AIBU to be a Feminist and support Fathers' rights?

[messyisthenewtidy]

Putting aside all the acrimony of this weekend, of the hurtful accusations that have flown back and forth regarding false allegations/ likelihood of child abuse, etc, etc....

It seems to me that, as feminists who believe that men should be sharing in childcare and housework and are raising our sons to be egalitarian husbands, that we should support an automatic 50/50 split of custody for their benefit and in the interests of equality (except in cases of DV and child abuse).

So I wanted to know how many here believe in that principle of automatic shared custody (but are just put off by FNJ's aggressive tactics and MRA's constant painting of women as false accusers)?

PS. so NOT a troll, been here for yonks , am just trying to sort this out in my head..

I think that children have a right to a relationship with both parents (assuming there is no abuse involved). I think that there are plenty of men around who fail to maintain contact or support their children. I also think there are a fair few women who behave badly towards the fathers of their children. Neither position is admirable.
I think 50-50 care is difficult to achieve and not necessary for good relationships. There should be a greater recognition of the sacrifices involved in seperated parents parenting together. Why do so many parents move large distances following splits? Is it really essential? Why can't parents talk more amicably together about arrangements? I have friends who frequently lose their access weekend with the child because the child's mother decides she will do something else with him. That isn't good for anybody. I have another friend whose ex's new partner insisted the children must have an entirely new wardrobe of clothes for a holiday and having bought them those clothes must stay at their house and could not be returned to the mother's home. I have another friend who was left with 4 young children. Her ex would only ever take one child out for an access visit at a time.
Men and women can both behave badly over this issue.

I'm not in favour of automatic 50/50. What I notice in all the talk about splitting up is that the word 'rights' gets used a lot and 'responsibiilities' not so much. My belief is that once you have children they get the rights and the parents have the responsibilities.

On a side issue, I'm not really sure I know what half these fathers rights groups want, questions keep being asked but no answers seem to be forthcoming

Firstly, I will lay my cards on the table. I am a member of Fathers 4 Justice.

I thought I would share my thoughts and story in relation to this thread.

I split up from my wife after she had an affair. From the very start I stated that I wanted to have a continuous and long lasting relationship. However, my ex wife did not want this to occur and I was forced to persue a relationship with my children through the courts system. My ex wanted me to see them 2 nights a fortnight, I wanted 7. Clearly we were not going to agree.

Relunctantly, I accepted the initial order of 2 nights which ensured that I could see my children and they could see me. My children were clearly not happy with this relationship and my daughter developed some psychological issues. to which therapy was sought. Finally, the psychologist suggested that my daughter needs to spend more time with her father (myself) and my ex wife agreed. My daughter spent 50% of her time with me. However, I was still deemed unsuitable to see my son more than 2 nights a week. After months and thousands of pounds this issue was resolved and I now see both my children half the time and they are both happy well rounded children (although I am biased).

All throughout out this I was issued with court orders that claimed all sorts of things from domestic violence to the fact that I never wash the childrens bedding. I was arrested for domestic violence and charged and later had all charges thrown out of court. The main reason it was thrown out was because the time I was supposed to have assaulted my ex, I was at a work christmas function with approximately 50 witnesses.

It is for these reasons that I believe in a 50/50 law. Obviously we must do what is best for the children, fathers rights and mothers rights are insignificant when it comes to childrens rights. There are times when the father should have more contact than the 50% and times they should have less but we have to start somewhere and what better starting point that right in the middle.

Hawkesy8 - Given recent events I'm afraid I can't help but be suspicious of anyone belonging to F4J who posts on here, but I feel like I should acknowledge that you have come on here with what appears to be a conciliatory tone compared to most of your fellow members. It makes a refreshing change and at least you have presented a logical argument for why you feel as you do. But out of interest, what do you feel about F4J right now? After their current campaign against MN and M&S. I'm not asking what you feel about men's rights, just what you feel about the organisation you belong to. Why did you choose F4J?

I want to look at several things arising from what you've said in your post, but first of all I will say that for the sake of this discussion, I will take your post completely at face value although several points in it could be a matter of interpretation rather than fact.

