Unmarried father...

SEPT 23 1989

I consider it a form of abuse if a mother does not let a child see its father

xsiborg

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I actually think I'm lucky, I get 50% access to my daughter and a say in what happens, up until today it was all literally at the discretion of the mother, that just seems sick to me.

I think there is something wrong with a de facto situation where every single father who has a child outside of marriage has as many rights over them as the bottle of beer beside me.

but im glad to see you have your priorities straight at least! :rolleyes:

in other news- every situation is different, and the case of the OP is only one, ONE, of many, many anecdotal cases.

i don't know the OP's situation and neither do any of us here, we can only form an opinion based on what they have posted, but i hope the OP is able to see from the point of view of many women who have left abusive relationships and taken their children with them for their own safety, and then the father decides he will try to gain access through legal means to see the children, and thereby continue to intimidate the mother.

its all fine a father with good intentions saying that they want access to their children, but OP you are in a very, very tiny minority, and i'd sooner the courts err on the side of caution than have the children pulled from pillar to post emotionally speaking at least.

imagine how hard it was for you OP to go through what you have been through, now imagine what it's like for your children, who are far less emotionally and intellectually developed to deal with the situation.

it is the courts job not to side with either adult party, but to do what it sees are in the best interests of the children, not the adults.

Millicent

xsiborg wrote: »

but im glad to see you have your priorities straight at least! :rolleyes:

in other news- every situation is different, and the case of the OP is only one, ONE, of many, many anecdotal cases.

i don't know the OP's situation and neither do any of us here, we can only form an opinion based on what they have posted, but i hope the OP is able to see from the point of view of many women who have left abusive relationships and taken their children with them for their own safety, and then the father decides he will try to gain access through legal means to see the children, and thereby continue to intimidate the mother.

its all fine a father with good intentions saying that they want access to their children, but OP you are in a very, very tiny minority, and i'd sooner the courts err on the side of caution than have the children pulled from pillar to post emotionally speaking at least.

imagine how hard it was for you OP to go through what you have been through, now imagine what it's like for your children, who are far less emotionally and intellectually developed to deal with the situation.

it is the courts job not to side with either adult party, but to do what it sees are in the best interests of the children, not the adults.

Ah here. Fathers seeking access =/= abusive assholes. There are methods to deal with gits like that. I don't see why there is any reason to equate the two in a single post when there is nothing to indicate anything of that nature here. Also -- a bottle of beer? Wow, that monster.

He is not in a very, very tiny minority either so don't go casting aspersions on a giant number of men without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

KittyeeTrix

One of my best friends went thru a bitter, sudden break up which nearly destroyed her. I remember she started to get nasty with her ex and withold his 3 kids from him.

I sat her down for a chat one evening. I sarted by telling her that I loved her but had to be honest with her. I then reminded her what we both used to think about women who use their kids as weapons. It was something we would never condone. We talked for hours and at the end she realised what she was doing was wrong and that it was borne out of resentment for her ex and as a way to really, really hurt him........

Women who know other women who do this kind of thing need to be honest and tell them the truth, that they are wrong and ultimately hurting their own child!!!

OBVIOUSLY, the opinion above does not extend to those cases where fathers have been abusive, alcoholics, drug abusers etc.

catthinkin

All parents would benefit from realising your child is 50% the fathers 50% the mothers.

Put the ex down disown them you are essentially putting down 50% of your own child.

Children have enough to cope with in a seperation without being denied acess to 50% of who they are .

cloptrop

marcsignal wrote: »

I've no children OP, so I don't feel qualified to contribute here, other than to say I'm glad the result was to your satisfaction, and to hope it continues that way for you.

Do you have children?
Well then you wouldnt understand , your arguement is wrong and I know more than you. Bloo
Bloody people with no children

44leto

I would fight to make sure she got the kids.

I work with a guy who had a bitter split, but he was given the custody of his 4 kids. So the decision can swing on the father's behalf.

xsiborg

i think you're picking me up completely wrong-

Millicent wrote: »

Ah here. Fathers seeking access =/= abusive assholes..

i never said it did, i was merely making the point that in my own personal experience, (because i am not a fan of statistics, which can be used to make an argument for either side), i have seen cases where fathers have used the "right to have access to the kids" to further intimidate the mother.

