Absent Fathers

ntlbell · 19-01-2011 3:04pm

Bill2673 wrote: »

Why are you answering a question with a question?

The original post suggested a UK study saying that 25% of children saying they had not seen their father indicated that 25% of children had been abandoned by their father.

The post you quote is questioning this assertion.....

Now if you have an answer to it, then I'd like to see it.

It doesn't indicate that 25% of children have been abonded by their fathers, christ all mighty, it suggests 25% of them don't "see" him. it doesn't go into the reasons why, it might be easy for you to assume they walked out, but that doesn't make it so.

Reward · 19-01-2011 3:11pm

Fistycuffs wrote: »

Why can we not have a conversation about the full gamet of male attitudes to fatherhood.? What is so threathening about acknowledging the fact of intentionally absent fathers? Why is mere acknowledgement of it "maligning men and pedastalising women" as another poster put it?

We have heard men been maligned of this for a long time now while women have always been portrayed as the innocent victims. The "full gamet" here includes the part that women are playing and pointing out the tendency to blame men for everything. Lets change the manhating record and talk about the part that women, legal inequality, feminism and society's attitudes towards fathers is playing in this.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 3:14pm

Fistycuffs wrote: »

Where are the statistics that highlight the emboldened as a significant issue? Are you really saying that fathers with no contact with their children are likely to fall into that above bracket?

The statistics don't exist because family law courts in Ireland, in clear breach of EU law, are held IN CAMERA. For more on this, see this report from 2000. Nothing's changed in the meantime. There is a clear responsibility for the courts to demonstrate transparency, and yet they have not done so. Legislation overhauling this obscenity is long overdue.
And if you don't think that women have maliciously invented allegations of abuse to prevent fathers from seeing their kids, then have a read of this charter.

Fistycuffs wrote: »

Throughout this thread you've churned out your opinion as hard fact yet we see no real statistics to support your assertions.

On the contrary, you and two other posters have claimed that fathers abandoning their kids in Britain and Ireland are rife. I keep asking to see the statistics on that, yet none are forthcoming. That's the entire supposition of the thread. Support that, and I'll provide you with whatever evidence you want me to (with the In Camera caveat mentioned above.)

Fistycuffs wrote: »

Why can we not have a conversation about the full gamet of male attitudes to fatherhood.? What is so threathening about acknowledging the fact of intentionally absent fathers?

I've acknowledged that it happens repeatedly in this thread and repeatedly condemned it. What I've queried are the unsubstantiated allegations that it occurs in 'huge numbers'.

Fistycuffs wrote: »

Why is mere acknowledgement of it "maligning men and pedastalising women" as another poster put it?

Ah, but that's not what he did. Let's not get disingenuous here.

Fistycuffs wrote: »

No one is denying that the vast majority of men want to be good fathers. However the fact remains that a statistically significant amount of men do abandon responsibility for their child.

HOW statistically significant? Tell us. Give us a percentage. Show us where you got your data from.

Fistycuffs wrote: »

No I couldn't be bothered tracing research to show you this.

Ah, so you won't or can't. Then stop making claims you can't support. If you want to talk about the fact that it happens sometimes and is wrong, let's talk about that. If you want to keep making unsubstantiated allegations that it is a massively widespread phenomenon, then show me the figures to prove it.

Fistycuffs wrote: »

It's self evident if you look around,even with friends and family,and explore the issue.

Not to me, it isn't. Among my friends, I have sole custody of my kid, and two of my best mates have joint custody of theirs. Every one of us were trailed through the courts for years to achieve that. Every one of us had to spend money we couldn't afford, and fight like dogs just to be acknowledged as parents. I've met guys who were wrongly accused of child abuse in court. I've met guys who had their kids secreted away and adopted against their will. I've met guys who travel to central America two or three times a year for a decade looking for their kids after the mother skipped the country without notice. I can think of only one instance of any man I know who turned his back on his kid, and that was when he couldn't afford to take legal action and after physical threats from the mother's new fella. Three years later, he went to court anyway, despite intimidation, and got access to his kid. But even now, he doesn't get to see the child half the time and the courts take no action against the mother.
So yes, I do feel desperately sorry about your experience. It was wrong, and can never be made up. Your father will have to live with that for the rest of his life. He missed out on your childhood and can never know the full extent of the mistake he made.
But I have a different experience, and so do many other men. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because some men are feckless does not justify the denial of human rights to fathers and children the length of this country.

Fistycuffs wrote: »

I'm not saying 100% of women are excellent mothers ,but more men will walk out of their childs life than women. Why is that?

Because in this country and in Britain, the legal system auto-authorises the mother to the complete denial of the rights of the child and the father. Check out Muslim countries, where the system is the exact opposite. Which parent abandons their children there? The mother. And why? Because courts automatically grant all parental rights to fathers in the event of a split.

Fistycuffs wrote: »

Why can we not have a conversation about it?

Isn't that what we're doing?

Fistycuffs · 19-01-2011 3:18pm

So it can't be talked about or acknowledged. Instead it's all,100% of all absent fathers, are the result of scheming manevolent women who for some reason insist that they bear the full burden of caring for a child.

Refusal to acknowledge the more balanced reality is a very dangerous basis for a theory in my opinion. There have been some terrifying generalizations about women and mothers here. It's become a staple of The Gentlemans Club I guess. I pity your daughters.

ntlbell · 19-01-2011 3:21pm

Fistycuffs wrote: »

So it can't be talked about or acknowledged. Instead it's all,100% of all absent fathers, are the result of scheming manevolent women who for some reason insist that they bear the full burden of caring for a child.

Well no one can say what % because we don't have stats the same way the BBC don't have anything bar 25% don't see thier kids. we can't come up with % based on your or our friends expiriences, all we can say is not 100% of the 25% mentioned in the article is down to fathers not wanting to be fathers, we simply don't know the reasons in these cases.

Fistycuffs wrote: »

Refusal to acknowledge the more balanced reality is a very dangerous basis for a theory in my opinion. There have been some terrifying generalizations about women and mothers here. It's become a staple of The Gentlemans Club I guess. I pity your daughters.

no one's refusing to acknowledge, everyone ackowledges some father's are absent of their own choice but we don't have any evidence to prove how common it is.

and that comment on people's daughters.

Shame on you.