What reason do you think your XW had for wanting to deny you access? Did you ask her? What did she reply? Do you think you have learned anything from this that could be useful for other families going through a similar situation?

Why the disparity between contact for your son and daughter? What was the reason given in court?

Do you accept the fact that false allegations of abuse are actually rare? I'm not trying to deny or diminish your experience of being on the receiving end of one of those false allegations, but do you recognise that in most cases when a woman claims abuse she's actually telling the truth?

Do you also accept that given the link between DV and child abuse, abuse is a significant welfare issue for the children of separated parents where abuse has been a feature. The F4J stance is that someone can be a bad partner but a good dad (which I actually agree with to a large extent), but how do you apply it to abusers? The NSPCC and police consider DV a huge marker for a child being at risk. DV is present in the family dynamic of 75% of child abuse cases. This should immediately question whether 50/50 contact is appropriate or even whether any unsupervised contact is appropriate. Given the rates of DV generally in the population, that is immediately going to affect the proportion of couples for whom 50/50 is the natural starting point.

Do you accept that the appropriateness of 50/50 will vary for individual families, but that quite often it is thought to be unsettling and impractical? Do you accept that it is inappropriate when there is significant discord between the parents because of the effect on the child when it comes to matters such as clothing, possessions, school, health care, etc?

Do you think that 50/50 may be better as something to work towards rather than the starting point so that children have time to adjust to the relationship breakdown before the amount of time they spend with each parent is significantly altered? One of the main reasons judges's tend to award a much higher proportion of care to the mother is because she's the one who's done that up until the split; in which case it is natural that the children would rely on her more. Taking a child away from her could be considered cruel to the child. The younger the child, the more this applies. As children become older, their needs and relationships change, and a different ratio between parents may be necessary. I have no problem with that at all, but I remain dubious that 50/50 is in the best interests of a young child who has primarily been cared for by his/her mother.

In your case it appears that 50/50 was eventually the right outcome. Sometimes it is. There's a regular male poster on here who has 50/50 residency with his X and it works very well for them - but then they had a similar set up before they separated and they have what appears to be a very mutually respectful co-parenting relationship where each values the other's input and puts the child's needs first.

Do you think that F4J should be fighting for increased paternity rights and encouraging men to go for flexible working patterns? Bearing in mind that fathers who are a lot more hands-on before the separation are much more likely under the current set-up to receive 50/50 care arrangements.

What do you think about fathers who refuse to pay maintenance? Bearing in mind that 60% of lone parents who do not use the CSA receive nothing, while of those who do receive payments through the CSA 46% will receive either £5 or £0 a week. Child poverty is a big issue in the UK and it has quite a lot to do with maintenance. Isn't this as pressing an issue - if not more so given the numbers involved - than fathers denied contact? Which isn't to say that the latter is an unimportant issue of course.

What do you think about fathers who mess about with contact?

I await your replies with interest.

50/50 is the ideal if that is what the children are happiest with Hawkesy8.

But many children would not be happy with that arrangement, and their wishes must be respected as much (if not more) than their parents'. It may be that the children would be happier with the care split being in favour of their father in terms of time spent - if the father is their primary carer and they are happier with him for a greater part of the time. Or (like myself and my sister) they prefer to spend more time living with their mother, in which case that should be recognised by the courts.

And of course, factors like their relationship with new partners of their parents is something else that should be considered. My sister couldn't stand my dad's new wife and in the end, it is largely that dislike that caused her to have emotional problems when she was forced to stay with him, even for a short time. Luckily, my dad is a kindly man who had my sister's best interests at heart and he sacrificed his own wishes so that she would be happy.

I don't think any arrangement should be made a default as every case is different. Family courts should keep an open mind and should pay closest attention to what the children want and make their decisions accordingly.

