Mums 4 Justice

cbyrd

i'm sorry if i misunderstood,;)
its just with so many posts that contain how women have it better than men its easy to confuse whether you are hitting out at women or the lawmakers...

its not an easy subject to discuss with any gender, and i don't have the experience of being in this situation... thank god..

i hope soon that there is a fair and just change but somehow just looking at the fcuk up that is the system at the moment i don't imagine there is anyone capable of changing their pants never mind the law!!:rolleyes:

here's hoping though;)
and i thoroughly agree with both of you by the way, i know some amazing dads that don't have the nice end of the stick..:) its wrong and i know some who have walked away and thats wrong too but ultimately it is the children who lose out...and thats just sad..

Nevyn

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Or, even easier---imagine this were a patriarchal sociey, and women merely "spawned" the children, but men were seen as the provider of life, and therefore bestowed with rights whether married or no. Then you would see Wonder Women and Supergirls ascending the rooftops, crying out for justice. And rightly so.

Tbh that was how things were for here from the penal times, children and wifes were the property of the man of the household.

It changed in the last 50 years and but in terms of unmarried parents the law still seems to think that a man is not really the acknowledged father of a child unless he is married to the mother. This has to change as lifestyles and the natures of families have changed.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

The campaign is regarding laws, not people. It is appealing to lawmakers, not parents. It is for families,not against co-parents. It is a good thing.


Anyone that perpetuates this needless vicious circle of "dads are better/ NO mums are better" obviously doesn't understand true parenting---the love and the discipline.They're merely spreading misogyny/misandry and hurting the children in the process.

I agree.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

There are good and bad mums and dads. That is obvious. Because there are good and bad people. You rarely hear the good stories because why would you? So quit the rivalry! Otherwise things will never improve.

I think both sides have to acknowledge there are struggles and injustices on both sides. They are different but they still exist but if the family law is to be reformed in this area it will take everyone lobbying to make it happen.

smelltheglove

Ireland asm will be covering the fathers rights issues in the morning if anyone is interested in watching it.

cbyrd

yeah i saw that ad.. think i'll sky+ it.. i don't do mornings..

Klingon Hamlet

smelltheglove wrote: »

Ireland asm will be covering the fathers rights issues in the morning if anyone is interested in watching it.

Ireland AM? Not being funny---wasn't sure if you meant something else!

smelltheglove

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Ireland AM? Not being funny---wasn't sure if you meant something else!

Lol, oops, I'm very tired and didnt notice my mistake, sorry.

I know this thread is going on a bit here, I see people have strong views on the issues. I have strong views on these issues too guys and they are all from personal experience!

My view is complete equality. The father should get the same rights as the mother. The children should be placed with the person who is best suited to raising them in a stable enviroment.

I have a complicated family involving divorced parents, half siblings, step siblings and was a single mother myself for a time until I met my husband. Through my experiences which include being raised primarily by a father, a step brother being deserted by a father, an unplanned pregnancy and all that goes with it I am firmly of the view that the LAW is unfair, not male or female, there are bad examples of each one I suppose the bad male example is the most obvious as the majority of single parents are women but there are bad on both sides.

The LAW needs to be changed to suit the kids, attitudes of some parents need to change too, from those who walk away to those who prevent the other from access to their children.

Parents who seperate should still work as a unit, the main focus being the childs upbringing and happiness, all this agro only affects the child in negative ways, as a child and into adulthood. Its a huge amount for a child to deal with, they dont understand why their parents behave in the way that they do and often blame themselves.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think both sides have to acknowledge there are struggles and injustices on both sides. They are different but they still exist but if the family law is to be reformed in this area it will take everyone lobbying to make it happen.

I pointed out repeatedly that women/mothers too face injustice. However, to suggest or portray that this injustice is somehow equal to that faced by men/fathers is insane.

This is why groups like 'Mums 4 Justice' are so offensive; they dismiss the injustices against men and claim that women/mothers are just as discriminated against if not more so. The attitude that women/mothers are entitled to an unjust advantage in law is also something that is you will find, as you will have noted from some of the posts here.

