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

[cod]

Message withdrawn

Nobody said anecdote was invalid. I pointed out its limitations. But it was welcomed as a useful form of evidence

Message withdrawn

F4J used a combination of anecdote and a misrepresentation of statistics to put their point across - that of women being predominantly spiteful and controling. Such a reduction is patently riduclous and should have been dismissed from the off. They put forward no named arguments such as OTHER fathers advocacy groups and had NO interest in working WITH women's groups in achieving a parity of representation within the family courts, if one existed that is, correlation not being causation. It IS a sorry sate of affairs that a bunch of misogynists in dirty beer stained superhero costumes were the only ones the media were interested in. But again, that's a different issue. Debates were and are still happening. Parents and children will be better served without F4J distorting the debate, IMHO.

nuanced arguments

What soapbox said about the courts favouring custody to the mother is not anecdotal. It is a legal reality. I say that from my legal training. Barristers' experience of how courts rule in a situation is not based the limited sum total of the cases they handled personally but on the sum total of how the courts of ruled generally in earlier cases. This is because the courts operate on a system of precedent. And it is the barrister's job to see how the weight of legal precedent weighs in on a particular case in order to be able to advise a client whether or not they are likely to succeed in pursuing custody. In the case of the father, much less likely - fact.

Also, when we talk about a custody application that is in front of the courts, we are not referring to a situation of a feckless father. We are talking about a father who is prepared to go thrugh the uphill task of proving his case, often at great expense and emotional cost,. Surely that must say something about the depth of his feeling for his children and the sacrifices he has or is potentially prepared to make for his children if he was awared custody. For those "FJ4" fathers that use the courts as a means of control, the truth will out in the evidence. I do think that kneejerk custody to the mother is not always in best interests of the children. The courts should examine the situation more carefully.

Nobody said that ALL soapbox's evidence was anecdotal FGS. It's a red herring.

And the number of fathers awarded custody by the courts still reflects pretty accurately the number of fathers who are SAHP in relation to the number of women who are, and the proportion of the domestic labour/childcare actually done by men. If men want equal treatment as parents they should be doing an equivalent of the childcare. They certainly don't at the moment, as a group. Nor are they ever likely to.

And F4J never represented decent devoted fathers. That was not their aim. They were an extremist group comprised largely of violent angry men who had been denied access to their children with very good reason. The only effect a group like that can have is to muddy the wider debate and smear women and mothers.

MOM, my "anecdotal" comment was more directed at MT's 12:09 post yesterday. But I agree that whilst is is perfectly valid to cite anecdotal evidence (which BTW does not include the court's bias in favour of women ), it is by definition of limited value.

I don't know whether it is possible to conclude that the smallnumber of cases where custoday is awarded to the father is because the father was a SAHD. The circumstances are just too myriad to countenance. And I dare say it could be that in those cases, the mother, though having primary care, was not best placed to look after the children on a sole custody basis. The fact that the courts favour women could also intimidate a loving father to come to a out-of-court arrangment that is less than satisfactory for the children rather than risk an ugly day in court. So current court statistics are likely to be distorted.

I don't think custody should necessarily based on who is doing more housework or involved in childcare. The fact the couple have by mutual agreement (before things went sour) structured their work/family arrangements such that the father WOTH for longer hours than the mother does not mean that the father will not be a better parent if he did stay at home longer on maintenance benefits from the mother. Ok, being slightly controversial here. But I do take your point that leaving primary custody with the parent who is the current caregiver is less disruptive for the children - in the short term.

I think that it would be insane and irresponsible for the court to conclude that custody should be awarded to a father who was not familiar with the children's routines and their everyday care, who worked long hours and took relatively little part in the domestic labour. It's not just "housework", it's about creating the secure and safe environment that children need in order to thrive. Removing children from the mother who is their familiar and natural primary carer just to redress a perceived gender imbalance isn't controversial, it's crazy. IMHO As it stands at the moment, the vast majority of primary carers are mothers. That's unlikely to change. And as long as that's the case, the courts will continue awarding custody to those mothers unless there is a very good reason not to.

ok, only have to time do a short post...

