18 May 06
I haven't had time to read it fully, but I found that it seems to start from the assumption that all fathers in cusody (access) disputes are batterrers.
If it isn't obvious, this is because the man is good at lying and manipulating.
So, it makes recommendations that the views of the children should be treated with caution, as they are likely to be trying to avoid further abuse, for example, which is just ludicrous.
It suggests that any man who makes a good case in a custody dispute must be a batterrer, and he is just doing this as a continuation of his abuse (as opposed to just wanting to be with his kids).
Or maybe I just read it wrong, as it is late....
18 May 06
Originally posted by RedmikeIt in no way suggests that all fathers involved in custody battles are abbusive. It simlpy states the reality that finding an actual abuser to be abusive is more difficult than often assumed. In ligitimate cases of abuse by a partner or spouse it's often the abuser who gains custody of the children. The children have no say and the victum is in turn abused further by the courts.
I haven't had time to read it fully, but I found that it seems to start from the assumption that all fathers in cusody (access) disputes are batterrers.
If it isn't obvious, this is because the man is good at lying and manipulating.
So, it makes recommendations that the views of the children should be treated with caution, as they are likely to be tryi ...[text shortened]... osed to just wanting to be with his kids).
Or maybe I just read it wrong, as it is late....
Men who are abusive are very calculating and manipulative. The trauma resulting in being abused is often taken for instability.
You will find that most men in custody battles who aren't abusive will put the childrens needs above their own and easily and readily come to amicable agreements with the ex. Preventing any emotional stress on their children.
It's abusive fathers who cannot accept the loss of control over their ex partner and in turn gear all energies into gaining control over the children. It is the last and final option left to them. Maintaining control over the children results in maintaining control over the ex. Their demands and motives are completely sepererate from fathers with good intentions.
It is in no way to stereotype all men as abusers but trying to shed light on the fact that many women and children suffer greatly at the hands of these men because they are very hard to detect within the system. They have learned and adapted to the legal battering that is at their disposal.
18 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by mokkoSo any man in a custody dispute where they cannot reach an amicable settlement must be an abuser?
You will find that most men in custody battles who aren't abusive will put the childrens needs above their own and easily and readily come to amicable agreements with the ex. Preventing any emotional stress on their children.
.
The children have no say - the paper actually recommends treating the kids point of view with caution.
Edit - I can't cut/paste from the original to give examples of what I'm saying.
19 May 06
Originally posted by RedmikeNO! Not any man. It's in specific referrence to abusive men. Who all to often fly through the legal sytem as super daddies when they're anything but.
So any man in a custody dispute where they cannot reach an amicable settlement must be an abuser?
The children have no say - the paper actually recommends treating the kids point of view with caution.
Edit - I can't cut/paste from the original to give examples of what I'm saying.
There is such a huge difference between a normal functioning man and the way they think and react in contrast to an abusive man.
It's merely a profile of the way an abusive man thinks, reacts and gets away with being abusive and how they manipulate the courts to enflict even more control over their ex partners and potentially damage their children.
It does not state anywhere or insinuates that all men are abusers or every man who disputes custody is an abuser. It merely addresses how they can make themselves appear the victums with great ease and the repercussions that take place as a result.
The article is only concerning abusive men and not all men in all custody disputes.
19 May 06
Originally posted by mokkoAnd women would never do such a thing!
NO! Not any man. It's in specific referrence to abusive men. Who all to often fly through the legal sytem as super daddies when they're anything but.
There is such a huge difference between a normal functioning man and the way they think and react in contrast to an abusive man.
It's merely a profile of the way an abusive man thinks, reacts and gets awa ...[text shortened]... sult.
The article is only concerning abusive men and not all men in all custody disputes.
19 May 06
1 edit
In the past decade, family courts have ordered 11 children to have contact with fathers who subsequently murdered them. A Women's Aid report, Failure to Protect, found 18 cases of children ordered to have contact with fathers who had been convicted of schedule one offences - meaning violent crimes against children. It found that 64 children had been ordered to have contact with a parent whose behaviour had previously caused children to be placed on the child protection register. Of those, 21 had been ordered to have unsupervised contact with the abusive parent.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1770011,00.html
19 May 06
Originally posted by mokkoIs this what you are going through right now? If so, my heart goes out to you.
In the past decade, family courts have ordered 11 children to have contact with fathers who subsequently murdered them. A Women's Aid report, Failure to Protect, found 18 cases of children ordered to have contact with fathers who had been convicted of schedule one offences - meaning violent crimes against children. It found that 64 children had been ordered to ...[text shortened]... sed contact with the abusive parent.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1770011,00.html
19 May 06
Originally posted by mokkoRead what you said:
NO! Not any man. It's in specific referrence to abusive men. Who all to often fly through the legal sytem as super daddies when they're anything but.
There is such a huge difference between a normal functioning man and the way they think and react in contrast to an abusive man.
It's merely a profile of the way an abusive man thinks, reacts and gets awa ...[text shortened]... sult.
The article is only concerning abusive men and not all men in all custody disputes.
"You will find that most men in custody battles who aren't abusive will put the childrens needs above their own and easily and readily come to amicable agreements with the ex. Preventing any emotional stress on their children. "
In other words, a man in a custody dispute who cannot come to an amicable agreement (ie, accept the contact his ex proposes), is probably an abuser.
