not being part of your childs life

feargale

smash wrote: »

'Been' does not equal 'being'
And it's their life, not there life.
Ffs when did schools stop teaching properly. This country is getting illiterate as f*cking record speed!

Is that more important than the question posed by OP? It is the height of insensitive rudeness to openly embarrass people re misspelling. Also, I fail to see why one should assume that "being" is incorrect.

hairyprincess

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, they don't actually. People respond to complex circumstances. About the only example I am aware of where anyone literally walked away from their kids are those few occasions when skanky mums fecked off to Ibiza for the week and left the ten year old in charge of the four year old with a bag of cheese and onion for dinner.

Ah yes they do. Actually. I have a child who hasn't seen her father in over ten years, purely because he has no interest. And nothing I say or do will change his mind. The door is wide open, all he had to do is walk through it but he won't.

So less of the generalisations please.

Czarcasm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Is there a spellcheck dickhead contest going on simultaneously as the rest of the thread or something?

Did you not see efb's thread earlier? Himself and his cousin have iphones, man knows his shìt like! :pac:

Cavehill Red

hairyprincess wrote: »

Ah yes they do. Actually. I have a child who hasn't seen her father in over ten years, purely because he has no interest. And nothing I say or do will change his mind. The door is wide open, all he had to do is walk through it but he won't.

So less of the generalisations please.

I've really no interest in discussing your anecdotal experience, which will likely amend itself throughout the debate to support whatever argument you desire it to.
I would suggest that you are disingenuous in suggesting that your child's father simply 'walked away', and suspect that, as in every such case, there are two sides to the story, and yours is only one of them.

BubbleBalls

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, they respond to circumstances. Sometimes that is an inequitable legal system or an incalcitrant co-parent. Sometimes it's the requirement to emigrate for employment. Sometimes it's something else that life throws up. The emotive and inaccurate phrase 'walking away' is a nonsense, no less than 'deadbeat dad' or 'welfare queen' are nonsenses.
We're collectively smarter than that sort of idiot rhetoric, and I intend to call people on it when I see it.

Fair point. That's why I stated no circumstance was made in the OP.

Walking away is simplistic, does not account for circumstances. Unfortunately, a child's mind more often cannot account for these circumstances so the situation is simplified, either by them or for them.

clairefontaine

There are lots of reasons.

Could be they think its better than the child living in life long hostility between two adults.

Could be they don't want the responsibility.

Could be they are just not interested.

Could be they don't know the unforeseen consequences of walking away so it's not a decision made in maturity.

Sad though whatever the reason.

hairyprincess

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I've really no interest in discussing your anecdotal experience, which will likely amend itself throughout the debate to support whatever argument you desire it to.
I would suggest that you are disingenuous in suggesting that your child's father simply 'walked away', and suspect that, as in every such case, there are two sides to the story, and yours is only one of them.

Wow!!! How many bitter pills have you swallowed today?? Can't handle the truth that your fellow males can and do walk away eh?

And don't call me a liar

Cavehill Red

hairyprincess wrote: »

Wow!!! How many bitter pills have you swallowed today?? Can't handle the truth that your fellow males can and do walk away eh?

And don't call me a liar

And that, folks, is why one should never attempt rational debate with single mothers who insist on dragging their own anecdotal experience into discussion.

Fannyhead

smash wrote: »

'Been' does not equal 'being'

And it's their life, not there life.

Ffs when did schools stop teaching properly. This country is getting illiterate as f*cking record speed!

I find you impertinent.

HondaSami

hairyprincess wrote: »

Wow!!! How many bitter pills have you swallowed today?? Can't handle the truth that your fellow males can and do walk away eh?

And don't call me a liar

Some women walk away also. I'm not sure of your circumstances but id imagine it's easier walk away if you never knew the child.

Cavehill Red

BubbleBalls wrote: »

Fair point. That's why I stated no circumstance was made in the OP.

