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..

Taking 2 weeks annual leave instead of maternity leave doesn't make you a "pure feminist" Xenia, it makes you a martyr.

I agree with SGM, true feminism is about supporting all women and recognising the worth of their unpaid work.

Wow what a response from "sunshineandbooks" - I don't know you well enough yet to call you sunshine like others have. However that response is nothing less than an emotivte subject like this deserves,

Why F4J? Well I saw them as the only group capable of generating enough public interest in order to change a sexist and archaic law. What's happening now? Well I see it as a fight that's got out of hand between 2 groups who both believe they are in the right and doing the right thing (where have we heard that before). I think both sides believe they are right and have the moral high ground. From F4J side, some of the comment were wrong and should not have happened. From MN side - this could quite easily have been stopped with a undertaking to moderate certain comments. From my person side _ i have been treated with respect here and long may that continue. If I am treated with respect then I return that. Don't we all but what came first - the chicken or the egg. Hence, I decided to post to show that people are capable of having an intelligent discussion from both sides of the argument. After all we're not in the House of Commons are we.

My XW's reasons were that she believed the children were better off with her and that I was not a suitable father to the children. This was based on assumptions though, rather than fact eg. she claimed I never washed the childrens bedding. Well how would she know that was a fact, the answer is she didn't. Personally I spent my time with the children and washed their bedding on my "off time".

The disparity was a personal matter (without the courts involvement). It was caused because a child psychologist recommended that my daughter needed to spend more time with me. She was actually very concerned for my daughters well being. I think she scared my XW so much that she submitted (I know how that word looks but I couldn't think of another appropriate word) to my daughters demands to spend more time with me. My son is laid back, he was quite happy to go wherever he was told to go. As long as I was still turning up, coaching his football team, kicking the ball with him etc. it didn't seen to bother him whether he spent 2 night or 14 nights with either of us.

There's a lot in your post that I am reluctant to comment on. I am a great believer in not arguing stats if you don't have the facts. I can only speak on my own experiences. eg. I really don't know how many cases of DV are genuine and how that leads to child abuse. I will take your word for it and finish with the comment. I think it goes without saying that I am anti both of these - who isn't?

The appropriateness of the 50/50 is not going to be correct for all families, I think that's obvious because as human beings we're all different. I believe I even said in my post that this figure would be dialed up/down as appropriate. However I felt the starting point for all discussions should be something that is not favouring either parent.

Both sets of parents who mess with orders without any decent reason should be punished to the full extent of the law up to and including prison. This is because children are not pawns, you cannot explain to a child why Daddy hasn't turned up or why they mummy isn't letting them see Daddy.

Child maintenance - I have 50% care and I still pay maintenance. it goes without saying that all parents should pay their way to support the innocent people in these arguments.

Have I missed anything? Please remind me if I have and I will try to reply. Please be patient as I am sure you can understand the children are with me this week so time is at a premium at the moment.

This is totally about the children. Of all my divorced friends there is no issue with the children having contact with their fathers - even when the father may have behaved like an ass/doesn't pay maintenance etc etc. The cases in question didn't even go to court, the parents have all behaved like rational grown ups working together in the childrens' best interest. I'm inclined to think that in the majority of cases where a court has decreed that a father is not allowed contact there must be very good reason and not, as some fathers rights groups claim, that in every case the mother is a liar. I do think however it is important for children to retain contact with both parents and a father should (apart from in extreme circumstances - child abuse etc) have contact with the kids even if it takes place under supervision.

As an aside my ex would certain not have wanted 50/50 custody! He never put in much effort with the children when we were married and he finds it has a bit of an impact on his social life when he does see them now, frequently cancelling at short notice. That aside I think it's important he retains contact. It totally depends on the relationship before the split just how much contact each parent has and as many posters have mentioned, what the children themselves feel most comfortable with. Getting them to "choose" how much time they spend between parents when they've already been through the emotional toil of break up equates, in my humble opinion, to child abuse.

I'm not going to reply to all of your post Hawkesy8 as it is far too long and addressed to sunshine. But your first point mentions "sexist and archaic law". It isn't archaic and there isn't a law. It is only relatively recently where power for what happens to the children after a split has been taken away from what the father wanted. Now that was archaic. I think the courts use guidelines and make judgements, but these aren't laws (maybe someone with more legal knowledge could confirm). As such they can be changed, amended and overturned without having to go through parliament.

Hawkesy thanks for engaging with us. I'm glad your kids are happy and that you're enjoying being a dad to them. Could I just ask you a few questions?

You say the kids are with you this week and you sound like you are at home with them. Can I ask what your work set up is and if your employers sympathetic to your family situation? What do you think employers can do to help both parents contribute to childcare?

