A contentious argument or familiar theme about the best interests of children

[Rosemarie]

When I was growing up swats and spankings were the norm. It was far far from what I consider abuse. And I did the same with my kids. Not often, but when it was needed, it got their attention. The grands, however, were born in the time out era, and now that they are pretty much adults, I don’t see much difference in the way they turned out. Our sons turned into wonderful men that the earth is a better place because of. And by all indications our grands are following suit.

That would seem to indicate that the parents are good, decent people who were a good example to their children.
In this sort of discussion, I don't really like to bring in personal experiences but in this case, I will.
I have three children who were raised on a rough council estate on very little money. They were never in any trouble and all have gone to university and got degrees. I hope this is because their father and I were decent people who were good parents. The majority of the other children on the estate were always causing trouble, and I didn't hold out much hope for their futures.

 

[grahamg]

That would seem to indicate that the parents are good, decent people who were a good example to their children. In this sort of discussion, I don't really like to bring in personal experiences but in this case, I will. I have three children who were raised on a rough council estate on very little money. They were never in any trouble and all have gone to university and got degrees. I hope this is because their father and I were decent people who were good parents. The majority of the other children on the estate were always causing trouble, and I didn't hold out much hope for their futures.

Rough diamonds perhaps, (well done with your own children though!)?

 

[grahamg]

I think I might get away with posting these comments on this thread, as they sort of fit somehow, I hope so anyway.

The issue at the heart of any litigation, is or should be at any rate, who is telling the truth as best as they know it. It could be both sides believe what they are saying is true sometimes, but usually, in order for a judge to make a decision, there has to a a proportion in favour of one side doesn't there(?).

However, knowing what might be true in family law, and having a willingness to tell the truth, or feel free to tell the truth, can be very different matters, I think most people would acknowledge. If we are living in a "post truth world" as some contend, what does this mean so far as any justice we might seek to obtain from our courts, because all will be assumed to be lying in their own interests wont they(?)

I dont pretend I can live up to the ideals of yesteryear where "my word is my bond" is supposed to have been the way s gentleman might behave, (I hope I'm not miles from it however!). When my daughters word was believed above mine over the quality of contact I maintained with her, and instead of being sent a copy of my daughters school report, and the teacher insisted my daughter's permission must be sought before it could be released to me, it should give you some idea how much of a second class citizen I had become in the eyes of those in responsible positions, and whose reports informed the courts. The law may be framed in a completely neutral way, not favouring either parent in principle, but "assumptions" mean a great deal in law I believe, and if they assume I'm an irrelevance, or other parents/fathers are equally to be treated this way, "our truth", even if 100% accurate, can count for absolutely nothing, and the lesson such a system gives to our children, is indeed we live in a post truth era, where the word of those misleading or even lying may matter more than anything else.