A Judge? With common sense? Surely not....

[arfarfa]

www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6290909/selling-the-pass.thtml

... in which Melanie Phillips (a name surely deserving of its own ALERT,) demonstrates her ability to perform conceptual contortions of truly mind-yogic propensity: Admonishing the "middle-class intelligentsia" whilst simultaneously shoe-horning in the cost to the state of all those benefits that encourage expensive, "feckless" behaviour by the "benefits-class".

Oh. And a weirdly offensive, and gratuitous, reference to the holocaust.

Because divorce is analogous to the state-sanctioned murder of six million Jewish people.

Thank you for posting that, arfarfa. Melanie should really be in a pen in London Zoo, where we could gather around and laugh. I realise her columns perform much the same function, but, alas, because they are not clearly signalled as being the performance of a kind of weird, self-hating, paranoic, psychopathy, alas, some people ma be lured into an engagement with their content as though they have an equivalence with rational discourse.

If we ignore the 'messenger' for a moment, and focus on the message, I think that the following passage from the Judges' speech, at www.familylaw.co.uk/system/uploads/attachments/0001/1218/President_of_the_Family_Division_speech_-_19th_September_2010.pdf
is potentially the most interesting:

"The impression I have gained so far is that the government is likely to
invest heavily in the outcome of the Family Justice Review currently
underway. Be under no illusions. The recommendations are likely to be
radical. There are no sacred cows. I have no idea what the final
recommendations will be, but you do not need a crystal ball to see that
legal aid for private law proceedings is likely to be further diminished if
not abolished: that long and protracted contact and residence disputes
will become things of the past, and that out of court mediation and
conciliation will be encouraged."

While I agree that separating parents should never use their children as pawns nor should they bad-mouth each other in front of their children, there are a huge number of false assumptions dressed as fact in Sir Nicholas's Wall's statement.

Firstly, most separating/divorcing parents manage to sort things out without going to the courts. By virtue of his job, he sees the more extreme examples and it is not an accurate reflection of society as a whole.

Secondly, the divorce rate has risen in part due to increasing equality between men and women. A relationship does not have to be physically violent for it to be abusive or for one person's happiness to be built on the sacrifices of the other (usually the mother). This is why married men are the happiest demographic among men but single women are the happiest demographic among women. As more women fight against this, we achieve happier, more equal marriages but divorce is a common result as well.

Thirdly, we have to ask ourselves WHY so many women deny contact. In some cases yes, the sad truth will be because they want to punish their estranged spouse. However, in many cases it is based on justifiable concerns. How many times is a woman told that just because her husband treated her badly, it is no reflection on his skills as a dad, even in cases of abuse? The thing is though, it is! A man who is capable of hitting his wife will almost certainly go on to abuse his children, even if that's not physically. The same applies to non-violent mistreatment. People who consider themselves more important than their spouse will also consider themselves more important than their children. Let's remember that 1 in 4 relationships are abusive and that's based on reported cases (most are not). Some organisations suggest the real figure may actually be nearer 1 in 2, and again that is only physical violence. So I'd take issue that "most relationships are not abusive or intolerable". From a woman's point of view, I think far too many are!

Fourthly, it's all well and good arguing for 50/50 contact, but that's not the reality for most parents even when they are both together. The normal situation is that one parent, usually the mother, shoulders 80%+ of all childcare and child-related tasks.

I am all for mediation and possibly even for classes educating parents about how divorce can potentially damage their children and how they can avoid it. Most people love their children more than they hate the other parent and will come to their senses given time and another perspective.

However, while parents who deny contact for their own selfish reasons should be called on it, we also need to show equal zeal in tackling non-payers of maintenance, NRPs who consistently turn up late or not at all (very often the ones who have contested residency despite never taking a day off to look after their children previously), and in cases where there has been abuse, there should be much more credence given to the woman's situation - any man capable of using visitation to continue to harass his ex-wife is NOT a man who should be allowed unsupervised access to his children.

