If Fathers for Justice invade again

[Nyac]

will they still be welcome?

I'm referring to the thread in the Feminism/Women's Rights section -

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a1419965-Agenda-much

where Justine said:

"an invasion - ie let's go on and tell those mumsnetters why they've got it all wrong - isn't necessarily the same as trolling tbh (ie deliberately misleading/antagonising). I think we ought to be able to be robust enough to be able to debate the issue, with the caveat, of course, that if visitors turn out merely to be here to wind up or hear to spread hatred then they are not welcome"

It appears that as long as they promote their agenda in PARD then no harm done. Is that a fair assessment?

"Moving to other end of country to be with new love interests meaning child loses one parent."

That's exactly what my xp did, though not to be with a new love interest AFAIK.

So F4J are campaigning to stop non resident fathers doing that?

That's great, I might join up.

did they screen you when you got to the 'middle' or just take your word for it?

Perhaps we could start our own campaign group Basil?

MamaMaiasaura

It's comments like that led to the earlier war. Immature. And letting others on here who have a genuine interest down.

spydii with the greatest respect, you have come on this thread of your own accord and asked for 'reasoned debate'. Apart from your little pop at feminism further back, I'll accept you have been polite, and done you best to answer a few of the questions posed here. However, since a lot of your answers are "I'm not sure about that", "I'm too busy to look into that" and "I'm tired" - your 'reasoned debate leaves us none the wiser.

You know and we know that F4J are misrepresenting stats.

SaF... sighs.

Yes, of course! :)

With respect, I didn't take a pop at feminism. I suggested F4J looking at the issue of dads who don't care is a little like feminism looking at issues relating to men. i.e. the two things are somewhat related but are not the primary issue.

not sure 'victim-hood' was polite and note that at the end we got to the real crux of the matter which is that women are liars and use accusations of abuse to deny men their children out of malice and the courts believe them. that's what spy's real motivation and passion is about.

and that a court believed he had abused and were so concerned about him they deemed him unfit to have any contact (even at a contact centre presumably) with his children. but of course it was just that his ex was a spiteful liar and we all know how courts automatically listen to and believe women about things like rape, abuse etc

Another question: we know you want the law changed so that maintenance is no longer in existence as with 50 50 residence, it would no longer be necessary. However atm, we do generally have a system where one parent is the primary carer and therefore becomes the resident parent. The majority of htose parents, do not get any maintenance. Do you think that this financial abuse of children is acceptable?

so they screened you - found out a court had thought you unfit to be around even your own children and said, yeah you'll be fine?

As I said, stat-stealers. It's like some Apple Council banging on to the government about how devastating a fruit pest is and using figures for all fruit to prop up their argument. Bogus.

spy, taking your situation at face value, I have sympathy. Would you back a campaign for better investigation, and hence prosecution, of DV and rape so that actual criminal convictions can be presented as evidence in Family Court? Do you think that it is in a child's best interest to not be in a shared parenting situation with someone convicted of DV or rape, particularly against the other parent?

We know that most men with a history of DV, are still granted contact with children.

Sometimes even sole contact.

That's a good point Basil, especially given that on F4J's FB they are advocating non-compliance with the CSA. They do (of course) advise that the equivalent is set aside in a savings account, but that's not much help to the children here and now if their family is on the breadline.

What you said, spydii, was 'it's a bit like asking what feminism does for fathers'.

As someone eloquently pointed out to you - feminism does quite a bit for fathers, since it questions traditional male-female roles with regard to childcare.

Now if, IF your definition of feminism is 'manhater' (seems particularly common misinterpretation on the F4J FB page) then you may have a point.

But in fact, feminism does not mean man-hater. I am a happily married woman who calls herself a feminist. Feminism asks that men take more of an active role in raising their children. But I don't think that's what you were getting at with your comment, was it?

i would say a lot of these men need to learn the concept of accountability too - as in personal accountability - taking responsiblity for the choices they made and the consequences they led to.

courts don't decide who is the RP for no reason, they certainly don't ban contact for no reason. they are constantly trying to give contact to even the most unstable and volatile nrps. a relative works at a contact centre and you would not believe some of the people the mothers have to drag their poor children to see in these places because the court has ordered they have contact but even they don't trust them to have it alone.

If we want men to step up and deliver the goods then there has to be some protection for the child and them if the relationship ends. Otherwise, why should any bloke ever bother

Um, if this is all really about what's in the childrens best interests (rather than some men feeling they should get shared ownership regardless of whats right for their kids), shouldnt they be doing this out of love, responsibilty and shared family life? Not to ensure that they get what they want should the relationship ever end.

i think it should be treated in the same way as a rp guilty of serious neglect would be sgm.

there is protection for them and the child and the relationship. in well over 99% of cases the court orders there should be contact. even with abusers, drug addicts, criminals, etc.

how much more protection could you get?

the best protection is to take an active role in your children's lives from the start - that can be evidenced if a split happens. hence questioning why f4j don't campaign for paternity leave and better flexible working provision etc.

Yes, spydiii, I agree with AyeRobot.

If you story on here is true, you have my absolute sympathy. I totally totally agree that children should have contact with both parents, unless a parent is violent/abusive.

I would question your affiliation with F4J though - a highly questionable organisation for all the reasons detailed above.

Why WHY wouldn't you seek the help of a more credible organisation? (Probably one of the ones F4J is targeting!) Why ally yourself with F4J - who are a load of hot air and aggression with no credibility at all. You heard it here from Justine - she's well in with the media.

*your story

"Otherwise, why should any bloke ever bother"

I think that says a lot.

You bother because you love your child, not because you hope to get cookies as a reward for doing what you should be doing anyway.

but why should believe his story when the court, cafcass, maybe ss etc didn't? and that is what f4j is asking us to do - to take the word of men who courts have deemed to be abusive and a danger to children that in fact they are good dads and it is the court/gingerbread/mn/all those nasty single mums that are abusive.

i don't find it very persuasive myself.

Well exactly.

Given that the courts normally award contact to abusive fathers, the number of fathers whom the courts haven't awarded contact to in f4j, is statistically extremely problematic.