Reward · 19-01-2011 3:22pm

Fistycuffs wrote: »

So it can't be talked about or acknowledged. Instead it's all,100% of all absent fathers, are the result of scheming manevolent women who for some reason insist that they bear the full burden of caring for a child.

Refusal to acknowledge the more balanced reality is a very dangerous basis for a theory in my opinion. There have been some terrifying generalizations about women and mothers here. It's become a staple of The Gentlemans Club I guess. I pity your daughters.

I think the more reasonable people were suggesting that there is more to the 25% story than fathers walking out on their children by choice ie. mothers behaviour, social welfare fraud and / or legal injustice, (and lets not forget false accusations of abuse) fathers in UK dont dress up in disguise and climb buildings just for sport. I believe that you have been working against that more reasonable view point here.

I resent your implication that I am somehow a threat to my daughter, take your false implications of child abuse and attemts to shame elsewhere.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 3:22pm

Reward wrote: »

As it stands men have no right to abort their parenthood during the pregnancy, perhaps they should have access to legal abortion and that would cut the number both the number of pregnancies and men that are absent.

Interesting proposal of exactly this and a very heated debate here.

Bill2673 · 19-01-2011 3:28pm

ntlbell wrote: »

It doesn't indicate that 25% of children have been abonded by their fathers, christ all mighty, it suggests 25% of them don't "see" him. it doesn't go into the reasons why, it might be easy for you to assume they walked out, but that doesn't make it so.

I never said the survey said that. In fact I said the survey didn't say that

I said that was the inference being taken in this discussion.

This is laughable, take the exact opposite of what I said, claim that I said it, and then scold me for it.

Fistycuffs · 19-01-2011 3:31pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

On the contrary, you and two other posters have claimed that fathers abandoning their kids in Britain and Ireland are rife. I keep asking to see the statistics on that, yet none are forthcoming. That's the entire supposition of the thread. Support that, and I'll provide you with whatever evidence you want me to (with the In Camera caveat mentioned above.)

I've acknowledged that it happens repeatedly in this thread and repeatedly condemned it. What I've queried are the unsubstantiated allegations that it occurs in 'huge numbers'.

Ah, but that's not what he did. Let's not get disingenuous here.

HOW statistically significant? Tell us. Give us a percentage. Show us where you got your data from.

Ah, so you won't or can't. Then stop making claims you can't support. If you want to talk about the fact that it happens sometimes and is wrong, let's talk about that. If you want to keep making unsubstantiated allegations that it is a massively widespread phenomenon, then show me the figures to prove it.

Not to me, it isn't. Among my friends, I have sole custody of my kid, and two of my best mates have joint custody of theirs. Every one of us were trailed through the courts for years to achieve that. Every one of us had to spend money we couldn't afford, and fight like dogs just to be acknowledged as parents. I've met guys who were wrongly accused of child abuse in court. I've met guys who had their kids secreted away and adopted against their will. I've met guys who travel to central America two or three times a year for a decade looking for their kids after the mother skipped the country without notice. I can think of only one instance of any man I know who turned his back on his kid, and that was when he couldn't afford to take legal action and after physical threats from the mother's new fella. Three years later, he went to court anyway, despite intimidation, and got access to his kid. But even now, he doesn't get to see the child half the time and the courts take no action against the mother.
So yes, I do feel desperately sorry about your experience. It was wrong, and can never be made up. Your father will have to live with that for the rest of his life. He missed out on your childhood and can never know the full extent of the mistake he made.
But I have a different experience, and so do many other men. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because some men are feckless does not justify the denial of human rights to fathers and children the length of this country.

Because in this country and in Britain, the legal system auto-authorises the mother to the complete denial of the rights of the child and the father. Check out Muslim countries, where the system is the exact opposite. Which parent abandons their children there? The mother. And why? Because courts automatically grant all parental rights to fathers in the event of a split.

Isn't that what we're doing?

I haven't said anywhere that it is "rife" or that it is prevalent in "massive numbers". Personally i believe that any number of fathers choosing to do this is is significant however. The truth is that anecdotally it is widespread enough to warrant at least discussion and acknowledgement.

You have used your own personal experience as a father to illustrate the difficulties men face in trying to get custody. I am sorry to hear that you had to go through all that and im sure your child is lucky to have you.That is no more valid than me using my experience of meeting and talking to people with similar experiences to myself to illustrate that fathers abandoning their children by choice does happen. The thread was initially about absent fathers who chose to be absent. I think that itself is an interesting issue.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 3:36pm

Fistycuffs wrote: »

I haven't said anywhere that it is "rife" or that it is prevalent in "massive numbers".

We've had one poster claim it was 'huge numbers.' You yourself claimed it was statistically significant. That suggests you have some statistics. I'd like to see them.

Fistycuffs wrote: »

Personally i believe that any number of fathers choosing to do this is is significant however. The truth is that anecdotally it is widespread enough to warrant at least discussion and acknowledgement.

If it is the 'truth' that it is 'widespread', then presumably you can demonstrate that truth with some evidence. It being so widespread and all. :rolleyes:

Fistycuffs wrote: »

You have used your own personal experience as a father to illustrate the difficulties men face in trying to get custody. I am sorry to hear that you had to go through all that and im sure your child is lucky to have you.That is no more valid than me using my experience of meeting and talking to people with similar experiences to myself to illustrate that fathers abandoning their children by choice does happen. The thread was initially about absent fathers who chose to be absent. I think that itself is an interesting issue.

It's an issue worth discussing but only in the context of the wider context of children who don't see their fathers. The OP suggested that this was entirely the fault of fathers, and others have suggested likewise. We're now closing in on the reality that there are many reasons, as I suggested in my first post on this thread, for why fathers don't see their kids in Ireland or Britain, and if we're going to discuss any issue relating to that, then we need to discuss ALL the issues.

The Corinthian · 19-01-2011 3:39pm

My understanding is that this thread, according to the initial post, is about fathers who have little or no contact. That they have chosen not to is not said and is indeed a pretty big assumption to make and I'm a little taken aback by the fact that so many are bizarrely jumping to this conclusion.

Personally, I think there are three broad reasons for these absences:

Firstly, there is the scenario where the father simply is unaware of having a child. The obvious situation is following a one-night-stand, where there is no contact between the mother and father and no means to let him know. Sometimes also it can be because the mother does not want the father involved, perhaps she is already in another relationship (which can lead to paternity fraud), wants to keep the child but has no interest in involvement from the father, or sometimes for other reasons altogether.

