Erin O’Dwyer; 9/3/08
A story floats around Sydney’s legal fraternity that only gets better in the telling. In early December 2005, on a crisp summer’s day in Canberra when Federal Parliament was to consider one of the most radical and ambitious social reforms ever, men’s groups from around the country rallied their members to fire off 17,000 emails to politicians and their advisers. Where the story sits on the scale of truth and urban myth is impossible to know, but there is no doubt that the extremely powerful and well-organised fathers’ rights lobby sent their message to the right ears.
See; The Sun Herald; No Internet Text
“One of the regrettable features of society at the present time is that far too many young boys are growing up without proper male role models,” said then prime minister John Howard in 2003, announcing an inquiry into family law “They are not infrequently in the overwhelming care and custody of their mothers. If they do not have older brothers or uncles they closely relate to … many young Australian boys are at the age of 15 or 16 before they have a male role model with whom they can identify”
Initially, at the urging of a coalition of dads groups known as the Festival of Light, the government considered a new system of “rebuttable” joint custody. Courts would presume that children should spend equal time living with each parent.
In the end, new laws introduced in 2006 require courts to consider giving each partner equal time. If not, then “substantial and significant time”. The men didn’t get quite what they wanted, but it was good enough.
“The changes came about via very effective lobbying by men,” says family law specialist Justin Dowd, from Sydney firm Watts McCray. “Some might say that the men’s groups were very happy with the outcomes of all these changes,” says another family lawyer.
Sociologist Dr Elspeth McInnes, from the University of South Australia, goes one step further. “The family law changes reflect in large measure the lobbying goals of the fathers’ rights movement and it’s designed to favour men’s rights agendas,” she says. “That is, to preserve men’s entitlement and choice to determine their involvement post-separation, to minimise their accountability for violence against women, and to minimise child support.”
On the positive side, the changes mean that heart-wrenching Friday night handovers at McDonalds’ car-parks across the country are (almost) a thing of the past. Instead of the every-second-weekend-and-half-the-school-holidays regime that became the norm for a generation of kids, more fathers are winning week-about arrangements. The old catch-cry, “in best interests of the child”, is no longer central to how child custody cases are decided. Instead, there is a presumption that parents will share the care.
It sounds good in theory. But new research published last week shows that shared-care parenting arrangements are breaking down. And it has prompted a growing chorus of family lawyers, academics and mothers’ groups to ask whether the fathers’ rights lobby may have railroaded the family court process.
The research, in the Journal Of Family Studies, found that most children who split their time between divorced parents will end up living with their mothers after a few years. In almost 600 families studied over three years, about half of shared-care arrangements had broken down. Of those who lived with one parent from the beginning, more than 90 per cent were still there three years later. About 80 per cent lived mostly with their mothers, while just 6 per cent lived mostly with their fathers.
A separate study, published in the same journal, found that more parents in high-conflict divorces have shared-care arrangements than other divorcing parents. But three-quarters of those arrangements broke down within a year because the parents could not get along. In 73 per cent of cases, at least one parent reported “almost never” co-operating with the other within four months of leaving court.
In a number of cases, parents had no contact with each other, leaving children to pass messages between the warring pafrs. One in three children were so emotionally distressed that they required professional help.
Side-by-side, the two studies paint an alarming picture. But, says co-author associate professor Bruce Smyth, from the Australian National University, it is too early to tell whether 50-50 parenting was failing parents.
“The rates of shared care are clearly rising,” he says. “Ten years ago it was 3 per cent. In 2005 it was 5 per cent. Now it’s nine or 10. The question is how high are these rates going to go. In the US it’s reached the 20 per cent mark Most researchers are saying it’s too early to tell but anecdotally [the new laws] are heightening fathers’ expectations. Aspirations are racing ahead and we don’t have the data to back it up.”
Smyth is reluctant to comment on the role that militant dads’ groups have played in pushing the new regime, but says that the changes reflect a shift in a society where both men and women want dads to play a bigger role. The breakdown in shared arrangements can also be attributed to one parent moving away or a child changing school, rather than simply conflict and violence. “Shared parenting was inevitable,” he says. “But policy is marching away on a lot of ideas and there is still a lot more we need to know”
University of Wollongong sociologist Michael Flood is one of a few academics researching the rise of father’s rights groups as a backlash against the feminist movement of the 1970s and ’80s. He believes that fathers’ contact with children has been privileged over children’s safety from violence. And he says fathers’ groups ignore the real obstacles to shared parenting, whether it be forgotten homework and missing shoes or children witnessing serious violence between their parents.
