Fathers for Justice

[kea]

Now confusing and contradictory as all that is, I don't for a second think that it's representative of anything, except perhaps of the fact that you can't generalise when it comes to families. Maybe you could a bit 50 years ago when patriarchy ruled in most homes, but I truly believe and hope that these days gender roles in parents are much more fluid. I don't know whether children ideally need two parents to be happy, I haven't got enough experience to say, but I think saying that mothers make better parents is wrong.

word
good post lyra (and good post cid)

edit again: I haven't read all this thread so i'm not gonna comment on most of it; and it seems to be being covered prettty well anyway
BUT i just wanted to say that i think some of the comments of 'it's your fault you're not a good enough judge of character of who to get up the duff by' and words to that effect are WELL out of order. if someone actively sets out to get up the duff by someone they *know* won't make a great parent, and then complains about it, then perhaps the criticism is fair enough. however, slagging someone for getting pregnant unintentionally (according to my reading of it anyway ) by someone who doesn't react well to it is perhaps asking a little too much in terms of psychic abilities, no?
sorry if this was sorted earlier in the thread, but i do think that it's a criticism that might not have been made had the poster been saying something different as their substantive point. if they're saying something controversial then get stuck into that.

 

[Cid]

word
good post lyra (and good post cid)

edit again: I haven't read all this thread so i'm not gonna comment on most of it; and it seems to be being covered prettty well anyway
BUT i just wanted to say that i think some of the comments of 'it's your fault you're not a good enough judge of character of who to get up the duff by' and words to that effect are WELL out of order. if someone actively sets out to get up the duff by someone they *know* won't make a great parent, and then complains about it, then perhaps the criticism is fair enough. however, slagging someone for getting pregnant unintentionally (according to my reading of it anyway ) by someone who doesn't react well to it is perhaps asking a little too much in terms of psychic abilities, no?
sorry if this was sorted earlier in the thread, but i do think that it's a criticism that might not have been made had the poster been saying something different as their substantive point. if they're saying something controversial then get stuck into that.

I did kinda say something along these lines about 12 lines up. That is a fair point, having not read the thread 100% thoroughly, and since it's pretty much impossible for me to know the exact details of the case of someone I've never met I can't accurately comment on FH's situation. Still, if you're going to sleep around (whether you're male or female) you should take responsibility for your actions - which of course means FH's various partners should provide some form of support at the very least, but which also means she probably judged a bit badly in going out with them. Sorry, i sometimes misrepresent myself when I get annoyed with people who express bigotry (which you have to admit FH has done a couple of times).

Lilmiss - was it actually meanoldman's mate? Sorry... Can't find the original post...

Um, anyway - whoever it was - replace he with she, man with woman, husband with wife etc, would you still have the same attitude? Again, it's impossible to form an accurate commentry without knowing the specifics or the individuals, but it's unreasonable if not just plain wrong to say that women can't make men feel completely inadequate. Maybe he could do something, but maybe he just can't face her anymore.

 

[Nemo]

Lilmiss - was it actually meanoldman's mate? Sorry... Can't find the original post...

It was Hollis's mate iirc.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Um, anyway - whoever it was - replace he with she, man with woman, husband with wife etc, would you still have the same attitude? Again, it's impossible to form an accurate commentry without knowing the specifics or the individuals, but it's unreasonable if not just plain wrong to say that women can't make men feel completely inadequate. Maybe he could do something, but maybe he just can't face her anymore.

Yeah I would, I actually know one mother whos walked out on 3 kids and left them with Dad and who now says she isnt going to go to court becuase it will upset her ( never mind her kids who just want to see their mummy and Dad who is trying to get her to visit).

Maybe I just take a really committed attitude towards my kids which colours my view of them. I'm adopted myself and have had two pretty good adoptive parents all things considered but Lost out on having both my biological parents and I think this also affects how I view people who dont place their kids first in these things. I dont agree with either parent witholding contact without a bloody good reason (and the only reason should be damage to the childrens welbeing)
Im sorry but I do view these parents who dont do anything about it as failing their children, putting their own interests first and bleating on about how hard it is before youve even tried is simply lame IMO where there are children involved( that applies whether you are the parent with care or not, its bloody hard being a parent but tough you are a parent, you get on with it). There should be nothing more important to you than a child that youve created and their well being. There will be other relationships, other jobs, other money, other times but you cannot get back what you had if you walk out and simply try to forget . Im sorry but I view parents who cant get up enough fire to fight for their kids as as bad as the parents who withold contact without reason. It doesnt have to be that way but lame adults cant see more than their own self interest much of the time and thats so so wrong. Children need to come first and if that means swallowing your pride, digging into your bank balance and doing your level best to be a good parent to that child well thats what you go. Gender doesnt come into it.You are failing your child intentionally, theres plenty of help you can get, if you then choose not to take it well sorry, dont bleat about how hurt you are, think about your children.
Im sad that my kids dont see their bio father even though he couldnt control his temper he was a pretty good father to them until his anger simply grew out of control and he couldnt see the danger and damage he was doing to me, them or his relationship with my as their mother and him as his children. Who he should have been worried about hurting most.
Sorry , a bit of a mini rant there I just really dont believe parents who dont fight for their kids should then be able to play the pity....feel sorry for me card. It doesnt HAVE to be like that

