fathers4justice protest

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

This group were also discussing whether they should name and shame mother's on Facebook... ffs have they any regard for the kids feelings? Imagine a poor teen seeing that online

That kind of behaviour is beyond daft and to be honest the group should be disassociating themselves from people who condone or participate in this.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

Because the mothers are not granting access. They should be.


And that's your opinion. I've no dealing with them and never would have dealings with them but they're the only ones out there fighting for fathers rights so they have respect from me even if some of them come across as idiots.


No, I don't think it's my business. You injected yourself in to the thread and told everyone about your situation without me or anyone else asking. And like I said, your situation is not one of a father seeking access but the mother refusing. It's the opposite.

The mothers should be giving access. That's separate to the maintenance issue.

People fighting for fathers rights have my respect too. Not these idiots.

You asked a woman to justify her stance and gave her two options as to why she held the opinion she does. Neither of them apply to her or to me who has the same opinion. It was none of your business when you asked the poster those questions. I never claimed you asked me for my situation, you asked somebody else when it was none of your business. I gave my situation to further demonstrate that your assumptions about why she held her opinion, the same as my opinion, were bull****. And again, I never said my situation was the same as what these men are discussing.

Tasden

tomwaterford wrote: »

Your in the chicken and egg scenario now....which came first??

Either way if all court rulings are obeyed.....as I know the amount of Messing/tit4tat what geos on is beyond stupid in the family court

And that is precicely why maintenance and access are dealt with as separate issues in family law.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

The mothers should be giving access. That's separate to the maintenance issue.

People fighting for fathers rights have my respect too. Not these idiots.

You asked a woman to justify her stance and gave her two options as to why she held the opinion she does. Neither of them apply to her or to me who has the same opinion. It was none of your business when you asked the poster those questions. I never claimed you asked me for my situation, you asked somebody else when it was none of your business. I gave my situation to further demonstrate that your assumptions about why she held her opinion, the same as my opinion, were bull****. And again, I never said my situation was the same as what these men are discussing.

I gave her 3 options. Either way, I was harsh but the topic is touchy and I felt it needed to be asked why she held the opinion that the fathers should pay up when the mothers aren't withholding their end of the court order, and when it's the mothers who are initiating the issues.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

And that is precicely why maintenance and access are dealt with as separate issues in family law.

Except that denying maintenance can land you in jail but denying access doesn't even get you a slap on the wrist. That's why a percentage of mothers find it such an easy route to take. This fathers rights group are trying to tackle that.

Snugglebunnies

Were there not more rigid methods of enforcement of access in the new child and family relationships bill that passed earlier in the year?

foggy_lad

smash wrote: »

Why are you assuming they're not getting essentials? Not all single mothers, or lone mothers, or mother who have children with different fathers are poor! Get that in to your head.


No it's not. It's what the mothers are doing. Usually through court order. The fathers are happy to pay the maintenance in return for access. It's when they don't get access they don't want to pay.

I know of one father of two lovely girls who had all the access he ever wanted but only ever turned up in town when he had to get out of Waterford due to owing people money etc.

He was working full time and was asked to contribute something a week to feed and clothe his kids but insisted that he would buy clothes and shoes for them haha the man who only saw them twice a year was an expert in girls fashions!

The mother went to court for maintenance and he pulled out all the stops with his income statement even claiming that he spent €20 daily on lunches, Judge Martin in Carlow nearly chocked on her tongue when she heard that, she told him to start bring spam sandwiches to work and a flask of tea!

He was ordered to pay €30 a week for the children and also contribute at Christmas and back to school and summer holidays. He paid for a few months and then stopped paying and the woman eventually got him committed to Mountjoy for non payment, lost his job and spent several more month long stints in Mountjoy and Cork prisons because he simply would not pay!

He could pay but on principle he just was not going to give her another euro!


This is exactly the mentality of most of the Fathers for Justice!

Tasden

smash wrote: »

I gave her 3 options. Either way, I was harsh but the topic is touchy and I felt it needed to be asked why she held the opinion that the fathers should pay up when the mothers aren't withholding their end of the court order, and when it's the mothers who are initiating the issues.

3 options, none of which were correct. And she was dignified enough to share her personal story with you despite it being none of your business. Part of the reason why I felt it was needed to give my situation and make you realise that the assumptions you made were uncalled for and untrue.

There are three sides to every story- the mother's, the father's and the truth. And even at that the child's story isn't even heard. Family law should never be tit for tat. It should always be about the best interests of the child. It's not right now. It's highly biased towards the mothers. And fathers lose out and kids lose out. And decent mothers who have never done anything wrong are tarred with the same brush and people make assumptions about us. Withholding maintenance will never in a million years help a man's case in court though. Its dangerous advice if nothing else. And it will never in a million years change the system. I admit that I don't know what will change the system but withholding maintenance will not.

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Were there not more rigid methods of enforcement of access in the new child and family relationships bill that passed earlier in the year?

Penalties for breaches of enforcement orders are at the court's discretion.

smash

foggy_lad wrote: »

I know of one father of two lovely girls who had all the access he ever wanted but only ever turned up in town when he had to get out of Waterford due to owing people money etc.

He was working full time and was asked to contribute something a week to feed and clothe his kids but insisted that he would buy clothes and shoes for them haha the man who only saw them twice a year was an expert in girls fashions!

The mother went to court for maintenance and he pulled out all the stops with his income statement even claiming that he spent €20 daily on lunches, Judge Martin in Carlow nearly chocked on her tongue when she heard that, she told him to start bring spam sandwiches to work and a flask of tea!

He was ordered to pay €30 a week for the children and also contribute at Christmas and back to school and summer holidays. He paid for a few months and then stopped paying and the woman eventually got him committed to Mountjoy for non payment, lost his job and spent several more month long stints in Mountjoy and Cork prisons because he simply would not pay!

He could pay but on principle he just was not going to give her another euro!

This is exactly the mentality of most of the Fathers for Justice!

The person you describe is a scumbag. Why do you align him with Fathers for Justice who as far as I'm aware are fighting for rights of fathers who want access but are being denied?

Snugglebunnies

smash wrote:

Penalties for breaches of enforcement orders are at the court's discretion.

I remember hearing that judges think imprisoning/ fining the mother etc. Would have a negative impact on the child of she's the primary carer so maybe that's why they are lenient in that regard?

smash

Tasden wrote: »

Family law should never be tit for tat. It should always be about the best interests of the child. It's not right now. It's highly biased towards the mothers. And fathers lose out and kids lose out. And decent mothers who have never done anything wrong are tarred with the same brush and people make assumptions about us. Withholding maintenance will never in a million years help a man's case in court though. Its dangerous advice if nothing else. And it will never in a million years change the system. I admit that I don't know what will change the system but withholding maintenance will not.

Withholding access won't change the system either. If either maintenance or access is withheld then it becomes tit for tat. It's the father who usually ends up worse in the situation though.

And I don't tar all single mothers with the same brush.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

The person you describe is a scumbag. Why do you align him with Fathers for Justice who as far as I'm aware are fighting for rights of fathers who want access but are being denied?

Their cause is admirable but they go the wrong way about it.
You're saying that fathers can be put in jail for withholding maintenance while breach of an access order gets a slap on the wrist, these men are going on telly and telling fathers to withhold maintenance. Get themselves locked up. Cause that makes a great case for access/custody, a parent who has just got out of jail. For not providing money to their child. Because that is it in simple terms. The sentiment behind it and the very valid points behind why they are doing it won't come into it.
Yep you have valid points about maintenance and the inequalities but cmon, their advice is not doing anything to help fathers who are already up against so many obstacles.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

Withholding access won't change the system either. If either maintenance or access is withheld then it becomes tit for tat. It's the father who usually ends up worse in the situation though.

And I don't tar all single mothers with the same brush.

Who said withholding access will?
Nope, if maintenance is withheld the other parent can choose not to play tit for tat. And same with access. They're both adults.

Didn't say you did.

foggy_lad

I often see that woman's younger child in her arms at her door as he headed off back to Waterford after lighting up their young lives for the weekend and the child wailing at him not to go, that he could have her bed and she would sleep on the floor. The doors had to be locked but she went off down the road after him one day after climbing out the window.

He knew he could arrive at that door every Friday if he wanted and would be accommodated for the weekend and fed and given as many mugs of tea he could take, the woman even gave him cigarettes when he was on the bones of his backside, but NO he only turned up a few times a year and not even for Christmas or New Year!

He turned to Fathers for justice to get advice on how to end the maintenance order but told me that he was advised not go back to court without proof of paying large amounts to the woman for His children.

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

I remember hearing that judges think imprisoning/ fining the mother etc. Would have a negative impact on the child of she's the primary carer so maybe that's why they are lenient in that regard?

But they don't seem to take that view when it's the father they're imprisoning. Withholding access can result in as little as being ordered to do some counselling.

I think we got off on the wrong foot with a heated argument so let me try to explain it better if I can... If a father wants access and has to go trough a court to get it then there's already an issue. Either he's a nutcase or the mother's a nutcase. The court need to evaluate correctly and they usually don't. I have no respect for people who will drag it through court looking for maintenance in exchange for 5/6 days a month of access as this, to them, means the access holds a monetary value. Both parents should pay for the child, and both parents should strive to have as close to even access as possible. If one parent doesn't strive for this then the court needs to look at the reasons why and act accordingly. I have no time for scumbags who negate on their parental responsibilities, be it access or maintenance but you will run in to tit for tat as soon as one parent breaks the chain.

foggy_lad

smash wrote: »

The person you describe is a scumbag. Why do you align him with Fathers for Justice who as far as I'm aware are fighting for rights of fathers who want access but are being denied?

