Parental Alienation - should it be punishable by a jail sentence?

myshirt

For all the wild stories about him, Simon Danczuk may have a point here. Parental alienation. It needs to stop.

You bust yer bollox working every hour God sends you, you come home, find the wife banging the neighbour, YOU have to move out, sleep on your friends couch and put out your back, and still pay for this house, buy her a car, get her hair done, money to paint her nails etc.

You want to see your kids and you are met with psychological manipulation of those kids to paint you as the bastard. Gossiping going on amongst the female social group, lots of tea drank. No recognition you love your kids.

A lot of people on here shouting loud about women's rights, equal pay, and other left wing feminist fantasy issues, but where are the people standing up for men - thankfully I have a great wife, but come on lads, how many more good men are going to get chopped down here before we take a stand?

Paddy Cow

Fathers who abandon their children are scum.
Mothers who use their children as a weapon to hurt the fathers are scum.

"Won't somebody please think of the children?" is actually quite apt here.

frag420

Thought this was about about finding ET's folks....

myshirt

frag420 wrote: »

Thought this was about about finding ET's folks....

Sorry to disappoint, he'll phone home soon. Hopefully.

Sonics2k

myshirt wrote: »

For all the wild stories about him, Simon Danczuk may have a point here. Parental alienation. It needs to stop.

You bust yer bollox working every hour God sends you, you come home, find the wife banging the neighbour, YOU have to move out, sleep on your friends couch and put out your back, and still pay for this house, buy her a car, get her hair done, money to paint her nails etc.

You want to see your kids and you are met with psychological manipulation of those kids to paint you as the bastard. Gossiping going on amongst the female social group, lots of tea drank. No recognition you love your kids.

A lot of people on here shouting loud about women's rights, equal pay, and other left wing feminist fantasy issues, but where are the people standing up for men - thankfully I have a great wife, but come on lads, how many more good men are going to get chopped down here before we take a stand?

Literally lost all credibility right here.

mahamageehad

You sound angry OP, have you considered counseling?

skankkuvhima

Sonics2k wrote: »

Literally lost all credibility right here.

So you don't think parental alienation should be punishable by a jail sentence?

osarusan

It's an issue worth discussing, but as for the rant in the OP:

seamus

To be honest, this issue seems to be genderless - in that both men and women can be equally sh1tty when it comes to this. For all of the guys I've heard of fighting with a bitch of an ex to get access to their kids, I've heard of exactly as many guys who are insufferable, unreliable assholes who put their ex through hell when it comes to access.

I'm sure in the latter case all of the lads down the pub think the woman is a bitch who's denying access and making life difficult, and don't hear about their mate who doesn't bother turning up for months, and when he does he's an hour late picking up and half an hour early dropping off.

I think TUSLA should be making more of an effort to try and get separated couples to engage with them - provide these couples with the tools and guidance to handle access in a mature manner. Empower both parties to claim the access they're entitled to, but also teach them what to do when things are going wrong.

I think the vast majority of separated couples just go it alone, and mostly do OK. It's the few where it breaks down that it becomes a problem because nobody knows how to improve the situation.

In short to answer the OP I don't think there's much to be gained by making parental alienation a jailable offence. Conflicts around access are horrendously fraught with anecdote and hearsay; you'd never get enough evidence to prove the charge and failed cases would only make the relationship worse.

The aim here is to provide the best outcome for the child. How does jailing one parent achieve that?

Mena

skankkuvhima wrote: »

Sonics2k wrote: »

Literally lost all credibility right here.

So you don't think parental alienation should be punishable by a jail sentence?

Where the hell did you get that? 2+2=5?

Feminist fantasy is where you lost the argument.

myshirt

Sonics2k wrote: »

Literally lost all credibility right here.

Have you ever read a report (any independent report even) by a competent economist on any of these issues?

