Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Barbara Ellen reckons Fathers4Justice are more about attention seeking than justice-seeking

26 replies

thumbwitch · 28/09/2008 23:45

in the Observer today here - is she right? Or is she just using her own experience to ignore any fathers who really do have issues with their exes?

My bro has just split with his gf and while I am not that keen on him (and couldn't stand her), she has been a real bitch about the whole split and I know if she had 100% care of the kids she would be the sort who would try any trick to stop them seeing him.

Plus I have a friend whose ex does just that - and wouldn't even let his kids (in their early teens) come to his wedding this year, even though they have been split up for over 10 years.

OP posts:
gigglewitch · 29/09/2008 00:02

I think they want both attention and justice

Janni · 29/09/2008 00:02

I'm sure lots of the fathers in this movement have genuine grievances, but I know I always do a roll of the eyes when I see them in their superhero garb, climbing on to roofs.

It seems a peculiarly immature way to get noticed and I'm not sure it helps their cause.

Janni · 29/09/2008 00:03

Hey - it's the witching hour

differentID · 29/09/2008 00:05

I think she is right and she isn't right. It's true that most men deserve contact with their children, but sometimes I feel when I here the name of teh group oh god what stunt have they pulled now. The stunts they pull mean that that's less time spent fighting for their children.

Alambil · 29/09/2008 00:06

the thing with FFJ is the headline stunt-pullers are IMO, not doing it for the rights of the child(ren) to see the dad; they're doing it for their five minutes of fame and usually are told "no" to contact on wholly their terms for good reasons.

My ex joined FFJ; he was told "no direct contact" after abusing us and all sorts of other things; so he joined and they rallied around the oh-so-unfair court judge who had DS's interests mostly at heart... I had to give a LOT of leeway because of the FFJ label.

The genuine men and women that have it rough from their exes get ignored in these groups because they aren't half as interesting as those that scale Big Ben or whatever.

The courts usually go in favour of contact with the absent parents unless there is a very, very strong case against; it took me 2 years to fight to stop direct contact (it was mentally damaging DS) and even then the judge was reluctant to actually order it... it was an "advice" thing instead.

S1ur · 29/09/2008 00:10

I think Lewis speaks a lot of sense.

I do not know about the individual circumstances of the members of FFJ.

But they have highlighted the issue of parental rights of men, which I guess is good. HOWEVER I would want to know more details about their organisation and their motivations before jumping on their cause.

Original poster
thumbwitch · 29/09/2008 00:10

thanks for posting that LewisFan - I wasn't sure whether to be outraged at BE's article or not as I don't know the type of men in FFJ - but if your ex is typical then she is probably more right than not.

OP posts:
dittany · 29/09/2008 00:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

retiredgoth · 29/09/2008 00:17

...I know two people who have been tangentially involved with F4J.

They both have something in common.

They are wankers, who have very limited contact with their children for very good reason.

...at its inception there were some genuine grievances that deserved highlighting. However I suspect that those who have been innocently wronged now steer well clear of the rump of fruitcakes that constitute the remaining F4J.

Heavens. How forthright I am becoming (marvels at self)

weblette · 29/09/2008 00:20

Slightly surprised at her going for FNF - they've been around for lot longer and have always seemed more reasoned.

Pan · 29/09/2008 00:21

I have come across a few men in this organisation and each are emotionally unseated and latently agressive and def. mysogenistic. You just can't believe that they have the interests of their offspring as a priority over their own egos.

When a woman elects to do without the "support" of these chaps, and rough it alone, it invites one to wonder why.

Alambil · 29/09/2008 00:24

In most cases, it ain't rocket science Pan!

Original poster
thumbwitch · 29/09/2008 00:27

well no, I guess it isn't LF, but as I said in my OP I do know of at least 1 and possibly 2 cases of vindictive exes, where there is no reason other than spite, so that's why I was posting really...

OP posts:
Pan · 29/09/2008 00:28

Quite LF - I was practicing the art of the understatement.

Pan · 29/09/2008 00:29

thumbwitch - yo udon't know that spite is the reason in either case, with respect.

dittany · 29/09/2008 00:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
thumbwitch · 29/09/2008 00:31

oh but I do when it comes to my bro. He might be a pompous irritating twat but he's a great dad and his ex is a vindictive bitch.

OP posts:
dittany · 29/09/2008 00:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pan · 29/09/2008 00:34

Well, perhaps. But you can't know what goes on twix couples.

Though I am still recoiling at the repeated use of "bitch" to describe someone. Maybe I am just being a softie.

Original poster
thumbwitch · 29/09/2008 00:36

well, fair enough, you haven't met her and I have known her for 15 years. And I am privy to the papers she is sending to the court re. the separation. So yes, she is being a bitch, she is being vindictive, and she is trying to get 100% custody and the house and maintenance, leaving my bro with nothing. Which seems a bit harsh when he is only guilty of being a boring pompous arse.

OP posts:
dittany · 29/09/2008 00:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pan · 29/09/2008 00:43

there's a lot to be said for being a boring pompous arse, though....

dittany · 29/09/2008 00:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
thumbwitch · 29/09/2008 00:48

no, he's more of the carer than she is. And yes, he does have a boring job but it allows him to work at home some of the time.
She can't stop him seeing them at the mo because they haven't finalised the details of the split. And tbh, it is unlikely she will get 100% custody; it is also unlikely (we hope) that she will get the house. so it is academic (and speculative) at the mo.

OP posts:
solidgoldbrass · 29/09/2008 00:51

Most of the FFJ lot had restraining orders out against them, that's why they couldn't see their DC. And given that the courts generally want to encourage a relationship between children and absent parent, usually when access is forbidden it is because the absent parent is dangerous to the child.
These wankers are far more interested in hurting their XWs than looking after their DC.