Let me say I HAVE RECENTLY ATTENDED A FATHERS 4 JUSTICE meeting having a legal battle with my ex to see my daughter.
The meeting was well attended and I have to say some of the things I heard there was frightening,I was also given some good advice for what to do next.
I will be attending again soon as I think we dads get a raw deal from the courts.
Do other people feel the fathers 4 justice group is a worthy ideal or is it a waste of time?

I think that the good honest men who want to see thier children should be able to, The goverment would win more friends by comming down on the ratbags who dont give a toss. Tho whole system is wrong. It seems the maintainence system is equally as flawed putting presure on the allready paying dads because its less work than chasing a non payer, theyve never managed to get a penny from my ex

I have to agree with you on that one,those dads who care are suffering and those who dont give a toss are a waste of space.
I have heard theere is g0oing to be a green paper from the goverment detailing some proposals with regard to this matter and I hope it will be favourable although I dont hold my breath.
I t just bugs me that the courts always look on the mother as the best parent when sometimes this is plainly not the case.
I have decided to get more involved in this group as we are all in the same boat.

Good cause, but keep on with all these ridiculous stunts and people are going to lose sight of that and stop taking it seriously. They're not doing it in the right way at all. Sure, they attract public attention, but not for the right reasons.

Who voted 'Don't care' ?!

I wish Fathers 4 Justice all the best and I admire their high profile stunts, as they highlight security flaws whilst not posing a serious threat to the nation/economy etc.

Fathers for justice are great, because the government and the CSA has got it so horribly wrong when it comes to family issues. I believe that any absent parent has a responsibility to support their child. However, the government through the CSa has sponsored a system that encourages families to stay appart and fighting. If maintainance issues and visitation were settled out of state hands in a humane and sencible way then there would be more children with two parents instead of one. It is more cost effective for the CSA that these issues are persued through them as the money is filtered through their machine. The government should hang their heads in shame as through this pursuit of money they are creating a whole underclass of children whose fathers cannot afford to visit or see them. Children need both parents!!
FFJ are the most important civil rights movement in Britain since the suffergettes. And I for one will fighting for their cause in the future.:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Its a good cause for the really genuine and honest people who are involved in it for the right reasons. I have only met one person involved in Fathers for Justice (as far as I know!) and I don't think he should have had access to his kids as he used to beat his partner up, and apparently refused to pay maintenance for his kids when he was able to see them as often as he wanted.

However, if a dad is willing to accept his responsibility and provide maintenance for his kids and the mum refuses to let him have any access then I agree the courts should force her to let him have access. But each case should be judged individually, and it is impossible for us to judge the cases mentioned by people on this thread unless we hear both sides, as a lot of dads are refused access on the grounds that they are or have been violent.

shame on the 3 who voted dont care:mad: :mad: :mad:

I hope all these thousands upon thousands of children will grow up one day to sue this positively medieval government for what they have done to their fathers.

ffj makes me very uneasy, mostly because I think they may give my ex the idea to try and get aqccess to his daughter even though he hasnt bothered for years, its the sort of group that would spark off the idea just so he could cause trouble for me. I am not a fan of ffj at all but I do have sympathy for Dads who are good parents and can nopt get to see their kids, unfortunately I think that these are in a minority. In most cases I think that one parent is better than two, for a childs stability to be able to live without constant friction between their parents.

The CSA has been proven time and time again to be a bunch of incompetent ....um....civil servants.

I think if FFJ spent more time on a focussed campaign to specifically request reform of teh CSA, they'd get more support.

The idea that all fathers have a right to access to their children is not sound; neither is the idea that under all circumstances a mother should have access. If they've proven by their behaviour that they're a danger to the kids then they should be kept at arms length.

HOWEVER, when access orders are put in place there should be a legal back up to the parents trying to get access that forces the parent with custody to grant the access under the terms of the court order. And it should be made to stick.

By the stunts that have recently been carried out, FFJ are playing in to the hands of their opponents. "Of course I don't want to give Fred access to Johnny; look at the stupid tricks he plays with that FFJ lot!"

It may be slower and less public, but the question for FFJ has to be - are you attempting to provoke lasting change to the system or short term publicity for your cause?

Oh...and I'm not a father, so I accept that I might not understand the depth of feeling involved.

Joe

But in custody cases, the Courts almost always give the kid to the Mother.

Yes, its a shame that the caffcass workers who are usually to blame for the wrong decision have views that seem to be very flawed. I went through all that with my 9 year old and his waste of space dad. He went to the trouble of dragging my son through the court (all very unplesent for my son) winning a contact order against my wishes and then a year later( as I told the cafcass worker he would )ditched him like a sack of hot bricks and its been the same ever since irregular and antagonistic, the training they recive is obviously out of date. I think that ffj should be thinking about targeting these people help them see the error of there ways its a shame for the good dads

How many of the men involved with ffj are "good Dads"? and how many of them are just trying to make life awkward for their ex partners and enjoy being part of a boys club that does all these stunts?

