Mums 4 Justice

Klingon Hamlet

Article here:

Are you a mum fed up with seeing estranged fathers performing silly stunts? It's time that mothers' voices were better heard. As the CSA is killed off, Take a Break launches a new campaign.

They dressed up as comic-book heroes and breached security at Buckingham Palace. They scaled bridges and closed the London Eye. They even caused a stir in Parliament by chucking purple powder at Tony Blair. Their stunts were childish, but there's no denying that Fathers 4 Justice have made themselves heard.

But who's standing up for mums who've been left holding the baby? Take a Break is launching a mums4justice campaign. We're sick of hearing about the plight of hard-done-by dads who are being denied access to their beloved kids. These men dump all the blame on their ex-partners. But their sob stories have not gone down well with single mothers across the UK.

They say that while these men pose as superheroes, some of them are just the opposite. They're men who don't even put food on the table for their kids. According to figures from the soon-to-be defunct Child Support Agency (CSA), almost one in three absent parents has failed to pay child support. One in three!

No wonder mothers are angry especially when dads who don't pay a penny turn up on the doorstep demanding to see their kids. They've had enough of such men wanting to play happy families.

One mum, Kerry, says: 'My son's father has been in and out of his child's life every few months. He started off seeing him every week, then the visits dwindled. 'A few months later I received a solicitor's letter saying I'd been keeping my ex from seeing his son.' Her former partner was granted access by the family courts, only to do the same thing again. 'What do you say to a child when their dad sees them regularly, then doesn't want to know?' she says. Not only that but she gets less than £10 a week in child support from her ex. He claims to have a low-paid part-time job. But he's boasted that he's working full-time for cash in hand. Kerry wants everyone in the same position as herself to get behind our mums4justice campaign. She says: ' There needs to be some rule in place that says if you stop seeing your child twice, you can't go back to court again. My son's dad keeps dropping in and out of his life and the solicitors say it doesn't matter how many times it happens. He can just go back to court again and demand access.'

It's about time men like Kerry's ex were made to face up to their responsibilities. We want the government to change the law to make sure that men do the following:

• Pay child support in full every month and on time.
• Don't get away with lying about their earnings and pretending to be unemployed to wriggle out of paying up.
• Stick to visiting arrangements organised either by family courts or with their ex-partners.

If you're a mum who's had enough of feckless fathers whingeing about their rights then get behind our mums4justice campaign or check out our mums4justice Facebook page.

Does anyone else think this is a very cruel article? It portrays men who dress up as eejits --- when really they're doing what they can to get attention. Plus it makes mums sound very harsh too---Take a Break need to wake up methinks.

Nevyn

For every father denied access and rights to his children there are children who are messed around and abandoned by men who don't want to be fathers.
It's how things are unfortunatly and I can understand why parents on both sides get pissed off.

Klingon Hamlet

FROM THE SITE:


Mothers4Justice was started as a support mechanism for mothers who felt they also had to have a voice and show the world what mothers have to endure a lot when relationships break up for whatever reason. We were fed up with fathers dressing up and pulling publicity stunts to get attention. Mothers don't need to dress up in silly costumes to let the world know that they have an unconditional love for their children.

Mothers4Justice does not hold rallies (as yet) as we believe in showing our love to our children in a very different way. We would love the fathers to play an active non lying non brain washing role in our children's lives but it seems that there is one rule for fathers and mothers are not allowed to have a say.
This is a support web site for mothers seeking justice for their children because of a relationship break up we wish the fathers to know that, we hurt,we feel we cry for our children and the bond we have with our children will always be strong because after all we have felt them grow inside us.

If you need help please use our support forum and talk to other mothers who like you have been through the system and can help!

Klingon Hamlet

Thaedydal wrote: »

For every father denied access and rights to his children there are children who are messed around and abandoned by men who don't want to be fathers.
It's how things are unfortunatly and I can understand why parents on both sides get pissed off.

Why would an estranged dad goto the trouble of dressing up and campaigning?

Your comment also implies 50% of dads are good and 50% are bad. You don't honestly mean that do you???

Nevyn

I didn't imply or infer any precentages at all.

