How about some equality for fathers?

[Osem]

Divorced fathers are to be denied a legal right to a relationship with their children in a review of family law due to be published tomorrow.

So claims the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/88...-children.html

Some months ago I heard the founder of Fathers 4 Justice talking about why it'd had all been very quiet on that front. Had they gone away? Given up? Seen the light? Grown up even?

No, they'd simply kept their promise to stop what some had seen as silly stunts and enter into proper debate with HMG about the role of fathers in the welfare of their children. Perhaps they were hoping that the outcome of this review would provide some light at the end of a very long, dark, tunnel but if that's the case and the above article is correct, it seems they've been sold a pup.

As I type this I'm listening to the radio and a succession of distraught absent fathers reporting how they're routinely and cynically prevented from having access to their children. As a man it's very hard to hear another crying but that's what these guys are being driven to. For those with the money to pursue it through the courts even that route rarely prevents a bitter ex. from making a mockery of the whole process and using the children as a bargaining chip at best and a weapon at worst.

If the Met was institutionally racist, the family law system is institutionally sexist and it's shocking that this state of affairs is allowed to persist. On the one hand men are frequently told they're rubbish at being parents and absent fathers are a major factor in youth crime etc. but, on the other, the system prevents those who want to take that role as responsibly as it should be from doing so by denying them any enforceable rights to see their children. Catch 22 or what?

I really fail to see how anyone can dispute the need for children to have proper access to both their parents and preventing that right being recognised and enshrined in law is as unfair as it is bizarre.

[Mr Angry]

This is where those pesky human rights, esp the right to family life, might well come in useful for some - irrespective of cat ownership.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Osem

If the Met was institutionally racist, the family law system is institutionally sexist and it's shocking that this state of affairs is allowed to persist. On the one hand men are frequently told they're rubbish at being parents and absent fathers are a major factor in youth crime etc. but, on the other, the system prevents those who want to take that role as responsibly as it should be from doing so by denying them any enforceable rights to see their children. Catch 22 or what?

I really fail to see how anyone can dispute the need for children to have proper access to both their parents and preventing that right being recognised and enshrined in law is as unfair as it is bizarre.

Great Post

---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

This is where those pesky human rights, esp the right to family life, might well come in useful for some - irrespective of cat ownership.

Not Really

ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

If it's in accordance with the law? Could be argued it's for the protection of the rights of the Mother.

Either way, it's a legal minefield in which the only winner will be a lawyer and the only loser will be the child.

[Chrysalis]

However, Whitehall sources say the statement has been dropped because of concerns that it put too much pressure on judges to set out the exact length of time that each divorced parent should spend with their children.

Seems the life of judges comes ahead of fathers.

How much do judges get paid again?

They had a very good phone in on radio five live between 9am and 10 am on this subject,and Nicky Campbell found not one single caller that thought men were treated equally that included a woman family lawyer and a lady mediation specialist.Equality ie shared parenting must be one of the last taboos.

Ten years ago i was going through my own contact nightmare my ex refused mediation and was obstructive,which led to a day in the family courts with a legal team costing thousands,sadly governments and the people they choose to chair enquiries will not let things move on.

In america i understand there is equality where there is a presumed assumption of shared parenting,but sadly the powers that be will not equal things up here,if this was happening to women,their groups would be up in arms.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by richard1960

They had a very good phone in on radio five live between 9am and 10 am on this subject,and Nicky Campbell found not one single caller that thought men were treated equally that included a woman family lawyer and a lady mediation specialist.Equality ie shared parenting must be one of the last taboos.

Ten years ago i was going through my own contact nightmare my ex refused mediation and was obstructive,which led to a day in the family courts with a legal team costing thousands,sadly governments and the people they choose to chair enquiries will not let things move on.

In america i understand there is equality where there is a presumed assumption of shared parenting,but sadly the powers that be will not equal things up here,if this was happening to women,their groups would be up in arms.

It may well be in large part due to the lobbying activities of certain powerful women's groups that change isn't happening. Let's face it, control over the children is the key factor which determines financial settlements, housing arrangements etc. and is frequently used as a stick with which to beat the ex partner. Even those fathers who have the money to try for redress in the courts find that in practice there's nothing they can do to force their former partner to allow contact.

Those mothers (my sister-in-law being one such) out there who do the right thing and encourage their children to have regular and meaningful contact with their fathers are probably just as appalled by the actions of these other women as we are.

Originally Posted by Osem

It may well be in large part due to the lobbying activities of certain powerful women's groups that change isn't happening. Let's face it, control over the children is the key factor which determines financial settlements, housing arrangements etc. and is frequently used as a stick with which to beat the ex partner. Even those fathers who have the money to try for redress in the courts find that in practice there's nothing they can do to force their former partner to allow contact.

Those mothers (my sister-in-law being one such) out there who do the right thing and encourage their children to have regular and meaningful contact with their fathers are probably just as appalled by the actions of these other women as we are.

Yes i agree with the above sentiments there probably are powerful womens groups lobbying hard in the background,but i do think as in scotland i believe mediation should be compulsory rather then the very adversarial court systems from the off.

But even ten years years ago when i was battling away my solicitor even said not worth going for a residence order,it was then she told me in america there is a presumed acceptance of shared parenting in the courts,seems ours are forever doomed to operate in the dark ages sadly.

Just as a matter of interest, who would these "powerful women's group" be?

Originally Posted by Hugh

Just as a matter of interest, who would these "powerful women's group" be?

I have heard people from powerful positions including Mizz Harman expressing doubts about equal parenting on the radio she is a woman with a powerful position in politics who seems to be listened to.And i have heard "femminists " express similar utterings in the past like it or loathe it they have a voice more powerful then they should have.In todays society

Those are individuals, which is, imho, completely different from "powerful women's groups".

Originally Posted by Hugh

Those are individuals, which is, imho, completely different from "powerful women's groups".

Yes true Hugh but these indivduals combine to make a powerful group voice,and most of those that do hold those opinions tend to be listened to, take for instance Germaine Greer barking by most peoples standards but those in power listen to her she holds particular views on shared parenting,and just about any other "femminest" subject.

I understand where you are coming from, but conflating of various individuals, no matter how prominent they are, does not, imho, equate to "powerful women's groups", otherwise we could be saying that UKIP's Nigel Farage's and BNP's Nick Griffin's views on Europe equate to a "powerful anti-Europe group".

Originally Posted by Hugh

I understand where you are coming from, but conflating of various individuals, no matter how prominent they are, does not, imho, equate to "powerful women's groups", otherwise we could be saying that UKIP's Nigel Farage's and BNP's Nick Griffin's views on Europe equate to a "powerful anti-Europe group".

Fair point Hugh but Nick Griffin gets sent up and treated as a joke see the question time he appeared in for evidence .

UKIPS Nigel Farage gets listened to but is largely ignored by voters and other politicians as a result.

Okay perhaps "powerful womens groups" was bit of a exaggeration but powerful women in positions of power is not,and those powerful women do tend to have femminest agendas.

"feminist*"....

*would like to be treated equally to men.

Originally Posted by Hugh

"feminist*"....

*would like to be treated equally to men.

In the same way men such as myself would like to be treated equally in the family courts no doubt.

Fair dos Hugh.