Absent Fathers

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Not really. I just commented on how you describe the current options women have as having their cake and eating it, which isn't usually a positive description of a scenario. You also want men to be have their slice too, seemingly to me, just because women have those rights and damn the consequences.

Of course there are consequences, just as there were social consequences to women's liberation. Or would you like us to reverse the clock on those?

Basically it seems like you want to swap the current problems with another set, which is fine because it gives men equality, there doesn't seem to be any other concern, definitely not the child anyway.

If it swaps one set of problems with another for the sake of equality, then that is probably a better situation overall (maybe not for the gender who has to sacrifice some of their rights in the name of equality).

As for bringing up the sake of the child, I just don't buy that line. The current system has practically nothing to do with protecting the rights of the child, only the rights of the woman. Even when the rights of the child are considered, it is the mother who gets to speak for it.

If the rights of the child were really considered, the choice to keep a child would not be made by the mother, but judged separately in the interests of that child - if it is better off with the mother, father or adopted.

The big problem as I see it with walking away for men is, the child exists! If a woman aborts there is no child or in adoption, the mother has no right to go back on the agreement until much later, the child to all intents and purposes doesn't exist anymore. Contrast that to a man walking away.

A man may only walk away and back again only because there is no legal provision to do otherwise. Women may choose abortion and adoption, that are both final, men can choose avoidance at best. A LC4M option, if introduce would be as final as adoption, is my understanding.

I don't see what the OTT comparison to women tied to the kitchen accomplishes either! We are talking about men walking away from their offspring here, not giving women the vote or equal pay! You've taken a viewpoint here and extrapolated it to extreme lengths.

Not at all. You're using the good of society as logic to deny rights. When you open the door on such logic, then you should be aware that it can easily turn round and bite you.

K-9 wrote: »

Which given we have very limited abortion in this country, the same equality doesn't really exist in Ireland for women either! Abortion would need to be legalised on a similar level first probably for men to get their similar option.

So if it was introduced legally in the UK, can men get a constitutional right to have it recognized in Ireland then if they fly over there?

I really don't accept this abortion is illegal in Ireland stuff either. Women have a constitutional right to both information on abortion at to travel for it. Even if it was legal in Ireland I can guarantee that most would still travel for it - and with the state of the health system in Ireland, who could blame them?

ntlbell

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

So you are arguing there are no neglectful fathers? It's a myth, a fabrication. Or so few that they are statistically irrelevant? This thread is about fathers who choose to leave, as the OP stressed repeatedly - are we not entitled to discuss such circumstances, rare as they may be?

If you have been reading the thread it's very clear he's not arguing that at all. If we're not going to use the stats from the BBC, then why single out men for discussion in the thread and discuss why some parents abondon their childeren and not just fathers, you know, to keep things balanced.

Iago

K-9 wrote: »

I'm not missing that at all.

What others are missing is the one massive difference in the two scenarios, the child exists in one case, not in the other.

It's a rather important distinction and characteristic I would have thought or do we just ignore that to have equality for men?

Well that depends on what point you believe a child exists I guess, I'm sure I could line up a couple of hundred people who would argue that the child exists before the mother even knows she's pregnant if I tried. However I get your point, so lets look at the three scenarios

1. Abortion

A woman can decide to have or not to have an abortion

A man cannot and cannot prevent her from doing so.

There is inequality in this scenario even if it's a nightmare scenario to try and resolve and equalise.

2. Adoption

A woman can decide to put her child up for adoption or not

A man cannot make this decision, and while he can perhaps prevent the adoption through legal means, I would guess (having never done it) that it would be a long, drawn out, expensive and possibly fruitless exercise. If you managed to get that far in the first place! Which given the fact that men can't really dictate that their name goes on the birth cert would be a mountain in and of itself.

Then you have to take into consideration that the vast majority of men wouldn't want their child to suffer in any way. If you think about what kind of beginning that child would have if the mother is forced to bring her/him up while waiting for this legal challenge to play itself out then I think a lot of men would simply stand aside rather than put their child through that.

