If Fathers for Justice invade again

Ok, ok, one more comment as so many questions...

(But then I have to go!)

"If men put in the effort beforehand (etc...) they would stand much better off after the split."

Have to say, that's a nice thing to believe but bears 'almost' no water in the real world. I was my child's main carer, and played second fiddle to a much higher income of partner. All of this counted for nothing when the false allegations and victim-hood thing switched on. I've seen first-hand how the system can be manipulated in totality. It doesn't matter that the truth latter emerges, it doesn't matter if the acuser later admits they lied, it's now too late and little Johnny is used to a step-dad. Run along father and leave her and Johnny alone.

Now, I know NOT everyone does that but too many do. I've seen numerous such cases myself. You only have to read through various threads on women's networks to find examples of mums stating they intentionally withhold access. So, please, don't assume that behaving correctly before (or after) makes much difference if there's no credible mechanism to measure or address that, in place. That in part is what we are asking for. That is not meant to offend or take rights away, but that is the reality of equality. If we want men to step up and deliver the goods then there has to be some protection for the child and them if the relationship ends. Otherwise, why should any bloke ever bother - which is what I've seen being asked here repeatedly. I'll leave you with that thought. Appreciate the discussion, really do. Goodnight all.

I agree NP! I think even my ex, with his once a week phone call, would be rather affronted that his children are now considered fatherless.

How many of them are fatherless, Jennie?

Thank you for answering questions Spydiii. It was interesting to be able to hear a more balanced view than we have over the past few days and I hope we've given you some food for thought in return :)

I'd suspect their fathers would be very angry at theat suggestion too!

But TeaJennie, being in a single mother family does not in itself make a child fatherless. I am not disputing that 3.8million children live with single mothers, I am disputing F4J's extrapolation that they are therefore fatherless.

So it's not about contact or the child having a relationship with the father at all?

The 1 in 3 figure comes from the ONS (Office of National Statics)

1.9 million lone parents with dependent children in the UK
In 2011, women accounted for 92% of lone parents
One million lone parents have one child
621,000 single parents have two children
238,000 lone parents have more than two children
3.8million children live with only one of their biological parents
2.7million who live with a single mother and 200,000 with a lone father.
500,000 are in cohabiting step-families, and 400,000 in married step-families.

and nothing is being 'taken out of context' that you say - it's that you are unaware of context - you haven't thought about the context that the things you are saying are situated within and people are pointing out the realities of the context and implications etc.

hehehehehe

Bye!!

Glad you've answered some questions, although I think perhaps you are projecting a little with your little dig about reasoned debate. We're just trying to help

you're not being misrepresented - what you say is not being agreed with because you don't seem to have the facts and are therefore assuming things to be true that others more informed know not to be.

you're being questioned and challenged but not misrepresented.

if you want to have reasoned debate about these issues then you need, with all due respect, to educate yourself about the issues you are talking about - the reality of the facts and stats and causes etc. and for suggestions you make as to changes you have to actually think through the implications and shortfalls as well as the strengths you feel in them and realise the impact they'd have that you haven't thought about (because there always are far reaching implications to changing laws or practice).

you really, if you are serious about this area and want to be positive in it, NEED to educate yourself.

"Moving to other end of country to be with new love interests meaning child loses one parent. I'll probably be hated by some for that last comment but I see it as working either way and not applied unreasonably, which it is currently."

To use my own experience again (sorry!), this is what my ex did. I had no power to stop him. had I chosen to do this (with the children) he could have taken me to court to try and prevent it. There is a legal means to do so, even if it doesn't always find in the NRP's favour.

I really would advise you check the stats out. 3.8 million children (a 3rd of the UK's children) live in single mother households. This does not make them all fatherless. Of those that don't have their father actively involved, not all will be due to the court system.

According to a survery of people who have been involved in family separation over the last 20 years, 1 in 3 children whose parents split lose contact with their father. However, this is a survey of 4000 people so cannot really be extrapolated to the whole population. 20 years is also a very long time, it doesn't necessarily mean that this is what's happening now.

Even if you take the survey stat at face value, this means that in fact 1.27 million children have no contact with their father. This is closer to about 10% of Britain's children. This could be for many, many reasons, not just court decisions or baseless contact denial.

Until you have the breakdown for the stats you're using I think you need to stop using them.

Numbers are meaningless without a clear definition.

