If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Fathers 4 Justice?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
After watching the programme on trevor mcdonald out of interest, i was rather confused. There seems to be the side that just want the right to see their kids, and the ones who go to extreme stupid lengths to get headlines.
One example was a group of them who gathered outside (can't remember her name now) that single mother family law woman and shouted things like that she was a child abuser etc even to her little girl.
One guy bragged about threatening to kill his ex partner if she wouldn't let him see the kids (he had a criminal record including assult on a woman).
So i'm confused, are they really just dads wanting to see their kids or bullies after headlines?
One example was a group of them who gathered outside (can't remember her name now) that single mother family law woman and shouted things like that she was a child abuser etc even to her little girl.
One guy bragged about threatening to kill his ex partner if she wouldn't let him see the kids (he had a criminal record including assult on a woman).
So i'm confused, are they really just dads wanting to see their kids or bullies after headlines?
0
Comments
That's not the effect they are after, you should be fearful after watching that.
In answer to your question, yes there is probably a few wierdo's in the group, but many are Dad's who just want to see their kids. A good cause but a odd campaign group.
This undermines the governments case, and hence the attempted hatchet job.
On another note, no doubt someone where you work has a bit of a temper. Does that mean you are all hotheaded?
There are probably a few odd fellows amoungst them - the measures they go to, are good. It gets attention, shows up how much the government fails in security measures, and makes people notice the cause - that being the idea.
I do sympathise with their aims- fathers should have access to their children, and some men have been royally screwed by the system. That is a complete fact. But most of the people in that group haven't been shafted by the system at all, they've shafted themselves by being violent bullies.
On the whole the system does get it right, I'm afraid to say. Most people who lose custody do so because they deserve to lose custody, and because they have shown they cannot be trusted with custody. I don't buy into the whole "women screw men" thing with the family judicial system, because it simply is not true. The system is biased towards women slightly, though that is mostly because of the criteria used as opposed to any sinister motive. The woman is normally the one who gave up work for her children, and as such she is at home not working 50 hour weeks- being at home is one of the criteria used, AFAIK.
so how are they mysoginistic then?
some of their desires are stupid but the general cause of getting fathers the same intial basic rights as a mother are perfectly valid - men do get shat on by the courts system, no court will ever take the child from one of the parents its lived with even though the child is supposed to see the other parent
I hope you're going to explain how the courts "shit" on fathers.
Because as it is you're talking ill-informed nonsense.
cause they might just be selfish and/or bitter themselves as well?
when my mum left her husband she offered him the chance to be involved in my elder sisters upbringing - and again when she fell ill as a baby, he declined so my mum took it alone from there
that was his choice
my mums brother lost custody of his daughter and he passed her on street 5 years later, not even a 'hello' - this man has done nothing wrong - his ex wife was just an evil cow and my whole family would love to see a cow fall on her
the courts are biased in favour of the mother - equal access to leave for both parents when a baby is born is the best solution to this long term and courts exercising their powers to stop a mother withholding court given custody access
yes a child may have grown up with the mother mainly, doesnt mean the father doesnt have a role, or cant see them AT ALL which is what does happens, and what do the courts do - nothing
Think about who the most important person is in the family court, and get back to me on why the courts look for stability as the biggest priority.
if a mother gets main custody and the father gets to see the child every week, then denies access to the father who was trying to support them for a number of years because they decided as a couple that one would work and one would raise the child - what would you do?
Irrelevant in the court system.
Think about stability for a second. Think about who the most important person in the process is.
Then consider this.
1. How will you achieve equal access whilst also achieving stability?
2. How many custody cases deal with newborns?
3. How do you propose to "punish" the mother without punishing the child?
That isn't what happens at all.
You know that nearly all family cases are resolved peacefully and amicably, don't you? The courts don't rule out access for one parent unless there is a bloody good reason- I suppose you know that too.
Have you actually seen for yourself the workings of the family court?
