FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Who have the right to get custody?

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

In most cases why do you think that the man have less rights to get it when it comes to the court?.

On another not sure if you follow eastenders they also took it up as micks wife said you have no chance "women always get the kids" it is like she already know she would win.

It would be more equal if both got the rights as one should not get more rights then the other a fair system would to devide the time the kids spent with them.

Whats your view?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I Harold got custody via the courts. I wouldn't say I won because I never wanted to go that route but circumstances lead that way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ed-monkeyCouple
over a year ago

Hailsham

There should be no favouring 1 or the other, the whole thing should be judged on circumstances and what is best for the child.

Traditionally, the mother wasn't quite so career oriented and was often stay at home or part time working to fit around school. That obviously had changed through time with far more career oriented women now (always a good thing)

A rebellious thought but so often I wonder why the parents can't put their differences to one side and fully consider what is best for their child. The best outcome in my opinion? A mutually agreed joint arrangement where the child gets input from both parents ... ah ... utopia, where art thou?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It isn’t like that these days. Anybody that has involvement with the courts, social services, CAFCAS, they ALL champion contact with the father even if they really shouldn’t have access to their children.

A small minority of bitter stupid cunt women, I sound harsh but that’s what they are, the women who use their children as a weapon or would stop contact over some bull shit reason like their ex getting a new girlfriend or some other bollocks, they’ve made it harder for genuine cases where the father really shouldn’t have access to their children.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"In most cases why do you think that the man have less rights to get it when it comes to the court?.

On another not sure if you follow eastenders they also took it up as micks wife said you have no chance "women always get the kids" it is like she already know she would win.

It would be more equal if both got the rights as one should not get more rights then the other a fair system would to devide the time the kids spent with them.

Whats your view?"

I watch Coronation Street.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

When I was 5 and had 3 younger brothers my dad got legal custody of us because my mum never turned up at the court on time

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ablo minibar123Woman
over a year ago

.

My opinion is women certainly don't always get the kids, and in EastEnders example I would be shocked and disappointed if a woman who struggled to stay sober for a couple of hours would be given custody of a child

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *itonmyfacebookMan
over a year ago

Burton on Trent


"In most cases why do you think that the man have less rights to get it when it comes to the court?.

On another not sure if you follow eastenders they also took it up as micks wife said you have no chance "women always get the kids" it is like she already know she would win.

It would be more equal if both got the rights as one should not get more rights then the other a fair system would to devide the time the kids spent with them.

Whats your view?"

Custody was supposed to have changed to residency - resident and non resident parent - in the 80s. I don't watch EastEnders but yes in the vast majority of cases mum will be the RP.

But each case is different I hear you say. They are some variables and the opinions of the children are supposed to be taken into consideration once they reach a certain age. But yeah: as a rule of thumb mum = RP Dad = non RP.

The rhetoric is it's all about what's best for the kids. Not what the patents want but judges just want an easy ride and a big fat pension and don't want to upset the Feminist PC brigade. And now I'm in trouble.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" And now I'm in trouble. "

And, with respect, wrong

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emorefridaCouple
over a year ago

La la land


"It isn’t like that these days. Anybody that has involvement with the courts, social services, CAFCAS, they ALL champion contact with the father even if they really shouldn’t have access to their children.

A small minority of bitter stupid cunt women, I sound harsh but that’s what they are, the women who use their children as a weapon or would stop contact over some bull shit reason like their ex getting a new girlfriend or some other bollocks, they’ve made it harder for genuine cases where the father really shouldn’t have access to their children. "

So agree with you, hate women to weaponise their children. It's as though their desire for revenge is bigger than the love of their children. And yes it does make it difficult for those who genuinely need to stop access

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *itonmyfacebookMan
over a year ago

Burton on Trent


" And now I'm in trouble.

And, with respect, wrong"

A shortened version of my post: in the vast majority of cases mum = RP. Fact.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"There should be no favouring 1 or the other, the whole thing should be judged on circumstances and what is best for the child.

Traditionally, the mother wasn't quite so career oriented and was often stay at home or part time working to fit around school. That obviously had changed through time with far more career oriented women now (always a good thing)

A rebellious thought but so often I wonder why the parents can't put their differences to one side and fully consider what is best for their child. The best outcome in my opinion? A mutually agreed joint arrangement where the child gets input from both parents ... ah ... utopia, where art thou?"
That is right there shouldnt be any favouring of who gets the kid and yes a mutally agreed arrangment is the best outcome too of it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atex and KinkCouple
over a year ago

Edinburgh

This is a very raw topic to any parent who has had to go through court action to gain access to seeing their childern.

The only people who truely gain out of disputes is the lawyers....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"In most cases why do you think that the man have less rights to get it when it comes to the court?.

On another not sure if you follow eastenders they also took it up as micks wife said you have no chance "women always get the kids" it is like she already know she would win.

It would be more equal if both got the rights as one should not get more rights then the other a fair system would to devide the time the kids spent with them.

Whats your view?"

That's not always the case despite modern trends and it riles me when mothers assume and verbalise that outcome.