One example I knew of was of a young woman who got pregnant just before emigrating; while she chose to keep the child, she did not want to complicate matters by letting the father know, especially if it resulted in legal action by him.

Secondly there is the case where the father does not want to be a father. Given that we now live in a World where, for women who do not want to be mothers, abortion is widely available (even if not strictly speaking available in Ireland, there is bizarrely a constitutional right to travel for it) and the morning after pill can be bought over the counter, even before we consider the option of adoption it's not surprising that the decision not to be involved is at the very least tacitly condoned by many.

When you ask yourself how many children have been abandoned by their fathers by choice, you need to add the figures for abortions and adoptions too as they are no less parental rejections - only easier to hide under a separate category and call it a right.

After all, it is difficult to take seriously someone quip about how men should "keep it in their pants" if they don't what to become fathers, then defend "a woman's right to choose" no matter how sexually irresponsible she is. And when challenged on this, those same people generally respond with indignant cliches such as "that's different" or simply abandon the conversation, never explaining this contradiction.

All this has, I believe, made it more acceptable for men to choose to not be involved - it has become an unplanned consequence to a woman's right to choose, again paid for by the children involved.

Finally, there is the situation of parental alienation, and this is all too real. To begin with there the law de jure is biased in favour of the mother in the case of unmarried parents. Added to this it is de facto biased in its application, regardless of the marital status of the parents, leading to both a situation where fathers almost never are awarded primary custody and court orders on access or guardianship rights (that are soon to be rendered worthless if the recent recommendations are accepted) are never actually enforced.

This can lead to a situation where a custodial parent - the mother - can use these biases to make involvement difficult to impossible. There are many possible motivations for this; some may (and do) use such power to punish the father for the failed relationship. Others do it as a means of exploiting him. Sometimes both are at play.

Whatever the reason, it can be too much for many men; faced with decades of unending campaign of obstruction, blackmail, exploitation and vindictive spite, many can simply give up.

So to respond to the original question of this thread; there is no simple answer. Just as some fathers are bad, some mothers are also bad, just as some fathers choose to walk away others are driven away. As such, I don't think there is any single solution to an issue that frankly has so many different causes.

Reward · 19-01-2011 3:47pm

"The thread was initially about absent fathers who chose to be absent. I think that itself is an interesting issue".

The thread was initally about a 25% figure and an old fashioned, misandric stereotype.

The 25% figure likely includes

Welfare fraudsters lying about the whereabouts of the father.
Mothers who have no idea who the father isand fathers that have no idea they have fathered a child.
Mothers that don't want a father in the childs life in the first place.
Father's that have been deliberatly excluded.
Fathers that felt they had to leave because of an abusive mother.

And lets not for get that women are initiating approaching 80% of dicorces and that the UK is very feminist and so fathers as not seen as necessary in the first place.

Taking the 25% figure to be indicitive of the number of men that chose to walk out on their children and all the mothers as helpless victims is outdated view.

liah · 19-01-2011 3:49pm

Reward wrote: »

I'd imagine that the number of women that abort, abandon, walk out on and force or abuse fathers out against their will is beyond the number of fathers that willfully walk out on their children.

Some of the time, it's in the child's best interests that one of the parents was not available. It was 100% completely in my best interests that my mother took me away from my father and that I didn't see him. I know of many other cases like me. Are you taking those cases into account?

No gender holds exclusivity on doing horrible things. In the case of kids being involved, I think both genders can be equally horrible, selfish, unthinking people when it comes to treating their partners after a split. It's a bit unfair to make a sweeping statement like that.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 3:54pm

liah wrote: »

Some of the time, it's in the child's best interests that one of the parents was not available. It was 100% completely in my best interests that my mother took me away from my father and that I didn't see him. I know of many other cases like me. Are you taking those cases into account?

Can I ask who made that decision? Was it your decision? Your mother's? The decision of a court? Your father's decision?
I'd personally consider it a matter of real extremis to consider removing a parent entirely from a child's life. I can't say I have much respect for my child's mother, but despite her having prevented me on numerous occasions from seeing my kid, I wouldn't dream of reciprocating in kind now I have custody.
I believe that all children deserve to know both of their parents in a real, meaningful way unless there is something significantly detrimental, as decided by a court of law, to suggest otherwise.

liah · 19-01-2011 4:00pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Can I ask who made that decision? Was it your decision? Your mother's? The decision of a court? Your father's decision?
I'd personally consider it a matter of real extremis to consider removing a parent entirely from a child's life. I can't say I have much respect for my child's mother, but despite her having prevented me on numerous occasions from seeing my kid, I wouldn't dream of reciprocating in kind now I have custody.
I believe that all children deserve to know both of their parents in a real, meaningful way unless there is something significantly detrimental, as decided by a court of law, to suggest otherwise.

She made the decision on her own. Courts were not involved, I don't even know if they're legally divorced even after all this time. There were no child support claims involved, either. He was cut 100% out of my life and I thank her every day for it tbh.

Reward · 19-01-2011 4:00pm

liah wrote: »

Some of the time, it's in the child's best interests that one of the parents was not available. It was 100% completely in my best interests that my mother took me away from my father and that I didn't see him. I know of many other cases like me. Are you taking those cases into account

No gender holds exclusivity on doing horrible things. In the case of kids being involved, I think both genders can be equally horrible, selfish, unthinking people when it comes to treating their partners after a split. It's a bit unfair to make a sweeping statement like that.

This doesnt make sense to me, I didnt make a sweeping statment I professed a belief, and mentioning that women do these things is not unfair to anyone, its actually fair and reasonable to acknowledge that women do do these things.

liah · 19-01-2011 4:02pm

Reward wrote: »

This doesnt make sense to me, I didnt make a sweeping statment I professed a belief, and mentioning that women do these things is not unfair to anyone, its actually fair and reasonable to acknowledge that women do do these things.

Your use of the word 'beyond' indicated that you felt more of the former was happening than the latter, and the tone indicated that you felt this was a bad thing and that it was the fault of women. I felt you were not taking cases like mine into account. Did I misunderstand?

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 4:08pm

liah wrote: »

She made the decision on her own. Courts were not involved, I don't even know if they're legally divorced even after all this time. There were no child support claims involved, either. He was cut 100% out of my life and I thank her every day for it tbh.

