Absent Fathers

Blisterman

Heard a shocking statistic today, that in the UK, over a quarter of kids have no contact with their father.

Don't think the statistics are that high in Ireland, but there's definitely a growing number of dads who don't seem to give a crap about their offspring.

I think most people can agree that it can't be very good for kids growing up without a dad. So why do so many guys run away from their responsibilities?

Should something be done? What could be done? How come it's happening so much nowadays, when it didn't before?

Iago

younger parents = scared, immature, unable to deal with responsibility, resentful etc.

Both of which would contribute hugely to that statistic, and that's before we talk about one-night stands and casual sex with people who barely know each other.

A third potential issue is where the father to be expressly states that he has no interest in having a child at that point (for whatever reason) and the mother to be decides to go ahead with the birth anyway. In that situation how much responsibility should the father to be actually have? bearing in mind that if the situation was reversed the mother to be could remove her responsibilities instantly.

(I think the overall debate on that is probably for another thread/forum, but it would be another factor in those numbers)

Bloody Nipples

A dependable, responsible male who can give a good example to an impressionable child can only be a good thing, however if the father is say, a perpetually unemployed alcoholic who abuses his family then kids are probably better off.

Some of this lack of contact will be at the mother's instigation, some will not. In cases where the father has run from his responsibilities I'd argue he'd be a poor enough role model and the child is better off without him.

Bloody Nipples

Iago wrote: »

A third potential issue is where the father to be expressly states that he has no interest in having a child at that point (for whatever reason) and the mother to be decides to go ahead with the birth anyway. In that situation how much responsibility should the father to be actually have? bearing in mind that if the situation was reversed the mother to be could remove her responsibilities instantly.

(I think the overall debate on that is probably for another thread/forum, but it would be another factor in those numbers)

You could argue the point that if you're making the two-backed beast you should be prepared to accept the consequences.

Iago

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

You could argue the point that if you're making the two-backed beast you should be prepared to accept the consequences.

yes, but there are consequences and there are consequences.

One person making a unilateral decision against the wishes of another for something that is going to irrevocably change both their lives forever is beyond the consequences that anybody should expect or accept. Not to mention the impact on the child/children themselves.

However this is probably a topic all on it's own, the point I was trying to make was that it would be a factor in why there were absentee fathers. I've no idea what percentage that might amount to though so it may be irrelevant one way or the other

Up-n-atom!

I don't know what can be done about it tbh, but it is prevalent enough unfortunately (well, it is amongst the single mothers I know). It's sad as well when there's so many men who want to be involved in their kids lives and aren't allowed - this is the flip-side. I know one feckless ex of one of my friends, he was involved in the beginning, but then they broke up, he got a new girlfriend and got her pregnant...once this happened, he literally told my friend that he wanted nothing to do with his son! This is completely unthinkable for me, I just can't understand how he could turn around and do this.

I think the worst thing is when the dad's involvement is completely inconsistent - they're really invovled for a period, then feck off and aren't bothered for ages, then come back and try to be involved again...it's really confusing for their children, and must also be very frustrating for the mother. I hate the female attitude that 'all men are bastards', but when you see situations like those described above, you start to understant why some women feel like this. The worst thing is that I'm sure some of these dads realise later in life, when it's much to late, what they've missed out on.

Cavehill Red

Why do a quarter of British kids not know their fathers in a meaningful way?

There are a number of components to this:

1. Single parentdom is financially rewarded today whereas it was socially discouraged forty or fifty years ago. For a lumpenprole woman with few educational or employment prospects, it's a financial option as a career/lifestyle choice, but less so if they stick with the male partner.

2. Fathers are systematically discriminated against in the family law structure. Despite research indicating that children raised by single fathers do better on a raft of indices than those raised by single mothers, courts tend to approach things from a 'Mommy knows best' standpoint unless the mother is demonstrably and indisputably incompetent to parent.

This leads to

3: Fathers are therefore actively discouraged to remain part of their children's lives should their relationship with the mother fall apart. A system that offers meagre McDonalds weekend visitation in return for large chunks of their income to be spent as the mother sees fit (not necessarily for the benefit of the children), a system which permits those women who hold a vindictive animus against their children's father to utilise access and maintenance as a weapon, all this goes to dissuade many men from fighting for their right to be meaningful parents and their children's right to a father. It's not necessarily about fathers 'running away'. Often, well-meaning fathers are driven away out of self-preservation by a system designed to strip them of their rights and then their cash.

4. Many people do not take parenting remotely seriously enough. Children are sometimes depicted in the media as mere fashion accessories (This year's must have - the baby bump! was a recent headline I read). Since sex is now considered largely as a recreational activity rather than a procreative one, some women end up having children by men who, frankly, are emotionally babies themselves, and utterly incapable of manning up to the responsibilities of parenthood.

5. Sorry, but it has to be said - while I for one welcome the increased liberalisation of society, one of the developments has been the erosion of the concept of marriage and the nuclear family. I'm not in favour of shotgun weddings, magdalene laundries or any of the other horrible jails of the soul that society once trapped people in, but when you open the doors to freedom, some people will run wild with it.

