Striking back in relationships, (no not physically obviously)

GOT IT! I get it. >whew<
"what children need is the relationship with their parents and not some notion of children's rights"
I agree with that 100% !! Absolutely.

Kind of related - If you laid graphs of the increase in gang related crime, drug-related crime, and violent and domestic crime in America from say, 1950 to the present, they would all line up remarkably with a graph of the increase in single-parent homes over the same period. I've checked it out, and they line up almost perfectly. It's obvious (to me, anyway) that children need both parents; their father's presence, for sure, because I'd wager that over 90% of those single-parent homes are single-mother homes.

Maybe those problems are peculiar to America, but the whole "west" went nuts in the 60s - 70s, when young adults were having babies with their "unlicensed, nothing-on-paper" partners and then went merrily on their way, the girls generally taking the kids with them; a time when young adults proclaimed themselves free from conventional responsibilities and lifestyles. That took us in a direction where we now find large swaths of our society living extremely selfishly, denying basic responsibilities, and perhaps failing to recognize that a toddler's brain is malleable, undecided, extremely impressionable, shaped by their environment and the clowns people in it who are as likely to be selfish, irresponsible people as not.

(That was a bit of a tirade based on my own experience.)
Professor Akira Morita's exact words I'm sure I've only roughly recalled, but his sentiment I'm fairly sure I've accurately conveyed, and its gratifying to read you are so strongly in agreement with the thinking.
I hope I don't end up confusing you again when I add that in my belief Professor Morita was hinting at a dynamic those promoting children's rights over parental rights choose to ignore, "What it is that leads the parents, (particularly the fathers), to give of themselves to their children".
I don't believe that's necessarily an automatic process, for at least some of us dads.

(You'll forgive me I hope for withholding my views on all your other arguments right now, because "I might become overly verbose", and/or be more likely to lose focus on my central arguments on the thread so far)
 

Post 162 wasn't meant to analyze you. It actually was an attempt to ask questions that lead to meaningful dialogue. But as @Dana pointed out, that hasn't happened much from your end, and staying in "Nana, nana, boo boo" mode with your fingers figuratively stuck in your ears isn't going to lead to dialogue. It isn't going to lead to your effecting much change either. Thread views may be high--not because people are interested in the OP mission of: "...strike back at those denying your humanity, and try to assist others similarly shunned."--but because of that weird quirk humans have that keeps us watching train wrecks.
Perhaps your "train wreck" comment overstated the case (for the prosecution!), and in my defence it ignores some aspects of the arguments, even were it a fair assessment.
 
It's not just difficult to go from feelings to words, but then to put those words to the keyboard is another challenge if your keyboard skills are not up to it. I go back and correct all the time and I'm sure I'm not alone.
You are right of course.
I have learnt to try to leave my responses to letters or emails "in real life", (i. e. not online forum discussions), overnight before completing the job. I often find myself feeling very differently about whatever it might be in the morning, after a good nights sleep! :)
 

Grahamg, making counterpoints to every post you receive seems to be part of your makeup. Even those for which you seem to agree.

The first 2 times my eldest daughter came home for Christmas Eve vacation from her schooling in Family Counseling, she chose to bring up particular things that I had done in the past that upset her badly. (Not terrible things) I kept my mouth shut as she spoke, (while hurting inside from her words), because I could see she needed to tell me. I apologized for those things I realized she was right about, but when she started griping about other things for which she was wrong, I brought up some of her misbehavior's. She disagreed. (sigh) I got tired of hearing her complaints, so I went to bed saying, you can dish it out but you can't take it. Christmas day, we said no more about any of it. What is ironic is that during her schooling she told me she had learned that many of the other students had been miserably raised, and that she had little to gripe about when it came to me as her parent. 🙃
 
