Duncan Fisher - Latest Comments

Re: The Government has dropped its commitments to expand leave entitlements for mothers and fathers. Good!

Rob W — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:37:43 -0000

Part of me doesn't want to think about it all again Duncan, because every time I consider how ridiculous our system (in the 21st century no less!) is set up I am flabbergasted verging on angry. It's unbelievable that we don't have a system that allows parents to make a choice about how best to serve their needs using flexible arrangements.

Yes, businesses would suffer a little, but no more pain than they receive when one of their female staff takes nine months to a year off work. That shouldn't be used as an excuse - when it is it just reminds me that too many people will happily but work before family.

Our current system says "when you have a child, the mother is the caregiver and the father provides" and that is that. No negotiation, even if the female is the primary earner in the household. It's amazing that this part of society is still stuck in an arcane mindset and hasn't been ditched like the old mindset that women weren't expected to have a career.

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

karenwoodall — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:36:38 -0000

crash dive you are really not at all understanding what we are doing at CSF.

I will give you an example.

I have just completed work for a dad who has a joint residence order but who has not seen his son for the past five years. A succession of Cafcass officers, Legal Guardians and so on have been involved but the mother has got the boy to the point where he himself now refuses to see his father, citing incidences from the past as evidence that his father is a bully.

This dad came to us after a long and painful effort through court to establish his legal rights to his time with his son.

We worked with both mother and father from a child centred perspective aiming to understand what the issues were that were getting in the way. We worked with the boy, he told us the same thing that he had told everyone else along the way, he did not want contact with his father, he was a bully.

We reviewed the court papers, particularly the Cafcass and LG reports. It was clear that the evidence for alienation was in place. We began a process of working with the mother to address her issues about the relationship with the father. When it was clear that she was actively blocking not only the relationship between father and son but any outside intervention, we investigated further. Finally, we put in a report to court and accompanied the father. A section 37 report was ordered. The outcome of this process is that the son is now on the child protection register, there were other issues emerging that I cannot write about but the LA are now working on rehabilitation for the son and re-introduction of contact with the father. We will support that process.

Other agencies had turned this dad away. The Cafcass officers had believed the mother, the LG simply cited the child's wish not to see the father. We started from a place of not just looking at the presenting issues but digging deeper to find out what was really going on.

But we still do not start from a place of presumption of shared care or joint residence because as this and many other cases that we work on demonstrate, the law does not guarantee an equal outcome. Further, if just one child is subjected to demands to split their time equally between parents without regard for that child's feelings and needs, we feel that as a society we will have failed.

Our project is not mediation and nor is it simply therapy. It is to work with families to provide the intensive support that each parent needs in order to come to a place where co-operation between them is possible. Where a parent is alienating, as in the case above, we act to offer support but ultimately help the parent who is alienated to achieve what will best benefit the child. Every case is different and every family needs tailored made support.

We are not simply advocating our own position for the sake of it, we work with families every day and make a real difference. This is what is needed on a widescale in the UK.

Presumption is not the holy grail.

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

karenwoodall — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:25:11 -0000

No actually, in this case it was not. Like many parents who are unable to deal with the end of their adult relationship, these two were hell bent on hurting each other as much as possible using their child as the weapon. These two were highly paid people, had spent thousands on litigation attempting at every twist and turn to outsmart each other and ensure that there was as much suffering done as possible. The in court process had taken two years and it was in mediation that they had agreed a shared care arrangement and had it ratified in court as part of their divorce settlement.

Over the years this had been stuck to rigidly by both parties and the girl's experience had been completely overlooked. By the time she was 12 years old she had had enough of moving between homes and wanted things to change to suit her. Her mother told her she would have to sort it out with her father and her father demanded that she stuck to the same arrangements because he had the right to shared care. These two had completely lost the plot in terms of their child's welfare and in terms of the advice they were getting, which was focused either around dad's right to have the child or mum's right to deny the that. Mediation had helped them agree something in the past but had little to offer in the present or on an ongoing support basis.

This is why we are arguing for wholesale change to the way in which parents are supported. Family separation is not just a one off event, its a process in which one or the other or both parents can get stuck in conflictual positions which leave their children floundering in the middle.

