[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by the truth

yes they should, but why should the man end up broke and homeless and working his finers to the bone to keep a woman in luxury, often a woman who doesnt work and has control over everything, the house, the land, the kids, and of course has free everything too

I dont know how much you think most CSA rates are but its certainly not enough to keep a woman in luxury Unless the paying parent is a millionaire of course, but thats quite unlikely

Plus its for the child, not the woman. Yeah some women might spend it on themselves, but as I tire of saying tbh, thats the minority and to judge everyone on those few is ridiculous.

Not sure how you expect a single mother to work really...and if she did it would end up costing the state loads in childcare costs. I wouldnt expect a single father to work either tbh. Not when the kids are really young anyway.

And free everything?

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by the truth

yes they should, but why should the man end up broke and homeless and working his finers to the bone to keep a woman in luxury, often a woman who doesnt work and has control over everything, the house, the land, the kids, and of course has free everything too

Looking after young children is hard-work as anyone who has actually looked after them will know. As most women work outside of the home these days as well as looking after children - most of them work doubley hard. It sounds like a case of someone not appreciating the work women do in the home and raising children, because they themelves have never done it. Not the most suitable type of person to be getting custody of children in my opinion.

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by the truth

maybe shes lying about who the father is as so many british women do? to try and milk more money and help out of the wrong guy.
maybe he hasnt got a roof over his head as the women get the house over 80% of the time
in many cases the men pay for the house and the bills , yet dont have a home to live in and little access to their kids too....I hope your heart bleeds for them too
besides women like this should plan for pregnancies

You are unbelievable. Women don't get the house, the parent with custody of the children gets the house so the children have a home, and rightly so. It takes two to make a baby and two to plan for pregnancies. You can't blame one without the other, unless of course you don't care about reason, and simply apply different standards according to gender, to suit your own bias.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by sassysocks

You are unbelievable. Women don't get the house, the parent with custody of the children gets the house so the children have a home, and rightly so. It takes two to make a baby and two to plan for pregnancies. You can't blame one without the other, unless of course you don't care about reason, and simply apply different standards according to gender, to suit your own bias.

thanks for the compliemnt....women get the house on over 80% of cases. the bias in culture and in law towards women creates havoc for everyone including the extended families and the child too. justice should be blind and impartial not grossly sexist against men as it now is. no wonder so many men kill themselves in this country

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by the truth

thanks for the compliemnt....women get the house on over 80% of cases. the bias in culture and in law towards women creates havoc for everyone including the extended families and the child too. justice should be blind and impartial not grossly sexist against men as it now is. no wonder so many men kill themselves in this country

I don't know where to start with that drivel. Of course women get the house, as they are usually the main carers providing a home for the children. What do you suggest, the man should get the house and the women and kids be made homeless - sounds like another attempt to control women to me. Force them to obey your rules or make them homeless. If they have a mortgage, the house will be sold and the proceeds split between them when the youngest child is 18.

Women are the ones that carry and give birth to their children, unless there is good reason not to, why would they not get preference over the fathers as the main carer. Why do you seem to think men should have more rights when, due to biology, they have contributed less to the creation of the children? As children cannot be split in two, mothers have more rights to custody of their children, unless proved otherwise.

The bias in culture and in law, as you put it, was loaded against women for years in this country, and still is in many parts of the world. Now there is finally more equal treatment of women, in the Western world, men like you whinge on about hard done by you are because you can't control women in the way you would like to any more.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by sassysocks

I don't know where to start with that drivel. Of course women get the house, as they are usually the main carers providing a home for the children. What do you suggest, the man should get the house and the women and kids be made homeless - sounds like another attempt to control women to me. Force them to obey your rules or make them homeless. If they have a mortgage, the house will be sold and the proceeds split between them when the youngest child is 18.

Women are the ones that carry and give birth to their children, unless there is good reason not to, why would they not get preference over the fathers as the main carer. Why do you seem to think men should have more rights when, due to biology, they have contributed less to the creation of the children? As children cannot be split in two, mothers have more rights to custody of their children, unless proved otherwise.

