Unmarried father...

Fromthetrees

Today, I was at the family law court to have my application for co-guardianship and joint custody heard.

Long story...

The mother of my daughter agreed to sign the forms ten minutes before we were about to go into the judge. I'm very happy with the outcome.

My question is, why did I have to go to court just to get some basic rights over my daughter?

What pissed me off although I accept it, is that my solicitor made it clear in the written document that we both signed is that the mother is the primary care giver, like I said, I accept this but the judge went on to add a few more paragraphs to give the mother more control, despite the fact that agreement had been reached between both parties before we entered the court room. I genuinely feel there is a strong bias against fathers in our laws and legal system.

I actually think I'm lucky, I get 50% access to my daughter and a say in what happens, up until today it was all literally at the discretion of the mother, that just seems sick to me.

I think there is something wrong with a de facto situation where every single father who has a child outside of marriage has as many rights over them as the bottle of beer beside me.

I think we need to adopt a system similar to the US, if a father has no interest in his child, fine, automatically garnish his income and that's that, but if he wants to be involved in the childs life than give him these rights and responsibilities without having to go through the court system to get some.

wolf moon

Fromthetrees wrote: »

My question is, why did I have to go to court just to get some basic rights over my daughter?

You sexist pig....

robman60

It's all part of the way sexism has gone full circle.

It used to be that discrimination was accepted if it were perpetrated against women, which was dumb of course.

Then the feminist movement started and it no longer became acceptable for women to be equal, they had to be seen as better.

So yeah, that's the reason men struggle to see their children and most women at nightclubs are bitches.

January

If you wanted a serious answer to this question OP, I'd try Humanities... if not, it's fine here.

Fromthetrees

January wrote: »

If you wanted a serious answer to this question OP, I'd try Humanities... if not, it's fine here.

To be fair, I got what I wanted (or the most I possibly could) today. I just wanted to make a point, I hope it's valid.

ash23

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I think we need to adopt a system similar to the US, if a father has no interest in his child, fine, automatically garnish his income and that's that, but if he wants to be involved in the childs life than give him these rights and responsibilities without having to go through the court system to get some.

I agree fathers rights are dismal in this country. However the idea above where if the man wants the child, great, give him equal rights to the mother and if not, fine too, let him shirk his responsibilities (all but fiscally), that just doesn't sit right with me.
If a mother wants to relinquish rights to her child it takes planning, consideration, counselling, court visits etc...the process of adoption in other words.

If a father wants to bail then he can. But he can also arrive back at any time and look for access.
That hardly seems equal either.

Icepick

It's because males eat their cubs if need be.

Bannasidhe

robman60 wrote: »

It's all part of the way sexism has gone full circle.

It used to be that discrimination was accepted if it were perpetrated against women, which was dumb of course.

Then the feminist movement started and it no longer became acceptable for women to be equal, they had to be seen as better.

So yeah, that's the reason men struggle to see their children and most women at nightclubs are bitches.

Given that the relevant legislation was written in 1964 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/act/pub/0007/sec0006.html#zza7y1964s6) its stretching it a bit to blame this on the feminist movement :rolleyes:

Immaculate Pasta

Read the rules in the rule thread at the top of the page please OP, single parents aren't welcome in this forum... :mad:

eth0

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I get 50% access to my daughter

Tis not a feckin private jet :P

Great to see this childish shoite of supposedly mature adults fighting over who gets to keep their children as if they are material wealth being imported from the States, all while making the solicitors richer.

Celly Smunt

Immaculate Pasta wrote: »

Read the rules in the rule thread at the top of the page please OP, single parents aren't welcome in this forum... :mad:

i bet he's a nigerian taxi driver as well :mad:

Dudess

The legal system is biased against fathers OP, depressingly so. And yeah, that bias has its roots in traditional notions of children needing to be under the mother's care at all times - feck all to do with feminism.
You'll just get a load of angry, resentful posts blaming women here though, and rubbish about how sexism has come full circle - as if women face no sexism now, and as if men face the same kind of discrimination across the board that women put up with before the suffragettes - rather than anything constructive.
I agree with January - Humanities, Parenting or The Gentlemen's Club would be good places for a grown-up discussion on this issue.

