Mums 4 Justice

Klingon Hamlet

Article here:

Are you a mum fed up with seeing estranged fathers performing silly stunts? It's time that mothers' voices were better heard. As the CSA is killed off, Take a Break launches a new campaign.

They dressed up as comic-book heroes and breached security at Buckingham Palace. They scaled bridges and closed the London Eye. They even caused a stir in Parliament by chucking purple powder at Tony Blair. Their stunts were childish, but there's no denying that Fathers 4 Justice have made themselves heard.

But who's standing up for mums who've been left holding the baby? Take a Break is launching a mums4justice campaign. We're sick of hearing about the plight of hard-done-by dads who are being denied access to their beloved kids. These men dump all the blame on their ex-partners. But their sob stories have not gone down well with single mothers across the UK.

They say that while these men pose as superheroes, some of them are just the opposite. They're men who don't even put food on the table for their kids. According to figures from the soon-to-be defunct Child Support Agency (CSA), almost one in three absent parents has failed to pay child support. One in three!

No wonder mothers are angry especially when dads who don't pay a penny turn up on the doorstep demanding to see their kids. They've had enough of such men wanting to play happy families.

One mum, Kerry, says: 'My son's father has been in and out of his child's life every few months. He started off seeing him every week, then the visits dwindled. 'A few months later I received a solicitor's letter saying I'd been keeping my ex from seeing his son.' Her former partner was granted access by the family courts, only to do the same thing again. 'What do you say to a child when their dad sees them regularly, then doesn't want to know?' she says. Not only that but she gets less than £10 a week in child support from her ex. He claims to have a low-paid part-time job. But he's boasted that he's working full-time for cash in hand. Kerry wants everyone in the same position as herself to get behind our mums4justice campaign. She says: ' There needs to be some rule in place that says if you stop seeing your child twice, you can't go back to court again. My son's dad keeps dropping in and out of his life and the solicitors say it doesn't matter how many times it happens. He can just go back to court again and demand access.'

It's about time men like Kerry's ex were made to face up to their responsibilities. We want the government to change the law to make sure that men do the following:

• Pay child support in full every month and on time.
• Don't get away with lying about their earnings and pretending to be unemployed to wriggle out of paying up.
• Stick to visiting arrangements organised either by family courts or with their ex-partners.

If you're a mum who's had enough of feckless fathers whingeing about their rights then get behind our mums4justice campaign or check out our mums4justice Facebook page.

Does anyone else think this is a very cruel article? It portrays men who dress up as eejits --- when really they're doing what they can to get attention. Plus it makes mums sound very harsh too---Take a Break need to wake up methinks.

Nevyn

For every father denied access and rights to his children there are children who are messed around and abandoned by men who don't want to be fathers.
It's how things are unfortunatly and I can understand why parents on both sides get pissed off.

Klingon Hamlet

FROM THE SITE:


Mothers4Justice was started as a support mechanism for mothers who felt they also had to have a voice and show the world what mothers have to endure a lot when relationships break up for whatever reason. We were fed up with fathers dressing up and pulling publicity stunts to get attention. Mothers don't need to dress up in silly costumes to let the world know that they have an unconditional love for their children.

Mothers4Justice does not hold rallies (as yet) as we believe in showing our love to our children in a very different way. We would love the fathers to play an active non lying non brain washing role in our children's lives but it seems that there is one rule for fathers and mothers are not allowed to have a say.
This is a support web site for mothers seeking justice for their children because of a relationship break up we wish the fathers to know that, we hurt,we feel we cry for our children and the bond we have with our children will always be strong because after all we have felt them grow inside us.

If you need help please use our support forum and talk to other mothers who like you have been through the system and can help!

Klingon Hamlet

Thaedydal wrote: »

For every father denied access and rights to his children there are children who are messed around and abandoned by men who don't want to be fathers.
It's how things are unfortunatly and I can understand why parents on both sides get pissed off.

Why would an estranged dad goto the trouble of dressing up and campaigning?

Your comment also implies 50% of dads are good and 50% are bad. You don't honestly mean that do you???

Nevyn

I didn't imply or infer any precentages at all.

I can understand the frustrations on both sides and if both are looking for reforum in the family law systems then that should be a good thing.

ash23

I don't see why the mothers shouldn't also have the right to campaign. The article may seem harsh but it's a two way street and many women have as much right to be disgruntled as men.

I don't think they need to detract from the plight of fathers4justice in order to make themselves heard though.

Klingon Hamlet

ash23 wrote: »

I don't see why the mothers shouldn't also have the right to campaign. The article may seem harsh but it's a two way street and many women have as much right to be disgruntled as men.

I don't think they need to detract from the plight of fathers4justice in order to make themselves heard though.

I 100% support women's right to campaign. I'd rather see a combined effort from both genders---at the moment it's a he-said she-said vicious circle. It should be good parents vs bad.

And yeah dismissing men's campaigns as childish is unnecessary.

Klingon Hamlet

Thaedydal wrote: »

I didn't imply or infer any precentages at all.

I can understand the frustrations on both sides and if both are looking for reforum in the family law systems then that should be a good thing.

For every father denied access and rights to his children there are children who are messed around and abandoned by men who don't want to be fathers.

That statement clearly says that for one victimised father, there is a father who lets his children down. 1:1 ration, 50/50, call it what you want---I'd like you to explain it a bit better is all. generalisations such as the one you made are the main reason people regurgitate the same old bile generation after generation, without basing it on unbiased fact.

Good parents are the majority, on both sexes. Let's support mums and dads, without the usual "Oh but there are so many walked away from their kids."

Boxoffrogs

Why would these mothers consider doing this as a reactionary measure to the Fathers for justice group? I would have thought both groups should actually be supportive of each other.

