Is divorce broken?

The news of Brian Philcox, who killed himself and his two children on Father's Day, is striking for its tragedy but for me it begs a larger question: are families cast adrift during divorce?

Our main image of divorce is based, one expects, on high-profile cases involving self-regarding fat cats and exes with an enlarged sense of entitlement.

But for regular couples, who struggle through without a bereavement coach, a team of accountants or a media spin professional, does the current system put too much pressure on everyone, including the children?

Separating couples are left to their own devices to sort themselves out, says Duncan Fisher, chief executive of the Fatherhood Institute, which bills itself as the UK's fatherhood think-tank. While the parents' lives fall apart and everything from the home to the pension to the daily responsibilities is thrown into the pot to be argued over and divided, children are left vulnerable.

"Two children died and there needs to be an investigation as to how this happened. Why was there no safety net?" asks Fisher. He believes that the risks to children during divorce should be assessed and we need to proactively counsel and support families. That would allow families to disentangle themselves rather than tear themselves apart.

Philcox contacted Fathers 4 Justice last week, as do thousands of others coping with separation and custody issues."We had over 1,000 inquiries [from men] from last week alone," says founder Matt O'Connor. Some consider the group a tireless campaigner for father's rights, others believe it's merely a gimmicky group of whack jobs who climb buildings in fancy dress. Whatever its reputation, it's not a support group.

While it operates a volunteer-staffed hotline and refers men to its online forums and support groups like Samaritans and Citizens Advice, it's raison d'etre is as a pressure group.

The UK remains the best place in Europe for women to get divorced. According to Ann Ison, partner at Hughes Fowler Carruthers law firm, in some EU countries, maintenance is shorter (in some places lasting only three years) or absent. Here, the starting point for dividing assets is 50/50 but if you're talking about a £150,000 house with a mortgage, it's hard to slice it up. "One thing the courts accept is that the mother with the younger children has the greater need," while still acknowledging that the father needs a home as well, she says. When you consider that spousal maintenance doesn't have accepted percentages the way child maintenance does (15  per cent for one child, 20 per cent for two…), each divorce means hammering out (and carving up) a deal anew.

It's a fraught system that overwhelms many people. Some plunge into depression. Others cope with drink or drugs. Some take their own lives and even murder their children.

Divorce happens. Surely this highlights we need to make sure it happens more smoothly for everyone involved.

"He phoned up Fathers 4 Justice," says Fisher of Philcox. "Oh, great. Is that all we can offer?"

Comments

[Sue]

I see that The Times has just opened a debate/started a campaign about Family Courts.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article4271773.ece?token=null&offset=0

I'd like to see an AM blog on this subject - would anyone else? This particular blog on Is Divorce Broken is already a bit long to continue!

All the best to all good parents trying to see their children/get them out of care.

[Dave Farmer]

Gypsy I will never stop talking about this till there is real justice!!

[Dave Farmer]

The failings in family Law and the naivety of cloistered Law Lords leads to much of the problems in our society and affecting our young.Until there is a review of this secret court where professionals plunder the legal aid fund in the name of 'the best interest of children' this problem will remain

[Dave Farmer]

Sorry to see Adrian Chiles and Jane Garvey in seperation talks now wonder if they might highlight the failings of the family law system from the "Womans Hour" prospective and the "One show" prospective?

[supermother]

There's a dreadful pro mother bias but part of the problem is in most marrigaes women work less and care more. Men allow that to happen and that pattern is obvoiusly continued after divorce. If couples could both work the same hours, men do as much domestically as women or more then you'd find more men are in a stronger position after divorce. Every time you let a wife give up work you are risking losing your children (never mind damaging the cause of women on this planet to work and take positions of leadership) so keeping women in work even at the expense of male careers is such a win-win situation even for men although at the time they just worry about having to rush from work the nursery, how to find after school childcare and might prefer woman at home and their shirts ironed! Suits them when they're married, doesn't suit them after.

In marriages where both work or the father is a house husband there have been some very good examples of courts awarding residence to fathers although even then it is harder than for women to achieve that in the reverse situation.

I am sure there are mental illness issues in many people. Too many people don't accept they're wrong. I'm often wrong about things and I am sure my divorce was not all my ex's fault. It's annoying that vast vast numbers of mothers after divorce in the UK want their ex husband's helping, dealing with sick children, ,taking days off when children are ill, washing children's clothes, dealing with child tantrums on a day to day and regular basis whilst the men skip their duties adn turn up once every 3 months or just at Christmas and other men are desperate to be involved and are refused contact. Women like me would love one of these men as an ex husband who might actually want the children to stay for say a whole weekend a year.

I suppose as more women work full time and earn more than their husbands and as more men are prepared to cope psychologically with women who earn more than they do and pull their weight at home in marriage then eventually the norms will be changed and more shared contact after divorce is possible. Most women I know who work full time in proper careers are happy to share childcare with an ex husband. It tends to be the housewives who cling to children 100% of the time as some sort of comfort blanket because hty enever had a career an their only role was as sexual partner to a man and carer of children. So the rot in a sense is caused by the sexism in the marriage originally.

[Peter]

hhhmmm checking the earlier post, the reference website for the quotes was stripped by Times from my post, try again:

www.anxietypanic.com/bpd.html

www. anxietypanic.com/bpd.html

web (www and alll that jazz before it): .anxietypanic.com/bpd.html

[Peter]

Perhaps Brian Philcox suffered Borderline Personality Disorder? CAFCAS have revealed in private that they had concerns for his state of mental health, but have not revealed this (avoiding recriminations for failing to act on an issue they had concerns about?). Certainly BPDs are prone to suicidal acts and violence. They suffer an inability to regulate emotional impulses. Certainly that would fit the small number of comments describing the issues I have heard...

[Peter]

I would suggest that in many of the cases where a mother denies the children contact with their father, it is because they are suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder. Talking to a researcher in this area, with many years experience of this issue, it would appear that a large portion of mothers creating this problem suffer this mental health issue.

They see the world as black and white, there are rarely greys. You are either an allay, or enemy, with almost nothing between, and that position can be determined from as little as your accent (my ex had decided that petty well everyone with the local accent, and 'colourful' speech, were her enemies, to the great discomfort of a number of people who passed an expletive near her at the wrong moment).

This mental health issue is difficult to address, as part of the problem can be (as with my ex) projecting her issues onto other people, partners / children etc. I would suggest should require supervised contact, although I suspect some would suggest exclusion of contact, however, I have seen research suggesting that children fare better with regular contact with an imprisoned father than having their father excluded from their lives.

Sadly it does seem to be more (not always) a female problem:

"While less well known than schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (manic-depressive illness), BPD is more common, affecting 2 percent of adults, mostly young women."

"While they can develop intense but stormy attachments, their attitudes towards family, friends, and loved ones may suddenly shift from idealization (great admiration and love) to devaluation (intense anger and dislike). Thus, they may form an immediate attachment and idealize the other person, but when a slight separation or conflict occurs, they switch unexpectedly to the other extreme and angrily accuse the other person of not caring for them at all."

This mental health issue is very very tough for children! The instability is very confusing, with children taking on personal responsibility for the parent's distress. Perhaps the current family law position of mum can do no wrong is putting too many children into the care of mums with Borderline Personality Disorder. Sadly my child's school results have deteriorated since separation. The family courts industry refuses to consider tracking the consequences of current policy, and have made it illegal so no one else can.

[supermother]

It's not just frustrating it's heart breaking. Unless men feel differently about their children than women do (and that's possible but a different topic for another thread - female and male brains do differ) surely every woman is outraged whenever they hear of another woman denying a man contact. It always upsets and appalls me because I think what would I feel in that position. Don't they have any compassion these women even if they don't want relief from the tedium of 365 day a year child care. Or does my ex not want the children or to see or help with them because he knows I want that and if I were different and didn't want him ever to see them then he would be wanting to?

[Dave Farmer]

Yes something flipped in this guys head which is hard for us to understand who love our kids come what may and if I am denyed access till they are old enough to make up their own minds I have to accept it whilst they are doing fine at school and appear to be happy what more could a parent want? it is just frustrating not being able to make a contribution when the courts say you ARE fit to do so!

[Gipsy]

The thing is Dave, and this is the last time I'm going to bother saying this, the fathers who are denied access and have abusive ex-partners etc aren't the ones going out there and killing their kids. This sort of thing has nothing to do with the problems faced by fathers in those heartbreaking situations.

It has everything to do with a personality type that sees everything (partner and kids especially) as something they 'own'. The only deterrent that these sociopaths face is that of society itself - the one thing that they can't face is the world thinking that they are a bad person, because no matter how evil they might be, they never see themselves to blame - they always see themselves as the victim. By according such actions 'victimhood', as in 'see what the poor man was driven to' you provide justification to these men for their actions. Ask yourself, is it, I can't see my kids woe is me that is going through their heads? Or, is it more likely they're thinking, if I can't have them then nobody can? I don't think that any man who is thinking the first thought will kill their kids. This man, and all other men who do this, are definitely thinking the second one. To them, it is all about ownership. They own these kids, therefore they can do what they like. Until you, and all other men (because it is only men these types will listen to) make it clear that you don't see that as an excuse, ever, for killing their children, such events will continue to happen.

