Perhaps, just perhaps the father is so dedicated to his child that he would rather give up work and look after the child full time than be relegated to being a "weekend dad". Who's to say being female automatically makes you the "better" parent for the childs welfare.
Divorce query.
- Thread starter Xordium
- Start date
See now, that last statement is the core issue that is one of the biggest issues within the family court system.
1) Most children are not best placed to remain with the resident parent. In fact, ensuring that a child has regular lengthy contact with both parents is actually the model that has consistently, time after time proven to be what is best. That is that the child actually gets to "know" their non-resident/absent/parent without care.
2) 96% of applications made to family court are by fathers, mothers account for less than 3%. I doubt evidence exists to support my statement: mothers are more likely to be granted contact, sooner and for more lengthy periods. From my own assistance being provided to parents, overwhelmingly it is men. Two cases I've helped mothers and both on both instances were awarded and agreed the contact they were asking on the very first hearing. Compare that with the battle lines that I've helped some people with... not to mention my own.
3) The best interests of the child? There is a wealth of evidence that speaks against many decisions being in the best interests and decisions made by some Judges amounts to criminal decisions. For example, a Judge flipping a coin to see if a parent would see his 3 daughters or not (this actually happened)
Collusion, institutional sexism is another such issue.
Why don't we have a system where the status quo upon separation is abolished. 50/50 becomes a starting point. With this one implementation alone, you would prevent the need for tens of thousands of cases each year.
I have many ideas in my head how the "Family" court could be revolutionised for the better, not the worst. The system is adversarial and it is gender biased from before the child is even born.
While your statement might seem logical and right, I can assure you its that type of sentiment that has the family court as one solicitor said to me "completely and utterly failing the children"
1) Most children are not best placed to remain with the resident parent. In fact, ensuring that a child has regular lengthy contact with both parents is actually the model that has consistently, time after time proven to be what is best. That is that the child actually gets to "know" their non-resident/absent/parent without care.
2) 96% of applications made to family court are by fathers, mothers account for less than 3%. I doubt evidence exists to support my statement: mothers are more likely to be granted contact, sooner and for more lengthy periods. From my own assistance being provided to parents, overwhelmingly it is men. Two cases I've helped mothers and both on both instances were awarded and agreed the contact they were asking on the very first hearing. Compare that with the battle lines that I've helped some people with... not to mention my own.
3) The best interests of the child? There is a wealth of evidence that speaks against many decisions being in the best interests and decisions made by some Judges amounts to criminal decisions. For example, a Judge flipping a coin to see if a parent would see his 3 daughters or not (this actually happened)
Collusion, institutional sexism is another such issue.
Why don't we have a system where the status quo upon separation is abolished. 50/50 becomes a starting point. With this one implementation alone, you would prevent the need for tens of thousands of cases each year.
I have many ideas in my head how the "Family" court could be revolutionised for the better, not the worst. The system is adversarial and it is gender biased from before the child is even born.
While your statement might seem logical and right, I can assure you its that type of sentiment that has the family court as one solicitor said to me "completely and utterly failing the children"
@Macro
Such is the case in point. The Family Court is a horror. A man on separation can be reduced to a title of sperm donor or walking wallet. The only reason they are terrified to tackle to system is because it would infuriate ideological feminists and would (as per the last general election broken promise (2010)) result in letters being sent by the heads of Womens Aid, Gingerbread et al to the PM to basically threaten that a change to the court system would result in something sinister or a pernicious attempt by the said feminists to undermine and any all government including through media.
Such is the case in point. The Family Court is a horror. A man on separation can be reduced to a title of sperm donor or walking wallet. The only reason they are terrified to tackle to system is because it would infuriate ideological feminists and would (as per the last general election broken promise (2010)) result in letters being sent by the heads of Womens Aid, Gingerbread et al to the PM to basically threaten that a change to the court system would result in something sinister or a pernicious attempt by the said feminists to undermine and any all government including through media.
I disagree a child is best place to remain in the status quo as a change of routine and primary carer is likely to emotionally distressful. What would help the family courts is Cafcas actually doing something to explore the circumstances of the child's welfare so that judges don't make decisions on a coin, or better still use s7 or in the worst case s37 reports, which they already do and local authorities hate these so much.
The issue of contact is always contentious but parents need to realise that their behaviour during and around contact does amount to emotional abuse
Last edited:
Question - why are you getting so involved for a work aquaintance?
Someone was bound to ask, may as well do it
She's my Donna - if you watched Suits you'd understand!
But we all know what happened back in the day with Donna....
Thankfully your opinion doesn't mean anything in this very personal matter. It's all to easy to side with your friend and let emotions take charge whilst thinking you know whats right.
You are correct it doesn't and I have already acknowledged from the off I am hardly impartial.
As for emotions taking charge I would think you're maybe guilty of that in your response?
Not at all, I don't know you, your friend or the ex Husband. However I feel you're not helping things with your personal involvement whilst acknowledging it, doesn't make it acceptable.
A couple going through the process of separation after being together for years and having a child together is hard enough. It takes 2 people to make things reach this point and it isn't easy for anybody. If your friend is talking to you about it I'd assume she would want your support by listening and supporting her, not judging their situation or his actions whether right or wrong.
Last edited:
so you have had sex with her previously and now its just awkward with pent up frustration on both sides?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 3,225
- Location
- Stoke-on-Trent
So basically Xordium is in the friend zone and doing all he can to get out of it by interfering with a divorce and being the nice guy.
Classy.
Oh and Donna ditches the guy...
Classy.
Oh and Donna ditches the guy...
There always seems to be a guy like this during every divorce I've seen. It's like the female needs someone to keep hanging on a thread, patting them on the back telling them it wasn't their fault while the whole process is going on.
(I've never been divorced btw, it's just something I've noticed when other people have).
(I've never been divorced btw, it's just something I've noticed when other people have).
The reading the OP before jumping to the gun the last part would be particularly pertinent to what you are saying there.
Haha no but when you've known someone for over 12 years and they are a good friend of your family along with being an employee then you kind of want to see the best for them. I can see how it may look that way.
Still butt hurt from the other day where you went into one of your racist little rants and I pointed out that you actually socialise with said "immigrants scum" and I wondered what they would think of what you say about people from their country and the way you lump them all together?
You wouldn't be if you read the OP:
Anyway it's a moot point. I was wondering how things were done these days and MrMoonX very helpfully answered my question.
It would have made sense if that had been the end of the sentence, but of course it wasn't:
That's why I was confused, the fact you corrected this person being a friend to being just an acquaintance, but now apparently she's a family friend for over 12 years. Anyway, I think it's clear now, thanks.
That's why I was confused, the fact you corrected this person being a friend to being just an acquaintance, but now apparently she's a family friend for over 12 years. Anyway, I think it's clear now, thanks.
Anyway, I think it's clear now, thanks.
Knew years ago - very close went out together a lot. Both got married over the years to different people so naturally saw less of each other bar the odd dinner party etc, came to work for me - so see more her in work than out of work. Didn't think the OP needed that kind of detail.