Hope it works out for you.

Fromthetrees

ash23 wrote: »

I agree fathers rights are dismal in this country. However the idea above where if the man wants the child, great, give him equal rights to the mother and if not, fine too, let him shirk his responsibilities (all but fiscally), that just doesn't sit right with me.
If a mother wants to relinquish rights to her child it takes planning, consideration, counselling, court visits etc...the process of adoption in other words.

If a father wants to bail then he can. But he can also arrive back at any time and look for access.
That hardly seems equal either.

Fine, I'm very sure there are easy ways around problems like this without much trouble.
It doesn't, in my opinion, need to go from one extreme to the other.
If the father isn't involved in his child's life for years than I have no doubt it would be easy to stop him gaining access at a time of his choosing. In no way is that a legitimate point against the treatment of all unmarried fathers and I think no rational person would argue against some change to the status quo.

Fromthetrees

eth0 wrote: »

Tis not a feckin private jet :P

Great to see this childish shoite of supposedly mature adults fighting over who gets to keep their children as if they are material wealth being imported from the States, all while making the solicitors richer.

50% of her time. :rolleyes:
Free legal aid.

Bannasidhe

Fromthetrees - my heart felt congratulations . My own son is going through this ridiculous process at the moment. Hopefully someday soon he will get 50% access too instead of the 3 days a month he is currently allowed.

ash23

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Fine, I'm very sure there are easy ways around problems like this without much trouble.
It doesn't, in my opinion, need to go from one extreme to the other.
If the father isn't involved in his child's life for years than I have no doubt it would be easy to stop him gaining access at a time of his choosing. In no way is that a legitimate point against the treatment of all unmarried fathers and I think no rational person would argue against some change to the status quo.

Ok, so men get joint guardianship and custody at birth. Good in theory. But just how useless do they have to be? How long do they need to not pay maintenance? How long do we give them not seeing their child before they lose those rights?
I'm not trying to be difficult. I agree in theory with what you are saying. However, doing that just leads to a different set of problems, of court cases etc.
Is it right that men have to prove themselves in court at the moment? No. Would it be right if women had to go to court to prove the men unfit to parent? No, probably not.

marcsignal

I've no children OP, so I don't feel qualified to contribute here, other than to say I'm glad the result was to your satisfaction, and to hope it continues that way for you.

Celly Smunt

Domo230 wrote: »

I never get why Mothers would refuse to let the father see their daughter providing they are not a junkie or some other extremely bad influence.

Do they not remember there was once a time when they (supposedly) loved this person.

I wish true love and marriage worked but all the evidence sadly seems to suggest otherwise.

i think a question of "do they not remember their (if good) relationship with their father growing up?" and how damaging it could be to the child not to have his/her father around.

strobe

January wrote: »

If you wanted a serious answer to this question OP, I'd try Humanities... if not, it's fine here.

Just on that note, if anyone is interested here is the circa 400 post long thread on the topic in Humanities. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056332703
It's a bit of a ****ing trainwreck to be honest, but if you are willing wade through it anyway there is also some pretty good points put forward and information and stuff in there.

strobe

Domo230 wrote: »

I never get why Mothers would refuse to let the father see their daughter providing they are not a junkie or some other extremely bad influence.

Do they not remember there was once a time when they (supposedly) loved this person.

'Because they are really ****ty, bitter and self centred parents' appears to be the logical answer a lot of the time unfortunately, I think.

PrincessLola

I don't understand why the mother would refuse to let the father see their child.