[Dave Farmer]

The fault lies in the family law courts if they took as prgmatic a view of parents workig together after divorce as they do the ones that agitate and rule accordingly, tragic insidences such as this would be rare There is nowhwere for a Dad to go if mum witholds the kids not even back to these kangeroo courts!

[supermother]

A lot of men (and some women) choose not to see their children after divorce or only one every 3 months or whatever. There are many reasons for this. Ignoring cases where the woman forbids it or the children refuse to go reasons include:

1. Air brushing the children and ex wife from their head is the only way they feel they can cope psychologically with the loss. In other words out of sight, out of mind. This is cowardly as we all have responsibilities to our children before and after divorce and we should be mature enough to put children first and ourselves and our own pain second. If I took the same attitude our children would be in care.

2. It's hugely easier not to have children than have them. 365 nights a year he can decide what he does and where he goes. 365 nights a year if I want a night out I need to fix complex arrangements and pay. A lot of fathers will see the children if nothing better comes up but if the new girl friend is available or the football is on or work calls them then children always come second. My ex is very reliable (as I am) and if he will almost always have them for 2 hours on Sunday but if something comes up (work this afternoon, I was told by one of the children about 30 mins before I thought they were going with him today) he lets them know. Othe men will repeatedly not turn up when planned or only one weekend in 4 such that the mother who might have planned work around that or heaven forbid an afternoon off or out can never really on the fact the man will turn up. That's one reason handovers from school are good - father collects Friday night. If he can't make it he has to pay and arrange a childminder to collect, he hands back to school on Monday morning, parents don't even need to meet.

3. Very unusually our court order says who ever has the children pays (the opposite of most orders) but that whoever has them I pay the school and university fees). So I suppose that's a disincentive on his part but I doubt that plays a part really in our case. Many mothers deny contact because under child support agency rules for every night the father has the children the less money the mother gets.

4. In our case which is probably rare the older children wanted me to divorce him and he knows that. They wanted that because of how he treated not only me but also them. I only divorced when they had each come to me alone to ask me to and I was only staying with him for their sake anyway. That is very rare. I have fairly clever and by then teenage children who found his conduct at home unacceptable. So i imagine he feels rejected by them as well as by me although we have tried contact, invitations to graduation, family events but he doesn't reply, not to their texts.

I haven't asked him as he won't speak to me. I doubt it's because of another woman. They had to hide from one the other weekend that he didn't want to see and there was another one in his house the other weekend whom he told the twins he doesn't like so I don't really think he has someone but I certainly don't mind if he does. I think most people are better off with a partner although all women should note that women's mental health is worst when they are married and men's is best.

It feels (although getting much easier as children get older) that I paid £1m and got over £1m in debt to achieve a freedom from him which then results in its won lack of freedome because i moved to having the children 365 days a year with no help from him, nor none of his help in my business and to a position of very massive debts that obviously have a daily impact on our lives and he was given a freedom and wealth he didn't really want as he wanted to stay married. So I am nominally free but practically not really so. But I knew all that when we divorced and it is still better having done it.

None of this is anything like as bad as not being allowed to see one's children.

I suppose another reason men lose touch is many are not prepared to be dictated to over contact because that is not acceptable within the male psyche of many and there's nothing wrong with that being so ,men and women differ but a woman with children living with her can call most of the shots and many men would rather forget the first family, form a new one and not be having to kow tow to the ex wife they hate for the "privilege" which should be a right of seeing their own children.

[Sue]

SM - why does your ex never want his own children to stay with him? Is it because he's miffed you split, and his logic is 'OK, she didn't want ME, and she wanted her precious career and her children, so now she can jolly well have them! Because if I 'take them off her hands for her' she'll just go swanning off and get herself another man instead of ME!' - ie, a sort of dog-in-the-manger attitude of 'I am no way making life any easier for her by having the children.....'. Because I honestly cannot understand how anyone can love their children and not desperately want to have them to stay over. Or maybe, of course, he has another g/f etc, and she doesn't want them staying over because actually she'd prefer they (and you!) didn't exist? Has he ever said WHY he doesn't want his children staying over? And are they hurt by his rejection of them? I do get the underlying feeling this is more about getting back at YOU, than about his relationship with his children??

(Apologies in advance if I'm wading all over your toes - you seem like a pretty robust character, but robust doesn't mean 'insensitive to emotional pain', so plese ignore this post if it is upsetting. But I guess I do find it odd behaviour of your ex, not to want his own children to stay with him. But then, I guess, there are parents who never wanted to be parents in the first place, I suppose, and feel little involvemnt or responsibility for their offspring.)

[supermother]

I don't see why legally a move to where the spouse moves with the children need be legally unwise although you risk that she'll up and leave immediately, particularly if someone moves say 20 miles away and isn't stalking. Although trouble is most seem to be able to make up molestation out of nothing

On the comment about children having to deal with contradictory comments from each parent can't they just keep their own counsel? I'm sure mine don't think I'm right and their father is wrong. I'd be very disappointed if they weren't savvy enough to know things are not as simple as that and that he'll have a very different view from me.

As he never speaks to me I do sometimes ask the children about how he's getting on and they don't usually have much to say and I don't think he asks them much about me but he does ask them about their older siblings whom he never contacts. But yes, that is probably easier than if I were in a situation with voiced acrimony.

Lots of parents make some kind of shared parenting work after divorce. Every person I know will ask when do I not have the children because htey all know most children of divorced mothers are with their fathers some of the time and then I have to say well actually they're with me 365 nights a year because he doesn't choose to have them.

[Peter]

Sorry to have missed so much of the debate, having just caught up. Glad to see the rancour seems to have gone.

Jean, and others on shared parenting. For a few years after separation, was fortunate to have fairly regular contact, which was almost shared parenting if you took into account the time ex arranged for our child to be with other families, I think I fed our child a little more than my ex during this period. Our child spent 1 night a week here for most of this period, for most of 4-9 years old. The routine was relatively stable with daddy's house stuff, and mummy's house stuff that our child knew was best not mixed, rarely taking gifts back to mum's house. Our child seemed quite happy with 2 homes, living in 2 different regimes (colleagues reported a difficult child with mother, but well behaved and generally happy (after the stress reduction!) with me). The chance for contact where possible with the (geographically distant) extended family, sadly her extended family through me.

Contrary to my previous posts of statistics... based on the massive sample of ... ... 1, and my ... ... obviously ... .. unbiased observations .. .. shared parenting can work quite well (though there are studies to support this..), even if the parents are acrimonious. Certainly there was a great deal of laughter when child here, often with child initiating the good natured teasing, and have you tried cocoa powder in pancake mix... .. and food dies, like all new parents, I am sure that I was the only one who had done that....

One of the most important aspects of this shared period, was neutral exchange points where ex & I did not meet, such as collecting from school, or other families after child's visit. However, there was always litigation in the background, that allowed her to, as she so often said to our child, cut me out of our child's life by moving 400 miles (700/ 900 miles from her extended family..), with my legal team strongly recommending that I do not, as other fathers have been able to do, move to follow them. That was 6 years ago, with only a few letters coming this way since, obviously 'guided' if not dictated.

So I would strongly support shared parenting, based on experience here. Children can enjoy it if the arrangement is stable. Must emphasise though, that that time is for the child, not a chance to interrogate to find out what is happening with the ex, the "lots and lots and lots of questions" our child experienced there, and the very adult question coming out of the blue here.

[Sue]

It does seem so shameful that parents can stoop to such things, and seems to indicate to me that they are hardly worthy of the adjective 'adult'.

I can appreciate that it's very difficult for, say, an abandoned/dumped wife to bite her lip, especially if the children asked the honest but brutal question 'why didn't Dad want to live with us any more?' without resort to the "Well, chicks, there was this cunning little floozy in your dad's office, and your father's a vain, gullible male and ... etc".

But, in the end, surely as children grow up they ask those questions anyway - hopefully of the deserting parent 'Why did you walk out on us, Dad?' and make them face up to what they did (even if belatedly).

One of the saddest 'fall outs' from divorce seems to be the statistic that says that the children of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced themselves, as they have no example of a stable marriage. Not sure if that's true or not, however.

[Gipsy]

I think that you're falling into the trap SM of, because you've not come across this sort of situation before, you've no idea just how evil some people are prepared to be and just how much of an effect it can have.

Think of hostages that start to sympathise and even work with their captors. Or the sort of mind set that an abused wife can get in to (if I can just make sure that I don't cook the wrong foods I won't get hit), taking on the blame on to themselves.

Children internalise. They don't have any concept or way of externalising. If mummy is upset then it must be their fault. If daddy is upset then it must be their fault.