Grahamg, making counterpoints to every post you receive seems to be part of your makeup. Even those for which you seem to agree.
The first 2 times my eldest daughter came home for Christmas Eve vacation from her schooling in Family Counseling, she chose to bring up particular things that I had done in the past that upset her badly. (Not terrible things) I kept my mouth shut as she spoke, (while hurting inside from her words), because I could see she needed to tell me. I apologized for those things I realized she was right about, but when she started griping about other things for which she was wrong, I brought up some of her misbehavior's. She disagreed. (sigh) I got tired of hearing her complaints, so I went to bed saying, you can dish it out but you can't take it. Christmas day, we said no more about any of it. What is ironic is that during her schooling she told me she had learned that many of the other students had been miserably raised, and that she had little to gripe about when it came to me as her parent. 🙃
Would it be wrong of me to leave you out then, in terms of a response?
You'll forgive me for taking a bit more time before doing so I'm sure, whilst I just add I appreciate your effort in following the thread and commenting. :)
 
Would it be wrong of me to leave you out then, in terms of a response?
You'll forgive me for taking a bit more time before doing so I'm sure, whilst I just add I appreciate your effort in following the thread and commenting. :)
No. It's interesting to find out (read) what your next counterpoint is going to be. BTW, by chance, are you a freelance Writer? :)
 
I'm trying to check out Professor Akira's exact words, and will come back when I've found them.

He was mentioned in someone else's paper on issues surrounding children and the law, (called Professor Hafen), I'm going to quote from, because it has some relevance in relation to my posts, and to the discussion points others have raised:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/abandoning-children-to-their-rights

"......., the Western liberal tradition has long viewed strong familial authority as a primary check on excessive state power. Nonetheless, the anti-paternalistic flavor of the times helped lead the drafters “in the final phase of deliberations in Geneva” to “defeat an attempted resistance by the representative of West Germany who tried to defend the traditional paternalistic structure of child and family law in Western society.”

It is possible, however, that the willingness of some drafters to link coercive state paternalism with a dark view of parental paternalism resulted not from confusion but from their consciously accepting an ideological critique that, (as Lilian and Oscar Handlin put it), regards the nuclear family as “a microcosm of the fascist state, where the women and children are owned by, and their needs determined by, the needs of men, in a man’s world.”

Break
"Whatever the drafters’ understanding of paternalism, their document resolves too many tough issues by erring on the side of children’s autonomy." Break ......, "the idea that parents and other adults should leave children alone, letting them speak for their own welfare and choose for themselves how their needs should be met"

Summary
"Clearly, in the U.S. as elsewhere, many older adolescents are quite capable of making sound lifestyle choices; far too many parents are dysfunctional; far too many children are ignored and abused; and no investment of human or political resources has greater long-range significance than investments in children. But years of serious struggling with these issues in one of the world’s cultures most friendly to autonomy has not persuaded most American courts and legislatures that-short of actual neglect-state agencies (or children themselves) are better equipped than the nation’s parents to assume parental roles. Despite increasing autonomy rhetoric, the American legal system limits children’s autonomy in the short run in order to maximize their development of actual autonomy in the long run. This approach also encourages development of the personal competence needed to produce an ongoing democratic society comprised of persons capable of autonomous and responsible action. To short-circuit this process by legally granting-rather than actually teaching-autonomy to children ignores the realities of education and child development to the point of abandoning children to a mere illusion of genuine autonomy."
 
I'm getting closer I feel to uncovering the exact words I'm seeking, as used by Professor Akira Morita, and there is a very scholarly article to be found here for anyone interested, and it contains this quote:

"Opponents argue that the autonomous child perspective effectively serves to drive a wedge in the parent-child relationship by setting parent and child on equal footing with regard to autonomy and rights, while neglecting an understanding of the organic relationship between parents and children"

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217059613.pdf

And here is the paper I'm looking for (when I've been able to access it, which I cant seem to do right now):
Akira Morita, Beyond the Myth of Children's Rights, Address before World Congress of Families Il (Nov. 15, 1999).
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to check out Professor Akira's exact words, and will come back when I've found them.

