Fair enough. This thing is more difficult for the courts to deal with than I even realised. I did click the link and what does seem to also be clear is that there are many different types of circumstances with the cases that go to court, and there is not 'one' story - so to speak, with cases where the ruling is to put the children into the father's care where the mother is obstructing contact - so hope for you yet going the court route Le Moor. You could get custody never mind visitation if she p!sses off the wrong judge.

These cases in the link also highlight the importance of resolving issues without it going so far as to end up in court. I can bet there are far more men in court crying over court orders that are not being enforced than would need to be if they would have just been able to humble themselves, use their brains and try to work things out amicably with the BM using honey rather than vinegar. Depending on the woman you're dealing with, the more nasty and ignorant you get is the more nasty and ignorant she's going to get. The more you try to hurt her (through words or actions) is the more she's going to try to hurt you, and if that means using your child as the weapon - they are willing to do that.

Also the link does refer to a "small group of obdurate women" who defy the law in this way but there is no indication from this link that this is a widespread issue that is usual for most child contact cases - although it could be that the cases which reach court are the tip of an iceberg.

Still... I will maintain that for the vast majority of absent fathers, the decision not to see much if anything of their children and not to offer much or anything in the way of CHILD SUPPORT is a personal choice which is often against what the children's mother would like to happen. Anyone in any doubt at all, do a straw poll amongst the women you know raising children alone and assess the stories they give you with an open mind. I'm sure you'll find that most want nothing more than for their children to have a good relationship with the father; some do have that situation and a lot do not through no real fault of their own - unless you count selecting a dud BF.

For the other fathers who DO want a relationship with their child and who face opposition, again - is there no way you can compromise or co-operate with BM's wishes to get what you want? It would seem you are better off doing this than paying money for a lawyer to go to court and fight it out there, or paying for a hitman to maim or kill the woman.

So yes the situation can be bleak for an absent father seeking contact, and even the courts cannot make someone do something they don't want to it seems. Which I guess is why the article concludes: Ultimately, however, Munby J is right to observe that it is “idle to imagine that even the best system can overcome all problems”. It will not.

So there it is, said by the lawyers themselves: even the best system won't be able to deal with all problems. No system can beat good old fashioned heart-to-heart reasoning so instead of relying on an inadequate system to sort out their family business, more parents need to just leave their egos at the door and deal with their former intimate partner the way they would want someone to deal with someone they had love and respect for.

The fact that a system cannot always make everything right is also why men who don't want to fall victim to this kind of thing should be mindful of how they handle women who have their children, and also what type of women they impregnate.

Being careful and selecting wisely can't always prevent difficulties down the line, but at least if you are mindful in how you behave towards someone you can't really harbour major regrets about your own behaviour down the line and be full of shoulda woulda couldas. You know you acted as honourably as you could have done all along you can live with yourself a lot easier (I would think) when the sh!t hits the fan and you're lacking any meaningful relationship with your kids due to the bitter and strained relationship with the mother.

For example, don't think you're going to treat someone like a complete turd on the bottom of your shoe and not engender some feelings of anger or resentment in them that are going to come back on YOU some how. Don't make someone hate you enough to want to mess with you like this! Be careful who you bond yourself to by the act of creating a new life together, remember you're looking at 18+ yrs of dealings with this character in many cases, so don't rush to have a baby with anyone. If they've got a track record of this kind of behaviour with a previous BF - turn around and run for the hills, and don't look back.

At least if you do exercise some caution in these areas you won't kick yourself later if you then have to deal with a whole heap of problems caused by the choices you've made.

I don't know how precise the methodology is for gathering these stats, so I don't know how accurate they are. It could just be scaremongering, but if there is any truth in it then these are sobering 'facts' for any man considering whether it's worth trying to support his child.

• According to data from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), young people are five times more likely to have experienced physical abuse and emotional maltreatment if they grew up in a lone-parent family, compared with children in two-birth-parent families.53
• All studies of child-abuse victims which look at family type identify the step-family as representing the highest risk to children54 – with the risk of fatal abuse being 100 times higher than in two biological- parent families according to international from 1976.55 However, the use of the term step-father has become problematic, as, whilst it used to refer to men who were married to women with children by other men, it is now used to describe any man in the household, whether married to the mother or not. An NSPCC study of 1988 which separated married step-fathers from unmarried cohabiting men found that married step-fathers were less likely to abuse: ‘for nonnatal fathers marriage appears to be associated with a greater commitment to the father role’.56
• Analysis of 35 cases of fatal abuse which were the subject of public inquiries between 1968 and 1987 showed a risk for children living with their mother and an unrelated man which was over 70 times higher than it would have been for a child with two married biological parents.57
  Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family

These kinds of horrifying cases are rare - but sadly not rare enough. I'm posting it here to highlight the role of the absent father in this case, and the audacity of the man in speaking out like this.

