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???

Guardianangel - it's part of a parent's job to teahc children what's acceptable behaviour and what is beyond the pale.

If men like Sahara's ex are given sole contact with their children, their children receive the message that using casual violence is acceptable behaviour.

I don't believe it is. F4J do believe it is.

GA - you are talking crap again! It is NOT OK for a child to have to witness his mum being beaten up by his dad, and to suggest that the mother should have to make the effort to stayy away from him, while still letting him take her children out unsupervised is ridiculous!

Do fathers for justice allow any father to join them or do they know how to seperate the violent from the genuine cases of unfair contact?

Or can anyone join the regardless of why they haven't seen their kids?

Oh and GA - the courts in the main agree with you.

Which is why two women a week are murdered by their current or ex partners, and why there's a trail of dead children, killed by the exes of their mothers, who really showed the bitch who was boss, didn't they?

I think anyone can join. A lot of the main characters you see have convictions for violent crimes

OH IM OFF TO DO ME SHOPPING. MAYBE ITS ME, I CANT GET THE MESSAGE THROUGH. THAT THE MORE YOU TRY AND CONTROL THE SITUATION IN A RELATIONSHIP THAT IS BROKEN THE MORE YOU FUEL THE FIRE AND CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS. IT IS NOT JUST THE MOTHERS RIGHT (MORALLY) TO RAISE THE CHILDREN AND MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEM. ONLY IN EXCEPTIONALLY VIOLENT CASES WHERE THE CHILDREN ARE ABUSED ETC SHOULD THAT CHOICE BE TAKEN AWAY. TA RA, SEE YOU LATER.[SAD]

F4J don?t have a philosophy, just blind prejudice. Like I said there are plenty of other dads groups who work WITH women?s groups for equal rights.

I did consider contacting F4J, when I was trying to gain some decent contact, but am glad I didn't.

The official line is that they are trying to weed out the felons and wife beaters but they need the brainless yobs to do the stunts.

..and sorry Guardian angel, but we do understand the message - we just think its wrong!

Yes GA and the irony of your position is that it's precisely the absent fathers' needs for control which often lead to the problems.

You seem to be saying that women should sit down and let their exes throw any shit at them and their children, irrespective of how much damage it does to the kids.

Or perhaps I'm being dense, and that's why your message isn't reaching me.

I have tried guardianangels tactic, Hide behind the door while the kids go. But the door gets bashed through more often than not.

My son stood by the police as his dad tried to lie and he told the police in front of his dad that his dad was lying.

Now I worry for him. I don't think that he deserves contact, but people like guardianangel believe still that somehow it can work letting a violent man see his kids, well it doesn't.

I know, I pay the price everyday. My kids get more and more aggressive and what they see him do to me they do to others. I am going to cease contact because I thinks it is for the best.

My kids are still young ebough that I have a chance to replace how they act now with some less warped view of thw world.

And if F4J think I'm spiteful I don't care. I know I don't have a spiteful bone in my body. But I love my kids, I love them more than he does. If he had loved them then he would have had more restraint in front of them.
Thats what I believe.

Sahara, I agree completely. If you really love your kids, you will show them a good example and restraint. Not scare them or show them that being violent is a good thing.

here here

tbh Sahara, I think it's your duty to stop your kids seeing him. Contact with this violent man is harmful to them, on all sorts of levels. One of the major jobs a mother has, is to protect her children. Allowing a violent man (even if he is their father) to have sole contact, is failing in that duty of protection. And what makes me really angry about the f4j position (and that of most courts) is that they are leaving women exposed and unable to protect their children.

Don't feel bad about denying contact - every time he hassles you, report him to the police, go to a solicitor and keep a diary of his violent and abusive behaviour. You're doing the right thing. Don't let anyone make you feel you have to expose your children to the unsavouriness of their father.

sahara - ignore people like GA, you NEED to protect your children from an abusive man, even if he is their father. you are not being spiteful at all.

sahara, well done for being so strong under such awful circumstances.

I think that GA is putting the needs of the ex before the needs of the child. The child has a right to a safe, secure environment with lots of love. Violence is not the answer

I think GA is either seriously naive or completely off her head.

And Sahara - I think you are doing the right thing.. run a mile in the opposite direction of this man before he kills you or seriously harms your children (sorry to be blunt - but there it is).

I think GA has just swallowed the current fashion that children have the right to see their fathers, irrespective of how bad the fathers are.

We have constructed this ideology of setting up "rights" for children, which in the real world, may injure them if they exercise the rights. I can't see the point of having the right to starve on the street, or the right to hang myself, or the right to work 80 hours a week. In the same way, I can't see the point of a child's right to do something which harms him or her.

caligula - whatever your view, that's quite patronising.

kids have two parents - why is it the mother is automatically considered to be the good one.

mothers can and do manipulate the situationt o benit themselves as do some fathers who have custody.

i wonder if there willcome a time where a 13 year old in a spiderman outfit climbs the top of the houses of parliament with a banner "children for justice" because he is tired of being the pawn being played in the divorce of his mum & dad

Is it? Oh well.

Custardo, the mother isn't automatically considered the good one.

The reason mothers generally get care and control of children in family breakdown, is because they do the bulk of childcare even when they are living with the father of their children. 90% of couples agree amicably that the mother should look after the children. 90% never go near a court. Of the 10% who do, the mother is usually awarded care and control because she has been the primary carer of the child/ren. There is no plot. There is no conspiracy. It's just how life is.

When fathers start cutting their hours, giving up their careers and refusing promotions so that they can spend more time with their children, then that may change.