I don't know the details of your life and they are your personal affair. But lacking any further information, I would have to say that your mother either did a very heinous thing, or at the very least went about things in a very wrong way.
My child doesn't like visiting their mother and has often asked not to go. I am under no legal obligation to permit access, but I do anyway, in fact I make it happen, even though I could legally cut off all ties if I wished.
The reason I do this is because I do not believe it is up to me to make such a decision, as it could be based on some residual resentment I have for how I was once treated as a parent.
Only a court should make such decisions.
Like I said, I don't know the details of your life. But unless your father was guilty of something heinous, then your mother's actions were wrong. And if he was guilty of something heinous, then it ought to have gone before a court.

Reward · 19-01-2011 4:12pm

liah wrote: »

Your use of the word 'beyond' indicated that you felt more of the former was happening than the latter, and the tone indicated that you felt this was a bad thing and that it was the fault of women. I felt you were not taking cases like mine into account. Did I misunderstand?

Yes thats right I said that I believe that the former might be happening more often than the latter, for example there were 189,100 abortions in 2009 in the UK, and as Im not stupid, I am aware that its necessary for a % of women and children to seperate from father because of his behaviour as it is sometimes necessary for a father to remove himself because of the mother behaviour, if thats what happened in your case.

liah · 19-01-2011 4:15pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I don't know the details of your life and they are your personal affair. But lacking any further information, I would have to say that your mother either did a very heinous thing, or at the very least went about things in a very wrong way.
My child doesn't like visiting their mother and has often asked not to go. I am under no legal obligation to permit access, but I do anyway, in fact I make it happen, even though I could legally cut off all ties if I wished.
The reason I do this is because I do not believe it is up to me to make such a decision, as it could be based on some residual resentment I have for how I was once treated as a parent.
Only a court should make such decisions.
Like I said, I don't know the details of your life. But unless your father was guilty of something heinous, then your mother's actions were wrong. And if he was guilty of something heinous, then it ought to have gone before a court.

My father abused her and was addicted to at least 4 different substances, including smack.

Growing up it was pretty tough, I'll grant it. I had a lot of questions. But I know, in hindsight, especially now that after 20 years I have finally had first-hand contact with my father who is an absolute idiot, that her moving us out of there was the best decision she has ever made for me.

She didn't bring it to court as she was terrified of him and what he would do, so she moved us out to Canada to be with her family.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that just blood doesn't equal anything. I don't 'owe' my father my presence in my life. He has no 'right' to have me in his life. He made the wrong decision and has to live with the consequences of that.

So what do you make of cases like mine? Do you still think he has the right to see his daughter?

Iago · 19-01-2011 4:20pm

Elle Collins wrote: »

The same amount he had in creating the child - 50%

This is nonsense. If you can't see why there's no point in continuing the discussion.

donfers · 19-01-2011 4:22pm

what is the point of this thread?

I think we all agree that it is an act of gross irresponsibility for a man to just walk away from his kids for the sake of convenience

the debate seems to centre around some posters who are trying to suggest this is happening quite often and another group who says that yes there are some irresponsible absentee dads who just walk coz they can't be arsed but usually there are a whole plethora of reasons why a dad might be absent.

Thus I must ask of the first group, why are they so eager and determined to paint men in a negative light? The absentee father issue is a handy tool for some generalised men-bashing (often from those with personal experience of same who should realise that just because their dad was a deadbeat doesn't mean all dads are), but the reality is like almost every societal issue it's far more complicated than "heh,who do those nasty evil men think they are" and frankly it disappoints me when somebody would so enthusiastically race to the bottom with regard to such a complex and emotive issue as this.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 4:24pm

liah wrote: »

My father abused her and was addicted to at least 4 different substances, including smack.

It should have gone to court. Spousal and substance abuse.

liah wrote: »

Growing up it was pretty tough, I'll grant it. I had a lot of questions. But I know, in hindsight, especially now that after 20 years I have finally had first-hand contact with my father who is an absolute idiot, that her moving us out of there was the best decision she has ever made for me.

It can't have been easy for you. In light of your upbringing it is inevitable that you'd have enormous loyalty for the parent who looked after you by themselves and it would not be human if you did not feel great resentment towards the parent who did not.

liah wrote: »

She didn't bring it to court as she was terrified of him and what he would do, so she moved us out to Canada to be with her family.

While I can understand her actions, they weren't the right ones. She ought to have gone to court. Had he been jailed for his offences, it is possible he may have been rehabilitated. He may have been forced to take a hard look at his life and turn it around. Is that supposition after the fact? Absolutely. Is it likely that would have happened? Probably not. But it is not the right of any parent to take unilateral decisions in that manner.

liah wrote: »

Personally, I'm of the opinion that just blood doesn't equal anything.

I can understand why you might feel that way, but I would utterly disagree. Family are everything to me.

liah wrote: »

I don't 'owe' my father my presence in my life. He has no 'right' to have me in his life. He made the wrong decision and has to live with the consequences of that.

I thought it was your mother who made the decision?

liah wrote: »

So what do you make of cases like mine? Do you still think he has the right to see his daughter?

It sounds like it's too late now. A lot of water's gone under the bridge. A lot of time lost that can never be regained. You're now an adult and as such you have utter freedom of association. I don't need to see my parents if I don't want to either, because I'm an adult too. But of course I choose to because I had a different experience to you.
But I would say this - he DID have a right to see his daughter, and it was taken from him unjustly. There was a woman early in this thread who made a great point - she said she reckoned her ex was an ass to her, but a good father to her daughter. While it's probably not very likely it would have worked out like that, your mother robbed you of any chance of having the experience of that woman's daughter.

metrovelvet · 19-01-2011 4:26pm

Right. So another bad mother thread. Very good CR. I thought this was going to be about the kids.

liah · 19-01-2011 4:40pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It should have gone to court. Spousal and substance abuse.

You would send an already battered and terrified woman to court for god knows how many years when she has to raise a child on her own? She called the cops on him a few times but there is no way in hell I would expect her to go through with something like court when she could have (and did) just as easily moved us to Canada where we lived happily ever after.

It's like how people go "well why didn't you go to court when you get raped?" -- it's a terrifying prospect of having your personal life pulled out and dissected in front of you, particularly when you're mentally and physically abused and therefore in an incredibly delicate mental state. I certainly didn't go to court in my case for those reasons.