He was mentioned in someone else's paper on issues surrounding children and the law, (called Professor Hafen), I'm going to quote from, because it has some relevance in relation to my posts, and to the discussion points others have raised:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/abandoning-children-to-their-rights

"......., the Western liberal tradition has long viewed strong familial authority as a primary check on excessive state power. Nonetheless, the anti-paternalistic flavor of the times helped lead the drafters “in the final phase of deliberations in Geneva” to “defeat an attempted resistance by the representative of West Germany who tried to defend the traditional paternalistic structure of child and family law in Western society.”

It is possible, however, that the willingness of some drafters to link coercive state paternalism with a dark view of parental paternalism resulted not from confusion but from their consciously accepting an ideological critique that, (as Lilian and Oscar Handlin put it), regards the nuclear family as “a microcosm of the fascist state, where the women and children are owned by, and their needs determined by, the needs of men, in a man’s world.”

Break
"Whatever the drafters’ understanding of paternalism, their document resolves too many tough issues by erring on the side of children’s autonomy." Break ......, "the idea that parents and other adults should leave children alone, letting them speak for their own welfare and choose for themselves how their needs should be met"

Summary
"Clearly, in the U.S. as elsewhere, many older adolescents are quite capable of making sound lifestyle choices; far too many parents are dysfunctional; far too many children are ignored and abused; and no investment of human or political resources has greater long-range significance than investments in children. But years of serious struggling with these issues in one of the world’s cultures most friendly to autonomy has not persuaded most American courts and legislatures that-short of actual neglect-state agencies (or children themselves) are better equipped than the nation’s parents to assume parental roles. Despite increasing autonomy rhetoric, the American legal system limits children’s autonomy in the short run in order to maximize their development of actual autonomy in the long run. This approach also encourages development of the personal competence needed to produce an ongoing democratic society comprised of persons capable of autonomous and responsible action. To short-circuit this process by legally granting-rather than actually teaching-autonomy to children ignores the realities of education and child development to the point of abandoning children to a mere illusion of genuine autonomy."
 
No. It's interesting to find out (read) what your next counterpoint is going to be. BTW, by chance, are you a freelance Writer? :)
Very much appreciate the compliment, and unfortunately no, as of today no one has chosen to publish anything I've ever written, let alone pay me for anything I might write, "but I/we can live in hope cant I/we"! :)
 
I managed to get one short story minor sci fi story e-published and 2-40 line minor sci fi poems published years ago. I don't have the energy to write another, nor the talent. But you do come across as one who could write an interesting e-blog.(Controversial. :) )
Autonomy to a child, imo, makes me think of the story of the boy who lost his parents at a very young age and he was brought up by wolves. Freedom without human parents' guidance is only freedom to make choices that could leave them derelict. And as the single parent, mother of my 2 girls and one boy, I've seen at times how they wished they had their father living with them, giving them a man's influence in their lives.
 