There is a programme on ffj next week, with Bob geldof, I will be interested to watch it, as I would have thought the system had worked in Bobs favour seeing as he got custody of Paula Yates last child which wasn't even his, but quite rightly he wanted all her children to kept together - I don't understand what his problem is.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
The idea that all fathers have a right to access to their children is not sound; neither is the idea that under all circumstances a mother should have access. If they've proven by their behaviour that they're a danger to the kids then they should be kept at arms length.

HOWEVER, when access orders are put in place there should be a legal back up to the parents trying to get access that forces the parent with custody to grant the access under the terms of the court order. And it should be made to stick.
Exactly! Parents shouldn't have right of access to children, children should have right of access to parents and other family members. It should be the responsibility of the parents to enable the child to chose to exercise those rights.

The sooner we get away from the ownership model of parenthood the better.

My comments are probably influenced by my being the child of divorced parents.

--
JGH

I agree this is an important cause and on a par with the suffragette movement. At the time the protesters were ridiculed for their stunts and put down for there public displays.

The suffragettes had a very clear goal and a clear strategy of how they are going to get there.

Fathers for justice are less clear, or there story is not being fairly reported. i.e. the papers are reporting the stunt but not the politics and goals behind them.

For this reason I would say that they have made a name for themselves and raised their profile by using batman and his friends, but they now need to capitilise on this fame by putting out clear statements of the law changes that they are fighting for and going forward nreed to be known for this rather than the stunts.

Only be serious debate will they get changes made

Originally posted by jgharston
Exactly! Parents shouldn't have right of access to children, children should have right of access to parents and other family members. It should be the responsibility of the parents to enable the child to chose to exercise those rights.

The sooner we get away from the ownership model of parenthood the better.

My comments are probably influenced by my being the child of divorced parents.

--
JGH

I do agree to a large extent - but there are practicalities to consider eg a cild being too young to decide. But more than this - children can be easily swayed, all of us parents know exactly how easy it is to win favour with them, if cuddles and praises dont work u can always rely on sweeties.

it is right for fathers to have rights to see their kids but if fathers doesnt want anything to do with their baby/kids then i dont think they have any rights at all once they turn their backs on the little ones even the ones who arnt born yet then the fathers can sod it even tho its right for the kids to see their fathers i have a very upsetting matter about this.

That is exactly my problem with the system - that a father can be totally crap and selfish and abandon his kid, but at any time he can come back and demand to see his kid and he will have that right. I think in a lot of cases the fathers have too many rights.
You should not be able to effectivly disown a child and then be allowed back in that childs life just because it suits you.

im not saying that the dad cant see his kids or the kids cant see their dad if he doenst want the child or support it what can the mother do??? the father wanted the mother to have an termination.

No way I agree with this subject not if the baby father doesnt want anything to do with the kid

and you know who you are??????

I have recently watched the programme about fathers4 justice and I have to say that it has stopped me going to their meeting tonight.
I will not break the law which by the looks of things is what the organisation does quite a lot of.
Yes I agree with their aims but will not get arrested and end up with a criminal record,you may think this is pathetic but I dont want to end up in the nick.
I still beleive in their aims ,just not how they go about it.
What do other people think about this.??

Ever since last Saturday I am very anti "Farthers 4 Justice" ...

I was actually in the Queue for the Big One / Pepsi Max @ Blackpool pleasure beach ... when all of a sudden ... the ride was closed !!!!

Some nutter had decided to run up the side of the ride to the highest point (the bit where the carriages are pulled up) don a batman outfit and hang his protest banner thingy over the side of the ride.

So that was that !!! ... I had to console myself with lesser rides for 2.5 hours.

Way I see it ... if you're going to protest ... do it somewhere where you won't spoil other people's fun.

This story did have a happy ending though ... I managed to get on the Big One twice before the day was out ... woo hoo !!

Originally posted by Jamie
Ever since last Saturday I am very anti "Farthers 4 Justice" ...

I was actually in the Queue for the Big One / Pepsi Max @ Blackpool pleasure beach ... when all of a sudden ... the ride was closed !!!!

Some nutter had decided to run up the side of the ride to the highest point (the bit where the carriages are pulled up) don a batman outfit and hang his protest banner thingy over the side of the ride.

So that was that !!! ... I had to console myself with lesser rides for 2.5 hours.

Way I see it ... if you're going to protest ... do it somewhere where you won't spoil other people's fun.

