OK - so contact with father - I really don't understand.

[busybusybust]

I've been lurking on this thread for a couple of weeks - and it has appalled me. Why can men so hideously horrible?

But what I really want to know is why everyone says 'the DCs must stay in contact' with these utterly appalling men?

Surely it cannot be good for these children to stay in contact with a man who has physically/mentally abused their mother?

I really want to know the answer to this.

Of course you would worry! These situations are horrendously difficult.

But I do think there has to be SOME accountability for the choices people make in their lives. These men are fathers - therefore someone CHOSE to have kids with them. Same with mothers who are abusive, violent, drug addicted etc etc. Some man still chose to make this woman the mother of his kids. We all make mistakes and sadly we then have to live with the consequences - one of the many reasons I think people ought to give far more consideration than they do to who they choose to procreate with.

Being a father gives a man the legal and moral rights to be part of his children's lives in the absence of evidence proving their unfitness (ditto mothers). As the other parent all you can do is either try to legally prove their unfitness to be part of the child's life if that is truly the case OR try to mitigate the negative effects of their contact through consistent and loving parenting on your side.

An abusive ex is not a good father if he continues to intimidate/be controlling through the mother.

And, not all cases where there has been abuse end up in court, Ionysis.

How would you suggest changing the system to make it more equitable Judgingless? Do you believe that any man who has been intimidating or abusive to his ex should be banned from seeing his children? How would that be judged or enforced?

Ionysis - when, as mothers, we had dc with an abusive man, this may surprise you that when we 'procreated' with them, they were clever enough not to exhibit their abusive behaviour until either we had had our babies or, as is the case with often the INSIDIOUS nature of abuse, by the time we had had our babies, we had already been 'primed' for a long time (not sure how else to describe it).

We didn't choose to have dc with Abusers. But now, yes, we have to deal with the consequences and the worry.

Ionysis.... You are wrong. The father has NO rights. Legally, it's the child with the rights. The parents have responsibilities. If it gies to court then the judge rules on the right of the child, as per the children's act.

As I said, we all make mistakes - that's life.

But the thread was about whether or not these exes (whether male or female is, I believe irrelevant) should have contact with their children. What their rights are and how to enforce those rights or indeed remove them if necessary.

The OP wrote:
"Surely it cannot be good for these children to stay in contact with a man who has physically/mentally abused their mother?"

I was postulating that in fact it IS possible for a man to be abusive towards his wife and still be able to be a constructive force in his children's life post divorce. Surely if this was not the case then the legal position on this would be different?

Or is the law wrong? Should it be amended? If so, how? If you have an abusive ex how would you want the system to work diferently?

The terminaology is correct IloveTIFFANY but the practical fact is responsibilities DO afford rights.

For births registered in England and Wales: In England and Wales, if the parents of a child are married to each other at the time of the birth, or if they have jointly adopted a child, then they both have parental responsibility. Parents do not lose parental responsibility if they divorce, and this applies to both the resident and the non-resident parent.

PR (or PPR) gives you the right to contribute to decision making regarding your child's future such as:

• giving consent to medical treatment
• choosing their school
• deciding how they should be brought up
• choosing their name
• choosing their religion

But I do think there has to be SOME accountability for the choices people make in their lives.
Yes, sure, but do the children have to keep suffering by someone insisting on keeping a twat of a father in their lives.

Australia has a system that is more advanced than ours and just because that is the in thing atm wrt to the court system in this country, doesn't make it right. The effects of witnessing abuse are only just being properly acknowledged and I'm sure that our court system will more than likely change in the future.

Doesn't give the RIGHT to contact though...... I know about school, doc all that stuff. But if there have been concerns I.e allegations, dv in presence if dc, then cafcass are likely to investigate.

There are no automatic contact rights then.

"someone insisting on keeping a twat of a father in their lives"

I believe that "someone" is the Children Act 1989 and subsequent amendment thereto which operates on the principle that it will usually be in a child's interests to have a continuing relationship with both parents.

Think the key word there is 'usually'!!

Yes, but the provisions ARE there to attempt to ensure that dangerous or abusive fathers do NOT have access to their children.

There are many types of damaging parent - not just abusive partners / fathers. Parents who are selfish, neglectful and unloving. Parents who are hypercritical and belittling. Parents who are alienating.

Some of them may be very good brothers, lovers, friends but still be very bad parents. The reverse is also true. A family friend has convictions for domestic violence, drug dealing and assault but you have never seen such a doting and devoted father to his two girls. They are his world.

The children's act is about what is in the best interests of the child... the rights of the child. I think children have a right to have a happy, secure future free of abuse and witnessing it. Children learn how to live their lives by those around them. Contact with an abusive, neglectful, emotionally damaging parent will affect them negatively one way or another for the rest of their lives. It s heartreaking for the loving parent no tto be able to protect their children from it.

family friend has convictions for domestic violence, drug dealing and assault but you have never seen such a doting and devoted father to his two girls. They are his world. Shame he couldn't modify his behaviour for their benefit then isn't it.

Well to be fair his ex was also convicted of domestic violence against HIM so it is swings and roundabouts in that case. They were utterly toxic to EACH OTHER but both seem to now co-parent their kids remarkably well given the level of disfunction in their relationship prior to them splitting up.

Ionysis Well its a pretty rubbish example then for this particular thread.

Can I ask you what your agenda is posting on this particlar subject because all you are saying is what we are all up against on daily basis. Its nothing new or profound and this a support thread.

How is it a support thread? It is a question thread: what I really want to know is why everyone says 'the DCs must stay in contact' with these utterly appalling men? I really want to know the answer to this.

I answered it, to the best of my ability (using examples) - because sometimes appalling partners can be good fathers. And they deserve the right at least to prove if they can be before they are cut out of their children's lives.