Fom Rhode Island ~ Bob Kerr: In this contest, there are never any winners

01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, October 11, 2009

Mickey Mouse got bounced from the birthday party. Actually, he never got in the door. He stood there, in full Disney, and was told he wasn’t wanted.

It was one of those mad, cruel moments from the divorce wars, where people get competitive over a kid’s happiness. In this case, a father who couldn’t attend his daughter’s birthday party because of a restraining order hired a person in a Mickey Mouse suit to go instead. It was his way of being part of the day without actually being there.

It didn’t work. The fun Mickey Mouse might have brought to the party was no match for a mother’s need to keep a father out of sight and out of mind.

There are lots of names for it — payback, revenge, getting even, sticking it to the ex. It might be the sickest part of divorce. It is the attempt to lay waste to the idea that divorced parents can both maintain strong relationships with their children. It is the attempt to poison kids’ minds. It gets vicious sometimes.

And it’s always expensive. Lawyers and therapists do well with it. A considerable chunk of a family’s assets can go down the tubes because an angry parent would rather keep hauling the case into court than reach healthy resolution.

Officially, it’s parental alienation syndrome. It’s not easy to diagnose. Sometimes, it’s impossible to determine whether one parent is more guilty of it than the other. It is filled with screams and accusations, court-ordered therapy and the degrading experience of visiting with one’s own sons or daughters under court-ordered supervision — at $35 an hour.

False charges of abuse are fairly standard.

And in Rhode Island, of course, it all plays out in Family Court, where cases move toward resolution at a mud-like pace. And the longer a case goes, the more twisted the legal options become. Any accusation, no matter how baseless, can be reason to go back to court one more time for a few more billable hours.

I have seen it and heard it. Once, a young girl caught in the middle of an especially nasty custody struggle that I had written about called me sobbing and screaming to tell me how much she feared having to spend time with her father. She did not, I am sure, make the call on her own.

It is stunning how two people who were once so crazy about each other that they got married can turn into bitter opponents in a contest that can’t possibly have any real winners.

The divorced mother or father who gets satisfaction from hearing sons and daughters badmouth an ex-spouse is a strange person indeed. But it happens. There have been high fives exchanged over particularly hurtful anti-mom or anti-dad zingers.

When Pamela and I had coffee, she told a story of divorce and its scorched-earth aftermath that she thought was extreme. It wasn’t.

“I paid $4,500 to two lawyers and I got nothing,” she says.

She was 24 when she got married in 1994.

“It was doomed from the start.”

She tells of emotional abuse. Her husband threw things. He smashed a chandelier.

“I locked myself in my room once. He broke down the door.”

She filed for divorce four years ago.

Her two sons are now 13 and 8 years old. They have been through the wringer of divorce Rhode Island style. They have moved back and forth.

At first, she had custody of the two boys. Their father saw them every weekend.

Then, the divorce became one of those draining, endless contests that consumes time and money and emotional resources.

It continues.

“I don’t know how to fight back,” says Pamela.

She no longer has custody of her sons after a too familiar exchange of charges and counter charges. Once, her boyfriend, who she says she will marry next year, was ordered by the court to see a therapist after Pamela’s ex-husband accused him of abusing the two boys.

She had a visit with her sons last Tuesday, the first in three weeks. But the visit was allowed only after she and her ex-husband went to a court-ordered class on “co-parenting.” It didn’t go well. It is simply part of the divorce business.

Some visits have been canceled. Her ex-husband tells her one of the boys got sick. Once, a visit was canceled because the $35-an-hour supervisor couldn’t make it.

More and more, she notices her sons disrespect her when she does see them. It’s that alienation thing.

“I just want it to be over,” she says.

Those words could be put on a plaque outside Family Court. And below those words could be the words “Forget About It.” Because it is almost never over as long as an ex-wife or ex-husband wants to keep up the competition — keep filing charges and making motions and using Family Court as a marital boxing ring.

“I don’t have a problem letting the boys go to him,” says Pamela. “But he wants to erase me from their lives.”

bkerr@projo.com

http://www.projo.com/news/bobkerr/kerr_column_11_10-11-09_I2G1QN6_v13.32aab48.html

West Virginia Court Voids DV Rules as Gender-Biased

The Pamela Cross' of the world need to pay attention to their mistaken ideological premise in Canada as well. The walls of radical feminist ideology are falling around the world. Its only a matter of time for Canada to wake up to its blatant discrimination courtesy of Cross and her ideologue "Sisters." Those politicians too frightened to speak above the cacophony of Feminist doublespeak, baffle-gab and misinformation should take notice. People like Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice at the Federal Level, and Bentley AG at the Ontario Provincial level should examine themselves periodically to see if they are still eunuchs. If not they need to take stock of the discriminatory practices they lead and start levelling the playing field. Changing the Divorce Act to a presumption of equal shared parenting would be a start through PMB C-422 and then help men battered down by the injustice of a gendered approach to family violence.MJM

October 7th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Last Friday, a West Virginia Circuit court struck down three administrative rules governing the licensing and operation of domestic violence shelters in that state. It did so in part because the rules and their application were explicitly gender-biased, contrary to the "crystal clear" gender-neutral language and intent of the statute.

The full opinion is here and is well worth reading. It draws a clear and detailed picture of a state agency utterly in thrall to a concept of domestic violence that is well established as false. To men's rights advocates, it strongly suggests effective litigation tactics for attacking the blatantly discriminatory statutes and administrative rules that so distort our response to the problem of domestic violence.

Here, as I understand it from the court's opinion, is what happened in West Virginia. The legislature passed a law that established an administrative agency, the Family Protection Services Board (FPSB), whose mission it is to license and oversee DV shelters, and programs to assist DV perpetrators in changing their behavior. The FPSB was empowered to set standards for these programs and shelters, and did. But the intent of the legislature was clear - all West Virginians, irrespective of sex, were to have access to services.

But when the FPSB swung into action, it directly contradicted the "crystal clear" intent of the legislature. First, it relied exclusively on the feminist DV group, the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence. It promulgated a rule that required at least one-third of the staff of a DV shelter to have been trained by the Coalition. Into the bargain, the Coalition refused to train anyone who was not a member of the Coalition. In short, members of the general public who wanted to be trained in domestic violence response or advocacy, were barred from doing so. Only those with the "correct" ideology were permitted licensure.

And, given the political slant of the Coalition, it should come as no surprise that the court found that this rule "excludes any person who does not adhere to the gender-biased fundamental beliefs of the Coalition." Those "gender-biased fundamental beliefs" meant that men and adolescent boys were excluded from all DV shelters in the state based solely on their sex (and age). That, of course is standard Duluth Model practice, but it is not gender-neutral as required by West Virginia state law.

The same held true for perpetrator intervention programs. Again, in strict compliance with the political doctrine that holds that only men commit DV and only women are victims of it, the Board, through its hand-picked agent, the Coalition, directly contradicted the clear terms of the law. In doing so, it deprived female abusers of the benefits of intervention programs, while simultaneously depriving their adult male and child victims of the benefits of intervening in the perpetrator's behavior. The court struck down that rule too.

Through the lens of a court opinion, it looks like the Board was taken over by the usual radical DV advocates, who then appointed the Coalition to do the daily work of creating and maintaining a DV shelter and intervention system that blatantly discriminated against men, women and boys.

Not only is it clearly discriminatory, it doesn't work. It doesn't work to address the problem of DV because its approach to the problem is ideological. By pretending that DV is a political, as opposed to a psychological, matter, the approach taken by DV shelters and programs across the country cannot work. The simple fact is that they misperceive the problem. Plenty of psychologists know this and have said so. If we truly want to deal effectively with DV, we'll listen to them.

The West Virginia case carries the seeds of future attacks on the blatantly discriminatory DV industry. As such it is a valuable tool as well as a landmark decision of sorts.

I do have one criticism, though. Without being overly technical, the plaintiff in the case was an organization called Men and Women Against Discrimination. It sought to advocate against DV in a gender-neutral way and was prevented by the gender- biased requirements promulgated by the Board and implemented by the Coalition. Among other things, the legal wrong done to the organization was the limitation on free speech the Board's rules placed on its members.

