F4J - comment from an ex-partner
I thought this comment on the F4J post below should get a greater readership:
I have had personal experience of threatening and intimidating from F4J members, my ex is one of their ‘leaders’.
Perhaps I should not have been surprised, as it was a continuation of the treatment i and my children suffered while still with him, but i did not expect others to join him in his abuse of me.
I have fought for five years to protect my children from him, so that they are no longer withdrawn insular frightened kids. During that time I have had to endure around 30 court appearances costing around £40,000 (begged and borrowed from family and friends) - even my solicitor suffered from him and has allowed me to pay my bills monthly!
In spite of him unleashing his insidious brand of nastiness (in diluted form to that which we suffered) on most of the ‘professionals’ involved in the case - they had to follow ‘protocol’ which meant most of his activities were watered down.
Earlier this year, we was caught out lying under oath and continuing to twist maniuplate control - needless to say, he is no longer able to use the courts in his attempts to further abuse the children. My misery, I fear, will continue for the rest of my life.
I am aware that a number of F4J’s other ‘leaders’ are aware of what he has done, yet he is still there with them. Says a lot, doesn’t it?
Whenever I see anything to do with F4J, i experience panic, because i know he is something to do with it, even in the background. He has bought F4J people to court hearings - they have scared and frightened me and my supporters - they glare nastily, move around me, getting so close they could almost touch, they refuse to move away. People might say i am weak - i would answer - speak to survivors and ask them what is worse - thy physical violence… or the emotional violence?
No i don’t hate them - i hate what they do. No i don’t hate him - i dont have enough time - i spend it all being scared.
to all in F4J: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - leave me and my kids alone - in peace
Mr Blunkett was also accused in the same way, in fact his ex was suffering from so much stress it was stated she could have lost the child.
He should be removed immediatly from his post as MP. We should have start a lobbying group up her and have him removed from his post in the government.
The right honourable member for parliament Mr. Blunkett has never been a member of fathers for justice, or even supported them. They are just a bunch of immature thugs and to place him in with this gang is appalling. He has placed his trust in the British legal system of justice, as all good loving fathers should do. Those father thugs when confronted with justice are “shocked that they were removed from their children” is it no surprise, when you discover their real dark tactics of intimidation and terror.
I refuse to print my name due to reprisals that those thugs would reap upon me. This is just another example of how good citizens live in fear. Their leaders and members should be locked up immediately. This is the kind of message that should be sent to their children, that might stop some of the young lawlessness which they keep complaining about in fatherless homes, criminals and thugs should not be made into heroes.
“He has placed his trust in the British legal system of justice, as all good loving fathers should do”
And now its reported he gets 2 hours a month supervised contact with his son.(Link.. http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/p4p/david_blunkett.htm )
Generous contact????
2 hours a month, can any parent reading this imagine being restricted to 2 hours a month with their child?
If anyone reading this blog thinks that family law will mete out justice, think again.
Child’s best interest paramount?Replace the word ‘child’ with ‘mother’.
info@f4jnortheast.co.uk:
Why you think one case proves anything I don’t know. I’m sure that the judge reached the right decision for that family. These days families don’t fit neatly into little boxes, and when partnerships break up, people are left unhappy. If the parents can’t agree, it’s up to the courts to decide how often children see a non-resident parent, taking all considerations, not just the wishes of the father into account, but basing their decision always on what is best for the children involved. I’m confident they’re doing that.
The judge did not reportedly reach any decision in this case, DB accepted an offer for ’some’ contact from the mother’s side rather than having none at all.
Again, due to laws of secrecy we know very little about this case, hence so many personal accounts of mistakes made by courts.
Layton from P4P has streamed ITV’s recent item on family law, no superheroes, just Denise Robertson and a couple of recognised legal profs debating the failings of our ‘great’ justice system. http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/media/ITV_%20Fathers%20_Eoc.wmv
“taking all considerations, not just the wishes of the father into account, but basing their decision always on what is best for the children involved. I’m confident they’re doing that”
Your confidence in the secret family law system is based on what exactly?
