There's some that still think excluding a child's father is a good thing.

The following letters was sent to a guy on Father4equality children's rights (so called men's rights) forum. He was ruunning all those vested interest argumenst and it seems he really believed them. I hope he now sees where he was getting it all wrong (despite my less than diplimatic responses).

As James Adams of pointed out "Finally, to answer your complaints specifically... one thing I have seen clearly, and I said in my previous email is that THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE TO THIS. There are no studies that say sole custody in best for kids (with fit parents). None. zero. zilch"

If we are going to protect our kids from the harm of father exclusion, it is essentail that politicions, authorities and the media understand the harm done to children by our mutually exclusive Family Law Courts and their practicioners.
.
KSL
What a load of cods wallop.
Children have two parents and must be protected from having one of them removed.
As for all your arguments as to why a father shouldn't be allowed to see his kids I'm starting to wonder if your one of them - the child abusers with vested interests. Do you work in the industry? Or have you just swallowed all the spin?
This is not about fathers that live 300KM away this is about fathers who can be and want to be in their children's lives. Father who chose to live 300 Ks away need to negotiate special arrangements or if this is not possible then have the matter adjudicated.
I've never heard of a father living 300 Ks away wanting equal time shared parenting.
As for kids not wanting to have anything to do with one off their parents - bad luck. That not a decision for them to make in the first place. Surely I don't have to explain why it is abusive to ask children to express a preference. Do I?
The Judge shouldn't be approaching this on the basis of deciding who's best for the kids. He should be protecting them from the horror of losing one of their parents through a process of vilification and allegation.

Sorry if I' sound a bit annoyed, but I am. Nothing annoys me more than seeing children being hurt to hurt one of the parents by the lawyer assisting and advising the other.
.
If one parent wasn't allowed to unilaterally remove the other then it would hardly ever get to court in the first place.

Please call me if you want me to explain any of this more.

Simon

And ....6 July06
Chookie,
There might be other explanations eg: KSL might have assumed this is all about deciding who gets custody and who doesn't.
the old mutually exclusive mind set. After all this is the way the media has traditionally portrayed the issue.
Strange isn't it, that people assume one of the parents needs to be excluded from a child's life after separation. Stranger still that they can assume there some other reason for the distress the kids then experience.
Obviously there are occasional instances when one parents is "no good" however these are very rare. Given the trauma children experience at having one of their parents removed from their lives I would say a parent would have to be a complete right off to warrant such a horrific outcome.
And as for the disruption argument - what kid wouldn't want the disruption of seeing their other parenst regularly?
Regards,
Simon


And this a few days later....

Dear KSL,

I appreciate your fiery response. Honest I do. (as is born out by the fact that my response was fiery) I was going to apologise for my provocative remarks however (you beat me to it) , because I do not intend offence. Like you I want to promote thinking - clear thinking on these issues.

However I remain flabbergasted that you could think of putting a child through all this, when it causes so many problems for the child. If there was no unilateral exclusion of one of the parents by the other there would be no issue to litigate in court.
Arguments that the child's performance at school dropped for instance, after spending time with dad are an abomination. If the child's performance is suffering it is almost always due to the trauma of having one of their presents vilified and excluded by the other. There is nothing more frightening for a child to see one of their parents being horrible to their other parent. It puts the fear of God into them They feel its their fault (this is well documented). They feel they have to support the parent they have left OBVIOUSLY - they've just lost one loving parent. Do you think a child can cope with the risk of loosing the parent they have left They become confused and desperately unhappy...and withdrawn. Conflict of loyalties is the term most commonly used.
Again I say its the exclusion and vilification that causes the problem. Protect a child from having one of their parents treated like this and, hey presto! there's no problem to deal with.
It really is that simple.
We're about preventing this abuse of our children.
Your suggestion that a child is upset my having two homes is simply crazy . opps sorry , I mean totally without merit.
Every child loves to spend time with both their parents (or at least at the outset) , the fact that they are not in the same house is not an issue. If anything it ads to the pleasure (new exciting environment, contrast and perspective). Sleep over are always exciting for children. Sleep overs with dad or mum are bliss for a young child. It makes them feel loved and secure.

KSL it seems you have taken on board all the nonsense arguments of the vested interests . ...the ones who oppose equal time shared parenting. Each and every one of them it seems. Even the old "too much conflict for shared parenting" so lets make more conflict by excluding the parents. These arguments are desperate hysterical arguments that have no basis in fact , common sense which is made very plain by all the research ion the issue.

Yes my child has been put through all of this and her agony was used as the argument for my exclusion - a response you seem to support.

And your suggestion that I am angry !!! well I'd like to remind you that this accusation is behind the exclusion of thousands of sad confused little children's fathers. They are the ones that are left being angry. Grownups like me are a little more sophisticated. We usually have better insight into how the situation came about and focus on the causes and the solutions.

Yes hurting children does make me angry, however by far the predominant emoticon is an absolute determination to protect our precious children (especially my own child) from this devastation and insecurity

I am at a loss to know why you think as you do. Perhaps its because you are stuck in the old mutually exclusive which parents is best mind set.
I would welcome your consideration of the above. I am facinated. I want to understand how and why see things the way you do.
These vies are the cause of emence suffering.

...and James, wit hregard to James responses, intelligent as they are, I can see you applying a proffessional approach to syptems as opposed to the dyre need to address the problem - the unilateral exclusion and then attempt at justification that cuasing all this suffering in the first place.