Presumption of shared care is not the holy grail. It cannot change anything for parents who are determined to overlook their children's well being. A shared residence order did nothing for the dad I have been working with who has been excluded from his son's life for nine years. In working with this man, it has taken me almost a year to get a section 37 order in place, thereby restoring his contact with extensive support from Social Services. I fully understand the grief and dreadful suffering of those parents who are actively excluded from their children's lives, I work with those families every day too. But I still do not believe that presumption of shared care will make anything different for them.

The only answer to this deeply entrenched problem is intensive support to both parents to enable them to build a co-operative, flexible arrangement that meets their children's needs over time. This approach is urgently needed and very much resisted in the UK and yet in Europe, it is available widely.

With a change of government I very much hope we might get the chance to develop our support services more widely. I hope so, because at present there is too little done and its done far too late for too many children.

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

rmpaters — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:07:33 -0000

Your anecdote says nothing about shared care, again it is about the importance of flexibility in caring for children. The fact that the father you refer to has a contact order implies that he had to go to court at some point to get the specified access to his child. You don't give the cause of the father's fear and anger. Could it be a fear that if he didn't insist on his court-enforceable 'rights', he may not get any other contact with his daughter in the face of an intransigent mother?

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty: open letter to the Minister for Children

bonnylass — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:50:59 -0000

Ironically, we are all to believe that the purpose of the CSA/CMEC is, to ensure the welfare of our children. Sadly in some of cases, this could not be further from the truth.

Agency non performance and actions have a detrimental effect on the very reasons the CSA /CMEC exists ~ our children.

In many cases non resident parents (NRP) acquire hefty arrears, not through being non compliant, but due to Agency delays and errors.

Also, many parents with care who do have genuine non compliant ex's or 'deadbeat dads', due to years of Agency neglect have failed to receive any Child Support.

www.afairercsaforall.co.uk for FREE advice and support for All parents.

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

karenwoodall — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:13:15 -0000

would just like to say that the most heartbreaking thing I have ever had to deal with was a father waving a contact order at his daughter whilst demanding that she got on a train to spend two weeks with him. In his mind, shared care means that his daughter will be in his care on time, every time. This girl had just finished school for the holidays, she was exhausted and begging her father to allow her to remain in her home town for a couple of days to see her friends, relax and sleep. She was 12 years old and had been expected to conform to a shared care arrangement for six years. It was difficult to see how, a presumption of shared care, which this father was adamant was the only answer, could deliver anything positive for this girl. I worked with her father, supported him to discharge his fear and anger, persuaded him to stay overnight with his sister and allow his daughter to do what she needed to do. She went with him a couple of days later and thoroughly enjoyed her time with him.

If a presumption of shared care means outcomes that are different to those I describe, it is essential that those who espouse it get their message across to the parents who are enacting their rights. I see far too many mothers and fathers who are locked into asserting their rights through embracing notions of presumption of shared care, the only losers here are children.

Far from being mischievous, CSF is concerned with a long term project of helping children to have strong and flexible relationships with both of their parents. We are not seeking to change the world, just the lives of children who are deeply affected by their parents separation. That we do not agree with the presumption of shared care comes not from any other source than two decades of work with families. We know more about how to help parents achieve high quality relationships than most, this is not rhetoric, it is daily practice, underpinned by an indepth understanding of men and women's real lives. Our success is evidenced by the increasing number of families with whom we have worked who are achieving relaxed, co-operative and flexible shared care parenting agreements. We need nothing else to persuade us to continue this project.

Re: Thoughts on the future of gender equality (1)

karenwoodall — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:00:57 -0000

Couples who share care of children do so without even thinking that what they are doing is sharing care. What they are doing is being mum and dad in an easy and unconscious way. They are able to do this because they have between them, been able to address the anxieties and issues around their gendered identity and have overcome them. Those couples who do this, in a relaxed and manner however, are likely to be those who do not have to engage with structures and agencies outside of the home such as employers, the welfare benefits system etc. All of these agencies act to reinforce gendered ideas about who cares and who provides for children.

I believe that the block that you are looking for is the gendered assumptions that we all still live with in the UK. Despite years of efforts to liberate women from the role of carer, the pressure to care and to be seen to care for women is immense. Conversely, the pressure to earn the money and provide for the family, continues to constrain and confine men, both in real terms and psychologically, to that of the role of bread winner. These gendered messages pervade every aspect of our world, from the magazines for boys and girls (take a quick look next time you pass the news stand, the pink and fluffy ones are for the girls and the ones about taking things apart or building things are for the boys) to the provision for leave on the birth of a baby.

