Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mother or Father

Options
  • 18-11-2014 1:12pm
    #1
    ForstalDave
    Registered Users Posts: 612 ✭✭✭


    I was reading one of the threads here and it seems most people think the mother should be the primary care giver, So i thought we would do a test and a poll.

    So child of 6 months perants spilt up, who should get custody?

    Who should get custody 1 vote

    Mother
    0%
    Father
    0%
    shared equally
    100%
    metaldrummer 1 vote


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    There are far too many variables and each scenario is different.
    The custody arrangements should be in the best interests of the child and reviewed regularly to ensure that is the case.


  • Options
    #3
    pc7
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 14,121 Mod ✭✭✭✭pc7


    Agree with Lazygal, who ever is in the best position to provide the child with what they need should. If the mother is a drug/alcoholic or other health issues then the father and vice versa.


  • Options
    #4
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Too many variables. I don't believe the mother should automatically be assumed to be the primary caregiver though.


  • Options
    #5
    ForstalDave
    Registered Users Posts: 612 ✭✭✭ForstalDave


    Assume both are equal both have good jobs and work hard no drugs or alcohol. Both deemed fit by the state.


  • Options
    #6
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    ForstalDave wrote: »
    Assume both are equal both have good jobs and work hard no drugs or alcohol. Both deemed fit by the state.

    Whoever can best provide a stable home for the child. There is nothing a mother can do that a father can't and vice versa.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ForstalDave wrote: »
    Assume both are equal both have good jobs and work hard no drugs or alcohol. Both deemed fit by the state.

    This still doesn't take other variables into account. Suppose a father or mother moves to a different country, or the child prefers to stay with a father and see the mother only occasionally, or the mother is still breast-feeding, or, or, or.

    There is no one size fits all approach, and the main person who should be taken into account is the child.


  • Options
    #8
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    lazygal wrote: »
    This still doesn't take other variables into account. Suppose a father or mother moves to a different country, or the child prefers to stay with a father and see the mother only occasionally, or the mother is still breast-feeding, or, or, or.

    There is no one size fits all approach, and the main person who should be taken into account is the child.


    In the hypothetical situation, the child is 6 months old...


  • Options
    #9
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    In the hypothetical situation, the child is 6 months old...

    And things can change. A six month old grows into a child and teenager with a mind of his or her own. So it is impossible to say that in every case custody arrangements should be the same.


  • Options
    #10
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    That's a nonsense poll so I've closed it. If you want to have a discussion about who the primary caregiver should be that's fine - but a random Mother vs Father choice without any further details adds nothing to any discussion.


  • Options
    #11
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    lazygal wrote: »
    And things can change. A six month old grows into a child and teenager with a mind of his or her own. So it is impossible to say that in every case custody arrangements should be the same.

    I know, but we are not talking about a child or teenager that's kind of my point. How does a 6 month old favour one caregiver over another, all things being equal, never mind convey as much??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators Posts: 14,035 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    If both parents are suitable parents - live within easy distance of each other etc then what's wrong with joint custody? Why should it be one or the other? If the parents are serious about the best interests of the child then why would they deny the child the chance of an equal relationship with the other parent?


  • Options
    #13
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I know, but we are not talking about a child or teenager that's kind of my point. How does a 6 month old favour one caregiver over another, all things being equal, never mind convey as much??
    I was thinking longer term. Perhaps custody was awarded to one parent at six months of age, and as the child grows older he or she prefers to spend more time with one parent than the other. My point being, what is arranged at six months of age should not be final, and as I said, subject to ongoing review. A six month old isn't six months forever, and custody needs to reflect that.


  • Options
    #14
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Big Bag of Chips wrote: »
    If both parents are suitable parents - live within easy distance of each other etc then what's wrong with joint custody? Why should it be one or the other? If the parents are serious about the best interests of the child then why would they deny the child the chance of an equal relationship with the other parent?

    I know one child who was under a joint custody arrangement and hated it. Having to pack up from one week to the next and sleep in one place for a few nights and then somewhere else for a few more. When he was older he told his parents it wasn't working and they'd have to come to some other agreement. It might suit adults to divide time neatly but that doesn't mean it suits the child.