The father of a seven-year-old girl who allegedly starved to death has called what happened "absolutely disgraceful".

Ishaq Abu Zaire vowed to find out what happened to his daughter. Birmingham City Council has said Khyra was not in its care at the time of her death. Speaking for the first time about his daughter's death, Mr Abu Zaire told the BBC: "I'm just as ignorant as everyone else as to what happened. "But... you can put your house on it that we're going to find out, one way or another, we are going to find out exactly what happened here."

'In shock'

Birmingham social services have launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Khyra's death. Her five siblings are now in foster care. Khyra's father said he feels let down by the authorities. "As far as I can see because I have a dead child right now, they did nothing, they did nothing," he said.

Khyra Ishaq's father on her death

"They never lifted a finger to do anything... so they are responsible as well." He said the last time he saw all of the children, including Khyra, the girl was happy and there was "no concern... with regards to her health".

Khyra's father had been out of the country until Saturday and he said he had not seen his children in more than a year.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | West Midlands | Father speaks over Khyra's death

a few comments:

1 - where was he for a year that was more important than being around his kids? Hope it wasn't Yemen...

2 - no mention from him of being blocked from seeing the children, and you can bet if there were any of those kinds of issues he would be bleating on about it. He might have been able to spin a good tale too because they did have a 'stepdad' (who is the man on trial with their mother for killing this poor little girl) and he could have claimed the new man and the BM were preventing him from seeing that his kids were being STARVED TO DEATH.

3 - how does this man have the nerve to talk to the press? no shame whatsoever.

Khyra's father had been out of the country until Saturday and he said he had not seen his children in more than a year.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | West Midlands | Father speaks over Khyra's death

a few comments:

1 - where was he for a year that was more important than being around his kids? Hope it wasn't Yemen...

Comfort. He could of been out the country trying to build a life for himself.Damn people make those kind of moves all the time. You could say the same about anybody from Adfrica or the carribbean that leaves their children with family to make life.
2 - no mention from him of being blocked from seeing the children, and you can bet if there were any of those kinds of issues he would be bleating on about it. He might have been able to spin a good tale too because they did have a 'stepdad' (who is the man on trial with their mother for killing this poor little girl) and he could have claimed the new man and the BM were preventing him from seeing that his kids were being STARVED TO DEATH.



3 - how does this man have the nerve to talk to the press? no shame whatsoever.[/quote]

I think your out of order personally.

Have you read the recent thread on how some woman is moaning that the father dont want to know. Its closed now but I can gurantee that a high proportion of cases where the father dont response is because of bullshit situations like what she describes. And Ive been hearing those sob stories for the last 20 years. Girl sex boy. Girl gets pregnant. Boy dont want to know. Girl left wondering why as if its takes rocket science to work out.

How about not dealing with the whole heap of problem at all. Its no point wishing that men will response for children in bullshit situations because it aint going to happen. Everybody should eat 5 fruit a day but it dont happen. The way to significantly reduce absent fatherhood is for girls to close their legs / (aint gonna happen either ) or value their bodies enough so that they dont get pregnant in loose situations. (i.e sexing a guy for 6 months, and getting pregnant and expecting father of the year to suddenly materialise.

I got a niece right now 20 years old. Pregnant. And the boy dont want to know / all he wants to focus on is his studies. But because she didnt value her future enough and was blaise about getting pregnant (i asked her what happened to the pill .." oh I was meant to go chemist but didnt get round to it". I had to laugh.

You think the boy is going to response and be committed to a child? I wouldnt bet on it. So tell me who had the power in the situation? Who's responsibility should it of been to not get pregnant considering who has most to lose. He can go off to UNI/ meet a next girl and drop his baby mother a £50 a month and consider it a minor inconvience. In fact he can choose to forget about the whole affair and galong bout his business. Can a woman?

Its nothing to do with being fair or whats morally right. Its basic biology and reality of life.

I think your out of order personally.[/quote]

Yes he could have been out of the country for a year for any reason at all. Bottom line - your kids, your responsibility to make sure they are being looked after. That goes for man or woman, from anywhere on the planet. If the mother is failing then the father should step in, if the father is useless then the mother should try to make sure she isn't. For me, it's really that simple.

...........

A v A (Shared Residence and Contact) 5, the facts of which were summarised in the first part of this article. The mother had alleged that one of the children was scared of the father and contact between that child and the father had ceased. A psychiatrist had been instructed and the National Youth Advisory Service were invited to become involved. The mother persisted in making further allegations and frustrated contact. Wall J ordered contact between the children and the father pending a finding of fact hearing one month later, at which the father was cleared of all allegations. Unfortunately the mother did not accept the findings and further frustrated contact. The judge ordered that the children should live with their father. By the time of the substantive hearing the children were spending 50% of their time with each parent and a shared residence order was made.