One size does not fit all, I agree, but when barristers, solicitors, high court judges, head of sfla, chief exec of cafcass etc all agree that the law is failing families then surely even a belligerent blogger like yourself can agree that family law is not working and is in desperate need of radical reform?
There may be many critisisms of F4J and followers, but only by campaigning and raising these issues will sensible debate and reform ever happen.
The next generation may look back at this time in history and wonder why it took so long for our leaders to accept that many families have suffered through some terrible injustices.
Next time you are in your office or a social gathering ask a few people if they know of any of their family who have had problems with contact or in the family court, you will not have to look very far to find injustice.
http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/media/ITV%20This%20Morning%20Social%20Services.wmv
This was the link I meant to paste, oops!
Mr Blunkett was accused of endangering the life of an unborn child, which as it turns out was not his.
He is not a fit father and places his own selfishness above that of the child. He should be removed from his position as Mp immediatley. The fact he was allowed 2 hours a month is shocking.
As I recall Blunkett introduced the new changes to Domestic violence laws. If an individual feels threatened or intimitated by the ex partner, then this constitutes domestic violence.
By forcing the poor mother (she stated she was extremly stressed by his aggressive approach) to court he has in fact committing domestic violence. This may explain why he received supervised contact, and yes he should be removed from his post, this would send a messege to all those fathers forcing mothers to court, that this aggressive behavior is not accabtable.
It is a mothers role to decide on contact not the father or the courts.
Another story of a dangerous father, endagering the lives of others.
Mother who fought case from sick bed
By Rebecca Smith Health Correspondent, Evening Standard
3 December 2004
Kimberly Quinn fought against the application by David Blunkett from a hospital bed.
Seven months pregnant Mrs Quinn was taken to St Mary’s, Paddington on Tuesday after collapsing at home. She was said to be vomiting and had lost weight.
She attempted to argue that the hearing this week should not go ahead because the strain would put her own health and that of her unborn child at risk.
Instead, she wanted the hearing delayed until April. But the judge, Mr Justice Ryder, ruled that the 44-year-old Spectator publisher was well enough to instruct her legal team even though he accepted that she was experiencing “relatively severe complications” with the pregnancy.
However, today’s hearing renews speculation about the state of her health at the time she became caught up in a high-profile battle with Mr Blunkett. Although she is not currently working as Spectator publisher, she has held a demanding job.
Today experts said that high levels of stress can cause serious complications during pregnancy that harm both mother and child.
Because of her age, Mrs Quinn is more likely to suffer complications and with the case coming to court now, it is a delicate time.
When a high level of stress continues for a long period, it may contribute to potentially serious health problems, such as lowered resistance to infectious diseases, high blood pressure and heart disease.
Some studies have shown that very high levels of stress can increase the risk of premature birth - Mrs Quinn’s husband Stephen has already expressed his concern about this. There is also a risk of low birth weight.
Stress in the later stages of pregnancy can have devastating consequences. Studies have suggested that stress-related hormones constrict blood flow to the placenta so the baby does not receive the nutrients and oxygen it needs.
Research has found that women with stressful jobs are more likely to develop pre-eclampsia, which can be
a dangerous condition in which the blood pressure goes too high. There is also a concern that high levels of stress may increase the risk of miscarriage.
Major stressful events during pregnancy such as the death of a partner or job loss have been linked to autism in children.
There is a growing body of evidence to show that stress during pregnancy affects the baby’s heart rate and may have long-term consequences for the cardiovascular system.
“It is a mothers role to decide on contact not the father or the courts.”
Wow!!Therein lies the levels of discrimination and bias leveled against male carers and fathers this thread has generated.
As a single father with residence should I have handed back our then 10 month old daughter to an alcoholic mum incapable of looking after herself?