Think again about who the most important person in family proceedings is. And give me an answer.
no i was lucky enoguh to avoid the court system
and my long term suggestion wasn't about solving dispute with newborns but ensuring that guys who want to be the upbringer of the child can do so with the same legal entitlement as the mothers - this will eventually lead to a situation where more children are with the person who can provide stability
and more deeply than that - what form of stability do you mean? the one who lives in the original home? the sort where they can see their friends? iving with the person who brought them up? living with the financial provider?
stability is a varying issue and i dont see how you can argue on grounds of stability that in the majority of court cases, which i know are a minority of cases as a whole, that eventually the mother get custody?
my uncles daughter (which he has to pay for still even though shes 16 now i believe and he aint seen for years) wanted a legal divorce from him - he spoke to his solicitor and his solicitor informed him that it wouldnt mean he could stop paying money to the mother - btw my uncle sees the son from that marriage still and they formed a good father son bond - just like eachother actually
fathers dont form an initial bond with their children it takes time and if a mother denies that, she is truly evil :mad:
It's a simple enough question. It's a point you're not considering, you're getting bogged down in irrelevance.
obviously the childs welfare - youre still yet to demonstrate the courts actualyl do this - unless youre arguing a mother is more important than a father in raising a child which i whole heartidly disagree with - since both can in most circumstances do a great job each
I have a friend who's girlfriend basically stops him seeing his son, and when he does get him he gets to see him for one day a week.
He is one of the nicest blokes you'll ever meet and she is just being a cunt.
Even if the courts grant him partial custody, if she doesn't give it to him, how long do you think it takes to drag it back to the courts to say she hasn't been allowing it? And what is she does start again and the case is halted, and she starts again? As in my friends case.
And what about when he cant afford the solicitors fees to even start the ball rolling when taking it to court?
Men do get fucked over in these cases a lot.
And even if they were violent at one time or another do think they shouldn't see their kids? I am a pretty violent person I guess but I am a damn good father, I know that for a fact. I'm sure as hell not violent in front of my kid.
For example if I cheated on my missus, she could easily turn around then and that be her driving force for not wanting him to see the kid and use any violence or problems in my past against me. I could have a whole host of violence and drug abuse thrown at me from my past, none of it from when I had a child, but that's irrelevant to the court system - if you throw enough mud.. Ever consider that?
Also you talk about making ill informed statements etc please can you provide evidence of the following statements -
This one is particularly unbelievable -
Have you?
^^ Rubbish
you can say that's the fault of the mother...but it's allowed to happen.
It doesn't have to be the mother that is the primary carer, but it usually makes sense for it to be, as she often won't have the work commitments that the father has. Fathers should have access to their children, but I'm not quite sure how you intend to achieve a 50/50 split whilst still achieving some level of stability. The child can't be in two places at once.
Anyone can pick examples of where the court has "shafted" someone, but it is rarely as clear cut as that. I could pick personal examples where the court has "shafted" the mother by enforcing custody- not something that seems to get mentioned very often. And besides which, I doubt your friend would admit to you that he did beat his gf black and blue (not that I'm saying he did)- you only ever get one side of the story.
Some people of course have been shafted by lying manipulative parents, that is inevitable, but it is not the court's fault. If the mother says the father is violent and mean, and the child says the father is violent and mean, and the social services say the father is violent and mean because mother and child have told them that, then how exactly is the court meant to determine otherwise?
If the man has been violent to the mother- in the presence of the child or otherwise- then, sorry, but he has lost himself the right to custody. Tough cheese. He should have kept his fists to himself.
I would also draw attention to Dame Butler-Sloss' comments about the problems the Family Court faces. If there is a defaulting parent, then what- exactly- can the court do about it? How would you "punish" the mother without a) punishing the child and b) making the child even more bitter against the other parent?
If you fine the mother the child suffers. If you imprison the mother the child suffers. If you change living arrangements the child suffers. If you can work out what to do, then you're doing better than anyone in the whole of the legal and social services professions.
All this forgets that most custody arrangements are settled amicably anyway.