And do you think such shared parenting should happen before breakup? (I'm assuming your wife the primary carer whilst you were married - correct me if I'm wrong)

Sorry about the machine gun fire of questions there! I'm just really interested in finding a workable solution

AbigailAdams: yes my post was addressed to "sunshine" but only really because hers was first and most detailed response to mine.

I certainly don't know enough about the "law" either, however I do know that I certainly felt that had my daughter not had her very scary psychological issues that I would still be fighting this one to this day. My lawyer told me from day 1 that the chances of me getting 50/50 care were negligible.

I also agree with suzy82 - that dependant on the age, asking a child to choose is very wrong.

It is interesting that you used that terminology though as your starting point. It isn't a law. Yet you seem to think it is.

If your solicitor told you that then presumably you didn't have 50/50 care before the split.

The principle of 50/50 shared custody is right. The practicalities of 50/50 shared custody are sometimes not in the best interests, and that's when both parties have to work together to find common ground on which they agree, i.e. the children live with me predominantly, you pick them up from school and they stay at yours for one or two nights during the week and we share custody during the school holidays, that kind of thing.

"messi" - sorry that name is too long to show full respect by typing it all out (actually I've typed more now).

My children are school age so it makes it easier. My employer is brilliant about it all and I cannot ask for anymore. I am supposed to work a 37.5 hour week but instead I work a 75 hour fortnight. This week I take the children to school, go to work (arriving late), leave early to pick up the children. I then work at home once they are in bed. The following week I get up early, go to work and come back late. I do a 25 hour week, followed by a 50 hour week. I am also allowed to work from home on certain days, which negates any commute time.

My employer ( large international bank) also has a childcare in the vicinity solely for employees. Not in the same building but 100m. My company make not differentation between the sexes. The lady who sits next to me is in a job share. 3 days one week, 3 days the next with another lady. Their younger children go to the company child care. More companies should allow Flexible Working Arrangements like this and in my industry (one that is public enemy number one at the moment) it does appear to be happening.

As for shared care - yes my ex did more of the parenting before our split. I would suggest it was a 60/40 once the children hit school age. It was less in my favour before school age. That said I was always a father who would leave work early to spend time with the children, bath them, have dinner with them etc. and then return to work after they were in bed.

With the general situation around that - I don't think you can make a blanket ruling that if it wasn't before then can't be after. Ours was an economic decision. Once the children were at school age, my ex wife returned to work. She used to run a restaurant. I would leave work early so as to play tag with her as she went to work and I took control of the children.

Mrs Archie - 100% agree.

Thanks for engaging Hawkesy and for taking the time to reply to my various points.

It's interesting to hear your reasons for joining F4J. I completely understand the desire to link with a group that you think is more likely to keep your cause in the public eye. I'd disagree with you about the effectiveness of that since I think F4J aren't particularly well received in the public eye as opposed to a more moderate group such as FnF for example, but that's a matter of opinion.

It sounds like you and your XW had major problems communicating. Why would she not just ask about the bedding and why would you not just tell her? That's a rhetorical question BTW - I'm not trying to pry into the intricacies of your marital breakdown. But I suspect that your experience is typical of the 10% of separating couples who do end up as far as court because they are unable to reach agreement. I'd like to see more done to work on improving communication between warring couples though, rather than the court taking the moral high ground and proscribing solutions, since parents who can communicate are going to be much better from a child's POV than an arrangement set out by a judge, however fair that arrangement may be.

F4J in general very much present 50/50 as a matter of fairness. You yourself say "I felt the starting point for all discussions should be something that is not favouring either parent." But what is fairness? Should we even be considering it from the parents POV? Fairness as defined from the child's POV may be something very different and may actually be completely unfair to one or other parent.

The reason women seem to find things biased in their favour is because what is best for the child is often inextricably tied up with the mother. This is because 9 times out of 10 it is the mother who is the primary carer. When a child is ill, falls over, experiencing bullying at school, etc they want the parent best able to comfort them. Usually that's mum - not because mum is a biologically superior parent but because mum is the one who has fulfilled this role to date. To remove that comfort blanket from a child at a point when it is most needed is potentially very damaging.

In your own family's case you give the example of your DD needing to spend more time with you. If you were the parent your DD needed to spend more time with than your DD, then perhaps it would have been better for your DD to have had a 70/30 relationship in your favour (though I hate that word as it presents residency as a competition). Whereas your DS may have been fine with 50/50 or preferred to spend more time with his mum. It depends on the relationship the child has with each parent, and in most cases the likelihood is that it will be with the mum for the reasons I gave in the paragraph above. Not always, but mostly. That's not a judgement about men's ability to parent, but a statement about what I think is best for the child. And it is purely due to the normal family set-up in the UK today where the mother is primary carer.