I fail to see how this is feminism's fault tho. A true feminist would support the father as an equal parent because its important that men do their part in bringing up a child. But whatever; LOL femnazi's/ women r bitches etc.. etc..

Fromthetrees

ash23 wrote: »

Ok, so men get joint guardianship and custody at birth. Good in theory. But just how useless do they have to be? How long do they need to not pay maintenance? How long do we give them not seeing their child before they lose those rights?
I'm not trying to be difficult. I agree in theory with what you are saying. However, doing that just leads to a different set of problems, of court cases etc.
Is it right that men have to prove themselves in court at the moment? No. Would it be right if women had to go to court to prove the men unfit to parent? No, probably not.

There's a difference between co guardianship and joint custody, personally I think, and it shouldn't be up to me to fix the inept rules that prevail today, each father should have automatic access in law at least and be given some of the rights of guardianship. These rights and responsibilities should be considered privileges in a way but I think this should apply to mothers as well.
The way the system should be automatically is assume that both parents are able (same criteria as married parents). One simple step, if the father doesn't show up to register his name on the birth cert., well, that's a start (it will also weasel out some woman claiming single parent allowance unfairly). Why not have a very simple process where the mother tells the community health nurse that the father hasn't been involved and her word is good enough unless challenged by the father. I haven't thought through an entire new system, I just know the current system is wrong and unfair and can with thought be fixed. I am convinced that the vast majority of fathers want to be in their kids lives meaning if the current system was changed it would have a beneficial impact on the vast majority of fathers.

starbelgrade

Men have hairy tits.

Micky Dolenz

January wrote: »

If you wanted a serious answer to this question OP, I'd try Humanities... if not, it's fine here.

You get serious answers here too along with the more light hearted responses.

After Hours is the best forum on boards.

Fair play OP. It's a shambles and the sooner it is changed the better. It is used as a weapon against a lot of genuine fathers.

Rented Mule

starbelgrade wrote: »

Men have hairy tits.

Wax on, wax off Grasshopper.

micropig

Hopefully this changes soon. It's a disgrace that fathers are not recognised and given equal rights and access, without bitterness calling the shots

King of Kings

I was in family court last week for my divorce.

Even though we had an agreement prior to the case the judge chose to stick her beak in - changing provisions etc..

Even my ex called her a stupid cnut - oiutside of course neithe rof us were brave enough

but I really felt that this woman has ultimate power and sought to use it as she saw fit - even at the pleading of both sides who called her meddling unneccessary.

lastlaugh

PrincessLola wrote: »

I don't understand why the mother would refuse to let the father see their child.

I fail to see how this is feminism's fault tho. A true feminist would support the father as an equal parent because its important that men do their part in bringing up a child. But whatever; LOL femnazi's/ women r bitches etc.. etc..

What better way to get back on an ex partner than to make it difficult for them to see their child?

Children are used in this way sometimes and it's a real pity for the children and father.

Ash.J.Williams

PrincessLola wrote: »

I don't understand why the mother would refuse to let the father see their child.

I fail to see how this is feminism's fault tho. A true feminist would support the father as an equal parent because its important that men do their part in bringing up a child. But whatever; LOL femnazi's/ women r bitches etc.. etc..

if only you could see the metaphorical hoops i have to jump through to see my daughter....

Funny thing is (not funny at all)...I'm being treated like a woman abuser and I never behaved out of line with a woman in my life, it's simply inconvenient for my ex that I am alive!

Nothingbetter2d

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Today, I was at the family law court to have my application for co-guardianship and joint custody heard.

Long story...

The mother of my daughter agreed to sign the forms ten minutes before we were about to go into the judge. I'm very happy with the outcome.

My question is, why did I have to go to court just to get some basic rights over my daughter?

What pissed me off although I accept it, is that my solicitor made it clear in the written document that we both signed is that the mother is the primary care giver, like I said, I accept this but the judge went on to add a few more paragraphs to give the mother more control, despite the fact that agreement had been reached between both parties before we entered the court room. I genuinely feel there is a strong bias against fathers in our laws and legal system.