Mother knows best eh?Her judgement is paramount?B*ll*x!
There are good and bad parents whatever the gender, as such they should be treated equally as responsible for their offspring, appart from breast feeding there is absolutely no aspect of parenting a father is not capable of, so why descriminate?
So dads should just accept that if they get divorced, whoevers at fault, that its up to mum whether he can ’see’ their kids?
Well whatever colour the sky is is anon at 9.18’s world, I’m glad at least there is an inneffective family court to turn to rather than no legal redress at all.
Blunkett got his 2 hrs a month by consent after Ms Quinn bowed to pressure exerted by her close friends that fathers should play a role in the lives of the children, the court ordered nothing but the dna test and a review the last we heard in the press.
I saw the news, saying that the mother was suffering stress. The next day, she was peddling her lies to the papers. How anyone can support this blatant cheat and liar, is beyond me!
I feel threatened my my ex. She abused me, and still abuses my children. Beceause i am male, i can do nothing. Thanks to femenist bigots like you lot, my children face danger and abuse daily. She gets away with it, because she is female.
As for dragging women to court, being a form of dv, it shows yet again, that women will use dv as an excuse for anything, and think nothing of abusing children, to hurt their ex.
I have a REAL victim of dv, in my family, and you lot should be ashamed of yourselves.
All women, who use their children, are child abusers - no if’s no buts!
Anonymous at 11.39pm:
“I feel threatened my my ex. She abused me, and still abuses my children. Beceause i am male, i can do nothing. Thanks to femenist bigots like you lot, my children face danger and abuse daily. She gets away with it, because she is female.”
If your wife is abusing your children, go to the police. I can assure you that if you have some evidence of child abuse, they will take you seriously.
“women will use dv as an excuse for anything, and think nothing of abusing children, to hurt their ex.”
This is misogynist rubbish.
We live in a free society and Kimberly Quinn has every right to let the public know of her suffering at the hands of her ex. As again we see the true colours of these men with the language they use “misogynist” plain and simple.
As for the police they would not ignore real issues of domestic violence towards children. Again this individual is confusing protecting children from dangerous fathers, with imagined examples that any police officer would laugh at. Show us the evidence of this domestic violence, what there is none? What a suprise. And do not forget 2 women a week die at the hands of their partners, lets see you try and spin that fact.
There you go - “give me evidence of dv”. Why do i need evidence? Women don’t need any. It is up to the man to prove his innocence. So why not the women. I will continue to defend children, while you lot continue to use them.
Antonia, as a Labour activist, you must be so proud of Margeret Hodge’s record in Islington. How many children, were raped and abused, in a council she was responsible for. Nobody took any notice then.
And what sort of Man, is Tony Blair, to promote her to children’s minister. I suppose this is also misogynist rubbish.
He, Margaret Hodge, and any other person, ignoring the need’s of children, just to appease women, should hang their heads in shame!
“As for the police they would not ignore real issues of domestic violence towards children. Again this individual is confusing protecting children from dangerous fathers, with imagined examples that any police officer would laugh at. Show us the evidence of this domestic violence, what there is none? What a suprise. And do not forget 2 women a week die at the hands of their partners, lets see you try and spin that fact.”
Just for the record, i do have the evidence, of both DV against myself, and my children. Why do you lot on here, feel the need to shout down, anyone who dare tell you, that women can be BAD!. I don’t need spin. I will leave that, to Antonia, and her party.
And i do not need lessons from anyone on here about DV. I spent 4 weeks in intensive care, and a year visiting hospital, to see my sister - a REAL victim of DV, by a coward scum of a so called man.
I have seen both sides - false claims, by angry ex’s, and real claims, for which the abuser gets just a few years, if that, in prison.
And then, of course, there is the abuse of my children, by their mother, who only the NSPCC gave a damn about. So you lot continue promoting the myth, that women are hard done by, and can do no wrong.