That's fine as far as it goes, but attorneys in future court actions will be well advised to include an individual man or men who sought DV services but were refused. Conspicuously absent from the court's opinion is any notion that the Board's rules violated anyone's due process or equal protection rights. Clearly, if the suit had included an individual plaintiff, instead of just a corporate one, those vital legal concepts would have come into play and the judge would have had an opportunity to rule on them.

But beyond that, this is a great day for men's rights.

Thanks to our good friends at the American Coalition of Fathers and Children for sending along the court's decision.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4285

Toronto Star ~ More reaction to divorce series

There are two series of letter at different links. This is the first with link at the end.

What's the delay on shared custody?

Published On Sat Oct 10 2009

• Email
• Print
• Republish
• Add to Favourites
• Report an error
• Share

• Article

Re: Breaking up: Family courts in crisis, Series Oct. 2-6

There are gaps in the legal system, leading to both fathers and mothers feeling that they are being treated unfairly. But, the real victims are the children who are losing out on a loving relationship with both parents, because of their parents' conflict – who are too consumed with fighting each other, ignoring what's in their children's best interest.

Parents need to work together for the sake of the children, not against each other for vengeance, control and destruction of their ex partner.

Deborah Moskovitch, Divorce Consultant, Author, "The Smart Divorce",

Toronto

I am so glad the Star is examining, in an intelligent way, what works best for children when parents separate. Having mediated hundreds of "good divorces," I think the key is the way parents treat each other, and the way they negotiate their separation. Mutual dignity and respect, positive and fully engaged parenting, and fun and meaningful time with both parents is far more important for the kids than the exact split of parenting time.

Hilary Linton, Mediator, Lawyer, Toronto

"The good divorce." It is a lovely concept and, in cases where two mentally healthy, mature adults are splitting, possible – with a lot of work. But the problem is that most marriages break up exactly because one or both people are not those things.

Are children better off with two parents? Sure, in an ideal world. But not everyone who fathers or gives birth to a child is fit or capable of being a "parent." It takes the giving up of one's self to a large extent.

Joint custody assumptions become a nightmare for all of us trapped in a divorce struggle with someone suffering from a personality disorder. For those ex-spouses, custody is a game and a weapon. A parent who wants custody and the love of their child does not use power, control and money to destroy their children's spouse at their children's expense.

Each case needs to be assessed on its own merits, because people are not something you can classify so easily. "Best" for the kids is not one size fits all, even if it makes life more complex for the judges.

Sadly judges are too busy to even read files, and so the pendulum of opinion as to what is "best" swings with the media.

Mara Cole, Toronto

I sympathize with fathers who have to beg to see their children. I sympathize with mothers who want to protect their children and raise them alone. The incredibly sad reality is that the children of divorce remain the truly suffering victims.

This article represents the tip of the iceberg, I am afraid to say. If you want to embrace your lack of faith in the justice system, take a wild ride on the divorce train courtesy of the reformed Family Law Act. Abandoned children, bankrupt mothers and fathers, you name it, abuse of the system still proliferate and all within the sketchy boundaries of "family law."

Joanne Ryan, North York

Thousands of children suffer due to severed or significantly reduced contact with one of their parents. Does anyone consider their emotions and their sense of loss?

Pamela Cross does not. It is appalling that Ms Cross stated that men who want shared custody of their children only do so because they are control freaks and want a decrease in child support payments. How insulting and irresponsible. It is a shame that she cannot conceive that men have children because they want them and love them. Does she think that women have cornered the market on loving their children? That is the implication of her sexist stance.

Joanne Miller, Toronto

It was both shocking to read how common my story was, yet heartening to see that something might be done with the anti-father-biased family law system in Ontario. From false and discharged allegations of abuse to huge legal bills ($125,000 to date), Susan Pigg's piece about frustrated fathers was my story put more calmly and eloquently.

As a divorced father, it is profoundly difficult not to be emotional. It simply touched the tip of a system that exacerbates rather than fixes the divorce and custody battles in our society that puts our children squarely in the middle of the battlefield.

Our family courts are over burdened, under skilled and fed by greed and emotion rather than logic and vision for the good of the children. Australia is leading the way in family law reform. Since its 2006 reforms, divorce court filings are down 18 per cent.

Canada has still not acted on a 1998 report, "For The Sake Of The Children," calling for changes to our family law system. Blimey Canada, throw a lawyer on the barbie and get with it.

Peter Krakus, Toronto

http://tinyurl.com/ylcewr5

Published On Sat Oct 10 2009

• Email
• Print
• Republish
• Add to Favourites
• Report an error
• Share

• Article

Re: Breaking up: Family courts in crisis, Series Oct. 2-6

What's to debate anymore? Shared parenting has sat on the backburner for 11 years while people wait in court as one or two judges deal with 50 people or more per day. Courts are backed up with uneccesary cases, taxpayers lose, children lose, both parents waste tons of money and animosity remains much higher as fight goes on for years. The only people winning are lawyers. Shared parenting solves most of this.

Women's groups worry about shared parenting helping abusive fathers when angry woman use this system in horrible ways to deny access to childen, accuse fathers of violence, abuse of kids, etc. Fathers often end up in jail on false charges. Shared parenting will help keep this problem under control.

This problem is rampant and fathers and children lose out from angry women who know the system listens to them. The system is archaic and biased. This system will save taxpayers millions of dollars.

Congrats to the Aussie politicians for making it law.

Scott Robinson, Toronto

The kids in "The Good Divorce" (Oct. 4) are obviously misguided. Somebody must tell the Margison children that they are actually dissatisfied with shared parenting.

Mother-only households are superior despite the fact that practically all studies show children need both parents.

After all, as Pamela Cross, director of the National Association of Women and the Law, says, "Entrenching the notion of shared parenting in law is dangerous."

We should only listen to lawyers and others who have a financial interest in removing children from decent loving dads.

I hope readers can discern my sarcasm here. To think kids need only one parent smacks of outright prejudice.

If I could, I would vote for Bill C-422, which calls for equal parenting provisions in cases of family breakdown. And I believe, if children of divorce could, they would vote for equal parenting as well.

Don Mathis, Sherman, Texas

The state of New Hampshire created several committees and commissions to study shared custody, among other issues. There was a Task Force on the Family, A Task Force on Family Law, A Commission on Child Support and Custody Issues, and the United States' first Commission on the Status of Men. All of those groups weighed in heavily on the side of shared custody. As did a 1984 study done by the National Probate Judges College, and a great many respected, objective academics.

The state's Supreme Court convened a "Citizens Commission" to study court issues, and the public input was overwhelming in its disdain for the status quo of sole maternal custody. A variety of studies have clearly shown that when sole maternal custody is the rule, it is to the extreme detriment of children and society. In the words of the Probate Judge's College report, "Shared custody is in the best interests of the child, the parents, the courts, and society in general. So why isn't shared custody the rule, instead of the exception?

Because the courts, states and provinces profit from child support collection. And feminists profit politically from disenfranchising fathers. Furthermore, the domestic violence industry usually weighs in on custody decisions, to further demonize fathers, entitle women, and hype the numbers for their profit. In effect, they are prostituting children for 30 pieces of silver.

Paul Clements, Dads Against Divorce Discrimination, Gaffney, S.C.

My wife and I decided after 11 years of marriage that we would be better off apart. We had a 5-year-old son at the time and thought it would be better for him to grow up with parents who were happy rather than stressed about being together. We felt we were still great friends and because we had no animosity towards each other, we thought it would be best to stay that way and work out our divorce in a way that made us both happy.

We had always worked opposite days so one of us would always be home with our son. We decided custody should be shared with the same arrangement. We split what assets we had and I moved out into a new house nearby. We immediately started shared custody. My son was with me the days my wife was working and vice-versa. He stayed in the same school and although there were lots of questions from my son about why daddy moved to a new house, there was very little disruption to his daily routine. He now had two houses, two bedrooms and two sets of toys and got to be with mommy and daddy every week.

