People they didn’t let in to conference
I like Tom Hamilton’s becoming-annual series on crass (and crap) political communication. (See here for the 2006 and 2005 editions). My favourite from this conference? Well, it’s our old friends F4J, now trading under the name “The Real Fathers for Justice”:
It’s time for Labour to listen!
The Real Social Exclusion
Fatherlessness
Social Decay
Criminalised Children
100 Children a day lose a father
ASBO KIDS
The existence of lone parenting! When it takes two to create and raise a child.
Highest Depressed Childhood rate in Europe
The bad taste that all these problems stem from is a poor foundation of Family and Family Values and ultimately respect for parents in the UK.
On the overleaf was a densely-printed 8pt font 16-paragraph rant about why there should be a legal presumption of “shared parenting”. These F4J types seem to have fooled some people (I spotted one female Tory commentator who should know better comparing them to the suffragettes earlier) that they’re some sort of progressive movement. In fact, they’re just another regressive bunch fuelled by personal antagonism to their former partners and furious that the advent of some limited recognition of the rights of women and children has undermined the right of husbands and fathers to do whatever they want. Oh, and I should say this more often - they don’t represent the majority of divorced or separated fathers in the UK, who come to agreements about child custody that they are reasonably happy with, often during a difficult and upsetting time.
Of course, bringing in their current demand - a “shared presumption of parenting” - would fatally undermine the only current presumption that applies: that what’s done is in the best interests of the child/ren involved. Here’s a tip for free, fellas. You want to position yourself as mainstream, sensible, right? So refresh your knowledge of the accepted usage of capitalisation (cheap shot, I know!); think about presentation; think about evidencing your preposterous assertions; think about your audience (it’s a LABOUR conference, muppets - we LIKE ASBOs!). Oh, and if your public positioning is that it’s all about the kids, try hard to think up a campaign call that doesn’t undermine that.
Just so everyone’s clear, here are the rules for comments again: I’m not going to allow my site to be a platform for racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial or homophobia. I will delete comments that violate these rules, and that are otherwise offensive. For this thread in particular, you should know that I will also take down comments of inordinate length and those that copy and paste legal case histories.
I agree about FFJ creeps.
I was disturbed though that the Scientoligists were allowed a stand and were busy signing people up to seminars about drugs and crime, one look deeper inside the brochure they were giving out showed who they were.
Somebody doing the organising should have looked closer.
Britblog Roundup #85…
Welcome to the latest little installment of your choices of the blogging around. The things you think we ought to have seen but didn’t. You can nominate things for next week simply by emailing the URL to britblog AT gmail…
“Just so everyone’s clear, here are the rules for comments again: I’m not going to allow my site to be a platform for racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial or homophobia. ”
so why you are so sexist in your treatment of members of dads organisations i was a house husband ex wife went to work , she found somebody else and removed children from family home . i was lucky to keep family home but my children now visit not even live with me anymore thats why i campain for a presuption of parenting , as in most families we were as caperble as one another but because of seperation i have been treated totaly unfairly and minimised from the major role i played in my childrens lives , yes and i have problems with spelling and grammer its called dyslexia or do you have a problem with disabled people as well
What about Hetrophobia?
Gez - I’m sorry to hear about your personal circumstances which are, I’m sure, upsetting and difficult for you, your ex-partner and your children. However, I don’t think that the problem or the solution identified by groups like F4J or their successors are either realistic or right. It’s not sexist to say that; in any case, in a world where women are overwhelmingly more likely to be paid less, be victims of violence and have no or little political power, I’m not sure that cries of sexism against men have much weight.
kfcws: what about Hetrophobia (sic)?
“in a world where women are overwhelmingly more likely to be paid less, be victims of violence and have no or little political power, I’m not sure that cries of sexism against men have much weight”
That’s told him.
Not seen your kids for six months ? Just keep quiet and remember that women are only paid 81.6% of men’s average wage (or whatever).
Antonia, I think you’re rushing in where angels fear to tread here - perhaps the certainty of youth, or not having children of your own (you see - he said “your own” ! Possession ! Power !).
There aren’t many things people (well, native Brits anyway) are prepared to die for any more. But for most parents their kids would come into that category. It’s hard to describe what you feel for them to a non-parent, and unnecessary to describe to a parent, but it’s visceral. I can feel it as I write this.
“I have a child; so fair
As golden flowers is she,
My Cleis, all my care.
I’d not give her away
For Lydia’s wide sway
Nor lands men long to see.”
You said on norm that empathy was your favourite quality - just try and imagine standing outside a school, trying to catch a glimpse of them at playtime - and knowing you could be imprisoned just for being there. Imagine not seeing them for months or years on end. Imagine this has happened because a former partner has lied.
This happened to a (female) friend. I don’t know how she stood it. It happens to a lot more men.