6. The individualistic sense of self-entitlement which permits people to think they have a divine right to parenthood at any cost (often that of the child's well-being.) This is the extension of parenthood as fashion statement. If a single woman (or lesbian couple) wants a child today, they can order sperm online or in Britain receive a state-funded service that will provide it for them, without a father ever being involved. The system was created to facilitate parenthood for infertile couples originally, but has now been extended to those who see only their right to be a parent, and not their child's right to be fathered.

There are other reasons, sociological ones, ideological ones, cultural ones. But to me, those listed above are probably the main reasons for the explosion in children being raised without fathers in Britain.

Fistycuffs

Up-n-atom! wrote: »

I don't know what can be done about it tbh, but it is prevalent enough unfortunately (well, it is amongst the single mothers I know). It's sad as well when there's so many men who want to be involved in their kids lives and aren't allowed - this is the flip-side. I know one feckless ex of one of my friends, he was involved in the beginning, but then they broke up, he got a new girlfriend and got her pregnant...once this happened, he literally told my friend that he wanted nothing to do with his son! This is completely unthinkable for me, I just can't understand how he could turn around and do this.

I think the worst thing is when the dad's involvement is completely inconsistent - they're really invovled for a period, then feck off and aren't bothered for ages, then come back and try to be involved again...it's really confusing for their children, and must also be very frustrating for the mother. I hate the female attitude that 'all men are bastards', but when you see situations like those described above, you start to understant why some women feel like this. The worst thing is that I'm sure some of these dads realise later in life, when it's much to late, what they've missed out on.

I have to say I agree with this post. I fall into the same category as the child this poster describes. My parents were married,middle class , mature, neither had awful childhoods or mental health problems etc but when their relationship broke down my father cut all ties with me as well as my mother. He visited three or four times over the 10 years I was a "child" before deciding it wasn't worth the hassle .He has said to my face "you're nothing to me... you're just someone I don't know". To not know me was his decision 100%.

I have never heard my mother saw a bad word about him. When I was a child if he rang up and said he'd visit, even if we hadn't heard a word from him in years, the red carpet was rolled out & I was dressed up in my best clothes etc to await his arrival. Sometimes he's come, sometimes I got the "something came up" excuse. It was always obvious however that I was baggage he wasn't interested in carrying through life.

I have several friends who have been in the same situation. Infact , of all my friends of single parent families who do not have contact with their father the above has been their story too.

All the excuses in the world can be made but the truth is that this is a very real phenomenon and not an uncommon one. I think it's something men need to look at and accept and consider. It is because of men like these that family law courts favour mothers over fathers and see women as most likely to provide for a childs emotional and physical needs. Other men need to stand up and say this is not an ok way for fathers to behave if anything is to change in the long run for mens rights where children are concerned.

Up-n-atom!

Sorry to hear that Fistycuffs...it's just heartbreaking hearing these kinds of stories.

As for Cavehill Red, I find it very hard to take most of those reasons seriously, especially the fashion accessory one. Sure, they are relevant in some situations but overall I wouldn't say they are the main reasons. Also, I know plenty of situations where single mothers are/have been in receipt of benefits and housing etc where the Dad is very much still on the scene (and living with her, even!) - they don't have to be completely absent in this situation. As I said I do agree that often the Dads don't get enough access to their children, but I would assume that mothers in general would welcome the extra support (and not strictly financial) when raising a child.

Cavehill Red

Fistycuffs wrote: »

It is because of men like these that family law courts favour mothers over fathers and see women as most likely to provide for a childs emotional and physical needs. Other men need to stand up and say this is not an ok way for fathers to behave if anything is to change in the long run for mens rights where children are concerned.

Firstly, I'm very sorry to hear of your childhood experience.
Secondly, I would condemn any father who would behave in such a manner.
But I really have to say this - my rights as a father, and more importantly, my child's right to a father, should not be subordinate to what any other man does.
It is no justification of the gender apartheid in operation in family law courts to say, 'Well, some fathers are feckless, so all should be stripped of their abilities to parent their children.'
One of my biggest bugbears with feminism is that a movement which espouses equality for women in all matters seems incapable of endorsing parental equality, because it would in this one instance require women ceding ground to men.
What gets lost is what should be the most important thing of all - the rights of children.

Cavehill Red

Up-n-atom! wrote: »

As for Cavehill Red, I find it very hard to take most of those reasons seriously, especially the fashion accessory one.

You'd be surprised how easily influenced young people are by the media to which they expose themselves.

Up-n-atom! wrote: »

Sure, they are relevant in some situations but overall I wouldn't say they are the main reasons. Also, I know plenty of situations where single mothers are/have been in receipt of benefits and housing etc where the Dad is very much still on the scene (and living with her, even!) - they don't have to be completely absent in this situation.

By definition, those mothers aren't single.

Up-n-atom! wrote: »

As I said I do agree that often the Dads don't get enough access to their children, but I would assume that mothers in general would welcome the extra support (and not strictly financial) when raising a child.