This story did have a happy ending though ... I managed to get on the Big One twice before the day was out ... woo hoo !!
so your views are based on the fact you had to wait to go on your rides in blackpool
:rant:

I can understand why people are put off Fathers For Justice when they do stupid stunts like the one at Blackpool. Why ruin a day out for hundreds of innocent people?

If the aim is to get the courts to force mothers to give access when it has been granted, then I agree with their aims. But I think it is a very minor percentage of fathers who are denied the access that they are entitled to.

On the other hand though there are a lot of dads who can't be bothered to see their kids for years and then decide to try to get access after a while... I don't believe they should have any rights. In fact, if a dad can't be responsible enough to see their kids and refuses to support them financially then maybe he should be castrated to prevent him from producing more kids that he isn't going to support.:rant:

"so your views are based on the fact you had to wait to go on your rides in blackpool"

Do you mean my views in regards the organisation that goes by the name of fathers 4 justice !?

If so ... HELL YES !!! ... they've alienated me big time ... I take my fun very seriously and they came between me and it !!!

Originally posted by Jamie
"so your views are based on the fact you had to wait to go on your rides in blackpool"

Do you mean my views in regards the organisation that goes by the name of fathers 4 justice !?

If so ... HELL YES !!! ... they've alienated me big time ... I take my fun very seriously and they came between me and it !!!
but missing out on a ride is nothing compared to what thousands of dads myself included have to face id love to take mine to blackpool pleasure beach but seeing as the law is rotten to the core ive not much chance of sampling delights of queuing up for a ride in blackpool:(

Originally posted by panda79
but missing out on a ride is nothing compared to what thousands of dads myself included have to face id love to take mine to blackpool pleasure beach but seeing as the law is rotten to the core ive not much chance of sampling delights of queuing up for a ride in blackpool:(

I am not a dad myself. I am unlikely to ever want to be one OR get married (because society generally does not favour men when things go wrong).

I have also seen women use this to thier best advantage and really screw the guy over.

The couple of guys that are 'Fathers 4 Justice' only represent themselves and I can only see them as a couple of twerps spoiling people's fun.

At the end of the day if you get married / have kids and things go wrong ... the guy is gonna get screwed.

Ideally everything would be fair and in balance ... society would equally value and support men and women ... but when has society ever been like that !?

I dont totally agree in this ffj thing.
but probably my views originate from personal experience.
my 11 year old's father was a waste of space.
when my son was very ill as a baby- touch and go - he was at a wedding reception.
never bothered with him at all then on occassions used to come to my house to pretend to be interested in him when really all he was after was me.- you can guess why.
But it makes me angry how some men can use their kids to their own advantage like theyre toys or something.
And then theres the man who has nothing to do with the child for years then suddenly wants access.
steer clear of this type.
Have you noticed ladies that some men suddenly become interested in the child when theres another man on the scene,
a new boyfriend ..they never bothered with the child before.
well personally i think that a child is much better off with one good parent than two who are always arguing and /or one of them is violent.
Also i happen to think that if a mother doesn't want the father to see the child then theres usually a good reason.
unless she too uses the child as a tool.

the only good dad's ive seen are on that tv show(who rules the roost) LOL.
convince me otherwise.
till then ill vote no.

I have to say that Tara is wrong about dads all of a sudden wanting kids when the ex gets another boyfriend,in my experence my ex got another bloke and then things began to change.
The access went from you can see her when you want to well its going to be once a week from now on and then after a while it became once a fortnight.
This went on for about 6 months and then she said well she has another dad now and you still being on the scene is causing problems for her with the boyfriend so its best if you dont see her anymore.
I was gutted and I have been going through the courts ever since,and I have found out just how one sided and biased in favour of the mother the system really is.
This was why I went along th the fathers 4 justice meeting in sheffield the other week,but I wont break the law so I have stopped going.

but roy some laws are meant to be broken

Panda I know what your saying but if I break the law and end up in court then my ex will say look hes not fit to see his kid,hes a criminal.
It's not a easy choice to make and some of the dads I met at the metting were indeed willing to break the law,this is their choice but I have a clean record and want to keep it that way.
Bye the way if you want details of where they meet then I will give them to you.