I will return to the real world, where thing’s are so much different.
Definition of Domestic Violence from
the Crown Prosecution Service
“Domestic violence” is a general term to describe a
range of behaviour often used by one person to
control and dominate another with whom they have,
or have had, a close or family relationship and in
which the abuser operates from a position of
perceived power.
For the purposes of prosecuting offences, The
CPS definition of domestic violence is:
“Any criminal offence arising out of physical,
sexual, psychological, emotional or financial abuse
by one person against a current or former partner in
a close relationship, or against a current or former
family member.”
This definition includes all forms of violent and
controlling behaviour and includes familial elder
abuse, sibling abuse, parent abuse and in-law abuse,
regardless of gender or age of either the victim or
defendant.
I consider the last post regarding domestic violence was not comprehensive and have added additional information provided by the Oxfordshire County Council. Please note the additional definition of threatening mothers with court action, as part of domestic violence.
http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/index/protecting/commsafety/domestic-violence/definition.htm
Domestic violence definition
“The term ‘domestic violence’ can be any violence between current or former partners in an intimate relationship, wherever and whenever the violence occurs. The violence may include physical, sexual, emotional or financial abuse”. (Home Office, 1999)
A domestic violence incident occurs every 6-20 seconds (BCS ‘2000).
Domestic violence covers a range of situations, which may include:
physical, sexual or psychological abuse e.g. slapping, pushing, kicking, punching, stabbing, rape, verbal abuse, humiliation
financial or emotional deprivation e.g. withholding money, not allowing friends to visit or phone calls
the use or threat of using legal sanctions against a partner e.g. threats about the custody of the children, threats of deportation
denial of rights e.g. denial of medical care, physical freedom.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Article by James Tozer and Suzanne Finney.
They bled him dry, says fiancee.
A FATHER was driven to suicide because the demands of the Child Support Agency left him with as little as £10 a week to live on, his family said yesterday.
Leigh Eglon, a hospital operating theatre nurse, became increasingly desperate as money deducted for his ex-wife to look after their three children left him unable to get by.
Finally the 41-year-old injected himself with a fatal mixture of drugs at the home he shared with his fiancee, Christine Allcock.
Now she and Mr Eglon’s father have told an inquest they hold the CSA responsible for his death.
“The CSA were bleeding him dry - and they are to blame for his death” said Miss Allcock, also a nurse. “They were taking so much money off him he couldn’t meet his other commitments.”
His father Derek added: “His other debts were mounting and it was like climbing a greasy pole. Many people have died because of the incompetence of the CSA system and it was a major factor in my boy’s death.”
Mr Eglon separated from his wife Connie in 2001 after ten years together, divorcing shortly afterwards, the inquest in Manchester was told.
The former RAF serviceman became engaged to Miss Allcock, but at Christmas 2002 the mounting demands for child maintenance payments were driving him to despair, she told the hearing.
In one week, although he was paid more than £500, he was left with only £10 by the time the CSA deductions and tax were taken, she said.
That left him unable to afford Christmas presents for his children, now aged nine, 11 and 13, or even visit them.
Miss Allcock told coroner Leonard Gorodkin she had once talked Mr Eglon out of ending his life. He had told her: “I am tired of this world. The b******s cannot get me when I’m gone.”
Speaking later from the terraced house they shared in Manchester, she said: “Leigh loved his kids and wanted to provide for them, but the payments were just too much.”
“He worked hard but was left with so little, he felt demoralised and often had to ask me for money.”
“Before Christmas in 2002, he was paid just over £500, but after tax and national insurance were deducted and the CSA took their chunk, he was left with £10. He got depressed and could not see any way out.”
Miss Allcock said her fiance told her the CSA payments deducted from his wages were erratic. As an agency nurse, his wage varied each month.
Miss Allcock said, “The CSA did not take the same amount every month. Sometimes they got nothing if he hadn’t been working, other times they took about a quarter of his wage after tax, which was OK, but other times he said they took almost all of it.”
