# Professor Akira Morita



## grahamg (Jan 2, 2017)

I wonder whether anyone will engage with the arguments put forward by Professor Akira Morita of Tokyo University for me? Quote:

www.law2.byu.edu/wfpc/forum/2000/WFPF2000.pdf

Brief extracts:
 "Here I would like to point out only that the United States, as the pioneer of the development of children’s law in the twentieth century, is the very country that has experienced most intensively the significance and gravity of the conflict between organic human relations and rights based relations. I would like to quote a passage from a dissertation written in 1992 by legal scholar Dr James Lucier that provided a theoretical foundation for the anti-ratification movement: What is missing in the 'UN Convention on the rights of the child' is the underlying idea of rights for families. . . . By endowing the child with legal autonomy, that is to say, enjoying rights independently of the family, the new doctrine puts the family in the position of mere care-givers, bound to the observance of the child’s rights. Every child becomes the adversary of the parents, at least in the potential, and the adversary of brothers and sisters in competition for rights. . . . By destroying the human factor in human relationships, the advocate of autonomy, especially the autonomy of children, will create a society which lacks the principles of cohesiveness and common purpose necessary to its common existence.

 Break

 I do not wish to be understood as suggesting that the concept of children’s rights in itself is completely meaningless. The reality is that within the increasing complexity of modern society, parental authority has become dysfunctional and abusive, and we must recognize that there are many cases in which the child’s right to protection is compelled to take on the role of an emergency fire brigade. Even in such cases, however, we need to remember the words of Josef Goldstein, that “law [and rights] may be able to destroy human relationships, but it does not have the power to compel them to develop.” In other words, rights cannot be an Aladdin’s lamp that brings happiness. What children need most is the relationship itself, not an isolated benefit conferred in the name of rights. If we forget that law and rights have such limitations and think of the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” and its catalogue as a “magna carta for children,” we will be walking into the myth and fantasy of twentieth century that children’s rights constitute.

Abridged Conclusion
I want to conclude by searching for clues in terms of a reassessment of the image of modern man that lies behind the concept of the child’s right to autonomy. As I have mentioned, behind the concept of the child’s right to autonomy is the surrealistic view of the child as “a little acorn that grows up autonomously.” It soon becomes plain to anyone that this view, when illuminated by the light of ordinary everyday experience, is lacking in realism. It is no more than an idealization and romanticization of autonomy. Nevertheless, why is this concept so highly contagious that it is becoming a fixture in today’s international conventions and conquering the western world? When we get to the bottom of the matter, we arrive at the modernistic image of man, dating from the eighteenth century onward, that regards complete autonomy in itself as a legitimate possibility and holds it up as the ultimate ideal. That is, the ideal depicts the individual as the “lone rights-bearer” who has cast off all restrictions and connections and is self determining and self-contained. What props up this ideal is a passion for emancipation—to throw off the shackles that bind and thereby gain freedom. The appearance of the child’s right to autonomy that we are witnessing today is none other than a symbolic event that tells us that this ideal of modern man has finally reached down, two hundred years after the French Revolution, to the intermediating body positioned as the very basis of society—the family."
 WORLD FAMILY POLICY FORUM 2000, Brigham Young University, Utah.


----------



## grahamg (Jan 3, 2017)

~Here is a link showing some of the issues being encountered by fathers:


https://www.facebook.com/Fathers4kids/videos/1204842499546240/


----------



## Carla (Jan 3, 2017)

So, is that what this post is about? To be honest, I read those above articles and  couldn't quite understand what they were getting at. Kind of the long way around a topic.

States have different laws, but these issues I think are handled by the county. Thought visitation or arrangements were  worked out between the couple or their lawyers. 50/50 coparenting is something fairly recent--parents need to put the child's best interest ahead of any of their issues. However, there can be a whole lot of variables. They should be worked out within the family so that a judge doesn't have to enforce the letter of the law. I would imagine that not every situation is the same so working things out for the benefit of the children should be the first consideration during a divorce.


----------



## grahamg (Jan 3, 2017)

Carla said:


> So, is that what this post is about? To be honest, I read those above articles and  couldn't quite understand what they were getting at. Kind of the long way around a topic.
> 
> States have different laws, but these issues I think are handled by the county. Thought visitation or arrangements were  worked out between the couple or their lawyers. 50/50 coparenting is something fairly recent--parents need to put the child's best interest ahead of any of their issues. However, there can be a whole lot of variables. They should be worked out within the family so that a judge doesn't have to enforce the letter of the law. I would imagine that not every situation is the same so working things out for the benefit of the children should be the first consideration during a divorce.




A man called Robert Mnookin said this: the universaility of the best interests if the child in family law proceedings raises a question no less than the meaning of life (or words to that effect - here is a link for you, where Mnookin is quoted). http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=lawpub


Now I'm fairly sure you didn't think when you said, quote: "the benefit of the children should be the first consideration......" that you were raising such an unanswerable question did you (?).

If you don't mind my correcting your impression that this thread is about 50/50 coparenting - the link to the video footage certainly was but not Akira Morita's paper to the World family policy forum.

However I am indebted to you for your interest in the thread and hope you'll find the time to read Professor Akira Morita's full report that challenges the whole bass for children's rights based upon this legal principle of the "best interests of the child."


----------



## grahamg (Jan 4, 2017)

Not sure whether you will be able to follow this but "elsewhere" I've been posting about Professor Akira Morita's views on children's rights and parental rights in the Western world, and have drawn out the following responses (two responses by someone describing themselves as a "professional", intermingled with my replies to them, if you can follow that?). I'm posting here because of two things - 1.) How difficult it appears to be to get anyone to focus on Professor Akira Morita's views, and 2.) The discomfort felt by some of those reading my call for parental rights above those available under legislation based upon the child's best interests (where Akira Morata debunks the whole "childrens rights" agenda it supports).

Anyway, here goes:


Another forum member

It's difficult to give any meaningful comment on your particular case when we've only heard one side of the situation - in reality there are at least three viewpoints - yours, your ex's and your child's. It goes without saying that they'd all be very different.

 Maybe a blog would have been a better format than a discussion thread?