Millicent wrote: »

There are methods to deal with gits like that.

again, and forming an opinion solely based on my own experiences, the current methods are not very effective, but that is another argument entirely.

Millicent wrote: »

I don't see why there is any reason to equate the two in a single post when there is nothing to indicate anything of that nature here.

i don't see any indication of it either, in the OP's case at least, but then we only have the OP's word for that and what they have posted here. neither of us, and nobody else here, can judge the merits of one individual case just from what the OP has posted alone.

Millicent wrote: »

Also -- a bottle of beer? Wow, that monster.

this is after hours, a little tongue in cheek humor IS allowed.

Millicent wrote: »

He is not in a very, very tiny minority either

on that im afraid, and again, solely based on my own experience, we'll have to agree to differ. imo there are many more fathers that want nothing to do with their children than there are those who want like the OP to take responsibility for their children, hence why "single mothers" get such a tarring with the one brush in society nowadays and single fathers, well, when was the last time you heard a single father being held to account for being an absentee parent?

Millicent wrote: »

so don't go casting aspersions on a giant number of men without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

it was not my intention to come across as casting aspersions on any individual whatsoever, however i still disagree with your assertion that it is anything even close to a large number of men.

the only evidence i have however is my own personal experiences, just like anyone else in here who has claimed that "its all the woman's fault", but i haven't seen you take any of them to task for their stereotyping and spurious claims.

as i maintained from the beginning of my last post- each case is different, and none of us here can generalise or comment on individual cases without knowing and understanding all the facts.

my post was merely to highlight that the most important thing is not who does or doesnt have access or guardianship rights to the children, but in fact what is actually in the best interests of the children over the access or guardianship rights of the adults.

Millicent

xsiborg wrote: »

i think you're picking me up completely wrong-



i never said it did, i was merely making the point that in my own personal experience, (because i am not a fan of statistics, which can be used to make an argument for either side), i have seen cases where fathers have used the "right to have access to the kids" to further intimidate the mother.



again, and forming an opinion solely based on my own experiences, the current methods are not very effective, but that is another argument entirely.




i don't see any indication of it either, in the OP's case at least, but then we only have the OP's word for that and what they have posted here. neither of us, and nobody else here, can judge the merits of one individual case just from what the OP has posted alone.



this is after hours, a little tongue in cheek humor IS allowed.



on that im afraid, and again, solely based on my own experience, we'll have to agree to differ. imo there are many more fathers that want nothing to do with their children than there are those who want like the OP to take responsibility for their children, hence why "single mothers" get such a tarring with the one brush in society nowadays and single fathers, well, when was the last time you heard a single father being held to account for being an absentee parent?



it was not my intention to come across as casting aspersions on any individual whatsoever, however i still disagree with your assertion that it is anything even close to a large number of men.

the only evidence i have however is my own personal experiences, just like anyone else in here who has claimed that "its all the woman's fault", but i haven't seen you take any of them to task for their stereotyping and spurious claims.

as i maintained from the beginning of my last post- each case is different, and none of us here can generalise or comment on individual cases without knowing and understanding all the facts.

my post was merely to highlight that the most important thing is not who does or doesnt have access or guardianship rights to the children, but in fact what is actually in the best interests of the children over the access or guardianship rights of the adults.

I can't seem to win on Boards sometimes: defend women and I'm not doing enough to defend men. Defend men and I'm not doing enough to defend women.

Others have jumped in already to counteract any anti-women sentiments in here so there is no need for me to.

I'm just saying, in the context of this discussion, there was no need to bring up abusive men quite so soon into your post.

A child is entitled to two parents who want them--how is that importance nullified or lessened in any way by parents being given equal rights in parenting?

And yes, there are discrepancies in the ways single mothers and absentee fathers are perceived but those don't change by pouring scorn on decent, respectable responsible fathers who are doing their best by their children.

If we're going on anecdotal evidence here, I know far more men who are involved in their children's lives and have fought for custody and access than those who aren't and haven't. I'm not offering that as proof of anything, just pointing out that the plural of anecdote is never data or even a reasonable argument.