The first 2 times my eldest daughter came home for Christmas Eve vacation from her schooling in Family Counseling, she chose to bring up particular things that I had done in the past that upset her badly. (Not terrible things) I kept my mouth shut as she spoke, (while hurting inside from her words), because I could see she needed to tell me. I apologized for those things I realized she was right about, but when she started griping about other things for which she was wrong, I brought up some of her misbehavior's. She disagreed. (sigh) I got tired of hearing her complaints, so I went to bed saying, you can dish it out but you can't take it. Christmas day, we said no more about any of it. What is ironic is that during her schooling she told me she had learned that many of the other students had been miserably raised, and that she had little to gripe about when it came to me as her parent. 🙃
I said in an earlier post I'd try to come back to make a more thorough response when I'd had more time to think, so here it is, (and please excuse me when I vere off into anecdotes about my own daughter, in an attempt to illuminate my response).
My thoughts may seem to you both uncomfortable and unfair, as they may indeed be, BUT here goes...!
At the end of your post I'm replying to now you tell of your eldest daughter returning from school and saying "she had little to gripe about when it came to me as her parent"!
I believe this is the case, obviously her saying so is sufficient, and it is some achievement to have your child make such an affirmation, and I've no doubt it was deserved, "what then can I be thinking you may not wish to hear"?
Simply and baldly this, the way your whole post I've quoted reads to me is that "you've fulfilled your role as a mother as though someone has been or is looking over your shoulder"!
I can completely understand why anyone might do this I think, and maybe my own mother felt the same pressure, and in my view those experts I've posted links to recently, raising objection to the direction of travel in family law were afraid of this too, but I believe it detracts from close interpersonal relationships to have to feel you are being monitored in any way.
A Canadian lawyer called Goldwater had quite a bit to say on this, and published a paper around 1992 on " The need for privacy in close personal relationships", (she also made a very telling quote on children's rights too, but I'll make that the subject of another post perhaps).
Now for my anecdote, well my own daughter even when her mother and I were together up go the age of two and a half, was not prone to giving many hugs to either of us, (she didn't smile as a baby either, so much so we were both convinced as parents that no baby ever really smiled, and it was only wind if they did!). After the break up of my marriage my daughter remained fairly difficult to obtain a hug from, or give one to, so a similar pattern, with some wonderful exceptions, (but overall you'd have to say she certainly wasn't a clingy child).
I must throw in here I believe my child was warned at an early age about the dangers of adults hugging her in regard to abuse, and this entered her mind perhaps, but whether it did or not, the way around her not wishing to be hugged was she did love to be carried on my shoulders, and we'd walk a!ong having discussions as we did so, and I think folks in the street found this amusing!
Why mention these things, well I believe I managed, as far as I could, to avoid the feeling everything I said to my child or the way my contact days were spent etc., fallng into this trap of my behaving as though I had someone looking over my shoulder, inhibiting what I might say or do, whilst ironically my ex did no doubt question our child on her return home quite closely. That's all, or my reason for mentioning my own life, and here's the greatest irony, the man without any relationship with his daughter us lecturing on the way to develop close relationships with your child, but I hope you know what I mean anyway. :)
 
I managed to get one short story minor sci fi story e-published and 2-40 line minor sci fi poems published years ago. I don't have the energy to write another, nor the talent. But you do come across as one who could write an interesting e-blog.(Controversial. :) )
Autonomy to a child, imo, makes me think of the story of the boy who lost his parents at a very young age and he was brought up by wolves. Freedom without human parents' guidance is only freedom to make choices that could leave them derelict. And as the single parent, mother of my 2 girls and one boy, I've seen at times how they wished they had their father living with them, giving them a man's influence in their lives.
It is hard to define what it is that creates a happy and harmonious family, though sometimes I believe you can witness the signs or characteristics in people you hardly know, when they appear both at ease and having fun, or making harmless fun of each other.
Questioning ourselves isn't always helpful I think, as its likely we'll stop acting naturally etc., though if you've raised kids who have avoided major pitfalls you're really deserving praise overall in my view.
Lastly, strange as it might seem given my calls for fathers/parents rights, sometimes awarded or granted above a strangers notion of a child's best interests, I'm never happy when I witness overbearing parents, but in my defence, or in defence of my ideas concerning family law, I'm calling for a "rebuttable presumption in favour of contact", thus the legal right can be challenged if a good reason to do so is put forward, (I'm sure you're not overbearing btw, I just wanted to throw that aspect into the mix). :)
 
Being overbearing to ones children could break their spirit, or possibly turn them into obnoxious bullies.
Because of my first stepfather's (sick) treatment of me when I was around 6, I was very watchful of a man I dated when my young daughter sat on his lap. Thankgoodness he was a decent, normal man & I had nothing to worry about. Even so, I might have felt very watchful, uncomfortable if he'd put her on his shoulders..........most childhood bad experiences have a way of affecting ones reactions/personality through life.
But oh what joy and fun I would have had if I had had a father I loved & trusted carry me on his shoulders. I've been surprised when my children hug me. In fact it's their hugging that has made me aware that I haven't been a hugger, but I am now. :)
Children need a father in their lives, not just a mother. Good luck in righteously being the father your child needs. And free of being 'watched' and judged.
 