1 in 3? 1 in 3 children don't live full time with their fathers? 1 in 3 have no contact at all with their fathers? 1 in 3 don't have regular contact with their fathers (including a definition of regular)? 1 in 3 of all children or of those whose parents have been through court proceedings about contact? etc etc

spy: - Again, my view is an amount of time with each parent such that they can each form a good and strong bond with the child - assuming we are talking time. Otherwise, jointly making decisions and discouragement of behaviours that are not in the child's best interests. e.g. Moving to other end of country to be with new love interests meaning child loses one parent. I'll probably be hated by some for that last comment but I see it as working either way and not applied unreasonably, which it is currently.

spy for that to have any meaningful parity there would have to be a law saying fathers cannot move to the other side of the country away from their children - would you be up for that? making it illegal for men to abandon their children? because the vast majority of 'fatherless' children are so through the choice and actions of the father.

Ah, gone.... if you can't stand the heat...

Spydiii, please can you explain to me where the stats come from in you 'children4justice' literature?

Your campaign states that "during 2012 thousands of children will be silenced by the family courts.' Are you counting the children taken into care by court order in those figures?

Can you also explain why F4J published a campaign ad targeting CAFCASS - and then changed it to target Gingerbread? Why do F4J call Gingerbread child abusers and why F4J instructed their followers to troll them? Do you not think F4J are the ones being defamatory in this instance?

Couple of things guys... and meant with respect. First, I'm seeing my comments misrepresented repeatedly which I'm not sure is by accident. This in turn makes any reasoned debate impossible since it's like negotiating with lawyers trying to catch you out. I'd much rather be open and honest and not fearful that anything I say will be taken out of context. Second thing, all said and done it's time I need to get some food, drive home and get some sleep. Been a very long week... Hope you all have a good weekend, and don't assume we are all bad. Some of us might be otherwise. :)

we DO have access to the figures spy! so do you if you try.

how are you sure?? how do you know it's a key thing they do??? because they say so??

you haven't checked out the information yourself or given yourself a thorough understanding.

what flimsy baseless reasons do you think courts deny contact on the grounds of??

no courts don't recognise a sudden change of lifestyle - it's not as reliable or evidenced or real as the years of actually living that lifestyle the main caregiver has done. if they'd wanted to be an active part of their children's lives they should have been. they agreed to their partner being the main caregiver and source of emotional stability and security for the children and the conditions (and the children) grew out of that. you don't get to suddenly change all that when you break up. children don't have a reset button.

Be careful suggesting the 3.8 million stat is a lie, it was a high court judge who made the claim on figures you and I do not have access to and that generally the gov won't let us have. Probably good reason to hide them. It was Sir Paul Coleridge if you want to reference it.

If you don't know how many of the 1in3 are not in contact as a result of court action, then you need to stop using that stat until you do. It's misleading.

• To recap, I personally am not sure of the origins of that stat, but I'm sure the girls and boys in HQ do and have been very careful to back any statistic with credible sources. It's a key thing F4J do.

What do envisage when you say "shared parenting"?

• Again, my view is an amount of time with each parent such that they can each form a good and strong bond with the child - assuming we are talking time. Otherwise, jointly making decisions and discouragement of behaviours that are not in the child's best interests. e.g. Moving to other end of country to be with new love interests meaning child loses one parent. I'll probably be hated by some for that last comment but I see it as working either way and not applied unreasonably, which it is currently.

What do you think are reasonable grounds for denying this?

• Good evidence that a parent poses a risk to the child. At the moment, I'd say (and based on personal experience) that the bar is set way too low. I is too easy for the PWC regardless of their gender to completely deny the other parent for the flimsiest and most baseless of reasons.

Do you think that continuity of care and stability for the child is "paramount"?

• I'd say in most cases, yes. Depends what your definition is though as people's lives change when they split. For example, we see dads who were in full time work (but saw kids every night / morning / weekend) suddenly change their work patterns to be able to see the child but the courts do not generally recognise this rely on continuity meaning mum looked after kids in daytime so now, dad, off you go and cannot see little Johnny anymore. So, we need to be careful what we mean by this. Continuity in terms of stable home and both parents as far as possible; continuity in terms of binary 'one parent only' based on pre-split share, no.

spy all the information is out there. it sounds like you could really do with just doing some independent research using reputable sources and to inform yourself. i'm not talking about F4J propaganda that you've taken on face value and not even thought about or questioned by your own admission, and clearly you're not going to be persuaded of the facts by us. so do your own research, inform yourself, find out the facts and figures and see what holds up.

blind following isn't fighting for anyone. check out the facts and then see where you are.

no that analogy does not hold at all spy. if fathers took on active parenting roles during their relationship such as taking paternity leave, sharing childcare, altering work patterns etc then they'd be more likely to get decent contact or residency upon breaking up. they're not unconnected. none of the things we've been asking you about are so when you keep saying i don't know about that , or that, and that's not what we're doing it shows a massive absence of understanding of the issues involved in what is apparently an area you are passionate about and willing to 'fight' for.

i'm guessing fighting means taking out ads in papers from your last post - ads that you are unaware of the content of and the accuracy there of.