In justifying the overall approach to this case, Wall J explained that : “There were various options. There was that which I had adopted in Re M (Intractable Contact Dispute : Interim Care Order) , namely the making of an order under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 … However, I took the view that this course was not appropriate on the facts of the instant case. There would be a substantial delay, and the children were in urgent need of respite. Foster care was inappropriate. Although Mr A had been as engaged in the battle as Mrs A it was more likely that, at least in the interim, the children would be under less pressure living with him than with Mrs A. Equally, a removal into Mr A’s care was the only means of ensuring that C would maintain her loving relationship with her father”.

@ Bredda T - from your link

Enforcement of Contact Orders - A New Era? - Articles - Family - Manches LLP


@ Le Moor - bring this case to your solicitor's attention if you need to.

Very different factual matrices existed in Re M (Intractable Contact Dispute : Interim Care Order )2,in that the allegations made/instigated by the resident parent were found to be unproven. The resident parent had persuaded the children (falsely) that the non-resident parent had physically and sexually abused them and that his parents were also physical abusers. Wall J found that for as long as the children continued to live with the mother, they would continue to suffer significant harm, there was no realistic prospect of the children having contact with the father/his family and the children were likely to emerge from childhood seriously damaged.

The mother lacked any insight into the children’s plight and her role in it. As such, he made an order under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 inviting the local authority to consider taking care proceedings to enable an assessment of the children’s relationships with their parents and as a result, the local authority agreed that the children were suffering significant harm and began care proceedings pursuant to which the children were removed under an interim care order.

The children quickly resumed their relationship with the non-resident parent and a residence order was later made in his favour (Wall J, in an extempore judgment handed down 9 months after the making of the section 37 order, noting the good progress between the father and the children, the break down of the relationship between the mother and the children, and the fact that the mother had not changed her ways).

This is an extreme course for the Court to take in the face of repeated breach of contact orders, well-documented in the judgment. The judge considered all options, from doing nothing, through imprisoning the mother, to the section 37 route or even the immediate removal of the children to their father’s care under a residence order (not followed because of uncertainty about the appropriateness of the father’s then home as a residence for the children and concerns about the adverse effect on the children of a plan that had not carefully been thought through).

Enforcement of Contact Orders - A New Era? - Articles - Family - Manches LLP

anyone who clicks on that link and reads the whole article will see that there are VARIOUS different scenarios that result in court house proceedings and it's not all clear cut.

There's a domestic violence case mentioned, and to me if a woman is blocking contact in a case where the kids have seen their father beat the mother senseless - it's a bit different and perhaps a little bit more understandable for her to do so.

Comfort

Those case stories are exceptions to the rule. Ask any random 10 man black or white who has been through a custody case if they had a chance of getting custody unless the woman has serious problems. I'm not even going to argue this point b/c its common knowledge.


You’re right in that conception is 'basic biology' and a 'fact of life' and whether it’s morally right or fair to create children you don’t intend to care for (cos you want to focus on studying or whatever) is neither here nor there, this is true.

I think you're missing the point or holding onto this false sense of western equality that doesnt exist when it comes to conceiving children.

When I went to Kenya I noticed that I saw NO baby mothers. Is it because the men over their keep their dick in their pants? Is it because men over there realise that they are equal when it comes to concieving a child? I would say it comes to good old fashioned fundementals. This is the advice I will give my daughter. And that advice will be different to what I tell my son.

1) Short of being raped, women have the ultimate power over whether they have babies or not. Basic biology. A man cannot have a baby. Nor can he force a woman to have a baby for him.

2) A woman will ultimately be left holding the child if she has one and the relationship doesnt work out. Hence you better be very careful how and when you bring a child into this world.

3) Never expect to have a baby outside of a committed relationship and expect that the guy will come round or be a good father. If it happens expect the worse. These things have to be discussed and a judgment has to be made as to whether the man is father material. Just like a man will judge if a woman has what it takes to bring up a child properly. Men do not turn wotliss fathers overnight contray to popular opinion.

4) In light of the above the emphasis is on you as a women how you bring a child into the world. It IS NOT an equal responsibility because when things go pear shaped the burden is 95% of the time on you as a woman.

So if after telling my daughter this and she comes home pregas moaning about how deadbeat the dad is or he dont want to know I dont want to hear that rubbish. Not interested. Dont even want to know his name. My neice tried that shit and I stopped her in her tracks. Why? Because it shows that she took no responsibility for herself and how she will have her 1st child and how it will burden her before she's got a pot to piss in. It was her fault for the predicament she is in and her fault only. Because she will bear the burden plain and simple. To tell her anything else is living in La La land. This equal culpability is some western inspired nonsense that does not reflect reality.