Worse still is some idiots in the media and politics may even believe them, give them credence and damage any momentum presently working towards reform of the law that would deal with the rights of men/fathers.

Ultimately, how the law treats men/fathers is by far the biggest problem and realistically needs to be the priority.

ash23

For those who suggest 50/50 access. What would the scenario be where one parent moves away?
Or if one parent doesn't want to be involved from the outset?

How would these tyoes of situations be managed?

I can think of only a few cases (personally) where absolute 50/50 would work. Either the parents live too far apart or one isn't interested enough in taking on that responsibility.

I think in Utopia it may work but in real, practical terms it would be difficult.

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

For those who suggest 50/50 access. What would the scenario be where one parent moves away?

You adapt. Whether the original relationship between the parents was a long term committed one, a one night stand or a fling that really only lasted a few weeks, the bottom line is that they now have separate lives with only one thing in common - the child.

This means it's never going to be a perfect family upbringing. However, the worst thing parents can do is make it worse than it already is and this I believe is where the problems arise - they often have absolutely nothing to do with the child but with the relationship between the parents as they seek to fight their own psychological battles over the child.

Consider the following scenario: Boy knocks up girl. Boy is willing to stay for the child but not the girl. Girl resents this and makes his life purposely difficult. Boy either escalates the conflict or gives up and moves on with life.

Second scenario: Boy knocks up girl. Boy stays in a relationship with the girl for the sake of the child but does not really want to do so. Boy ends up making her life hell because he's now trapped in a relationship he hates. She responds in kind. Boy and girl break up. Boy either further escalates the conflict or gives up and moves on with life.

It's all about unrealistic expectations, egos and control. One asserts themselves with their control of the child, then the other responds with their control of money (or vice versa). Then someone brings the other to court. Then it gets worse. You get the picture.

You'll note the child does not even feature in the disintegration of relations - because this is ultimately all about them, not the child. Both of them.

The best thing is to make the best of a difficult situation. If one lives in another city or country then they are not going to be able to do 50/50 - unless the child alternates every six months. Or you can agree that the child lives with the mother from age X to Y and the father from Y to Z. Or the non-custodial parent can take them for the summer holidays and visit during the rest of the year. Pick the model that best suits.

Basically you adapt - you grow up, realize that neither of you is getting your fairy tale ending and you find a practical compromise.

Or if one parent doesn't want to be involved from the outset?

Tough. Some people don't want to have children, or at least children with you. Women behave the same and pretty much any woman I have known who had an abortion did so because of the same reasons that men do a runner.

Earlier it was argued that if a man does not want to become a father he should not have sex. In that case if a woman is a afraid that the man she's about to sleep with can't be counted upon, then don't sleep with him.

Of course maybe he swore blind he would and still bolted, but then again some women swear blind that they would have an abortion in such an event and then change their minds. That's life. Tough.

I think in Utopia it may work but in real, practical terms it would be difficult.

I think it is close to impossible to find that Utopia, but I do think that you can come close enough to both get on with your life and give your child as loving and stable an environment as is possible under the circumstances.

smelltheglove

Excellent post Corinthian.

A compromise that suits the child best is the only way.

ash23

The Corinthian wrote: »

You adapt. Whether the original relationship between the parents was a long term committed one, a one night stand or a fling that really only lasted a few weeks, the bottom line is that they now have separate lives with only one thing in common - the child.

This means it's never going to be a perfect family upbringing. However, the worst thing parents can do is make it worse than it already is and this I believe is where the problems arise - they often have absolutely nothing to do with the child but with the relationship between the parents as they seek to fight their own psychological battles over the child.

Consider the following scenario: Boy knocks up girl. Boy is willing to stay for the child but not the girl. Girl resents this and makes his life purposely difficult. Boy either escalates the conflict or gives up and moves on with life.

