Families need fathers all over the news today

[Sheila]

Bloody Louis de Bernieres also on R4 sounding off about his rights. It all seems so remote - I just wish XP was interested enough to demand contact with DS - usullay it's me naggaing him becuase he sees so little of his son. :(

Sorry just to add disclaimer ' driving child to party' is purely one example and not in anyway the only duty a parent should do
Lol

I've an idea about this - I feel that this lovely "families first" Govt is cutting things like refuges, charging for gonig through CSA, getting rid of legal aid, making things financially harder for lone parents etc. because it wants to force people to stay together, however shit the marriage, by making it harder for them to separate.

In other words - "you hooked up with this loser, we don't care if he knocks seven bells out of you, you had kids with him, now just put up and shut up".

Just a feeling I'm getting.

Trying to catch up !

Which pieces of existing legislation is this proposed 'act' intended to replace?
Does it address employment law, vehicle/traffic legislation, alcohol licensing and the plethora of other legislation that addresses child welfare/safety?

I'm not sure I understand the expectation that this one proposed Act should somehow address all child abuse scenarios - it addresses a specific, identified form of abuse. Future legislative changes can be proposed (in response to public campaigns) that address other forms of abuse.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying - I have experience on 'both sides of the fence' so to speak - and from where I stand, it would be a lot easier to withhold contact with DD from my exH (should I wish to) than it has been for DP to maintain contact with his DCs. That is the current, inequitable situation experienced by some DCs and if it can be legislated against, then that is good for them, surely? As a mum, I might resent my exH having more rights - but why would I?

What about the inequitable situation of a NRP who refuses to have contact with his DC's and refuses to pay maintenance?

I don't object to the government trying to solve a problem.

What I do object to, is the pretence that this is the only problem worth solving and not only the refusal to tackle the other problems, but to actually introduce charges for the CSA which will in fact make the problem even worse.

It shows very clearly, the attitude this government has to women and children - their interests are way down the priority list.

And yes, Thumbwitch I agree I get the same feeling.

Also, I must just point out how incredibly patronising some of these posts have been. This assumption that "there there dear, calm down, your experience has made you irrational and unreasonable about this and because of it, you can't see sense", is lofty mansplaining bullshit. Check your male privilege before you talk down to women on a website primarily populated by women. I had these views 20 years ago, long before I had had the experience of actually seeing how the state enables abusive NRPs. My experience is backed up by actual researched figures. Much of the case for the other side, is simply misogynist myth (cf women lie about DV -yeah sure, they lie about rape too, 'scommon sense, innit?), women deny access for no reason (I'm sure a minority do, but we know the majority bend over backwards to facilitate contact even when they know they're being fucked about).

Men's rights groups have managed to present the "poor denied fathers" argument so successfully, because of systemic misogyny in our society - government and the media are only too willing to take the stories at face value, while dismissing women's complaints of abusive behaviour from NRP's. And that's why this legislation is happening - this prioritisation of one problem for a minority of fathers, while the problems of the majority of mothers are being completely ignored or made worse. I expect no less of our horrible misogynist media. I expect a little more of our government though, although why I should when it's a bunch of woman-hating Tories, I don't know.

What Thumbwitch said.

Basil - so what you are saying is that FNF have taken advantage of that situation in order to further their particular cause - and RP (mainly women) won't have the same opportunity?

Perhaps FNF would be more prepared to use their disproportionate influence to highlight the other injustices and abuse on behalf of RP and their DCs if they weren't subject to abuse and attack by the people who would benefit most from their help?
Rather than vilify FNF as 'the enemy', why not cultivate their support as they clearly have the ear of the power brokers?

What Thumbwitch said.

And I'll add my line that is being needed more and more these days, 'the tories are trying to kill off single parents'.

Er no thanks, Notadisneymum, the experience of women trusting men to campaign for their rights for them, is that men throw them under the bus.

See the movement for Universal Suffrage, Trades Unions, Bolshevik Revolution, Civil Rights Movement, Free India Movement, Anti-Apartheid Movement, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum, for details.

See the Occupy movement as another example.

We'll still be raping you come the collapse of capitalism, sisters. Now calm down, make the tea and stop letting your experience make you hysterical enough to disagree with me.

You are so negative about men - to the point that you assume any one who disagrees with you must be male.

