Do you agree with Fathers For Justice? - *beware* -*contentious*

[wobblyknicks]

I'm not asking if you agree that fathers who have had a raw deal should be given justice - I'm asking whether you think that Fathers For Justic and the idiots that use their name are right in doing what they do? I agree that some fathers should be given more rights by the court but that doesn't include all fathers. I'm getting really sick of seeing/reading things about idiots dressed up, doing idiotic things, when by all reports they don't deserve to have kids and if they do why aren't they 'at home' trying every legal route to see their kids and not just pissing about??

Last night, was coming home and along one tiny stretch of road was 4 huge board thingys in a field saying the usual - 'Fathers for justice' 'Fathers have rights' 'Children need fathers' etc and it's probably just me but it made my blood boil. you don't see other 'causes' doing that sort of rubbish all over the place!!

Ok, end of rant!!! But do you think they're right to go to such extremes all the time or are they just arrogant t*ssers?

WK - i agree with your last post.....but are the reports in the press accuarte (genuine question as i dont know the answer..)

I agree with Fairyfly. Her 10:05 post sums it up I think.

Think the media are always going to try and dig some dirt on people in the public eye but they have been successful in that at least we have heard of them and most people probably haven't heard of the other groups. ie I think they have put their issue on the agenda.

I thought there was a perfectly good, effective and worthwhile campaign on this issue called Families Need Fathers. I suspect the loons behind Fathers For Justice have issues relating to custody, maintenance and partner abuse that mean that FNF have wisely washed their hands of them.
I do believe in fathers' rights to be involved in the upbringing of their non-resident children, and accept that abuses of the legal system are made by mothers sometimes. But I think the Fathers For Justice campaigners do the overall cause no credit at all, and they don't care about this.

The sad thing is that there are fathers out there who do not see their kids for no other reason than the mother using the kids as a weapon.
But what I want to know is why isn't there any consistency in determining whether a father can or cannot see his children.
My 23 month old grandson lives with us on a residency order because his 'dad' beat him, starved him, gave him a chest fracture at five months old and still can't see what he did wrong (by the way, my daughter totally backs him up). He regularly threatens to "do a runner..." (his words) with the baby as soon as he gets chance. The court have awarded us a full residency order, after Social Services have said that they have no intention, now or in the future, of rehabilitating the baby with his parents, because they feel that his life is actually at risk. We have documentation that says the baby stays with us regardless of changes in his parents circumstances, until he is 18. However, the court also decided that his father can have contact with the baby every Sunday. We have to supervise this, in our home, even though he has threatened my eldest daughter and my son on many occasions (verbal threats passed on through social services and solicitors, plus once in court) - it's so difficult. The baby clearly loves his father and gets so exited when he sees him.
So, why is he allowed to see the baby, when there are some fathers who have done much less, who are not allowed to see their children?

Well it depends on what you determine as a bad father i think that depends on each individual. I do know that simply dressing up and making a scene of yourself doesn't make you a bad dad.
I think the genuine men are frustrated by the system that doesn't protect them and got frustrated as surely i would if i had to go through tireless legislation before i was allowed my boys to sit next to me. Asd i said before i realise some of them are just doing it for the wrong reasons but the true dads needed something drastic so they could be heard.
At the same respect of a dad getting access as he doesn't deserve it, then a child isn't getting access to a good father when they deserve it.
I don't know what the answer is but i am glad it is out there for all to see and discuss and come to a better system than the one now.

geekgrrl- I'm really sorry for your brother but is it more down to the distance and influence that the FIL has or is it the court system not doing enough?

popsy - I agree that every child should see their father in a supervised way if necessary but firstly, there aren't always many facilities for supervised contact and secondly, a lot of fathers are offered this but refuse out of pride or whatever - I think many of the FFJ protesters have been offered it but it hasn't been 'good enough' for them. I did start off a bit sceptical about the reports about them, you can't believe everything you hear, but after reading what their own relatives/gf's say about them and more details of their lives, some of may be exaggerated but it makes them look like total idiots.

Message withdrawn

By the way, I'm not saying that the baby shouldn't be allowed to see his father. And his dad doesn't actually turn up that often. Since the residecny order came into force in July this year - he's only actually seen the baby for a total of 14 hours. I do beleive that the baby needs to know where he comes from and I will always make it clear that we are his grandparents and his mummy and daddy are our daughter and her partner. We have lots of piccy's of them together and have actually invited baby's parents to spend Christmas day with us (scream!!!), purely for the baby's sake. In the hope that in the future, when he wants to know about mum and dad - he might have some happy memories.

Hmm, it is a very complicated issue generally - i just get annoyed because I think FFj are supporting the worng thing with the wrong motives and giving the legitimate cause of father's rights a bad name.

Should admit that part of my frustration (but not all) is personal. My ex keeps making a fuss about me not letting him see dd (because I insist on it being supervised and not handing her over to him willy nilly) but he can see her whenever he asks and since the end of Dec he's only specifically asked once - on her birthday and saw her for about 30 seconds - when he walked off because I dared to bring my sister with me (who wasn't about to do anything to him or even talk to him FFS!). Maybe it depends on your personal experience how you see things like this.

Well it's the same as every issue, you can't simply find one answer to meet all needs. Many times i've wanted to stop access from my x as he destroys me, so i can see why women do it for the wrong reason. You really have to see the bigger picture put yourself aside for a while and consider what is best for your children

Hence the Xmas day invite.

Reading how men want access to there children makes me wonder? The father of my child made me pregnant cos he wanted a kid. He is abusive towards me if i do any thing to upset him and he is trying to undermine my present relationship.He has not met dd yet as he is in South Africa and I have been advised by my solicitor and counellor not to let him have access and avoid him to all costs.If he takes me to court they will look at how I have gone to lengths to avoid him and this will be held against me. When I try to do the 'right thing' he just does my head in. She is a baby he has not met and cannot miss. She is too young to even acknowledge him so surely he could just back off until she is older and can think for herself. All he is doing now is making me depressed.If the men in F4J are like him then sod them.Laws are in favour of women for very good reason becouse we are the weaker sex and if partners are abusive who is going to protect us?

It is good to know that others grant access with gritted teeth and fixed smiles - grant isn't the right word by the way I just can't think of the right one.

It can be quite amusing actually. On the days that he can be bothered to turn up - I do make sure that regardless of a tremendous urge to kick his teeth down his throat for what he has done to my grandson (and the change in personality instilled into my daughter), I do go out of my way to treat him as I would any other guest in my home (purely for the sake of the baby). But he won't eat or drink anything from me - probably thinks that I'll poison him, as if I'd be so obvious .

One thing pointed out in a recent newspaper article on this topic is that most fathers (not all) only want access to take them out at weekends, etc. I bet if you insisted that every father looked after their kids 50% of the time, including doing the school run, traipsing around to after school activities, getting up in the night when they are sick, feeding, clearing up, doing the laundry, they would soon back down! I do know of one father who does genuinely take an equal share of bringing up his kids since he split up from his wife but I bet he is in a minority.

I also remember one woman saying that since her divorce her ex now had the kids every other weekend and the odd night during the week and so he was now spending more time with them on his own than he had done when they were together!

I do agree that some mothers don't make it easy for fathers to stay in touch - I know someone whose ex recently moved 200 miles away and won't give him an address, only brings the kids around to his parents house when he visits, but on the other hand he has only made the effort to go to see them twice in four months. If it was me I'd be driving down every weekend, regardless of the cost or how tiring it was.

I also know of women who are stuck in countries abroad who would love to move back to their home countries where they would have family support but can't because it would restrict access to the father.

I don't think you can really generalise when it comes to issues like these and at the end of the day it is the kids who are hurt the most.

wobblyknicks, I think it's conbination of all sorts of things - the assumption of maternal preference and rubbish family courts, the FIL's power, and also that my db had a very mild & friendly solicitor, rather than someone who really kicked a$$.
It's very sad and for my db and my parents (who are doing grandparents to all their grandchildren) it's like a living bereavement in a way.

joash, I think you are a remarkable woman. The situation sounds absolutely ghastly - what sort of monster would injure a baby?! - but you are making such an effort for your grandson. I hope Christmas turns out ok.

I don't even want to go through the list of what my x has done, i'm having quite a nice day. He is unreliable with his children too. I won't stop access though, i realise i have to be incredibly reliable and strong to compensate for his behaviour, i have had to become hardened to his abuse but my kids love him and he is fine for them, a bit like a play pal. I do all the parental stuff, he runs around the house with starwars figures. I would like a bit more adult input but hey ho.

pabla - well said...the sister of a close friend is currently going through a divorce. Her husband was willing to have the kids one night during the week BUT not to insist they did their homework and expected to drop them back at hers the following morning in their jimjams so she could feed them, get them ready for school and drop them at school!

I watched that programme about them that was on a while ago on Channel 4. Like others have said I agree with the cause, but do not agree with their approach to getting their name across. Exp has been trying to get membership with them, but IMO he should think about what hes doing, and pull his own finger out and make the effort to come and see dd. Im not stopping him from seeing her!

Ta for the compliment geekgrrl, although I don't think I'm doing anymore than other people will do.
Grandson's brilliant - back to full health (slightly underheight for his age, but quickly catching up), meeting all other development milestones easily - and he's such an amusing (and amazing) little boy, love him to bits.

Whilst on one hand, I feel that anyone who hurts their children (whatever age) should lose the right to parenthood, I do think that children should have the right to see both parents , but can't understand the inconsistencies from judges.

I think good on them for finding ways to promote their cause. Other causes have found much worse ways.

I think that sometimes it is easy to feel powerless and if this is how they get their point accross, more power to them. (although not sure if I agree with some of their tactics)> Look at the way in which women campaigned for the right to vote.

I think they are an extremely effective campaigning group, because they have managed to get the message across that many ex-wives are vengeful bitches who damage their children by denying access to their fathers.

I've no doubt that a minority of mothers are like this, but anyone who knows lone mothers knows that the majority of women do their utmost to ensure that their children's fathers continue to see their children, even in the face of extreme rudeness, undermining, disrespect and sometimes abuse from the father of their child(ren).

My view is that F4J are a group of mysogynists who are bewildered and spluttering with fury about the fact that the control they had over their exes has been taken away from them by the courts. Many of their members have a history of violence against their exes, some of them against their children.

I think most mothers would not do "anything necessary" to see their children. I think they would put the needs of their children first, even it broke their own hearts to do so. You only need to read the MSBP threads to see that. That's quite often (although of course, not always) the difference between fathers and mothers.

As someone else said, there are reasonable and decent men who are campaigning for better rights for fathers - organisations who wouldn't accept F4J members because of their sometimes very dubious records. I totally support them, but cannot support the nonsensical demands of F4J, which are in the main based more on a hatred of their ex-partners, than a love of their children.

Interesting how it's always Emmeline and Christabel who are held up as the heroines. Sylvia, the Socialist and progressive, is always sidelined. Took me years to find out about her. School always implied she was a bonkerz irrelevancy.

I don't think Emmeline or Christable ever actually beat up their husbands. Or their kids.