Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Dr Jennifer McIntosh and Dr John Bowlby - The debate

Family Law SECOND LETTER to Attorney-General Re Dr Jennifer McIntosh and Dr John Bowlby - The debate

All,

This second letter was sent with the kind support of SPCA. I will put up another thread to try and explain the meaning of 'maternal deprivation' to those on the forum who are not so familiar with Child Psychology and Child Sociology, if this is helpful?

kip




FAO; The Honourable Nicola Roxon MP,
Attorney-General
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

45 Roberts Road
Shirley
Southampton
UK
SO15 5DF

16 January 2012

Dear Mrs Roxon,

Re; Australian Family Law: (2) The contribution of Dr Jennifer McIntosh and Dr John Bowlby

I am writing to you again with the support of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia SPCA (see attachment) about the contribution of Dr McIntosh to government policy on children and families post separation. I would not normally write so soon after my first letter but further information has come to my attention regarding the influence of Dr John Bowlby's theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' on Dr McIntosh and consequently Australian family law.

In the previous correspondence I sought to warn the Department of the Attorney General that her work showed an undue dependency on the opinion of Dr John Bowlby and his son, Sir Richard Bowlby, and I suggested that Dr McIntosh is seeking to reintroduce the theory of 'Maternal Deprivation', by the 'back door'.

It was in, 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' (1951), that Dr John Bowlby linked the act of mothering to the state of mental health in children,

'What is believed to be essential for mental health is that the infant and young child should experience a warm, intimate, and continuous relationship with his mother (or permanent mother substitute) in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment…It is this complex, rich and rewarding relationship with the mother in the early years, varied in countless ways by the relations with the father and with siblings, that child psychiatrists and many others now believe to underlie the development of character and mental health'. (page 11)

Even towards the end of his career, in 1986, Dr John Bowlby still saw the 'relationship of a young child to the mother as an important determinant of mental health'.

However the Baroness Richmond, the first female 'Law Lord' in the UK and the only female member of the Supreme Court described his theory in the following way,

Professor Sir Michael Rutter qualified the original theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' which had been developed by John Bowlby and expressed for popular consumption in a book called 'Child Care and the Growth of Love'. That theory was that children were damaged by separation from their mother or mother figure. Sir Michael pointed out that children were not invariably so damaged and that, in any event, other people, including their fathers, are also very important to children.

Nevertheless since the previous correspondence I have received information  regarding Sir Richard Bowlby's own set of guidelines from 2007 called, 'Stress in Daycare'. Under the heading 'Attachment Theory', Sir Richard Bowlby states,

In attachment theory, the term primary attachment figure refers to the person with whom a child develops their main lifelong emotional bond, and whom they most want to be comforted by when they are frightened or hurt - usually but not necessarily their birth mother.  The term secondary attachment figure refers to the few special people in a childs life with whom they have developed a close subsidiary or secondary attachment bond, such as siblings, grandparents, nannies, childminders and especially fathers who have their own unique bond.

But given the opportunity children can form multiple attachments without any harm and this description is not the commonly held view of attachment and repeats the same sexist language used by Dr John Bowlby to justify his theory of 'Maternal Deprivation'.

In the  interview for the Special Edition of Family Court Review from July 2011 (Emery and Schepard, Family Court Review, 49:415417), called 'Attachment, Separation, and Divorce: Forging coherent understandings for family law' Dr McIntosh asks  Sir Richard Bowlby, to finish with an anecdote about his father to which he replies,

Interestingly, many people get their names associated with a theory they develop, so why is it called attachment theory and not Bowlbian theory? Ill tell you why it is not called Bowlbian theory. He said at supper one evening, and Ill never forget this: I have to find a new term, because traditionally what happens is a theory gets named after the person who first came up with the explanation. And if that happens, when I die, itll basically stop developing at that point because I am not there to sanction the new concepts. So I have to divorce myself from getting my name on it. I used to call it love, then I called it a tie, now I am thinking of calling it attachment.

But his father's version of the Attachment Theory was called 'Maternal Deprivation'. He never claimed to be the author of the Attachment Theory because he conceded his own ideas, including the concept of 'monotropy', were controversial. Sir Richard Bowlby seems to have ignored this fact in the same way he states, My fathers first book was 'Child Care and the Growth of Love' when in reality it was 'Maternal Care and Mental Health.'