20 years ago your views may have been common place but 20 years ago the world and the equality was far more un-equal
No one is saying a NRP should be able to refuse contact or refuse to pay maintenance. no one thinks that should be allowed either.
Actual researched figures can pretty much prove and disprove arguments. I can present figures to back up my claims. I dont really see the point TBH as you have held a view for 20 years nothing i can say is going to widen you view IMO

LOL at myself for jumping back into convo

basil Women's rights? Surely this is about children's rights'?

It's about both, as you well know.

One of the reasons men can get away with treating children the way they do, is because women are their primary carers.

If men were the majority of RP's, non-payment of maintenance would be an imprisonable offence. It simply wouldn't be possible to avoid it, the Inland Revenue would manage it.

I'm not negative about men Late - I'm negative about the systemic misogyny in our society, which enables many men to treat the women and children in their lives as less than human.

If you view your children as real and human, you'd never be able to just walk out on them and not bother to have contact or not pay for them. It's outrageous behaviour. So is withholding contact without good reason, but society is more outraged by one, than by the other, because one is done by women and one is done by men, the victims of one are generally women and the victims of the other are generally men. Hence the outrage and legislation to deal with one, and the complete and total deafening silence to deal with the other.

And this: "Perhaps FNF would be more prepared to use their disproportionate influence to highlight the other injustices and abuse on behalf of RP and their DCs if they weren't subject to abuse and attack by the people who would benefit most from their help?"

If FNF wanted to use their disproportionate influence to highlight other injustices, it would be irrelevant if they're subject ot abuse and attack - they'd do it because it's the right thing to do, irrespective of the fact that people who would benefit most are attacking them for it.

I am continually being attacked by Men's Right's Activists. I am still a passionate advocate of paternity leave, the right to part time work for fathers as well as mothers, the overall re-structure of the workplace, etc., so that men and women could have more balanced and happier lives. Some of the people who would benefit most from this, are men - I don't let the fact that they attack me, stop me from speaking out on what is right. You either believe something is right or not, it doesn't stop being right because someone you don't rate is attacking you about other stuff. What an odd thing to say.

Women can be equally guilty of walking out on children it is not solely commited by men. men can be equally guilty of preventing the other parent from having contact.

I would suggest that you join a group and start campaigning for maintenance awareness.
I support maintenance should be paid but I aim for raising awareness of discrimination of causes that really effect my firends/family and children.
Everyone I know pays maintenance and rightly so. But these people and their children are having contact obstructed and PAS is effecting their children so this is my focal point.
Regardless of your view I know the damage PAS and contact obstruction is causing children

Hello Thumb.

I think there is more to it.

The Tories are famously unhelpful to single mothers of course.

I'm no fan of right wing ideology, but I read the other day that currently only 6% of 'cuts' in the UK have been implemented.

So another 94% to come.

I don't think the average person realizes how far up shit creek we are. The UK credit card is maxed out big time. There is less than no money left. Any costs now will be payed for by the next generation.

The CSA charging for it's service is pretty shite, but a choice between that and it not existing is a no brainer.

They do at least have some success. I'm sure the new legislation won't be free from abuse but it's a step in the right direction for sure ( IMO ) if it stops situations where fathers or nrps find themselves , despite being decent humans, denied contact for a year or so due to false allegation and the snails pace of courts.

I'm glad the rights of children have been recognized. I had to repeadedly remind my XP that my dd, who I adore, had a right to see her daddy when she became obstructive over contact.

Obviouly there is a government agency that attempts to get nrps to pay up. The CSA may be considered useless by some some , but it is there.

Basil. I don't think you'd be happy until every camaign group like FNF supported you and your agenda.

They have genuine reasons for their campaign, as do other groups who campaign for womens rights.

And linking CM with access sounds dodgy to me, as deadbeat NRPs who can't be arsed to see their kids are likely make the same conclusion if they don't already.

Oh for goodness sake, everyone knows that people are individuals and can do bad things regardless of gender.

My point is that the systemic focus on the wickedness of RP's who deny contact, is because they are women, while the wickedness of NRPs who don't pay maintenance or withdraw their presence from their children's lives, is ignored because they are men. And we make excuses for men's bad behaviour, shrug our shoulders and don't expect anything better of them. While men who actually function as fathers in a normal way, are judged to be semi-heroes, because they 're doing what parents are supposed to do. While women who do what parents are supposed to be, are merely considered adequate, or even suspect because after all, they're doing it without a father, so there must be something wrong there, right?