“Both government policy and many fathers’ rights groups are guided by two central and mistaken assumptions,” he says. “That is, all children see contact with both parents as in their best interests in every case, and that a violent father is better than no father at all. The achievements of the fathers’ rights movement are already putting women, children and indeed men at greater risk of violence and abuse.”
Dr Elspeth McInnes agrees, saying judges trained in the law rather than in family dynamics now start from a point of equal care and often do not proceed to considering the safety of the children. McInnes believes shared-care parenting agreements are being handed down by the courts to appease angry hurt men, without considering the practical realities. She says in one case the two parents lived 200 kilometres apart, and the child had to go to school in between. She had also seen cases where babies still breastfeeding were split 50-50 between their parents. “The male judge will sit there and say, ‘Can’t you express? There are pumps, you know’.”
Practical realities aside, McInnes of shared-care arrangements had broken down. Of those who lived with one parent from the beginning, more than 90 per cent were still there three years later. About 80 per cent lived mostly with their mothers, while just 6 per cent lived mostly with their fathers.
A separate study, published in the same journal, found that more parents in high-conflict divorces have shared-care arrangements than other divorcing parents. But three-quarters of those arrangements broke down within a year because the parents could not get along. In 73 per cent of cases, at least one parent reported “almost never” co-operating with the other within four months of leaving court. In a number of cases, parents had no contact with each other, leaving children to pass messages between the warring parteners. One in three children were so emotionally distressed that they required professional help.
Side-by-side, the two studies paint an alarming picture. But, says co-author associate professor Bruce Smyth, from the Australian National University, it is too early to tell whether 50-50 parenting was failing parents. “The rates of shared care are clearly rising,” he says. “Ten years ago it was 3 per cent. In 2005 it was 5 per cent. Now it’s nine or 10. The question is how high are these rates going to go. In the US it’s reached the 20 per cent mark Most researchers are saying it’s too early to tell but anecdotally [the new laws] are heightening fathers’ expectations. Aspirations are racing ahead and we don’t have the data to back it up.”
Smyth is reluctant to comment on the role that militant dads’ groups have played in pushing the new regime, but says that the changes reflect a shift in a society where both men and women want dads to play a bigger role. The breakdown in shared arrangements can also be attributed to one parent moving away or a child changing school, rather than simply conflict and violence. “Shared parenting was inevitable,” he says. “But policy is marching away on a lot of ideas and there is still a lot more we need to know”
University of Wollongong sociologist Michael Flood is one of a few academics researching the rise of father’s rights groups as a backlash against the feminist movement of the 1970s and ’80s. He believes that fathers’ contact with children has been privileged over children’s safety from violence.
And he says fathers’ groups ignore the real obstacles to shared parenting, whether it be forgotten homework and missing shoes or children witnessing serious violence between their parents. “Both government policy and many fathers’ rights groups are guided by two central and mistaken assumptions,” he says. “That is, all children see contact with both parents as in their best interests in every case, and that a violent father is better than no father at all. The achievements of the fathers’ rights movement are already putting women, children and indeed men at greater risk of violence and abuse.”
Dr Elspeth McInnes agrees, saying judges trained in the law rather than in family dynamics now start from a point of equal care and often do not proceed to considering the safety of the children. McInnes believes shared-care parenting agreements are being handed down by the courts to appease angry hurt men, without considering the practical realities. She says in one case the two parents lived 200 kilometres apart, and the child had to go to school in between. She had also seen cases where babies still breastfeeding were split 50-50 between their parents. “The male judge will sit there and say, ‘Can’t you express? There are pumps, you know’.”
Practical realities aside, McInnes says courts are ignoring a history of violence in relationships and violent men are being granted equal custody, thanks largely to the power of the father’s lobby. “The principal of shared parenting works best when people can co-operate and be motivated to work for the child,” she says. “Where that occurs, those decisions are usually made by agreement. When you have to go to court to reach agreement, this would be the least likely space where you are going to get good shared-care arrangements.”