I am aware that a lot of people will disagree with what I have written here, and that's fine. It's my opinion but not everyone's. However, I dislike people in authority pronouncing things in a god-like manner as if they are the be all and end all of all knowledge when ultimately their knowledge is based on a tiny portion of the overall situation and heavily clouded by personal experience.

FWIW, I am a single parent and I have an amicable relationship with my ex who sees his children regularly, so I have no axe to grind here.

Well surprise, surprise the judge has identified that SAVINGS can be gained by appealing to the little lady in all of this.

So that we can ensure that she makes the savings and the bloke she has for so long prompted to make a go of himself, to ensure financial security for her and the children he wanted to forge ahead and deliver within the next generation, hasn't to pay too much in getting this right.

You are supporting middleclass divorces by signing up to this bullshit. In the words of the famous rappers 'Don't, Don't, Don't, Don't..etc, believe aword

50/50 contact indeed. See the boys fly.

No way do blokes want 50/50 contact.

I know 'blokes' who have 50/50 contact

This moves us closer to universal adoption of my one-woman campaign for the Fixed-Term Renewable Exclusivity Agreement, in which all such issues are defined by contract and mediaeval marriage laws have no place ...

What's more, it gives you an extra school-gate topic: "How long's your REA? We've always gone for three years, but this time we're thinking of five."

:)

OptimistS-Can I have the relevant data, please, for your statement that "married men are the happiest demographic among men but single women are the happiest demographic among women"?

Re your third point, I would suggest that a more realistic interpretation would be "In most cases yes, the sad truth will be because they want to punish their estranged spouse. However, in some cases it is based on justifiable concerns."

The stereotype that "...the normal situation is that one parent, usually the mother, shoulders 80%+ of all childcare and child-related tasks" is perhaps a tad out of date....

Grace-Nice idea. Would a REA have room in it to incorporate a pre-natal agreement?

OptimistS-I'd like some proof that 1 in 2 relationships are abusive please

Hmmm. I'm wondering if there are visitors from a well-known organisation on this thread.

Why post in "relationships", you strange, strange OP.

OptimistS - I thought your points were valid.

I'm bumping this only so that people are aware that there may be changes afoot, with the extension of mediation (having heard this story on PM, so there may be something in it).

just as the judge is seeing only the extreme, so is her psychiatrist (the famous one)

"Many years ago, I was told privately by a well-regarded child psychiatrist who was also a bit of a media star that divorce was a ?holocaust? for the children whom he treated in his practice. "

well of course - that is why they on your couch....but many other children of divorced parents are managing rather well without psychiatry...

and how many of his clients are actually from melanie's "happily married" or "tolerably married" families?

have a read of this for some fun

www.septicisle.info/2007/04/just-how-much-madder-can-mad-mel-get.html

celticfairy, I know "blokes" who have 100% contact (well, residence).

"OptimistS-Can I have the relevant data, please, for your statement that "married men are the happiest demographic among men but single women are the happiest demographic among women"?

I'm not OptimistS, but I have read reports of this study in various books and newspapers. It also shows* that men's likelihood of dying rockets immediately after being widowed and stays higher than it otherwise would, whereas for widows there is no significant change. I can't track down the name of the study right now though.

*I think this was the same study, could possibly have been another one. I realise I'm not presenting my argument in the most convincing way possible...

celticfairy, I put an awful lot of effort into getting 50:50 residency of my children. The last time I went to the lav I'm pretty sure I was a man.

I also know a fair number of men (through organisations such as Families Need Fathers) who would love to have 50:50 residency.

I suggest you re-think your bullshit prejudices views.

Wow, emotive subject, as a separated Dad who is separated because verbally abusive (name calling in arguments) and physically abusive (kicking out at furniture in arguments) tendencies this is close to my heart. I'll try and keep my opinions short!

Firstly Snorbs, I hear you, but I think just labelling opposing views as prejudice doesn't do the debate any favours - too dismissive, to move things forward both sides of the coin need to be understanding maybe. Having said that I know how difficult it is going through everything you have to in our system as a father to get 50 / 50 contact so understandable.