Also, children very naturally cannot handle contradictory behaviour in their parents. If a parent is blatantly lying to them (your mother is a wh**e or your father is doing XYZ outrageous act) then it creates a very stressful internal situation for the child. They either have to accept that a parent they love is capable of such behaviour, or that what that parent is saying is true and therefore they have to accept something awful about the other parent. No matter how the child resolves this situation, and they have very limited means with which to do so, it will mess with their heads.

That sort of manipulative parent has their job made easier by the other parent, who won't put such pressures and stresses on a child even when it works against them.

Be thankful that whatever else your ex might be, he isn't the sort of person to play such hideous mind games with your children.

[supermother]

There are so many issues on divorce where there is no clear easy answer and whatever course is taken will hut someone. In most cases it is not practicble for children to live with both parents half the time or children stay put and each parent moves back in every other week (the Bob Geldof solution which is quite attactive - whey should adults who can't maintain a marriage get one home and poor children who have done nothing wrong be expected to be shunted from pillar to post - let the adults camp on a friend's floor every week and the children stay home whilst the parents come and go....) Despite my comnent about 50/50 I wouldn't like to split my existence certainly not once I got over age 8 or 9. I couldn't even bear a weekend cottage. I need my stuff around me.

Kornelius, very sad, typical story. It is no comfort but you are doing better than some men achieve. Some men haven't been able to see their children for years. I think it was 10 years Mrs Meyer was not allowed to see her sons who had been taken to Germany by their father. Some mothers manage to stop the school allowing any contact from the fathers. Mothers falsely obtain molestation orders which mean the father can't even go within a certain radius of the children and them (and of course there are many many women who genuinely are hurt by abusive men but we're not talking about those here).

Children age. No one could stop my 8 or 9 year olds emailing their fatehr as they have internet access at school even if I wanted to. Although in our case as soon as one of them at 7 was bright enough to pick up his own emails their father stopped his once every 3 month email to me if he needed to change a time and did it through the child which is fine, I can live with that. He's under no obligation to have any civilised contact with me if he chooses. So as they get bigger they will be more independent of mothers who have sullied their minds with lies. But I still don't understand why all these children out there are so malleable. If I tell my children something they're are likely to do or think the opposite as not. I am sure they know from both of us the problems we have with the other ex spouse but I doubt either of us could reall influence them in a way that all these other "putty in the mother's hands" types of children seem to be influenced. If the mother takes away the child's PC why doesn't the child do something about that? Or perhaps these are just very little children rather than older ones like mine.

I suppose one comfort is most parents do work things out. I know one father who every morning drives 30 mins to his ex wife's house to then spent 30 mins driving his teenage daughter to school just to get that time in the car with her which is great if you can manage it. Having just had 2 and then 3 chidlren at univesity at the same time and me alone doing all the driving trips and lugging of luggage around and then seeing so many fathers doing that including divorced fathers just shows how unfair a situation some people are left in after divorce. I live 5 minutes away from my ex (who lives in his umortggage 5 bed detached bought with my money in which he has never asked the children to stay) so staying near an ex doesn't mean they necessarily help or be involved but at least the potential is there. Or does that make me like the man in the Greek myth - where the fruits or drink you want (the help of my ex) are just out of reach but you are reminded of the lack of the help every day due to his proximity.

[Gipsy]

If it helps anyway - I found some of the essays and information on this site of invaluable help at the beginning. It is a US site, and therefore can be a bit culturally alienting for Brits, but there's still plenty of nuggets of helpful advice to be had.

www.steptogether.org/resources.html

[j]

Gipsy, its true, I only have really met reasonable and decent people who have *both* swallowed their pride and their justifiable anger and pain, made compromises and sacrifices all round, and have muddled through OK. That's been hard enough for them as it is. I havent really known anyone who has been on the receiving end of totally cruel and unreasonable behaviour. You are right, it has been an eyeopener.

[Gipsy]

Sue, indeed, those grim types do appear to marry exceptionally nice people who get thoroughly shafted because they do what is best for the children, and try to do things according to the system. From my personal experience, it is men and women in equal portions in this 'grim' category.

J, I think the system does OK for situations where both sides are fair and amicable people. I think that the system works on the basis that, where 'enforcement' is needed it is because there is an extreme need - violent partner for example. Unfortunately, there is just no way to try and mediate a system whereby only a fair and just outcome is possible. Sociopathic types, especially those with the personality disorders that have been talked about here, are extremely willing to work the system to their advantage, and they are so deluded that they will be convinced that they are the person who is being victimised. They will take their behaviour and project that on to their partner.

Again in my experience that sort of person is as likely to be a man as a woman. I've belonged to two support groups, one predominantly US and the other UK. There are just as many heart breaking stories of injustice and parental alienation from places that have just the sort of system Kornelius wants, such as California where custody is automatically 50-50.

If you don't have experience of this, or know of anyone who has, and this thread has been an eye opener and a shock then I'm happy. It is good for those of us who have been there to remember now and again that this isn't the sort of thing that is the norm! Most people do actually find some reasonable way to manage things after seperation.

Just that some of us are unfortunate in this regard.

[Sue]

J: A ban on moving children away (subject to discretion in cases of proven abuse) sounds entirely fair to me.

- I'd go along with this. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me at first sight. Would you need to ban the 'absent parent' from moving either, I wonder, so they can't 'abandon their children' or would they just not bother to turn up to see them anyway, if they were so included, wherever they lived?

[j]

As a non-divorced person I am shocked, as you expected me to be I know, by the stories.

What I think I see is a system designed for the most dangerous and abusive breakups being applied to a whole range of situations including breakups between decent people who are both fit parents. Only goodwill from the other partner can prevent the mess and it is a truism to say that the reason we have law is that you cant rely on goodwill for everything.

A ban on moving children away (subject to discretion in cases of proven abuse) sounds entirely fair to me.

[Sue]

I can't help but agree/feel that, however rare or commonplace it may be, that there are, indeed, mothers who simply want to 'move on' by which they mean 'write their ex husband utterly out of their lives as though he never existed and has as much value to them as last year's pair of shoes'....and that includes their children as well, ie, that they want their ex out of their children's lives because the mother has personally 'moved on' from that former relationship.

Perhaps the 'counterpart' of this type of woman, of course, is the type of man (again, how rare or commonplace I don't know) who similarly wants to 'chuck the fat old wifey' move on with 'lovely young thing who adores me', and just simply doesn't want to know about their own children who always were more a nuisance than anything else.

What I find so sad is that these grim types never marry each other, but instead land themselves nice spouses whom they then treat badly (and their mutual children, of course).

[Kornelius]

Supermother, thank you for the advice, positive steps are always good.
I am sorry to hear about your father passing away.
You give plenty of good suggestions but if the other half does not want to cooperate unfortunately there is nowhere else to go.
I believe that Judges are not qualified to act as god over our children.
Yes you are right is easy to get obsessed with this subject, the thing is the issue is that we are dealing with our own flesh and blood and this cannot be changed.
As far as your point about women having to move for support is concerned, I have trouble with that one because where a good father is present, this is undoubtedly the best support the children can get! Unfortunately many mothers move away geographically for their own selfish reasons!
If both parents were treated equally and they were both assessed as to their parenting skills and their placement as far as the children’s welfare is concerned the children would fare much better.
Why can no one stand up and do the decent thing and ensure that the children’s best interest are really being served by assessing both of the parents immediately on separation to ascertain which parent ( if there must only be one ) the children would be best to reside with.
No parent should be allowed to uproot the children out with a reasonable geographical area from the other parent without the other parent’s permission. My children certainly didn’t.
If it can be proved that the father is not supportive enough ( Disregarding any unreasonable behaviour by the mother ) then maybe you have a case.
In my case the children were uprooted mainly to remove me from the mothers life!
I have tried to maintain a workable relationship with the children’s mother and it has proved to be very hard. If I do not do exactly what she says I do not get to see them!
The system sneaked in the no-fault divorce and this does not help the children.
I was subjected to violence from the children’s mother and if I could turn the clock back I would have got here charged, changed the locks of the house and remained the PWC ( parent with care ) Alas I trusted that the mother and the system would have treated me fairly, unfortunately not.
There was no third party involved in our separation. I got the usual wishy washy ( wrong ) advice from a solicitor that cost me dearly, I lost the children. The starting point in all of this should be that both parents are equal and shared parenting should be the first thing on the table.
I did consider moving closer but after being told that I would be “Interfering” with the mothers life I would not be any better off as far as my parenting time with our children was concerned.
The type of work that I do is not available in the mothers neighbourhood.
Yes I bought the children a brand new computer and also ( along with the child maintenance money ) I paid for their broadband account, set up MSN, Skype, web cam etc.
At first it was ok then the mother stopped it!
I keep in touch with the school and have a good relationship with the head teacher, I go to parents evenings etc, my sons ( especially the oldest ) is not doing too well and there’s not a lot I can do for him apart from encourage him to do well. If I ask their mum about their homework I get told where to go! I take them on Holidays Easter, Summer, Autumn and winter. Unfortunately my budget will not stretch to holidays in the sun ( I am saving ). You talk about annoying women with contact, I take issue with this because it was her that moved away and she had plenty of reasons to stay in the family home, I do not want to control her, I merely want what is best for our children and I do worry about their welfare due to the mothers inadequacies on the parenting front.
I will continue to campaign and there are many times that I feel that the brick wall will not move but I cannot give up as I do not want this to happen to my sons when they have their own children.