I maintain that the best way to get more men to have more contact or residency with their children post separation is to get more men involved in their child's care before the couple ever split. Otherwise we are putting fairness to the parents before what is best for the child. I just don't see how anyone can argue against that.

As a result, I believe that the correct starting point for any post-separation residency arrangement is a reflection of the caring ratio before the split, and I cannot take groups like F4J seriously until they show as strong a desire for men to parent their children before the split as they do afterwards.

I am not against a contact plan that seeks to increase contact for the non-resident parent over time, though, as family dynamics are fluid and should reflect the changing needs of the child. But you will never convince me that 50/50 is a suitable starting point for, say, a five-year-old who has been cared for by mum, taken to and from various health appointments by mum, had a high temperature nursed by mum, had immunisations while sat on mum's lap, been up half the night as a baby and shushed by mum, fallen down and been picked up by mum.

I'm afraid I can't let you off the hook regarding domestic violence as it's a topic that cannot be ignored when discussing contact arrangements. Given that Home Office stats put 25% of women as victims and that 40% of children will see their parents separate, it stands to reason that a proportion of separating parents have abuse as a feature of their relationships. It doesn't apply in the majority of cases but we do need to examine it.

If you look at the way the courts deal with this to date, you cannot possibly claim that it disadvantages men. Unless a child has been directly harmed or is likely to be harmed by a father, a judge still awards contact, and not always supervised, either. Only in extreme cases is a man denied contact completely. This is exactly as it should be. I do not know of any cases where a man has had contact denied where there hasn't been proof that he poses a threat to the child's welfare in some way. Yes, women can lie and make up all sorts of allegations, but unless there is proof it will not actually affect the outcome. I am sorry but men who claim that the court has denied contact when there is no good reason are not telling the truth. It may not be a good reason as far as they're concerned, but then I've never met an abuser who doesn't feel he had every right to abuse a woman or child.

I am glad to see that you recognise how damaging a non-resident parent messing about with contact actually is. Are you aware that a resident parent can be imprisoned for not making a child available while there is no legal comeback whatsoever for a NRP who persistently fails to turn up?

I am also glad to see that you pay maintenance and agree that all parents should. Sadly you are in a minority, and certain members of your organisation seek to excuse this.

I would like to think that you are representative of most of the grass-roots members of F4J. You are a lot more willing to discuss than most I've come across. Do you think you are?

There are load of unreasonable people out there both male and female after divorce and it's a huge problem if you are dealing with one. I think it's fairly gender neutral.

I took legal advice before divorce to find out if the children would stay with me (as their father marginally did more care) and of course if the father does more of the care (or the mother) that person is more likely to have the children live with them after wards although we both worked full time and the older children had a choice at their age so it was all easy.

Resident parents are virtually never imprisoned. If they do not make children available the children should go to the other parent for 2 weeks to make sure parents who don't hand them over feel a very visible and nasty effect.

There are lots of gender neutral things F4J support which many many women here who are feminists would be right behind.

I think it is important to address the idea that false allegations of DV and abuse are rare- in the context of contested disputes over children they are known to be common. That is not coming from any of the fathers rights groups (or whatever they choose to call themselves) but from lawyers and judges who deal with these disputes day in, day out. The link below is from a post by Marylin Stowe, one of the top divorce lawyers in the UK. She is commenting on the Vicky Haigh case but goes on to address the general problem. Some time ago, the president of the Family Law Bar Association warned that changes to Legal Aid (only to victims of DV) could lead to an increase in the problem.
I have to say that the parents who behave in this way do no favours to genuine victims and I mean no disrespect to anyone but it is clearly an issue for legal professionals and a well known one.
www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2011/08/23/vicky-haigh-case/

Sorry, will try the link again...

www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2011/08/23/vicky-haigh-case/

Deargdoom Firstly, you're conflating false allegations of DV against the mother with false allegations of sexual abuse against a child.

Secondly, not being provable is not the same as being false. Given that the vast majority of DV is never reported to the police and so there is no evidence for it, is is unsurprising that women are labelled liars and manipulators when in actual fact they are victims.

Thirdly, do people believe women lie more than men? Because unless you do, then surely the number of women falsely accusing their Xs of abuse is no higher than the number of men who falsely deny them when the claim is true.

Fourthly, false claims of DV are difficult to get to grips with because of the way the data is collected, but my own research suggests it is no more than false reporting of any other crime, though I will accept that even this low level may be disproportionately represented in residency disputes. Incidentally that would mean the a higher proportion of the claims cited out of court would be true, yet the default position is to disbelieve this also. I think that says a lot.

Furthermore, even in cases where DV is proven, unless it is shown to pose a direct risk to the child, contact will still be awarded. TBH all the above is irrelevant because of this single point.

