The truth about contact
Gendergeek pointed me in the direction of this Guardian article about a new Women’s Aid investigation into post-separation violence by fathers against children.
In the past decade, family courts have ordered 11 children to have contact with fathers who subsequently murdered them. A Women’s Aid report, Failure to Protect, found 18 cases of children ordered to have contact with fathers who had been convicted of schedule one offences - meaning violent crimes against children. It found that 64 children had been ordered to have contact with a parent whose behaviour had previously caused children to be placed on the child protection register. Of those, 21 had been ordered to have unsupervised contact with the abusive parent.
Fathers4Justice, in its colourful three-year campaign, helped create the impression of an unjust legal bias against fathers in the family courts. And, because family court hearings cannot be reported, the myth was allowed to flourish.
Gendergeek makes a salient point when she says:
I am just perturbed that it has taken so long for the claims of a woman-focused family court to be dispelled. It would seem that media-darling F4J’s rancorous implosion amid embarrassing allegations of a kidnap plot has meant that articles such as Decca Aitkenhead’s are now possible.
Exactly. Free from harassment from fathers’ rights activists and free from the presumption that any group so photo-friendly could possibly be dodgy, journalists can now write the truth about contact between fathers and children after relationships break down.
Typical sexist, libelious propaganda as usual.
Unfortunately, the article is missing the necessary comparison to give it any significance. Clearly 11 children murdered by their fathers is 11 too many. However, to make a comparison which is actually useful, you need the following numbers:
1. What fraction of children who don’t live with their fathers and have court-enforced access arrangements are killed by their fathers? The numerator is 11, but what is the denominator?
2. What fraction of children who don’t live with their fathers and have informal access arrangements are killed by their fathers? You need to exclude children who don’t have contact with their fathers from the sample.
3. What fraction of children who live with both parents are killed by their fathers.
If the fraction in (1) is bigger than the fraction in (2) and (3), we have a problem. If it isn’t, we still have a problem, but it may not be the one you think it is.
Sam - point taken. At some point I’ll sit down and look at the full report and post up anything significant. (That’s when I’ve got through the latest batch of reading the council’s courier has kindly brought me!)
Are you following the Hardingham story? I feel I ought to have an opinion.
I’ve been through this at gendergeek. F4J’s main complaint was the trivial amounts of time non-resident fathers get to spend with their children. They felt it was unjust that fathers didn’t get to spent the amount of time with their kids needed to develop a meaningful relationship. Obviously, you differ in that assessment.
But that fact that the courts mess up, don’t run criminal records checks, and fails to protect vulnerable children, just does not consitute a refutation of that charge. F4J were complaining about CAFCASS being useless before you lot decide to exploit it as an excuss to attack fathers rights.
I don’t want this thread to be totally negative. So I would like to congratulate on your appointment as councillor. I’m sure you’ll get on fabulously in politics, not so long ago you had complete faith in the system:
http://www.antoniabance.org.uk/2005/06/15/f4j-comment-from-an-ex-partner/#comments
“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.” [Comment 14]
But now it’s politically convienient to take another tack, you’ve completely changed your mind. I think we may have had the privilege to witness your first reverse ferret - I’m sure you’ll be ascending the heights of new Labour politics in no time.
And your bonkers conspiracy theories about Guardian journalists being ’silenced’ until F4J’s disbandment is just bonkers, they were conducting this sort of attack on F4J way before their disbandment. (I’m surprised you didn’t realise this, you were - after all - linking to them.)
The problem people (men as well as women) have with F4J is nothing to do with giving fathers more access to their kids - in fact most feminists would be of the opinion that fathers should be more proactive in parenting, not less, and should be given every opportunity to do so where it’s to the benefit of the child. Do you disagree with the feminists?
If that was what F4J argued then they would have wholehearted support. Unfortunately more often what you actually hear from F4J is outright bitter misogynism and false inflation of statistics to imply that more women abuse children than men. If F4J genuinely put children first, denounced abusers and fathers who refuse to see their kids rather than defending and apologising for them and attacking anyone who brought attention to them, then they would have an agenda to support. As it is all they exist to do is to set gender against gender which is entirely unconstructive. Can you show me a single discussion thread where the majority of pro-F4J comments have been reasoned and logical, and the anti’s have descended into nothing but “PATRINAZIS!!” Because I can show you plenty of the reverse which might illustrate the problem.
