Facebook & non existent fathers.

old hippy

jim69 wrote: »

fair enough divorce ect is common these days,people remarry and may have a child with second partner but maybe its just me but 3 or 4 different fathers sounds a bit much

Not really. Plenty of loving extended "modern" family multi units out there.

Relationships don't always last; we've realised this and that's why people move on. Not saying one or both should give up when a relationship fails but we can't impose the old order of one family, one life in this age. I reckons, anyway.

metrovelvet

old hippy wrote: »

True, true. But conversely, thousands and thousands can.

Its not reality. Its two dimensional representations. Thats what facebook is.

You cant download a hug.

old hippy

metrovelvet wrote: »

Madonna did it. Thats the way the world is going Im afraid. We are DEVOLVING back to caveman days.

Nope, we are just moving beyond social norms, whatever the hell they happen to be. Society and societal norms are in a state of flux; they always have been. We go through periods of puritanism and then we get over it.

There is no ideal family unit, at least in conservative stereotypical terms, there are, however families that look after and love their kids/siblings/parents etc wituhout the constraints of others telling them how it should be.

old hippy

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its not reality. Its two dimensional representations. Thats what facebook is.

You cant download a hug.

It's an invitation to reality. I'm not talking about delusional groups supporting Raoul Moat etc. In terms of relationships; it's real for a lot of people.

Fittle

K-9 wrote: »

Well if you are going to be like that about it, I think it is fair to say there doesn't seem to be any adult supervision here at all. He asked for the address and sent cards over, as has the grandmother. Time for the mother to get of her arse and do something.

Tbh, I'd take your ire out on the mother, if you want to down that road.

Take my 'ire' out on the mother?

I am not taking my 'ire' out on anyone - the mother in this situation is obviously not a responsible parent herself - I never said she was.

The OP is about the father though - he is the one who is initiating contact with the son he's never met through fb. I've said it from the start that he should ensure there is the other parent OR a responsible adult involved on the childs side. I'm not taking my 'ire' out on anyone.

DonalK1981

From my experience guys look up to a father figure, a lot of my friends grew up with distant relationships with their dads. It is natural for a young boy to want to know where he came from, his ancestral past I guess it could be described as. The young lad wishes to know his father, what's the problem?

old hippy

DonalK1981 wrote: »

From my experience guys look up to a father figure, a lot of my friends grew up with distant relationships with their dads. It is natural for a young boy to want to know where he came from, his ancestral past I guess it could be described as. The young lad wishes to know his father, what's the problem?

Problem, would appear for some, because it goes against tradition.

Tradition, dammit!

Morag

I don't think it's tradition, I think there are lone parent's out there who dread the day thier child wants to contact or manages to contact the absent parent. The fear that as that person let them down and hurt them that the same will happen to the young adult who is looking for answers.

K-9

Fittle wrote: »

Take my 'ire' out on the mother?

I am not taking my 'ire' out on anyone - the mother in this situation is obviously not a responsible parent herself - I never said she was.

The OP is about the father though - he is the one who is initiating contact with the son he's never met through fb. I've said it from the start that he should ensure there is the other parent OR a responsible adult involved on the childs side. I'm not taking my 'ire' out on anyone.

Well he didn't have much option seeing as he didn't have an address or phone number.

He needs to get a phone number now and try and move things forward as Facebook has its limits.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

Well he didn't have much option seeing as he didn't have an address or phone number.

He needs to get a phone number now and try and move things forward as Facebook has its limits.

Im sure they'll be Skyping next.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im sure they'll be Skyping next.

Mobile phones are probably past it now! In fairness, Skype would have its uses here.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

Mobile phones are probably past it now! In fairness, Skype would have its uses here.

It really depends on what you preferences are. I like the phone and in person myself.

I'm not really into virtual friendships, nor would I want a virtual relationship with my son or one of my parents either.

The supervision from the mother isnt really an issue for me really. I assume his mother will there for him if he needs support through it. It depends on how much significance he attaches to this man as his father and how mature the boy is . For all we know, one of these other men may have adopted him or serve as a father figure anyway, so the bio dad may not hold high symbolic value.

cynder

At them moment facebook is the only contact and it will probably stay that way for a while, nothing is ideal, and its very complicate, but i think they are making the best out of a bad situation. If my brother was in this country it would be different but he isnt.

it isnt my place to interfere in their relationship so i dont really say anything to my brother, mom and me have a few conspiracy theories but its all they are ' theories ' , she is delighted to have contact with her first grandchild.

At the end of the day, the child knows who is dad is and what he looks like, and my brother knows where his son is and what he looks like, i doubt very much that there is going to be MAJOR bond between them, they are at the start of a very long road, which will have both its ups and downs.

I thought it nice to offer hope to other dads who have not had contact with their kids (for what ever reason) that one day the child might come looking for them.

I know in the beginning my brother was distraught that he couldn't have contact with his son and as time went by he had to numb it out, his numbed it out that much that when contact is made he was stumped, BUT at least now they have a chance to know each other.

The Corinthian

grindelwald wrote: »

At them moment facebook is the only contact and it will probably stay that way for a while, nothing is ideal, and its very complicate, but i think they are making the best out of a bad situation. If my brother was in this country it would be different but he isnt.

That's a very good point.

From what you have told us your brother's relationship with the mother is anything but cordial to begin with. Even if it were, being abroad severely limits the possibilities for face-to-face access because, ultimately, travel (and quite possibly accommodation) cost money (and time) and so it is easy to demand the ideal of face-to-face access when you're not paying for it.

My view is that such contact is not ideal and should not be an end in itself, but only the beginning of something greater. Unfortunately this may not be possible, not only due to distance, but also because the relationship with the mother may sabotage it.

The question then has to be asked, is a non-ideal relationship better than none? Certainly one where the father loses interest along the way or cannot be consistent even in digital communication, I would say none may be better. However, where he is steadfast and consistent in his contact, however limited, to form a relationship then I believe that it is much better than no relationship at all.

As to his traceability, this is frankly a crock. Without physical access, or even with supervised physical access, traceability is a moot point - unless it is required by the mother for the purposes of suing or otherwise harassing him.

Nonetheless, I still feel that he should try to bring the mother into the loop, as even if not directly involved, as she can act as support for the child and possibly even aid greater contact. The question is what will her reaction be; will time have mellowed her views? Will her original wish to have the father uninvolved have been overridden by the child's own wishes? Or will things have remained as they were a decade ago?

Or even if she does support contact, will it be for the child's good or simply as an opportunity to pursue some personal agenda?

Given that these questions are not yet answered, I would recommend that your brother set up an alternative means of communication, known only to his son and him, in case it turns sour with her. This could be a separate Facebook or other social account, email, IM or even setting up a local Irish number that would redirect to him (allowing his son to call him whenever he wants).

However, he should be in for the long haul if he wants to pursue this - I cannot underline this enough.

metrovelvet

Traceability is essential in any access/custody situation and any lawyer will tell you you are a moron if you let your kids develop relationships with people who can't be traced especially parents in high conflict contexts.

In this situation it is moot because they only have internet contact.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Traceability is essential in any access/custody situation and any lawyer will tell you you are a moron if you let your kids develop relationships with people who can't be traced especially parents in high conflict contexts.

In this situation it is moot because they only have internet contact.

I never suggested otherwise. Traceability is essential in any cases of unsupervised access for very obvious reasons. No one in their right mind would allow unsupervised access to their child to someone who is untraceable.

With indirect access (such as phone or Internet) or supervised access is is frankly moot - unless there is a real danger of abduction even with supervised access, which - unless we want to get into Hollywood thriller territory - borders on paranoiac.

In those cases, traceability is really only of benefit where it comes to the serving of legal documents or in cases of harassment - such as hate mail, etc. It is not essential, required or perhaps even desirable (certainly the latter) where it comes to the contact between father and child.

metrovelvet

I dont want to drag this too OT but who is going to supervise access with a thirteen year old?

And even in supervised access, no one would recommend taking risks with their children. It has happenned.

I dont think in Ireland people are too afraid of this because it hasnt become and issue yet but it will.

The US has epidemic sized proportions of child abduction and it can happen with supervised access too, no judge would allow it. And any parent who does is taking risks with their kids.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont want to drag this too OT but who is going to supervise access with a thirteen year old?

