Can we DO something about the awful system in this country WRT courts and access to children after divorce?

[BertieBotts]

I've heard one too many awful story now. Why the hell are we letting children down, forcing access with abusive ex partners, even when the children don't want it, making it difficult to gain supervised contact when supervised has already been given, forcing the resident parent (mainly mothers) to make their children available for contact, getting their hopes up and doing NOTHING when the NRP breaks that same contact order by not turning up for weeks on end, causing considerable distress to the children involved. NRPs being allowed to refuse to bring children home if they are repeatedly showing prolonged distress at being away from their main carer. It being extremely difficult to reduce contact or restart it off slowly, regardless of the age of the child, even if the parent has good reason to want to do this.

I understand there are bitter ex-partners who will try to deny their ex access to the children because of personal differences or spats, but seriously? Are there that many that we need a court system which immediately assumes all resident parents are conniving and bitter and all NRPs are loving and involved? Or is this just another fucking media frenzy like how common so-called "false rape accusations" are?

Whilst there are clearly many issues that are important, and should be looked at here, I think that it's entirely unfair to blame men for not being able to carry/give birth to children. I can't be alone in thinking that it was actually a privilege to do this. And I'm equally sure that my DH would have been happy to do this had he been able to.

We can't deny that up until the point where a baby is born and no longer physically dependent on the mother the father's input in no way comes anywhere near the mother's. It just doesn't.

That doesn't mean men can't play an equal role (or even a more involved one). Over time things can change and a father may eventually reach the point where he has had more input than the mother. In this case he would be the primary parent and the one who should get residency post separation.

It's not that common though is it. SAHDs and male LPs are overwhelmingly in the minority.

I see painfully little evidence of men-as-a-group fighting as hard for the responsibilities side of things (e.g. paternity leave, flexible working) as much as the rights side of it (e.g. access). Meanwhile the vast majority of NRPs (mostly male) are still not paying maintenance. The balance between rights and responsibilities is very unbalanced.

And all the above applies to non-abusive parents (unless you count non-payment of maintenance as abuse, which I do apart from in exceptional circumstances). Add abuse into this already unequal balance and I'm afraid it looks even worse.

A male, abusive NPR is not only starting from the point where his input is inferior to the mother's but he also has the additional fact that his involvement could be actively harmful.

I think my own solution is the best that could be hoped for. My DC see their father about once every 6 weeks for a few hours under supervision (partly by my design and partly by his own choice). They know who he is and have a relationship with him but he has no opportunity to damage or negatively influence them in any way. I think ALL contact with fathers who are abusive should be supervised as standard and should continue to be so until the abuser is prepared to sit and pass a psychological examination aimed at deciding whether abusers have changed (most don't) as well as attending an approved parenting class. For anyone who thinks this is unfair on men, I think the same should apply in the rare cases where the genders are reversed. It's primarily about protecting children, not playing gender politics.

As someone mentioned earlier, I really want to know how the state (SS) can remove children from the home if they witness DV by the father against the mother, but if she does get him to leave, make (courts) that same mother send her children off to spend unsupervised time with him.

You don't need great expertise in the study of domestic violence to see that removing the target of the abuser's aggression doesn't magically cause the abuser to become an even-tempered, calm individual. And yet the courts routinely grant contact to these men.

The point about consequences for regularly missing scheduled contact is very good as well. I'm sure that there are mothers who try to obstruct contact. I remember the case of a mother having custody removed from her for persistently blocking access. There are also fathers who are granted contact and let the children down. If the focus is on the child's rights, it should deal with both issues.

My ex doesn't pay any maintenance is that abuse?

It would make her struggle financially if I insisted on it.

There are few excuses acceptable for not paying for the upkeep of a child, but should the child pay further with no relationship?

Refusal to pay a reasonable amount for maintenance is akin to saying "I don't care enough about you to help ensure you can be fed and clothed". How would anyone benefit from a relationship with someone who demonstrates such little interest or understanding?

That doesn't mean I think a lack of maintenance should in all cases mean a complete lack of contact, there are always exceptional circumstances such as Truckrelented's. I do fully believe that a NRP who refuses to pay (note refuses, not is incapable of paying, or doesn't pay what the RP thinks they should) who also only has sporadic contact through their own choice doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, or repeated chances.

All enforced contact which is picked up and dropped on the NRPs whim does is teach the child that they are not worthy of the love and respect of their parent and that the court values the parents wants above the child's needs, so that children are lesser people.

I do agree that it's abuse, but I think a child loses out by not knowing their parents. There are plenty of lazy feckless parents that don't provide for their children either and rely on the state and whilst the state makes up financially for the parent not providing then parents can afford to not pay. Besides I think not having access is pretty shit for a child, emotional rollercoaster of not showing up, however, and I think it's best for the child to sever ties.

Lots of parents are 'fun time' parents, irresponsible (I just spent the week with one in Cornwall) but that doesn't mean the child gains nothing from being with him, even though he does not deserve a minute with her.

Pious, the child doesn't need to know that they don't pay,.

"Children don't need fathers. They need good fathers. Abusers are simply not good fathers."

Fair enough. As long as the same standards apply to mothers (and I'm thinking here of the significant number of women posting on MN about how atrociously their own mothers have treated them) then I'd be right behind you.

STIDW you're talking utter shite.

Thank you. There is no need to be abusive. What about respect?

Ah, I see STIDW is a self-confessed "male feminist" or someone who "believes in equality


First of all I'm not male. Secondly I was born in the fifties when for many ordinary people of either gender class was oppressive rather than patriarchy. Thirdly, I went to university and work in a male dominated field where there plenty of opportunities for women who choose not to take them up. Fourthly, just in case it has been forgotten, the dictionary defines feminism as the "advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

I'm a women's liberationist. I don't give a fig for equality.

Like many ordinary women I rejected women's liberation in the early 70's because of the rage and hatred the movement preached and the denigration of other women eg SAHMs. Extremism begets extremism.

Especially when it's the type of "equality" that pretends having a shag is equal to pregnancy, CHILDBIRTH, and breastfeeding., Women RISK THEIR LIVES to bring a baby into the world. Men DO NOT risk their lives by having a shag.

The risk isn't that great, 8.2 deaths per 100k births in the UK. Fathers can make just as good parents as mothers and some fathers are better parents than some mothers.

misogyny and male entitlement are more than enough fuel for their hate movement.

Misandry and female entitlement fuel hate too. The rise of men's rights in the 70s was a backlash to the hate Women's Lib preached.

Meanwhile the vast majority of NRPs (mostly male) are still not paying maintenance.

Really, where did that come from? Recent CSA figure is 15% NRPs don't pay.

I've got to commend your restraint STIDW and your eloquent reply to a personal attack.

Who are you talking to SAF?

No doubt I'll be accused of reducing the thread to stats for this, but if my views are challenged and I'm asked to defend them, then I'm going to start citing causes - as most research is wont to do.

There are 2.5 million single parent families. 1.15 million of them use the CSA to settle maintenance. Of that 1.15 million, 861,700 of them pay. Of the 861,700 that are paying nearly half (47.3%) are only paying £5 per week regardless of how many children they have because they are on benefits.

Of the remaining 1.35 million single parent families, 60% have no maintenance arrangements according to the DWP.

causes should be sources of course

The sources are the CSAs own stats at the end of last year and a report from the Department for Work and Pensions, so not exactly feminist-biased.

Furthermore, more feminists tend to support SAHMs than don't these days. If your criticisms are based on feminism in the 70s you need to refresh your knowledge. It's a bit like complaining that mobile phones from 10 years ago didn't have web access.