Last edited:
Being overbearing to ones children could break their spirit, or possibly turn them into obnoxious bullies.
Break
Children need a father in their lives, not just a mother. Good luck in righteously being the father your child needs. And free of being 'watched' and judged.
Thank you for your kind comments.
I've chopped your comments above down for a reason, and I intend to try to allow those who wish to to try to fully discern my purpose by posting the views of others, (who would probably oppose my arguments for a shift in focus):

Quote:
We support The Parents Promise
"Everyday we hear first hand from all of you who post in our forum that the end of a relationship is heartbreaking. All the research shows though, that if parents separate, how they do it can have a huge impact on the mental health of their children.

More than a quarter of a million children every year in the UK are affected by their parents separating, and one in three couples will end up in the family court system, with the children caught in the middle of bitter disputes.

At Dad.info we were inspired to join the Parents Promise campaign, backed by a wide range of charities and invite you to join in too. Sign the pledge whether times are good right now or tough, and promise that should it all fall apart you will work together to not harm your children." https://theparentspromise.org.uk
 
I want to raise the issue of the need for privacy in close personal relationships.

The first and most obvious question is simply "Is their a need for privacy at all in close personal relationships"?

A Canadian Lawyer called Goldwater asserted in a paper in 1992 (I believe), that she thought there was such a need, and most folks probably assume their private life, or family life either is, or will be protected from undue scrutiny, (else the idea of an "Englishman's home being his castle" seems pretty meaningless doesn't it).

If I can find a link to one of Goldwater's papers I will post it, or other papers on the issue of privacy such as this one:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...0905/darling-should-you-maintain-your-privacy

Quote:
"We often have to compromise between our need for privacy and our wish to maintain an important close relationship. We cannot be close to someone without revealing some personal and often private information about ourselves. Romantic relationships mean sharing, and sharing means relinquishing some privacy. (Break)
Living in a society and having close emotional ties implies losing some privacy. By letting emotions play a central role in our lives, we assent to being exposed to a certain extent; we relinquish some privacy in order to be able to live emotionally. Yet this is precisely what our friends may value in our relationships with them—that we show a willingness to be emotionally drawn, to be vulnerable, to lose our privacy and reveal our secrets.

Friendships entails having less privacy. Telling our secrets to someone may establish a friendship, but it also exposes our vulnerability. Those who are close to us can hurt us easily, and we can easily hurt them. Some people actually avoid having friends for this reason."


The issue of privacy I'm more interested in a sense is not so much whether people confide in those they are close to, or wish to become close with, but how much they would feel free to do so if either or both parties felt everything they might say is likely to be scrutinised by others. This scrutiny may include of course, someone else they might be in a close personal relationship with, and they've perhaps chosen to be indiscrete about them, (or else they are fearful of being indiscrete about because of the potential for their privacy being violated by professionals or others at some stage in the future).
 
Last edited:
Now I want to raise a question as to whether "truth is on trial" in family law?

Obviously courts of law are about discovering the truth, or should be, (if not "ultimate truth", whatever that might be?). However perhaps because of this obligation placed upon the whole family law system by the law to be all about and based upon the "the best interests of the child being paramount", then what should the court do if there is a conflict between "telling the truth" and the interests of the child?

What examples can I give you to illustrate this?