Mr Eglon had also not paid the rent on their council home for six months. He had received a court summons after failing to pay utility bills and was behind on payments for a loan, He had also acquired a £1,000 overdraft.
Miss Allcock added: “He never told me it had got this bad. I think he just felt trapped by them taking all this money away from him.”
“He tried to explain the situation but the problem with the CSA was lack of communication between departments. It was either a different department or computers were down or they couldn’t find the records.”
Although the agency eventually reduced Mr Eglon’s payments, he still continued to labour under the debts he had accumulated, and in August last year Miss Allcock discovered his body at their home.
Mr Gorodkin returned a verdict of suicide. Last night the agency said it could not comment on individual cases but insisted that a parent’s contributions could be reassessed if their circumstances changed.
It is not the first time the CSA has been blamed for a death. In 2000 friends of policeman Terry Brett, of Cambridgeshire, told how he took his life after its demands left him in dire financial straits.
I’ve removed a couple of huge posts that were records of court cases. The Anonymouses who posted them are welcome to repost links and a brief commentary about why they are relevant to the discussion, but I don’t see why I should have to host enormous cut-and-paste screeds.
Sorry all, my blog, my rules.
You are removing evidence of state sponsored intimadation and harrassment. These are examples of what citizens of this nation are subjected to on a daily basis. From solicitors (including your own) Expert witnesses, CAFCASS, judges, CSA.
Though I should be gratefull that you did not remove the evidence of Blunkett who by your own councils definition committed domestic violence, just read his ex’s story above.
All the so called stakeholders of family law can walk into your life remove everything, support unfounded accusations. At anytime during the completion of your destruction by these individuals you raise your voice or show emotion you will automatically be deemed to require “anger management” to deal with your problem or removed from your child forever.
What Judges Say and Do in Britain’s Secret Family Court
[All cases involved straight-forward contact applications with no significant allegations made by either party. Full documentation available.] 8 District and High Court Judges: In a three year case extending over more than twenty hearings, none of the presiding judges have told a mother who has broken a contact order more than one hundred times either a) that contact is a good thing, or b) that breaking court orders is wrong. Dame Justice Hale: in a case where a father was appealing an earlier decision of only one hour contact per month, concluded that “this appeal is unmeritorious”. Judge Catlin: a) when a mother refused to obey an order for shared residence, he ordered the cessation of all contact between a father and his two sons in response to unsubstantiated charges of abuse; b) at a subsequent hearing 12 months later, when all charges of abuse had been dismissed by the investigating officer, he ordered 1 hour of contact between father and son per month. Mister Justice Sumner: ordered costs against a father who sought any summer holidays with his child. Mister Justice Johnson: ordered a father declared a vexatious litigant for seeking more than one overnight per fortnight with his 5-year old son. Upheld on appeal by Thorpe. Mr Justice Sumner: “It is simply not on” for any parent to return a 3½ year old child home as late as 6 pm on a Sunday. District Judge Kenworthy-Browne: A child of 3 “will have developed no Christmas associations with the father, and even if he has spent Christmases at the father’s home, he will not remember them. As such, he will not expect increased contact with his father over the holidays.” District Judge X (case pending): ordered the cessation of all contact between parent and child, with no review, “in order to try to move forward and restore the relationship.” Judge Segal: cancelled after 30 minutes a full hearing at which the father sought any summer holidays and rescheduled it for after the summer. Upheld on appeal. District Judge Lipman: ordered that a father be allowed only 2 weeks of holiday (out of a possible 13) per year: “You have the midweek contact (3 hrs per week) instead of this.” District Judge Hindley: dismissed a father’s application to phone his 7 yr old daughter on Christmas morning calling it “too disruptive - she would be opening her Christmas presents.” Judge Milligan, to a parent who had been unsuccessfully trying to see his child for 2 years:“This is a father who needs, in my judgment, to think long and hard about his whole approach to this question of contact and to ask himself sincerely whether in fact he seeks to promote it for his own interests dressed up as the child’s