I actually think I'm lucky, I get 50% access to my daughter and a say in what happens, up until today it was all literally at the discretion of the mother, that just seems sick to me.

I think there is something wrong with a de facto situation where every single father who has a child outside of marriage has as many rights over them as the bottle of beer beside me.

I think we need to adopt a system similar to the US, if a father has no interest in his child, fine, automatically garnish his income and that's that, but if he wants to be involved in the childs life than give him these rights and responsibilities without having to go through the court system to get some.

fair play to ya for standing up for yourself and your daughter.

your daughter is lucky to have a dad that wants to be a part of her life.

my niece's father on the otherhand show zero interest in his beautiful little 2 year old daughter.

PrincessLola

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

if only you could see the metaphorical hoops i have to jump through to see my daughter....

Funny thing is (not funny at all)...I'm being treated like a woman abuser and I never behaved out of line with a woman in my life, it's simply inconvenient for my ex that I am alive!

Who is treating you like a woman abuser?

Anyway, don't get mad mad at all women, your daughter will be a young woman some day:)

SEPT 23 1989

I consider it a form of abuse if a mother does not let a child see its father

xsiborg

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I actually think I'm lucky, I get 50% access to my daughter and a say in what happens, up until today it was all literally at the discretion of the mother, that just seems sick to me.

I think there is something wrong with a de facto situation where every single father who has a child outside of marriage has as many rights over them as the bottle of beer beside me.

but im glad to see you have your priorities straight at least! :rolleyes:

in other news- every situation is different, and the case of the OP is only one, ONE, of many, many anecdotal cases.

i don't know the OP's situation and neither do any of us here, we can only form an opinion based on what they have posted, but i hope the OP is able to see from the point of view of many women who have left abusive relationships and taken their children with them for their own safety, and then the father decides he will try to gain access through legal means to see the children, and thereby continue to intimidate the mother.

its all fine a father with good intentions saying that they want access to their children, but OP you are in a very, very tiny minority, and i'd sooner the courts err on the side of caution than have the children pulled from pillar to post emotionally speaking at least.

imagine how hard it was for you OP to go through what you have been through, now imagine what it's like for your children, who are far less emotionally and intellectually developed to deal with the situation.

it is the courts job not to side with either adult party, but to do what it sees are in the best interests of the children, not the adults.

Millicent

xsiborg wrote: »

but im glad to see you have your priorities straight at least! :rolleyes:

in other news- every situation is different, and the case of the OP is only one, ONE, of many, many anecdotal cases.

i don't know the OP's situation and neither do any of us here, we can only form an opinion based on what they have posted, but i hope the OP is able to see from the point of view of many women who have left abusive relationships and taken their children with them for their own safety, and then the father decides he will try to gain access through legal means to see the children, and thereby continue to intimidate the mother.

its all fine a father with good intentions saying that they want access to their children, but OP you are in a very, very tiny minority, and i'd sooner the courts err on the side of caution than have the children pulled from pillar to post emotionally speaking at least.

imagine how hard it was for you OP to go through what you have been through, now imagine what it's like for your children, who are far less emotionally and intellectually developed to deal with the situation.

it is the courts job not to side with either adult party, but to do what it sees are in the best interests of the children, not the adults.

Ah here. Fathers seeking access =/= abusive assholes. There are methods to deal with gits like that. I don't see why there is any reason to equate the two in a single post when there is nothing to indicate anything of that nature here. Also -- a bottle of beer? Wow, that monster.

He is not in a very, very tiny minority either so don't go casting aspersions on a giant number of men without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

KittyeeTrix

One of my best friends went thru a bitter, sudden break up which nearly destroyed her. I remember she started to get nasty with her ex and withold his 3 kids from him.