Well, our UK government started a consultation upon the workings of our family law about twenty years ago, and some fathers rights groups took part, but the majority of the organisations responding were government funded I believe, and one of those was from Leeds, or Leeds University, and two female experts on family law were responsible for their contribution, at least as authors.

One argument they made was this: "Its is offensive for the law to try to force a mother to allow their child to have contact with the father even if the mothers fears about the welfare of the child are irrational"! (note the use of the emotional word " offensive")

Whether you agree with these views of experts working in the field of family law etc., or are surprised by their use of emotional terms in a response to a government lead enquiry, (as I was, and I think the judge leading the enquiry indicated his unease if not incredulity at their views on the law being overruled by irrational thinking), this example raises questions about truth doesn't it(?).

Someone acting irrationally is unable to ascertain the truth. Judges or other family law officers witnessing the irrational behaviour, but being expected to allow their decisions to be based upon this irrationality, (because to do otherwise would be offensive!), are compromising themselves or their judgements here aren't they(?).

Even if the family court judge were to state to an excluded father, "Our refusal to grant an order to allow you contact with your child is based upon the mothers irrational fears about your child's welfare", they are at one and the same time stating something to be true and untrue. That is, the fathers contact with the child is in the child's interests they believe, but any irrational views against this happening by the mother means the truth about the best interests of the child becomes the opposite, and no contact should be granted.

Another point those two female experts from Leeds made was that "If the child were to be aware their mothers were against their fathers having contact with them, then it would be doubly offensive if the family courts were to make orders try to force contact with the father'.

Can I admit here my recollections of the responses by the Leeds experts may be slightly inaccurate, or "enhanced", hence not entirely true, as this post is about truth in family law situations, and whether its important, (but of course their views as stated in a public consultation can all be checked anyway can't they).
 
I want to raise the issue of the need for privacy in close personal relationships.

The first and most obvious question is simply "Is their a need for privacy at all in close personal relationships"?

A Canadian Lawyer called Goldwater asserted in a paper in 1992 (I believe), that she thought there was such a need, and most folks probably assume their private life, or family life either is, or will be protected from undue scrutiny, (else the idea of an "Englishman's home being his castle" seems pretty meaningless doesn't it).

If I can find a link to one of Goldwater's papers I will post it, or other papers on the issue of privacy such as this one:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...0905/darling-should-you-maintain-your-privacy

Quote:
"We often have to compromise between our need for privacy and our wish to maintain an important close relationship. We cannot be close to someone without revealing some personal and often private information about ourselves. Romantic relationships mean sharing, and sharing means relinquishing some privacy. (Break)
Living in a society and having close emotional ties implies losing some privacy. By letting emotions play a central role in our lives, we assent to being exposed to a certain extent; we relinquish some privacy in order to be able to live emotionally. Yet this is precisely what our friends may value in our relationships with them—that we show a willingness to be emotionally drawn, to be vulnerable, to lose our privacy and reveal our secrets.

Friendships entails having less privacy. Telling our secrets to someone may establish a friendship, but it also exposes our vulnerability. Those who are close to us can hurt us easily, and we can easily hurt them. Some people actually avoid having friends for this reason."


The issue of privacy I'm more interested in a sense is not so much whether people confide in those they are close to, or wish to become close with, but how much they would feel free to do so if either or both parties felt everything they might say is likely to be scrutinised by others. This scrutiny may include of course, someone else they might be in a close personal relationship with, and they've perhaps chosen to be indiscrete about them, (or else they are fearful of being indiscrete about because of the potential for their privacy being violated by professionals or others at some stage in the future).
When my eldest daughter told me she would be taking up studying for family counseling, I knew that analyzing the personalities and actions of persons' would play a big part in her studies, so right off I said, "DON'T analyze me (in class)." :) She did, of course,......& found that compared to what other students told of their parents she realized I was a pretty good parent. :D

If the "secret" is mild, harmless, share if you wish, if not keep it to yourself. Consider the possible consequences.
 