Again, you'd be surprised. Sure, everyone appreciates extra cash. That goes without saying. Extra support? Plenty of mothers don't see it that way. Some are ideologically positioned to reject it (lesbian parents for example). But more commonly, the situation tends to be that a hetero relationship breaks down following the birth of a child or children, and as we all know, the break-up of a relationship can be a difficult time for all concerned.
Often, whether a third party is involved or not, there is animosity between the two parents. That's only human. But in a situation where, legally, one parent is given auto-authority over the children, then it is all too tempting and easy to use that authority as a weapon of vengeance against the other parent.
Controlling access to children is an easy way of hurting the other parent, and this is an all-too-common scenario following break-ups.
Parents find their own support networks anyway. Family are usually called upon, and there are plenty of community and social groups designed to assist single mothers. I've no problem with that, though similar support for single fathers is non-existent.
In short, I think it's the rare and enlightened parents who are able to break up and yet put the children first at all times in the aftermath.

dollyk

well ive said it before on here, so here goes, my ex was a crap husband, but a good father, i had 6 kids and my 12 y/d daughter decided she loved her school and her friends when we split, so she asked me , ma can i stay with dad, i thought about it and decided with her ok, we will see how it works out. she is now 19 and VERY HAPPY, educated and has a lot of close friends, but hey my parents went on a roll, of omg you left her with her dad ????? . shes doing great . so if some men are not good husband material, give then a break they might just be better as a parent. btw i think my ex is an ass , but my daughter thinks different.. the thing ive learned i my 50 odd years is.. HELLO WE ARE INTIMATE WITH THEM your kids airnt
oh and i gave him her child benefit book too, so she didnt need to ask for things . lol well she was at that age lol , she need ed lots, we laugh about it now 150 a month ...for personal thinges

oh and yes i was the very same mother that took money from my kid xmas cards to give them things for xmas. it evens its self out in the long run

Fistycuffs

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Firstly, I'm very sorry to hear of your childhood experience.
Secondly, I would condemn any father who would behave in such a manner.
But I really have to say this - my rights as a father, and more importantly, my child's right to a father, should not be subordinate to what any other man does.
It is no justification of the gender apartheid in operation in family law courts to say, 'Well, some fathers are feckless, so all should be stripped of their abilities to parent their children.'
One of my biggest bugbears with feminism is that a movement which espouses equality for women in all matters seems incapable of endorsing parental equality, because it would in this one instance require women ceding ground to men.
What gets lost is what should be the most important thing of all - the rights of children.

I *agree that you have rights as a father and as you say,more importantly,every child has a right to a father. However I feel that so often the large number of fathers who do not take responsibility for their children become lost in these debates. I don't for a moment believe their existence should be justification for keeping a man from his child but I believe that realistically it influences legal opinion and societies opinion of what a father is and just how much one can be trusted to care for a child. I believe this rather than that a feminist agenda lies at the heart of why there is gender bias within family law courts.
A large and honest conversation needs to take place within society about what why a sizeable number of men do feel they can walk away from any contact with their child. They are not all limping away from a feminist tyranny after trying their best with their child. It is that it was/is acceptable for a man to abandon his child . I think that fact needs to be accepted and looked at hard in the face before it can be moved on from.Until that happens loving and good fathers and their children will pay the price.

Cavehill Red

I can only repeat - the human rights of fathers and their children are not subordinate to the whims of the judiciary, nor are they defined or circumscribed by the behaviour of some errant men.
They are FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS. There is no excuse whatsoever for denying them, no possible justification for doing so.
The legal denial of children's rights to be fathered is an ongoing abomination.
Again, I'm sorry for your own experiences. But they are not universal. And it is incorrect to map them onto the totality of fathers as if they were some universal law.
You're wrong to suggest that large numbers of fathers are feckless. The reality is that many face enormous hurdles to have meaningful relationships with their children.
It's not 'accepted' that a man walks away from his children at all. If he does so, he does so with the state chasing him for his money anyway. Since he will still lose out financially, why wouldn't a man want the benefit to go alongside the deficit, the benefit being a meaningful relationship with his offspring?
The reality is that it is EXPECTED that he will walk away. Expected by mothers, expected by the family law system. This is self-evident from the experiences of fathers who do not walk away. They will be forced at every turn to take legal action to enforce every little step along the road towards equal parenting.

Fistycuffs

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I can only repeat - the human rights of fathers and their children are not subordinate to the whims of the judiciary, nor are they defined or circumscribed by the behaviour of some errant men.
They are FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS. There is no excuse whatsoever for denying them, no possible justification for doing so.
The legal denial of children's rights to be fathered is an ongoing abomination.
Again, I'm sorry for your own experiences. But they are not universal. And it is incorrect to map them onto the totality of fathers as if they were some universal law.
You're wrong to suggest that large numbers of fathers are feckless. The reality is that many face enormous hurdles to have meaningful relationships with their children.
It's not 'accepted' that a man walks away from his children at all. If he does so, he does so with the state chasing him for his money anyway. Since he will still lose out financially, why wouldn't a man want the benefit to go alongside the deficit, the benefit being a meaningful relationship with his offspring?
The reality is that it is EXPECTED that he will walk away. Expected by mothers, expected by the family law system. This is self-evident from the experiences of fathers who do not walk away. They will be forced at every turn to take legal action to enforce every little step along the road towards equal parenting.

I have agreed there is no justification in my opinion for keeping a father from his child or vice versa . I am not mapping my experience onto all men by any means.*

I am saying that it is foolish and unproductive to ignore the reality that a sizeable number of men abandon their child by choice. In respect of that and in response to the OPs post I personally think that section of men need to be acknowledged and looked at very seriously.*

The judiciary will act in what it believes are the best interests of the child. The childs right to see a parent sometimes need to be secondary to their welfare.Family courts are not there to enforce the human rights of a parent. If my experience has taught me anything it is what an enormous advantage having a good second parent could be. I would not deny it to any child so im not saying i agree with how those matters are dealt with right now.However it is naive to believe that figures such as those in the OPs post and the reality of that everyday scenario does not impact on social expectation of a man or on legal thinking on the subject.