There was a letter to my local paper this week from F4J which was nothing to do with children. It was about how registration to vote amongst members of the armed forces had been very low this year, and how this was all down to our evil matriarchal society. The writer then went on to argue that there was no need for the suffragettes to fight for the vote, as they were all middle-class and their husbands tended to have two votes anyway, one for their residence and one for their business.
I rest my case. The problem is that with letters like this, and comments like the one from C4 above, it’s all too transparent what F4J is really about.
I would immediately support any organisation, membership or otherwise, that fought for fair resolution of custody respecting both parents’ needs to contribute to their children’s development, but putting the child’s safety and quality of life first at all times.
Catherine,
I hate to sound cynical, but the problem people had with F4J is exactly that they do not wish to give fathers more access to their kids. F4J were campaigning for specific changes in the law. The reason these did not happen is because people opposed them and F4J’s agenda. It’s that simple really.
I personally think it’s very hard to talk about feminists in general terms on this issue. Some strongly supported F4J’s, seeing it as an attempt by men to cast off traditional gender roles. Others reacted very negatively, because by improving access rights of non-resident parents the ability of resident parents (by and large women) to do what they wish is constrained. I agree with the first position and disagree with the second.
F4J was a large organisation and people could use nutters to try and dismiss legitimate claims. That’s the main reason Matt O’Connor very sensibly disbanded the organization and will resume campaigning under a new banner (www.agents-4-change.org). It’s not going to be very easy to use that tactic again.
As a devoted father who lost contact with his boys through the extraordinary lengths the family court system goes not to upset the mother, I find this blog simply corroborates my views about feminists. My ex-wife was manipulative to the extreme - a bit like you - and brainwashed my sons. She did the same with her daughter against her first husband.
I do hope that Labour manages to extract itself from the tight grip feminists have on its gonads. The likes of Margaret Hodge, Harriet Harman et al have completely blinkered perceptions of fatherhood and motherhood.And so, it seems, do you.
There was no suggestion of DV in my marriage. I was always active in the care and upbringing of my children. It is just unfortunate I married a woman with an extreme personality disorder. But as she is a woman and a mother, and has residency of the children, the courts must not upset the status quo. That seems to be the view of most feminists.
I am so glad that fathers 4 justice is back. As it happens I am not a nutter. I have worked for the Ministry of Defence, I have been vetted to the highest levels, I have two degrees and a PGCE.
We are not as you portray us. But I am very VERY angry that I cannot have a relationship with my boys, because of this received view that all mothers are good and all fathers are bad if the mother or her brainwahsed children say so.
You truelly are a dried up old twat. There, now you can portray me as a crude woman hater, and not try and imagine what it would be like if you could not see your children for no justifiable reason, and what YOU would do if that was the case. Maybe you would be rather angry and start climbing cranes too (although women are not very good at climbing cranes as a rule are they
I don’t know anyone who would argue that fathers should be restricted in their access to their children full stop, James.
You say above that those who react negatively to F4J are motivated because they do not wish mothers to be constrained. Have you ever tried listening to any of them? Because I’d be interested to hear if you could find a single person with that point of view. I mean, I’ve given you my reasons above but you still lump me in with the imaginary “women before men” brigade. Exactly what I meant when I said that F4J was all about setting gender against gender. I read an interview with O’Connor where he said that all F4J members were motivated by wounded pride and anger. I don’t think that he could give a much clearer impression, rightly or wrongly, that his organisation is all about getting revenge on former partners which is incredibly ugly.
Just answer me one thing from my first comment. If F4J is really about equal parenting rights, rather than attacking women, why, instead of acknowledging that access awarded by courts is a minority (although extremely important) issue amongst a whole raft of more prevalent problems surrounding access, do they spend all their time putting out propaganda that gives the impression that all fathers who have separated from their partners are victims of court discrimination, that the problem of fathers refusing to see their kids is fallacious, that men are just as likely to be victims of domestic violence as women and that women victims are likely to be liars? Because any idiot can see that they would be so much more credible if they acknowledged the facts.