Secondly OptimistS you make some great points and it's very educational to hear things from your pov. However I would challenge the assertation:

"How many times is a woman told that just because her husband treated her badly, it is no reflection on his skills as a dad, even in cases of abuse? The thing is though, it is! A man who is capable of hitting his wife will almost certainly go on to abuse his children, even if that's not physically. The same applies to non-violent mistreatment."

I'm going to leave the hitting thing well alone, don't know enough about it.

But in terms of non-violent mistreatment is that really a judgement call that can be presented as undeniable fact - which "almost certainly" suggests you feel it is.

I can certainly see why the assumption seems logical.

However in my case and I suspect more cases than people would think I've spent the last 18 months working very hard through counselling, etc to learn what it was about me, what was in me, that allowed me to feel name calling or furniture kicking was acceptable behaviour in the heat of the moment. Amd even, dare I say it on this forum, what it was about my ex's interaction with me that may have led to that - I know it's unpopular on this forum to mention it, but actually my ex was very difficult in a passive agressive way (lots of deriding me in front of friends, lots of sulking but not telling me why, etc). That is not to say it is an excuse for me to behave badly, or even that my bad behaviour didn't force her down that route. But lets just say our relationship was very unhealthy and damaging and though I will always take the lions share of responsibility for that because I stepped over lines I should never have done if I didn't I could probably slice it up so I'm worried about how she might act with DS.

Anyway I'm ashamed of how I behaved, I'm totally accepting of my ex having had enough. But so far I have never behaved that way with DS. This is something my ex actually said when splitting up with me. My focus now is making sure I never do. And I do put him before myself and actually in my case on quite a few occasions over the last 18 months I've cancelled plans when my ex has needed help with her child care.

I would also question whether the love between partners can be classed in the same way as love between a parent and their child - and that difference can be important. With the greatest will in the world I think all "partnerships" are conditional whereas parent child relations are more unconditional.

So I think there is a debate to be had here. I think it's too simplistic for a mother to take a snap shot of what she thinks of the father before splitting up and project that onto him forever when thinking about contact arrangements for their child. It is understandable, but that doesn't make it right.

And as someone who was abusive what are my options here? Should I really just crawl away and leave my DS without a father because of the problems I caused in my marraige? Is that actually the right thing for him? Or, when I can very easily have him 50 / 50 on a practical level should I settle for less because my ex didn't like me / doesn't like me? Sure she's probably being protective of DS, but then again she did actually have a baby with me. The problems in our marriage existed a long time before we had DS and as someone who communicated that I wanted to be an active father and actually is being the best father he can is it her right to decide now that actually she's changed her mind on that one?

For the record at the moment I get 35% unsupervised and have done for ages? I'd love 50% but also feel that it's not necessarily how long you get but what you do with the time that really counts. So I'm happy enough but I do wonder what the big deal is with the extra 15%.

And that, I think, may be what the judge is getting at. In the end marriages break down and naturally parents are left not being each others biggest fans - otherwise they wouldn't have split. But if fathers want to take as active a role in the upbringing of their children and they acknowldge their mistakes and are learning from them is it eqaulity that we still seem to have a legal system which does allow a mother to, in many cases, decide what that means on the father's behalf? To be honest feels a bit like a double standard to me.

timehealsall, thank you for your contribution. I've just come back to this thread after posting on it yesterday. I thought it was quite a brave post.

I hope this doesn't sound incredibly condescending (I certainly don't intend it to), but I strongly suspect that you've put an awful lot more thought into this than the average abuser (of either gender). The level of responsibility you've accepted does not make you typical, and if you possess the insight and ability to question yourself as much as implied from your post, then you will be a hugely positive influence on your child. Being a decent human doesn't mean never making mistakes, it just means taking responsibility for them and learning from them and never making them again on purpose.