 My response
 you have done me a great favour here, (I'm saying that slightly ironically) and I'm bringing this thread to a close as a result of your post.

 I'm sure you didn't mean to do this, but if you just check one of my last responses you will see how much I believe I need anyone's help, or my daughter needs anyone's help (or anyone taking an interest in what she says she thinks about me), and as far as my ex. is concerned, she has two children with the man she left me for, both grown up now, and married, however, in a very candid moment she told me once her other two children "were not like our daughter" - strange she should wish to confide in me but nonetheless that's what she said. Lets assume shall we she'll deny any negative influence or pressure being applied to our child to refuse contact. How much further forward do you think you will be by finding out what the "three viewpoints" are?

 Anyway, I digress, - what I want to say to anyone reading this thread or anyone who has contributed in any way, the penny has finally dropped for myself here. Obviously though I keep highlighting the dearth of parental rights in Western societies, or the "weak protection of parental rights provided by laws based upon the best interests of the child" - no one has come forward to say they think, "yes" parents should be granted more legal rights. So no doubt law makers, when they do research into these matters will have noted "no one", not the father's rights groups, not the grandparents groups, not the mothers absent from their children's groups, none of them are demanding more rights for parents or stronger legal protection for the parents, or the parents relationship with the child justified by a regard for the welfare of the parents or anything like that, where no "harm" to the child is a danger.

 Back to my point, about the penny having dropped - those "professionals" who managed to produce a report declaring my child seeing me wasn't in her best interests, or suggesting that which is all it took to defeat my legal team - those "professionals" I keep criticising for all they are worth - well this thread has taught me something I never realised before! I now have some idea what they must be up against as they write their reports on our children/our relationship with our children. In dealing with the "general public" if this forum is a fair reflection of Western society, they must have one hell of a job dealing with us all.

The office I attended in Cheshire, where my ex. and I were videoed secretly, and studied "big brother style" was arranged in a way to ensure the safety of the staff working there as much as possible - so many physical threats they must no doubt face as they do their jobs. However, just trying to "explain things" as I've tried desperately to do here with minimal success, or to try to persuade members of the public to look at things differently - all this must be a nightmare and you've convinced me of that fact here, so well done 



Their response:
"Surely you realise it's impossible to comment with any logic on a situation where one has only heard one side of the circumstances.

 Having read the thread right through, I have concluded that you don't really want responses from anyone, you just want to vent your feelings on what you see as an injustice - and maybe it is. But maybe it isn't. None of us on here know, we only know what you have told us.

 You seem to have had a go at, or patronised anyone who has responded; why start a discussion thread if responses are only acceptable if they support your subject?

 Regarding dealing with members of the public, I have done so for many years, and indeed have been involved in domestic abuse cases and child protection issues, so I know how difficult it is for *all* involved, and also how important it is for all sides to be heard and considered.

 Perhaps closing your thread *is* a wise move"


My final reply to this "professional"


many thanks for your post and if you don't mind my saying it "patronising me" as you say I've done to others (probably true in my last post to your good self, though I think I can claim fairly that I was pushed to it).

I'm glad you've responded, especially as someone with seemingly or rather "convincingly" describing quite a background in the subject (whether the subject be my own case or Professor Akira Morita's views - we can agree to differ there): .

 In my last post I intended to include one extra thing responding to your comments about there being three sides to what happened concerning my daughter - my point is this, if I come, "lets say", into your home, and your children's home, whether or not you are still in a relationship with you children's father, and start asking all three of you what you feel about each other, when do you think that might become intrusive?

 I used to be able to quote a legal/professional person highlighting the need for privacy in personal relationships, "where no questions of harm to children arise" (it could have been Goldwater, the Canadian lawyer I think I've quoted before talking about children's vulnerability to manipulation and control, but will try to confirm that thought one way or the other).

 I've said earlier in this thread that I approached our UK government department (quoting Goldwater at them I think it was) and received a reply at least to my first message, though not when I requested "clarification". I have also encountered someone on a forum for fathers, who said they had been a CAFCASS officer - "Children and Families Concilliation. Advisory and Support Service" (or something like that anyway). That person (I think it was a lady) responded to my views and the views of a few other members of the fathers forum, so basically excluded fathers, but she eventually dropped out of the discussion, because I think she found it difficult having alternate views put to her.

 Someone "famous from history" talked about the power of ideas almost one hundred years ago, or how you would have to kill everyone with those ideas to prevent them spreading (that's a heavy clue as to who it was said this).

I don't expect anything from you now, and as you say its probably for the best and all to end this thread, plus its my birthday tomorrow and I've a party to organise and then I'm being evicted from the farm where I was born in three weeks time, so I'll be a busy boy


----------



## grahamg (Jan 5, 2017)

My spat with the "professional" who says they have been involved in domestic abuse cases and child protection issues has made me think again about the attitudes displayed.

In their first contribution they said this, quote: "It's difficult to give any meaningful comment on your particular case when we've only heard one side of the situation - in reality there are at least three viewpoints - yours, your ex's and your child's. It goes without saying that they'd all be very different."

This "we've only heard one side of the situation" business - if that isn't patronising or condescending I don't know what is, why should they imply my word or my knowledge of my own family may be questionable? I hope you know what I mean and if you don't just re-read Akira Morita quote: "Every child becomes the adversary of the parents, at least in the potential..........."

I've talked about how intrusive I believe it is for any "outsider" to question our relationship with our own children, where there are no issues of harm.  I hope it sends a chill down your spine as you read how they assume the right to question your child - what if I don't want my daughter questioned, does that matter when there are no issues.


I may be going on here, so over to anyone who wishes to give their views.


----------



## grahamg (Jan 5, 2017)

Quote: "It's difficult to give any meaningful comment on your particular case when we've only heard one side of the situation - in reality there are at least three viewpoints - yours, your ex's and your child's.  It goes without saying that they'd all be very different."




I've highlighted the first sentence written by someone elsewhere who confesses to be a professional,  in their first comment upon my thread or "my case".