F4J just a political pressure group. highlighting a single problem in family law, rallying for sympathy. mothers are treated like pyscho criminals in the courts merely for bringing up their children. dads come along as though to re-claim their property - read the legal documents! women are dogged as though evil witches trying to stop innocent loving dads seeing the kids as though the kids are hostages - ok may happen in 2% cases, but mostly mothers are portrayed as evil vindictive villains - where's our pressure group against that? mums get trodden all over by the system even when they're doing a great job. lots of dads are walking around and talking on here in my opinion quite naiive at the full picture. many only bothered about themselves not the children's interests at all, especially as posted those that abandon at birth, never make efforts to see or support children for years, or are agressive or abusive. a well documented case where a father was abusive to his children and they still had to go for supervised contact, and during that contact a child was molested and murdered. it's not the principal of f4j that needs a shakedown but the implementation. they need to throw the yardstick away that everyone is judged by and stop the labelling. and also I think many on here don't realise that the children even when old enough do not have a voice in law, and things are being stirred up in the court of human rights to try to change that. they are classed only as having needs not rights. some kids don't want to see their dads for various reasons that are old enough to express it. dragging kids through the courts with legal battles is not good for them. there was a bloke on Kil--y who i very much admire because he knew this and said he would not drag his kids through the court even though he felt that his x partner would not let him see his kids for no good reason, i would say he's a good father even if the mother was one to tell lies to the children. any mother that does that is not a mother - i take a firm view on that, but a father that drags kids through the court merely because he can do that easier for himself than to try to keep in with his kids is not being totally unselfish where the kids are concerned. there are loving fathers who want to keep in contact with their kids, and so long as they keep in contact even if it means only at the gate or a letter or a phonecall or whatnot, the children will know they have a father who they can fall back on when they need to. going through the courts is not a kwik-fix as fathers seem to expect, and it's not a bed of roses for children of the age group that can understand what's going on, and it's potentially damaging for them. i have a friend who has gone through the court to see his children, his x now has a new partner, and he cannot see them, even though they have expressed a strong wish to see him. i also have a female friend who was all for contact still dragged to court as the dad wanted an order instead and a fight to slag the mother off as though she's malicious when she's not, because the kids didn't want the extra contact he wanted ie. living with him. all this f4j do in my opinion is rally up a kind of sexist hatred against women as mothers, as masogeny seems to be flavour of the century, and aid in a trial by media, till the courts don't know their arse from their elbow what they're doing anymore with people's lives, innocent children's lives, and basically good parents are dragged into a battle which could be better solved out of court when children are born with something similar to a pre-nup and act like grown ups rather than these public tantrums for their rights. it's not like the suffragettes where women had no rights no vote and could be killed by husbands and the law turn a blind eye, so wake up. and before anyone suggests - i am not a man-hater, nor a feminist. my new partner is great with my son better than his dad was, who never even played with him, nor supported him for years, and my kid has as much contact as he wants with his dad, which i fought for for him. but i feel very strongly the way the courts trample on things which were better left out of court in my opinion. to excuse any babble in my argument i submitted this at 4.51am when i'm normally in la-la land. any comment / criticism welcomed.

Originally posted by island3rlara
i submitted this at 4.51am when i'm normally in la-la land. any comment / criticism welcomed.

A few paragraph breaks would have been nice.....

Originally posted by mojoworking
A few paragraph breaks would have been nice.....

yeah, i have english degree, but couldn't be bothered :P

Originally posted by island3rlara
yeah, i have english degree, but couldn't be bothered :P

Fair enough, but it probably means that most people won't read it all. It becomes a hard slog after a while.

A few paras would have made all the difference :)

island3rlara - i pretty much tottally agree with all you said:)

i don't give a toss about any of the individual cases that are quoted - for every bad father there's probably a bad mother

the bottom line is that the system is flawed as the father is discriminated against as a starting point - if it really was the kids that were important then custody should be on the basis of who is the better parent or who can provide for their kids better- surely that's the only logical assumption that should be made???????

in general mothers do make better parents, it is biological instinct - carrying a child for 9 months and then being able to provide for it entirley with breast milk gives the mother a distinct advantage over the father as a parent.
Of course there are many great fathers out there and some great step parents who have no biololgical link with the child, but I think that maternal instinct does count for a hell of a lot.

Originally posted by elf
in general

there, that says it all really
in general being what 75%? which leaves 25% which equates to millions

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4035987.stm

Don't these men realise that pulling stupid stunts like this will not show that they are good parents, but will show how irresponsible they are and probably why they lost access to their children in the first place! :loopy:

I hope they bail Santa in time for him to bring me my new bike. :D

im all for ffj having been a victim of the legal system for 6 years i can understand what drives men to pull stunts like this and as long as it makes people think then for me thats a good thing

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I think their stunts may not give exactly a great impression of there sanity when it comes to looking after their children but I do also think it's rather funny!

The fact that they have chosen to dress as children's superheroes is also an expression that they are in touch with their children's lives.

I think the stunts they are pulling is out of utter desperation to get someone to listen to what they have to say and to make a difference.

I wish them all the best of luck! :)

i think unless tha child is "at risk" nothing else should affect the visiting rights, no child should suffer just because the mother has something against the father. i do feel some of the stunts do make them look bad but if they are desperate to see thier kids then they would probably do anything

I stand by my previous comments, as shown by recent tv documentaries some of those at the core of this group are just hatred filled hellraisers.

