What do you think would be fair to men

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

Maybe fear was the wrong word. I just see our society at the moment as being one that doesn't want to grow up.

Personally I would think that remaining single rather than rushing headlong into a life-long commitment, often based upon unrealistic expectations or having children you're not in a position to afford to be a lot more immature.

People may be more narcissistic and maturing later in life than in the past, but that's hardly a monopoly of those who choose to either be single or childless.

Indeed, presuming that people choose to either be single or childless is down to such narcissism is quite a presumption; one which ignores the very real social and demographic changes of the last century, where it was less socially acceptable to be single, a financial necessity for women to marry, where lifespans were shorter, infant mortality higher - thus necessitating the production of more children so as to guarantee some would survive - and those children were needed later in life to take care of you when you were old.

All of which is OT, BTW.

mariaalice

This had got way off topic, people make choices for lots or reasons and some people who make the choice to not marry or the choice not have children do so because of a deeply though out philosophy but they are in the minority I think. The major reason would be ideas like ...dont want the hassel!!!!... I am too selfish...I want all my money for my self...Im 29 and I am too immature and I haven really got my career started yet, it takes years to get established in my area anyway...I want to be free to travel an so on.

Sleepy is right about one thing there is a culture of prolonged youth establishing its self in Ireland.

The Corinthian

I still think you're erroneously trying to build some sort of standard whereby refusal to marry or have children is somehow indicative of narcissism or some other psychological failing.

If that were true, then you wouldn't have people getting married young, when it's clear they've not thought things through. Or marry in their mid thirties, within 18 months of meeting someone, despite their inability to hold down a stable relationship prior to that. Or suddenly decide that settling down is for them, when they realize they're 34 and they partied their entire twenties and still don't have a career. Or get engaged and have to have an iceberg on their finger. Or marry and have to spend 100k to be a princess for the day.

The more you look at it, the more that many people settle down for very immature and selfish reasons too.

iptba

I think a distinction could be made between choosing or not to get married or be a parent and then dealing with it. Being a parent requires one to be responsible, but how it came it about might be different.

Also, why is taking on specific responsibilities necessarily more adult? Is it, for example, necessarily more childish or narcissistic to decide not to have a pet?

The Corinthian

Any chance we can get back to the topic instead of this tangent about how having children or getting married somehow makes you a better 'grown up'?

The discussion revolves around the premise that family law discriminates against men. So how should one reform family law; specifically with regards to divorce and parental rights, to correct this imbalance.

A number of suggestions have been given to date. One that has cropped up repeatedly in posts revolves around the legal emphasis to maintain "the standard of living enjoyed by the family before proceedings were instituted or before the separation occurred", even though the marriage has ended, for example, and that this - along with lifetime spousal maintenance - makes little sense in the 21st century and should be abolished.

mariaalice

iptba wrote: »

I think a distinction could be made between choosing or not to get married or be a parent and then dealing with it. Being a parent requires one to be responsible, but how it came it about might be different.

Also, why is taking on specific responsibilities necessarily more adult? Is it, for example, necessarily more childish or narcissistic to decide not to have a pet?

Because there is a difference between having a deeply held thought out philosophy as a reason .. verses.. having an immature childish reason for your position.

The Corinthian

mariaalice wrote: »

Because there is a difference between having a deeply held thought out philosophy as a reason .. verses.. having an immature childish reason for your position.

Huh?

mariaalice

The Corinthian wrote: »

Any chance we can get back to the topic instead of this tangent about how having children or getting married somehow makes you a better 'grown up'?

The discussion revolves around the premise that family law discriminates against men. So how should one reform family law; specifically with regards to divorce and parental rights, to correct this imbalance.

A number of suggestions have been given to date. One that has cropped up repeatedly in posts revolves around the legal emphasis to maintain "the standard of living enjoyed by the family before proceedings were instituted or before the separation occurred", even though the marriage has ended, for example, and that this - along with lifetime spousal maintenance - makes little sense in the 21st century and should be abolished.

As children often live for the majority of the time with the female partner post divorce ( a multitude of reasons for this ) trying to maintain the standard of living of the children post divorce often means maintaining the standard of living of their mother by default. I do not know what the answer to this is.

Plus the legal profession makes a lot of money from family law.