EDIT: Oh and the CSA should have been scrapped long ago. There was nothing fair about some of the judgements they made, indeed they made a lot of people's lives misery

Klingon Hamlet

diddledum wrote: »

Why would these mothers consider doing this as a reactionary measure to the Fathers for justice group? I would have thought both groups should actually be supportive of each other.

Because people resort to tit-for-tat. They thing men's support groups are anti-women when they're not. They're pro-equal-parenting.

Boxoffrogs

Yes that, and it seems that they are perhaps a little bitter about the death of the CSA maybe?

That was one horrible agency. I lived in the UK for a while. I know of various cases where there was a marriage/relationship split and the CSA were involved. Sometimes the men were royally screwed, having to pay more than 1/4 of their salary (and I don't mean measly salaries) and mortgage payments on top, even though he may have a new family to support. On top of this he may not be allowed access to the children.

I also know many women who would not go the CSA route for those very reasons and have the utmost respect for them.

Splendour

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Article here:



Does anyone else think this is a very cruel article? It portrays men who dress up as eejits --- when really they're doing what they can to get attention. Plus it makes mums sound very harsh too---Take a Break need to wake up methinks.

In my case and in alot of my friend's cases this is not a cruel article at all. Sadly there are not as many men who think as you do Klingon and men will do anything to get out of looking after their kids. The even sadder thing is, they think they are having a go at the mother of their kids when in reality it is the children themselves who suffer...

Klingon Hamlet

Splendour wrote: »

In my case and in alot of my friend's cases this is not a cruel article at all. Sadly there are not as many men who think as you do Klingon and men will do anything to get out of looking after their kids. The even sadder thing is, they think they are having a go at the mother of their kids when in reality it is the children themselves who suffer...

Splendour they're in the minority, trust me. It's like saying we should bitch about women cos so many of the mess with access. So many more men and women do the right thing.

I HATE when the small minority are dragged up and shoved in our faces.

Splendour honestly how many men do you know have walked away? And how many haven't? I'm tired of generalisations. If responsible men were in the minority, then there wouldn't be hundreds of cases in court for guardianship/custody/access etc every year.

ash23

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I HATE when the small minority are dragged up and shoved in our faces.

Splendour honestly how many men do you know have walked away? And how many haven't? I'm tired of generalisations. If responsible men were in the minority, then there wouldn't be hundreds of cases in court for guardianship/custody/access etc every year.

But the same goes for women. I hate when the men drag up the small minority of women who mess with access. Single parents are roughly 80% women. According to the census. Now yes, mostly that is due to women having automatic guardianship.

But of the single mothers I know, roughly half have had their kids and are raising them totally alone Sadly I only know of one whose ex has the child every weekend. The others are one weekend a month. Some of the kids (my own included) NEVER see their dads.

Now thats not statistical but you're acting like there are shed loads of mothers who mess with access and hardly any fathers who walk away.

moldypeach

I can see this from both sides. To be honest i believe the mothers have it good as it is.
I have one child from a previous relationship who hasn't had her father contact her in 4 years, before this it was me who had to contact him to try and keep him in her life. I get no maintenance and she doesn't even recieve birthday cards etc.
I would not go chasing him for anything, i see her grow up, i hear the funny things she says and know everything about her. This to me is worth soo much more than any money i could get from him. It was my choice to have my baby and it was his choice to be missing out on this amazing little girl.

On the other hand i know of many women playing the access orders and using their own children as pawns. My own mother was one, and she has lost out as we now understand what she did.
Also my new partner has been hurt and dragged through the mill by his ex, purely because of jealousy over our relationship.
This in my eyes is far worse!! a child needs 2 parents! if one parent decides not to be involved you cannot force them to love the child.
but.. if there is a chance a child can have a balanced happy well loved upbringing by 2 parents, why is this still allowed to be denied!

pickarooney

Why are parents who have sole custody of their children (whether they want that or not) comparing themselves to parents who have no custody of their children (through no fault of their own)?

It's a completely illogical comparison and does nothing but harm to their own, very different, cause.

Klingon Hamlet

ash23 wrote: »

But the same goes for women. I hate when the men drag up the small minority of women who mess with access.

We as dads tend to mention the issues we face personally---i.e. access disruptions. I never assume a mother is predisposed to pushing dads away---many of my female friends who also happen to be single mums, are very good to the fathers of their children---no matter whether they're chatty with them or there's a bit of tension, they do not interfere with the bond between father and child. I love that and respect that.

Single parents are roughly 80% women. According to the census.

Would you mind linking to that? Cos surely the 80% mums who are single---well, the dads are single too, no? i think you mean they have sole custody.

Now yes, mostly that is due to women having automatic guardianship.

Totally unfair isn't it?

Sadly I only know of one whose ex has the child every weekend. The others are one weekend a month.

Is that by choice? Did the dads apply for more time? Was it court-approved or personal agreement?

Some of the kids (my own included) NEVER see their dads.

That's awful and I'm sorry---I couldn't fathom not seeing my own child.

Now thats not statistical but you're acting like there are shed loads of mothers who mess with access and hardly any fathers who walk away.

I'm saying there are about as many bad mothers as bad fathers---but they are in the minority, and should not be used as an excuse to undermine their far more responible counterparts.

Nevyn

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

That statement clearly says that for one victimised father, there is a father who lets his children down. 1:1 ration, 50/50, call it what you want---I'd like you to explain it a bit better is all. generalisations such as the one you made are the main reason people regurgitate the same old bile generation after generation, without basing it on unbiased fact.

Good parents are the majority, on both sexes. Let's support mums and dads, without the usual "Oh but there are so many walked away from their kids."

In my personal experience I know far more children who's father walked out on them then I know father's trying to get access to their children.

So I never said 1:1 you misinterpreted my statement.

Klingon Hamlet

ash23 wrote: »

But the same goes for women. I hate when the men drag up the small minority of women who mess with access. Single parents are roughly 80% women. According to the census. Now yes, mostly that is due to women having automatic guardianship.

