Should using drugs stop you seeing your kids?

[FamilyGuy]

I don't mean the really hard drugs but smoking weed & alcohol.......

Nowadays many people smoke weed and take recreational drugs and even more drink a lot in the evenings and weekends but do you think that should all stop when you have kids?

Yes absolutely! 100%

Only idiots take "recreational drugs" anyway.

"Recreational drugs" is like "Joy riding" - both ridiculous terms used to describe otherwise unacceptable activities.

Just my opinion.....

 

[perseus]

Guardians of Morality

I don't mean the really hard drugs but smoking weed & alcohol.......

Nowadays many people smoke weed and take recreational drugs and even more drink a lot in the evenings and weekends but do you think that should all stop when you have kids?

Yes absolutely! 100%

Only idiots take "recreational drugs" anyway.

"Recreational drugs" is like "Joy riding" - both ridiculous terms used to describe otherwise unacceptable activities.

Just my opinion.....

This is the Conservative Guardian point of view. The trouble it is rather rigid, soul destroying, inhibiting, punitive and sometimes cruel and emotionally violent.

Do the children get a say ? This is likely to be emotional and NOT rational.

PS:

Guardian-Artisan pairings combine a love of fun and pleasure now with planning for the future. The combine social responsibility and meeting obligations with taking care of yourself and being free. Artisans can help their Guardian partners stop and smell the roses while Guardians can help Artisans look to maximize enjoyment between now and the future. When these couples fight, they are likely to accuse each other of being judgmental, too rigid, irresponsible, and selfish.

Keirsey's PersonalityZone - Personality and Your Relationships

 

[Chicken Runner61]

No-one is found "guilty" of anything. The main legislation pertaining to cases involving children is the Children Act of 1989. This puts children's welfare above everything. What the court decides is what's best for the children - nothing else.

That would apply to every single court hearing or criminal case in the land.
The fact that statements are made under oath doesn't actually mean they're always true. People do make up things, that's for courts to decide.

Not true as the article makes perfectly clear.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/may/17/familyandrelationships.children



You seem to think that because family court hearing are heard by a single judge, they are somehow flawed. I'd say the opposite: judges are probably better placed than most people to make rational decisions.


I have some experience in family courts: my kids are adopted so we had to go through a long-winded process but what struck me was how dedicated everyone was to making sure the process was fair and seen to be fair. There was also a real sense that everyone involved was perfectly aware of how sensitive some of the issues were and tried to make allowances for that.

My sister is a social worker who's also had to take children into care and prepare court reports. I know full well the situation that Gazwag is talking about where social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't. It's a thankless job.

Gwylan

If your experience of the family court is related to adoption you will probably have had a fairly easy ride compared with anyone involved in child contact or residency cases - There is very little comparison!

As your sister will probably confirm if someone makes an allegation or slur against a former partner the system has no alternative (especially after Baby P) but to investigate. That means that even an innocent person may lose contact or relationship with their children. That opens the way for people to make false claims to stop or deny contact. A decent unbiased family law judge will often ( but not always) see through the lies but often in order to avoid making a wrong decision a judge will go along with the evidence as its easier and safer to order a costly longwinded investigation than to actually investigate the claims.

The case I bring up here is a clear example of this..

He already has contact and just wants the extra day.

He will pass the tests but why should he pay £1000 to "buy" the time for THE CHILDRENS GRANDMOTHER WHO IS ALSO BEING DENIED.

Its Child abuse to deny contact for no reason.

He has no convictions for ANY drink or drug related offence. Like many people he did a bit of weed and drink in his youth but stopped when he reached 30.

If he takes the tests and they come back negative they will probably ignore them and ask for some more.

Here's the rub SHE ONLY MADE THE CLAIMS WHEN SHE FOUND OUT HE HAD GOT A NEW GIRLFRIEND.

I'm bringing it up on here as I think its wrong that these allegations can destroy your family life and as a warning to others.

30 years ago the family courts only dealt mainly with people with real problems - it was easy to see the poor parents from the good - its not like that anymore. The courts are full of mainly good blokes (and some women) who want to be more than every other weekend dads and are being stopped by the other parent trying to deny them.

Its a situation thats getting worse and a lot of taxpayers money is going to feed a legal system making an awful lot of money out of it.

 

[perseus]

Cat on the Old Tin Roof

Gwylan


Here's the rub SHE ONLY MADE THE CLAIMS WHEN SHE FOUND OUT HE HAD GOT A NEW GIRLFRIEND.

This is called "Cat on the Old Tin Roof" I mentioned before. Artisan lore.

 

[dougdeep]

Well I wouldn't have left my kids with a drugged up alcy.