I agree the courts should not award custody just to avoid gender imbalances. In the same way, courts should not automatically award custody to the mother, in a specific case, just because in the majority of other cases the mother is the primary caregiver.

All your points make sense. But where I am coming from is that prevailing women's roles should not dictate a courts's bias. Courts are not there to legislate social policy (otherwise judges would be elected), they are there to protect individual (esp minority rights). Therefore, any bias that a court holds towards awarding custody to one or other parent even before considering the facts of the case is IMO an abdication of that responsibility. Even fathers deserve a fair hearing

I don't think the courts DO award custody to mothers just because that's the norm. I think cases are heard on individual merit, and the number of cases in which residence with the mother is the only sensible option is still overwhelmingly larger than the number of cases in which the father is a realistic alternative. There is only a "bias" in the statistics of decisions coming out of the courts because there is a "bias" in the numbers of men and women taking care of children in society at large. Of course fathers deserve a fair hearing. But that's all they deserve... not some crazy scheme of trying to redress the balance in favour of men at the expense of children's welfare. That's social engineering, and it's dangerous and counter-productive.

I don't see what 'barristers know that residence is usually awarded to the mother' adds to the situation, tbh. We all know that. It's because mothers generally do far more of the childcare.

And I agree with MOM's unfashionable views. Fathers and Mothers are not the same and I hate this modern pretence that they are. Of course fathers are important, but we're the first generation in the whole of human history to pretend they're the same. And personally, I don't think the rest of humankind has been labouring under a mad delusion for the whole of history. Although it's possible, of course.

But I don't think we do pretend they are the same. We still award automatic custody to the mother, unless there are extreme circumstances, and I think that the law as it stands sends a very clear message to society that they do not value fathers as much as mothers. Totally and utterly wrong in my view. When 2 people make a child, they should both have equal rights and responsibilities.

Oh - and as an earlier post said - women work too nowadays. We're not all experts on our child's routines, anymore than our dh's are, but as intelligent people we muddle through

the guy was on Richard and Judy tonight - seemed like a really nice, reasonable guy

I agree with Soapbox about the 12 days out of 14 days but some fathers dont want that.

my H lives miles & miles away (his choice)
he comes once a fortnight (his choice)
he stays around 6 hrs (his choice)

I would rather he lived near so he could share custody although I think he would still only want kids to stay over at the weekend

I havent got as far as custody rights etc yet but dont think it will be an issue for me as sadly he seems to like the idea of once a fortnight dad

mmmm very interesting chat, my first sons father met him once when he was one and never bothered again even tho i chased him to see him for years and gave up when my son was 8, hes a well adjusted, polite, happy boy and hasnt misd out having a father around and doesnt want too see him as we speak quite openly if he wants too. my second son, different father, 15months old, father is a waste of space bachelor boy who said he didnt want to see his son unsupervised as he wouldnt know wot to do and he gave up access to watch footie matches on 2 occasions (over a 7week period!), hes now reduced maintanance drastically (i did a thread on it). we are struggling and borrowing off family, he can have access when he pays up. if we lose our home, il piss off and he can go jump

Jools - which guy? Matt O'Connor? He's worked very hard on the image of nice, reasonable guy. But nice reasonable guys don't get injunctions out against them for DV. Nice reasonable guys don't promote DV as a means of keeping control of women. And nice reasonable guys don't slag off their children's mother in the media, where their children can read and/ or hear it and be hurt by it.

Paolosgirl - of course men can learn how to struggle through children's routines, etc. The point is, most still don't bother. They leave it up to their children's mother. Even the ones who take sole care of their kids when the mother is working, are often left the "here's one Mum prepared earlier" meals in the fridge so all they have to do is heat them up and the pyjamas left out on the bed so they don't have to find out where they're kept. I know that sounds like a rant, but it is a fact - most men still don't do anything like as much domestic work or childcare as women, even when both partners work. When they do, things will change. Who knows, we might even find the divorce rate will go down!

Good point Caligula.

Crikey, Caligula! Not all men are like that - but I guess everyone's experiences of men are different. I guess I must be very lucky, as are most of my friends.

