Can someone please explain to me what it is Fathers 4 justice want?
As far as I can tell Fathers have all the rights they want, if they want to see their kids they can, no matter how crap they are.
From a mother's point of view I think the law regarding absent fathers is a complete joke - they have too many rights and come back into the childs life whenever they want no matter how little they have done in the past.
So what are all these men complaining about?

Also their methods of bringing attention to themselves seem pretty detrimental to whatever it is they are campaigning for.

I know someone who has gone through every court procedure possible to see his kid. The mother just doesn't turn up at the time. The only option left to the courts is to put her in jail, which obviously won't happen. All he wants to do is see his child, and the child has the right to see their father. He pays huge sums of maintenance, and she chose to break off the relationship. Where's the justice?

I'm sure there are cases where father's are no good, but there are plenty of good one's out there for whom the current system doesn't work.

Why should the child in the majority of cases go to the mother? Why shouldn't the father get alternate weeks, rather than the odd weekend. There are plenty of fathers who want to play an active part in their childs life, rather than be a spectator.

Taken from http://www.fathers-4-justice.org

Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) is a new civil rights movement campaigning for a child's right to see both parents and grandparents. The group comprises Fathers, Mothers, Grandparents, Teachers, Doctors, Company Directors, Policemen, Barristers – a complete cross section of society – all whom believe that Britain is needlessly creating a nation of children without parents and parents without children.

Fathers 4 Justice have adopted a twin track strategy based around publicity and press. Raising awareness through publicity 'making the injustice visible' and mobilising a 'dads army' – applying pressure to the system and MP's to bring around meaningful change & enforce the will of Parliament.

All children, their parents and grandparents have inalienable rights to enjoy a meaningful, loving relationship with each other woven into our social fabric for over 6,000 years. Parliament's express intention in the 1989 Children's Act was exactly this yet the child's best interest principle has now effectively become the mothers best interest. A recent judgement by Lord Justice Thorpe severing contact between a child and her father gave the green light to recalcitrant mothers that they could veto contact between children and their fathers if this made them 'anxious or depressed.' So why is the Lord Chancellor's Department failing to uphold the will of Parliament? Why is it failing families? Why is it failing our children and grandchildren?
"When the law promotes injustice, it will fall."
BOB GELDOF - JUNE 2002

WHAT PARLIAMENT INTENDED:
Section 1 of the 1989 Children Act made 'the welfare of the child is
paramount'. This , the Act says, 'is best served by maintaining as a good
relationship with both parents as possible' and that 'shared residence
should become the common form of order.' So what is the reality behind
Parliament's intention?

THE REALITY: AN EPIDEMIC OF MASS FATHERLESSNESS 14 YEARS LATER

FACT
650 Children a day have parents who separate or divorce.
SOURCE: LORD CHANCELLORS'S DEPARTMENT (LCD)

FACT
100 Children a day lose partial or total contact with their fathers in the UK.
SOURCE: BASED ON LCD FIGURES

FACT
In 2001 50% of the 55,030 contact orders made were broken.
SOURCE: LCD

FACT
Since 1993 there has been a 100% increase in the number of contact orders made and a 20% year on year increase since 2000.
SOURCE: LCD

FACT
“40% of all fathers lose contact with children within 2 years.”
DAME ELIZABETH BUTLER-SLOSS, PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION

FACT
“The government does not believe that a legal presumption to contact would be helpful.”
SALLY FIELD, HEAD OF THE CHILDREN BRAND AT THE LCD

The admission that the government does not believe that you should have a legal right to see your children or grandchildren.

I have to say I agree with their position

Susie, who didn't see her father for 8 years

Another friend was told his daughter couldnt stay over with him until she was seven. The first thing she said when she woke up on her seventh birthday was, "Can I stay at Daddy's now Mummy?"

At the end of the day it's the kids who are getting hurt and messed up the most. unfortunatly I don't think there's an easy solution. Mediation is the key. Laws and penalties is one thing, making it work is the tricky bit.

My husband fought tooth and nail to sort out custody and visiting rights to his kids. He won custody of his daughter and probably would have won his son, but by that time everyone just wanted things settled.

I went thru the mediation service at Cafcass and I have to say if it wasn't for them being able to see the full story then I would expect things being very different now. It is all too easy in a relationship breakdown to just try and get back at your ex, which is what mine was doing thru jealosy.
It is all now sorted, i have never tried to stop him seeing our son, I just wanted him to be clear headed about the whole thing.

I can see it from both sides. When one of the parents is being stupid it affects the whole process.

But it doesn't seem right that a father can just stop contact, not pay maintenance and then at any point come back into their childs life.
Step parents are not given enough rights either, as for them to get any parental right, the birth parent has to give consent!

Yes I agree with you, but there are separate laws around maintenance.

The issue here is about access, all children should be given access to both parents, this fundamental priveledge shouldn't be taken away because some parents choose not to take responsibility.

I have been in a simalar situation been through it all with cafcass and can say in my case it was a complete joke .. my son wants to see his father but his father continually messes him around lets him down and abuses his trust. But cafcass think that this is in his best intrest even though my son is mentally disabled and vunarble they say that he must see his father but at the end of the day this is up to my son, the only reason he still see's him is because he wants to, the minute he changes his mind i will tell the court to kiss ring. I must admit that every case is individual and unique. it is a shame for the good element of fathers who want to see their children that the court system lets them down.. but then again I find that the family court system is flawed and out of date it seems to penilise the good parents and give all the rights to the gits who dont deserve it.. but thats good old british justice for you

Originally posted by elf
Can someone please explain to me what it is Fathers 4 justice want?
As far as I can tell Fathers have all the rights they want, if they want to see their kids they can, no matter how crap they are.
From a mother's point of view I think the law regarding absent fathers is a complete joke - they have too many rights and come back into the childs life whenever they want no matter how little they have done in the past.
So what are all these men complaining about?



doesn't appear like a very rational argument to make based on the few comments to this thread -

you may be right that some fathers can see their kids when they want but i'm sure there are plenty of fathers who would love to see more of their kids but can't - these may be the best dads in the world and make a lot better parent than the mother but the law is on the side of women when it comes to such matters - i mean i doubt that there's a 'Women 4 Justice' - even the 'crap' ones would almost always get the kids

The problem is that equal rights should mean EQUAL rights, not just when it suits women. A father should have as much right to see a child as the mother, and not just be treated as a walking wallet to blindly and distantly fund the childs upbringing.

Oh how I would love for my 11 year old son's father to take an interest in him. He pays the maintenance sure enough, but when we became divorced it was off with the old and on with the new. His son is not a part of his new life, he is merely an inconvenience. If he sees him once every six weeks it's as much. The maintenance although welcome is not the issue. I would happily forgo it if he would just take the child for a weekend every now and again and give me a much needed break.

Originally posted by elf
But it doesn't seem right that a father can just stop contact, not pay maintenance and then at any point come back into their childs life.
It's definately not right that mothers are the de-facto custodian.