In most cases its impossible to maintain the standard of living enjoyed pre divorce unless you are well off so maybe it is not that relevant to most divorces in Ireland.

Maybe a small start would be for the partner receiving spousal maintains to be expected legally to provide for themselves after a certain time say when the youngest child is 10.

The Corinthian

mariaalice wrote: »

As children often live for the majority of the time with the female partner post divorce ( a multitude of reasons for this ) trying to maintain the standard of living of the children post divorce often means maintaining the standard of living of their mother by default. I do not know what the answer to this is.

To begin with the question of why the female partner will get custody is relevant, as this too has been in many cases cited as one of the biases in family law, to the level whereby the father can often be the primary carer and still not get custody, especially if unmarried.

Secondly, no one expects for the standard of living to go unchanged. The problem is that inevitably the man will end up sacrificing significantly more, to a point where his standard of living becomes decimated in many cases, so as to minimize any change for the former wife and children. This is both unrealistic and unjust.

Neither does this principle only apply to custodial parents - indeed, spousal maintenance is separate to child maintenance - technically this imbalance is maintained long after the children are adults.

Maybe a small start would be for the partner receiving spousal maintains to be expected legally to provide for themselves after a certain time say when the youngest child is 10.

Why ten? Surely school hours are the same at seven as they are at ten?

How about they're expected legally to provide for themselves straight away or when the child enters primary school and the former husband needs to pay for half of the child care costs instead of spousal maintenance?

Sleepy

Why even when the child enters primary school?

Like I said in an earlier post, the only fair way to base any law on this is to base the legalities on 50/50 custody and no maintenance either way. Anything other than that being binding either implies that a woman's place is in the home and/or that women are incapable of providing for themselves and their children.

Where this doesn't suit the individuals e.g. both prefer one parent to stay-at-home or if one parent is incapable of caring for their children then arrangements can be agreed between the parties either amicablly, via an arbitration body of some sort or, if needs be, by the courts. In the two examples I gave above, fairness would be the primary carer receiving monetary support from the other in the former case or the parent who can provide for their children being the sole custodian in the latter.

mariaalice

But what if it not practicable for there to be a 50/50 split with the living arrangements for example if one partner does not live near enoung to make going to school from that home possible? or what if one partner works long hours and has a long a commute and is other not home till 7 but the other partner works part time and is able to be there for the children how do you make the split fair in that case.

We had unique set of circumstance's which made it work for us.

I only moved about a kilometre and, I work shifts and he worked about a 10 minutes drive from home so between us it was easy for one or other of us to be there for them most days, we acquired two sets of uniforms, PE gear etc to make life easier so it worked well, however children do no consider them selves to have two homes they alway think one of the houses is the HOME and the other is just the place where their mum or dad lives.

Other problems I have seen is things going well until the child is a teen and wants to hang around with friend that live near one particular parents... or they play sport for a local team that is not in the parish or area of one of the parents so the child begins to resent or refuse to go to one or other of the parents.

Sleepy

Like I said, I'd see it as the fairest position for any legislation. Using that as the starting point, individual cases could be negotiated or settled based on the circumstances of that case.

I personally don't believe that separated parents have the moral right to live extreme distances apart from each other tbh. True that may involve career sacrifices for one of the parties but parenthood rarely leaves one as free to pursue a career as a single person would be and parenthood isn't something I think any of us have the right to abdicate.

Yes, this may sound a bit like "perfect world" thinking but parents are obligated to put their child(ren)'s needs ahead of their own differences and desires. If they won't do this by choice, the law should force them to do so.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

I personally don't believe that separated parents have the moral right to live extreme distances apart from each other tbh.

In an ideal World, sure. In one where no work involved prolonged absences or long hours, or that one need migrate, or emigrate, for work. Or where one could stay at home with the children and food would magically appear on the table.

But even in families that are together, it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes one parent will need to work away for months at a time. Other times the parent working will take a pay cut, necessitating that the other get a job to make up the shortfall (I've never understood how this is acceptable if the parents are together, but if separated the right to be a stay-at-home parent suddenly becomes an inviolable right).

Sometimes things are financially tight and families make sacrifices; and this also means the as members of the family children have to make sacrifices too. They may not be able to go to the summer camp that was planned, or get the Christmas presents they wanted, or may have to relocate, losing contact with their friends, so that their parents may better provide.

