What do you think?

i havent read all the post cos they are quite long but i cant see a problem why cant people see their children just because a marridge has broken down or relationship reached its end why make children suffer they there to be loved and taken care off not to be used as a weapon.

Will this help all those fathers out there fighting for their kids…■■? Or will David Blunkett join the fathers-4-justice and start climbing cranes and scaling buckingham palace with all the others? Can’t wait to see how this turns out.

LONDON - Home Secretary David Blunkett, whose affair with a married American magazine publisher has jeopardized his political career, raised more eyebrows Friday by declaring he is the father of her 2-year-old son.

Blunkett’s now-ended affair with Kimberly Quinn, along with claims he abused his ministerial post to fast-track a visa for her Filipina nanny, have overshadowed the government’s policy agenda and electrified the British press.

Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) is standing by his close friend and ally, but political commentators are divided over whether the hard-line law and order chief will survive the furor.

The scandal took a fresh twist Friday when details of Blunkett’s legal bid for access to the child were made public. A High Court judge ruled the proceedings should not be delayed.

Ironic isn’t it, our beloved HS is going to court and being told there should be NO delay, yet there are thousands of other non resident parents (NRPs) going to court for the same thing and being told, WAIT, and this will be for the good of the children to keep you apart.
And these NRPs include both mothers and fathers who are the natural parents of the children, not wanting a DNA test to prove parentage.

There is one driver I know having the problem of waiting and waiting to see his kids, to be told supervised contact■■?

This Judge has created a legal precedent in saying NO DELAY, it must be used fully by these poor mums and dads, and prove that the courts ARE biased towards the resident parent.

There is one driver I know having the problem of waiting and waiting to see his kids, to be told supervised contact■■?

I know the feeling… :cry:

Give him my best wishes, sadly he’s by no means alone…

Ps. Not even got any supervised contact yet…it’s been months now…

Well Lucy… you asked for opinions, and I don’t expect mine to go down well. I will take the flack for what I 'm about to say. I think that this site knows that a majority of it’s readers are male, and that the haulage industry mostly employs males. I also think that this site will try to curry favour with those in that postition, in order to get people to post and visit the site regularly.
I do have a a genuine sympathy for blokes who have lost legal battles to see their kids, especially, when they really want to be a part on a long term basis, in seeing their kids grow up, ESPECIALLY when they pay support/maintanence. I think that the reason that the whole debate falls down, is that when the issue of child support is raised, in many cases, there is a dispute.
Now for a woman, there is NO doubt that she is the Mum, because, she will (mostly) raise the child from the moment that it is born.
I do not dispute that access should be given to a Dad if they being financially and emotionally supportive, that is how things should be, but I have only know two men in my entire life, who have raised their kids, without any maternal support.
These Dads are GOOD. They have raised their kids and have a fantastic approach towards their job/role.
Yet I struggle to understand the protests of men who, want to be a part of their kids life, and are willing to put the time and effort in, as opposed to the majority of women who have been raising their children alone for decades, without most men having much care.

The reason that the campaign by Father’s for Justice has gained very little support or popularilty is that it seems that most most men do not want an 18 year + ‘sentance’ of child support paymements.

With the greatest of respect Lucy, I honestly feel that you are one of the most diplomatic people on this site, and I really admire the sense of fairness and humour that you engender, but I think that this particular issue, is gender biaised because the site needs more people to visit it.

gender biaised because the site needs more people to visit it.

:question: :question: :question: :question:

runaroundtel… I’m the one that asked for opinions, not lucy, so don’t give her a hard time about it. And you’ll have to forgive me, but what you’ve said in this post has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. This isn’t a discussion about child support or how many fathers don’t want to pay it, or how many fathers don’t want to be a part of the childrens life. Sure it’s easier for fathers to walk away… and many choose to do just that. But this is about those that DON’T, and the fact that they’re being denied the right to act as a parent to their children, whether by the court system or by custodial parents who ignore the visitation order. It’s obviously more of an issue for men, women usually maintain custody, but that isn’t always the case. And to deny fathers (or mothers) access to their children based on the fact that others have chosen not to bother is ridiculous. You cannot punish the children because history has shown that other fathers weren’t as responsible or interested in their own children. Each case should be treated individually… not based on history or precedent that was set by irresponsible fathers.