[Weaselwords]

To suggest that there is never greater fault on one side than the other in any divorce and that there should always be automatic 50/50 residency rights in every case does those of us who were married to addicts and/or violent people a rather large disservice. Also, anybody ever think that maybe some women who deny their children's father access to the children may have been advised to do so by their solicitor. Happened to me. I didn't take my solicitor's advice, because I didn't think it the right thing to do - but was stuck for some time with a situation with supervised contact taking place every week in my house. My ex turned up drunk and abusive (at 9am), when he bothered to turn up. Said he would only see our child on those terms. Refused to consider a contact centre. Solicitors told me the only way to change the situation was to refuse access, thereby forcing him to go to court for a residence order. As I said, I didn't do it. But we were trapped in a nasty situation for a long while. (Only solved by him going to prison).

[supermother]

As I've said below it's a terrible system particularly once the courts are involved. All power is given to the resident parent. There should be no right to move children without court permission. I suppose continuing publicity helps. A judge published a judgment in one case last year I think it was because it illustrated a father as serial litigator who (poor thing) had got himself in such a mind set that he was doing himself no favours - people not surprising get obssessed with the issue. I am sure many mothers would to if they were denied contact with their children.

I agree it is not about "getting" the children. And some women have to move near family to get help with children that some men after divorce won't provide and I can understand that too but it's very very difficult. Once children are a bit older 13+ they tend to be able to say where they will live etc so it gets easier if good relations can have been kept up in the meantime with the father. We didn't divorce until the older 3 were about 13/15/17 and they had a right to choose (in England anyway, not sure about Scottish law) and mine are sufficiently forthright they would have moved out and lived with friends if either of us were suggesting something radical like leaving the country or moving out of London and the little ones would simply want to be with their older siblings. So we divorced at perhaps the ideal time - youngest too little to know what was happening, older ones old enough not to be hurt (and indeed they wanted it, pressed for it, exhorted me to do it because of their father's conduct at home and by the way in some cases I disagree with you - there can be fault more on one side than the other). Some divorces are people a bit fed up (or perfectly happy in a mundane life until their head is turned by a pretty ankle or whatever...) but could have muddled along. Others the situation is so dire with physical violence or both at each other all the time that it is better to part.

What can a father do whose wife moves a 6 hour distance away with the children if he cannot get a prohibited steps order or whatever it is? In the UK it is virtually impossible to stop those moves within the UK.

(a) Move yourself which is completely unreasonable and awful but some people do. I think I would move wherever my children were moved to.
(b) try to ensure the children are in contact every day, give them lap tops (but the mother may confiscate them), mobiles, get them on MSN, Skype (if abroad) have web cams etc (IF you can afford it -most divorces are obviously by people with not much money at all so some of this is impracticable).
(c) develop a good relationship with their schools and teachers so you are kept informed of sports days, concerts, parents' evenings, their out of school sports activities so you can go an watch them however long the distance and you haev notice so you can take time off work for that.
(d) try to make them want to be with you in holidays so if they're asked they are pressing for that
(e) Do the usual stuff of letters, photographs, have your photos on line and give them access to they can keep abreast of your life and day. Presents, nice holidays.
(f) avoid all the stuff that can annoy women with contact - like constant calling, appearing to want to control her, appearing too keen to want the children so that she knows it will hurt to deny it, embarrassing children - as they get older the thing they want most is to be like everyone else and not to have a parent who causes a fuss or a parent whose presence causes their mother to cause a fuss.
(g) Don't give up, just bide your time until they are older. Work hard. Keep sane. Keep in contact as much as possible and remember most of the time you will have a relationship with children is once they are over 16 for the next 40 years or more and be building for that, your involvement as parent of a child at university or in work or the career guidance and contacts you can provide them, your holidays as adults together, your involvement with the lives of their own children when they have them. My father who died 3 weeks ago never really developed adult relationships with the children and I am trying to work on correcting that with my 3 who are now at university stage which is nothing to do with divorce but it does show you have all those many years ahead when children will be adult.

God knows why all these women want their children 24/7. Don't they work? Don't they have life? Don't they want the occasional evening without their children? DOn't they want their children to have relationship with their father?

[Kornelius]

Supermother, I l( Along with other fathers ) have worked very hard at effecting change.
I have campaigned long and hard to try and turn the imbalance around to try to have a much more equal footing.. The present system is entrenched in a terrible mindset of “be happy with contact “ in regards to remaining a parent to our children.
I have even been into the Scottish parliament meeting with Justice 1 committee in the lead up to the ratification of the family law bill which came into force in 2006.
All the fathers that attended meetings with the politicians at this time had high hopes of change. Unfortunately our hopes were dashed when they rushed the bill through and failed to make the changes required.
Separating from your partner is not easy and all parties are hurt by it.
No hurt can be worse than losing your children, the separation from my partner was not very painful; the loss of our children has been devastating
The reason that it is very common for fathers having their children every other weekend is quite often not by choice! If only the children and I were given a choice.
I personally did not just want to be a part time parent and the children certainly did not want that either. In as far as which parent was the most capable between us is concerned I was the most capable. Their mother wouldn’t even get up to feed the babies at night as she had selective hearing, I would get up and then go to my work next day and put in a full shift. I offered the family home when we split ( I was to find somewhere nearby to live ) I was going to pay all the bills. Instead the mother decided to uproot to over 100 miles away and told me that the children were hers and that she could do what she wanted with them! You talk about a split being practical or right and fair, this is exactly what I want and this not on the table. How dare people suggest going to court to sort things out, judges openly admit that they will not enforce a court order that challenges the mother. Court is for criminals not loving and devoted parents.
You talk about some men that you know that “got” the children; I do not agreed with one parent “getting” the children. It is like my situation where our children’s mother will “allow” me to see them! As far as your point about who gets the blame for a split is concerned, my personal belief is that a couple split because they no longer want to be with each other anymore its not complicated and no finger pointing is required.
You mention that men should try to increase contact bit by bit, how can you do this when there has been geography put in the way? I want to do all of what you say but my problem is that the mother uprooted the children to a 6 hour round trip on the worst road in Scotland. Courts are certainly not the place for parents in regards to the welfare of their children.

[supermother]

We can rail at the system until we're blue in the face but it's only by effecting change that there is much point in the vitriol. Most people are very very hurt by divorce. I am sure I am and that's even when my children live with me. It is very common for children to be with their father every other weekend and perhaps have a visit mid week and for families where the mother does not work and the father does that seems to be a compromise many men and women can live with. In my sort of situation where both work very long hours, have a nanny and children have never spent more time with the mother than father then it's more likely a 50/50 split is practical or right and fair. In other marriages again which I know neither parent wants the children and they argue over who has to have them in the boarding school holidays. I do know men who "got" the children, one because the children were old enough to decide and the other because the mother left to be with her lover. It is also very very unfair if we blame mothers who leave more than we blame fathers who do in our society. Yet we do and even I inside feel it feels more wrong for a woman to leave the children to live with a lover than if a father does that. So we certainly haven't reached gender equality in terms of public opprobrium in "abandonment" situations.

What other advice is there for men who are denied contact or enough contact? Try to increase it bit by bit. Keep up all sorts of contact with children on facebook, at sports days, watch all their matches, offer to drive them to all those places they need to be driven to at weekends, get involved in their school, join things they are in like the parents' choir or whatever, help out at open days, be around and about. But a good few women get non molestation orders which bar the father from the school premises or they start shouting if he appears at the school concert etc. It's very very hard when you're on the receiving end of that and you know the child you love will be embarrassed and hurt because not that you turned up but because of their mother's reaction when you do.

Bide your time and try not to have children having to decide and choose which parent they like and which they don't. Am I glad my children don't like their father? It's certainly easier than if they were clamouring to live with him. But the real sadness is that they don't have a father. The oldest boy has become a father in all but name and in some ways that's been so good so I suppose people find alternative father figures if one is lacking.

But it didn't have to be like that. I was happy with 50./50. I would be happy with 25% or 10% of the time or whatever he chooses. We never had a contact conversation before we divorced or after as he won't speak to me. I bet that's unusual. He just turned up on the first Sunday pm and took two of them for 2 hours and done that for 5 years. Weird. I suppose I saw it as a bonus as he'd said he'd kill himself if we divorced.

[supermother]

I don't have the bad experience of a parent denied contact. Nothing is as bad as that. My wanting some help or some money from my children's father is nothing like as bad as fathers not allowed to see their children.

Also sadly my advice cannot always be followed. I almots think men would be better off hiring a psychologist to think of ways they can make their ex want them to have the children or make her think they don't want the chidlren so she then wants them to have them etc etc than spend money on lawyers.

"you know what, I just went back to supermother's post of 18 June and I would say it says it all, we havent done any better than that between us.

