Really? we think that "that organisation" are representative of fathers in general? really?

[NormaStanleyFletcher]

"They are already telling us that F4J (and by association every dad in the land) are bullying and intimidating them in this latest campaign, a stance that completely ignores the decades of intimidation that has been suffered by fathers at the hands of women?s organistions and which attempts to control the space around the campaign..."

Do they think we are as mad and misguided as them?

Intimidation by women's organisations?

From http://karenwoodall.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/on-the-tyranny-of-the-weak-a-mothers-day-musing/

Who is this handmaden person?

I'm sorry you feel that comment was uncalled for, LineRunner, but I was enraged by sAf's comment that my DS isn't fussed. He is very, very fussed.

Most parents after a split divide contact between them in a way that works for them so in general things work very well and it is best not to forget that. Most adults love their children and make arrangements which are a compromise on both sides and work okay.

The difficult comes when that isn't possible and then most people know the court system isn't the best way so try mediation and discussion as OldL says and often that works fine. The difficult cases are where the courts are asked to decide, where mothers denying contact are rarely jailed and the longer a child is used not to seeing the other parent the less likely they will get meaningful time with it and in worst case will even have forgotten how to speak the language of the non resident parent. In other words there is a reward for disobeying any court order and virtually no sanction aganist those who withhold contact.

Those who want the absent parent to have more contact (I have my children 365 days a year and would be happy with 50/50) do not even have a legal right to go to court over that and of course that is because most people accept that you cannot force a mother or father to be with a child if they choose not to which is equally a difficult issue and infact more often the problem - men have bred and fled since they started populating the planet. However even though the latter is a problem that does not mean those of us who are feminist or indeed just want what is right for children cannot support F4J and men whose ex wives deny them meaningful contact.

I suspect theb est routes if you are denied it are to try to think of a way to make it in the mother's interest that you see the child. So if the child really wants you or some other basis then it's easier. If you can be nice about it. Some men also want total contact all or nothing as a matter of principle and some have to be banned by the courts because they just cannot accept a compromise of less than they want. Not all of course by any means.
Some need to think about ways to keep everyone happy too as you have your children for many more years once they are 18 than before and you need to play a long game in terms of relationships. Also there are things they can do which may be hard work but worth doing like giong to parents' evenigs at school even if it means arranging to go on a different day from the mother, with the school, sports days, driving them to sports matches, skype, facebook and the multitude of contacts that are possible. It's awful to say it too but many older children will be around if there is something nice in it for them ./ I don't delude myself that all 5 come on holiday at Christmas because of my lovely personality but because they get a luxury ski holiday. if I offered a wet weekend in wales in a tent I might not find so many takers thus if men and women can earn a lot more they might even find their contact hours are higher perversely. In other words think laterally. Make the difficult parent want that you can offer her or him, consider their psychology. Bide your time. At 13 chidlren can decide with whom to live on the whole which is not that old. I know someone who waited until the youngest was 13 to divorce and the children chose to live with him, not the mother and her new man.

I agree the system needs to be speeded up.

That's the essential problem with it.

Having a 50 50 assumption is inappropriate and doesn't solve the problem of your ds, which is the speed of the system OLKN.

Also why are you saying that you were worried about suicide? Was your son threatening it? Because without wishing to be unsympathetic, tbh htere's no way I'd allow any child to be looked after by someone so emotionally unstable that they would consider suicide. I might feel compassion and want to get him or her help, but my first priority is htat they didn't have care of vulnerable children.

No, Basil, he did not threaten suicide, he never even mentioned it. But I am his mother, he is a young man, he was very, very distressed and angry and I know that sometimes young men turn such distress on themselves, so I worried. He believed, for a short time, that he might never see his child again, how would that make you feel?

His ex broke her hand when she punched a wall in a drunken rage at New Year. (DGS was not in the house.) Should I be concerned that she should not have care of a vulnerable child?