But of the single mothers I know, roughly half have had their kids and are raising them totally alone Sadly I only know of one whose ex has the child every weekend. The others are one weekend a month. Some of the kids (my own included) NEVER see their dads.

Now thats not statistical but you're acting like there are shed loads of mothers who mess with access and hardly any fathers who walk away.

Thaedydal wrote: »

In my personal experience I know far more children who's father walked out on them then I know father's trying to get access to their children.

So I never said 1:1 you misinterpreted my statement.

So because in your circle of friends, there are more irresponsible dads than good ones, you're tarring us all with the same brush? I wonder how many dads walked away from the situation because they knew the hell a custody battle would be? Dads don't get much if any support over here.

Nevyn

Again with the putting words in my mouth.

I never said there were more bad dad's then good ones.
I know lots of Dad's who have shared or part custody or are still in the family unit and are good Dads.

I said I know of more children who are denied thier Father's due to the father's not wanting to know them, then children who are denied thier father's due to the courts or the mother dening access.

and honest, this needs to be about the children's rights, not the rights of the mother's or father's.

Klingon Hamlet

Thaedydal wrote: »

and honest, this needs to be about the children's rights, not the rights of the mother's or father's.

Then the constitution needs to be changed. It focuses on marriage and single-motherhood---it ignores the rights of the child.

If dads and mums got automatic parental responsibility---then this would negate many of the cases that pour through the courtrooms on a daily basis. And BTW I know a lot more dads denied access then walked away. It doesn't mean I don't think there are shamefully irresponsible and cruel dads out there---there are---but the introduction of automatic parental responsibility would be a one-for-all: love, money, time together---all bundled up as one, as it should be.

Nevyn

I agree the law as it stands goes back to Victorian assumptions, and we need the refenda on the rights of the child asap which should include the right to know and access to both parents.

Klingon Hamlet

I also think "primary care and control" needs to be abolished, as it basically provides the parent with the most amount of access to the child a domineering role in decision-making.

I would love to see a State-sponsored mediation team put in place, to help alleviate the stress and anguish of court proceedings, and to help both parents come to agreements/compromises in a more civil, laidback, and thoughtful manner.

I find courts can be quite effective in getting rights put in place, but also serve to turn parenting into a tug-of-war, which I wish to God I personally could've avoided---but couldn't, cos I'm a daddy:o

Nevyn

The will to put such a system in place and to fund it isn't there.

Klingon Hamlet

Thaedydal wrote: »

The will to put such a system in place and to fund it isn't there.

That's because the general public don't understand family law. If you asked 100 people does putting a dad's name on a birth cert make him the father, and entitle him to the responsibilities and rights he'd expect were he married, 98 would shrug and say yeah, and woner why you're even asking:o

The more people know, the more angry the general public will get---and righteous anger breeds change.

Hence: the costumes, the rallies, the protests, and the campaigns. These are not anti-women. they are pro-family. But that mums4justice site is a sham. Calling upset dads "childish" is cruel. I emailed Take a Break a long and detailed message, explaining how unfair they were, taking sides when everyone can work together.

Wonder will they write back:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

But the same goes for women. I hate when the men drag up the small minority of women who mess with access. Single parents are roughly 80% women. According to the census. Now yes, mostly that is due to women having automatic guardianship.

Actually custody is probably more important than guardianship in this regard, as guardianship does not really afford a parent a lot of rights.

While I think we can all recognize that single mothers do often get the rough end of the stick in terms of maintenance and irregular visitation, I do think that campaigning for 'justice' on this is a bit rich considering the imbalance in the law.

Maintenance enforcement has been in place for a long time (although I believe that it has more or less fallen apart in Ireland), yet there are no legal rights for fathers in place, let alone procedures of enforcement. So I do think that it is a little insulting for such a campaign to actively degrade father's in this fashion given the legal situation.

smelltheglove

I havent read the thread, apologies but this p*d me off. This is blatant categorising. Throwing all dads under the one label and all single mothers under the other. It just gets to me, it doesnt matter what sex you are, if you are a parent you are a parent. Who gives out about the mothers who walk away from their kids???? Nobody, its like a taboo but as soon as a lad tells a girl he has a kid from a previous it is assumed that he has walked away, which is not always the case.

Fair play to these dads for fighting for their rights, they have to if the law wont give them any help.

As for the mothers one, ok fair enough yes a lot of women get left holding the baby and they do deserve a voice, as a single mother before I recall being looked down upon by people as soon as they hear I was a single mother, I remember one in particular which I will never forget, I met a woman at a work function, she worked a different shift to me and we were introduced, I was new. After talking for a while this woman realised I had a child, I would have been 22 at the time, and started going on about how disgusted she would be if she was my mother etc etc, the good old sterotype being put on me. Anyway, funnily enough, she just changed shift, the next morning she came into work to realise I was a manager there and I was overlooking all her work. I didnt give her a hard time but I tell you, the look on her face was priceless.

Anyway, on from that the thing I dont like about this article is that it is making the fathers for justice people to sound like they are men who have walked away, but this is not true, just because you turn your back on a partner you dont turn your back on a child, but unfortunately women can use the children as leverage against these men. I think its a horrible article.

ash23

smelltheglove wrote: »

As for the mothers one, ok fair enough yes a lot of women get left holding the baby and they do deserve a voice, as a single mother before I recall being looked down upon by people as soon as they hear I was a single mother, I remember one in particular which I will never forget, I met a woman at a work function, she worked a different shift to me and we were introduced, I was new. After talking for a while this woman realised I had a child, I would have been 22 at the time, and started going on about how disgusted she would be if she was my mother etc etc, the good old sterotype being put on me. Anyway, funnily enough, she just changed shift, the next morning she came into work to realise I was a manager there and I was overlooking all her work. I didnt give her a hard time but I tell you, the look on her face was priceless.