ETA: I do agree that more should be done around domestic violence in the law. That still doesn't negate the rights of men who are not abusive assholes, just as some women being vindictive and withholding access does not equate to all mothers being bitches.

catthinkin

cloptrop wrote: »

marcsignal wrote: »

I've no children OP, so I don't feel qualified to contribute here, other than to say I'm glad the result was to your satisfaction, and to hope it continues that way for you.

Do you have children?
Well then you wouldnt understand , your arguement is wrong and I know more than you. Bloo
Bloody people with no children

I think thats totally unfair and biased just because you have procreated dosnt make you an authority on children .Nor does being childless remove your right to have an opinion.

We were all kids once

Local-womanizer

I love taking some women up on their view the country is a sexist one when it comes to women's rights.

Once I give a few examples of how men are treated in this country when it comes to family law they usually step down.

Not saying all women are like this, only a few militants! This country will is backwards when it comes to family law. A shame really that a father has to go to court just to have a say over his kids lives or get married.

cloptrop

catthinkin wrote: »

I think thats totally unfair and biased just because you have procreated dosnt make you an authority on children .Nor does being childless remove your right to have an opinion.

We were all kids once

It was a joke its like saying im not racist but,,,,,,,,,,,,,

planetX

My experience of the family court is the opposite, so desperate to be pro-father that they will grant immediate and prolonged access to a father who wasn't present for 7 years. The one thing the courts are not is pro-child.

Caraville

Millicent wrote: »

I can't seem to win on Boards sometimes: defend women and I'm not doing enough to defend men. Defend men and I'm not doing enough to defend women.

I absolutely agree with you on this. It's something that really bothers me at times about this website

OP, all I can say is that hopefully as time moves on, things will change. After all, custody cases are probably only going to become more prevalent in the years ahead and the law makers in this country are going to have to face up to the facts that there is a bias towards women.

Congratulations on getting the outcome you hoped for, and I wish you many happy days spent with your daughter.

cloptrop

So because the child had no father for 7 years he cant be allowed have one for another 11 is your point of view?
You arnt pro child your anti father.

xsiborg

Millicent wrote: »

I can't seem to win on Boards sometimes: defend women and I'm not doing enough to defend men. Defend men and I'm not doing enough to defend women.

Others have jumped in already to counteract any anti-women sentiments in here so there is no need for me to.

I'm just saying, in the context of this discussion, there was no need to bring up abusive men quite so soon into your post.

A child is entitled to two parents who want them--how is that importance nullified or lessened in any way by parents being given equal rights in parenting?

And yes, there are discrepancies in the ways single mothers and absentee fathers are perceived but those don't change by pouring scorn on decent, respectable responsible fathers who are doing their best by their children.

If we're going on anecdotal evidence here, I know far more men who are involved in their children's lives and have fought for custody and access than those who aren't and haven't. I'm not offering that as proof of anything, just pointing out that the plural of anecdote is never data or even a reasonable argument.

ETA: I do agree that more should be done around domestic violence in the law. That still doesn't negate the rights of men who are not abusive assholes, just as some women being vindictive and withholding access does not equate to all mothers being bitches.

thank you at least Millicent for being willing to entertain the notion that others are at least entitled to their point of view from their own experience, far too many times in far too many discussions on boards i have seen threads descend into statistics vs. statistics with a few obscure wiki references and "expert opinions" thrown in for good measure. i'd sooner talk to someone that can offer their opinion based on their own experiences and not some obscure "report" from the first link in google.

i applaud the OP for taking their responsibilities seriously but what struck me was that they couldn't fathom why the courts would still want to adjudicate in the case when the adults had an agreement already in place. i was trying to convey the idea that the courts HAVE to do this in respect of what is in the best interest of the child, and put their interests and their welfare before any rights of the parents.

Robdude

Sexism against women is wrong because women are weaker and need our protection.
Sexism against men is fine because women are weaker and need our protection.

Millicent

Robdude wrote: »

Sexism against women is wrong because women are weaker and need our protection.
Sexism against men is fine because women are weaker and need our protection.

Who said that?