I also believe that abuse is on a scale, and I maintain that the vast majority of men (95% according to Bancroft I think) who are routinely violent to their partner's body (not furniture as in your case) will not change, and due to their sense of entitlement they will not have the ability to see their children as separate beings with rights of their own, and it is these abusers I am talking about when I made my comment about women being told that an abusive man can be a great dad and she shouldn't stop contact.

arfarfa - try the University College of London website. They've got various studies on this.

pithyslicker - I never said there was proof that 1 in 2 relationships were abusive. I said some organisations suggest this based on reported figures of 1 in 4. 1 in 2 is an extrapolation, used in the same way that 'true' incidences of crime are extrapolated from recorded figures, and 'real' incidences of benefit fraud are extrapolated from the numbers of people actually caught. I think divorce granted on 'unreasonable behaviour' citing emotional abuse may also be thrown in there too, but I am less certain of that and do not have the facts at hand. The point is, however, that there are an awful lot of people out there in unhappy marriages.

Snorbs, I hope you don't think that I am against men having residency. I am not. I certainly don't think that a woman makes a better parent simply because she is a woman. That's just not true. Good parenting is not gender dependent and I know many fine fathers. It is great that more and more men are challenging the automatic assumption that women should retain primary residency. However, I don't see why that argument is inconsistent with my statement that it is nearly always the women who end up with the overwhelming responsibility for childcare and child-related tasks when a couple are still married. That doesn't say men don't do it, nor that they can't, it just acknowledges that a lot more women do.

Ultimately, what's best for the children is not necessarily what's fair for the parents, which is a dilemma that will never easily be overcome, but I still maintain that most parents love their children more than they hate their ex and come to some sort of sensible arrangement eventually without ever involving the courts.

Thanks OptomistS

Really appreciate your kind words and all the other points you make in your re: post. I would just add that through my efforts I've met / talked online to a lot of fathers like me so I have a slightly more optimistic view about how many do take responsibility. It's a tough one, very hard to know for sure. But yeah I'm sure most people don't want to question themselves too hard because it's pretty tough facing up to your faults whatever they are.

In the end I just think this is a really interesting debate, I just hope that if it's being had in legal circles as appears to be the case they're doing so sensibly.

Let me also state for the record that I think if changes in the law made it more difficult for either partner to leave unhappy, unhealthy marriages that would be a VERY bad thing. Personally I just believe a re-balancing of gender roles and responsibilities as separated parents could help us move forward as a society at a time where equality has moved those roles forward for the better.

And also it's worth considering that quite often those roles do change from a norm in a marriage to something very different in separation. I think it's true that fathers can take a back seat in marriage in terms of child care, but when separated that might actually provide them with the spring board they need to get more involved. Afterall sometimes they take a back seat because that's how it was when they grew up, or because still today that's how lots of people seem to perceive the roles of mothers and fathers. It's a separate post for sure, but I've always found it strange that paternity leave isn't longer. In my ideal world maternity leave would be longer anyway, and then there would be a few months paternity leave to allow working mothers time to get back to work with less stress and fathers to spend more time bonding with their children at an early stage. Then everyone's on top of the domestic roles and the careers! Doubtless what's more likely is that maternity leave will just get shorter though!

in terms of the article I think Melanie Phillips was misinterpreting the Judges words in her article to suit her own, very right wing view of marriage breakdown and that's really unhelpful. But then she does exist to be provocative as far as I can work out.

I just wanted to say I enjoyed reading what you wrote, OptimistS and timehealsall.

I have a son and daughter, and sometimes I get so gloomy reflecting on the (non) speed of change around the roles of "mother" and "father". Particularly because I know how much effort dh and myself put into trying to effect change in our lives, and in our lifetime (!) and how very small an effect that has had.

It seems that for all my adult life I've been expecting some kind of revolution in parenting to be just around the corner, and ... well, it's slow.

(Fighting the urge to write something long and self-indulgent.)

animula - I think you were unfair on Melanie Phillips in your first post.

Her reference to the Holocaust was made whilst paraphrasing someone else (the child-psychiatrist explaining the damage done to children of divorcing parents) and besides, anyone that knows her would know that she is as hard over Jewish identity and pro-Israeli as it is possible to be.

She makes some very valid points, not least that divorce damages children and is a very slefish act.