The point that I was making was that an earlier post talked about men on the whole didn't know what their childrens rountines were, and so on that basis it was more appropriate that the child lived with the mother, as she was more able to look after their physical and emotional needs.

That's not always the case - far from it - and so all cases should, IMO, be considered on their own merit. In my case, I may know the kids routines inside out, because I work p/t (DH putting in more hours outside the home to pick up the slack - out JOINT decision), but that doesn't make me the better parent.

dh definitely knows ds's routine as well as me and also does as much cooking for ds as I do.

Despite doing a job he loves more than anything he has reduced his hours and is considering taking 3-6 months unpaid leave if we have another child to take care of them as being a full-time SAHM really didn't suit me at all, though I could probably manage the first 6-8 months again.

One of the main reasons many men won't cut their hours is that they have SAHM and children to financially support and they see this as their responsibility.

We can't do this 'women should stay home and look after children' bit and then penalise the men because in order for this to happen they have to work long hours so they cannot know their children as well as their wives/partners do. We particularly cannot do this if we also insist that men do 'their fair share' of childcare/housework etc.

One of the (many) reasons I work PT is to ensure that my dh does not need to work more than he does to earn more money and thus he gets more time with ds.

I agree completely that it is the happiness of the children that counts but that also means accepting that as mothers we may not be the best primary carer in some instances.
I know that when ds gets to say 7/8 years old he will probably get more out of being with his dad than being with me (sorry any single mums of boys out there but I do believe this) so at that point it may be better for him to be with his dad as the main carer rather than me is we were ever to split up.

We can see in our society what the lack of quality male role models does to some young boys so as women we may need to accept that at a certain age boys in particular may need men in their lives more than they need their mums.

The courts definitely do not give men a fair hearing in family courts (dh is a lawyer and knows this). In fact we married when I was pregnant to give dh rights to his child. Despite all the CSA disaster, it is still true that a father not married to the mother of his child has no legal rights over that child. How fair is that? - I really don't think so.

So I'm completely with Soapbox on this one.

good post lazycow. I have been watching this thread slightly unsure what to post.
I am glad F4J has disbanded because I think that although it raised the profile of fathers who have restricted access to their own children, the organisation itself was not very sound and unfortunately attracted some very unsavoury characters.
I hate the perpetuation of the "myth" because that is what I believe it is, that mothers are better at looking after the offspring than fathers. Apart from breastfeeding, both men & women are perfectly well equipped to raise a child. I think the "bond" thing is a red herring. You "bond" with someone or something because you spend time getting to know & love them - not because you breastfed them!
We still live in a society where it is the norm for men to go to work and women to be responsible for childcare - even though they may work too. The legal system on its own cannot be expected to tackle that prejudice.

Fabulous post, Lazy (and Bugsy), and so well put. I agree esp. about boys needing close male role models, and I know for a fact that my DS (8) gets far more out of being with his dad than he does with me (although he does still want to marry me when he grows up, bless!).

Dh and I are a team as parents. We don't always get it right, and we accept that, but we appreciate each other for our strengths and recognise each others weaknesses.

I think the idea that mothers are always the best parents is so outdated - and also incredibly insulting to the fathers who bring up families on their own. We are incensed by societies which automatically give custody to men - yet we don't question our own system which is heavily weighted in favour of the mother.

i disagree with the last 3 posters, my 11 yr old ds has never had his father around, ive always played rough and taken him to footie training/matches and we talk about girls etc.he has always had grandad and uncles about if he needs them .he is a loving, stable boy who if hed had contact with his father (who couldnt be bothered to see him till he was 1 and then again when he was 8) he would have been totally screwed up by now. screwed up by his father and bought up very well thankyou JUST by his mother. perhaps if you split from your perfect partners and have to struggle to keep your kids stable and pick the pieces up when your ex lets them down youd have a very different opinion

My husband isn't perfect - none of us are, and your post has simply backed up my arguement for each case to be decided on it's own merit.

Obviously in your case you are the better parent for your DS, given your ex-DH's attitude to his son. However, in my case, my DH would make a much better parent than I would in many ways (esp to DS), and so the fact that both DH and I are equally committed to our kids makes it crazy for the law as it stands to automtically award me custody.