Challenging the "gate keeper" role, said the be a mothers prerogative

I tried very hard to be the gatekeeper between my ex and the kids, because he was abusive and I did my best to protect them.

And though it’s not completely responsive to this topic, I will add that my children are the gatekeepers to my grandchildren, and have complete control over when or if I can see them.

I have experienced this with one set of grandkids from whom I am almost completely estranged, though thankfully the other two kids/families and I are very close.
 

I tried very hard to be the gatekeeper between my ex and the kids, because he was abusive and I did my best to protect them.
And though it’s not completely responsive to this topic, I will add that my children are the gatekeepers to my grandchildren, and have complete control over when or if I can see them.
I have experienced this with one set of grandkids from whom I am almost completely estranged, though thankfully the other two kids/families and I are very close.
I know I could your arguments to ansurdia, and of course no one supports abuse of children in any way, (governed in the UK in any event under a different legal principle, "The Harm Principle").

However I wont do that, because I wanted to nightlight the comment I liked most on the " In Our Family" placard: "We Expect Great Things"! :)
 
Sadly I believe that many of our laws and customs were meant for a world that is rapidly disintegrating. The changing of these laws and customs lag a couple of generations behind the "real world".

BTW, what is a "gatekeeper"? The person who know best which kids and homes their children should be allowed to play with and visit? The costume their child is going to wear at a school function? OR is it the person who is involved in selecting the advanced education, profession, or mate for their high school age kids?

In my generation (similar to my folks and grandparents), it was the wife making the decisions regarding the kids and household. She, in most cases, was the "homemaker", at home with the kids, on call from the school, trips to the docs, etc. Her husband (in my case) worked mostly out of town - long days - and was glad to have her to keep the home and kids in an upright position.

Sensibly, long term decisions regarding the children's future were shared to a much greater degree. Of course, all this assuming that the parents haven't already screwed up the so-called "family circle". I have no clue how people (who now seem to be the majority) expect to happily "share" responsibilities for their children's up bringing after already showing that (for whatever the reason ) they've proven unable to handle their own.

We obviously need new laws to govern the "new" type of family that has no resemblance to previous generations. I have great sympathy for folks in these situation regarding the kids but it is what it is and doesn't appear to getting any better.

I just "thank the Lord" that I have't become an "ex" as after reading most posts, the "ex's" are always the bad people.😩
 
Last edited:
Sadly I believe that many of our laws and customs were meant for a world that is rapidly disintegrating. The changing of these laws and customs lag a couple of generations behind the "real world".
BTW, what is a "gatekeeper"? The person who know best which kids and homes their children should be allowed to play with and visit? The costume their child is going to wear at a school function? OR is it the person who is involved in selecting the advanced education, profession, or mate for their high school age kids?
In my generation (similar to my folks and grandparents), it was the wife making the decisions regarding the kids and household. She, in most cases, was the "homemaker", at home with the kids, on call from the school, trips to the docs, etc. Her husband (in my case) worked mostly out of town - long days - and was glad to have her to keep the home and kids in an upright position.

Sensibly, long term decisions regarding the children's future were shared to a much greater degree. Of course, all this assuming that the parents haven't already screwed up the so-called "family circle". I have no clue how people (who now seem to be the majority) expect to happily "share" responsibilities for their children's up bringing after already showing that (for whatever the reason ) they've proven unable to handle their own.

We obviously need new laws to govern the "new" type of family that has no resemblance to previous generations. I have great sympathy for folks in these situation regarding the kids but it is what it is and doesn't appear to getting any better.

I just "thank the Lord" that I have't become an "ex" as after reading most posts, the "ex's" are always the bad people.😩
Really balanced arguments and views in my opinion, I can't add anything to them, except to state the "gatekeeper" word, referring to the mothers, was used in a UK government paper, following an exercise undertaken twenty years ago called "Making contact work", (contact between nonresident fathers and their children).
 
To say my mother was a domineering borderline personality queen was an understatement. Interestingly though, she never exhibited her behavior to my young memory until she married my stepfather. My bio dad would not have put up with it. And she knew it. Was he a jerk, possibly. I remember little of him.
 
