Fathers for justice. Watch

Cattleman
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#1
Fathers for Justice? - Ignoring their methods, what do you think of the point they are trying to make? Is it valid?


Rough case study:

Mr and Mrs Smith are married with 2 children, living in a nice house in a leafy suburb that Mr Smith's salary has paid for. Mrs Smith one day decides she is bored in her marriage and decides to start sleeping around and suggests that they should get divorced.

The divorce court gives Mrs Smith custody of the two children, orders Mr Smith to continue paying 100% of the mortgage payments + child support (on top of the rent which he has to pay on newly aquired flat).

Is this right? Is the law too biased against men when it comes to divorce?

Discuss.
0
reply
museobsessed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 10 years ago
#2
Yes I think they are making a valid point, and its a shame that the stunts of a few people have made it disband
I have a friend at 23 whos the father of a 4 year old, and he was stopped by the courts from seeing his son for 9 whole months because the mother stopped him. Hes a brilliant and commited father and not seeing his son nearly killed him
0
reply
The Apprentice
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#3
Report 10 years ago
#3
(Original post by museobsessed)
Yes I think they are making a valid point, and its a shame that the stunts of a few people have made it disband
I have a friend at 23 whos the father of a 4 year old, and he was stopped by the courts from seeing his son for 9 whole months because the mother stopped him. Hes a brilliant and commited father and not seeing his son nearly killed him
clearly u didnt see the behind the scenes doucmentry on tv

they are mental no way
0
reply
museobsessed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 10 years ago
#4
OK, fair enough they're mental but the point they're trying to raise is valid
0
reply
FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 10 years ago
#5
The law is definitely biased in favour of the women, and CSA payments can be crippling, especially when the father moves out, can only afford a one-bedroom flat, leaving his ex-missus with the car, and house, not allowed to be a father to his kids because the bloke she's been having an affair with has assumed paternal duties (except to the extent of providing monetary help!) A family friend is in that situation, and I feel deeply for him. I do support them and wish them the best of luck.

However, even though the OP said 'methods aside' I will say it was a damn silly and almost fatal mistake to pull the buck house stunt. I'd have shot the bugger, personally.
0
reply
GemmyMonster
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 10 years ago
#6
Yes they do have a valid point.

In my opinion, that women chose to procreate with the man. Unless there's good cause (his being abusive, to the kids or else to the woman, to the point she can't be around him, for instance) then denying a father custody isn't right in my book. And the woman could just as easily move into a smaller house, especially when it's her who slept around.

Yes, the law is stupidly biased, apparently only women care about their kids in some people's eyes :rolleyes:
0
reply
The Apprentice
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7
Report 10 years ago
#7
yes the point they are 'trying' to make is valid but its jsut attention seeking

people mistake f4s and include every other dad who doesnt see their child to be aprt of the group where in fact its just a few mentalists
0
reply
ocelotrevs
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 10 years ago
#8
I believe that their point is valid. From what I've seen, and heard the law is biased towards women in children's cases. I thought this was historic, as the people who wrote the law were not too bothered about seeing this children.
My ex was talking about having a child with me, and said that if I upset her or anything she would stop me seeing the child.
For that reason, and the fact that I know there are bad mind people out there who ban their children from seeing their father.

Also, I know what it's like not having a father. I've made a vow that I would do whatever I can to ensure that I see my child.

edits in italics.
0
reply
Mousickle
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 10 years ago
#9
I wrote an mock up speach on this a while ago - for anyone who cares to know my opinions :P

"We have met here to address the great sexual inequalities still present in society today. Over the last 150 years woman have lectured, marched, petitioned and given their lives to work ever closer to equal rights for women, and yet that is not why we are here today.

In 2002, after a difficult divorce left him struggling to maintain contact with his children, Matt O’Conner founded a political action group called ‘Fathers 4 Justice’.
Fathers 4 justice stands to challenge the sexism within British family courts and help establish equal rights in cases of child custody and visiting rights.
We stand here today to further this cause.

In 2001, in argued cases of child custody, 71% of sole custody was awarded to the mother and 21% was awarded as joint custody. This means only 7% of all cases were awarded to the fathers. Surely more than 7% of fathers willing to fight for their children are fully able to care for them, so why is it we see this enormous gap between each gender in child custody cases? In a society where such high value is placed on equality why is it that we let our sexist stereotypes and assumptions shape our opinion of something as important as the best interests of a child?