Look at the John Terry story. If you take the fact that he dealt with his bredrens baby mother ( which is stritcly a no no in my book under any circumstances) out of the equation, then whose fault was it that she get pregnant and have to dash wey belly. Did JT rape her? If she had the baby and his wife said dont have any contact with that woman under any circumstances, what do you think he will do? And no doubt there are women out there that would curse him and say he's a no good father. Nope just no good to you. He's got other kids to response for and doesnt need that bullshit in his life.

As for the story in that thread. I dont believe it wasnt real. Ive heard it so many times. And there are 1000s of black girls out there who have that story to tell. The problem is too many black women are socialised into thinking that having a child in bullshit situations is no big deal. They look at their mother and say "well she done alright so can I".

A Jamaican saying. What gone bad a morning cant come good a evening.

@ Bredda Tukoma

Like I said, we'll simply have to agree to differ, this debate is over as far as I'm concerned because there's no way you or anyone will be able to convince me that a child that is born into this world is not the responsibility of his/her parents. No way.

Not sure how being a real parent (as opposed to a sperm or an egg donor) and taking responsibility for the protection and the upbringing of your kids is a 'western' idea. Is that how confused we have become???

Maybe in places where both parents tend to be involved in raising their children (like Kenya), you have more people that are willing to face up to their responsibilities - hence the lack of fatherless children. Maybe.

Maybe in places where both parents tend to be involved in raising their children (like Kenya), you have more people that are willing to face up to their responsibilities - hence the lack of fatherless children. Maybe.

And maybe the men are having less sex and are more careful about who they get pregnant? Dream on. Nope its because the women there are more in touch with their god given power of creating life and take responsibility over whther they will be single mothers or not. Now that is an African concept or indigenous world concept of having children. The women will feel too shame having a baby without no good man and will be ostracised because of it. Note I said the women..

But nuff off oonu fool up with western notions of equality. You can carrying on wishing for utopia while I deal with the raw facts of the matter.

Peace.

I don't doubt that Kenyan men are perhaps a little bit more mature and responsible than your average 'western' black men is.

They probably have a lot more respect for the creation of life and for women too in general - which is an African concept also.

What has 'western equality' got to do with a grown person recognising that you have a duty to guide your children safely to adulthood?

I always thought that was pretty much a universal HUMAN concept myself, and like I said much earlier in the thread - even wild animals (who I would imagine don't know the difference between northern, eastern, southern or western concepts) recognise that the best way of ensuring your genes survive is to look after the fruit of your loins for long enough and try to ensure their survival long enough for them to be able to pass on those genes.

It's basic biology and a basic human instinct (for most humans) to look after their young, regardless of how they were conceived.

I don't wish for utopia, but maybe I should lower my expectations faced with the reality of the situation that a lot of blk people are in and will remain in. The raw facts (as you put it) are that too many of us want to behave in a way which is even lower than an animal in the wild, and worse still - we want to find ways to justify that behaviour and avoid criticism for it.

I ain't nobody's fool; I'm a thinker and I look after myself and always will. I also try my best to gently guide the youth I come into contact with the best I know how, but I done know there's no hope for many negros.

peace.

Omitting the "black women" for "some women", i couldn't agree more. In fact some even actively seek to put themselves in this situation.

Like the "last chance 40 somethings" who have deliberately got themselves pregnant with a man who they know is in another relationship and stands no chance of leaving it.

Don't give a fugg about the family they're wrecking, dont give a fugg about the possible impact on the child, all they care about is them having a child for whatever reason they hold dear to them.

You know what, i can stomach all this, as the guy is also at fault for making a baby in a union with little substance, and ultimately i'm pro life once it begins. But what i can't accept is the women who additionally then proceeds to be obstructive once the child is born. Its the ULTIMATE sin, right up there with the worst of them.

Its like they want their cake and eat it too. In other words THEY have the baby knowing they will be a single parent then cannot accept exactly what comes attached with that, such as another woman may be a major role model in the child's life for example, or amazingly even the simple fact that they will have to share the child with the father.

Recently on Colouful Radio they had a show entitled "is the deprivastion of a father/child relationship a form of child abuse?"

You dont need to ask me what i thought the answer to that question was.

Of course not, i love my boy so much its painful. However if you were to ask would i EVER choose to be a separated Father, the answer would be hell no.

As much as children appreciate having Fathers, imo they instictively desire to be part of a 2 parent family, and thats a family consisting of mummy and daddy, not daddy and step mum or vice or versa. Transporting a child from one life to another is so unnatural its untrue.

Its not all negative though. It can work and the child can grow up into a perfectly balanced individual.