“n any case, in a world where women are overwhelmingly more likely to be paid less, be victims of violence and have no or little political power, I’m not sure that cries of sexism against men have much weight.”
people choose diferent jobs often prefenced by gender . certainly in manual work all are paidequalit might be different in high flung business but not all of us can get that far also its more prevalant for women to take work breaks for children this obviously has a bearing but that is a personal choice to have or not have children or to who will look after them .the known thacts in domestic violence are that for every 5 female victims there are 3 male victims (dash report)but dv on men is almost never taken seriously and is under reported and no political power maybe your not old enough to remember thatcher . my ex partner was not upset the grass looked greaner with a new partner she is very happy trying to squeeze me for money to support her and new partner whilst punishing the children and me by partly removing them from my life this could go to perminant removel very easily with the biass in the court system , if i had removed children from family home and ditched my work i would have newspaper headlines but my ex wife did that and ime even bad boy for calling police in front of children acording to judge not that they could do anything.
the equal parenting council , real fathers for justice and other groups support many dads and mothers seperated from there children and when ime seperated so are all my relatives . many dads are finatially driven to give up and settle your supporting ex wife providing housing almost broke and get no legal aid to go against a biass system then you have to put up with not reasonably happy as some think there are no follow up questions about custody in this country no surveys have been done. till the courts havefact finding and not just believing who is the better story teller andastart point of equal parenting if you want it then the closed system is open to abuse and with the inbuilt biass that a mothers place is bringing up the children and dad supporting them i will support these groups . unfortunatly were not like the suffrojets who petrol bombed places and used suicide as a weopen long before the japanese during the war or certain fanaticle groups now.
The unjust black propaganda spread about Fathers’ Rights proves just how hypocritical most modern-day feminists truly are. These “sexist pigs” (for that is what they are) disgust me with the blatant, unremoseful hatred of anyone with a Y chromosone. By their unreasonable behaviour, these anti-male feminists are creating a new generation of anti-female macho men and it is people like me who are trapped in the middle of these two chuvanistc factions, trying to defuse this approaching battle of the sexes.
Laban - not exactly the point I was making, but don’t worry, carry on patronising.
Gwz - everytime you deny that domestic violence affects more women than men, you lose the argument just a little bit more. Do carry on.
C4 - I hate men? That really is nonsense.
Oh, and well done, F4J activists - I’ve only had to delete one contribution so far, for overlength (it was more than 19 paragraphs long). That’s a better record than usual when we have this debate, though I’m sad not to have been called a feminazi yet.
I’ll try again as my post apparently is the one refered to as being too long.
The ‘16 paragraph rant’ that Antonia refers to is here..
http://ancpr.com/blog/archives/418
Added to this text was the present government position and a footnote…
GOVERNMENT QUOTE
“The Government’s view is that any statutory presumption of contact would inevitably detract from the position set out in clause 1 of the Children Act 1989 – that the welfare of the child must be the paramount consideration of a court whenever it is deciding any question relating to the child’s upbringing.”
Parmjit Dhanda MP - 6th September 2006 (Parliamentary under Secretary of State for children, young people and families)
“We fully endorse the sentiments in this essay and ask the UK Government and specifically the Labour Party to support the principles contained herein. It costs money and will take effort and hard work to reform the existing Family Legal system, but the fact of the matter is, it does not work, it creates wars, and tears families apart. The effects and the social divides of broken families are seen everywhere, and if we are to tackle poverty, child neglect and seek better outcomes for children into adulthood, we need to start putting family in the driving seat and empowering parents to be the best they can be. Our children and our nation deserve this.”
Perhaps your readers could now comment with a little more authority on what prompted this thread.
though I’m sad not to have been called a feminazi yet.
Only because you’d censor it! Being a member of New Labour is enough reason to be branded with the n-word, the chuvanism is just a ‘bonus’
I always find it hard to read the comments to posts on Antonia’s blog, having some experience of a child who’s parents faced ‘the bias of the court system’.
I make no comment on your personal situation, Gez, apart from the fact to point out that my own was very different.
“(Gez) she is very happy trying to squeeze me for money to support her and new partner whilst punishing the children and me by partly removing them from my life this could go to perminant removel very easily with the biass in the court system”
My experience from the age of 11-14 was one of an ‘absent’ father who harassed his family for three years, of police that treated such behaviour as a ‘domestic’ and therefore not worth bothering with, of a court system that largely presumed that a parent had a *right* to see his kids no matter how he behaved, and a maintenance system that couldn’t make him pay *anything* towards his children’s upbringing.
As a 12 year old, my views weren’t taken into account. I was very clear that I didn’t want to see my Dad, who because of the loss of his marriage, clearly wasn’t able to act reasonably. It’s worth pointing out that my mother *never* tried to stop us seeing my father, indeed she made us go - every week. The hell only stopped when we moved away.
Groups such as F4J (real or otherwise) should never be allowed to legitimise the completely unacceptable behaviour of some individuals - who like my father - are so blinded by rage that they don’t see the damage that their behaviour is doing on their relationship with their children. (Please note, that I’m not claiming that everyone acts like this in the situation).
Actually,
Women and Men are EQUALLY likely to become victims of Domestic Violence. (Murray Straus 2006)
Men are TWICE as likely to be the victims of Violence in general…. (PSS 2005)
“Gwz - everytime you deny that domestic violence affects more women than men, you lose the argument just a little bit more. Do carry on.”
where in my post did it say that all i have said is that male victims are under reported and that for every 5 women victims there are now 3 reported male victims who will ever know the real amount i dread to think.i feel sorry for your expeeriance anon but at the age of 12 your views should carry weight , if any parent is violent towards their children they should be denied access but only if proven and not used as an excuse to punish an ex partner emotionally or finatially as this is DV as defined by organisations like womens aid .
as in any gruop you can geta few “bad apples” but do you tarnish all with one brush .Emily ~Pankhurst was considered a super hero -but the plot to kill the prime minister ??