So in my view, there is also clear inequality in this situation which also needs to be resolved.

3. Raising a child

Ultimately if the woman has not made one of the choices above this is what remains, and again is fully her choice.

If however the man has made one of the choices above, this is still what remains, and has nothing to do with his choice.

There is inequality in this situation, and this is also something that needs to be resolved.

~~~~~~~~

It's not as simple as saying "think of the children" because there are (at least) three distinct people who are impacted by these choices and decisions, and they are lifelong impacts, not something that will wear off after a month or two. Yet despite the fact that these decisions impact on three separate lives, only one person actually gets to make any of the decisions around them. Those decisions will always be made with an element of personal bias (as we are all only human) and may not be in the best interests of either of the other two parties.

To align this back to the voting piece if only men could vote, then that voting system/structure would have an inherent bias to the male point of view regardless of the impact that it would have on women, many of which would also be lifelong impacts.

There would be inequality in that, and that is something that has been resolved.

AnnyHallsal

ntlbell wrote: »

If you have been reading the thread it's very clear he's not arguing that at all. If we're not going to use the stats from the BBC, then why single out men for discussion in the thread and discuss why some parents abondon their childeren and not just fathers, you know, to keep things balanced.

I read every post in the thread and don't think it is at all clear.

Because that's the subject of the OP: "Absent Fathers."

ntlbell

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I read every post in the thread and don't think it is at all clear.

Because that's the subject of the OP: "Absent Fathers."

What post in particlaur did you have problems with and maybe we can clear it up for you?

Yes it was because of stats that were presented which we have shown are not based in reality and shouldn't be used for the basis of the discussion maybe the OP might be an agreement on this and we can get the thread titled change and have a discussion on absent parents.

AnnyHallsal

ntlbell wrote: »

What post in particlaur did you have problems with and maybe we can clear it up for you?

Yes it was because of stats that were presented which we have shown are not based in reality and shouldn't be used for the basis of the discussion maybe the OP might be an agreement on this and we can get the thread titled change and have a discussion on absent parents.

Cavehill Red wrote: "this has become a debate about a phenomenon that no one can prove exists in any significant amount, and as a result has attracted many manhating, fatherbashing posts."

I responded: "So you are arguing there are no neglectful fathers? It's a myth, a fabrication. Or so few that they are statistically irrelevant? This thread is about fathers who choose to leave, as the OP stressed repeatedly - are we not entitled to discuss such circumstances, rare as they may be?"

You have presumed to tell me that I misunderstood him. I don't see how that's the case

Posters are not invoking those statistics as proof of anything so I don't see how the thread has become objectionable in the way Cavehill Red, and now it seems you, are arguing.

How would broadening the subject to "Absent Parents" alter the credibility of the statistics, which it seems is your main problem with the discussion?

ntlbell

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Cavehill Red wrote: "this has become a debate about a phenomenon that no one can prove exists in any significant amount, and as a result has attracted many manhating, fatherbashing posts."

In any significant amount, correct, he never stated it didn't happen at all. fairly clear I think.

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I responded: "So you are arguing there are no neglectful fathers? It's a myth, a fabrication. Or so few that they are statistically irrelevant? This thread is about fathers who choose to leave, as the OP stressed repeatedly - are we not entitled to discuss such circumstances, rare as they may be?"

Which i showed you above, that's not what he's arguing.

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

You have presumed to tell me that I misunderstood him. I don't see how that's the case

Posters are not invoking those statistics as proof of anything so I don't see how the thread has become objectionable in the way Cavehill Red, and now it seems you, are arguing.

How would broadening the subject to "Absent Parents" alter the credibility of the statistics, which it seems is your main problem with the discussion?

You said it was unclear, I just wanted to clear it up for you. I think I've made it clear enough above.

The stats were the reasoning behind the start of the thread in the first place so the whole conversation was started off on the wrong foot.