Our Family Policy and the way that we formulate support for parents is also steeply gendered in that it lacks any analysis of the outcomes it seeks to deliver. Put simply, we continue to frame policy and practice around the family based upon the assumption that mothers are natural carers and fathers natural providers.

The original women's liberation movement sought to free women and men from the strait jacket of gender roles so that they were free to make choices about how they took up caring and providing roles in family life. Somewhere along the line this got translated into women succeeding in a man's world and the focus turned to enabling women to continue to care as well as succeed outside of the home. Which is why the question of childcare is so central to ongoing debates about women's economic wellbeing and the arguments around child poverty.

My vision for the world is for every couple to achieve the kind of partnership that Suzie's stepson and his wife have succeeded in creating. For that to happen either everyone must go freelance or we must work to liberate politicians and practitioners from their gendered views of the world.

Its not rocket science, these outcomes are being achieved every day in other EU countries, where there is far less family separation, teenage pregnancy or other symptoms of crisis in community that we experience here in the UK.

Its time for a change, I don't want another generation of children to grow up within the confines of ideals that properly belong to the last century. Perhaps with a change of government and the opportunity to help shape new family policies, we can push this project forward. I believe, as you do, that the power to create long lasting change lies in the hands of men and women working together for the creation of a world that is better, not for one or the other but for us all and for our children.

Re: Thoughts on the future of gender equality (1)

Duncan — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:04:08 -0000

Amen to that! The thing that really intrigues me is how come we ended up in the UK with the biggest difference in leave entitlements between women and men in the world - 2 weeks versus 39 weeks, and the 2 weeks badly paid on top of everything. What kind of politics delivered such a thing? Also, why has no-one ever asked how couples who do share care actually manage it? If we are so concerned about who does what in the home, why don't we ask the obvious questions? I think deep down somewhere there is a block, and I would like to find out what it is, so that we can dismantle it.

Re: Thoughts on the future of gender equality (1)

suzie_hayman — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 05:13:00 -0000

You have to begin at the beginning - by not only offering equal parental leave immediately before and after the birth of a child, but encouraging it to be not just an aspiration but an expectation in our society. This has practical effects on how men and women are viewed in the market place and, far more important, it builds bonds between father and child. Take my stepson. He managed to schedule leave from work - at the time, in further education - so he had far more than the measly, weasly two weeks when his daughter was born. He hated going back to work after that - he really enjoyed having significant time with her but at least had more time than many, thanks to his profession. But at the end of a year's maternity leave, his wife went back to work and he went freelance; in reality, he assumed full time care of their child. She's now at nursery and they swap care - his wife works around the child's needs as does he. Theirs is a totally equal relationship in which everyone gains - both parents and the child. And society as a whole - a strong, happy family enriches us all. I strongly believe that if more men had the opportunity to spend significant time with their children in the early years, you'd end up with not only happier families but a far more equal and happy society.

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

CrashDive — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 23:19:02 -0000

The CSF's objection to Shared Parenting from the postings on here appear to rely on the misconceived notion that all parents need is their or similar organisations "holistic" care to see sense. Sadly, we know that mediation and therapeutic care is seldom successful unless both parents participate from an equal footing because the parent with control seldom wishes to (as they see it) relinquish that control, why would they.

This emphasis by the CSF on "high quality" relationship with both parents is fine but does not understand that a "high quality" relationship can only come about if there is substantial caring time by both parents and in an environment that values both parents as equally important to children.

The continued use by CSF of increasingly discredited terms such as "(children) possessions to be divided in two" are unhelpful and wrong and merely play well only to the ignorant and politicised rather than the child focussed.

Unless you have a Presumption of Shared Parenting as many forward looking countries have and are moving towards who are child focussed, you are left with a system that gives control to one of the parents with the result that significant numbers of those 'controlling' parents will abuse that responsibility with the consequence of harming many children.

Shared Parenting is not 50:50 or "dividing children in two" as the CSF mischeviously refer to it, it is about allowing children to see both of their parents as equally important in their lives and allowing children to have a "high quality" relationship with both of their parents, that might be equal parenting time or it will mean in most cases alternate weekends/mid-week and holidays. However, both parents will be seen and know they are equal in the eyes of the law and in their children's lives whatever the individual arrangements made for a family.