It can't have been easy for you. In light of your upbringing it is inevitable that you'd have enormous loyalty for the parent who looked after you by themselves and it would not be human if you did not feel great resentment towards the parent who did not.

It's not loyalty, it's me objectively looking back and realising why she did what she did. It was hard as hell, I had a lot of questions and I had a lot of issues but I turned into a pretty good person without any of his assistance whatsoever. Just because it was hard then doesn't mean it was the wrong choice, not by a long shot. In fact, it gave me a lot of life experience and strength to build from that a lot of other people don't as a direct result of that.

I had contact with him over about a year (just ended around Christmas this year) where he revealed he had not changed, further proving to me that my mother made the correct decision.

While I can understand her actions, they weren't the right ones. She ought to have gone to court. Had he been jailed for his offences, it is possible he may have been rehabilitated. He may have been forced to take a hard look at his life and turn it around. Is that supposition after the fact? Absolutely. Is it likely that would have happened? Probably not. But it is not the right of any parent to take unilateral decisions in that manner.

'Right' in whose eyes? 'Right' is an incredibly subjective word. In my mind, it was 'right' of her to avoid all the hassle in her mental state and take me to a safe place with friends and family where he could not get to either her or me. It was not her responsibility to make sure he goes to jail or gets rehabilitated-- it was her responsibility to look out for her child and her own wellbeing.

'Right' in the eyes of the law doesn't hold much water to me. Right in the eyes of the law doesn't trump the health and well-being of myself and my mother. I know for certain the court process would have destroyed her.

I can understand why you might feel that way, but I would utterly disagree. Family are everything to me.

Then you're lucky enough to have a good one. Simple blood doesn't mean someone should be a valuable person in your life. Sometimes people are just **** and the blood shouldn't make any difference to that. I wouldn't pay lip service to someone I could not possibly get on with just because we happened to be born in the same family. It doesn't make sense-- reminds me a lot of blind patriotism, which I also disagree with, but I digress.

I thought it was your mother who made the decision?

He made the decision to abuse her. She made the decision, as a result of that, to remove us from his life. Her decision was the consequence.

It sounds like it's too late now. A lot of water's gone under the bridge. A lot of time lost that can never be regained. You're now an adult and as such you have utter freedom of association. I don't need to see my parents if I don't want to either, because I'm an adult too. But of course I choose to because I had a different experience to you.

Yes, it is too late, he has still not grown up and is still the man he always was, I have experienced this now first hand. I honestly tried my absolute best (I have various threads in PI on this issue) and gave him a million and one chances but he blew every single one. Now I regret wasting my time even bothering at all.

But I would say this - he DID have a right to see his daughter, and it was taken from him unjustly. There was a woman early in this thread who made a great point - she said she reckoned her ex was an ass to her, but a good father to her daughter. While it's probably not very likely it would have worked out like that, your mother robbed you of any chance of having the experience of that woman's daughter.

Unjustly? Would you honestly trust your child with a woman who not only physically and emotionally abused you, but was on drugs (and I'm not talking pot, I'm talking heroin, crack, meth-- serious stuff) and was as a result highly unpredictable and unstable just because she had a 'right' to her child in the eyes of the law?

If you think it is just to allow that kind of person to interfere with the life of a child then we are going to have to agree to disagree because I will never agree to that.

meganj · 19-01-2011 4:43pm

I just thought I would add my own personal experience to this.

My father was an absent father, in the sense that this thread was originally created in. He left my Mother before I was born, to go back to his other family. She took him to court to get his name on my birth cert and to get Child Support.

My Mother would always say that the reason he left was because of their relationship, not because of me, and she always supported me in talking about finding him once I was 18.

I had no contact with him until I was thirteen. He wandered back into my life after divorcing his wife and setting up shop with his now partner. I'm 23 now, so he's been in my life 10 years. Things are not healthy, since he has come back in a way he's been more absent then when he wasn't around as there was no expectation that he'd show for things, while now there is.

It's been 19 months since I last saw him, his choice not mine. I have two half siblings who he has yet to tell about me, and as a result I make no effort to go to his hometown and visit him. Mostly because I don't know his address.

This to me is the definition of an absent father. Yes he made the effort to get back in touch, but he is not a father to me. He is very much like a stranger who occasionally turns up.

I can't give you figures on absent fathers. Or statistics (although 60% of all statistics are made up don't ya know

) I know two other friends of mine that have 'absent' fathers. One who is in a similar situation to me, with her father going off to America following her birth and never contacting her. The second grew up without a father but there is a huge amount of bad blood between her mother and him and as a result you can't be sure who's decision it was that he not be a part of her life.

My heart bleeds for those father's who want access and rights and who are routinely stopped by Mother's and the Courts and I admire any man who has the balls to stand up for himself in the face of such adversary.

I have no answer as to whether a man should be forced into caring for a child if he wants the Mother to have an abortion. As a girl my immidiate reaction is my body my choice, but that's too cut and dry. If I wanted one and my OH didn't I'd have to take that into account and vice versa.

You cannot deny that there are absent fathers out there. Men who choose not to be part of their children's lives. But equally their are fathers that are forced into that decision by problems with the mother or simply not knowing they exist.

At the end of the day I'm forced to echo the please of Helen Lovejoy... Won't someone please think of the children?

Sermon Ends.

ntlbell · 19-01-2011 4:44pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

I thought this was going to be about the kids.

I thought you thought it was about absent fathers based on stats that have little or nothing to do with the topic.

It sounds like your dispointed that this is not turning into a bad daddy bashing thread.

Reward · 19-01-2011 4:44pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right. So another bad mother thread. Very good CR. I thought this was going to be about the kids.

That seems to be an extreme interpretation, one group wants to keep the blame on bad fathers and another is pointing out the fact that is not just down to bad fathers and women often play a role as do societal attitudes and legal inequality and various other factors, welfare fraud being one example.

Thats a far cry from an illogical attack on mothers.

Women are not children or sacred cows, they can take responsibility and criticism where its due in the same way that men can.

liah · 19-01-2011 4:48pm

Oh, and I'd like to say, when I became a bit older and wanted to find my father, my mother always encouraged me, and when I told her I was talking to him again she encouraged that too, even though it upset her greatly.

