Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask what do you think of father's for justice

127 replies

AuntiePickleBottom · 10/07/2011 21:25

www.fathers-4-justice.org/hunger4justice.php

having supported DH in his fight to see his DD, i can understand why some father's want to take action.

at the same time i can understand why some mother's refuse access

OP posts:
OldLadyKnowsNothing · 10/07/2011 23:58

Totally impossible to separate the two, Kewcumber? How about looking at the history? DS has a DS and is separated from his exP. Dgs is here (DS lives with me and his dad) three nights most weeks, and DS sees him a fair bit of "odd hours" side from that. He's a bloody good dad, his ex is a good mum, and mostly they work it out between them.

But every now and then, the ex throws a hissy fit, and her first and only line of attack is, "You'll never see him again."

OK, now we know she doesn't mean it, because she's used that line half a dozen times and never followed through - but what if she did? What if DS did have to go to court for access? Could you really not tell the difference between him, and a control/freak/manipulator? :(

Tchootnika · 11/07/2011 00:01

OldLady - believe me, in this situation a court would not assume that your DS was a control frek/manipulator...
Which, again, suggests that F4J are very dubious...

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 11/07/2011 00:03

I have no doubt that F4J are a bunch of wankers, I just feel sad that my DS (and his DS) might have to lose out because of the likes of them.

Tchootnika · 11/07/2011 00:05

Confused OldLady...
Unless your DS gets involved with them, why on earth should he be affected by them?

VioletV · 11/07/2011 00:07

Small, of course affairs etc are mentioned these are reasons along with many more why I access is denied etc. Why else would F4J be about? And I have said many times the mother should be given automatic custody unless she is unfit to do so.

sunshineandbooks · 11/07/2011 00:10

OldLady that's what I feel like too. Sad

There is a need for a men's pressure group, but one of the most useful things it could do would be to change the status of men's parenting. To get society at large to automatically consider a man to be just as much a parent as the mother. To do this means more men need to be primary carers long before the relationship breaks down and residency becomes an issue.

When the likes of F4J start high-profile campaigns for paternity leave along the same lines as their stunts about access, I will take them more seriously.

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 11/07/2011 00:13

Tchootnika. because people start thinking that all fathers who want good access to their DC are like them. Manipulative abusers. Why else would he put the mother of his child through the hell of court? Plainly, he's trying to control her, therefore he's a manipulative abuser.

(She's already said that if he sees a lawyer again, he'll never see the child. That was after the first time she made that threat, and DS wanted to know the best way to respond.)

Tchootnika · 11/07/2011 00:17

OldLady - oh dear...
I didn't mean to belittle what you were saying, btw.
But if that situation did have to go any further re. lawyers, from what you say, it sounds as if DGS's mother's behaviour wouldn't do her any favours.

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 11/07/2011 00:18

sunshineandbooks, I'd like to see a time when neither parent is "primary carer"; when they both really do do it, equally. Obviously this would be impossible if a mother is EBF, but that time (even if extended) is a tiny fraction of the 18 years till adulthood.

Kewcumber · 11/07/2011 00:19

OldLady "Totally impossible to separate the two, Kewcumber?" I should have said of course that for an outsider it impossible. We only have to go on what little is reported in the paper.

I just don't see why mothers should get "automatic custody". In a previous job I would have been out of the ocuntry at least once a week, partner around and working standard office hours. I wouldn;t have been an unfit paretn but patently obviously not the best parent to be the resident one. depsite that I would have fought for it because its what I wanted.

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 11/07/2011 00:22

Tchootnika, it's ok, no offence taken. She's a good mum, there's no reason to take dgs away from her, so she'd retain residence, or primary-carer status, or whatever.

Equally, DS is a good dad, there's no reason to reduce/deny contact; but ironically, should he have to go to court, he's likely to end up with "every other weekend and a midweek visit" as is standard in Scotland.

Which is a lot less than he has now.

So, no lawyers, no court; dance to her tune and keep smiling.

