fathers4justice protest

Snugglebunnies

I don't watch the rose of tralee but read about the founder of a group called fathers4 justice who gatecrashed one of the girls interviews last night shouting about father's rights.

1. Why the rose of tralee???
2. I visted their Facebook page and that advocate #nokidsnocash ie. Withholding maintenance when they don't see their kids, so the kids suffer. Makes a lot of sense!
3. From the above they seem like a bunch of eejets that are just going to damage their cause rather than forward it.

Did anyone actually see the "protest" ??

Opinions??

tomwaterford

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

I don't watch the rose of tralee but read about the founder of a group called fathers4 justice who gatecrashed one of the girls interviews last night shouting about father's rights.

1. Why the rose of tralee???
2. I visted their Facebook page and that advocate #nokidsnocash ie. Withholding maintenance when they don't see their kids, so the kids suffer. Makes a lot of sense!
3. From the above they seem like a bunch of eejets that are just going to damage their cause rather than forward it.

Did anyone actually see the "protest" ??

Opinions??

Guessing because the Rose of tralee is one of most watched programmes every year


It's pure wrong of any parent to refuse to let the other see there kid (assuming their sober etc) and tbh it's only kids suffer in long term there and couldn't blame them for protesting....

Poor Uncle Tom

Are you trying to get people to watch t ROT now Ted?

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

1. Why the rose of tralee???

High profile

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

2. I visted their Facebook page and that advocate #nokidsnocash ie. Withholding maintenance when they don't see their kids, so the kids suffer. Makes a lot of sense!

The kid suffers? More so than not having a proper relationship with their father?

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

3. From the above they seem like a bunch of eejets that are just going to damage their cause rather than forward it.

From the above, you're wrong.

Snugglebunnies

failinis wrote:

Edit: to clarify, I took you to be saying that NI being in the UK is more lenient - and yes mainland UK likely bends the rules but I was not accept that NI does, even being in the UK.

smash wrote:

The kid suffers? More so than not having a proper relationship with their father?

I'd say food , clothing and a roof over a child's head is more important, ya.

roy rodgers

Well. Fathers in this country get a raw deal when it comes to there own children rights, with guardianship, access and maintenance.

I understand these people get frustrated with the law of the land and want their voices to be heard but the rose of tralee wouldn't be my first place to call. I'd start protesting at my local TDs office and daìl.

These out dated laws need to be changed asap and give fathers equal rights to their kids as that of the mother.

tomwaterford

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

I'd say food , clothing and a roof over a child's head is more important, ya.

And all this provided at 80-100 a week??


There's no defending what is scummy behaviour not letting someone see/have proper relationship with their kids.....

.theres enough losers out there that refuse to have anything to do with there own kids

Snugglebunnies

I do think father's rights need to be sorted but this group seem to be bad news. Access and maintenance are two separate issues and to advocate withholding financial support for children is not a good idea.

Snugglebunnies

Of course that's scummy. Withholding maintenance is equally scummy though.

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

I'd say food , clothing and a roof over a child's head is more important, ya.

Are you assuming that the father couldn't provide all this if the mother can't afford it? Your reasoning is coming across as borderline idiotic, ya.

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

I do think father's rights need to be sorted but this group seem to be bad news. Access and maintenance are two separate issues and to advocate withholding financial support for children is not a good idea.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

vicwatson

I think he dressed as a priest as

A) he fits right in at that type of show
he's a father

Snugglebunnies

smash wrote:

Are you assuming that the father couldn't provide all this if the mother can't afford it? Your reasoning is coming across as borderline idiotic, ya.

smash wrote:

Are you assuming that the father couldn't provide all this if the mother can't afford it? Your reasoning is coming across as borderline idiotic, ya.

Maybe he could so why withhold it? the kid suffers.

Snugglebunnies

smash wrote:

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I do
I know plenty about it actually. Maintence and access are always separate issues.

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Maybe he could so why withhold it? the kid suffers.

Because he can provide the food and shelter. If the mother feels the child needs this as she can't offer it then let the father have access to provide it instead of taking his money and giving the mother the responsibility!

Snugglebunnies

smash wrote:

Because he can provide the food and shelter. If the mother feels the child needs this as she can't offer it then let the father have access to provide it instead of taking his money and giving the mother the responsibility!

Do you think #nocashnokids would be reasonable from the other viewpoint so?

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

I do
I know plenty about it actually. Maintence and access are always separate issues.

Increased access to the child reduces maintenance for the child as the mother needs less to cover costs. If both parents are working, are able to run a home and have equal access then no maintenance is required. Fact.

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Do you think #nocashnokids would be reasonable from the other viewpoint so?

No, because children are not for bartering. You fail to realise this.

fatknacker

He was on Newstalk earlier, came across as a complete spa. No wonder the missus left him.

tomwaterford

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

I do
I know plenty about it actually. Maintence and access are always separate issues.

