not being part of your childs life

clairefontaine

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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.

How does that work if they don't want to be fathers? They are forced to do it? Huh? And if they don't are there consequences?

I'm asking this because you use the word "mandatory."

I don't know anything about Scandinavia so I don't know how their culture operates as a whole.

Cavehill Red

clairefontaine wrote: »

How does that work if they don't want to be fathers? They are forced to do it? Huh? And if they don't are there consequences?

There are a range of punishments for non-compliance. Fines apply in the case of refusing to name the father on the birth certificate, for example.
The culture (and the argument as to whether the law followed the culture or vice versa is not one I'm qualified to answer) is different to here. Fathers are involved in all decisions from day one, are facilitated in leave to raise the children, and are considered equal co-parents.
But it does extend further than the family law system. Childcare is heavily subsidised for example, and there is a more collective understanding of responsibility for minding children.

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

This thread could peter out. Some heartfelt and logical replies but lack of detail will not help. Appreciate it's a delicate topic.

Some parents just "walk away" and I can think of no other way to say it. Well, I can, but saying they ****ed off isn't very polite.

Imagine wanting to see your parent but they have no interest in you. Imagine being the child that has to pick up the phone first to call (always). Now imagine hearing the words "I don't want to know you, I have a new family now"

Yes, there is such a thing as a parent walking away but No, I don't really know why.

Ruudi_Mentari

cena's a mover n' shaker now?

can't start a fire without a spark.

MadsL

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.

No-one has mentioned that many women close the door on fathers. Father's rights in Ireland are frankly appalling. Once a father is denied access there is such a legal struggle, doubly so for unmarried fathers.

BubbleBalls

MadsL wrote: »

No-one has mentioned that many women close the door on fathers. Father's rights in Ireland are frankly appalling. Once a father is denied access there is such a legal struggle, doubly so for unmarried fathers.

Cavehill may have alluded to this

Smidge

MadsL wrote: »

No-one has mentioned that many women close the door on fathers. Father's rights in Ireland are frankly appalling. Once a father is denied access there is such a legal struggle, doubly so for unmarried fathers.

In fairness, NO woman can close the door of their childs father.
If the childs father REALLY wanted to see the child there are avenues to pursue this(you may not like them but they are there).

But in the quote that you highlighted by HP, if the father wants nothing to do with the child, there are no avenues to make him see the child.

Ruudi_Mentari

cena wrote: »

Could you not be part of your childs life?

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

yeah well yknow sting, never bought that wwe contract cenaaa...

and for the record I would, I let my child come to tna with me. I would let him be part of my life.

Cavehill Red

Smidge wrote: »

In fairness, NO woman can close the door of their childs father.

As an example (of which I am aware of more than one case), emigrating with the child to another continent without leaving a forwarding address tends to work quite comprehensively in shutting the door definitively on a child's father.

Smidge

Cavehill Red wrote: »

As an example (of which I am aware of more than one case), emigrating with the child to another continent without leaving a forwarding address tends to work quite comprehensively in shutting the door definitively on a child's father.

And I am also aware of 4 cases here in Ireland where the father...

1. Walked away when the woman found out she was pregnant(has never seen the child, ever)

2. Left his wife with 3 children under 6(youngest was 8 months old) for the neighbour.

3. Left his wife(for a girl 12 years younger than himself)with a 2 year old child, dragged her through court even though there was never an issue on the womans part for him to see the child. He got visitation and never ONCE turned up. The child by then was four and was left heartbroken.

4. Partner with a woman, 2 year old child. made her life a living hell and then left for another woman and then another and then another. The woman worked and raised the child by herself. When his daughter turned 15 and became quite a looker he was happy to bring his daughter to any family event(has still never given a penny towards this childs upkeep to this day and her mother felt so bad after the first xmas that he let the child down that she bought a present from this scumbag and left it under the tree so the childs heart would not be broken)

BubbleBalls

and became quite a looker and was brought to any family event - i just do not know what to make of this

Cavehill Red

Smidge wrote: »

And I am also aware of 4 cases here in Ireland where the father...

More anecdotes...
You stated as fact that it was not possible for a woman to definitively shut out a father. I offered you a proven methodology for doing so. Your response? More anecdotes.
It smacks of some sort of strange whataboutery actually. It's reminiscent of those Northern Ireland threads where someone posts something about, say, the flag protests being disruptive, and someone else responds "But what about the Provos murdering people?" In other words, nothing you posted relates to what I wrote. It just smacks of taking sides, drawing lines, being needlessly adversarial and confrontational.

