www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/03/divorced-fathers-access-ruling
Ok, so in basic terms, I dont have the right to see my son ( although the option to beg in court exists if one can afford it ), but Cameron says its my fault if he goes off the rails because im not involved in his life.
I cant help but feel im damned either way, the system has turned single mothers into martyrs, fathers are demonised and there is no recognition of how difficult it actually is for a non-resident parent to gain any meaningful access.
Its all very well saying fathers shouldnt abandon their kids, but it actually isnt that easy to stay in the picture and whether or not a father does is often decided by other people who arent all that keen or interested on him being in the picture.
Are fathers obsolete now? Should it just be accepted as the way it is?
|
|
If by "single mothers" you mean "Divorced mothers" my wide experience of these matters is that the system, has turned them into greedy, money grubbing, litigatious harpies. My take on this is "No Access = No Maintenance"!
|
>>No Access = No Maintenance<<
Cant agree with that - the responsibility for a child is signed and sealed when they are conceived, id pay for my son regardless of access, he needs clothes etc whether I see him or not.
|
|
How do you know it is going on clothes though and not sky TV for the mother and take away pizzas?
|
Because my son has nice clothes and is well-fed.
The money goes to the 'pot' of my ex's finances and out of them she obviously funds his life. Its frankly easier to throw a set amount of money her way and ask no questions than ask her to be accountable for every penny I contribute.
|
>> turned them into greedy, money grubbing, litigatious harpies.
It is a very serious mistake to contract a long-term intimate relationship with a selfish dishonest person.
This may seem an annoying thing to say, but it is something very well worth bearing in mind when you are young and embarking on life partnerships and so on. It isn't all that difficult either, unless you are yourself dodgy in these areas, as so many of us are.
Never mind the icing. What about the cake?
|
The whole situation is horrible, and every case is individual.
My mate is resigned to the fact he's never going to see his lad again, despite spending many thousands of pounds he didn't have to try to get access.
When one party to the argument is manipulative and believeable then often the innocent party is made out to be some sort of monster they are not by any means.
It's usually the father who's destroyed but sometimes it happens the other way too.
In all cases the true monster is the parent who in their need to hurt their ex ruins their childrens lives for ever by poisoning the childrens minds with untruth.
I've seen the course and aftermaths of cold calculating almost evil behaviour by both sexes, usually when trying to extract the most financial gain and as a bonus hoping to ruin their ex's lives in the process.
I don't understand how someone can mentally hurt their own children so much by this behaviour, something deeply unpleasant about many people, who in different circumstances might well have enjoyed guarding a concentration camp.
As for Cameron, he's just another career politician, don't take too much notice of anything he or any of them say.
|
Stu,
It's worth having a look at the whole report rather than the press slant on its content:
www.justice.gov.uk/about/moj/independent-reviews/family-justice-review/
|
|
deleted
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 7 Nov 11 at 14:36
|
I had to go to court to get my PR Order thats Parental Responsibility, thats what you need to see your kids as a married father you had the rights but unmarried don't.
So has this now changed it seems it has.
Im stiff fighting for a change of residence back in court in a few weeks i may get it i may not it's upto the judge the evidence is in my favour.
Cafcass been involved but got shut of them for a 9.5 Rule Guardian much more involved & a better for your kids case.
Keep fighting i do & pay the maintennace best thing i did was the the CSA sort it out then it's out of your hands.
Kids need both parents this is what the courts say it's cost me a fortune but he's worth more than a flash car & holidays in Auz & designer clothes on my back.
|
|
I can tell you know from CAB calls that the CSA are very active at the moment, probably under pressure to perform......some huge historical demands coming through and knocking men for six. One was close to suicide.
|
|
If fathers are expected to make full and fair maintenance contributions they should be entitled to full and fair access to their children. Simple as.
|
It's not that simple in the real world FF. Who decides what full and fair means? because it will differ in every case. The paramount issue is the child's welfare not the father's ability to pay.
GB's post hits the nail. The real problem is not who has a right to do what, it's about enforcing that right in situations where emotion and bitterness destroy any concept of the rational.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 7 Nov 11 at 15:51
|
|
I guess the Courts decide. That is why the whole thing becomes confrontational and costly. A friend of mine has the access reasonably well sorted. Child lives with the Mother and he has her one evening a week, after school, and alternate weekends. Another facet of these events is that caring and concerned grand-parents are being deprived of contact with the children.
|
Some of the comments on this thread really makes me think I never want kids. At the very least I think I would have to be married a few years first. Reduces the risk some what.