My wife and I decided to apply for a divorce after a year of separation and thought we could do it simply with software, as we did our separation agreement. We quickly found that shared custody is not something that the software could handle so I went to a paralegal to help me sort it out. I soon found out that our legal system does not make it easy for a couple to apply for a simple, uncontested divorce with shared custody.

No lawyers were ever involved as I learned that that route was definitely biased toward confrontation, even when we had none to begin with. I had seen too many messy divorces that seemed to be sucking the life and money out of well meaning parents. However, with help from our paralegal and some wording changes, we were able to fill out an application that satisfied a judge.

It has now been two years since our divorce. Our son is very happy, he gets to see both his parents throughout the week, stay at his same school and see all his friends. My ex and I have both moved since the divorce but have agreed to stay within a short drive of our son's school. We continue to talk throughout each week to stay in communication about any issues and remain good friends.

I now have a fiancée who has a daughter and she too has a shared custody agreement. We have arranged that schedule so we have the kids together at similar times and have created a new family for them both. Our friends and families often remark how good this has all been for our children and how happy everyone is. I very much would like to see the family court system make shared custody a more likely end to divorce so others may enjoy the family lives we now have.

Dr. Tom MacKay, Pickering

Long-term outcomes for children without optimal engagement of fathers are evidenced in our jails. The time and energy and resources consumed in the siloing of who-does-what and who-will-pay for children does not result in children being provided with what they require for optimal development.

More than anything, children need time in a positive relationship, for which they can endure and overcome economic deprivation.

Dads deserve to have the chance to be in community with their kids. The future of our cultural existence depends upon their nurture.

Truncating the necessary psychological development of men from youthful invincibles to mid-life community pillars, in the same time frame as men strive for their ascendancy in life, is crazy making.

One cannot build a future at the same time as the assets required to invest in that future are depleted.

Catherine Soplet, Executive Director, Quality of Life, Mississauga

There isn't any such thing as a good divorce, just a small percentage that aren't ugly. Divorce is usually financially and emotionally distressing to one or both parties.

As far the effect on children, one only has to look at the deterioration of human qualities in the offspring of the high divorce rate generation and single parents.

The answer is to get society to take marriage and parenting more seriously. Men and woman should be held accountable for their actions and responsibilities. The party that is responsible for the breakdown of a marriage (physical abuse, substance abuse, gambling, infidelity, living beyond their means and unrealistic expectations in their relationship), should be made to bear the burden financially and the loss of custody of their children.

Maybe only then, will there be any real fairness in divorce and custody. Even better, this might result in the possibility of a more serious commitment to marriage and parenting, resulting in a better society.

Ben Barone, Willowdale

Let's be honest, there is no such thing as a "good" divorce. It is in fact a broken promise by one or two individuals and there can't be anything good about that. What message are you sending out to the thousands or millions of kids affected by divorce? Perhaps a better headline would have been "The Better Divorce."

I was certainly glad to hear that, through communication, the family in the article was able to do what is best for the children to give them a fighting chance at a normal upbringing. There are simply way too many break-ups nowadays and, in most cases, the children are the ones who get hurt the most.

Michael Gorman, Sharon

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/707714

In the UK ~ Fathers 4 Justice protest hijacks city walls

It couldn't have happened on a finer day - that being my birthday. Good job lads - we need to wake up these family court social engineers on both sides of the Ocean.MJM

4:47pm Saturday 10th October 2009

Comments (3) Have your say »

By Matt Smith »

CAMPAIGNERS from New Fathers 4 Justice dressed up as superheroes to hijack Southampton's old town walls in noisy protest this afternoon.

The protestors donned Batman, Superman, and Spiderman costumes and unfurled banners from the bridge near the city's historic Bargate demanding equal rights for dads over a megaphone.

Shoppers and motorists passing below waved or honked in support while around half a dozen police gathered close by.

The demonstration, which went off peacefully, was being held in support of Lee Moorman, 30, from Chandlers Ford, who is battling for equal contact with his son.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4675586.Fathers_4_Justice_protest_hijacks_city_walls/

New Fathers 4 Justice protest in Southampton for Chandler's Ford dad Lee Moorman

1:58pm Monday 12th October 2009

Comments (0) Have your say »

More stories about: Chandler's Ford

• Play Video

BATMAN, Superman, Captain America, and Spiderman joined forces for a protest in Southampton.

The “superheroes” from New Fathers 4 Justice hijacked the city’s old town walls near the Bargate in support of Chandler’s Ford dad Lee Moorman, 30, who is fighting for access to his child.

Motorists passing below honked their support while around half a dozen police gathered close by.

The protesters unfurled banners from the bridge over Castle Way and demanded equal rights for fathers over a megaphone.

Mr Moorman said he was having “sleepless nights” after last seeing his three-year old son in July. He said he wanted joint custody not a couple of hours access in a contact centre.

“I’ve got to go to the family courts which I’m told will be a lengthy process and cost a lot of money.”

Mr Moorman said he was planning a monthly support group in Southampton. He was joined by protester Mark Harris, 50, who said he needed 133 court hearings to win the right to see his children.

The former Shirley resident set fire to a wheelbarrow of the court papers he accumulated over his ten-year battle as a show of disgust for the “biased” family courts.

Mr Harris was one of the protesters who last year scaled the roof of deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman’s home while she and her husband were inside.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4677244.___Superheroes____fight_for_justice_for_Chandler_s_Ford_dad/

You can use Google Maps to get a street level view which you can rotate 360 degrees. Look for BarGate.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=yth&q=map+Southampton,+UK&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Southampton,+Hampshire,+UK&gl=ca&ei=mkrTSprnJJCINJyOoJQD&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CA8Q8gEwAA


Mike Murphy, Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Canada says...
5:34pm Sat 10 Oct 09

It couldn't have happened on a finer day - that being my birthday. Good job lads - we need to wake up these family court social engineers on both sides of the Ocean.

It could have happened on a finer day - that being my birthday. Good job lads - we need to wake up these family court social engineers on both sides of the Ocean.

Quote » | Report this post »

UTS, says...
5:34pm Sat 10 Oct 09

fair play to them.

fair play to them.

Quote » | Report this post »

Condor Man, Southampton says...
6:43pm Sat 10 Oct 09

about time fathers had more rights over their kids. Shame on judges and the court system in general for forcing blokes into this organisation.

about time fathers had more rights over their kids. Shame on judges and the court system in general for forcing blokes into this organisation.

Quote » | Report this post »

Helenlou, Southampton says...
9:52pm Sat 10 Oct 09

It is such a shame that he has to resort to this to try to see his son. Some women just use kids as weapons for money and self satisfaction. He would have such a better life with his Dad. Whatever happens at least he will see that his Dad has fought tooth and nail for him.

It is such a shame that he has to resort to this to try to see his son. Some women just use kids as weapons for money and self satisfaction. He would have such a better life with his Dad. Whatever happens at least he will see that his Dad has fought tooth and nail for him.

Quote » | Report this post »

flower49, Holbury says...
9:54pm Sat 10 Oct 09

I bet you could have filled that bridge 10,000 times over with all the women who were owed child support from the CSA. How many dads do not pay any money to their ex wives to help with the bringing up of their offspring? Not saying that these men do not pay towards their children but, I do not suppose there would be many women dressing up as Superman or Batman to make a point. We just carry on working and carry on bringing up the kids.

I bet you could have filled that bridge 10,000 times over with all the women who were owed child support from the CSA. How many dads do not pay any money to their ex wives to help with the bringing up of their offspring? Not saying that these men do not pay towards their children but, I do not suppose there would be many women dressing up as Superman or Batman to make a point. We just carry on working and carry on bringing up the kids.

Quote » | Report this post »

Helenlou, Southampton says...
10:04pm Sat 10 Oct 09

flower49 - you have completely missed the point. These Dads pay maintenance and are fighting to see their children who they love very much. Mums get the automatic right to access to their children no matter who pays for it. Its not a question of money its a question of access.

flower49 - you have completely missed the point. These Dads pay maintenance and are fighting to see their children who they love very much. Mums get the automatic right to access to their children no matter who pays for it. Its not a question of money its a question of access.