Especially when she says: end the secrecy of family courts; keep it out of court if you possibly can; fathers are very badly treated by the system, and put children back at the centre of the process.

Sm, respect, you have this taped, through sad experience I know.

Posted by: J"

[K]

I've been reading this in work all day and have alternated between admiration for the measured and intelligent responses from the Alphas, amused outrage at some of the more stupid posts by most of the men who've 'contributed' to this topic, and, frankly, relief that I've never had children with the kind of idiot who thinks F4J is the way to get their message across and would use the story of a pathetic, snivelling sociopath murdering his own children as a way of proving their point.

[Jo]

J, JJ :-)
Alan143 I would agree with that. I have in fact signed a petition that is asking for less secrecy in the courts. Fathers being cut out is not the only tragedy occurring behind the closed doors.
I also agree with JJ that you need to have a 'home' as a child but that if you Dad can call you to say good night and you get to spend regular quality time with him then kids will grow up ok (or vice versa in the cases that men get full custody). My opinion comes from being a child of divorce.

oh by the way I gave up on soaps ages ago. I live with 6 girls and none of us watch them:-)

[KM]

(snort, J). Can't be bothered to read this thread any more. I suspect that I still agree with Jean Jones but think SM's points are sensible too.
I don't believe in 50-50 custody though. Because I think that children are better off with the stability of one home. But that is just my view, and who knows?

[Jean Jones]

"If a child’s welfare is paramount and their best interests must be served then you are naive to think that being with one un assessed parent on separation is right."

When did I say that, or anything like that? I thought I had just finished singing the praises of families with two parents and fathers in general, and my own husband in particular? I said, this morning in the post you are referring to, that i didn't see that having two different homes and splitting their time 50/50 between them could be good for a child's security and general welfare. That doesn't mean to say that I advocate the cutting out of one parent from the children's lives - far from it. It is clearly and obviously desirable for a child to have constant and everyday contact with both parents. But in practical terms a child, or even a person, needs to know where their home is, and I can't see how spending one week at one house and the next at the other can make anyone feel secure. And I do maintain that a child is not a possession and must come first; talk of 'winners and losers', and children being handed over to the 'ownership' of one parent or the other sounds worrying to me. I thought most adults had worked out, by the time they got to the parenting stage, that life isn't always fair, because the needs of others *must* sometimes come before one's own. I *don't* mean that a wife's needs must always come before a husband's, or indeed vice versa; but I do believe that when there is a conflict of interest between a parent's, or both parents', and a child's, the child's must take precedence. How can you be a parent otherwise?

[J]

you know what, I just went back to supermother's post of 18 June and I would say it says it all, we havent done any better than that between us.

Especially when she says: end the secrecy of family courts; keep it out of court if you possibly can; fathers are very badly treated by the system, and put children back at the centre of the process.

Sm, respect, you have this taped, through sad experience I know.

[Jean Jones]

The only snag with that, J, is that in kneeling you might inadvertently take your eyes from the TV screen and miss a nanosecond of Emmerdale or - perish the thought - Eastenders. And then, who knows, you might even develop some thoughts of your own instead of taking all your morals and attitudes from there. And that would never do. It's famer-lee, innit?

[Kornelius]

Jean, How noble of you to suggest that a child is not a possession!

If a child’s welfare is paramount and their best interests must be served then you are naive to think that being with one un assessed parent on separation is right.
It is not bad for a child to continue to have both of its loving and devoted parents in its life post separation, on the contrary, peer review has found that the child will do much better and thrive on it.
You talk about a child coming first, well Jean if that were really true the parents would not uproot the child from its familiar area i.e. schools, friends, family etc.
If you and all the people in society that have your blinkered view would realise that our system does not encourage or recognise shared or equal parenting!
Why does our present “wonderful” system not stop awarding residency ( ownership / possession ) of the children on separation to one un assessed parent?
Yes right now on separation no one assesses what is really in the best interests of a child as far as where they should reside.
Right now a mother automatically gets ownership of the children on separation and the mother may not be the best placed or most capable parent to have them reside with them.
My children did not get any kind of say in where or who they should live with, they wanted to stay with me and not be torn from their family home which I may add was offered to the recalcitrant and insidious mother.
As for your comment “It didn't ask to be born and it deserves better than to be treated as a prize tied up in pink ribbons for the parents who 'wins'.”

Well Jean why is it that on separation the child is gifted to one parent without any sort of assessment as to their parenting skills or capabilities as a parent?
Children should not be automatically gift wrapped to mothers and there should not be losers in this horrendous biased system that pervades.
Unfortunately the ones that suffer the most are the children and the alienated parent and all their extended family and friends. Please stop trying to pull the wool regarding what is “in the child’s best interests “The best interest of the child should be to continue to have both of the loving parents equally in their lives. If that means shared / Equal parenting then so be it. Uprooting a child from the family home, schools etc and dragging the pour soul far far away is definitely not in the child’s best interests. Get real!

[J]

JJ I am thinking about no longer lying on the floor when He who Must be Obeyed returns home so he can walk over me: I wondered about risking a kneeling posture. Do you think that is going too far?

[J]

Alan143 very interesting theory abnout women and sentimentality. But I have to wonder which women you know. The women I know arent all that sentimental- but we also dont devour the soaps, in fact I think people arent bothering to watch them at all. I certainly dont.

So maybe that proves your theory for the small group of women you are observing- but it leaves the question of how come it applies to all the women you know? Are they from a particular subset of women?

[alan143]

JO @ 15:37

I think you’re asking for a professional study of how to reform to Family Court and, if so, I think you’re entirely right.

But there have been so many studies on that! Here’s a recent one - from Canada, admittedly, but it could equally apply to the UK:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/06/17/barbara-kay-on-how-courts-disenfranchise-fathers.aspx

This experienced divorce lawyer suggests one easy reform to the court’s secrecy: “while the names of the disputants are altered to protect the children, the actual identities of the case judges are revealed.”

I think that would help UK fathers immensely. Would you support that reform?

[alan143]

Jean Jones @ 14:40

Fine, and that’s good. I’m glad to know you’re happily married. See the comment by Sarah @ 14:51 for an example of the more usual emotional cycle I mentioned.

You mention “harpies”. I didn’t. I mentioned sentimentality – when someone enjoys expressing her own feelings about someone far more than she cares about the man himself. It works against good behaviour, and good reforms.

I don’t know any man-hating harpies – perhaps they’re avoiding me! – but every woman I know has grown more sentimental over the years. I’ve heard a bar-room theory that blames TV soaps for this – women devour them and then unwittingly apply that “viewer” mindset to the people they know – but I don’t have any real angle on it myself.

Perhaps you can explain it for me?

[Jo]

Well Alan143 I think that again you have to look at ppls posts. No one here has said that men should not get access to/help bring up their children after divorce. Plenty of the female posters, me included, have praised their fathers and the fathers of their children. Most posters (all?) have agreed that the secrecy of the family courts can be dangerous as we don't know what is really going on.
Personally I think it will take a lot of work and someone with more detailed understanding than I to reform them, but SMs suggestions were good. 50/50 care if it is workable and not too disruptive to the children. If not possible than full time care to one parent (matching the status quo) and then decent access for the other parent e.g. every other weekend, holidays, perhaps a night mid-week if practical. The problem is that each situation is different and women and children need to be protected from aggressive males but also vice-versa as I think Peter(?) was in an abusive relationship so you can't just say automatically 50/50. Fathers are important.
Personally I think it will take a lot of work and someone with more detailed understanding than I to reform them, but SMs suggestions were good. 50/50 care if it is workable and not too disruptive to the children. If not possible than full time care to one parent (matching the status quo) and then decent access for the other parent eg every other weekend, holidays, perhaps a night mid-week if practical. The problem is that each situation is different and women and children need to be protected from agressive males but also vice-versa as I think Peter(?) was in an abusive relationship so you can't just say automatically 50/50. Fathers are important.

[Jean Jones]

Thank goodness you realised. I gave up asking my husband how I should vote, ooh, at least 6 months ago, and he's so modern he even lets me go out by myself from time to time. And I haven't burnt his slippers to a crisp for ages.

[J]

sorry JJ now I see you are not saying it, you are quoting it. Apologies, and my comment stands but is directed to someone else. (cant work out who in the undergrowth of mega-posts)

[J]

JJ I agree with everything you say normally, but on behalf of my gay female friends could I just say that most normal lesbian women dont hate entire groups of other people, eg men, for no good reason. They suffer enough from that kind of thing themselves.

[Jean Jones]

Sarah - I THINK that what he may be referring to is the myth that all women who are not actually warming the slippers for their man, as recommended earlier today by one male poster, are lesbian harpies who would far rather be inseminated using a turkey baster and bring up their children to glorify women and hate all men than to live in a conventional family. See Daily Mail passim. Naturally all such women are also stridently politically correct lefties, who don't ask their husbands which way they should vote, and even have the temerity to harbour opinions of their own. As Mr Cholomondley-Warner so memorably said, Women, Know Your Place.

