So sad for my child

I''ve become a weekend daddy for a young child… i.e. the "standard" 2 weekends (4 days) over 4 weeks.

I was naively hoping for a balance outcome as we had roughly 50:50 care for the child for over 1 year. I was vilified on every single little flaw in court. False accusations were what the court would like to hear.

I cannot comprehend why the system encourages the mother to fight till the bitter end to get the majority of care of a child. It''s so illogical to me and to all the people I speak to.

As fathers, the best we can only hope for is 50% of care under the biased system. The mother doesn''t seem to have any risk of losing. I hate to use the words win and lose as it''s really a loss to the child if either side wins.

The majority of fathers are just normal blokes having to hold down a job while juggling family life. There just can''t be that many wife-beaters, alcoholics, drug-addicts, child molesters, etc.

The fathers are forced to go to court as they want to see more of the child and have a meaningful relationship with the child. Most father would adjust to a shared care arrangement by changing their work pattern. What mothers wouldn''t want their children to see more of their fathers? Mothers are supposed to care about children''s feelings, aren''t they?

I''ve read so many stories on wikivorce. Once the fathers become weekend daddies, they are at the mercy of the mothers in gaining access to their children. The mothers can deny access on a whim regardless of what the court order says. There is no penalty against the mothers doing that.
The fact that they fought to the bitter end to get the majority of care indicates that they want to continue to exercise emotional control over the children and fathers.
Also, having the majority of care of the child limits their ability to work or improve on their careers. Isn''t divorce supposed to mean moving on and living independent lives? Surely, the longer they delay in getting a reasonable job, the harder it gets
So, who is the best babysitter for the child while mommy needs to work or study? The father.

How am I going to tell my kid that daddy is only going to see you once every 2 weeks from now on…? What lies can I tell him to make him feel better?

I am sure my kid will cry when he realises he''s not going to spend a lot of time with his father anymore. I am sure he doesn''t want to leave when he spends the weekend with me.

Why does he mother think it''s OK to break up the bond between our son and his father…? Isn''t she supposed to think in the best interest of the child?

I have been spending 3 days a week with him for over 1 year. It was an interim court order.

You can''t convince me quality vs. quantity… The among of time just cannot be replaced for 2 nights every 2 weeks!

..The simple answer is because courts are biased towards women when it comes to children. It is always assumed that the mother will be the carer- even in cases when both parents work. Its sexist, and its rubbish.

Contact orders mean nothing as courts dont want to ''punish'' the offender.. meanwhile you refuse to pay CM because you are refused access and instantly you are a criminal.

There is no parity in family law.

somuch2know2

We can only rant here in the forum. There is not much I can do. I want to appeal but I think I will just waste more time and money, and most importantly, my life. I just have to accept I am part of the statistics… It''s a real shame the mother can decide the child does not spend good quantity of time with the father.

It''s scary that everything just gets twisted in court. Every little flaw becomes a major issue. It''s just a word game when it comes to passing down judgement. In the balance of probabilities, the father is controlling, hostile, etc.


If the mother gets custody of the child, she then gets more money from the divorce on everything. I understand the mother tends to be the financially weaker party. If the mother needs more money to reestablish herself after divorce, then award her more money just because of that. I just think it''s a better world if money is detached from child custody arrangement.

In theory money and child arrangements are separated, but with the bias that money will first cover the needs of the children, then the needs of the spouses. So yea, if the children are leaving with the mother, the money will go to there.
More than a court problem, i also believe it is a cultural problem, mothers not letting go of control of the children. We are de facto the main carer in a majority of cases, and there are many more examples of runway fathers than mothers, but when all is amicable there can be still a reluctance to give equal access to the father.
There is talk in france of having shred residence as a default position, and the parties would then have to justify why it''s not feasable. I hope it does happens, and it comes across the good old UK.

I keep hearing the phrase "welfare of the child is paramount" from different authorities in the process, solicitors, court, CAFCASS, CSA, etc.
I really wonder if the same thing happened to those people working in those roles, i.e. their time with the child is much reduced, would they come to the same assessment for their own cases? Or do they just toll the party line as that''s what their jobs tell them to do?

Runaway fathers (or parents) are people being irresponsible. The system cannot do much with people who are irresponsible.
But in child custody case, the fathers want to be responsible and see more of the children. Bingo, the system can "punish" people who wants to be responsible!

The France idea is a good one. Make the parents think positively on how they work together.

In my case, I wanted to present to court that how everything could work for the child for shared residence, e.g. location of school to properties, family ties, bond with the child, etc.
However, the court was more into hearing false accusations and little flaws that the father had. With the infallible phrase of "balance of probabilities", the court can make a one-sided judgement.

Allow me to say, if those mothers were so great to the children, why would they insist on the children seeing their fathers 2 days out of 14? Stability?
If children can adapt, e.g. seeing the father a lot less, surely they can adapt to see the father more.

Hi Bab, reading this thread, this is exactly the battle I''m going through at the moment - ex has been making tonnes of allegations, I''ve had to (successfully) fight off Non-molestation and Occupation orders, and when it looked like she was going to "lose" (like you say, no one wins), and by losing I mean for us to carry on with our roughly equal shared care arrangement rather than switch to one night a fortnight as she offers, she cooked up a relocation to the other end of the country, dressed up with demonstrable lies, warm words about how much she''d love me to be a part of my child''s life despite all her actions indicating otherwise, and with CAFCASS'' blind support. Her proposal would give me a day and a half every two weeks, and I don''t trust her in the slightest not to disrupt that, then what? Once a month? From doing 7 days out of 14 and if anything arguably being the primary carer if indeed there is one in our family?

Some good news though - with the help of a lovely barrister I managed to fight off the interim move yesterday in court, despite CAFCASS supporting it. I''ve had to make loads of sacrifices including moving out of my own house until the final hearing, and worse - crazy back and forth minute by minute handovers of my child during my midweek time - but it was either that or lose midweek completely, as an interim. CAFCASS recommended this as being best for the child but the handovers are the times of conflict. Anyway, onwards to the final hearing. The odds are still stacked against me but I have some hope now.

Overall the really sad thing is that despite improvements the system is biased such that mothers only need fairly weak cases to get their way, as everyone has said here the default presumption should always be shared care unless it can be demonstrated with evidence otherwise. There''s no excuse for fathers that run off and abandon their children but this will surely be the minority. Also a default shared care, whatever the actual contact split (in my case I don''t mind if the mother has more time, but I think it''s really valuable for me to have some midweek contact), might reduce the presumption that mothers should get their way and therefore encourage them to be more compromising in their dealings with fathers.

Anyway, when I have time I''ll write about my experiences yesterday on my threads, hopefully useful for others going through the same process.