Same person who would supervise access with a three year old. Now this may mean that access may only take place in restrictive conditions (such as someone's home) and not be a day out to the cinema or funfair, but it would be supervised safely and appropriately.

And even in supervised access, no one would recommend taking risks with their children. It has happenned.

Really? Where? In Ireland?

Now, if the father is some sort of international super-villain who will pull a gun on the supervisor and then escape the country on forged passports, then you have a point. Or maybe not - after all, the father in this case has had no contact with the child in 13 years and suddenly he would want to abduct him?

I'm sure Liam Neeson could play his role...

The US has epidemic sized proportions of child abduction and it can happen with supervised access too, no judge would allow it. And any parent who does is taking risks with their kids.

The US has a lot of things that Ireland is unlikely to adopt. One of the advantages of restrictive gun ownership laws, I suspect.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont want to drag this too OT but who is going to supervise access with a thirteen year old?

And even in supervised access, no one would recommend taking risks with their children. It has happenned.

I dont think in Ireland people are too afraid of this because it hasnt become and issue yet but it will.

The US has epidemic sized proportions of child abduction and it can happen with supervised access too, no judge would allow it. And any parent who does is taking risks with their kids.

Epidemic sized proportions?

Is it that common a problem or is just extreme cases being publicised that scare monger people into thinking so?

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

Epidemic sized proportions?

Is it that common a problem or is just extreme cases being publicised that scare monger people into thinking so?

It is a significant problem. It's not just extreme cases.

Supervision isn't always going to be done by the mother anyhow and its mostly ascribed for infants, where the father might visit the custodial home.

If its the case he is dangerous or suspect they wouldn't put the mother in danger anyhow by asking her to supervise, most likely a neutral party like a social worker or special trained people. But at thirteen and a hell of a lot younger, supervision is not necessary in most cases and in high conflict cases, its hardly appropriate for one of the parties involved in the conflict to be supervising the access to begin with.

Why would a dad who hasn't seen his child want to abduct him? Well, it would depend on the reasons for that. If the father's lack of involvement was due to feelings of disenfranchisement or a bad relationship with the mother, then eliminate the mother and problem solved. One way to do that is abduction, and if the father demonstrates he has something to hide by lack of disclosure it would start to raise eyebrows.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

It is a significant problem. It's not just extreme cases.

If you say so, but so far you've not presented a lot of proof of it.

Supervision isn't always going to be done by the mother anyhow and its mostly ascribed for infants, where the father might visit the custodial home.

No one suggested it had to be done by the mother or at the custodial home.

If its the case he is dangerous or suspect they wouldn't put the mother in danger anyhow by asking her to supervise, most likely a neutral party like a social worker or special trained people. But at thirteen and a hell of a lot younger, supervision is not necessary in most cases and in high conflict cases, its hardly appropriate for one of the parties involved in the conflict to be supervising the access to begin with.

In areas of criminality and violence I agree with you, but you appear to be tarring all with the same brush and what you suggest really is not relevant to the vast majority of cases.

Why would a dad who hasn't seen his child want to abduct him? Well, it would depend on the reasons for that. If the father's lack of involvement was due to feelings of disenfranchisement or a bad relationship with the mother, then eliminate the mother and problem solved. One way to do that is abduction, and if the father demonstrates he has something to hide by lack of disclosure it would start to raise eyebrows.

I really don't think that is terribly realistic.

Indeed, if 'eliminating' the mother is the logical course of action, would a carefully crafted murder not make more sense, so long as Lt. Colombo is not brought in on the case?

K-9

Tbh, I don't see why it would be a concern here. There usually would be reasons for concerns like that, I don't see them here.

The Corinthian

I agree. There may be valid reasons why such disclosure is needed for supervised access, let alone Internet contact, or there may not. There may also be valid reasons why such disclosure should be withheld or not. It really depends on the situation, and in grindelwald's brother's case there do not appear to be in the former.

However, I do think that there's a lot of FUD being employed here in justifying the former in a blanket fashion.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you say so, but so far you've not presented a lot of proof of it.

No one suggested it had to be done by the mother or at the custodial home.

In areas of criminality and violence I agree with you, but you appear to be tarring all with the same brush and what you suggest really is not relevant to the vast majority of cases.

I really don't think that is terribly realistic.