Chaninging it to absent parents won't affect the credibility of the statistics, but it means we can have a meaningful debate on the subject without it turning into some man bashing exercise. There is no valid reason to single out men in regarding abanding kids based on nonsenical stats.

Pherekydes

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This thread has become a circlejerk for fatherbashing.

That's a ludicrous claim to make. Some posters have done their level best to place all the responsibility on the mother. Any fathers that got bashed were deadbeat, absent fathers. That's what the thread is about, after all.

No one has or can demonstrate that there is any significant amount of willingly neglectful fathers.

What's a significant amount?

Since then, this has become a debate about a phenomenon that no one can prove exists in any significant amount, and as a result has attracted many manhating, fatherbashing posts.

I haven't seen any misandry. Or fatherbashing.

AnnyHallsal

ntlbell wrote: »

In any significant amount, correct, he never stated it didn't happen at all. fairly clear I think.

Meaning "Or so few that they are statistically irrelevant?" as my post read.

ntlbell

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Meaning "Or so few that they are statistically irrelevant?" as my post read.

Well this we cannot obtain, because we have no stats on it.

But regardless of how many PARENTS abandon their children it's worthy of discussion, I just don't see the importantce of singling out men.

AnnyHallsal

ntlbell wrote: »

But regardless of how many PARENTS abandon their children it's worthy of discussion, I just don't see the importantce of singling out men.

Over the last few pages a number of posters have cited issues, such as LC4M, that pertain exclusively to Absent Fathers, justifying its own thread, I believe.

Otis Driftwood

Cavehill Red banned for 7 days.Ntlbell,the thread was started asking why there are absent fathers,not mothers,not parents,FATHERS.Please stop trying to derail the thread or you will also be banned.

CDfm

There is a huge difference between a voluntarily absent Dad and an excluded Dad.

I found this article from Mary Corcoran of Maynooth who did a qualitative study around Dublin.

Well worth a read.

http://eprints.nuim.ie/1212/1/MCIJS_14_%282%29.pdf

One thing that is always hard to find are unbiased quantative statistics and, this is a pity because it leads to uneven social policy.

Another article here commenting on a study by Harry Fergusson - the thing that sticks out is that social workers expect mothers to carry the load rather than encouraging them to involve the Dad.

A huge culture shock for me having moved back to Ireland was that even schools and doctors did not want you involved. I had no idea I was so unlikeable.

Absent fathers - another view on SVP remarks

Author: Tom O'Gorman
Date: 6th January 2009
The very important remarks of SVP regional head Brendan Delaney on absent fathers again highlight the importance of children having both their mother and their father. Why are they absent? In some cases it is because the father wants nothing to do with his children. In other cases the mother doesn’t want him to have anything to do with them. In other cases still, social support agencies actively discourage fathers from having a proper relationship with their children.
This last category was highlighted by a report published in 2004 called ‘Strengthening Families Through Fathers’. It was carried out by by Professor Harry Ferguson, of the University of the West of England, and Mr Fergus Hogan, of Waterford Institute of Technology, on behalf of the Family Support Agency. It studied vulnerable fathers and their relationship with family support services.
The report was scathing about the social welfare system in terms of its interaction with fathers. It found "that the overall orientation of welfare systems to exclude men is so powerful that even in cases of inclusive practice clear evidence emerged of men's exclusion.”
It recommended an overhaul of the family law and social welfare systems to make them more father-friendly. It found them to be biased against the inclusion of men in family support and assessment work. In other words, when social services went to assist a family they did not see fathers as part of the solution even when the fathers wished to become involved.
The study, in which 24 men, 10 mothers and 11 children were interviewed, found that the system leaves many men feeling excluded, even though they expressed a desire to have a role in their children's lives.
It found that fathers were extremely frustrated and angry at the way support agencies overlooked them, and that some social workers held negative attitudes towards fathers. Some social workers were reported as saying that men were difficult or dangerous, that there was enough work to be done with the mothers and that there needed to be obvious benefits to working with men.
The report said that "The dynamics of such exclusion took many forms, the most common and powerful of which was a view of men as dangerous, non-nurturing beings."
According to the study, social workers generally expected mothers to carry the load, "leaving the potential resource fathers have to offer largely untapped".