interests.” District Judge X (case pending): ordered that a father who had not been allowed to see his children for 4 months should have his case deferred for another 4 months pending investigation of an unsubstantiated 1972 domestic disagreement from a previous marriage. Mr Justice Cazalet: in hearings spaced over 2 years 1) ordered end of Friday overnights on grounds that the child had to rest after school, and 2) ordered end of Saturday overnights on grounds that she had to rest all day Sunday before school on Monday. Deputy District Judge Pauffley, in raising a father’s contact to 18 hours per month after 1½ years of litigation: “What will never be helpful is for the father to see his contact in terms of mathematical division. Apparently he is running at a disadvantage of 999 to 1 . . . The court does not look at it in those terms.” District Judge Thomas, in reply to a father who had been cut off from all contact with this three children for six months: “And I see that you would like me to grant an Order that the mother file a statement to show good reason why there should not be normal contact. Well, I’m not going to do it!” Judge Calman ordered that a father, who lived within 300 yards of his son’s primary residence, should never answer the door when his son rang. Rt Hon Lord Justice Thorpe, in rejecting the appeal of a father who wanted to cross- examine a Court Welfare Officer (whose evidence prevented him from seeing his children), affirmed that “there is no right of cross examination of Court Welfare Officers.” Mr Justice Wilson, acting against what he called “the deep wishes and feelings of three intelligent, articulate children,” ordered the end of all direct contact with their father. Upheld on appeal by Butler-Sloss, LJ. Judge X (case pending): after repeat applications about serial breaches of a contact order since early 2001, ordered that the issue be reviewed in late 2002. Mr Justice Munby ordered the end of all direct contact between a father and his three children while noting that the mother “wished the children could have contact with the father. She said there was no need for all this litigation. The children should see the father.” Judge Segal postponed a full hearing in order to obtain a Court Welfare Officer report on two parents who had brought no charges of misconduct against one another by stating: “Well, I think both parents have fallen over backwards to avoid causing the child any sort of harm, but a child always suffers when a marriage breaks down . . . You see, it is possible to kill with kindness by doing too much.” Mr Justice Sumner reproved a father who had made one application to the court over two years of litigation, and sought more than twenty-six nights of contact with his child per year:“You feel better because you can put pressure, you can bring everybody to court.” Judge Turner, in reply to a parent who sought to question a Court Welfare Officer’s report:“That confirms my suspicions. This is what members of the public do when they disagree with the recommendations. I believe that its totally wrong that members of the public can challenge Judges and Court Welfare Officers. Officers should not be subjected to it. There is a procedure outside the Court about making a complaint against the Judge. Members of the public should not have the right to make complaints.” Judge Agliomby, on refusing overnight contact for the third consecutive year: “The point that struck me most was that the very first question the father asked the mother was whether they might not get on better if she let him see the child.” Judge Lamdin dismissed a father’s request (after three years of litigation) for any overnight contact with his six year old on the grounds that “the child is growing up knowing his father, and that what we are talking about, i.e. overnight staying contact, is something quite different.” Judge Kenworthy-Browne, known by the staff at First Avenue House for repeatedly bringing his dog to court, rebuked a litigant-in-person for not wearing a tie. Senior District Judge Angel misinformed a complainant that “there is an unrestricted right of appeal” in contact cases. (There is, in fact, little if any right of appeal.) When this was brought to the attention of the President of the Family Division, her office replied that she“considered the matter closed.” Mr Justice Munby sentenced a father to four months in prison for giving his children Christmas presents (a bike, a camera and a walkman) during a scheduled contact meeting. Upheld on appeal by Thorpe LJ and Butler-Sloss LJ. Judge Goldstein, after a father filed a complaint against him, ordered all contact between that father and his children stopped for three years. Overturned on appeal by Butler-Sloss LJ, who described the judge’s behaviour as “outrageous.” Judge Plaskow rejected a father’s request for overnight contact with his 4-year-old, and ordered court costs against him, on the grounds that the child might