- Are Fathers 4 Justice taking things too far?
- By Clare Usher
- The Sunday Times (Britain)
- 25/05/2004 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: admin ( 100 articles in 2004 )
Clare Usher Highlights The Lengths F4j Are Prepared To Go
PARENT pressure group Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) made headlines last week with their campaign for more paternal access to their children by pelting the Prime Minister with powder in the Commons.
In Liverpool, last Christmas, a group from F4J made their voice heard by climbing onto a gantry over the Strand in the city centre. This caused traffic to be halted for hours while they were persuaded down.
Elsewhere, the FfJ's colourful antics have drawn a great deal of attention with a national network co-ordinating their efforts to get maximum publicity.
However, critics say the methods they use are not the right way to go about trying to get more time with their families, adding that they should use legal process.
The latest incident in Westminster, where two F4J members managed to get invitations to sit in the VIP gallery then throw purple powder at Tony Blair, has led to renewed calls for restraint.
Members in Merseyside have also held demonstrations outside the homes of members of the legal profession, such as Judge Marilyn Mornings, threatening to do more.
This led to a call for the tightening of security for lawyers at the annual conference of the Solicitors Family Law Association.
Here F4J group member, Peter Molloy and family solicitor Angela Eaton give opposing views.
Many fathers have spent years in family courts NO says Peter Molloy, member of Fathers 4 Justice WE OBVIOUSLY condone the type of behaviour that went on in Westminster last week because it is non-violent direct action and that's what we're all about.
"It's the right way to go about it to highlight the campaign. Many fathers who have done protests have spent years in family courts and writing to members of parliament and going through the proper process to no avail.
"People have got to remember that family courts are held in secret so no-one can know about the miscarriages of justice.
"Figures show that 100 children per day have their contact with their father stopped either partially or completely.
"And 40% of fathers lose contact with their children after two years of separation from the mother.
"It's an utter disgrace and we are campaigning for a legal presumption of contact with the father. At the moment, it's based on the best interest of the child and that can be open to misinterpretation.
"When a relationship breaks down it may take seven months to get to court and in that time the child has suffered psychological child abuse at the hands of the mothers who are brainwashing them into thinking they do not want to have anything to do with their father.
"The courts are reluctant to acknowledge this type of child abuse when the assessment is done on the child. The civil disobedience that we carry out is non-violent and we cannot condone the use of violence. We remain within the law and get great publicity for our campaign. We want to attract the general public, and we dress up to provide a sense of humour to a serious issue.
"The child has a right to have a loving relationship with their father.
"What wouldn't be acceptable is any type of violent conduct because that would be playing into the hands of our critics like women's groups such as Refuge.
"The last thing we want is people infiltrating our group to be violent.
"We've been highlighted on a BNP website which is not the sort of publicity we want to attract and we have contacted the police about it, as that's not what we're about.
"We don't want to win this campaign by any means necessary, we don't need mavericks coming along.
"But fathers feel so frustrated so it may only be a matter of time if something is not done - before a man picks up a gun, and we cannot condone that.
"You have to understand that his wife may have left him and then made him leave the family home, so he has lost his partner, children and home, all in one go through no fault of his own.
"Any mavericks out there who may be tempted to do something rash should come to Fathers For Justice to get support, and encourage them not to be violent.
"With the Westminster demonstration at the end of the day I think we did the country a big favour by highlighting how easy it was to breach security.
"If it wasn't for our actions that loop-hole wouldn't have been closed."
Majority of couples settle differences amicably YES says Angela Eaton, partner in the family of Morecrofts solicitors THE family law profession agrees that children benefit from the involvement and care of both parents. Fathers do have a very important role to play in children's lives.
"SFLA actively encourages co-operative parenting so both parents continue to share responsibility for their children's upbringing following separation.
"This means both parents maintaining a commitment to the children's care and co-operating with each other to achieve the best for their children.
"The vast majority of separating couples are able to resolve this issue amicably, either themselves or with the assistance of their lawyers or family mediators, without the need to go to court.
"Court proceedings are only ever a last resort. Increasingly, parents are being encouraged to enter into "parenting agreements" which set out how various aspects of the children's care and upbringing are to be approached.
"These do not cover simply where a child should live and when and how often the child should see the other parent, but also issues; e.g. choice of schools, approach to discipline, consultation re-medical treatment, etc.
"When family courts are asked to make an order it is usually granted - statistics show in over 98% of cases. The courts start with the assumption that there should be contact with both parents.
"Contact is for the benefit of the children. The law clearly states that when making any decision with regard to a child the child's welfare must be the paramount concern.
"The law focuses on the needs of the child rather than the rights of either of the parents. The law does not discriminate against fathers. The aim of the courts is to promote contact where it is in the interests of the child and safe to do so. When parents separate, often the courts do decide the child should live with the mother.
"This is not because the father is regarded as less capable of caring for the child, but from a practical point of view it is often the mother who has been the main carer during the marriage and the court strives as far as possible to maintain continuity for the child in an effort to maintain stability during a time of upset and uncertainty. When a court has decided that a parent with whom a child is not living should have contact there is an expectation that the parent with care shall comply. Courts are taking an increasingly robust approach to parents who do not comply.
"We are aware there are statistics which suggest that 40% of non resident fathers lose contact with their children after two years.
"However, this relates to all families and includes those where a non resident parent has chosen not to have contact.
"This figure is also now 13 years old! There has since been a further study which shows that 47% of non resident fathers have at least weekly contact, 68% monthly.