Quote » | Report this post »

soton1980, Southampton/Fareham says...
11:47pm Sat 10 Oct 09

Fair play to these guys! I find it unbelieveable that in the 21st century when men and woman are supposed to have equal rights that father's rights are less than the mother's!

Fair play to these guys! I find it unbelieveable that in the 21st century when men and woman are supposed to have equal rights that father's rights are less than the mother's!

Quote » | Report this post »

smithy31, plymouth says...
8:13am Sun 11 Oct 09

Mike Murphy wrote:
It should say "It couldn't have..."

well done to the lads we need to show them that us as fathers are no differant from there mother ive got 3 kids which ive not seen since may 09 due to family law fathers are for life not just on saturdays i support this group all the way such a shame i never made it nigel from plymouth

[quote][p][bold]Mike Murphy[/bold] wrote: It should say "It couldn't have..."[/p][/quote]well done to the lads we need to show them that us as fathers are no differant from there mother ive got 3 kids which ive not seen since may 09 due to family law fathers are for life not just on saturdays i support this group all the way such a shame i never made it nigel from plymouth

Quote » | Report this post »

rabbitlady, Totton says...
11:29am Sun 11 Oct 09

What about the dads who are violent to their partners in front of their kids, carry on affairs with other women, dont pay maintenance and still want to see their kids? my child at 5 yrs old told the court 'I dont want to see my dad'

What about the dads who are violent to their partners in front of their kids, carry on affairs with other women, dont pay maintenance and still want to see their kids? my child at 5 yrs old told the court 'I dont want to see my dad'

Quote » | Report this post »

Condor Man, Southampton says...
12:09pm Sun 11 Oct 09

rabbitlady wrote:
What about the dads who are violent to their partners in front of their kids, carry on affairs with other women, dont pay maintenance and still want to see their kids? my child at 5 yrs old told the court 'I dont want to see my dad'

what about the dad who doesn't earn enough money to keep his wife so she goes off with a bloke who earns more yet still screws the father for child support in addition to getting all the benefits? we've been dominated by women on this issue for too long.

[quote][p][bold]rabbitlady[/bold] wrote: What about the dads who are violent to their partners in front of their kids, carry on affairs with other women, dont pay maintenance and still want to see their kids? my child at 5 yrs old told the court 'I dont want to see my dad'[/p][/quote]what about the dad who doesn't earn enough money to keep his wife so she goes off with a bloke who earns more yet still screws the father for child support in addition to getting all the benefits? we've been dominated by women on this issue for too long.

Quote » | Report this post »

TheJoiners, harefield says...
12:29pm Sun 11 Oct 09

Condor Man wrote:

rabbitlady wrote: What about the dads who are violent to their partners in front of their kids, carry on affairs with other women, dont pay maintenance and still want to see their kids? my child at 5 yrs old told the court 'I dont want to see my dad'

what about the dad who doesn't earn enough money to keep his wife so she goes off with a bloke who earns more yet still screws the father for child support in addition to getting all the benefits? we've been dominated by women on this issue for too long.

Its not about screwing the dads. You have kids you pay for them, simple as. If you dont earn enough to support them, dont have them

[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rabbitlady[/bold] wrote: What about the dads who are violent to their partners in front of their kids, carry on affairs with other women, dont pay maintenance and still want to see their kids? my child at 5 yrs old told the court 'I dont want to see my dad'[/p][/quote]what about the dad who doesn't earn enough money to keep his wife so she goes off with a bloke who earns more yet still screws the father for child support in addition to getting all the benefits? we've been dominated by women on this issue for too long.[/p][/quote]Its not about screwing the dads. You have kids you pay for them, simple as. If you dont earn enough to support them, dont have them

Quote » | Report this post »

smithy31, plymouth says...
12:58pm Sun 11 Oct 09

as for the comment with the 5 year old the courts will not listen to a child of that age they need to be 11 before even a thought of what the child wants so i dont no what **** that came out of i have 3 kids 10,8,3 and the courts dont listen to them a father is got as much right as there mother no matter what has happened in the past its all the future that counts nigel plymouth plymouth family butchers is the law courts

as for the comment with the 5 year old the courts will not listen to a child of that age they need to be 11 before even a thought of what the child wants so i dont no what **** that came out of i have 3 kids 10,8,3 and the courts dont listen to them a father is got as much right as there mother no matter what has happened in the past its all the future that counts nigel plymouth plymouth family butchers is the law courts

Quote » | Report this post »

Saintly Sinner, Southampton says...
1:05pm Sun 11 Oct 09

My ex owes me money through the CSA.

I now my pay child maintenance to my ex through the CSA, whilst still being owed money from my ex.

Guess what flower49

I am a man, who bought up his child alone until my child choose to live with his mother.

Yes, mothers can be just as bad, if not worse

My ex owes me money through the CSA. I now my pay child maintenance to my ex through the CSA, whilst still being owed money from my ex. Guess what flower49 I am a man, who bought up his child alone until my child choose to live with his mother. Yes, mothers can be just as bad, if not worse

Quote » | Report this post »

Condor Man, Southampton says...
1:58pm Sun 11 Oct 09

Saintly Sinner wrote:
My ex owes me money through the CSA. I now my pay child maintenance to my ex through the CSA, whilst still being owed money from my ex. Guess what flower49 I am a man, who bought up his child alone until my child choose to live with his mother. Yes, mothers can be just as bad, if not worse

just try telling Harriet Hatemen that.

[quote][p][bold]Saintly Sinner[/bold] wrote: My ex owes me money through the CSA. I now my pay child maintenance to my ex through the CSA, whilst still being owed money from my ex. Guess what flower49 I am a man, who bought up his child alone until my child choose to live with his mother. Yes, mothers can be just as bad, if not worse [/p][/quote]just try telling Harriet Hatemen that.

Quote » | Report this post »

nononsense2009, southampton says...
2:16pm Sun 11 Oct 09

I am of the belief that fathers should see their children, however its all so easy to blame the mother for cutting access. I am a mum who has been here done this and believe me its not easy. We have to think about our children and when dad comes when he feels like it, puts other things first on access days, is in and out of your childs life and you have a distraught child who crys when dad doesnt show and then 6 months later has several organisations asking the child to draw how they feel because dad has decided he wants contact again and taken it back to court and then child crying because they dont want to see dad anymore what are we meant to do. You have to do what is right for your child. So yes there are some fathers who dont get to see their children because mum has decided it to be this way but not all mums do it to be vindictive, we are just protecting our babies from future let down and sitting at the front door bag in hand coat on for their father to not show again for the third weekend in a row......only to find ourselves back in court being blamed for cutting access several weeks later.

I am of the belief that fathers should see their children, however its all so easy to blame the mother for cutting access. I am a mum who has been here done this and believe me its not easy. We have to think about our children and when dad comes when he feels like it, puts other things first on access days, is in and out of your childs life and you have a distraught child who crys when dad doesnt show and then 6 months later has several organisations asking the child to draw how they feel because dad has decided he wants contact again and taken it back to court and then child crying because they dont want to see dad anymore what are we meant to do. You have to do what is right for your child. So yes there are some fathers who dont get to see their children because mum has decided it to be this way but not all mums do it to be vindictive, we are just protecting our babies from future let down and sitting at the front door bag in hand coat on for their father to not show again for the third weekend in a row......only to find ourselves back in court being blamed for cutting access several weeks later.

