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???

Caligula, whenever you talk about first and second families I think you tend to assume (when you use phrases like 'whichever one he prefers at the moment') that the father is always the one to walk away - and on a whim too. That really isn't the case at all. Like Sofia's husband mine was also left by his partner, who met a far richer man and left him (and their daughter) to further her relationship with him. Which of course, she has a perfect right to do, and I'm glad she did of course, but my ds wasn't unfaithful, violent, unkind or anything other than a passionately devoted father, so I do find it hurtful when people assume that if a man has a 'second family' it is because he has walked out on his 'first family' and doesn't care about his kids. I have been very hurt on MN before when I posted like this before and several posters basically told me that they thought my dh was probably a bastard who deserved to be left etc and had been lying to me, so I feel in two minds about posting this. People usually assume that because I am a stepmother I was instrumental in breaking up my husband's previous relationship, when in fact I met him years after the split, when his ex was already living with and pregnant by her new man. Didn't stop her being extremely spiteful to him though, sadly.

Good post Aloha. I think it was on my thread about ex's that your dh came under attack. My dp's ex was the one to have the affair too. She didn't directly leave dp or her daughter, but he was the primary carer for a number of years while she did what she wanted to do. But it's dp's second family ie me and ds that have to pay for her behaviour - emotionally and financially.

I totally agree aloha

it really is never black and white and there is always two sides to every story. i have seen it from both perspectives so i am most probably very neutral

Hi Aloha, I suppose I use phrases like that because in some men's cases, it really is the reality of their outlook and behaviour, and I just find it so incredible that most people don't notice that, whereas when women behave in this way (and from what I remember, I think Sofia's DH's ex wife did) they are seen by everybody as the lowest of the low and people feel they ought to be put a stop to. I guess I just feel very angry that the debate about these issues is still being conducted very much on men's territory.

But no, I don't assume that men with second or even third families have walked out on their children without a backward glance (although when it comes to sixth, then I think I might be forgiven a raised eyebrow. Although even then, I don't think anyone can assume anything about anyone's relationship breakdown without knowing some real facts about it.) I know that sometimes relationships break down because they do, and I know that sometimes they break down because of the fault of one of the parties involved. That's why I feel ambiguous about the concept of no fault divorce - but that's another thread.

And my primary objection to f4j isn't that fathers shouldn't be considered important people in their children's lives and treated fairly by the courts (and indeed by the mother of their children), it's that f4j are raising the issue in a manner and from a philosophical position which I strongly believe is mysogynist and harmful to women and children (and ultimately, to decent men as well - because I don't think mysogyny and a war between the sexes benefits men either).

You've had a bad experience Aloha. People often generalise to illustrate a point - I'm guilty of that sometimes but to condemn someone out of hand with no evidence is plain wrong.

No one is arguing that there aren't two sides to the story or that couples don's rip each other to emotional shreds when splitting up. Or that it isn't a hugely complex issue. Or even that there isn't a place for radiaclism sometimes. But its exactly the highly emotive nature of the subject that F4J attempt to exploit to their benefit - whipping everyone up to such a reactive frenzy that logial argument is nigh on impossible. There is method in this. I say again that IMO and on evidence F4J are a highly conservative group whose primary goal is the subjection and control of women and their fertility.

That sounds a bit overblown but it's the point of all misogynous groups.

I think that maybe as an outsider, I feel like I am looking at things a little differently than the majority of people in this country. I was absolutely floored when the lawyer told my dh that he didn't stand a chance of getting custody of his children because he was male and because he had a job. This hasn't been the case in the usa for 30 years. I was further amazed that no one seemed to be either the least bit bothered or even aware of this. (remember the family court judge who didn't realize how unfair the courts were to fathers until he went through them himself) To me, F4J are bringing publicity to an area that has been too hidden for too long. No, I don't agree with all of them, or all of their tactics, but at them moment I don't see anyone else even coming close to bringing publicity to the topic. So until I see something better, I'm going to support the best there is.
I agree that F4J have not dealt with MSBP, but the consequences of their protests is that the family courts are being shaken up and maybe there will be no more cases of false accusation of parents going completely uncorrected as a result.
By the way, I don't think that just because my dh's ex left him as opposed to the other way around should give him any more or less moral high ground. He is still the children's father and she is still their mother and their role as such should be assumed to be equal until proven otherwise in the course of parenting. For example, it's not uncommon for a couple to decide that the mother is going to stay at home with the children while the father goes out to work. If they split up during this period, of course the mother will have spent more time with the children up until that point. Currently that means that she is considered the better and more valuable parent. However I don't see why they can't re-evaluate who does what based on the fact that they will no longer be together anymore. When my boss and his wife split up, they ended up sharing custody of the children...she started working full time and he reduced his hours so that the children could have equal quality time with both of them, but there would still be enough money coming in to support two households. They hate each other's guts, but they put their love for their children before their hatred for each other. I just wish more people would do that.

Sorry to be a bit thick but what is MSBP?

I think someone made a point earlier in the thread that it isn't generally in the childs best interests to go with a 50/50 split - certainly with residency.

munchausen's syndrome by proxy.

Oh right, I see

Again sorry, but what false accusations, Sofia?

I think Sofia's probably talking about the MSBP ones specifically, but also other claims of harming babies which are made against mothers who would not necessarily be convicted in the criminal courts, but are convicted in the family courts because the burden of proof is lower and the trials are conducted in complete secrecy, supposedly to protect the children. In fact of course, it protects anyone who ever makes a mistake, screws up, hides evidence or lies. (Of which there appear to be quite a few.)

Will look for a link.

yes, thank you caligula. That's just what I meant. There is a case that started today ...the appeal of several people who were accused of killing their babies by shaking them, only the medical evidence was only conjecture and nobody questioned it. The review of these cases has been somewhat spurred by doubts about roy meadows and I think in part because of the questions raised about the family courts and medical evidence given in court in general.

There is plenty of evidence from years of 50/50 custody as standard practice in the usa that it works and is considered by most experts etc. that it is the best thing for the children.

Thanks. I'm a bit out of my depth in this area but have read the press reports. It?s my pet subject I know but I seems that the issue at the heart of all this is the massive institutionalised misogyny (god, I wish I could find another word..)inherent in well...it's everywhere, not just here isn't it? The demonisation of these women is medieval - everyone seems to love a good fallen woman to compare themselves favourably to. It's so nebulous and intractable, I know. If there's one thing F4J does well it's to play on this latency.

Surely equality is the answer?

Its not about being a mum or dad. Its about being a parent.

There are awful dads AND mums out there who do not deserve their children.

Just like there are plenty of Dad's who are not allowed to see there Child because mums have too much power.

As a side note, would be great is this page was called Parentnet