[Sarah]

I'm not sure what is meant by 'praising paternity' - like Sue and am more than happy to praise good fathers, and will do so now, starting with my own dad. He wasn't perfect - who is? - but he was there, he wanted the best for us, and he did everything he could to give us a good start in life. So did my mum. I hope my children can look back one day and say the same about me and my partner.

But please don't expect me to praise men who murder children. I hope that's not what you were suggesting.

[Jean Jones]

"I mean praising paternity. Can any woman (or feminist man) still do so without attacking it soon afterwards, to restore her offended pride"

I have no offended pride if I praise good fathers, and I do, wholeheartedly. I firmly believe that the best model is a family with two parents and, having been married to the same man for 30 years this year, I think I have lived what I say. My husband has stuck with his family through thick and thin, his children love him and admire him and see him as a role model. And he might well say he's got something out of it too. I do not understand the bitterness of your tone. Contrary to legend as transmitted by the Daily Mail, most women would rather have a partner and father for their children. Look around you - how many man-hating harpies do you actually see?

[J]

Sarah that is of course a good point. My post is indeed not about what people ought to do- but about what i've observed. As you rightly say, what I seem to be observing is the result of people being consoled by either a new girlfriend or the children as status or possessions- when the problem is, they are people too.

[alan143]

JO @ 12:27
“Everyone here agrees ... the courts need reform.”

Yes it’s true, and I think the main article might have mentioned it too.

My point is: what is our moral direction for that reform effort? Who are we truly caring about nowadays other than some likeness of ourselves, which is plain old sentimentality. And, while the Family Court is still secret, would we even know if it were genuinely reformed?

The main article pleads for a system in which “IT happens more smoothly,” and says that Duncan Fisher wants “proactive counselling.” If those quotes set the moral tone then we’re clearly done for, but who can raise the real issue now? I mean praising paternity. Can any woman (or feminist man) still do so without attacking it soon afterwards, to restore her offended pride.

If she can then I’d call her moral rather than sentimental. “Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers that begat us” – that sort of thing.

[Sarah]

Can we please stop talking about who 'gets the children' as though they're just another possession to be fought over and divided up after the divorce. As Jean said below, whatever decision is made has to be about ensuring the best outcome for the children, regardless of whether that is 'fair' to both parents or not. It doesn't matter whether it's fair or not. It matters that the children are safe and well and happy, and that the whole awful divorce process is managed so as to cause them the least possible distress and disruption. That, as I understand it, is what the family courts are trying to achieve here, and if there's a bias towards mothers in custody decisions, much of that can be explained by the fact that the mother is usually the primary caregiver and having the children stay with her minimises the disruption to their lives. I don't doubt that sometimes there are miscarriages of justice, and a great deal of sadness and suffering results. But the focus should be on the children as people, not on who 'gets' them. I think someone already mentioned the story of Solomon's judgement. It seems that some of the insistence on 50-50 parenting at all costs so neither parent gets more 'power' has echoes of this.

For me that's the most horrifying thing about this terrible case - it's an illustration of what can happen when this 'children as property' concept is taken to it's logical conclusion. This man decided he would rather destroy them than settle for an 'unfair' outcome, or allow his wife to 'get' more than he did.

Not that everyone who uses such language necessarily thinks this way, but it's worth examining whether we're losing sight of what really matters here.

[j]

I enjoy SMs posts on this topic very much, I often dont reply properly as I agree with so much of what she says.

On JJ's point about houses, I did like the solution Delilah posted before (and I've heard of it in other contexts)- the children kept the house and the adults commuted. Though I suspect it takes an unusual amount of goodwill (not to mention dosh) to make that work, and any family already in that lucky position would probably have been OK anyway.

I am trying to think what characterises the divorces I know where the fathers dont feel exploited. It doesnt seem to be having extra residence of the children- they are still mainly with their mother. I think it tends to be that the men have a new partner.

I am, I have to be honest, strugging to think of any father who is content with his divorce, who was also the one who became single as a result of the divorce (I know some single men who are OK now but they did have a girlfriend when they split up, it just didnt last).

Perhaps what we see is that when people split, if you have a new partner- and perhaps initiated the split- then you are better placed to survive; if you dont but you get the children then that is a compensation, but that it is still mainly fathers who can end up with neither- women tend to get one or the other, sometimes both?

[Jean Jones]

And I wanted to post this separately, not as a postscript to the other post - SM, it's not that what you say isn't eminently sensible. It's just, surely, that you must be in such an unusual position that it applies to very few couples. Please don't feel ignored - you must be used to being that unusual.

[M]

Caitlin, I agree. Can't post, no time, but admire the AM usual suspects keeping the flag flying so high with such dignity and intelligence.

[Jean Jones]

"The issue is that when a man and woman divorce then the residence should be 50 50 if that’s what one parent wants and no one parent should have more power over the child than the other one."

Are you seriously suggesting that the children of a divorced couple should spend half their time in one home and the other half in another? That would be bad enough if the parents lived in adjacent streets. If they live any distance apart at all it would destroy a child's security. A child needs to know where s/he lives and where s/he belongs. And a child is a person, not a possession; they also need to have some say in what happens to them. It's not a case of power or what the parents want; that's fine if a childless couple divorce, but as in so many areas, once a child comes into the equation its needs must come first. It didn't ask to be born and it deserves better than to be treated as a prize tied up in pink ribbons for the parents who 'wins'. I can't believe that any parent who loves a child would do what RB suggests, because the results for that child would be so disastrous. Parenting involves sacrifice from day 1 for the child's good, and surely this is a prime case where the parents must not put their own desires first.

[Caitlin MOran]

Supermother, JJ, Gipsy. Lazy Mummy - all the AM regulars are having a bostin' session here. Lovely to see so much calm sanity and clear-thinking AND BREVITY in their posts.

[Jo]

EVERYONE ON THIS BOLG AGREES THAT THE FAMILY COURTS ARE IN SERIOUS NEED OF REFORM. READ THE POSTS.

I know kids need both parents after my parents divorced when I was 4 I saw my dad as often as possible. Sadly 50/50 parenting was not an option as he moved too far away but we saw him every other weekend, he came to school shows etc. My mother never poisoned us against him. We were obviously lucky that our parents were able to come to an agreement about us.

[alan143]

Suicide following a divorce sentence is the leading cause of death for fathers in this age group, so why are we surprised by this latest case? - Because children were involved obviously! That shows how moral we all are, doesn't it.

The Family Court is a secret court, and that's possibly why Alpha Mummy seems unaware how many children are stolen by that court from single mothers too.

Those heartbroken mothers are also prone to suicide, but do feminists care? No! That's how moral we are, with our secret and highly profitable Family Court.

[Robert Bennett]

Don’t know why you say Ho ho look ant the state of the family today in broken Briton . No father figure in the home kids out of control I can go on and on.

[Sue]

RB - the trouble with trolling is that subsequently even if you then make a non-trolling comment, it's too late! So, unless you indicate your clear troll statement (ie man the head of the household ho ho ho!) was you being humourously ironic, no one can have a rational debate with you any more, since it will just be assumed to be a similar wind-up to the clear trolling statement.

[Robert Bennett]

You have got it wrong, “she should keep the kids” when you use words like keeping the kids. It dose not matter if the woman is in the home and the husband is working the kids need both parents its clear your view is that one parent gets the kids. Both parents need there kids and the kids need both parents. Like I said earlier women thinks that the child is the explicated property of the mother

[Sue]

OK, so there's definitely trolls about! Thanks for outing yourself RB! Ho ho!

(BTW, just wanted to clarify a reference made earlier - I was the one who said that I'd once read an article about someone in an organisation such as F4J, but that it might not have been that organisation, whom the writer said had ommitted to point out that the last time he'd seen his wife he was smashing her head against a table...I do want to clarify that had nothing to do with the current case under discussion, so sorry if I confused people!)

[Jo]

If the woman is in the home then she is looking after the kids therefore she should keep said kids and home in divorce. You just made a mockery of the argument that men should get custody if they are not doing anything in the house. Seriously wrong place to post derogatory, misogynistic clap trap. Think before you post. You should be focussing on getting people to join your cause not shouting them down.

[Robert Bennett]

The fact is that we need to go back to the old days. “Love and babes” place is in the home preparing her hubby tea on the table when he returns from work and putting on his slippers.

The women of today need to know there place in the home and accept that the man is head of the household

[Lazy Mummy]

Correction on my last post: I said court approval but I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Basically, if there's a custody order & one parent wants to move to another state with the child, the custody order has to be reviewed. If the other parent contests it & can show the child will be happier/more stable by staying in situ, they;kk have a good change of winning custody (even if they didn't have primary custody before).

[Lazy Mummy]

Washington State where I live won't allow children to be removed from the state without court approval, so if one parent wants to take the children to, say Texas or California to live, they have to get court approval and that's unlikely if the child is stable & the other parent contests it and is considered a fit parent (I know cases where parents of each gender have won custody based on this). I also know several sets of people in the US who've followed exes across country so they could be close to their children & involved in their daily lives.

That's the sort of emotional maturity and child-centered parenting SM & others are talking about.