One major problem in all this is that, just like you, people are equating child support payments with visitation. The two issues are separate. Visitation should NOT be denied because of lack of payment… nor should visitation be awarded based on making payments. Financial support of the child has nothing to do with that. Unless the non custodial parent is neglectful or abusive, there is NO good reason to deny visitation… whether they are capable of making regular child support payments or not. Children don’t love their parents based on the size of the check they write. My son’s father is late with child support payment regularly… that has nothing to do with how often he gets to see him. The financial issue is between him and I… his relationship with our son is between the two of them. I have no right to interfere as long as he continues to treat him well. What should I say to my son… “no you can’t see dad this weekend, he didn’t pay me yet■■?”… how stupid and petty is that? It’s true that some fathers find it easy to donate sperm and walk away at the first sign of relationship problems… but credit should be given to those that make it a priority to fulfill their obligation to their children… and even more than that… don’t see it as an obligation, but are genuinely dedicated to being parents.

I’m quite offended this statement that you made…

Now for a woman, there is NO doubt that she is the Mum

This is an old attitude… where fathers claim that they aren’t the real father in order to avoid financial support and justify walking away from their children. For them to all of a sudden suggest they aren’t the natural father because the relationship failed is not only a huge insult to the mother, but also to the child. Parenthood doesn’t exist for men only in the context of marriage or a stable relationship. This is done to compromise the mothers reputation, and to avoid their responsibilities. It’s just crap, and I for one, am sick of hearing men say it!!!

Women are constantly complaining about how fathers walk away and don’t partipate in the childs life after divorce, and how hard it is on the child… so why make it so difficult for those that want to participate and act as the father they should be?

Lucy:

gender biaised because the site needs more people to visit it.

:question: :question: :question: :question:

I’m still trying to figure out that statement too Lucy… what does this issue have to do with this particular website and how many people visit it?

Kate Hasler:

Lucy:

gender biaised because the site needs more people to visit it.

:question: :question: :question: :question:

I’m still trying to figure out that statement too Lucy… what does this issue have to do with this particular website and how many people visit it?

Same from me :question: :question: :question: :question:

I’m with Kate and Lucy on this one.
Denial of contact between a child and parent is, to my mind, nothing short of child abuse, unless there is proven reason for that denial of contact.
Therein lies the rub, “Proven”. There only has to be the accusation of wrongdoing, and the child loses contact with a parent.
Lawyers all over the world use the gambit of accusation to give one parent POWER over the other parent, whether there be wrongdoing or not.
One of the F4J protesters is a fully qualified childminder, able to look after any child in the country, but his own.
F4J have a mothers section, a Grandparents section and various other support sections.
The CSA condone child abuse.
Under CSA 1 rules, a Non Resident Parent(NRP) must have overnight contact of over 104 nights.
Under CSA 2 rules, a NRP must have contact over 52 nights.
If overnight contact over these figures is agreed by both parents, then CS payments can be cut, but if the Resident parent disagrees, then CS payments stay the same, so the NRP is paying CS for more than 104 or 52 nights, for when the NRP is actually looking after the child, so in effect is paying TWICE.

When a case is transferred, there have already been some done, and overnight contact has been cut to below the 52 rule.
CSA cause child abuse, case proven.

I have said before, I would have preferred the attitude displayed openly by Kate, than that displayed by my Ex in the early days.

When it comes to divorce, there will only ever be one winner, and thats the lawyer.

Child support in the US doesn’t work that way. Either the parents agree on an amount, like my sons father and I did, or the court awards a flat 17% of the gross income for the first child, and between 3-5% for the second… and so on. It makes no difference how much time the child spends with the non custodial parent. The way the court looks at it is this… (using myself as an example)

I have sole legal custody of my son, his Dad gets 48 hour visitations biweekly. If he takes my son for days other than that, its at my sole discretion, but the child support will never change based on that. As a custodial parent I am responsible to maintain a home large enough to raise my son in… and child support is considered my ex’s contribution to maintaining that home… expenses such as mortgage/rent, electricity, taxes, phone, cable tv, educational expenses, toothpaste and toilet paper are even taken into consideration if the fight over money is that bitter… any type of household expense. Groceries are not the only consideration. So to figure the child support that way, or to suggests that payments should be reduced because the father fed him one or two days more than he was suppose to isn’t really logical, nor does it change the household expenses that the mother has.
The amount changes to 3% for the additional children to compensate for things like an increase in groceries and clothing for the additional child. But the household bills will not increase because of more children… if you see what I mean.

