Arnie Saccnuson
Platinum Boarder
Nbr of posts: 216
 England and Wales
Thanks received: 8
|
|
Re:Fathers for justice 3 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
equality in law We are Legion. We do not Forgive. We do not Forget.We are Anonymous
|
|
|
|
Arnie Saccnuson
Platinum Boarder
Nbr of posts: 216
 England and Wales
Thanks received: 8
|
|
Re:Fathers for justice 3 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
equality in law We are Legion. We do not Forgive. We do not Forget.We are Anonymous
|
|
|
|
IKNOWNOW
Platinum Boarder
Nbr of posts: 1032
 England and Wales
already divorced
Thanks received: 77
|
|
Re:Fathers for justice 3 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
Firstly I would like to echo DownButNotOut's comments on this thread.
Secondly, I have heard things about Fathers 4 Justice, haven't we
all and the recent deaths of 2 small children whose father claimed to
belong to the organisation were recently in the news.
I thought
I would check out their website before making too much of a comment on this
thread. So, I google and find that there are several groups, fathers for
justice, the real fathers for justice, families need fathers and the list
goes on.
So, I guess I need to do my research to find out what
these groups really are claiming that they do.
It is the
extremist groups that sometimes are so "focused" on their cause that maybe
they do not look at their membership that closely.
So, going to
do some reading and educate myself on the subject of fathers 4 justice
before making further comment.
One thing I would say though as
regards contact cases: the first thing my barrister said to me as a mother
(one trying to protect her children from their father without denying
contact) was that I was 90% likely to lose the case. She said that in most
cases the judge actually sides with the father. I went into court to give
evidence against my barrister's advise (she said I should just have
accepted defeat) and it was clear from the outset that the judge had
already passed judgement on my case.
Each case is individual,
but believe me, I have heard more than enough stories on wiki and the
greater media to know that the courts are getting it wrong time and time
again.
I have spoken to fathers on wiki who I whole heartedly
agree with in regards their individual cases. The courts are getting it
wrong on both sides of the fence. Those fathers that should be allowed,
aren't and those that shouldn't (or should have some sanctions) are.
We hear too many news stories now of children who are killed by
their fathers and it then emerges that the mother had tried to protect her
children but nobody listened.
Yes, I believe children need
fathers, but they need good fathers, & this can be said in the same vein
for mothers.
Several of my best friends on wiki are the men left
caring for their children because the mother has just walked away.
I can see this from both sides. I guess what I am saying is that Child
Contact Law needs a radical shake up for the sake of our children's
futures.
We just need to know how to do that without dare devil
stunts and extremist groups almost proving the wrong point.
Regards, Sarah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot change the past but you can ruin the present by worrying about your future.
|
|
|
|
Arnie Saccnuson
Platinum Boarder
Nbr of posts: 216
 England and Wales
Thanks received: 8
|
|
Re:Fathers for justice 3 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
equality in law We are Legion. We do not Forgive. We do not Forget.We are Anonymous
|
|
|
|
stefire
Fresh Boarder
Nbr of posts: 4
 England and Wales
respondent in divorce
Thanks received: 0
|
|
Re:Fathers for justice 3 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnie Saccnuson
Platinum Boarder
Nbr of posts: 216
 England and Wales
Thanks received: 8
|
|
Re:Fathers for justice 3 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
equality in law We are Legion. We do not Forgive. We do not Forget.We are Anonymous
|
|
|
|
D L
Moderator
Nbr of posts: 4849
 England and Wales
other professional
Thanks received: 714
|
|
Re:Fathers for justice 3 Years, 11 Months ago
|
|
May I give my thoughts on this one?
I support the underlying
ethos of F4J, but I cannot support their activities. Targeting judges and
Cafcass is not a way to bring about change. We within the system are
handed a legal framework by Government and have to try our best
with it.
The problem with the law relating to children is that
we are impotent to force a mother/father to hand over a child for contact.
Yes we can use the threat of prison, but that tends to make the
parent with care dig their heels in even more, and what do we do with the
child while the PWC is in prison?
Yes, we can look at
transfering residence of the child to the other parent, and in some cases
that is what happens. But think of say a 4 year old, who has only ever
known, rightly or wrongly, the PWC. Can you imagine the damage we would do
to that child in transfering residence to a carer who the child doesnt know
and who the carer doesnt know?
The problem with family law,
particularly relating to children, is emotions. We have laws, but how do
you legislate for emotion?
I have been sacked by a few PWC on
court landings when I tell them that they are being unreasonable and that
the child has a right to a relationship with the other parent; that the
court will try everything it can to see contact between the child and the
other parent. How do you legislate for the complete unreasonablness of a
parent with care, who is undoubtedly hurt by the relationship breakdown,
who is angry that they are forced to see the other parent because they
share a child?
What I would like to see is education and I
think it is only through education that we will begin to see change.
Starting in secondary school, I think that we should attmept to educate
that children have a right to a relationship with both parents unless there
is a risk or an occurance of physical, sexual or emotional harm to the
child.
I think the test for harm should be the same as in
public law (care cases) - that is "significant harm" proved by a finding of
fact that it has taken place or there is a risk of it taking place. Only
if there is such a finding of risk or actual harm should we then close the
door on contact - and sadly we have to realise that there are people out
there who cannot have a relationship with a child because of the harm they
have caused or are at risk of causing to either the child or the PWC.
I also think that a parent with care who forces a case to go to
findings, should, if found to have fabricated the allegations, lose the
care of the child, as clearly they cannot promote the childs emotional or
even in come cases pyhsical welfare of the child. (By causing physical
harm, I mean those PWC that make false allegations of sexual harm, which
means a child has to suffer an intrusive medical examination completely
unnecessarily)
I think the starting point on relationship
breakdown should be shared care unless for practical or other reasons that
cannot take place. I think that mediation on relationship breakdown should
happen swiftly, should be free but should recognise those cases where it
cannot help quickly and it is those that should come before the courts.
Delay, particularly if a child is being denied any relationship
at all with the other parent, can be damaging to a child, who is wondering
where mummy/daddy has gone but knows that they cannot ask the question of
the PWC due to the reaction they know will come from the PWC.
And, as Mr Justice Ryder said only a few weeks ago, the courts need to
recognise that these cases are as important as care cases, and can cause as
much harm.
But that takes me back to Government, who have not
prioritised this issue and does not appear to see the need to give us more
judges so that there are enough to deal with all cases, swiftly.
Amanda
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|