Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Do they realise

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
30 Jun 2013 - 11:02 PM


Quote: Hmmmm.......Fathers4Justice, you'd think they want to set their children an example, it's no wonder some of them are denied access!

That certainly struck me.

They clearly do not know the secret of getting something done. It's very simple: the personal interests/ambitions/hopes of those who call the shots must be put at risk. It is possible to do this in a totally peaceful and legitimate way.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
30 Jun 2013 - 11:02 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

pluffy
pluffy  7126 forum posts United Kingdom
1 Jul 2013 - 8:51 AM

I think unless you have seen how the law works first hand, as I have with my son, it is very difficult to understand the bias against the man.

I thought that when my son and his wife split up it would be a case of them sitting down and working out visiting rights, because my son accepted that the best place for his child was with the mother. Then work out with the CSA how much he had to pay (he has paid from day one by the way plus much more, she had all the furniture, the car, he pays the car insurance, MOT and also servicing).

The trouble arose when the mother decided she was going to move 150 miles away and decided my son shouldn't be allowed to see his child. My son then had to engage a Solicitor and seek access through the courts which is expensive, but worth it if the outcome is OK, she got Legal Aid by the way. The unfortunate thing is that the courts have found in my son's favour a number of times and his wife appeals and stops the visits until my son returns to Court.

He goes back to court and there is a different Judge who decides that all the documents have to be gone through again and after two months reaches the same conclusion as the previous Judge. Of course the wife appeals again, because on Legal Aid there seems to be no limit to the amount of Taxpayers money she can spend, and the process starts again.

Is it any wonder that some stressed and probably very depressed individuals go to extreme and obviously illegal lengths to get access when the law seems totally impotent.

I in no way condone what these people do, but after seeing how the process works I can possibly understand why they do it.

I just hope that no one on this site has to go through this procedure because I can tell you it is soul destroying energy sapping and in my son's case bought him very close to suicide which is why I am so annoyed with some comments on the forum.

cats_123
cats_123 e2 Member 104009 forum postscats_123 vcard Northern Ireland25 Constructive Critique Points
1 Jul 2013 - 10:49 AM

I `lost' my children many years ago..the courts just treat fathers as criminals. No-one listens - it can be soul destroying. You just can't keep going back to court...because apart from the moneytree eventually drying up it alienates you and you are seen as the aggressor.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
1 Jul 2013 - 11:05 AM

I have seen it work the other way as well on a joint custody case, with the father announcing on Facebook that he was moving 200 miles away, with his new partner, taking the kids with him.

The mother was obliged to uproot and move, just so she would still be able to see her children.

Last Modified By Carabosse at 1 Jul 2013 - 11:06 AM
pluffy
pluffy  7126 forum posts United Kingdom
1 Jul 2013 - 12:20 PM


Quote: I `lost' my children many years ago..the courts just treat fathers as criminals. No-one listens - it can be soul destroying. You just can't keep going back to court...because apart from the moneytree eventually drying up it alienates you and you are seen as the aggressor.

Sorry to hear of your problems but I have to say it is just what my son is suffering and the courts do try to demonize the father and give the mother so much leeway in appealing the Courts judgement's that it is no wonder men just give up, and of course then they live up to the stereotypical uncaring father in other peoples eyes.

pluffy
pluffy  7126 forum posts United Kingdom
1 Jul 2013 - 12:24 PM


Quote: I have seen it work the other way as well on a joint custody case, with the father announcing on Facebook that he was moving 200 miles away, with his new partner, taking the kids with him.

The mother was obliged to uproot and move, just so she would still be able to see her children.

Yes that's what I am saying in your case it is perceived that the man is a poor father for moving away but when the mother does it the man is still perceived in the same bad light, it is an argument that generally only has one winner, the mother, but two losers, the father and the child/children.

cathal
cathal  9492 forum posts Ireland4 Constructive Critique Points
1 Jul 2013 - 4:14 PM


Quote: In reality men ask and sometimes deserve the problems that arise out of dysfunctional marriages. In almost every case a man/father/husband just wants to walk away from the problem (just watch junk TV) , thus avoiding paying maintenance towards the upbringing by the ex/wife of the partnership and any children in that marriage. Any issues that arise to protect the woman and the child arise from this.