To say my mother was a domineering borderline personality queen was an understatement. Interestingly though, she never exhibited her behavior to my young memory until she married my stepfather. My bio dad would not have put up with it. And she knew it. Was he a jerk, possibly. I remember little of him.
I keep mentioning it I know, or accept the criticism, but to all those happy to support a family law system whereby an "expert" of some kind is deemed worth occupying the privileged position of deciding what might be in any child's interests, over any parent, (no matter how loving they might be towards their child), doubts persist as to whether they can decide such things without doing more harm than good!

I know that's a very long sentence, deliberately so, but your post put me in mind of this argument I keep making, and I keep hearing the evidence of all not being well in the views of those supporting our UK family law system. :)
 
Quote (from above placard): "It is apparently appearing that husbands and fathers in the home are increasingly disappearing."

I just wanted to comment upon the sentence put together by whoever wrote that placard I found online somewhere, (when searching "Gatekeeping" as you can see).

I'd suggest it is far from "apparently appearing,.....", and we're well into the realm of "Its definitely occurring, that husbands and fathers in the home are increasingly disappearing"!

I'd like to make an off topic remark here about "Equal parenting", (something so many fathers groups campaign for vehemently I know).
I've seen one leading proponent of the family laws wishing to see as close as possible to 50%:50% shared care of the children after divorce or separation try to claim there are no downsides to such laws, or arrangements.

I can think of an obvious one straight away, and it is that the child is automatically being denied one of their parents as a constant presence in their lives, (as occurs when one parent becomes the "custodial parent", or "residential parent" to use a more modern term).

I can think of other downsides to these shared/equal parenting laws, but none bigger than that one in my view, (though I don't deny some broken families can make a success of them).
 
When my divorce happened in 1980 and I was 28 I assumed she would gain full custody of my two children. It was the majority ruling in the courts at that time, and probably still is. There is some evidence that the female cares for the young ( as it starts with nursing ), and the male gets the food and provides shelter. This is true most of the time but not always.
When she decided to move out of state with her new husband and take my children I was devastated. Years later I learned I could have contested it, and without my permission, it could be considered kidnapping.
The modern world has made hamburger of the traditional ( the Waltons ? ) family type. We are separated by larger distances, and then become less involved with each other. I have in the past become very angry and her for taking my children, but decided I would not express it because of the children's emotional well being.
 
Last edited:
Some more research here as to what can go wrong and why, (in the UK):
https://childprotectionresource.online/are-the-family-courts-biased-against-men/

Contributing factors to the perception of bias​

  • Most mothers, most of the time, are primary carers of young children.
  • Many men, quite a lot of the time, appear to see looking after young children as boring, unrewarding, low status and they don’t want to do it.
  • When parents split, the situation that existed before the split is likely to be maintained – i.e. mother as primary carer.
  • Children aren’t parcels to be passed back and forth or a cake to be divided up between hungry parents. They need a home. They need stability, security and routine.
  • Quite a lot of men seem to see their relationship with their children thorough the lens of ‘their rights’ and are unwilling or unable to focus on the child’s experience
  • Quite a lot of women seem to see their relationship with their children as essential to their own identity and become ‘over enmeshed’ with child; they over-react to imagined or perceived defects in the father’s parenting. For further comment on this, see this post about the Rebecca Minnock case.
  • Quite a lot of people seem to enter into intimate relationships and share their genetic material with people they do not like, do not trust and cannot communicate with.
  • The family courts does not have the tools needed to tackle the psychological dysfunction of parents. There is no easy access to therapeutic help or even supervised contact.
  • court buildings are poorly designed and don’t help parents talk to one another at court or feel comfortable in the court room; tensions remain high
  • The government has removed legal aid from private law cases and created a situation where mothers are encouraged to make allegations of violence against fathers to secure funding
  • there is a lack of judicial continuity as court loads increase but numbers of judges stay the same, or fall.
  • There is a growing number of ‘professional McKenzie friends’ who have rushed to fill the post LAPSO gap and some of whom provide dangerous and unhelpful advice
  • The debate is often ceded to the extremes at either end; to the detriment of sensible and constructive discussion
Yet more here:
https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/2021/01/14/cafcass-reissues-position-on-parental-alienation/

Quote:
"My husband was alienated from his daughter from the age of 4, which sadly was the last time he saw her. He has always written to her, sent gifts and cards, many of which were returned unopened. He applied for a contact order and was offered indirect contact. His daughter is now 20 and has been manipulated into thinking he is not a safe place emotionally for her. He is a wonderful father to our 7 year old daughter and his ex and the man she was having an affair with undoubtedly set out to exclude him. He still maintains contact wherever possible but it’s tragic that this is allowed to happen to families."
 