require a special diet. Judge X (name withheld by litigant) told a father who sought more than 2 hours contact with his young child per fortnight that “it may well be that the father is being too possessive.” Judge Agliombi warned a father who was arguing that costs should not be ordered against him because the mother was depriving their child of a father: “If you go on like this you stand in great danger of never having staying contact with your son.” Judge X (case pending) ordered that a father, who had waited seven months for a full hearing without seeing his children, be permitted for six months to write them no more than one card/letter every three weeks, without any direct contact. Judge Lloyd ordered that an ordinary father be permitted to write his child once per fortnight on the condition that the letter’s contents be reviewed by an officer of the court.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Firstly, there are alot of comments missing, so im replying to what i have read. Men and women suffer from domestic ABUSE, which includes mental, emotional, sexual, financial and physical abuse. its a complicated issue surrounded by myths and lies that are alive and kicking in todays society. survivors and victims of abuse should not be further hounded by the legal system, yet they are. children are FORCED to have contact with abusive parents, and survivors are often further abused through the courts. I am lucky, my abuser was too lazy to pursue his threats to take me to court, many are not as lucky as I am. Imagine having to force a petrified child to see their absent parent? its heartbreaking to have to lie and cheat to your child just to fulfil your legal duty. It shouldnt happen in this day and age, if the childs frightened then they shouldnt be forced into anything.
there are wonderful absent parents in this world who are denied contact, while the system allows abusive parents unsupervised access. some women do lie about domestic abuse, but remember, many do not lie, their experience is real, so please dont tar everyone with the same brush.
Thanks for posting, Loraine. Just to let you know: I take down abusive posts as a matter of course, and on this particular thread I removed posts that were very long records of court cases with no commentary.
First of all can I say that I am not a member of fathers4justice and never will be either. I don’t need anybody to fight my battles.
After reading some of the comments about fathers and the right to there children can I say some of you people are disgusting and don’t deserve a place on this planet. You seem very upset that you can let a man sleep with you and have his children, yet deny him a place of father?
Its mothers with attitude like that, that need a public flogging! You are scum of the earth and don’t deserve the right to have children.
Should women be allowed to go out and get pregnant on purpose? I would like to see a law were women could be jailed if found guilty of such an offence (oh and of course this has never happened has it ladies?)
I work all over the country and see all sorts of women that I personally would not touch with a barge poll and wonder how the hell they got pregnant. See the thing is that most men don’t fully understand how and when a woman can get pregnant unless they are doctors or just people who are not so stupid. (Oh how I learned from my mistake) 11th day after the first day of the period until around the 21st day after. Hmm you are very clever aren’t you?
Some of the posts on this tread just makes me realise just how numb some of you female types are and that you don’t think linier.
A child has the right to his father and if you think not then you should dam well keep your legs closed if you’re not prepared to share a child with his natural father. My father was not allowed to see me and I know exactly what it is like to want but not to have. I met my father 30yrs later and we could not achieve anything due to the time period we had been apart. And you think that is fair?
I now have a child that I am fighting for the right to have in my life and have already won the parental responsibility order and contact order through CAFCASS and the family court. That is because I have a right to my child and I can look after him dam well and from some of the posts written by women on here you don’t deserve children.
You all go on about how hard done by you are, yet do women not manipulate men and push them to behave in a manner that they would normally not? Yes of course you do and you dam well know it. You push and push and bait men to act in a violent manner for all sorts of reasons that most men don’t understand.
Fair enough there are some bastard men out there but this is my post and I am concentrating on the bastard women out there and there are plenty of you. You can’t beat a man so you decide to deprive him of his children out of spite because it’s the only control you have in the said situation.