Walking away is simplistic, does not account for circumstances. Unfortunately, a child's mind more often cannot account for these circumstances so the situation is simplified, either by them or for them.

Yes, child perception is one thing, and indeed is often supported or guided by the animus of the remaining parent in too many cases down the narrative of simplistic abandonment.
Of course it is not possible to explain to very small children the reason for an absent parent, and many parents, harbouring leftover emotions from the relationship split find it difficult to do so without engaging in an abandonment narrative (which simultaneously creates a hero narrative applying to themselves.)
But a child's perception isn't reality, though it may have real consequences in the long term. The OP didn't refer to children thinking their parents had walked away. It referred to parents walking away, which entirely ignored the complexity of individual circumstances that most of us would consider to be relevant.

Czarcasm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And that, folks, is why one should never attempt rational debate with single mothers who insist on dragging their own anecdotal experience into discussion.

Fairness Cavehill you introduced the anecdotal experience with this little stereotypical gem-

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, they don't actually. People respond to complex circumstances. About the only example I am aware of where anyone literally walked away from their kids are those few occasions when skanky mums fecked off to Ibiza for the week and left the ten year old in charge of the four year old with a bag of cheese and onion for dinner.

You're not the only fan of calling it like they see it.

Busted Flat.

hairyprincess wrote: »

Wow!!! How many bitter pills have you swallowed today?? Can't handle the truth that your fellow males can and do walk away eh?

And don't call me a liar

Some like to play the victim.

clairefontaine

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yes, child perception is one thing, and indeed is often supported or guided by the animus of the remaining parent in too many cases down the narrative of simplistic abandonment.
Of course it is not possible to explain to very small children the reason for an absent parent, and many parents, harbouring leftover emotions from the relationship split find it difficult to do so without engaging in an abandonment narrative (which simultaneously creates a hero narrative applying to themselves.)
But a child's perception isn't reality, though it may have real consequences in the long term. The OP didn't refer to children thinking their parents had walked away. It referred to parents walking away, which entirely ignored the complexity of individual circumstances that most of us would consider to be relevant.

Right. But isn't it better to be present and fight your corner? Doesn't running away validate the narrative?

joe stodge

hairyprincess wrote: »

Wow!!! How many bitter pills have you swallowed today?? Can't handle the truth that your fellow males can and do walk away eh?

And don't call me a liar

Just come out and say it we're all bastarðs.

Busted Flat.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Right. But isn't it better to be present and fight your corner? Doesn't running away validate the narrative?

Have you any experience in that.

Super-Rush

cena wrote: »

Could you not be part of your childs life?

I don't know how people can just walk away from there children

Is there a point to this thread?

smash wrote: »

'Been' does not equal 'being'

And it's their life, not there life.

Ffs when did schools stop teaching properly. This country is getting illiterate as f*cking record speed!

Banned.

clairefontaine

joe stodge wrote: »

Just come out and say it we're all bastarðs.

I don't think that's what she was saying. I think she just provided a personal example of something that doesn't fit with another poster's theory.

It's a bit silly to expect a one size fits all answer to this and acceptable for people to provide personal anecdotal examples, not everything fits into a stat sheet or what you read in an opinion piece in a newspaper.

Cavehill Red

clairefontaine wrote: »

Right. But isn't it better to be present and fight your corner? Doesn't running away validate the narrative?

Leaving the situation (as opposed to the emotive term 'running away') does facilitate the creation of an abandonment narrative, especially if the remaining parent feeds that narrative.
But it isn't always possible for people to remain in circumstances they may find intolerable or impossible. I don't judge, as all circumstances are different.
At the risk of introducing irrelevant anecdote, I stayed and fought for a meaningful role in my child's life, at the cost of innumerable career, love and employment opportunities. I would not blame others in similar circumstances for concluding that, faced with a hostile and adversarial family law system, the better course might be to retreat and re-engage with their child at a later time and place and circumstances. It is exceedingly hard to generalise.