Please note the following in depth research from December 2008 which can be got from the University of Columbia if you email them:

JB

http://www.thespec.com/article/542365

"Especially devastating are the long-term effects of court orders that essentially cut one parent out of children's lives – usually the dad – in a misguided effort to foster peace between warring parents, the report says.

Citing a host of North American studies, Kruk's report points to the long-term dangers: Some 85 per cent of youth in prison are fatherless; 71 per cent of high school dropouts grew up without fathers, as did 90 per cent of runaway children. Fatherless youth are also more prone to depression, suicide, delinquency, promiscuity, drug abuse, behavioural problems and teen pregnancy, warns the 84-page report, a compilation of dozens of studies around divorce and custody, including some of his own research over the past 20 years.

"Parent-child bonds are formed through daily routines – preparing breakfast, taking the child to school, having dinner, getting ready for bed. Without that, it's very difficult for parents to have any real connection with their kids," Kruk said in a telephone interview from B.C. "It's so destructive for children to have a loving parent removed from their lives."

The effects of divorce on kids are now so well documented, significantly more couples separating today are opting for "equal shared parenting" – voluntary custody arrangements in which the children live with each parent roughly half the time, says Kruk. While a landmark federal study, For the Sake of the Children, recommended that approach back in 1998 and it has since been adopted by other countries, including Australia, it's still rarely used by Canadian judges and needs to be made law, except where there are extenuating circumstances, such as domestic violence or mental health issues that make one parent unfit, says Kruk.

Instead, most judges still rely on a "winner takes all" approach in custody battles. In some three-quarters of cases, judges grant sole custody to mothers, believing that it's impossible for warring parents to make shared custody work, Kruk's report finds. That's despite a growing body of research that shows animosity and even physical violence can increase "significantly" when one parent has sole control, says the report, Child Custody, Access and Parental Responsibility: The Search for a Just and Equitable Standard.

Even court-ordered "joint custody" is really a misnomer, Kruk's report shows. In fact, the non-custodial parent – usually the father – ends up with just a few days a month (typically every second weekend and every Wednesday) with the children. While research shows even that minimal sharing of time actually forces warring parents to lay down their arms and work together on "parenting plans" that work best for each of them and their kids, says Kruk, it makes it far more difficult for the non-custodial parent to develop a strong bond with their kids.

Research has shown that women and men work comparable amounts of time outside the home and now devote almost the exact amount of time – 11.1 hours a week and 10.5 hours a week respectively – to child care, with men playing a key role in their children's upbringing, says Kruk. Yet divorce lawyers openly tell fathers not to waste their time and money seeking equal custody, unless they can prove the mother is unfit.

All of which gives one parent a huge psychological advantage over the other, and incentive to fight to the death – in some cases actually alienating the kids from the other spouse – to win what comes to be seen as their "property," says Kruk.

But there are signs even mothers are at risk, Kruk warns. He's now studying 14 Vancouver-area women who have lost custody of their kids to their ex-husbands, in some cases because fathers argued that demanding careers kept the women away from home too much. Surprisingly, those women are now teaming up with fathers' right groups to push for legislation making equal, shared parenting the norm.

"No court order can make people get along," says Justice Harvey Brownstone who wrote the book Tug of War on divorce in Canada. He has seen cases over the past 14 years in which courts imposed shared parenting, only to have one parent refuse to take the child to his hockey game or administer medication as a way to make their viewpoint known to the ex-spouse.

"Parents who are hell-bent on undermining each other's relationship with the child will inevitably find a way to create conflict, which most often results in further litigation, which in turn prolongs the child's exposure to a parental tug of war."

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

karenwoodall — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:06:27 -0000

The difficulty with all of this is that we are expected to reduce arguments down to campaigning soundbites and this is not a one side or the other argument, it is about the real lives of children, who will, one day, be parents themselves.

The evidence from the research shows that children with a high quality relationship with both of their parents after separation are those that fare best. The evidence also shows that the nature of the relationship between children and their father depends upon the relationship between mother and father.

CSF campaigns for a wholesale change in the way that we support separated families, we seek to provide more of the holistic support that we already offer, across the whole of the UK.

