I think you’re adopting a very scary attitude with respect to inequality.

“in any case, in a world where women are overwhelmingly more likely to be paid less, be victims of violence and have no or little political power, I’m not sure that cries of sexism against men have much weight.”

I’m a firm believer in equality sex, sexuality, race, creed etc., and because of this I find your statement above extremely offensive.

Yes, there are problems of domestic violence, men are more physically powerful that women and if men can’t handle that difference then they need to be bought to book and punished, punitively! Men and women should stand shoulder to shoulder to remove this tumour on society.

Yes, there are problems with equality of pay and power, but we need to work shoulder to shoulder to wipe out this inequality.

Part of this problem is societies attitude with respect to children and their care. If it forever seen that women are solely responsible for childcare then women will never achieve equality in the workplace – they simply won’t be there to achieve the promotions, or they will be discriminated against because there will be a perception that at some point they will disappear from the working environment.

If childcare and child rearing became a level playing field for men and women then this would in part ameliorate these real problems and faulty perceptions.

Equal rights for men should become a feminist campaign.

PS. You seem to perceive that all men commit domestic violence, this is an extreme faulty perception

The thing that both miss in this argument is the example given by parents to their children. That example is, quite specifically, that the best interests of the child are paramount.

It is about the worst example I could think of giving a child - it basically serves to inculcate selfishness from the earliest age. That cannot be in a child’s best interests. Neither can the example of distressed parents treated like the proverbial, as though they had no rights, not to mention the effect this has on a child’s perception of the roles of men and women in their lives.

So, it’s the legal fact of making the interests of parents subsidiary to those of children, and the legal fact of having one parent treated as second class which militate very precisely against the child’s best interests. It’s the ignorance of the family rights of all members which, unsurprisingly, causes so much destruction of families.

F4J - and apparently this blog’s owner, don’t agree with me on this, according to their words, although I think they could be persuaded to see reason if they were to learn to communicate in real debate.

But what has happened is in reality that families have been made into a human rights-free zone, a civil rights-free zone, a constitutional rights-free zone - and this is causing society to unravel very quickly, with adults who are no longer allowed to exercise resonsibility acting increasingly like the spoilt children they have been brought up as.

It is absolutely crucial to rein in the discretion of judges and other officials to destroy families without due cause - to create some legal certainty for all family members in the rights of children and their parents to have a relationship with each other. This cannot be done if the judge believes that it is his or her paramount duty to decide the best interests of a child, merely because he or she is asked to do so by one party to a dispute.

Children themselves cannot occupy two positions simultaneously, at one and the same time quite obviously having their lives decided by adults and being made to believe they have a legal say in who they live with. Under such conditions their own parents often become irrelevant.

There is going to be no general agreement on how to look after one’s children - what are their children’s best interests, because one of the joys of human family life is its variability.

The law can simply set parameters, of what is criminal and what is not, as it does in every other aspect of our lives, and ensure that children are not taken away from their own parents against their will. I can see no justification for the use of the bodies of children as instruments of punishment or conditioning of adults, by law.

I simply despise the pseudo-love of children that emanates from every pore of the tyranny over our families that has been created, and all the while, the unremitting attack on parents, egged on by professionals, the media and politicians. The denial of contact with our children under conditions of basic human dignity makes such child-centredness utter cant - you cannot care for your children if you aren’t there.

Ah, you sweet-talking flatterer, you!

“No-one on this thread has yet to answer my question about shared parenting, which is this: you can have one presumption - the overriding interests of the children - or two.”

Not exactly true, you can have as many presumptions as you like, but only one which is paramount. Court orders are based on any number of presumptions made by CAFCASS and judges.

There are two main problems with the paramountcy principle. The first is that in some circumstances, promoting the best interests of one child can damage those of another, for example in the complicated domestic arrangements where there are half-siblings, step-children or even both. It also encourages some professionals involved, such as CAFCASS case workers, not to look beyond the limited interests of one particular child. Sometimes this leads to horrific situations where siblings end up never seeing each other. I would suggest looking further than the interests of a single child to those of the family as a whole.

Secondly what the ‘best interests’ of the child are is not legally defined – and the welfare check list doesn’t help much. At best this means that a wide variety of interpretations are used in the courts; at worst it means the principle is discarded entirely because without definition it is largely meaningless.