Even 20 years after she left him, she wrote in an email to me when I was speaking to him that I am not to tell him anything about her (location, number, address, facebook, etc) because she was terrified still.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 4:52pm

liah wrote: »

You would send an already battered and terrified woman to court for god knows how many years when she has to raise a child on her own? She called the cops on him a few times but there is no way in hell I would expect her to go through with something like court when she could have (and did) just as easily moved us to Canada where we lived happily ever after.

He broke the law. Why should he have got away with it? Perhaps after your mother left, he went on to hit other women? Who knows? The right thing, the brave thing, would have been to take it to court.

liah wrote: »

It's like how people go "well why didn't you go to court when you get raped?" -- it's a terrifying prospect of having your personal life pulled out and dissected in front of you, particularly when you're mentally and physically abused and therefore in an incredibly delicate mental state. I certainly didn't go to court in my case for those reasons.

Like I said, I understand the reasons why your mother acted as she did. But you asked me what I thought and I answered honestly. She should have gone to court. She took a unilateral decision that wasn't entirely hers to make.

liah wrote: »

It's not loyalty, it's me objectively looking back and realising why she did what she did. It was hard as hell, I had a lot of questions and I had a lot of issues but I turned into a pretty good person without any of his assistance whatsoever. Just because it was hard then doesn't mean it was the wrong choice, not by a long shot. In fact, it gave me a lot of life experience and strength to build from that a lot of other people don't as a direct result of that.

We are all the people we are. We aren't anyone else. It's impossible to think how life might have transpired differently because it transpired this way.

liah wrote: »

I had contact with him over about a year (just ended around Christmas this year) where he revealed he had not changed, further proving to me that my mother made the correct decision.

As I said, longshot, but perhaps had your mother taken him to court and pursued due process, he might have been rehabilitated and not left at large to continue down the same path.

liah wrote: »

'Right' in whose eyes? 'Right' is an incredibly subjective word. In my mind, it was 'right' of her to avoid all the hassle in her mental state and take me to a safe place with friends and family where he could not get to either her or me. It was not her responsibility to make sure he goes to jail or gets rehabilitated-- it was her responsibility to look out for her child and her own wellbeing.

Right in the eyes of the law. Right for society at large and the women he was exposed to because he didn't get prosecuted.

liah wrote: »

'Right' in the eyes of the law doesn't hold much water to me. Right in the eyes of the law doesn't trump the health and well-being of myself and my mother. I know for certain the court process would have destroyed her.

That's harrowing. But it still doesn't mean she did the right thing. She did what she thought was right at the time. That's slightly different.

liah wrote: »

Then you're lucky enough to have a good one. Simple blood doesn't mean someone should be a valuable person in your life. Sometimes people are just **** and the blood shouldn't make any difference to that. I wouldn't pay lip service to someone I could not possibly get on with just because we happened to be born in the same family. It doesn't make sense-- reminds me a lot of blind patriotism, which I also disagree with, but I digress.

Well, I'm a nationalist who loves my country too. Shoot me.

liah wrote: »

He made the decision to abuse her. She made the decision, as a result of that, to remove us from his life. Her decision was the consequence.

Two wrongs...
She should have gone to court.

liah wrote: »

Yes, it is too late, he has still not grown up and is still the man he always was, I have experienced this now first hand. I honestly tried my absolute best (I have various threads in PI on this issue) and gave him a million and one chances but he blew every single one. Now I regret wasting my time even bothering at all.

I'm sorry to hear that.

liah wrote: »

Unjustly? Would you honestly trust your child with a woman who not only physically and emotionally abused you,

I had to for too many years. Now I do so by choice for reasons I already gave.

liah wrote: »

but was on drugs (and I'm not talking pot, I'm talking heroin, crack, meth-- serious stuff) and was as a result highly unpredictable and unstable just because she had a 'right' to her child in the eyes of the law?

He should have been prosecuted, not babysitting. After he'd done his time, maybe a different man would have emerged.

liah wrote: »

If you think it is just to allow that kind of person to interfere with the life of a child then we are going to have to agree to disagree because I will never agree to that.

He couldn't have 'interfered' from prison.

But I think we've gone way off-topic here.

Bill2673 · 19-01-2011 4:57pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

He broke the law. Why should he have got away with it? Perhaps after your mother left, he went on to hit other women? Who knows? The right thing, the brave thing, would have been to take it to court.

I think to be fair that in this situation she had only two over-riding responsibilities, firstly to herself (for her own safety) and secondly and equally for the safety and well being of her child.....

to say she has a responsibility for the rehabilitation of her partner is pushing it a bit.

metrovelvet · 19-01-2011 4:58pm

liah wrote: »

Oh, and I'd like to say, when I became a bit older and wanted to find my father, my mother always encouraged me, and when I told her I was talking to him again she encouraged that too, even though it upset her greatly.

Even 20 years after she left him, she wrote in an email to me when I was speaking to him that I am not to tell him anything about her (location, number, address, facebook, etc) because she was terrified still.

I think there might be a not so subtle cultural difference. I agree with you about blood ties not being the be all end all. I also think this is a far more common attitude in north america and immigrant countries like the US where so many of us grew up without grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins so that family was no longer defined by blood but by your friendships and the family made through time bonds.

norrie rugger · 19-01-2011 5:03pm

liah wrote: »

Oh, and I'd like to say, when I became a bit older and wanted to find my father, my mother always encouraged me, and when I told her I was talking to him again she encouraged that too, even though it upset her greatly.

Even 20 years after she left him, she wrote in an email to me when I was speaking to him that I am not to tell him anything about her (location, number, address, facebook, etc) because she was terrified still.

Liah, what your father sounds like was terrible put it is the fact that she had the "right" (legally) to do what she did is the problem.

Any woman can cut the father's contact with kids, with very little he can do about it.
Imagine (big imagine here) that your father had been a complete tool to be married to but the best father possible to you.
Your mother could still have severed all ties between you two. If this had happened while you were young enough, she could easily have told you that he was a bad man etc and you would only have her side of the story.
I am not saying that this is what happened in your case but just pointing out that it CAN happen and, to be honest, that would scare the crap out of any father in a relationship that is breaking down

Blisterman · 19-01-2011 5:04pm

I really regret posting the 25% statistic in my original post. Regardless of whether or not men are stopped at gaining access by the mothers, there are still a huge number of men who choose to abandon their kids. I personally know several people, including my current girlfriend whose father chose to abandon them as a child, and from speaking to some people who grew up in disadvantaged areas in England, it's very common.

