A very rare look at the state of family law in the U.K. and almost
supportive of dads left out on the margins. The author thinks dads in
Batman costumes are extremists. That's an interesting commentary on
peaceful demonstrators taking direct action against what she now
perceives as grossly unfair. If dads protesting peacefully are
extremists what then are Tamils taking over cities and disrupting life,
students at the University of Ottawa (substitute Obsequiousness for
Ottawa) denying Ann Coulter free speech through intimidation and damage,
and better yet terrorists blowing up tube stations.
Could
the BBC series discussed in the column be a history making or changing
program? We'll need to wait and see but it sounds hopeful.
I left the following comments on site:
The specter of DV or sexual abuse by dads is the fallacious canard always
trotted out by those who would not want to share custody with 50% of a
child's genetic heritage. They often use cherry picked studies by
pro-feminist academics whose conclusions are pre-determined before the
study begins.
The facts are a child is safest in a two parent biological family,
then with the biological father and then the biological mother. Single
Mums are the most abusive to children in most western democracies.
In many recent studies on intimate partner violence it not only
shows it is roughly equal between genders but in a large USA study
showed 70% of initiation was at the hands of the female. Other studies
clearly show if the woman does not initiate they will be injured less.
The best interest of the child requires both parents in their lives.
Those who would say Obama had a single mom I would reply yes he did
but he was largely raised by his grand parents. How many children given
to single mums has that happened to and dad denied access?
Single moms who work and still deny dad access are incredibly
selfish, alienating and narcissistic. They not only deny access to dad
but the child's paternal heritage including grand parents.
The author thinks dads in Batman costumes are extremists. That's an
interesting commentary on peaceful demonstrators taking direct action
against what she now perceives as grossly unfair. If dads protesting
peacefully are extremists what then are Tamils taking over cities and
disrupting life, students at the University of Ottawa (substitute
Obsequiousness for Ottawa) denying Ann Coulter free speech through
intimidation and damage, and better yet terrorists blowing up tube
stations
MJM
A new BBC series explores the reasons why
fathers lose touch with their children post-separation. Cassandra
Jardine investigates.
By Cassandra Jardine
Published: 7:00AM GMT 27
Mar 2010
Comments
16
|
Watching a preview of next week’s BBC series Who
Needs Fathers?, I felt ashamed to be a woman. The men on the
programme appeared to be loving, attentive fathers – not extremists
in Batman costumes. All they wanted was to play their part in the
upbringing of their children. But, at every turn, it seemed,
vengeful, short-sighted women were selfishly trying to thwart them.
These
mothers cancelled contact arrangements, scuppered telephone calls,
made false allegations of abuse, and prevented the men taking their
children on holiday. “Honestly, I feel like throwing in the towel,”
said one tearful father, who sat in his car outside his ex’s front
door, waiting in vain for the children to come out. Only an
emergency court order won him the day.
Not
only did these women want total control of the children – believing
their love was enough – they also expected their exes to keep them in
the style to which they had become accustomed, while the men lived
in cramped bedsits. When one man finally manages to remortgage his
own home to keep a working mother in hers, her response is: “OK, so I
can book a holiday.”
The programmes not only seek to
explain why 40 per cent of fathers lose touch with their children
within two years of divorce – the figure is likely to be even higher
when unmarried parents separate – but also why this matters.
Looking at the confused faces of children being fought over by parents
like favourite toys, it was not difficult to imagine what might
happen when they grew into teenagers, unsure about their loyalties
and identities. Indeed, in the third programme, we see fatherless
teenagers behaving appallingly.
The prospects for
children who don’t see their fathers are bleak, according to a
Unicef report in 2007. Educationally, they do less well. They are more
likely to get in trouble with the police, and to abuse drugs and
alcohol. They also find it more difficult to form relationships. If
Broken Britain – that over-used moral call to arms – has roots, they
lie in broken homes.
A third of children are now
growing up without parents living under the same roof. Each of the
150,000 to 200,000 separations per year is a source of sadness for
the children involved, children who yearn – however unrealistically –
for mummy and daddy to live together happily ever after. But those
partings can be handled more or less well. “The emotionally healthy
18 year-olds,” says Judge Nicholas Crichton, who works in the family
courts, “are those who can say, 'Whatever happened between my parents,
I knew I was loved and that I was free to love both parents without
feeling guilty.’?”
Too few children are growing up
with that balance. Ninety three per cent of children live with their
mother after a separation, and half then lose touch with the
non-resident parent. That’s a tragedy not only for the fathers, but
for the grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins who would otherwise
provide a support network for those children.
Acrimony
is unavoidable when relationships end, but some couples, such as
Chris and Angela in the first programme, succeed in suppressing their
irritation with one another for the sake of their children. Why then
do so many children lose a parent to this game of bitterness and
revenge?
