ans Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 they don't just give the children to the mother because it's what's expected to happen, they do what is best for the children. Unfortunately, that very much is what happens in a lot of cases. Of course there are exceptions, and I'm sure there's at least one person better qualified to answer that on here, but only the truly naive would put such faith in the system.
Jay Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 Ask me again when you've got as much money as Ray Parlour and I might consider it. If you were that rich I could possibly get past the fact that you're fat, old and balding Fat? ...you mean well built? Old? ...Ok...I'm ...mature Balding? ...very short fair hair Anyway, I'm prepared to overlook your minor imperfections!
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 she's getting what she's entitled to. She'll still have to look after the children, keep a roof over their heads, feed them, clothe them etc and in order to look after the children she needs to have the money to look after herself and keep them in the manner they're accustomed to............so why shouldn't she get a large share of his earnings? If a judge believed the best thing for a child was to be with the father then that is the decision he would come to I don't think she should be entitled to that kind of money though. Even if it WAS all being spent on looking after the children (I doubt it for a second) it would be far more than sufficient for them to still lead a VERY comfortable lifestyle. It's excess, pure and simple, and as I already mentioned a decent father that is able to will still ensure his children are provided for so that is certainly not the issue here. As for the comment about judges believing they are right then of course that's the case otherwise they wouldn't be judges. That does not however make their decisions automatically right though by a long way. They're people and they make errors of judgement just like every other human on the planet. Given that they won't be personally familiar with all the background facts & situations in all of these cases and know the individuals personally it stands to reason that mistakes will be made, and they are. As I've said earlier, courts are beginning to realise that they have traditionally been too biased towards mothers when it comes to these things and they are beginning to thing about things slightly differently these days. All that aside, she looked like a golddigger to me anyway. She had that look....
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 Unfortunately, that very much is what happens in a lot of cases. Of course there are exceptions, and I'm sure there's at least one person better qualified to answer that on here, but only the truly naive would put such faith in the system. Sorry, I disagree ans. I don't think I'm naive to put such faith in the system. A court would not put a child with the mother if they really believed the child would be better off with the father. Unless the mother is unfit to look after a child or doesn't want the child, I do believe children are better off with the mother. Women get more understanding from employers, for example, when it comes to wanting time off with a sick child or wanting to change working hours to fit in with school etc. I'm not necessarily saying this is the correct way of looking at things, but it's how it is.
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 All that aside, she looked like a golddigger to me anyway. She had that look.... That look.............the one most of us women have???
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 I'm not necessarily saying this is the correct way of looking at things, but it's how it is. That's exactly what we've been saying. It's not always the right thing to do but is frequently done because 'that's how it is'. And that is why this is a whole area that's being reviewed in order to try and make it work better in more cases instead of just accepting that's how it's done. Y'see! Besides, take another, closer look at that picture. Something just isn't quite right....
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 All that aside, she looked like a golddigger to me anyway. She had that look.... That look.............the one most of us women have??? Wouldn't dare suggest that! I might be cheeky but I'm not dumb.
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 @ the possibly "tampered with" pic!? I think maybe you misunderstood what I meant there? When I said "it's how it is" I was talking about employers attitudes/understanding towards mothers rather than fathers, not courts attitudes when deciding who a child should live with. Maybe I've misunderstood you............who knows, who cares, it's very late and I'm very tired
ans Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Unless the mother is unfit to look after a child or doesn't want the child, I do believe children are better off with the mother. That kinda sums up my entire point. You're saying that children automatically go with the mother unless there is a very good reason they shouldn't. What about the father? Should he not be assessed and compared with the mother? The child should be placed with the parent that is best for them, and sometimes this is not the mother but by default, they get custody regardless. It's also pretty typical that women should use stereotypes when it suits them. A womans place is in the kitchen <-- Bad A child belongs with the mother <-- Good
Minnie Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 It's a fact of life that most people believe the best parent for a child to be with is the mother unless the mother is unfit to look after the child, it's not just me who says that. I'm sure in a lot of cases the father is assessed and compared with the mother. I'm not suggesting in any way that men are unfit to bring up children on their own, and yes I agree that fathers do often get the rough end of the stick in custody battles, but like I said in my previous post women get more understanding from employers and the likes when it comes to children. Maybe in time this sort of attitude will change, fathers do now have rights for paternity leave etc, but at the minute that's the attitude people have and this attitude has to be considered when it comes to custody of children. I haven't used stereotypes to suit me.
ans Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Are you involved in some sort of world record attempt at the number of contradictions you can put into one thread that I'm not aware of? I don't think I'm naive to put such faith in the system Yet you're doing your level best to convince us that the system sucks and that we shouldn't have any faith in it because of people's attitudes.
Observer Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 I'm with Ans on this one. People often have an unfounded blind faith in the justice system and having watched my ex husband being totally shafted by his former wife with regard to his children whom he loved dearly, that idealistic faith, which indeed we also had for the system, was rocked to the very core. Women can get away with absolute murder if they want to and it certainly is not in the best interests of the child. I don't agree with the automatic assumption that a child is better off with the mother, even an apparently well balanced and loving mother can do untold damage to the child with prolonged 'anti-dad' brainwashing tactics and sadly this is often the case with some women. As soon as things take a turn for the worse, the children can become the ultimate weapon, the ace in her deck, that stick she can weild knowing full well it will hit him where it hurts most. I have been shocked to hear women, whom I considered I knew very well as friends, voicing their intentions in respect of access etc whilst they have been in the midst of an acrimonious separation. The childs best interests and well being are not at heart - just the will to give back a bit of the hurt they feel they have received. I am not saying the above type scenario is always the case, but I have come across it with disturbing regularity and think it is a practice which should be heavily frowned upon and discouraged. For that to happen, I think it will require greater focus and application in the justice system. All disputes should be assessed thoroughly and speedily on a case by case basis and before the parent with care has had too much time to employ damaging brainwashing tactics. As an aside issue (for me anyway) I also do not believe that the world owes anyone a living. If two people separate and go their separate ways, once any accrued assets have been distributed between the parties and costs in relation to the remaining joint interest, i.e. the children, have been agreed, then those parties should stand on their own two feet and not expect future benefits from a now past association, regardless of whether one of them goes on to do very well for themselves financially. Those are my views...../me gets off soap box and puts kettle on for a nice cup of tea.
ans Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Something that might be overlooked in this Parlour case, is that he initially offered her £120k a year, plus £12.5k a year for EACH of his children, plus property and a £250k lump sum... But this was rejected as derisory. Anyone that says they can't raise three kids in a free house, on £157.5k PER YEAR is just being greedy and it's appalling that she received this level of award. It's a precedent that will have huge rammifications for future cases.
Minnie Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Yet you're doing your level best to convince us that the system sucks and that we shouldn't have any faith in it because of people's attitudes. Where exactly did I say the system sucks?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.