It's interesting that there's a thread in this same Parent and Child Village about whether feckless parents should be prosecuted along with their criminal children, in cases like the recent one where the two young kids tortured two other young kids up north, or I guess just any case where the children have gotten out of control and are posing a major problem. So there does seem to be a general acceptance that perhaps parents are responsible for their children, to some degree at least.

I do understand why some people believe parents should be held partly responsible for their deviant kids and possibly face criminal charges, but then if that's okay... why not extend the same level of accountability to parents who have failed their children in other ways?

Is it okay to fail your kids as long as they don't go on to torture or murder other people then? Is it somehow nothing to do with you how they turn out, as long as you can say honestly "I turned my back on the kid from early on, chose not to be involved in care or upbringing - so not my problem"?

Incidentally, in the case of the two kids who tortured the other two, they were not even in the care of their parents when they committed this crime, apparently they were bad from long time and were actually in the care of social services/foster parents.

Is it the case that we can find it in our hearts to absolve the real parents from responsibility for how their kids turn out, but we then want to sit in judgement of social services,a body with an overstretched inadequate 'system' of child protection I'm sure most would agree, and demand that head rolls and jobs are lost - or do we blame some foster parent instead? Bearing in mind that foster parent might have only had the children in their care for a matter of weeks, as was the case with the two twisted little boys who committed those crimes? This makes no sense to me.

Edlington brothers jailed for torture of two boys | UK news | The Guardian

Le Moor, you genuinely seem like you are an interested father and I wish you all the best of luck in maintaining a relationship with your son. Don't give up on him. You wouldn't want to have to live with the guilt if he ended up like Baby P or that poor little girl Khyra.

And I'm sure no absent father thinks it could happen to his child, but the whole thing about being 'absent' is that you are not around so you don't know what's happening; and the worse thing for a parent (a real one, not sperm or egg donor) to live with must be to have not been around when your child needed your protection.

Comfortandjoyy: sorry but your argument is to put it mildly a serious stretch......

Here is the BIG distinction and why your thoughts art flawed imo.. In the OTHER thread that you hitched your argument to.....I argued that if you fecklessly raise children in such way that they then become a danger to the wider society or in the case i cited go on to commit a very serious crimes against other children then imo, YES that parent must share the jail term their children face for the crimes..becauise in THAT instance these were young children who were obviously exposed too far too much inappropriately.

Jailing parents as you now suggest for being poor, or absent is for me a breach of natural justice and our human rights to make mistakes, to get things wrong, as we all do as we learn... Further even if iI accept your logic, it begs the questions who pray tell would set the standard, against which norms, ours (African) or theirs, and who would determine that the law had been breached...do you see where and how your thought now begin to fall apart?

In the other case the lines of demarcation is much clearer, one does not expose young children to alcohol, to hard core ****, to hard core violence or to drugs, we generally agree that this is not GOOD practice, we generally agree that this is beyond negligent its reckless and feckless behaviour...

So in the other thread I argue that those parents must share a responsibility in the disgusting behaviour of their children...who were clearly minor who were acting out what they had clearly been exposed too....

In your thoughts the areas of what is or is not acceptable is too grey to be able to stand up to judicial scrutiny...

I beg your pardon?? I absolutely am not suggesting that anyone should be jailed!! Like I said, I do understand where people are coming from who talk about jail for parents in relation to cases where children commit criminal acts, but that is not MY suggestion.

My point was simply that if we can accept the culpability of parents who actively do wrong by their children and turn them into monsters through their actions... then we could also perhaps lay some blame at the feet of parents who through their inaction, and through the absence of any attempt by them to steer and guide that child through life, have helped to ensure that child turns into one of society's menaces - or indeed one of society's victims as is too often the case.

Obviously - to subject a child to ill treatment in the way of physical or sexual abuse is a serious dereliction of the duty of a parent – to say the least. And we also recognise the damage that neglect and emotional/psychological abuse can do. There is a big difference between people who subject their children to these kinds of abuse and someone who merely acts like they don't have a child - therefore where I am not... I repeat - I am NOT saying that an absent or poor parent should be prosecuted, never mind jailed – what I AM saying is that there is an acceptance in most right thinking persons minds that how a child is parented will often shape who that child becomes.

I'd also like to point out that if a parent can be proven to be subjecting their child to any kind of abuse then it shouldn't have to come to the point where the child begins preying on others before that parent is held to account and punished. That's a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

My thinking is that if one parent has opted out of the role and left it to the other parent to do alone - then that drop out parent has broken quite a 'sacred ancestral contract' (for want of a better phrase) with his/her offspring. It really is that serious. What they are in effect doing is leaving that child to the mercy of the world without the protection of the two people whose actions brought it into the world.