Smidge

BubbleBalls wrote: »

and became quite a looker and was brought to any family event - i just do not know what to make of this

It means that after all of the years his ex partner raised the child solo, nursed her through every illness and difficulty, his sister met the child locally and passed remark that the child was very good looking and well brought up.

Two days later he sent a letter(after years of no contact) to the house saying there was a family event and he wanted her to go.

She was over the moon.

A mutual friend who was also at the function said he showed her off like she was a prize heffer to all an sundry that night and got high praise on "How lovely your daughter is?" and "Hasn't she grown into a lovely young woman?" and "Isn't she a credit to you?"

She is a lovely young girl but he had NO part in the rearing of this child but was quite happy to puff up his ego with the compliments received.

Smidge

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Ah, another glass of single mother's favourite w(h)ine.
Delicious!

I think this comment shows you perception of single mothers.

As a single father, let me ask you this, OP: do you really believe anyone 'walks away' from their children, or are they more likely in fact to be discouraged by the requirement to engage in an expensive, adversarial court process in order to obtain even a provisional involvement in their children's lives following a relationship break up?
Also, do you think anyone would 'walk away' from their children if we had parental equality enshrined in law from birth, as is the case in Scandinavia?

If a father really wanted to be in a child's life nothing would be a barrier, not even as you say an "expensive" process

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.

Nice.
So it's perfectly fin for you to give anecdotes but no one else is allowed to???

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.

This response to HP is inflammatory and argumentative, two things you also accuse me of doing.
Do you have issues with being challenged by women?

[QUOTE=Cavehill Red;83268725]And that, folks, is why one should never attempt rational debate with single mothers who insist on dragging their own anecdotal experience into discussion.[/QUOTE]

Again, YOUR anecdotal and personal commentary. But yours is valid, no one else's is?

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.

So the woman in the relationship should stay and endure whatever may be wrong between the two adults so that the man in the relationship is not discombobulated?
Okay.

Cavehill Red

Smidge wrote: »

If a father really wanted to be in a child's life nothing would be a barrier, not even as you say an "expensive" process

And plenty do, including me. But you are failing to take any account whatsoever of individual circumstances. Life is nowhere near as black and white as you seem to think it is.

Smidge wrote: »

Nice.
So it's perfectly fin for you to give anecdotes but no one else is allowed to???

Except I didn't. Please see the previous post about this.

Smidge wrote: »

This response to HP is inflammatory and argumentative, two things you also accuse me of doing.
Do you have issues with being challenged by women?

Congratulations on managing to introduce a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' style of question.

Smidge wrote: »

Again, YOUR anecdotal and personal commentary. But yours is valid, no one else's is?

It's becoming clear that you don't really understand the meaning of the word 'anecdotal'.

Smidge wrote: »

So the woman in the relationship should stay and endure whatever may be wrong between the two adults so that the man in the relationship is not discombobulated?
Okay.

Again you are unnecessarily adversarial along gender lines. I mentioned people, and you refer to women staying in relationships. There are plenty of cases where the mother left the children and the relationship, you know.
But it seems from the above that you do accept that relationships break down and that there are irrevocable circumstances in some cases. Good. That's the first step to understanding why it is hopelessly and offensively simplistic to refer to people 'walking away' from relationships or children, without acknowledging the wider circumstances.

BubbleBalls

Smidge wrote: »

It means that after all of the years his ex partner raised the child solo, nursed her through every illness and difficulty, his sister met the child locally and passed remark that the child was very good looking and well brought up.

Two days later he sent a letter(after years of no contact) to the house saying there was a family event and he wanted her to go.

She was over the moon.

A mutual friend who was also at the function said he showed her off like she was a prize heffer to all an sundry that night and got high praise on "How lovely your daughter is?" and "Hasn't she grown into a lovely young woman?" and "Isn't she a credit to you?"

She is a lovely young girl but he had NO part in the rearing of this child but was quite happy to puff up his ego with the compliments received.

Being well brought up will always apply to whoever brought her up? People, in general, know what the story is, and while it will definitely piss people off, friends and family will see what is happening.Personally, I take quite pleasure when I see my kids show positive qualities. They show them so they own them. they take credit for it.

Smidge

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And plenty do, including me. But you are failing to take any account whatsoever of individual circumstances. Life is nowhere near as black and white as you seem to think it is.



Except I didn't. Please see the previous post about this.



Congratulations on managing to introduce a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' style of question.



It's becoming clear that you don't really understand the meaning of the word 'anecdotal'.