The academics might agree, but those working at the grassroots are split. Robyn Cotterell-Jones, from the Victims Of Crime Assistance League (VOCAL), says she sees many women who left violent relationships only to find themselves and their children subject to violence again after family court orders were given.
“There are 43 different mens groups, but women don’t know there are lobby groups until it is too late,” she says. “Too many people are coming forward with very similar stories. A woman who has escaped violence who has very genuine fears runs the risk of losing her children unless she can provide sufficient proof of the violence [that] happened to her.”
Those who work solely with fathers tell a different story. “I only know of a few guys who have got 50-50,” says Phil York, from Dads in Distress. “Most dads are lucky to get Friday afternoon pick up from school and Monday morning drop-off every second weekend.
York believes the new laws have changed things for the better, with fathers having more say during the early stages of separation and in mediation. But he says many men are still settling for second best, especially where there is conflict. “When guys get access that’s half the problem solved,” York says. “When they don’t get access, guys are in full distress. Then they are liable to do silly things like take their own lives.”
Barry Williams, a veteran fathers’ rights crusader whose Lone Fathers Association sent its first shared-care submission to the Federal Government in 1980, believes the new laws work. He points to success stories in California and other parts of the United States, which are questioned by the academics. “I’m running around Australia explaining these things and getting a 70 per cent positive attitude about it,” Williams says. “But it’s the feminist groups who are putting these scare tactics out and the lawyers too. The lawyers are going to lose a lot of money and the feminists just don’t want it. They are scared they are going to lose a bit of child support.”
Musician Colin George, whose moderate Fatherhood Project on the NSW North Coast organises annual music festivals featuring the likes of Pete Murray and John Butler, has sympathy for both sides. George himself has an unusual custody arrangement. He built a house with his ex-partner that has two self-contained units for the parents and a third space in the middle for the children. He says it is a work in progress, and not without its difficulties, but communication and patience are the key.
“We have to accept that some men have been extremely hurt and damaged by the process that was going on in the courts,” he says. “But you have to take things case by case. A presumption of equal parenting is a good step, but it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. There are some men and some women who put their needs above their children’s needs, when we should be looking at the best interests of the child. What I always say to men is you have to be a reasonable man in an unreasonable situation:’
Adapting to a shifting landscape
For more than a decade, Tracey Watson’s* three children spent every second weekend and half the school holidays with their father. “It wasn’t perfect but it worked quite well,” she says. “You have all the structure and the kids are stabilised in one environment.”
Then, four years ago when Watson separated from the father of her fourth child, she agreed to a 50-50 split. It was typical of the shifting landscape of Australian divorce law. But the arrangement didn’t work.
“With shared care, children have to try to adapt to alternative structures,” she says. “It’s one structure here, one structure there and they don’t get the consistency that a kid needs. “My son loses things, and he wets the bed. He’s anxious. Every morning he has to ask who he’s with and what’s happening and what’s going on. At seven, I’ve only just got him to spend half the night in his own bed.”
Recently, Watson renegotiated with her expartner for their son to spend nine days with her and five days with him. She hopes that will work better, but says there should be more emphasis in the legal system on parents’ strengths rather than equality.
“I don’t know of anyone who has a shared care arrangement who doesn’t have conflict,” she says. “If the shoes get left behind, it becomes a drama. If something needs to be done I pickup the tab and that’s not shared parenting. “I’m good with structure, my ex-partner is the fun dad. In the 50-50 split each parent ends up doing things that they are good at and that they are not so good at, instead of being divided up according to people’s strengths, which is what happens in a marriage.”
* Real name withheld
The initiative taken for the concern is very serious and needs an attention of everyone. This is the concern which exists in the society and needs to be eliminated from the society as soon as possible.
I have a friend who’s ex has moved away, the Family Court says it is OK for the seven year old boy to go to two schools, two weeks at each one. He is losing weight, getting into trouble at school and is obviously miserable. The father appears to only want the children so he can claim the family payment and not have to work.
The judge says the child will adapt and the father has as much right to the kids as the mother, but this particular father is not looking after the children properly. The mother has to look on helplessly while her beautiful little boy becomes increasingly sad and angry.
Isn’t it about time that women and men that are experiencing the practical diificulties in this “impractical/torn between parents” “shared care” arrangement, step up and start lobbying against this?