The bias in culture and in law, as you put it, was loaded against women for years in this country, and still is in many parts of the world. Now there is finally more equal treatment of women, in the Western world, men like you whinge on about hard done by you are because you can't control women in the way you would like to any more.

I don't understand what your analogy is, you can't decontruct things like that, it's like saying without an oven a cake is just flour and egg..
With the cost of living rising exponentially and the lack of affordable housing I can see why men are in the break up of relationships getting a very rough deal.
You can't just say ' I made this! It's mine, get out! '

[Kizzy]

I brought two up alone after my partner walked out, my advice to anyone would be to get married before having children.
This way there is a much leveller playing field when you do split.
Being unmarried was a nightmare even with the advent of the CSA it was impossible to get correct assessments as it took months/years to get the correct info, by then some circs could have changed which kept the balls in the air for even longer... meanwhile you try to struggle on.
I appreciate there are those who use the kids as bargaining tools, this is totally wrong financial support and access should never be linked.
Just as bad are the fathers who walk away and never look back hoping to wash their hands and start again.
Everyones individual experience is different, a more child centred approach is what is needed looking at what's important for them... It's not purely a financial issue.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I brought two up alone after my partner walked out, my advice to anyone would be to get married before having children.
This way there is a much leveller playing field when you do split.
Being unmarried was a nightmare even with the advent of the CSA it was impossible to get correct assessments as it took months/years to get the correct info, by then some circs could have changed which kept the balls in the air for even longer... meanwhile you try to struggle on.
I appreciate there are those who use the kids as bargaining tools, this is totally wrong financial support and access should never be linked.
Just as bad are the fathers who walk away and never look back hoping to wash their hands and start again.
Everyones individual experience is different, a more child centred approach is what is needed looking at what's important for them... It's not purely a financial issue.

an excellent and very fair post which has not in any way been clouded by any personal angst or bitterness. I applaud your sincerity and attitude

[Kizzy]

That's not the gist of your original post I quoted in which you stated it was due to the fact the woman carried the child that entitled her to raise the child alone if she so wished.
I don't agree with that.

[sassysocks]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That's not the gist of your original post I quoted in which you stated it was due to the fact the woman carried the child that entitled her to raise the child alone if she so wished.
I don't agree with that.

Either you misunderstood me or I didn't make my point very well. I was not saying that a mother was entitled to raise the child alone if she wished, I was saying that when both parents are equally able to look after the child and are each seeking sole custody, the mother should, in most cases, get priority, particularly with very young children. Given those circumstances, why would a father be given priority? The very nature of carrying a child, giving birth and breast feeding does generally create a particular bond between mother and baby.

In an ideal situation they would get joint custody, but if there was a lot of animosity between them and both wanted sole custody, without extenuating circumstances, it is best for young children to be with the mother.

And even then, I did not suggest the other parent shouldn't be involved in the child's life, just that, in that situation, the mother should get preference for full custody. At no time did I mention anything about the mother choosing to raise the child alone - that is a different subject altogether.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by sassysocks

Either you misunderstood me or I didn't make my point very well. I was not saying that a mother was entitled to raise the child alone if she wished, I was saying that when both parents are equally able to look after the child and are each seeking sole custody, the mother should, in most cases, get priority, particularly with very young children. Given those circumstances, why would a father be given priority? The very nature of carrying a child, giving birth and breast feeding does generally create a particular bond between mother and baby.

In an ideal situation they would get joint custody, but if there was a lot of animosity between them and both wanted sole custody, without extenuating circumstances, it is best for young children to be with the mother.

And even then, I did not suggest the other parent shouldn't be involved in the child's life, just that, in that situation, the mother should get preference for full custody. At no time did I mention anything about the mother choosing to raise the child alone - that is a different subject altogether.

Just because both parents want sole custody shouldn't mean that either gets it. Unless there's a valid reason why either one shouldn't, then they should be given joint custody by a judge and they should be told to grow the **** up and consider their child needs rather than their own selfishness

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Just because both parents want sole custody shouldn't mean that either gets it. Unless there's a valid reason why either one shouldn't, then they should be given joint custody by a judge and they should be told to grow the **** up and consider their child needs rather than their own selfishness