I remember 2 weeks after splitting from my ex, I went looking at a house. The woman who owned it showed me around. I was going to take it (even though it was a cesspit as I needed out of my own house) and she said all she needed was a deposit and a weeks rent in advance. Then she asked who would be living with me and I said my daughter. She asked "just the two of you?" and I said yes.

Suddenly she wanted references from work, my previous places I'd rented, a larger deposit, a months rent in advance, an inventory and my parents number!!!! I was 26 years of age!!!

She was quite happy to let me and 3 of my mates rent and not bat an eyelid, but a single mother! No way!

I also had one guy in work have a go (thank god all my workmates soon told him what was what). It's rife and it's depressing at times. Generally I'm lucky in that most people are supportive but if I were coming across this on a regular basis I'd probably get pretty riled up over the situation.

It can sometimes feel that while the fathers may not have many legal rights, they do tend to get more sympathy. The fathers4jutice get a fair amount of press and also the media tends to usually portray a better image of single fathers. If you've a man whose wife deserts him and he's left with the kids he gets a damn sight more "poor him" than a woman in the same boat.


In fairness, the magazine is fairly low brow and would be usually very biased towards its main market which would be women with children.
It's the Jerry Springer of magazines. I wouldn't expect any less than the nonsense it has in that article.

Also, this group are clearly angry and bitter women. And perhaps they have reason to be. I've come close a few times myself.
But they are stupid. Because they would have been better to work in conjunction with groups like fathers4justice than slating them.

a.rose

Hadn't heard about the Mums4Justice campaign but I'll definitely spread the word. I know mum's who'll be interested. I wonder if a similar campaign will start here.

Of course mother's can campaign in their own way. They don't need a man telling them the best way to proceed.

Orion

Thaedydal wrote:

For every father denied access and rights to his children there are children who are messed around and abandoned by men who don't want to be fathers.
It's how things are unfortunatly and I can understand why parents on both sides get pissed off.

With all due respect Thaed that's crap. The legal system in Ireland completely discriminates against unmarried fathers. We have shag all rights in law. Luckily I'm not in the position where I'm denied access to my children but a lot of unmarried fathers are. You are generalising with that post. Men who don't want to be fathers wouldn't be marching on O'Connell Street for the right to be recognised as one.

And your later posts on this thread don't take away from this. You keep going on about men who don't want to know their kids. They don't deserve their children tbh.

But the OP is about abandoned mothers and you're lumping all fathers in that category. "who's standing up for mums who've been left holding the baby" - THE LAW IS. End of.

Who stands up for good men who are being denied access to their children by spiteful ***** - nobody.

You need to get off your high horse on this topic. Not all men are bastards. More specifically not all unmarried fathers don't care about their kids. The law is completely biased in favour of the mother and that's a major problem that needs to be addressed.

Nevyn

I know the law is a crock of shíte and it cuts both ways with women being left to do the parenting when mean walk, so it's not roses on the other side of the fence, the law hurts parents male and female and more importantly the children.

The law and system should be imho child centred and not about a war between genders or parents.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

I know the law is a crock of shíte and it cuts both ways with women being left to do the parenting when mean walk, so it's not roses on the other side of the fence, the law hurts parents male and female and more importantly the children.

As things stand there is no comparison between the genders where it comes to the law. The law is so stacked against men/fathers that it borders offensive to pretend that women are in the same boat.

The law and system should be imho child centred and not about a war between genders or parents.

Should the law be child centered before or after the woman has exercised her right to choose?

Nevyn

The Corinthian wrote: »

As things stand there is no comparison between the genders where it comes to the law. The law is so stacked against men/fathers that it borders offensive to pretend that women are in the same boat.

It is unfair to both more unfair to men and it goes back to the notion that if a man really wants to acknowledge a child as his he will marry the mother, that needs to change.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Should the law be child centered before or after the woman has exercised her right to choose?

Children become children and get rights as children when they are born.

ash23

The Corinthian wrote: »

As things stand there is no comparison between the genders where it comes to the law. The law is so stacked against men/fathers that it borders offensive to pretend that women are in the same boat.

I'm sorry but thats total rubbish.

The law is more biased towards the mother in terms of rights to the child. But when it comes to the mother wanting the father to be involved and responsible for the child, then the odds are stacked against them.

My daughter has a father. I have no right to access his details (privacy laws) and therefore cannot chase him for maintenance.
Maintenance orders are a joke from what I understand and the long and short of it is that while fathers who WANT rights to their child are deprived, mothers who want the father involved haven't a leg to stand on.

To call the plight of thousands of women who have been left to raise their children 100% alone a "bit rich" is as insulting as what the mothers in this article have done.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is unfair to both more unfair to men and it goes back to the notion that if a man really wants to acknowledge a child as his he will marry the mother, that needs to change.

It is not simply more unfair - the point is that there is such a gap in injustice that it comes close to laughable to compare the relative positions.

Children become children and get rights as children when they are born.

Not really true, because the woman is charged as the sole and unquestioned interpreter of these rights. A child may be better off in an adoptive family or in the custody of the father, for example. A woman may also put a child up for adoption regardless of whether it is in the child's best interests - the fact that adoptions have decreased in inverse proportion to the increase of abortions would tend to point to this.

All before we consider the morality of a 'get out parenthood option' or that only one gender is afforded it.

ash23 wrote: »

I'm sorry but thats total rubbish.

The law is more biased towards the mother in terms of rights to the child. But when it comes to the mother wanting the father to be involved and responsible for the child, then the odds are stacked against them.

Don't make me laugh - this is nowhere near to the the injustice faced by men.

It begins with the assumption that the woman should have custody, not to mention automatic guardianship. Even were the man to have the latter (or win it in court), it offers very little and the reforms that are presently being mooted in this area further erode the rights of a guardianship.

