does the state care about fathers?

myshirt

Best advice I ever heard was for the mother to give as much time as possible. And the father to give as much money as possible. Or vice versa. Typically Mammy is the carer though.

Putting it in a solicitors pocket helps no one.

What I found (in limited exposure to family law) is that fathers just plainly want to see their kids. Some need a kick in the hole, they really do, but the very large majority were sincere and good hearted. However, nearly all the women I encountered seemed to carry a lot of sustained bitterness or anger with them - it was a game almost, control, wins, aim to hurt and get one over. Common client meeting topics were the new woman he had and he'll pay for that. Or can you get me more off him (for purely the sake of getting more).

Fair enough if the focus was on something like I don't know this woman, so I'm concerned with the people he is bringing around, concerned for my kids in that environment. Ok, let's address it. Let's thrash that out. See if there's something there.

But no, it was bitterness, jealously and a control game.

Knine

myshirt wrote: »

Best advice I ever heard was for the mother to give as much time as possible. And the father to give as much money as possible. Or vice versa. Typically Mammy is the carer though.

Putting it in a solicitors pocket helps no one.

What I found (in limited exposure to family law) is that fathers just plainly want to see their kids. Some need a kick in the hole, they really do, but the very large majority were sincere and good hearted. However, nearly all the women I encountered seemed to carry a lot of sustained bitterness or anger with them - it was a game almost, control, wins, aim to hurt and get one over. Common client meeting topics were the new woman he had and he'll pay for that. Or can you get me more off him (for purely the sake of getting more).

Fair enough if the focus was on something like I don't know this woman, so I'm concerned with the people he is bringing around, concerned for my kids in that environment. Ok, let's address it. Let's thrash that out. See if there's something there.

But no, it was bitterness, jealously and a control game.

I don't agree at all. All those issues you describe can also apply to men. Believe me when I say it us mothers do be delighted for a bit of time off.

My ex was an extreme control freak. He took me to court simply because he could. He seldom takes up his access. He even refused to sign a passport so I could go to the UK for medical treatment.

Please don't tar us all with the same brush. Control issues, bitterness etc is not just confined to women.

My experience through years & years of court is that tge judges need to actually look at the rights of the child.

Turtyturd

myshirt wrote: »

Best advice I ever heard was for the mother to give as much time as possible. And the father to give as much money as possible. Or vice versa. Typically Mammy is the carer though.

Putting it in a solicitors pocket helps no one.

What I found (in limited exposure to family law) is that fathers just plainly want to see their kids. Some need a kick in the hole, they really do, but the very large majority were sincere and good hearted. However, nearly all the women I encountered seemed to carry a lot of sustained bitterness or anger with them - it was a game almost, control, wins, aim to hurt and get one over. Common client meeting topics were the new woman he had and he'll pay for that. Or can you get me more off him (for purely the sake of getting more).

Fair enough if the focus was on something like I don't know this woman, so I'm concerned with the people he is bringing around, concerned for my kids in that environment. Ok, let's address it. Let's thrash that out. See if there's something there.

But no, it was bitterness, jealously and a control game.

I have done some research in the area and this is pretty much exactly what I found, and it's even evident in some of the posts here. The kids are used as weapons by the mothers a lot of the time.

Knine

Turtyturd wrote: »

I have done some research in the area and this is pretty much exactly what I found, and it's even evident in some of the posts here. The kids are used as weapons by the mothers a lot of the time.

Really? Have you been actually inside the family courts?
Sure I guess the fathers could never be bitter or control freaks? How many women do you reckon leave abusive control freak men? I wonder why we have 'Women's Aid' so if there is no need for it.

myshirt

Knine wrote: »

Really? Have you been actually inside the family courts?
Sure I guess the fathers could never be bitter or control freaks? How many women do you reckon leave abusive control freak men? I wonder why we have 'Women's Aid' so if there is no need for it.

Officially, men don't have feelings. Unofficially, they do.

It's a cultural thing. A lot of men's needs possibly go unserviced as a result, and if so, then it's a shame.

Women's Aid is a great facility for rehabilitating women who step out of line, fall out of favour or whatever. But that doesn't mean that men do not also have faults.

Fiolina

Turtyturd wrote: »

I have done some research in the area and this is pretty much exactly what I found, and it's even evident in some of the posts here. The kids are used as weapons by the mothers a lot of the time.

Bit of a sweeping statement. I've been through the courts and would never consider using my child as a "weapon". Her father brought me to court purely for spite and a kind of "fcuk you", he never even showed up on the day!

tritium

Knine wrote: »

Really? Have you been actually inside the family courts?
Sure I guess the fathers could never be bitter or control freaks? How many women do you reckon leave abusive control freak men? I wonder why we have 'Women's Aid' so if there is no need for it.

We have women's aid for the same reason that we have services like AMEN (both woefully under resourced, one more so than the other)

I'm not sure how bringing domestic violence into it addresses the question of discrimination against fathers by the state (unless you're tarring most if all single fathers with a single brush)

Turtyturd

Knine wrote: »

Really? Have you been actually inside the family courts?
Sure I guess the fathers could never be bitter or control freaks? How many women do you reckon leave abusive control freak men? I wonder why we have 'Women's Aid' so if there is no need for it.

I have been inside family courts, and the fact that fathers even have to go to court to get access shows how much of a disadvantage they are at.

Your other points aren't really relevant.

Knine

myshirt wrote: »

Women's Aid is a great facility for rehabilitating women who step out of line, fall out of favour or whatever. But that doesn't mean that men do not also have faults.

Wow just wow. Where you born in the 1950's?