"It has to be said that the vast majority of separated fathers do not take the extreme stance represented by Fathers 4 Justice."
PARENT pressure group Fathers 4 Justice (F4J) made headlines last week with their campaign for more paternal access to their children by pelting the Prime Minister with powder in the Commons.
In Liverpool, last Christmas, a group from F4J made their voice heard by climbing onto a gantry over the Strand in the city centre. This caused traffic to be halted for hours while they were persuaded down.
Elsewhere, the FfJ's colourful antics have drawn a great deal of attention with a national network co-ordinating their efforts to get maximum publicity.
However, critics say the methods they use are not the right way to go about trying to get more time with their families, adding that they should use legal process.
The latest incident in Westminster, where two F4J members managed to get invitations to sit in the VIP gallery then throw purple powder at Tony Blair, has led to renewed calls for restraint.
Members in Merseyside have also held demonstrations outside the homes of members of the legal profession, such as Judge Marilyn Mornings, threatening to do more.
This led to a call for the tightening of security for lawyers at the annual conference of the Solicitors Family Law Association.
Here F4J group member, Peter Molloy and family solicitor Angela Eaton give opposing views.
Many fathers have spent years in family courts NO says Peter Molloy, member of Fathers 4 Justice WE OBVIOUSLY condone the type of behaviour that went on in Westminster last week because it is non-violent direct action and that's what we're all about.
"It's the right way to go about it to highlight the campaign. Many fathers who have done protests have spent years in family courts and writing to members of parliament and going through the proper process to no avail.
"People have got to remember that family courts are held in secret so no-one can know about the miscarriages of justice.
"Figures show that 100 children per day have their contact with their father stopped either partially or completely.
"And 40% of fathers lose contact with their children after two years of separation from the mother.
"It's an utter disgrace and we are campaigning for a legal presumption of contact with the father. At the moment, it's based on the best interest of the child and that can be open to misinterpretation.
"When a relationship breaks down it may take seven months to get to court and in that time the child has suffered psychological child abuse at the hands of the mothers who are brainwashing them into thinking they do not want to have anything to do with their father.
"The courts are reluctant to acknowledge this type of child abuse when the assessment is done on the child. The civil disobedience that we carry out is non-violent and we cannot condone the use of violence. We remain within the law and get great publicity for our campaign. We want to attract the general public, and we dress up to provide a sense of humour to a serious issue.
"The child has a right to have a loving relationship with their father.
"What wouldn't be acceptable is any type of violent conduct because that would be playing into the hands of our critics like women's groups such as Refuge.
"The last thing we want is people infiltrating our group to be violent.
"We've been highlighted on a BNP website which is not the sort of publicity we want to attract and we have contacted the police about it, as that's not what we're about.
"We don't want to win this campaign by any means necessary, we don't need mavericks coming along.
"But fathers feel so frustrated so it may only be a matter of time if something is not done - before a man picks up a gun, and we cannot condone that.
"You have to understand that his wife may have left him and then made him leave the family home, so he has lost his partner, children and home, all in one go through no fault of his own.
"Any mavericks out there who may be tempted to do something rash should come to Fathers For Justice to get support, and encourage them not to be violent.
"With the Westminster demonstration at the end of the day I think we did the country a big favour by highlighting how easy it was to breach security.
"If it wasn't for our actions that loop-hole wouldn't have been closed."
Majority of couples settle differences amicably YES says Angela Eaton, partner in the family of Morecrofts solicitors THE family law profession agrees that children benefit from the involvement and care of both parents. Fathers do have a very important role to play in children's lives.
"SFLA actively encourages co-operative parenting so both parents continue to share responsibility for their children's upbringing following separation.
"This means both parents maintaining a commitment to the children's care and co-operating with each other to achieve the best for their children.
"The vast majority of separating couples are able to resolve this issue amicably, either themselves or with the assistance of their lawyers or family mediators, without the need to go to court.
"Court proceedings are only ever a last resort. Increasingly, parents are being encouraged to enter into "parenting agreements" which set out how various aspects of the children's care and upbringing are to be approached.
"These do not cover simply where a child should live and when and how often the child should see the other parent, but also issues; e.g. choice of schools, approach to discipline, consultation re-medical treatment, etc.
"When family courts are asked to make an order it is usually granted - statistics show in over 98% of cases. The courts start with the assumption that there should be contact with both parents.
"Contact is for the benefit of the children. The law clearly states that when making any decision with regard to a child the child's welfare must be the paramount concern.
"The law focuses on the needs of the child rather than the rights of either of the parents. The law does not discriminate against fathers. The aim of the courts is to promote contact where it is in the interests of the child and safe to do so. When parents separate, often the courts do decide the child should live with the mother.
"This is not because the father is regarded as less capable of caring for the child, but from a practical point of view it is often the mother who has been the main carer during the marriage and the court strives as far as possible to maintain continuity for the child in an effort to maintain stability during a time of upset and uncertainty. When a court has decided that a parent with whom a child is not living should have contact there is an expectation that the parent with care shall comply. Courts are taking an increasingly robust approach to parents who do not comply.
"We are aware there are statistics which suggest that 40% of non resident fathers lose contact with their children after two years.
"However, this relates to all families and includes those where a non resident parent has chosen not to have contact.
"This figure is also now 13 years old! There has since been a further study which shows that 47% of non resident fathers have at least weekly contact, 68% monthly.
"It has to be said that the vast majority of separated fathers do not take the extreme stance represented by Fathers 4 Justice."
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here