It might interest you to know that in the case of my stepfather and my step-siblings, he was given interim custody of them. One day, their mother didn't bring them home after they had stayed their usual weekend with her. My step-father was willing to let them stay with their mother as he thought that would be better than having a court battle over the issue and he had no reason to believe they weren't happy living with their mum. He was very willing to pay the necessary money for their needs. Then, a week or so later, one of my stepsisters gave a note to my sister (they were at the same school) to give to my step-dad saying "Daddy, please take us home."
My step dad took his children's mother to court for breaking the interim order and the judge ruled the children should return to him until such a time as a full custody case was heard. My step-siblings came back to their dad's home and they were clearly happy and relieved to do so (I remember it well). So it does work both ways.

Did you undertake 50-50 care before the split Hawkesy?

Great post sunshine. I'm genuinely interested in your answers Hawkesy. Sunshine always has a lot of sensible things to say on this subject.

I think that where appropriate 50/50 is great, but not necessarily superior to any other arrangement. However, I don't think 50/50 can be applied to many cases, probably the majority of current cases. I would have hated it as a child (with a very involved father) should my parents have separated, and it certainly wouldn't be appropriate in the case of my own children. I agree with other posters that calls for 50/50 and insistences that children "aren't possessions for the mother to keep" in fact remind me very much of splitting the possessions of a relationship down the middle, and say nothing of the rights of the children, or the responsibilities of the parents. I don't think there should be any "starting point", each case needs to be assessed on its own merits.

I think there needs to be far more emphasis from fathers' groups about the importance of fathers who are still in a relationship with their children's mother. They need to campaign for fathers to take their paternity and parental leave entitlements, to apply for part-time/flexible working, to do their fair share of work within the home. They need to lobby the government to increase fathers' leave and accompanying pay entitlements and to narrow the pay gap so that couples have a genuine choice about which of them, if any, should give up work, if they can go part time etc. We need better childcare provisions so that if both parents want to work they can. Fathers need to be equal at all stages, not just after relationship breakdown.

Do F4J believe it is to the detriment of a child to be primarily looked after by one parent?

Why do fathers 4 justice not consider targeting the parents that play no role in their child's life whatsoever, through their own choice? I mean, considering you keep going on about children having the right to have both parents in their life, why not target absent parents who choose to be that?

My DS dad sees DS at least twice a week, it's flexible depending on what each parent is doing and also depending on anything DS particularly wants to do. It all works fine. One of the biggest reasons it all works fine, without court intervention or anything is that while DS dad and I have no couple-relationship, neither of us is a fuckwit.

IN the vast majority of cases where there is a custody dispute and the man feels aggrieved, he could have stopped the situation getting out of hand by not being a fuckwit in the first place, and could help resolve it by stopping his fuckwittery now. Eg, treating his XW with respect, putting his DC's needs ahead of his own, being reliable, not being verbally abusive or aggressive, not acting as though his XW's life is any of his business.

Isn't it interesting that unlike F4J, when we get visitors from the other side, we don't chase them away, tell them their opinions aren't wanted, aren't needed, aren't relevant. We engage them in discussion to try and further understand where they are coming from. This happened on the MN fb page too.

Just felt the need to point that out :)

I agree with that SGB, my ex felt he had the right to pry in to my life after we no longer were together, and he frequently threatened to call social services about me because I was an ''unfit mother'', he threatened to go for full custody every time we had a disagreement about anything.

Great post Sunshine, I look forward to finally seeing some answers.

Just for the record, Belgium too has a 50/50 split custody for children of divorced parents, legally enforced and it seems only fair that both parents should have to shoulder the everyday caring for their kids since they both chose to bring the children into the world in the first place. To my mind, 50/50 split custody = 50/50 joint responsibility. Of course, it works more easily in a small country where everyone lives more closely together and childcare facilities are subsidized by the government. The kids appear to feel secure and think of it as having 2 homes rather than the 1. Holidays are negotiated.

I think in principle it can only be a good thing for well-intentioned and caring fathers to have regular access to their children, whether that is from shared custody or any other suitable template. And I can't see how any feminist could take issue with that.

That doesn't mean a great deal though if (either party) are more concerned with their right than that of the children.

Mapleleef - how does that work wrt schooling is the assumption that parents stay living in close proximity? What happens if the children don't want 50/50 care?