I can understand the frustrations on both sides and if both are looking for reforum in the family law systems then that should be a good thing.

ash23

I don't see why the mothers shouldn't also have the right to campaign. The article may seem harsh but it's a two way street and many women have as much right to be disgruntled as men.

I don't think they need to detract from the plight of fathers4justice in order to make themselves heard though.

Klingon Hamlet

ash23 wrote: »

I don't see why the mothers shouldn't also have the right to campaign. The article may seem harsh but it's a two way street and many women have as much right to be disgruntled as men.

I don't think they need to detract from the plight of fathers4justice in order to make themselves heard though.

I 100% support women's right to campaign. I'd rather see a combined effort from both genders---at the moment it's a he-said she-said vicious circle. It should be good parents vs bad.

And yeah dismissing men's campaigns as childish is unnecessary.

Klingon Hamlet

Thaedydal wrote: »

I didn't imply or infer any precentages at all.

I can understand the frustrations on both sides and if both are looking for reforum in the family law systems then that should be a good thing.

For every father denied access and rights to his children there are children who are messed around and abandoned by men who don't want to be fathers.

That statement clearly says that for one victimised father, there is a father who lets his children down. 1:1 ration, 50/50, call it what you want---I'd like you to explain it a bit better is all. generalisations such as the one you made are the main reason people regurgitate the same old bile generation after generation, without basing it on unbiased fact.

Good parents are the majority, on both sexes. Let's support mums and dads, without the usual "Oh but there are so many walked away from their kids."

Boxoffrogs

Why would these mothers consider doing this as a reactionary measure to the Fathers for justice group? I would have thought both groups should actually be supportive of each other.

EDIT: Oh and the CSA should have been scrapped long ago. There was nothing fair about some of the judgements they made, indeed they made a lot of people's lives misery

Klingon Hamlet

diddledum wrote: »

Why would these mothers consider doing this as a reactionary measure to the Fathers for justice group? I would have thought both groups should actually be supportive of each other.

Because people resort to tit-for-tat. They thing men's support groups are anti-women when they're not. They're pro-equal-parenting.

Boxoffrogs

Yes that, and it seems that they are perhaps a little bitter about the death of the CSA maybe?

That was one horrible agency. I lived in the UK for a while. I know of various cases where there was a marriage/relationship split and the CSA were involved. Sometimes the men were royally screwed, having to pay more than 1/4 of their salary (and I don't mean measly salaries) and mortgage payments on top, even though he may have a new family to support. On top of this he may not be allowed access to the children.

I also know many women who would not go the CSA route for those very reasons and have the utmost respect for them.

Splendour

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Article here:



Does anyone else think this is a very cruel article? It portrays men who dress up as eejits --- when really they're doing what they can to get attention. Plus it makes mums sound very harsh too---Take a Break need to wake up methinks.

In my case and in alot of my friend's cases this is not a cruel article at all. Sadly there are not as many men who think as you do Klingon and men will do anything to get out of looking after their kids. The even sadder thing is, they think they are having a go at the mother of their kids when in reality it is the children themselves who suffer...

Klingon Hamlet

Splendour wrote: »

In my case and in alot of my friend's cases this is not a cruel article at all. Sadly there are not as many men who think as you do Klingon and men will do anything to get out of looking after their kids. The even sadder thing is, they think they are having a go at the mother of their kids when in reality it is the children themselves who suffer...

Splendour they're in the minority, trust me. It's like saying we should bitch about women cos so many of the mess with access. So many more men and women do the right thing.

I HATE when the small minority are dragged up and shoved in our faces.

Splendour honestly how many men do you know have walked away? And how many haven't? I'm tired of generalisations. If responsible men were in the minority, then there wouldn't be hundreds of cases in court for guardianship/custody/access etc every year.

ash23

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I HATE when the small minority are dragged up and shoved in our faces.

Splendour honestly how many men do you know have walked away? And how many haven't? I'm tired of generalisations. If responsible men were in the minority, then there wouldn't be hundreds of cases in court for guardianship/custody/access etc every year.

But the same goes for women. I hate when the men drag up the small minority of women who mess with access. Single parents are roughly 80% women. According to the census. Now yes, mostly that is due to women having automatic guardianship.