Normal dads should form a different group and earn some respect as I don't think they'll get any joining f4j.

If it's really about the children, not just about justice for fathers.

Originally posted by island3rlara
I stand by my previous comments, as shown by recent tv documentaries some of those at the core of this group are just hatred filled hellraisers.

Normal dads should form a different group and earn some respect as I don't think they'll get any joining f4j.

If it's really about the children, not just about justice for fathers.

Can I just bring these parts of the F4J statement to your attention.

8. We treat any allegations extremely seriously, however of the EIGHT individuals ITV say are subject to allegations after a 14 month undercover investigation, just TWO are members to F4J, an organisation of 12,000 mothers, fathers and grandparents. F4J can categorically state:

• THREE had previously been expelled for breaching our Terms & Conditions of membership.
• ONE was expelled as a result of the information supplied by ITV.
• ONE person had never been a member.
• ONE person’s membership had lapsed.
• TWO people featured are members.

10. ITV cancelled planned interviews with individuals and organisations who had positive comments to make about F4J including the Court Welfare Service, Cafcass.

12. Around 10 years ago ITV’s World in Action (which was replaced by the Tonight programme) ran a similarly unbalanced programme on established help group Families Need Fathers.


You should at least know both sides of a story before making comments!

Full statement is available here: http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/statement.htm

well folks, the law isnt likley to change in the near future.

I for one believe strongly in the traditional family i.e. 2 married parents of the opposite sexs bringing up their children together.

If they cant be bothered to get married the law simply gives parental responsibility to the childs mother. The unmarried father has no legal rights merely the obligation to provide for the child which the courts will enforce and rightly so.
The only way an unmarried father can currently get PR is by an agreement (via the lord chancellors dept) with the mother or by a residence order from the family court or by marrying her.

Generally if there are no apparent dangers or risk to the child a joint residence order will be granted, but the Children Act requires that the childs welfare be paramount and the childs wishes are taken into account where the child is capable of expressing an opinion.

So people if the courts or the mother are denying you contact have a good look in the mirror and work out why that may be.

Originally posted by redhawk
If they cant be bothered to get married

Because it's always an issue of 'not being bothered', eh?

I can imagine my parents conversation in your head:

"Shall we get married, love?"

"Nah, can't be bothered, I mean we're both morally bankrupt anyway?"

Being married has gone from being a declaration of love to a legal contract. I don't need a piece of paper to say I love someone with all my heart, nor did my parents.

This isn't the place for such discussion though, I'll happily take this to PM though.

Wilf

Originally posted by BrainThrust
Because it's always an issue of 'not being bothered', eh?

I can imagine my parents conversation in your head:

"Shall we get married, love?"

"Nah, can't be bothered, I mean we're both morally bankrupt anyway?"

Being married has gone from being a declaration of love to a legal contract. I don't need a piece of paper to say I love someone with all my heart, nor did my parents.

This isn't the place for such discussion though, I'll happily take this to PM though.

Wilf

It's not a point worth wasting my time discussing, it is merely a statement of the law as it stands. If you are an unmarried father you have no rights in respect of the child unless granted by the mother or the court thats the law, allthough i have to say that there are some circumstances where this would be patently unfair and there needs to be a bit more flexibility in the system.

Discuss it with Tony Bliar

I'm not arguing over the law. I'm arguing over you decision to label the unmarried as the ones who 'can't be bothered'

Wilf

Originally posted by serapis
Can I just bring these parts of the F4J statement to your attention.



You should at least know both sides of a story before making comments!

Full statement is available here: http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/statement.htm


Ok, I said some, and it's these people who have put it in the limelight. I hope they smarten their image up, or disband and rename themselves, as I was saying. :|

Oh and I suppose fathers 4 justice is just a blanket term rooting out all forms of injustice, perhaps they're going to be a charitable organisation or rally for more child rights, or even overturn the outdated law where it states the children are the property of the father. I won't be holding my breath. :loopy:

Just read the latest escapades of a small group who try toc laim the represent Fathers 4 Justice. This group intended to kidnap Tony Blairs son so thatt it would get the message across. What a bunch of morons, no wonder this mall group of people (not representing F4J) dont have access to their kids.


http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13495113,00.html

They sure are morons youwhatref; if they'd kidnapped the child's father instead of the child they probably would have got the support of most of the country. I and millions like me would have paid them a hefty sum not to bring the tosser back!:D :D

Originally posted by youwhatref
This group intended to kidnap Tony Blairs son so thatt it would get the message across.

