David Cameron attack on absent fathers

[Ridgley]

On Father?s Day yesterday, David Cameron made an extraordinary attack on absent fathers he compared them to drunk divers do you think Cameron is right to make such statements? My thoughts are there are a huge a mount of feckless fathers you hear about this in the papers that have dozens of children and do not support them and I know friends who have children and the fathers do not want to know. But there are fathers that are absent that are going through the courts and are not allowed access.

[Loz]

I think it was a pretty insensitive day to make that attack. Father's Day is there to celebrate fathers and going for such a subject when so many 'absent' fathers are actually being denied seeing their own children is pretty heartless.

Yes, there are fathers out there that abandon and run and they should be made to pay for their offspring. But Cameron should be supporting fathers' rights to see their children.

[KidKruger]

Ridgley is exactly correct in his last comment.

The courts impose IMO a sexist regime, particularly outside London region, with respect to Father's access to their children - where the Mother contends access. 'Mother knows best' seems to be the standard line, especially when she's p!ssed off and bitter and wants to destroy the bond of Dad/kids. Meanwhile the children get distanced from Dad and don't know why. Rarely in kids' interests to delete Dad.

Fathers can fight all their lives for the children's right to have access to Dad, often in vain.

The courts support this set-up I think because it's the route of less grief for them, easier to just go along with Mother.

One of the biggest travesties in UK legal system.

Cameron is an ass. To imply that 'absent Fathers' are predominantly choosing the absenteeism is ignorant, most have the absent mode imposed on them by what is now his Govt's courts !

[DJKillaQueen]

I won't pretend the system is perfect...it's clearly not but it is the mother that carries and gives birth to children. It's that bond that gives the mother more right under the law over the father. For centuries women have been subjegated to the role of mother - it's a bit late now to start arguing the opposite.

What I would say though is that the courts need more power to enforce access rights where they are denied by infringement of a previously granted order. But what has to be remembered is that the people in the middle of all this are the children. The law is perfectly aware that they can not be tossed from pillar to post while parents act out their hatred for each other. That is why main custody is always granted to one parent, so that the children have a stable main home, they go to school etc. Access rights around that are always going to be limited, especially where it has required a court to impose them on an unwilling parent. And unless there are specific reasons that say otherwise that main custody will go to the mother....and rightly so imo.

Edited to say that Cameron's statement was not only poorly timed but also poorly conceived.

[a bloke]

Edited because I just can't be bothered with the sh1t storm I'd have got for leaving it in.

[StraferJack]

A strange statement - if something has been wrong for centuries, no better time that now to start arguing for change I would have thought

[Loz]

but it is the mother that carries and gives birth to children. It's that bond that gives the mother more right under the law over the father

Though probably the view of the family court as well (sadly), that theory is rubbish in so many ways. And damaging to the child.

[StraferJack]

Don't be so shy Mike - the sh*tstorm you will inevitably create can't be too far away

[KidKruger]

The reason the courts enforce pro-Mother is because it's less grief for them, not some holy belief that "It's that bond that gives the mother more right under the law over the father".

Society is taught that children deserve 2x loving parents (resumably equally loving and equal bonds), but when the parents split "It's THAT bond that gives the mother more right....".

As per much other court behaviour, illogical and one-sided.

And sexist. Or is sexism OK here because it's detectable elsewehere society and therefore 'evens the score' !?

[a bloke]

Mike?

Well ok, I'll put my neck on the chopping block.

There is a big problem in the Afro- Caribbean community with Feckless fathers. I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing?

Cameron would never have come out and said it and it's not true of every Afro-Caribbean absent father, but it's definitely something I've noticed.

Please form an orderly queue if you want to accuse me of being racist.

[Ridgley]

It not just the Afro- Carribbean it also the chavy track suite type up and down the country as well and they are white bloke.

In queue first

[Otta]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> but it is the mother that carries and gives birth

> to children. It's that bond that gives the mother

> more right under the law over the father

>

> Though probably the view of the family court as

> well (sadly), that theory is rubbish in so many

> ways. And damaging to the child.

Quite!