Indeed, if 'eliminating' the mother is the logical course of action, would a carefully crafted murder not make more sense, so long as Lt. Colombo is not brought in on the case?

You don't need to be violent or criminal to do this. You just need to be fed up of the system and feel disenfranchised to do it.

Its about one child every 40 seconds in the US. About half of them are by parents, some custodial, some non custodial. About 350,000 a year, 200,000 of them are parental.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article6013.html

Google it if you want more references.

You leave the gate open to your garden, or your door unlocked, your in the bathroom, the shower, or another room, and you come out and the child is gone. Or they get picked up from school and dont come back.

It's not that hard, and if done by family or someone the child trusts, no force is necessary.

Probably not the case here k-9, but all Im saying, is that in access and custody arrangements, traceability is vital, and not just for abduction reasons, but abuse possibilities, or even if the child runs away to another family member or parent.

While the father and his family may have reason not to trust this woman, she has no reason to trust him either, because at this stage, all he is to her and the boy,another stranger on the web.

K-9

How many children are there in America, to get some perspective?

One every 40 seconds sounds frightening but in such a big country, probably not that shocking.

There are parental abductions in Ireland, think its a few hundred from memory.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

How many children are there in America, to get some perspective?

One every 40 seconds sounds frightening but in such a big country, probably not that shocking.

There are parental abductions in Ireland, think its a few hundred from memory.

If you met a stranger on the internet who wanted to forge a relationship with you, would you not feel suspicious if they were not transparent about themselves and would you let your 13 year old daughter forge ahead in a relationship with them?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

You don't need to be violent or criminal to do this. You just need to be fed up of the system and feel disenfranchised to do it.

Sounds like they have a point, however you are second guessing the motivations of such actions, based upon no evidence.

Its about one child every 40 seconds in the US. About half of them are by parents, some custodial, some non custodial. About 350,000 a year, 200,000 of them are parental.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article6013.html

That evidence is irrelevant to what we're discussing, which is supervised access. In fact the article opens with three scenarios, of which the first two have nothing to do with access at all and the third involved unsupervised access.

Can you demonstrate evidence of abduction in the case of supervised access, let alone supervised access in Ireland?

Probably not the case here k-9, but all Im saying, is that in access and custody arrangements, traceability is vital, and not just for abduction reasons, but abuse possibilities, or even if the child runs away to another family member or parent.

Complete nonsense - it's supervised access we're talking about. As to the child running away, that may be the only case that may be valid, but the child can do that by getting an address through Facebook from the father anyway - he doesn't need face-to-face access for that.

I'm sorry, but you are simply not making a valid enough reason for disclosure on the basis of child safety. Now, I've no doubt that there may be ulterior motives, but that's another conversation.

While the father and his family may have reason not to trust this woman, she has no reason to trust him either, because at this stage, all he is to her and the boy,another stranger on the web.

Which is why we are talking about supervised access. Not trusting him is one thing, believing him to be a super-villain is another.

metrovelvet wrote: »

If you met a stranger on the internet who wanted to forge a relationship with you, would you not feel suspicious if they were not transparent about themselves and would you let your 13 year old daughter forge ahead in a relationship with them?

And that is what we call an 'appeal to emotion'. When all else fails, I suppose?

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

If you met a stranger on the internet who wanted to forge a relationship with you, would you not feel suspicious if they were not transparent about themselves and would you let your 13 year old daughter forge ahead in a relationship with them?

Well I think both have been transparent, well about as much as you can. Cards, addresses, that type of stuff. It isn't a friends online thing either, its his Dad.

You really are going to some effort and in a scatter gun type way to try and knock this.

metrovelvet

Why would a thirteen year old have supervised access?

I was abducted by my grandparents when I was under the supervision of a cousin. Noone knew where I was for a week.

http://cancrime.com/labels/Amber%20Alert.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5481256&page=1

"And that is what we call an 'appeal to emotion'. When all else fails, I suppose?"

This isn't Humanties. Parenting subjects are emotional. You cant parent without it. Kids have feelings. Parents have feelings.

If the evidence is irrelevent, why did you demand it?

If you wouldnt demand traceability and transparency from the other parent, well then you take that risk.

People expect it on the package when they buy meat ffs.

K-9

So basically your point is, bad things happen.