The above indicates that the problem of absent fathers, while very real and very tragic, has multiple causes and all of them need to be considered in any analysis of the proble


http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=445

Fittle

I believe that threads like this will never end, because of all of the 253 posts, there are many, many posters with their own agenda.

My agenda - though I wouldn't call it an agenda, because it is more my life experience - is that of a woman who was in a relationship where we planned to have children, I got pregnant and then he decided he really didn't want a child after all. So I went on to have the child - and he went on to stick to his own viewpoint - that of a 41yr old man, who didn't really want a baby after all. He told me of the 'rights' of a man to abort the child, he gave me a cheque to 'get the boat'..and he has never seen his 8yr old son.

There are others here who have been in relationships with women who won't allow them to see their children, and they are therefore, in a constant state of battle. It appears to me, that they are battling with anyone and everyone who cares to listen. And ultimately, nobody can do anything for them - other than the mother of their child/ren who may or may not allow them to see them.

But ultimately - and you can all get banned from a website, only to come back in a week and begin the debate again - there are boys (and I can only speak of boys, because I don't have a girl) who don't have male role models in their lives, because there are men who have decided - for whatever reason they care to tell all and sundry - that they don't really want to be daddies after all.

So boys like my boy, will grow up with no daddies. He has no real male role model. I had hoped he would get a male teacher this year, but I can't impact on the Dept of Ed decisions. I had hoped my brothers mite become role models for him, but they have their own dysfunction going on and in fact, I'm glad some of them aren't involved in his life.

So here he is. Playing football on the road everyday...trying to turn himself into a young man/adult man, without really knowing how men should behave, because he lives with his mam, and I can't teach him how to be a man.

He said to me once, when he was about 5 and playing mammies & daddies with his 4yr old pal from creche...(and this is a quote) 'I don't really know how to be the daddy, mam...coz I don't really know what daddies DO???' I am luckier than most - I have a load of brothers and having grown up in a house full of boys, I know how boys behave (tho I'm still not a boy) - I have learned as much as I can about footbabll, I do as much as I can to encourage him to be a 'boy', but it's difficult!

So the absent fathers in the original thread...they created boys like mine..and I can only hope that I will be enough for him and that he will figure out for himself, that just because you don't have a daddy, doesn't mean you can't become a responsible daddy yourself someday.

CDfm

Fittle wrote: »

There are others here who have been in relationships with women who won't allow them to see their children, and they are therefore, in a constant state of battle. It appears to me, that they are battling with anyone and everyone who cares to listen. And ultimately, nobody can do anything for them - other than the mother of their child/ren who may or may not allow them to see them.


So the absent fathers in the original thread...they created boys like mine..and I can only hope that I will be enough for him and that he will figure out for himself, that just because you don't have a daddy, doesn't mean you can't become a responsible daddy yourself someday.

A lovely post Fittle and so eloquent. Those paragraphs hit me.

One of the reasons I began to dislike threads like this was they left me conflicted. On one hand , I am hugely sympatethic to guys like me who have to go 12 rounds for access but on the other hand my instinct is that some women have tough breaks with their co-parent too.

My kids feature hugely in my life and I just could not imagine life without them in it, but, I know other guys like me who lost contact with their kids. So I could not imagine not wanting contact.

So when I see extremist womens groups , it does drive me up the wall , but, by the same token I would have little in common with their polarised agenda's it makes no sense to me either. For me, I have to look at the issues from a non gender basis.

I have a feeling your boy will be just fine. My daughter went thru a tough year or two and we worked thru it. I was at one of her friends houses and told the Dad " a girl can never have too many string tops" to a chorus of "too true". I also got the cleanser & moisturise thing.

And, who knows, you may meet someone else. I did.

I have a son too, and, if either of them are in the same situation in years to come , I would like better outcomes for them both. So I have to be grounded and rounded so they learn that.

TouchingVirus

Fittle wrote: »

There are others here who have been in relationships with women who won't allow them to see their children, and they are therefore, in a constant state of battle. It appears to me, that they are battling with anyone and everyone who cares to listen. And ultimately, nobody can do anything for them - other than the mother of their child/ren who may or may not allow them to see them.