Xenia while resident parents are virtually never imprisoned for witholding contact, the point is that the behaviour has been made a criminal offence. Whereas witholding contact by failing to turn up is not. The one can lead to a criminal record, the other doesn't. If we're talking about fairness, how is that fair?

I'm not conflating the two- just pointing out that they are well known tactics in contact disputes, although as Marylin points out, SA is more rare.
Witholding contact is not a criminal offence. That only comes into play where contempt proceedings are issued and that is rarely done as contempt in civil proceedings rarely amounts to a hill of beans.

Yes, you're quite right about the distinction between civil and criminal law, but the point is that witholding contact can result in contempt of court, which can appear on a criminal record and result in imprisonment.

Whereas letting your child down, time after time, and messing about the resident parent's life, results in... precisely nothing.

while resident parents are virtually never imprisoned for witholding contact, the point is that the behaviour has been made a criminal offence. Whereas witholding contact by failing to turn up is not. The one can lead to a criminal record, the other doesn't. If we're talking about fairness, how is that fair?

So true, I've have lost count of the calls I've had from XH saying he is unable to see the kids at the very last minute leaving me to pick up the pieces. There are many fathers who genuinely don't want to be too involved in terms of time and financial support.

Thirdly, do people believe women lie more than men? Because unless you do, then surely the number of women falsely accusing their Xs of abuse is no higher than the number of men who falsely deny them when the claim is true.

Spot on sunshineandbooks.

Xenia you live in a bit of a bubble

You think some parents don't agree to contact just because they are unreasonable?

I didnt agree to it after been assaulted in front of dd sexually and later with violence

How unreasonable of me

Sunshine on the other hand, please tell me you work in law as your posts are excellent and I hope we have someone like you addressing these issues

Hawksey, messi is good enough - we hardly ever use full names here!
With ref. to your position I think you are very lucky to have an understanding employer that doesn't discriminate against mothers and has a large degree of flexibility

The problem is though that lots of companies in the UK are not so tolerant, and force couples into this model of breadwinner / housewife. It is usually the woman that takes on the housewife role for reasons of biology and the reality that the husband is likely to be earning more (gender pay gap).

In the event of the divorce this asymmetry is a real problem because the wife's job has become her children and she has lost earning power, experience and status in the working world. She faces discriminatory attitudes from employers. (To give an example one of the first questions I was asked in a recent interview was "how sick is your child?")

I think that when flexible working conditions (like in your case) are the norm in this country and couples share the work both in the office and at home then we will see a rise in shared custody arrangements.

Hawkesy8 - you came back . Genuinely, thank you for responding (sensibly and thoughtfully) and for engaging sincerely.

I don't think many of us disagree much with your central tenet that parents should share care as equally as possible - search these boards and you will see lots and lots of support for fathers being more involved with their children both before and after a split.

As Messy says you are very fortunate that your employer is so flexible, DP's is not. If we were to split I genuinely have no idea how he would manage it - he leaves the house at 7, doesn't often get home before 8 and frequently has to work (albeit at home) at the weekends. Currently he can do that because I work part-time, if we were to split things would get very complicated. I second the points made about that if F4J could put their energies into improving the situation for fathers before divorce happens I could take what they say about parenting after a lot more seriously.

One question that whilst unrelated is essential to my understanding. Could someone please explain some acronyms for me. DS (Son I assume but what's the D), the same for DD. POV = Point of View?? DP (Partner?? - but again the D).

Sorry but I did have trouble following one of the responses as I didnt understand those acronyms and I work in finance where acronyms rule the world.

D stands for Dear so DS - dear son, DD - dear daughter, DH/P - dear husband/ partner. It gets more complicated when you start getting to inlaws etc but you're a smart lad, you'll pick it up

This gets away from the original OP (opening post) so sorry for the threadjack Messy, but Hawkesy8, have you been surprised by the response to your post? What brought you here tonight?

Apologies if I don't respond tonight, it's been a long few days so am off to bed imminently.

That's alright Dolly, I was just thinking the same thing actually, hoping that Hawkesy (our now token F4J friend ) was realizing that we're actually really nice and welcoming as long as you engage with us in a non-troll like fashion.

Problem is, I sauntered over to F4J to invite them into the discussion in a nice friendly manner but they deleted the post. The other night when the Big War was going on, there were quite a few conciliatory posts made by Mumsnetters on their facebook page but they deleted them all, so it appears that they are only interested in portraying Mumsnet as extremists to their members and not the lovelies that we are. I guess it helps their ad campaign....

So sad, I had this vision of the Mumsnetters and F4J sending big cyber hugs to each other (maybe even inaugurating a peace emoticon) and I would be canonized as Saint Messy the Peacemaker ....oooooh look at me derailing my own thread...