Here is some logic for you:
They have said: ",,,,,,,,in reality there are at least three viewpoints - yours, your ex's and your child's.  It goes without saying that they'd all be very different"


The business of "taking into consideration the views of the child, giving regard to their age and maturity" is something our English court system focusses upon, "making sure the views of children are taken seriously" they say.


Okay, we've come this far, now consider what a top family law judge said, some time ago now, and I used to be able to quote his name but for the moment I cant - evidence of my slow burn brain again  :blush: ). He said "the likelihood that the child's views are influenced by the parent they are living with most of the time is beyond dispute", (or ridiculous to question - something like that).


Now we have a forum member who has been involved in domestic abuse cases and child protection issues saying: "there are three viewpoints" and "Its goes without saying that they'd all be very different."


I have to tell you (and the professional here) - referring to my own case as an example, (though not wanting anyone's help you appreciate ).  - *that there was absolutely no difference at all between the views expressed by my daughter and her mother.*


So this is the bind we fathers are in as we approach the courts to try to address contact issues over our children, especially as the child reaches the age of twelve, when the courts are said to give more weight to the child's views. Our friend here quoted above clearly thinks there are no issues or no reasons why our children's views about their relationship with us fathers should be examined, and in fact the English family court system requires it. We go to court (or at least I did) in no doubt our children's views would be identical with their mothers views, and we discover that the court officials dealing with us maybe feel there is no choice but to advise against our contact with our children "in the best interests of the child" rather than try to unravel the reasons why the chid is so in line with the mother/residential parent (we must remember, as Penny Cross has told us, that non-resident mothers can be similarly defeated and denied contact).


I hope you follow that logic - I can't  fault it but maybe that isn't saying much! 


A lady called Julia Tugenhat wrote a book entitled "What children and young people can tell us about divorce and separation of their parents"(something like that anyway).


This woman tried to interview children/teenagers and ask them about their fathers, especially where there was no contact with the father - the response she found amongst some of the 10-15 children she interviewed was "I'm not bothered about my dad".


When she dug a bit deeper she discovered those children "bravely saying" that the were not bothered about their fathers or not seeing their fathers were indeed very much affected by not being able to see their fathers. But it took real effort to find this out and the children confiding in Julia Tugenhat had to come to trust her before they would say anything revealing their true feelings, or anything negative about their mothers who they were extremely protective towards - in fact without being certain that the views and feelings they revealed would not be taken any further they would not speak out.


Julia Tugenhat was refused permission to interview children when she approached various schools to try to do her research, and had to find those she managed to interview by other means. 


Over to anyone choosing to comment, no doubt "someone" will tell me "the best interests of the child" should still be the paramount consideration and no doubt too they will completely ignore 'my old friend' Professor Akira Morita.


----------



## Carla (Jan 6, 2017)

I don't know what your problems are but you certainly have an indirect way of expressing yourself. So you don't believe "the best interest of the child" should be considered, well I disagree. When two people bring a child into the world then decide to go their own way, the child should not be used as a pawn. Stability is important. If one or the other is immature and cannot agree on anything, then a judge will decide. I am a "someone" that has raised a child after divorce and he did not turn out so bad! I had the confidence to know what I was doing was right.   "And no doubt too they will completely ignore 'my old friend' Professor Amira Morita".   I did read your initial posting and listened to the video. Obviously, I did not understand all this but I thought I had. I do THINK when I respond to any posts here--often times they are my opinion. I don't see where your opinion is any more weighted than mine...I will say your response was a bit insulting sir.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 6, 2017)




----------



## grahamg (Jan 6, 2017)

*No offence meant towards yourself but that "professional" I am ready to fight*



Carla said:


> I don't know what your problems are but you certainly have an indirect way of expressing yourself. So you don't believe "the best interest of the child" should be considered, well I disagree. When two people bring a child into the world then decide to go their own way, the child should not be used as a pawn. Stability is important. If one or the other is immature and cannot agree on anything, then a judge will decide. I am a "someone" that has raised a child after divorce and he did not turn out so bad! I had the confidence to know what I was doing was right.   "And no doubt too they will completely ignore 'my old friend' Professor Amira Morita".   I did read your initial posting and listened to the video. Obviously, I did not understand all this but I thought I had. I do THINK when I respond to any posts here--often times they are my opinion. I don't see where your opinion is any more weighted than mine...I will say your response was a bit insulting sir.



I've re-read my first reply to yourself and am a bit surprised it riled you, and if anything I've said thereafter upsets you then please accept I'm trying to respond to people, like the "professional" from the other forum, who think it is "okay" that I should be totally excluded from my child's life.

I am sure you love your chid, and I don't think I could have loved my daughter any more than I did, and as I may have said before I could only do that, i.e. give her as much love as I did, because at that time the family law in the UK gave me some certainty, that I wouldn't get less than every other weekend, 9.30am to 4.30pm on a Sunday. My daughter has said since that "I ruined the first twelve years of her life", but again as I may have said before she admitted to my mother, when she was aged twenty, and attending medical school that it was because her own mother was against her seeing me that she couldn't do so - yes even at twenty, and I can quote many other similar examples.

Professor Akira Morita doesn't think the best interests of the chid don't matter, and neither do I, but when a courts view of what those best interests are *always* comes first, then a nonsense situation arises and I certainly can't explain it any better than he does. I may have given you a link to a woman calling for more parental rights or a change to family law anyway, and she is warning all mothers or grandmothers of boys what they may well face regarding any children of their own if the marriage fails.

If I can find it I will post it (assuming I haven't done s already).
All the best, Graham

P.S. nice dog Radishrose


----------



## Carla (Jan 6, 2017)

Do you think it was because your ex was so angry at you that she proceeded to bad-mouth you to your daughter? I'm sorry you had such a bad experience and I would be resentful too. Although I was very careful not to talk about my ex in front of my son, he bad-mouthed me for years. Yes, this type of behavior causes problems and confusion and that is exactly what I am opposed to. Adults should act like adults. Children should never be thrust into the middle of a failed relationship and be used as pawns.

I hope you have had opportunity to get closer with your daughter. We cannot change the past but we can try to forgive, for our own sake. Then build a relationship, this time it will be an adult relationship with a lot more understanding. We can't change others but we can change our own attitudes and not allow the past to weigh us down any longer.

