There are many reasons why a mother should want the children to hate the father.

I found this list at this site, which will be add to my list soon. After reading the list, ask yourself how many does these apply in your case.

1. The mother wants to start a new life and wants the father out of the way. She may be more successful than he is. He is seen as an encumbrance.
2. The mother wants money/property from the father and uses the children as bargaining pawns.
3. The mother hates the father and uses the children as weapons.
4. The mother is possessive and wants all the childrens love.
5. The mother is jealous of the love/gifts the father gives the child but not to her.
6. The mother cannot cope with her own life. Contact with the father in any form is difficult for her. It is a common statement by fathers that the mother suffers from depression. Sometimes PMT, when rows are likely to flare up over minor incidents, and lead to greater hostility.
7. Disappointment. She feels he is unworthy to be a father and doesn’t deserve the children.
8. The mother is egged on by other women hostile to men. Typically if she is in a group of single mothers.
9. The mother uses access to control the children (if you don’t behave then you can’t see daddy).
10. The mother can’t compete with the father who may be able to give the children more treats in the short time he sees them. The children may boost him at her expense, and typically demand more from her.
11. The children may be the only aspect of control the mother has, so uses it to boost her own esteem rather than for the interests of the children. This is the power motive more commonly seen in men.
12. The mother may still like the father and uses the children as a means of controlling him.
13. The mother may be punishing the fathers new partner indirectly as the father may know that he could see the children if it wasn’t for the new partner.
14. The mother may be independent and never wanted a man around anyway apart from fathering her children (entrapment). Or she may have gained independence during the marriage and now wants to exploit it.
15. As often quoted, the mother may see children as a way of getting a house, welfare money, and other benefits. The father was always incidental in the matter.
16. Some women actually believe that men are not interested in their children.
17. The mother assumes hostility by the father towards her is also towards the children, so ‘protects’ them by keeping him away.
18. The mother has a different lifestyle to the father, and does not want the children to copy his way of life.
19. The mother may have no family of her own (typically foreign wives), whereas the father may have a family. The mother regards the child as ‘her family’.
20. The mother may become emotionally dependent upon the child, and regard any affections the child has for the father as depriving her.
21. The mother simply regards the child as her property, and sees the father as making a claim on her ‘possessions’.
22. The mother dislikes the fathers new partner, who she sees as a rival ‘mother’, so prevents the child seeing the father.
23. The mother’s new partner is the one who is preventing contact because he wishes to be seen as the ‘daddy’.
24. She fears the children will leave her for him.
25. She wants to prove to her new partner that he is the only man in her life.
26. She may have come from a broken family, and not be able to sustain a relationship.
27. The father is a constant reminder of the failed relationship that she prefers to forget.
28. She may be starting a new involvement, or having difficulties with the existing one, and doesn’t want the children to tell the father about her affairs.

Read more...

Fathers have rights, too, 02-10-08

The Family Court of Fall River, like thousands of others, seems to not only sanction, but ardently promote the estrangement of child and father. Further, the mothers, along with their lawyers, manipulate the court with the outdated "every woman is a victim" syndrome and false or exaggerated accusations, and offer up the children as catalysts to punish and impoverish the father.

This is scathingly evident in the case of unwed parents. The fathers of illegitimate children are "fathers" only in the eyes of the bank! Nowhere is this more apparent than a case in California of the unwed mother placing her child up for adoption, the father of the child petitioning the court for custody of his child, and the "wisdom" of the court denying his petition. This particular case is now pending in the Supreme Court. For most, the expense of such a pursuit of justice is completely prohibitive.

Signing an acknowledgement of paternity provides no parental rights to the father. The child, with the blessings of the court, becomes no more than a commodity for the unwed mother. Affording her the lifelong "right" and ability to abuse and harrass the system, the courts and the father of the child without repercussion or accountability. The family courts are overflowing daily with charges that are ludicrous, unfounded and out-and-out lies. Fathers by the droves are brought to task by vindictive, self-serving, deceitful mothers, many of whom practice irresponsible breeding as a means of income.

Yes, there are "dead beat" dads. Many simply choose to ignore their parental responsibilities. But, the majority are "created" by our (in)justice system.

Judgements in Family Court are hawked as in the best interest of the child, when, in fact, they are in the best interest of the court. The family lawyers are much like morticians, preying upon clients at a most vulnerable moment, a time when rationale is set aside. After all, what father is not willing to sacrifice all for his child? Ergo, thousands upon thousands of dollars are mindlessly placed in the hands of attorneys, who, with minimal exception, concern themselves with plans for their next boat purchase and wouldn’t know the best interest of the child if they fell over it.

What about the guardians ad litem? Case in point. After meeting with a "father" who provided extensive legal documentation regarding his child being subjected to frequent visits by an ex-con pedophile and a known heroin addict, the GAL met with the (un-wed) mother. She admitted that both were a part of the small child’s life on a regular basis, and that, "if it matters, I won’t let him go around them anymore." If?

The final recommendation of the GAL was the child should continue to live with the mother, even though there was concern about his safety and well-being (paraphrased). Guardians ad litem have no particular qualifications, if any, and yet the court utilizes and respects their recommendations. Again, where does the "best interest of the child" come into play? Perhaps in the next battle in the court? I doubt it!

Being a father, wed or unwed, is not a crime, except in the Family Court system. Being an unwed mother has lost its stigma, and rightfully so. It happens. If there is a "crime" involved, it is that the Family Court system violates rather than endorses the "best interests of the children."

Until we correct this mockery of jurisprudence, hundreds of thousands of fathers will continue to be estranged or incarcerated, hundreds of thousands of the vindictive mothers will continue to view their children as cash registers and hundreds of thousands of children will fall to abuse and neglect, or worse.

For the many mothers and fathers who work toward the "best interest of the child," blessed be. For the rest of you, bless the children; they deserve better. I hope you get what you deserve!

Read more...

An unusual 'Safe Haven' situation

Link to post

LAKE WALES - Thursday morning, firefighters in Lake Wales took in a baby boy given up by his mother under the Safe Haven laws.

Thursday night, the baby's father came to the station, frantic, wanting the baby back.

Firefighters and police say they had no idea what to do at first.

"Neither one of us had ever heard of this before," said Lake Wales Police detective Lynette Townsel. "We didn't know the protocol for it -- we'll be honest, we didn't know how to handle it at first."

Through emergency phone calls to the creator of the Safe Haven program and the Department of Children and Families, they learned the boy must stay with state workers who have custody now. 

Adoption attorney Jeanne Trudeau Tate said that once a parent has given up a child, they have to go through a judge to get him back.

"The question is, does [the father] have a right to step forth? Yes. Does that mean he automatically gets the child back?  No. The court still has to determine it's in the child's best interest and that his actions have not created a situation where his parental rights should be terminated," Tate said.

In the meantime, Lake Wales Police Officers said they felt the "Safe Haven" system worked correctly in this case, because no matter what happens to the baby boy in the weeks to come, he is safe, which is the first priority.

The question is, will he be able to get custody of the child, and if so will the mother be force to pay support?

Read more...

Question of the Day

For years, many family court judges have held the view that fathers are ice cream, moms are the meal. Dads are nice, but nonessential. Kids can easily do without them, just like they really don’t need dessert.

Is this the way Judges and most mothers see fathers today.

Read more...