We do however, where necessary, oppose the notion of a presumption of shared care in law. We know from the six thousand families we work with on average each year, that shared care only works in the best interests of children when parents are co-operative, flexible and relaxed. It takes a long time to get some families to this place but when they get there the outcomes for children are extremely positive. Interestingly, the outcomes for the adults involved are also positive as they are not enmeshed with each other, can communicate effectively and are not dragged back into a quagmire of old arguments each time one party wants to change arrangements.

I would wholeheartedly agree that what is needed are therapeutic support services to enable parents to negotiate new arrangements together. This is what our services are designed to do and the evaluation from our Parenting Fund project shows that they do it well. We have embedded our philosophy into the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission through our delivery of training and we continue to press ahead with our work on the European Shared Parenthood Network bringing together colleagues from eight European Countries to share best practice in post separation support for families.

To my mind, the debate about shared care presumptions or not is an essential part of the reframing of our thinking about family separation. It cannot be about parental rights, it has to be about children's wellbeing.

Incidentally, Gilmore's work concludes that it is not necessarily in the best interests of children to start from an expectation of shared care.

Of course academics do not work in void, each has their own standpoint from which they view the argument, as do you and I!

I make no apologies for the length and depth of my commentary, it is my abiding area of interest. For Duncan's sake however, perhaps we should call a close to this particular thread! If you would like to discuss further do contact me via the Centre for Separated Families.

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

rmpaters — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:43:02 -0000

Karen, thankyou for the references and your (very full) reply. Is the polemic meant to be a reply to my second question? However I’m not sure that your initial assertion is proven by the references you give.

Of the papers you refer to, only Smart et al and Gilmore seem to be concerned directly with the pros and cons of shared care. I couldn’t find full access to Gilmore but, from the abstract and references, that largely seems to be a literature review. Although Smart does give positive and negative examples of shared care, and made very interesting reading, the first sentence of the conclusion is: “Our study was not designed to determine whether one kind of post-divorce residence arrangement was better than another.”

What the papers do seem to agree on is the importance of significant involvement from fathers and the problems caused by parental conflict. Rather than campaign against shared care, surely it would be better for children to campaign for improved access to conflict resolution services for warring parents. By that I don’t just mean mediation, which is too legalistic, but more a counselling-type service where hostile parents could actually be helped to see alternative viewpoints and to recognise the damage being done to their children by their behaviour.

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

karenwoodall — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:49:36 -0000

As requested, here are the references to the research around shared care that gives evidence that a presumption of shared care is not in the best interests of our children.

The Centre for Separated Families has been working with families at the point of separation for a decade now and has pioneered new ways of working to enable parents to build co-operative arrangements for children that put their changing needs at the heart of a new parenting partnership. In our experience it takes a significant period of time and input with a parent to enable them to renegotiate the end of their relationship and begin a new way of working together.

Our work is not about parental rights but about helping parents to deliver their ongoing responsibilities. Our work is built upon the research, intensive work with parents themselves and a deep and enduring commitment to enabling parents to successfully deliver what their children need.

It is not about the amount of care that is provided by either parent, it is not about each parent having equal amounts of time with children. It is about parents accepting that their relationship has ended and finding ways of engaging with each other so that they can continue to be present in their children's lives in ways that most benefit.

We acknowledge that fathers have had a rough deal over the past three decades and that many want to be more involved with their children. We accept that mothers must grapple with some difficult issues around identity and control if fathers are going to be more involved. We do not accept that by adding the presumption of shared care into our legislation, we will resolve the tensions already present.

Notions of gender equality are very easy to fall back on when we are having these discussions, but the debate is far more subtle than reducing mothers and fathers to some kind of resource to be deployed in the battle to achieve equality. Children's lives are at stake here and their well being is being negatively affected every day by the relationship crashes that are instigated by parents every day.

The Centre for Separated Families is engaged in a long term project to change the way in which we view family separation in the UK and to build services that meet the real and not the perceived needs of mothers and fathers who separate. We do not feel that parental rights, equal parenting time, presumption of shared care are tools that will bring about the change we are seeking, which is that the next generation of children will not have their lives blighted by decisions made by their parents.

I note that the Conservatives are looking again at marriage and relationship support and I hope that sometime soon we might see in this country, the kind of sensible information and support that parents really need at the point of separation. We urgently need support services that are sensitive to mothers and fathers different needs, that are delivered with compassion and that lead to parents being able to work together through the change that family separation brings.