I sat her down for a chat one evening. I sarted by telling her that I loved her but had to be honest with her. I then reminded her what we both used to think about women who use their kids as weapons. It was something we would never condone. We talked for hours and at the end she realised what she was doing was wrong and that it was borne out of resentment for her ex and as a way to really, really hurt him........

Women who know other women who do this kind of thing need to be honest and tell them the truth, that they are wrong and ultimately hurting their own child!!!

OBVIOUSLY, the opinion above does not extend to those cases where fathers have been abusive, alcoholics, drug abusers etc.

All parents would benefit from realising your child is 50% the fathers 50% the mothers.

Put the ex down disown them you are essentially putting down 50% of your own child.

Children have enough to cope with in a seperation without being denied acess to 50% of who they are .

cloptrop

marcsignal wrote: »

I've no children OP, so I don't feel qualified to contribute here, other than to say I'm glad the result was to your satisfaction, and to hope it continues that way for you.

Do you have children?
Well then you wouldnt understand , your arguement is wrong and I know more than you. Bloo
Bloody people with no children

44leto

I would fight to make sure she got the kids.

I work with a guy who had a bitter split, but he was given the custody of his 4 kids. So the decision can swing on the father's behalf.

xsiborg

i think you're picking me up completely wrong-

Millicent wrote: »

Ah here. Fathers seeking access =/= abusive assholes..

i never said it did, i was merely making the point that in my own personal experience, (because i am not a fan of statistics, which can be used to make an argument for either side), i have seen cases where fathers have used the "right to have access to the kids" to further intimidate the mother.

Millicent wrote: »

There are methods to deal with gits like that.

again, and forming an opinion solely based on my own experiences, the current methods are not very effective, but that is another argument entirely.

Millicent wrote: »

I don't see why there is any reason to equate the two in a single post when there is nothing to indicate anything of that nature here.

i don't see any indication of it either, in the OP's case at least, but then we only have the OP's word for that and what they have posted here. neither of us, and nobody else here, can judge the merits of one individual case just from what the OP has posted alone.

Millicent wrote: »

Also -- a bottle of beer? Wow, that monster.

this is after hours, a little tongue in cheek humor IS allowed.

Millicent wrote: »

He is not in a very, very tiny minority either

on that im afraid, and again, solely based on my own experience, we'll have to agree to differ. imo there are many more fathers that want nothing to do with their children than there are those who want like the OP to take responsibility for their children, hence why "single mothers" get such a tarring with the one brush in society nowadays and single fathers, well, when was the last time you heard a single father being held to account for being an absentee parent?

Millicent wrote: »

so don't go casting aspersions on a giant number of men without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

it was not my intention to come across as casting aspersions on any individual whatsoever, however i still disagree with your assertion that it is anything even close to a large number of men.

the only evidence i have however is my own personal experiences, just like anyone else in here who has claimed that "its all the woman's fault", but i haven't seen you take any of them to task for their stereotyping and spurious claims.

as i maintained from the beginning of my last post- each case is different, and none of us here can generalise or comment on individual cases without knowing and understanding all the facts.

my post was merely to highlight that the most important thing is not who does or doesnt have access or guardianship rights to the children, but in fact what is actually in the best interests of the children over the access or guardianship rights of the adults.

Millicent

xsiborg wrote: »

i think you're picking me up completely wrong-



i never said it did, i was merely making the point that in my own personal experience, (because i am not a fan of statistics, which can be used to make an argument for either side), i have seen cases where fathers have used the "right to have access to the kids" to further intimidate the mother.



again, and forming an opinion solely based on my own experiences, the current methods are not very effective, but that is another argument entirely.




i don't see any indication of it either, in the OP's case at least, but then we only have the OP's word for that and what they have posted here. neither of us, and nobody else here, can judge the merits of one individual case just from what the OP has posted alone.



this is after hours, a little tongue in cheek humor IS allowed.