Fromthetrees

xsiborg wrote: »

but im glad to see you have your priorities straight at least! :rolleyes:

in other news- every situation is different, and the case of the OP is only one, ONE, of many, many anecdotal cases.

i don't know the OP's situation and neither do any of us here, we can only form an opinion based on what they have posted, but i hope the OP is able to see from the point of view of many women who have left abusive relationships and taken their children with them for their own safety, and then the father decides he will try to gain access through legal means to see the children, and thereby continue to intimidate the mother.

its all fine a father with good intentions saying that they want access to their children, but OP you are in a very, very tiny minority, and i'd sooner the courts err on the side of caution than have the children pulled from pillar to post emotionally speaking at least.

imagine how hard it was for you OP to go through what you have been through, now imagine what it's like for your children, who are far less emotionally and intellectually developed to deal with the situation.

it is the courts job not to side with either adult party, but to do what it sees are in the best interests of the children, not the adults.

Your post is just a complete headfuck.
Having a beer when I don't have my kid over is having my priorities fucked up?
My case isn't anecdotal, if you actually read my first post, which I doubt, I said that it is the default situation. Any father who has a child outside of marriage has no rights over his child and the only way to get them is by consent of the mother or the consent of a judge, I find this absurd. Each individual case is obviously different, my point is that it's not right that an unmarried father should have to go and get basic rights.
What has being an unmarried father and being abusive towards women or children got in common?
Your saying that unmarried fathers with 'good intentions are in a very, very tiny minority', that's just insane. I won't even ask for any statistics to back that claim up because it's just demented. On the other hand, are you saying that about all fathers or just unmarried fathers? To me, marriage is just a piece of paper.
I honestly don't even know what you're trying to say.

planetX

cloptrop wrote: »

So because the child had no father for 7 years he cant be allowed have one for another 11 is your point of view?
You arnt pro child your anti father.

and you're jumping to stupid and incorrect conclusions.
The thread is about courts being biased against fathers. I'm saying that this is not my experience.

Ms. Pingui

xsiborg wrote: »

but im glad to see you have your priorities straight at least! :rolleyes:

in other news- every situation is different, and the case of the OP is only one, ONE, of many, many anecdotal cases.

i don't know the OP's situation and neither do any of us here, we can only form an opinion based on what they have posted, but i hope the OP is able to see from the point of view of many women who have left abusive relationships and taken their children with them for their own safety, and then the father decides he will try to gain access through legal means to see the children, and thereby continue to intimidate the mother.

its all fine a father with good intentions saying that they want access to their children, but OP you are in a very, very tiny minority, and i'd sooner the courts err on the side of caution than have the children pulled from pillar to post emotionally speaking at least.

imagine how hard it was for you OP to go through what you have been through, now imagine what it's like for your children, who are far less emotionally and intellectually developed to deal with the situation.

it is the courts job not to side with either adult party, but to do what it sees are in the best interests of the children, not the adults.

I agree with you. I'm a young single mother of a two year old. My childs father was abusive towards me. From the time our child was born he would spend evry weekend at my parents with us as I lived there. He spent his "visitation" time verbally abusing me, being really aggressive, trashing my stuff and showing little interest in his daughter.
As we were no longer together he spent all his time trying to get with me which made me really uncomfortable and I spent much of his visits in tears.
Because of this my parents banned him from the house and he saw his daughter in a public area once a week but nothing changed. He then tried to bring me to court but through mediation he ended up back visiting my home. There was no way I could prove what had been happening.
All this and more put me through hell for a long time and I'm glad he didn't get automatic rights. If the way things are are wrong, well personally i'm glad they aren't right!

Robdude

Millicent wrote: »

Who said that?

It best reflects the attitudes and actions of the majority of Men and Women I've interacted with.

Millicent

Robdude wrote: »

It best reflects the attitudes and actions of the majority of Men and Women I've interacted with.

Start mixing with better people; those people sound like eejits.

cloptrop

planetX wrote: »

and you're jumping to stupid and incorrect conclusions.
The thread is about courts being biased against fathers. I'm saying that this is not my experience.

No you were saying it was biased towards father because a father got access after being missing for 7 years.
To punish him would be punishing the child. This isnt biased or pro anything , its common sence give the boy his dad at 7 rather than 18.

token101

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Today, I was at the family law court to have my application for co-guardianship and joint custody heard.

Long story...

The mother of my daughter agreed to sign the forms ten minutes before we were about to go into the judge. I'm very happy with the outcome.

My question is, why did I have to go to court just to get some basic rights over my daughter?

