do you htink its a BAD thing that fathers 4 Justice has been disbanded or not

[cod]

Message withdrawn

Yes...after all, it's only money!! For school uniforms, and dinner money, and food, and little luxuries like that!!

Suedonim were there other factors at play in that case. The issue of who gets 'custody' of the children is heavily based in precedent and without good reasons as to the mothers unsuitability as a carer it is highly unusual for fathers to be given custody of the children.

I too think it is time for a more balanced view of custody arrangements for reasonable fathers. I think a move towards more shared custody is a must. If we want men to be equal carers of our children then I think that should apply for life - not just for when it suits us as mothers!

If custody was shared then perhaps there would be less need for fathers to pay so much money to mothers and perhaps some of the resentment over financial settlements would therefore ease somewhat.

I think to base custody laws on the premise that all men are violent and unreliable is absurd. The vast majority of men I know are caring and involved with their children and would be devastated to lose them.

Many mothers who are violent are given custody of their children and no one bats an eye!

Soapbox, I firmly believe that the real reason F4J wanted 50 50 custody to be the norm, was not because they wanted to look after their children, but because they then wouldn't have to pay maintenance for them.

Custody laws are not based on the idea that all men are violent. They are based on the premise that the best interests of the child are served by having the primary carer of that child being the person with care and control. And in most cases, the primary carer is the woman and that is why she is given care and control.

We should bear in mind that 90% of couples sort out custody arrangements out of court. And still, mainly, most men allow women to have residence, care and control, without going to court. The reason most women get care and control, is because most men don't actively want it. If they did, more than 10% of them would go to court.

Caligula - I suspect that a high proprtion of the 90% don't go to court because they know they have no chance of success.

If both parents work then it can be a lot less clear cut though!

Most men of the ilk represented by F4J (NOT most men full stop!) only want increased involvement with their children so that they can a) get out of paying child support, b) torture and manipulate the children's mother, and c) wield power over the woman and the children, because that is what they perceive themselves as having lost. They are not grieving for cherished relationships and the joy of reading bedtime stories to their beloved children. There are plenty of fathers in that situation...but I doubt any of them were paid up members of F4J, unless they were more than a little dim!!!!

My friend has appealed in vain. It costs so much money, she's already spent 10K on it. If it wasn't for her family helping out financially she's be on the streets. At the moment she's kind of accepted it and hopes things will change later on. At least they all live in the same town so she does see the children.

Yes, I would agree that f4j weren't helping the cause much!

I do think all the father-bashing (verbally of course) will be detrimental in the long run though. Just as there are dead-beat dads where divorce is concerned there are also ones who give the ex everything and loose out themselves (DH's friend) or those whose ex's decide to get revenge through the children and a bias court (family friend.)

It would do good to remember that there are some terrible mothers out there as well as some terrible fathers. F4J made publicity but don't think they actually achieved much. You have to keep in the media and get popular support for this government to do anything.

i may be wrong in my thinking but im of the opinion that if there werent so many selfish mothers out there who denied the fathers access for no other reason than spite then a group like like would have never formed and never have been given credibility.

was it not the case in the past that courts tended to always favour the mother?

is it any wonder that so many fathers decided to fight back and got swept up in something which turned sinister? some out of sheer desperation, seeing nowhere else to turn?

and those spiteful mothers sicken me because im one of the mothers who would give almost anything for my dd's dad to know her...even acknowledge her.

im not saying i agree with what that group did, not for one minute..but i can see why some loving fathers feel they need a voice. the system is unfair.

Yes, we all know there are soooo many spiteful scorned women around just waiting to ruin the lives of all these decent men. That's what women are like isn't it? They are evil!! Innately so. We need more groups like this, and not just the ones who try to work with women's groups advocating for a child friendly system that doesn't privilege either parent above what is best for the child. We need groups to fight women's groups and battle for a change in the law to throw the spiteful bitches in prison if they don't jump when we say so! And about eh DV issue lets be honest here; don?t we all know some harpy who deserves a smack in the mouth at times?

LOL boozyloon.
There was some studio guest on BBC this a.m, from FathersNeedfamilies, talking about a man he had supported in court yesterday. he said there had been some trouble 'a guy who happens to have a bit of a short fuse', he said, glossing quickly on, went on to talk about the Mothers barrister in totally irrelevant sexist tones ("some old barrister,a sort of Marge Simpson type with a 60-a-day-voice), and how she has ried to interfere with an agreement for access outside a family centre.