The above statistical data suggests that it is clearly not working and that parents’ issues and rights are effectively put above the welfare of the children. No one is trying to deny either parent access to the children, the debate should be, how beneficial is this arrangement to the children’s psychological and social well being.
More research and supporting evidence should be gathered as to the effects of entirely different structures and routines, questionable standards of physical care, attendance of extra mural ativities due to unco- operative “co” parenting in the seperated households, etc on the children. Not too mention different work schedules of the parents involved, coupled with different week about arrangements subject to either parent’s level of cooperation are enough to leave an adult reeling…how much worse and disruptive is this for the children caught up in this?
In situations where there is a minimum level of conflict between divorced parties, co-operative parenting measures in place, the “shared care” arrangement might be workable and in the interest of the children, to have the best of both worlds. However in most divorce cases there remain a moderate to high level of conflict post divorce and this coupled with disruptive and emotionally unsettling week about living routines could not possibly “be in the interest of the children”?
If there are other parents out there feeling as strongly in disagreement that in high conflict situations divorce cases “shared care” does not work, please step forward and respond to this post. Together we can really start acting in the interest of children that are subjected to this psychologically damaging arrangement that are in place in some cases. Let us speak up for the children suffering in all this and request a review of the practical workability of this outcome decided by courts, who are supposed to protect the most vulnerable ie the children., not subject them to weekly trauma and disruption.
Dads and moms who agree that it is not working and it should be addressed at the highest level, PLEASE RESPOND!!
How do we stop this? My 2 1/2 year old daughter has just been forced into a 50/50 shared custody with a 5 and 2 schedule. She has only been away from me for 30 hours and is now forced to endure 5 nights and 6 days away from her mother. Her father refuses to speak to me and treats me as if I am dead. He also ships our daughter off to his mothers for “his” time. The court has rewarded him for his refusal to communicate. They also awarded a disproportunate share of assets and child support. All they care about is that the fathers receive 50 of the property. What can we do? It is heart breaking to see my daughter suffer like this. She has no schedule, he mother, home, everything has been taken from her. Her homebase has been taken from her. She is too young for phone contact and does not understand. She is emotionally and physically exhasted. How do we stop this?
Not sure if you’ll see this, but my daughter was just ordered the same thing. She’s almost 2 and has never spent more than 8 hours at a time with her father. The judge didn’t listen to anything and handed off a 5/2 plan without any adjustment period. She’s Never been away from me overnight and is highly attached to me.. There are issues with her father, but that’s just too much to get in to.
It’s not about the best interest of the children. It’s about equal parenting rights. Shame on adults who aren’t putting the needs of the children first.
I’m completely devastated and don’t know where to go from here.
Clearly the law sucks when it comes down to What’s best for children, especially when that child has only known 1 parent from the start!!!!!!!
This arguments should be focus base on how and what the children are feeling.
They say “Children Matters” and yet the children have no say in regards where or who they want to be….
My daughter has restless sleep, she has nightmares and cries in her sleep,calling out for me,whenever I prepare her, for when its time for her to spend that time with her dad.
She is so stressed out because of all this. She doesn’t want to have that time with her dad, she just wants to be with me..
Children, especially at a young age, should have a say to all of these. The law should not be forcing children at a young aged, to be with people they do not feel comfortable with, especially if children only sees the other parent one weekend a month.
It is not in their best interest, if children are suffering, mentally and physically….cause i know my daughter is physically and mentally exhaisted….Children should be heard…..
And as for the exes, if you really do love your children
and really want whats best for them, then started thinking and let them be where they want to be for now, cause in the long run, its not the parents that are going or will be suffering….its THE CHILDREN……
Its the right thing to do, if you really do care and love your children…cause you know what?, in due time, children will always look for the other parent no matter what, you just need to be patient….cause that’s what it takes to be a parent…
And as for the people who brought this stupid law….clearly you are not in our position, because if you are, you would know how us single parent feel,and would feel how our children are feeling right now……
“And he says fathers’ groups ignore the real obstacles to shared parenting, whether it be forgotten homework and missing shoes or children witnessing serious violence between their parents.”
I call massive bs. It’s not as if people are now left unprotected from a violent partner.