There is by no means the same social stigma attached to a man abandoning a child as there is to woman doing the same. Why is that?*Why is there not the same social expectation of a male parent as a female parent?*

Again I don't ask that question in an attempt to justify any legal arrangements. I'm asking it out of curiosity.

Cavehill Red

Fistycuffs wrote: »

I am saying that it is foolish and unproductive to ignore the reality that a sizeable number of men abandon their child by choice.

Evidence for this?
I'm aware it happens. I'm also aware of many cases where fathers have been legally prevented from pursuing meaningful relationships with their children. And further, of cases where fathers have been illegally prevented. The one that always brings tears to my eyes is that of the father who turned up one Saturday to pick up his kid to find the mother had emigrated. He's spent the guts of ten years travelling to Central America looking for his child, every chance he could. I wonder what that child was told about their father. Perhaps they were told that their dad abandoned them by choice. Given the vindictive nature of that mother, it wouldn't surprise me.

Fistycuffs wrote: »

The judiciary will act in what it believes are the best interests of the child.

Let's not get silly now. We know that in Ireland, as in Britain, this is not the case. In Scandinavia, where equal parenting is the legal and social norm, you'd be right. But not here.

Fistycuffs wrote: »

The childs right to see a parent sometimes need to be secondary to their welfare.Family courts are not there to enforce the human rights of a parent.

On the contrary, as mothers' rights are enshrined in law in a way that those of fathers and children are not, the family courts very much ARE there to enforce the human rights of one parent.

Fistycuffs wrote: »

If my experience has taught me anything it is what an enormous advantage having a good second parent could be. I would not deny it to any child so im not saying i agree with how those matters are dealt with right now.However it is naive to believe that figures such as those in the OPs post and the reality of that everyday scenario does not impact on social expectation of a man or on legal thinking on the subject.

In my first post, I examined some of the causes for those figures. Not all of them can be explained away with a tired old inaccurate cliche about 'deadbeat' dads.
And in my later posts, I pointed out that it is immoral and unethical for the courts (or indeed society) to prioritise cherry-picked examples of fecklessness over the fundamental human rights of children and fathers when deciding law in the area of childcare.

Fistycuffs wrote: »

There is by no means the same social stigma attached to a man abandoning a child as there is to woman doing the same. Why is that?*Why is there not the same social expectation of a male parent as a female parent?*

Because we do not consider both parents to be equal, either societally or legally. As the Scandinavian example shows, when parents are treated equally, children benefit hugely. Furthermore, fathers fulfil their parental responsibilities because they are no longer being legally prevented or restrained from doing so.
If you want the same 'social expectation' of fathers as of mothers, then you have to treat them the same.

metrovelvet

Absent fathers.

I think there is a huge difference to the effect on a child when the father is dead, the mother alienates him or HE CHOOSES not to be a father. I think the latter has repercussions that no one is quite aware of yet. I think the latter is the worst.

No doubt I will get slammed for this but however I think it needs to be said. Feminism has for decades, since the 1960s convinced everyone you don't need men. Well congratulations you pack of harpies, you got what you prayed for and now generations of children are growing up without dads because the culture has not emphasised how important they are and has made men redundant.

I cant soley blame feminism, because there are men who use the redundancy as a get out of jail free card and put fatherhood on the never never. They think they can wait till the child is over and the burdens of care are over and they can hang out with an adult, ignorant of the possibility that the adult at that point wont want them. Fools.

In the Black communities in America it used to be a cause to hang your head in shame to walk away from your child, and now its an epidemic because no one cares. The shame has been lifted.

Bill2673

Blisterman wrote: »

Heard a shocking statistic today, that in the UK, over a quarter of kids have no contact with their father.

Don't think the statistics are that high in Ireland, but there's definitely a growing number of dads who don't seem to give a crap about their offspring.

I think most people can agree that it can't be very good for kids growing up without a dad. So why do so many guys run away from their responsibilities?

Should something be done? What could be done? How come it's happening so much nowadays, when it didn't before?

The report I heard quoted in the radio said it was 1 in 8 children in the UK.....even that seems very high.

For my part, I know several people with kids. I know of one person my own age who has no contact with their father. But I know of nobody my own age who has no contact with their kids, by choice or otherwise.

You hear these stats rolled out.....I dunno...

Bill2673

metrovelvet wrote: »

In the Black communities in America it used to be a cause to hang your head in shame to walk away from your child, and now its an epidemic because no one cares. The shame has been lifted.

Interesting point.

I don;t think it was ever a cause for shame in Ireland.....was it? They just sent the women to a magdalene laundry, and no one ever knew who the father was.

metrovelvet

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Because we do not consider both parents to be equal, either societally or legally. As the Scandinavian example shows, when parents are treated equally, children benefit hugely. Furthermore, fathers fulfil their parental responsibilities because they are no longer being legally prevented or restrained from doing so.
If you want the same 'social expectation' of fathers as of mothers, then you have to treat them the same.

