What does everyone think of Fathers 4 Justice?

[starrynight]

I only ask because my sister is being terrorised by her ex who was violent toward her throughout her pregnancy (she left when babe was 1 mth old & lived in a refuge for about 2 years - he was about to beat her up only 4 wks after having a Caesarean).

It seems to me she has no rights at all - He disappeared for a year and then turned up demanding to see his son, hasn't paid a penny maintainance, is basically disruptive and manipulative. She has been forced to go to mediation (where she was removed from the room for her own safety) but has to continue with it or 'it will look bad'. He is denying all the abuse and although police were called he was never charged.

Her solicitor and the mediator are telling her that basically, he will get access to her son & within 3-6months will be entitled to have him for weekends. I think this is appalling - where are the rights of the child?

Anyway, I can't help thinking that Fathers 4 Justice are sheltering and supporting fathers like him - he is a fantastically manipulative man and could convince anyone that she is a hysterical liar. Who is there to protect the women and children???

Oh take no notice HMB. You can't have a sensible discussion with a troll, can you?

Ohhhhhh

Sorry everyone, not meaning to hurt anyone. I think the fact I have experienced these things does qualify me to put my point over though. The old car, new car things was the xwife and new wife. I have never suggested that the kids are left hungry. If i felt like that I would have the maintenance we pay halved in a flash by the csa. Merely pointing out that sometimes it appears whilst other mums suffer with tuppence there are many that are rolling in it which is unnecessarily damaging for the second family. Quite often I have heard stories of second families not being able to afford to have children because the money situation has been so tight.

Monkey, my turn to be in the dog house.

I Love you all, but im off sweep the clouds. xxxxxxxxxxxx

Regardless of all that. Children from your first marriage are still YOUR responsibility!!
But if you are happy letting another man pay for your kids well...what sort of man are you?!

Interesting point about the rights of second families versus the rights of first families. What about the rights of sixth families? Or tenth families?

Many men on average wages cannot afford to support one family on their income (hence both partners needing to work), let alone support two, three, four or five families. The issue here, is which of his families should take priority? The one which he happens to prefer at the present moment? The first one he committed to? The one he contracted within a state-sanctioned marriage? Or should they all have an equal right to his support?

It's not an entirely flippant point - in Muslim culture, a man is not allowed to take a second wife (theoretically) unless he can prove that he can satisfactorily continue to discharge his duties to the first. I don't think that's a bad principle. It does however, clash with our idea that people should be allowed to "move on" from a relationship which didn't work out. I suspect most people would say though, that there is a limit to how much moving on someone may be allowed to do. I actually did know someone years ago, who had 6 children by four different women. At no time did it occur to him that he had any obligation at all to the 5 children of the 3 women of whom he had tired. He'd moved on. (I sometimes wonder if he's stopped moving.) And to be totally realistic about it, there is simply no way he could have contributed anything like a realistic amount of maintenance to any of them - the jam would simply be spread too thinly.

That's an awful lot of broken down cars to have got through, though. And it does make one wonder if his driving technique and maintenance may have left something to be desired.

My dh has no access to his two younger children. Their mother is evil and a liar and he has spent a small fortune on legal fees trying to even be able to talk to his children on the telephone and get to see them on a regular basis. He has parental authority, but it is a total joke (ex has switched the childrens' school 6 times without consulting him and put his son on ridalin against his wishes). He tried to give support to ex (in cash so she didn't have to declare it) and she went to CSA instead and got less awarded than he was giving her in the first place. And then current boyfriend throws money back at dh when he tries to help out anyway. I think F4J are a blessing if they help even one father like my dh who desperately wants to love and support his children. By the way, it wasn't his choice to leave his children...his ex left him (and the fathers of her other 4 children too!).
If you talk about the rights of the child...what about dh's childrens' right to know their father and have a healthy relationship with him without ex poisoning their minds and telling them constantly that he doesn't love them and never calls (not true, she just won't let him speak to them and doesn't tell them that he's called).

I agree with you sopia thats what I tried to explain before..not very well!!!

sofia you could be my sister in law!

But why F4J and not the other fathers groups mentioned? Is it because you just haven't heard of the others or you admire F4J tactics?

"I think F4J are a blessing if they help even one father like my dh"

Really Sofia? At the expense of all the other children out there whose fathers are not like your DH? And at the expense of their mothers who are put under the most horrendous stress (and sometimes abuse) because of the way very bad fathers use their contact rights in order to pursue their vendettas against their exes, often using their children as ammunition?

Because there's no doubt that while F4J have been useful in raising the issue, the real damage they have done, is to put political pressure on the courts who are now granting sole contact rights to fathers who shouldn't be in the same room as a child - the really dangerous, violent ones. The irony is that decent men who wouldn't break court orders, like your DH, aren't being served any better because of F4J antics, but the really unsavoury characters are.

The only useful thing F4J have done, imo, is to raise the issue. What they have failed to do, is come up with an adult analysis of the real issues around contact and a discussion of how the minority of warring couples can be led towards some kind of modus vivendi which puts the interest of their children first.

And that?s the real issue with F4J isn't it, surely?

..Off subject a little bit but thought it might be interesting to mention that a friend of mine who used to work in the family courts expressed real guilt at her approach sometimes before she'd actually had kids of her own. People always employ cold logic to parenting before they have a child and most eat their words after. In the courts the patriarchal nature of proceedings probably influences too. This was in reference to denying mothers contact.

"By the way, it wasn't his choice to leave his children...his ex left him (and the fathers of her other 4 children too!)."

Sorry to pick on your post Sofia but this mirrors F4J misogynous rhetoric in the way it alludes to the mothers slatternly ways.

If the argument is strong enough there's no need for this kind of ad hominem attack. This kind of misogyny is all to commonly left unchallenged. Everything you say might be true - but you can?t expect new legislation to be proposed on the basis that you (and her ex) think she's a slag?!

I can add nothing as Caligula is so speaking so eloquently and representing my views so well....except to say personal experience of one evil mother denying access for spiteful reasons seems to have a more lasting impact on people than the news that there are many evil fathers who regularly treat their children poorly - mostly by simply ignoring them. One size is never going to fit all here.

The media's love of conflation and the spectacular doesn?t help. Where are they when starrynight's sister and her kids need them rather than some beery loon up a pole?

OMG Caligula, do you know my uncle? 6 children by 4 different women, left his first wife pg with twins at xmas. the twins are 21 now and he's never met them.

LOL at beery loon up a pole. But that really is an accurate description of the core f4j members.

beansmum, I wonder if it's him?! nah, this guy didn't have twins (although his eldest daughter would now be about 21.)

there are two sides to every story

there are bad mothers aswell as bad fathers

my dad was a crap 'un though

and he had 7 by three different women that we know of

I just read something that said that many men from the Islamic faith are joining F4J ranks. If I'm right about the core membership of F4J they'll not be too happy about it.

Think I might need to qualify that though it's arguably just as controversial. I've notice that the intimidatory tactics of F4J have alot in common with far right groups, their rhetorical techniques are also similar in this sense.

No monkeytrousers, I don't think my dh should get anything simply because of how he feels about his ex. However, at the moment she gets everything simply because she is the mother and that's not fair either to the children or my dh.
I think that F4J have raised the visibility of the issue of the abysmal state of the family courts, not only on the custody issue, but on the issue of MSBP and shaken baby deaths (in court today). It is because of their unorthodox tactics that they have gotten publicity for these issues. If they sat around and grumbled into their coffee like most people, nothing would change.

I wonder why people are so afraid of giving equal rights to fathers. Doing so would not allow truly bad fathers more rights to their children, but it would prevent good fathers from being kept from their children by bad mothers (they do exist in equal numbers to bad fathers, you know).

Sofia, do you really think f4j have raised MSBP as an issue? I don't think I've ever heard a pronouncement about it from them. Although I agree they've been useful in raising the visibility of the family courts, but agin, because of their total focus on father's rights, the real problems with the family courts haven't been highlighted as effectively as they should be, imo.

And I think you're wrong that bad fathers wouldn't have any more rights - the threshhold for a father to be considered "bad" is much, much higher than for that of a mother. You only have to look at the reality of how the courts work - fathers with a history of non-interest in their children, or negativity, or even violence, are routinely granted sole contact. I think if mothers regularly behaved in the same way, they would not necessarily be given the same level of contact on the same terms. And no-one would feel very sorry for them.