Thankfully most people I know still have access to their kids.
|
Its not about never having kids Rats, im really looking forward to having them with my current wife, but so far as ex's go, looking back, it wouldnt have been a good idea to have children with any of them.
Make sure the relationship is right and your fine, choose badly and you become a statistic, so avoid rushes of blood to the head ( and other such rushes ).
|
|
I guess you were young and maybe a bit naive at the time. The law does need to change though because stinks that you cannot see your own kids.
|
Its not that you cant, its that you dont have the right to, you have to ask for it in a system weighed against you.
If my ex were to deny contact, she could if she played it right, make sure I never saw my son again until he was an adult. Its been done to others and the processes which make this happen are becoming more well known to those who want to play the system.
|
|
Why would any decent mother want to deny their father access though? Unless they were a convicted kiddy fiddler or something.
|
|
Best stick to the computers Rattle - tricky things human relationships :-)
|
Why would any decent mother want to deny their father access though?
For 100% child maintennane & child tax credits, but there NOT decent.
|
You can have mine - I'll send him over with a change of pants and 5 bob.
When can you take him?
|
It's a really emotive subject, and I am fairly certain that if I ever found myself not under the same roof as my offspring then my partner would be fair and reasonable, but not something I plan on testing out!
I dont even like being away on business for more than a day or 2 as I miss the "family unit"
Glad the hear the CSA are stepping up though I hope they are not just hitting the easy targets - to many men think they can walk away and let the state pick up the tab
|
|
Certainly some of the ones I've spoken to have had "arrangements" in place and that these demands come out of the blue - I suspect it may be a benefit claim led (from the woman) initiative, to save taxpayers' money. Effectively privatising elements of the benefits system.
|
Stay in a relationship and it won't be a problem.. sick to death of hearing about it. Access to kids! Sounds like a ruddy game. Some folk want to get a grip. If you board the boat, then stay on the thing...........
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 15 Nov 11 at 00:47
|
Might have passed you by, but you cannot force someone to stay in a relationship with you, slavery ended some time ago.
Utterly clueless.
|
>> Utterly clueless.
Maybe, but some of us manage to have stable relationships and don't end up with kids split between parents.
|
So what, your lucky, pat on the back, not many people start relationships expecting them to end, boast all you like, but you never know, there could be all sorts you dont know and you just never find out - I only found out my first wife was cheating because Im nosey, pure chance.
Not everyone gets it right first time and you havent had to date my generations women who are actively encouraged to employ the magpie mentality, looking for anything shiny and new.
Just a look at the Yahoo homepage had an article asking whether or not your partner has started dieting for you, or whether its for someone else - thats the culture these days and frankly it is sickening for such cynicism to be so mainstream.
|
|
Thats a very bitter, twisted self pitying post. - with a touch of paranoia.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 7 Nov 11 at 22:48
|
|
No, its called reality, by all means wallow in your 1950's apple pie fantasy, but the real world aint like that.
|
>> No, its called reality,
At the end of the day, you share the responsibility for the situation you are in. Bitching and whining that life aint fair wont change that.
|
I didnt say it wasnt fair, I just dont think its desireable.
Given how much bitching you do, id step away from the greenhouse, hypocrisy doesnt suit you.
|
Actually, if you bother to check, you will see I do the least of the bitching and whining about stuff on here.
All I bitch and whine about is the bitchers and whiners. I get a lot of opportunity.
|
So you come on here to take shots at those with problems in their lives, must be great to be you.
Boasting about your good fortune over others is only ever an ugly character trait.
|
>> So you come on here to take shots at those with problems in their lives,
FFS both of you!!
|
>> So you come on here to take shots at those with problems in their lives,
>> must be great to be you.
>>
>> Boasting about your good fortune over others is only ever an ugly character trait.
At least I didn't blame a whole generation of Women. Now that is an ugly character trait.
|
>>At least I didn't blame a whole generation of Women. Now that is an ugly character trait.<<
I didnt, I blamed the influences on my generation.
|
Leave it Z.