So while I agree with your position that custody should be 50-50 by default, after which disagreements should be arbitrated, I think you're being both unrealistic and a bit overly idealistic, imposing moral standards for single parents that don't even apply to parents who are together.

Yes, this may sound a bit like "perfect world" thinking but parents are obligated to put their child(ren)'s needs ahead of their own differences and desires. If they won't do this by choice, the law should force them to do so.

It may be heresy to say so, but no. Humans are not salmon, and there are limits to the sacrifices that anybody should be expected to make. This is not to say that parents should not put their children before them, but parents are people too and that should not be forgotten. All that parents ultimately can do, alone or together, is the best that they reasonably can, depending upon the circumstances and possibilities.

Sleepy

The Corinthian wrote: »

In an ideal World, sure. In one where no work involved prolonged absences or long hours, or that one need migrate, or emigrate, for work. Or where one could stay at home with the children and food would magically appear on the table.

I think the key words here are "need" and "reasonable". How many of those working in such jobs "need" to do that job and how many are choosing to abdicate their responsibilities as a parent in favour of a wealthier lifestyle?

Don't get me wrong, I understand that it can be necessary. I've commuted to London on a "Fly-out Sunday night, fly home Friday evening" basis for 6 months when it was the only way to pay the rent and put food on the family table so I can absolutely empathise with those who have to do such things in the short-term.

I could still be doing that, earning somewhere between twice and treble my current take-home pay but I don't think a parent that's absent for the majority of a child's life is doing them much good.

I do sometimes work long hours and regularly have to travel for work. Those are fairly unavoidable consequences of any decent job these days but it's not an every-day, nor even an every week thing.

I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect parents to curtail their careers for their children's sake. If pursuit of a high-flying career was the priority, they probably shouldn't have had children in the first place and where the circumstances the child was born into may have been different (supportive partner prepared to do the lion's share of the parenting) it's hardly fair to enshrine that support in a separation agreement unless both parties are happy to agree to some form of compensation to the custodial parent from the parent choosing to have less involvement in their child's life (i.e. the defacto status quo in Ireland).

As men we can't ask not to be forced into the role of the "weekend parent" who pays the mother of our children for that privilege without accepting that the alternative does mean sacrificing the support for our career that the custodial parent may have provided or accepting more of a role in providing that ourselves.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

I think the key words here are "need" and "reasonable". How many of those working in such jobs "need" to do that job and how many are choosing to abdicate their responsibilities as a parent in favour of a wealthier lifestyle?

Not as simple as that. For example, consider you're a solicitor, and have been for ten years, but close to the child, there's no legal jobs available. What then? What are you actually qualified to do, other than be a solicitor? Wait on tables? Are you even qualified to do that? Or say you're an oil rig worker? How many oil rigs are there in Roscommon?

And then there's the loss of income, because going from being a solicitor to a waiter isn't exactly a small drop. And that 'wealthier lifestyle' doesn't exactly just benefit one or both parents, but also the child; "sorry kid, you can't go to college because I wanted to be closer to you growing up" - so, such choices aren't so simple when you think about it.

My own father wasn't around for large parts of my childhood. He worked contracts away when I was very young and later habitually did long hours. I don't resent him that at all - if anything, I'd more resent the fact that my mother didn't even take a part time job until I was well into my teens and when she did still had plenty of free time and never contributed what she earned to the home.

I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect parents to curtail their careers for their children's sake.

Everyone has to compromise and sacrifice. The question is what is reasonable. A solicitor taking a 20% pay cut in a legal job to work closer to his children is. A solicitor taking an 80% pay cut in a catering job to work closer to his children is not. It's just dumb.

If pursuit of a high-flying career was the priority, they probably shouldn't have had children in the first place and where the circumstances the child was born into may have been different (supportive partner prepared to do the lion's share of the parenting) it's hardly fair to enshrine that support in a separation agreement unless both parties are happy to agree to some form of compensation to the custodial parent from the parent choosing to have less involvement in their child's life (i.e. the defacto status quo in Ireland).

This is returning to the original topic, and correctly you point out that this is the de facto status quo in Ireland.

In this regard, being willing to sacrifice career isn't really an option. You could do this, to be close to your child, but then you'd be a deadbeat dad, because you can't afford to pay much, if any, child maintenance. Lose-lose.