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???

mandy no-one's saying they're all bad. Gosh it is a long thread isn't it!

I think what's missing here is the idea of role models and influence. Whether the children witnessed it or not, if a father's violence is treated as a minor detail, little boys will grow up thinking it's OK to hit their partners, and little girls will grow up expecting to be hit. By treating violent men as if their violence is not beyond the pale, we are actually teaching children that it is within the bounds of acceptability. And I think too many children are being brought up to think that. All the posters on zero tolerance don't mean a thing if the law doesn't follow that through in everyday life.

ok.

Have you checked out any of the forums Guardianangel?

Oh lor. And there was me thinking I could go and do some work now that this thread's gone quiet.

Hahah. I have a feeling it might have. Been a pleasure Caligula. Hope to see you around again.

No Monkey, I was feeling a bit guilty that I had spent too much time chatting today and went off to get some house work done! I will look when I get a mo. This thread was quite invigorating wasnt it? ta ra for now, im off to dust the stars.

the stars!!! Gosh I have troubl with my own house never mind the universe!!!

Going swimming with my LO today so if i go quiet it doesn't mean I've gone away. I still wear the trousers round here (joke!)

Really!!

I think f4j are idiots, these are men who have in some cases have been stopped from seeing their children, in my experience this is very rare and is normally for a valid reason.
The thing that makes me angry is that my ex is dragging me through court which has so far cost me and dh around £5000, ex won't work full time as then the csa will 'get' him, so he receives legal aid, doesn't pay towards either of his children but the he has a 'right' to see his son. bs

Pedila, I appreciate how very personally frustrating it is for you not to receive any financial support at all from your children's father. However, surely it is dangerous to argue that a parent can only see their child if they contribute to it financially?

I think Pedilia did not meant it like that Buugsy. I thought she was trying to make a point about her husband character that he was making himself deliberatly skint so that he does not have to fork out for his kids. how selfish is that? he dos not put his kids first and he thinks is got all the right withut any responisbility

Also, I'm uneasy about the idea that a man who thinks it is OK not to support his children financially, should be considered a good father.

I understand the argument about maintenance and contact being separate issues because of the rights of the child to see the absent parent; but let's face it, the non-payment or under-payment of maintenance is so rife, that it does make you think how cheap it is to simply declare love and concern, without having to put your money where your mouth is.

bugsy2- I am not saying that only fathers that contribute can see their children, but surely they should be expected to contribute, it is part of being a resposible parent isn't it ? I have never stopped him from seeing his son even after no money, violence, abusive phonecalls and him ringing social services ! the system sill insists he has his rights.

Surely a responsible parent wants the best for their child. So why do dads think once they move out or whatever their responsibility to the child stops.

not all dads do. thats why some people have tried to illustrate differently. howver this is how general this debate always gets. and anecdotal evidence fromthe othr side of the fence is illustrative of a point and accepted intot he argument without question - presumably its more adult as its the woman scorned argument. when these issues arementoned no one called monkeypants comes into say 2 we ar discussing fathers for justice - not your contact issue"

its pants in itself to jump on another persons right to post their thoughts. this isn't a dissertation - its a forum airing views. my views are as valid as anyone elses and i think its a bit rubbish to infer that they are not and even mor rubbish to infer that because i havenot got statistical data behind my argument that my argument is negated.

I think I understood what Pedilia was saying; although obviously I hadn't realised her ex was also violent and abusive.
I wasn't making any criticism of her own situation. My own has been anything but ideal. What I was querying was whether you could/should deny a parent access to their child on the basis of lack of financial contribution. I was really wondering what "rights" parents to have? It was more of a discussion point than in direct relation to Pedilia's own situation.

I don;t know if you can deprive access to Dads for not paying maintenance, although I do wonder what sort of father would choose not to support their child. My partner and I work hard to give our daughter all that we can and take pride in the fact that we manage to give her theh lifestyle and comfortable home that she has. I perosnaly don't think I would be able to see my daughter every day if I had chosen not to support her.

I have no problem if one parent is genuinly unable to contribute but it does say a lot about their character if they deliberately try to avoid financial support by any means necessary

My xh was very sporadic in the beginning (about 9 yrs ago now) with maintainance payments and although I found it very annoying as I had no money whatsoever to the point of not having food for myself at the end of the week (he was an accountant and pretty loaded) I didn't stop him having access. In fact in 9 yrs I never would consider it because he is not a bad person...it just took a while for him to stop punishing me for leaving (by stopping payments).

For about the last 4 or 5 years he has paid every month by standing order and we rarely discuss money. I know he is paying about a third of what he should be but I just can't be bothered to challenge him about it.

Unfortunately he seems to be putting his social life as a higher priority to seeing his daughter in the last year or two and is seeing her less and less - but still probably 2 or 3 weekends in 4 so not bad. The most difficult thing is when he only phones last minute to tell her he won't be coming - she finds it really hard. He also promises her the world and doesn't deliver - i.e. trips to disneyland etc.

I pride myself on having never ever bad mouthed him (in front of her or behind her back) and have always bent over backwards to make their relationship work. It was very hard for him when I left and he was depressed for a number of years and I took responsibility for their relationship. And I am glad I did.

Ont the other hand - I would happily jump in a bus and run over my sisters abusive ex so that he had no opportunity to turn their son into the kind of abusive monster that he is!

Sorry, my post makes my xh sound horrible but apart from those gripes he really isn't! When we were together he did all the cooking and housework, was a loving husband and father and literally never put a foot wrong. My daughter loves being with him and they have a great time together. Hope that clarifies it a bit

Custardo, I love your line about Ankh-Morpork.
I don't think it's lack of statistics that causes problems with your argument as such, it's generalising from one particular case with no evidence to show that it is typical. You can't make a general rule based on one case unless that case itself is widely applicable.

Pants? It's trousers, man!

do you think some people take this personally? We are all entitled to our views and shouldnt be shouted down. I may not be as elequant as some of you,but I think both parents are responsible for the child they have made between them. fathers for justice may be going about it the wrong way

Barbara, I take your point about avoidance, but some times the money expected is beyond day light robbery!