Five years in and I am still being dragged from pillar to post with mental abuse and just constant withdrawal of my child if I don’t conform to mother! So what does father do? He gets annoyed and then says stupid things that he will smash her in, because he knows he has no law to protect him even though he has a court order. He can’t control his temper because he knows he is being held over a barrel. I say that if you tease a tiger expect to get mauled and it’s all you deserve.
You say you will walk away from the child because its making you ill then get a reply of you’re just like your father! More emotional terrorism that only women can produce.
You meet a new girl because the mother wants nothing to do with you, but when she finds out you have moved on in life you then get “wait for it” what happens if me and your son bump into you and your new girlfriend on the street? What are you going to do walk past us? Again more mental torture that breaks a man down. You can’t fucking win!
Somebody posted that there is no proof that single parent children have problems and don’t get into trouble? Is that so? Well maybe you should get your facts right!
Also someone posted about abuse and something else? Again get your facts right. Most assaults on women in a relationship are normally started by women but it’s the man who gets arrested. The statistics are on the internet if you care to look for them. It’s just that the man always gets arrested as usual. Again there are plenty of websites out there that have information for men in such relationships. One of the websites actually tells the man to run! And run fast and as far away as he possibly can from that type of women.
You think I might be a male chauvinist but I am not! Or I never started out that way until I wanted to be a proper father. I have looked after my child from the age of 6 months old and have never let him down until mother stops contact. I tell my son @ 4yrs old that I will never leave him and he trusts me.
And then there is the magical CSA. You take the woman to court because you want access to your child, but she won’t let you see the child because you’re taking her to court. She then contacts the CSA because you have given her no money for the child? What you want me to pay for a child I can’t see?? Fuck that! Its pay as you go women….
No man should be made to pay for a child he actively wants to see but is being denied access to the child, but I’m sure there is plenty of women out there who disagree.
Women have no right to take a man’s money while denying him access to his children. And I think that no woman should have a lifestyle better than if she had no children on the fact of the CSA. Those that do are scum!
What goes around ladies what goes around. I hope that every one of you women out there who have removed the right for your child to see there father lose your children as they get older. Children grow up and realise what’s what and that’s when you lose and the search for father begins. I know because I have done it! My mother does not exist in my life and she brought me up and worked her arse off for me. She removed my right and I have now removed her right to me. I have lost both parents and now about to lose my own child. Who is to blame ladies??
You wonder why groups like fathers4justice pop up? Because something needs doing! Not that I would choose them to fight my battle.
If a father wants to see his children you should be dam well lucky and respect him for owning up to his responsibilities. But I forgot your women and you are never happy what ever happens.
Most men are tossers I admit and I can’t stand them myself but there are a few good ones out there just like I am told there are women. It’s just shifting through the shit to find them
This is stupid!!! You dumb women push men over the edge into the point that they become abusive. When will you dumb women learn!!! Stop your bull s h i t with the men in your life, stop harboring children that have $$$ signs on their foreheads and let the men be fathers. I don’t think you WOMEN will ever get it!!! You have taken almost everything a man has and you want him to act civil! That’s absurd and it’s complete insanity. You women push push and push until before you know it John Doe is on the street with no money, no kids , no home, what the hell’s he got to lose? Nothing! That’s why you become his main target!
Grow up be a mother and let your children see dad.
You money loving, selfish women.
Just reading through these comments as a result of todays news. Being a father and wanting to see your children has got NOTHING to do with whether you hand over any maintenance or whether you DESERVE to see your children. Children are used by both sides as some sort of punishment. PACK IT IN!!
Yes - Fathers4Justice should pack in their misogynist campaign.
It seems they have!
One other thing, If a father really cared about his child and was mature enough to look after them etc, they wouldnt put the childs mother through so much mental abuse (like I myself have suffered) And they wonder why they have so much trouble getting access to their kids!!!