And how on earth would they kidnap little Lucifer, bearing in mind he's probably under armed guard 24 hours a day :loopy:

Fellow Sheffielders, this is nothing but another attempt to divert attention away from Ruth Kelly allowing paedophiles to work as schoolteachers :|

And I cannot believe some are falling for it :roll:

Originally posted by Abdul


And I cannot believe some are falling for it :roll:

The forum cynic is at his best again :hihi:

I'm quite wary of fathers4justice. The underlying point they're making is right (that fathers shouldn't be denied the right to see their kids), but I feel they demonise women. They give the impression that the majority of women are vindictive and would gladly stop their ex-partner seeing his child solely out of spite.

While there are some women like this, there are also violent men who used to hit those same women and were also abusive to the child. There are also men who don't pay their child maintenance, or who don't take their responsibilities seriously. It works both ways.

Some of the senior members also aren't exactly nice people, so I have trouble respecting the organisation as a whole.

Originally posted by Abdul
And how on earth would they kidnap little Lucifer, bearing in mind he's probably under armed guard 24 hours a day :loopy:

Fellow Sheffielders, this is nothing but another attempt to divert attention away from Ruth Kelly allowing paedophiles to work as schoolteachers :|

And I cannot believe some are falling for it :roll:

This theory could actually be true. Remember that it was the S*n that broke the story, and Rupert Murdoch hasn't exactly been shy about manipulating the truth in the past. :)

well done:clap:

Originally posted by Daley
I'm quite wary of fathers4justice. The underlying point they're making is right (that fathers shouldn't be denied the right to see their kids), but I feel they demonise women. They give the impression that the majority of women are vindictive and would gladly stop their ex-partner seeing his child solely out of spite.

While there are some women like this, there are also violent men who used to hit those same women and were also abusive to the child. There are also men who don't pay their child maintenance, or who don't take their responsibilities seriously. It works both ways.

Some of the senior members also aren't exactly nice people, so I have trouble respecting the organisation as a whole.

Delay,

You obviously have no experience of this matter so I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

What you said may be true, that there are men out their who have beaten their wives/partners and/or child and thus the woman and child needs protection from him. This goes without saying.

F4J is there to get equal rights to seeing the child. Now if a man hits his wife or child the law is there to protect her and the child. The law will look at the case from her point of view and prosecute accordingly. But on the other side, if the Man has not done anything of the sort but she stops his access to their child through spite, the law again is on her side.

Even if the entire process goes to court, which will cost the Parent with no access £thousands there is no way a court can enforce a judgement!

I watched an interview with a judge who simple said, "What can I do if a woman ignores the courts ruling? I surly can’t send her to prison as that would take her away from her child". This is true and many women know the law cannot touch them!

Its a simple case of rights. If you or I are stopped from seeing our children for no reason other than you are no longer in a relationship with the childs other parent and there is no case for abuse, then why should there be a problem! It should be as simple as that and the law should reflect it. But sadly it does not and this is why the likes of F4J and Families Need fathers have appeared and have such massive membership!

When the rule of law appears to be flouted and the government of the day will do nothing to address it then pressure groups will emerge to address these issues!

Originally posted by LoopyLou
I agree this is an important cause and on a par with the suffragette movement. At the time the protesters were ridiculed for their stunts and put down for there public displays.

The suffragettes had a very clear goal and a clear strategy of how they are going to get there.

Fathers for justice are less clear, or there story is not being fairly reported. i.e. the papers are reporting the stunt but not the politics and goals behind them.

For this reason I would say that they have made a name for themselves and raised their profile by using batman and his friends, but they now need to capitilise on this fame by putting out clear statements of the law changes that they are fighting for and going forward nreed to be known for this rather than the stunts.

Only be serious debate will they get changes made

Interesting that you make the comparison with the suffragettes. Theres some evidence to show that it was actually the work of the wider movement of 'suffragists', that is, those who campaigned steadily over 30 years to convince the government that women were rational enough for the vote - that worked in the end, and that the suffragette antics may have been, in some small measure, counterproductive.

In a similar vein whilst I agree with some of what you have said, serapis, don't be too quick to make the link that supporting fathers rights means supporting F4J, or that if we have reservations about F4J it is because we don't want fathers to see their children. I don't support F4J because they try and make it a black and white case 'give fathers 50-50 rights' - which I don't think is right. The message of other groups is more on point, that is "treat every case individually in the best interests of the child, but not to the unfair detriment of either parent".

just had to add a comment, what blooming idiots they could have done so much more! it was going so well and they blew it! plonkers. i hope in time someone will start to fight again for justice on both sides, or in fact, fight for the children and truely work out which parent is best equipped for each case?
i have friends from both sides, looking after children, and although woman are generally the more mature, sometimes its the fathers

When my daughter was 4 months old,me and her blood father seperated...as i found out he was a devious t**t,but i still let him have access to her twice a week...when she was 8 months old i found out he as using drugs while our daughter was in his care and so were all his mates....so i stopped him from having her....he took me to court and was granted access once a week with me been present at access !!!! Then i caught him using hard drugs during the access....so i stopped him again from seeing her...she is now 16 and has not seen her blood father for 14 years..no cards..no presents..no nothing....and thats the way she wants it to stay..ive never hid her blood father away from her,she has photos of him in her bedroom...but she says he has never cared about her,and looked after her so she is happy as she is (without him) I took my daughter away from him for her own saftey and i dont think children should be used as pawns,which is what some women do...I totally agree that fathers should see their children..and have as much rights as the mother..depending of course why the mother has stopped the father from having access ????

