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.