While I have nothing against Scandinavians per se, can you elaborate on how Scandinavian children are developmentally better off than the rest of the western world in something more than ideological preference?

Can you be more concrete about 'treated equally?" What does that mean exactly?

Can you also give a cultural context and frame of reference for why this works in Scandinavia?

Cavehill Red

metrovelvet wrote: »

No doubt I will get slammed for this but however I think it needs to be said. Feminism has for decades, since the 1960s convinced everyone you don't need men. Well congratulations you pack of harpies, you got what you prayed for and now generations of children are growing up without dads because the culture has not emphasised how important they are and has made men redundant.

This is a desperately important point, actually. We're engaged in a generational social experiment, and the early indications are not good at all. Feral kids, hoodie mobs, plummetting educational achievements, rising drug and alcohol abuse - research has pinpointed the lack of paternal influence in all of these social developments.
Scandinavia has realised the importance of a child having real parenting from both natural parents wherever it is humanly possible. The child then knows their heritage and feels more secure in their identity, and they perform better on a wide raft of indices. For those reasons - the wellbeing of children - Scandinavian countries have introduced family laws that make both parents equal in rights and responsibilities.

Cavehill Red

metrovelvet wrote: »

While I have nothing against Scandinavians per se, can you elaborate on how Scandinavian children are developmentally better off than the rest of the western world in something more than ideological preference?

Children are made secure in their sense of identity and heritage. The framework of legislation means that there is no adversarial Kramer Vs Kramer nonsense when arranging childcare so that the child is not imbued with any sense of divided loyalties.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Can you be more concrete about 'treated equally?" What does that mean exactly?

Equally. As in the same. As in both parents are granted equitable rights and responsibilities from birth. Mothers are required by law to name fathers on the birth cert. Fathers are entitled to the same leave at birth as mothers (in Sweden, the two parents can pool the leave and one can take more, but only by their own agreed arrangement). Equal. The way it should be.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Can you also give a cultural context and frame of reference for why this works in Scandinavia?

It works in Scandinavia because they introduced it there. It's the humane, child-centred way of dealing with such matters. There is nothing uniquely cultural about Scandinavia that would suggest it would not work just as well everywhere else.

metrovelvet

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Children are made secure in their sense of identity and heritage. The framework of legislation means that there is no adversarial Kramer Vs Kramer nonsense when arranging childcare so that the child is not imbued with any sense of divided loyalties.



Equally. As in the same. As in both parents are granted equitable rights and responsibilities from birth. Mothers are required by law to name fathers on the birth cert. Fathers are entitled to the same leave at birth as mothers (in Sweden, the two parents can pool the leave and one can take more, but only by their own agreed arrangement). Equal. The way it should be.



It works in Scandinavia because they introduced it there. It's the humane, child-centred way of dealing with such matters. There is nothing uniquely cultural about Scandinavia that would suggest it would not work just as well everywhere else.

Thank you for explaining that. Do you mean that there is an automatic 50/50 split custody of children in the case of splits?

I wholeheartedly agree that no parent should have a choice about the name on the birthcert. Fathers too should be required by law to put themselves on the birthcert. When you say 'required by law' does that mean there is a punishment or fine if you choose to remain silent?

By pooling parental leave, how does that work in the case of single parents or does it apply?

While I know divorce often leads to children not seeing their fathers and further distancing for many diffferent reasons, they are not necessarily ABSENT fathers. Usually the absent father has not been around since birth or pregnancy. I cant see how scandinavian policy can fix this.

Edited to add this:

Although, the latter is less relevant in Norway, since the majority of premarital birth are to cohabiting couples (about 9 out of 10).

From: http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/11/26/esr.jcp055.full

This would suggest to me that in Norway at least, maybe other Scandinavian countries also, the vast majority of children are born into two parent homes. I dont think this is the case with the majority of 'absent fathers.'

Cavehill Red

metrovelvet wrote: »

Thank you for explaining that. Do you mean that there is an automatic 50/50 split custody of children in the case of splits?

Unless there are the usual mitigating circumstances (drug abuse, mental illness, etc), yes. It's 50/50 unless there is something untoward to be considered. That's not to say that parents can't come to arrangements that suit them better, of course. Not every set of parents can accommodate exactly a 3.5 day parenting week. But it's 50/50 by law, unless they come to an arrangement among themselves that suits everyone better.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree that no parent should have a choice about the name on the birthcert. Fathers too should be required by law to put themselves on the birthcert. When you say 'required by law' does that mean there is a punishment or fine if you choose to remain silent?

It varies from country to country. Sweden doesn't really do marriage or birth certificates the way we do, for example. In Sweden, when a child is born, the mother is expected to name the father and the father is expected to sign an affidavit asserting paternity. If there's any messing about, the authorities can issue fines, restrict access to benefits or order DNA tests.

metrovelvet wrote: »

By pooling parental leave, how does that work in the case of single parents or does it apply?

The purpose of the system is to eradicate the existence of 'single' parents, except in unusual cases, such as where the father has verifiably died before the birth. But in such cases, a single parent would not get double entitlement to leave, because it's delineated as paternity and maternity leave. One must gift it to the other. In fact, they both get more leave if they take equal leave. More here.

metrovelvet wrote: »

While I know divorce often leads to children not seeing their fathers and further distancing for many diffferent reasons, they are not necessarily ABSENT fathers. Usually the absent father has not been around since birth or pregnancy. I cant see how scandinavian policy can fix this.