 

[Gwylan]

Gwylan

If your experience of the family court is related to adoption you will probably have had a fairly easy ride compared with anyone involved in child contact or residency cases - There is very little comparison!

As your sister will probably confirm if someone makes an allegation or slur against a former partner the system has no alternative (especially after Baby P) but to investigate. That means that even an innocent person may lose contact or relationship with their children. That opens the way for people to make false claims to stop or deny contact. A decent unbiased family law judge will often ( but not always) see through the lies but often in order to avoid making a wrong decision a judge will go along with the evidence as its easier and safer to order a costly longwinded investigation than to actually investigate the claims.

The case I bring up here is a clear example of this..

He already has contact and just wants the extra day.

He will pass the tests but why should he pay £1000 to "buy" the time for THE CHILDRENS GRANDMOTHER WHO IS ALSO BEING DENIED.

Its Child abuse to deny contact for no reason.

He has no convictions for ANY drink or drug related offence. Like many people he did a bit of weed and drink in his youth but stopped when he reached 30.

If he takes the tests and they come back negative they will probably ignore them and ask for some more.

Here's the rub SHE ONLY MADE THE CLAIMS WHEN SHE FOUND OUT HE HAD GOT A NEW GIRLFRIEND.

I'm bringing it up on here as I think its wrong that these allegations can destroy your family life and as a warning to others.

30 years ago the family courts only dealt mainly with people with real problems - it was easy to see the poor parents from the good - its not like that anymore. The courts are full of mainly good blokes (and some women) who want to be more than every other weekend dads and are being stopped by the other parent trying to deny them.

Its a situation thats getting worse and a lot of taxpayers money is going to feed a legal system making an awful lot of money out of it.

I'm not sure why you think adoption is an easy ride - it was for us but it was not great for the kids' birth parents who saw their children taken from them. We felt desperately sorry for them - even though objectively it was the right thing to do.

I'm fully aware that mothers make wild allegations against fathers but it doesn't happen as often as you think. About 25 percent of families break up, but something like 90% of those families break up amicably. The courts' job is to resolve the 10% that don't. It's also worth noting that this image of the hard-done-by father is a bit of myth too - according to one survey I saw, four out of five mothers wish that the father had more contact with their kids not less. And while that leaves about 0.5 fathers wanting more access to their kids, don't forget that some of them genuinely are psychopaths and paedophiles.

Of course there will be cases were men who have done nothing wrong will be prevented from seeing their kids and that's heartbreaking for them, but there are people in prison who are innocent. Shit happens.

I'm not sure what you're saying. You seem to be implying that fathers should have access to their kids no matter what - even if they're going to spend the weekend on the lash. It's right and proper that people are assessed - we had to jump through hoops to prove ourselves fit to adopt. And that was absolutely right.

It might be true that your friend's wife has made things up but judges aren't stupid, despite their public image, and can often see through lies. If she has only just made up these allegations, a good lawyer should be able to put his case.

And I see no reason to assume that if he passes the tests, then he'll have to do something else. I repeat what I said above, the sole criterion for deciding access is the children's welfare -if the judge thinks it's in the child's interest to allow visits, then he will. As you say, courts do err on the side of caution but if he's really as clean as you say he is, and it really is the case that these allegations have just been made, he could be all right.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Gwylan

I'm not saying you would have an easy ride on adoption, just that the events do not compare with family separation cases.

Yes most people do separate amicably but more and more are going through the family courts and as far as I can see its going to get worse.

Until (and I hope you never do) have the misfortune to go through the system you will not understand how unfair it is.

I'm not speaking of my own personal experience ( I went through it and got everything I thought my kids and I deserved and what THEY wanted to get - an equal share of family life) but what I discovered scared the hell out of me and made me want to warn other blokes that if the system wants to destroy you it can.

For the last 7 years I have helped other parents and whilst a very small few needed a bit of parenting help most were good parents that were being abused. They include professional people, lecturers, policemen, child workers and even a couple of solicitors.
I have even now given talks to law and family organisations about the problems (mainly blokes) face.

The problem is most blokes take the care/contact given to them and the ones that challenge it and try to remain an equal parent often get stuffed by a system that does not want the complication of two parents.

Most people are not aware that whoever gets the Child benefit is the main carer and to get it changed or shared is a real problem. without CB you can't get tax credits and therefore many blokes wouldn't be able to afford to have their kids with them half the week.

The real statistics show that its not natural fathers that abuse and hurt their kids its stepfathers and boyfriends that offend. There is very little difference in the numbers between mothers and fathers and its possible that many mother abuse cases go unnoticed.