 

[HarrisonSlade]

Custody. Such an evil word isn't it. "Who claims custody of the child?" - As though a child is some criminal whose only crime is being too young. So, if a child wants to stay at the Dads house one night, should it really be up to any body else but the child to do so. And should anyone endure the heartbreak and costs to tell that kid that he/she has to spend the rest of childhood at one specific place, when they obviously have two?
Fathers 4 Justice do have a point, but not through the sexist laws, but of the fact that Custody Laws exist in the first place. Why should children only be able to see one parent at certain times comfortable to the other? Why should one parent decide that the child is to have only one home, theirs and not their ex partners too? If my parents had split up when I was younger and one of my parents stopped me from seeing the other because it was a Wednesday, I would have killed the fucking mentalist.
Custody is wrong. The child is a responsibility of the parents, not a prisoner.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

The process isnt difficult.

It will sound to a kid like, well frankly you didnt matter so much to me that I wanted to go and fight for you.

The process is extremely difficult. I was denied all access/contact/knowledge for over a year. The courts couldn't be used because the child's whereabouts were unknown. I couldn't be sure that she was even alive! You want mental anguish? You want a parent driven to extremes? Of course the measures I took to find my child were put forward as reasons for my unsuitability - courts don't look favourably on people taking direct action, even when they can't point out any more legal routes. The thing that drove me through it was the thought that no child of mine was going to grow up thinking I'd abandoned them. If F4J had existed at the time, I would have joined them. The only reason I have contact with my youngest is because of my perserverance and willingness to impoverish myself in pursuit of it. The courts and "feminists" were no help at all.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

The whole thing is about issues. An ego game within the battle of the sexes. When really, what this is about is what is right for the child. And no, I am not being all, "What about the children" in all this. What I am saying is that children should have more rights in all of this. Children never asked to be born, we give birth to them because we want to (If this doesn't occur to you, then don't have any children please). Parents belong to children, not vice versa. Children must be allowed to choose their settings. And fuck you, if you post that this may lead to blackmail. If parents can't handle children showing independant spirit at an early age, they should not have had any in the first place). I believe to bring this kind of attitude to society would bring down abuse and help children make up their own mind.
If someone has a relationship, concieves a child and then runs off from the relationship, is that person in the right to dictate where that child is brought up? Two people who goto Court to win control of a child aren't real fucking parents, they're ego driven game players who are deciding the kids life before even asking their consent. Larkins poem, "This be the verse" springs to mind.


"They fuck you up, your Mum and Dad,
They do not mean to but they do
They fill you with the faults they had
and add some extra just for you

But they were fucked up in their turn
by fools in old style hats and coats
who half the time were soppy stern
and half at one anothers throats

Man hands on misery to man
It deepens like a coastal shelf
get out as early as you can
and don't have any kids yourself."

Too damn right.
In the event of a divorce, this is going to fuck up a kids mind to god knows what extent. To then dictate that childs life by the lawcourts, to give one parent the right to stop them seeing the other at what time he or she pleases, is barbaric and cruel. There really is no debate here. No intellectualising. No reading the law books and fucking around with cod feminist psychologists and Fathers4Justice throwing purple flour. No restrictions should be put onto a child to meet or live with the parent he or she chooses. I really do think an innocent child with a mind has more say in such matters as two people who took on such big responsibilities, selfishly, before deciding that they felt trapped. And certainly more say than some Conservative law lord in a white wig who is there just to make as much cash as he possibly can.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

The only reason I have contact with my youngest is because of my perserverance and willingness to impoverish myself in pursuit of it..

But you did it.
My objection is to parents who dont even make any attempt to fight for their children and then say Oh woe is me, Hard done by mother/father when they havent actually been and asked the courts for anything. Theyve been told no you arent seeing yur child and theyve gone oh ok then To me thats not good enough, its as bad as the parent who denied contact in the first place

 

[aylee]

If I was stopped from seeing my child for five years for no good reason and no legal support then I think I'd throw something a little heavier than powder-paint

There are two types of case that need to be considered - those where the courts have prevented fathers from having contact with their children, and those where the mothers have attempted to frustrate such contact.

On the first type of case, the point is that the vast majority of fathers who are prevented from seeing their children by the courts ARE prevented from doing so for a very good reason. It is rare for courts to prevent any sort of contact taking place at all - where there are problems in the relationship between father and child there are a variety of ways in which contact can be facilitated - use of contact centres, indirect contact etc etc.

