Parent kitty

Inferior parent ...

Inferior parent ...

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Polish family law was created in 1964. Today, only cosmetic changes are introduced. However, they do not change the obvious records according to which children ... are the property of mothers. The provisions favor women and hand in hand the weapons necessary to fight wars with their children's fathers. And those willingly use them, because if a man cheated, cheated, concealed the truth, did not discover all the cards, he did not turn out to be as perfect and interesting as he was supposed to be, he won. Don't move the kid and don't touch. Just pay. Know your place and don't stick your nose in it. Rights? What rights Father is father and mother is only one. Her child needs the most.

What is father for?

When family law was enacted in Poland, hardly anyone imagined the active participation of daddies in raising children. This woman was from the care of the offspring. Something else was expected of a man: earning a home.

Today times have changed. More and more often, fathers want to actively participate in raising children. They see their role more than just providing money and providing means to support a family. They have knowledge about the importance of the presence of two parents and their cooperation to raise a child as a "decent person." Unfortunately, legislative changes are not keeping up with changes ... at least in Poland.

The same rights?

It is hard to blame the frustrated or often badly hurt women who are unable to forget about the wrongs and decide to sever contact with their children's father. The problem is not their emotions, because they have a holy right to them. The trouble is elsewhere.

Namely, in a law that does not give parents the same rights that provokes mothers to pathological behavior, acting on the partner, humiliating him, playing with children, showing the child's father a place in the row, because it pays off and gives a sense of "control over the situation" . Children are hurt because people who theoretically should look at the matter with a critical and cool eye (judges), are too often guided by stereotypes and establish what prejudices and stereotypes tell them.

Baby subject

When things go wrong with parents, the children become exhibit, thing, tender commoditywho has to decide how much dad or mom is really worth. The little ones are required to do unimaginable things: stand on one side, play roles between conflicting parents, choose who is better and who is not worth doing certain things with.

Fathers, who had to prove in court that they deserve "seeing" with children, emphasize that their role is reduced to beggar position, who has to prove that he deserves something he has had so far (time with the child). The fathers emphasize that often slandered by the mothers of their children, they are punished by the court for something they did not do. They are deprived of their achievements of life, a roof over their heads, everything that they and their wife have been building for years spent together. A new mother's partner and adopted daddy for children soon move into the same house. It is difficult to call this situation "normal". The more so that the parents of children, even when time passes, and when theoretically emotions drop, they often still can't look at each other, let alone talk to each other ... The solution could be forced mediation? However are you sure?

How is this done in the States?

It is known for a long time that our country discriminates against fathers. However, how to solve this problem? Other countries may be an example for us.

A few days ago, the case was heard in foreign media a mother from Pennsylvania who is fighting in court for exclusive rights to a 10-month-old daughter. The headlines about this story focus on "No breastfeeding"which the young mother had to hear from the court when she argued that she cannot give her daughter over to her father for two days (and two nights) a week because she is breastfeeding. Even in this situation, the court showed its firmness. If breastfeeding is intended to limit contact between the daughter and the father, breastfeeding of a child who is already eating solid foods should be stopped (the woman could not imagine expressing).

Has the court made the right decision? Can she order breastfeeding or indicate that the mother has breastfeeding (after all, many mothers can't do it and indicates that it's not just about food, but a sense of security)? Where is the golden mean and can small children be dealt with in a fair way? Can breastfeeding become a bargaining chip and reduce the time spent with my father?

Lots of questions, don't you think?