What’s better?

[SpinningFloppa]

Seriously what is better an absent dad or a dad that dips in and out and goes for years not seeing their kids then pops back up? I’ve always been told an absent dad is better for kids but now being told it’s not and one that pops in and out is best, people seem to change it whenever it suits the situation. Courts would give an dad that’s been absent for many years contact even if they kept disappearing.

Not talking about abusive fathers so please don’t comment about (we can all agree abusive fathers are worse than absent ones) just absent rubbish ones that disappear then reappear once a year.

They're both shits.

True.

They definitely both are but I was told in and out is significantly more damaging but now being told different so I’m not sure anymore.

It's not clear cut. It depends how they are with the kids when they see them. Obviously a bloke who pops up twice a year, takes the kids to meet his mates down the pub, ignores them for 3 hours and then drops them home is going to have a significantly different impact than the dad who comes back from his long stints in military service and offers the kids strong guidance, support, and an example of decent morals.

Life doesn't have 'yes' or 'no' answers for things, and more info is needed to make a decision based on nuances. That's what a court would want: more info. Nobody can make a decision based on what you've told us.

Who is telling you and telling you different about what's better and worse, here? Why do you want to know?

My children’s father hasn’t seen them for 2 years, when he sees them he sees them for a few months then gets bored and stops seeing them, he’s done this 3/4 times now he’s seen them 3 occasions in 5 years, Everyone has said to me to stop allowing him to do it (on here and in real life) told me to not allow contact as it’s too damaging. Now I posted about something
else on a different parenting site and mentioned that I would rather not start up contact again (because I know he is going to disappear again) and got told he is their dad, he’s entitled to contact, unless he’s abusive he should be seeing them, it’s in their best interest yet I was told this is damaging them and not to allow it.

No contact is at least consistent! But it does come with a lot of issues for the children (does mine).
Personally if you're able to maintain a low level of contact, eg kids Have tea with him once a month. I would say that's much better for them.
How old are the children ? When he was seeing them what was the contact like?

children 11 10 8 and 5 contact was rubbish would only see them if it was at MY house where he would fall asleep on the sofa wouldn’t take them out anywhere the time I insisted he did he took them
to the park at the corner of my house for 45 minutes then brought them back

he’s entitled to contact

It’s supposed to be about what the children are entitled to. Which he doesn’t seem bothered about providing.

as a previous poster said, a child needs consistency. So no contact is better that inconsistent contact where the fathers needs come before the child. It’s a constant reminder to the child they’ve been neglected. Best they just stay away.

I know I'm about to digress with this, but how did you manage to have one child with this type of man let alone 4?!

@SpinningFloppa speaking from someone who’s sperm donor was in and out my life I wish my mam had never given him access to me. I’m 42 now and hate the barsteward. Red flag for any men who don’t take care of their own kids and a waste of air. Your kids are better off without him

In my experience, the totally absent father is better.

My son is 24 and has never met his father. I know other people in the same position. They seemed to navigate childhood, adolescence and early adulthood with far more confidence and peace than the ones whose fathers made sporadic contact where they might be left waiting for a contact visit that never happens or be repeatedly let down on promises made.

That's not the same as planned, consistent but infrequent contact where the childishness their parent but can reply on seeing them when it is planned.

The absent parent who jdrops in amd put tends to make grand promises/gestures that never materialise - next time I see you, I'm going to give you X/take you to Y. Or I'm moving closer to be near you or similar. The child is young and believes their parent and feels more rejected when it doesn't happen.

My parents divorced when I was 2 and I only ever saw my dad a couple of times a year. He didn't pay any child support either.

As I got older I stopped seeing him altogether until I got married.

After my wedding I didn't see him once until I gave birth. Even then he didn't come to see my daughter until she was about 14 months old which was back in July.

I've now given birth to DD2 who's nearly 2 months and he still hasn't come to see her.

Granted he lives about 3 hours away but since we don't even text I'd rather have an absent father.

All our encounters are just awkward. He wasn't a particularly bad father, just a shit husband. But since we never spent any time together when I was younger, I haven't built a relationship with him. It's too late now.

If an official like Cafcass are answering the question it will be whichever answer is more convenient to their argument

I'm not speaking from personal experience, but I would think it's better for a child to experience sporadic contact that is planned and goes ahead, as opposed to where a parent keeps saying "I'll see you next weekend" then doesn't turn up.

His contact with them sounds very lazy and minimal effort, but I think I would rather facilitate that, and let them see for themselves what he can be relied on for (not a lot) and let them make the decision in time for themselves that they don't see him. I wouldn't allow him contact in my house, but I'd meet him halfway by e.g. dropping them at his parents' house, if feasible.

You have said there's no abuse involved and I think if you were to refuse contact and he took it to court, it wouldn't be looked on kindly that you'd taken it upon yourself to decide that he shouldn't see them because he didn't meet your expectations. (Not saying I agree with that, but I think that's how it would be viewed.)

Thanks all it looks like most think some contact is better than none at all. No safeguarding concerns no, he’s not a danger to them just constantly disappearing for a year or more at a time but it seems most think that’s better than nothing so will have to accept that.

It's up to ypu, OP, obviously. But I'd be looking at the reponses of those who have experience rather than the response of those who don't and are speculating.

More than that, having only skim read the responses, it doesn't read to me likeost people think sporadic, inconsistent contact ti's better than none.

I think if the father lives away and only sees children twice a year but it's consistent, reliable and there are other forms of staying in touch like Skype, phone etc then in that case is better.
On other hand being in and out of children's life because a parent gets bored creates a huge chaos in child's life and constant reminder of rejection.

My son had lots of anxiety when he didn't see his father on regular basis and there was no contact in between, he cried a lot and was very confused. He has no contact now and although in the beginning it was hard he is happy and stable now and treats my partner like a dad. It did help he was quite young and has a father figure in his life.

I also believe that what absent /inconsistent by choice fathers do is serious neglect. I do not think that neglect is somehow better then abuse. They are both damaging and leave long lasting wounds. This neglect is only possible at the expense of the mother who picks up the pieces and over-functions to compensate for inconsistent parent. Imagine you being even slightly as neglectful - you would have had your children taken away. And once they were up for adoption courts would not care about your parental rights or them being able to see you. Maybe it's not the best comparison but just adds a perspective. Men are allowed to get away with it.

Every situation is different tho and if I was you I would focus on how your children respond and what is best for them. Especially with the older ones I think you can talk to them about it and find out how they feel?

Like I said mine was very young so it was a bit different.

I guess I just wanted to make it clear that father is not a danger and no safe guarding concerns as threads like this usually turn into “well I wish my abusive father hadn’t been around or I was my abusive ex wasn’t around” so not talking about cases of exes that are a danger to children.

Neglect is abuse, he’s neglecting the needs of his children. Children need consistent care.

Unfortunately courts don’t see it that way and no matter how many times they walk away they still are allowed to walk back in 😒

Yes op I know I’ve been there ❤️

I should also tell you, I found the strength to fight back for the sake of my kids and honestly cutting out toxic lying people out my children’s lives was the best thing I did. They are now free from bad influences and toxic relationships. We as a family are stronger and happier on our own.