Forget for a moment the effect that a lack of (child) support might have on the person who gets lumbered with the child, because as we've all said – often it's the result of a bad choice what gets people into that situation, so there's only so much sympathy you can have for such a person. I'm more concerned with the effect on the child who has only one parent it can rely on, even more so when sometimes it's a neglectful, abusive or just plain crap parent. My concern is always for the child in such a scenario; the innocent who is born into a bad situation and who often begins life disadvantaged from day dot - all because of the willing and knowing and selfish actions of two irresponsible morons.

Don't get me wrong, I know that many single parents do admirable jobs and bring up perfectly nice well balanced and decent children who are a credit to any family. I'm not trying to paint a grim hopeless picture of kids who get let down by one parent, because we all know examples of those types of kids who turn out absolutely fine. So yes I'd certainly say from what I've observed in life that even though single parents are not rare - normal children who have come from one parent families are thankfully not so rare. Even still, bringing up kids I think is deffo a job for at LEAST two people so having two sensible parents is always going to be preferable to having just one sensible parent.

If a child suffers in life in any way (and there are many ways) due to the fact that one parent opted out, then I would think it not unreasonable to suggest that society as a whole can look to the parent who opted out (because they found it too hard or they just couldn't be bothered to do the job they signed up for) and say, “NO. That is not acceptable behaviour. You share the blame for causing the ill that has befallen this child. You will be stigmatised and ridiculed and held in low regard. You have FAILED. ”

We mustn't be too understanding and sympathetic with these failures, these losers who wilfully fail to parent; we send out an unhelpful message when we do that. Instead we should pour scorn on those who simply won't commit to the role out of sheer selfishness, and who as a result of their selfishness and idiocy have children who end up missing out on the guidance and protection that is their DUE as children.

So let me say it another time in a slightly different way: if someone has kids and don't want to take responsibility for those kids for whatever reason - then that person is a punk. Most parents are happy to take credit when children turn out well (regardless of how minimal their role was in the child's success) - but let the child end up being a victim or a predator and see how quick the parents are to disassociate themselves and act like it's nothing to do with them and what they did or didn't do. Well in my view society really does have a right to question whether the parents did or did not do his and her job properly – and if they even attempted to do their job at all.

Most people would expect to face scrutiny/answer questions/be held accountable and possibly even face some form of disciplinary procedure... eventually - in the workplace, for example - if they consistently fail to do their job properly.

The state of 'childhood' is a long one. Most parents usually get up to around 16 years to get to grips with the role - so even if you don't do that well in the first couple of years – you should at some point along the way be able to accept the awe inspiring RESPONSIBILITY of that role and at least make a serious attempt to rise to the challenge of being the best parent that you can be - in a wholehearted and fully committed fashion. Admittedly, if you take too long to get to grips with being a parent, it might be too late for some kids. You don't have to be a parent yourself to know that it's a long term commitment that can often go on even beyond age18 though, and we all know on some level that once you take it on it's a job for life.

That is what the role requires and that is what you sign up for when you become a father or a mother. I know a lot of people just don't have it in them to be a great parent, but I think most people are capable of being good parents if they make the effort.

I went to an event some time ago and heard a woman speak about home schooling her son and how she had always had an aversion bordering on phobia in relation to mathematics and really lacked confidence in that area - but she had to overcome that issue and revisit mathemetics to get herself to a level where she was competent to teach her son. School had not been working for him and she had decided to take him out of the school system and school him herself.

When I heard that woman speak and I felt her dedication to her child and her commitment to the role of MOTHER it gave me a really good feeling. She was inspirational. So many bright black kids failing in school but how many parents would actually take on a challenge like that?

This was a woman who if I remember rightly also had other commitments, so it's not like she was some pampered princess who had the luxury of millions in the bank and pure empty days in which to fill with preparing lessons for and teaching this boy (either a pre-teen or early teen, my memory fails me). It was clearly a challenge for her - but she rose to it!

I had nothing but admiration and respect for that woman because for me that is what parenthood is supposed to be all about; being there, nurturing your child and doing your best to ensure your child fulfils their every potential, even if it's not always easy – that is what a parent is for. Get them safely to adulthood and try to help them realise their highest potential. Make sure you equip them with the skills they will need for life. Ensure that you turn out fully functioning productive and capable members of society who can look after themselves and not be a danger to others. That's what you're aiming for.

Otherwise it would be the norm for babies to just swagger out of the birth canal, bite through the umbilical cord, high five their mum and say “I'll come check ya later”, go find somewhere to live, get a job and fend for themselves.

They can't do that and so they have PARENTS whose job it is to look after them until they can look after themselves. Using bogus excuses and opting out should be seen as FAILING the most important job of all – the job of parenting.