Some of us are lucky enough to have met women who can compromise - at least to a degree. Not everybody is.
|
Nobody should have to stay in a relationship that is destroying their life but there is no doubt that divorce has just become an easy option in a self indulgent society. Marriages seem to break down at the drop of a hat with little thought for the effects on the family.
People even lie to one another saying "it will be better for the children" if they split up.
Well it hardly ever is. Children want their mum and dad to be together. If that can't happen they want a normal life in one home. They don't want to be argued over and shared like the parental savings and possessions and become a trophy that is fought over.
At the end of the day it is the child's happiness that is important. That just might mean limited or even no access by one of the parents. Its tough but at the end of the day its the interest of the children that should be paramount.
|
I have personal experience of all of this. I have step-children and know of many people who stayed together and probably should not have too. And sometimes this 'staying together' is bad too. Appearances are kept up but at what emotional cost?
I know of someone that stayed together as a couple for maybe 40 years. Children move away and have families. And then they split up. So how screwed up is that? Children now adults and might wonder about a lot. I'll leave that there.
And my step-children's father is a millionaire! Not that they benefit. That's all complicated. VERY!
|
In the house where nobody laughs
And nobody sleeps
In the house where love lies dying
And the shadows creep
A little girl hides shaking,
With her hands on her ears
Pushing back the tears,
'Til the pain disappears
Mama says some ugly words
Daddy pounds the wall
They can fight about their little girl later
Right now they don't care at all
Good times!
|
And sometimes this 'staying together' is bad too
It certainly can be, no doubt about it. There are no easy answers. The problem is that people want exactly that , easy answers. Sometimes we just can't have what we want
|
I can give the view from the other side of the fence having been a single parent.
As I've written on her or HJ before I am one of the very few fathers who have been given residency of their children. To cut a VERY long an unpleasant story short my ex-wife cheated and walked out on me, taking the children with her. Several months down the line the children became an inconvenience to her and the new bloke who apparently found someone else and moved on. Ex-wife neglected the children, Social Services became involved, and the children were removed from her and handed over to me.
Even then I had to fight tooth and nail over a long period to get a residency order in my favour. My solicitor admitted to me at one stage that the whole process is very much skewed in the favour of the mother. Ex-wife seemed to get all the support she needed, full legal aid, etc. I was working full time, caring for the children, and got nothing, although the CSA were kind enough to continue taking payments from me and passing them to EX for several months after the children had been placed in my care. It took the intervention of my MP to put a halt to that.
It was surprising at the time how many people, on learning I was a single parent, would express sympathy and ask how / when my wife had died, so unusual was it to have a single father.
For what it's worth the ex-wife hasn't worked since she left me and apparently has made it very clear she's no intention of working again - her arrangement with the CSA is a grand sum of around £20 per child per month.
|
They'll screw her if she comes into any money. I admire you Ash for having the commitment to take the skewed system on.
Take a walk in any public space on any given day and notice how many lone women are walking with kids. There is a message there.
|
Good luck Ash! This will give you and others food for thought and supports my assertion that women in divorce cases are avaricious blood-sucking harpies.
tinyurl.com/cu9pkxx
For those who don't care to trawl thru the whole report
Husband in £4m divorce 'should count himself lucky'
The question: what are the “reasonable needs” of a 55-year-old divorced woman with one teenage child still living at home? The answer, the appeal court ruled yesterday, is a nine-bedroom country house with 40 acres of parkland, a £1.65 million lump sum and £75,000-a-year child maintenance.
|
>>>women in divorce cases are avaricious blood-sucking harpies.
That case was a very poor example M.
They were married for 26yrs with 5 children in that period. I'm sure she fully supported him as a dutiful wife at this level of wealth/society/business throughout that time. How or where the family money came from it was a true established partnership and she was morally/legally entitled to 50% in most people's eyes. She actually settled for 30%.
|
>> Good luck Ash! This will give you and others food for thought and supports my
>> assertion that women in divorce cases are avaricious blood-sucking harpies.
You fail to mention that:
They had been married for 25 years.
The award is one third of his total wealth.