Quote » | Report this post »

nononsense2009, southampton says...
2:32pm Sun 11 Oct 09

smithy31 wrote:
as for the comment with the 5 year old the courts will not listen to a child of that age they need to be 11 before even a thought of what the child wants so i dont no what **** that came out of i have 3 kids 10,8,3 and the courts dont listen to them a father is got as much right as there mother no matter what has happened in the past its all the future that counts nigel plymouth plymouth family butchers is the law courts

i am a mum and i have been dragged thru the courts so many times. I understand what you are saying about a five year old not being able to have a say at court. However there are organisations trained specifiacally to help your child. One inparticular is NYAS they are a bit like a CAFCASS officer (im sure you all have one assigned to your case) however the NYAS officer is there to solely represent your child, in essence they are your childs voice!! The courts value these officers evaluations and the work they do with the children. They are trained to work with all ages and get to the bottom of things. However if you choose to ask for their help you may not always like the outcome, if your children tell the officer that they dont want to see you this is the case they will put to the courts. However if you are sure that your children do want you to be part of thier life then they may just be able to help you and it may be worth asking about them!!! I suppose you really have nothing to loose :) The only thing i will always say is great fight for your children but never ever blame the mother, children are very very protective especailly as they get older. The fact that they now live with mum will usually mean that it is her they will protect and sometimes this means that they will see you putting her thru unpleasant things and alot of stress and they may decide that you are the bad person in it all and choose not to see you!!!! Remember no matter how you feel about your babies mothers they ARE raising your children and most of them are doing a blooming good job!!

[quote][p][bold]smithy31[/bold] wrote: as for the comment with the 5 year old the courts will not listen to a child of that age they need to be 11 before even a thought of what the child wants so i dont no what **** that came out of i have 3 kids 10,8,3 and the courts dont listen to them a father is got as much right as there mother no matter what has happened in the past its all the future that counts nigel plymouth plymouth family butchers is the law courts [/p][/quote]i am a mum and i have been dragged thru the courts so many times. I understand what you are saying about a five year old not being able to have a say at court. However there are organisations trained specifiacally to help your child. One inparticular is NYAS they are a bit like a CAFCASS officer (im sure you all have one assigned to your case) however the NYAS officer is there to solely represent your child, in essence they are your childs voice!! The courts value these officers evaluations and the work they do with the children. They are trained to work with all ages and get to the bottom of things. However if you choose to ask for their help you may not always like the outcome, if your children tell the officer that they dont want to see you this is the case they will put to the courts. However if you are sure that your children do want you to be part of thier life then they may just be able to help you and it may be worth asking about them!!! I suppose you really have nothing to loose :) The only thing i will always say is great fight for your children but never ever blame the mother, children are very very protective especailly as they get older. The fact that they now live with mum will usually mean that it is her they will protect and sometimes this means that they will see you putting her thru unpleasant things and alot of stress and they may decide that you are the bad person in it all and choose not to see you!!!! Remember no matter how you feel about your babies mothers they ARE raising your children and most of them are doing a blooming good job!!

Quote » | Report this post »

Saintly Sinner, Southampton says...
3:19pm Sun 11 Oct 09

Condor Man wrote:

Saintly Sinner wrote:
My ex owes me money through the CSA. I now my pay child maintenance to my ex through the CSA, whilst still being owed money from my ex. Guess what flower49 I am a man, who bought up his child alone until my child choose to live with his mother. Yes, mothers can be just as bad, if not worse

just try telling Harriet Hatemen that.

I think I would be *issing into the wind, the same as I'm doing with the CSA, when I asked them to reduce my payments until the debt I'm owed by my ex was cleared

[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saintly Sinner[/bold] wrote: My ex owes me money through the CSA. I now my pay child maintenance to my ex through the CSA, whilst still being owed money from my ex. Guess what flower49 I am a man, who bought up his child alone until my child choose to live with his mother. Yes, mothers can be just as bad, if not worse [/p][/quote]just try telling Harriet Hatemen that.[/p][/quote]I think I would be *issing into the wind, the same as I'm doing with the CSA, when I asked them to reduce my payments until the debt I'm owed by my ex was cleared

Quote » | Report this post »

Saintly Sinner, Southampton says...
3:24pm Sun 11 Oct 09

nononsense2009 wrote:
I am of the belief that fathers should see their children, however its all so easy to blame the mother for cutting access. I am a mum who has been here done this and believe me its not easy. We have to think about our children and when dad comes when he feels like it, puts other things first on access days, is in and out of your childs life and you have a distraught child who crys when dad doesnt show and then 6 months later has several organisations asking the child to draw how they feel because dad has decided he wants contact again and taken it back to court and then child crying because they dont want to see dad anymore what are we meant to do. You have to do what is right for your child. So yes there are some fathers who dont get to see their children because mum has decided it to be this way but not all mums do it to be vindictive, we are just protecting our babies from future let down and sitting at the front door bag in hand coat on for their father to not show again for the third weekend in a row......only to find ourselves back in court being blamed for cutting access several weeks later.

And I suppose mother's don't do that when father's have custody, because the mother walked away from the child?

Useless parents are useless parents whether male or female, it's not all men..

[quote][p][bold]nononsense2009[/bold] wrote: I am of the belief that fathers should see their children, however its all so easy to blame the mother for cutting access. I am a mum who has been here done this and believe me its not easy. We have to think about our children and when dad comes when he feels like it, puts other things first on access days, is in and out of your childs life and you have a distraught child who crys when dad doesnt show and then 6 months later has several organisations asking the child to draw how they feel because dad has decided he wants contact again and taken it back to court and then child crying because they dont want to see dad anymore what are we meant to do. You have to do what is right for your child. So yes there are some fathers who dont get to see their children because mum has decided it to be this way but not all mums do it to be vindictive, we are just protecting our babies from future let down and sitting at the front door bag in hand coat on for their father to not show again for the third weekend in a row......only to find ourselves back in court being blamed for cutting access several weeks later.[/p][/quote]And I suppose mother's don't do that when father's have custody, because the mother walked away from the child? Useless parents are useless parents whether male or female, it's not all men..

Quote » | Report this post »

Mike Murphy, Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Canada says...
3:56pm today Sun 11 Oct 09

As often happens in these discussions the focus for equality disappears from view and we get caught up in the minutiae of personal tragedies.

The issue is mums get custody in most cases and dads are marginalized as visitors and then often not at all if mum says so. All the power and control is in the hands of a single gender. Mum and dad were presumable equal during the partnership - now they are not. If we have a presumption of equality then each case can proceed on the basis of its own merits and available time. If both parents are fit what is the problem? If one parent can't do 50-50 then they work out whats best for them but at least the judges have to go on the basis of equality not in the one sided winner take all approach. All that is doing is increasing conflict - not decreasing it. The children, unless they have been alienated or abused want both parents in their lives. Its about them!

As often happens in these discussions the focus for equality disappears from view and we get caught up in the minutiae of personal tragedies. The issue is mums get custody in most cases and dads are marginalized as visitors and then often not at all if mum says so. All the power and control is in the hands of a single gender. Mum and dad were presumable equal during the partnership - now they are not. If we have a presumption of equality then each case can proceed on the basis of its own merits and available time. If both parents are fit what is the problem? If one parent can't do 50-50 then they work out whats best for them but at least the judges have to go on the basis of equality not in the one sided winner take all approach. All that is doing is increasing conflict - not decreasing it. The children, unless they have been alienated or abused want both parents in their lives. Its about them!

Quote » | Report this post »

rabbitlady, Totton says...
11:56pm Sun 11 Oct 09

smith31 i can assure you that my child at 5 years old made the decision for no further contact with dad. A CAFCASS Officer came to my property on two separate occasions to speak to my child (with me out of the room). He then wrote a report for the Court recommending no direct contact. My child was actually frightened of dad because of his violent temper. So please be informed that Court will take the opinions of a 5 year old into consideration!

smith31 i can assure you that my child at 5 years old made the decision for no further contact with dad. A CAFCASS Officer came to my property on two separate occasions to speak to my child (with me out of the room). He then wrote a report for the Court recommending no direct contact. My child was actually frightened of dad because of his violent temper. So please be informed that Court will take the opinions of a 5 year old into consideration!

Quote » | Report this post »

lee-nf4j, eastleigh says...
7:41am Mon 12 Oct 09

This was all for my son vinnie moorman . I miss and love him so much xmas soon hope i will see him
i will keep FIGHTING there are lot of good dad out there !!!

