Fathers 4 Justice protest hijacks city walls (From Daily Echo)

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

fair play to them.

It should say "It couldn't have..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condor Man wrote:

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

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

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

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

My ex owes me money through the CSA.

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

Guess what flower49

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

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

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

just try telling Harriet Hatemen that.

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

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

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

Condor Man wrote:

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

just try telling Harriet Hatemen that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i sense some feminist twats ...

im not here to argue the toss

*so dont bother to reply to this

ill point it out simply .....

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

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

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


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

we want 50/50 contact now !

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

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

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


"Destroy the family, and you destroy society"

until next time .....

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

WE WANT:

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

2. OPEN COURTS

NEW F4J
www.newfathers4justi
ce.info

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

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

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

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

mc, ste rip

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

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

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

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

Good luck F4J! I love your style!

please watch our video

copy & paste this link:

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

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

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

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

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

mc, ste rip

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

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

im not here to argue the toss

*so dont bother to reply to this

ill point it out simply .....

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

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

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


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

we want 50/50 contact now !

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

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

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


"Destroy the family, and you destroy society"

until next time .....

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

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

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

im not here to argue the toss

*so dont bother to reply to this

ill point it out simply .....

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

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

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


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

we want 50/50 contact now !

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

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

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


"Destroy the family, and you destroy society"

until next time .....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

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

im not here to argue the toss

*so dont bother to reply to this

ill point it out simply .....

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

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

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


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

we want 50/50 contact now !

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

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

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


"Destroy the family, and you destroy society"

until next time .....

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

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

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

A 5 year old who has witnessed their dads violent behaviour and foul mouthed anger is going to be terrified of him. A dad who has never had anything to do with the day to day needs of the child. My child is now nearly 10 years old and is quite adamant that she still wants nothing to do with her dad. So how can you force the issue - you cant.

I don't think comments by some on here help this matter. Yes, some women do use their children as pawns and that is a terrible thing to do and they should be held to account.

But most do not. When my ex walked out after having an affair, my daughter wanted nothing to do with him.

Despite feeling totally let down I worked with my daughter, never saying a bad word about her dad and encouraging her to see him - even when she would come back at weekends crying cos they had argued all weekend - and actually forcing her to see him and feeling like the biggest cow in town for doing it. But I did it for her and for their relationship.

I've never denied access and have changed MY arrangements to fit in so that she can see him regularly. I agreed a sum of maintenance much less than the CSA would.

Despite all my efforts, he still moans about access. He works nights and can only see her weekends - is that my fault?

I never deny access - and in fact he's had three holidays recently which he hasn't taken her with him even though he could afford to.

So yes there are horrible women who deny access but trust me there are some of us who work very hard to keep access going in any way we can for the benefit of our children and we're not interested in money.

rabbitlady wrote:
A 5 year old who has witnessed their dads violent behaviour and foul mouthed anger is going to be terrified of him. A dad who has never had anything to do with the day to day needs of the child. My child is now nearly 10 years old and is quite adamant that she still wants nothing to do with her dad. So how can you force the issue - you cant.

There's no need to start calling everyone a cant, thats out of order.No wonder the old man done one!!