Denied Access To Your Children?

[Ripsaw]

For years we've sold the image of men who take no interest in their children, leaving the poor Mums to struggle on alone. Whilst I know that there are still some men like that, I suspect that there are a lot more who care passionately about their children. Why should they have to fight for what should be a right.

 

I agree with your sentiment about fighting for the right for equality, no way should either parent have to.

 

One law that maybe needs looking at I have experienced. I was surprised and in a way annoyed that I had to apply for Parental Responsibility for my son as he was born out of wedlock, even though he carries my surname.

 

It felt like I was applying to be his Dad even though I had been there at his conception and every day of his life since.

 

If either parent acts in a way that is deprimental to the well being of children, then yes the other parent (whether it be mother or father) should be able to take a lead in righting the wrong, but until such a time or event, then equality is paramount.

 

Maybe there is a perception that needs addressing?

 

I know that the wheels of justice turn slowly, there should also be a way to speed up any arbitration that is necessary.

[Bill Posters]

Whatever the arguments about mums vs dads is, surely the bottom line is the rights, interests, and development of the child(ren). I would have thought that the first big step in that aim is NOT setting 'Mummy' against 'Daddy'. It can't help a childs' development to see that one or other parent is the 'baddie' (unless, of course, they are!)

[Kelly]

Kids are better off with their mothers and unless the mother is a bad mother the kids should stay with her. I mean if the two parents are fighting over custody and there is little to chose between them the mother should be the one and usually is.

[Ripsaw]

"...until such a time or event, then equality is paramount.

 

Maybe there is a perception that needs addressing?"

 

Kids are better off with their mothers...

...if the two parents are fighting over custody and there is little to chose between them the mother should be the one 

Not according to International Guidelines and local Family Law.

 

Why should mothers "be the one"?

[Kelly]

Because mothers are the ones who give birth. simple as.

[Mission]

I smell a troll

[monkey_magic]

Because mothers are the ones who give birth. simple as.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But if the father is present at the birth his argument of "I saw it first" will always win, FYI.

[Kelly]

If a person has a different view they are trolling now. I'll try to explain Mothers have a closer bond with their children as they carried them for 9 months, gave birth and breastfed. Mothers tend to be the ones who do most of the child caring. If a child is still a baby it is obviously best for baby to stay with the mother as she will be breastfeeding usually, I believe older children are best of with their mothers too unless there are exceptional circumstances. As does the whole world which is why these fathers for justice have to try push something I will never agree with myself.

[Minnie]

Omigod.........breastfeeding!!!!! Better not get back into that topic!!!

[Ripsaw]

If a person has a different view they are trolling now

Not at all, just state beliefs accompanied by facts and nuture a healthy debate...

Mothers have a closer bond with their children as they carried them for 9 months, gave birth and breastfed

Misguided perception

 

Mothers tend to be the ones who do most of the child caring

Misguided perception

 

I believe older children are best of with their mothers too unless there are exceptional circumstances *(a) As does the whole world *(b)

*(a)Misguided perception and *(b) Factually inaccurate belief.

 

Next?

[Kelly]

Thats your idea of healthy debate?

Misguided perception.

[Ripsaw]

Nope, my idea of healthy debate involves justification of opinions.

 

 

[clue]

 

I'm trying to provoke a responce where facts are introduced, so that we can discuss the accuracy of them interwined with emotional, genetic and historical examples.

 

[/clue]

[Kelly]

I have given my reasons for my opinions and they are on the side of history, it is this fathers for justice who are trying to change things so it should be that side that produces arguments and facts.

As a woman I feel I should have more rights than the father of my children. I would feel so strongly that if it were likely that in the event of a split up my husband might get custody of my child simply because he had more money or a bigger house (which could happen if men were looked on as equal) I would think strongly about putting his name on the birth certificate even.

what if a woman was pregnant and not with the father and he decdied he wanted the baby. should a man have an equal chance of bringing up that baby and effectively taking the baby away from its mother the minute it was born. no way.

[Ripsaw]

Are you saying that you love your child(ren) more than your husband does?*

 

 

*Edited to add:

 

*You, as in "mothers" generally as opposed to you personally. No offence intended.

[Bill Posters]

As a woman I feel I should have more rights than the father of my children.

BANG! What was that? That was the level playing field going up in smoke.

 

which could happen if men were looked on as equal

 

Perish the thought TROLL

 

what if a woman was pregnant and not with the father and he decdied he wanted the baby. should a man have an equal chance of bringing up that baby and effectively taking the baby away from its mother the minute it was born.

 

Why not? I bet you'd be happy enough to take his money. Very strange idea of equality.