I know people who lived with their father not their mother because the father had a more secure home and job, its all about circumstances. It's about what is best for the child. Like it or not, joint custody is not always best for the child- if it isn't, the court won't allow it. If joint custody is best for the child then it is allowed.
You are both still looking at it from the perspective of the father, not of the child.
Piffle.
I agree with most of the rest of what you say though. As you know most people who are willing to go to court either have a real problem to deal with (which the court probably can't help them with til the bad stuff actually happens) or an agenda.
You are making some valid points, but being a child that physically went through the courts at 9 years old, I've seen the shit that gets brought up there, and it's fucking bollocks.
but then again there will be fathers who would be a bad influence on the child/ren.
it's making sure the right thing happens thats the problem.
i'm just curious, if the woman has no evidence of him being 'a bad dad' or dangerous or something, how do they still make sure the dads still only get limited access?
Because they can and the law is an ass...
What questions?
Yes, people lie in court. Yes, sometimes the lies are so believable that the court believes them. All very true, its a fact of life.
What can you do about it? Not believe the women who genuinely say that the fathers beat them, and attacked their children? How would that benefit the world?
If mummy says daddy beat her and raped her, and baby says that daddy is a nasty man, then what is the court meant to do? Ignore the warning signs of a deeply violent man because "children need fathers"?
And I see it from the other side of the fence because of my job (although I don't work in family law).
Court processes are never good for families and children, which is why families are urged to avoid them at all cost. Most manage to.
Of course some women (and men, for that matter) will use the system to their advantage, to score points against their exes. That isn't the issue.
Two points:
1. How can you stop it? As I've said, how can you punish the parent witholding custody without punishing the child? Because I doubt there are many children who will love the daddy that got mummy sent to prison for six months, escpecially if mummy always tells child about how daddy is a nasty man.
2. How does this illustrate that men are "shafted" by the system? I know of one woman who had a violent and manipluative ex, but was forced to give weekend custody anyway. He ran off with the child for three weeks. Wouldn't you say she was shafted too?
What do you mean by "limited"?
If there is a risk of danger to the child, then access is restricted to the parent posing the danger. Risk isn't just plucked out the air, it is assessed. It isn't always assessed accurately nor fairly, but that isn't the fault of those doing the risk assessment.
If people are very good liars, and the children back up the story, then what are the social services and court personnel supposed to do? It's all balance of probabilities in civil courts.
I'll put it this way- if the courts ignored the mother and child, and didn't give restricted access, and the child did get beaten and raped by the father, then how do you think people would react? Would people still be defending the rights of the father to see his child then?
No, didn't think so.
I know of cases where the child doesn't see the mother because she has problems, I know of men who sit in the pub all day getting wasted saying "blah blah... feminism has gone too far, I can only see my kids an hour a week ect".
But what the child needs is a secure upbringing. Yes, men will get screwed by the system, women at times will et screwed by it too but nothing's perfct. At the end of the day if the child has a happy upbringng isn't that what counts? If I wasn't allowed to see my kids I'd be gutted, but I'd rather them be happy than myself.
Important word is "past". Cheese on Toast is right. So what if you've been violent in the past or used drugs in the past, does that reflect how good a father you are, no of course not, but in situations like that the woman pretty much always wins.
You will find that it does.
People who have been violent to their partners have asked for custody to be removed from them. People who have drug addictions have asked for custody to be removed from them.
As I have already said, if the court ignored the warnings and a partner or child was killed or badly sexually abused because of it, there would be an outcry. You cannot get angry at the court for ignoring things if that is what you are proposing to do.
If you have a history of violence or drug problems then it is not relevant, unless your partner is saying that you are up to your old tricks.
People who are violent to their partners are not good parents, regardless of any qualities they may or may not have.
You will also find that legally, the past is relevant. Get convicted of two violent offences and you can get life imprisonment.
Yea but define warning, lets face it, if a father who got arrested for a drunken brawl outside a pub when he was 18, and also got arrested for having a bit of hash would not ever get custody or joint custody of his child.