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2380589,00.html
if you look after children examount before seperation is it not resonable to expect ex amount after if this was so then the knowledge that that could be the result would surely make more equal marridges .
this is why a presuption of equal parenting is needed then what you put in you get out with obvious safegauards to protect children and there wishes if not subject to pas (parental alianatin syndrome simila to the stockhelm syndrome) and safe gaurds for parents regaudless of gender against DV .
“in a world where women are overwhelmingly more likely to be paid less, be victims of violence and have no or little political power, I’m not sure that cries of sexism against men have much weight”
That’s right, because men are all being driven round in Rolls Royces by our racial minority drivers back to our mansions. When we get back home, we get to beat our wives for the dinner not being ready and then call up Tony Blair on the phone because we’ve noticed that females seems to be acting a bit bolshy nowadays. In the morning it’s back out to work at our high paid management position where we have a woman make us coffee, take a few notes before we head off to the golf club for lunch and a quick 9 holes while we leave the underpaid minorities slaving away at the factory.
As per usual, the left are against stereotyping unless the target is Male/Christian/white/heterosexual. It must be hard maintaining those double standards.
Lets not ignore the fact that there are a number of well paying careers that women have chosen not to enter. Rather than go into a well paid job in technology, they are choosing to become social workers, and teachers. It has also been shown that women are less likely to haggle over starting pay when getting a job, which is another cause of lower average wages. I guess they are just feeling lucky enough to have been able to snatch a job from a male candidate that they don’t want to rock the boat.
So in other words, Gez should not gripe about not seeing his kids because women choose to go into less well paying careers, and choose not to get a better salary.
As for politics, I think if you look, you will find women far more catered to politically. Nobody ever goes for the male vote, the number of male oriented government programs far exceeds those for females. Even in education, where males are seriously falling behind in the teenage years, the feminists are still on a drive for more support for girls in school. Again, I guess we are falling back on the notion that all white males get mansions and well paying jobs as soon as they hit 21.
Interesting statistics.. But I never pay too much attention to statistic when I can make up my own!
If women earn 80% of what men earn, then how come some statistics state that 80% of retail space is devoted to female buyers?
One only has to look at the adverts to see that women are targetted as consumers more than men..
So, if they are spending 80% of the money, then who is subbing em?
Personally, I let the good lady of the house spend as she sees fit, because at the end of the day, she seems to enjoy it! If She’s happy, kids are happy, I’m happy..
There comes a point when the bailiffs are banging on the door and round about that point a sensible attutude to expenditure is requested..
Unfortunately, mummy is then unhappy, till she realises she can have a far better lifestyle as a single mother of 3 propped up by the tax payer than living with daddy..
Pragmatism prevails, mummy and kids move out and daddy simply has to pay whatever the CSA decide and also the expenses of contact time..
When daddy cant afford this, mummy gets the huff contact becomes arwkward..
In order to avoid the stresses of court etc which upsets everyone..
Daddy just waves bye-bye to his family and accepts that basically, he aint rich enough to compete with the state and dont deserve to be a dad..
Kids miss their daddy, but, theres nothing that can be done..
No cash, no contact.. No family life..
At the mercy of the mother and nothing that will change that even if f4j had their way because the state does not regard fatherhood as being of equal value to motherhood..
And, it hardly respects motherhood that much either!
Men — here’s a tip. Shouting loudly doesn’t make what you say true, and what you demand fair. If you can’t grasp the idea that women have rights, nobody is likely to believe that you will respect your children’s rights.
Both women and judges are unlikely to be impressed by your shouting that all you want is your traditional lion’s share of everything. And that you want only the best for your children, but the CSA should leave you with more than the minimum measly three quarters of your income after all sorts of deductions have been allowed for.
Quote: “Of course, bringing in their current demand - a ’shared presumption of parenting’ - would fatally undermine the only current presumption that applies: that what’s done is in the best interests of the child/ren involved.”
—-
1) You assume that what is done is in the best interests of the child. I know from personal experience that this is not the case.
Unfortunately the agents of the family courts usually confuse the interests of the mother with those of the children because the children currently depend on the mother being happy, and the status quo cannot be disrupted.
The guiding rule is ‘don’t upset the mother’.
2)The presumption of shared parenting is not inconsistent with the goal of achieving what is in the best interests of the child. Why should it?
Define interests of the child.
Is it in the interest of my two boys that their mother has brainwashed them against me, that the boys are afraid of upsetting their mother, and that they will not see me for years to come?
RD: you can have one presumption - the overriding interests of the children - or two. In which situation is the overriding interests of the children the most important presumption?
Daddy had a great day with his kids recently, mummy had not been putting oil in the car so it seized and daddy had to buy her another one.. Cash for contact, is that fair? I dont think so! The kids have a right to see their father and do things with him when they would like surely? Not just when mum wants something!
Thats 3 cars I have bought her in one year!
Single parenthood is not easy for a woman, especially one who wants to do things the way that is best for the kids..
I am always being given advice on what to do about the situation, usually involving telling her where to get off..
Funnily enough, such advice seems to be predominately from women!
