Fathers for Justice

[Shmu]

What do you think would be helpful? There have been lots of fathers group that have existed for a long time and they've done all the sensible things you're meant to do like write letters and noone has heard of them and nothing has changed.

It's not really direct action though, they're performing media stunts in the hope that the government will change the law. That's not direct action, that's almost precisely how I'd define indirect action.

What might be helpful, especially in terms of countering the negative publicity which has been generated by having individuals with a history of violence giving press interviews, would be moving away from the schoolboy macho references to superheroes, or at least combining these with some reference to men in a less stereotypically male role in relation to their children. I can't think of a particularly good one off the top of my head, but I'm sure with some thought and coordination, the group couuld put across a more rounded impression of the roles that men can take on in relation to their children. The stereotype they keep referring to does give the movement an immature edge and a sense of an undercurrent of violence and machismo which is unlikely to generate sympathy, although it certainly has generated debate. Maybe men with babies they cannot see could bring baby dolls to hold, others could bring children's birthday cakes with candles - I'm sure there are loads of much better ideas, but my point is that by making reference to the fact that fathers are often now keen to be more involved in lots of aspects of their children's lives and prepared to take on responsibility for their care in a full way, not just expecting to be put on a pedestal and seen as superheroes without doing any day to day care, they can demonstrate that as society has changed, so too should legislation about child custody.

And I take your point that it's not really direct action, which would, in this context involve snatching their own children.

 

[bfg]

The point of the superheroes outfits relates to the traditional father/child relationship. Basically at some stage in childhood, Dad is seen as a superhero.

Don't necessarily agree with this meself - I've seen families where stepdad, grandad, big brother and wildly enough, mum, are seen as superheroes by kids instead of dad - but I can see, to a certain extent, where they're coming from with this

 

[Shmu]

The point of the superheroes outfits relates to the traditional father/child relationship. Basically at some stage in childhood, Dad is seen as a superhero.

Don't necessarily agree with this meself - I've seen families where stepdad, grandad, big brother and wildly enough, mum, are seen as superheroes by kids instead of dad - but I can see, to a certain extent, where they're coming from with this

I get the point of it, I just think it looks egotistical to play on it. Also, it refers to an old model of the family where a father was put on a pedestal and didn't come off it very fast because he wasn't involved in the day to day care and therefore the enforcement of some boring rules.

My children's father retains some of that superhero status because he is big and strong and enjoys teaching them how to play cricket and play station games etc., but if he wasn't also capable of changing nappies, cooking tea, cuddling them when they fall over etc, he wouldn't be very capable of taking full care of them on his own.

Fathers looking for custody of their children need to make it clear that they are capable of the full spectrum of child care and I think it would further the cause of f4j greatly to push this side of things harder. After all, the reason why mothers have generally been given more custody rights appears to be because traditionally, they were considered to be best at this caring bit and fathers' credentials in this area have been doubted. If fathers are to be granted custody of their children, the point needs to be made that they can look after their children adequately on their own, not just be distant, unreal superhero figures.

 

[Masseuse]

If fathers are to be granted custody of their children, the point needs to be made that they can look after their children adequately on their own, not just be distant, unreal superhero figures.

I agree with this - but the assumptions behind it have to be challenged somewhat. It still leaves us with women in default position as "natural" childcarers and men as this homogenous mass of "unnatural" childcarers who have to prove their parenting abilities. Which is a bit crap in this day and age IMO.

The thing is with FFJ and indeed any protest group is that they are taking up a militant, extreme position largely because they have been forced to. When there is no adequate legal recourse for their grievances most groups end up employing attention grabbing tactics, because, well, their issues would never get any attention within the existing framework.

I do think fathers have a case to be answered. However, I also think their righteous anger is setting up women in general as enemies once more. Another thing which has disturbed me in recent interviews with FFJ is their complete dismissal of the childs views when it comes to domestic arrangements. It seems the father has "a right" to see his children, but they do not have "the right" to refuse.