[DJKillaQueen]

But the problem in all this is that when two people seperate...only one can have main custody. The mother gave birth to the children. Men will never be able to equal that fact. To me it's a no brainer that where two parents, and where there is no valid reason to deny custody to the mother, that the mother is given the main custody.

[mockney piers]

"For centuries women have been subjegated to the role of mother - it's a bit late now to start arguing the opposite."

Wow, way to go feminism in changing those outdated social attitudes!!

Or is this a cake and eat it situation?

[mockney piers]

I would have thought that custody should go to the best parent for the child irrespective of gender, and where possible some degree of shared custody should be encouraged; I don't see why it should be all or nothing.

[srisky]

It would be interesting to know how custody would be decided in the case of a civil partnership ending in divorce. Clearly, here there would be either two 'mums' or no 'mums'. I don't know if this problem has yet been encountered in the UK, as civil partnerships are relatively new.

[Loz]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But the problem in all this is that when two

> people seperate...only one can have main custody.

> The mother gave birth to the children. Men will

> never be able to equal that fact. To me it's a no

> brainer that where two parents, and where there is

> no valid reason to deny custody to the mother,

> that the mother is given the main custody.

I'm sorry, but that is just irrelevant. Are you really say that a single event that may have been up to 16 years ago should govern the well being of a child today? Rubbish.

The child/ren should go to the parent that is best able to care for it/them and with legally enforceable significant contact arrangements for the other parent. If the courts have an underlying assumption that the mother is the best fit and work from there, then that is plain and simple sexual discrimination.

And then following that piece of sexual discrimination, a few years later the PM comes in and kicks you while you are down. Brilliant.

[DJKillaQueen]

I did say where there was no reason to deny custody which means both parents being suitable. It's not sexual descrimination to say that the the person that gives birth has more right where all else is equal. Men can't get pregnant. That is a biological fact. And one that gives, in the view of most women, them ownership of their children in a way that men can never claim. Of course there are bad mothers and children do get placed with fathers where that is the case.

The question of civil partnership is an interesting one, esp (if we are talking about women) where one partner is a surrogate for the other's egg. Don't know what view the law would take of that.

[Loz]

It's not sexual descrimination to say that the the person that gives birth has more right where all else is equal. Men can't get pregnant. That is a biological fact. And one that gives, in the view of most women, them ownership of their children in a way that men can never claim.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I personally think it is the most appalling state-sponsored, institutionalised sexual discrimination. I'm not sure how you can come to any other conclusion, really.

[Atticus]

'For centuries women have been subjegated to the role of mother - it's a bit late now to start arguing the opposite.'

Wow! Fortunately the Pankhursts had a different outlook on social change.

[DJKillaQueen]

The Pankhursts are a poor analogy.....suffrage was about democratic equality amongst other things. Nature has other ideas on some things though. Just as, on the whole, nature makes men physically stronger (a difference that affects the type of work some women can do) it also makes women childbearers, something men can not physically do. You may want to accuse me of betraying the cause of feminism but the reality is that in most families it is still the mother that washes, clothes, feeds, shops for and does just about everything else on a day to day level for their children. This is true accross all classes.

[Atticus]

How does any of that explain why 'is a bit late now to start arguing the opposite'?

[Saila]

shouldnt this thread be in the family discussion room?

or is that room strictly for infighting mums only? ;)

clearly when men discuss the family - it's a Lounge topic....

[DJKillaQueen]

Atticus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How does any of that explain why 'is a bit late

> now to start arguing the opposite'?

Because I'm making the point that when it comes to who does the bulk of childcare within most families very little has changed. If men want the law to consider them on an equal par to women (all other things being equal) then they need to see the role of childcare within the family unit as one of equality too. Truth is that most men still struggle even to change a nappy let alone cook meals and take the kids to school and everything else.

[Saila]

women need to step back and men need to step up...

there's no excuse for men not to pull their weight if everything else is equal (i.e both earning)

it's hard work - and involves a lot of nagging - but it is possible

just watch out for the usual tricks ... when they do something so badly you have to redo it yourself .... that really annoys me!