Agreed though that there are some fathers who do wish to continue to be in and support the lives of the offspring and should be allowed to do so..

This sweeping generalisation is possibly the most ignorant and incorrect comment I have ever seen posted on Epz in the eight or nine years I've been a member. I just hope and pray that the person behind the post is not in any way involved with the family courts.

Don't confuse the family court with the publicly accountable court system. The family court is a secretive, behind closed doors system that is answerable to nobody. Unfortunately, the ignorance and prejudice shown in the above quote is very much alive in the family court. Do a google search if you want to read some of the nightmare stories fathers have gone through just for wanting to remain in contact with their children.

I don't condone damaging national treasures to make a protest, although I fully understand how the desperation felt is such that it appears a logical reaction. Isn't if funny how people are outraged by damage to a painting, which when reduced to its most basic is simply oils on a piece of canvas, yet are quite happy to tolerate the family court system.

Oh, and a small point... Access to your child is your right, and your child's right, and is not stipulated by maintenance.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to get my Batman suit from the dry cleaners...

Last Modified By cathal at 1 Jul 2013 - 4:15 PM
pluffy
pluffy  7126 forum posts United Kingdom
1 Jul 2013 - 6:18 PM


Quote: In reality men ask and sometimes deserve the problems that arise out of dysfunctional marriages. In almost every case a man/father/husband just wants to walk away from the problem (just watch junk TV) , thus avoiding paying maintenance towards the upbringing by the ex/wife of the partnership and any children in that marriage. Any issues that arise to protect the woman and the child arise from this.

Agreed though that there are some fathers who do wish to continue to be in and support the lives of the offspring and should be allowed to do so..

This sweeping generalisation is possibly the most ignorant and incorrect comment I have ever seen posted on Epz in the eight or nine years I've been a member. I just hope and pray that the person behind the post is not in any way involved with the family courts.

Don't confuse the family court with the publicly accountable court system. The family court is a secretive, behind closed doors system that is answerable to nobody. Unfortunately, the ignorance and prejudice shown in the above quote is very much alive in the family court. Do a google search if you want to read some of the nightmare stories fathers have gone through just for wanting to remain in contact with their children.

I don't condone damaging national treasures to make a protest, although I fully understand how the desperation felt is such that it appears a logical reaction. Isn't if funny how people are outraged by damage to a painting, which when reduced to its most basic is simply oils on a piece of canvas, yet are quite happy to tolerate the family court system.

Oh, and a small point... Access to your child is your right, and your child's right, and is not stipulated by maintenance.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to get my Batman suit from the dry cleaners...

Thanks Cathal for the voice of reason. As you quite rightly say most people who have contributed think that the Family Court is like the Magistrates Court or Crown Court all open with a verdict at the end which is final and binding. This is most certainly not the case in the Family Court where everything drags on and on and just when you feel you have reached a conclusion one party decides that they don't agree with the decision and ignores it. The punishment for ignoring the Family court is generally little or nothing and the process rolls on again until the person without Legal Aid is bankrupted and gives up.

Whilst I don't agree with the vandalism, I like you, believe that there is something far more valuable than a painting and that is a parents love for their child and the destruction of that is far worse than a glorified post it note on a painting.

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110227 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
1 Jul 2013 - 7:18 PM

I often wonder why no one suggests a "Children for Justice" campaign to ensure that the needs of the children are put first rather than those of both the adults who caused the problem in the first place (its rarely if ever only one partner that is to "Blame")

Mind you, at least there seem to be fewer cases where both parents walk away and decide that neither wants custody of the children (as happened to me many, many years ago - it was blamed on the War then) Tongue

collywobles
2 Jul 2013 - 11:35 AM


Quote: I often wonder why no one suggests a "Children for Justice" campaign to ensure that the needs of the children are put first rather than those of both the adults who caused the problem in the first place (its rarely if ever only one partner that is to "Blame")

Spot on!

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.