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?

Why aren't you campaigning for absent fathers to play more of a role? If children need fathers, that is exactly what you should be campaigning for.

By absent fathers I mean those choosing to be absent, not turning up, not paying for their children.

Thisisnotverygood...

"I would do anything to take my son's pain and confusion away."

I do feel for your situation, and would say to you ad others here it's something we too feel about our own albeit in a slightly different way perhaps.

HandDivedScallopsrgreat

There are only so many hours and people free. And most of them in our place are those desperate to see their children. Maybe in the future, if other groups don't spring up to do that. Maybe I can sum up by saying when your house is on fire it's not stopping kids playing with matches you're worried about at that very moment. And right now, we have tens of thousands of house on fire...

How do you ensure that those fathers that don't turn up for contact with their children play a fundamental role?

• Thats not what we are campaigning for. Bit like asking what does feminism do to promote fathers? It's a related topic but not what F4J are about, the primary cause is hard enough to achieve without diluting effort on associated problems.

Surely it's relevant if those children are included in the statistics you use to promote your cause?

"Bit like asking what does feminism do to promote fathers?"

Erm, actually feminism is pretty hot on shared responsibility for parenting. If fathers were involved from the outset, rather than leaving it to the mother, then mothers would cease to be the primary carer, and then after a break up the primary carer element would be less prominent. Leading to more involved fathers during the relationship and ergo also after a split up. Feminists I know tend to split their childcare on a far more equal basis than non feminists. It kinda goes with the territory.

NP, like I just said a moment ago, when your house is on fire you deal with the biggest issue, not the secondary but associated issues. For what it's worth, and again my view; I am personally disappointed that some (many?) fathers have not bothered to be there for the kids and ex's. You'll appreciate however that most of the people I meet however are screaming to see their kid because they are prevented. Sometimes it's feels like being in A&E, all you can do is keep up with the incoming flood of serious cases and health advice and prevention somewhat takes a second place. Not because we don't care but because of the reality of time and scale of the issue.

Perhaps you can pass that on to your friend then? Although I'm sure she's reading this anyway. FTR, if you spoke to my ex (and I wouldn't put him past him being one of your number) he'd tell you it was categorically my fault that he moved away. He genuinely believes it is. You can't always believe the stories people tell you.

Another question, why don't F4J campaign for better rights for fathers in relationships? Better paternity leave, more uptake of and better support for flexible working and parental leave etc? If the parents were equal before a split then this would to lead to a much more equal status quo in the event of an acrimonious split.

what sheer numbers? we were researching it the other night and it looked like the court system prevents less than 0.1% of fathers they see from having contact.

i think it was something like 300per year.

do you think those 300 were all prevented for no reasons and you'd find them good dad's you were wiling to 'fight for' or do you think a fair few of them will be a significant danger to children hence the court awarding them no contact when they do that so, so, so rarely?

and how exactly do you 'fight' for these dads? by selling them a £20 pdf (that's a serious profit margin there)?

"Another question, why don't F4J campaign for better rights for fathers in relationships? Better paternity leave, more uptake of and better support for flexible working and parental leave etc? If the parents were equal before a split then this would to lead to a much more equal status quo in the event of an acrimonious split."

This is not my area of expertise but I believe Matt and Nadine have spoken about it publicly quite a few times, to the ends you describe. It is not however the key focus of the campaign. The analogy I gave above probably explains it best, it's a little like working in A&E where you running to just keep people alive and all the other stuff you need to fit in around 5 min coffee breaks.

Agreed SAF. There is obviously an issue with enforcement of orders but I think we can all agree that it's a very difficult area given the effects enforcement could potentially have on the children. And again, some PWC's will break a court order for very good reasons.

But ensuring that fathers play a fundamental role in parenting after separation is exactly what you say you are campaigning for. It says it on your website.

If you don't know how many of the 1in3 are not in contact as a result of court action, then you need to stop using that stat until you do. It's misleading.

What do envisage when you say "shared parenting"?

What do you think are reasonable grounds for denying this?

Do you think that continuity of care and stability for the child is "paramount"?