But of the single mothers I know, roughly half have had their kids and are raising them totally alone Sadly I only know of one whose ex has the child every weekend. The others are one weekend a month. Some of the kids (my own included) NEVER see their dads.

Now thats not statistical but you're acting like there are shed loads of mothers who mess with access and hardly any fathers who walk away.

moldypeach

I can see this from both sides. To be honest i believe the mothers have it good as it is.
I have one child from a previous relationship who hasn't had her father contact her in 4 years, before this it was me who had to contact him to try and keep him in her life. I get no maintenance and she doesn't even recieve birthday cards etc.
I would not go chasing him for anything, i see her grow up, i hear the funny things she says and know everything about her. This to me is worth soo much more than any money i could get from him. It was my choice to have my baby and it was his choice to be missing out on this amazing little girl.

On the other hand i know of many women playing the access orders and using their own children as pawns. My own mother was one, and she has lost out as we now understand what she did.
Also my new partner has been hurt and dragged through the mill by his ex, purely because of jealousy over our relationship.
This in my eyes is far worse!! a child needs 2 parents! if one parent decides not to be involved you cannot force them to love the child.
but.. if there is a chance a child can have a balanced happy well loved upbringing by 2 parents, why is this still allowed to be denied!

pickarooney

Why are parents who have sole custody of their children (whether they want that or not) comparing themselves to parents who have no custody of their children (through no fault of their own)?

It's a completely illogical comparison and does nothing but harm to their own, very different, cause.

Klingon Hamlet

ash23 wrote: »

But the same goes for women. I hate when the men drag up the small minority of women who mess with access.

We as dads tend to mention the issues we face personally---i.e. access disruptions. I never assume a mother is predisposed to pushing dads away---many of my female friends who also happen to be single mums, are very good to the fathers of their children---no matter whether they're chatty with them or there's a bit of tension, they do not interfere with the bond between father and child. I love that and respect that.

Single parents are roughly 80% women. According to the census.

Would you mind linking to that? Cos surely the 80% mums who are single---well, the dads are single too, no? i think you mean they have sole custody.

Now yes, mostly that is due to women having automatic guardianship.

Totally unfair isn't it?

Sadly I only know of one whose ex has the child every weekend. The others are one weekend a month.

Is that by choice? Did the dads apply for more time? Was it court-approved or personal agreement?

Some of the kids (my own included) NEVER see their dads.

That's awful and I'm sorry---I couldn't fathom not seeing my own child.

Now thats not statistical but you're acting like there are shed loads of mothers who mess with access and hardly any fathers who walk away.

I'm saying there are about as many bad mothers as bad fathers---but they are in the minority, and should not be used as an excuse to undermine their far more responible counterparts.

Nevyn

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

That statement clearly says that for one victimised father, there is a father who lets his children down. 1:1 ration, 50/50, call it what you want---I'd like you to explain it a bit better is all. generalisations such as the one you made are the main reason people regurgitate the same old bile generation after generation, without basing it on unbiased fact.

Good parents are the majority, on both sexes. Let's support mums and dads, without the usual "Oh but there are so many walked away from their kids."

In my personal experience I know far more children who's father walked out on them then I know father's trying to get access to their children.

So I never said 1:1 you misinterpreted my statement.

Klingon Hamlet

ash23 wrote: »

But the same goes for women. I hate when the men drag up the small minority of women who mess with access. Single parents are roughly 80% women. According to the census. Now yes, mostly that is due to women having automatic guardianship.

But of the single mothers I know, roughly half have had their kids and are raising them totally alone Sadly I only know of one whose ex has the child every weekend. The others are one weekend a month. Some of the kids (my own included) NEVER see their dads.

Now thats not statistical but you're acting like there are shed loads of mothers who mess with access and hardly any fathers who walk away.

Thaedydal wrote: »

In my personal experience I know far more children who's father walked out on them then I know father's trying to get access to their children.

So I never said 1:1 you misinterpreted my statement.

So because in your circle of friends, there are more irresponsible dads than good ones, you're tarring us all with the same brush? I wonder how many dads walked away from the situation because they knew the hell a custody battle would be? Dads don't get much if any support over here.

