How to survive the summer holidays – your partner and other families

It should be pretty easy to get on provided you're on holiday with someone you actually like. Photograph: Alamy

My mother used to say that the reason couples argued on holiday was that they weren't used to spending time together. She also said the most successful relationship she'd ever seen was between her aunt and her merchant seaman husband. They only saw one another for three months out of every year, and consequently managed to string out their honeymoon period. It was about 18 years before they finally began to repulse each other.

I took all this entirely at face value, not considering the fact that she might be trying to put a positive spin on being single (she was single). And so I always dreaded holidays with any given partner, the way you'd dread your next-door neighbour starting work on his basement: staring at your life, waiting for the cracks.

In many relationships, this is a perfectly reasonable approach. But when you're with someone you actually like, it is pretty easy to get on, so long as you a) don't (both) have a cracking hangover every time you wake up, b) allow "free time", when you're allowed to listen to your iPod, like when you were on a French exchange, and c) you state your preferences in a clear way. I've seen many couples torn apart by the "I don't mind, you choose" fandango, when really they both mind, and are displeased with the other's choice. My husband, conversely, greets every new exploration like this: "In terms of sightseeing, between 'none', 'some' and 'lots', I am happy with 'none' and 'some'." It's very clear.

I've read so many tortured pieces about the nightmare of travelling with other couples and other families: what if their kids eat different things from yours, or go to bed at different times, or make annoying noises; or what if the wife is a slob and the husband is right-wing, or what if someone's tight, or what if they all like the name game when your forte is Boggle? I just think those people aren't suited to group holidays. Taking it as read that you like your friends and that their views won't surprise you, that you're not an arse and you accept that it's none of your business what other people's children eat (or indeed, what other people eat), you observe the rules of the pub: did you go to the bar last time? No? You should probably go this time. Did your wife go last time? That's irrelevant. You are two people, in the eyes of the round, not one person.

Someone is always tight. Accept them, like mosquitoes. Except don't spray them. There is time for the name game and Boggle!

My sister's golden rule is: "If someone isn't annoying you, you're probably annoying them." I urge you not to accept this: you'll end up trying to offset your paranoia by finding reasons to be annoyed by somebody. But she's often right about that kind of thing.

View the original article here

Fathers4Justice: the solution lies in our families, not our family courts | Ally Fogg

It appears to be the season for symbolic gestures. Last week Fathers4Justice (F4J) activist Paul Manning was arrested and charged for gluing a photo of a child to Constable's The Hay Wain in the National Gallery. The incident occurred two weeks after another F4J activist spray-painted over a portrait of the Queen in Westminster Abbey, and three days before a similar attack on a statue in the same cathedral. That act was done in the name of a different group, Stolen Children of the UK, although a F4J activist was also reported to be in attendance.

After Manning's arrest, F4J put out the daddy of all passive-aggressive statements. It is calling on their supporters to continue independent acts of nonviolent direct action, adding:

"The organisation said it was also now refusing to engage with national media over what it described as deliberately inaccurate and misleading reporting of the campaign and the crisis in the family courts. It was also refusing to deal with the government, police, courts, judiciary and any other organisations involved in family law and said it was considering shutting down all conventional social media."

This may come as good news to the national media, government, police, courts, judiciary and the nation's fine art restoration business, but to everyone else it can be little more than a symbolic gesture. F4J has always despised the political and media establishment and the feeling has been mostly mutual. Their speciality was always the symbolic gesture.

If ever an issue required willingness to compromise and negotiate, it is family dispute settlements. The latest F4J gambit portrays them as stubborn, immutable and hostile – not the symbolism intended. I do not question that the men (and women) involved in F4J feel a sincere and burning sense of anger and frustration at their circumstances. They would counter that a willingness to compromise and negotiate gets them nowhere, either politically or personally. However the timing of this particular announcement is intriguing.

This week the children and families bill entered its second reading. The bill offers changes to family court proceedings, including the introduction of a statutory assumption of shared (though not necessarily time-equal) parenting. The proposals are a hotchpotch of ideas, largely ignoring the recommendations of the Norgrove report and pleasing virtually no one. Legal commentators warn that the proposed wording is sufficiently vague to make rulings more complex than ever. F4J has dismissed it as "a feeble cocktail of proposals [and] a charter for conflict and fatherlessness". One might call it a symbolic gesture.

We need more than gestures on all sides. Family courts rule on the 10% of breakups that present the greatest difficulty. These are, almost by definition, marked by conflicting accounts, bitter allegations and at least one if not two unreasonable parties. Each is usually convinced of their own rectitude and their ex-partner's wickedness. The adversarial legal system then throws petrol on the flames. Every ruling on the best interests of a child is a best guess and a judgment call, and so subject to assumptions, prejudice and prevailing cultural values. It is not just that we don't know for sure whether the system is working adequately, it is that it is literally impossible to say objectively whether the system is working adequately in any one case, far less for all 500,000 adults and children entering the system per year.