We can learn many lessons in life if we pay attention. It's not always about being right, but we can chose to do the right thing. The mot important thing I have learned is that LIFE IS SHORT. We have to try and make the best of things--make amends with those we may have wronged, forgive those who have hurt us and try to find that inner peace. I wish that peace for you.


----------



## grahamg (Jan 7, 2017)

*Just a control freak*



Carla said:


> Do you think it was because your ex was so angry at you that she proceeded to bad-mouth you to your daughter? I'm sorry you had such a bad experience and I would be resentful too. Although I was very careful not to talk about my ex in front of my son, he bad-mouthed me for years. Yes, this type of behavior causes problems and confusion and that is exactly what I am opposed to. Adults should act like adults. Children should never be thrust into the middle of a failed relationship and be used as pawns.
> 
> I hope you have had opportunity to get closer with your daughter. We cannot change the past but we can try to forgive, for our own sake. Then build a relationship, this time it will be an adult relationship with a lot more understanding. We can't change others but we can change our own attitudes and not allow the past to weigh us down any longer.
> 
> We can learn many lessons in life if we pay attention. It's not always about being right, but we can chose to do the right thing. The mot important thing I have learned is that LIFE IS SHORT. We have to try and make the best of things--make amends with those we may have wronged, forgive those who have hurt us and try to find that inner peace. I wish that peace for you.



Dear Carla,
I don't think I'm being unfair if I say my ex, is/was a control freak and I never really appreciated it until after the marriage was over. My own father knew before we'd married that there was trouble ahead, and on my wedding day morning he'd been saying so to my mother - all he managed to say to myself, (as I wouldn't have listened to warnings anyway), was "Don't let me down son" - which I thought was strange but I'd no idea what he really meant. BTW I now know how many men, some of them friends of mine or so called friends, are just as much control freaks as my ex. so I'm not making a sexist comment there.

I mentioned a woman talking about the trouble she can see ahead for any mothers or grandmothers of boys (meaning when those boys are grown up they may well face exclusion from any children they have and so on). Well, it is on this thread already as the second post I made but the "Shared parenting" legislation she's calling for wouldn't be my preference.

Finally I've noticed that "elsewhere" the professional I am so upset with or candidly frightened of to the extent of how easily she might find excluding a father (or mother) from their children's lives. Well I haven't checked out what she has to say but I think it unlikely she will be supportive of Akira Morita's ideas or my own (I think she's going to continue to refuse to answer any arguments raised). So wish me luck - I'll post what she says here and I intend to let them have the last word, and not bother trying to plant new ideas in their head.


----------



## grahamg (Jan 7, 2017)

That "professional" I keep mentioning has come back with the following comments and I can honestly say I have only read the first line and that was enough for me (luckily someone else has tried to engage with them but of course the "professional" has all the answers).



Professional


"I can't believe that putting words in other people's mouths has helped your cause one bit.

 Whether you like it or not, there is always more than one side to a situation. It also stands to reason that each person's version is going to be skewed in their own favour.

 You say your daughter's 'side' was the same as her mother's - and clearly you can't accept that, although I'm sure her mother could.. . If her 'side' had been the same as yours I'm guessing that would have been perfectly acceptable to you? But not to her mother? In these unfortunate situations everyone thinks *they're* right. Therefore any professionals involved (and, by the way, I didn't 'confess' to my knowledge or position - it's not something I'm ashamed of or something I've done wrong) have to make their decisions by considering ALL sides. They can't just believe one person because that person believes they should.

 As your daughter is very much an adult now, and more than capable of deciding for herself who she wants to see or not see, I think you would be doing yourself a huge favour by accepting things and moving on."


----------



## grahamg (Jan 7, 2017)

*This professional who hasn't confessed......*



grahamg said:


> That "professional" I keep mentioning has come back with the following comments and I can honestly say I have only read the first line and that was enough for me (luckily someone else has tried to engage with them but of course the "professional" has all the answers).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, I've read the views of this "unconfessed professional" now.

What to say about it?

The last comment about "moving on" is a bit funny as a friend "elsewhere said the same thing, and I replied "I wasn't the moving on type" (and I'm still not - if I can in any way annoy "professionals" like this person - who just to remind everyone has said they were involved in domestic abuse cases and child protection issues, if that doesn't indicate a professional I don't know what does, but the fact they've tantalised us by refusing to confirm or even deny their status is interesting).

What else to say, well I'm reminded of going along to a meeting in Cardiff, about fifteen years ago, organised by a UK group called "Families Need Fathers"  (think "Fathers 4 Justice" without the antics). A man whose name I forget, but who was the head of CAFCASS Wales gave a short presentation about his work and answered questions from the group of fathers and friends (grandparents etc.) assembled. The point about this person - to try to be brief and very much to the point, was that maybe as you'd expect, this man presented everything he had to say really really well. If he appeared in court presenting evidence condemning any fathers involvement in their child's life, whether or not the evidence was a pack of lies, one would imagine a court listening to him rather than 99% of fathers. You'd expect him to be "assertive", "articulate", "well reasoned in his arguments" and so on, he was the head of a government funded organisation afterall.

I asked him my "killer question" as to "whether he could envisage contact between himself and his child not being in their best interests?" To my amazement he said he could - if he had been "abusing" his children!

It took me a second or two to think about that but luckily the fathers around me stepped in and "took up cudgels" against him. When I'd had time to think I realised this man, head of an organisation etc. etc. said he could actually envisage "abusing" his own children!" Now that has to be ridiculous but whether you agree with me or not his speed of thought as he answered my question, and basically flumucksed me or threw me off guard should be remembered. I would say that rather than admit no one could envisage contact with your own children not being in their best interests (given you hadn't abused them of course) he'd rather try a different argument or device.  

This professional, whilst not in his class, does have some of the same characteristics and I hope "others" probe their arguments and the fact they refuse to engage in any way with Professor Akira Morita's debunking of the whole basis for their position.