What we want
1 - Equal Contact
an automatic presumption of equal contact with the children when the parents split as a starting point. This will give both parents equal parity of rights to see the children.
2 - Open Courts
To be brought into line with the crown and magistrates courts. This will prevent corruption, biasness.
www.newfathers4justi
ce.info

This was all for my son vinnie moorman . I miss and love him so much xmas soon hope i will see him i will keep FIGHTING there are lot of good dad out there !!! What we want 1 - Equal Contact an automatic presumption of equal contact with the children when the parents split as a starting point. This will give both parents equal parity of rights to see the children. 2 - Open Courts To be brought into line with the crown and magistrates courts. This will prevent corruption, biasness. www.newfathers4justi ce.info

Quote » | Report this post »

rabbitlady, Totton says...
8:01am Mon 12 Oct 09

Lee, I don't know the circumstances of your split but the child's wishes have to be taken into account when contact decisions are made. It is not in the child's best interests to be force to have contact if it is not what they want. My ex partner played no part in her young life whatsoever, he never put her to bed, instead preferring to stay out all night with various women, he never took her to school, went to assemblies etc. Whilst only being young, children do take in what they see and therefore the Court have an obligation to take their feelings into account. I wish you good luck with your campaign but we must realise that every case has to be judged on its merits and at the end of the day the children have to come first. Good Luck.

Lee, I don't know the circumstances of your split but the child's wishes have to be taken into account when contact decisions are made. It is not in the child's best interests to be force to have contact if it is not what they want. My ex partner played no part in her young life whatsoever, he never put her to bed, instead preferring to stay out all night with various women, he never took her to school, went to assemblies etc. Whilst only being young, children do take in what they see and therefore the Court have an obligation to take their feelings into account. I wish you good luck with your campaign but we must realise that every case has to be judged on its merits and at the end of the day the children have to come first. Good Luck.

Quote » | Report this post »

newfathers4justice ( sussex ), sussex says...
9:02am Mon 12 Oct 09

i sense some feminist twats ...

im not here to argue the toss

*so dont bother to reply to this

ill point it out simply .....

the courts DO NOT act in the childs best interest, nor do they enforce the law,
as mike said most residency is with the mother,
cafcass lie and twist things that are said, which is why most from a recent ofsted report across the uk deemed practically every single branch INADEQUATE !,

the simple point here is that if there is no "real" reason for stopping contact then decent loving child/father contact should be 50/50
( i exclude false allegations, which does happen and is sick! of another party to do this to stop contact )

all of us in this organisation pay for our children
this is not about money, and the people that bleat on about csa money make me sick to the core !
kids and cash are a seperate issue, mothers get paid by the government for kids to look after them regardless of the csa you need to realise this !
now stop being heartless feeble money grabbing leeches, and using a child of a way of gaining money, and let the decent loving father that has done no wrong ! see his children !


there are hundreds of loving dads out there that want to see there kids and have been stopped for absoloutely no reason ! be it mothers, cafcass corruption, or failing courts

we want 50/50 contact now !

some commentators on here should really not comment on something they clearly know nothing about.

The men that died during the war fought for there families only to have there rights taken away from them in the present!

THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN SUFFER AS A RESULT OF ONE PARENT, (USUALLY THE FATHER) BEING CUT OUT OF THEIR LIVES WITHOUT LAWFUL REASON.
THE REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM A FIT AND LOVING PARENT IS NOTHING LESS THAN CHILD ABUSE.


"Destroy the family, and you destroy society"

until next time .....

i sense some feminist twats ... im not here to argue the toss *so dont bother to reply to this ill point it out simply ..... the courts DO NOT act in the childs best interest, nor do they enforce the law, as mike said most residency is with the mother, cafcass lie and twist things that are said, which is why most from a recent ofsted report across the uk deemed practically every single branch INADEQUATE !, the simple point here is that if there is no "real" reason for stopping contact then decent loving child/father contact should be 50/50 ( i exclude false allegations, which does happen and is sick! of another party to do this to stop contact ) all of us in this organisation pay for our children this is not about money, and the people that bleat on about csa money make me sick to the core ! kids and cash are a seperate issue, mothers get paid by the government for kids to look after them regardless of the csa you need to realise this ! now stop being heartless feeble money grabbing leeches, and using a child of a way of gaining money, and let the decent loving father that has done no wrong ! see his children ! there are hundreds of loving dads out there that want to see there kids and have been stopped for absoloutely no reason ! be it mothers, cafcass corruption, or failing courts we want 50/50 contact now ! some commentators on here should really not comment on something they clearly know nothing about. The men that died during the war fought for there families only to have there rights taken away from them in the present! THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN SUFFER AS A RESULT OF ONE PARENT, (USUALLY THE FATHER) BEING CUT OUT OF THEIR LIVES WITHOUT LAWFUL REASON. THE REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM A FIT AND LOVING PARENT IS NOTHING LESS THAN CHILD ABUSE. "Destroy the family, and you destroy society" until next time .....

Quote » | Report this post »

newfathers4justice ( sussex ), sussex says...
9:25am Mon 12 Oct 09

Any dads caught up in this plight, contact us and we can help you fight the system.

WE WANT:

1.AN AUTOMATIC PRESUMPTION OF 50/50 CONTACT AS A STARTING POINT WHEN THE PARENTS SPLIT.

2. OPEN COURTS

NEW F4J
www.newfathers4justi
ce.info

Any dads caught up in this plight, contact us and we can help you fight the system. WE WANT: 1.AN AUTOMATIC PRESUMPTION OF 50/50 CONTACT AS A STARTING POINT WHEN THE PARENTS SPLIT. 2. OPEN COURTS NEW F4J www.newfathers4justi ce.info

Quote » | Report this post »

gillyman, southampton says...
9:39am Mon 12 Oct 09

women on here are missing the point banging on about csa payments
the fathers for justice are usually men who pay maintenance and have no access to there kids because there is no support for dads from the british courts

women on here are missing the point banging on about csa payments the fathers for justice are usually men who pay maintenance and have no access to there kids because there is no support for dads from the british courts

Quote » | Report this post »

steven gately, portsmouth says...
11:31am Mon 12 Oct 09

spiteful- evil- child abusing- phyco- bich mothers that use children as weapons an to gain cash
should be locked up permanantly
and let the father look after thier kid coz there obviously not fit too

my ex is a phyco and they let nut jobs like that look after my kid ?

gordon brown
get a grip you scotts muppet fraggle numopty !!!

mc, ste rip

spiteful- evil- child abusing- phyco- bich mothers that use children as weapons an to gain cash should be locked up permanantly and let the father look after thier kid coz there obviously not fit too my ex is a phyco and they let nut jobs like that look after my kid ? gordon brown get a grip you scotts muppet fraggle numopty !!! mc, ste rip

Quote » | Report this post »

soton-mike80, Southampton says...
11:38am Mon 12 Oct 09

gillyman wrote:
women on here are missing the point banging on about csa payments the fathers for justice are usually men who pay maintenance and have no access to there kids because there is no support for dads from the british courts

Spot-on... I have friends in this situation, they are upstanding members of the community, they want to contribute to the lives of their children, they've never missed a single birthday, christmas or any holiday, but the British Courts do not recognise that fathers can have a more positive influence on their children.

Those parents that use children as pawns and weapons are not fit for purpose (it happens in both genders). This is not a man VS woman thing, it is quite simply a matter of equality.

My heart goes out to all those women that do have no-good partners, as with the men, but please do not tarnish all men with the same brush. Some of us are more decent than you would ever know! And ladies, if you keep preaching that all men are bad - you'll start to believe it and be alone for the rest of your lives!

Good luck F4J! I love your style!

[quote][p][bold]gillyman[/bold] wrote: women on here are missing the point banging on about csa payments the fathers for justice are usually men who pay maintenance and have no access to there kids because there is no support for dads from the british courts[/p][/quote]Spot-on... I have friends in this situation, they are upstanding members of the community, they want to contribute to the lives of their children, they've never missed a single birthday, christmas or any holiday, but the British Courts do not recognise that fathers can have a more positive influence on their children. Those parents that use children as pawns and weapons are not fit for purpose (it happens in both genders). This is not a man VS woman thing, it is quite simply a matter of equality. My heart goes out to all those women that do have no-good partners, as with the men, but please do not tarnish all men with the same brush. Some of us are more decent than you would ever know! And ladies, if you keep preaching that all men are bad - you'll start to believe it and be alone for the rest of your lives! Good luck F4J! I love your style!