This is probably the one area where I can get a little bitter. Contrary to popular belief, mothers do not receive child support and go shopping to buy themselves new clothes. And even if they have new clothes… so what. Their kids still have a home, food, clothes, ect… the bills are still paid, and they ARE allowed to spend a portion of their own money on themselves. Child support should not be calculated based on how much the mother earns, or whether she’s financially capable of raising the child herself… she shouldnt have to. And I’ve seen many fathers who don’t have custody that have new cars, or boats, or take expensive vacations, waste money on stupidy… all while complaining about the modest child support order.

I haven’t had an increase in child support since our original court date, and probably won’t request one. I don’t have the need to. My sons father is very good that way. If Seth needs something, and I don’t have the money… and alot of times even if I do have the money, as soon as he’s aware of it, he gets it and he brings it to me the next day. The amount of child support I get just about pays for his groceries… and very little else. But the fact is, Patrick would rather take as much responsibility for raising Seth as he can, and wouldn’t care if we didn’t get any child support. My son is very lucky to have 2 fathers who love him so much.

Well… for a start, when I first looked at the thread, after the thread had been posted, I felt certain that the post had been made by Lucy. So that’s my mistake. Sorry. Secondly, I am not out to offend anyone, but merely to state an opposing opinion. Just because a post is made here, it does not mean to say that everyone has to agree with it’s contents. Thirdly, it DOES matter when women bring kids up (in the majority of the cases) and men don’t pay to help bring up their kids. It’s wrong.
If these blokes, who want to stay in close contact with their kids, are really sure about doing so, then why not ask for custody, and raise them full stop? For those men who are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, and want to see their kids on a regular basis, well they need to accept that kids cost a packet, and the whole package includes more than weekends out, daytrips and a few hundred quid a month. They also take, the time and trouble to instill, discipline, time with homework, going to the school when it’s not looking so good, and budgetting for them on a day to day basis.
A pair of shoes and an afternoon in the park, is not parenthood. Snotty noses, and chicken pox is best experienced first hand.
Explaining menstruation, and voice changes is not a two month phase that you see at the weekends.
If you do not think that child support (dosh) plays no part in raising a child, think again.
With regards to ‘gender biased’ A Mum in a single parent home is now a social moiree. Dads raising kids is far and few bewteen. Rare in fact.
If you have a child , not only expect 18+ years of emotional, spiritual, and clothing support. Also expect to clean up the vomit, worry yourself to death, argue the toss, count to ten many times, pick up the bits and pieces, tell them the most horrendous details of any slightly embarrassing thing.
Whilst you may say that men in a position where they cannot have close contact with their kids because of separation with a partner, are being denied access, I challenge any bloke to sit down with his kids for a few weeks, and take 100% care of them and then say that they will not pay for trainers etc.

Finally… Kate. Yes … It was you who asked for opinions on this topic. Well done for asking others to respond on such an emotive topic.

P.S. Gender biaised means getting men and women to visit the site and comment.

This is what F4J are fighting against:

As thousands of British parents and grandparents take to the streets protesting Britain’s secret family court, high-ranking judges have begun issuing a series of arrogant disclaimers (“We were just following orders”) and calculated misinformation (“It’s not so bad as all that”).
In The Telegraph of 3 July 2004, Mrs Justice Bracewell - who, on countless occasions, has ordered minimal contact (2-3 hours per fortnight) for normal parents and their children - claims that the family court’s failures amount to little more than “what is in essence a small group of obdurate mothers.”
Under current practices, once a parent (usually the father) has been classified as “non-resident,” he can count on the following from British family justice:

  1. Years of expensive litigation while seeking (and probably never receiving) an order for normal contact
  2. Judges who rarely tell a mother it is wrong to prevent normal contact, or enforce contact orders
  3. Judges who routinely enforce no-contact orders and almost-no-contact orders against fathers
  4. Judges who criticize fathers that seek normal contact with their children for “loving their children too much” or for being “in need of therapy” or for “confusing their own needs with the needs of the child” etc
  5. Judges who rubber-stamp reports prepared by CAFCASS, no matter how widely the deficiencies in CAFCASS are acknowledged
  6. Judges who routinely minimize, or cancel, all contact between a father and his children for any reason, however trivial, that is put forward by the mother
    Mrs Justice Bracewell was involved in the recent dismantling of the Early Interventions Pilot - a project proposing that normal contact between parents and children should be established as soon as parents separate - unless a compelling reason exists otherwise.