----------



## Falcon (Jan 7, 2017)

Ho hum.  ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 7, 2017)

Around here, the courts almost always grant shared custody unless there is an overwhelming reason not to (such as child abuse of one sort or another).


----------



## grahamg (Jan 7, 2017)

*I hooe you realise how helpful that is......*



Falcon said:


> Ho hum.  ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ



When I read posts like your I do wonder what motivates people but whatever it is do keep doing it, as contrary to your intentions you're probably keeping the thread going and sustaining interest more than anything else so well done


----------



## grahamg (Jan 7, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> Around here, the courts almost always grant shared custody unless there is an overwhelming reason not to (such as child abuse of one sort or another).



I'm a bit old fashioned and am not that much in favour of "shared parenting" - though I know a good many think it is the answer (Kash Jackson, the former US naval officer who has lead a march to Washington lately and his troubles continue I've read of one kind or another - you may have seen a video of him I posted a while back but can return with if necessary).


----------



## grahamg (Jan 8, 2017)

Continuation of the argument carried on "elsewhere" - particularly for Falcon's benefit 

The "professional"

"Hmm, you do have a tendency to jump to conclusions - I wasn't referring to your daughter's views, or her mother's, but the way you chose to interpret things I have said.

I will reiterate my previous comment where I said that you seem only to want comments which support you and your thinking.  I'm pretty sure that I am not the only person who thinks - knows - that there is always more than one side to any situation;  we have only heard yours and, of that, only what you want us to know.

We all have to move on from bad situations in our lives, situations which we wish had turned out differently.  Not to do so results in embitterment and a waste of life.

My response:

"You still sound scary to me and I notice you didn't attempt to counter that belief.

Whether I waste my life "embittered" as you say, is my business, and I will refer you to one rugby commentator called Bill McClaren, whose attitude towards a "bad situation in his life" was not to move on either, according to his autobiography.

I have said earlier in this thread that my ex. was the better/most capable parent - now in hearing only my side of the story of my life you seem so curious about, what other side to that statement do you think there might be? Do you think my ex. feels I was the better or more capable parent, or my daughter perhaps, did she think that way? 

You will give no one any opinions about Professor Akira Morita's paper debunking children's rights, and I think there are two reasons for this. Firstly I believe you have no opinions, the things he's saying dont register with you - I'm putting words in your mouth there deliberately.

Secondly to accept anyone saying children's rights legislation are a nonesense means those gaining employment peaking into the personal lives of so many people wrapped up in family law proceedings, those never having harmed their own children I'm referring to, who would want that who has earned their living from it?"


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 8, 2017)

grahamg said:


> I'm a bit old fashioned and am not that much in favour of "shared parenting" - though I know a good many think it is the answer (Kash Jackson, the former US naval officer who has lead a march to Washington lately and his troubles continue I've read of one kind or another - you may have seen a video of him I posted a while back but can return with if necessary).



The Courts here don't much care if people like it or not -- it's just what they almost always order unless there's a blatant reason not to do so.  There's not much wiggle room in custody and child support or property division under our laws here. We are one of the few community property states, by the way.


----------



## grahamg (Jan 8, 2017)

*Kash Jackson wants shared parenting legislation*



Butterfly said:


> The Courts here don't much care if people like it or not -- it's just what they almost always order unless there's a blatant reason not to do so.  There's not much wiggle room in custody and child support or property division under our laws here. We are one of the few community property states, by the way.



I am based in the UK of course, where "shared parenting" legislation has not been brought in yet but many people are calling for it here (I've said I'm sceptical already and my main reason would be any system based on this "best interests of the child" principle, will contain all the flaws Professor Akira Morita, from Tokyo University has tried to emphasise).

Kash Jackson, a retired US navy officer, has been calling for shared parenting where he lives I believe, but I'm aware each state in the US has its own family laws, so this may explain the difference in his experience to your own.


----------



## Carla (Jan 8, 2017)

Just curious about something. What is it you hope to gain by this--are you searching for approval or validation of some sort? Do you feel responsibility in leading a cause?

I don't know you or the details of your situation, but I know that your daughter is grown now. Your feelings may be totally legitimate and you may have every reason to feel the way you do. However, we cannot change the past, can we agree on that? We can say to ourselves, "I tried". That baggage can get heavier and heavier if you insist on dragging it around. It may very well work against any chance of restablishing a relationship with your daughter, know why? She probably has heard this all so many times before and it serves no purpose to continually rehash it all again. Forgiveness will lighten that load and that is something you can do for yourself. You know something else? None of us are perfect. We must also own our own shortcomings and forgive ourselves too.

When reading the comments of the "professional", it sounds like she (or he) is trying to tell you to work on trying to let this thing go. It's not a matter of winning or losing--the battle is over and has been for a long time. You are right about one thing--you can chose to be embittered or--you can make the decision to put it behind you and start living a positive life. I wish you peace Graham.


----------



## grahamg (Jan 8, 2017)

*There are two main reasons why I choose to speak out*



Carla said:


> Just curious about something. What is it you hope to gain by this--are you searching for approval or validation of some sort? Do you feel responsibility in leading a cause?
> 
> I don't know you or the details of your situation, but I know that your daughter is grown now. Your feelings may be totally legitimate and you may have every reason to feel the way you do. However, we cannot change the past, can we agree on that? We can say to ourselves, "I tried". That baggage can get heavier and heavier if you insist on dragging it around. It may very well work against any chance of restablishing a relationship with your daughter, know why? She probably has heard this all so many times before and it serves no purpose to continually rehash it all again. Forgiveness will lighten that load and that is something you can do for yourself. You know something else? None of us are perfect. We must also own our own shortcomings and forgive ourselves too.
> 
> When reading the comments of the "professional", it sounds like she (or he) is trying to tell you to work on trying to let this thing go. It's not a matter of winning or losing--the battle is over and has been for a long time. You are right about one thing--you can chose to be embittered or--you can make the decision to put it behind you and start living a positive life. I wish you peace Graham.



There are two main reasons why I choose to speak about my own case and choose to look for answers more broadly concerning family law as I know so many parents and grandparents affected, and excluded from their children's/grandchildren's lives.