Quote » | Report this post »

newfathers4justice ( sussex ), sussex says...
11:50am Mon 12 Oct 09

please watch our video

copy & paste this link:

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=ExiGRl5x5
6w

our site:
http://www.newfather
s4justice.info/

please watch our video copy & paste this link: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=ExiGRl5x5 6w our site: http://www.newfather s4justice.info/

Quote » | Report this post »

freemantlegirl2, Southampton says...
11:52am Mon 12 Oct 09

steven gately wrote:
spiteful- evil- child abusing- phyco- bich mothers that use children as weapons an to gain cash
should be locked up permanantly
and let the father look after thier kid coz there obviously not fit too

my ex is a phyco and they let nut jobs like that look after my kid ?

gordon brown
get a grip you scotts muppet fraggle numopty !!!

mc, ste rip

mmm and that post is really sane and balanced isn't it! lol

[quote][p][bold]steven gately[/bold] wrote: spiteful- evil- child abusing- phyco- bich mothers that use children as weapons an to gain cash should be locked up permanantly and let the father look after thier kid coz there obviously not fit too my ex is a phyco and they let nut jobs like that look after my kid ? gordon brown get a grip you scotts muppet fraggle numopty !!! mc, ste rip[/p][/quote]mmm and that post is really sane and balanced isn't it! lol

Quote » | Report this post »

freemantlegirl2, Southampton says...
11:58am Mon 12 Oct 09

newfathers4justice ( sussex ) wrote:
i sense some feminist twats ...

im not here to argue the toss

*so dont bother to reply to this

ill point it out simply .....

the courts DO NOT act in the childs best interest, nor do they enforce the law,
as mike said most residency is with the mother,
cafcass lie and twist things that are said, which is why most from a recent ofsted report across the uk deemed practically every single branch INADEQUATE !,

the simple point here is that if there is no "real" reason for stopping contact then decent loving child/father contact should be 50/50
( i exclude false allegations, which does happen and is sick! of another party to do this to stop contact )

all of us in this organisation pay for our children
this is not about money, and the people that bleat on about csa money make me sick to the core !
kids and cash are a seperate issue, mothers get paid by the government for kids to look after them regardless of the csa you need to realise this !
now stop being heartless feeble money grabbing leeches, and using a child of a way of gaining money, and let the decent loving father that has done no wrong ! see his children !


there are hundreds of loving dads out there that want to see there kids and have been stopped for absoloutely no reason ! be it mothers, cafcass corruption, or failing courts

we want 50/50 contact now !

some commentators on here should really not comment on something they clearly know nothing about.

The men that died during the war fought for there families only to have there rights taken away from them in the present!

THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN SUFFER AS A RESULT OF ONE PARENT, (USUALLY THE FATHER) BEING CUT OUT OF THEIR LIVES WITHOUT LAWFUL REASON.
THE REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM A FIT AND LOVING PARENT IS NOTHING LESS THAN CHILD ABUSE.


"Destroy the family, and you destroy society"

until next time .....

mmm and that post is really sane and balanced isn't it! lol

[quote][p][bold]newfathers4justice ( sussex )[/bold] wrote: i sense some feminist twats ... im not here to argue the toss *so dont bother to reply to this ill point it out simply ..... the courts DO NOT act in the childs best interest, nor do they enforce the law, as mike said most residency is with the mother, cafcass lie and twist things that are said, which is why most from a recent ofsted report across the uk deemed practically every single branch INADEQUATE !, the simple point here is that if there is no "real" reason for stopping contact then decent loving child/father contact should be 50/50 ( i exclude false allegations, which does happen and is sick! of another party to do this to stop contact ) all of us in this organisation pay for our children this is not about money, and the people that bleat on about csa money make me sick to the core ! kids and cash are a seperate issue, mothers get paid by the government for kids to look after them regardless of the csa you need to realise this ! now stop being heartless feeble money grabbing leeches, and using a child of a way of gaining money, and let the decent loving father that has done no wrong ! see his children ! there are hundreds of loving dads out there that want to see there kids and have been stopped for absoloutely no reason ! be it mothers, cafcass corruption, or failing courts we want 50/50 contact now ! some commentators on here should really not comment on something they clearly know nothing about. The men that died during the war fought for there families only to have there rights taken away from them in the present! THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN SUFFER AS A RESULT OF ONE PARENT, (USUALLY THE FATHER) BEING CUT OUT OF THEIR LIVES WITHOUT LAWFUL REASON. THE REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM A FIT AND LOVING PARENT IS NOTHING LESS THAN CHILD ABUSE. "Destroy the family, and you destroy society" until next time ..... [/p][/quote]mmm and that post is really sane and balanced isn't it! lol

Quote » | Report this post »

freemantlegirl2, Southampton says...
12:15pm Mon 12 Oct 09

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

newfathers4justice ( sussex ) wrote:
i sense some feminist twats ...

im not here to argue the toss

*so dont bother to reply to this

ill point it out simply .....

the courts DO NOT act in the childs best interest, nor do they enforce the law,
as mike said most residency is with the mother,
cafcass lie and twist things that are said, which is why most from a recent ofsted report across the uk deemed practically every single branch INADEQUATE !,

the simple point here is that if there is no "real" reason for stopping contact then decent loving child/father contact should be 50/50
( i exclude false allegations, which does happen and is sick! of another party to do this to stop contact )

all of us in this organisation pay for our children
this is not about money, and the people that bleat on about csa money make me sick to the core !
kids and cash are a seperate issue, mothers get paid by the government for kids to look after them regardless of the csa you need to realise this !
now stop being heartless feeble money grabbing leeches, and using a child of a way of gaining money, and let the decent loving father that has done no wrong ! see his children !


there are hundreds of loving dads out there that want to see there kids and have been stopped for absoloutely no reason ! be it mothers, cafcass corruption, or failing courts

we want 50/50 contact now !

some commentators on here should really not comment on something they clearly know nothing about.

The men that died during the war fought for there families only to have there rights taken away from them in the present!

THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN SUFFER AS A RESULT OF ONE PARENT, (USUALLY THE FATHER) BEING CUT OUT OF THEIR LIVES WITHOUT LAWFUL REASON.
THE REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM A FIT AND LOVING PARENT IS NOTHING LESS THAN CHILD ABUSE.


"Destroy the family, and you destroy society"

until next time .....

mmm and that post is really sane and balanced isn't it! lol

People are not going to listen to your argument if you accuse them of being feminist twats, and then demand that they don't reply! That's not equal either. It comes over as very aggressive. I am totally sympathetic to your plight but don't ruin it!

I agree, CSA payments/child maintenance is a separate issue.

The Children Act means that the child has priority but is, as you say, often misinterpreted.

No child should be forced to see a father (or mother or other relatives if they really don't want to). The lady that said her 5 year old didn't want to see dad. My daughter also said that, but I did feel that it was because she was 'angry' with him at that time, it wasn't permanent. I sat down with dad and explained that and to be fair we both agreed that the door should be left open, and lo and behold a few months' later she changed her mind. They are now really close, and I am thankful because she is happy.

Shared access is hardly ever granted with very young children, as it's confusing for them to be flitting about from house-to-house. Children need both parents, but they also need stability. Due to schooling for example, it often isn't possible to have totally equal shared access. Shared access isn't always in the best interests of the child, EVERY parent male or female should put their child's welfare and happiness first. I'm on the side of my children, not me or my ex - that is irrelevant. It's about how we proceed as parents. Sadly, couples cannot often come to agreement and that's where the Courts have to step in and then it gets nasty because one person never agrees, and therein lies the crux of the matter. When a family breaks up it is near-on impossible to keep this totally equal because of the logistics of the situation - some manage it with a lot of compromise. It is often difficult to negotiate the way through child contact because the emotions and fall out from a bad break up is bound to affect things, however you may try not to let it.

I would like to comment on your comment about men fighting in the war, that many women were left one-parent families during the war and contributed hugely to the war effort. The dynamics of society have changed for the better, even though perhaps the father still has to obtain more consideration in the Court. My sister is a family solicitor and she acts for a lot of fathers and even she says this but she says that both sets of parents usually lose sight of the most important thing because they're arguing and that is the child.