There are logical consequences to our behaviors when in a relationship. Or as my dad used to say, "You can't kick the dog every morning, and still expect it to bring your your slippers in the evening.'
 
There are logical consequences to our behaviors when in a relationship. Or as my dad used to say, "You can't kick the dog every morning, and still expect it to bring your your slippers in the evening.'
Loved the saying your dad used though whether its directly applicable here in relation to human behaviour I'm less sure of perhaps. A mate of mine once commented, "You can train a dog to do whatever it might be, but I am not a dog and will make my own mind up as to how I should behave", (he had a responsible job, strong ego etc., and obviously wasn't a child who might be more easily manipulated or "trained").
 
When my eldest daughter told me she would be taking up studying for family counseling, I knew that analyzing the personalities and actions of persons' would play a big part in her studies, so right off I said, "DON'T analyze me (in class)." :) She did, of course,......& found that compared to what other students told of their parents she realized I was a pretty good parent. :D
If the "secret" is mild, harmless, share if you wish, if not keep it to yourself. Consider the possible consequences.
Thought provoking comments again, (I need to think more about too).
 
I recall during my father's rights campaigning days having received a response from a UK government department to a letter I'd sent them asking a rather succinct question, (yes, I once sent someone a succinct question would you believe!).

My question asked whether they agreed with the views of a Canadian lawyer called Goldwater, writing in 1992 about the vulnerability of children to manipulation and control, and whether there was a moral failing in "smugly" asserting children have "legal rights" without taking this into consideration? (I've mentioned her views on this thread somewhere already I seem to remember)

It was not clear to me whether the government department had answered my question or not, (and it still isn't), because they stated "they understood how children in high conflict situations behaved", and they went on to say "they did not accept "Parental Alienation Syndrome" existed", though this is a bit odd as I'd not raised the issue, and still do not overly concern myself with the issue, (and I reject the idea my daughter was ill and in need of treatment too, as stated quite often earlier on the thread).

However, the thing that has crossed my mind so far as the response I received from those officials working for our UK government was they wanted to tell me "they understood children in high conflict situations", (or how they behave when their parents are in conflict about them).

I've said at the outset of this thread I believe I could only have given myself emotionally to my child as I did, because at the time I started to arrange contact visits after the break up of my marriage because I was told by both my lawyer, (and a friend who was also a trained lawyer), that if I approached the courts for their backing I would not get less than every other weekend visitation. That was the situation under the family law in force in this country in 1987/1988, prior to a new law colloquially called "The Children's Act" coming into force in 1989, which when fully implemented I believe weakened the protection of visitation I'd enjoyed.

Those in authority and working for our government when I wrote to them may have thought, or assumed they understood the situation of children in high conflict divorce cases, but they did not understand the way my mind worked, (or works). I claim, because if my lawyer at the time of my separation and divorce, nor my lawyer friend could have given me with a clear conscience the reassurances they gave me, then it is possible I'd never have managed to develop the loving relationship I had with my daughter at all. Of course, in hindsight, knowing what I know now about the way the law or family legal system failed to at least try to support my contact with my child ten years later, then again I'd never have been able to start forming a relationship with her in the first place. This I believe is the bit of the equation those in authority in the UK cannot fully comprehend, and are oblivious to, or else they do not ultimately care, maybe because in their "smugness", (to use Goldwater's word), they feel they know and understand all our children better than we do as parents.
 
Everyone is complaining about the so called 'cancel culture' in politics(not the subject) or business world(boycotts). But relationship 'advisors' frequently recommended one detaches or removes themselves from the relationship and/or situation. And it actually works.

Some things including a relationship are not worth a salvage operation. One can conduct business be civil with them but that's where it ends.

After a certain point a family member, employee or peer group member hits the point of no return. They're done, period. Good Bye!, Adios!, Don't come back. Nor should one spend a lot of time looking back.

One can cancel a relationship anytime they want.
 


Back
Top