To add insult, woman cannot even lose guardianship - she could abandon her child to the father, abuse or harm the child and unless the child is formally adopted, she remains a legal guardian. An unmarried father, instead needs to prove his worth as a parent before being afford this recognition and can always lose it.

Then there is financial responsibility. There are laws in place that (up until recently and I believe they are again) were enforced to the point of incarceration on a regular basis. The few laws afforded towards a, typically male, non-custodial parent have almost never been enforced.

The only thing that is not enforced is active involvement - and that is not enforced for women either, the only difference is that when a woman has a child she wants no active involvement with she puts them up for adoption. Assuming of course, she has not had an abortion first.

My daughter has a father. I have no right to access his details (privacy laws) and therefore cannot chase him for maintenance.

Of course you can chase him for maintenance and he has to demonstrate earnings and expenditure in court.

However there are limits to how far this should be pressed for anyone. Should he have a right to see that his money is going only on his child, that you account for all of it? That he can see all your financial assets? If not, you can hardly demand such audits of him.

Maintenance orders are a joke from what I understand and the long and short of it is that while fathers who WANT rights to their child are deprived, mothers who want the father involved haven't a leg to stand on.

You'll really have to explain what you mean by this as you are discussing maintenance orders and in the same breath involvement - financial involvement appears to be you mean, yes?

To call the plight of thousands of women who have been left to raise their children 100% alone a "bit rich" is as insulting as what the mothers in this article have done.

No one is suggesting that single mothers have it easy, but in terms of rights and law they have an obscene imbalance in their favour. To compare the disadvantages that they have against those faced by men is utterly laughable.

Nevyn

In terms of the law men have the shítty end of the stick.
In terms of being left to rear the child alone women have the shítty end of the stick
and the children suffer in either case.

Both situations have parents who want fathers to be invovled unfortunately, the other parent doesn't.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

In terms of the law men have the shítty end of the stick.

We are discussing law and rights though, inspired by a group - 'Mums 4 Justice' - that feels they are hard done by in this regard. And it is this comparison that I find both ridiculous and offensive.

In terms of being left to rear the child alone women have the shítty end of the stick

If women did not almost automatically get custody, they would share this stick with men, so it's difficult to sympathize with a disadvantage largely predicated on an injustice.

Nevyn

The Corinthian wrote: »

We are discussing law and rights though, inspired by a group - 'Mums 4 Justice' - that feels they are hard done by in this regard. And it is this comparison that I find both ridiculous and offensive.

If women did not almost automatically get custody, they would share this stick with men, so it's difficult to sympathize with a disadvantage largely predicated on an injustice.

I think the injustice cuts 3 ways, on both parents and the children.
I can understand either side esp when it's very personal not being able to see the flip side and have sympathy, but either way there are children being denied
knowing their fathers.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

I can understand either side esp when it's very personal not being able to see the flip side and have sympathy, but either way there are children being denied knowing their fathers.

Unfortunately that is sometimes inevitable, just as many adopted children grow up never knowing their biological parents. Or some never get born. Or they grow up with parents that should never have been parents to anyone.

But that is not the discussion we're having here.

ash23

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is not simply more unfair - the point is that there is such a gap in injustice that it comes close to laughable to compare the relative positions.

If you were left to raise a child 100% alone, with no financial help or involvement from your partner you may feel differently about that gap you speak of. It's hardly laughable.

Of course you can chase him for maintenance and he has to demonstrate earnings and expenditure in court.

No I can't. He left, moved away and left me no forwarding details. I had his old places of employment, college details etc but these were no good to me. Privacy laws prevented me finding him. I have never recieved maintenance. He has never seen his child who is now 7. I told him I was pregnant, he ran and that was that. i had no rights in this case. And it's not uncommon.

You'll really have to explain what you mean by this as you are discussing maintenance orders and in the same breath involvement - financial involvement appears to be you mean, yes?

No I mean any involvement. A father cannot be forced to take responsibility. it is the flip side of the argument you present. Men struggle to get rights when they want them but on the other hand it makes it much easier for them to walk away and much harder for the woman to get them to be involved in any way.

No one is suggesting that single mothers have it easy, but in terms of rights and law they have an obscene imbalance in their favour. To compare the disadvantages that they have against those faced by men is utterly laughable.

I think that if you are only looking at it from one side then yes, it's laughable. However if you look at both sides, it's far from anything to laugh at.
You're looking at it from the side of a father who wants rights but cannot get them/has to fight for them. I'm looking at it from the point of view of a woman who was literally left holding and raising a baby because those rights you speak of, resulted in my daughters father being able to walk away and never be seen again.

ash23

The Corinthian wrote: »

Should the law be child centered before or after the woman has exercised her right to choose?

The woman has the right to choose up to a cut off point. After that point the foetus has some rights. But in terms of parental rights the rights of the child apply from birth.
Abortion is a totally separate issue.

Nevyn

It is a seperate issue and one more suited to humanities.

LegacyUser

The law is an ass as far as I'm concerned when it comes to fathers who walk away. I speak from experience. I have an 8yr old who's father left when I was pregnant. He lives locally and now has 2 children in a new relationship.
My son wants to know his dad. He wants to meet him. To date, I've been able to be as truthful as possible, without actually telling him that his dad lives 2 miles away and chose to raise his other children, and not him.

What about the rights of my child?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child/Article 7/ States:
Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

Constantly human rights organisations campaign for the rights of the child stating that children have equal rights to adults.

What about the fact that my child has the right to know this man who is his father?
And before anyone says it, NO, I obviously wouldn't want this man involved in my sons life if he doesn't want to be, but I'm trying to keep that side of it out of my argument.

My child has rights and one of them is to know his father.

But because his father decided to walk, he is growing up with no father.

