that it's impossible to shift the mentality away from.

And that is basically because of mother's putting their own needs before that of the infant too.

Maybe making the contact equal earlier is the best thing for them after all?

@Isthatthebestyoucando

I think fathers and mothers are a false equivalent when you’re talking about babies and toddlers. I also think of all of the threads I read on here where women stay with abusive men because they worry about the men having the child alone, if the default were 50:50 then even more women would feel unable to escape.

The default should only be 50:50 when there are no safeguarding concerns, as stated in the petition.

It's a shame that there are abusive men out there. It makes life a lot harder for those of us that aren't.

It's also a shame that there are abusive women too, and that men are seldom believed when they report it.

It's also a shame that so many women (my ex included) falsely accuse us of things to try to sway the courts. This makes it much harder for those women who ARE abused to be believed. This seems to be the most common scenario from what I've read over the years and from multiple sources. Even my legal team have told me this is a hugely common scenario. And they were both hugely experienced females.

We unfortunately don't live in an ideal world and sometimes people are on the end of incorrect decisions.

My best wishes go out to anyone, male or female, experiencing abuse.

@howdeydudey
A shame that given I raised it some tome ago you couldn't read the recommendations fully:
WHO and UNICEF recommend:

early initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth;
exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life; and
introduction of nutritionally-adequate and safe complementary (solid) foods at 6 months together with continued breastfeeding up to 2 years of age or beyond.

The reality is OP that most men do not want 50/50. That would mean sorting childcare, juggling sick days, parenting after a hard days work, and far less time to do whatever they want - the poor wee lambs. They’re just not willing to sacrifice the way women are.

We’ve always done EOW because that’s all he wanted. Covid hit, he got furloughed and we tried 50/50 (DC were 11 and 9) and DCs hated it.

And if you have any experience of family courts, which you clearly don’t, you’d realise that men who have beaten their partner in front of their children, and much worse, ARE given whatever they want because “they didn’t abuse the children”, yet SS have the ability to remove children if the woman doesn't leave - then family court think they know better than SS when it comes to a childs welfare.

[quote ChoiceMummy]@howdeydudey
A shame that given I raised it some tome ago you couldn't read the recommendations fully:
WHO and UNICEF recommend:

early initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth;
exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life; and
introduction of nutritionally-adequate and safe complementary (solid) foods at 6 months together with continued breastfeeding up to 2 years of age or beyond.[/quote]
As I've pointed out over and over, only 0.5% of women still BF at 12 months.

And of those that do, only a small % will be separated.

So the number of children affected by this isn't large enough to make it have any real effect on the petition in question.

Please try to stick to the thread. I understand that you have some personal thing about breastfeeding, but in this case it simply isn't relevant.

@LightfoldEngines

The reality is OP that most men do not want 50/50. That would mean sorting childcare, juggling sick days, parenting after a hard days work, and far less time to do whatever they want - the poor wee lambs. They’re just not willing to sacrifice the way women are.

We’ve always done EOW because that’s all he wanted. Covid hit, he got furloughed and we tried 50/50 (DC were 11 and 9) and DCs hated it.

Any evidence for your claims at all?

Because this sounds like misandry to me.

@LightfoldEngines

And if you have any experience of family courts, which you clearly don’t, you’d realise that men who have beaten their partner in front of their children, and much worse, ARE given whatever they want because “they didn’t abuse the children”, yet SS have the ability to remove children if the woman doesn't leave - then family court think they know better than SS when it comes to a childs welfare.

"which you clearly don't"

Honestly, the amount of wrong assumptions you will make rather than simply hearing someone else's point of view is astounding.

Yes, I have a lot of experience of family courts.

Do you really think this is the majority of cases? Do you really think women don't beat kids sometimes too?

This isn't a perfect world unfortunately. And what you seem to suggest is that thousands and thousands of children should be denied an equal chance of a relationship with their father, simply because there are some bad guys in the world.

But there are bad women too. So what do you suggest? On separating all children should be removed from both parents and taken in to care? Just to make sure?

Can't you see the problem here? You're hurting thousand of children (and fathers) because of the wrongs of a few.

And yes - they are wrongs. I think abusing children is abhorent.

@Uncomplicated

"
Where are all of these studies that suggest this arrangement is better for the child OP?"

I have posted some of the studies earlier in the thread, but a quick google finds lots and lots.

"Exactly this. I wouldn’t tolerate this as an adult and certainly wouldn’t impose it on a child.

As an adult, would you tolerate someone suddenly telling you that you can see one parent 80% of the time, and the other 20%? I wouldn't. So why impose it on a child?

Imagine being 25, having both parents alive and well but separated, and someone saying "hey - from now on you have to visit your mum more than you visit your dad."

@howdeydudey
Purely out of curiosity, before your children were both 8 or above, did you do all of the school runs and attend every school award assembly, parents evening, activity day etc? Did you attend and book their medical appointments? Did you do all of the bedtimes and bathing? Make their school lunches as well as dinner, prep etc help with their homework weekly, wash and iron uniforms etc? How many days of work did you take when the children were sick so you could care for them? Who got up when they woke at night and did the night feeds, cleaned up the vomit etc?

Out of curiosity, how much of the above have you been doing since the 5050?

Why if you were so driven to equal parenting didn't you suggest part time working for you and your ex? Why didn't you cut your days down or reduce your outgoings/standard of living/relocate to cheaper area if it was so important?

Why is it when the drudge work of parenting is over, that you suddenly felt 5050 was appropriate, yet before that you, as many fathers do, "sacrificed"by continuing in your career? Which comparably your ex's career opportunities have been negatively impacted because you made this sacrifice..