I think this is a very difficult position for a mother to be in - and a situation the friend I am living with has experience of right now. The father has left home, he wanted the younger daughter last weekend. She was very upset at the prospect of going but her mother felt she ought to go and dropped her off there amid many tears. Her mother has been very careful not to badmouth the father and feels it is important her children make up their own minds. Her children have decided he is an arsehole who is causing everyone a lot of pain and misery - he is flabbergasted at this and convinced the mother is "poisoning their minds against him" because, of course, children do not have minds of their own. He wants the older daughter (16) to go to him this weekend. She refused. I feel she is old enough to be entitled to refused - but again this rebounds on the mother and is made to be her responsibility, her "fault".

I do believe that FFJ have a case for some reform, but there seems to be an awful lot of arrogance about in terms of "rights"... while I wouldn't dream of pandering to a child's every whim, I do think there needs to be more room for children's input into making custody or access decisions.

 

[MysteryGuest]

... then again my experience after my parents divorced when I was 8 was that my Mum deliberately demonised my Dad and pressured me into not seeing him, to the point where I didn't know what the fuck I felt towards him or was "supposed" to. Net result was I had no male figure in my life at all from the age of 8 through adolescence, which had caused me no end of serious problems, not least in my dealings with women. This is my personal reason for getting very annoyed when I hear about women trying to block access to fathers. I'm not saying this because I'm saying in all cases they're wrong to do so, far from it, I'm just mentioning my personal background on this and how it has affected me - I admit I'm a bit biased as a result of it.

 

[General Ludd]

She refused. I feel she is old enough to be entitled to refused - but again this rebounds on the mother and is made to be her responsibility, her "fault".

At the age of 16 children can live with either parent and it's their own choice.

 

[Masseuse]

Yes, I've no doubt this goes on - I mean "amicable" divorces are few and far between I reckon, and children are often used as weapons, by either side. Which is why there has to be some flexibility to judge things on a case by case basis. And preferable not within the courtroom environment but maybe with a trained mediator who can bring the child's emotional welfare to the fore in any discussion.

 

[MysteryGuest]

Absolutely but the government just backed down on introducing a proper, formalised mediation service which has been shown to work elsewhere. Which is annoying.

 

[Masseuse]

At the age of 16 children can live with either parent and it's their own choice.

Legally, yes. But in the context of the family dynamic it still causes friction if she is unwilling to spend time with one parent. The parent missing out can't quite get to grips with the fact it is her decision and is convinced the mother must have had some input.

 

[Masseuse]

Absolutely but the government just backed down on introducing a proper, formalised mediation service which has been shown to work elsewhere. Which is annoying.

Did they? Gawd, it bleedin makes you wonder doesn't it?

 

[MysteryGuest]

Makes you wonder, alright. iirc it was a tried and tested system that had been shown to work well in the US - it was one of the government's own departments that did a report recommending it was brought in asap. But instead they're introducing one of those almost-the-same as before systems that depends on *chortle* goodwill and people being *chuckle* reasonable. This is all off the top of my head btw - I read it in the Graudina about 4 weeks ago so the detail is a bit hazy.

 

[Shmu]

I agree with this - but the assumptions behind it have to be challenged somewhat. It still leaves us with women in default position as "natural" childcarers and men as this homogenous mass of "unnatural" childcarers who have to prove their parenting abilities. Which is a bit crap in this day and age IMO.

The thing is with FFJ and indeed any protest group is that they are taking up a militant, extreme position largely because they have been forced to. When there is no adequate legal recourse for their grievances most groups end up employing attention grabbing tactics, because, well, their issues would never get any attention within the existing framework.

I do think fathers have a case to be answered.

I totally agree with what you're saying here.