And there are many, many children like my son.

smelltheglove

ash23 wrote: »

It can sometimes feel that while the fathers may not have many legal rights, they do tend to get more sympathy. The fathers4jutice get a fair amount of press and also the media tends to usually portray a better image of single fathers. If you've a man whose wife deserts him and he's left with the kids he gets a damn sight more "poor him" than a woman in the same boat.

Not true completely, single fathers often have a terrible name, I mean when I was young I just refused to go out with a guy who had a kid, I just assumed he had upped and left, it was the general consensus of young girls.

Re the man whose wife leaves him with the kids, well that was my dad, and yes he earned a huge amount of respect for it and fair dues to him, he was of an age where men went to work and women stayed at home with the kids, he didnt cook, he didnt to laundry, he got up at 3am and sometimes worked 3 jobs. he adjusted very very well to living alone with 3 teenagers and a young child. And also, the amount of women wanting to go on dates with him, we used to find it funny!

I agree the women for justice are going about it the wrong way and the article basically makes them appear to be bitter fools.

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

If you were left to raise a child 100% alone, with no financial help or involvement from your partner you may feel differently about that gap you speak of. It's hardly laughable.

No, but to suggest that the injustice and inequality in this area suffered by women is the same or even comparable to that suffered by men is.

No I can't. He left, moved away and left me no forwarding details. I had his old places of employment, college details etc but these were no good to me. Privacy laws prevented me finding him. I have never recieved maintenance. He has never seen his child who is now 7. I told him I was pregnant, he ran and that was that. i had no rights in this case. And it's not uncommon.

TBH, I'd prefer not to get into personal examples as they are seldom unbiased is there is only one party present to recount them.

No I mean any involvement. A father cannot be forced to take responsibility. it is the flip side of the argument you present. Men struggle to get rights when they want them but on the other hand it makes it much easier for them to walk away and much harder for the woman to get them to be involved in any way.

Yet it is much easier legally for a woman to walk away, even without an abortion, precisely because of this inequality of rights.

I think that if you are only looking at it from one side then yes, it's laughable.

No if you look at the legal rights afforded to both men and women you can objectively say that it is laughable to suggest that the deficiencies are comparable.

Seriously, list out where the system is unjust against the mother and for the father and chances are I will be able to give you two examples for every one of yours. Maybe three.

That is why it is so offensive.

ash23 wrote: »

The woman has the right to choose up to a cut off point. After that point the foetus has some rights. But in terms of parental rights the rights of the child apply from birth.
Abortion is a totally separate issue.

Very convenient and also not terribly convincing.

Lets accept for a moment that at the time when a termination can occur, we are not talking about a child.

So, you are suggesting that a woman may unilaterally make a gigantic, life-changing decision for the man and he must share the cost of her unilateral decision. If it is a child at this stage, I can understand why there is no moral choice but to go to term, but it's not.

As you said yourself, a "woman has the right to choose" - fine, but then should she not deal with the price of that choice?

Even once born the mother may choose to put the child up for adoption. If unmarried, she has no obligation to even tell the father, let alone seek his permission.

Overall, you cannot morally claim rights without responsibilities and what you are essentially suggesting is that a woman can have all of the former without paying the price of the latter.

Now, I am not suggesting that women should not have the right to choose or men should - that would be a discussion for a different forum. However, I believe that it is this 'cake and eat' it sense of entitlement to rights - legitimized by a grotesque legal system - that some mothers have that blinds them to the lack of rights that fathers have in return and thus will often end up making any form of cooperative parenting impossible even when the father wants to be there.

ash23

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, but to suggest that the injustice and inequality in this area suffered by women is the same or even comparable to that suffered by men is.

Well, coming at it from a different perspective, I disagree.
I think it is equally difficult to fight for the rights to see your child as it is to bring up a child 100% alone. It might be apples and oranges in terms of similarities, but I think saying that women complaining about the lack of interest and support from the fathers of their children is not laughable and imo, you are as bad as the women mentioned in the OP for dismissing this reality.

TBH, I'd prefer not to get into personal examples as they are seldom unbiased is there is only one party present to recount them.

The same can be applied to any reference though. The women that stop access may have a good reason. We are currently only hearing one side from the fathers who are denied access.

Yet it is much easier legally for a woman to walk away, even without an abortion, precisely because of this inequality of rights.

I would disagree. If a woman walks out on her family she is as obliged to pay maintenance for her children as a man is and she is not obliged to see them.

Seriously, list out where the system is unjust against the mother and for the father and chances are I will be able to give you two examples for every one of yours. Maybe three.

I'm sure you can but the point remains that while the fathers rights groups may have reason to be vocal, it doesn't mean the women who are left without any support from the fathers who aren't interested, do not have the right to protest about the problems with maintenance, exs getting access and not showing up etc etc.

That is why it is so offensive.

I think you are easily offended to be honest.

Very convenient and also not terribly convincing.

Not convenient at all. Just stating the way things are. A person has no rights as a parent until their child is born.

Lets accept for a moment that at the time when a termination can occur, we are not talking about a child.

So, you are suggesting that a woman may unilaterally make a gigantic, life-changing decision for the man and he must share the cost of her unilateral decision. If it is a child at this stage, I can understand why there is no moral choice but to go to term, but it's not.

I think the man made the decision for himself by engaging in sexual intercourse. Its just biology that the woman gets to choose whether to progress with the pregnancy.
When men can get pregnant then it will be their choice also.

As you said yourself, a "woman has the right to choose" - fine, but then should she not deal with the price of that choice?

And should the man not deal with it also?
What price are you talking about? She does deal with it, either by choosing abortion, adoption or keeping the child.

Overall, you cannot morally claim rights without responsibilities and what you are essentially suggesting is that a woman can have all of the former without paying the price of the latter.