It seems that sometimes people are too quick to make allowances for these voluntarily absent parents and what we do when we let them slip off the hook so easily is that we actually validate the behaviour and reinforce the trend – and I think that is very damaging.

Everyone does make mistakes, I agree - and we don't have to jail, flog or stone everyone who makes them but I do think parenting is such a serious business that we can't really afford to be lax with our responsilbities or our expectations in this area. There seems to be very little stigma attached to fathers choosing not to father. There's a lot of 'understanding' for the excuses some men make about why they cannot father the children they have created. This undermines the role of a father in my view. It sort of sends out the message that fathers are not really needed so what does it matter if they opt out. This is an idea - I'm sure most people here would not agree with. Yet - when a father does decide to opt out some of the same people who would say children need fathers seem to be okay with it. It is not usually treated with the gravity it warrants, and I think that is wrong.

Obviously far fewer women abandon their children but that does happen too, and that should also be treated very seriously. There is already a greater stigma attached to women who do it and this stigma is justified in my opinion. Having an interested and committed mother is a gift and I believe it is a gift that is owed to every child born into the world, but I think having an interested and committed father is also owed to all children.

Every child is not going to get this, of course not, no question! Through no fault of their own a lot of kids are going to continue being born into some messed up circumstances that are going to mess them up as individuals - fact. But that does not mean we should lose sight of the truth that BOTH PARENTS OWE THEIR CHILDREN CARE AND GUIDANCE. We mustn't ever let that truth get obscured by excuses and cop outs.

Many many children in this world suffer terribly and maybe some of us have gotten too desensitised and too wrapped up in our own cushy lives to really empathise with their suffering or have any feeling about it.

Just because some children aren't going to get the care they need, and some children will get hurt and some children will lose their parents early in life and have no one to protect them and care for them - it does not mean we should be blase about the suffering and injustice that some children endure solely or partly because of their parents' decision not to be involved in their lives.

What child doesn't deserve to have two adults actively striving to provide it with all it needs to fulfil its greatest potential?

Heavy read... interestingly, men know their obligations to their children regardless of the situation may arise with the mother. My daughter will be taken care in spite of not having support or having it. As being a product raised by a stepdad whom took on obligations acting as a natural biology parent to foster responisbilty of workmanship, he laid down the foundation where little was noted. Now, that I am raising a child of my own I found myself face with a similar dilemma that my mother endured. However, it will be left up to the dad who lives 1000 miles away there in England to determine the best recourse of support... shiftless, or responsible: regardless, my darling will be taken care without any further recollection of being anger or 'defined as a complaining ex' when the reality is so much healthy than realised.



Heather .....

Heavy read... interestingly, men know their obligations to their children regardless of the situation may arise with the mother. My daughter will be taken care of regardless of her dad's contributions.

As being a product raised by a stepdad whose obligations demonstrated responisbilty of workmanship, he laid down the foundation where little was noted but later practiced throughout teen and college years.

Now, that I am raising a child of my own. I found myself face with a similar dilemma that my mother endured. However, it will be left up to the dad who lives 1000 miles away there in England to determine the best recourse of support... shiftless, or responsible: Regardless, my darling child will be taken care without any further recollection of being anger or 'defined as a complaining ex' when the reality is so much healthy than realised.




Heather ..... oh this came from me....

sod child support

this is probably the best and well rounded discussion i have seen on this topic with people addressing the KEY issues with well rounded points.

someone said something about men refusing to pay child support if they dont get sex and that is a VERY valid point and thats why i have spoke at length already to all men i know who still sleep with their baby mother IF YOU AINT WITH HER NO MORE STOP SLEEPING WITH HER CASE CLOSED AND THAT IS FOR ANY MAN OUT THERE
i cant say this enough because far too many men think that if a woman has their child that automatically gives him to right to treat her as his sex slave for his own gratification when it suits him and such men make me sick.


a few other people have made points regarding men being wotless, let me just say right now that EVERY baby mother with an axe to grind will say the baby father is wotless which is why i no longer follow that analysis when women speak on it because that allows her to not hold herself COMPLETELY accountable for her acts and criticizing the choice of man is NOT holder her accountable as she can do the same thing with any man including the man that suggested this theory and they can do that because THE LAW ALLOWS IT and the law does NOT distinguish wotless men from good men they just treat you as MEN which are in reality CASH COWS.

another point was the man that decided to be civil with the baby mother after they broke up but still were friends and had keys to her house etc and then when he decided to move on with a new woman things got ugly.

the irony of that story is that on this very forum i have been debating someone about being friends with exs and told her its STUPID and right THERE shows you why exs or ex baby mothers should be put in their place and SHOWN that it is a civil and necessary arrangement but if you dont draw the line you WILL get raped by the system when the woman decides to and im only talkin bout being civil from the baby mother perspective if there are no kids get rid of her.