on that im afraid, and again, solely based on my own experience, we'll have to agree to differ. imo there are many more fathers that want nothing to do with their children than there are those who want like the OP to take responsibility for their children, hence why "single mothers" get such a tarring with the one brush in society nowadays and single fathers, well, when was the last time you heard a single father being held to account for being an absentee parent?



it was not my intention to come across as casting aspersions on any individual whatsoever, however i still disagree with your assertion that it is anything even close to a large number of men.

the only evidence i have however is my own personal experiences, just like anyone else in here who has claimed that "its all the woman's fault", but i haven't seen you take any of them to task for their stereotyping and spurious claims.

as i maintained from the beginning of my last post- each case is different, and none of us here can generalise or comment on individual cases without knowing and understanding all the facts.

my post was merely to highlight that the most important thing is not who does or doesnt have access or guardianship rights to the children, but in fact what is actually in the best interests of the children over the access or guardianship rights of the adults.

I can't seem to win on Boards sometimes: defend women and I'm not doing enough to defend men. Defend men and I'm not doing enough to defend women.

Others have jumped in already to counteract any anti-women sentiments in here so there is no need for me to.

I'm just saying, in the context of this discussion, there was no need to bring up abusive men quite so soon into your post.

A child is entitled to two parents who want them--how is that importance nullified or lessened in any way by parents being given equal rights in parenting?

And yes, there are discrepancies in the ways single mothers and absentee fathers are perceived but those don't change by pouring scorn on decent, respectable responsible fathers who are doing their best by their children.

If we're going on anecdotal evidence here, I know far more men who are involved in their children's lives and have fought for custody and access than those who aren't and haven't. I'm not offering that as proof of anything, just pointing out that the plural of anecdote is never data or even a reasonable argument.

ETA: I do agree that more should be done around domestic violence in the law. That still doesn't negate the rights of men who are not abusive assholes, just as some women being vindictive and withholding access does not equate to all mothers being bitches.

cloptrop

cloptrop wrote: »

marcsignal wrote: »

I've no children OP, so I don't feel qualified to contribute here, other than to say I'm glad the result was to your satisfaction, and to hope it continues that way for you.

Do you have children?
Well then you wouldnt understand , your arguement is wrong and I know more than you. Bloo
Bloody people with no children

I think thats totally unfair and biased just because you have procreated dosnt make you an authority on children .Nor does being childless remove your right to have an opinion.

We were all kids once

Local-womanizer

I love taking some women up on their view the country is a sexist one when it comes to women's rights.

Once I give a few examples of how men are treated in this country when it comes to family law they usually step down.

Not saying all women are like this, only a few militants! This country will is backwards when it comes to family law. A shame really that a father has to go to court just to have a say over his kids lives or get married.

cloptrop

Daniella Lazy Fatigues wrote: »

I think thats totally unfair and biased just because you have procreated dosnt make you an authority on children .Nor does being childless remove your right to have an opinion.

We were all kids once

It was a joke its like saying im not racist but,,,,,,,,,,,,,

planetX

My experience of the family court is the opposite, so desperate to be pro-father that they will grant immediate and prolonged access to a father who wasn't present for 7 years. The one thing the courts are not is pro-child.

Caraville

Millicent wrote: »

I can't seem to win on Boards sometimes: defend women and I'm not doing enough to defend men. Defend men and I'm not doing enough to defend women.

I absolutely agree with you on this. It's something that really bothers me at times about this website

OP, all I can say is that hopefully as time moves on, things will change. After all, custody cases are probably only going to become more prevalent in the years ahead and the law makers in this country are going to have to face up to the facts that there is a bias towards women.

Congratulations on getting the outcome you hoped for, and I wish you many happy days spent with your daughter.

cloptrop

So because the child had no father for 7 years he cant be allowed have one for another 11 is your point of view?
You arnt pro child your anti father.

xsiborg

Millicent wrote: »

I can't seem to win on Boards sometimes: defend women and I'm not doing enough to defend men. Defend men and I'm not doing enough to defend women.