An automatic assumption of 50/50 would have meant that he would not have had the fear that she really could stop him ever seeing his DS again. As the system stands, she really can, because even with a court order she can simply withold contact if she chooses and there's not a damn thing can be done about it.

Yes but as said before, hard cases make bad law. An automatic 50 50 assumption would solve your DS's problems, but it would cause enormous problems for a much greater number of parents and children and from a philosophical basis, it is not an assumption which puts the needs of the child first. I simply think that putting the needs of the child first, is a good principle and I really don't understand how anyone could think anything else is preferable.

it wouldn't solve his problems - he'd be in the same boat of needing to go to court and sort things out.

A 50/50 startpoint assumes that both parents are equally important to their child. In my ds's case, that would be true, there are no allegations of domestic abuse from either party, and each is an equally good parent, equally interested and involved. In other cases one parent or the other is not equally involved or interested, and the court order would reflect that.

I don't think any system could be perfect, because we are human and fallible and emotions run high. Some parents treat their dc as possessions and weapons and don't put their well-being first and foremost. But the system we have at the moment is failing all sorts of dc in all sorts of situations, so it needs to be at least looked at. It may be that 50/50 is not the right way to go, but at the very least it should be seriously examined.

Anyway, have to go out to work now. May be back later.

No, a 50 50 startpoint is a blanket rule which fails to put the welfare of the child first.

The startpoint now, is that the stability and continuity of care, is in the best interests of the child and that the best interests of the child should be prioritised.

I think that is the best principle to approach parenting and break ups.

But I do think court procedures should be speeded up, so that the continuity can't be broken as it has been in the case of yoru DS OLKN.

Well, at least we can agree on that. :)

50/50 is a fair starting point which works well in many countries. We will move to that and actually at the moment with most contact agreed between couples many of whom both work full time that is becoming a de facto arrangement.
Speeding up of procedures would be very helpful. If the welfare of the child comes first (which most of us agree over) and a child has been wrongly denied all contact with a father (or mother) for say 6 months it is hard to say massively altering what is its status quo is going to be good for it. If as soon as the mother stops the first week's contact she has a visit from CSA, emails, contact from volunteers and an email saying the cout officer will be there on the following Saturday 15 minutes before the contact time to ensure the child is handed over or some sort of system like that then she might realise being exactly on time (and that applies on both sides) is important. Similaryl if the man misses a time or is 15 mins late perhaps after 3 late or missed times he loses contact foer 4 weeks entirely or perhaps pays a financial penalty that side of compliance might be aided.

To ensure those of us like I am who pay heaps of tax are not penalised by all this the person breaching the agreement should also pay a fine to the state for being late or missing their time or not making the child available. Hit them in the pocket where it hurts. If the mother has no money to pay make her do 2 hours of litter picking on the local common.

so if he doesn't bother to turn up he doesn't have to turn up for four weeks? that sounds fair on the mum doesn't it?

basically just the same old story of men get to be feckless and not turn up but if a woman dares to deny contact she's in the shit.

we need leverage for making people take more responsibility not have yet more rights.

litter picking on the local common.... hmm. why not just put her in the stocks and let people throw rotten tomatoes.

it still totally ignores the fact that the vast majority of women who stop contact will be doing so for the child's own safety and wellbeing. so there can't be blanket actions or it will mean endangering women and children.

I really really do disagree that the vast majority of women who stop contact do it for the child's wellebing and safety. I would estimate it was something like 20% believe they do it for that reason and many are delluded and may be 5% of cases their genuinely is a problem with the man. I have known far far too many very good men who are denied contact to believe most women who deny contact are doing it for the sake of the children.

