Absent Fathers

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.

Fittle · 19-01-2011 5:26pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

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

Yes, I read that. I'm outta here - these debates go nowhere IMO. We're all on the same side.

Fittle · 19-01-2011 5:28pm

ntlbell wrote: »

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.

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.

Actually, I wasn't looking for an argument at all - I was trying to say that these 'fathers rights' threads end up with people arguing, when in fact, if they thought about it a bit more, they would realise that they all have the best interests of their children at heart.

The Corinthian · 19-01-2011 5:28pm

meganj wrote: »

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.

Did she not support you in forming a relationship with him prior to you reaching 18? Especially in light of his "wandering back" into your life at 13?

It's been 19 months since I last saw him, his choice not mine.

Does he live in the same town or city as you? I say this because I see my own father only once or twice a year at most as we live in different countries. Indeed, for the same reason, I've not seen my mother since the Summer.

Otherwise is there a reason that his involvement was and is so lackluster? Where do you feel he failed particularly? Have you ever spoken to him about this?

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

Ahh yes, but you also said, "it's my body" so it's never that simple and so the children are not always the focus, regardless of such moral cliches.

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.....

I do think this is a fair point. While the 'safety of the child' reasoning is often used as an unfounded justification, sometimes it is warranted.

Fittle wrote: »

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

I think the problem is that this thread began as a discussion on absent fathers and it was assumed by the first few posters that the only for this was that they walked away. The response to this has been that there are many reasons and scenarios, including that some men walk away.

So no one has denied that it happens, indeed the problem is that some have denied or greatly downplay that it does not.

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.

There's also the third case where the father is not or cannot be contacted.

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.

Well they are to a degree. For example, consider the scenario of a mother who continually obstructs a father, makes his life a misery and otherwise behaves in such a fashion. Eventually, many fathers, faced with an almost hopeless and often prohibitively expensive legal situation that even if they got a court order, it would be unenforceable, give up.

The mother would then classify them as men who walked. You could well classify them as such. That is the problem of parental alienation, it's like a form of constructive dismissal for parents - so that you push the blame on the other party.

Bill2673 · 19-01-2011 5:31pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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.

Where you said nobody said that, please see above.

I agree with you on another point, that taking him to court would have (i) punished him and (ii) stopped him from doing it to anyone else.

Don't believe it would secure her safety as people do get out of jail.

Personally, I would not criticize her for not pursuing in courts.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 5:32pm

Fittle wrote: »

Yes, I read that. I'm outta here - these debates go nowhere IMO. We're all on the same side.

Do you support an overhaul of the Irish family law system to enact equitable parenting along the lines of the Scandinavian model?
Or are you happy with the current version?
Because if it's the latter, then we actually aren't all on the same side.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 5:37pm

Bill2673 wrote: »

Where you said nobody said that, please see above.

Yes, as you can see nowhere did I state that her mother was responsible for rehabilitating her father.

Bill2673 wrote: »

I agree with you on another point, that taking him to court would have (i) punished him and (ii) stopped him from doing it to anyone else.

Don't believe it would secure her safety as people do get out of jail.

Personally, I would not criticize her for not pursuing in courts.

Nor would I. My criticism was the suggestion that mothers have a divine right, beyond the rule of law, to unilaterally remove their children from fathers without recourse to the law or informing anyone that they are doing so.
Hard cases make bad law. I was asked what I thought about that individual case, and I consider it harrowing. But it is no justification for stripping fathers even of the meagre right to be heard in a court of law.

Reward · 19-01-2011 5:40pm

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.

People are tired of man bashing and the absent father and fathers in general have long been a paraiah in society, man bashing is increasingly unfashionable and rejected, in truth women mistreat and abuse children more than men, so if its really is about the children, why the focus on men? Answer, because its not really about the children, its really about the interests of the women that chose to give birth to them.
Its a complex issue especially in the UK where intergenerational fatherlessness and the idea that fathers arent necessary have been deliberatly socialised into the society and legal system.

Fittle · 19-01-2011 5:42pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Do you support an overhaul of the Irish family law system to enact equitable parenting along the lines of the Scandinavian model?
Or are you happy with the current version?
Because if it's the latter, then we actually aren't all on the same side.

Actually, neither I, nor anybody I know, supports what happens in the courts in relation to unmarried fathers.

When I say 'we', I am referring to those who debate this topic online on a regular basis.

meganj · 19-01-2011 5:49pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Did she not support you in forming a relationship with him prior to you reaching 18? Especially in light of his "wandering back" into your life at 13?

She encouraged my relationship with him when he did come back. The reason that she wanted me to wait until I was 18 was she was afraid that if I did turn up on his doorstep before that I wouldn't emotionally be ready for possible rejection.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Does he live in the same town or city as you? I say this because I see my own father only once or twice a year at most as we live in different countries. Indeed, for the same reason, I've not seen my mother since the Summer.