But fair enough that you focus on what's of interest to you, as I do on what's of interest to me. I've got no problem with that, of course people have the right to direct their energies into the issues which most interest or concern them. My objection, is that the government is focusing on what's of interest to you. They're supposed to be more neutral than that. As if.

I think if FNF were to be renamed Fairness for Children I could get behind it. It's the very fact they seem to want to sling the "father" thing into the mix despite stating that they support other types of parent including grandparents that rankles a little. It's a bit of an attention-seeking name for an organisation that imo puts the onus on the father's rights above those of his children.

As I stated before my (admittedly limited experience) of the family court has reassured me that actually the system seems quite fair and to be working for the children as it rightly should. No matter what aggrieved exes may feel in the situation it is paramount that an objective party is there to protect the child's interests.

The courts will ask for extensive reports if they feel that there is any danger to the children. (eg CAFCAS) They probe deeply into the circumstances surrounding the action before them. It is not a cheap process and ideally both parents will love their child(ren) enough to want to resolve the thing amicably and in the best interests of the child(ren).

Sadly though because it is so emotive an issue and plumbs the depths of human emotion it is very difficult for parents to remain objective. They might confuse their feelings and wellbeing with those of their children. More understandably they might interpret the NRP's refusal to contribute despite able to as both a failure to consider the wellbeing of the children (she doesn't even care enough to make sure our children have shoes), a slur on their parenting (he does not trust me to spend the maintenance on the children), sudden feelings of extreme loneliness about having to be everything for these children- father, mother, disciplinarian, provider etc... and of totally feeling dumped in it.

Meanwhile the children are just trying to adapt to the new situation, grow up and be children still. They can however end up being party to far more than they would were the parents still together merely because the RP has no sounding board any more and will sometimes vent moments of frustration inappropriately. Unfortunately children remember these moments. It is very important imo not to say any more to the children than you would have if the parents were still together (ie nothing detrimental about the other parent, who they are 50% of no matter whether both feel they made a mistake in picking the other person.)

In short it's important to act like a grown-up. I am constantly in awe of two of my sisters, who have despite often despicable behaviour from their children's fathers have battled to maintain the relationship between their children and the fathers, usually very much to the detriment of their own well-being.

I think if FNF were to be renamed Fairness for Children I could get behind it. It's the very fact they seem to want to sling the "father" thing into the mix despite stating that they support other types of parent including grandparents that rankles a little

Mumsnet. By parents for parents. :)

I just don't buy this theory that being a single mother pretty much automatically means you get shit on. That may well be the case for some but absolutely isn't universal.

There are a fair amount of women out there doing it on their own that don't wear their martyrdom like a badge as some sort of indication of what twats 'men' are. They're just getting on with their lives, doing their best with their kids, with or without the support of the ex.

And this presumption that every father can go to family court and they can try as amicably as they can to reach agreements is just not true. I would guess MOST NRP's couldn't begin to afford the often tens of thousands of pounds it costs to get access to their kids. They should automatically have access, it should only be removed where there is evidence it's in the child's best interests.

"Mumsnet. By parents for parents."

God forbid you're a man with an opinion that doesn't quite fit though. FNF is more inclusive, as far as I've seen, than MN.

The name Families Need Fathers works in two ways. First as a reminder to family courts etc that childrens' relationships with fathers are important. And second as a reminder to NRP fathers that their relationship with their children is important.

FNF is aware that a lot of NRP parents drop out of contact with their children. Sometimes it's because the RP makes it very difficult. But sometimes it's because the NRP doesn't put the effort in. FNF's name is there to remind NRP fathers that they need to put that effort in, that they are still part of their DC's family even if they are no longer living with the mother.

Dodgy figures Riakin?

What's this government research you're quoting then?

Oh and what a bizarre insult btw - pony?

Eh?

Wassatabaht?

All I've witnessed since becoming a father is a strong reluctance and resistance for fathers to take an equal role.

This starts off with paternity leave and flexible working all the way through to becoming a non-resident parent. I mean what a belittling name designed to make you feel marginalised.

I wonder if it's capatilism hoping men don't realise what they're missing out on by working long hours.