This is what the article says too.
I understand that you've had a bad time, but this is just the opposite extreme.
19 May 06
Originally posted by RedmikeYes...most men who have never been abusive will put their childrens needs first. Not ALL men....but most. Every case is unique and every mother is not going to be amicable herself. I realize that.
Read what you said:
"You will find that most men in custody battles who aren't abusive will put the childrens needs above their own and easily and readily come to amicable agreements with the ex. Preventing any emotional stress on their children. "
In other words, a man in a custody dispute who cannot come to an amicable agreement (ie, accept the conta ...[text shortened]... says too.
I understand that you've had a bad time, but this is just the opposite extreme.
I can tell you first hand that issues of custody and access were never a problem with the father of my two oldest children. Neither of us needed lawyers. He agreed to me have sole custody as long as he got reasonable access. Very simple.
He has never been denied access to his children (even in the midst of some very huge arguements) and neither of us play silly games as far as these outragous PAS (Parental alienation syndrome) supporters like to make out happens far more often than it does.
It's women who have been abused that get raked over the coals in courts. Courts don't want to believe that spousal abuse is a serious issue and often it's the woman who is blamed in the courts for causing the abuse in the first place. When a woman finally gets the strength to stand up for herself and leave the abusive situation she is revictumized through the courts. Often having her children taken from her and given to the abuser.
I have been talking to many women in this situation. While it isn't the majority of the cases that abuse is an issue in these cases it's normally the father who triumph despite criminal charges, previous convictions and the childrens protest. Because obviously any child who protests wanting to see there fathers has been brainwashed by the mothers. Give me a break.
The greatest injustice in these cases is not being done to the mothers themselves but to the children who are being forced to endure ongoing abuse. And when any mother attempts to speak up for there children or care enough to get emotional over the issue are repremanded by the removal of their children all together.
It's not every woman who makes up stories of abuse in order to manipulate and gain sole custody. In fact most people don't seem to understand the humiliation and fear involved for women who do decide to break the silence. To speak out against an abuser is the greatest emotional challenge that a person can face.
To speak up and be punished for it seems a sick twisted joke. To further punish the children is an outrage. Whatever happened to the basis of the best interest of the children. This loses all priorety in cases that involve an abusive partner.
19 May 06
Originally posted by mokkoThat's great that, in one case at least, 2 people can agree access.
Yes...most men who have never been abusive will put their childrens needs first. Not ALL men....but most. Every case is unique and every mother is not going to be amicable herself. I realize that.
I can tell you first hand that issues of custody and access were never a problem with the father of my two oldest children. Neither of us needed lawyers. He agree ...[text shortened]... terest of the children. This loses all priorety in cases that involve an abusive partner.
But you can't say that in every, or most, cases where the parties cannot mutually agree the contact that the reason for this must be because the father is abusive.
I understand that abused women are in a terrible position, but you can't punish every man for the crimes of a few.
19 May 06
Originally posted by RedmikeLol....that's not what I'm suggesting.
That's great that, in one case at least, 2 people can agree access.
But you can't say that in every, or most, cases where the parties cannot mutually agree the contact that the reason for this must be because the father is abusive.
I understand that abused women are in a terrible position, but you can't punish every man for the crimes of a few.
I'm not saying in most cases where parties can't agree there are issues of abuse.
I'm saying that IN cases OF abuse the men have different motives and tactics that are indicative of an abusive person. They are seperate circumstances and vary from the standard norm in custody and access issues.
Instead of these exclusive cases being treated with caution and proper knowledge they are being treated in a destuctive maner which sometimes prove fatal for those involved.
Stop trying to make it sound like it's an attack against all men. Not all men are abusers and not all men who dispute in custody issues are abusers.
This is why the lines get blurred and judges rule against women who are in these situations. Because nobody can seem to distinguish between all men and abusive men. It's a real crime and it has serious repercussions on the families involved.
19 May 06
Originally posted by mokkoOK, but that's not what this says:
Lol....that's not what I'm suggesting.
I'm not saying in most cases where parties can't agree there are issues of abuse.
I'm saying that IN cases OF abuse the men have different motives and tactics that are indicative of an abusive person. They are seperate circumstances and vary from the standard norm in custody and access issues.
Instead of these ...[text shortened]... abusive men. It's a real crime and it has serious repercussions on the families involved.
"You will find that most men in custody battles who aren't abusive will put the childrens needs above their own and easily and readily come to amicable agreements with the ex."
This very clearly says that men who aren't abusive will agree custody. Therefore men who don't must be abusive.
It is not me who cannot distinguish between all men and abusive men.
19 May 06
Originally posted by RedmikeIt's merely a very small distinguishing feature, not the highlight of the entire phycology involved.
OK, but that's not what this says:
"You will find that most men in custody battles who aren't abusive will put the childrens needs above their own and easily and readily come to amicable agreements with the ex."
This very clearly says that men who aren't abusive will agree custody. Therefore men who don't must be abusive.
It is not me who cannot distinguish between all men and abusive men.
Taking statements like this and focusing on them as the sole basis of evedence of abusive is why the system has become entangled in a gender war. Just as the courts cannot assume that all mothers are the best qualified for the care of their children they also need to acknowledge that not all fathers are qualified for equal parent status as well.