BubbleBalls

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yes, child perception is one thing, and indeed is often supported or guided by the animus of the remaining parent in too many cases down the narrative of simplistic abandonment.
Of course it is not possible to explain to very small children the reason for an absent parent, and many parents, harbouring leftover emotions from the relationship split find it difficult to do so without engaging in an abandonment narrative (which simultaneously creates a hero narrative applying to themselves.)
But a child's perception isn't reality, though it may have real consequences in the long term. The OP didn't refer to children thinking their parents had walked away. It referred to parents walking away, which entirely ignored the complexity of individual circumstances that most of us would consider to be relevant.

Well argued.


[/Quote]Could you not be part of your childs life?

I don't know how people can just walk away from there children [/Quote]

More details would help.

cena

[QUOTE=Super-Rush;83268820]Is there a point to this thread?



Banned.[/QUOTE]

I want to know how people could do this?

Why are you asking

BubbleBalls

cena wrote: »

Could you not be part of your childs life?

I don't know how people can just walk away from there children

No.
Subjective.

Super-Rush

cena wrote: »

I want to know how people could do this?

Why are you asking

I'm asking because of this rule in the charter.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Please contribute to your own threads. If you're asking somebody to forward an opinion put one forward yourself first.

We've had this discussion before which didn't end well for you.

TheUsual

Boarding Schools.

The cause and solution to all life's problems.

feargale

"Please contribute to your own threads. If you're asking somebody to forward an opinion put one forward yourself first."
I know nothing of previous history, issues etc. between OP and Moderator, but in fairness OP appears to have complied with the above rule in the very first post, as per the second sentence of same shown below. That's not saying I agree or disagree with OP.

cena wrote: »

I don't know how people can just walk away from there children

clairefontaine

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Leaving the situation (as opposed to the emotive term 'running away') does facilitate the creation of an abandonment narrative, especially if the remaining parent feeds that narrative.
But it isn't always possible for people to remain in circumstances they may find intolerable or impossible. I don't judge, as all circumstances are different.
At the risk of introducing irrelevant anecdote, I stayed and fought for a meaningful role in my child's life, at the cost of innumerable career, love and employment opportunities. I would not blame others in similar circumstances for concluding that, faced with a hostile and adversarial family law system, the better course might be to retreat and re-engage with their child at a later time and place and circumstances. It is exceedingly hard to generalise.

Hmnnn ok. You might be understanding...but I don't know if the kids would be.

Yes it is really hard to generalise, hardly worth it, but I do think that "leaving the situation" is ultimately validating the narrative of abandonment, it just depends on what the circumstances are that will modify how it is perceived and judged, particularly by the child as the child gets older and becomes an adult. Especially if there was no record of you trying. In your own anecdotal story, even if you had failed, or had walked midway, or whatever, there is a paper trail of an attempt. There is a name on the birthcerts I assume, there is a written history there that can counter the narrative or modify it even if you had "left the situation". If you don't stand your corner, you can't really expect not to be called on abandonment.

But this is really a very specific reason, there are many others that are also possible reasons why someone isnt' in their kids lives.
.

Little Acorn

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And that, folks, is why one should never attempt rational debate with single mothers who insist on dragging their own anecdotal experience into discussion.

You didn't attempt "rational debate" with her at all. You basically said that you had no wish to engage in debate with her experience at all because it was anecdotal - (even though you used an anecdotal experience of your own)
and also said you believed she was being disingenuous and would lie/twist her story to support her argument. So yeah, you pretty much did call her a liar.

Just because you have no experience of fathers "walking away" on their children doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There probably are a massive amount that have other reasons for not seeing their kid such as court battles or a terrible relationship with the mother. But there are some who just never wanted to be fathers and who walk away as soon as they hear the girl is pregnant and never attempt to get involved with the kid at all. You can't say it's not true just because you have never seen it happen.

There are of course mothers too who leave their kids, so not for a second saying that it is only men who ever leave. Just saying that it was unfair to suggest that hairyprincess is a liar for giving her own experience.