The fact that a father must fight for a right to see their kids because of personal issues between themselves and the mother is a serious issue for me.

Sure, I'm aware many couples break up and raise kids while separated and the father is active in their life, but I know of a few situations very close to home where the father i willing to dote on their child/ren but is unallowed to. It's heartbreaking to be honest and almost puts me off the idea of having children.

I'm also fully aware that there are fathers out there who want nothing to do with their children. I can't understand it myself and think it is a crying shame.

tbh

Someone mentioned that this is a thread that could go on forever, and thats true. It's because this isn't a black and white issue, there are no right and wrong answers or opinions.

I would remind people of the tagline under this forums title: A place for the civil discussion of mens issues.

Civil: We are here to share experiences, not to win arguments. Some excellent posts have been made, and some poor ones. You are responsible for what you post. If you cannot post without sarcasm or pouring scorn on anothers opinion, you may have to find somewhere else to post.

Mens issues: This is, unapologetically, a mens forum. The mods will stand over our record of not allowing generalisations about men or by men. We don't want or allow women-bashing, but neither do we require the men who post here to defend the actions of all men worldwide.

In short: share your experiences, support your arguments and express your point of view. Understand that others will have differing opinions to yours, because their lives have taken different turns to yours. Their opinion is as valid as yours, and where their method of expressing that opinion lowers the tone of the forum or makes it a less pleasent or encouraging place to post, the mods will step in - if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem, however well-meaning you may be.

We will not allow the same posters fight the same fight over and over in every thread of this type to the exclusion of all others.
We will not ban the discussion of these issues from the forum, rather we will ban any problematic users.

Bill2673

Cavehill Red wrote: »

3: Fathers are therefore actively discouraged to remain part of their children's lives should their relationship with the mother fall apart.


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.

Just on these two points:

On 3. Am I right in saying free legal aid is available to women and not to men where a couple is seperated? I know of one couple that has seperated, and the mum uses her full allotment of legal aid each year, taking the father to court over and over and over under her legal aid allotment, accusing him of hitting the kids, not minding the kids when he has custody, not feeding the properly, none of which has stood up in court. But its a huge strain for him, and to my knowledge he has to pay all his court costs, and take off work to attend. This sounds like discrimination; which I suppose is discouragement at a societal level. i know its just one example, rather than a general situation.

On 5. A lot of single women, especially in mid to late '30s, want to have a child. And personally, I would say, why shouldn't they. That is clearly a breakdown of the nuclear family, but i wouldn't particularly go boo-hooing about it. Or as another example, a lot of gay or lesbian couples want to have kids. And again why shouldnt they. That they can do so and it be socially acceptable also relates to liberalisation of society, but personally i'd see that aspect of it is a good thing.

Bill2673

nedtheshed wrote: »

Cavehill Red banned for 7 days.Ntlbell,the thread was started asking why there are absent fathers,not mothers,not parents,FATHERS.Please stop trying to derail the thread or you will also be banned.

With respect, moderator, the Original Post was a provacative one. You haven't referred to all of it.

It started by quoting a study in the UK which said 25% of kids are not in touch with their fathers. The OP then went on rather provactively in my view to ask something along the lines of "why do so many fathers run away from their responsibilities". To extrapolate from one to the other (with no explanation or statistal support) is provactive, and some might find it offensive, and thats part of the reason why this thread has dragged on so long in my view. The Original Post was not just the simple question that you described.

CDfm

Bill2673 wrote: »

Just on these two points:

On 3. Am I right in saying free legal aid is available to women and not to men where a couple is seperated? I know of one couple that has seperated, and the mum uses her full allotment of legal aid each year, taking the father to court over and over and over under her legal aid allotment, accusing him of hitting the kids, not minding the kids when he has custody, not feeding the properly, none of which has stood up in court. But its a huge strain for him, and to my knowledge he has to pay all his court costs, and take off work to attend. This sounds like discrimination; which I suppose is discouragement at a societal level. i know its just one example, rather than a general situation.