[Lazy Mummy]

Wow, what a lot of garbage most of these posts contain. Think I smell trolls.

SM of course, has articulated exactly what is wrong with the family court system and is spot on with her comments (made previously) that a truly child-centric culture would force 50-50 custody arrangements post-divorce. Delilah is as articulate as ever and kudos to JJ for sticking it out and politely rebutting the nutters (JJ, I think I love you today, especially your comment about qualifications -ROFL).

(Going to poke with a sharp stick here for a minute).

Seems to me that several of the blokes from F4J (erm, sorry, badly-treated male victims of an inherently evil female/feminist society) who decided to spew their vitriol and overshare details of their ex-family lives are putting more energy into being angry on an internet forum than into doing something constructive about their complaints.

Because I've read the entire thread thoroughly and I don't get a sense from many of the blokes posting the long tedious citations that they are putting their energies into building a better more equitable world for their children - and they're certainly not doing it here.

Maybe I'm missing something. But this level of anger, vitriol and "need to be right/have the last word" suggests to me some reasons why, perhaps, some of the F4J men ended up divorced in the first place. Because they are certainly not on their best (or even decent) behaviour in their comments here. There's an argument that people sometimes behave more badly on the web than in face-to-face conversations and I sincerely hope that's the case here for some of them because their behaviour here is boorish at best and positively unpleasant and aggressive at worst Compromise, relationship management, negotiation, losing some arguments to win others - these are all valuable skills in relationships and are all skills NOT being exhibited by several of the male posters here. Which either suggests why their relationships may have broken down in the first place.

Wouldn't F4J be doing its members and potential members (and, most importantly, their children) a favour by promoting compromise, negotiation skills, relationship management skills rather than stupid stunts showing how many divorced dads are victims? I.e. teaching people skills to prevent/minimise the impact of separation/divorce in the first place? Obviously not going to work in every case, lack of EQ / emotional maturity is a factor in some (many) broken marriages. Not in every case obviously, but where people are aggressive, violent, unable to compromise, it's an issue.

The saddest thing of all being that of course it should be all about the children and it just isn't. Why aren't these blokes & F4J campaigning for a children's bill of rights instead of a father's bill of rights?

[Jo]

I think the main problem on this thread is that a lot of the men have decided that all the women on here are just like their harpy ex-wives. They have agreed that the family courts are unfair and secretive and must be changed. What exactly do you want them to say now! That the man was justified in killing his kids - no matter what statistics you cite no one is going to turn around and say they can understand him. So acknowledge your support and move the discussion on.

[Sue]

One of the strong emotions that seems to be coming through here from quite a few of the men posting, is a sense of greivous unfairness that the legal system is biased against them as a gender and in favour of females 'automatically'.

I am not disputing this, but I am saying that, well guys, now you know what it feels like. Men, for the very first time in history, have finally begun to be on the 'thick end of the wedge' where the entire social and legal system 'finds against them' day in, day out - just like it used to be for women (eg, automatically losing your children if you commit adultery and being divorced by a husband whose own adultery is not grounds for YOU to divorce him, etc etc etc.)

So, in all, you know, I do find it a bit rich that, just because men are now on the receiving end of an inherently unfair legal system, they don't seem to be able to put a historical perspective on it. Any moment now I rather expect some Asian guy to pop up and claim the legal system is biased against him in this country as he's not allowed to kill a daughter whom he considers has dishonoured him by having pre-marital sex, etc etc etc.

No, I'm NOT advocating 'well, let the damn men get a taste of their own medicine that they've been handing out to women for millenia!', but I am saying, please, males here, get a perspective on this, and a little more undrestanding of WHERE the current divorce laws have come from (ie, from a HUGE battle by women, and decent men, to redress the hideous pro-male bias of the legal system for countless centuries.)If the divorce laws/customs/usage have veered too much in bias of women instead now, then it is a question of correcting that imbalance, but NOT of forgetting just why we currently have the divorce laws we do - to redress centuries old injustice to women.

And by the way, feminists are not 'man-haters' they are people who want to remove social and legal injustice from women.

I do feel, quite strongly here, that many of the men posting here are NOT presenting their case in the best light - especially if they are resorting to patronising 'love' and 'baby' - it's an own goal, chaps. Don't do it.

[Deirdre]

Delilah, I've often thought the same about Supermother's posts: they are usually very interesting but usually completely ignored.
I've come to the conclusion that this is because (to revert to the Bible again), she is a Voice Crying In The Wilderness. viz: completely ahead of her time: a woman who earned more than her husband, who was shafted by him on divorce, who pays him maintenance even though he contributes nothing to their children financially or emotionally. Not typical.

And on top of all this, she can feel sympathy for men who are shafted on divorce, and look objectively at the whole area.

This is all extremely unusual, and not likely to be the norm because of human nature being what it is.

I agree with you about the pointlessness of posting any sense on this topic, and Gypsy (a very well-balanced if traditionally more feminine voice) has already come to the same conclusion.

I think, excluding the murdered children part of the story, that divorce law needs to be reformed, as does marriage law.

Historically, marriage was a class issue. Some classes had no need to marry because they had no property. Other classes had to preserve family wealth, and marriage was therefore a serious issue. Somewhere along the line, romance came into it (should we blame Jane Austen?)

Where romance and class issues come into conflict, disaster ensues (see the Royal Family).

In some classes today, where property was formerly never an issue, because of the benefits system it now has become one. So men who previously walked away, now see a reason to fight for custody and access.

Before outraged men start their long posts on this, please note that I am not talking about men who genuinely want to see their children, I am talking about the way the law confuses marriage with property and about the attitudes of the courts.

I have no solutions, perhaps Supermother with her legal background can suggest some.

[Deirdre]

Delilah, I've often thought the same about Supermother's posts: they are usually very interesting but usually completely ignored.
I've come to the conclusion that this is because (to revert to the Bible again), she is a Voice Crying In The Wilderness. viz: completely ahead of her time: a woman who earned more than her husband, who was shafted by him on divorce, who pays him maintenance even though he contributes nothing to their children financially or emotionally. Not typical.

And on top of all this, she can feel sympathy for men who are shafted on divorce, and look objectively at the whole area.

This is all extremely unusual, and not likely to be the norm because of human nature being what it is.

I agree with you about the pointlessness of posting any sense on this topic, and Gypsy (a very well-balanced if traditionally more feminine voice) has already come to the same conclusion.

I think, excluding the murdered children part of the story, that divorce law needs to be reformed, as does marriage law.

Historically, marriage was a class issue. Some classes had no need to marry because they had no property. Other classes had to preserve family wealth, and marriage was therefore a serious issue. Somewhere along the line, romance came into it (should we blame Jane Austen?)

Where romance and class issues come into conflict, disaster ensues (see the Royal Family).

In some classes today, where property was formerly never an issue, because of the benefits system it now has become one. So men who previously walked away, now see a reason to fight for custody and access.

Before outraged men start their long posts on this, please note that I am not talking about men who genuinely want to see their children, I am talking about the way the law confuses marriage with property and about the attitudes of the courts.

I have no solutions, perhaps Supermother with her legal background can suggest some.

[Robert Bennett]

The issue is that when a man and woman divorce then the residence should be 50 50 if that’s what one parent wants and no one parent should have more power over the child than the other one. Woman think that the child is the implicit property of them.

[supermother]

There are some differences between men and women on divorce too simply because men and women do differ. I suspect more women will compromise, put up with things that are wrong to be with the children and more men (not all) will see things as a matter of principle. Part of ensuring a workable solution is often accepting insults, accepting the ex wife will mess you around, change dates, let you book holidays and then not make the children available and some men will have to accept being treatedin a way which is wholy wrong, letting her think she is exercising huge power over you, letting her feel she has the power of a God over you, controlling when and iff you see your children, letting you down week after week despite pre planned arrangements and fixed by the court times to see the children, putting up with that for 5 or 6 years just to be able to see the children. It is very very wrong but it is the reality for many men and going to court to get clarity over dates and times doesn't work with many women who can then ignore court orders anyway and the court (as they refuse to jail mothers who breach court orders) has no remedy to enforce court orders anyway.

So in a sense men can help themselves by an acceptance of being treated badly, something not surprisingly many will not accept, a toleration of the messing around for the greater good of seeing their children even if you are let down one weekend in 3. If instead we had an absolute right to see the children half the week an dnot just see but deal with the daily grind of them, the clearing up the sick, the getting up at 2am with them, the tedium of remembering they have clarinet on Tuesday, the sorting out of their fights, the normal parenting many a single mother would love to be relieved of for some days a week, then they can remain a proper father.

Yes, to the man married with 5 daughters, that's great but marriages have always broken down sadly and I think most of us who have divorced have tried very hard for many years to keep it together often for the sake of the children over long periods but sometimes you reach a point where it is just intolerable, the quantum of solace is down to zero and it is better to part. If the person we divorce was fine we would not be divorcing. This is important. Happily married nice couples would probably be nice to each other post divorce. Where we divorce a spouse as in my case because of his behaviour usually there's a defect in that man or woman which is likely to be exacerbated after divorce. In a sense my children's father's decision to have very little contact with them (he hasn't spoken to the older 3 just about in 5 years) proves I was right to want to divorce him.