My whole point was not that women are necessarily "natural carers" at all, but just that, by focusing on highlighting fathers as superhero figures, rather than by using the demonstration forum to describe their much wider input into their children's lives and their ability to care for their children's basic needs and to recognise these as vital, f4j seem to be playing up to the stereotypical role of the father. This role, on its own is not sufficient if a father is going to have periods of sole care. The children may choose to see him as a superhero, and there are aspects of the stereotypical male role here which are valuable to a child's psyche, but if children do not also have clean clothes to wear, meals prepared, special, loving care when they are ill, the right gym kit, help with homework, etc, etc, etc, then they will be missing a vital aspect of parental care.

I am absolutely NOT implying that men are not more than capable of providing all of this and more, merely that, the main reason why the law is so biased towards mothers in custody cases is because traditionally, these were the responsibilities taken on by the mother and IMO f4j need to make the point that they fully understand the needs of their children and can provide for them just as well as (and in some cases better than) the mother.

I understand that the superhero bit has been instrumental in getting media attention, I'm just suggesting that they could use a combination of references, maybe including superheroes, but alongside a lot of less stereotypical expressions of a father's role, such as, maybe dressing up as a big bottle of calpol, carrying dolls in slings (I'm sure this would get a lot of media attention as it's quite a striking reminder of how much we want to giggle at the idea of men carrying dolls because the child caring role is seen as such a female domain), staging mock up birthday parties for absent kids (bit of a pull on the heart strings). I'm rubbish at thinking of these types of ideas, but I'm sure others could think of quite good ways of expressing a less stereotypical image of the father.

Because, surely, the success of this movement depends on challenging the attitudes which have established the current status quo here, on demonstrating that the father's role in parenting is changing and should be encouraged to change.

I agree that it is a bit crap that fathers should be expected to PROVE their parenting abilities, but I do feel that by focusing on images of superheroes, F4J is shooting itself in the foot here, because it is projecting an image of the stereotypical father role, ignoring the whole issue of care for their children and projecting an impression of themselves as focused on an egotistical desire to be put on a pedestal without reference to the basic role of care required by children.

I would feel the same about mothers who wished to campaign to have their children back and who wanted to describe themselves as superwomen, before demonstrating about their basic abilities to provide love, care and stability for those children.

 

[fat hamster]

It seems the father has "a right" to see his children, but they do not have "the right" to refuse.

The father of a young friend of mine arrived in my kitchen recently bearing F4J balloons. He has a completely distorted view of his "rights" and was unpleasantly insistent in his demands for hugs from his 9-year-old daughter even though she clearly didn't want to hug him.

<insert vomit smiley>

 

[MysteryGuest]

He has a completely distorted view of his "rights"

In your opinion.

 

[freethepeeps]

The father of a young friend of mine arrived in my kitchen recently bearing F4J balloons. He has a completely distorted view of his "rights" and was unpleasantly insistent in his demands for hugs from his 9-year-old daughter even though she clearly didn't want to hug him.

<insert vomit smiley>

A father wanting a hug from his daughter......... Hmmm .... that makes you want to vomit?

I'm kinda sceptical of your judgement of fathers FH .......

What do people make of Parental Alienation Syndrome?

The Canadian Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access regarded alienation as a serious problem requiring immediate action:

One particularly alarming symptom of a high-conflict divorce is that a child may decide that he or she does not want to visit one parent or the other. Committee Members were profoundly concerned about such cases when they were described to us by witnesses, especially where children told the Committee that they wished to sever a relationship with a non-residential parent. In the view of Committee members, such a desire on the part of a child is indicative of a serious problem and calls for immediate intervention. A child who acts on such a wish, with the support of the other parent or the judicial system, may in the long term come to regret the choice he or she has made.