But, when your kids are doing really well and look really good, its much easier to let mum get on with it.
You can see the point of avoiding court etc, because that takes you nowhere.
But when mum is really not coping, the system fails to do whats best for the kids and thats a serious area of concern.
Men are basically presumed to be hopeless parents, if not downright abusive, all on the say so of the mother.
Its not always the truth of the matter needless to say!
The adverserial model of family law is not good..
I think family law should begin and end with the family. I dont think the state needs to be dictating to parents, fathers or mothers..
We are smart enough to decide for ourselves without nanny telling us what it will presume or not presume!
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1891004,00.html
Its all well and good allowing kids to have a say, but will it then be just a matter of which parent will indulge them the most? Or, discipline the least?
The whole concept of childhood is surely that its a time when youngsters are not yet burdened with responsibilities.
Fact of the matter is, a child that refuses to return home to its mother will be taken back by the court.
Then, the allegations will be investigated (or not!) by social services, based on the principle that mothers abuse and neglect is caused by “illness”, therefore is not her fault! Cue for an army of handwringers and tea drinkers trying (with spectacular lack of success) to get her to act like a mother aught to..
Either way, kids should not need to suffer for years when a good dad is willing and able to put matters right..
As a 12 year old who didn’t have a say, I find it quite insulting that you feel my opinion on the matter was worthless.
Not at all, I think its very important that kids are listened to, thats what any good parent would aim to do.
The views etc of a 12 year old are a totally different matter to those of say, a 6 or 7 year old.
If the prevailing logic is that no person should be subjected to pressure to do things they dont want to, then by the same token, fathers should not be forced to pay “maintenance”.
If it were not for all the perverse incentives that encourage single parent lifestyles, mostly funded by the tax payer, there would not be so many of these problems to deal with..
Dear Antonia,
I have to take issue with your comments regarding F4J. Quite clearly you have not been involved in the Family Law system. Firstly, the whole system is so biased towards the mother as to frankly beggar belief! You would not know this because the whole thing happens behind closed doors and reporting is strictly banned. Mother has the advantage of the bottomless pit of legal aid and, in my case, used it to full advantage.
I contested my ex’s claim to sole residency of our son because i knew she could not cope with him and never wanted him in the firt place! Her response was 2 attempts at getting an ex-partie injunction to have me thrown out of the house, but continue paying all the bills of course, by telling the judge a pack of lies when I had no opportunity to respond. Contesting this cost me £5000.
Domestic violence - she physically assaulted me on 3 separate occasions, I never assaulted her in 17 years! When the police were called on the 3rd occasion, they let her back into the house. Tell me that a man would be treated the same way? I would have spent the night in the cells if I had done this!
And finally, why worry about gender pay differentials when you see divorce as a way to comfortably sit on your backside for the rest of your life, while your ex-husband works every hour under the sun to keep you sitting there. Example - my house is for sale for £285,000 - out of this I am to get £13,000, barely enough to pay my legal bills! Also I have to pay her £634 a month because she is too lazy to bother looking for a part-time job while my son is at school all day!
And why should she work when the state also pays her more than £10,000 a year in benefits.
So - I suggest you look into the reality of what you are talking about before writing in future.
P.S. From a fellow labour party member!
If you wish to be taken seriously, rather than ignorantly when commenting on such a crucial issue in our society today, why don’t you meet up with a local f4j group and listen to their aims, what their message is and campaign. I think that might help you understand.
A major perspective for me is that while some people are strongly vocal about women not earning the same average salary as men, they also support the position that women should not carry an equal share of the responsibility of child care?
It is my understanding from all research and common sense that the more equal role each parent takes in the care of their children the better the childs development will be, this is as true in a ‘relationship’ as in relationships were the parents have separated.
The reality today is that most men are marginalised and excluded from any meaningful relationship and responsbility, other than financial, by the system of family law today. That is not in childrens best interests or as a develop with these roles to becoming parents. Its a myth that most fathers and mothers come to agreement without needing to go to court, only 10% of fathers can aford the 50k legal fees in a system they see as bias.
The values for equality are forged in the home, or homes, the current system supports greater inequality for the future expecations of our children.
To anon 2, would you expect to have a say on which parent minded you each night if your parents were still together?
ie: mum you can’t go out tonight because I want you to stay in with me, or dad that business trip will have to be cancelled because I don’t to be with mum this week.
Or would you expect your parents to make that decision on childcare?
If so why should it be any different when parenting apart?
Would you expect to be able to say, mum/dad i’ve been thinking about this and have decided I’m not going to school anymore?
There are some decisions kids do not have the capacity to understand the future effects of.
I hope family courts do not put kids in a position where they have to choose between parents, I also fear the judges are not qualified to be able to detect if the kids are being alienated or coached against a parent.
Those who argue against a presumption of shared parenting forget that there is an existing presumption of sole parenting, not in the legislation but certainly in the practice. The position of the courts is that a child must lose one parent after divorce; usually it is the father but sometimes it’s the mother.
To advocate shared parenting is merely to state one’s belief that this state of affairs is wrong: that a child’s relationships with both parents must be protected, that parents divorce eachother and not their children, that children love their parents equally and do not understand why the law says that one is more important - more of a parent - than the other.