I agree with Peter that even fathers who do a lot in marriage can end up shafted after. If men will lose children in divorce then my advice perhaps should be the other way round - don't mind with your babies because you'll lose them and it will hurt them and you more - instead work away all week and then when you divorce there will not be the same wrench but I think that would be a sad position to reach and most marriages do not end in divorce.

It remains the truth that courts tend to maintain the status quo - so if the status quo is father at home, perhaps not working and mother off abroad on business trips the primary father/child bond is much less likely to be broken than if the father worked away. Even there I am sure there is some pro female bias in that a mother in that situation might get 50/50 whereas a man in the reverse position who works away might get every other weekend.

All this is fine when children are under 12 and you can force them to see a parent but when they're older they choose. I wonder what women my ex sees thinks about the fact of his lack of contact with the children. Do they assume I have poisoned them against him or that I don't let him see them? Don't they think it's weird he has children he never sees? Doesn't that put them off him? I suppose at least I have no acrimony over money (as he pays nothing) nor contact (as he virtually has none).

Finally many people move away after divorce, often men for work or women to move near family. I thkn there shoudl be a rule you are not allowed to move, either parent, without court permission, that people should accept lower pay and worse jobs so as to maintain contact. (Mind you my ex lives 5 minutes away and that doesn't result in contact). If my children were taken say to Saud by a Saudi father then if I could get a work permit I would move there, no question, even if I had to live on benefits. I would not be apart from them whatever the price.

[DELILAH]

Supermother has written several knowledgeable, thoughtful and thought-provoking posts on this thread which have been almost unacknowledged. It kind of sums up the pointlessness and aimlessness of blogs like this when that happens. Just venting; no listening.

I think too much of family law, in the UK anyway, is predicated on the assumption that women are powerless within marriage. Obviously some are; but to assume that all are is pretty medieval. The other thing which still seems rooted in the Middle Ages is the concept of children as chattels, to be awarded to one or other parent. I actually read Robert Bennett's long, verbatim extract from his court report, and I'm afraid I was left with two awkward and unanswered questions:
(1)Why did his wife suddenly move the length of the country to an undisclosed address in London?
(2) Why did Mr. B spend SIX YEARS sitting in Scotland trying to get the case (and his ex-wife, presumably) moved back there? If he had really wanted to see the child - sort access and shared care out with the mother - compromise - wouldn't he have got his butt down to London? The sheriff noted as much in her interim decision.

I'm afraid I get the impression that Mr. B felt he "owned" both wife and daughter, and was in no mood to change his life to accommodate either. So he lost his case, and rightly so.

For similar reasons, I think NS's comment (cheered by Caitlin) about it being "not realistic" that divorcing parents limit their own future plans, including where they choose to live and do during the week, in order to accommodate shared care after divorce, is unbelievably childish. If this attitude is widespread, then perhaps this is where you will find the break in the divorce system. Shared care does not need to be disruptive to the children if the parents work not to make it so. Read Supermother's post. It is very, very hard on the parents; but that's what grown-ups do. My children all know that having a baby commits them to a lifetime obligation of cooperation, endless patience, and shared financial commitments with the other parent - whether they marry the parent or even choose to live with them. How would divorce change any of that?

[Les]

I am incredibly saddened by the tone of many of these posts. Some of them even admitting that they are enjoying arguing - over a case where innocent, defenceless children were murdered.
And I (a man) would like to state unequivocally that an indisputable murder should receive justice from the judiciary, i.e. the death penalty.

All the provocation in the world does not provide any extenuation.

The posts show a lot of people 'hurting' terribly, could I just say in passing: "Thank God for the marriages/families which are working!"

It seems clear from the posts that in our relativistic society the postants(?) do not have an absolute foundation for a solution.

Western man has thrown out God and now finds that man cannot fill His shoes - what a mess!

The very title of the article "Is Divorce Broken?" though apparently meant to be a provocative headline demonstrates how little marriage is understood and valued.

It was interesting to see the two references to the Old Testament - Solomon's judgment being most apt. The reference to Jacob working 7 years for Rachel (his father-in-law, Laban, was not one of the 'patriarchs') is quite inappropriate as the marriage(s) to two sisters and their handmaids was extremely acrimonious and NOT given as a model for anyone!

Our time would be betterspent discussing the meaningand basis of marriage and how to build it up now andfor future generations.

Divorce may be broken - but I would like to contend that it cannot be fixed!

Please don't be jealous when I ask you to congratulate me on being 30 years married with 5 daughters.
I am not a perfect husband!!!
Here is not the place to list my failings :- (

[Kelly]

My partner is a kind, decent man who has no contact at all with his two daughters after his ex-wife poisoned them against him. The court investigated his situation and found that he has done absolutely nothing wrong but that his ex-wife is deceitful and has manipulated the children. However the judge said he was not able to do anything about the situation except apologise to my partner. My partner's ex-wife has been able to slander him in court and out of it but she has not been punished. She has falsely accused him of violence and insinuated inappropriate physical behaviour. He has not seen his children for over 3 years. Although I believe his children genuinely do not want to see him now, due to her lies, I also believe they grieved for him when he was first cut out of their lives. How are young children supposed to feel when a previously loved parent just disappears from their life? I believe that their mother has actually chosen to put her own children through the pain of losing a parent. How could a supposedly loving parent do that? The result of the failure of the family courts is that these 2 children are left in the care of a person who is too selfish to put their own happiness and mental well-being above her own spite.
I used to think I was a feminist but what I've seen in the family courts has made me rethink that. Women are discriminated against in many ways but we don't have our children taken off us (in most cases - I realise there are cases where women also unfairly lose their children). Women should realise that this problem with the family courts needs to be resolved. Otherwise we'll be watching our sons lose their children and we'll lose our grandchildren.

[Peter]

Supermother (I did say that further down the thread. Best way as a man to ensure after divorce you are treated reasonably equitably is never let the woman do more at home, always have her working full time even when you ahve babies, get up in the night, change nappies, don't leave home, make sure you do as much if not more with the children, don't flatter your own ego by marrying someone who earns less etc etc.)- I did all of that and more. Despite working full time, did about 2/3 of childcare, most of laundry, most of cooking etc, she was too busy drinking tea with a cigarette in the garden. Still got shafted by her in terms of parenting, school reports suggesting that this has not been so good for our child.

The problems in marriage and separation is that there are a significant number of people, of both genders, that are disturbed, and create problems for themselves, family, and most importantly the children. To move the divorce industry into a mediation state where these illnesses can be addressed is far better than the current situation.

With reference to the research posted below as to why children fare badly in single parent families - perhaps this is the key issue - children need two parents for the best growing up they can do. I would suggest that the resources allocated to these studies diid not permit in depth analysis of each case, to do the in depth analysis would probably increase the cost of these studies by 100 fold, destroying any chance they have of securing the funding to do that research.

[supermother]

Men do very very badly on divorce in the UK. Why am I the only mother on here who thinks that? Why the gender divide? Is it because I earned 10x what my ex did so I was in effect in a male position on divorce (by being alpha female on divorce)?

Of course people are vitriolic? How would mothers on this thread feel if they were not allowed to see their children and had to pay to keep their husbands and children? Can't you put yourselves in that position? And then that you're powerless to do anything about it?

Happily most couples do sort out contact without courts and so children see both parents. There are some women like me but with husbands who don't work who have ended up in the usual male position - lose the children because the woman worked hard and the man stayed home - it's a really important major issue for alpha women and a much better topic for this place than children's parties and other petty stuff of no import. It's what women risk if they earn a lot and have non working husbands but obviously women in that category are quite few so that is not yet a major issue.

The solutions are not easy with the law as it is. I've suggested some lower down on the thread.

And yes some people on divorce become so involved in the issue and the fight they damage themselves through that and some become serial litigators and some abuse the court process too but again they are a minority.

[Chess]

"There is no excuse for killing your children, neither is there an excuse for turning your children against a partner, many women do this and get away with it,"

If you can't see that the two are not even vaguely equivalent then you quite seriously need to talk to someone. It's extraordinarily unbalanced to use the actions of a murderer to promote your cause.

Truly disturbing article....This man killed his kids!
The resolve to figure out how we "get through" these difficult problems is noble. The desire to NOT identify who , almost always, inflicts this vioence is not. Women don't murder their kids. He gets no sympathy.

POSTED BY: MATT | 18 JUN 2008 16:30:01

Matt the forceful nature of your comment does not change the facts:
"Most child abuse and parental murder of children is committed by mothers, not  fathers. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (Washington DC, :GPO, 1999).See: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands97/s7.htm.Child abuse perpetrators are 62.3% female.  Child fatality perpetrators are 62.8% female. The mother/father ratio is actually greater than this, because many of the male abusers counted are not the biological fathers but instead step‑fathers, boyfriends, etc. U.S. Department of Health and Human Servi