Fathers 4 Justice can?t be a credit to their cause because they have no defined or coherent cause. They are, instead, defined by their methodology and by their leader. This is the reason that they will continue to fade further into obscurity, having achieved nothing, except increased profile for their leader.
Fathers 4 Justice were launched more than ten years ago by Matt O?Connor. They were fighting, he said, against the injustices experienced by fathers in the Family Court. A campaign of public nuisance making was launched. It generated significant publicity. Fathers 4 Justice referred to their actions as ?Cunning Stunts?, but the only thing that they achieved was publicity, much of it negative. This included revelations that prominent members of F4J had restraining orders against them, had not availed themselves of contact with their children and some had criminal records.
Fathers 4 Justice have largely disappeared from public view, the public and media bored by their attention seeking antics. Matt O?Connor launched a new business and then embarked on a hunger strike outside David Cameron?s house. The hunger strike was a massively embarrassing failure, O?Connor lasted about a week and it garnered very little national press. Despite this, there have been plans for further hunger strikes.
Journalists have commented on Matt O?Connor?s desire for any kind of publicity, so it is unlikely that he will disappear from sight completely. He dabbled in the London Mayoral race some time ago but the bid failed. During debates on child contact orders from the Family Court, O?Connor often obfuscates, talking about the riots of Summer 2011 as the result of ?Fatherless Britain? and claiming that 200 children a day lose contact with their father. He does not explain what the Family Court had to do with this, how many of fathers are prevented from seeing their children by the Family Court or what Fathers 4 Justice is doing about it. Instead, he accuses journalists and others of promoting an ?ideology of hate? (without explaining what that ideology is).
Many journalists have stated that the bias against is fathers is a myth and that shared parenting is the norm. As The Guardian put it in 2008:
?A study by the Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy was set up by the Ministry of Justice to look into non-resident parents being awarded little or no contact with their children for the flimsiest of reasons. Last week, the study concluded that the vast majority of separated fathers enjoy access to their children. Only one in 10 cases ends up in court, the rest having been agreed between the parents. When the cases do go to court, more than three-quarters of the applicants, mainly fathers, are able to resolve contact issues, with only a small percentage denied contact altogether, in the interests of the children involved.?
Fathers 4 Justice continue as they always have. Creating publicity but doing nothing.
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/28/comment.fathers.justice
www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/matt-oconnor-the-man-behind-fathers4justice-406610.html
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/no-bias-against-fathers-childrens-act