Different pay for same work is wrong, but it is not an issue that exists. People make different choices in life, different degrees, work different hours, different work life balance, put different levels of effort into their career, a whole range of variables. I like to deal in facts rather than emotion, ideaolgy, and left wing feminist hysteria. I urge you to educate yourself, because if you haven't done so, you are not doing justice to the issue, and that's a disgrace.

We have good men getting chopped down here because of left wing feminist fantasy. It's wrong, and something that is actually bourne out by facts.

osarusan

myshirt wrote: »

I like to deal in facts rather than emotion

Really...

myshirt wrote: »

You bust yer bollox working every hour God sends you, you come home, find the wife banging the neighbour, YOU have to move out, sleep on your friends couch and put out your back, and still pay for this house, buy her a car, get her hair done, money to paint her nails etc.

You are embarrassing yourself here.

Like I said, it's a topic meriting discussion, but I don't see any evidence that you want to actually discuss it. You just want to rant.

Sonics2k

myshirt wrote: »

Have you ever read a report (any independent report even) by a competent economist on any of these issues?

Different pay for same work is wrong, but it is not an issue that exists. People make different choices in life, different degrees, work different hours, different work life balance, put different levels of effort into their career, a whole range of variables. I like to deal in facts rather than emotion, ideaolgy, and left wing feminist hysteria. I urge you to educate yourself, because if you haven't done so, you are not doing justice to the issue, and that's a disgrace.

We have good men getting chopped down here because of left wing feminist fantasy.

I happen to be a single father who's ex did attempt to prevent me having full access to my own children after our separation, and I can still tell you that you have lost all credibility.

You're attempting to conflate two very very different things, one of which has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.

You, as you said yourself, are happily married and have not gone through it. So why don't you educate yourself as you're so keen to advise others.

And yes, you can check my post history to confirm all of this.

myshirt

Sonic, there is absolutely a direct link here. Feminism is about entitlements and supremacy of women, and it is exactly this nabby pabby liberalism that foster's the culture permitting women to think they can behave like this towards men and their kids.

What is preventing us from clamping down on these issues in the same way we have a whole raft of precedent for clamping down on the long list of reprehensible behaviour of men?

It's a feminist agenda and feminist culture, a PC societal environment, and it has to stop.

Why is it wrong to highlight all the benefits Women have over men in certain situations? Should there not be equal representation of both genders issues?

Your Face

I remember the show.

Sonics2k

I'm about to leave for work, so I'll have to make this quick.

myshirt wrote: »

Sonic, there is absolutely a direct link here. Feminism is about entitlements and supremacy of women, and it is exactly this nabby pabby liberalism that foster's the culture permitting women to think they can behave like this towards men and their kids.

No, no it's not. Feminism is about choice, about a woman having the same rights as men, the choice to work or stay at home. It is not, nor has it ever been about supremacy of women.

Are there women out there who spout this, absolutely. But they are in fact the vocal minority. Men's rights is about things like paternity leave, rights to the children etc, but of course there is a vocal minority of asshats on /r/theredpill who like to claim it's about mens supremacy.
It's like comparing Andrea Dworkin to Emma Watson

myshirt wrote: »

What is preventing us from clamping down on these issues in the same way we have a whole raft of precedent for clamping down on the long list of reprehensible behaviour of men?

It's a feminist agenda and feminist culture, a PC societal environment, and it has to stop.

Why is it wrong to highlight all the benefits Women have over men in certain situations? Should there not be equal representation of both genders issues?

Literally everything you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with Fathers rights or access to their children.
The law was also changed a few years back virtually ensuring a fathers right to see their child, so that kinda ruins your "feminist agenda" nonsense.

Once again, you are literally trying to confuse two very different things and trying to conflate American "extreme" Third Wave Feminism and insanely over-the-top PC culture (which I do not agree with) with a fathers right to see their kids in Ireland.

It's not going to work, and once again, in your own words;

myshirt wrote: »

I urge you to educate yourself, because if you haven't done so, you are not doing justice to the issue, and that's a disgrace.