Similarly Dr McIntosh is ignoring the sexist aspects of Dr John Bowlby's work to make it more acceptable and using the publication of the Special Edition of Family Court Review to mislead the Australian public into believing it is the only authentic version of the attachment theory.

It is difficult to explain the harm to children of adopting the Bowlby-Ainsworth paradigm but perhaps the best insight can be given by the reference to a quotation from Sir Richard Bowlby used by Dr McIntosh in the Attorney-Generals research project on, 'Post-separation Parenting Arrangements: Patterns and Developmental Outcomes - Studies of Two Risk Groups'.

Dr McIntosh states that, 'Sir Richard Bowlby  provides a useful perspective' and quotes him as saying,

Humans have certain innate fears. These are the fears were actually born with, theyre part of our genetic code. And one of them is fear of the dark.. Children do instinctively feel vulnerable at night, and are instinctively driven by their attachment seeking behaviour to seek proximity to their primary attachment figure for safety and  security. Bowlby, R. & McIntosh, J.  Attachment history, legacy and currency for family law: In conversation with Sir Richard Bowlby. Family Court Review. (2011)

This view of attachment is grounded in the 1950's when it proved so popular with the public in 'Chidcare and the Growth of Love' which made Dr John Bowlby a household name.

But as a parent I would ask the Attorney-General to consider whether she thinks this is the best way of dealing with a child's fear? Does she feel as though her own child should run to her when there is a busy main road or there is thunder and lightning? Does the Attorney-General want her child to run to her every time she is frightened?

Or would the Attorney-General prefer that a child's upbringing teaches them to cope with these events in a controlled environment so that when the occasion arises they are not so frightened and may grow to be a confident individual in their own right?

We live in an ever changing world, without the certainties usually associated with the 1950's, which includes Shared Parenting post separation. Dr McIntosh and  Sir Richard Bowlby's view of attachment is a 'throw back' to a bygone age which is no longer relevant or appropriate, if ever it was, and it for this reason I urge the Attorney-General to distance herself from their work and reaffirm the commitment to a 'child's right to a meaningful relationship with both their parents'. (Family Court decision seems to be wrong on many different levels, The Australian, November 25, 2011).

Please note I have sent copies of the correspondence to Sir Richard Bowlby and Dr  Jennifer McIntosh, as well as  Professor Sir Michael Rutter.

Yours Sincerely,


Kingsley Miller (With the support of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia, SPCA)

Cc. Sir Richard Bowlby, The Bowlby Centre, 147 Commercial St, London, E1 6BJ, UK; Dr Jennifer McIntosh, FAMILY TRANSITIONS: PO Box 5130, Alphington, Victoria, 3078, Australia; Professor Sir Michael Rutter, PO 80, Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF, UK

Kingsley Miller is the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', a critique of the principle of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in family courts, which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an, 'interesting and informative guide'. The former Home Secretary, and father, David Blunkett MP congratulated him on his 'battle' and thanked him for writing and demonstrating his own thinking from his experiences, and Lord Justice Thorpe, Vice President of the Family Division, said he has a 'history of responsible campaigning and writing on issues relating to family relationships'.  He has also received a letter from Buckingham Palace stating, 'It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns'.

The Shared Parenting Council of Australia SPCA

The Shared Parenting Council of Australia fully endorses this letter written by Mr Kingsley Miller, author of'even Toddlers Need Fathers', citing major concerns with the various studies conducted by Psychologist Jennifer McIntosh.

We support this letter because it brings some clarity, reason and logic to the emotive report being circulated that suggests young children under two should not have overnight contact with fathers.

The Council agrees that many of the findings published by Dr McIntosh are based on statistically small and unreliable samplings, often lacking in clear logical reasoning, leading to false conclusions about children and shared parenting. The SPCA is concerned that Jennifer McIntosh presents as a self-styled expert in childrens matters, and appearing as an authoritative voice, yet erroneously and repeatedly makes findings that are highly subjective, counter-intuitive and simply wrong.

Her report findings often fail the test of common sense, and are accepted as authoritative documents that find their way into the hands of litigants.It is of particular concern these reports find themselves presented as fact in court and in some cases are taken on notice by judicial officers. These untested papers are picked up by organisations such as the Australian Association for Infant Mental Health (Who we have been unable to contact)and published as factual authorities further confusing separating parents who may otherwise make amiable arrangements which are clearly in the best interests of children.

The most comprehensive recent study by the AIFS supported the legislative change in 2006, and made positive findings about children and their relationships with their mother and father. The AIFS report contradicts the negative assertions of Dr Jennifer McIntosh and draws on the real lived with experiences of parents, both intact and separated through its very large numeric sampling.