Last edited:
I was considering starting a new challenging thread focusing once more upon the behaviour of parents, (/separated parents), contact etc., but decided it may be worth fitting in here, and gain someone's attention (?).

Here is the title I had in mind, "Supporting those parents robbing the other parent of their relationship with the child"!

I believe one of the reasons why difficulties arise over contact between non resident parents and their children, (maybe the main reason?), is that the parent the child normally resides with fears the child may love the other parent more than themselves, and it is this possibility motivating their actions when they do all in their power to interfere/destroy the love they feel may threaten their desired preeminent position!

(Hence the title of the thread, "Supporting those parents robbing the other parent,.....").

Who supports those parents, (or gatekeeper parents going beyond even gate keeping), a great many professionals in responsible positions dealing with family law, certainly them, and many many more I'd have to say, (even you though you may not know it!)?
 
I can't speak for your country, but in this country the problem during the last quite-a-few-decades is that it is all about this: $. There are no longer any standards of fitness, no longer any concern for whether there was ever a relationship between the parents and the children, and it's certainly not in children's best interests. And even kids who are old enough/mature enough to have a 'say' have none at all.
 
I can't speak for your country, but in this country the problem during the last quite-a-few-decades is that it is all about this: $. There are no longer any standards of fitness, no longer any concern for whether there was ever a relationship between the parents and the children, and it's certainly not in children's best interests. And even kids who are old enough/mature enough to have a 'say' have none at all.
Sad to hear things in the US have gone that way, (we in the UK maybe following too!?). :(
 
I came across this research on parenting styles and thought it maybe fitted into this thread:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/global-lens/202111/parenting-agency

Quote:
"What should I be doing as a parent?
Of course, it’s important not to be overly simplistic or judgmental here. In certain circumstances, high levels of control may also lead to security and prevent your child from making important mistakes.

There is a consensus in the research that one of the worst places to be in terms of promoting agency is low engagement and high control. This is a kind of distant authoritarianism—the rules are there, but the parent doesn’t engage emotionally or help the child navigate or understand them. This is the stereotypical cold aristocratic family that can lead to children feeling a sense of distance from their parents. It can also result in rebellion or under-confident compliance.

The final quadrant, low engagement and low control, is the absent parent. In some circumstances, it can lead to some agency as a child has to take charge in the absence of anyone else doing it for them, but it is unlikely to nurture confidence or security or the ability to reach out to others. Security is often the foundation of agency, so often the best this style can produce is a kind of independent and potentially not fully secure agency.

Are there any tips?​

It's worth remembering that different situations require different approaches and the style parents show can be very dependent on the age of the child and context. But it is helpful to reflect on what quadrant appears to be your default and question whether that’s working for you and your child.

None of this is easy. It’s a skill that needs developing and often requires you to step back from your own parenting that you may have had. I am still figuring it out with my children, and they are in university now.

When the world was a more stable, predictable, and ordered place, there may have been more leeway to parent in different ways. Telling your kids what to do and how to do it works better in a stable, unchanging world. But in today’s world, greater control needs to be given to those navigating, and parenting for agency is more important than ever. It’s not just a gift for your child—it probably has implications for the health of our relationships across our societies and nations, as well as how well our future leaders navigate these new global challenges."

My house my rules psychology.1 - Copy.jpg
 
It "fits in" because it shows part of the "men's rights" true agenda.
You raise a good point again, (if I understand you correctly, with your very short/succinct post, - you're assuming most fathers are control freaks trying to upset their ex.'s maybe?).

However, as I'm not generally in agreement with what you might correctly assert is the "men's rights" agenda, (for example "equal parenting"), then your comment doesn't really apply to me does it.

On another thread, "elsewhere", the subject of people showing "respect" towards one another. To repeat my beef with the "best interests of the child" paramount principle etc., there is no element in such thinking, where the supposed interests of the child tops everything else all the time, whereby a child showing disrespect to a parent who has loved and cared for them is told that this is wrong in any way.

You could say it is positively encouraged, as the child's word is routinely taken over the fathers/parents, and in any event why should we allow outsiders to question our inner most thoughts, (for example asking a child whether they love their parent or not).
 


Back
Top