Tchootnika · 11/07/2011 00:22

Idea that mothers should get automatic custody is a total red herring, courts do not take this approach, and (obviously) it plays into hands of F4J apologists. Ridiculous idea, tbh.

VioletV · 11/07/2011 00:29

Tchootnika They must do otherwise there wouldn't be such uproar and F4J wouldn't be around. I've yet to hear of a court give full custody to a father over a mother who wanted and was more than fit enough to care for her child. By all means correct me if I'm wrong...

lovesicecream · 11/07/2011 00:34

Oh ffs what's wrong with going to court and getting access the proper way? Dressing up in costume and jumping about like a muppet isn't going to endear you to anyone! If you've done nothing wrong a court will give you access

Tchootnika · 11/07/2011 00:40

Violet
Residence is far more often with mothers because mothers are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, primary carers. This is primary consideration, not an imaginary umbilical chord. (And FWIW, there are many mothers as well as fathers around who've been denied residence rights, and regard themselves as fit parents...)
As I understand it, F4J are concerned not only with custody rights, but also with access - and things have to be pretty bloody awful before courts deny access.

FreudianSlipper · 11/07/2011 00:40

fathers for justice,

we need to hear both sides, far to many controlling manipulative cruel men are kept away from their children for a reason, to protect them but it is all to easy to blame the women for being vindictive.

and yes i do feel sympathy for those men and women who are stopped from seeing their children but cases where there is no abuse i think a quite rare. i am not sure why we are so suspicious of women that do this, do you think they enjoy upsetting their children just to apparently get back at their ex

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 11/07/2011 00:45

FreudianSlipper, in the case of my DS and his ex, it's clear that she threatens access ("You'll never see him again") just to get back at her ex, my DS. TBF, she's never followed through on it yet, but it's the first and only weapon she uses.

She said, when pregnant, how much she hated women who do that, but does it herself, regularly.

I don't think she enjoys upsetting her child, but it does seem that there are times when she really doesn't think about him at all.

I accept that this case is probably rare.

Pandemoniaa · 11/07/2011 00:49

I've no time for Fathers for Justice. Most of their antics prove that they need careful supervision rather than unlimited access. The men I've met who champion this bunch of attention seekers cause are, in the main, misogynists.

VioletV · 11/07/2011 00:52

Tchootnika Fair enough I personally haven't known anyone that's lost custody. I'd be interested in knowing if the courts would deny access if a parent has threatened to snatch a child.

mayorquimby · 11/07/2011 00:52

Not sure on F4J, they would appear to be a group with a lot of in house problems etc under the banner of a seemingly noble pursuit.
However what I do know is that opinions like VioletV's are terrifying to me and possibly what necessitates groups such as F4J.

VioletV · 11/07/2011 00:58

mayorquimby Oh well. We can't all have the same opinions.

mayorquimby · 11/07/2011 01:05

well obviously not. If we had the same opinion then the idea that there are people who think the way you do wouldn't terrify me as I'd agree with them.

VioletV · 11/07/2011 01:13

On that note I bid you a goodnight. I hope you're not bogged down with too many terrifying nightmares.........

SpecialFriedRice · 11/07/2011 01:26

I think F4J comes across as a bit too "boohoo my ex is a bitch". Surely if they deserved contact they would have got it through court.

I also happened to google something once and was taken to a page on their website that listed all the negatives associated with being raised by a single MOTHER (it didn't say parent - it said mother). As a single mother myself, because DD's father didn't want anything to do with her and has never met her, it riled me.

So after that I just thought they were a bit dickish!

mayorquimby · 11/07/2011 01:30

"Surely if they deserved contact they would have got it through court."

Bit of a dangerous presumption to make though. There's a fair amount of F4J members with a history of DV. Now DV is something which has a criminally low rate of conviction/prosecution, yet an argument of "surely if they were guilty the would have been convicted in court" may not necessarily hold much water." in a debate on how to improve the way in which DV is handled. Perhaps the very reason that some men seek out these groups is that they have not been adequately dealt with by the courts.