Second scenario: Boy knocks up girl. Boy stays in a relationship with the girl for the sake of the child but does not really want to do so. Boy ends up making her life hell because he's now trapped in a relationship he hates. She responds in kind. Boy and girl break up. Boy either further escalates the conflict or gives up and moves on with life.

I love the way you put all the onus on the girl :rolleyes:

Did you know that sometimes the girl is the one who ends the relationship or that neither party are in a relationship and the concept of a relationship is never on the cards?

I simply asked how 50/50 can work when the parents live towns apart. If both parents live in the same town then this is logical but if they live in different places, even if it's only 20 miles, then schools, childcare etc would pose a problem.

It's all about unrealistic expectations, egos and control. One asserts themselves with their control of the child, then the other responds with their control of money (or vice versa). Then someone brings the other to court. Then it gets worse. You get the picture.

You'll note the child does not even feature in the disintegration of relations - because this is ultimately all about them, not the child. Both of them.

No, you've given a mere two instances, both of which assume that the woman is wanting a relationship and that the guy doesn't want one and either walks or makes her life hell and she tolerates that.
Your pick of examples is very narrow and ime, doesn't reflect what actually goes on in most cases where a mother ends up a custodial parent.

There are a million other scenarios and many parents who split actually do put the child first. But sometimes circumstances dictates that they do not live near enough in order to split everything 50/50.

The best thing is to make the best of a difficult situation. If one lives in another city or country then they are not going to be able to do 50/50 - unless the child alternates every six months. Or you can agree that the child lives with the mother from age X to Y and the father from Y to Z. Or the non-custodial parent can take them for the summer holidays and visit during the rest of the year. Pick the model that best suits.

Basically you adapt - you grow up, realize that neither of you is getting your fairy tale ending and you find a practical compromise.

But who is the custodial parent?

And who decides this? And who decides which method works? There's no way I'd send my child off to a distant place for 6 months because her father moved. Nor would I agree to raise her to 5 and then send her off. I don't think either of those suggestions would benefit the child. It may be "fairer" for the parents but I honestly don't see how it would be good for any child to live like that.

Tough. Some people don't want to have children, or at least children with you. Women behave the same and pretty much any woman I have known who had an abortion did so because of the same reasons that men do a runner.

Earlier it was argued that if a man does not want to become a father he should not have sex. In that case if a woman is a afraid that the man she's about to sleep with can't be counted upon, then don't sleep with him.

Of course maybe he swore blind he would and still bolted, but then again some women swear blind that they would have an abortion in such an event and then change their minds. That's life. Tough.

Tough? Really? Wow.
So you still maintain that if a man fathers a child he should be able to turn on his heel and walk? And you also spout about putting the child first.

I wasnt even discussing that anyway! I was talking about granting automatic rights and then one parent leaves. I also didn't mention gender.
What I want to know is how long should it be before the rights are rescinded and the absent parent loses those rights. If a man tells a woman he doesn't want to be involved and she proceeds then should he get any rights at all?
What if he changes his mind after a month, a year, 10 years?

Should he ever be able to get those rights back or should it be final, as in the case of adoption?

This applies to mothers too.

I think it is close to impossible to find that Utopia, but I do think that you can come close enough to both get on with your life and give your child as loving and stable an environment as is possible under the circumstances.

Provided both parents are in agreement. If not then people are still going to end up in court.

The Corinthian

smelltheglove wrote: »

A compromise that suits the child best is the only way.

I didn't say that. Ultimately there are three people involved and it's going to be a compromise between the three.

ash23 wrote: »

I love the way you put all the onus on the girl :rolleyes:

Did you know that sometimes the girl is the one who ends the relationship or that neither party are in a relationship and the concept of a relationship is never on the cards?

I just gave two examples of how things fall apart on the basis of he did/said this, she did/said this spirals.

Like it or not they are in a relationship though, because they have to cooperate for and due to the child. It may not be a romantic one, but it's still a relationship.

I simply asked how 50/50 can work when the parents live towns apart. If both parents live in the same town then this is logical but if they live in different places, even if it's only 20 miles, then schools, childcare etc would pose a problem.

