DH just joined Families need fathers-any experiences?

[beekeeper2]

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

I don't see that working full-time is any barrier to being an equal parent or should stop anyone spending 50% of their time with their children - I work full-time. On this logic, if anything happened to our marriage, my mother (who does my childcare) should get Residence of our children, and both DH and I should visit!

It would be interesting to know what kind of agreements for the children were being suggested at mediation, as if the Dad here was actually happily agreeing to the compromise, he wouldn't have joined FNF, would he? If he had assumed he'd be giving up work, having sole residence of the children and doing the bulk of the childcare with you visiting every other weekend and supporting them, wouldn't you come out 'fighting'?

I would try to see it in a positive light, as others have said. It's great that he is so committed to remaining an essential part of their lives and not being sidelined. I personally think Shared Residence should be the default option (which of course it is unless you go to court).

no Tanga,assuming your mother doesnt have PR,then no,she wouldn't gain residency!

My point regarding residency and work was this, op's h has decided he wants a minimum of joint residency so he appears to be going for possibly main residency, than how is he going to make it work practically, given that the op has a job which works around the children, is the h going to decide to give up his job or drastically reduce his hours, or arrange for the chidren to be taken care of by a childminder if the latter surely the mother who has a job which enables her to spend more time with the children physically should remain as the main carer?

The priority here should be what impacts the least on the children, what enables the children to continue some semblance of normality whilst they are going thro this huge upheaval at home.

the courts,in my experience,dont always work in a way which suits the children best.

you'd think they would do,but i dont think they know what they're doing half the time. and judges seem to be easily swayed.

in my case i watched as the judge refused to issue a section 91 against my ex...then watched as my cafcass officer just re-itereated a few things. he gave in almost immediately,hardly any thought given. (my own experience)

That's just it - we don't know what he's planning to do. It could be that he is planning to reduce or restructure his working week, or his parents could be happy to take a more active role - the possibilities are endless. I think it's great that this father wants to be as involved as possible in their lives, and I hope that they can both work together to ensure that, as far as possible, that happens.

No the courts are absolutely crap imho.

My solicitor described it perfectly when he said, the courts are biased toward the mother in the case of residency and towards the father in the case of contact.

In this case however the OP appears to have a civil relationship with her h so it would be best to present her case to him in the form of the best for the children, and in my opinion the best for the children should really be all that matters.

My experience of CAFCASS is similar to yours ILT, they seem to do as little work as they can get away with!

I completely agree with dittany, I've seen it happen a lot in divorces where the usually not terribly bothered father is suddenly gunning for residency!

Ex tried this too, funnily tho only once the CSA started chasing him.

The main residence of the children also effects the financial split of the former marital home.

I would get a good solicitor if you dont already.

"Families Need Fathers are an anti-mother group"

Of course. They will happily give advise to men and women, they offer membership to men and women, they advocate compromise and mediation - so of course they're "anti-mothers". FFS.

Dittany, have you ever been to a FNF meeting? Or subscibed to their magazine? Or called them and asked for their advice for a child residency/contact issue? Or are you just talking out of your hat?

The father, as far was we know, has been a good father to them. 'Unfortunately' he works f/t - this suddenly means that he wasn't bothered about them?

"If that were the case he would have arranged it before the split, not be treating his children like possessions now."

Ouch.

And your evidence that FNF's motives for advocating shared residency is so that the "men can have their child support payments reduced" is what, exactly? Or is that just a baseless smear?

A quote direct from their website (and with my emphasis):
"Families Need Fathers (FNF) is a registered charity providing information and support on shared parenting issues arising from family breakdown, and support to divorced and separated parents, irrespective of gender or marital status. Our primary concern is the maintenance of the child?s relationship with both parents. Founded in 1974, FNF helps thousands of parents every year."

So, again, the evidence for your assertion that FNF is "anti-mothers" is what, exactly?

Apologies for mixing up FNF with F4J!

They may have begun as a fathers' rights organisation in 1974, but things move on over time, and the focus has changed.

but a name means little...we're mumsnet,not everyone here is a mum tho! but we treat the same

So because they've got "Fathers" in their name then they are automatically "anti-mothers". Of course. That makes perfect sense.

No, wait, no it doesn't.

One of the central themes of what FNF tries to do is to show that deciding on residency/contact shouldn't be seen as a "pro one sex, anti the other sex" thing. Instead, they promote compromise, discussion, and working together wherever possible. What's important is the child, not seeing it as one sex winning over the other.

I would recommend reading, with a neutral eye, what they actually say rather than jumping to conclusions. And comparing FNF to the BNP is beneath you, Dittany.

"There should be a presumption of shared residence and this should be the starting point when parents separate."

Dittany, when you see the phrase "shared residency", what does that mean to you?

Given that in the majority of households both parents work full time, please explain on what you base the assertion 'most mothers in this country are primary carers', and if it is not simply how many hours spent with the children, what, when people parent as couples, are you using to define which one of them is the 'primary carer'?

I have a good rule of thumb...

If a DC is sick, who takes the day off work to care for them?

Its depended on what job DH has been doing.

Working with one company, he'd always take the day off as I tend to have meetings / more pressing deadlines.

Working with another company, I would take the time off, as he was working up and down the country so often not in the city if she were ill.

Now, he's out of work, so he does any sick days.