The paramountcy principle - that the welfare of the child is paramount - cannot be served by a system which denies a child a parent - and half of his family, including grandparents and sometimes other siblings. To reject shared parenting is not to promote the paramountcy principle so much as to embrace lone parenting, something which is neither in the best interest of the child nor, let’s be honest, of the lone parent.
Hi Antonia,
Shared parenting is about managing divorce. It’s about ensuring that his parents’ divorce has as little negative impact as possible on a child. It’s about reassuring a child that though his parents don’t love each other anymore they still love him. It’s about preserving his family life so that he still sees his grandparents and other family members, including, sometimes, siblings. It’s about dispelling the idea that one parent is more important than the other, that one is his ‘carer’ and the other is ‘absent.’ It ensures that both parents are regarded equally by schools, doctors and other people outside the family, and that both parents realise they have an equal responsibility. It reassures the child that he still has a home if something happens to one of his parents. It does all this and much more.
It does not threaten the paramountcy principle – the child’s welfare – it supports and enhances it. What threatens it is the alternative presumption: that on the separation of his parents the child must lose one, or at least lose the regular contact which enables a meaningful relationship to continue. Children don’t understand this: why the courts think one of their parents is no longer fit; they become hugely damaged by it, and often blame themselves, or become filled with anger, much of it aimed at the remaining parent.
Of course we know that the courts think that by removing a parent they end conflict, which can also be very damaging. This is why we also support early intervention and compulsory mediation, so that conflict doesn’t get out of hand. Shared parenting needs co-operation between the parents if it is to work. It also needs mutual respect, and considerable flexibility, not a rigid timetable. That is also why shared parenting needs to be distinguished from shared residence, which critics misrepresent as meaning an exact 50-50 division of the child’s time. We know that usually isn’t practical.
Shared parenting isn’t ideal: it’s the result of divorce. The ideal is an intact family. But it is infinitely better than lone parenting, both for the child and the parent. It is also better for society. The epidemic of lone parenting – one child in four lives with a lone mother - is economically costly and leads to many other social problems such as increased crime. That isn’t the fault of the mothers; it’s the result of poor policies on tax and benefits which, for example, lock lone mothers into a benefits trap in which the state replaces the father and re-marrying is not financially advantageous. It is also the result of biased and incompetent courts which still believe a child’s place is with his mother and a woman’s place is in the home. Which just isn’t how things work any more.
If you want to know more about our proposals for reform of family law take a look at the Blue Print on our website, which is soon to be updated and revised.
Toon, whilst I wouldn’t expect a child to have a say on any of the nonsense examples you give, I would expect that a child should have some level of a say on which parent they might want to live with for most of the time, and indeed how often and when they might want to see their other parent following a divorce or separation.
I’m not saying that any child should be given the final say necessarily, nor that factors like age shouldn’t be taken into account.
But I suppose the real factor which distinguishes ‘parenting apart’ from your examples, is that in such instances the parents *can’t* actually come to a decision on ‘childcare’ and that’s why they’ve gone to court for a decision to be imposed on them. In such circumstances the child should be just as able to make submissions to the court, and the court should take these into account in a sensible and reasonable manner - just like it takes the evidence of the parents into account.
Why are judges any less qualified to detect if kids are being alienated or coached against a parent than they are to decide whether a parent is telling the truth about the behaviour of one parent or another? Or are you suggesting that courts should never make any decisions as to custody or access?
“If the prevailing logic is that no person should be subjected to pressure to do things they dont want to, then by the same token, fathers should not be forced to pay “maintenance”.”
It’s not about not putting pressure on people to do things they don’t want to do, it’s about rights and responsibilities. A child should have a right to have their feelings taken into account at some level.
And, surely, a good parent’s responsiblity for the wellbeing of a child is not contingent on access to that child?
Bringing the child into the world creates the responsibility to provide for it, it does not and should not be viewed as a financial transaction or a ‘pay per view’ tv chanel.
F4J apologists: it’s usual in a debate to rely on evidence outside your personal experience. I am not interested in your sob stories about how you’ve been done wrong by your ex - you’ll note that several women and children have posted on this site in the past about how their violent and intimidating ex-partners have joined F4J. If you are truly a hard done by dad, run as fast as you can away from these idiots, who harbour and protect wife-beaters.
Martin Holmes: dreadfully sad that a fellow party member has been taken in by these types. Hope to see you emerge out the other end soon. Having said that, the depth of your sexism makes me think that perhaps you should just leave the party, as we don’t really need your sort.
Martin: I have no intention of meeting up with an F4J group. Their arguments are neither reasonable nor reasoned. I line up with organisations like NAPO, Women’s Aid, Refuge and the NSPCC in questioning whether the policy changes groups like F4J would like to see would be in the best interests of children.
Nick Langford: not prepared to link to F4J’s website from here, so have removed your links. Having said that, you appear to be the first articulate representative of F4J ever to post to my blog. Congratulations! That doesn’t mean you’re not wrong. You are. No-one on this thread has yet to answer my question about shared parenting, which is this: you can have one presumption - the overriding interests of the children - or two. In which situation is the overriding interests of the children the most important presumption?
I don’t support compulsory mediation. I don’t see why women who have been abused by their former partners should have to sit down in a room with them. I do support more mediation being available. I also don’t see what your interesting (and wrong) views on why single mums are responsible for the ills of the world have to do with anything.