Authorised for publication on behalf of the SPCA

Wayne R. Butler

Executive Secretary, Shared Parenting Council of Australia.
Member Law Council of Australia, Family Law Section.

Kingsley Miller is the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', a critique of the principle of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in family courts, which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an, 'interesting and informative guide'. He has also received a letter from Buckingham Palace stating, 'It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns'.

McIntosh

I have attended a number of family law events where Dr McIntosh has given a presentation/speech. I do recall the last one that I attended in Canberra ( Dec 2009), where there was the mention of children having fears - such as the fear of the dark. I did not pay too much attention to it at the time.

We could be mischievous and commission a report in the manner and style of of Dr McIntosh:

Asking fathers for their subjective answers to loaded questions;

Make it a small AND selective sample;

Have someone with a PHD publish it & spruik it.




Last edit: by monteverdi


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
monteverdi,

Hilarious!

Didn't get it the first time. Do you read Jane Austen?

Cheered me up after reading some of Dr McIntoshes work!

Many thanks,

kip

Kingsley Miller is the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', a critique of the principle of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in family courts, which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an, 'interesting and informative guide'. He has also received a letter from Buckingham Palace stating, 'It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns'.
Kip old chap,

Not only am I well read, I even manage to stop my lips from moving as I move my finger from word to word.

So to answer your literary question - Yes I have.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
Dr. Linda Nielsen of Wake Forest University has released a new and significant meta-analysis of the current research on shared parenting including McIntosh. Published in the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage the report is a must read for debunking some of the "junk science for sale" by Australian useful "academic" idiots.
ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
http://www.acfc.org/acfc/assets/documents/research_pdf's/Nielsen_SP_Nov_2011.pdf


Wayne R Butler said
It is of particular concern these reports find themselves presented as fact in court and in some cases are taken on notice by judicial officers.

Thanks for opening that wound.

And in one case, mine, the judicial officer Dessau asked the ICL in the trial preamble to submit the then new McIntosh study A Cautionary Tale against Shared care. The Friday afternoon session was adjourned because the judge didnt want the Family Reporter to start and have a break during cross-examination (transcript).

On Monday morning the ICL presented the McIntosh Report to the Family Reporter, her own expert witness, in the box with supplemental raw data (Long) which he could not see over and which he was expected to rebut on notice.  The judge found what amounted to a backflip by the family reporter during this cross-examination of the McIntosh material on three equal shared care family reports. The doctorate psychologist denies this.

And we wonder why family law reform fails.


Here's the conclusion of the report:

Shared Parenting After Divorce: A Review of Shared Residential Parenting Research - Linda Nielsen - Department of Education, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, USA said

CONCLUSION

Given the growing popularity of shared residential parenting, policy makers and professionals who work in family court, as well as parents, should find the research compelling. As demonstrated in this review, overall these studies have reached four general conclusions. First and foremost, most of these children fare as well or better than those in maternal residence especially in terms of the quality and endurance of their relationships with their fathers. Second, parents do not have to be exceptionally cooperative, without conflict, wealthy, and well educated, or mutually enthusiastic about sharing the residential parenting for the children to benefit. Third, young adults who have lived in these families say this arrangement was in their best interestin contrast to those who lived with their mothers after their parents divorce. And fourth, our country, like most other industrialized countries, is undergoing a shift in custody laws, public opinion, and parents decisions a shift toward more shared residential parenting. With the research serving
to inform us, we can work together more effectively and more knowledgeably to enhance the well-being of children whose parents are no longer living together.

Last edit: by MikeT

Kip thanks for your continuing efforts in this area.

I remind readers that the original discussion link is on this forum and also accessed from the related news item. Last time Dr. McIntosh went to print we saw a number of judicial officers pick up the work and had to do a major rebuttal piece "The Problem with Caution" with great input from Michael Green QC. It is on the site here if you want to search it.


Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
SPCA Secretary,

Thank you for this reminder.

I am very grateful for all the kindnesses shown to me as a visitor to this forum.