Originally posted by royjames
Let me say I HAVE RECENTLY ATTENDED A FATHERS 4 JUSTICE meeting having a legal battle with my ex to see my daughter.

I will be attending again soon

Doubtful now Roy seeing as they have disbanded, but you could ge t a bit part in the movie they are making of the group in Hollywood

As someone whom has been on the "neutral" side of the argument...

My Mum got everything, house, custody and the lot...

My Dad got 15% of assets and was allowed to see me and my bro twice a week.

I know for a lot of fathers, its much worse than twice a week, but I don't think fathers are treated fairly AT ALL in a seperation involving children.

Originally posted by HondaNate
As someone whom has been on the "neutral" side of the argument...

My Mum got everything, house, custody and the lot...

My Dad got 15% of assets and was allowed to see me and my bro twice a week.

I know for a lot of fathers, its much worse than twice a week, but I don't think fathers are treated fairly AT ALL in a seperation involving children.

Not wanting to say too much, but I agreed to allow my childrens dad see them whenever he wanted. He did until his personal circs. changed and the frequency declined. New partners do have an effect on the frequency and quality of shared care sometimes.

He is a good dad, still has them to stay every week but when a relationship breaks down unless people are willing to put their own feelings aside and the kids first problems will always arise.:rolleyes:

EDIT:
Allow is prob. the wrong word, we agreed on where they went and when with their inclusion in the decision. I retract that word as it implies I would poss. NOT allow him access.

The ffj group is theory is a good idea, the family court needs looking at, the father has very little say in his kids life at the moment, and that is wrong. My husband has 2 kids with his ex, and when he left her because she was cheating she stoppied him seeing his kids as revenge.

He went to court, got parental responsibility and she threw everything at him in an attempt to stop him getting access. He used to be responible for most of the children's care while she went out partying. He is a fab Dad to our 2 kids and doesnt even raise his voice to me. She claimed he was a neglectful and battered her, and she didnt need to have proof.

He eventually got access once a fornight, which turned into whenever she decided she would let him see them, as they were alway 'poorly' or "oh we forgot and theyve gone out to a friends".

She's moved down south and there isnt a damn thing he can do.

Where were his rights? He can go back to court but if she decides to not listen to them there is nothing he can do. They can fine her, but what good is that? They cant jail her either as she has the kids. She can just flout the law repeatedly without punishment, how fair is that?

But I am aware that there are fathers out there that will abuse FFJ and their advice, looking to get revenge. But it may encourage women to press charges when their husbands assault them if they want to use that as an reason to stop them seeing their children. A child has TWO parents, and the mother's desire to have their new fella as their 'new daddy' shouldn't be considered unless the father doesnt actually want access.

Why do women think they have all the rights in the world to deny the father any contact with his children. Guy's wether you have parental responsibilies or not you have more right than you think. Get yourself a good solicitor and take it to court. Dont wait nearly 2 years like I did. :thumbsup:

its great to see dads trying hard to fight for there kids:thumbsup:

Thank You i have very strong views on this subject.

Mod Note. Threads on Fathers Rights combined.

I don't agree that an 'absent parent' should be prevented from seeing their children unless there are legitimate reasons for doing so.

I always use the term 'absent parent' as I personally don't think residency orders should be seen steriotypically as with the mother.

Fathers may be denied access to their children in some cases. In all the cases I am aware of, when a father goes to court for access it is rarely refused without good reason. It's considered in many circles as the 'norm' for the absent parent to be the father - there's a lot of history and economical as well as other reasons why this is the norm. Simply being the absent father does not mean the man is seen as being a bad father.

When a mother is the absent parent, this is seen as not the norm and consequently is seen as being 'abnormal' and a 'bad mother'.

As an absent mother who experienced years of physical and mental abuse and torture; who never refused the father access once they had separated; who never once received a penny in maintenance and then had her child taken by the father; when she applied to the courts for help was treated as a criminal because she was the mother and was having to ask for access. She got two hours per week supervised access.

It's about time the courts really did put the interests of the child first and spend more time and effort on mediation.