My late dad was an example in late 70's. He was awarded custody which was rare in those days. My birthmother's lawyer actually congratulated my dad and said he was professionally overstepping boundary by doing so but expressed that he had concerns of our welfare and future! Immediately after exiting Court, a huge fight broke out with my birth mother attacking my stepmum in the street and we witnessed the whole debacle .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" And now I'm in trouble.

And, with respect, wrong

A shortened version of my post: in the vast majority of cases mum = RP. Fact. "

Firstly, it’s not about parents, it’s about children. The court focuses on the children, their needs, and what would give them the best outcome.

Secondly, fact, courts follow evidence.

Thirdly, it’s a complicated process and no two cases are the same. The ideal solution is that it never has to go to court, both parents are reasonable and don’t weaponise their children. Once you enter court, they decide your children’s fate.

If you’ve been there, you’ll know...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *itonmyfacebookMan
over a year ago

Burton on Trent


" And now I'm in trouble.

And, with respect, wrong

A shortened version of my post: in the vast majority of cases mum = RP. Fact.

Firstly, it’s not about parents, it’s about children. The court focuses on the children, their needs, and what would give them the best outcome.

Secondly, fact, courts follow evidence.

Thirdly, it’s a complicated process and no two cases are the same. The ideal solution is that it never has to go to court, both parents are reasonable and don’t weaponise their children. Once you enter court, they decide your children’s fate.

If you’ve been there, you’ll know..."

I know and you are reiterating much of what I said in my first post.

But nothing anyone can post can deviate from; in the majority of instances mum becomes the RP.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The parents have equal rights. There is no greater entitlement to the mother over the father. Courts are now making fathers the RP in far more cases than previously. The system is far from perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got, for now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It isn’t like that these days. Anybody that has involvement with the courts, social services, CAFCAS, they ALL champion contact with the father even if they really shouldn’t have access to their children.

A small minority of bitter stupid cunt women, I sound harsh but that’s what they are, the women who use their children as a weapon or would stop contact over some bull shit reason like their ex getting a new girlfriend or some other bollocks, they’ve made it harder for genuine cases where the father really shouldn’t have access to their children. "
It is good that it isnt as much the same as befofe and that is right some women use them as weapon which is not that good of them doing it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *itonmyfacebookMan
over a year ago

Burton on Trent


" And now I'm in trouble.

And, with respect, wrong

A shortened version of my post: in the vast majority of cases mum = RP. Fact.

Firstly, it’s not about parents, it’s about children. The court focuses on the children, their needs, and what would give them the best outcome.

Secondly, fact, courts follow evidence.

Thirdly, it’s a complicated process and no two cases are the same. The ideal solution is that it never has to go to court, both parents are reasonable and don’t weaponise their children. Once you enter court, they decide your children’s fate.

If you’ve been there, you’ll know...

I know and you are reiterating much of what I said in my first post.

But nothing anyone can post can deviate from; in the majority of instances mum becomes the RP. "

Fathers' rights is an oxymoron.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isaB45Woman
over a year ago

Fabville

Children are not objects to be divided up like possesions, when a relationship ends.

Surely any parent should want what is best for their child?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Children are not objects to be divided up like possesions, when a relationship ends.

Surely any parent should want what is best for their child?"

Absolutely! And that is exactly how the court sees it!

(Great profile btw)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *itonmyfacebookMan
over a year ago

Burton on Trent


"Children are not objects to be divided up like possesions, when a relationship ends.

Surely any parent should want what is best for their child?

Absolutely! And that is exactly how the court sees it!

(Great profile btw)"

Family Court Judges want an easy life and a fat pension. And upsetting all powerful PC feminists might jeopardise that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uxomBoobs195Woman
over a year ago

Rotherham

My sons dad was abusive, physically and mentally towards me and he was in prison (for something he did before he met me and didnt tell me about) at the time i had my son, hes classed as a high risk to my son and a risk to me.

I spoke to SS and asked if he wanted access, would he be allowed.

I was told once he has proved he is his dad (he isnt on his BC as was in prison), SS would back me fully due him being a risk, but he could still get supervised visits with my son if he was to go down that path.

Thankfully he hasnt done and hasnt shown any signs of wanting to contact me or my son (hes 3)

When my sons older (late teens) and understands whats happened and why i raised him on my own etc, i will stand by him and if he chooses to meet his dad, i wont stop it.

But until hes old enough to make his own mind up, i will do my upmost to keep him and myself safe and happy. Xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adame 2SwordsWoman
over a year ago

Victoria, London

Wasn't always the case, and it's how it is these days.

My dad had custody of me but he fucked it up, so I ended up in the UK

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Think you need to do a bit of reading up on the subject OP.

The piece of legislation you're looking for is the 1989 Childrens act.

Men do not have any less rights than women.

The truth us that NEITHER have ANY rights over their children.

It is the rights of the child that a court will decide upon.

Believe me, I've been through it, with over 6 years of experience of the family courts

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *essie.Woman
over a year ago

Serendipity

I know a couple of sets of parents who each have their children 50% of the time.

Most of the time, parents sort out arrangements between them. It’s a relatively small percentage that go to court.

Arrangements need to be organic as the wants and needs change as children get older.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top