So, again, lets try and stop the thread being sidelined into another debate.

norrie rugger · 19-01-2011 5:08pm

Blisterman wrote: »

I really regret posting the 25% statistic in my original post. Regardless of whether or not men are stopped at gaining access by the mothers, there are still a huge number of men who choose to abandon their kids. I personally know several people, including my current girlfriend whose father chose to abandon them as a child, and from speaking to some people who grew up in disadvantaged areas in England, it's very common.

So, again, lets try and stop the thread being sidelined into another debate.

Please prove it. Anecdotal examples and hearsay are not evidence

ntlbell · 19-01-2011 5:09pm

Blisterman wrote: »

I really regret posting the 25% statistic in my original post. Regardless of whether or not men are stopped at gaining access by the mothers, there are still a huge number of men who choose to abandon their kids. I personally know several people, including my current girlfriend whose father chose to abandon them as a child, and from speaking to some people who grew up in disadvantaged areas in England, it's very common.

So, again, lets try and stop the thread being sidelined into another debate.

You can't just throw out a bit of evidence on a "few friends" and expect us to all nod and agree.

where is the proof that a "huge" amount of fathers do this. Maybe the person who you spoke to from a disadvantged area in england was talking out of thier hoop and in fact doesn't know the reason eithier why fathers were not there?

You have some evidence or stats lets talk about it, if not stop stating things like it's hugley common because you spoke to some person who lived somewhere in england!

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 5:10pm

Bill2673 wrote: »

I think to be fair that in this situation she had only two over-riding responsibilities, firstly to herself (for her own safety) and secondly and equally for the safety and well being of her child.....

And having secured their safety, she could have prosecuted.

Bill2673 wrote: »

to say she has a responsibility for the rehabilitation of her partner is pushing it a bit.

Just as well no one did say that, then, isn't it?

Look, there's a saying among lawyers, hard cases make bad law. I cannot endorse a situation where mothers get to decide unilaterally what, if any, contact fathers have with their children. That's what we have family law systems for. And in most countries, those systems are heavily weighted in the mother's interests anyway.
It would do a terrible injustice to many, many good fathers to see that little right they have to at least be heard in court removed at mothers' whims.

metrovelvet · 19-01-2011 5:10pm

Does it matter whether it's common or not? Is it not worth discussing in its own right rather than getting hung up on numbers?

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 5:11pm

Blisterman wrote: »

there are still a huge number of men who choose to abandon their kids.

Third time of asking. Please provide evidence of this assertion.

Fittle · 19-01-2011 5:13pm

My question is why can't the fathers rights people just ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that there are men out there who abandon their children, without finishing every one of their sentences with 'but...(irish law/mothers who won't let their kids see their fathers/women are mad etc)...

Why can't they just accept the fact that some men choose to walk away?

And why does even the mention of this issue, on this and other sites bring them to the fore and then go on to drag every single conversation into a 'The father who wants to see his children VERSUS The woman who won't let him see his children' even when it's off-topic

I can acknowledge the fact that some women will not allow their children to see their fathers, and while in some instances, this is in the best interests of the children, in some it's not, and that is inherently WRONG.

And I can also acknowledge the fact that there are also men who choose to walk away and abandon their children. And that too, is inherently WRONG.

This debate goes round and round and round and neither side will agree because they are both discussing different issues;

1. The issue of the mother who won't allow the kids to see the father
2. The issue of the father who walks away.

They are not connected. The father who walks away IS NOT the same as the fathers who want to see their children. And the mother who will not allow her children to see their father, IS NOT dealing with a father who walked away.

Reward · 19-01-2011 5:14pm

Blisterman wrote: »

I really regret posting the 25% statistic in my original post. Regardless of whether or not men are stopped at gaining access by the mothers, there are still a huge number of men who choose to abandon their kids. I personally know several people, including my current girlfriend whose father chose to abandon them as a child, and from speaking to some people who grew up in disadvantaged areas in England, it's very common.

So, again, lets try and stop the thread being sidelined into another debate.

I think the men are bad women are blameless angle has been done to death over the last few decades, many people won't entertain it these days, its old hat, a feminist relic.

Also, there are fair grounds and means for women get out of parenthood, men should have the means to walk away too, it shouldnt be a sentence for either sex, IMO. Plus this is feminist UK we are talking about, they have been engineering fathers out of the equasion for decades.

norrie rugger · 19-01-2011 5:14pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Does it matter whether it's common or not? Is it not worth discussing in its own right rather than getting hung up on numbers?

Why justify a problem that does not exist, in a meaningful sense.

ntlbell · 19-01-2011 5:16pm

Fittle wrote: »

My question is why can't the fathers rights people just ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that there are men out there who abandon their children, without finishing every one of their sentences with 'but...(irish law/mothers who won't let their kids see their fathers/women are mad etc)...

Some do, no one said they didn't

Fittle wrote: »

Why can't they just accept the fact that some men choose to walk away?

It's accepted, what's not accepted is that 100% of absent fathers are doing it by choice.

Fittle wrote: »

And why does even the mention of this issue, on this and other sites bring them to the fore and then go on to drag every single conversation into a 'The father who wants to see his children VERSUS The woman who won't let him see his children' even when it's off-topic

maybe because when people start threads they badly forumlate their point?

Fittle wrote: »

I can acknowledge the fact that some women will not allow their children to see their fathers, and while in some instances, this is in the best interests of the children, in some it's not, and that is inherently WRONG.

I think we're all in agreement here.

Fittle wrote: »

And I can also acknowledge the fact that there are also men who choose to walk away and abandon their children. And that too, is inherently WRONG.

no one's arguing.

Fittle wrote: »

This debate goes round and round and round and neither side will agree because they are both discussing different issues;

1. The issue of the mother who won't allow the kids to see the father
2. The issue of the father who walks away.

They are not connected. The father who walks away IS NOT the same as the fathers who want to see their children. And the mother who will not allow her children to see their father, IS NOT dealing with a father who walked away.

Right, but not really related to the orignal topic.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 5:16pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Does it matter whether it's common or not?