I hope someone - one person will do - reads my story and says to themselves my trouble over my child or grandchild has similarities with the description I'm reading on this forum of the exclusion of someone who might be described as an "okay" dad (judges here in the UK used to talk about "okay" or "good enough" dads coming before them and yet loosing all contact with their children).

So, that's the first thing, now the second main reason for talking about all this is my "looking for answers more broadly concerning family law" objective. I don't know about you but for me it was/is important, given you've been excluded from the one child you have aged twelve or whatever age they were dealt with under family law, you'd want to understand the basis for that family law wouldn't you?

Once you'd discovered some evidence, for example evidence from a university Professor saying Western countries family law is based upon false assumptions, you'd want to highlight that wouldn't you?

"Moving on" to answer your specific questions, quote:
"What is it you hope to gain by this--are you searching for approval or validation of some sort?"

My answer: Maybe I'm looking for validation, but I think the other reasons I've given you are sufficiently important reasons for doing this too, but if I can annoy those responsible for family law in some way, by pointing out I/We (father's rights campaigners) know your system is flawed then that gives me some satisfaction as well, and I've now encountered two people who say they've acted as "professionals" working in this area of family law, and neither of them has found it easy to deal with the points I've raised whether they've moved their position or not. At my first school our headmaster used to tell us all how everything we said and did would feed out like ripples across water, and ultimately reach goodness knows where.

Next question, quote: "Do you feel responsibility in leading a cause?"

My answer: Yes, but I guess I've answered that already and I'm certainly friends of people running groups trying to support children or grandchildren (maybe you'll check out Jimmy Deuchars from Glasgow, Scotland, and his group "Grandparents Apart from their grandchildren support group" - I've been to their house and met them at the UK parliament and admire their achievements though I haven't swayed Jimmy yet to move his arguments away from basing them on the "best interests of the child")

Next question, quote: "However, we cannot change the past, can we agree on that?"

My answer: Yes, but as its a question or statement of the bl....ng obvious, that isn't saying much!

Next question, quote: "That baggage can get heavier and heavier if you insist on dragging it around. It may very well work against any chance of restablishing a relationship with your daughter, know why?"

My answer: First, before answering you, I'll say this (attacking the questioner maybe) - you must be a very nice person, so of course you're trying to do me some good, or my daughter some good (an uncle of my late father had a less flattering word for your behaviour however, and I'm guessing he'd have described you as a "do gooder" - something he warned us about when I was a child).

You may think my daughter is hearing too much of the arguments I'm making or has heard too much about them, but I can fairly say that she has heard none of them or virtually none. The only avenue that exists, where anything I say might get passed on to her is my ex. brother-in-law and his relationship with my ex. was under strain for a long time so they had little contact for many years. Those are the circumstances, and there is no doubt my daughter gets on with her own life without any interference from me, or anything I might say here or anywhere else. So your presumptions there are not borne out. 

I'll end now, I've got a lot on my plate right now (family trouble of a very different kind with wills being changed raising concerns about "undue influence" and an impending eviction, which may well disrupt my life so much that I can no longer easily post my views).


----------



## Carla (Jan 9, 2017)

My parents divorced when I was in my early teens. I had a younger brother at home and two older, already married siblings. For years, I had to listen to stories about how my father did her wrong. Even when I moved away and married, our visits would be discussions about him. Now, he wasn't a bad guy, they just didn't relate for a whole lot of reasons. All the while, she involved herself with a man that subsequently abused her.

One fine day, I had just about enough. I really got her attention when I said "mom, you chose him to be my father. At one point, you must have loved each other. I can't keep listening to this!" That was when I was about twenty-twenty-one. That's the age when we begin putting things together and figuring out what life is about. This is around the time we get married or have children of our own. Guess what? The complaining stopped. Don't think she ever forgave him because she needed to be right and believe me, she had the right to be resentful too.

And my ex--46 yrs later, I kid you NOT! Although he remarried and divorced again, none of his relationships worked out. He doesn't think he ever does anything wrong and he will tell you about it (and himself) if you will sit and listen. He still degrades me--that hasn't stopped since the day I left 43 years ago. He blames me for his unhappiness and does not take responsibility for anything that has ever happened to him--always the fault of someone else. I refused to be a part of his game with the nastiness years back. My son cannot stand to be around him and their relationship all but ended by the time he was 18. He can't have a conversation with him because of his incessant "I " problem. Never got to know his grandchildren either--that be his own choice-and now two of them are grown. So he sent them a card at Christmas with a sarcastic, hurtful remark inside. Nice grandpop.

You're don't have the corner on the market of being hurt--there are a lot of people with worse problems. Make no mistake about this either---I am not a do-gooder as you refer. You don't know me from Adam, sir. I am not the type of person who needs the biggest band-aid. What I have tried to do is wake you up and make you realize that crying in your beer is not going to change a thing. Most people will not listen as we all have our own problems. If you feel you need to lead a cause--and that it may help someone, then make it a selfless endeavor. Stop reliving your past and injecting yourself into it. You have had to learn something positive along the way, use that to help. Otherwise, Graham, I have no more to say to you. Continue on. Be miserable. As for me, again I say to you, life is too short!


----------



## grahamg (Jan 9, 2017)

*A mate asked me how I was a year ago, and I could honestly answer happy*



Carla said:


> My parents divorced when I was in my early teens. I had a younger brother at home and two older, already married siblings. For years, I had to listen to stories about how my father did her wrong. Even when I moved away and married, our visits would be discussions about him. Now, he wasn't a bad guy, they just didn't relate for a whole lot of reasons. All the while, she involved herself with a man that subsequently abused her.
> 
> One fine day, I had just about enough. I really got her attention when I said "mom, you chose him to be my father. At one point, you must have loved each other. I can't keep listening to this!" That was when I was about twenty-twenty-one. That's the age when we begin putting things together and figuring out what life is about. This is around the time we get married or have children of our own. Guess what? The complaining stopped. Don't think she ever forgave him because she needed to be right and believe me, she had the right to be resentful too.
> 
> ...



I accept you are not a do gooder and thank you for taking that speculative remark so well.

At the end of your last post you say "Be miserable"!