The decision of which parent gains custody of a child is largely based on factors considered as the child’s best interests. Although this may seem a valid way to evaluate who should gain custody, the way in which these factors are assessed is highly biased and puts men at a distinct disadvantage. A major factor considered when looking at child custody is history of domestic violence from either parent. According to British crime statistics it is much more likely for men to be offenders of domestic violence. However these statistics do not show the enormous proportion of domestic violence committed by women that goes unreported. While women battle for equality society still expects men to be strong and masculine, our society does not even consider men as victims of domestic violence.

Many male victims of domestic violence say when reporting the offence they feared ridicule from both friends and police. So surely could this not to an extent effect those statistics? And is it really just for a violent woman to gain custody of her children because society has made it unacceptable for men to appear as victims? If the discouragement of social disadvantage wasn’t already enough to deter men from appealing for their children, there are also a number of financial issues waiting to impede on their right to fight for their children. Many fathers report they have been advised by lawyers to give up expensive custody battles as they cannot win, whereas free legal aid is readily available to mothers, with adverts in many doctors’ waiting rooms and other official buildings. It is also likely if a father does have enough money to stand any chance of competing for his children this in its self will put him at a disadvantage.

Another factor in the category of “the child’s best interests” considers how much time the parent can spend caring for the child. Although many women now work it is still more likely for the father to do a larger proportion of paid work, and the mother a larger proportion of domestic work in the home. On these grounds women are often found to be the better carers as they can spend more time at home with the children. Mothers may also stop working so they are able to care for their children, and rely on maintenance payments from the father. Although this is seen as acceptable, it is never considered that the father may work less and care for the children, and rely on maintenance from the mother working full time. As you can see both financially and socially men are at a disadvantage, but why is this? What makes our society and legal system so sexist?

Over the past 100 years feminists and society have been so busy fighting for woman’s rights they seem to have forgotten about equal rights. Society tells us it is awful to take a child away form its mother but never the equivalent for men. Along with doing some great things the women’s rights movement seems to have inadvertently changed social attitudes towards men and influenced the courts and law against them.

We are not here to campaign for men to be given an advantage. We are here to campaign for men to be considered on their personal situation and individual capabilities, not to be disadvantaged by the sexist assumption that all fathers are incapable of caring for their children.

So join me in this March, lead not by bitterness and loss, but lead by our hope and dedication to our children."
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 10 years ago
#10
They have a much better point than any feminists do in the western world that's for sure. If a woman chooses to she can take everything from her husband and make sure he never sees his children again. I do not think the courts should be biased towards women in these cases, I think it's the greatest inequality that exists today.
0
reply
Redemption
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 10 years ago
#11
Male children cannot be brought up properly without a father or father figure that is present and there and engaged. I'm sorry, but it's not possible. Any single man you meet who is rounded, charismatic, and completely stable - I will put money on them having a strong father figure.

I speak here from the view of a male child brought up with only a small surrogate father figure.

I don't know about women.

For all the greatness of mums, they just can't offer a male kid what is nessecary.
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 10 years ago
#12
(Original post by Redemption)
Male children cannot be brought up properly without a father or father figure that is present and there and engaged. I'm sorry, but it's not possible. Any single man you meet who is rounded, charismatic, and completely stable - I will put money on them having a strong father figure.

I speak here from the view of a male child brought up with only a small surrogate father figure.

I don't know about women.

For all the greatness of mums, they just can't offer a male kid what is nessecary.
I agree... I especially hate the mothers who are like 'I can do it by myself i'm a strong woman', like Chris Rock says you can drive with your feet but that doesn't make it a good idea.
0
reply
BlackpoolCraig
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#13
Report 10 years ago
#13
It's entirely valid. Divorce law is incredibly sexist.
0
reply
ConservativeNucleophile
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 10 years ago
#14
Not only do they have a good point, their stunts are usually hilarious. They have my support.

(Original post by Elipsis)
They have a much better point than any feminists do in the western world that's for sure. If a woman chooses to she can take everything from her husband and make sure he never sees his children again. I do not think the courts should be biased towards women in these cases, I think it's the greatest inequality that exists today.
Agreed.
0
reply
Bornstubborn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 10 years ago
#15
This is one of the greatest ineqaulities in Britain today. As a man it makes you wonder if you should have a wife and children, is it worth it if the woman can take your children from you and much of your earnings.