  • Options
    #15
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    lazygal wrote: »
    I was thinking longer term. Perhaps custody was awarded to one parent at six months of age, and as the child grows older he or she prefers to spend more time with one parent than the other. My point being, what is arranged at six months of age should not be final, and as I said, subject to ongoing review. A six month old isn't six months forever, and custody needs to reflect that.

    The hypothetical situation was not. And yes I think we all know that six months is not six months forever. Such orders are not final anyway. The likelihood is though, if the father is deprived of access to the child when he/she is young, this will be used against him in future reviews on the basis that the child needs consistency etc.


  • Options
    #16
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    The hypothetical situation was not. And yes I think we all know that six months is not six months forever. Such orders are not final anyway. The likelihood is though, if the father is deprived of access to the child when he/she is young, this will be used against him in future reviews on the basis that the child needs consistency etc.

    So what are we discussing then? What is best for a child on the day he or she turns six months of age and no age outside that?


  • Options
    #17
    ForstalDave
    Registered Users Posts: 612 ✭✭✭ForstalDave


    Orion wrote: »
    That's a nonsense poll so I've closed it. If you want to have a discussion about who the primary caregiver should be that's fine - but a random Mother vs Father choice without any further details adds nothing to any discussion.

    But that is the point of the poll, Many people favor Mother over Father, It is ingrained into many people that A mother is considered a better carer when it comes to kids. The question and poll was posed purposely to see if this has changed or if people would question before answering. (Happily people did)


  • Options
    #18
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ForstalDave wrote: »
    But that is the point of the poll, Many people favor Mother over Father, It is ingrained into many people that A mother is considered a better carer when it comes to kids. The question and poll was posed purposely to see if this has changed or if people would question before answering. (Happily people did)

    Just to settle something above, did you pick six months for a reason?


  • Options
    #19
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators Posts: 14,035 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    I did mention "best interests of the child" - a hypothetical 6 month old doesn't care where they hypothetically sleep.

    As children get older they might prefer to stay in one home with sleepovers in another. School routines, after school activites etc might mean they have to stay in one house more than the other.. They might love going between two houses - why did that child have to "pack up"? Surely there was sufficient stuff in each house? Separated parents isn't an ideal situation -and believe it or not, while the best interests of the child need to be kept in mind, the parents can't be just disregarded. My husband has a daughter from a previous relationship. When she was 7 or 8 she used to kick up murder coming to our house for overnight access. No reason other than she didn't want to leave her own house - didn't want her mam to go out etc. Would it have been in her best interests to leave her at home so she didn't get upset? Resulting in her mam never being able to go out, and her dad never being able to maintain any osrt of relationship?

    She was forced to come a few times until she gave up the fight, and just accepted that that was the way her life was.

    Just because 1 child didn't like moving between 2 houses doesn't mean joint custody should be disregarded for everyone else.


  • Options
    #20
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    ForstalDave wrote: »
    But that is the point of the poll, Many people favor Mother over Father, It is ingrained into many people that A mother is considered a better carer when it comes to kids. The question and poll was posed purposely to see if this has changed or if people would question before answering. (Happily people did)

    Do most people still feel that way? Surely we've moved on from such narrow minded thinking. And all mothers are not the same, some are better parents than others, you can't just lump every mother together and say children are better off with them.


  • Options
    #21
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

    Just because 1 child didn't like moving between 2 houses doesn't mean joint custody should be disregarded for everyone else.

    My point exactly. Every scenario is different, and there were reasons that child had to pack up and move stuff rather than having his own room and things in each home.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    ForstalDave
    Registered Users Posts: 612 ✭✭✭ForstalDave


    lazygal wrote: »
    Just to settle something above, did you pick six months for a reason?

    6 months was picked as then the child's preference is not in question


  • Options
    #23
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators Posts: 14,035 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    lazygal wrote: »
    My point exactly. Every scenario is different, and there were reasons that child had to pack up and move stuff rather than having his own room and things in each home.

    Fair enough but we're talking about a hypothetical 6 month old. Sleeping in a hypothetical cot in his own hypothetical room..

    What is wrong, hypothetically with joint custody?


  • Options
    #24
    ForstalDave
    Registered Users Posts: 612 ✭✭✭ForstalDave


    Big Bag of Chips wrote: »
    Fair enough but we're talking about a hypothetical 6 month old. Sleeping in a hypothetical cot in his own hypothetical room..