The only conclusions anyone can draw at present are a) it’s about asserting male power in some totally immature and unconstructive battle of the sexes, and b) they’re more interested in getting publicity than in making any real progress for fathers.
Richard:
“She did the same with her daughter against her first husband.”
Hindsight is great and all, but if you knew this about your ex-wife, why on earth did you marry her in the first place?
We all make mistakes Sam. What is most important is that we learn for from them. Mr. Dorset is having to learn the hard way and does not need the likes of you attacking him in a retrospective and underhanded manner.
C4: There was nothing underhanded about what I said, and I wasn’t precisely attacking Mr. Dorset. We do indeed all make mistakes, but you can’t expect to tell your story in a public forum such as this and not expect a little critical analysis of your behaviour.
In the case of Mr. Dorset, a dispassionate observer might well suspect that if a woman engages in a certain pattern of behaviour with respect to her first husband, she might be likely to repeat the pattern with her second. In his words, he was “unfortunate” that he married a woman with “an extreme personality disorder”. I am unfortunate if I’m out walking and a bird craps on my head. To marry someone so unsuitable seems at best a little careless.
In the case of Mr. Dawson, he claims that his ex-wife has “brainwashed” his children against him. If that is the case, it is indeed a tragedy. If his children have been “brainwashed” against him, it isn’t obvious to me that it is in their best interests to have enforced contact with him. Transferring their custody to him may be the best solution for him children; a few hours a week with a father they have been taught to hate seems, on the surface, to be the worst of all possible choices.
Same wrote “a few hours a week with a father they have been taught to hate seems, on the surface, to be the worst of all possible choices.”
I think that must have been the thought process that the childrens’ Guardian used. I must admit, I hadn’t quite thought of it like that (but I see the point)!
Personally I think that their very short term interests and those of the mother (who lives through the children) are served by such a view, but their longer term well being has been not been considered. They are very parentified and enmeshed, according to the Guardian - so what was he going to do? Try and teach them to see things differently, even though he had no psychological training at all.
I wanted to have temporary residency for 6 months to ‘unbrainwash’ them, but this was not considered.
After two reports that were largely in my favour, and repeated attempts to get my relationship with the boys on an even keel despite the negative influence of the mother, the mincing Guardian offered me one day a month.
I’m not one to talk about human rights, but fathers don’t seem to have any do they?
Oh, and for all you feminists out there, why not have a go that that attention seeking partner of Mat O’Conner of F4J fame, who (according to the Sun) is breaking court orders to stop her ex see his children. She should be left in prison for a week or to, as should my ex-wife have been.
How many children of divorcees were murdered by step-parents?
Rhetorical question: If the number was greater than 11, should we discorage the ex-spouse with children from remarrying?
(Note that this policy would also tend to reduce the divorce rate.)
I’m sure that “questions” realises that it’s the proportion and not the absolute number which is the relevant quantity to consider here.
I don’t know about discouraging divorced parents from remarrying, but the prevailing divorce rate would lead one to suspect that prospective spouses of all stripes should take greater care in forming relationships, and have more realistic expectations.
Oh, and “spouses” “forming relationships” above certainly includes anyone who intends to have unprotected sex with a member of the opposite sex. I’m sure you love him/her, and I’m sure you’re going to be soulmates together, but if you’ve known him for three weeks, are you really sure that you know that you want to share the responsibility of bringing up a child with them for the next 18+ years? I would suggest that on the basis of a few weeks’ acquaintance, you can’t possibly be sure of that.
I’m at a loss to the point, and the headline, of this post. “The truth about contact”? Why is this “the truth”? Another truth is that women seuxally abuse their children. The numbers are very small I would imagine, but it goes on. This is also “the truth”.
Catherine wrote ‘I would immediately support any organisation, membership or otherwise, that fought for fair resolution of custody respecting both parents’ needs to contribute to their children’s development, but putting the child’s safety and quality of life first at all times. ‘
The point is that the who system of family justice does not do this! ‘Families need Fathers’ has been campaigning for thirty years, with no results. That is why the stakes were raised with F4J.