The message that we are all interdependent is an urgent one for our society. Interdependence can continue to be achieved without taking away individual rights to freedom after separation and those parents who manage those kind of relationships are those who are helped to recover from the end of their adult relationship. When this is achieved, children can and do fare well and go on to build strong adult relationships of their own. We cannot stop people from separating but we can give them the care and the tools that they need to ensure their children are not too negatively affected.

For more information about the Centre for Separated Families services to parents and training for professionals please visit our website at www.separatedfamilies.org.uk

The Centre produces discussion and evidence papers for background reading on our holistic approach to supporting families, these can be found at our website.

For the views of children who have been in shared care arrangements

'Children looked forward to a time when they did not have to live like nomads.'

Drifting towards Shared Residence?
Professor Carol Smart, Dr Bren Neale and Dr Jennifer Flowerdew
Centre for Research on Family, Kinship & Childhood
University of Leeds
Family Law, Vol 33December 2003

For contact itself
Working and Not Working Contact after divorce
Liz Trinder in Children and Their Families, Contact Rights and Welfare – Hart Publishing - 2003

For father involvement
'The mere presence of fathers is not enough … To the
extent that men remain involved in parenting after
separation, or assume parenting practices they have not
done before, they have a positive influence. As in intact
families, the most effective way they can parent is by
providing authoritative parenting … It is these aspects
of parenting, encompassing monitoring,
encouragement, love and warmth, that are consistently
linked with … well-being' (Children in changing families - Pryor and Rodgers, Blackwell 2001).

For overview of shared residence and the arguments for and against shared care
Contact/Shared Residence and Child Well-Being: Research Evidence and its Implications...
Gilmore Int J Law Policy Family.2006; 20: 344-365

For successful shared care
'The main ingredient for making contact work is a co-operative relationship between the separated parents' Hunt and Roberts 2004, Oxford Family Law Review

For the importance of the relationship between children and their non resident father and the key indicator that it is the quality of the relationship between parents themselves that leads to better relationships between NR fathers and children.
BACKGROUND: Children's relationships with their nonresident fathers, and associations between these relationships, children's relationships with mothers and stepfathers, and the children's adjustment were studied in 162 children from single-parent and stepfamilies, selected from a representative community sample in the UK, studied at 2 time points two years apart. METHOD: Children were interviewed about their relationships with their nonresident fathers, mothers and stepfathers; mothers reported on children's adjustment, and other family variables. RESULTS: Positive child-nonresident father relationships were correlated with (a) contact between child and father, (b) the quality of the mother-child relationship, and (c) the frequency of contact between the mother and her former partner. Conflict between child and father was correlated with conflict between child and mother, and child and stepfather. Child-nonresident father contact and relationships were stable over 2 years, and related to children's adjustment; these associations were stronger for children from single-parent families than for those with stepfathers, and for those whose mothers had been first pregnant as teenagers. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between the quality of children's relationships with nonresident fathers and their adjustment need to be considered within the framework of the larger family system; child-father relationships are particularly important for children from 'high risk' families. Dunn et al Journal of Child Psychology 2004

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

rmpaters — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:01:23 -0000

"Consider the research; Carol Smart, Ben Neale, Judy Dunn, Joan Hunt, Liz Trinder and others have shown that children do not fare well when their time is seen as belonging equally to both parents"

Karen, please can you provide links/source of this research?

"Children must not be put in the middle of crusades for parental rights, they are not possessions to be divided into two"
- no, but surely it is better for children to feel that both their parents are of equal importance and this is unlikely to happen if their care is only or nearly all provided by one parent?

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

DuncanFisher — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:34:22 -0000

I agree that parents must be helped to recover from the emotional and psychological wreckage of the end of a relationship so that they can parent effectively, co-operatively and flexibly. But I also think there are structural barriers that make it much more difficult for parents to do this – this is not unique to separated parents, the structural barriers lock into place the moment a baby is born.

The idea that a child has a single primary carer is built into laws and institutions in a variety of ways and creates a range of incentives for care to be allocated to one person. Take the birth of a baby. Only one parent, the mother, has a formal relationship with services; the status of the father has never been resolved. This lack of definition impacts most on vulnerable families where the parents cannot assert themselves as much; vulnerable new fathers generally get very little support. Then there are the leave entitlements, 52 weeks for mothers and 2 weeks for fathers, described as “working against gender equality” by the Equality & Human Rights Commission. This debate is getting popular: last week the Daily Mail carried the colourful headline, “Anti-dad maternity leave is bad for children and business”.

