Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘fathers’

Just a thought. I’m not trying to be controversial or nuffing. But it did occur to me today that whilst the clamour for a presumption of equal parenting is all well and good (I agree its a solution that should be given serious consideration in most cases, but not that this should be elevated to a presumption) its something which is really completely novel as far as the history of the family is concerned. And I began to think about what equality really means in the context of parenting.

I’m all for equality of opportunity as far as parenting is concerned. It doesn’t matter to me whether its Mr Mom or Lady Cab Driver. Or a shared arrangement that defies the traditional homemaker / breadwinner paradigm.

However, whilst I’m no historian, I can’t think of any time in history or any culture where the role of primary carer is or has been generally  split equally between both parents. Aside from cultural norms and historical societal organisation into very gendered roles, there remain all sorts of practical and financial reasons why one parent most often carries out the bulk of the care of the children. It’s still most often the mother who performs this role, but there is no reason why it needs to be her as opposed to him.

I pause here to observe that even for topsy turvy families like mine where there is a gender role reversal from the traditional female carer : male breadwinner, it is quite often very hard for both of us to shed our guilt for not providing (him) or not being there to kiss it better (me): gendered expectations about our roles as parents are deeply ingrained in us all whatever our philosophy or intellectual belief. I go out to work: I feel like a bad mother, even though I know better. But there is no reason why the carer has to be the mother. And courts must ensure no prejudice in that respect.

But I want to draw out a distinction between avoiding discrimination in our attitudes to who should provide primary care and the quite distinct proposal that the primary care should be split equally between the two parents on separation. When families are together shared care and equal divisions of time are far from the norm, and I’m not sure why they should be the norm when they aren’t together.

.

Fathers seek equality in matters of family justice. Equality to me means that each parent should have equal treatment from the courts, equal status as a parent, equal importance in the life of a child. It’s not a mathematical equation and it can’t be expressed in binary. What is legitimate to ask for is that the court, when faced with applications for residence from two parents, does not make its decision based on prejudice or gender stereotype. What is not legitimate is to prioritise a parent’s desire for recognition or affirmation over what is right for the child in any given case.

The complaint is often made that the overwhelming majority of residence orders are made to mothers, ergo discrimination. Well I don’t agree that this equals discrimination, because I don’t think you can tease out from that that brute fact that, in spite of big changes in society over recent decades, the way in which most families still continue to organise themselves is with mum as main carer, and that when most disputes come to court it is from the starting point that the children are used to being cared for by her. Which is not to say there isn’t discrimination in individual cases, but only that the statistics reflect the general trends in society that persist.

In private law disputes the title and status of ‘primary carer’ can become a much sought after prize, the symbol of victory in the battle for equality. The goal of 50% of a child’s time I think is often a symptom of competitiveness between parents, determined on securing a victory in their own conflict. Parents who count up how many nights a year they have and demand an extra 3 nights per annum to balance it out have really lost the wood for the trees – their kids aren’t counting. They are wondering why daddy / mummy is so angry all the time. The 50:50 approach fundamentally misunderstands the way in which our children see us as important figures in their lives. A breadwinner is no less of a parent than a homemaker / carer. My dad worked hard, he didn’t get home to put us to bed often and the patterns and nature of my relationship with him as a child was very different from that I had with my mother. But my parents are equally important to me, regardless of who bandaged my knee or made my sandwiches or who stumped up the pocket money. It is only adults who need to quantify their relationships in hours. Insistence on shared residence can be to impose the judgment of Solomon on children, if not tearing them limb from limb forcing them to be constantly moving from pillar to post in order to share themselves equally between their parents.

Shared parenting works well for some. Equal splits of time also for some. There are any number of combinations or arrangements. But, when there are two homes the practical and geographical problems can often make shared care stressful or impractical. For the bulk of families, whether separated or together the only practical solution is to take different but equal roles. Children understand that in their own way and think no less of us for it. Sometimes I think that the more parents try to demonstrate their equality through carving up the weeks into 50:50 shares, the more they force children to choose between them.

.

I know that fathers rights / equality campaigners don’t think that the welfare checklist / best interests test achieves a non-discriminatory result, but I think a presumption of shared care would subjugate the welfare of the child to the straitjacket of dogma. But what if instead we were to legislate to remove any perceived discrimination by identifying what is impermissible for the court to take into account: a codification of the principle of non-discrimination by, say, a provision that the court must not make decisions about the care or residence of a child on grounds of gender.

.

These are just my Friday night musings and I’ve had half a glass of wine (baby related abstinence means even this results in mild squiffiness). But I do think there are more creative ways to think about how we promote equality for mums and dads and I think that the debate about this needs to be both more rigorous and more innovative.