[btw I'm not a single mother, I don't have any kids]

Busted Flat.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Hmnnn ok. You might be understanding...but I don't know if the kids would be.

Yes it is really hard to generalise, hardly worth it, but I do think that "leaving the situation" is ultimately validating the narrative of abandonment, it just depends on what the circumstances are that will modify how it is perceived and judged, particularly by the child as the child gets older and becomes an adult. Especially if there was no record of you trying. In your own anecdotal story, even if you had failed, or had walked midway, or whatever, there is a paper trail of an attempt. There is a name on the birthcerts I assume, there is a written history there that can counter the narrative or modify it even if you had "left the situation". If you don't stand your corner, you can't really expect not to be called on abandonment.

But this is really a very specific reason, there are many others that are also possible reasons why someone isnt' in their kids lives.
.

Therein lies the argument, release the court papers to the kids when they are 18 years, if they want them. The papers are held in the family court and only a judge can access them. It would give kids an understanding of what went on.

Cavehill Red

clairefontaine wrote: »

Hmnnn ok. You might be understanding...but I don't know if the kids would be.

Yes it is really hard to generalise, hardly worth it, but I do think that "leaving the situation" is ultimately validating the narrative of abandonment, it just depends on what the circumstances are that will modify how it is perceived and judged, particularly by the child as the child gets older and becomes an adult. Especially if there was no record of you trying. In your own anecdotal story, even if you had failed, or had walked midway, or whatever, there is a paper trail of an attempt. There is a name on the birthcerts I assume, there is a written history there that can counter the narrative or modify it even if you had "left the situation". If you don't stand your corner, you can't really expect not to be called on abandonment.

But this is really a very specific reason, there are many others that are also possible reasons why someone isnt' in their kids lives.
.

I'm not going to be drawn on discussing my individual circumstances as again YMMV.
I would point out that for unmarried fathers, a court order is required even to get their name on the birth certificate, and that may also require an expensive DNA test, which the mother may additionally and expensively refuse.
Court orders in relation to maintenance or access may provide the sort of papertrail you describe, but a child must attain adulthood to seek access to such records, as well as suspect they exist. In many instances, the abandonment narrative may have been propagated by the remaining parent to the extent that they never suspect to explore how and to what extent their non-resident parent attempted to circumvent the many obstacles placed in their way by our antiquated family law system.
Part of the problem is that women, and it is primarily women, are facilitated in creating such narratives by the system we have. If we adopted the more egalitarian and responsible Scandinavian model, there would be no possibility of creating such a narrative in the first place, as it would be mandatory to register the father's name, mandatory to share parental leave at birth and after, and mandatory to share parenting duties unless criminal activity or negligence was demonstrated on the part of one parent.
I wonder how many single mothers would welcome such a curtailment of their current privileged parental status? Sadly few, in my experience, even though the Scandinavian model is demonstrably better for child outcomes, as research has demonstrated.

Cavehill Red

Little Acorn wrote: »

You didn't attempt "rational debate" with her at all. You basically said that you had no wish to engage in debate with her experience at all because it was anecdotal - (even though you used an anecdotal experience of your own)

Except I didn't. I referred to the micro-trend of parents abandoning their children to go on holiday, which has been extensively reported in the press.

Little Acorn wrote: »

and also said you believed she was being disingenuous and would lie/twist her story to support her argument. So yeah, you pretty much did call her a liar.

No, I said that I didn't believe her version of events was the full story and hence it really isn't possible to discuss rationally based on skewed personal anecdote. I stand by that, and think the hysterical response I received showed I was right to do so.

Little Acorn wrote: »

Just because you have no experience of fathers "walking away" on their children doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I never said I was unaware of children being raised without paternal involvement. What I objected to is the emotive and inaccurate term 'walking away' which simplistically fails to encompass all the complexities of individual circumstances, as well as the specific legal circumstances enforced by antiquated family law in this country.