    A Typical District Court Judge [case in progress], in dealing with a normal father who for four years post-divorce had been enjoying almost daily contact with his child, as well as full weekends and holidays, has recently made the following orders:
    a) For almost no contact (at the mother’s request) until the full hearing - some six to nine months after the father’s initial application
    b) A full CAFCASS report on the risks inherent in any future contact between father and child - in the absence of any substantive charges made against the father
    Lord Justice Thorpe, in a recent interview in Times Law, characterised the outrage of tens of thousands of families across Britain - most of whom have lost all meaningful contact with their children and grandchildren for no good reason - as “ignorance and disturbed emotion.”
    Mr Justice Munby failed to order, or enforce, any contact for what he termed a “wholly deserving father,” whose case was " far from unique," who had been cut off from all contact with his children since 2001. Mr Munby went on to extol the virtues of the Early Interventions Pilot, which proposes that normal contact should be established immediately after separation, on the presumption that normal contact will be ordered (and enforced) by the first judge who hears the case. (Can you spot the problem? Munby can’t.)
    Lady Justice Butler-Sloss informed a parent and grandparent that she could do little (if anything) to overturn a lower court decision restricting contact to unbearable levels, even in cases where the preceding judge may appear to have been grossly negligent in his duty.
    Judge Masterman reduced a father’s contact with his 4-year old son (who had been living with the father for the previous year) to 1 hours supervised contact per week on the grounds that the father might say something to turn the child against the mother.
    Mr Justice Wall, in a case where a father had been denied all contact with his 12-year-old son for five years, criticized the father in open court for continuing to conduct appeals on his child’s behalf.
    Lord Justice Ward, in hearing the appeal of an order allowing a mother and her female partner to move two young children to Australia without any defined contact for the father, stated that the Court of Appeal had no power to intervene in a case where the higher court felt it would have come to an opposite conclusion.
    Mr Justice Singer ordered that a ten year old boy spend the weekend with his mother despite the boy’s long-held claims that the mother had physically abused him, and had threatened to kill him claims which had not been disputed by the Court Welfare Officer assigned to the case. When the boy refused to leave his father, the judge told the child (in the hall outside court): 'If you don’t go with your Mum I’ll put you in a place where you can’t see your mother or your father how would you like that?"
    Lord Justice Ward warned a father who was seeking more than five hours contact with his four year old son per fortnight that he should write neither his MP, nor the media, regarding the state of Britain’s secret family court, for to do so might harm his case.
    Judge Goldstein, responding to a father who sought improved contact with his daughter partly on the grounds that he wished to help her learn more about her Palestinian culture and language: “Spending time with a child is all about fun, going to McDonald’s, etc., not jamming her throat with Arabic text books and Holy Book.”
    8 District and High Court Judges: In a three year case extending over more than twenty hearings, none of the presiding judges have told a mother who has broken a contact order more than one hundred times either a) that contact is a good thing, or b) that breaking court orders is wrong.
    Dame Justice Hale: in a case where a father was appealing an earlier decision of only one hour contact per month, concluded that “this appeal is unmeritorious”.
    Judge Catlin: a) when a mother refused to obey an order for shared residence, he ordered the cessation of all contact between a father and his two sons in response to unsubstantiated charges of abuse; b) at a subsequent hearing 12 months later, when all charges of abuse had been dismissed by the investigating officer, he ordered 1 hour of contact between father and son per month.
    Mister Justice Sumner: ordered costs against a father who sought any summer holidays with his child.
    Mister Justice Johnson: ordered a father declared a vexatious litigant for seeking more than one overnight per fortnight with his 5-year old son. Upheld on appeal by Thorpe.
    Mr Justice Sumner: “It is simply not on” for any parent to return a 3 1/2 year old child home as late as 6 pm on a Sunday.
    District Judge Kenworthy-Browne: A child of 3 “will have developed no Christmas associations with the father, and even if he has spent Christmases at the father’s home, he will not remember them. As such, he will not expect increased contact with his father over the holidays.”
    District Judge X (case pending): ordered the cessation of all contact between parent and child, with no review, “in order to try to move forward and restore the relationship.”
    Judge Segal: cancelled after 30 minutes a full hearing at which the father sought any summer holidays and rescheduled it for after the summer. Upheld on appeal.
    District Judge Lipman: ordered that a father be allowed only 2 weeks of holiday (out of a possible 13) per year: “You have the midweek contact (3 hrs per week) instead of this.”
    District Judge Hindley: dismissed a father’s application to phone his 7 yr old daughter on Christmas morning calling it “too disruptive she would be opening her Christmas presents.”
    Judge Milligan, to a parent who had been unsuccessfully trying to see his child for 2 years: “This is a father who needs, in my judgment, to think long and hard about his whole approach to this question of contact and to ask himself sincerely whether in fact he seeks to promote it for his own interests dressed up as the child’s interests.”