There needs to be complete carity and separation between good fathers wanting a constructive relationship with theri kids, and cases where mothers live in fear of the man, and know he is using access as a means to control her. Men do need to know that the 'right' of being a father is based on certain basic criteria. And women need to respect that, and not use access as power, either.Butt men can't be lumped together.

The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming..all 'other women' are cows!

Urm, surely the MI5 infiltrated F4J and set up the plot to abduct Leo Blair so that F4J would shut itself down rather than the government having to take controversial steps to get rid of them.

Or is that too much of a conspiracy theory?

I think you have something there, Fisil!

"..was it not the case in the past that courts tended to always favour the mothers.." Yes Nightowl, but that?s because that's the way society is set up. Men tend to be paid more than women so traditionally women leave the workplace and become primary carer. It's hardly women's fault. In fact isn't that what feminist's have been lobbying for? For a better work/life balance and equality in the workplace? Oh, but I forget, feminists are the enemy of F4J as they seek to emasculate and feminise men - to strip them of their traditional role as breadwinner, oh, but hang on again, now I'm even more confused. Isn't that exactly what F4J are fighting for, for equality in the domestic sphere?

Oh, and lets not forget breastfeeding which men don't do, and which creates a palpably different bond between mother and infant. Aren't the government trying to promote breastfeeding? I'm surprised F4J haven't tried to put a stop to this as it unfairly puts the burden of responsibility onto the mother, and may bias the child into being more dependent on the mother, especially in the first year of life. That's not fair either. Why aren't F4J asking for science to hurry up and let them become pregnant for a change? In fact, why don?t F4J lobby for men to just become women, then they?d be able to enjoy all the privileges they think they?re missing out on now?

Oh FGS. OK, circumstances vary more than they used to and occasionally nowadays there is a case for a particular man being primary carer rather than the mother.

But in the VAST MAJORITY of cases the mother is by far the best person to look after a child. Not because society forces us to, but because we are better at it, we are designed for it, and most men wouldn't bother arguing about it. A father is NOT the same as a mother. It's ridiculous to suggest that men and women could ever be totally equal in this respect. It's not just breasts.....it's a biological imperative much broader than that!!!

MoM, I think you're missing some irony...

No...I got the irony....very amusing....it's just one of those topics that makes me spit feathers, that's all. I was responding more to earlier posts about it being "about time we re-evaluated" men's right to be considered as primary carers. It gets my goat....it's such loony hogwash

Me too!

Far from being looney hogwash- shared care is the norm in many parts of the world for non-infant children.

The vast majority of fathers are good, loving and caring parents. I see no barriers to fathers parenting non-infant children on a shared basis with the mother.

Honestly, to read this thread you'd think mothers are paragons of virtue in all circs and fathers are evil, useless no-gooders.

Far too stereotypical for my liking! Looney hogwash or not!

Each case needs to be decided on its own merits, but moving to a situation where shared care is the norm and exceptional circs on the mothers or fathers side can change this (ie violence, drugs, alcoholism etc) would be a good outcome IMO!

I get rather tired of the men are all useless stereotype on here and in the media. They are not!

Only the men in F4J Soapbox

Shared care is all very well, where possible...but in cases where a "primary carer" has to be agreed, IMO it should still be the mother in the vast majority of cases, and I find it laughable to suggest otherwise. My dh and I share the care of our children in that he is a loving, wonderful and active father. They need him, he needs them and I think we're all very lucky that he is the way he is. But if we, and couples like us, split up and custody of the children has to be agreed, I think it would be totally right and natural for the court to award custody to the mother as a matter of course unless there were very good exceptional reasons why not. Fathers are fathers, important as they are - they can't replace mothers and I don't see why anyone would want them to.

Soapy, what monkeytrousers said. This isn't a thread about caring fathers, it's a thread about a bunch of women-hating thugs who sought to use their children as weapons.

As for shared care, as the child of divorced parents, I'd have HATED having to be shipped between houses. Human beings are territorial animals. We need to have a place to live that is ours. May work for some kids but suspect it is often more about the (absent) parent. You can't split children in two. If men want a truly equal relationship as parents, then they should do half the childcare and domestic work.

Edam - I am talking about men in general not f4j.

Many men do share child care and domestic work - my DH does!

Why does that make him an inferior parent to me should we divorce?

Many men are now SAHP, even they don't have much success in the courts!

I understand that being shipped between two homes is not ideal - but neither is having one weekend in two fathering!