Separated parenting requires more sharing of earning and caring roles than when parents live together. Both parents have to become able to earn independently and care for the child independently from each other. Whilst there is an infrastructure of support to enable mothers to develop their capacity to earn, there is no such infrastructure to enable fathers to develop their capacity to care independently, a skill many do not have. There is a lack of financial supports for the second parent post-separation to help with the costs of caring for a child; the benefits system is built on the premise that only one parent cares for the child after separation. Long court procedures exacerbate conflict and are a structural contribution to making things more difficult. Professor Patrick Parkinson pointed out last week that in UK we have a uniquely lenient attitude towards relocation of a parent with a child, so creating an obstacle to the other parent providing care.

In all these areas, there is movement, albeit often rather glacial in pace and we are far behind other countries in moving forward. But the direction of travel is clear.

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

karenwoodall — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 06:23:14 -0000

I agree that it is time to have a debate about the issue of parenting after separation and, particularly, the way in which fathers can make a massive difference to children's well being.

However, I would caution against belief that shared care is the core issue that must be resolved, it is not. The core issue is that parents must be helped to recover from the emotional and psychological wreckage of the end of a relationship so that they can parent effectively, co-operatively and most of all flexibly, this is the project that the Centre for Separated Families is concerned with.

Children must not be put in the middle of crusades for parental rights, they are not possessions to be divided into two. Consider the research; Carol Smart, Ben Neale, Judy Dunn, Joan Hunt, Liz Trinder and others have shown that children do not fare well when their time is seen as belonging equally to both parents.

Children fare well when their relationship with both of their parents is of high quality and the factor that leads to high quality is the relationship between mothers and fathers. This is where the focus of post separation support must lie if we are to make things change for children.

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

jondavies — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:22:23 -0000

We really live in interesting times. We have a generation of politicians who have grown up after the second world war in a welfare state that works for most people and many of whom are parents of young children. Can attitudes be changing?
The need to compensate for past gender inequalities may at last be maturing into something more subtle with the recognition that fathers are a part of a solution to gender equality not an inconvenience that gets in its way!
The recession, and the prospect of a change of government has meant that this debate is at last being had. Australia proves that governments can try new solutions. Labour seems to no longer distrust fathers but is still unable to embrace shared parenting wholeheartedly.The Conservatives are still a bit too tied up with marriage to notice the reality that needs addressing, (though Ian duncan-Smith aring to speak out) but all the trends are in the same direction.
As ever FNF will seek to work with anyone willing to take the agenda forward.

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

DuncanFisher — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:32:57 -0000

Your point about the "core principle that mothers are the rightful people to be in control of the family" confirms in my mind an idea I have had for a long time - that actually the key issue around fatherhood is how we define motherhood. The issue is not how we see fatherhood per se, it is how we see fatherhood in comparison to motherhood.

In his lecture last week, Professor Patrick Parkinson said that a faultline between the two perspectives - autonomy for separated parents versus continuing responsibilities to their children - was exposed most clearly in how courts deal with relocation of one parent, so taking the child away from the other parent. I noticed that the Commission for Social Justice's report last week, Every Family Matters, states "England is probably the world’s most liberal jurisdiction in making relocation orders."

What are the institutionalised barriers to co-operation that we need to chip away at?

Re: Fathers are a resource in the fight to end child poverty (again)

karenwoodall — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:40:07 -0000

Duncan,

One of the architects of the New Labour policies to support the individual rights of women said to me at a roundtable meeting in 2004 - 'we constructed the policies we believed to be the right thing for women at the time. That we were consigning divorced and separated women to the dual role of carer and provider for children after separation was not something we stopped to fully consider. Now its up to you to reconstruct the policies in order to enable men and women to share the responsibilities after separation.'

The legislation she spoke of has its roots in the Finer Report 1974 in which recommendations were made that mothers who were divorced or separated should no longer be treated as being dependent upon their ex husbands, but should be considered in their own right as being dependent upon the state. The state would then do the work of collecting child maintenance for them. This brought independence for mothers and enabled them to take control of their lives after separation. Of course it also signaled that fathers were not to be trusted and were to play a secondary role in their children's lives after separation.

