The nitty gritty of what it means when you assert the child comes first

grahamg

grahamg

Old codger
Location
South of Manchester, UK
I've rallied away on this topic many times, with a mixed reception, it has to be admitted, but "I'll have just one more go",(whether it is truly the last we'll have to see).

A child being told its only their interests that matter, could be assumed to being brought to the realisation he or she must choose one parent over the other, (the one they live with and does most for them as a result, you'd have to think being in the strongest position to do this).

All the child has to know is the level of disapproval felt by the parent they reside with towards the other patent, in order to sway the child's consideration of what might be in their interests, to avoid getting in their bad books, or equally, allow the child to feel they have the approval of the parent they live with most of the time, (withdrawal of approval proving such a large weapon as we know, in the upbringing of a child).

Some see the solution as being " equal parenting" after divorce, essentially having both parents attempt to pretend they have the same role, is how I would characterise it, but this inevitably means the child is deprived of the constant presence of one parent at least in their lives, (as they obviously can no longer have both constantly present).

Courts still tend to favour allowing one parent to become the main care giver, even where legislation is in place to permit shared care, or "equal parenting" to become the norm, (I think those fathers desiring equal parenting legislation in the UK are maybe not thinking about the "poisoned chalice", forcing oneself to encounter the ex more often might be, as shared parenting must entail).

There we are, fight as you might to keep your child in your life, and you in theirs, for whatever reason you believe you're doing so, there is a logic behind children being told to always consider their own interests first, and the rejection of one patent in my view. :unsure: .
 

Apologies but you'll find the following extracts from a discussion held in Australia between experts with differing opinions on the best interests of the child paramount principle rather lengthy, (I found it btw following an internet search using a quote from professor Akira, "abandoning children to their autonomy"):

Quote:
"Concerns about the interpretation of ‘best interests’ principle
4.53 There was support for the 'best interests' principle to be defined in law.109 The best interests of the child is used very broadly across all services.110 The Children's Commissioner of Queensland told the Committee that:

Article 3, which deals with the concept of the best interests of the child, seems to be used often in a paternalistic manner to justify almost any action which a particular officer or professional favours. It tends to be invoked within rather narrow confines without being seen in a broader perspective where account is taken of all other relevant factors and a reasonable balance struck.111

4.54 It was submitted that the Government continually needs to look at ways of supporting workers who need to interpret this principle in non-legislative environments such as child welfare agencies, child care and education settings.112

There is often a vast difference between the law and practice in child protection cases. 113 Focusing on the legal proceedings where children are involved as victims of child sexual abuse reveals that the power resides with the adults in the process of the law. Truth and Justice and the 'best interests of children' are virtually flattened. Parenting issues are ignored as the 'accused' gets a 'fair' trial. Is it a surprise that most social workers advise that the pain and the suffering of the original abuse will be substantially added to if legal proceedings follow? Article 16, parts 1 and 2 are ignored in courts of law.114

4.55 It was also suggested that some States have an 'extremely poor record' in acting in the best interests of the child. Concern was expressed that:

Inappropriate decision-making has lead to child suicide, homelessness and the deprivation of parents of access to their children due to inappropriate removal of children without proper basis. Agencies must employ appropriately trained and experienced staff and the focus should not always be on removal but be on supporting families or educating families unless of course the child is at risk of sexual or other abuse.115

4.56 The ACT Grandparents Support Group saw the 'best interests of the child' as a 'motherhood' statement which is interpreted by an adult and which has almost as many interpretations as there are adults to enforce it.116 The NGOs agreed that the principle of 'best interest' is frequently misapplied or applied in a paternalistic manner by governments and courts.117 Professionals may also have opposing views of what is in the best interests of a particular child.118

4.57 Further, the NGOs argued that this provision is used to override the child's views or justify expulsion from school or the detention of juveniles with adults.119 Another concern was that service delivery and approaches to counselling are only available through parents.120

4.58 The Youth Advocacy Centre Inc stated that:
The greatest barrier to decisions being made in the best interests of the child is the child's difficulty in being heard. It is our contention that this Article must be read in conjunction with Article 12. This means providing children old enough and mature enough with an advocate, not a separate representative who has no direct responsibility to the child.121

Concerns that the Convention restricts parental guidance

4.59 At the time of ratification of the Convention, the then Opposition approved of the general thrust of the Convention but had significant concerns about the lack of strong statements about the concept of parental control and parental rights over their children.122 This was echoed in the large number of petitions tabled in the Australian Parliament by various Members and Senators which expressed concern at the scope of rights given to children by Articles 12 to 16. Some petitions stated that this could result in a Government assisted rebellion against parents establishing limits for their children in the child's best interests.123

4.60 It was suggested that giving additional rights to some people virtually implies taking some rights away from somebody else.124 The Coalition for the Defence of Human Life also believed that in considering children's rights, interests and advocacy then you are undermining parental rights.125

4.61 It was also suggested that the provision in Article 5 to provide direction and not control the child, limited all parental rights to those consistent with the evolving capacity of the child.126 Mr Khor interpreted Article 5 as heavily qualifying parents' rights to the extent that it rendered them 'ineffectual and subservient' to the rights of the child.127 Concern was also expressed that Article 5 was inadequate in protecting the pre-eminent role of families and the inalienable rights of parents to raise their children according to their values and beliefs.128

4.62 Mr Zammit also expressed his concern that the Convention enabled government departments to override parental decisions.129 The Wall family believed that as the full Family Court claimed ultimate jurisdiction over all children of married couples in Australia, the Court was able to hear cases to enforce children's autonomy 'rights' against parents.130

4.63 Hafen and Hafen commented that:
Whatever the drafters' understanding about state versus familial paternalism, their document resolves too many tough issues by erring on the side of children's autonomy. This stance places the full weight of the United Nations behind the idea that parents and other adult caregivers should leave children alone, letting them speak for their own welfare and choose for themselves how their needs should be met. This approach confuses children's needs for nutrition, education and protection ... with children's alleged right to make autonomous choices. Such confusion can undermine children's most basic needs. The drafters evidently wished to use avante-garde terminology that seems to place the United Nations on the cutting edge of human rights thinking, but they have failed to see the distinction between the applications of that terminology to adults and its applications to children."

This link gets you to a related site, though not the above:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/abandoning-children-to-their-rights
 
Last edited:
Please don't assume this is negative. I'm merely curious and I find no negativity in the subject:
Are you now, or have you ever been, in therapy for this issue❓
 

AnnieA said:
Paragraphs two and three of the OP sound like the perfect environment for rearing a narcissist.
Click to expand...
The child I know anything about isn't a narcissist at all thankfully, and I'm very very glad no one has ever suggested she suffers from any mental health issues requiring any kind of treatment, (as a highly qualified MD she helps cure illnesses rather than suffers from them, or she probably couldn't do her job).

I agree however the situations described in paragraphs two and three are causes for concern, "or in a perfect world they wouldn't occur", (to borrow a phrase used by my ex in relation to my contact with my child twenty five years ago).
 
grahamg said:
The child I know anything about isn't a narcissist at all thankfully, and I'm very very glad no one has ever suggested she suffers from any mental health issues requiring any kind of treatment, (as a highly qualified MD she helps cure illnesses rather than suffers from them, or she probably couldn't do her job).

I agree however the situations described in paragraphs two and three are causes for concern, "or in a perfect world they wouldn't occur", (to borrow a phrase used by my ex in relation to my contact with my child twenty five years ago).
Click to expand...

Narcissism isn't an illness; it's a personality disorder that develops when a child gets the wrong kind of attention growing up. Narcissists can have highly successful careers. There are different flavors, but the hallmark of the disorder is excessive control in interpersonal relationships.
 
Pepper said:
Please don't assume this is negative. I'm merely curious and I find no negativity in the subject:
Are you now, or have you ever been, in therapy for this issue❓
Click to expand...
No, not for this issue, (every other darn issue under the sun, but not this one). Ironically my dear daughters successful life, and her children's happy lives has helped me no end, and continues to help me no end to feel good about myself, in spite of any difficulties that might exist, (that and my handsome looks, charm, personality, and a few very good mates :)).

I can tell you this too, when I did my fathers rights campaigning twenty years ago, I met men who I felt would have gone off the rails had they not engaged in the campaign, so much did exclusion from their children affect them.

I did comment to one particular guy who lead his own battle against the system, that I believed his campaign had taken over his life, though in the end he said in the book he wrote and published about it all, how one of his daughters came to live with him aged sixteen, and by then he knew exactly how to use an emergency legal process to gain an order, so the police who appeared at his door to return her to her mother, were sent away.
 
AnnieA said:
Narcissism isn't an illness; it's a personality disorder that develops when a child gets the wrong kind of attention growing up. Narcissists can have highly successful careers. There are different flavors, but the hallmark of the disorder is excessive control in interpersonal relationships.
Click to expand...
There appears to be a lot of effort to pathologise what happens over children in high conflict divorce cases.

I'm with you if you're saying this should be resisted, and the courts should take firmer action against those thinking they can twist the child against the other parent, (my ex wasn't a narcissist, but she was ruthless in pursuit of her own interests, something the courts appeared to recognise quite easily to start with, but less so as the law changed, and judges or their assistants in the welfare services changed perhaps too?).
 
grahamg said:
There appears to be a lot of effort to pathologise what happens over children in high conflict divorce cases.

I'm with you if you're saying this should be resisted, and the courts should take firmer action against those thinking they can twist the child against the other parent, (my ex wasn't a narcissist, but she was ruthless in pursuit of her own interests, something the courts appeared to recognise quite easily to start with, but less so as the law changed, and judges or their assistants in the welfare services changed perhaps too?).
Click to expand...

It's not the divorce that made me think of promoting the development of narcissism in a child. It's the wording of your OP in what I assume is the message your ex gave your daughter: "being told to always consider their own interests first... ." That's super not! healthy above and beyond the state of the parent's relationship. As for the courts discerning that sort of message and taking action based on it, they're also dealing with cases of horrific neglect and abuse as well as seeing an endless parade of acrimonious exes. Sometimes if it looks as though the child is in a physically safe environment and will be well provided for, that's a win for them regardless of emotional dynamics.
 
Last edited:
AnnieA said:
It's not the divorce that made me think of promoting the development of narcissism in a child. It's the wording of your OP in what I assume is the message your ex gave your daughter: "being told to always consider their own interests first... ." That's super not! healthy above and beyond the pain of divorce for a child. As for the courts discerning that sort of message and taking action based on it, they're also dealing with cases of horrific neglect and abuse as well as seeing an endless parade of acrimonious exes. Sometimes if it looks as though the child is in a physically safe environment and will be well provided for, that's a win for them regardless of emotional dynamics.
Click to expand...
My ex loved our daughter, and even once told me the two daughter she had with the man she ran off with were not like our daughter, (not as inteeligent or talented, etc. much to my surprise, you could have knocked me over with a feather!).

As far as telling children their interests are all that matters, well firstly that is what our legal systems do say, their interests are "paramount", hence take preference over anyone else's, and secondly my own father told all his children very very often, "its every man/woman for themselves in this world", and he wasn't a narcissist or mentally weak in any way. His warning was about the way everyone should be wary of being taken advantage of, and of course he never acted towards us children as though "it was every man for himself".
 
Can I just call forum members attention to one of the numbered sections above, quote:

4.56 "The ACT Grandparents Support Group saw the 'best interests of the child' as a 'motherhood' statement which is interpreted by an adult and which has almost as many interpretations as there are adults to enforce it.116 The NGOs agreed that the principle of 'best interest' is frequently misapplied or applied in a paternalistic manner by governments and courts.117 Professionals may also have opposing views of what is in the best interests of a particular child.118"

(remember search "abandoning children to their autonomy" if you wish to download the whole of the very long document detailing the Australian governments consultation process over its family law)
 
I remember my first husband telling me that there wasn't enough money for everyone to have ice cream when he was growing up. So his mother ate some and the kids didn't get any. I think the issue is teaching children that everyone is important. No one person is more important than another.
 
Sassycakes said:
In my opinion and from the way I was raised I truly believe children come first. My parents always put their children first and now that is what I do.
Click to expand...
A friend of mine had a different take on things. He raised his own daughter, more or less adopted another, (his second wife being pregnant when he met her, and had two other children already he didn't pretend to be the "real father" to, and let their dad fulfill his role).
He said, "yes children come first sometimes, and parents have to allow their own interests come first sometimes". There has to be a balance, maybe skewed well over in the child's favour, I think we could all go with that, and this friend emphasised just how disciplined he had to be with himself, in order to provide stability for those children he helped, gave an example to, sorted out their issues, or " growing pains", however you want to call it(?). :) .
 


Back
Top