I live in Kildare (now) he lives in the Waterford/Wicklow/Wexford area. I'm afraid I won't be more specific just in case

The Corinthian wrote: »

Otherwise is there a reason that his involvement was and is so lackluster? Where do you feel he failed particularly? Have you ever spoken to him about this?

I presume that it has a lot to do with the fact he is living a secret. No body knows I exist except his new partner, and in a small town like the one he lives in with his other (grown-up) children and ex-wife I imagine it puts a lot of strain on when he can come and visit me. The more angry assumption would be that he doesn't care. Yes I have spoken to him about it, things unfortunately do not change.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh yes, but you also said, "it's my body" so it's never that simple and so the children are not always the focus, regardless of such moral cliches.

I also said that it wasn't as cut and dry as that. Having never been in that situation I cannot honestly say what I would do, nor will I condemn or congratulate anyone who does find them in that situation.

CDfm · 19-01-2011 5:54pm

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.

hi Liah - its been a while.

I have often seen your posts and think your mother is very remarkable for making a conscious decision for keeping you in contact with your Dad and giving you a balanced view on life.

And her situation was probably the type of one the laws were intended to deal with.

I know that there are plenty of women out there who do the right thing under difficult circumstances too.

I always think it is great when you post because it is often hard for the protagonists to do whats right, but, because you have children you influence them with your value system.

Happy new year and all the best for 2011.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 5:54pm

Fittle wrote: »

Actually, neither I, nor anybody I know, supports what happens in the courts in relation to unmarried fathers.

When I say 'we', I am referring to those who debate this topic online on a regular basis.

Check this thread out. We have Metro peeing all over the fantastic and perfectly equal parenting legislation that exists in Scandinavia.

I tend to find that everyone agrees that 'we should think of the children' up until the point where the debate reaches discussion about changing the system to make it more equitable.

Then we get hand-wringing from mothers that the current system isn't perfect and so on, but no support whatsoever for actually changing it to something more equal, which really would be in the best interests (not to mention human rights) of children.

My personal situation is fine. For me the fight's long over. I'm that rare beast - the single father with full custody who fought and won. You wouldn't believe what it took me to do so - the years, the money, the lawyers, the missed career opportunities, the denials of access, the missed holidays and celebrations. Many sacrifices. I had to set a number of precedents in Irish law along the way.

I could rest on my laurels now and enjoy being a father. But that would be selfish, I feel. No one else should have to undergo the difficulties I did. No parent, father or mother, should have to experience that.

And for that reason alone, I am adamant that we must have equal parenting enshrined in Irish law as a core tenet to protect the human rights of children.

When I find that mothers are prepared to concede the heavy weighting in their favour that they currently enjoy to facilitate that, then you'll never hear from me on this topic again, and I'll be off enjoying parenting my child.

liah · 19-01-2011 6:00pm

norrie rugger wrote: »

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

It isn't what happened in my case so I don't see how it's relevant. My point is, yes, fathers have a right to be scared but mothers damn well have a right to protect themselves from threats.

The generalizations about women taking away children on this thread are driving me batty.

@Cavehill Red, Sorry but why the hell is it my mother's job to pay (emotionally) for HIS mistakes? He's an adult. He has to take responsibility for himself. She should not be made to feel guilty because she protected herself and her child first and foremost.

I frankly don't give a flying crap what the law says, it is not her duty to think about making sure other women he may someday encounter are okay by making sure he's put in prison when she has that to deal with. Their life together ended the moment he made the decisions he did. It's her duty to make sure her immediate family are okay. That's all that matters. Other people simply don't come into it. Yes, it could have happened again, but that's not on her. She can't control anyone other than herself. That's on him, and that's on them, and it's a shame if it happens but that's the reality of it.

We can't save everyone, only ourselves, and he taught me that better than anyone.

Fistycuffs · 19-01-2011 6:14pm

donfers wrote: »

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.

Where has anyone done this ? There has been no male bashing in this thread what so ever , quiet the opposite infact. Anyone who has mentioned personal experience,myself included, has qualified their input by adding that they are aware that their experience is one of a minority and acknowledging that the majority of men are loving fathers. No one has suggested that abandonment is the only reason a father might be absent.However children who are abandoned by a father are still a minority who are large enough to deserve a voice and deserve to have their experience at least acknowledged. Their experience will go on to have wider implications for society too. It benefits everyone to at least look honestly at the situation.

Abandonment is a complex issue. Honest discussion of it doesn't mean it has to be a ""heh,who do those nasty evil men think they are" conversation. You are being both naive and very demeaning of others to think that, particularly to those who have experienced it who are keenly aware of just how complex it is.

Personally I think a lot of factors might play into why some men willing abandon their children, from the way they have been parented themselves to how societal expectation might not as strongly encourage an emotional bond between father and child as they do between mother and child. I'm not talking about legal or human rights here. Just that basic emotion led desire to be with your child that's expected of a mother and has been throughout the ages.
And yes I know what sensitive types you are so just to underline again, I do not believe the above applies to all men. Lots of men have experienced parenting that has impressed the importance of fathering upon them and most men bond with their children.