The thought of an automatic right to 50% actually fills me with dread

DD1 father is the devil himself but sadly until he hurts her physically and this is proven (how can you really have evidence anyway?) the court would never prevent access. Luckily, right now anyway, he has no interest in her but the the thought of him just been given 50% access no questions asked... shiver

Dont have personal experience, but I have read a lot of adults who had 50/50 contact arrangements saying they hated it. Contact decisions should always be taken in the best interest of the child and not the father or the mother.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I mean adults who as children had divorced parents with 50/50 contact arrangements.

Yy Lesley. Was talking with DP about this last night, he would not have wanted 50/50, mostly as it would have meant living with his dad's new partner whom he loathed. His dad also lived about 30 miles away and lving with him would have meant a 100mile round trip for DP to college every day. I'm just not sure how workable or fair (to the children)that would be.

dollymixtures - the law allows the judges some discretion in deciding to go for a more unequal division with regards to accommodation of children but the judge has to explain why she/he has deviated from the default position of "equally divided alternative residence", e.g. if divorced parents live too far apart making it impossible for their child to attend same school during time with each parent. She/he has to take the interests of both children and parents into account.

The 2006 Belgian law doesn't speak of equal parenting or shared parenting but instead speaks of "equally divided alternative residence". The law addresses first the largest group of parents who mutually find common agreement on custody and care of their children. Secondly, it addresses those parents who cannot agree. Thirdly, it addresses how enforcement of court ordered residential and accommodation orders are to be made. In the first case, the courts accept the parents' decision. If the parents can't agree, then the judge must investigate and seriously consider possibility of ordering "equally divided etc". Effective enforcement is achieved by keeping the case 'active' on the court's roll.

But maple it starts from the needs of the parents imo and not from the needs of the children. So yes there can be variation, but the default position is, we think it would be fairer for the child to live in 2 houses equally.

If this genuinely works then fine. But as a child I would have hated physically moving between 2 homes for half of the week - especially as a teenager.

I haev always been a very pure feminist. I took two weeks annual leave to have the babies for political reasons. I would like the law to be 50/50 with each parent as I said on the other recent threads, after a divorce when there is a father - some people choose not to involve men in their families and some people are gay, particularly where both work full time as most proper feminist couples would anyway.

So if the law saw that as the starting point then it would make things fairer for fathers and also mothers as I am who work full time and have their children 365 days a year. Then of cousre in situations where the couples were happy to have a happy little housewife playing stepford wife they could maintain that dire status quo post divorce if they chose. The point is that virtually all contact is consensual and does not involve courts and that has been found to be much the best way. Most couples don't have courts deciding who has the chidlren when children are where. If you get to court you have failed on both sides usually.

Children of 13+ in practice and often in law can decide with whom they live too which is not always realised.

I know a lot of people with 50/50 who like it. I constantly come across men in that situation and it can work very well indeed.

Obviously I support Hawksey's position above. Any parent of whatever gender should not prevent contact with the other. I do think there are more fathers who choose to have no contact than those denied contact. That does not mean that the issue of not being allowed contact should be left unaddrsesed however. They are both very wrong. I would like F4J also to campaign to ensure men do their part, wash the bedding, supervise the homework, get up in the night with the child, clear up its sick and not just play around with it on an occasional basis when it suits them.

Also I think if either parent does not make the other available at exactly the time arranged three times they shoudl lose the child/their contact for the next session - we need some penalty for lateness. A lot of women find the man doesn't turn up if he's too tired or cannot be bothered and the children are all excited and then let down and it happens again and again.

They are very difficult issue. I do wonder why so many people have such sheep-like influenced children. I cannot understand why so many men seem to find it impossbile to contact the child. If the child has half a brain it can get on line at school or find a way to contact the person anyway and the father has a right to attend all the school sports matches, concerts, parents' evenings and the like. Yet so many men say they cannot arrange any contact at all apparently. I've never had a child who could be influenced by me. If I said you cannot contact your father which I'd never do they'd want to do the opposite.

particularly where both work full time as most proper feminist couples would anyway

Xenia, that is your opinion of what 'proper' feminism is, it may not be others