Please see my YouTUBE video on the topic

Dr Jennifer McIntosh and the Bowlby / Ainsworth Paradigm

http://youtu.be/rS8Jo3oJo-Y

Many thanks again,

Kingsley Miller kip

Kingsley Miller is the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', a critique of the principle of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in family courts, which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an, 'interesting and informative guide'. He has also received a letter from Buckingham Palace stating, 'It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns'.
I think I'll be writing to the attorney General too.  Lets not forget that the Association is affiliated with The World Association for Infant Mental Health. These are professionals in their field and are not interested in a gender debate within the realms of family law, nor are they interested in sexual stereotypes.  They are experts that study and promote best practice in infant mental health.

Any woman that has had to deal with small infants enduring extended periods (ie: overnights) away from the primary attachment figure, their familiar surrounds and routines knows that the consequences are that the child is extremely unsettled afterwards. I guess in most instances the fathers dont see this because they are not there. However I am sure they experience the negative consequence of the child missing the mother. Add to the mix the stress of a highly conflictual relationship between the parents and it all adds up to everyone being very unhappy, which at the baby and infant stages can have lasting and detrimental effects on the children.

The reality is that the mother IS the central psychological figure in babies and infants lives, and men just have to get over this and accept that this is the inherent and natural biological consequence due to gestation and breast feeding.

From my personal experience, my studies in the field and anecdotal evidence from other women that have been in the same situation, I fully support the guidelines and I would tend to listen to the world experts in Infant Mental Health over and above the law fraternity.

ERROR: A link was posted here (url) but it appears to be a broken link.
http://www.aaimhi.org/inewsfiles/AAIMHI_Guideline_1_-_Infants_and_overnight_care_post_separation_and_divorce.pdf
Samba,

Thank you for putting the other side.

Kingsley Miller

Kingsley Miller is the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', a critique of the principle of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in family courts, which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an, 'interesting and informative guide'. He has also received a letter from Buckingham Palace stating, 'It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns'.
Samba said
….Any woman that has had to deal with small infants enduring extended periods (ie: overnights) away from the primary attachment figure, their familiar surrounds and routines knows that the consequences are that the child is extremely unsettled afterwards. I guess in most instances the fathers dont see this because they are not there. However I am sure they experience the negative consequence of the child missing the mother. Add to the mix the stress of a highly conflictual relationship between the parents and it all adds up to everyone being very unhappy, which at the baby and infant stages can have lasting and detrimental effects on the children.

The reality is that the mother IS the central psychological figure in babies and infants lives, and men just have to get over this and accept that this is the inherent and natural biological consequence due to gestation and breast feeding.

From my personal experience, my studies in the field and anecdotal evidence from other women that have been in the same situation, I fully support the guidelines and I would tend to listen to the world experts in Infant Mental Health over and above the law fraternity.

http://www.aaimhi.org/inewsfiles/AAIMHI_Guideline_1_-_Infants_and_overnight_care_post_separation_and_divorce.pdf
Yes thanks for the input. The issue primarily is that fathers tend not to be able to see their children at all because the options put to them are usually during the day when they are working. In the forum which I published a link to you can see a lot of interesting comments made for example its okay to have the child at a pre school for 12 hours with strangers and mostly sleeping, but its not okay to have them at a fathers for an overnight. It is okay to have the child overnight at Gran's while mum goes out but its not okay to be at the fathers.

That is where it all becomes very hazy. Courts get these reports and implement the recommendations sometimes without much thought as to how a relationship will be developed for the father. I have matters running where the mother will not even allow 46 minutes a week but we have orders for 45 minutes at the moment. Out of that 45 minutes the father has to spend ten minutes with pick up and drop off to have 35 minutes. How is this father going to forge a bond and relationship going on 35 minutes a week? A nicer bloke you couldn't meet but as the mother is so anxious and worried about the daughter being away its hard making any progress and sensible arrangements.

The report is just another report that takes the easy way out. Stop the contact, give the child to one parent to parent and hey presto all the problems are now resolved. Unfortunately parenting doesn't work like that. You can separate easily with no fuss and dissolve a relationship in moments but unfortunately parenting is entirely indissoluble. Once both parents realise that perhaps they may start to cooperate more. Unfortunately I seem to always be at the the far end of the road where most parents can't agree on the weather let alone contact arrangements.

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
 
All,

I think Samba's reference to 'separation anxiety' is a common reason mothers stop contact.

But if you look at my letter to the Attorney General you will see that this is the same reaction Sir Richard Bowlby has to a child's fear of the dark.

Samba's instinctive reaction is to 'protect' the child, which of course would mean that the 'fear' would persist, or put another way they would never get to see their father!

This is the nub of Bowlby's discredited theory of 'maternal deprivation' and I do not believe the idea of 'monotropy' is a credible solution.