Enjoy.

Raising kids post breakup is hard, for the practical reasons if nothing else.

A lot of the time, it's the case that both parties aren't prepared to face up to this and resent the extra costs, time, social norms to be observed, etc and they put everything back on the other person.

Understandable. It's tough to breakup with someone and get on with them after in a no-strings situation, let alone where there's inevitable wrangling about costs, ongoing contact, new partners, whatever.

I'm all for a good hard look at equality of access, the system we use to determine maintenance, etc

But an OP that includes the line "how many more good men must we see chopped down?" and references to the usual men's rights screed, I dunno. Those sentiments never seems to me to be coming from a place of adult responsibility.

neonsofa

How would it be proven? I think in theory something should be done but I don't know how it would work.

I'm sure my ex refers to me as all names under the sun and tells people I don't let him see his child, much like in the example seamus gave, when in actual fact if he wants to see the child all he needs to do is enter into a legal agreement/mediation process whereby basic terms are set out for the sake of the child, I would love a fully involved loving father to share custody with 50/50. And it would certainly make my life a lot easier so I've no reason not to want it. But that's too much of a commitment for him, he would rather, exactly as seamus described, the choice to bail if something better comes up- a club night, drinks with friends, a hangover- so he'd prefer to blame me and justify his absence that way, rather than offer the child a suitable consistent reliable father he wants to act like he's the victim and I won't "allow" him involvement. This also conveniently means he doesn't pay maintenance, if we were to make legal arrangements it would also involve maintenance arrangements so he doesn't want to rock the both there. He also fails to mention the years torment he put the child through when I did "allow" and encourage it and the multiple times he never showed up, or it was hours past bedtime by the time they arrived back with no homework done and no dinner. So to his friends it all looks like alienation and I'm the bad guy but in reality it is absolutely his own doing. So how would a court go about proving it?

lazybones32

Sonics2k wrote: »

No, no it's not. Feminism is about choice, about a woman having the same rights as men, the choice to work or stay at home. It is not, nor has it ever been about supremacy of women.

lol

Women have the same Rights as men; unless you can name one Right given to men that is denied to women?..when you get home from work, obv.


OP, head over to The Gentlemen's Club on Boards.

Neyite

lazybones32 wrote: »

lol

Women have the same Rights as men; unless you can name one Right given to men that is denied to women?..when you get home from work, obv.

OP, head over to The Gentlemen's Club on Boards.

Bodily autonomy under our Constitution?

Dravokivich

myshirt wrote: »

Sonic, there is absolutely a direct link here. Feminism is about entitlements and supremacy of women, and it is exactly this nabby pabby liberalism that foster's the culture permitting women to think they can behave like this towards men and their kids.

It's a completely different bias you are bringing up.

myshirt wrote: »

It's a feminist agenda and feminist culture, a PC societal environment, and it has to stop.

The premise of your thread in itself is anti-feminist. That is, building the expectation society is intent on defaulting towards kids being with the mother after the break up of a relationship between 2 parents. I wouldn't expect a feminist to expect that.

myshirt wrote: »

Why is it wrong to highlight all the benefits Women have over men in certain situations? Should there not be equal representation of both genders issues?

I don't think whatever is recognised as statistically normal in itself is lead by an agenda. It's just the kid(s) with the mother has been considered the default position. Something will have to be different for the kid to be with the father. I'd agree that there should not be this "default" setup. It puts a lot of pressure on a father who needed to take actions for the child to reside with them.

Sleepy

Neyite, I'm pro-choice myself but that's a stretch. A woman has the right to travel to obtain an abortion. A man has no autonomy whatsover in the case of an accidental pregnancy. You're nit-picking for the sake of it and actually highlighting an area where women have more rights than men.

skankkuvhima

Mena wrote: »

Where the hell did you get that? 2+2=5?