Do you all believe that society places equal expectations upon a father in terms of caring or in terms of emotional bonding with a child as it does on a mother? In the last 100 years the role of a man , a father, has changed quite dramatically . The role has changed from one of seeing strength and manliness demonstrated through being stoic and unemotional , where the main value in the family was as head of a patriarchy and as a disciplinarian. Now many different demands are placed on a father. He is looked to to provide a lot of the same things that were once the sole preserve of a mother such as nurturing and gently counselling a child through troubles. Men are certainly capable of this but are the taught these skills or does societal expectation impress them upon boys throughout their lives in the same way the are impressed on girls ? The truth is most don't. I think that is why less social stigma is attached to being a father who abandons a child than there is to a mother who does so. I think it also might account to some degree to why SOME men don't sense that deep bond with a child. Their lives aren't seen from day to one to be leading up to that point of having their newborn baby placed in their arms where as for most women theirs have been whether they are conscious of it or not. They've been mimicing that very moment since they were able to hold a doll.
And again for all the pedants reading...I'm not saying all mothers are great or up to the task or that all fathers miss that connection between love and being parent.

To presume this is a men vs women issue is to be so sadly mired in female bashing that you can no longer see a frank conversation for what it is anymore. It is very sad to read so many posts who believe the majority of this issue comes down to apportioning blame to one sex or the other (almost 100% of that blame being attributed to women in this thread). It can be a bigger issue, one that perhaps there might be an answer to ,and that would serve all parties. Whether that is intervening in situations where a child is being poorly parented so he/she doesn't go on to be a poor parent or live with a sense of detachment from parental responsibilty as an adult or maybe greater social education in young boys about being a father in the future I don't know. But it could be an interesting valuable conversation.

ntlbell · 19-01-2011 6:18pm

I read as far as "And yes I know what sensitive types you are so just to underline again,".

Must be my "sensitivity" filter.

Cavehill Red · 19-01-2011 6:19pm

Liah, I'm not going to respond to any more straw men questions about your personal life. You asked me for my opinion and I gave it to you honestly. I'm sorry it wasn't what you wanted to hear.

I don't know you, and while your story as you describe it is very heartbreaking, at this point perhaps we should move away from discussing the unique and particular details of your life.

You don't care what the law says. In this debate, ALL I care about is what the law says and how it can be changed in the interests of children and their fathers (and mothers too.)

There are many other parents, and there are many other children, and your particular experience isn't something that can usefully be used as a guide when considering the big picture of children and their relationships (or non-relationships) with their fathers.

Jesus Wept · 19-01-2011 6:25pm

Have we touched on the subset of children that are born to two people, one of whom planned it and the other did not? Be it within a relationship/fling/one night stand.
Can't help.

That and the stigma that still surrounds abortion.

A male contraceptive pill/injection would be quiet something.
Also better family planning rather than panic buying.

Reward · 19-01-2011 6:26pm

If out of the 25%, 4% are fathers that willfully and genuinely decide of their own accord not to see their children ... seems like that would be a reasonable number given that its unreasonable to expect 100% of parents not to walk out and unreasonable to expect women to parent against their will.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 19-01-2011 6:26pm

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 don't see any debate about your topic. child is born and he walks out out of selfishness. He is scum. Doubt many would disagree.

Personally I think they should be made pay maintenance. Only difficult situation I see is where a woman claims to be on contraceptive medicine but isnt. In that case forcing him to pay maintenance would be unfair

liah · 19-01-2011 6:31pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Liah, I'm not going to respond to any more straw men questions about your personal life. You asked me for my opinion and I gave it to you honestly. I'm sorry it wasn't what you wanted to hear.

I don't know you, and while your story as you describe it is very heartbreaking, at this point perhaps we should move away from discussing the unique and particular details of your life.

You don't care what the law says. In this debate, ALL I care about is what the law says and how it can be changed in the interests of children and their fathers (and mothers too.)

There are many other parents, and there are many other children, and your particular experience isn't something that can usefully be used as a guide when considering the big picture of children and their relationships (or non-relationships) with their fathers.

My point was largely that the generalizations flying around this thread about how women are horrible and keep running off with men's kids for no good reason are bs and are not adding at all to the debate. I figured that by illustrating a case that makes it obvious that yes, in fact, sometimes there IS a good reason to keep your child away from a man, without it having anything to do with the woman being a bitch.

The law would've impaired my own and my mother's life drastically. I said I don't care about it because it would have accomplished absolutely nothing for us. I said I don't care about it in this case, because I don't. It doesn't mean I don't care about it in general, but this is not what I'm arguing. I just want the bs generalizations to stop.

For the record, I believe that law should be gender-blind and put the child in the hands of the best, most adept parent, but currently the system it takes to get there is far too harrowing for most to even bother with.

Bill2673 · 19-01-2011 6:37pm

Seems that for every generalization their is a counter generalization;

lads, interesting debate, at times raucous, at times sad.

I think we should wrap it up.

Absent Fathers

Comments