Fathers For Justice have been complaining that the system is biased towards women (it is not - the Children Act 1989 is entirely neutral as to which parent does what following separation) and that there should be a presumption that both parents should have contact (there already is - because the overriding concept applied by the courts is the best interests of the child and the courts start from the presumption that substantial contact with both parents is very much in the child's best interest). They seem to spend far too much time talking about THEIR rights. Child law should be primarily about the rights of the child rather than parents.

Some of the movers and shakers in organisations like FFJ have been prevented by the courts from seeing their children because of ridiculous behaviour - a guy called Harris for example who was associated with some similar organisation and who was a complete obsessive who made the lives of his ex-wife and children total hell.

The only thing that needs to be looked at is the second category of case which is actually pretty rare. It presents a very acute dilemma because what is in the best interests of the child remains the key thing. Is it going to be in the interests of the child to enforce a contact order by sending the mother to prison? There is no simple solution if persuasion does not work. I think that the courts correctly focus on the question: how can harm to the child from the situation be minimised if not avoided? In such cases, the parents' wishes and interests may sometimes have to take second place.

 

[General Ludd]

The only thing that needs to be looked at is the second category of case which is actually pretty rare

According to the report FTP linked to earlier the government thinks this happens in 40% of all divorces where children are involved. Presumably the vast majority of these cases aren't serious, possibly more like trying to make life hard for your ex-partner, but that still doesn't make attempts by mothers to frustrate contact rare.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

system is biased towards women (it is not - the Children Act 1989 is entirely neutral

I don't know where you're coming from, but it's several light years away from reality "the system" is not just the relevant Act, but whole set of people and attitudes that surround it and its implementation. The courts are deeply patriarchal establishments, and part of that (overt or otherwise) is that it's womens work to bring up children. Even though I fought tooth and nail to get to court I was still treated like a naughty little boy who'd run away from his responsibilities. I have many male friends who's ex-partners have made it difficult and continue to make it difficult, on many more than one occasion they have been colluded with by the courts. At one stage I was visiting my daughter 1 hour a fortnight, 100 miles away from my home. At a visiting centre. All agencies concerned agreed that it "wasn't a welfare problem", that is it was nothing to do with me. But because my contact with our child upset her mother, it couldn't be increased. At the same time I was subjected to a campaign of vilification by "feminists" who claimed that I and my child had "no right" to a relationship and I ought to just "get over it"

 

[Nigel Irritable]

What "feminists" waged a campaign of vilification against you?

And what exactly were you asking for? Did you want primary custody of the child? Or did you want the mother to have all those responsibilities while you had access whenever it suited you? That's a real question by the way, not an attempt to have a go.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

What "feminists" waged a campaign of vilification against you?

You want a roll call? You can choose not to believe me, but I assure you I could give you names of at least a dozen. And "self-confessed" feminists at that

And what exactly were you asking for?

What I wanted was dialogue, pricipally. In an ideal world, joint custody. Knowing if she was alive and well would have been nice. A photograph, perhaps? You really can't accept, can you, that .......... I've cut that, too much of a rant. My daughter and I were the wronged parties, and I know many more fathers and children who face similar problems.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Can I nominate this thread for archive/starring?

I would disagree. it is a brilliant thread but there is too much emotional personal stuff in it that it may not be such a good idea to keep it once it has ended its natural life. but keep it going, of course.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

You want a roll call? You can choose not to believe me, but I assure you I could give you names of at least a dozen. And "self-confessed" feminists at that

Look, I don't want fingerprints and photographic ID here, but you are going to have to give a bit more context than this. Are you saying that Germaine Greer came round and wrote "wanker" on your wall in pink paint? Are you saying that you told your story to someone you met in the pub who described herself as a feminist and she called you a liar?

I really have no idea what you are claiming here other than that generic "feminists" aren't very nice, and in the context of a discussion around a movement notorious for its misogyny that makes me very suspicious. A number of father's rights people I have met seem to spend most of their time muttering incoherent obscenities about uppity women.

As I said before, there are certainly fathers who are treated very badly by either the courts or their former partners or a combination of the two when it comes to child custody or access. If that happened to you then I am very sorry to hear it.

However, there are many more mothers who are treated badly by their former partners and by the (patriarchal not feminist) court system in relationship breakdowns. By far the biggest problem facing the family law system at the moment is that of fathers who refuse to take any responsibility at all for their children. That shouldn't be overlooked in a discussion about "fathers rights".

 

[reallyoldhippy]

you saying that Germaine Greer came round and wrote "wanker" on your wall in pink paint?

No, it was white chalk, actually. Other antics included putting a "containment of evil" spell on the house (while I was inside with my older daughters), throwing beer over me and those daughters at a gig, spreading rumours that I was a child abuser, paying menacing calls to any of the sisterhood who dared talk to me.