    What is wrong, hypothetically with joint custody?

    Just to pose another question at what age is joint custody considered? If a child is not being breastfeed is it ok to start from the
    start or should there be an age when this becomes an option


  • Options
    #25
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Big Bag of Chips wrote: »
    Fair enough but we're talking about a hypothetical 6 month old. Sleeping in a hypothetical cot in his own hypothetical room..

    What is wrong, hypothetically with joint custody?

    I don't think a six month old benefits from sleeping in a different environment away from the primary caregiver for a few nights a week-I'm going on my own experience and that of the friends of mine who have had babies. I remember we went to a hotel for a couple of nights when my older child was a few months old and the different cot unsettled her even though I was there. Then there's other factors like breast-feeding to consider. I simply couldn't have had joint custody with either of mine because I was feeding them. Point being, not every situation merits the same agreement.


  • Options
    #26
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators Posts: 14,035 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    You might have people argue that a baby needs their mother (I think that is why this thread was started). But there is really no need for their not be overnight access at a father's house from an early age. The younger the baby is the quicker they will get used to it. You might have a hard time convincing people that the baby will come to no harm being away from their mother though.


  • Options
    #27
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    lazygal wrote: »
    So what are we discussing then? What is best for a child on the day he or she turns six months of age and no age outside that?

    The OP's hypothetical situation pertaining to who has primary care of the 6 month old, who will grow to be older at which point it can be reviewed. Why are you complicating the issue?


  • Options
    #28
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators Posts: 14,035 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    Ah come one lazygal - you're just not letting this go. We're talking about a hypothetical baby - sleeping in identical hypothetical cots - both hypothetical parents equally capable of looking after the bottle fed hypothetical baby. Why should both parents not be given equal rights to care for the (hypothetical) baby?

    I just find it funny/sad that even in a hypothetical situation you can't concede that a father may be just as capable and entitled to be a carer for his baby.


  • Options
    #29
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators Posts: 14,035 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    I think it can also depend on how many children you have. When I had one or 2 children I was convinced nobody could look after them the way I do. By the time number 4 arrived I was happy for my mam to take them the odd night!

    My problem is now - the older ones hate being away from me. They cried when I went in to hospital to have the baby because they had to stay with my mother. If me and my husband need to go somewhere over night there are tears and really very upset children. I don't plan on making the same mistake with No 4! I'll give her to anyone who'll offer to take her for a night!


  • Options
    #30
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Big Bag of Chips wrote: »
    Ah come one lazygal - you're just not letting this go. We're talking about a hypothetical baby - sleeping in identical hypothetical cots - both hypothetical parents equally capable of looking after the bottle fed hypothetical baby. Why should both parents not be given equal rights to care for the (hypothetical) baby?

    I just find it funny/sad that even in a hypothetical situation you can't concede that a father may be just as capable and entitled to be a carer for his baby.

    I never said that, did I? I said it depends on the individual circumstances, in every individual case, in my first post on this. If the circumstances mean joint custody is best for the child, than that's what the arrangement should be.
    I find it funny/sad that you're reading things into my posts which aren't there. I was clear in my first post on this thread that there are far too many variables for a one size fits all approach.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Big Bag of Chips
    Administrators Posts: 14,035 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Big Bag of Chips


    Obviously - but from the other thread you are very vocal on the mother being the primary care giver. And the baby needing to be close to their mother to settle and bond in the "4th trimester".

    What if the primary care giver is the father? I know of situations where babies have been taken from the mothers at birth because they are not fit to care for them? How does that fit with the argument of the baby needs to bond with their mother in the "4th trimester"?

    The father then becomes the primary care giver - the mother cleans up her act and proves herself fit to have overnight access. At what age could the baby then be sent to the mother for overnight access? Would 15 weeks be too young (if we assume the mother is completely clean and has the support of her parents at home to help her) could the baby be sent to her at 15 weeks - or should the baby stay with her primary care giver - the father - until she is older?

    Edit: I just believe your argument that a father can't possibly look after a baby as well as the mother is outdated and insulting to fathers. And that kind of thinking only serves to reinforce it to some men who are then happy to sit back and leave the mother to do everything, or dodge their responsibilities by telling the mother that they can't take care of the baby. Of course they can.


Advertisement