Now, if you've read my thread on depression you will have some understanding how well I understand what miserable really is or can be like - about five years of it without any remote possibility of a true smile within myself. However, that is not so now, and as an example of my renewed ability to feel happiness I was asked by a good mate and former boss of mine how I was? I could honestly tell him I was "happy" and you cant lie about that kind of thing to mates who know you well.

The need to tell people to "move on" or "be positive" and so on has become a modern day obsession I believe. When I started to recover from my depression my mental health team leader asked me what I thought had made me turn the corner. I hadn't a good answer for her, but it was obvious from her question she didn't really know either wasn't it - there was however one positive thing no one could dispute, and that was knowledge of the fact I had become a granddad - two and a half years ago - there were no "down sides" to that information.

Back to my topic however, I seriously do believe "we" in the Western world have got it wrong so far as children's rights goes, and at least in the UK denying parents rights other than "common law rights". Now if it was just me saying it then fine everyone can and should ignore me, but it isn't I have to try to tell people. Somewhere along the line on this thread I've mentioned Lord Howe, or the late Lord Howe who whilst his party were in opposition tried to challenge the thinking of the labour government spokesperson Vera Baird, a renowned lawyer who staunchly defended the "best interests of the child" legal principle. "But its not working" Lord Howe told her, though she wouldn't listen or our government wouldn't listen.

Ultimately, as a do gooder myself you could say, if those in authority are convinced more children would suffer than benefit from giving parents or fathers more rights, then my argument fails. Obviously I do not think I would have made my child suffer if I had more rights or my contact with her had been better protected, but I realise there are alot of idiot dads out there for the authorities t deal with and cover by effective legislation. When children do suffer real abuse as happened to my fellow campaigner Jimmy Deuchar's granddaughter, then given he and his wife were described by social services as "irrelevant people" when it came to trying to save his grandchild from the abuse, you have to question the whole system denying good parents and grandparents as he was, real rights. I know I've strayed on to "harm" in regard to children rather than some notion of childrens rights, but I believe giving "professionals" like this one featured in the thread above (who is clueless in my opinion) some stick, is a good thing.


----------



## grahamg (Jan 14, 2017)

I hope people on this forum can follow this exchange taken from lets say "elsewhere" but thought it worth posting here as I've extracted (or attracted) some scorn from the "professional" who refuses to engage with any discussion on Professor Akira's views debunking "children's rights"

First their post explaining yet again their professional viewpoint, followed by my response followed by the angry response from the "Professional" (okay, - got that?).


The "Professional" writes, quote:

"In pointing out that there are more sides to a story than one, I am making an observation based on extensive experience. Not by any stretch of the imagination am I asking you a question."


grahamg's response, quote:

 "Please "move on" as you are adding nothing to this thread are you (not a question BTW, just a statement).

 Hopefully you'll find someone willing to take any notice of your "extensive experience" because you know I've read enough now - and for me reading anything "enriched" by your "extensive experience" feels a little like being told on other threads: "Hillary Lost" or "Trump won", "Get over it" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







The "Professional" came back with this scornful post, quote:
"Oh you really can't hack someone standing up to you can you. You just want everyone to agree with you and pat you on the back saying 'poor you'. Afraid I'm not that easily convinced."


----------



## grahamg (Jan 17, 2017)

*More from the Professional*



grahamg said:


> I hope people on this forum can follow this exchange taken from lets say "elsewhere" but thought it worth posting here as I've extracted (or attracted) some scorn from the "professional" who refuses to engage with any discussion on Professor Akira's views debunking "children's rights"
> 
> First their post explaining yet again their professional viewpoint, followed by my response followed by the angry response from the "Professional" (okay, - got that?).
> 
> ...



More from "my friend" the professional (someone with knowledge of domestic abuse cases and child abuse issues they say):
"No-one was arguing, least of all the other forum member and me. She posted a view, I asked her reasons for her view, she kindly gave me her reasons, which I agreed with - it's called 'discussion'.

Sorry if that disappoints you - you do seem to prefer conflict it has to be said, and your comment above (about "arguing") is just stirring."

The the professional came up with this (in response toi my saying my father would put them in their place):
"I don't think your dear old dad and his ways would worry me over much!

And it is you who insists on taking threads off-topic with your stirring and rhetoric when someone posts a view that is at variance with your proclamations.

Its pointless trying to discuss anything with you, and I know how much you suffer from lastworditis so the floor is all yours . ."


----------



## grahamg (Jan 17, 2017)

grahamg said:


> More from "my friend" the professional _ I'm going to confuse you even more now as they're responding to another thread posted "elsewhere, on the subject of suicide. They are engaging with someone I'd decribe as a "rough diamond" who had somegood things to say on the topic in my view but the "Professional" thought otherwise as you will see:
> 
> Rough diamond, quote:
> "It is of course an act of madness to imagine there is no other way than to kill yourself, if someone was driving me up the wall that badly Id' kill them. There is always an answer, just sit down and think things out, pick up your lap top and go round the world, there is always another way. If it really is the end and your faced with a death you want to avoid - then I understand - and say its your choice, but anyone troubled can message me any time and I promise to talk to them as soon as I can, just wait and be calm. I can promise you things are always better than they seem and if life has been that rough then I make it better.
> ...



I hope all this stuff does make some sense to someone. I'm mainly posting it here because I want to highlight the behaviour of someone claiming to be a "professional" who seeks to put the other person down and always seems to have the conceit to believe they are right and can pontificate upon others lives with profound consequences (if they really are a professional they could be deciding whether you get to see your child again for example).


----------



## grahamg (Jan 18, 2017)

*This wont make any sense to anyone and please tell me to stop if you think I should....*



grahamg said:


> Once again I want to highlight the behaviour of someone claiming to be a "professional" who seeks to put the other person down and always seems to have the conceit to believe they are right and can pontificate upon others lives with profound consequences (if they really are a professional they could be deciding whether you get to see your child again for example).



Taken from "elsewhere" a conversation about relationships with our ex.'s:

The professional wrote:
"Two of us on this presently short thread (written elsewhere) have said we are still friends with our ex, so it's perfectly possible."

