If Fathers for Justice invade again

My cousin's former boyfriend said the same to her ThisIs. So she helped him approach his ex, negotiate, arrange regular visitation, and even had his children round at her family's home over Christmas. This lasted the 8 or so months she was with him. Once she broke it off he stopped turning up at his ex's on time and started making excuses as to why he had to cancel. Within a few months he'd stopped seeing his children again. He only kept it going while my cousin was there to encourage him and do most of the childcare. I'm so glad she didn't have children with him.

Why are children with fathers that don't want to see them less important to you than those who do? I thought you were all about children's rights?

Both the 3.8million and the 1 in 3 children fatherless stats are false and misleading.

SaF, serious profit? Know how much a national broadsheet full page advert costs, or professional printed banners at the hunger strike etc...? I can assure you there is less income than outgoing. A few people are willing to dig deep to make up the difference and all work is voluntary.

But ensuring that fathers play a fundamental role in parenting after separation is exactly what you say you are campaigning for. It says it on your website.

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.

What do envisage when you say "shared parenting"?

What do you think are reasonable grounds for denying this?

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

Agreed SAF. There is obviously an issue with enforcement of orders but I think we can all agree that it's a very difficult area given the effects enforcement could potentially have on the children. And again, some PWC's will break a court order for very good reasons.

"Another question, why don't F4J campaign for better rights for fathers in relationships? Better paternity leave, more uptake of and better support for flexible working and parental leave etc? If the parents were equal before a split then this would to lead to a much more equal status quo in the event of an acrimonious split."

This is not my area of expertise but I believe Matt and Nadine have spoken about it publicly quite a few times, to the ends you describe. It is not however the key focus of the campaign. The analogy I gave above probably explains it best, it's a little like working in A&E where you running to just keep people alive and all the other stuff you need to fit in around 5 min coffee breaks.

and how exactly do you 'fight' for these dads? by selling them a £20 pdf (that's a serious profit margin there)?

what sheer numbers? we were researching it the other night and it looked like the court system prevents less than 0.1% of fathers they see from having contact.

i think it was something like 300per year.

do you think those 300 were all prevented for no reasons and you'd find them good dad's you were wiling to 'fight for' or do you think a fair few of them will be a significant danger to children hence the court awarding them no contact when they do that so, so, so rarely?

Perhaps you can pass that on to your friend then? Although I'm sure she's reading this anyway. FTR, if you spoke to my ex (and I wouldn't put him past him being one of your number) he'd tell you it was categorically my fault that he moved away. He genuinely believes it is. You can't always believe the stories people tell you.

Another question, why don't F4J campaign for better rights for fathers in relationships? Better paternity leave, more uptake of and better support for flexible working and parental leave etc? If the parents were equal before a split then this would to lead to a much more equal status quo in the event of an acrimonious split.

NP, like I just said a moment ago, when your house is on fire you deal with the biggest issue, not the secondary but associated issues. For what it's worth, and again my view; I am personally disappointed that some (many?) fathers have not bothered to be there for the kids and ex's. You'll appreciate however that most of the people I meet however are screaming to see their kid because they are prevented. Sometimes it's feels like being in A&E, all you can do is keep up with the incoming flood of serious cases and health advice and prevention somewhat takes a second place. Not because we don't care but because of the reality of time and scale of the issue.

"Bit like asking what does feminism do to promote fathers?"

Erm, actually feminism is pretty hot on shared responsibility for parenting. If fathers were involved from the outset, rather than leaving it to the mother, then mothers would cease to be the primary carer, and then after a break up the primary carer element would be less prominent. Leading to more involved fathers during the relationship and ergo also after a split up. Feminists I know tend to split their childcare on a far more equal basis than non feminists. It kinda goes with the territory.

How do you ensure that those fathers that don't turn up for contact with their children play a fundamental role?

• Thats not what we are campaigning for. Bit like asking what does feminism do to promote fathers? It's a related topic but not what F4J are about, the primary cause is hard enough to achieve without diluting effort on associated problems.

Surely it's relevant if those children are included in the statistics you use to promote your cause?

HandDivedScallopsrgreat

There are only so many hours and people free. And most of them in our place are those desperate to see their children. Maybe in the future, if other groups don't spring up to do that. Maybe I can sum up by saying when your house is on fire it's not stopping kids playing with matches you're worried about at that very moment. And right now, we have tens of thousands of house on fire...

Thisisnotverygood...

"I would do anything to take my son's pain and confusion away."

I do feel for your situation, and would say to you ad others here it's something we too feel about our own albeit in a slightly different way perhaps.

By absent fathers I mean those choosing to be absent, not turning up, not paying for their children.

Why aren't you campaigning for absent fathers to play more of a role? If children need fathers, that is exactly what you should be campaigning for.

How do you ensure that those fathers that don't turn up for contact with their children play a fundamental role?

• Thats not what we are campaigning for. Bit like asking what does feminism do to promote fathers? It's a related topic but not what F4J are about, the primary cause is hard enough to achieve without diluting effort on associated problems.

Do you believe that the majority of children growing up with no contact with their fathers are doing so because of actions of people other than their father?

• Honestly, don't know. I fight for those that give a damn and that are, as far as it's possible to determine, good dads. In those cases, and there are very very many, the reason dad isn't there is because he was prevented from being there. The sheer level of legal action in this area speaks volumes.

Do you think that the rights of fathers trump the rights of children?

• No. Neither do I think a mothers rights trump those of a child. The latter is what we have in English law through the paramount principle (child's needs are only met by mothers being met) which many of us would say is fatally flawed as it ignores each case being treated on an individual basis. The latter being the usual argument of those saying the law is not biased.

What laws do you wish to see in place of those that currently exist?

• The Children Act 1989 was meant to be one of equal parenting, however it was stifled outside of parliament by the legal profession who probably (rightly) saw no money in it. The act we have now is not the one debated and agreed in parliament. However, since then we've learned more. We know know that for a wide range of complex and interrelated reasons that automatic shared parenting upon split EXCEPT where there are reasonable grounds to deny that, result in better outcomes for ALL parties. The system we have now that pits parent against parent in a 'winner takes all' binary dog fight means each party has to pounce first and go for the jugular in the most extreme way if they are guaranteed to see their child or have any equity after. It's no coincidence that all those that advise we continue with this system also happen to make money from it. Go figure. Personally, I'd like to see more mediation backed by knowledge that the judge, if required, will treat both parties equally and on the basis of best interests of the child. As I've touched upon above, that does not happen due to the paramount principle.

Why are we tolerating the presence of these people whilst they have this on their FB page?

"Thanks to the bigotry and prejudice of organisations like Gingerbread and Mumsnet, the epidemic of fatherlessness continues with catastophic social consequences."

WTF?

Say not sat

You join The National Family Forum apparently. It looks like the only way to access the advice/support forum and their helpful publications. Happy to be corrected If I'm wrong.