I also call massive bias. By the tone of this writing it’s clearly still assumed that women are all perfect parents – yeah right! It also clearly forgets to mention which gender is most represented among the parents who said they never co-operate with their ex-partner.
All up it’s been a long time since I have read such zenophobic rubbish as this…
The parents don’t need rights, the children do. There is a reason that men do not have babies. Why do they feel they are equal parents? They are not. Young children need very different care than older children. There is no way around the fact that children have a primary caregiver. You take that from them and you are adversly effecting them for their lives. Children need a homebase, stability, routine and consistency. They need nurturing love. If a father really loved their child they would make sure they had this. That’s why the non-contested divoces do not end up in a 50/50 because the dads that really care make sure their children have what they need. They put the childrens needs first.
Fathers have the capability to be just as loving and give a child just as good as an environment to grow up in as a mother can, sometimes even better. My partner has 2 beautiful children whom live with us 50% of the time … 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off. These children are so much better looked after, dressed, fed etc. when they are with us then when they spend time with their mother, even her family has said that they would prefer them to be with us the majority of the time. Yet every lawyer we have been to has said that if we take it to court they will more then likely end up with their mother because the courts like the children to be with their mother. Even if they are not adequately cared for? I see a real problem with that? Just because a woman has given birth to a child does not mean that they are more capable of being an adequate parent and certainly doesn’t mean that they can love a child more than a father can.
tspoon – that may be because there is no such thing as zenophobic, you may mean xenophobic which means to hate people, cultures or things from other countries??
Speaking of which, since time recorded – in all cultures and across almost every species of animal on the planet as well as human beings… females raise and nurture small children. There IS a reason for this. Sometimes, yes, there are fathers who do manage to do the task of raising chilren, and sometimes some mothers don’t. These cases are usually the exception, not the general rule. And actually, during pregnancy and lactation, mothers due experience hormonal changes designed for and resulting in the creation of a greater emotional empathy and attachment to her child. This is well documented. So yes giving birth does result in a greater love and bond with the child, and with the child for its mother. When men can carry a baby, and bring it into this world – let them then have their “equality”.
Until then let the best interests of the child predominate discussion over custody, on a case by case basis.
I absolutely agree that shared parenting doesn’t work if one of the parents is less functional than the other. The shuttling is stressful for the children, who need continuity and stability. Quality of the time is much more important than quantity. Consider that one important “aha!” moment can have more of an effect on you than thousands of hours of normality, as necessary as normality is. If the less functional parent can make their time with the child very special, they don’t need to ruin the regularity of a child’s life by injecting chaos into the child’s life routines.
This Law change was a GODSEND for kids (for their relationship with their Dads)… not to ‘win’ anything but for their CHILDREN – to have quality time with them again, and to encourage fathers BACK into the lives of their children and PARENT.
This Law change meant that now THOUSANDS of Children in Australia are NOT growing up WITHOUT a father… This WAS the case with the neathandethal Family Court (80/20) rules of the past (80/20 meaning the ‘default ‘Cookie-Cutter’ Family Court Orders of 80% to Mum, 20% to dad and that WAS TIME based back then!!)
Issues of VIOLENCE or ABUSE (and that goes BOTH ways too – i.e: EMOTIONAL Abuse) was STILL catered for as a safety valve. Corner cases will always be an issue of course, but now the MAJORITY of families are getting along better (because they HAVE to). They can no longer ‘use’ kids as ‘PAWNS’ for better FINANCIAL outcomes or to abuse the other parent emotionally because they have their own emotional issues.
This law MUST be protected otherwise we go back to the stalin days of ‘terms of the state’ – Custody, and Access, then Residency and Contact…. i.e: Contact/Access visits for a Father.
We would create what WAS a new ‘stolen generation’…. The glassy-eyed kids with an anger and ‘street smarts’ living in a cold/frigid hell of a sole parent life and told stories about the other parent. One parent (often their father) becoming a more and more distant stranger and one where the other parent could easily lie and alienate them about supposed actions of the past.
HOW do you build and foster a loving environment WITHOUT the TIME and freedom with your children. To teach and show your children you MORALS, DISCPLINE, FUN, BOUNDARIES, to BOND and show how a father CAN be – WITHOUT any substantial TIME for your children to be with BOTH parents??