SaF, serious profit? Know how much a national broadsheet full page advert costs, or professional printed banners at the hunger strike etc...? I can assure you there is less income than outgoing. A few people are willing to dig deep to make up the difference and all work is voluntary.

Both the 3.8million and the 1 in 3 children fatherless stats are false and misleading.

Why are children with fathers that don't want to see them less important to you than those who do? I thought you were all about children's rights?

My cousin's former boyfriend said the same to her ThisIs. So she helped him approach his ex, negotiate, arrange regular visitation, and even had his children round at her family's home over Christmas. This lasted the 8 or so months she was with him. Once she broke it off he stopped turning up at his ex's on time and started making excuses as to why he had to cancel. Within a few months he'd stopped seeing his children again. He only kept it going while my cousin was there to encourage him and do most of the childcare. I'm so glad she didn't have children with him.

no that analogy does not hold at all spy. if fathers took on active parenting roles during their relationship such as taking paternity leave, sharing childcare, altering work patterns etc then they'd be more likely to get decent contact or residency upon breaking up. they're not unconnected. none of the things we've been asking you about are so when you keep saying i don't know about that , or that, and that's not what we're doing it shows a massive absence of understanding of the issues involved in what is apparently an area you are passionate about and willing to 'fight' for.

i'm guessing fighting means taking out ads in papers from your last post - ads that you are unaware of the content of and the accuracy there of.

spy all the information is out there. it sounds like you could really do with just doing some independent research using reputable sources and to inform yourself. i'm not talking about F4J propaganda that you've taken on face value and not even thought about or questioned by your own admission, and clearly you're not going to be persuaded of the facts by us. so do your own research, inform yourself, find out the facts and figures and see what holds up.

blind following isn't fighting for anyone. check out the facts and then see where you are.

If you don't know how many of the 1in3 are not in contact as a result of court action, then you need to stop using that stat until you do. It's misleading.

• To recap, I personally am not sure of the origins of that stat, but I'm sure the girls and boys in HQ do and have been very careful to back any statistic with credible sources. It's a key thing F4J do.

What do envisage when you say "shared parenting"?

• Again, my view is an amount of time with each parent such that they can each form a good and strong bond with the child - assuming we are talking time. Otherwise, jointly making decisions and discouragement of behaviours that are not in the child's best interests. e.g. Moving to other end of country to be with new love interests meaning child loses one parent. I'll probably be hated by some for that last comment but I see it as working either way and not applied unreasonably, which it is currently.

What do you think are reasonable grounds for denying this?

• Good evidence that a parent poses a risk to the child. At the moment, I'd say (and based on personal experience) that the bar is set way too low. I is too easy for the PWC regardless of their gender to completely deny the other parent for the flimsiest and most baseless of reasons.

Do you think that continuity of care and stability for the child is "paramount"?

• I'd say in most cases, yes. Depends what your definition is though as people's lives change when they split. For example, we see dads who were in full time work (but saw kids every night / morning / weekend) suddenly change their work patterns to be able to see the child but the courts do not generally recognise this rely on continuity meaning mum looked after kids in daytime so now, dad, off you go and cannot see little Johnny anymore. So, we need to be careful what we mean by this. Continuity in terms of stable home and both parents as far as possible; continuity in terms of binary 'one parent only' based on pre-split share, no.

Be careful suggesting the 3.8 million stat is a lie, it was a high court judge who made the claim on figures you and I do not have access to and that generally the gov won't let us have. Probably good reason to hide them. It was Sir Paul Coleridge if you want to reference it.

how are you sure?? how do you know it's a key thing they do??? because they say so??

you haven't checked out the information yourself or given yourself a thorough understanding.

what flimsy baseless reasons do you think courts deny contact on the grounds of??

no courts don't recognise a sudden change of lifestyle - it's not as reliable or evidenced or real as the years of actually living that lifestyle the main caregiver has done. if they'd wanted to be an active part of their children's lives they should have been. they agreed to their partner being the main caregiver and source of emotional stability and security for the children and the conditions (and the children) grew out of that. you don't get to suddenly change all that when you break up. children don't have a reset button.

we DO have access to the figures spy! so do you if you try.