ESTRANGEMENT- The silent epidemic! Let's get this out of the cupboard.

You should try it, it'll give you more of an insight into human nature and its frailties AND maybe teach you to have empathy and not be so quick to judge others.

what like about women being better liars than men?

I didn't say you quoted something they said, I said you quoted the organisation, you might wanna check your own comprehension skills before telling me to brush up on mine

Exactly where did I quote Fathers for Justice???!

I said *We don't have Fathers for Justice for nothing'. Just take the time to and read and absorb others posts. You might learn something. .

Araabra I won't be reading your response because I'll be travelling in KwaZulua-Natal. You have heard the expression 'Travel broadens the mind?' Well I've done an awful lot of it in my life, hence I don't have the parochial narrow minded attitude of some posters on here. You should try it, it'll give you more of an insight into human nature and its frailties AND maybe teach you to have empathy and not be so quick to judge others.

from the way you quote fathers for justice I'm guessing you don't know the first thing about them.. bit of an own goal there Fairydoll

Good, don't read, lack of examining your thoughts is best!

Celeb - I`m with you - let`s not waste any more time on this nonsense

If the couple aren't married (unless father's name is registered on the birth certificate, since 2003) which I'm assuming is the case referred to here, the court will not automatically award joint custody.

A barrister friend told me that...'judges are like bus drivers - they have the bus and they know how to drive it but the route is up to them.

Unfortunately some (note some, dear readers) women can be much more manipulative - and are more accomplished liars than men - which can result in a judge favouring the woman when it comes to custody. Maybe rightly, maybe wrongly but we don't have Fathers for Justice for nothing.

It's a given that my post will be ripped apart discussed but I won't be around to respond as I will likely be out of range of wifi tomorrow. Thank God, says DH..

maybe that's violence In Your book ?
Oh here we go LOL, there's always some on these threads who think that the only things that can be deemed unreasonable or damaging behaviour are physical violance akin to some sort of cartoon villan!

I never actually said "violence". There's a whole spectrum of unhealthy and/or scary behaviour that children need protecting from before it gets to physical violence.

The police don't just "take sides", if she was afraid to approach him about some property dispute without them, that's still valid, he doesn't have to punch her in the face and leave a friggin mark FGS!

That's not the case at all

If DH and I split and I got some random notion to cut him out, I'ld only make it easier for him to get main custody if I wasn't cooperative with him having time with his kids, that's how the children's court works.

If I WAS cooperative, I could hope for at most 4 days a week if it went through the courts, but I'ld be very lucky to get that.

Usually it goes to joint custody (provided that's what the father wants, it's not always!) - the main "battle" tends to be over the 4th day (as 7 days in a week) because whoever gets that can get certain benefits as "main carer".

That's what actually happens in real childrens courts. Not on facebook groups full of dubious types who claim the system is against men

Exactly eddiecat I can't hardly believe am reading the rubbish notanan and her sidekick spout.

My niece wasted police time accusing her partner of stealing a mobile phone maybe that's violence In Your book ? She had actually given it to him for xmas.

I can't shame her with any more personal details but it was action of a woman scorned, yes the police do act on lies from mothers they have to for safety of children.

I can't waste another second on this thread

You are being very naive if you think that mothers don`t cut fathers out of their childrens lives. Legal access can be arranged but mothers can be so unco-operative as to make it impossible in reality. The charity "Families need Fathers" has existed for many years because of this

unless you mean he called the police on her and they found his call to be malicious?

Even if DH hurt me! (he wouldn't) I couldn't just cut him out of the childrens lives unless authorities had very serious concerns, and even then he'ld get supervised visits.

"If your niece had to call the police on the father of her kids, no wonder she wants to protect her kids from him!

No, the police don't "just believe women" - statistics show the opposite infact!
The police tend to be quite pragmatic and only act if there is something to act on! And even then they don't always.."

I knew we'd find a new other side, lurking about.

If your niece had to call the police on the father of her kids, no wonder she wants to protect her kids from him!

No, the police don't "just believe women" - statistics show the opposite infact!
The police tend to be quite pragmatic and only act if there is something to act on! And even then they don't always..

Whatever happened to understanding not every AC loves their parents parenting?

U are so wrong notanan my niece stopped her kids seeing their dad out of spite pure and simple.

He had cared for them since babies but she fell out with him and acted like a woma. Scorned, the police have to believe the mother those poor kids left thinking their dad a doned them.

Likewise it is spite that has made a lot of sons and dajghters stop contact with grandparents certainly not safety!

you really are blowing things out of proportion here. In most cases the parents have had perfectly happy childhoods and should have every confidence that their parents will take excellent care of the children. In my own case, our son is desperate for us to see the grandchildren and wants them to have the sort of childhood that he did - but his wife has decided we shouldn`t see them. (god knows why - she won`t discuss it).

Ultimately, if someone doesn't want their kids around you, it's usually because they think it would be punishing their kids TO have to spend time with you like they had to.

They're not thinking "oh I'll punish the kids for the sake of an arguement".

If you had unhappy memories of a particular school, would you send your own kids there? no! to punish them? no, to protect them.

'If parents have problems with their own parents why don't they allow the GP's to see their GC without them being there? As long as they know their children will be safe and properly cared for, what's the problem?'

Because we dont. I dont think any of that.
My MIL has defended everything she did, fully agrees with everything she has done and said. Has squashed our worry and hurt into nothing. Its our fault we are hurt because she didn't mean it.
She has never apologised because she hasn't done anything wrong.
To then say she doesn't know what she's done wrong, when we have told her, she has took the information we have told her and ignored it because to her, its wrong.
That mindset isn't normal. To allow that around 2 children, unsupervised is irresponsible as a parent.
To then dismiss that and tell us we are being stupid is them minimising the damage done, the hurt, our feelings and the lact of respect she has for us.

The only person she has punushed is herself, to herself. She has caused the storm and now she's moaning she doesn't like rain.

there not their

You'ld think I was mad if I left my kid with a childminder who never told me anything about my child's time at their house and refused to hear anything from me about whether they had a bad night last night and needed an extra nap today, if they've got a bit of a rash and need X cream at nappy change day etc - none of that! just drop and run!…(well maybe YOU wouldn't, most however would!)

but you think it's good for kids to go somewhere for a day where there is no communication whatsoever with their primary carer??? - THAT would not be for the child's benefit, it would be for the person who wants their go with their dolly!

NORMAL grandchild/grandparent relationships are beneficial, ^ that sort of not only dysfunctional, but frankly unsafe situation - no!

Smiles because they are denying their children nothing of value if their is tension in the relationship. Children shouldn't be thrown into the midst a bad relationship tangle.

Children aren't toys you get to "have your turn" with
Someone who cannot communicate with a childs primary carer about their every changing care needs cannot by default care for them properly

If parents have problems with their own parents why don't they allow the GP's to see their GC without them being there? As long as they know their children will be safe and properly cared for, what's the problem?

Mr. S. has a friend who has no contact with his son. If his son sees him in the street he crosses over and refuses to even look at him, yet he continues to see his GS. Having him at his home, sometimes staying over night.

There's no reason why, just because the parents don't want a relationship with the GP's, that their children should be denied that relationship too.

You say Araabra that "of course some children benefit by relationships with GP's, but not at the expense of their parents". Why should some parents continue to punish their own parents by denying them their GC, at the expense of those children?

Of course some GC benefit by relationships with GPs, but not at he expense of their parents. My BIL and his wife refuse to understand that and complain to OH, who reports this thesis.