Its not right!
0
reply
jacketpotato
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 10 years ago
#16
(Original post by Cattleman)
Mr and Mrs Smith are married with 2 children, living in a nice house in a leafy suburb that Mr Smith's salary has paid for. Mrs Smith one day decides she is bored in her marriage and decides to start sleeping around and suggests that they should get divorced.

The divorce court gives Mrs Smith custody of the two children, orders Mr Smith to continue paying 100% of the mortgage payments + child support (on top of the rent which he has to pay on newly aquired flat).

Is this right? Is the law too biased against men when it comes to divorce?

Discuss.
You say that Mr. Smith's salary has paid for the house. He was only able to go out and earn this because Mrs. Smith gave up work in order to look after the house and children. She has a legitimate claim to much of the assets that Mr. Smith gained during the marriage as a result.
Moreover, the most important thing is that the children are properly cared for. People seem to forget in these situations that the mother has to care for the two children, meaning that she often has no way to support herself. Mr. Smith can't just absolve responsibility for his children on divorce.


As a matter of law, there is a principle of 'equal sharing'. Assets earnt during the marriage ('family assets') are shared equally between spouses unless there is good reason not to, and as long as the needs of the parties and of the children are met. I see no problem with this position.
Many people in this topic seem to be trivialising the position and the contribution of the woman in a typical marriage: she has given up a career to look after the children; and cannot go back to full-time work because of the children whilst the father can.


Also, Op you are wrong in naming fathers4justice as relevant to your example.
Fathers4Justice is NOT a divorce group. Their campaigning is to do with fathers who are denied meaingful contact with their children, it is NOT to do with property alloaction on divorce.
0
reply
jacketpotato
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 10 years ago
#17
(Original post by Elipsis)
If a woman chooses to she can take everything from her husband and make sure he never sees his children again. I do not think the courts should be biased towards women in these cases, I think it's the greatest inequality that exists today.
Absolute and utter rubbish.

The woman cannot stop a father from seeing his children. The courts are really, really tough on ensuring that fathers get meaningful contact with children; less than 1% of cases are refused and typically involve cases where the father physically abused the mother.
Mothers have been forced to do community service and sent to jail for stopping fathers from seeing their children; the courts are very VERY prepared to make orders facilitating contacts.

As for taking everything from her husband, again, rubbish. She can claim 1) what she needs to meet her and the children's basic needs of food and shelter, if these are met 2) compensation for earning disadvantage as a result of the marriage e.g. giving up a career to look after the children, and after this 3) equal sharing of 'family assets'; i.e. money the husband was able to earn by virtue of the mother staying home looking after the kids.
This almost always comes to some sort of arrangement so everyone's needs are met in low-money cases, or a 50/50 sharing of assets in big money cases.
0
reply
Rocking-Rob
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 10 years ago
#18
What about househusbands

read this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...stay-home.html

In a nutshell a man who gave up his career and his wife was the breadwinner had looked after his children and looked after the house, until his wife decides to leave him as "she had simply decided she could find someone more dynamic" She then claims full custody of the children leaving the man who had been effectively the kids mother without them. And to top it off the man is made to pay maintenance, yet he was the one without a career so he could support the children but he has to pay maintanence as he is the man.

Not what I call fair.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 10 years ago
#19
I think they're raving dolts.
0
reply
*Bleachage*
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 10 years ago
#20
(Original post by Cattleman)
Fathers for Justice? - Ignoring their methods, what do you think of the point they are trying to make? Is it valid?


Rough case study:

Mr and Mrs Smith are married with 2 children, living in a nice house in a leafy suburb that Mr Smith's salary has paid for. Mrs Smith one day decides she is bored in her marriage and decides to start sleeping around and suggests that they should get divorced.

The divorce court gives Mrs Smith custody of the two children, orders Mr Smith to continue paying 100% of the mortgage payments + child support (on top of the rent which he has to pay on newly aquired flat).

Is this right? Is the law too biased against men when it comes to divorce?

Discuss.
This case study makes me a bit ashamed to be female, Although I cant see myself running off like that or trying to get my future husband to pay for everything, its just unfair. There needs to be changes made to the system.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (44)
37.61%
No - but I will (4)
3.42%
No - I don't want to (5)
4.27%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (64)
54.7%

Watched Threads

View All