    District Judge X (case pending): ordered that a father who had not been allowed to see his children for 4 months should have his case deferred for another 4 months pending investigation of an unsubstantiated 1972 domestic disagreement from a previous marriage.
    Mr Justice Cazalet: in hearings spaced over 2 years 1) ordered end of Friday overnights on grounds that the child had to rest after school, and 2) ordered end of Saturday overnights on grounds that she had to rest all day Sunday before school on Monday.
    Deputy District Judge Pauffley, in raising a father’s contact to 18 hours per month after 11/2 years of litigation: “What will never be helpful is for the father to see his contact in terms of mathematical division. Apparently he is running at a disadvantage of 999 to 1 … The court does not look at it in those terms.”
    District Judge Thomas, in reply to a father who had been cut off from all contact with his three children for six months: “And I see that you would like me to grant an Order that the mother file a statement to show good reason why there should not be normal contact. Well, I’m not going to do it!”
    Judge Calman ordered that a father, who lived within 300 yards of his son’s primary residence, should never answer the door when his son rang.
    Rt Hon Lord Justice Thorpe, in rejecting the appeal of a father who wanted to cross-examine a Court Welfare Officer (whose evidence prevented him from seeing his children), affirmed that “there is no right of cross examination of Court Welfare Officers.”
    Mr Justice Wilson, acting against what he called “the deep wishes and feelings of three intelligent, articulate children,” ordered the end of all direct contact with their father. Upheld on appeal by Butler-Sloss, LJ.
    Judge X (case pending): after repeat applications about serial breaches of a contact order since early 2001, ordered that the issue be reviewed in late 2002.
    Mr Justice Munby ordered the end of all direct contact between a father and his three children while noting that the mother “wished the children could have contact with the father. She said there was no need for all this litigation. The children should see the father.”
    Judge Segal postponed a full hearing in order to obtain a Court Welfare Officer report on two parents who had brought no charges of misconduct against one another by stating: “Well, I think both parents have fallen over backwards to avoid causing the child any sort of harm, but a child always suffers when a marriage breaks down … You see, it is possible to kill with kindness by doing too much.”
    Mr Justice Sumner reproved a father who had made one application to the court over two years of litigation, and sought more than twenty-six nights of contact with his child per year: “You feel better because you can put pressure, you can bring everybody to court.”
    Judge Turner, in reply to a parent who sought to question a Court Welfare Officer’s report: “That confirms my suspicions. This is what members of the public do when they disagree with the recommendations. I believe that its totally wrong that members of the public can challenge Judges and Court Welfare Officers. Officers should not be subjected to it. There is a procedure outside the Court about making a complaint against the Judge. Members of the public should not have the right to make complaints.”
    Judge Agliomby, on refusing overnight contact for the third consecutive year: “The point that struck me most was that the very first question the father asked the mother was whether they might not get on better if she let him see the child.”
    Judge Lamdin dismissed a father’s request (after three years of litigation) for any overnight contact with his six year old on the grounds that “the child is growing up knowing his father, and that what we are talking about, i.e. overnight staying contact, is something quite different.”
    Judge Kenworthy-Browne, known by the staff at First Avenue House for repeatedly bringing his dog to court, rebuked a litigant-in-person for not wearing a tie.
    Senior District Judge Angel misinformed a complainant that “there is an unrestricted right of appeal” in contact cases. (There is, in fact, little if any right of appeal.) When this was brought to the attention of the President of the Family Division, her office replied that she “considered the matter closed.”
    Mr Justice Munby sentenced a father to four months in prison for giving his children Christmas presents (a bike, a camera and a walkman) during a scheduled contact meeting. Upheld on appeal by Thorpe LJ and Butler-Sloss LJ.
    Judge Goldstein, after a father filed a complaint against him, ordered all contact between that father and his children stopped for three years. Overturned on appeal by Butler-Sloss LJ, who described the judge’s behaviour as “outrageous.”
    Judge Plaskow rejected a father’s request for overnight contact with his 4-year-old, and ordered court costs against him, on the grounds that the child might require a special diet.
    Judge X (name withheld by litigant) told a father who sought more than 2 hours contact with his young child per fortnight that “it may well be that the father is being too possessive.”
    Judge Agliombi warned a father who was arguing that costs should not be ordered against him because the mother was depriving their child of a father: “If you go on like this you stand in great danger of never having staying contact with your son.”
    Judge X (case pending) ordered that a father, who had waited seven months for a full hearing without seeing his children, be permitted for six months to write them no more than one card/letter every three weeks, without any direct contact.
    Judge Lloyd ordered that an ordinary father be permitted to write his child once per fortnight on the condition that the letter’s contents be reviewed by an officer of the court.