Absolutely it matters. Because the feckless few are used, as they have been by posters on this thread including yourself, to justify the ongoing gender apartheid system in family law. By claiming that fathers don't want to parent their kids, it becomes easy to justify their lack of rights in the arena of parenting. By pretending that the phenomenon is widespread, one can avoid addressing the failures of that system to facilitate fatherhood. One can pretend this is not primarily an issue of antiquated laws denying human right to children and men, but instead an issue of deadbeat wasters.
That's why it matters. It is a slur on all fathers aimed at delaying proper parental equity.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is it not worth discussing in its own right rather than getting hung up on numbers?

Only in the context of the much more significant reasons why children find themselves without meaningful relationships with their fathers.

norrie rugger · 19-01-2011 5:17pm

Fittle wrote: »

My question is why can't the fathers rights people just ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that there are men out there who abandon their children, without finishing every one of their sentences with 'but...(irish law/mothers who won't let their kids see their fathers/women are mad etc)...

Why can't they just accept the fact that some men choose to walk away?

And why does even the mention of this issue, on this and other sites bring them to the fore and then go on to drag every single conversation into a 'The father who wants to see his children VERSUS The woman who won't let him see his children' even when it's off-topic

I can acknowledge the fact that some women will not allow their children to see their fathers, and while in some instances, this is in the best interests of the children, in some it's not, and that is inherently WRONG.

And I can also acknowledge the fact that there are also men who choose to walk away and abandon their children. And that too, is inherently WRONG.

This debate goes round and round and round and neither side will agree because they are both discussing different issues;

1. The issue of the mother who won't allow the kids to see the father
2. The issue of the father who walks away.

They are not connected. The father who walks away IS NOT the same as the fathers who want to see their children. And the mother who will not allow her children to see their father, IS NOT dealing with a father who walked away.

Everyone accepts that it happens though.
Not everyone accepts that it happens because the father has been accused of "something"
Not everyone accepts that it happens because the father can no longer afford court fees.
Not everyone accepts that it happenes because children are kept from their fathers enough and the children are told that it is the father's fault.

There needs to be an actuall number proven before it can be fully taken as fact

CDfm · 19-01-2011 5:19pm

Its almost inflamatory to say that the Irish family law system does not enforce the rights of Dads and their children but it just doesn't.

When you talk about Dads and access there are a lot more people affected then just the Dads. It also means that the children are cut from their parental grandparents lives, and wider family uncles, aunts, cousins etc.

I went thru the court system for around 10 years & it was impossible to do so from abroad. It was almost impossible to do so with joint custody.So it would not surprise me if 25% of Dads in Ireland do not have access to their kids.

Its a bit much to say that 25% of Dads are nutters and don't have normal feelings for their kids. It probably means that these guys just cant come to arrangements with the Mum and give up.

The emotional and financial cost of going to court is huge. Think the Borg in Star Trek "resistence is futile" and it sums up

I don't know about Liah's situaton or what her Dad is or was like. I am not saying all dads are angels -far from it but neither are mums - but the laws are not applied or evenly applied and that is totally wrong.

You have more enforcement of the TV licencing laws and the penalties applied to mothers for not holding a TV licence is higher. For some reason Mountjoy Prison apparently has great child access facilities .

Non payment of maintenence is enforced by the courts with jail sentences. I have no problem with that at all. It is hard to pay maintenence for kids you dont see.

Yup - I was bitter about it and had some fantastic support from some women friends without which I would not have got thru it. It went on for 13 years -at the end I stopped going to court.

That you have extremist gender based interest groups determining public policy on this is totally wrong. I would round them up and repopulate the Blaskets and some other abandoned Islands with them.

Rant over.

Fittle · 19-01-2011 5:20pm

'Right, but not really related to the orignal topic.'

Actually it is. The original topic was just about Absent Fathers. But once again it becomes a Them VS Us.

You will not get a woman who will not allow her ex to see the children on a website debating fathers rights.
Nor will you get a man who chose to walk away from his child, on a website debating fathers rights.

So the people who almost always end up debating this issue in the Parenting forum, or the LL or the GC are actuall on the same side....the argument will never be won by either side because it is the same argument. Both want whats in the best interests of the child. End of.

Bill2673 · 19-01-2011 5:22pm

Fittle wrote: »

My question is why can't the fathers rights people just ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that there are men out there who abandon their children, without finishing every one of their sentences with 'but...(irish law/mothers who won't let their kids see their fathers/women are mad etc)...

Why can't they just accept the fact that some men choose to walk away?

If you read the first post, you will see that the OP presented a statistic: that 25% of UK kids are not in touch with their fathers, and then went on to comment about the fact that so many fathers are not looking after their kids.

That was the first post.

Since then we've had a debate about whether this inference is fair or not.

There was no post anywhere that said all fathers are good fathers, or that no father walks away from their kids.

Why can't you just READ whats been said, and not just BITS of whats been said before asking the 'fathers rights people' to ACKKNOWLEDGE that they are WRONG.

norrie rugger · 19-01-2011 5:24pm

Fittle wrote: »

'Right, but not really related to the orignal topic.'

Actually it is. The original topic was just about Absent Fathers. But once again it becomes a Them VS Us.

You will not get a woman who will not allow her ex to see the children on a website debating fathers rights.
Nor will you get a man who chose to walk away from his child, on a website debating fathers rights.

So the people who almost always end up debating this issue in the Parenting forum, or the LL or the GC are actuall on the same side....the argument will never be won by either side because it is the same argument. Both want whats in the best interests of the child. End of.

Except that original topic on "Absent fathers" was phrased around 25% of kids that do not see their father. No reason given for this not seeing them, so it could have been anything not just a father not caring

ntlbell · 19-01-2011 5:25pm

Fittle wrote: »

'Right, but not really related to the orignal topic.'

Actually it is. The original topic was just about Absent Fathers. But once again it becomes a Them VS Us.

No it became a 100% of the 25% were not absent due to their own choice. But I'm sorry if mothers who don't let their fathers see their kids be mentioned to partly justify why the figure is incorrect. but all the issues have to be taken into consideration.

Fittle wrote: »

You will not get a woman who will not allow her ex to see the children on a website debating fathers rights.
Nor will you get a man who chose to walk away from his child, on a website debating fathers rights.
.

So the people who almost always end up debating this issue in the Parenting forum, or the LL or the GC are actuall on the same side....the argument will never be won by either side because it is the same argument. Both want whats in the best interests of the child. End of.

It's not about arguing who's right or wrong.

Those stats ont he BBC website do not = men who don't want to be fathers.

This is a fact.

You're looking for an argument where there is none.

Absent Fathers

Comments