And if you did...youd know there is lads sent down every week for a month or so at a time around the country for not paying maintenance



But practically no one's ever sent down for refusing access/ignoring court orders to provide access?

Snugglebunnies

smash wrote:

Increased access to the child reduces maintenance for the child as the mother needs less to cover costs. If both parents are working, are able to run a home and have equal access then no maintenance is required. Fact.

Yup that's true, totally agree. But that's no the situation. This group are just advocating denying financial support for kids. That's why I have no respect for them. They should be grown up enough to see children aren't part of a business contract. They need essentials no matter what is going on between the parents.

Snugglebunnies

Eh that's what the father's are doing here?? Give me the kids then I'll give you the maintenance!

#facepalm

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Yup that's true, totally agree. But that's no the situation. This group are just advocating denying financial support for kids. That's why I have no respect for them. They should be grown up enough to see children aren't part of a business contract. They need essentials no matter what is going on between the parents.

Why are you assuming they're not getting essentials? Not all single mothers, or lone mothers, or mother who have children with different fathers are poor! Get that in to your head.

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Eh that's what the father's are doing here??

No it's not. It's what the mothers are doing. Usually through court order. The fathers are happy to pay the maintenance in return for access. It's when they don't get access they don't want to pay.

Snugglebunnies

Maintenance and access are not exchanged for one another. As in never. Look it up.

I am a single mother by the way so I know all about what it entails.

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Maintenance and access are not exchanged for one another. As in never. Look it up.

Maintenance for the child is there to cover costs of the child. If costs are reduced the maintenance can be reduced. If access is increased for the father then costs are reduced for the mother.

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

I am a single mother by the way so I know all about what it entails.

Well the way you're going on would indicate that you either got knocked up by a scumbag who doesn't care about the child or that you want more money without granting him more access, or that you just want more money because you're greedy. Which is it?

Snugglebunnies

smash wrote:

Well the way you're going on would indicate that you either got knocked up by a scumbag who doesn't care about the child or that you want more money without granting him more access, or that you just want more money because you're greedy. Which is it?

He hung himself 5 years ago. Is that enough information for you?

SEPT 23 1989

Fair play to him for highlighting this

My kids are sleeping under my roof tonight but I can imagine the horrendous pain and sadness of not seeing your own children all the time

Any women who denies a father access to his children out of spite is a despicable human being

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

He hung himself 5 years ago. Is that enough information for you?

No. It doesn't explain your issues with single fathers paying maintenance.

Snugglebunnies

SEPT 23 1989 wrote:

Any women who denies a father access to his children out of spite is a despicable human being

Totally agree but fathers withholding maintenance out of spite are no better.

Snugglebunnies

SEPT 23 1989 wrote:

Any women who denies a father access to his children out of spite is a despicable human being

Totally agree but fathers withholding maintenance out of spite are no better.

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Totally agree but fathers withholding maintenance out of spite are no better.

They are. They're looking to see their children, not money grab.

tomwaterford

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Totally agree but fathers withholding maintenance out of spite are no better.

At what point deos spite become a genuine grievance?

Snugglebunnies

smash wrote:

No. It doesn't explain your issues with single fathers paying maintenance.

I've explained my issues. Mother's withholding access are scum. Father's withholding maintenance are scum. And vice versa of course depending on the situarion.

retro:electro

The irony of him dressed up as a priest at the lovely girls event

Snugglebunnies

tomwaterford wrote:

At what point deos spite become a genuine grievance?

Don't know. Mother's could explain withholding access the to "grievance" too but on either side it's no excuse

Tasden

smash wrote: »

Well the way you're going on would indicate that you either got knocked up by a scumbag who doesn't care about the child or that you want more money without granting him more access, or that you just want more money because you're greedy. Which is it?

What the actual ****?
You know nothing about the woman or her kid. Cop yourself on.

I agree with the poster. I am also a single mother. Receive no maintenance. Provide everything myself. Was not "knocked up by a scumbag", although it could be argued he acts the scumbag. I've offered him all the access he wants.

Doesn't change the fact that access and maintenance are two separate issues and every family law solicitor will tell you the same thing.

Snugglebunnies

smash wrote:

They are. They're looking to see their children, not money grab.

Asking a father to contribute to his own children is not money grabbing. You are more biased than you're accusing me of being!

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

I've explained my issues. Mother's withholding access are scum. Father's withholding maintenance are scum. And vice versa of course depending on the situarion.

The fathers are doing it because the scummy mothers are doing it. If the scummy mothers didn't do it then the fathers wouldn't do it. If the fathers just pay up on their end and the mothers just keep being scummy then the father and child suffers. Nobody suffers if the mother doesn't act scummy in the first place.

tomwaterford

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Don't know. Mother's could explain withholding access the to "grievance" too but on either side it's no excuse

There is no personal grievance between parents worth using a child as a weapon that behaviour is incomprehensible and reprehensible


Paying maintenance and not seeing a child....how do you know the child is getting benefit of it??