I've been there and it feels like the death of a thousand cuts.

My experiences took me ages to get over.

I am not being bitter when I say if any of the judges had even threatened using legal sanctions such as a fine or a weekend in jail with my ex I would have been spared it.

On 5. A lot of single women, especially in mid to late '30s, want to have a child. And personally, I would say, why shouldn't they. That is clearly a breakdown of the nuclear family, but i wouldn't particularly go boo-hooing about it. Or as another example, a lot of gay or lesbian couples want to have kids. And again why shouldnt they. That they can do so and it be socially acceptable also relates to liberalisation of society, but personally i'd see that aspect of it is a good thing.

I know you have gone off topic with the gay issue but you do have a point. I certainly know that on issues like domestic violence that the lesbian, gay and bisexual community have the same lack of enforcement as do young people and old people of both genders against perpetrators.

Some rights are human rights and it seems to be the case that laws are not enforced with one eye out for the reaction of powerful womens lobby groups and the unfair allocation of limited resourses.

Bill2673

TouchingVirus wrote: »

It's heartbreaking to be honest and almost puts me off the idea of having children.

To be honest, it would be a worry for me event though I'm in a fairly solid r'ship with two kids. i love my partner, she loves me. But who knows what the future holds, and as things stand she can walk off and bring the kids with her and there would be damn all I could do about it, she knows it, i know it, its like a sword of damocles, and i suppose every father is in the same situation.

Not my biggest worry, but there's enough there to be thinking about it.

Fittle

Bill2673 wrote: »

To be honest, it would be a worry for me event though I'm in a fairly solid r'ship with two kids. i love my partner, she loves me. But who knows what the future holds, and as things stand she can walk off and bring the kids with her and there would be damn all I could do about it, she knows it, i know it, its like a sword of damocles, and i suppose every father is in the same situation.

Not my biggest worry, but there's enough there to be thinking about it.

And every mother could also be left parenting alone. Yes, the law states they get to 'keep' the kids (I'm purposely not getting too technical here, because I think there's enough stuff been said already), but parenting alone is not fun. There is little, if any pleasure in having to make every single solitary decision alone - knowing that it might be the wrong decision but having no-one to discuss or share it with. And then there's the questions that you can't answer, that you dread they will ask (why does my dad not love me?).

I was also in a solid relationship. We had just put a deposit on our first home. My life plan was not to be a single parent at 34, but I guess none of us knows what's around the corner, so I do agree that it's a sword of damocles. I believe it's worth acknowledging though, that for every father who fears his wife/partner can take the kids from him, there are mothers who fear that their partners will leave them to parent alone.

Edit: Just to add that my boy brings me pleasure every second of every day, so it's not HIM I'm referring to when I said there's no pleasure...it's the responsibility of parenting alone.

Fittle

Can I throw this in the mix, or is it off-topic?

Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states;

Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from
birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to
know and be cared for by his or her parents.

'...The right to know...his or her parents'.

There are many children who don't know their fathers. Apart from the problems that in itself could cause for the child (self-esteem issues, depression following the rejection from a parent etc), it can cause untold problems for half-siblings in the future etc. So what about my boys human right to know both his parents? (Not that I would want the man in his life after this length of time of course - but that's really not the point).

What about the children of these absent fathers and THEIR human rights?
Nobody really ever discusses that

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

Can I throw this in the mix, or is it off-topic?

Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states;

Article 7
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from
birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to
know and be cared for by his or her parents.

'...The right to know...his or her parents'.

You'll note that it says "as far as possible" - without this adoption, sperm or egg donation, and a raft of other scenarios would not be possible. Many mothers who put their children up for adoption specifically do not want to be traced (I knew a girl who was rebuffed by her biological mother when she contacted her, for example) and ever since legislation was brought into the UK allowing children born from sperm donations to trace their biological fathers, the well has run dry (if you'll excuse the expression) on such donations.

