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. :(

MrsR you're on - Million Women Rise march in March, pub after?

Actually, pizza is better...

But there's an afterparty Basil! Surely that's the place to meet!
(Although finding you in an after party for a million may prove difficult..)

I think you might be over-estimating the obtusification effects of unearned privilege, Thisis.

Honestly, it makes people really stoopid.

[Hasty kind look]

Sorry I mean banana

mrsr don't understand.
Feminism has been great for men for all sorts of reasons, agreed.
With the exception of FNF (who are by no means allies of mothers), I cannot recall any campaign by men to promote positive fatherhood getting anything like the attention FNF/FFJ get
Where are the campaigns by fathers to get nrp's to pay child support; stick to access agreements; etc? We never see them. But we do see plenty of nrp fathers calling for 'rights'. Why is this?

Because they have a right to be involved in their child's life as an equal parent?

There are lots of campaigns to promote responsible parenting, and there are the courts to enforce child maintenance payments.

Actually, there are not "the courts" to enforce Child Maintenance payments.

RP's aren't allowed to use the courts.

We're supposed to use the CSA.

But the CSA is useless. And soon, it will cost money to use.

That's why the majority of lone parents don't get maintenance.

Stoopid.

I'm starting to feel bullied.

I am privileged, privileged I married a feminist.
Who treated me as an equal parent capable of looking after children and didn't see it as her role to be the main child-rearer and me the bread-winner.

I thank the great Juju monster every day that I had children with her.

Where are these campaigning fathers, MrsR?

Now truck why are you assuming that I am including you in the number of posters who may be considered to be being genuinely obtuse because their privilege makes them stoopid, as opposed to those who are being deliberately obtuse because they're not stoopid, just disingenuous?

In that case I think you're genuinely obtuse.

Or am I being disingenuous?

Ok, I'll try this once again.

The default position should be that NRP's are in the same position as RP's. The fact that at the moment that is not the case is discriminatory. No one should be against having the law changed to as it should have been in the first place.

To use an analogy. In 1965 the age of consent for homosexuals was 21, later reduced to 18. The age of consent for heterosexuals was 16. It wasn't until 2003 that they were brought in line and both are now set at 16. Quite right too, discriminatory not to. Would you have been against the law change in 2003 because some young gay men may be taken advantage of? No, I would think not, the law was wrong as it stood, it had to be changed.

And as for the cries of "Why aren't FNF and FFJ campaigning for umpteen other causes that are deemed relevan???". What about The Million Women Rise campaign? It is quite clearly aimed directly at violence by men towards women. No mention of ending abuse by women towards men, or by ether sex against children. No? Of course not, because that's not the cause they're fighting for. Just like CM etc etc is NOT what FNF and FFJ are fighting for.

But. They claim to be campaigning for the rights of children. They aren't. That's the point being made. And apparently being glossed over.

You campaign for the issues closest to your heart. Usually those that will effect your life and the quality thereof.
They are campaingning for the right to have shared childare with their ex. They do not need to campaign for every issue effecting every man, woman and child in the land.
Women don't

The rights of children to see their fathers.

No, they are claiming to be campaigning for the rights of children to have a relationship with both parents. Apparently. But they aren't.

Gosh, that's terrible isn't it?

"And apparently being glossed over."

Not being glossed over is it? It's being discussed in full here, lots of personal anecdotal evidence (And I use the word loosely). None of which has convinced me that the default position should be an equal playing field for both parents. If that doesn't work, as happens in so many cases for so many reasons then they need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. A good loving, supportive NRP should not be assumed to be toxic to his children until such time as they have ascertained he isn't. That's just wrong and I have not a clue why everyone can't see it like that.

Unless of course their opinions are strongly clouded by personal experience. Understandable, in some cases, but absolutely not appropriate for lawmaking purposes.

Bugger. Should have read "default position should NOT be..."

OMG how many times have I said this.

It's fine that FNF campaign on their issue - father's rights.

It's not fine that the govt. changes the law to deal with one problem, for one set of parents, without dealing at the other problems, which affect the other set of parents.

The govt is not FNF. It should remember that.

"OMG how many times have I said this"

It's not all about you now Basil, my post wasn't aimed at you.

None of which has convinced me that the default position should not be an equal playing field for both parents.

It is not an equal playing field for both parents when one can use the courts to address their issues with contact, and the other cannot. I stress again I am not against any parent getting help with contact issues at all, but I am against the issue being dealt with on only one narrow basis that affects only a fraction of those with problems over contact, while ignoring the plight of other parents and their children who should also have their rights protected. If you are looking at the right of children to have a relationship with both parents why not address this at the same time? It cannot distract from the issues here surely? It cannot prejudice the rights of NRPs if they are genuinely committed and want to gain decent, regular access to their children?

Way back at the beginning of the acrimony between me and my ex, I heard nothing but positive things about FNF and genuinely thought that was a route I could go down to try and get my ex to actually commit to seeing our DD regularly. I was on the brink of contacting FNF until I came across this. I think campaiging for parents to get access to children they are being denied access to is a good thing, but to actively dismiss, and literally sneer at someone in my position because it goes against their belief that contact issues only ever arise when an RP is being hostile, or actively blocking access, is pretty telling about the FNF movement IMO.

I am not disputing that the starting point should be that both parents are equal either. I'm saying that given that this is a huge opportunity to reform the family law system, there should be an attempt to improve all the issues surrounding it and not just the one for which the campaign groups shout loudest.

My personal experience was to illustrate the fact that RPs have very few options when trying to arrange contact with NRPs who refuse to communicate with them, which is similar to the difficulties that many NRPs have. NRPs at least have the option of court. Unfortunately the nature of child contact means that it cannot really be legislated for outside of the court system. You can advise separating parents on the best course of action, but if they cannot agree then court is, and always will be, their only available option.

What I would like to see happen is for

1. either parent to be able to apply for a contact order if an agreement cannot be reached
2. either parent to be able to bring the case back to court if it is not being followed, regardless of who brought the original application
3. the court to be able to punish either parent for not sticking to the agreed contact without reasonable cause
4. NRPs who repeatedly don't show up to have contact removed so that they cannot commit further emotional abuse on their children
5. and yes, residency to be reversed and a contact order imposed if the RP continually thwarts contact and the other attempts at enforcement (fines, community service etc) have all been used

Instead, it appears that only the rights of children with decent and interested fathers are important. Children like mine have no voice in law.

It is not an equal playing field for both parents when one can use the courts to address their issues with contact, and the other cannot.

That is the justification nrps have for this new legislation, an rp could in some cases use the courts, fabricate stories and deny their children access to one decent parent for over a year. In that respect it lacked equality.

It deals with one problem. One that a number of campaign groups have been campaigning for.

See it as a misogynists conspiracy if you like.