If you're keeping score the child could alternate residence every six months. Some parents do this.

If you're less interested about keeping score then you find another compromise. It may not be 50/50 but you do your best.

No, you've given a mere two instances, both of which assume that the woman is wanting a relationship and that the guy doesn't want one and either walks or makes her life hell and she tolerates that.

There are a million other scenarios. Those two were just easy ones because I could cut and past the majority of the first into the second. I wouldn't read too much into it.

Your pick of examples is very narrow and ime, doesn't reflect what actually goes on in most cases where a mother ends up a custodial parent.

Unless one parent completely rejects the child or if it is down to extreme circumstances (father is in prison, a strung out junky, etc), it is pretty much down to egos, control and the like and there blame on both sides.

As to the reason the in most cases where a mother ends up a custodial parent, this is because this is how the law works in Ireland. Even if a father contests, she would practically need to arrive in court with a needle in her arm before he is awarded custody.

There are a million other scenarios and many parents who split actually do put the child first. But sometimes circumstances dictates that they do not live near enough in order to split everything 50/50.

Sure - but I never suggested that it is possible to always split everything 50/50.

But who is the custodial parent?

Whoever is best for the child. Preferably both.

And who decides this? And who decides which method works? There's no way I'd send my child off to a distant place for 6 months because her father moved. Nor would I agree to raise her to 5 and then send her off. I don't think either of those suggestions would benefit the child. It may be "fairer" for the parents but I honestly don't see how it would be good for any child to live like that.

Why not? If the father was loving and responsible, I think the benefits heavily outweigh the negatives. If father and child have a good relationship and he is reliable enough (sure, he'll make mistakes - but so did you) then I would think it a good thing.

Kids move house. They move countries. They go to places like boarding school. And guess what, they turn out fine (I did anyhow). Ultimately you need to ask yourself for whom you are opposing such an arrangement? You might instinctively want to keep the child in your home, but that is neither fair nor in their best interests necessarily.

Tough? Really? Wow.
So you still maintain that if a man fathers a child he should be able to turn on his heel and walk? And you also spout about putting the child first.

Where did I say you need to put the child first? All I've said is that waring parents don't really think about the child when they fight - they're in reality fighting their own petty battles.

Personally I think this 'putting the child first' cliche is ridiculous because there are limits to this for most people. If you want to put your child first then both parents should marry, no matter how much they may dislike each other and pretend to be a happy family until the child is 18. Naturally this is insane because there are three people to consider, not one.

What gets me is that you seem to blank out the fact that women behave exactly in the same way. I'm not saying that either men or women are justified in this, only that both do it.

I wasnt even discussing that anyway! I was talking about granting automatic rights and then one parent leaves. I also didn't mention gender.
What I want to know is how long should it be before the rights are rescinded and the absent parent loses those rights. If a man tells a woman he doesn't want to be involved and she proceeds then should he get any rights at all?
What if he changes his mind after a month, a year, 10 years?

I can't answer that. Perhaps a year or two - which I think is how it works now for fathers who have guardianship by court order.

Should he ever be able to get those rights back or should it be final, as in the case of adoption?

In adoption a parent not only loses all rights but also obligations (i.e. maintenance, inheritance, etc). When a father loses guardianship, he does not lose the obligations, but unlike adoption he may get it back in the future.

I think it's a complex thing to consider, especially considering the finality of one of the options and the possibility of abuse.

This applies to mothers too.

Only in adoption. If mothers abandon their children (with their fathers or anyone else) they cannot lose their guardianship.

Provided both parents are in agreement. If not then people are still going to end up in court.

Or mediation. You forgot that one.

TBH, if more parents worked on the ego related crap in their relationship, I suspect they'd end up agreeing more often and in court less.

Klingon Hamlet

Why do these debates always fall back on the age-old question: which is the better parent?

And why can't people agree: both.

Mothers and fathers are equal. So it's important the child gets 50/50 or as close as humanly possible. Equal shared time, love, custody, guardianship, responsibility, expenses, etc...