Strange, you don’t want to hear personal testimonies or ’sob stories’ from fathers, but will happily quote and cite allegations or tesimonies from mothers who have posted here?
You can’t have it both ways Antonia, oh I forgot it’s your blog, you can.
Antonia, like ALL socialists is a hypocrite. They are all beyond reason!
That’s right, Toon. My blog, my rules. Don’t like it? You know where to go.
““If the prevailing logic is that no person should be subjected to pressure to do things they dont want to, then by the same token, fathers should not be forced to pay “maintenance”.”
It’s not about not putting pressure on people to do things they don’t want to do, it’s about rights and responsibilities. A child should have a right to have their feelings taken into account at some level.”
Yes, one could see it like that, but what has this got to do with forcing men to hand over their hard earned to thier childrens mothers?
“And, surely, a good parent’s responsiblity for the wellbeing of a child is not contingent on access to that child? ”
Seems that for many men, their responsibilty for their children that they feel has been removed from them and replaced with nothing other than a disrespectful and involuntary lightening of their wallet to benefit the mothers and the state who removed their natural roles!
“Bringing the child into the world creates the responsibility to provide for it, it does not and should not be viewed as a financial transaction or a ‘pay per view’ tv chanel. ”
Hmm! Interesting, not sure what you mean by that though.. Seems like in fact you are agreeing that men should not have to pay “cash for contact”.. In which case I agree!
Or are you saying that women should not have kids just in order to get money from the state or fathers and use their children as a means of making a living..?
I doubt that is the reason that the vast majority of women have children, but no doubt its easy to see why some men may think that they do!
What I was saying is that paying maintenance and access should not be linked.
Contact should be judged on the best interests of the individual child.
Maintenance should be judged on the needs of the individual child.
Just because one parent has to pay maintence doesn’t mean that they should expect to have rights to see the children, unless it’s in the interests of the child (and vice versa).
That’s right, Toon. My blog, my rules. Don’t like it? You know where to go.
Typical socialist arrogance and hypocrisy!
Amazing how politicians change their spots once in power C4.
Dealing with web enquiries and moderating online forums, I’ve heard from hundreds maybe thousands of parents who have faced discrimination and injusice in family law, some of whom have had similar comments from Labour Mp’s and councillors at surgeries and meetings up and down the country.
I wonder if Antonia will take such a black and white stance on issues she disagrees with her own electorate and (god help us!) future constituents?
Seems like a no brainer to the other 2 main political parties who have altered their policies in recent months and years, kids do better with both parents fully involved after a split and as Nick posted in his comment above, removing the ‘winner takes all approach’ to family law is in the child’s best interests.
362 Mp’s have now signed EDM 128, the majority of Mp’s now agree on a parenting time presumption, when will the government start listening to what the country wants?
Whatever parents decide, re “maintenance”, or access, it is in my view best decided by the parents and should not be decided by others who dont have a direct biological link with the children concerned.
There can be no definitive one size fits all solution imposed by force that will satisfy everyone and be seen as fair by all and all evidence shows that fathers who dont feel fairly treated will not accept solutions forced upon them.
At the end of the day, some men may decide its not worth working when they have little left to show for it.
You cant force men to work, thats slavery..
If your car is pinched, does the court force you to pay the thief for the fuel?
By the way, its far cheaper to pay the CSA for most men anyway than try and keep a family in your own home!
Too many men see payment of “child support” cash as being the be-all and end-all of their obligations to their children.
“I pay child support, thats my duty done..”..
Too easy.. Thats not what being a dad is all about is it?
On the question of access, its often more likely the case that most men cant be bothered and the mothers and kids would love for dads to take an interest..
Frex: “If your car is pinched, does the court force you to pay the thief for the fuel?”
No but (a) your car won’t die if it doesn’t get fuel; (b) the ‘thief’ didn’t give birth to the car after having sex with you.
Are you really suggesting that parents have a right of ownership over their children? Now that really is slavery.
“Are you really suggesting that parents have a right of ownership over their children? Now that really is slavery.”
Fascism in its purest form I’m afraid!
Anon 2.. a) Giving the mother money is not a gaurantee that she will spend it on her childrens food.. or indeed oil for her car!
The state provides for mothers and children who dont want to live with the childrens fathers quite sufficiently to avoid death! If there is no need for a father, there is no need for any part of him, including his money..
b) Mothers give birth following sex if they decide they would rather not convieniently wipe out the life within them without any regard to the fathers feelings.. Either way..
Women are responsible (are they not?) for their own choices as to what they do with what they have, so why should men not be too?
If parents dont “own children” then who does?
No doubt, in time, they will own themselves, but as they grow, there is a need for adults to take responsibilty for them. Who better than those who brought them into the world?
Women have 100% of the choices as to when, who with and under what circumstances they have or raise children, men simply have to comply.
Is it wrong for a father to desire some say in his family life?
Must it all be judged by the mother?
Fathers are sadly deciding en masse that its not worth making the effort to try and be effective parents, because they are blocked at all turns.. and those that do try, are more vilified than those than dont!
Drex, “responsibility” is not the same as ownership.
Why does anyone have to ‘own’ children? If you’re looking after an elderly or ill relative, you might be responsible for them; I suspect that few people would say that you ‘own’ them.