Again you are unnecessarily adversarial along gender lines. I mentioned people, and you refer to women staying in relationships. There are plenty of cases where the mother left the children and the relationship, you know.
But it seems from the above that you do accept that relationships break down and that there are irrevocable circumstances in some cases. Good. That's the first step to understanding why it is hopelessly and offensively simplistic to refer to people 'walking away' from relationships or children, without acknowledging the wider circumstances.

I understand the meaning of anecdotal thanks.
It is something given in the form of a story or scenario which you do several times but have clearly disregarded this.

As for being adversarial and taking "gender sides" I think you have clearly adopted for the "male side".

I think what can happen is that in some relationships where a child has been conceived and the relationship breaks down the man in the relationship does not take the woman's rejection well at all.

He may have been condescending, aggressive, argumentative, controlling and the woman has decided she does not want this relationship any longer.

The man then decides to make his sole mission in life to see his child and to make life as difficult as possible for as long as possible with the mother of his child. If he had made more of an effort to be civil with this woman, things may never have gotten as nasty.

He clearly has issues with this woman and it then flows over into every interaction he has with every other woman he will ever come into contact with.
In effect, his axe is now ground down to a nub.

He wears his "I'm a father's for justice" badge with honour and tells everyone who will still listen what an awful woman the child's mother is and is surprised at the fact that this woman may have reservations about her child being in contact with this man considering what he may fill the child's head with and perhaps try to "poison" the child against his mother who despite what the father may tell the child she is clearly not as neglectful as he will make out for his own end as she has custody of the child.

He would be the type of father who would use any derogatory information he could slander the woman with, to keep the battle ongoing.

I guess, just another simplistic anecdote from me because as I'm sure you'll inform me that you know no-one who would fit this bill?

BubbleBalls

you can do better than that

Smidge

BubbleBalls wrote: »

Being well brought up will always apply to whoever brought her up? People, in general, know what the story is, and while it will definitely piss people off, friends and family will see what is happening.Personally, I take quite pleasure when I see my kids show positive qualities. They show them so they own them. they take credit for it.

Yes but you had a hand in instilling these positive qualities?
Her father hadn't seen her in almost 10 years.

I'm sure you take proper credit in your childrens positive qualities as you have helped in instilling these positives in your children.

Of course it applies to her mother, she put in the work.
Would you like if someone came into your job and after you worked really hard on a project for years and they said "I did that!!!"?

Smidge

BubbleBalls wrote: »

you can do better than that

Not with the audience I'm working with, I'm afraid.

Cavehill Red

Smidge wrote: »

I understand the meaning of anecdotal thanks.
It is something given in the form of a story or scenario which you do several times but have clearly disregarded this.

That's not quite the meaning, but even if we run with that, I haven't done what you describe.

Smidge wrote: »

As for being adversarial and taking "gender sides" I think you have clearly adopted for the "male side".

That's not true either. I have instead queried the OP's premise. No one 'walks away'. That's a nonsensically simplistic statement that fails to account for the complexity of human existence, especially the plurality of perspectives in the fraught area of relationship break-ups, family law, and child rearing, and I have consistently challenged it.

Smidge wrote: »

I guess, just another simplistic anecdote from me because as I'm sure you'll inform me that you know no-one who would fit this bill?

No, this would instead be a hypothetical and a rather jaundiced one. I guess you ran out of anecdotes?

meoklmrk91

Its a difficult issue simply because every child deserves two good parents who love, care and raise them.

I know of a number of cases of absent Dads, 2 kids I went to school with went through hell as they were both the product of affairs, once the men found out that the women were pregnant they wanted nothing to do with them and never have. I remember one of them told me that on the day of her communion that her father was in the same pub as her and her family were having dinner at, he sat there and drank his pints and didn't even look in her direction. How horrible and callous do you have to be to do that to your own child. Another person I know has a father who left the country when they were a baby and has been in sporadic contact with them as an adult, there was no contact as a child and they very rarely contact them now.

I also know of a number of absent mothers, one is a chronic alcoholic who goes off the rails every few weeks and disappears, ever since she had her children she would pawn them off on everyone and anyone. They now basically go between houses of family members and she is not involved in their lives. Another left when her marriage broke down and moved to a different county despite the fact that she had primary school aged children, the teens ended up rearing their younger siblings. She comes to visit them every week or so. I also know a mother who upsticks and left the country without any warning and never came back leaving her two kids behind. They were very small when she left and are now well into their 20's.