Turtyturd

Fiolina wrote: »

Bit of a sweeping statement. I've been through the courts and would never consider using my child as a "weapon". Her father brought me to court purely for spite and a kind of "fcuk you", he never even showed up on the day!

I never said all cases. In my experience it happened in a lot of cases, with some mothers even hoping that fathers would miss their maintenance payments so they could stop them seeing the kids.

I also found that with the stories of 'he did this' and 'she did that' they need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Knine

Turtyturd wrote: »

I never said all cases. In my experience it happened in a lot of cases, with some mothers even hoping that fathers would miss their maintenance payments so they could stop them seeing the kids.

I also found that with the stories of 'he did this' and 'she did that' they need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Absolute rubbish. Maintenance payments are completely separate from Access. Stopping maintenance does not mean a father can't see his children. In Ireland a breach of Access order i.e. custodial parent not allowing access is taken much more seriously then breach of maintenance. As family Law cases are heard In Camera, would you be relying on he said, she said then?

Grayson

myshirt wrote: »

However, nearly all the women I encountered seemed to carry a lot of sustained bitterness or anger with them - it was a game almost, control, wins, aim to hurt and get one over. Common client meeting topics were the new woman he had and he'll pay for that. Or can you get me more off him (for purely the sake of getting more).

Fair enough if the focus was on something like I don't know this woman, so I'm concerned with the people he is bringing around, concerned for my kids in that environment. Ok, let's address it. Let's thrash that out. See if there's something there.

But no, it was bitterness, jealously and a control game.

I agree.... if your talking about twink.

One eyed Jack

Turtyturd wrote: »

I have been inside family courts, and the fact that fathers even have to go to court to get access shows how much of a disadvantage they are at.

Your other points aren't really relevant.

How do you make that out?

With regard to this specific case itself, there's a lot of background we're not privy to, and as the Judge herself said, she was only basing her decision on the legality of the deciding officers assessment, that they had applied the wrong standard in assessing the father as a single person, ignoring the fact that he had joint custody of his children -


http://m.rte.ie/news/ireland/2014/1030/655914-ruling-over-single-parent-rent-allowance/


I've seen a lot of cases where the father, because they are assessed as a single person, is only able to afford a shìtty bedsit that is totally unsuitable for when their child visits at the weekend, so I can certainly see an argument could be made for parents with joint custody and neither parent is considered the primary carer...

But, what looks to me like what's happening in this case is that the man was told that as a single person he would be on the housing list for five years and receive a single person's payment, so by including his children, he is now entitled to be bumped up the list and gains a full payment!

It's a terrible case to highlight the issue of the State ignoring father's rights, because the only people that seem to be suffering the most here are the children who have to do the travelling from one side of the country to the other and vice versa, to accommodate the wishes of both parents to have equal access.

I'd love to know the particulars of the custody hearing as to me that doesn't seem like the family courts considered the effects of all the travelling on the children at all and seems to have acted more in the interests of the parents.

DeadHand

It's an emotive topic with no black and white, definitive answer.

Personally, I've found in these cases if you can relentlessly leave your own interests and bitterness firmly secondary to what's best for the child you will not go too far wrong.

In this case, my feeling would be it isn't up to the state to raise your child, it's up to you. The state is imperfect and can operate only in generalities.

Yet, there is a huge bias in favour of females in how it operates in this area. I know women who were put into fine houses in their youth by virtue of being female and a parent having never worked a day in their lives out in the world at a time when I worked like a dog every day of my life yet could not even nearly afford to live in such comfort. I was also a parent. The only difference being I was male and they were female. So, I had to work, providing for the state and my own while they and their own were provided for by the state and often a male in a similar situation to myself.

I'm not complaining about this and I cannot devise a fairer alternative. Just articulating the obvious bias in the system. I understand the reasoning behind this bias namely that the burden of being primary care giver falls in the majority of cases on the mother.

Yet, the bias and inequality exist nonetheless. To an extent that would not be tolerated in other, simpler areas.

eviltwin

myshirt wrote: »

Women's Aid is a great facility for rehabilitating women who step out of line, fall out of favour or whatever. But that doesn't mean that men do not also have faults.

What does this even mean?

DeadHand

eviltwin wrote: »

What does this even mean?

Don't dwell on it, it's nonsense.

tritium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But, what looks to me like what's happening in this case is that the man was told that as a single person he would be on the housing list for five years and receive a single person's payment, so by including his children, he is now entitled to be bumped up the list and gains a full payment!

It's a terrible case to highlight the issue of the State ignoring father's rights, because the only people that seem to be suffering the most here are the children who have to do the travelling from one side of the country to the other and vice versa, to accommodate the wishes of both parents to have equal access.

I'd love to know the particulars of the custody hearing as to me that doesn't seem like the family courts considered the effects of all the travelling on the children at all and seems to have acted more in the interests of the parents.

I agree with most of your post except this. If the children are to have a relationship with both parents what alternative to travelling do they have? I'm going to assume that they haven't objected to spending time with both parents. Given that would it be appropriate for a court to remove access to one parent purely because they moved elsewhere to find work for example?

(As an aside its interesting what we consider a lot of travelling to be- in larger countries that journey wouldn't be considered at all unusual)

A2LUE42

Knine wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. Maintenance payments are completely separate from Access. Stopping maintenance does not mean a father can't see his children. In Ireland a breach of Access order i.e. custodial parent not allowing access is taken much more seriously then breach of maintenance. As family Law cases are heard In Camera, would you be relying on he said, she said then?

You sure about that? How many mothers have been jailed for repeatedly breaching access agreements?