Where on earth did I say that?
I believe that it is the mothers choice as to what to do with the pregnancy. Thats just biology. You can argue it's not fair but I could argue that a woman having to be pregnant is unfair. But it's a ridiculous argument. Men cannot have babies and there is no point in debating the fairness of that.

Once the child is born and kept, then both parents should be equally responsible for it. Access, maintenance, legal rights.... all of it.

I've never slated the fathers4justice agenda, I actually said in my first post that the women were wrong to slate them. However I find your attitude towards the plight of women left to parent alone, offensive and very narrow minded.

I can see that the system is unfair. To both men and women. In different measures and in different areas. But I wouldn't deem either point of view as "laughable". There is nothing funny about being abandoned to raise a child alone. It's as hard as trying to fight for the right to see the child, just a different challenge.

However, I believe that it is this 'cake and eat' it sense of entitlement to rights - legitimized by a grotesque legal system - that some mothers have that blinds them to the lack of rights that fathers have in return and thus will often end up making any form of cooperative parenting impossible even when the father wants to be there.

Have my cake and eat it?
Because I want my daughters father to be involved, to do right by his child and yes, to contribute financially to her upbringing?
I can assure you if I wanted my cake and to eat it, I would not have chosen to get pregnant by a man who would abscond, leaving me to raise my child alone.

Do i think fathers should have more rights? Yes.
Do I think fathers who leave and never contribute should be severly punished by the system? Yes.

Do I think both parties should have a right to campaign for that? Absolutely.

smelltheglove

ash23 wrote: »

I would disagree. If a woman walks out on her family she is as obliged to pay maintenance for her children as a man is and she is not obliged to see them.
aintenance, legal rights.... all of it.

.

I don't believe that is true, based on experience! My mother was paid maintenance for the day or two we'd spend with her every week! My dad used to call it babysitting money, he paid all school fees, mortgage and all bills, clothes, treats, everything and when we went to mams he paid for that too, court ordered! A second occasion in court actually made him pay more! He also had to give 50% of the value of the house at the time of seperation too.

It could have changed since then but maintenance payments did not stop until 5 yrs ago when my brother reached 18!

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

I think saying that women complaining about the lack of interest and support from the fathers of their children is not laughable and imo, you are as bad as the women mentioned in the OP for dismissing this reality.

That's not what I said. It is one thing to complain it is another thing to claim that both are suffering comparable injustice as this group does.

The same can be applied to any reference though. The women that stop access may have a good reason.

And as I pointed out even when they do not, a judge tells them they do not and applies a court order, they may ignore it with little consequence.

I would disagree. If a woman walks out on her family she is as obliged to pay maintenance for her children as a man is and she is not obliged to see them.

A woman rarely needs to if she does not want to be an unmarried mother. She can put up a child for adoption unilaterally. No maintenance then. Assuming it got out of the womb alive, that is.

I'm sure you can but the point remains that while the fathers rights groups may have reason to be vocal, it doesn't mean the women who are left without any support from the fathers who aren't interested, do not have the right to protest about the problems with maintenance, exs getting access and not showing up etc etc.

Again, I have never said this - see above.

Not convenient at all. Just stating the way things are. A person has no rights as a parent until their child is born.

It is convenient for the person who decides if they ever get that far.

I think the man made the decision for himself by engaging in sexual intercourse. Its just biology that the woman gets to choose whether to progress with the pregnancy.
When men can get pregnant then it will be their choice also.

This is sexist crap and exactly the same type of tripe that used to be used against women who "got into trouble" 60 years ago.

What price are you talking about? She does deal with it, either by choosing abortion, adoption or keeping the child.

Actually, deals with it, but expects others to share the price of her unilateral choice.

Where on earth did I say that?
I believe that it is the mothers choice as to what to do with the pregnancy. Thats just biology. You can argue it's not fair but I could argue that a woman having to be pregnant is unfair. But it's a ridiculous argument. Men cannot have babies and there is no point in debating the fairness of that.

Then let her suffer the consequences for that choice, which run long after the pregnancy. You can argue it's not fair but I could argue that a man having to be a father because someone else has made a lifestyle choice for herself is pretty unfair too.

Once the child is born and kept, then both parents should be equally responsible for it. Access, maintenance, legal rights.... all of it.

I won't get into the whole male abortion discussion (again as this is the wrong forum) but I would say that you cannot force someone to be a father. And even if they are willing, you cannot force them to be a father according to your dictate either. You can try, but you'll likely end up on your own before long.

I've never slated the fathers4justice agenda, I actually said in my first post that the women were wrong to slate them. However I find your attitude towards the plight of women left to parent alone, offensive and very narrow minded.

No, and perhaps my indignation gave the wrong impression. Single mothers do not have an easy time of it at all. However, to suggest that men and women suffer similar levels of injustice is just WRONG.

I can assure you if I wanted my cake and to eat it, I would not have chosen to get pregnant by a man who would abscond, leaving me to raise my child alone.

Again, I prefer not to discuss your case.

ash23

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not what I said. It is one thing to complain it is another thing to claim that both are suffering comparable injustice as this group does.

Thats an opinion you are entitled to hold. And I think that being the parent who deals with the child and the emotional problems they face bt either being ignored or messed around, is a major deal. I have spent many hours consoling my daughter about her absent father and yes, I get it, you don't want to discuss personal cases. But at the end of the day, both women and men whose children are being messed around are seeing their children hurt and I think that gives them all equal footing when it comes to complaining about the injustices done to their children.

And as I pointed out even when they do not, a judge tells them they do not and applies a court order, they may ignore it with little consequence.

Pretty much the same as men so. Maintenance orders are rarely enforced. On either men or women. Access is not forced. So it's equal rights across the board there.

A woman rarely needs to if she does not want to be an unmarried mother. She can put up a child for adoption unilaterally. No maintenance then. Assuming it got out of the womb alive, that is.

