runaroundtel, David(spiderman)Chick was not stopped from seeing his kids by the court, unless you take the courts not enforcing their own court orders, it was his wife stopping him seeing them.
This is the case with so many non resident parents.
There has recently been a case in the senior family courts where there was so much implacable hostility from the resident parent, the mother, that the judge changed the residence order to the father.
Another family court judge has recently found out to his own cost just how skewed the family court system is, he is now a victim of false accusations and being stopped from seeing his kids.
I do understand and fully accept there are abusive husbands, and wives, but even if there is no abuse, it is often suggested by the lawyers to make accusations, this is something that has been imported from the US.
There is only one winner in any divorce, or any legal wrangle, and that is the lawyer, the more nausea they can cause, the more money they get, there is anecdotal evidence of this.
Yet you try and get the word “perjury” mentioned in a divorce or custody proceedings, you will be laughed out of the court.
The family courts are secret courts, something that should not exist.
Dratsabasti:
runaroundtel, David(spiderman)Chick was not stopped from seeing his kids by the court, unless you take the courts not enforcing their own court orders, it was his wife stopping him seeing them.
This is the case with so many non resident parents.
There has recently been a case in the senior family courts where there was so much implacable hostility from the resident parent, the mother, that the judge changed the residence order to the father.
Another family court judge has recently found out to his own cost just how skewed the family court system is, he is now a victim of false accusations and being stopped from seeing his kids.
I do understand and fully accept there are abusive husbands, and wives, but even if there is no abuse, it is often suggested by the lawyers to make accusations, this is something that has been imported from the US.
There is only one winner in any divorce, or any legal wrangle, and that is the lawyer, the more nausea they can cause, the more money they get, there is anecdotal evidence of this.
Yet you try and get the word “perjury” mentioned in a divorce or custody proceedings, you will be laughed out of the court.
The family courts are secret courts, something that should not exist.
Great shout!! 
Equality to all its not big or hard, just common sense!!!
I feel really bad for all you guys out there who are going through this. Being a truck driver doesnt help the situation either, especially if you have a job where you’re away alot. I know that in the US, if a the court orders a specific visitation schedule, and you aren’t able to stick to it because of work, the court doesn’t do much to back you up when you ARE able to spend time with your kids. They just don’t seem to be sympathetic to the situation. The courts feel that if you really want to see your kids that you’ll arrange the time off with your employer. We all know employers don’t give a ■■■■ about your personal life, and aren’t willing to accommodate you. After a certain number of visits are missed, whether for work or not, the court is more apt to favor the mothers anyway.
It makes me wonder how many of these women were children of divorce themselves. I was. There was obvious hostility between my parents after they split. But they made sure we had equal access to both parents at any given time. They lived close enough so that we could just walk from one house to the other whenever we chose. And just to make a point here,… when they split, we lived with my father. That wasn’t by choice at the time, but after my mother got settled, we were given the choice, and 2 of us moved with her, and 2 stayed with my dad. It was the freedom that I had in choosing for myself that made me want to give my son the same experience.
My son’s dad does NOT always set a good example for my son. He’s a bitter, angry, resentful, mean man. He’s been in and out of jail a good part of his life, and uses threats and intimidation to get people to do what he wants… and seems to think that its ok to teach Seth the same. It’s a challenge to try to balance that, and to teach Seth that his father goes about some things the wrong way. So far, we’ve managed to do that without making his father out to be a bad guy. Seth has alot of his fathers personality traits, and in order to teach him how to handle these traits in himself, its sometimes necessary to use his Dad as an example, hoping he will learn something from his fathers mistakes. Even his father will do the same sometimes. But for every bad quality his father has, that I may have to point out to my son, in a positive and constructive way of course, I also have to point out his good qualities. No one is all good or all bad. And I loved him for a long time. It’s the qualities in him that I loved so much that I have to emphasize to Seth. And his main redeeming quality is how much he loves his son… and thats good enough for me!
I didn’t suggest that you eat humble pie Kate. I was making a reference to the absent parents about what they should do so if they want to see their kids. Someone has to act like an adult when a relationship goes awry. Lawyers will ■■■■ you dry, and quite frankly, if your children are that important to you… hey… I’d polish boots if it meant that I could spend quality time with me kids! However, I wouldn’t scale cranes or throw bags of flour in Westminster. I’d communicate with the ex, and behave like an adult. If having contact with my children was so important… I would eat platefuls of humble pie! Just tell me this please… why■■? are these ex’s so cheesed off with their past partners that they would be so malovent? ■■? You said it yourself… as soon as you had custody, your ex became less hostile and you had power. (I know that this is an unpopular theme… sorry in advance)
True… but I also said that its having the power… NOT abusing it that is important here. And a lot of custodial parents…(that can be either the mother or the father, just that its usually the mother) misuse the power, and aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with it. If you read the post that Dratsabasti wrote, this man that we’re talking about that climbed the crane,… David Chick… did not lose visitation. He had a court ordered scheduled visitation that the mother refused to honor. The point is that they went to court, the custody and visitation order was placed, but the mother does not abide by the order, and the court does nothing to enforce it. Apparently he exhausted all legal avenues prior to the crane incident. I don’t disagree that climbing a crane in a super hero costume probably didn’t do much for his case. It would probably be interpretted as him being a bit mentally unstable. I would guess that his behavior has little to do with his own case, and more to do with the ongoing policies that are so prevalent in the court systems. He may have felt helpless about his own situation, but thought that by bringing media attention to the cause would someone benefit others in similar situations. He chose a slightly distorted method, but it made a statement. And obviously it had some effect, because we’re talking about it right now.
