What are F4J up to these days?
Sending pyjamas to Beverley Hughes, apparently.
UPDATE: I understand that they’re not just sending pyjamas but actually wearing them as part of an overnight protest to highlight F4J’s campaign for overnight stay contact to be the minimum recommended custody given by the courts when families split. (Because of course, every family is the same and contact arrangements should be decided cookie-cutter style, obviously). There will also be a “Bedlam Protest” the following day, October 21.
Thanks for the tip Antonia.
Your pithy comments regarding “every family is the same” is unnecessary and displays your lack of neutrality and knowledge on the issues — we all know that this isn’t the case. However, what F4J are looking for is a DEFAULT position / presumption that BOTH parents deserve EQUAL contact. Of course, there will be cases where the father shouldn’t see the child at all, or at least unsupervised, and this aspect would remain unchanged. However, in contrast, in my case, my daughter WANTED to stay with me and the courts said she MUST go to live in another country with her mother (who had gotten engaged to a man from that country who she had known for only 10 WEEKS, and who my daughter HAD MET ONLY ONCE before) who had deliberately flouted the Parental Rights Agreement. This type of situation is not right, but sadly VERY COMMON. There’s nothing wrong with seeking EQUAL rights.
Mark, I sincerely hope that fathers and mothers can both remain part of a child’s life after their relationship with one another ends. However, there is already one overriding presumption in court: that the welfare of the child is paramount. Having two overriding presumptions - that the welfare of the child is paramount and that both parents should have an equally-divided shared custody - is impossible, and would mean that the children’s welfare was no longer paramount.
As for my pithy comments being non neutral, well of course they are: I don’t agree with F4J, their means or their ends. Neither do you, by your comments: of course, there will be cases where the father shouldn’t see the child at all, or at least unsupervised, and this aspect would remain unchanged; this is not a position F4J activists would agree with.