She brought up 5 of his kids and therefore reduced her own earning potential,
In short Mister Meldrew Sir, with your assertion about avaricious blood sucking harpies, you gave a very skewed Daily Mailesque slant to a balanced story.
|
|
I speak from personal experience of these people - do you? It is my opinion, which you do not hold. As ever we can disagree from opposite sides of the fence
Last edited by: Meldrew on Tue 8 Nov 11 at 09:37
|
|
Well next time do try to use a story that back up your assertion, not one that knocks holes in it.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 8 Nov 11 at 09:40
|
|
What is your personal experience of these matters? They were not HIS children - they were THEIR children BTW.
|
Apart from a stable family you mean?
It doesn't matter what my experience is, I was not the one who used an unsuitable story to back up my case, AND try to throw an interpretation on it that did not exist, based on the FACTS of the story.
|
Actually it does! You are more likely to make a worthwhile comment by relating it to your own experience of a matter than by digesting other people's views and basing your opinion on those.
|
I have still not managed to explain it to you, have I. Its my fault.
Let me try again. I based my comment on the example you gave to back it up. Your example failed, most spectacularly, but any measure, to back it up, and in no way paralleled your example. I think you will find I consistently refer to that in all my replies, which you consistently refuse to acknowledge.
So as such, I don't need any personal experience because I used your own example.
Oh and by the way, my experience and your experience leads me to believe I am a better judge of women than you. Certainly when it comes to choosing them.
|
|
What is your personal experience of these matters? They were not HIS children - they were THEIR children BTW.
|
>> What is your personal experience of these matters? They were not HIS children - they
>> were THEIR children BTW.
I refer my honourable friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
|
>> I speak from personal experience of these people - do you?
We're not denying you know such people, but it's clearly wrong to label all single mothers the same (speaking from personal experience).
|
|
Naturally they are not all the same. Some of them have 5 children by 3 different fathers and leech off the State as they don't have any husbands.
|
>> This will give you and others food for thought and supports my
>> assertion that women in divorce cases are avaricious blood-sucking harpies.
Perhaps some are. But the father of my wife's 2 sons left her as she was was on a hospital bed close to death after having son 2, yet she still encouraged him to see them as they grew up. Whether he would have bothered without encouragement, we don't know.
Yes, she was granted maintenance (he was a city trader), although she still had to take on ironing and house cleaning jobs to support the 3 of them (she also worked in a City bank before kids). Later on when he did have trouble making the payments and missed a few, she didn't try to force him.
If you would like to come round and discuss your assertion with Mrs F, I will be selling tickets for those who would like to watch. I won't be charging much because I don't expect it to last long :)
Last edited by: Focus on Tue 8 Nov 11 at 09:22
|
At the end of the day there are two inescapable facts.
The majority cases of single parent families are where the father abandons the mother and tries to abdicate any responsibility, both parental and financial.
In the majority of cases, the Mother is the best person to look after the child, and best meets the childs emotional needs.
Given those two, its not unreasonable for a court to use that as its base line, and demand proof that this is indeed not the case.
|
|
My ex-wife came into our marriage with no property and some furniture and clothes. She ran the house for the two of us, brought up no children and did no paid work. 10 years later she left with my share of the house, the mortgage paid off by me, a lump sum and most of the house contents. This colours my views on the legal aspects of divorce and separation and I agree that it is not reasonable to read my experiences across to all ladies and all their varied circumstances. should have got a better barrister!
Last edited by: Meldrew on Tue 8 Nov 11 at 09:59
|
>> This colours views on the legal aspects of divorce and separation
Understandably.
|
>> >> This colours views on the legal aspects of divorce and separation
>>
>> Understandably.
maybe, I support West Ham, but that does not make me think all Football teams are useless.
|
>> >> >> This colours views on the legal aspects of divorce and separation
>> >>
>> >> Understandably.
>>
>> maybe, I support West Ham, but that does not make me think all Football teams
>> are useless.
But it's not you my comment was directed at.
|
I send my wife out to work while I do the dusting, its the revolution :-)
|
lets look at my own circumstances.
Lived together for 3 years, then got married and have been so for 22 years.
The house (and mortgage) was bought in joint names. The main bank account is in joint names, investments are in joint names. She has worked for all but 5 years of our time together, and has therefore contributed to the standard of living altho my salary provided the bulk of everything. She still works, I am retired.