If the workings of the court are an opaque mess, the political debate around it is often worse. Commentators often quote statistics on initial residency rulings, without acknowledging that most unresolved disputes centre on maintaining the agreed contact – an entirely different issue. The Ministry of Justice's own research finds that fewer than half of cases that return to court due to non-compliance result in secured contact. Sweeping generalisations are made about "deadbeat dads"; separated fathers are portrayed as probable abusers or, from the other side, innocent victims of terrible injustices. In reality every case is unique and adversarial courts are not only the last resort, they are the worst resort.

Arrangements for shared parenting cannot begin in the family court. They need to begin from the moment of birth. Far more separated fathers maintain satisfactory relationships with their children in Sweden than the UK, and it is not because their courts have a magic formula, it is because fathers are assumed to be equally responsible parents from the word go. We don't need symbolic gestures. We need a wide-ranging and holistic revolution in parenting, and fatherhood in particular. Without that, the family courts will continue to wrestle with impossible knots, and separated fathers will continue to cry out in anger and frustration.

View the original article here

Single-mother families are no 'men desert' | Scouse Bird

'Maybe the single mother figures are higher here because women are less likely to put up with stupid and incompetent (read gobshite) behaviour from our partners.' Photograph: britstock images ltd / Alamy/Alamy

The Centre for Social Justice has announced a report that appears to accuse single-parent families of being the cause of all social ills. As with so many of these studies, Liverpool finds itself the target for a swath of generalisations. It's bad enough that the rest of the country thinks we're all walking round with eyebrows like Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street without them painting us as a city of women who have taken up popping out sprogs as a career choice. As ever we're the butt of jokes. It's so passe. What's that saying? Ninety-two per cent of statistics are made up on the spot anyway.

The popular consensus is that children are better off being raised in a traditional family set-up, with a mother and a father. Does this automatically guarantee that children in a single-parent family will go on to commit crimes or become pregnant in their teens as the report suggests? I don't think so. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not all criminals, drug abusers and pregnant teens come from lone-parent families.

Perhaps there isn't enough support from society to raise children in general. Rather than the government putting pressure on couples to remain in unhappy relationships, which in itself is setting a poor example to an impressionable youngster, we should have parental support groups where people can get together and discuss the challenges they face raising a child. Support is better than blame. Too many people stumble into parenthood blind and that's not their fault. In Liverpool we have a strong community spirit and we have plenty of people we can rely on for support. Maybe the single mother figures are higher here because women are less likely to put up with stupid and incompetent (read gobshite) behaviour from our partners. We know we've got the strength and support to go it alone, thanks very much.

The report will talk of "men deserts". The only men desert here is in town on Saturday night, honest to god, where are all the eligible fit men? But to be serious for a moment – many children, the report says, now live in an environment where they have no male role models whatsoever. I'm sure there are some children for whom this is the case and that's very sad, but they are, without doubt, rare. Even in the absence of a father, there are often uncles and older siblings to turn to if they ever needed a male perspective.

If we're talking role models, there is nothing in our city that a young boy enjoys more than football. Take Jamie Carragher, one of our own who has served out practically his entire career at Liverpool FC and even played for his country. He's a family man who keeps himself to himself and, despite his occupation being a magnet for scandal, he has remained smear-free. Even if someone hasn't got a father figure close to them, how amazing a role model is he? His achievements are accessible for all to see and admire. Then there's John Bishop. OK, so he grew up in Runcorn and is therefore a bit of a wool, but he was born here. He's turned his cheeky Scouse sense of humour into a lucrative career and he hasn't had to rob any cars to get there.

Since 2002 same-sex couples have had the right to adopt in the UK. Does this mean that their children will be hooligans simply because there is an absence of a role model of one or other gender in the household? Of course not. Any issues stem from the abilities of the parents doing the raising. Side note: I'd rather have learned dress sense from some gay couples I know than your average dad.

The breakdown of a relationship can be an extremely emotional and tense time where you spend long periods of time fantasising about bumping your ex off and that's without bringing children into it.

It's a messy business and I'm not sure we'll ever achieve complete clarity on it. But most couples eventually manage to sort out an arrangement whereby both parties have some contact and input into their children's lives. There's always a way of working things out, of getting by. That's what we do in Liverpool. Men desert or not, it's a place where if you're ever in trouble, you've got some kind of family to lean on – whether you're related to them or not.

View the original article here