Rutter says don't be frightened and take advantage of the controlled environment to build up the child's resilience which they will need if they are to be happy and healthy individuals.

I hope this is helpful.

kip

Kingsley Miller is the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', a critique of the principle of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in family courts, which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an, 'interesting and informative guide'. He has also received a letter from Buckingham Palace stating, 'It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns'.
Secretaryspca, I find this over exaggeration quite unprofessional the guidelines say:
When practical, and when the second parent is already a source


 
of comfort and security to the infant, day-time care by the second parent should be prioritized above


 
time spent in group day care.
Of course the other parent is the preferred carer if they are already an established figure in the childs life and the child has a firm attachment to that person.


I disagree with the notion that the child displaying separation anxiety being the main reason Mothers stop contact. Do you have any studies to back that up?  I think you the question needs to be asked is why is the child feeling anxious?



I dont have the time right now to research but I would think a safe bet the main reasons mothers stop contact is because of violence, abuse and high conflict. I am sure there are studies out there that confirm this.


The fact that you are not paying attention to the well researched guidelines on child development and mental health and instead treating the child as an object is very telling.
Gee Samba, you're like ebola for intelligence. It's not like AAIMHI are not in it with an advocacy position.

The guidelines are a load of ill-considered drivel from brainless hacks desperately trying to be controversial and get noticed for the $2BN for childcare & welfare services and other government largesse promised in the National Plan to neuter men.

So children are afraid of the dark. So what. Being overprotective, to the extend of removing the father, opens a can of worms of real problems not imagined.  

Next Greenpeace will put out a press release saying they have evidence GM crops will cause devastation and skin cancer so we all starve?

You moron.

Last edit: by srldad101

srldad101 said
Gee Samba, you're like ebola for intelligence. It's not like AAIMHI are not in it with an advocacy position.

The guidelines are a load of ill-considered drivel from brainless hacks desperately trying to be controversial and get noticed for the $2BN for childcare & welfare services and other government largesse promised in the National Plan to neuter men.

So children are afraid of the dark. So what. Being overprotective, to the extend of removing the father, opens a can of worms of real problems not imagined.

Next Greenpeace will put out a press release saying they have evidence GM crops will cause devastation and skin cancer so we all starve?

You moron.

 

Is name calling really necessary? You expect respect for your point of view, why not respect others point of view, please.

Is it wrong that one parent is overprotective (regardless of the gender of the parent?)? Is it not time that people stop worrying about parental rights, and worry about the childrens righs????

Last edit: by Gecko


"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
Is it worng that one parent is overprotective (regalrdless of the gender of the parent?)

Yes it is wrong if that over-protectivess leads to one parent alienating the other from the child's life. Irrational 'over protectiveness' should not be a valid justification for denying a child THEIR rights to have a relationship with both parents.
True, but I did not mention parental alienation, only overprotectiveness. It is times like that where the system would have to play out...we have to trust the system as it is all there is at the moment. There is also always two sides to every story.

"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
Gecko said
Is name calling really necessary? You expect respect for your point of view, why not respect others point of view, please.
With respect Gecko if sh*t is thrown in your face, such as McIntosh, one does not eat it as food for thought, it is spat out & ridiculed - reason doesn't work with trolls.

If you read the various threads on this particular study being promoted by the obscure and uncontactable AAIMIH you would know there guidelines are based on a fraud. "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but those who perpetuate the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." (JFK)

Fortunately there has been some very good and complex technical analysis of McIntosh's work in particular that provided by Kip, for which we should all be thankful for, which I will try to deconstruct into layterms.


The Bowlby research was commissioned by the government for the purpose of getting women out of the workforce to make way for returning servicemen back in the 1950s.

His primary attachment theory is like a hit film made 60 years ago. McIntosh is trying to remake it with CGI "special effect" terminology and "blockbuster" promotion in private law journal financed by the big budget divorce industry studios. They think they have a sure thing at the family law box office.

But the problem is that we already know the ending and its not happy - generational misery, child exploitation, mass fatherless, $billions thrown away of welfare, youth riots and the unravelling of society.  

Gecko said
Is it wrong that one parent is overprotective?
Yes, overprotection is recognised as emotional & psychological abuse of the child. It is more sinister than physical abuse and is lifelong preventing the child's right to maximise his or her development potential. And why should the child be penalized by one parents irrational fears that is impaired mental health?