If we split she doesn't need to claim half, she owns half, with my blessing. Surely no-one can think that is unreasonable.
|
|
When my wife and I split she already had half the house and was given my half, leaving me homeless. That's unreasonable!
|
|
Im sure she thought it was very reasonable ;-)
|
|
Better than reasonable - it was free!
|
Then went to live in this
tinyurl.com/829xttj
Known locally and for good reason as The Psycho House!
Image is a bit small but you get the idea!
Last edited by: Meldrew on Tue 8 Nov 11 at 11:17
|
|
Meldrew you ended up with the shed.!
|
|
Yes but I am free, and clear of Psycho Woman!
|
>> When my wife and I split she already had half the house and was given
>> my half, leaving me homeless. That's unreasonable!
>>
It seems to me Mr. Meldrew that either your Lawyer or you or both made a right almighty fist of things. Did you say earlier no offspring? if so then how did you accept such a balls up or have I missed something here?
|
|
I recommend being nice to wives and prenups.. whichever suits you :-)
|
|
That's it, my mind is made up. I'm remaining single and just having the occasional one night stand and not telling them my real name.
|
|
With the occanisonal one night stand you end up with something else.>)
|
|
Not if you keep a hat on it.
|
|
go gay, no fall out from that.
|
|
I've never seen the point being a male gay,you might as well have the full package.>:)
|
>> go gay,
No thanks, I'd sooner use a wheelbarrow.
|
>>>>> go gay, No thanks, I'd sooner use a wheelbarrow.
Remember they say very few who have tried the real thing go back to a woman.
|
|
Only one Goblin for me...........................Hob!
|
>> go gay, no fall out from that.
Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the current Christian/Syed(/Ben) storyline in Eastenders.
|
|
thats cos he wants his cake and eat it.
|
|
..and pretend you're HJ ?
|
|
Reminds me coming back from Gdanks,first mate picked up something, and whilst at anchor outside Scarborough had to get him ashore in the liveboat.He forgot his hat.
|
|
Blimey Z and RP, do tell...;)
|
|
My post was meant to be under Dave's !
|
>> My post was meant to be under Dave's !
yeah yeah yeah, we know....
|
>> My post was meant to be under Dave's !
It is if you hover your mouse cursor over the arrow to the left of the subject header of your post (or view it in threaded view)
|
|
It appears its offensive to allow a woman to be the primary earner, how backwards.
|
>> I can give the view from the other side of the fence having been a
>> single parent.
>>
As can I.
I was in (I thought) a fairly happy marriage. my ex wife thought otherwise.
I was kicked out by her, she moved another guy in.
At that time my children were 11, 9 and 6.
When the eldest was 16, she also got kicked out. She found life very difficult, and self harmed.
As soon as she was kicked out, I started trying to find a way to house her with me - not easy as I lived 100 miles away, in a bedsit.
I of course did all I could to help, and be there for her, whilst holding down a job, and planning a way to move back nearer her.
6 months after that, my 2nd daughter also got her marching orders - my eldest was living with my sister, myself with my dad.
I was regarded as a single man, and as so was bottom of the housing list (no money for a mortgage)
I managed to get a privately rented house, with which the rent alone takes up 1/2 my wage.
We struggle, but have just about managed to make ends meet - my eldest now lives with her boyfriend, and my grandson (now 7 months!)
My 2nd daughter and I share costs, just to keep the roof over our heads, its not really fair on her - she should be having more fun with her money......
My son still lives with my ex.
He knows I have a room here, should he need it.
Help from the normal channels, was difficult, nay, almost impossible to get.
The system is geared towards women being the ones in need, a man just becomes a spanner in the works - the legal side I had to find out myself, the solicitors I asked didn't have a clue - I was told to be the legal guardian I had to go to court, that WAS wrong, as we hadn't divorced (we now have so to legally take on my son, I would have to go to court)
|
>>a man just becomes a spanner in the works
I know the feeling very well Tony - the last few years have been a constant struggle, with no support, and the legal bills have cost me thousands. I was "lucky" in that my EW walked out on me and was prepared to let me buy her out of the house - apparently her new bloke was desperate for the money. Needless to say, from what I've learned since, most of the money vanished when he did.
Without the house though I think getting the residency order would have been impossible.