They also need their MOTHER 100% of the time they are with her too.
This change was FOR children and it must remain because they are right – the NEEDS of children DO outweigh the needs of parents… It’s just that now some ‘groups’ don’t have any justification to exist, or to get funding!
Very sad when kids are the weapon they choose.
VOTE Liberal if Rudd chooses to rip families apart again (A Family CAN be a single parent family too)
- From a LOVING (Doting) Father of 6 years in shared-care – as a direct RESULT of this change (and going STRONG!!)
What a remarkably sexist article.
The underlying presumptions are obvious to everyone but the writer and those women who see their children as their property, not as children of two parents.
Look back at this rubbish piece of journalism and you will see presumptions that somehow men are unfitto be parents, but women has some kind of mythical ability simply because of their gender.
The truth of course, that almost 80% of all child abuse occurs in single mother households, is conveniently ignored.
The truth of course, that mothers are responsible for more child deaths than any other group in society, is conveniently ignored.
The truth of course, that mothers groups are fighting not for the child’s best interests, but for their own self interest, is conveniently camouflaged with this pure fantasy that only mothers know what is best for children, and that fathers are somehow incompetent.
Pure folly, and simply shows that the groups that see abortion as solely as owmans rights issue (conveniently ignoring the righst of the unborn child), also see shared care as a womens rights issue (conveniently ignoring the rights of children).
Can you please tell me where the statical info re “Almost 80% of all child abuse occurs in sinlgle mother households?” I’m very interested in this.
Hmm, I didn’t actually see any of what you are claiming in the article.
All we want is what is best for the children.
Competent fathers should be able to have joint custody, if the kids cope well. However, it seems that most non-controlling and non-violent men don’t mind the kids being primarily with the mother (I have friends like that – they LOVE their kids and know they do best with their mum). Research shows that abusive men litigate for sole custody at a higher rate than non-abusive men, so its seems they do treat them like property. Which is part of the abusive mentality – family members are just property.
In an ideal world, I would love for the father of my kids to have more time, and have given him more time than I feel comfortable with. He is unhappy and wants a lot more contact, accusing me of parental alienation. But he has a criminal record when it comes to domestic violence and assault of kids. I am still forced to go through mediation, even though he can intimidate not just me, but the mediators too, who are trying to get me to appease him so he doesn’t screw me in court.
I know from the experience of friends and reading the Family Court judgments that if we went to court, he would get a lot more time than the children want. He would probably get Friday night to Monday drop-off every other weekend and a few hours in between. He wants more, I want less.
Why does he want more? To prove that he is a good dad. He thinks he owns them and he has a right to have them. He probably thinks they will suffer without him.
Why do I want less? Because my children are already traumatized and spending more time when I am not there will be detrimental to them. At least when we were together they could come to me. Now they see him unsupervised there are no restraints.
There are no safety nets for abuse. His lawyer told me that domestic violence is not something one can prove and his assault will not stop him getting time with the kids. I can’t get a restraining order now because we have separated and incidents more than 6 months ago don’t count.
Ash, I don’t know about mothers being more responsible than child deaths than any other group, I just know that if the kids get shared care, they are more at risk at physical and psychological harm than if they were with me. Heck, they are already suffering from soul murder and years of putdowns, invalidation, mistreatment, etc.
They are now healing and if I allow their father to have more contact with them, society will pay the price. Angry young people, unable to trust adults because they were never protected, boys who will abuse their wives, girls who will either quietly submit to abuse or hate men because of what their father did to them – all because some policy-makers thought they needed their father. Actually, some lobby groups I should say…
PS – I LOVE my father. And my brother. And my brother-in-laws. They’re great dads. Their wives think so too.
i believe that whatever the parent’s gender the child’s needs must be put first. i think a system that can assess where a child should spend most of their time without things having to get to breaking point to be accesssed would be appreciated.
i think for the most part today’s females have had more training/ sociolisation in early childhood care than men and that men in general have a lot to learn about nurturing. i do know of some men who are better than there ex’s at nurturing and who are the primary caregiver though.
i think that most young children need more time with their mothers and that that probably changes as the child ages. ie the need for the father can become just as important and in some cases more important eg adolescent males.
we need more research and more services to help families with these critical decisions..