Also, you’ve still not explained why a fair share of financial responsibility for a child should be linked to living with both parents.
You clearly have in mind instances where a court says that it’s in the interest of the child to limit contact with one parent - in such cases you don’t feel that that parent should pay a full and fair share of the financial responsibility.
However, your argument would also apply to those parents who merely don’t want to have contact with their children. If, as you seem to suggest, there was a link between financial responsibility and contact, a parent who chose not to see their child would have no financial obligations either. I think very few people would think that’s a good outcome.
If women who have decided to raise children without a father in their lives can do so via sperm donation without having any child support then why should men who never intended to live apart from their kids be forced to pay the mothers? Its morally and logically wrong.. Most fathers are only too willing to pay what they see as approriate “guilt money”, especially when they have left out of choice.
The state should not have the role of interfering with parents arrangements..
Choose carefully who you breed with!
Because they’re not paying the mothers. They’re paying their fair share of their financial responsibility for their kids. Why should children suffer because their parents can no longer live together and because one parent wants to use his/her money to try to get what they want.
drex:
The state provides for mothers and children who dont want to live with the childrens fathers quite sufficiently to avoid death! If there is no need for a father, there is no need for any part of him, including his money..
In other words, you want the sex, but you don’t want the consequences, so you want me and the rest of the taxpayers to pay for your mistakes for you?
Choose carefully who you breed with!
Well, quite. Children are a big responsibility, and shouldn’t be undertaken lightly. It isn’t sensible to have a child with someone six months after you first met them (assuming contemporary western ideas about divorce etc.), and children shouldn’t come as much of a surprise - their cause is rather well known.
A significant number of relationships break up in the first couple of years of a child’s life, and many of those children will have been conceived rather early in the relationship. There are bad consequences for everyone involved - one parent (usually the mother) ends up having to raise the child as a single parent, which is hard work and bad for your career prospects. The other parent has to pay out a substantial sum of money to support (usually his) child, and as a consequence of the ex-family now requiring two households, the standard of living of both partners will be rather lower than it would be had they remained together. The child only gets to live with one parent, probably has infrequent contact with the other parent, and a result of a less emotionally secure upbringing is more likely to encounter problems in adolesence.
Children are for life…
Indeed, I do agree.. Personally, I think that people should spend longer on the courtship process, but, these days the phrase “snoozers losers” often comes to mind..
As for the first part, I am happy for the consequences, even when the ladies lie about contraception (I expect them to do that!) therefore dont make “mistakes” and no, I dont expect anyone to replace my responsibilities in any way..
That is why I dont expect the state to tell me what I should be doing when I am quite capable of doing the decent thing myself!
That is why I dont expect the state to tell me what I should be doing when I am quite capable of doing the decent thing myself!
Then you don’t really have a problem, do you. If you are paying your share, the state need only be involved if the mother wishes to claim state benefits, and then it only need be involved so far as to ensure that you aren’t short-changing her and so placing an unnecessary burden on the public purse.
But sadly not every parent *is* capable of doing the “decent thing” themselves . . . I’m quite keen to pay redistributive taxes and if the scheme was voluntary I would still pay it, but not everyone would!!
The state dictates. The problem is that the state decides “fairness” and that is my problem.. If I dont agree in a system, I wont partake in it wholeheartedly..
Its a question of principle..
Articles such as this demonstrate why there is a clear need for organisations like fathers for justice.
Its comical how the writer bleets on about money. When the members of father 4 justice members are more concerned with the welfare of their children.
Frankly your article is so one sided and a total uneducated shoot from the hip.
Many mothers do see the children as objects and possesions. They will use the children to get at their ex. Not all my mother behave in this manner. The trouble is when a mother behaves with the intent of alienating the child from her parent, the law of the land protects these self centered parents above the the welfare of the child. Isn’t that wrong?
Think of equality and mutual up bringing not a one sided slagging match and wheres my child support… The child is the import person here, and giving that child a well balanced up bringing is so important.
hi
just wonderd if you was intrested in a song i have written for kids who have been seperated from there fathers, i am hopeing it will get some familys back together.and maybe help some kids & adults understand what happens during seperation and all that type of thing. the words are straight from the hart, as i have not been allowed to see my kids of 3 & 6. for 2 and half years.due to me leaving ther mother, but thats another story.so i am just a builder trying to be possitve & was hopeing i might be able to earn some money for a kids charity or hospice. so if you no anyone or could help in anyway, it would be much appreciated, the song is on my space
http://www.myspace.com/worldofstanton
thanks
rob
“You appear to be the first articulate representative of F4J ever to post to my blog.”
Ah, you sweet-talking flatterer, you!
“No-one on this thread has yet to answer my question about shared parenting, which is this: you can have one presumption - the overriding interests of the children - or two.”
Not exactly true, you can have as many presumptions as you like, but only one which is paramount. Court orders are based on any number of presumptions made by CAFCASS and judges.
There are two main problems with the paramountcy principle. The first is that in some circumstances, promoting the best interests of one child can damage those of another, for example in the complicated domestic arrangements where there are half-siblings, step-children or even both. It also encourages some professionals involved, such as CAFCASS case workers, not to look beyond the limited interests of one particular child. Sometimes this leads to horrific situations where siblings end up never seeing each other. I would suggest looking further than the interests of a single child to those of the family as a whole.