Feminist fantasy is where you lost the argument.

What are you on about, I didn't make the argument.

Neyite

Sleepy wrote: »

Neyite, I'm pro-choice myself but that's a stretch. A woman has the right to travel to obtain an abortion. A man has no autonomy whatsover in the case of an accidental pregnancy. You're nit-picking for the sake of it and actually highlighting an area where women have more rights than men.

A woman who has the resources and the freedom to travel, can. Those who don't, cant. I can see why you might think it's a stretch but it's really not.

It's not just abortion, Sleepy. The legislation also directly affects maternity services in this country across a range of it's services, particularly their Early Pregnancy Units. It's safer from a legal perspective for a hospital to operate on a Do Nothing policy when a woman presents at an EPU with a bleed. You get little or no treatment to help prevent miscarriage in an Irish EPU that would be standard in the UK or US.

seamus

Sleepy wrote: »

Neyite, I'm pro-choice myself but that's a stretch. A woman has the right to travel to obtain an abortion. A man has no autonomy whatsover in the case of an accidental pregnancy. You're nit-picking for the sake of it and actually highlighting an area where women have more rights than men.

To be fair, you're the one who's nit-picking. Men can't get pregnant, so debating bodily autonomy for men in the event of pregnancy is meaningless. You may as well be discussing women's right to get a vasectomy.

When the HSE feels like it can go to court to try and have women sedated and cut open against their will, it's clear that in fact the organs of the state do not feel that women have "more rights" in this area.

Sleepy

I see both of your points and agree that a woman should have full autonomy over a pregnancy. I just hate seeing it framed as a gender issue. Men have no legal say whatsoever in their status as prospective parents. Sure, that's biology but it does seem equitable that if a woman can make a unilateral choice to become or not become a parent, a man should have that same choice (if only from a legal point of view).

It's a case where I really do think the Monty Python boys got it right in their Peoples Front of Judea scene where they discussed a man's right to have babies. If we remove mention of gender from all legislation, we'd be much closer to having an equal society. TBH, they were rather ahead of their time: in the modern world where people can transisiton between genders, it is of course, now actually possible for a man to become pregnant.

Neyite

Sleepy wrote: »

I see both of your points and agree that a woman should have full autonomy over a pregnancy. I just hate seeing it framed as a gender issue. Men have no legal say whatsoever in their status as prospective parents.

My partner had as much legal say in my hospital treatment during my pregnancies as I did -none. I'm not going to go into details as we are veering off topic but my maternity care (or lack thereof) was not a gender issue for us. It was a family issue and affected him as much as it affected me. I imagine that's the case for the vast majority of couples with a crisis during pregnancy. But we are going off topic now, so I best leave it there.

Parental alienation is not a gender war either. We all know people who've dragged their children through hell to have a swipe at their partner or ex. Similarly we all know people who are separated and have done a brilliant job at putting their differences and hurts aside to work together on rearing their children.

My feeling on it is that it's my child that has rights. Not me. I have responsibilities towards my child. The child has a right to be provided a safe and secure and happy childhood by his or her parents. I am responsible for being a good parent. If I fall short of that - if I expose my child to danger or neglect, then my partner/ ex should have the ability to protect my child from my negative or damaging behaviour until such a time as I cop the hell on. And vice versa. No genders. Just child-focused care.

andekwarhola

WTF is Parental Alienation?

I know (of) men that have abdicated their responsibility to their children just like I know men whose children have been unfairly used as a pawn against them by women.

Just have to take each case on its own.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Lets get one thing straight shall we? God doesn't send anybody any fcuking hours...

ceadaoin.

Sleepy wrote: »

I see both of your points and agree that a woman should have full autonomy over a pregnancy. I just hate seeing it framed as a gender issue. Men have no legal say whatsoever in their status as prospective parents. Sure, that's biology but it does seem equitable that if a woman can make a unilateral choice to become or not become a parent, a man should have that same choice (if only from a legal point of view).