The idea is that a child is entitled to know their heritage, and that both parents are responsible for bringing that child into the world. So the mother must name him, and he must assume some responsibility, even if it is only financial.
The system cannot legally force him to bond with the child and provide care. No system can. But the way the family law system there is set up has led to much greater paternal involvement, even in the case of children resulting from casual one night stands, because there is now a social approbrium towards fathers who don't man up.
After all, there's no excuse now. With the legal system facilitating shared equitable and flexible parenting from the moment of birth, they have no justification in failing to assume their responsibilities.

metrovelvet

Ok. So they have 50/50 from birth. What does that mean for parents who dont want it? How is it sorted out then?

Lets say neither of them want 50/50? Are they both then forced to take their fair share? Once paternity is established? How long does it take to establish paternity if one party disputes it?

How does parental leave work in the case of medical situations like a caesarian or traumatic birth?

Have you noted any developmental differences in Scandinavian children and other western children?

tallaghtmick

god know how many times a woman has said "and you actually see your son" to me its shocking how many men dont want to be around.....makes me look better though

Cavehill Red

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok. So they have 50/50 from birth. What does that mean for parents who dont want it? How is it sorted out then?

Lets say neither of them want 50/50? Are they both then forced to take their fair share? Once paternity is established? How long does it take to establish paternity if one party disputes it?

I'm not a family law specialist and I'm not in Scandinavia. The system underpins a 50/50 childcare scenario. Anything else would have to be negotiated between the parents. If one skipped out, they'd be held financially accountible anyway. If both did, I imagine that the child would be put in care, just like here.
Establishing paternity is via DNA test, as it is here. Though here, a father must make the application to be considered a father, then if it's disputed by the mother, the court can order a DNA test at the father's expense. Then the test is processed in Britain. It's expensive, adversarial and take a good while in the earliest days of a child's life. There, the court will order it in the case of any dispute, and they'll test it in their own lab.

metrovelvet wrote: »

How does parental leave work in the case of medical situations like a caesarian or traumatic birth?

I've no idea. But given that they get many months each, I'm sure the leave would cover most medical situations. That journalist I linked to was a stay-at-home dad who took 18 months leave.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Have you noted any developmental differences in Scandinavian children and other western children?

I don't spend much time in the company of Scandinavian children. I live in Ireland.

metrovelvet

tallaghtmick wrote: »

god know how many times a woman has said "and you actually see your son" to me its shocking how many men dont want to be around.....makes me look better though

It goes to show how low the expectations have dropped.

metrovelvet

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm not a family law specialist and I'm not in Scandinavia. The system underpins a 50/50 childcare scenario. Anything else would have to be negotiated between the parents. If one skipped out, they'd be held financially accountible anyway. If both did, I imagine that the child would be put in care, just like here.
Establishing paternity is via DNA test, as it is here. Though here, a father must make the application to be considered a father, then if it's disputed by the mother, the court can order a DNA test at the father's expense. Then the test is processed in Britain. It's expensive, adversarial and take a good while in the earliest days of a child's life. There, the court will order it in the case of any dispute, and they'll test it in their own lab.



I've no idea. But given that they get many months each, I'm sure the leave would cover most medical situations. That journalist I linked to was a stay-at-home dad who took 18 months leave.



I don't spend much time in the company of Scandinavian children. I live in Ireland.

Honestly, I think if you had an automatic 50/50 in Ireland you would have a much higher abortion rate and a higher absenteeism rate as there would be more dads doing runners. The dads that do runners do not even want one weekend a year, let alone half the week.

Cavehill Red

metrovelvet wrote: »

Honestly, I think if you had an automatic 50/50 in Ireland you would have a much higher abortion rate and a higher absenteeism rate as there would be more dads doing runners. The dads that do runners do not even want one weekend a year, let alone half the week.

A) There is no abortion in Ireland and
That is a total crock of speculative offensive sh1t.

ntlbell

Blisterman wrote: »

Heard a shocking statistic today, that in the UK, over a quarter of kids have no contact with their father.

Don't think the statistics are that high in Ireland, but there's definitely a growing number of dads who don't seem to give a crap about their offspring.

I think most people can agree that it can't be very good for kids growing up without a dad. So why do so many guys run away from their responsibilities?

Should something be done? What could be done? How come it's happening so much nowadays, when it didn't before?

A lot of absent fathers are not "absent" by choice, they're not given time with thier kids by their mothers.

When changes are made to the laws and fathers are given more rights you will probably see a lot less "absent" fathers

metrovelvet

Cavehill Red wrote: »

A) There is no abortion in Ireland and
That is a total crock of speculative offensive sh1t.

Eh no it isnt. CR you are confusing divorced dads with absent dads.

This thread is about absent dads. They dont want to be fathers. They dont want their kids. Not speculative. Its fact.

Cavehill Red

metrovelvet wrote: »

Eh no it isnt. CR you are confusing divorced dads with absent dads.

This thread is about absent dads. They dont want to be fathers. They dont want their kids. Not speculative. Its fact.