Read Full Post »

Pootling around on the internet in the light of this weeks horse painting shennanigans I came across Matt O’Connor’s new blog Father4Justice, the new F4J website (be warned, it looks nice but plays annoying music which won’t turn off) and facebook group for the recently relaunched Fathers 4 Justice. Matt O’Connor’s first substantive blog post explaining the decision to re-enter the fray and to relaunch F4J is (as ever with Matt O’Connor) punchy, hard hitting and well crafted – it roused my rabble – and I’m “the enemy”.

.

But seriously, although I don’t buy into many of the conspiracy theories about the anti-male agenda of the system, there is a place for campaigns for reform of the family justice system – dads, mums and kids do very often get a raw deal. And although I recognise that for many I’m part of the problem, I like to think I do my bit for justice, even though I do it from within the system.

. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Family Lore has alerted me to this curious decision of Lord Justice Wall on permission (RW v SW [2010] EWCA Civ 457 (29 April 2010)). Wall LJ adjourned off a father’s application for permission to appeal to a two judge court notwithstanding the fact that his own view was that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, on the sole basis that the father is ‘one of many who feel let down by the system’.

.

Hmmm…I admire the sentiment – it is important that all groups of litigants in the family justice system should feel that their case has been dealt with thoroughly – but is it right as a matter of principle that those that complain the loudest should get special consideration? Unusually in this case there is no public or private expense in the form of legal costs as the appellant father was in person and the mother (as is usual with permission applications) was not involved at that stage. However there IS a not insignificant expense no doubt to Her Majesty’s Court Service and judicial time is being taken from something else when the permission application has already been thoroughly considered. What if the two judge court disagrees with Lord Justice Wall and grants permission? Would not the Mother have cause to complain that the Father had been given two bites of the cherry? Certainly if the boot were on the other foot there would be uproar about discrimination against fathers.

.

This judgment makes me uneasy. Thoughts?

Read Full Post »

I should avoid the obvious opportunity to make a sexist remark about the inherent improbability of some men doing anything remotely useful with a hoover but it’s just slipped out.

Apparently Batman and his specially modified hoover will be visiting the family courts soon to help clean them up. Excellent. I can’t tell you how much I am looking forward to that forthcoming entertainment. I hope he brings his marigolds. It’s messy out there.

I’m particularly intrigued to know how this little piece of performance art will unfold on the ground. Will Batman actually operate his hoover in the waiting area to dramatic effect (I fear this may interfere with his ability to deliver any punchy script)? Will we have to pause mid conference to raise our feet as he gets those hard to reach crumbs under the chairs? Will he have to pause to change bags or unclog his hose? Will he wield his hoover menacingly at the judiciary? And will it set off the metal detector? And will he be visiting the court at Abergavenny to finish cleaning up the F4J graffitti scrawled across the front entrance?

According to Batman’s facebook page he hopes to clean up family law “…who knows, I might suck up a few corrupt judges and the “gravy train, money hungry solicitors””. Batman dear, that sounds rather threatening. You’d better not point that thing at me, I am very lumpy and will most likely damage your nozzle.

Read Full Post »

Plain Stupid

Some chaps ‘associated with’ F4J have apparently been arrested trying to get onto the runway at Heathrow this morning, reports the Telegraph. It has been suggested by Matt O’Connor that they may have been trying to ‘steal back the mantle’ from the Plane Stupid protesters. It’s unclear from the piece I’ve read whether he purports to speak with authority or whether F4J have endorsed or claimed this action. It seems to be a splinter group, but then why the commentary from O’Connor? He certainly sounds from the quote to have been forewarned of the likelihood of forthcoming stunts.

Whatever the precise affiliations of those involved this mantle stealing jolly is pointlessly competitive. Juvenile. Egocentric. Unlikely to do the cause any favours. And irrelevant (why an airport for goodness sake?). Plain Stupid.

Read Full Post »

moving on

Just a thought about how often in intractable contact cases it is very difficult for parents to move on – not only because of the issues in the case themselves but because of the need to retain eligibility for legal aid – often a parent (typically a father) is unable to go out and look for work to occupy his mind and time because in doing so he will lose his legal aid. It leaves people in a frustrating limbo where they cannot go out and fulfill themselves in other ways and have nothing to focus on but the destructive litigation. There shouldn’t really have to be a choice between gainful employment and being able to pursue a relationship with your child. And in the intractable type of case I’m thinking of I would not be suggesting a parent should be expected to act as a litigant in person.

Read Full Post »

It has taken me some time to read this report in snatches over the last week. John Bolch has already posted about it, and The Times published an article recording just how ‘furious’ fathers rights campaigners are with it.

.

This report is a really interesting piece of work, although much of what it says is no surprise: Everyone in the system works really hard to get parents to agree things…. Delay is a big problem…. CAFCASS are overwhelmed…. The majority of cases end up with some contact, a large proportion with staying contact….There are a difficult few that the courts cannot budge….. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »