Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

DH just joined Families need fathers-any experiences?

112 replies

beekeeper2 · 31/05/2010 12:33

We have agreed to divorce and are attending mediation, meeting 2 on Friday really productive & made headway agreeing arrangements for children.
Then DH joins families need fathers and has now come out really fighting-going for custody of children, minimum equal shared care. He works full time mon-fri and is not flexible in that, I work three short days and have total flexibility, but more importantly don't want the kids to have too much instability, or to see us in disagreement-does anyone have experience with families need fathers?Seem to be making things a lot worse to me but obviously DH would disagree hmm

OP posts:

Meltedchocolates · 31/05/2010 12:37

Why do you think it's making it worse - your DH has as much right to ask for equal shared custody as you have to ask for I guess sole custody with visitation (?) At the end of the day the court will look at it and decide - I would be happy that my DH was fighting for the chance to have an equal amount of time with the children than sulking of and going ok whatever you think is best.

GypsyMoth · 31/05/2010 12:38

you could join yourself,as they assist mothers too....that would confuse him and throw him a bit!

GypsyMoth · 31/05/2010 12:40

melted chocolate....why assume its going to court? op says they have reached an agreement already via mediation

LadyLapsang · 31/05/2010 13:06

What is 'normal' for your children regarding care at the moment? Does he do 50% or is this sudden interest in having equal time with them a way to get at you? If he is hands on and 50% is normal then I think trying to keep as near to the status quo as possible for the children would be good.

From what I hear FNF are a bit extreme, just look at the stunts they have tried, handcuffing themselves to the Minister for Children didn't impress me.

Maisiethemorningsidecat · 31/05/2010 13:22

Why would he NOT be entitled to custody or equal shared care, though? They are his children as well. I would imagine that your working 3 days a week has been possible because of his working full time, so it seems a bit unfair to throw that into the equation. If he's a bad father, then that's a different matter obviously, but if he's been a good parent I think he's got just as much right as you do to custody or shared care.

Sakura · 31/05/2010 13:23

Agree with LadyLapsang,
If he's always done 50% of the care, then that's fair enough.
But if he works full-time and you've lost out on earnings in order to take on more of the childcare responsibilities ( and it looks like you have with your three days ) then there is no way he has the right to suddenly want 50% of the custody. YOu can't just start taking an interest in looking after your kids after you end the marriage .

Sakura · 31/05/2010 13:25

Maisie, her loss of earnings are a V important factor here. She has lost out on a career opportunities to care for the kids, so that he can be freed up to work. If he wanted to take care of the kids he could have gone part-time himself. But he didn't. He only wants to now that they're divorcing.

Maisiethemorningsidecat · 31/05/2010 13:28

No, loss of earnings are only important if their was an expectation from him that she would go p/t. I work p/t because I want to, with DH's support, and so my husband has to work f/t in order continue to bring in the overall joint income we need. That does not, in any way, make him less of a parent.

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 31/05/2010 13:28

Isn't it Fathers4Justice that are a pile of tossers, rather than FNF?

colditz · 31/05/2010 13:28

maybe he didn't have the option to go part time because the family couldn't afford for both adults to work part time.

Maybe he's terrified of losing his children. maybe he's being vindictive.

Nobody knows.

Snorbs · 31/05/2010 13:31

"From what I hear FNF are a bit extreme, just look at the stunts they have tried, handcuffing themselves to the Minister for Children didn't impress me. "

The stunts etc were done by Fathers 4 Justice supporters, not FNF. Different bunch entirely. FNF is strongly in favour of mutual agreements, compromise and working in the best interests of the child(ren). And as IloveTIFFANY says, there's nothing stopping the OP joining as well.

Also be aware that "shared residency" does not necessarily mean that the children would have to do a strict 50:50 split of time between the parents. Shared residency is about the court recognising that both parents are regarded as equal even if the children do not spend equal amounts of time with them.

Chandra · 31/05/2010 13:32

Ladylapsan, you are confusing Families Need Fathers with Fathers For Justice, they are completely different things.

I have contacted Families Need Fathers in the past, needed a reality check to try to see the things from the POV of ExH, they were brilliant.

I would give them a ring. And remember that the fact he wants them half of the time, doesn't mean that he will get them if the conditions are not right. The court will focus in what is best for the children.

Sakura · 31/05/2010 13:33

Not saying it makes him less of a parent. I'm saying that he is not entitled to suddenly realise he wants to take more of an interest in the children's lives after they start divorcing.
His career has taken no knock from having children, whereas hers has taken a big one. SHe has enabled him to keep working full-time by providing wrap-around child-care for him.
It's obvious that his sudden interest in wanting 50% of the custody is a power-game more than anything else.
And it's not fair on the children, who are used to being with their mother most of the time.

Sakura · 31/05/2010 13:36

"Shared residency is about the court recognising that both parents are regarded as equal even if the children do not spend equal amounts of time with them. "

Oh, I agree with that, completely. I didn't realise the difference between shared residency and shared custody.
Shared residency is fine in this case, shared custody isn't.

I take it shared residency means she can't just emigrate or something without the father's permission. TOtally agree with that. The father is just as important to the kids. BUt I don'T agree that he is entitled to 50% custody.

Snorbs · 31/05/2010 13:41

The thing is, in family courts these days there's no such thing as "shared custody". It's residency (sole or shared) and contact.

Chandra · 31/05/2010 13:41

It is true that it's important that children have as much contact as possible with the non resident father. But what level of contact is deemed possible depends in an infinite number of circumstances.

IF a 50/50 split is adequate, so be it. If it is not... well you can't split the child in two to give an equal part to each the parents, it is about what is best for the child. Remember that wise action of King Salomon of suggesting splitting a kid in two? it was only wise because it forced the real mother to put the interests of the child first, otherwise both "mothers" would have walked home with a very fair half of a broken child .

Sakura · 31/05/2010 13:46

So, does this father want shared residency and equal contact?

Maisiethemorningsidecat · 31/05/2010 13:49

Why is it obvious that it's a power game to him? There is nothing in the OP that would suggest that. We also don't know anything about their working lives - we still have to use (and pay) for nursery and after school care, even though I 'only' work p/t, but he 'gains' by not having to pay for childcare 2 days a week, and I 'gain' financially through his f/t salary.

If you're taking the arguement that working f/t means you take less of an interest in your children, and deserve less than 50% of custody, then do you think that should apply to mothers who work f/t?

Chandra · 31/05/2010 13:54

I think most courts will be reluctant to do a residence order unless there are very good reasons for it. The court will expect parents are reasonable enough to sort the matter between themselves, if that can't be done, perhaps they will go ahead with a contact order, but not straight to a residence one.

There is no such thing as custody anymore, however, both parents have equal rights to comment or veto decisions that affect the children as part of having "parental responsibility". If both parents are in the child birth certificate, both have parental responsibility, but even if one is not, and there is reasonable grounds to believe he is the father, it is very easy to get it.

Sakura · 31/05/2010 13:58

I don't think working f/t means you have less of an interest in your children. We have to give and take.
The OP has given her career and independance. The H has given up spending time with the kids. SO in a split, the H is financially in a better position because he has stayed in his job. The OP has lost out in the career stakes, but has invested more in her children. The custody should be split in a way that recognizes this investment she has made. It's not 50/50, is it?
I think if a mother worked f/t it should be taken into account that she had to take a career break to have the baby. If you're a lawyer this can affect your career considerably. So case by case, but I think a mother who worked f/t has more of a say than a father, because of the time she gave up to bear the children.
If the father became a SAHD I think that's a different situation again.

Chandra · 31/05/2010 14:01

It is not about who earns more, or who has sacrificed more, is about the child and what he is more used to, or what he would respond better to.

fuzzywuzzy · 31/05/2010 14:03

beekeeper, you say your h wants minimum shared contact, so is he demanding to be the main carer of the children now that you are about to split, having not been so whilst together?

Have you asked him how he is going to work this out practically?

How old are the children?

I would sit down and write out a typical week for your children and ask your h how he is going to make their lives work whilst simultaneously holding down a full time job, and if he isn't how he is going to be meeting the financial needs of daily life on one drastically reduced income (altho I wouldn't ask him like that).

I would also join family's need fathers and benefit from their advice!

Sakura · 31/05/2010 14:07

I see that Chandra. I must have understood it wrong.
I thought the H wants to have the children 50% of the time, even though the OP has looked after them the majority of the time. Clearly the children are better off just carrying on the way they are, with the OP looking after them most of the time as she has always done. Why should divorcing change that?

Chandra · 31/05/2010 15:33

Exactly. Children are not another asset to split proportionally.

Maisiethemorningsidecat · 31/05/2010 15:48

No, but it's about give and take now. The whole family is going to go through changes as a result of this divorce, and whilst both parents should do everything to minimise the disruption, I believe that it's about recognising that both adults are parents, and whils legislation currently allow women to spend more time on maternity leave if they want to, that shouldn't be the lever by which to dictate who gets most residence time.

Children are not an asset, but they belong equally to both parents, with both parents having an equal responsibility for them. If it's at all possible for them to spend 50% of their time with each parent, and the children are happy with that (which is paramount in all this) then I believe both parents should work to make that happen.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5