Nevyn

Again with the putting words in my mouth.

I never said there were more bad dad's then good ones.
I know lots of Dad's who have shared or part custody or are still in the family unit and are good Dads.

I said I know of more children who are denied thier Father's due to the father's not wanting to know them, then children who are denied thier father's due to the courts or the mother dening access.

and honest, this needs to be about the children's rights, not the rights of the mother's or father's.

Klingon Hamlet

Thaedydal wrote: »

and honest, this needs to be about the children's rights, not the rights of the mother's or father's.

Then the constitution needs to be changed. It focuses on marriage and single-motherhood---it ignores the rights of the child.

If dads and mums got automatic parental responsibility---then this would negate many of the cases that pour through the courtrooms on a daily basis. And BTW I know a lot more dads denied access then walked away. It doesn't mean I don't think there are shamefully irresponsible and cruel dads out there---there are---but the introduction of automatic parental responsibility would be a one-for-all: love, money, time together---all bundled up as one, as it should be.

Nevyn

I agree the law as it stands goes back to Victorian assumptions, and we need the refenda on the rights of the child asap which should include the right to know and access to both parents.

Klingon Hamlet

I also think "primary care and control" needs to be abolished, as it basically provides the parent with the most amount of access to the child a domineering role in decision-making.

I would love to see a State-sponsored mediation team put in place, to help alleviate the stress and anguish of court proceedings, and to help both parents come to agreements/compromises in a more civil, laidback, and thoughtful manner.

I find courts can be quite effective in getting rights put in place, but also serve to turn parenting into a tug-of-war, which I wish to God I personally could've avoided---but couldn't, cos I'm a daddy:o

Nevyn

The will to put such a system in place and to fund it isn't there.

Klingon Hamlet

Thaedydal wrote: »

The will to put such a system in place and to fund it isn't there.

That's because the general public don't understand family law. If you asked 100 people does putting a dad's name on a birth cert make him the father, and entitle him to the responsibilities and rights he'd expect were he married, 98 would shrug and say yeah, and woner why you're even asking:o

The more people know, the more angry the general public will get---and righteous anger breeds change.

Hence: the costumes, the rallies, the protests, and the campaigns. These are not anti-women. they are pro-family. But that mums4justice site is a sham. Calling upset dads "childish" is cruel. I emailed Take a Break a long and detailed message, explaining how unfair they were, taking sides when everyone can work together.

Wonder will they write back:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

But the same goes for women. I hate when the men drag up the small minority of women who mess with access. Single parents are roughly 80% women. According to the census. Now yes, mostly that is due to women having automatic guardianship.

Actually custody is probably more important than guardianship in this regard, as guardianship does not really afford a parent a lot of rights.

While I think we can all recognize that single mothers do often get the rough end of the stick in terms of maintenance and irregular visitation, I do think that campaigning for 'justice' on this is a bit rich considering the imbalance in the law.

Maintenance enforcement has been in place for a long time (although I believe that it has more or less fallen apart in Ireland), yet there are no legal rights for fathers in place, let alone procedures of enforcement. So I do think that it is a little insulting for such a campaign to actively degrade father's in this fashion given the legal situation.

smelltheglove

I havent read the thread, apologies but this p*d me off. This is blatant categorising. Throwing all dads under the one label and all single mothers under the other. It just gets to me, it doesnt matter what sex you are, if you are a parent you are a parent. Who gives out about the mothers who walk away from their kids???? Nobody, its like a taboo but as soon as a lad tells a girl he has a kid from a previous it is assumed that he has walked away, which is not always the case.

Fair play to these dads for fighting for their rights, they have to if the law wont give them any help.

As for the mothers one, ok fair enough yes a lot of women get left holding the baby and they do deserve a voice, as a single mother before I recall being looked down upon by people as soon as they hear I was a single mother, I remember one in particular which I will never forget, I met a woman at a work function, she worked a different shift to me and we were introduced, I was new. After talking for a while this woman realised I had a child, I would have been 22 at the time, and started going on about how disgusted she would be if she was my mother etc etc, the good old sterotype being put on me. Anyway, funnily enough, she just changed shift, the next morning she came into work to realise I was a manager there and I was overlooking all her work. I didnt give her a hard time but I tell you, the look on her face was priceless.