I don't agree that an 'absent parent' should be prevented from seeing their children unless there are legitimate reasons for doing so.

I always use the term 'absent parent' as I personally don't think residency orders should be seen stereotypically as with the mother.

Fathers may be denied access to their children in some cases. In all the cases I am aware of, when a father goes to court for access it is rarely refused without good reason. It's considered in many circles as the 'norm' for the absent parent to be the father - there's a lot of history and economical as well as other reasons why this is the norm. Simply being the absent father does not mean the man is seen as being a bad father.

When a mother is the absent parent, this is seen as not the norm and consequently is seen as being 'abnormal' and a 'bad mother'.

As an absent mother who experienced years of physical and mental abuse and torture; who never refused the father access once they had separated; who never once received a penny in maintenance and then had her child taken by the father; when she applied to the courts for help was treated as a criminal because she was the mother and was having to ask for access. She got two hours per week supervised access.

It's about time the courts really did put the interests of the child first and spend more time and effort on mediation.

I defy anyone to put it any better than this. As Hels so rightly states, the interest of the child has to come first. How sad so many selfish parents continue to squabble and only consider their self interest, using the child as a pawn. The psychological impact of relationship break ups on children is hard enough, without ending up as a statistical therapy case.

Good cause, but keep on with all these ridiculous stunts and people are going to lose sight of that and stop taking it seriously. They're not doing it in the right way at all. Sure, they attract public attention, but not for the right reasons.

What, like the Suffragettes? Where do you think your vote came from lady?

i am going through court at the moment for residencey of my 3 lads and it has me absolutley terrified the lads mum left the family home on 14th of june 2007 and signed over the house to me and the childrens benefits then proceded to run off with my uncle they say you cant choose your family ha ha unlucky but now she has me up in court for residency and its slowly but surely killing me to go through this the children have bloomed in every way possible and ive had comendations off numourous doctors and children specialists as one of my lads is autistic but now it seems as though everyone is against me especially the cafcass officer who is dealing with our case as at one point she even told me i cant have a bond or be a good parent to my children because i didnt breast feed them so if anyone can help me then all the infomation possible would be reallly helpful and good luck to any other fathers going through this as the court system is absolutely crazy when it comes to a father wanting and being capable of looking after their own children

Why do women think they have all the rights in the world to deny the father any contact with his children. Guy's wether you have parental responsibilies or not you have more right than you think. Get yourself a good solicitor and take it to court. Dont wait nearly 2 years like I did. :thumbsup:
Good advice. A decent solicitor will be worth every penny. It's finding the right one that can be difficult.

Good advice. A decent solicitor will be worth every penny. It's finding the right one that can be difficult.

and if its a man in court going for access /custody it might be the best to find a male solicitor

I seperated from miniwitch's dad when she had just turned 5, (she is now not far off 8 years old) he was never really much of a father. Since then I have encouraged miniwitch to see her dad regularly, even though I cant stand the man. I sometimes feel frustrated as their are loving fathers out there who would love a chance to see their children, her father will get out of seeing her if he can. I believe fathers should have contact with their children, I dont agree with children being used as a pawn to hurt the other parents feelings

and if its a man in court going for access /custody it might be the best to find a male solicitor

Interesting that you should say that. Speaking from personal experience, I didn't feel it should make a difference but my first solicitor was female and since I had no previous experience in matrimonial legal disputes I retained her for some time. Only when I changed to a male solicitor were my suspicions confirmed. That is, just what an utterly useless, ineffective job my original solicitor had being doing for me.:mad: I would like to think that her dreadful performance regarding my affairs was not down to a gender prejudice but I really have no idea. :confused:

i am going through court at the moment for residencey of my 3 lads and it has me absolutley terrified the lads mum left the family home on 14th of june 2007 and signed over the house to me and the childrens benefits then proceded to run off with my uncle they say you cant choose your family ha ha unlucky but now she has me up in court for residency and its slowly but surely killing me to go through this the children have bloomed in every way possible and ive had comendations off numourous doctors and children specialists as one of my lads is autistic but now it seems as though everyone is against me especially the cafcass officer who is dealing with our case as at one point she even told me i cant have a bond or be a good parent to my children because i didnt breast feed them so if anyone can help me then all the infomation possible would be reallly helpful and good luck to any other fathers going through this as the court system is absolutely crazy when it comes to a father wanting and being capable of looking after their own children

I'm so sorry I have no advice or information for you but I just wanted to say I hope your situation works out for you I really feel for you you mudt be going through hell, the only thing going for your situation is the fact she abandoned her kids which never goes down well & fact they have thrived without her.

I had a friend who was stepmum to 2 kids who's mother left them, she has returned but only made a half ar$d attempt to get them back & disappeared again so they only see her occasionally & the resat of the time live as a happy step family