“Henry” (not his real name), who is seen in
the second programme, tells me he blames a court system that is
biased against fathers, as well as being expensive, slow and
ineffectual. When his daughter was born, Henry wanted to be
involved, even though he had subsequently married. In return for
maintenance, he saw his daughter alternate weekends and took her on
holiday. “She was a massive part of my life,” he says. “Then her
mother decided to live abroad.”
He fought the move
but, as in 99 per cent of cases, the mother won in court. “All a
woman has to say is that refusal will psychologically damage her.
There’s a view that whatever is in the mother’s interests is also in
the child’s interests, even though nine out of 10 non-resident
parents then lose touch.”
Henry did not wish to be
one of them, but despite a “mirror order” giving him visiting rights
and regular contact, he has had to fight for every glimpse and
chat, at a cost of £70,000, putting considerable strain on his
marriage. “When we meet it’s wonderful, but it’s hard to slot into a
role if you haven’t seen a child regularly.”
During
the whole court process he felt “like the puppet in the hands of a
puppeteer”. He says: “I can understand why mothers use whatever power
is at their disposal, but there was an imbalance.” Many fathers feel
the same. “In order to be considered equal, you have to be twice as
good,” says Simon Ramet, who has fought for half his child’s time.
“The
courts are still stuck in a 1950s paradigm of mothers doing the
caring, and fathers doing the earning,” says John Davies, chief
executive of Families Need Fathers.
Women are also
more likely to get legal aid than fathers, who have to weigh up the
cost of pursuing a case against the fear that the longer they go
without seeing a child, the weaker their case for maintaining contact
becomes. “As few parents with young children can afford it, access
to the law often depends on having wealthy parents. It tends to be a
middle-class privilege,” says Sara Feilden, producer for Films of
Record, who made the BBC series.
Despite fears that
speaking out will harm participants’ contact arrangements, Fielden
is glad to have found the brief window of opportunity in which to
tell their stories. Last year, it became legal to report on the family
courts, but a Bill is going through Parliament that would make it
impossible, once again, to film people who have been involved in family
legal disputes. “It’s unlikely that we would ever again be able to
make a programme about this important issue,” she says.
The
men filmed are eager to highlight the shortcomings of an overburdened
legal system. Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and
Support Service), which appoints guardians to represent the child’s
interests, is so stretched that it can take nine months to produce a
report. When allegations of misconduct are made, contact is rightly
refused until they have been investigated. But sometimes they are
purely vexatious.
Families Need Fathers is fighting
for a number of changes on behalf of all non-resident parents,
mothers as well as fathers. These include publication of judgments
so parents know what to expect (and may therefore avoid court),
sanctions for those who make false allegations, and financial
recognition that non-resident parents also have to maintain a home
suitable for their children to visit.
The current
system finds favour with few, least of all those whose lives are
dominated by endless hearings and court orders. “You should be
reasonable when splitting up,” says Juliette Thomas, who was brave
enough to defend on air her reluctance to allow Alex, her ex, his
share of their four sons’ time: she claimed lack of clarity in his
plans. Unable to agree, the court process has made the gulf between
them wider and Alex resentful.
Family breakdown is not
unique to the UK, but some countries seem to handle it better. In
Australia, an assumption of shared parenting was introduced four
years ago, backed up by family centres where separating couples could
be given information and counselling on sharing their children. More
children are now staying in contact with both parents as a result.
Dr
Mandy Bryon, chief psychologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital, tells
parents: “Whether you like it or not, you will remain in a
relationship with one another as parents of your children.” To
prepare for that, she believes couples need to acknowledge the
errors in thinking that occur when people are angry and upset, and
to anticipate the problems that cause flare- ups – late delivery
back, changes of plans, and so on.
“If parents are
living together and a child comes back from a visit to the park with
the father in tears, the mother will try to reassure both parties.
If they are separated she will say, 'Never again.’ The father might ask
the child not to tell Mummy. Then, when the child blurts out what
Daddy said, the mother thinks something sinister is going on.”
Judge
Crichton already sends many parents on courses to learn about sharing.
If we adopted a system similar to the Australian one, that would be
compulsory before a couple go to court. “A good thing too,” he says,
“as the courts are not the best place to sort these matters out.”
Both
the Labour and Conservative parties have reviewed the family-law
system. Henry Bellingham, shadow justice minister, talks of
introducing automatic shared contact, if the Conservatives are
elected, and using Sue Start centres for counselling. Looking at the
worried eyes of children caught up in disputes that they don’t
understand, change can’t come too soon.
'Who
Needs Fathers’ starts on BBC Two at 9pm next Wednesday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/7528771/Agony-of-the-frozen-out-fathers.html
Eric Kyle, a divorced father of two 
Posts