There are separated fathers, divorced fathers, remarried fathers, widowed fathers, unmarried fathers and married fathers.
There's no such thing as 'absent' fathers in law. You're inventing terms out of the air and seeking to define them in light of your own well-established antipathy towards fathers in general.
And yes, you are being speculative, because where equal parenting legislation has been introduced in Scandinavia, it has led to much greater paternal involvement in children's lives, and there is nothing to suggest that it would not do exactly the same here.

ntlbell

metrovelvet wrote: »

Eh no it isnt. CR you are confusing divorced dads with absent dads.

This thread is about absent dads. They dont want to be fathers. They dont want their kids. Not speculative. Its fact.

In a poll of young people from the year 7-11 school age group, 24%, when asked, said they 'don't see' their father.

There is a never ending amount of reasons for this and a lot of them are not down to the father just giving a hoot.

the stats don't go into the reasons why they don't see thier father, which is the main issue here. Lots of men who want to be fathers can't see thier kids. the reasons behind this are important.

How do you know they don't want to be fathers? how do you know they don't want to see thier kids? that is speculative.

metrovelvet

This thread is about ABSENT fathers. THey may not exist in law, but they exist. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la la la wont change that. The thread is titled ABSENT FATHERS.

You admitted to not being a family law expert. You admitted to not knowing any Scandinavian children and not knowing much about Scandinavia and yet advocate Scandiavian policy for Ireland. You may as well advocate Maoiri family policy out of context too.

I dont have an antipathy towards fathers in general. I dont have 'daddy issues' as you abusively suggested to me an another thread. I suggest you quickly depersonalise your dialogue rather than resort to character assassination.

Cavehill Red

metrovelvet wrote: »

This thread is about ABSENT fathers. THey may not exist in law, but they exist. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la la la wont change that. The thread is titled ABSENT FATHERS.

I could title a thread "Bullsh1tting people who make up stuff about fathers" but it wouldn't mean they exist in law or in fact. The OP referred to a situation in Britain relating to the lack of paternal involvement in a minority of children's lives there. To summarise that situation, he used a phrase that has no meaning in law or society. The phrases I used do.

metrovelvet wrote: »

You admitted to not being a family law expert. You admitted to not knowing any Scandinavian children and not knowing much about Scandinavia and yet advocate Scandiavian policy for Ireland.

No, that's not what I said. I said I don't associate with many Scandinavian children for the blindingly obvious reason that I'm in Ireland. I am familiar with Scandinavian childcare policies, and they are enlightened, humane and lightyears ahead of our Victorian adversarial, child-damaging system, so of course I am going to advocate it.

metrovelvet wrote: »

You may as well advocate Maoiri family policy out of context too.

:rolleyes:

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont have an antipathy towards fathers in general. I dont have 'daddy issues' as you abusively suggested to me an another thread. I suggest you quickly depersonalise your dialogue rather than resort to character assassination.

You've demonstrated your antipathy to fathers on numerous threads. While I'm happy to debate with you, or inform you about the subject, what I'm not prepared to do is have you malign Irish fathers with crass offensive speculations without challenging you on it.

Blisterman

I think we're getting slightly off topic here. I wasn't trying to start a debate on father's rights. I was specifically talking about fathers who deliberately choose not to have anything to do with their kids. Which, ok 25% is probably too high a figure, but there are a huge number of men who do this.

Bill2673

Blisterman wrote: »

I think we're getting slightly off topic here. I wasn't trying to start a debate on father's rights. I was specifically talking about fathers who deliberately choose not to have anything to do with their kids. Which, ok 25% is probably too high a figure, but there are a huge number of men who do this.

I think you should quote what actually the poll says.......does the poll say the kids have no contact with their father, or does it say the fathers have no interest in the kids.

Or even better, don't bother.......its just another row going nowhere on boards.ie

Cavehill Red

Blisterman wrote: »

I think we're getting slightly off topic here. I wasn't trying to start a debate on father's rights. I was specifically talking about fathers who deliberately choose not to have anything to do with their kids. Which, ok 25% is probably too high a figure, but there are a huge number of men who do this.

You're the second person I've now asked to support this assertion.

Just because a child has no contact with their father does not mean that the father has deliberately chosen to have nothing to do with them, and that is an especially relevant distinction in Ireland and Britain, where the actual legal framework and legislation discourages and disincentivises them from doing so, and facilitates mothers who wish to be vindictive in severing contact between their children and the fathers.

A man falsely accused in a family law court of child sex abuse will not see his children for at least a year, and is forced to prove the negative. He will then have minimal supervised access overseen by social workers in offices. He will be unable to sue for slander, because the family law courts are in camera.

When he manages to prove his innocence, he will have missed crucial development and bonding time with his kids, and the mother who made the slanderous accusation will face no penalty for doing so whatsoever.

During this time, that man is not present in his children's lives. Just as a man whose children are taken overseas without notice is not present in his children's lives. Just as a man whose access agreement is constantly ignored and flouted by the mother is not present in his children's lives.

Are these 'absent' fathers? And if they are, to what extent did they choose to be?

I'm not denying that there are feckless men out there who don't care who they sleep with, who don't take precautions, and who don't want to face the consequences of their sexual activities. There have always been manbabies out there, and they do proper fathers no favours.

But this suggestion that there are a 'huge number' of such fathers is not in my experience remotely true.

metrovelvet

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you this is about fathers who choose not to see their kids. You keep wanting to turn this into a parental alienation bad mommy thread.