The Corinthian

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Why do these debates always fall back on the age-old question: which is the better parent?

And why can't people agree: both.

Mothers and fathers are equal. So it's important the child gets 50/50 or as close as humanly possible. Equal shared time, love, custody, guardianship, responsibility, expenses, etc...

Look, maybe one is the better parent, but that does not mean that the other is a bad parent. Neither does it mean that in striving for 50/50 we should only accept this and if we cannot, then should give up.

I really do think that the majority of the conflict in these situation begins with the baggage that both parents bring and then is fed by the tit-for-tat that follows. After a while it really is irrelevant who drew blood first. Being able to prove that you're the victim (e.g. "she blocks access" or "he doesn't pay a penny") on an Internet board may get it off your chest and validate yourself - but it probably is part of the reason you're where you are.

It's more important for all three concerned for a compromise to be found. To get on with things. To stop looking at things from a single black-and-white perspective. Not only for the sake of the child, but themselves too.

Nevyn

The thing is the shared parenting model is pretty new in this country and one which a lot of people haven't heard of, or don't know how to deal with and have no role models for.
It can take a lot of communication, consideration and comprimise which a lot of people are not able to do when a relationship breaks down.

I know get stared at like I have 5 heads when it is mentioned that we are still all living in the family home and co parentin together and a family even while we have not been a couple for the last 5 years.

smelltheglove

The Corinthian wrote: »

I didn't say that. Ultimately there are three people involved and it's going to be a compromise between the three.

Corinthian, I said you had a good point. I then went onto a new paragraph saying that a compromise which suits the child best is the only way, that is my opinion, I apologise if you feel I was making this as your opinion, it is mine though, kids dont work around parents, parents work around kids which is why the compromise, in my opinion, should be suited to the child.

I'll give you an example, my daughter used to see her daddy on whatever day he had free, him always knowing he could see her any amount of days he wished. Then she started school, this meant he had to work around her, him not driving and living too far for him to bring her to school meant he then arranged to take every second weekend off work and take her then. Any school days off or holidays I inform him beforehand so if he wants to see her then he can, during the summer or christmas he takes her whenever he wants, she's his child too. Now a child needs stability during the school week and I think these sorts of needs of the child are the most important, I remember coming home from school on a Friday and going through my clothes to pack a bag for my mams for the weekend ensuring I had everything ready, sorting my books that I would need to do my homework etc, doing this on a mid week night would not suit the child even though it may suit one of the parents.

moonpurple

thaedydal..
life is fill of variety..whatever works...works

The Corinthian

smelltheglove wrote: »

Corinthian, I said you had a good point. I then went onto a new paragraph saying that a compromise which suits the child best is the only way, that is my opinion, I apologise if you feel I was making this as your opinion, it is mine though, kids dont work around parents, parents work around kids which is why the compromise, in my opinion, should be suited to the child.

I'm not blaming you for anything (also because you were not alone in the assumption that I claimed this) but I did think it was an important point for me to clarify for two reasons.

Firstly it is unrealistic to always 'put the child first', as taken to the extreme it debases both parents into a position of indentured servitude. There are certainly parents out there that will work three jobs each and never go on holiday so that their child can go to an expensive private school, for example, but that really is their choice and I do not think any less of parents who would not go to such lengths but still raise their child well and in a loving environment.

Secondly, there is the danger, in single parent families, that it can be abused. The custodial parent inevitably becomes the person who 'decides' what is best for the child and ironically also may well benefit from it. One example of this I have personally witnessed, was where a custodial parent expected that the non-custodial parent pay for foreign holidays for the child (naturally including the custodial parent) on the basis that these would be good for the child.

So while the interests of the child are ultimately critical, I do think it is important to underline that it is not simply about the child but about the parents too (not to mention other parties such as grandparents, etc.), mainly because the above reasons far too easily occur as we treat the principle of 'putting the child first' as a rigid extreme, to the exclusion of all else and others.