Gecko said
stop worrying about parental rights, and worry about the childrens righs????
The old chesnut. Why must the child's rights be mutually exclusive from those of the parents? How is this beneficial or even desirable for a child?

And taking the inevitable alientation out of the overprotection subset suggests you are willing to play tactical semantics albeit more subtly than Samba.

Moderator perhaps it might be worthwhile consolidating the threads into a readable whole.
All,

I am sorry if this seems like interfering but there is an article from the Daily Mail in the UK today; 'Why Ill NEVER let my exs new girlfriend meet my son', which I think touches on many of the fears raised by Samba.

In the article the mother says,

As the mother of an eight-year-old boy, I know only too well how the thought of another woman ever being a parent to your child leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth. And it is something I for one will never allow to happen.

My sons father, from whom I separated three years ago, now has a new girlfriend. I made it perfectly clear to him from the moment he mentioned he was in a new relationship that my son was not to be part of it.

In fact, I phrased it slightly more bluntly. In an email which was ironing out other issues of access, maintenance, calendar synchronisation, school meetings and the 101 other things you suddenly have to deal with as separated parents, I added a terse line saying: I do not want our son sharing his time with you with third parties.

The trouble is that many fathers feel the same way.

The difference is that the family courts treat mother's feelings as legitimate and father's views as unreasonable.

The guidelines and the work of Dr McIntosh in the Special Edition of Family Law Review (which I refer to in the video) are based on Bowlby's idea of 'monotropy' which means that a child can only have one primary carer!

kip

ARTICLE:'Why Ill NEVER let my exs new girlfriend meet my son' - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2088534/Why-Ill-NEVER-let-exs-new-girlfriend-meet-son.html#ixzz1jtXjop7C

VIDEO: Dr Jennifer McIntosh and the Bowlby / Ainsworth Paradigm - http://youtu.be/rS8Jo3oJo-Y

Kingsley Miller is the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers', a critique of the principle of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in family courts, which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an, 'interesting and informative guide'. He has also received a letter from Buckingham Palace stating, 'It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns'.
srldad101 said
Gecko said
Is name calling really necessary? You expect respect for your point of view, why not respect others point of view, please.
 With respect Gecko if sh*t is thrown in your face, such as McIntosh, one does not eat it as food for thought, it is spat out & ridiculed - reason doesn't work with trolls.

 

A true arguement does not resort to name calling. It is an nneccessary and bullish way of trying to make a point. You would earn more respect for your comments by refraining from such tactics. A simple"I dont agree but I respect your view" would suffice.

But the problem is that we already know the ending and its not happy -
generational misery, child exploitation, mass fatherless, $billions thrown away
of welfare, youth riots and the unravelling of society.
And your point is?

Yes, overprotection is recognised as emotional & psychological abuse of the
child. It is more sinister than physical abuse and is lifelong preventing the
child's right to maximise his or her development potential. And why should the
child be penalized by one parents irrational fears that is impaired mental
health?
  And how is overprotection recoginised as emotional etc abuse? Where are the studies for this? Also, if I can get this correct, the Fathers movement recognises that psychological abuse is seen as more sinister than physical abuse? If that is correct, then how so? And why then are such movements fighting aganst this being included in the amended laws? Lastly o this point, how can you label someone with "impaired mental health"? Is that not presumptious and are you allowing that presumption for both genders?

The old chesnut. Why must the child's rights be mutually exclusive from those of
the parents? How is this beneficial or even desirable for a child?

And
taking the inevitable alientation out of the overprotection subset suggests you
are willing to play tactical semantics albeit more subtly than Samba.
  OK. I have some confusion with this one. The childs rights are exclusive, as the parents should be working towards a goal of what works for the children, not them. Has it not been a mantra throughout this forum where many posters have stated that basically if it is inconvenient for the parent then bad luck? As parents, adults, we are able to make choices. Children do not have those same choices, so therefore as adults and parents we must try and mnake the situation (be it good or bad) safe and workable for the child(ren). That surely is what we are all aiming for is it not?

I am not sure what you mean by your last sentance above. How do you come to the assumption of "inevitable alienation?

Kip said
The difference is that the
family courts treat mother's feelings as legitimate and father's views as
unreasonable.


your proof is where? is not happening in the court room I attend


(edited to add extra)

Last edit: by Gecko


"When we long for life without difficulties, remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary winds and diamonds are made under pressure"
Kip, all Im going to say is that I think youve got it wrong. Sorry.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets