I suspect all human beings have within them both selfish and unselfish thoughts. Whether we are always acting in our child's best interests or not becomes a bit of a foolish question therefore. All you can hope for is that overall the parent is trying to do their best unselfishly (please read Mike Newdows comments on all this - he has his own website, and I've quoted him in my other posts a few times too).
I think there has to be "order" in society, we all want that and wouldn't vote for a politician who didn't appear strong. Family courts have to make decisions about our children if we can't agree with our ex.'s, and the child themselves probably needs a focus of authority in their lives. Maybe that has to be one parent, where there is disagreement between you, that's the only way to resolve the conflict. I just feel that one parent shouldn't be able to take total control away from the other one. There should be a balance.
At the moment the costs of trying to fight in court for contact with your child, and the likelihood of the outcome going against the non-resident parent, or the courts orders being flouted, all make it a "fools errand" when you start out going to your lawyer. The sheriff that was mentioned is possibly correct in his assessment. All this is bound to create feelings of frustration and injustice.
Here are some quotes for you:-
Judge Judy (Sheindlin) Americas "TV Judge" says,
of Men and the American Family Court,
"FATHERS ORGANISE TO DEMAND FAIRER TREATMENT. YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE LEGAL BEEF AND YOU NEED TO MAKE THIS A PUBLIC ISSUE. RIGHT NOW THE COURTS DO NOT HEAR YOU."
Some further quotes from Judge Judy.
"our courts promote these wars, instead of easing transitions for children."
"Children are the ultimate victims."
"Women continue to hold the emotional vice, the kids. They have become the central pawns in divorce proceedings."
"We will see more of these problems until fathers organise to demand fairer treatment. So get it together, dads: You have a legitimate legal beef and you need to make this a public issue. Right now, the courts do not hear you."
Unfortunately I don't see fathers organising in the way that might create change for a long time yet. In the UK a TV chef called Jamie Oliver, a guy Tony Blair like to be associated with as he's seen as "cool", started a campaign against unhealthy food in our schools. I know he had the advantages of being famous to start with, and was producing a TV show on the subject, exposing some very poor quality meals being fed BUT he got huge support in just a few weeks. About a quarter of a million people signed his petition to improve the school meals.
The biggest petition that has ever been done in this country on the father's rights issue received a few thousand signatures, with all the various "Equal parenting" groups joining together trying to generate support.
So the fact is you can be excluded from your child's life, and seemingly there is little or no outcry, have your children fed rubbish meals (in itself a disgrace) and hundreds of thousands of people are moved to write to the Prime Minister. I think that kind of behaviour is described as "The Sentimentalisation of Modern Society" by some observers.
It is possible that nothing can be done about this, it is just the way it is going to be from now on in Western Society.
I've probably waffled on a bit here, it's maybe a relief not to be engaged in the argument over whether the best interests of the child is the only "tenable" basis for Family law (what about the Irish Supreme court's decision to reject that view - sorry I can't go down that road anymore).
Thanks for your posts once again and if there were other people out there, besides the ex. who were opposing contact it would be great to know.
ATB, Graham