They accordingly made Recommendation 33:
This Committee recommends that professionals who meet with children experiencing parental separation recognize that a child's wish not to have contact with a parent could reveal a significant problem and should result in the immediate referral of the family for therapeutic intervention.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

I dont doubt that it exists. However i would'nt be so keen for these 'family therapies' etc to be introduced. It would mean children forced to have some form of therapy or forced to meet with the parent they dont wish contact with over long periods in the hope they will respond( thats not to say they shouldnt be encouraged to see the absent parent)

Suggesting they are abnormal for feeling that way has all sort of conotations later about how they view their 'normality'. When Adults/doctors/social workers believe they need therapy the deduction seems to be ... so there must be something wrong with me The serious problem doesnt necessarily need to be on the childs part or of the childs making just becuase a 'committee' says there is a serious problem which needs intervention doesnt make it necessarily appropriate in every case. Pro actively encouraging contact for a period of time after which the child has the right to say no I did what you asked, saw my parent and still dont feel different would be fairer on the child than 'therapy'

I firmly believe there needs to be ways made available for those separated from a parent ( through /circumstances/choice/adoption/court action) to later make contact if they change their mind or become old enough to make that decision. I dont however believe it should go both ways. ( like the adoption contact register works at the moment really, you can register interest in each other)

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

I doubt very much in your struggle to keep your children safe, you gave one moments thought to how the media works. It certainly didn't enter my head. Desperate times and all that.

But Im not campaigning and trying to get things changed. If they want to win public sympathy and use the media to do so they need to work out pretty damn quick how to play the game becuase allowing a father like the one featured in the article to be interviewed and speak on behalf of F4J is simply media suicide.
This isnt about individual fathers and their cases this is about a campaigning organisation and fathers who are willing to gain criminal records ( most of whom will have been law abiding previously) on that organisations behalf. Alklowing fucknuts who beat their ex's and get jailed for harrassment to spek to the media is going to be so counterproductive so why are theuy risking a record while the organisation cant get its image/consistency in there???

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

As a little exercise for you, take a look at the more famous activists who actually fought for notable change and achieved it, for example people like the Suffragettes, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, etc - do people look back on their actions and think votes for women/self-rule/end of apartheid were unworthy cause cos there were a few dodgy buggers in the movement. There probaby were, somewhere, but it really didn't matter that much

No but they still didnt have the dodgy buggers giving interviwes and speaking on behalf of the organisation.
Youre so keen to dismiss a valid point that you call it nit picking.
How many other people will have read that interview and thought, he broke the injunction,?? 84 days inside?? gor what he deserved,.... ergo as do the rest of them?????

NOW do you see how that can affect those fathers who do have a legtimitage and heartfelt grievance with the system???

 

[freethepeeps]

How exactly do you propose that they censor their membership ?

It seems that a lot of people are seizing on one interview here - 84 days for sending your son a text message to wish him a happy birthday - it isn't hard to understand why a father would want to do that.

As an aside, a friend of mine got his legal aid assessment through yesterday - for seeking contact with his son - the amount they want him to pay every week, would leave him with £10 a week to live (and pay child support) on. And thats for the duration of the case.....

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

I dont, i suggest they dont let people like this campaign openly so that their credibility gets shot to pieces as soon as the media dig into the individuals background, the case specifics and contact the mother for comment who confirms he doesnt have a legit case

and that is total shit about your friend, can he appeal?

 

[freethepeeps]

I dont, i suggest they dont let people like this campaign openly so that their credibility gets shot to pieces as soon as the media dig into the individuals background, the case specifics and contact the mother for comment who confirms he doesnt have a legit case

and that is total shit about your friend, can he appeal?

Obviously he's trying - he's also very upset.....

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Unsuprisingly what about representing himself?? Its perfectly possible and do-able?

 

[freethepeeps]

Unsuprisingly what about representing himself?? Its perfectly possible and do-able?

All things are theoretically possible - sadly broken relationships have a habit of leaving lots of injured parties in their wake ...... theres a distinct feel of suppressed anger in some of the posts on this thread - and thats just people thinking about it - standing up in a court, where accusations are being made against you, already puts you at a disadvantage - especially if the other party has a lawyer, and when the subject matter is so close to your heart, it isn't always possible to remain neutral or detached, which can further affect your credibility.