I kept returning to the family courtrs for four years, with very little contact to show for it. My ex-wife undermined my relationship with my children, and the children.
I really wish you could see that there fathers like me have been excluded from their children’s lives for NO reason at all.
Unfortunately trendy CAFCASS workers are of the same ilk as social workers, who would rather a child stayed with an abusive mother who supplies the child drugs, because the mother-child bond is sacrosanct.
No doubt fathers right protestors come across as woman haters. Quite honestly, ill-informed people like you who are supposed to know better come across as man haters.
I won’t be seeing my sons until they are adults - for no reason! I have lost their childhood, and they have lost a father. How unjust is that?!! If I rant, then I think I have good reason to.
Looking at this article, it appears to be a prime example of the use of statistics without context, which is always dangerous. Firstly although everyone can agree that eleven children being killed by their fathers is wrong, the idea that this has occurred because of Court allowed contact is dubious at least. Sam has pointed out some of the problems with the statement, but another consideration is how many of these would have happened anyway, and the court access is entirely incidental.
The 18 cases of children forced to have contact with parents convicted of schedule 1 offences, there is no mention of wether these contacts are Supervised or not, Some (If not all) of these contacts will be in the presence of social workers and Psychologists to help the child through problems resulting from the separation.
of the 21 ordered to have contact with an abusive parent, they may not necessarily be abusive towards the child,it may be that they were abusive towards the other parent.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I certainly didn’t say that the system was fair, and I’m not sure how you’ve read that into the quote you’ve reprinted above. If I thought the system was fair, why would I feel the need to “support any organisation, membership or otherwise, that fought for fair resolution of custody…”?
Ditto how this makes me ill-informed, or a man-hater.
Go and pick a fight with someone else - you’re more interested in being rude to strangers than finding solutions. Par for the course for F4J.
Catherine
What a shame that you have overlooked the heart of the matter - that of the injustice of the family courts with regard to a father’s contact with his children - and keep turning it into an issue about f4j.
You are clearly incapable of a reasonable discussion of the real issues. Typical of new labour feminisation of politics. You are doing exactly all the same as your so called Labour cronies. Go and watch some football with ‘partner’ and buy some local devon produce you trendy young thing with no idea…
If you’ve read my blog, I’m not sure why you need to make snide comments about my “partner” as it’s quite clear he’s my “husband”, not that that’s got anything to do with anything.
Look, I’m not going to swap insults. I’ve set out my stall very clearly above. If you take issue with any of my points, then in theory I’m happy to discuss them. In practice, if you just want to play personal jibes, or just rehash F4J propaganda without any reference to the points I’ve made, I don’t have anything to offer you.
You’ve quoted me as supporting fair resolution of custody, so if I support it and you support it, what is your problem? What “real issues” are on your mind if it’s not fair resolution, bearing in mind that that’s what F4J purports to be after?
Don’t waste your time to trying to reason with these manhaters Richard. They are all beyond human help.
What I find so strange is the number of men who after leaving their family and children suddenly appear to be so interested in their children, when married many would only see the kids either just before bedtime and few hours during the weekend. Most mums complain how they wish the Dad’s would do more, be more involved with their upbringing.
Most of the fathers groups have one agenda only and thats how to get out of paying child support (billions are owed to the csa) by increasing contact days and the nonsense of shared parenting.
Grace wrote “Most of the fathers groups have one agenda only and thats how to get out of paying child support (billions are owed to the csa) by increasing contact days and the nonsense of shared parenting.”
I pay child support - I am happy to - but the mother has removed all contact. The family courts will not enforce contact. I do not see my sons.
Why is shared parenting nonsense by the way? And hwy is it that if a father has the children for 50% of the time, he still has to pay maintenance? There is no logic in this.
By the way, did you see here that Michael Cox’s sons are campaigning to get him released from jail too now? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/ncsa101.xml)
I hope that one day my sons (Peter and Eduard) will understand the harm their so called mother (Rita) has done to them, by brainwashing them against me, just as she did her daughter (Emily) against her first husband (David).
Now go sue…
[Comment deleted by site owner for breaking site rules - use of "feminazi" in the first sentence, didn't bother to read the rest. Geogre, you're welcome to repost without the offensiveness.]