If you were not married when you had kids you have less rights and even having parental consent may not guarantee that you get the medical and school reports you should get. Some schools and nurserys just do what the mother tells them even though the dept of Schools and education state they should pass them on.

If you have not got equal care it is very hard to stop your children being moved away from you making contact difficult or even impossible. I have know people that have had their equal care taken away in order to make it easier to allow the other parent to move.

I brought this up on hear because I know that lots of blokes will read it and perhaps take note for the future.

Try reading

The Gulag Of The Family Courts: Amazon.co.uk: Jack Frost: Books

 

[Gwylan]

I'm not disputing that some men get a raw deal from the court but you are over-stating the case.

And you're not correct that if parents are unmarried that the father has no rights - that used to be the case but the law changed and fathers do have parental responsibility for children born after the 1 January 2003. It's also worth noting that I, as an adoptive father, have joint parental responsibility for my children - and actual have more rights than an unmarried father.

I needn't worry about the prospect of family court: my partner and I know that whatever happens the kids' needs come first and there's no way that we'd jeopardise that. Like I said, most parents feel the same way - I've known several people (usually women) who hate their previous partners with a vengeance, yet would never dream of stopping their children from seeing them.

You're right about maternal abuse though - there have been a few cases that have come to light this years and that's something being taken seriously. But don't ignore the facts that natural fathers can and do abuse their children - sadly, I know of a few cases personally where this has happened.

I hope your friend gets what he wants and everything works out amicably for him. I have known women who have been consumed by rage against a partner and want to deny him anything but often calm down when it starts going to court and start realising the damage that could be done without a father.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

I'm not disputing that some men get a raw deal from the court but you are over-stating the case.

And you're not correct that if parents are unmarried that the father has no rights - that used to be the case but the law changed and fathers do have parental responsibility for children born after the 1 January 2003. It's also worth noting that I, as an adoptive father, have joint parental responsibility for my children - and actual have more rights than an unmarried father.

I needn't worry about the prospect of family court: my partner and I know that whatever happens the kids' needs come first and there's no way that we'd jeopardise that. Like I said, most parents feel the same way - I've known several people (usually women) who hate their previous partners with a vengeance, yet would never dream of stopping their children from seeing them.

You're right about maternal abuse though - there have been a few cases that have come to light this years and that's something being taken seriously. But don't ignore the facts that natural fathers can and do abuse their children - sadly, I know of a few cases personally where this has happened.

I hope your friend gets what he wants and everything works out amicably for him. I have known women who have been consumed by rage against a partner and want to deny him anything but often calm down when it starts going to court and start realising the damage that could be done without a father.

I dont want to keep this going but .....

Too simplistic - If I was overstating it the number of court cases would not be increasing.

And I NEVER said unmarried fathers had no rights - the charity I work for was the main organisation that got PR for fathers so I know exactly what rights it gives you, but you are being foolish if you think that having PR gives you the same rights. I used to think like you that it would never happen to me and I was totally amazed when I realised what could happen to me. The only thing that saved me was the fact my kids were old enough to tell the courts what they wanted. If they were under 11 I would have had no chance.

Believe what you want but be aware!

 

[Stat Brother]

If everybody who wanted children had to go through the adoption process first. To assess if they were 'fit and proper', you wouldn't be having this conversation now.

 

[Gwylan]

Too simplistic - If I was overstating it the number of court cases would not be increasing.
...
The only thing that saved me was the fact my kids were old enough to tell the courts what they wanted. If they were under 11 I would have had no chance.

Two points: the number of claims for compensation for personal injury are increasing too. But I've not seen any suggestions that the number of accidents has increased - it's just that lawyers market themselves more aggressively now.

You're supporting what I said; kids' rights are paramount. The system is not loaded against parents, it's loaded in favour of kids. The kids have that absolute right to voice an opinion and it's nonsense to say that an opinion of 9 or 10-year old would not be taken into account. An under-5, yes but as they get older, their views are increasingly listened to. I remember when we were looking at what kids to adopt and there were 7-year-old twins available - the social worker said that at age, they would have some say in where they would go (which is not why we didn't adopt them).

You keep talking about parents' rights but that's not the point - the main point is what's best for the children. And courts don't get it right all the time - we're all human and make mistakes - but they get it right most of the time.

Stat Brother is right. If everyone who became parents had to jump through the same hoops that adoptive parents had to, there would be very few of these cases.

 

[Stat Brother]

Stat Brother is right. If everyone who became parents had to jump through the same hoops that adoptive parents had to, there would be very few of these cases.

Only your grammar is a lot better than mine. It was early.