Snugglebunnies

smash wrote:

The fathers are doing it because the scummy mothers are doing it. If the scummy mothers didn't do it then the fathers wouldn't do it. If the fathers just pay up on their end and the mothers just keep being scummy then the father and child suffers. Nobody suffers if the mother doesn't act scummy in the first place.

Oh the poor innocent daddies and those mean mean mummies! Give me a break, your explanation is the worst of tit for tat!

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Asking a father to contribute to his own children is not money grabbing. You are more biased than you're accusing me of being!

Of course I'm biased. You start a thread about the rights of fathers who are being denied access and you say they should pay maintenance even though they're being denied the right to see their child.

Kings Inns or bust

Frankly they're bloody part timers. If I couldn't see my kids I'd be chained to the courts in Smithfield 24/7. These stunts are just that.

As for withholding maintenance, scumbag id exactly the right description. It's not the kids fault,

Snugglebunnies

smash wrote:

Of course I'm biased. You start a thread about the rights of fathers who are being denied access and you say they should pay maintenance even though they're being denied the right to see their child.

Because they are separate issues as they should be! Ask any family law expert! Google it! Just because you think it's unfair doesn't mean it's not true.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

What the actual ****?
You know nothing about the woman or her kid. Cop yourself on.

Which is why I asked the question. She's passing all the blame to the fathers here based on assumptions she has.

Tasden wrote: »

I agree with the poster. I am also a single mother. Receive no maintenance. Provide everything myself. Was not "knocked up by a scumbag", although it could be argued he acts the scumbag. I've offered him all the access he wants.

The situation you describe is not the situation of the men involved with the organisation the op is talking about. The organisation focuses on fathers rights for fathers who are being denied access.

Tasden wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that access and maintenance are two separate issues and every family law solicitor will tell you the same thing.

And like I said before, if the access is split evenly and both parties are working and can manage a home then there is no maintenance. Maintenance only comes in to play if one party claim they can't afford to care for the child.

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Because they are separate issues as they should be! Ask any family law expert! Google it! Just because you think it's unfair doesn't mean it's not true.

Like I've said, maintenance only comes in to play if one party claim they can't afford to care for the child on their own.

Snugglebunnies

smash wrote:

Like I've said, maintenance only comes in to play if one party claim they can't afford to care for the child on their own.

No both parents pay for the upkeep of the child no matter what. 50/50 is all well and good but it say it's not practical in a lot of cases.

Kings Inns or bust

smash wrote: »

Like I've said, maintenance only comes in to play if one party claim they can't afford to care for the child on their own.

Both parents should be contributing, but even taking your assertion at it's height maintenance can only be withheld if it's ordered.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

Which is why I asked the question. She's passing all the blame to the fathers here based on assumptions she has.


The situation you describe is not the situation of the men involved with the organisation the op is talking about. The organisation focuses on fathers rights for fathers who are being denied access.


And like I said before, if the access is split evenly and both parties are working and can manage a home then there is no maintenance. Maintenance only comes in to play if one party claim they can't afford to care for the child.

The fathers are not paying maintenance. They should be.

I'm well aware of their cause. Still think they're idiots. They do nothing to help the cause of fathers trying to get access imo.

I described my situation because you gave two options to that poster to explain why she holds the opinion she does. I hold the same opinion and neither of those scenarios applied to me. Not that it's any of your business or relevant in any way but you seem to think it is.

Snugglebunnies

Kings Inns or bust wrote:

Both parents should be contributing, but even taking your assertion at it's height maintenance can only be withheld if it's ordered.

Well, legally withheld ya. Just because its not court ordered doesnt excuse non payment on a human decency level though!

boardsuser1

Had this battle in the family law court over 8 years.

I was paying my maintenance and the mother pulled out every stroke in the book to have either no access take place or supervised only. I got unsupervised in the end

I am constantly asked for extra money on top of the maintenance. The child's mother refuses to acknowledge i have 2,very soon to be 3 other kids and also have to support them.

It's all about me me me me (herself) In her eyes.

If i can afford a few bob extra i spend it on the child. But with an income of €144 on the dole it can be tough.

Before anyone says "go get a job" i worked until the start of this month.

I am waiting until the forthcoming birth of the newest addition and then i will be going back to work 60 hours a week. Job offered and accepted already. So then i will voluntarily up the money for all my kids not just 1.

tomwaterford

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Well, legally withheld ya. Just because its not court ordered doesnt excuse non payment on a human decency level though!

TBF anyone who's denying propel seeing their kids deosnt hold any sort of high ground in relation to human decency