Cavehill Red

And NO ONE on this thread has provided any evidence that this is a significant issue, here, in Britain or indeed anywhere else.
To do so, we'd need to have data that examined how many fathers CHOSE to abandon involvement in their children's lives. The mere fact that many fathers don't have such an involvement in Britain or indeed in Ireland is more easily explained by the nature of the family law systems both countries languish under - antiquated, out of date, child-damaging laws that are an abomination and have led to a social experiment in which a proportion of children are growing up without the essential nurturing care of a father.

Reward

Blisterman wrote: »

Heard a shocking statistic today, that in the UK, over a quarter of kids have no contact with their father.

Don't think the statistics are that high in Ireland, but there's definitely a growing number of dads who don't seem to give a crap about their offspring.

I think most people can agree that it can't be very good for kids growing up without a dad. So why do so many guys run away from their responsibilities?

Should something be done? What could be done? How come it's happening so much nowadays, when it didn't before?

Bull****. You are maligning men and pedastalising women here.

A child having no contact with their father can result from a number of situations, not just the father not giving a crap about the offspring, many fathers are excluded altogether against their will.

Examples

A study in the UK showed that 70% of women admitted to interfering with the fathers custody rights in order to punish him, many fathers are excluded against their will.
UK has an established single mother on the dole as a career culture and these people often lie about the whereabouts of the father.
Fathering a child doesn't come with automatic rights in the UK, if he is not married his rights or lack of them are at her discretion.

Whats more the UK is a very feminist country, fathers are viewed as disposable and generally not needed in the first place.

ntlbell

Blisterman wrote: »

I think we're getting slightly off topic here. I wasn't trying to start a debate on father's rights. I was specifically talking about fathers who deliberately choose not to have anything to do with their kids. Which, ok 25% is probably too high a figure, but there are a huge number of men who do this.

then why are you basing the thread on stats that have nothing to do with fathers choosing not to have anything to do with their kids?

Elle Collins

Iago wrote: »

A third potential issue is where the father to be expressly states that he has no interest in having a child at that point (for whatever reason) and the mother to be decides to go ahead with the birth anyway. In that situation how much responsibility should the father to be actually have?

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

Bill2673

Elle Collins wrote: »

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

How do you make that out?

(ok stupid question, i know how you make that out).

Putting it another way, after conception, a woman has the option of abortion with or without the mans consent (to the best of my knowledge).

A man doesn't have that option.

If your suggestion is that the man has 50% of the responsibility for raising a child (which I agree with), should the quid pro quo not be that the man has equal rights with the woman in deciding whether to go ahead with the pregnancy.....

Bill2673

metrovelvet wrote: »

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you this is about fathers who choose not to see their kids. You keep wanting to turn this into a parental alienation bad mommy thread.

Repeatedly pointed out where? By you?

No one has directly quoted the actual study.....

LegacyUser

Elle Collins wrote: »

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

Does he also get a 50% say in whether she should have an abortion or not?

It's a pretty tricky issue IMO. If he wants her to have an abortion, and she does not, then fair enough, her body and her morals etc., but can you really expect the man to have responsibility for a child he does not want, when there was a solution to the problem perfectly in line with his morals? (I think that a case can be made for the man paying for the entire cost of the abortion, however)

Fistycuffs

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You're the second person I've now asked to support this assertion.

Just because a child has no contact with their father does not mean that the father has deliberately chosen to have nothing to do with them, and that is an especially relevant distinction in Ireland and Britain, where the actual legal framework and legislation discourages and disincentivises them from doing so, and facilitates mothers who wish to be vindictive in severing contact between their children and the fathers.

A man falsely accused in a family law court of child sex abuse will not see his children for at least a year, and is forced to prove the negative. He will then have minimal supervised access overseen by social workers in offices. He will be unable to sue for slander, because the family law courts are in camera.

When he manages to prove his innocence, he will have missed crucial development and bonding time with his kids, and the mother who made the slanderous accusation will face no penalty for doing so whatsoever.

During this time, that man is not present in his children's lives. Just as a man whose children are taken overseas without notice is not present in his children's lives. Just as a man whose access agreement is constantly ignored and flouted by the mother is not present in his children's lives.

Are these 'absent' fathers? And if they are, to what extent did they choose to be?

I'm not denying that there are feckless men out there who don't care who they sleep with, who don't take precautions, and who don't want to face the consequences of their sexual activities. There have always been manbabies out there, and they do proper fathers no favours.

But this suggestion that there are a 'huge number' of such fathers is not in my experience remotely true.

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?

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

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?

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. No I couldn't be bothered tracing research to show you this. It's self evident if you look around,even with friends and family,and explore the issue. 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? Why can we not have a conversation about it?

Bill2673

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?

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

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?

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. No I couldn't be bothered tracing research to show you this. It's self evident if you look around,even with friends and family,and explore the issue. 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? Why can we not have a conversation about it?

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.

Reward

Fistycuffs wrote: »

,but more men will walk out of their childs life than women. Why is that? Why can we not have a conversation about it?

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.

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.

ntlbell

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. No I couldn't be bothered tracing research to show you this. It's self evident if you look around,even with friends and family,and explore the issue. 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? Why can we not have a conversation about it?

Your friends and famliys relationship or lack of with thier kids is not grounds for stats on a debate on "absent" fathers.