Fathers' rights - interesting article in Torygraph

[edam]

Thought this article was worrying.
mothers deserve justice too
It appears courts are, in some cases at least, going too far to ensure the father's rights brigade are kept happy. I thought the best interests of the child were paramount - but this article says that in one case the court-appointed guardian supposed to represent a child only sees this child in his father's presence, which obviously makes it hard for the child to speak out about any concerns he has about being taken from his mother. In another case a mother was deemed emotionally abusive for taking a child who said 'daddy hurts my willy' to a psychologist and the child was removed to live with his father.
It seems bizarre that the courts are, in at least some cases, using residence to punish parents, and therefore children. How can you take a child away from its home and its primary carer not because that is the best thing for the child, but in order to punish a parent? Do they even being to consider how disruptive and distressing that must be for the child? And how on earth can reports by court-appointed advocates be independent if the child isn't granted privacy or confidentiality?

[glitterfairy]

OMG THis is an awful article faced with such a fight right now it is making me feel even worse.

[edam]

Oh glitter, am so sorry, didn't mean to frighten you. While it is worrying, the article only outlines two case studies; so there's no suggestion that this goes on in every instance. Hope you have got yourself a good lawyer.

[monkeytrousers]

This is the danger organisations like Fathers for Justice pose when they hystericise their cause. All logic goes out of the window and no ones interests are best served, least of all the children's.

That poor boy. I'm really beginning to think that society stop arguing that children are just as attached to fathers in their first years, 'cause that's plainly not the case, especially if you've breastfed or been primary carer as many women are and that's not to say thay don't love them as much either. Feminism should fight to stop discrimination happening in spite of this fact and also towards enabling couples who'd rather swap roles by agreement.

[monkeytrousers]

this was in the guardian at the weekend too

[Caligula]

Oh god, parp. This doesn't surprise me at all. Not in the least. It's sort of inevitable in a climate of mysogyny in which mothers with residence are portrayed as heartless bitches who deny contact because of their own incomprehensible neuroses while the men they're denying it to are superheroes.

Whenever F4J scale a wall, no-one ever does a resume of the wall-scaler. Eight month later, someone might report on the fact that the guy who climbed this or that bridge has a record of domestic violence, but "Abuser stops traffic" isn't as good a headline as "Superhero fights for justice" is it?

[monkeytrousers]

And I may be being a bit twitchy but what does this mean..

"These men are usually highly intelligent professionals or businessmen with considerable resources. They seem to be able to find one key social worker, usually female, to convince of their claimed innocence and accept their allegations against the mother."

(my itallics)

[bridge1001]

interseting thread, luckily I'm not in this position, but i know of a man who is recently divorced, and he apparently breached an harrasment order and contacted the mother because he was worried about son. she phoned police, asked them not to arrest him, just to warn off. police arrested him, and charged him. since then he would be in breach of bail conditions pending his court case, and has not ben allowed any contact with his kids. he couldnt even contact 5 year old daughter on her birthday or send her a card. there is no suggestion of abuse, wife just doesn't want any contact. oh, and we all pay for the long drwan out legal process...who is the winner here?

[Caligula]

MT - I reckon she means that women are more likely to buy a sob story from a man!

Bridge - the thing about a man who has an harassment order against him, is that he has to have done an awful lot of harassing for that to have happened - it's not that easy to get an harrassment order out on someone. And men who break harassment orders always say it was for a good reason - they never say "I broke my harassment order because I wanted to continue to harass my victim."

[monkeytrousers]

Stupid daft bints women!

[bridge1001]

caligula, I aboslutely agree with you on the harrassment order bit, don't know all the details, except no violence, he threatened suicide a few times, and had a mini breakdown, his kids adore him, and I'm thinking more about the poor little 5 year old who doesn't underastand why her daddy can't talk to her - even on the phone. And couldn't even get a birthday card from him. Why can't adults on both sides think about what they are doing to their kids? Luckily I'm not in this position, and I feel for anybody who is, then mum in this case probably thinks she is right to stop ex seeing the girls, but somehow they need to work it out with mediation not lawyers.

[Caligula]

Yes it's very difficult to know what's going on in someone else's case - you only get their side of the story and even in court where both sides of the story are put forward, it depends on how each side presents itself on how their respective stories are perceived.

TBH I would be very cautious about allowing a man sole contact who has threatened suicide. That in itself is very unstable behaviour and there have been too many cases of men killing their children before committing suicide, for me to hand my kids over to a man who had threatened such a thing, even if only for attention. To anyone involved in child welfare, a threat of suicide should be a very loud alarm bell and that coupled with the harassment order sounds like a bad recipe for his kids. But as you say, it's difficult for his DD to understand why he can't phone her or send her a card. It could be that that's part of his harassment behaviour, but without knowing the full facts, I suppose we can only guess.

[MassacreOHara]

Sorry can't read the link as just the jist of it has made my blood boil. This is definitely one of my parp subjects - it get's me so worked up.

Also agree that police don't just charge people with harrassment on a whim. my ex was harrassing me for months and he still only got the standard 1 warning, 1 caution and then if he hdan't stopped they would have charged him and it would have gone to court.

[bridge1001]

I think the suicide bit is obvoiusly on the wifes mind, and I don't blame her for not wanting any contact with her ex husband,but I do think there should be more mediation to enable contact. stories about men killing their families are very disturbing, and it happens too often, women have been known to do it too. I thought this thread was more about the courts deciding ultimately what was right for the children. the current system doesn't work in some cases, I haven't got any answers and the childs welfare should come before anything. I should add, that in the case I am talking about, the wife asked for her ex not to be arrested, not to be charged, and said in her statement she would like contact to resume, she just doesn't want to talk to him! the courts set bail terms pending the trial not allowing any contact. can't think that anybody wins here, except the lawyers who are drawing the whole thing out and getting paid with our taxes.

[dillydally]

The key thing for me is that father deserves rights but some twunt who provided sperm and little else is NOT a father and therefore deserves considerably less.

[pashmina]

no winners in this situation, very sad for everyone, I agree, lawyers making too much money out of other peoples misery. poor kids

[pashmina]

my friends parents had a nasty divorce, mother met someone else, kicked out her dad, she was 6 at the time. He fought for access not custody, and got it but her mum kept on refusing it. When she was 13, she made her own mind up and went to live with him. she has had years of therapy, and now talks to her mother, but is closer to her dad (who kept all the court papers proving he tried to see her).
not all men are sperm donors, my DH is a wonderful parent, it is an insult to all the good dads out there to call them that. It takes 2 to bring up kids, and if they are lucky enough to have a father who cares that it is a benwewfit surely??

[dillydally]

If you are referring to my post pashmina, I suggest you read it again, I was making the point about fathers being different to sperm donors not denigrating all men.

[pashmina]

sorry, read in a rush, before getting dd's. totally agree fathers are very different to sperm donors - so how do we make it right for kids when marriages break up?

[Caligula]

Pashmina, the million dollar question!

Don't have time to answer it now because I could rant all day, but will think on it.

A start would be the recognition that children need love, stability and consistency and that those things should be primary considerations when deciding contact arrangements. I really don't think they are the priority at the moment.

[monkeytrousers]

Pashmina, here's another F4J thread

Be warned - it's a longun'