Anyway, on from that the thing I dont like about this article is that it is making the fathers for justice people to sound like they are men who have walked away, but this is not true, just because you turn your back on a partner you dont turn your back on a child, but unfortunately women can use the children as leverage against these men. I think its a horrible article.

ash23

smelltheglove wrote: »

As for the mothers one, ok fair enough yes a lot of women get left holding the baby and they do deserve a voice, as a single mother before I recall being looked down upon by people as soon as they hear I was a single mother, I remember one in particular which I will never forget, I met a woman at a work function, she worked a different shift to me and we were introduced, I was new. After talking for a while this woman realised I had a child, I would have been 22 at the time, and started going on about how disgusted she would be if she was my mother etc etc, the good old sterotype being put on me. Anyway, funnily enough, she just changed shift, the next morning she came into work to realise I was a manager there and I was overlooking all her work. I didnt give her a hard time but I tell you, the look on her face was priceless.

I remember 2 weeks after splitting from my ex, I went looking at a house. The woman who owned it showed me around. I was going to take it (even though it was a cesspit as I needed out of my own house) and she said all she needed was a deposit and a weeks rent in advance. Then she asked who would be living with me and I said my daughter. She asked "just the two of you?" and I said yes.

Suddenly she wanted references from work, my previous places I'd rented, a larger deposit, a months rent in advance, an inventory and my parents number!!!! I was 26 years of age!!!

She was quite happy to let me and 3 of my mates rent and not bat an eyelid, but a single mother! No way!

I also had one guy in work have a go (thank god all my workmates soon told him what was what). It's rife and it's depressing at times. Generally I'm lucky in that most people are supportive but if I were coming across this on a regular basis I'd probably get pretty riled up over the situation.

It can sometimes feel that while the fathers may not have many legal rights, they do tend to get more sympathy. The fathers4jutice get a fair amount of press and also the media tends to usually portray a better image of single fathers. If you've a man whose wife deserts him and he's left with the kids he gets a damn sight more "poor him" than a woman in the same boat.


In fairness, the magazine is fairly low brow and would be usually very biased towards its main market which would be women with children.
It's the Jerry Springer of magazines. I wouldn't expect any less than the nonsense it has in that article.

Also, this group are clearly angry and bitter women. And perhaps they have reason to be. I've come close a few times myself.
But they are stupid. Because they would have been better to work in conjunction with groups like fathers4justice than slating them.

a.rose

Hadn't heard about the Mums4Justice campaign but I'll definitely spread the word. I know mum's who'll be interested. I wonder if a similar campaign will start here.

Of course mother's can campaign in their own way. They don't need a man telling them the best way to proceed.

Orion

Thaedydal wrote:

For every father denied access and rights to his children there are children who are messed around and abandoned by men who don't want to be fathers.
It's how things are unfortunatly and I can understand why parents on both sides get pissed off.

With all due respect Thaed that's crap. The legal system in Ireland completely discriminates against unmarried fathers. We have shag all rights in law. Luckily I'm not in the position where I'm denied access to my children but a lot of unmarried fathers are. You are generalising with that post. Men who don't want to be fathers wouldn't be marching on O'Connell Street for the right to be recognised as one.

And your later posts on this thread don't take away from this. You keep going on about men who don't want to know their kids. They don't deserve their children tbh.

But the OP is about abandoned mothers and you're lumping all fathers in that category. "who's standing up for mums who've been left holding the baby" - THE LAW IS. End of.

Who stands up for good men who are being denied access to their children by spiteful ***** - nobody.

You need to get off your high horse on this topic. Not all men are bastards. More specifically not all unmarried fathers don't care about their kids. The law is completely biased in favour of the mother and that's a major problem that needs to be addressed.

Nevyn

I know the law is a crock of shíte and it cuts both ways with women being left to do the parenting when mean walk, so it's not roses on the other side of the fence, the law hurts parents male and female and more importantly the children.

The law and system should be imho child centred and not about a war between genders or parents.