We are not really discussing women who choose not to have or raise the children though. The article is about women who have been left holding the baby while the father disappears without paying maintenance or having regular access and their campaign.

It is convenient for the person who decides if they ever get that far.

As is the womans right. That will not change.

This is sexist crap and exactly the same type of tripe that used to be used against women who "got into trouble" 60 years ago.

No its not. it's the same logic that was used when a father objected to his ex using their frozen embryos. The embryos were not living in the true sense of the word. He was granted his rights not to have them implanted and not to have a child he did not want. A mother has the right to choose in the majority of cases as she is the one who is pregnant. But at the end of the day, men have sex, that is the time at which they make their choice. It's never going to change that a woman has control over her body if/when she gets pregnant. Rather than lamenting that, men should double or treble the protection they use when having sex to ensure it is a decision that will never be made for them.

Actually, deals with it, but expects others to share the price of her unilateral choice.

Then let her suffer the consequences for that choice, which run long after the pregnancy. You can argue it's not fair but I could argue that a man having to be a father because someone else has made a lifestyle choice for herself is pretty unfair too.

Ok, so you basically want men who want a baby to have equal rights to it. But those that don't to be able to walk away if the woman decides to keep it? And she should just put up with it because she made the choice not to abort and to proceed with the pregnancy and keep the child? And you say that these women want their cake and to eat it? Double standards.

No, and perhaps my indignation gave the wrong impression. Single mothers do not have an easy time of it at all. However, to suggest that men and women suffer similar levels of injustice is just WRONG.

In your opinion. But the children of both suffer equally. Yes the legal system is more biased in terms of the mother getting the rights to the child. But thats only a bad thing for the man if he wants the child. If he doesn't he can walk, and easily.

The children of both are the ones who are suffering. Equally. Therefore yes, the plight of women left holding the babies are on as equal a footing as those men campaigning for justice.

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

yes, I get it, you don't want to discuss personal cases.

Yes, because especially in cases of family law you tend to get three sides to any story - his, hers and the truth.

Pretty much the same as men so. Maintenance orders are rarely enforced.

Actually, that is untrue and while it can be difficult to sometimes get them enforced they certainly are. There has been a temporary situation whereby all bench warrants have been frozen due to a case of non-payment of debts by a woman forcing a review of the law, but I believe this has subsequently been resolved.

Meanwhile while orders against mothers almost never are. I only say almost because I believe that there may have be one single case where this may have happened.

So, again, attempting to equate the two is laughable.

We are not really discussing women who choose not to have or raise the children though. The article is about women who have been left holding the baby while the father disappears without paying maintenance or having regular access and their campaign.

Actually we are discussing a comparison between men seeking justice versus women seeking justice - and comparing how the system acts against each is central to this.

As is the womans right. That will not change.

Because you say so? Platitudes aside, rights are only what society decides them to be and it often changes its mind. This is why the 'this is how things are' argument was rejected by women a century ago and why increasingly men are rejecting the same argument leveled against them.

No its not. it's the same logic that was used when a father objected to his ex using their frozen embryos.

You'll find that what you are doing has nothing to do with frozen embryos, but simply reiterating a moral argument that used to be used against women 'in trouble' 60 years ago, that they got themselves into this mess, had no one else to blame and had no options open to them.

Funny how the wheel turns.

Ok, so you basically want men who want a baby to have equal rights to it. But those that don't to be able to walk away if the woman decides to keep it? And she should just put up with it because she made the choice not to abort and to proceed with the pregnancy and keep the child? And you say that these women want their cake and to eat it? Double standards.

Not really because those are exactly the choices a woman has.

You've already accepted that a woman has the option not to become a parent, an option that is actually based upon a decision to keep a child after birth or not. If you allow only one to have the option, then they have a 'cake and eat it' mentality because they want all of the choice but not all of the responsibility. Meanwhile men have no choice but must share in the responsibility of anothers choice.

Not having your 'cake and eat it' means either that you share both choice and responsibility or if you do not want to share the choice you have to accept full responsibility. This is not to say that men should walk away scott free as they are still ultimately equally responsible for the pregnancy or even that they should be able to 'force' a woman to either abort or go to term. The whole male abortion topic is a debate it itself, better suited to Humanities - all I am pointing out is the inequality that exists on several levels, of which this is one, against men.

In your opinion. But the children of both suffer equally. Yes the legal system is more biased in terms of the mother getting the rights to the child. But thats only a bad thing for the man if he wants the child. If he doesn't he can walk, and easily.

No he can't. If he goes into hiding, potentially changes his name and looks over his shoulder for the rest of his life he can. Otherwise, while sometimes complex, he can be found and held legally accountable for the rest of his life - even his estate can be challenged when he dies.

That is the law - all that is lacking is enforcement - and that only in some cases. Men do not even have the law, let alone enforcement of it and this is the fundamental difference.

The children of both are the ones who are suffering. Equally. Therefore yes, the plight of women left holding the babies are on an equal footing as those men campaigning for justice.

You'll forgive me if I don't take seriously an argument that attempts to use children (the mother by proxy in practical legal terms) as a device when they are only ball of cells or easily adopted off when it is not convenient otherwise.

I also think that with the move to water down guardianship rights and make custody the means by which we assign rights to our children - thus removing even the last vestiges of paternal rights in a nation that still awards custody to only women almost automatically - the situation will get worse.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

ash23

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'll forgive me if I don't take seriously an argument that attempts to use children (the mother by proxy in practical legal terms) as a device when they are only ball of cells or easily adopted off when it is not convenient otherwise.

Well then I will no longer waste my time discussing this.

Although this statement is a bit disjointed I think what you are trying to say is that because women have the right to decide to abort or adopt, you cannot take an argument about the damage done by absent/disruptive parents to children who are not aborted or adopted?

In that case I've said all I have to say because you aren't willing to see things from the other side at all really.
:rolleyes: