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???

Well, if the dad is violent to everyone else except the kids, are you only stopping them from seeing their dad because it suits you? Cos from where I am standing, if the children are not being harmed and are loved and wanted by the father, what on earth is stopping them from continuing their relationship.

are you serious? You think a man who beats up his wife, even if he wouldn't touch his kids, has a right to be a dad? What if he beats her in front of the kids? As long as he doesn't touch them is that ok?

jessicasmummy, That is their point, the courts are not helpful when it comes to dads, and they have to either let their kids go or fight for it. F4J is letting us all know that this is going on in the only way it can. Sadly through our crap media coverage.

'Spiteful' and 'selfish' mothers, eh? Well your prejudices are your own to reason with. Happydaddy's example is typical of just how intractable these issues are. His ex wife is obviously deeply hurt and still smarting for the reasons they split up - by the sounds of it her depression may have had a hand in it. The circumstances of a split are very important tho. We all want to negate ourselves of guilt but as grown ups we should know that this just isn?t possible. A relationship fails because of many things and both parties need to be able to admit it when they've hurt someone. Ignoring someone?s pain doesn?t make it go away.

Beanie the kids are not responsible for seeing adults beating up on each other. The PARENTS should remove them selves from the kids. Violence, unless pre meditated is normally provoked. The violent parent should be removed from the problem (normally the other partner)but you mustnt divorce the kids too.

Monkeytrousers, my ex is a bully and a control freak. That's why I left. Everything she did during the divorce and contact battle was her trying to keep control. Depressed and hurt? Don't make me laugh. She's only gutted that I don't listen to her rubbish anymore. Sorry but not all women are saints and deserve good men.

Monkey,
KIDS,KIDS,KIDS. WE MUST PUT THEM FIRST. ALL ADULTS ARE SELFISH. INNOCENCE IS A BEAUTIFUL THING, WE CANT LET OUR CHOICES AND SUBSEQUENT DISASTERS TAKE IT AWAY FROM OUR LOVELY CHILDREN.

Ga- I can't believe you just said that! the partner is the problem? the violence is normally provoked?

HERE HERE, Happy Daddy

Guardian, a violent father should not have unsupervised contact with his children. It is well known that men who are violent to one person (wife/ partner, etc) often become violent towards their children too. I do think fathers should have fairer contact but not at the expense of the children or mother's safety or welfare. I think you are being a little idealistic.

Beannie, Give me your slant on it then. Make me understand how these situations come about.

Point taken Happydad, was just trying to make a case for complexity. And Guardian angel, everything you say invalidates your argument further. Wot are you on??

happy daddy, I agree to a point, most that have been in that relationship have a fair idea of the type of relationship their ex has with their children and would decide accordingly.

I think f4j have been very successful at highlighting a minor problem - that of mad harpy women who refuse to put their children's needs first and put their sense of injustice and anger before the child's need to know their father.

However, such women are so so rare, compared to those who have genuine reasons for withholding contact. Apart from violence, which is obviously an extreme example, many women eventually get sick to death of absent fathers using contact as a means of manipulating children and of getting one over on the ex. So much is talked about mothers using children as weapons, but so very little is talked about the way fathers do the same.

How many men put their wish to nurse a hangover, watch the football, go shopping, have a shag with the new girlfriend, even watch the bloody telly, above their children?s need to see them? I can tell you, it?s a shockingly large number. And the whole of the debate is being conducted in terms of ?what shall we do about the harpy women who stop men seeing their kids? Shall we send them to prison? Shall we give them community service?? Nothing is being discussed about ?what shall we do about men who fail to turn up for their contact times, who deliberately bring the kids back five hours later than agreed, way past their bed times, so that next day at school they can?t concentrate on their work, but hey, he?s shown her who?s boss, so who cares?? The absent fathers who use contact to get one over on their exes, rather than to build a loving and long term relationship with their children, are simply not being discussed ? and I believe that the number of those, are far higher than the number of contact denying bitch harpies. Which isn't to say that the latter group don't exist, but to pretend that they outnumber the former group, is to ignore reality, imo.

GA - some men (and some women) are violent abusers. The person being abused does NOT deserve or provoke it in any way. If a man is willing to beat up his wife/ex he could be willing to hit his child and should not be allowed near them. That's how I see it.

monkey,
Children are the only thing that matters. Cant we stop all this nonsense in our own relationships and concentrate on the happiness of our own children.

I think fathers for justice is a good thing, but unfortunately I feel alot of fathers who don't deserve to have contact use this as a way of showing how hard done they are by there ex partners.

My ex has uased the kids against me so much. I'm afraid that if I put my foot down and say no contact then I will be seen as spiteful so I don't. I let him have unsupervised contact and for that yesterday he bit me in my face ,strangled me and punched me to the floor, all in front of the kids.
(he was arrested and charged) but now what, do I cease contact when he cries that he loves and misses his kids.

Yeah he might not hit them but he calls me names to them and he hits me at times when he is picking them up. Does he deserve to see his kids? Am I spiteful if I put a stop to it?
I don't know what to do anymore.

ALL parents with convictions or previous form for violence revoke their right for unsupervised access.

Guardianangel, allowing lousy role-models sole contact with children, allowing them to undermine parental discipline, allowing them to use their children to get one over on their children's carer, is not in a child's interests. I simply don't see how anyone can argue that it is.

I'm not saying that all or even most absent fathers do this - thankfully, it is a tiny minority. But it is precisely this tiny minority who generally have problems with contact. Becuase funnily enough, people who are trying to raise a family can do without an enemy outside pissing in. Too often, these men have rights without responsibilities. And saying "oh it's about the children the children", is simply not a good argument. Children who are battered love their parents too - but no-one argues that because they love them, they shouldn't be protected from them.

sahara, in my view, a man who hits and bites the mother of his children, is a man who is teaching his children that hitting and biting the people they love is OK.

I don't think any children should learn that lesson.

sahara,
The father has the problem with you (for whatever reason) If you know he is ok with the children, then he should be allowed to see the children. Dont let him in the house and have the kids ready at the door.

Guar - haha, that?s the line F4J always use. The parent?s relationship is a factor, how they deal with each other is very important. Dealing with each other with respect and curtsey is a basic skill those in F4J seem to have lost. Your children learn from you. How you choose to deal with the world on their behalf especially can?t be factored out.

sahara - If I was in your situation I would want to keep my kids away from someone who thinks that hitting, biting and calling names is acceptable behaviour, and I wouldn't feel at all spiteful about refusing contact.

GA, sorry but what are you on about? Do you live in the real world? How many women who have been abused think "oh, I'll forget what he's done to me and let him have unsupervised contact with my vulnerable children. I'll just nurse my injuries while he takes them out?". Any man who is violent or abusive gives up any rights he has to see his children, I believe.

I believe that the ideas that formed F4J are right, however their methods and comments undermine their whole philosophy.

guardian - if the mother ignores what the father has done to her, she is also showing her children that what the father is doing should be forgiven. That cannot be right, can it?