On the PAS thing ..... you said:

Suggesting they are abnormal for feeling that way has all sort of conotations later about how they view their 'normality'.

and went on to say that adults feel there must "be something wrong" with them if they need any kind of therapeutic intervention.

I'd argue that many kids find it helpful to know that other kids in similar situations feel the same way and that it ISN'T THEIR FAULT - which may be missed by the route you suggest, especially as you say that you don't doubt that PAS may exist.

Parents blaming each other while the kid blames itself ain't that rare in these circumstances

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

I dont disagree but knowing other children feel the same is a whole different kettle of fish to therapists, family counselling appointment and enforced contact becuase the therapists feel intervention/therapy is vital.

That sort of thing is just likely to reinforce the I am bad becuase they say so... fault finding exercise that kids do

 

[fat hamster]

A father wanting a hug from his daughter......... Hmmm .... that makes you want to vomit?

It makes me want to vomit when anyone, male or female, demands hugs from a child who doesn't want to give them. It's similar to tickling a child when he or she is screaming at you to stop. IMO both are but a short step away from blatant sexual interference.

 

[TopCat]

I know what makes me want to puke but anyway...


Whats the difference here between a request for a hug and a demand? I can't realistically see many parents shouting at a child "IT'S MY RIGHT TO HAVE A HUG , YOU WILL C0MPLY!" Saying that a request for a hug is a short step to sexual abuse shows how sick your mind is FH. Could it be the case that your friend has poisoned the childs mind with respect to the child? I doubt it would be the case that the father in question has done anything serious against the mother, from the tone of your, (FH's) posts I feel fairly certain you would have encouraged the mother to hinder contact if that were so.

 

[toggle]

I think FH is right on this one.

Is the fact that this is a young person being forced to endure a form of physical contact they find a violation any less of a violation because it is a parent forcing the unnecessary contact?

There is a hell of a difference between a request for a hug and insistance upon a hug and physically insisting on an 'affectionate' physical demonstration that the child does not want.

If physical contact is forced, it will leave the child feeling violated, similar to the way an adult would from some forms of sexual assault.

 

[TopCat]

Who insists on a hug!?? If it happens then it's out of order, but having watched many obviously reluctant kids being encouraged to kiss their aging Aunties, I still don't see this is a short step from sexual abuse.

 

[fat hamster]

I doubt it would be the case that the father in question has done anything serious against the mother

On the contrary, the mother has had several injunctions against the father in the past because of his violent and abusive behaviour.

He's back in their lives again precisely because it is so hard and upsetting for her to take a decision not to let the child continue having that contact ... he assaulted her (the mum) again soon after the "hugs" incident, and has been back since, creating a scene on her doorstep because she wouldn't let him in.

He's not coming into my bloody flat again, that's for sure.

 

[fat hamster]

Whats the difference here between a request for a hug and a demand? I can't realistically see many parents shouting at a child "IT'S MY RIGHT TO HAVE A HUG , YOU WILL C0MPLY!"

No shouting, but the dad asked for a hug, the daughter said, "no" (cos she was busy playing with her friend), and the dad said, "Oh, go on" in the authoritative way a parent can and reached out for her. I could see her weigh things up momentarily, and decide it was easier to comply than resist. She hugged him.

And in this way little girls are socialised into accepting unwanted physical contact with the dominant male ...

Saying that a request for a hug is a short step to sexual abuse shows how sick your mind is FH.

See above - it wasn't a request.

IMO it's fine to request a hug from your kids, but you've got to be able to take a "no" in your stride. And even a request can easily be interpreted as a demand by a frightened child.

from the tone of your, (FH's) posts I feel fairly certain you would have encouraged the mother to hinder contact if that were so.

She knows my feelings about her ex partner; she knows I'm there for her. It's not my place to pressurise her.