runaroundtel:
I am not out to offend anyone, but merely to state an opposing opinion. Just because a post is made here, it does not mean to say that everyone has to agree with it’s contents. Thirdly, it DOES matter when women bring kids up (in the majority of the cases) and men don’t pay to help bring up their kids. It’s wrong.

I don’t really think we have opposing opinions. I don’t disagree with much that you said, but you’re making it sound much too simplistic.

If these blokes, who want to stay in close contact with their kids, are really sure about doing so, then why not ask for custody, and raise them full stop?

Isn’t this what the entire fight is about? A lot of men fight for custody and don’t win, whether justly or not. It isn’t an all-or-nothing thing. Not having custody doesn’t mean close contact can’t be achieved. It just isn’t a priority to the courts.

For those men who are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, and want to see their kids on a regular basis, well they need to accept that kids cost a packet, and the whole package includes more than weekends out, daytrips and a few hundred quid a month.

It takes money to raise a child… thats just obvious. But to punish the child by witholding visitation with their father because the child support is in dispute is hurting the child… I don’t really care how much it hurts the father… they aren’t the issue here. Children need both parents, regardless of the finances. You’ll never convince me otherwise.

They also take, the time and trouble to instill, discipline, time with homework, going to the school when it’s not looking so good, and budgetting for them on a day to day basis. A pair of shoes and an afternoon in the park, is not parenthood. Snotty noses, and chicken pox is best experienced first hand.
Explaining menstruation, and voice changes is not a two month phase that you see at the weekends.

Where’s the common sense in that statement? In the situation of a divorce or separation, what you’ve just said is impossilbe. Which ever parent has custody is the one that deals with the snotty noses, chicken pox, and menstruation… its just the way it is. The only remedy to that is to stay married so that both can be there equally, and thats just not always whats best.

If you do not think that child support (dosh) plays no part in raising a child, think again.

Once again… child support obviously plays a part in raising the child. Money is necessary. It DOESN’T, however, play a part in parenting. The two issues are distinctly separate.

Also expect to clean up the vomit, worry yourself to death, argue the toss, count to ten many times, pick up the bits and pieces, tell them the most horrendous details of any slightly embarrassing thing. Whilst you may say that men in a position where they cannot have close contact with their kids because of separation with a partner, are being denied access, I challenge any bloke to sit down with his kids for a few weeks, and take 100% care of them and then say that they will not pay for trainers etc.

You’re right about this… I think alot of men who fight for custody of their children have no idea what the day to day responsibilities of raising kids are. In reality, mothers are usually responsible for the majority of the mundane care giving. Spending a month or two with their kids 24 hours a day, 7 days a week might change their mind, and make them see exactly what mothers go through. My son was with his dad a few weeks ago, got sick in the car, and he brought him directly home, never even stopped so he could clean up. He just didn’t want to deal with it. I’ve known a few fathers who have custody of their children. But every one of them is remarried… and its the step mothers that are doing most of the work… the fathers role never changed from one household to the other. Some just aren’t equipped to be full time parents on their own. That doesn’t negate the fact that fathers who want to see their kids should be able to. These guys aren’t asking for the moon… just some time with their kids… which I think they’re entitled to.