It's a case where I really do think the Monty Python boys got it right in their Peoples Front of Judea scene where they discussed a man's right to have babies. If we remove mention of gender from all legislation, we'd be much closer to having an equal society. TBH, they were rather ahead of their time: in the modern world where people can transisiton between genders, it is of course, now actually possible for a man to become pregnant.

You can remove the notions of gender all you want but it's not not going to change the biological reality that females get pregnant. No one has ever changed sex and no male has ever been pregnant.

You say that men have no choice but it seems to me that an awful lot of men do make the choice to play no part, including financially, in their children's lives.

As far as man having a "right" to have babies. How could that be possible when giving that right would require the use of another persons body?

whoopsadoodles

myshirt wrote: »

Sonic, there is absolutely a direct link here. Feminism is about entitlements and supremacy of women, and it is exactly this nabby pabby liberalism that foster's the culture permitting women to think they can behave like this towards men and their kids.

Back when women had no rights, were property of their husband, when their husbands could not be charge with rape, when they were not allowed to work in the civil service, were put into homes if they got pregnant outside of marriage, had their children removed from them and in some cases buried in septic tanks.

Back then, was when men had no rights to their children at all, if a mother died, the children were taken from the father and put into homes. Other female family members had to move into the homes to stop this happening.

Now, how does that correlate with your view that the more rights women get, the less men get? or in other words - your bullsh*t.

Paddy Cow

neonsofa wrote: »

How would it be proven? I think in theory something should be done but I don't know how it would work.

I have thought about this and I dunno if this would be a workable solution but in my eyes, once access is agreed in court, then there should be a legal document/booklet setting out when access is supposed to happen. When there is a changeover, each parent signs their signature at the appropriate time. If one is late, or doesn't show up, then the details are added to the book. This way there is a record that proves that access is being adhered to or someone is messing about.

Each parent would have a copy and while it might sound excessive, think about everyday life. We sign all sorts of contracts/have time expectations to show that we are living up to our responsibilities. If I sign a contract with a phone company, I can't suddenly decide that I don't want to pay anymore and expect to get away with it. If I have a job, I can't decide to show up when it suits me and not face any repercussions.

In the adult world, when you make a commitment to another adult you are expected to honour it or face legal ramifications. This should extend to the adult-child world. If you agree to access and maintenance in court, then this should be adhered to by BOTH parties or the party failing that should be prosecuted. Having a legal document where all maintenance and access is recorded would help regulate this.

The people I feel sorry for in these situations are the children. They cannot stand up in court and say that they are suffering financially because one parent is absconding on maintenance, or emotionally because they are being denied access.

This is a topic close to my heart. I have a half sister who's father never bothered to see her and stopped paying maintenance when she was 12 but would boast to all and sundry about how much he was supporting her while being denied access :rolleyes: I also have a brother who had a child out of wedlock and his ex made his life a living hell in regards his daughter :mad:

lazybones32

Neyite wrote: »

Bodily autonomy under our Constitution?

She already has. She can't legally destroy someone else's body - which is a right?

Prime Irish Beef

myshirt wrote: »

For all the wild stories about him, Simon Danczuk may have a point here. Parental alienation. It needs to stop.

You bust yer bollox working every hour God sends you, you come home, find the wife banging the neighbour, YOU have to move out, sleep on your friends couch and put out your back, and still pay for this house, buy her a car, get her hair done, money to paint her nails etc.

You want to see your kids and you are met with psychological manipulation of those kids to paint you as the bastard. Gossiping going on amongst the female social group, lots of tea drank. No recognition you love your kids.

A lot of people on here shouting loud about women's rights, equal pay, and other left wing feminist fantasy issues, but where are the people standing up for men - thankfully I have a great wife, but come on lads, how many more good men are going to get chopped down here before we take a stand?

Don't hate the player, hate the game.