What pissed me off although I accept it, is that my solicitor made it clear in the written document that we both signed is that the mother is the primary care giver, like I said, I accept this but the judge went on to add a few more paragraphs to give the mother more control, despite the fact that agreement had been reached between both parties before we entered the court room. I genuinely feel there is a strong bias against fathers in our laws and legal system.

I actually think I'm lucky, I get 50% access to my daughter and a say in what happens, up until today it was all literally at the discretion of the mother, that just seems sick to me.

I think there is something wrong with a de facto situation where every single father who has a child outside of marriage has as many rights over them as the bottle of beer beside me.

I think we need to adopt a system similar to the US, if a father has no interest in his child, fine, automatically garnish his income and that's that, but if he wants to be involved in the childs life than give him these rights and responsibilities without having to go through the court system to get some.

I know nothing about any of this, I've no idea of the laws or anything but I'm just curious. Why wouldn't you just say to the mother that you refuse to pay maintenance until you get access/joint custody? Maybe when she's stuck for money it might force her to relent? Or would that end up coming back to haunt you in court or something? Out of curiosity, how long did the process take if you don't mind my asking? Please don't say it took 7 years because that's unbelievably wrong on more than one level.

theg81der

God you picked well didn`t you! Your ex is a really decent human being and your very lucky. Of course I shouldn`t have to say that, it should be equal rights and I await the day when someone properly challenges this crap. Its the one change I would like to see come out of european human rights.

Robdude

Millicent wrote: »

Start mixing with better people; those people sound like eejits.

I'm not referring to my personal social-circle. I'm talking about the general opinions I see reflected everywhere, including the internet.

A male teacher sleeps with a female student - he's a criminal
A female teacher sleeps with a male student - it's all fun and games

Compare the attitudes and rulings of courts to see how equal we view the sexes.

Hell, you can't honestly tell me that 99% of the population has more of a problem with a guy hitting a girl in a pub than a guy hitting another guy in a pub. One is a horrible crime against humanity, the other is two guys settling things the old fashioned way. Neither is 'okay' but to say they are viewed equally is ridiculous.

Countries that have drafts typically only draft men. Countries with mandatory military service often only require men to serve. Countries that allow men and women in the military often have segregation of duties such that the most dangerous roles cannot be performed by women.

Women have significantly more legal rights pertaining to their children and are favoured in the courts in matters of custody.

Another example - I don't know how true this is in Ireland - but in the United States men historically outscored women in subjects like Math, while trailing in subjects like English.

The result was a national push for to help engage female students in Mathematics.

There was no equivalent program to emphasis helping male students to excel in English.

KittyeeTrix

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Any father who has a child outside of marriage has no rights over his child and the only way to get them is by consent of the mother or the consent of a judge, I find this absurd. Each individual case is obviously different, my point is that it's not right that an unmarried father should have to go and get basic rights.

I'm forever telling my almost 18 yr old son that he needs to be mindful of this if he were ever to get a "girl in trouble"........

I know it's often looked upon by parents that its their teenage daughters that they think about most with regards teenage pregnancy but I'm forever reminding my son that as an unmarried father in this country he has no rights at all and so tread carefully in that respect

It must be terrible to not automatically have access to your child. As a mother of 4 I don't know how I'd cope if myself and my husband were to split and he held all the cards so to speak in relation to our children..

Very unfair and unjust in my opinion.

KittyeeTrix

Robdude wrote: »

Another example - I don't know how true this is in Ireland - but in the United States men historically outscored women in subjects like Math, while trailing in subjects like English.

The result was a national push for to help engage female students in Mathematics.

There was no equivalent program to emphasis helping male students to excel in English.

I'd imagine this has more to do with the current global employment routes being dominated by the engineering, pharma, IT, computing areas for which Maths prowess more so than English would be a factor in a countries economic stability........May be wrong though:)

catthinkin

Robdude wrote: »

Millicent wrote: »

Start mixing with better people; those people sound like eejits.

I'm not referring to my personal social-circle. I'm talking about the general opinions I see reflected everywhere, including the internet.

A male teacher sleeps with a female student - he's a criminal
A female teacher sleeps with a male student - it's all fun and

.

Patently untrue there are many well documented cases where female teachers have been tried and quite rightly been imprisioned for corrupting a minor .