I would also question the idea that any principle should be paramount. The 1989 Act actually contains two other fundamental principles: one that unnecessary delay should be avoided, and the other that no order should be made unless necessary. Both are routinely ignored; the number of orders dropped dramatically initially but has risen since to pre-Act levels and delay is regularly used to tactical advantage.

It is not suggested that the principle of shared parenting should become paramount, merely that it should become one of the several principles on which orders are made, and specifically that it should replace the current principle – in practice if not in legislation – of sole parenting.

Most orders are made for sole residence, usually with the mother, and not for shared residence. The effect of that is to relegate the non-resident parent to second-class status and usually to damage the child’s relationship to the point where it decays entirely. It also inevitably and unnecessarily creates the need for a second court order for contact.

What we are saying is that a child’s best interests are better served by maintaining a relationship with both parents after divorce or separation than by severing one of those relationships. If you honestly disagree with that, please explain why - I should love to know, and am well aware that many share your view. I have yet to read an honest explanation, rather than one which uses false statistics on domestic violence or child abuse for justification. If there are real arguments, let’s hear them; I have heard, for example, that Stephen Gilmore of Oxford University has argued cogently against shared parenting – I haven’t read his work yet, and of course he is wrong (!), but it would be interesting to hear his case or any other if intelligently argued.

just wonderd if you was intrested in a song i have written for kids who have been seperated from there fathers, i am hopeing it will get some familys back together.and maybe help some kids & adults understand what happens during seperation and all that type of thing. the words are straight from the hart, as i have not been allowed to see my kids of 3 & 6. for 2 and half years.due to me leaving ther mother, but thats another story.so i am just a builder trying to be possitve & was hopeing i might be able to earn some money for a kids charity or hospice. so if you no anyone or could help in anyway, it would be much appreciated, the song is on my space

http://www.myspace.com/worldofstanton

thanks
rob

Its comical how the writer bleets on about money. When the members of father 4 justice members are more concerned with the welfare of their children.

Frankly your article is so one sided and a total uneducated shoot from the hip.

Many mothers do see the children as objects and possesions. They will use the children to get at their ex. Not all my mother behave in this manner. The trouble is when a mother behaves with the intent of alienating the child from her parent, the law of the land protects these self centered parents above the the welfare of the child. Isn’t that wrong?

Think of equality and mutual up bringing not a one sided slagging match and wheres my child support… The child is the import person here, and giving that child a well balanced up bringing is so important.

Its a question of principle..

Then you don’t really have a problem, do you. If you are paying your share, the state need only be involved if the mother wishes to claim state benefits, and then it only need be involved so far as to ensure that you aren’t short-changing her and so placing an unnecessary burden on the public purse.

As for the first part, I am happy for the consequences, even when the ladies lie about contraception (I expect them to do that!) therefore dont make “mistakes” and no, I dont expect anyone to replace my responsibilities in any way..

That is why I dont expect the state to tell me what I should be doing when I am quite capable of doing the decent thing myself!

The state provides for mothers and children who dont want to live with the childrens fathers quite sufficiently to avoid death! If there is no need for a father, there is no need for any part of him, including his money..

In other words, you want the sex, but you don’t want the consequences, so you want me and the rest of the taxpayers to pay for your mistakes for you?

Choose carefully who you breed with!

Well, quite. Children are a big responsibility, and shouldn’t be undertaken lightly. It isn’t sensible to have a child with someone six months after you first met them (assuming contemporary western ideas about divorce etc.), and children shouldn’t come as much of a surprise - their cause is rather well known.

A significant number of relationships break up in the first couple of years of a child’s life, and many of those children will have been conceived rather early in the relationship. There are bad consequences for everyone involved - one parent (usually the mother) ends up having to raise the child as a single parent, which is hard work and bad for your career prospects. The other parent has to pay out a substantial sum of money to support (usually his) child, and as a consequence of the ex-family now requiring two households, the standard of living of both partners will be rather lower than it would be had they remained together. The child only gets to live with one parent, probably has infrequent contact with the other parent, and a result of a less emotionally secure upbringing is more likely to encounter problems in adolesence.

Children are for life…