We certainly need real penalities on both parents if they do not do as they are obliged to do as the current system rewards those who fail to abide by what is agreed.

so you think domestic violence, child abuse, drug addiction, personality disorders etc etc are really, really rare then xenia?

i think that given most people have at least some part of them that is selfish and wants an easy life and given how hard it is to have children 24/7 52 weeks a year and how wonderful it is to have some regular time off very few women would forgo that without good reason.

where do you get your figures from xenia?
50 50 is only "fair" if you think of children as possessions to be shared, not people. it is really tough, but fairness to adults have no place in decisions about children. many of the problems about contact etc are because adults can't cope with putting their child's welfare about what's fair to them. time for us all to grow up.

i can only imagine how miserable my son would be being shipped back and forth between two homes every few days. let alone if he was expected to do that based around his father's shift patterns rather than what worked for the child and their life.

most people who have been through arrangements like that as a child do not speak well of it.

it has to be about the children imo.

above what.s fair to them
wretched phone

Christ, if my X was a halfway decent parent, I'd be more than happy to share the DC 50/50. I'd practically kill for some more time off.

I wouldn't care if he fed them McDonald's twice a week, let them stay up too late or play computer games for too long (well I would, but that wouldn't stop me letting them go there). I might just have a slight problem with the fact that he's an abuser though.

Bearing in mind that something like 1/3 of single parents have experienced DV and that only about 1 in 10 victims of DV report it to the police, I'd say the figure of parents denying access for good reasons is much higher than 20% Xenia and that's just for abuse - let alone other good reasons for denying access that have nothing to do with abuse.

Then we have the low level alcohol/substance abusers. Maybe not enough for a full-scale breakdown of their life or to attract agency involvement, but enough for a mother to be legitimately concerned that the child may come to harm.

Then, we have relationship where the mother has done all the childcare (e.g. bathing, dressing, feeding, HCP appointment, school requirements/level/communication, etc) she may have genuine concerns that the father won't know what to do. This doesn't mean the father should be denied the opportunity to learn nor that he's incapable of handling this perfectly well, but if he couldn't do all these things when the parents were together, why would the mother have any faith that he'll take it any more seriously now they are apart?

I do think that some mothers deny access unfairly but with good intentions - i.e. they believe that they are acting in the best interests of the child even though they might not be. For example, if a couple split because the father hasn't changed his lifestyle to accommodate for having a child.

Examples of this might be still going out with the lads every friday night and so missing half the weekend with his child because he's hungover. Or spending his leisure time playing on the computer/playing golf to the detriment of interacting with his child. Or when mum goes out and it's his turn to look after the child, ropes in his own mother's help rather than be solely responsible. I can totally understand why a mother would deny contact under these circumstances. If the behaviour is enough for the woman to refuse to tolerate (thus ending the relationship) why would she consider her child has to tolerate more? I'm not saying she's right BTW, but I understand it, and quite frankly if the irresponsible behaviour of the father is the cause of this, I'd say the onus should be on him to explain why that won't apply to his post-separation parenting. Mediation can help a lot with this of course.

then there's little things like knowing your ex is living in a shared house with drug dealers and crack all over the place - can understand not wanting to send your child there.

or knowing that your ex gets pissed and drives the car with the kids in.

or your child balling their eyes out and begging you not to send them to daddy's house because they don't want to go and have good reasons for not wanting to.

there are so many things!

it's not just dv (and that's frequent enough in failed relationships).

i also think that where a father has done nothing for his child or has been long absent in his child's life a mother should have the right to undergo a gradual testing of their competence and earning of her, and her child/rens trust. re: supervised contact which if done well and kept committed to leads to half days which if well executed and committed to leads to an overnight etc etc.

currently he goes to court and the court says yep he can have every other weekend and an overnight and she's expected to just hand over her child that weekend to a man it hasn't seen for years or who has never done a thing for the child. that must be terrifying.

So you do agree that the system needs an overhaul?

i never said it didn't - though i agree it needs to stay with children's interests at the centre.

i definitely think there is room for improvement - currently domestic abusers and all sorts are given access because everyone is falling over themselves not to offend the father's rights brigade. that needs to stop and women certainly need to stop being criminalised for not sending their child to a child abuser for unsupervised contact.