told people time and time again ex lovers (especially with your kids) are like tumors waiting to mature into huge tumors that will kill you.

the minute you take it for granted it will grow and **** your life up when you move on because you forgot the issue that was there thinking it was all gravy.

this is also another reason why seeing someone is kids is LONG and a waste of anyones time UNLESS they adhere to those rules i just set but we all know a great deal of baby mothers are still shaggin their baby fathers which is why i say

DONT GO THERE

men need to make some kind of moral code amoung themselves and exchange ideas on this issue without the influence of women only then will they do things that dont **** them over

and WOMEN should do this too but the truth is they do which is why women are more organized than men.

this is probably the best and well rounded discussion i have seen on this topic with people addressing the KEY issues with well rounded points.

someone said something about men refusing to pay child support if they dont get sex and that is a VERY valid point and thats why i have spoke at length already to all men i know who still sleep with their baby mother IF YOU AINT WITH HER NO MORE STOP SLEEPING WITH HER CASE CLOSED AND THAT IS FOR ANY MAN OUT THERE
i cant say this enough because far too many men think that if a woman has their child that automatically gives him to right to treat her as his sex slave for his own gratification when it suits him and such men make me sick.

I have told a couple of my friends in the last few years to drop off the baby daddy after the relationship finished, as much as some men do think that having a child with a woman gives him automatic rights, some women do think and behave along the same lines. My advice is always the same - get some self respect love, if youre not together close your legs and concentrate on your babies. Allow him to do the same - either he will endeavour to be the best father he can or he will fade away in time.


a few other people have made points regarding men being wotless, let me just say right now that EVERY baby mother with an axe to grind will say the baby father is wotless which is why i no longer follow that analysis when women speak on it because that allows her to not hold herself COMPLETELY accountable for her acts and criticizing the choice of man is NOT holder her accountable as she can do the same thing with any man including the man that suggested this theory and they can do that because THE LAW ALLOWS IT and the law does NOT distinguish wotless men from good men they just treat you as MEN which are in reality CASH COWS.

I concur with this. Unless Ive seen the evidence for myself I usually take with a pinch of salt when a member of either sex dismisses their ex as wotliss.....sour grapes and all that. Saying that though, it could indeed be very true - but lets not forget that YOU picked him or her so stop griping and deal with them. The law is an ass in this country and even as a single parent myself, it should not be stacked in favour of the mother as it is now, obviously each case should be dealt with on individual merit. To this end, and knowing how the father of my children stayed, I made sure that we stayed out of court by offering him his parental rights legally and having a regular contact agreement drawn up. As I said to a horrified friend of mine at the time - Im a grown woman. Why in the hell do I need a bunch of people I dont even know to dictate our parenting responsibilties to us?

another point was the man that decided to be civil with the baby mother after they broke up but still were friends and had keys to her house etc and then when he decided to move on with a new woman things got ugly.

Civil is good. Friendship is just ridiculous. Keys to the house? He should not have taken them why did he think she gave them to him? lol

the irony of that story is that on this very forum i have been debating someone about being friends with exs and told her its STUPID and right THERE shows you why exs or ex baby mothers should be put in their place and SHOWN that it is a civil and necessary arrangement but if you dont draw the line you WILL get raped by the system when the woman decides to and im only talkin bout being civil from the baby mother perspective if there are no kids get rid of her.

told people time and time again ex lovers (especially with your kids) are like tumors waiting to mature into huge tumors that will kill you.

the minute you take it for granted it will grow and **** your life up when you move on because you forgot the issue that was there thinking it was all gravy.

this is also another reason why seeing someone is kids is LONG and a waste of anyones time UNLESS they adhere to those rules i just set but we all know a great deal of baby mothers are still shaggin their baby fathers which is why i say

DONT GO THERE

Why are you generalising? Thats a little too much like baby mama bashing to me. For me, although Im not single, when I first met my now partner, I spent a very long time getting to know him as an individual before we became lovers - yet at least a couple of my friends and indeed a couple of family members found him 'unsuitable' for this that or the other reason, including the fact that he too had children. If you get to know a woman before you jump into her baggy dem, you'll get an idea as to whether she is still involved with her ex, or any other or any other behaviour/trait which you may find you dont like. Look before you leap!

men need to make some kind of moral code amoung themselves and exchange ideas on this issue without the influence of women only then will they do things that dont **** them over

Could you elaborate on this please? as Im sure that, if you leave sex with her out of the equasion, be as civil as possible without regard for how she may behave to you and be a father in the best way you know how to be, theres not much more you can do than that.

and WOMEN should do this too but the truth is they do which is why women are more organized than men.