Indeed, the entire article is in reality vague and open to interpretation, for example, on the question of nationality, the second part of the article goes on to specify that this would be an issue principally "where the child would otherwise be stateless."

In short, the article aspires to a child knowing its parents - as long as an exception is not made. And lots of governments make lots of exceptions. Like many things the UN comes out with, it actually is very non-committal when you look at it carefully.

What about the children of these absent fathers and THEIR human rights?
Nobody really ever discusses that

If we want to discuss the rights of children, perhaps we should question how these are presently administered. In most cases they are represented by the mother, who does not necessarily represent the best interests of the child.

For example, given the choice to keep or put a child up for adoption, it is her wishes that are presently paramount, not the child's interests. Should we change the law so that this decision is taken out of her hands and decided upon by weighing up what is actually in the child's best interests?

Would you support that?

Fittle

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'll note that it says "as far as possible" - without this adoption, sperm or egg donation, and a raft of other scenarios would not be possible. Many mothers who put their children up for adoption specifically do not want to be traced (I knew a girl who was rebuffed by her biological mother when she contacted her, for example) and ever since legislation was brought into the UK allowing children born from sperm donations to trace their biological fathers, the well has run dry (if you'll excuse the expression) on such donations.

Indeed, the entire article is in reality vague and open to interpretation, for example, on the question of nationality, the second part of the article goes on to specify that this would be an issue principally "where the child would otherwise be stateless."

In short, the article aspires to a child knowing its parents - as long as an exception is not made. And lots of governments make lots of exceptions. Like many things the UN comes out with, it actually is very non-committal when you look at it carefully.

If we want to discuss the rights of children, perhaps we should question how these are presently administered. In most cases they are represented by the mother, who does not necessarily represent the best interests of the child.

For example, given the choice to keep or put a child up for adoption, it is her wishes that are presently paramount, not the child's interests. Should we change the law so that this decision is taken out of her hands and decided upon by weighing up what is actually in the child's best interests?

Would you support that?

Why the constant referring back to adoption?

The children I am talking about are not adopted - it is not comparable.

The children I was referring to are those whose biological fathers have abandoned them and whose biological mothers are raising them and are the children of the 'Absent fathers' referred to in the OP.

Do they not have a right to know their biological fathers on any level?

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

Why the constant referring back to adoption?

The children I am talking about are not adopted - it is not comparable.

The children I was referring to are those whose biological fathers have abandoned them and whose biological mothers are raising them and are the children of the 'Absent fathers' referred to in the OP.

Do they not have a right to know their biological fathers on any level?

This isn't really correct.

The child you are talking about is your own, and that's completely understandable.

The children in the OP were not necessarily abandoned by their fathers, the fathers are just absent. That could be for any number of reasons, not just abandonment.

If you want to talk about the overall issue then abortion, adoption, abandonment, bereavement, crime, awareness etc all come into it.

Fittle

Iago wrote: »

This isn't really correct.

The child you are talking about is your own, and that's completely understandable.

The children in the OP were not necessarily abandoned my their fathers, the fathers are just absent. That could be for any number of reasons, not just abandonment.

If you want to talk about the overall issue then abortion, adoption, abandonment, bereavement, crime, awareness etc all come into it.

This was the quote the OP used in his original post on this thread, immediately after his reference to the fact that around quarter of the children in the UK have no contact with their fathers...

'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.'

It was pretty clear to me that the OP was referring to dads who don't give a crap...not abortion, adoption, bereavement etc.

Otis Driftwood

Bill2673 wrote: »

With respect, moderator, the Original Post was a provacative one. You haven't referred to all of it.