The fact is that David Chick has the legal right, and the legal order to see his child and that should be good enough. The court saw fit to grant him that, so the mother should be obligated to follow through. He didn’t abandon his child, and there are no abusive allegations. So what good reason could she have? Some women are just bitter and/or just dont want to be bothered with an ex. Let’s face it… lifes easier without them. She should have thought about that before she got pregnant. Denying her child access to his/her father is nothing more than selfishness, and as a parent, we don’t have that luxury. Selfish people shouldn’t have kids. As I’ve said before, abusive situations are a completely different issue. Thats not what we’re talking about here. These men are angry because they’re being denied their natural rights as a father. I’d be angry too.
Dratsabasti… from my experience, child support doesn’t work that way here. It’s a standard 17% of gross income for the 1st child, and goes up slightly for each additional child, regardless of visitation time. All that counts is the custody order, not the visitation schedule. My problem is that my sons dad is self employed and has undocumented income. He has never paid income tax, and has no proof of ever having made money. He originally had to agree to what I was asking in order to avoid an IRS investigation. But that was 5 years ago,… the cost of raising an 8 year old is much higher than that of a 3 year old. At this point Pat is supporting my son… and is spending more in health insurance for him a month than what I get in child support… and is doing it happily without ever complaining. He thinks of him as his own. I hesitate to return to court to increase his child support because things have been stable, and I don’t want to go back to the bitterness or start getting threats from him again. Its just not worth the hassle, and it would only end up hurting Seth.
Hi Kate, Child support works pretty much the same way here in UK, under the old system, you can pay up to 30% of your take home pay, up to 40% if you have arrears.
Under the new system, if it ever gets working, you will pay 15% for one child, 20% for two, up to a maximum of 25% for three or more.
We have exactly the same problem with self employed, I know of one case of a self employed Barrister who can only afford £5 a week, must be a pretty garbage barrister.
At the moment we don’t have some of the crazy paternity rulings you have in the US, such as the guy with a CS order in one hand, a DNA result in the other, and a judge saying he has to carry on paying.
On the contact side, I see my kids, usually, every other weekend, but some don’t see them at all, some because they don’t want to, and others who throw purple (the colour of justice) flour at our beloved leader 
because the mother doesn’t want them to see the kids.
A letter in one paper today was from a Grandmother, who isn’t allowed to see her grandkid, because the mother divorced, not just the father, but his family as well.
The term, Child Cruelty, comes to mind.
Hi again…
The reason the these fathers have a CS in one hand and a DNA result in the other and STILL have to pay is… in most of these cases the fathers have know that there was a possibility that the child wasn’t theirs and chose to taken responsibility for them anyway, and are using the divorce and the DNA results in order to back out of the moral obligation that they entered into when they got married. The law here in New York states that if you are married to a woman when she gives birth, you are the legal father, regardless of DNA. To raise a child until they are 4 or 6 or 10 years old then cry paternity just to get out of child support support payments is looked at as child cruelty. If they were willing to accept the child prior to the divorce, then they have to accept the responsibility for them after. The only exception to this is if the parents were never married or if there was never any parental contact . In my situation, we weren’t married, didn’t have a DNA test, and he just swore an oath to the court that Seth was his biological son, and once he did that, he can not legally question paternity. A good dad wouldn’t do that anyway, and I know he’d never deny that Seth was his. He’s too proud, and he knows me far too well for that.
It’s a controversial situation, and probably not ONE right answer for every situation.
Kate Hasler:
She should have thought about that before she got pregnant.
I
I’ve not quoted someone else before and I don’t know if I’ve done it right, but anyway… I wonder if he thought about the consequences of ■■? Perhaps he should have thought about it before he MADE her pregnant.
[quote="runaroundtel Perhaps he should have thought about it before he MADE her pregnant.[/quote]
I have no intention to be controversial or insulting, but it takes two to tango.
He could have worn a condom, or she could have made him wear one, or have been on the pill.
Prevention is always better than cure.
Also, remember that the woman has all the answers. He could want the baby, she could not.
She could want the baby, he could not.
Effectively, it is the womans choice, the man has little or no say in the matter.
I’m going to stick my 2 penneth in here 
.
Alternitavely, and this is my own opinion, both parties could say No. In my view this is the safest way for the female NOT to get pregnant
Exactly my point Dratsabasti… I realize it takes two to create a pregnancy, but the woman does have all the power after the fact… so if she wasn’t prepared for the responsibilities that come with having a baby with someone, she should have taken the precautions. I realize that this is going to be an unpopular statement with other women, but its simply the way human anatomy and physiology is…Until they come out with birth control pill for men, you have to be a bit realistic. They both knew there was no condom… so whether women like it or not, if there’s no condom, and she consents to ■■■ anyway, the birth control responsibility HAS to fall to the woman… fair or unfair…its just the way it is. It just goes to show that women should open their minds and think before they open their legs,… and men should think with the dominant brain BEFORE the blood flow gets diverted… the kids suffer.
I agree Samb… but the fact is… they didn’t say no, and the child is here. Now its time for them both to live up to their responsibilities to this child, and she’s keeping him from doing that.
Since it’s both relevant and pertinant to this subject, here’s a link for you…
www.Dads-UK.co.uk is a forum just for fathers who are having a hard time seeing their kids after a family breakdown.
They have loads of forums, with info, advice and support for anyone finding themselves in this heart-breaking position…well worth getting involved!!!