I'm not stupid: the number of fathers who have no contact with their children is tragic. No matter what the reasons. But trying to demonise fathers who try their best is not helping.

 

[rorymac]

Bit of a wrongun is Ol Germaine to be fair !

 

[Nigel Irritable]

No, it was white chalk, actually. Other antics included putting a "containment of evil" spell on the house (while I was inside with my older daughters), throwing beer over me and those daughters at a gig, spreading rumours that I was a child abuser, paying menacing calls to any of the sisterhood who dared talk to me..

What? How did these "feminists" know you? What did they think you had done wrong? I'm just baffled by this. Are you saying that a local feminist collective decided to victimise you for no reason at all?

I'm not stupid: the number of fathers who have no contact with their children is tragic. No matter what the reasons. But trying to demonise fathers who try their best is not helping.

I can agree with you there. I'm not in favour of demonising fathers who try their best in difficult circumstances. That doesn't stop me from seeing a dangerous six foot high streak of woman-hatred in the "fathers rights movement". I don't think that those fathers who may genuinely have a grievance do themselves any favours by hanging around a bunch of misogynist nutters.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

How did these "feminists" know you?

Surely, that doesn't take much working out - they knew the mother (or thought they did )

 

[Nigel Irritable]

So what you are actually saying is that your ex-partners friends threw some beer at you, chanted mad shit outside your house and wrote insults on the wall?

That sounds pretty unpleasant. It's just that I'm unclear what this has to do with feminism or feminists.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

That sounds pretty unpleasant. It's just that I'm unclear what this has to do with feminism or feminists.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL. That's because you see feminism as a "good" thing - after my experiences I could be anti-woman OR anti-feminist, although many of the latter would claim that being anti-feminist IS being anti-woman Nigel, I didn't decide it was about feminism, they did .

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Being anti-feminist is indeed being anti-woman. I make no apologies for saying that. And if you have moved from advocacy of "father's rights" to anti-feminism then I can only remind you that its a well trodden path and it doesn't lead anywhere very nice.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

Being anti-feminist is indeed being anti-woman.

That is so much bollocks. LOL LOL

it doesn't lead anywhere very nice.

Anywhere away from feminists is nice.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Well it is nice to have the points I was making about the politics of the fathers rights movement so graphically illustrated by exhibit A over here.

One minute it's all stories about how badly his former partner and the courts treated him. The next its giving out about feminists. Where do we go from here?

Tell me, what exactly do you think is wrong with feminism?

 

[freethepeeps]

Well it is nice to have the points I was making about the politics of the fathers rights movement so graphically illustrated by exhibit A over here.

One minute it's all stories about how badly his former partner and the courts treated him. The next its giving out about feminists. Where do we go from here?

Tell me, what exactly do you think is wrong with feminism?

seems to me that you pushed for more stuff about feminists.

I also think you'll find that Exhibit A was earleir in the thread, a "self-proclaimed" feminist with some very bigotted views on fathers.

 

[rorymac]

She's written a good book or two though ..in her day ..
has Ol Greeny

 

[Nigel Irritable]

seems to me that you pushed for more stuff about feminists.

I certainly wanted more information when he started telling us about being persecuted by feminists. Should I just have nodded sagely and not bothered challenging him on it?

 

[doofusclam]

I know one of the blokes who did the protests in Bristol, he actually lives in Cheltenham.

He's a nice bloke - the new boyfriend of my ex girlfriend, but apart from being a bit of a sap sometimes he's a nice bloke. He's also 100% committed to his kid. His ex on the other hand has tried to pull a blinder on him by moving to Spain as she's pregnant by her new bloke, and she wants to take their kid with her and her new bloke.

To be frank, she's been a cunt. And regardless of how much some people complain about how stupid they are, he's making a genuine effort to stop her from taking his kid away, and he's no wife/kid beating twat, he's just a nice bloke who is being fucked over by the system.

Fair play to them.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

No. You may want it nice and one dimensional, but its not like that. You have decided I'm anti-woman because it makes you feel safer. If you like I'll give you my (3) daughters email addies, and you can check with them.

My dislike of feminists comes from the battles over my youngest daughter. Whether you like it or not many feminists swung from the "men are bastards for not caring for their children" to "you and your child have no right to a relationship. What the mother wants is paramount" . You may find it uncomfortable that feminists could be such tossers, but they were. And I repeat, they were the ones doing battle as "feminists", not me who put that label on them. If you read my previos posts, you'll see I recognise the court system as deeply patriarchal. Feminist courts would be no advance

 

[freethepeeps]

I certainly wanted more information when he started telling us about being persecuted by feminists. Should I just have nodded sagely and not bothered challenging him on it?

You neatly ducked the point about Exhibit A.