[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]newfathers4justice ( sussex )[/bold] wrote: i sense some feminist twats ... im not here to argue the toss *so dont bother to reply to this ill point it out simply ..... the courts DO NOT act in the childs best interest, nor do they enforce the law, as mike said most residency is with the mother, cafcass lie and twist things that are said, which is why most from a recent ofsted report across the uk deemed practically every single branch INADEQUATE !, the simple point here is that if there is no "real" reason for stopping contact then decent loving child/father contact should be 50/50 ( i exclude false allegations, which does happen and is sick! of another party to do this to stop contact ) all of us in this organisation pay for our children this is not about money, and the people that bleat on about csa money make me sick to the core ! kids and cash are a seperate issue, mothers get paid by the government for kids to look after them regardless of the csa you need to realise this ! now stop being heartless feeble money grabbing leeches, and using a child of a way of gaining money, and let the decent loving father that has done no wrong ! see his children ! there are hundreds of loving dads out there that want to see there kids and have been stopped for absoloutely no reason ! be it mothers, cafcass corruption, or failing courts we want 50/50 contact now ! some commentators on here should really not comment on something they clearly know nothing about. The men that died during the war fought for there families only to have there rights taken away from them in the present! THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN SUFFER AS A RESULT OF ONE PARENT, (USUALLY THE FATHER) BEING CUT OUT OF THEIR LIVES WITHOUT LAWFUL REASON. THE REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM A FIT AND LOVING PARENT IS NOTHING LESS THAN CHILD ABUSE. "Destroy the family, and you destroy society" until next time ..... [/p][/quote]mmm and that post is really sane and balanced isn't it! lol[/p][/quote]People are not going to listen to your argument if you accuse them of being feminist twats, and then demand that they don't reply! That's not equal either. It comes over as very aggressive. I am totally sympathetic to your plight but don't ruin it! I agree, CSA payments/child maintenance is a separate issue. The Children Act means that the child has priority but is, as you say, often misinterpreted. No child should be forced to see a father (or mother or other relatives if they really don't want to). The lady that said her 5 year old didn't want to see dad. My daughter also said that, but I did feel that it was because she was 'angry' with him at that time, it wasn't permanent. I sat down with dad and explained that and to be fair we both agreed that the door should be left open, and lo and behold a few months' later she changed her mind. They are now really close, and I am thankful because she is happy. Shared access is hardly ever granted with very young children, as it's confusing for them to be flitting about from house-to-house. Children need both parents, but they also need stability. Due to schooling for example, it often isn't possible to have totally equal shared access. Shared access isn't always in the best interests of the child, EVERY parent male or female should put their child's welfare and happiness first. I'm on the side of my children, not me or my ex - that is irrelevant. It's about how we proceed as parents. Sadly, couples cannot often come to agreement and that's where the Courts have to step in and then it gets nasty because one person never agrees, and therein lies the crux of the matter. When a family breaks up it is near-on impossible to keep this totally equal because of the logistics of the situation - some manage it with a lot of compromise. It is often difficult to negotiate the way through child contact because the emotions and fall out from a bad break up is bound to affect things, however you may try not to let it. I would like to comment on your comment about men fighting in the war, that many women were left one-parent families during the war and contributed hugely to the war effort. The dynamics of society have changed for the better, even though perhaps the father still has to obtain more consideration in the Court. My sister is a family solicitor and she acts for a lot of fathers and even she says this but she says that both sets of parents usually lose sight of the most important thing because they're arguing and that is the child.

Quote » | Report this post »

freemantlegirl2, Southampton says...
12:17pm Mon 12 Oct 09

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

newfathers4justice ( sussex ) wrote:
i sense some feminist twats ...

im not here to argue the toss

*so dont bother to reply to this

ill point it out simply .....

the courts DO NOT act in the childs best interest, nor do they enforce the law,
as mike said most residency is with the mother,
cafcass lie and twist things that are said, which is why most from a recent ofsted report across the uk deemed practically every single branch INADEQUATE !,

the simple point here is that if there is no "real" reason for stopping contact then decent loving child/father contact should be 50/50
( i exclude false allegations, which does happen and is sick! of another party to do this to stop contact )

all of us in this organisation pay for our children
this is not about money, and the people that bleat on about csa money make me sick to the core !
kids and cash are a seperate issue, mothers get paid by the government for kids to look after them regardless of the csa you need to realise this !
now stop being heartless feeble money grabbing leeches, and using a child of a way of gaining money, and let the decent loving father that has done no wrong ! see his children !


there are hundreds of loving dads out there that want to see there kids and have been stopped for absoloutely no reason ! be it mothers, cafcass corruption, or failing courts

we want 50/50 contact now !

some commentators on here should really not comment on something they clearly know nothing about.

The men that died during the war fought for there families only to have there rights taken away from them in the present!

THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN SUFFER AS A RESULT OF ONE PARENT, (USUALLY THE FATHER) BEING CUT OUT OF THEIR LIVES WITHOUT LAWFUL REASON.
THE REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM A FIT AND LOVING PARENT IS NOTHING LESS THAN CHILD ABUSE.


"Destroy the family, and you destroy society"

until next time .....

mmm and that post is really sane and balanced isn't it! lol

Sorry that comment got 'carried over' from a last post. Wasn't meant for you.

[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]newfathers4justice ( sussex )[/bold] wrote: i sense some feminist twats ... im not here to argue the toss *so dont bother to reply to this ill point it out simply ..... the courts DO NOT act in the childs best interest, nor do they enforce the law, as mike said most residency is with the mother, cafcass lie and twist things that are said, which is why most from a recent ofsted report across the uk deemed practically every single branch INADEQUATE !, the simple point here is that if there is no "real" reason for stopping contact then decent loving child/father contact should be 50/50 ( i exclude false allegations, which does happen and is sick! of another party to do this to stop contact ) all of us in this organisation pay for our children this is not about money, and the people that bleat on about csa money make me sick to the core ! kids and cash are a seperate issue, mothers get paid by the government for kids to look after them regardless of the csa you need to realise this ! now stop being heartless feeble money grabbing leeches, and using a child of a way of gaining money, and let the decent loving father that has done no wrong ! see his children ! there are hundreds of loving dads out there that want to see there kids and have been stopped for absoloutely no reason ! be it mothers, cafcass corruption, or failing courts we want 50/50 contact now ! some commentators on here should really not comment on something they clearly know nothing about. The men that died during the war fought for there families only to have there rights taken away from them in the present! THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN SUFFER AS A RESULT OF ONE PARENT, (USUALLY THE FATHER) BEING CUT OUT OF THEIR LIVES WITHOUT LAWFUL REASON. THE REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM A FIT AND LOVING PARENT IS NOTHING LESS THAN CHILD ABUSE. "Destroy the family, and you destroy society" until next time ..... [/p][/quote]mmm and that post is really sane and balanced isn't it! lol[/p][/quote]Sorry that comment got 'carried over' from a last post. Wasn't meant for you.

Quote » | Report this post »

Mike Murphy, Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Canada says...
3:56pm today Mon 12 Oct 09

@freemantlegirl2, Southampton says...
12:17pm Mon 12 Oct 09 You seem to be a more reasoned mom and are able to see some of the bigger picture. I would suggest to anyone that a 5 year old is incapable of making a reasoned decision to lock out 50% of their genetic heritage. They will have been alienated in some manner or temporarily angered. Think about it - would you let your 5 year old go to the store by themselves, ride a bicycle through town by themselves, go around the block by themselves, smoke, drink alcohol, decide not to go to the doctor or school et al. Why would you think then this child can make a decision to reject a parent. It lacks logic and is a red herring. If a child rejects a parent there can't be many reasons. First look for a deliberate attempt to alienate - social workers are not qualified to determine if this has happened then look for abuse by the rejected parent. Even abused children seek the love of the abuser and do not out rightly reject the parent. Any one who states a 5 year old can make such a decision is very likely deliberately alienating the child and is the abuser.