Full respect to you Tony - it's been hard enough for me, but it sounds as though you've been in a far more difficult situation and have done a great job.
|
>> Thats a very bitter, twisted self pitying post. - with a touch of paranoia.
>>
Makes a change....
FoR, why do you not have the right to see your son? The only person I know with very restricted rights is an alcoholic.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 8 Nov 11 at 13:14
|
Mapmaker,
I think Stu's OP was in the context of David Normington's recent Family Justice Report. The final version has rowed back from a draft proposal to give a Fathers a statutory right of access (or at least a strong presumption that way). Will now preserve the status quo where the child's needs are paramount and with wide discretion to the Judge.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 8 Nov 11 at 13:20
|
>>FoR, why do you not have the right to see your son? The only person I know with very restricted rights is an alcoholic<<
I dont have the right to see him, thats how the system is, however I do have a course of action available to ask permission for access, but I do not have the same automatically assumed rights as his mother, in the eyes of the system, a father is an accessory.
There is a big difference between a right and the option of getting permission.
Im not sure how you could square it legally so it wasnt negative for kids ( not that the current system isnt on a bad day ) but if a child can have two fathers and no mother or two mothers and no father ( much to the dismay of the homphobic lot ), then it seems odd that in the age of equality, a father is still a second-class parent, the mother has to be a danger to their child for the presumption of custody to even glance in the fathers direction.
|
Lets face it if you want to see your kids you have to put your hand in your pocket and waddle through the legal system, it takes plenty of time and cash but there worth it.
|
Years ago there would have been virtually no single parent dads, so its good to see that there are people like AshT who have fought for their rights, but I do wish that the system was more balanced.
Easy for me to say, and I accept that people do change over time, but I do think that some people do rush into having kids without thinking if they see themselves as suitable parents, and can see themselves being together in 20, 30, 40 years time
|
|
Thats a fair point but many are not planned & some of you on here may not have been planned!!. :-)
|
|
My birthday is 9 months and 1 day after christmas, so i suspect i wasnt planned, my sons birthday is one day after mine, and I know he wasnt planned, he is the product of a rather fine bottle of red wine and a Grassmere hotel.
|
>>he is the product of a rather fine bottle of red wine
And on the same basis my daughter's name should be Chardonnay, though it was consumed after a day spent refurbishing the lounge rather than lounging in a posh hotel.
Bromp J, otoh, was a project.
|
"Thats a fair point but many are not planned & some of you on here may not have been planned!!. :-)"
A fair point and even more interestingly it is estimated that around 4% of fathers bringing up children they believe to be their own are not actually the biological father.
|
|
Unfortunately Mikey there aren't that many like me and Swiss Tony - we really are in a tiny minority, and have had to fight tooth and nail to get where we are. Sadly the system is, as I've said, skewed primarily towards the interests of the mother - the children come second and the father a very distant third.
|
On the splitting assets point there's been a 'landmark' decision by the Supreme Court today.
Unmarried couple bought house in joint names and equal shares. Split in 1993 after 8 years and she stayed on, paid mortgage and brought up kids. In 2006 he tries to claim a half share. Lost in the County Court which split it 90/10 but he won in the Court of Appeal getting half.
Supreme Court have reversed that and adopted the County Court's approach.
www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/09/court-rules-property-rights-unmarried
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 9 Nov 11 at 12:38
|
Kernott, 51, an ice cream salesman, moved out after the breakup, leaving Jones, 56, to pay the mortgage, maintain the house – valued at £240,000 in 2008 – and bring up the couple's two children, the court was told.
She had to pay it so she should get her fair share.
|
|
I like the comment on the Guardian website - 'Ice cream salesman fails to get the lolly'!!!
|
>> I like the comment on the Guardian website - 'Ice cream salesman fails to get the lolly'!!!
As long as it didn't go onto say that his ex wife got hundreds and thousands, and because of it, he topped himself.
|
>> Unfortunately Mikey there aren't that many like me and Swiss Tony - we really are
>> in a tiny minority, and have had to fight tooth and nail to get where
>> we are.
Thinking about it there are two single dads in our primary school - one a widower through suicide, and another as the mother had mental illness which manifested itself in abuse to the child.
I wonder if 20 years ago they would have been bringing up their children, or the state would have interfered?
|
Fathers access/rights/responsibilities - Meldrew