So much has changed in terms of dads and their children but post separation life still circles around the core principle that mothers are the rightful people to be in control of the family.

The problem is that too many groups supporting separated families in the UK view this core principle as either wholly correct and to be defended or incorrect and to be attacked.

My view is that we must simply unpick this core principle and replace it with one which encourages interdependence and responsibility as well as the individual right to autonomy after family separation. Other EU countries legislate in this way - we continue to learn from colleagues within the European Network for Shared Parenthood - www.puttingchildrenfirst.eu and will be holding a seminar in early 2010 to show how the UK could do the same.

Retaining a recognition of interdependence does not have to mean continuing to be completely dependent upon each other, after all why separate if you are not going to be free to experience autonomy? But one can be a separate individual and continue to recognize and support the ties between children and their wider family. Many mums and dads succeed in renegotiating their relationships in ways that allows a continued sense of family.

If we can take down those institutionalized barriers to co-operation, my guess is that we would find that many more can do just that.

The Child Maintenance Commission has made a brave first step towards doing just this, by changing the culture in which separated parents approach decision making around money after separation. The Options service signals to parents that post separation family life is not about one parent (usually mothers) making all the decisions and the other parent (usually the father) being treated punitively.

The Centre for Separated Families trained the Options service staff to engage with mothers and fathers and continues to train the Commission Executive in equalities based understanding of the lives of separated families. The signs are that this step has already brought a big shift in consciousness and behavioural change between separated parents. I know from the outcomes from Options and our wider work with parents that shifting the focus and changing the language and expectations we have of families does bring about radical change. By supporting parents to overcome the barriers to co-operation that were laid down in the legislation all those years ago, we can and do bring about hugely significant change for children.

Perhaps with your influence and success in campaigns such as Kids in the Middle, you can encourage, persuade, cajole or simply force the change in thinking that is needed. This is where the focus needs to be, all the rest is just tinkering around the edges. It is so long overdue. Good luck.

Re: The best on-line discussion on fatherhood I have seen - Daily Mail on-line

sheila oneill — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:17:04 -0000

I have no doubts that dads have post natel depression the same as mums. After all any dedicated dad will have the same feelings of responsiblity to the child as a mum.
It may be that mothers have stronger feelings as their body has gone through all the hormone changes during pregnancy and birth but love is an emotion that is challanged with the feelings of responsiblity.
Its natures way of ensuring the off spring survive and why equal doses are needed by both birth parents. It is also why no-one should attempt to split up birth families as the greatest love and care will always come from the birth parents and extended family.
If something is not working its far better to fix it, so when the off spring grow into adults they will have learnt the other skills for survival.

Re: Men in the maternity unit: the case for “family centred” care

Sapkota sabitri — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:19:41 -0000

This is the need in 21st century, where family are being disintegrated due to various reasons and this strategy will certainly help to bring them together with strong emothinal bond than ever before.

Re: I am leaving the Fatherhood Institute: my future plans

DuncanFisher — Sat, 09 May 2009 09:32:14 -0000

I do not advocate fathers' rights. The key issue is the well-being of
children and their own rights. We know from experience and research
that fathers have a key influence on their children - it can be good
or bad - and that is why we need to think about fatherhood.

equal rights with mothers. The issue is the wellbeing of children and
what works best for them.

Re: I am leaving the Fatherhood Institute: my future plans

Peggy Haynes — Sat, 09 May 2009 08:33:48 -0000

I think its unfair for men to want equal rights with mothers over their children, as MOTHERS are the ones who have to go through the pain, and risks, and after-effects of pregnancy (many women, including myself,suffer appalling nausea, sickness and other horrible sympoms) and all the pain of labour and birth (which is often horrendous), - while MEN are fortunate enought to be able to produce countless children in a lifetime very easily indeed, well into old age

Re: Equally shared parenting

freestyles — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:03:58 -0000

I liked this post on parenting, you have really put great thought into it, I am a mother to two, I am really lucky to have very cooperative husband, he's equally good as me in taking care of our kids.

Emma

Re: Should we support fatherhood in the recession?

Lee — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:02:06 -0000

Dads should get support at all times and even more so in the testing times of recession.

At www.superdads.co.uk I'm trying to do just that.