Secondly what the ‘best interests’ of the child are is not legally defined – and the welfare check list doesn’t help much. At best this means that a wide variety of interpretations are used in the courts; at worst it means the principle is discarded entirely because without definition it is largely meaningless.
I would also question the idea that any principle should be paramount. The 1989 Act actually contains two other fundamental principles: one that unnecessary delay should be avoided, and the other that no order should be made unless necessary. Both are routinely ignored; the number of orders dropped dramatically initially but has risen since to pre-Act levels and delay is regularly used to tactical advantage.
It is not suggested that the principle of shared parenting should become paramount, merely that it should become one of the several principles on which orders are made, and specifically that it should replace the current principle – in practice if not in legislation – of sole parenting.
Most orders are made for sole residence, usually with the mother, and not for shared residence. The effect of that is to relegate the non-resident parent to second-class status and usually to damage the child’s relationship to the point where it decays entirely. It also inevitably and unnecessarily creates the need for a second court order for contact.
What we are saying is that a child’s best interests are better served by maintaining a relationship with both parents after divorce or separation than by severing one of those relationships. If you honestly disagree with that, please explain why - I should love to know, and am well aware that many share your view. I have yet to read an honest explanation, rather than one which uses false statistics on domestic violence or child abuse for justification. If there are real arguments, let’s hear them; I have heard, for example, that Stephen Gilmore of Oxford University has argued cogently against shared parenting – I haven’t read his work yet, and of course he is wrong (!), but it would be interesting to hear his case or any other if intelligently argued.
I am looking here at the interchange between Antonia and Nick Langford - as somebody who is quite definitely not a member of F4J, which is a group, like many others, which practises the politics of social exclusion and sectarianism. By being a member or affiliate in this process, Nick contributes to it - unless he speaks out against it, whatever his personal views and conduct, which in F4J as in the Labour party apparently would mean expulsion.
The thing that both miss in this argument is the example given by parents to their children. That example is, quite specifically, that the best interests of the child are paramount.
It is about the worst example I could think of giving a child - it basically serves to inculcate selfishness from the earliest age. That cannot be in a child’s best interests. Neither can the example of distressed parents treated like the proverbial, as though they had no rights, not to mention the effect this has on a child’s perception of the roles of men and women in their lives.
So, it’s the legal fact of making the interests of parents subsidiary to those of children, and the legal fact of having one parent treated as second class which militate very precisely against the child’s best interests. It’s the ignorance of the family rights of all members which, unsurprisingly, causes so much destruction of families.
F4J - and apparently this blog’s owner, don’t agree with me on this, according to their words, although I think they could be persuaded to see reason if they were to learn to communicate in real debate.
But what has happened is in reality that families have been made into a human rights-free zone, a civil rights-free zone, a constitutional rights-free zone - and this is causing society to unravel very quickly, with adults who are no longer allowed to exercise resonsibility acting increasingly like the spoilt children they have been brought up as.
It is absolutely crucial to rein in the discretion of judges and other officials to destroy families without due cause - to create some legal certainty for all family members in the rights of children and their parents to have a relationship with each other. This cannot be done if the judge believes that it is his or her paramount duty to decide the best interests of a child, merely because he or she is asked to do so by one party to a dispute.
Children themselves cannot occupy two positions simultaneously, at one and the same time quite obviously having their lives decided by adults and being made to believe they have a legal say in who they live with. Under such conditions their own parents often become irrelevant.
There is going to be no general agreement on how to look after one’s children - what are their children’s best interests, because one of the joys of human family life is its variability.
The law can simply set parameters, of what is criminal and what is not, as it does in every other aspect of our lives, and ensure that children are not taken away from their own parents against their will. I can see no justification for the use of the bodies of children as instruments of punishment or conditioning of adults, by law.
I simply despise the pseudo-love of children that emanates from every pore of the tyranny over our families that has been created, and all the while, the unremitting attack on parents, egged on by professionals, the media and politicians. The denial of contact with our children under conditions of basic human dignity makes such child-centredness utter cant - you cannot care for your children if you aren’t there.
Antonia,
I think you’re adopting a very scary attitude with respect to inequality.
“in any case, in a world where women are overwhelmingly more likely to be paid less, be victims of violence and have no or little political power, I’m not sure that cries of sexism against men have much weight.”
I’m a firm believer in equality sex, sexuality, race, creed etc., and because of this I find your statement above extremely offensive.
Yes, there are problems of domestic violence, men are more physically powerful that women and if men can’t handle that difference then they need to be bought to book and punished, punitively! Men and women should stand shoulder to shoulder to remove this tumour on society.
Yes, there are problems with equality of pay and power, but we need to work shoulder to shoulder to wipe out this inequality.
Part of this problem is societies attitude with respect to children and their care. If it forever seen that women are solely responsible for childcare then women will never achieve equality in the workplace – they simply won’t be there to achieve the promotions, or they will be discriminated against because there will be a perception that at some point they will disappear from the working environment.
If childcare and child rearing became a level playing field for men and women then this would in part ameliorate these real problems and faulty perceptions.
Equal rights for men should become a feminist campaign.
PS. You seem to perceive that all men commit domestic violence, this is an extreme faulty perception