Others have jumped in already to counteract any anti-women sentiments in here so there is no need for me to.

I'm just saying, in the context of this discussion, there was no need to bring up abusive men quite so soon into your post.

A child is entitled to two parents who want them--how is that importance nullified or lessened in any way by parents being given equal rights in parenting?

And yes, there are discrepancies in the ways single mothers and absentee fathers are perceived but those don't change by pouring scorn on decent, respectable responsible fathers who are doing their best by their children.

If we're going on anecdotal evidence here, I know far more men who are involved in their children's lives and have fought for custody and access than those who aren't and haven't. I'm not offering that as proof of anything, just pointing out that the plural of anecdote is never data or even a reasonable argument.

ETA: I do agree that more should be done around domestic violence in the law. That still doesn't negate the rights of men who are not abusive assholes, just as some women being vindictive and withholding access does not equate to all mothers being bitches.

thank you at least Millicent for being willing to entertain the notion that others are at least entitled to their point of view from their own experience, far too many times in far too many discussions on boards i have seen threads descend into statistics vs. statistics with a few obscure wiki references and "expert opinions" thrown in for good measure. i'd sooner talk to someone that can offer their opinion based on their own experiences and not some obscure "report" from the first link in google.

i applaud the OP for taking their responsibilities seriously but what struck me was that they couldn't fathom why the courts would still want to adjudicate in the case when the adults had an agreement already in place. i was trying to convey the idea that the courts HAVE to do this in respect of what is in the best interest of the child, and put their interests and their welfare before any rights of the parents.

Robdude

Sexism against women is wrong because women are weaker and need our protection.
Sexism against men is fine because women are weaker and need our protection.

Millicent

Robdude wrote: »

Sexism against women is wrong because women are weaker and need our protection.
Sexism against men is fine because women are weaker and need our protection.

Who said that?

Fromthetrees

xsiborg wrote: »

but im glad to see you have your priorities straight at least! :rolleyes:

in other news- every situation is different, and the case of the OP is only one, ONE, of many, many anecdotal cases.

i don't know the OP's situation and neither do any of us here, we can only form an opinion based on what they have posted, but i hope the OP is able to see from the point of view of many women who have left abusive relationships and taken their children with them for their own safety, and then the father decides he will try to gain access through legal means to see the children, and thereby continue to intimidate the mother.

its all fine a father with good intentions saying that they want access to their children, but OP you are in a very, very tiny minority, and i'd sooner the courts err on the side of caution than have the children pulled from pillar to post emotionally speaking at least.

imagine how hard it was for you OP to go through what you have been through, now imagine what it's like for your children, who are far less emotionally and intellectually developed to deal with the situation.

it is the courts job not to side with either adult party, but to do what it sees are in the best interests of the children, not the adults.

Your post is just a complete headfuck.
Having a beer when I don't have my kid over is having my priorities fucked up?
My case isn't anecdotal, if you actually read my first post, which I doubt, I said that it is the default situation. Any father who has a child outside of marriage has no rights over his child and the only way to get them is by consent of the mother or the consent of a judge, I find this absurd. Each individual case is obviously different, my point is that it's not right that an unmarried father should have to go and get basic rights.
What has being an unmarried father and being abusive towards women or children got in common?
Your saying that unmarried fathers with 'good intentions are in a very, very tiny minority', that's just insane. I won't even ask for any statistics to back that claim up because it's just demented. On the other hand, are you saying that about all fathers or just unmarried fathers? To me, marriage is just a piece of paper.
I honestly don't even know what you're trying to say.

planetX

cloptrop wrote: »

So because the child had no father for 7 years he cant be allowed have one for another 11 is your point of view?
You arnt pro child your anti father.

and you're jumping to stupid and incorrect conclusions.
The thread is about courts being biased against fathers. I'm saying that this is not my experience.