Most of these comment still express an ‘us and them’ mentality, i.e. women vs men, fathers vs mothers, who is or is not the better parent, BEFORE they state the best interests of the child.
This is the heart of the matter.
With so much blame and mud slinging caking over our eyes, how can we see clearly what the real issue is?
The real issue is the children, their health, SAFETY and well-being.
I have no problem with genuine concerned fathers joining together as a support/lobby group for equal rights and shared parenting. However, it has swung too far and children are often put in dangerous situations because of the presumption of shared care and the many myths that are perpetuated in the culture of family law professionals and mens lobby groups towards the motives of concerned mothers.
What I would like to see is that men, fathers, all of societies male role models join forces with protective mothers as one united group of PROTECTIVE PARENTS. Men need to speak out against the dangers children face when being forced into the homes of peadofiles or violent/abusive people.
Let the good men speak.
And lets put aside all our of pitiful ‘what about me’ rhetoric
To all genuine single parents, who are truly all for the well-being of their child, who has been there for them 24/7, with all the sleepless nights because their child are running a temperature of 39 degrees…i commend you…..
As for the real genuine, concerned ex-partners, why not let the children be where they are happy and well cared for….yeah, be involve, to a point where children are not force to be unhappy and unsettled….let them know that you are there for them…so don’t let them feel unhappy….because you know what? your children WILL look for you when they are ready and have a better understanding of what is happening….let them come to you….don’t let this stupid law of ours dictate how our children should be raise…they are not some property that can be divided and recorded on a piece of paper…they are human beings, innocent ones, who has feelings….they are the ones that are suffering thru all of these….cause this is not about us….IT IS ABOUT OUR CHILDREN…THEIR SAFETY….THEIR HEALTH…THEIR WELL-BEING…
I am a single mother who just wants to know WHY is there any need to go this far and placing our childrens lives in the hands of whoever….
PLEASE…START TAKING THE CHILDREN SERIOUSLY AND LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY….THEY ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PEOPLE HERE….NOT YOU NOR ME….GIVE THE CHILDREN A BREAK…LET SUPPORT EACH OTHER WHEN IT COMES TO OUR CHILDREN….
I am the result of shared parenting. It was enforced because my father pushed it when my parents divorced when I was 13.
I am left with an anxiety disorder and I will NEVER forgive my father for pushing his desire to see me over my need for consistency and a normal life.
I was never able to make ‘best’ friends because I was never around! With one week on and one weekend off I could never be counted on by my friends. Sleepovers were impossible. I travelled for hours to see my father, away from my extra curricular activities while his life barely changed at all.
All this was done after a violence free relationship and fairly amicable split by my parents.
The fathers in Australia can look forward to their children HATING them for what they’ve done.
Good on you Mens’ groups. By the way, do you think your daughter is going to be proud of the fact her father ignored basic evolutionary science to get his own way? HAHAHAHAHA.
Our wee grandaughter becomes very upset when it is time to leave her dad after their bi weekend access. While it is not always practical nor beneficial for a child to equal time with each parent it must be recognised that too little time is not good either. Here in the Uk every second weekend and if your lucky a couple of hours in the week in between is the norm. It would be best if the starting place were 50/50 but the actual division of time be considered by court dependent on the individual circumstances. Where a father is willing to relocate to be near his child and the child then does not have to go between two schools and such. The answer does not lie in reverting back to having parents inequal that in itself benefits no one.
How many of these dads fighting for shared-care actually spend that time with thier kids, I wonder?
My son’s 3.5 and we’ve been co-parenting for 18months. (4 nights per week with me). At my ex-partners insistence.
My ex-partner works very long hours and relies on his partner to look after my son before and after creche. A few months ago my son told me she hit him in the face, and he talked to me about it a few times, and also told my sister. But CYFS waited a full month before talking to him, and by then he hadn’t spoken of it for weeks.
I’ve given up my career so I can be with him constantly during the days he’s with me.
We’re going into lawyer-led mediation shortly (at his insistence, even though I’ve done nothing wrong but try to protect my child!)
I’ll be aiming for my son to stay with me weekdays, and with his dad weekends.
Wish me luck…
Just as a side note..I think the only way to make a change is by lobbying just as the mens groups can. It’s a shame so-called feminists are too busy organising ‘Slutwalks’ which are not practical help to anyone