Also, the government's own conclusions re parental involvement are:
the majority of studies analysed note that rather than the absolute time that fathers spent with children, it was the quality of the time that mattered more, namely paternal involvement, in their child’s educational and enrichment activities. In addition, a father’s psychological/emotional perception was significant, such as the extent to which they felt confident about their parenting roles, possibly holding greater importance than the absolute time they spent with their children.

@ChoiceMummy

Also, the government's own conclusions re parental involvement are: the majority of studies analysed note that rather than the absolute time that fathers spent with children, it was the quality of the time that mattered more, namely paternal involvement, in their child’s educational and enrichment activities. In addition, a father’s psychological/emotional perception was significant, such as the extent to which they felt confident about their parenting roles, possibly holding greater importance than the absolute time they spent with their children.

And yet many mothers would never accept flipping their current arrangement.

Because for mums it's allowed to be about time.

We are talking about living feeling human beings not a an object to be shared.

The priority for all, the courts, the parents, social services etc should be what is best for the child.

That is what matters.

[quote ChoiceMummy]@howdeydudey
Purely out of curiosity, before your children were both 8 or above, did you do all of the school runs and attend every school award assembly, parents evening, activity day etc? Did you attend and book their medical appointments? Did you do all of the bedtimes and bathing? Make their school lunches as well as dinner, prep etc help with their homework weekly, wash and iron uniforms etc? How many days of work did you take when the children were sick so you could care for them? Who got up when they woke at night and did the night feeds, cleaned up the vomit etc?

Out of curiosity, how much of the above have you been doing since the 5050?

Why if you were so driven to equal parenting didn't you suggest part time working for you and your ex? Why didn't you cut your days down or reduce your outgoings/standard of living/relocate to cheaper area if it was so important?

Why is it when the drudge work of parenting is over, that you suddenly felt 5050 was appropriate, yet before that you, as many fathers do, "sacrificed"by continuing in your career? Which comparably your ex's career opportunities have been negatively impacted because you made this sacrifice..[/quote]
I got the children out of bed in the morning. I made their breakfast. I usually did their bathing and always did their bedtimes.

In between that, I worked a full day, never staying for socials after to make sure I was back in order to be there for them while their mother went out to dancing classes.

I got up in the night. I make sure I never accepted contracts that didn't allow me a minimum of one day a week at home, so I could take the children to their swimming classes.

I cooked any days I was able to. I washed and ironed, cleaned up vomit and poo.

I took months off between contracts to make sure I had quality time with them.

I DID suggest my ex going to part time work to allow me even more flexibility. She point blank refused.

So while I took on as many of the child responsibilities as I could, she took on ZERO of the financial responsibilities.

You are making some very wrong assumptions to attack me personally when you know NOTHING about me or my parenting.

However - even if I couldn't do those things I was lucky enough to be able to do, people have to survive and pay bills. If one parents earns considerably more than the other and it makes sense as a family for that person to work, should the children then forever be forced to see that parent as "secondary" simply because of this?

Of course they shouldn't.

So even despite that in my case your argument falls sadly short and is frankly wrong, even if it wasn't that doesn't make much difference.

I used to do the "drudge" work of office jobs, come home and THEN take over the "drudge work of parenting", as you put it, so my ex could go out enjoying herself.

Oh, and for the record, I never, ever considered those things "drudge". I was proud to do them. I don't think children would ever like to hear of themselves as being "drudge"...

@sashh

We are talking about living feeling human beings not a an object to be shared.

The priority for all, the courts, the parents, social services etc should be what is best for the child.

That is what matters.

Unfortunately this isn't what seems to matter to most mothers.

As this forum totally shows, mothers will use anything they can, even irrelevant to the original post, in order to fight battles they don't need to fight.

Nobody HAD to comment on this. Nobody HAD to follow the link. Nobody HAD to go through other posts of mine and make personal attacks. Yet for some reason some people can't help it.

It's quite telling.

I started another thread asking about what should happen if a same sex couple separates. All the early responses were 50/50...

Then some people worked out what I was doing and started being a bit more smart.

But the contrast is there. It's astounding. Take away the male/female aspect and people are mostly happy for 50/50 parenting., or at least for it to be an option. Make it between a man and woman, and the misandry is apparent. On this thread, nobody has even considered that in some (many) cases it is actually best for the child.

I never had any intention of converting people here - you are clearly to wrapped in your own situations to be able to rationally or fairly see any other points of view other than your own.

What the discussion has done is keep this at the top of the threads list, and give an opportunity to show how differently people react to effectively the same question when applied to same sex situations. And the difference is stark.

Which tells us something...

@howdeydudey
Gosh so you're also leading us to believe that alongside you working full time that meant you weren't at home for 6 out of 7 days?

I noticed the jibe about your ex attending a dancing class whilst you didn't attend any work socials!

Likewise, your "any day I was able to" comment, effectively means pick and mixed parenting and drudge work (note I would never refer to my child as being drudge, however, the ironing, etc most certainly is! But I applaud you for your poor attempt at what was so obviously point scoring). Whilst your wife was ALWAYS responsible and always a parent.

I always wonder in these scenarios, whether there would be any common ground at all if your ex wife was on here posting. How much involvement in the day to day lives of your children she would say you had, how many meals you really ever cooked, how much vomit you really cleaned up...

It's certainly evident that you never missed work for the sick children, as nothing was allowed to interrupt your work sacrifice.

But the contrast is there. It's astounding. Take away the male/female aspect and people are mostly happy for 50/50 parenting., or at least for it to be an option. Make it between a man and woman, and the misandry is apparent. On this thread, nobody has even considered that in some (many) cases it is actually best for the child.

Read my post again, what I say is that it should be what is best for the child but apparently that is misandry.

Give your head a wobble.