A friendly Welsh person wrote:
"Theoretically it shouldn't be possible to divorce someone you still get on well with, as  divorce here in the U.K.(I don't know about other countries) is based on irreconcilable differences (covers a multitude of sins) and if you are able to remain as friends then clearly those differences were not irreconcilable and you should not have been granted a divorce."

The professional wrote:
"I'm afraid that I saw my husband having an affair and then beating me when I confronted him with it as pretty irreconcilable - maybe you think differently?

Quite apart from that, we married very young, and had been growing apart for several years, added to which a career change at almost 40 gave me the confidence (and income) to call our marriage a day. Once we had both established new lives we were able to get on fine although we don't see each other very often. We still have two sons and five grandchildren and family life is much easier if there is no ill-feeling."

The friendly Welsh person wrote:
"I agree with you, that you had plenty of justification for divorce....don't see any justification for remaining on friendly terms with him."

The professional wrote:
"Well as I said, we have children and grandchildren, it makes life easier for them if we all get along. Plus I have a much better life and marriage now and life is too short to be bitter."


----------



## grahamg (Jan 20, 2017)

As no one has so far said *STOP *I will now give you my late mother's views, written when my now thirty two year old daughter was about eleven or twelve:

"I am writing to say how much I enjoy the company of Graham and my granddaughter.

Graham is my eldest son. I feel his family ties mean a lot to him. He has found the break up of his marriage distressing. He has often brought his daughter for Sunday lunch and a few hours relaxation with her grandad and I.

My granddaughter is a lovely girl, very caring, capable, sensible and mature with a good sense of humour. She shows much talent with handicrafts, tapestry and sewing etc. which her grandad jokes she can do with one eye whilst watching the television with the other. She enjoys games and puzzles, her attitude to life is very well balanced.

I have asked her sometimes what would you like to see, where would you like to go, and her reply would usually be "nowhere, I am just happy here."

She is sensitive to the pressures of a devision of loyalties and realises how frustrating the situation can be. One Sunday she said "It was not right she should be upset in this way!" I tried to explain it was no fault of hers or mine, and I too feel as she does and wish everyone would be agreeable. I said we must make the best of it and not to worry too much as time will probably make things better. I will always love her very much and am so pleasd to be her grandma.

I know it means alot to Graham being able to see his daughter and the happiness of them both is very important to me. I do hope this problem can be resolved amicably."


----------



## grahamg (Feb 20, 2017)

*Some more thoughts........*



grahamg said:


> As no one has so far said *STOP *I will now give you some more thoughts, or a discussion taking place "elsewhere" which has some relevence here"
> 
> ."



Another forum member "elsewhere".

"Graham, there were a number of factors that brought down Rome. And this is a red herring to the point I disagreed  on, namely that youth is morally corrupt and woe to society. I pointed to an overall arrow of progress both technologically and morally. Ok, you've accepted technological progress but have a bone of contention with moral progress. Here I say look at things like the Enlightenment, the abolishment of slavery,  and the rise of liberal  democracies extending and defending human rights, education, free speech, emancipation of women, and social welfare etc. 

So, I'd have to remain in disagreement with your view that there has been no moral progress, and strongly assert that there  has been, overall, an upward rising arrow of moral progress." [/quote]


Grahamg's response:

"As mates on this forum or at least in agreement about most things it does make things easier for us I feel when we might disagree.
For example I could post my list of things I feel show a deterioration in "morals" or "ethics" (or both), to counter your list, but I'm only going to do so half heartedly, for reasons I'll try to explain later. 

I could mention the numbers of children being brought up with at least one parent who is not their own biological parent (I used to use the term "real parent" but that term "real" has been corrupted to mean something else nowadays) - how much do you think that situation helps their moral upbringing at least, with their most obvious role models being unable to stay together "for their benefit" (as my favourite guru Desmond Morris asserted in his books, Human Zoo, Naked Ape and so on). My snippet of evidence on this score concerns my own daughter who used to say aged eleven that when she married, if she wasn't happy she would just get divorced, and my response to her was that if she thought she should go into marriage with the attitude she could always pull out why get married in the first place? 

Not the strongest evidence I know and "you'll have to take my word for its voracity" . However, I do have some more examples from a book written by Julia Tugenhat called "What children and young people can tell us about separation and divorce" where she found about a dozen or so children who were prepared to confide in her their feelings (the most significant finding in my view was that the children who said initially "I'm not bothered about my dad" then when she dug a bit deeper she found out just how much some of them were bothered.   

I'm just watching a UK show called "The Wright stuff" and in the interlude between adverts they asked the question "What is the number one complaint by diners in restaurants?" - Answer "Unruly children" I'm afraid.

Now I acknowledge the things you listed are of a different order of magnitude to my current list of one or two aspects (just to remind everyone of your list it included "human rights, education, free speech, emancipation of women, and social welfare.....").
BUT if you and another forum member are indeed right then how do you explain why I'm told by there has been an "Infantilisation of citizenship" (at least in the UK, where for example there are "no legal rights" as in written legal rights for parents in this country as opposed to "common law rights" - sorry complex argument there). I will have to seek out the author of the paper talking about this infantilisation for you but it is fair for me to say that if there has been such progress "morally" in our children over generations why at the same time have rights for them as parents been removed if they are now so morally upstanding?

Last night there was an excellent BBC programme about the Lake District fells and the man who was acting as the guide, who had lived in that area all his life, commented that there had been a deterioration in "community spirit" during his lifetime. Again, just a small piece of evidence of a deterioration in behaviour but as we were not alive in the era he was talking about it is wrong just to dismiss his thinking isnt it? My mother said similar things in her lifetime too, or when she was a young girl/young woman, before there was so much tv, and then how much the threat posed by Nazi Germany brought people together in the UK.
No one can say what will happen next in this world but if the election of you know who does fit the maxim I was taught at school, i.e. "We get the leaders we deserve ultimately" then that might worry anyone feeling there is truth in that statement.

Its absolutely fine that we should think differently on this topic of course, and I know I'm quite happy to be out on a limb so far as my ideas are concerned nowadays.


----------

