Crikey it feels a bit like a war zone at the moment!

[msrisotto]

I'm talking about that silly MRA group. It was so nice that we got the "I believe you" campaign going, such a valuable campaign. I suppose what with mothers day coming up as well, it just proved too much for the misogynists! So sad.

Absolutely AbF, that is why I pointed out above that the stats for "non resident male perpetrators to female victim" were the biggest risk group here. I think F4J would do better to point that out then pretend there is no gender imbalance.

And, please don't think I'm not sympathetic to your plight. I cannot think of anything worse than not seeing your kids.

The truth is, we all approach the wider argument colored by our own personal experiences. That's why when a woman on MN says she has been assaulted I believe her instantly, whilst remaining sceptical about men who cry "false allegation of rape". That may be wrong but it is because I have been the victim of male entitlement and have never falsely accused anyone of rape. It is the same for you but in reverse. We're both good people so shouldn't feel the need to justify ourselves.

Anecdotal and statistical evidence is, at the end of the day, not what we should be arguing about because even if a minority of men are responsible for a disproportionate amount of abuse, that shouldn't affect the majority of fathers who love their children.

Must go to bed now, we can continue to plan overhaul of family law tomorrow!

Frequently? But biological fathers are not the highest risk group. In fact by separating children from their biological father you are more than doubling their risk of being sexually abused.

"Contrary to other types of abuse, research suggests that a far greater number of child sexual abuse offences are perpetrated by adults who are not in a caregiver role (ABS, 2005; US DHHS, 2005). Findings from the ABS Personal Safety Survey (2005) indicated that for participants who had experienced sexual abuse before the age of 15, only 13.5% identified that the abuse came from their father/stepfather, 30.2% was perpetrated by other male relative, 16.9% by family friend, 15.6% by acquaintance/neighbour and 15.3% by other known person (ABS, 2005)."

This myth of the biological father as an abuser of children has served to alienate us from our children in the Family courts as we are now falsely viewed as a danger to the children. Removing a father from a childs life puts them at a far greater risk of sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse and poverty.

The judges and legal profession know that they are not acting in the best interests of children.

This myth of the biological father as an abuser of children

That is an extremely offensive thing to say to all the women on this thread who were abused by their biological fathers. It may not have been your intention but you are effectively calling them liars.

And it is offensive that all men are labelled potential abusers by the courts and social services.

But because you are offended I will re-word it.

The belief then that fathers are one of the leading perpetrators of child abuse is false

Stewie do you care to give me some reliable research then that points to biological fathers as one of the main perpetrators of child sexual abuse?

You still do not realise it is a myth.....

The use of the word myth is offensive. A myth is a story, none of which is true. Unless you have evidence that no man has sexually abused their child, please stop using it.

Instead of arguing which group is the biggest potential abuser here why don't we just identify ways to make family law as fair for everyone involved as possible?

AbF - how would you change the law, if you could? Would you advocate an automatic 50/50 split? How do you think the law should handle allegations of abuse? How do you ensure continuity between the child and main caregiver and how would you rectify unequal earning power in the case of a divorce?

I'm genuinely interested in your answers.

The NSPCC survey contains figures about child sexual abuse.

I don't think that it is right to cherry pick stats from a report and not read the actual report or look at its conclusions.

The family courts do not work from a starting point that men are likely to sexually abuse their children, I am not sure where that has come from.

50/50 only where it can be shown to work.

Abuse allegations should be handled more vigorously. Any allegations found to be false should be treated as perjury and the solicitors for both parties should make it clear from the start that they would not advise the client to go down that route.

As for the financial settlement I have not even got to that part yet. I am waiting to find out what delights the law holds for me there.

My wife makes twice what I do but I am happy to walk away with a clean break and pay maintenance towards the children. She has kept the house, car and furnishings. I will ask nothing further from her. I have a chance to start again.

Thanks AbF. Ok...

"50/50 only where it can be shown to work." I agree with the principle. Would you apply this only to cases where 50/50 happens during the marriage or to all marriages regardless of the division of childcare prior to divorce?

"Abuse allegations should be handled more vigorously. Any allegations found to be false should be treated as perjury and the solicitors for both parties should make it clear from the start that they would not advise the client to go down that route."

You would advise a resident parent NOT to file a claim of abuse? If abuse has happened would that not be harmful to the child?

Also, as allegations of abuse, like rape are hard to prove, an absence of "proven guilty" doesn't mean that the allegation was false. If the resident parent simply withdrew the allegation for fear of violence, what should happen there, IYO?

"My wife makes twice what I do "
Not to take away from your personal experience, but as we are talking in generalities, do you recognise that your experience is unusual? All evidence indicates that women suffer financially from divorce, especially in cases where they have put their career on hold to bring up their children . What would you do to rectify that?

Wait a sec...

"I was told I would need to go for a court appointed psychiatric assessment and that I would need to continue supervised access with my children. This was the 4th hearing."

So you had contact, and the prospect of being granted more contact... and you decided you couldn't be bothered and walked away?

And you're blaming the courts for this?

Yes I blame the courts.

I had supervised access only.

Despite having no convictions, cautions or dealings with social services I was being told that I would have to undergo a court approved psychiatric assessment to prove I was not mentally ill.

This was despite having provided a letter from my GP and a psychiatric assessment that I went out and obtained from an approved psychiatric consultancy.

I was facing another year - 2 years of court hearings and at the time it appeared that the law gave me no rights at all. The wife and her solicitors could just continue to frustrate me at each turn and deny me access.

If I did achieve unsupervised contact (which is still barely enough) I realised that my wife would just then up and leave the UK (her family are all in France).

It made no sense to prolong the suffering of the children who would only see me at contact centres and so I left them in peace.

It is court sanctioned child abuse but the situation now stands that if I go and see my children, my wife will call the police and have me arrested (her solicitors have already sent me documentation stating this).

Absent father,

Supervised access is usually only an interim measure while the courts investigate.

It must be humiliating if you have done nothing wrong but I don't understand why you didn't stick at it for the sake of the kids. Even in a contact centre, they would have grown up knowing you and, if the psych report cleared you, it would have progressed.

Absent father

1. Supervised contact is seen as a 'temporary' measure.
2. Courts rarely order a psychiatric assesment and certainly don't unless there are good grounds as they are very expensive.
3. You would obtain a prohibitive steps order to prevent the children being taken out of the country.
4. If the psych report was ok then you would certainly have got unsupervised and wouldn't have been waiting another 2 years
5. FACT even in cases of proven child abuse the abuser invariably gets direct contact beit supervised.

There are too many holes in your story