It started by quoting a study in the UK which said 25% of kids are not in touch with their fathers. The OP then went on rather provactively in my view to ask something along the lines of "why do so many fathers run away from their responsibilities". To extrapolate from one to the other (with no explanation or statistal support) is provactive, and some might find it offensive, and thats part of the reason why this thread has dragged on so long in my view. The Original Post was not just the simple question that you described.

With all due respect to you,I dont have to explain my actions to anyone except to my fellow mods or the admins of this site however I will humour you.

Cavehill Red was banned becaue he posted off topic with accusations of father bashing and misandry in this thread which there simply isnt.He posted despite two mod warnings and two posters being banned previously.

This thread started with a question about why there are so many absent fathers.

The first reply gave his thoughts on the matter as did a few others then all of a sudden it went on a complete tangent.Direction was given and ignored so when that happens there isnt much more that can be done.

What I said in my last post was directed at Ntlbell,he kept trying to bring up absent mothers,absent parents etc,not what the opening post was about.If users want to start a thread on either of these there are suitable forums such as Humanities where they can be discussed at lenght however to repeat,this thread was started about absent fathers and why there are absent fathers the reasons why some men choose to walk away from their children etc.

Obviously this is an emotive subject particularly for men that have had difficulty getting access to their kids,two of my friends are in that exact situation as I type however that is no excuse for dragging or trying to drag threads off topic or for making unfounded accusations.

Finally,as you should well know,questioning mod actions on thread across any of the forums on boards can be a ban worthy offence.Please remember that in future.

Regards,
OD

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

This was the quote the OP used in his original post on this thread, immediately after his reference to the fact that around quarter of the children in the UK have no contact with their fathers...

'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.'

It was pretty clear to me that the OP was referring to dads who don't give a crap...not abortion, adoption, bereavement etc.

Yet you posted an article from a UN declaration that specifies parents and not simply fathers and so really you do have to examine the entire question of a parent not being involved in a child's life, be that parent male or female, be that lack of involvement involuntary or not, be the manner in which they are missing state sanctioned or not.

You also made the off topic contribution (by your own admission), so accusing others of being off topic when responding to it is a bit odd, TBH.

If all you want to do is focus on your own agenda (or life experience, as you called it), then fine - but not everyone has your experience and many have very different stories to you. This is why you cannot simply look at the issue in a black and white fashion, tar everyone - be they mothers or fathers - with the same brush, and consider that why children end up like this is not down to any one single reason but to a plethora of them.

I note you did not comment on the second part of my last post. I take it that you do not support a shift to decisions being made in the best interest of the child then?

Iago

Fittle wrote: »

This was the quote the OP used in his original post on this thread, immediately after his reference to the fact that around quarter of the children in the UK have no contact with their fathers...

'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.'

It was pretty clear to me that the OP was referring to dads who don't give a crap...not abortion, adoption, bereavement etc.

I feel we're going back over the same ground again and again (we in a group sense as opposed to me and you specifically)

The 25% of children figure is correct. The tenuous link between it and the emboldened part of the text above is yet to be established. I'd also question the veracity of the whole "growing number of dads who don't seem to give a crap" and I'd like to see evidence to back it up as opposed to an individuals perception.

Taking all that aside, if you want to talk about dads who don't give a crap which subset would you like to talk about?

One night stands?
Steady Relationships?
Thos who don't know that they have a child?
Those who planned the child and changed their mind?
Those who wanted their partner to have an abortion or put the child up for adoption?
Those who waited for the child to be born and at some subsequent point abandoned it?

The problem with doing any of the above is that regardless of which we choose we move away from the point of the thread which was a general discussion as to why it would happen as opposed to a specific instance.

It also prevents any of us being objective because we can talk about how we feel or would react in that circumstance. That doesn't make for healthy debate because it's too close to home.