Regardless of their sex, these are ****ty people who should not be allowed to have children. Remarkably many of the above went on to have more children after their abandonment of their children, would you not think to yourself, maybe I'm too much of a selfish bastard for this parenting lark? It's heartbreaking for the children left behind, I have seen from people I am very close to the damage that this does to them, it sticks with them for life. And in almost all cases makes them incredibly devoted parents themselves.

On the other hand I know a number of children who would be far better off if their parents jogged on and never looked back because they are such poor parents, role models and general human beings that they are doing irreparable damage on a daily basis.

Eve_Dublin

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.

But that's exactly what you did? God god! :eek:

Cavehill Red

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

But that's exactly what you did? God god! :eek:

It's not remotely what I did. Off you go and quote where you think I did that, so.

playedalive

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

....
On the other hand I know a number of children who would be far better off if their parents jogged on and never looked back because they are such poor parents, role models and general human beings that they are doing irreparable damage on a daily basis.

I think you caught the whole argument perfectly. It's human nature for each child to have both parents. But sometimes, one is better off. Personally, My father was an alcoholic and, as a result, a complusive liar. He always blamed me for him not playing with me as a child and blamed all his shortcomings on me. Even as a young child, which can be damaging to your self-esteem in later years. For me, as I came into 20s, it was better to keep away as he was very cold and had no paternal instincts (I think he only had children to stay with my mother, when they were together).

That was just one scenario but, generally, there are great parents out there who could not bear to live without being in their children's lives. There are so many devoted parents who take an active role in their kid's lives, and it's beautiful.

Eve_Dublin

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.

Here.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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.

Aaaand here. Hairy Princess gave her story as did you. Both are valid but you dismissed hers unfairly. I don't see how your story (anecdote) is any more valid than hers. Men leave their children all the time and not just because the mother has prevented it from happening - I can reel off another 10 "anecdotes" here if you like. All true stories. There's two sides to them, of course just as there is to your own. The fact that they're anecdotal (like your own story) doesn't make it any less valid and just because it's been in the newspapers doesn't make it any more valid. Newspapers have their own agenda and report in a partial manner all the time.

Women also leave their children too and men very frequently have a difficult time getting access to their children, which is tragic but you have to acknowledge there are men out there who simply don't give a shit.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's not remotely what I did. Off you go and quote where you think I did that, so.

Cavehill Red

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Here.

Not anecdote at all. Numerous cases have been reported in the press.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Aaaand here.

I felt it made more sense to word it that way than paraphrase, but since you insist: some men do fight to remain in their children's lives no matter what the personal cost, but others do not, and it is not possible to blame the latter cohort without first knowing the full extent of circumstances surrounding each individual case, as seen from the plurality of perspectives which pertain.
I hope that clarifies for you.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

The fact that they're anecdotal (like your own story) doesn't make it any less valid

Yes it does, for the simple reason that anecdote is not evidence.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

and just because it's been in the newspapers doesn't make it any more valid. Newspapers have their own agenda and report in a partial manner all the time.

But unlike anecdotes, newspaper reports are required to adhere to legalities relating to veracity, especially in relation to court matters. So, I'm afraid they are more valid evidence than anecdote.

Eve_Dublin

Not anecdote at all. Numerous cases have been reported in the press.

As have cases where men have abandoned their children. What's your point?

Yes it does, for the simple reason that anecdote is not evidence.

So why did you give your own?

But unlike anecdotes, newspaper reports are required to adhere to legalities relating to veracity, especially in relation to court matters. So, I'm afraid they are more valid evidence than anecdote.

Two words: Levenson Enquiry.

Czarcasm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not anecdote at all. Numerous cases have been reported in the press.



I felt it made more sense to word it that way than paraphrase, but since you insist: some men do fight to remain in their children's lives no matter what the personal cost, but others do not, and it is not possible to blame the latter cohort without first knowing the full extent of circumstances surrounding each individual case, as seen from the plurality of perspectives which pertain.
I hope that clarifies for you.



Yes it does, for the simple reason that anecdote is not evidence.



But unlike anecdotes, newspaper reports are required to adhere to legalities relating to veracity, especially in relation to court matters. So, I'm afraid they are more valid evidence than anecdote.

Cavehill with all due respect but the above is just mealy mouthed waffle to try and get around the fact that you were the first to present anecdotal stereotypical evidence as if it were fact.

An anecdote being one or two cases reported in the media or from personal experience, being used to represent a whole section of society.

There was no difference between what you posted, and what hairyprincess posted, but you somehow seem to think your personal anecdotal experience is more valid than anyone anyone elses or your opinion somehow carries more weight.


It doesn't.