If you have a child or more and are separated or otherwise divorced from the mother you don't use maintenance to blackmail the mother!

Only a scumbag does that, a real father will do anything for his children and should be addressing access issues to the courts.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

Their cause is admirable but they go the wrong way about it.
You're saying that fathers can be put in jail for withholding maintenance while breach of an access order gets a slap on the wrist, these men are going on telly and telling fathers to withhold maintenance. Get themselves locked up. Cause that makes a great case for access/custody, a parent who has just got out of jail. For not providing money to their child. Because that is it in simple terms. The sentiment behind it and the very valid points behind why they are doing it won't come into it.
Yep you have valid points about maintenance and the inequalities but cmon, their advice is not doing anything to help fathers who are already up against so many obstacles.

My take on it was that they suggested this in extreme circumstances where access was being continuously denied as it was the quickest way back in to court where applying for an access hearing can sometimes take a long time and be expensive.

foggy_lad wrote: »

He turned to Fathers for justice to get advice on how to end the maintenance order but told me that he was advised not go back to court without proof of paying large amounts to the woman for His children.

So they told him to pay up...

Tasden

smash wrote: »

But they don't seem to take that view when it's the father they're imprisoning. Withholding access can result in as little as being ordered to do some counselling.

I think we got off on the wrong foot with a heated argument so let me try to explain it better if I can... If a father wants access and has to go trough a court to get it then there's already an issue. Either he's a nutcase or the mother's a nutcase. The court need to evaluate correctly and they usually don't. I have no respect for people who will drag it through court looking for maintenance in exchange for 5/6 days a month of access as this, to them, means the access holds a monetary value. Both parents should pay for the child, and both parents should strive to have as close to even access as possible. If one parent doesn't strive for this then the court needs to look at the reasons why and act accordingly. I have no time for scumbags who negate on their parental responsibilities, be it access or maintenance but you will run in to tit for tat as soon as one parent breaks the chain.

Nobody looks for maintenance in court in exchange for any days access because they are separate issues in family law. There is no chain. Tit for tat is consciously avoided by dealing with the two as separate issues in family law. Yet these idiots are saying one should depend on the other. Exactly what you're complaining about in your post there.

smash

foggy_lad wrote: »

If you have a child or more and are separated or otherwise divorced from the mother you don't use maintenance to blackmail the mother!

Only a scumbag does that, a real father will do anything for his children and should be addressing access issues to the courts.

I never suggested doing so.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

My take on it was that they suggested this in extreme circumstances where access was being continuously denied as it was the quickest way back in to court where applying for an access hearing can sometimes take a long time and be expensive.


...

So in a case where access is constantly denied by the mother, the father will give her more ammo for when it finally gets to court- she can say that the dad is in jail/going to jail/just got out of jail for not supporting his child financially. Hardly going to portray the father in a better light than the mother regardless of her wrongdoings.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

Nobody looks for maintenance in court in exchange for any days access because they are separate issues in family law. There is no chain. Tit for tat is consciously avoided by dealing with the two as separate issueshower in family law. Yet these idiots are saying one should depend on the other. Exactly what you're complaining about in your post there.

When I say 'in return for access' I'm talking about the scenarios which are heard of all to frequently where a mother looks for as much maintenance as the court can impose while granting as little access as the court will impose.

Grandeeod

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Maintenance and access are not exchanged for one another. As in never. Look it up.

You are right. They are seperate issues. However the laws governing maintenance and access are not fair and equitable. I went through this 24 years ago. I was denied access to my child despite standing by his mother. One day she decided that was the end of the relationship. She had met someone else. No access granted by her. Get on with your life she said. But I still want your money so off to court for a maintenance order, which she got at the drop of a hat. Off I go to court for an access order. Four different attempts it took and then she broke it again and again and again. I stopped the maintenance and I was hauled back to court and threatened with jail by the judge. I brought her back to court for breaking the access order. She denied it. Came up with excuses about difficulties in making agreed times. No threat of jail and I came away with less access.

This kind of thing is going on week in and week out in family law courts. Even the birth cert thing is crazy outside of marriage. The mother must agree to having the fathers name on it. What about guardianship? Again the mother must agree. I'll go even further. A single mother can simply sign an document witnessed by a comm. for oaths claiming she does not know the whereabouts of the childs father and obtain a passport for the child. I had this happen to me even though I was paying maintenance and getting some access.

The laws are prehistoric and need updating.

steddyeddy

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

I remember hearing that judges think imprisoning/ fining the mother etc. Would have a negative impact on the child of she's the primary carer so maybe that's why they are lenient in that regard?

If they refuse accessto a father who's decent and willing to pay then it's their fault the child is impacted.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

When I say 'in return for access' I'm talking about the scenarios which are heard of all to frequently where a mother looks for as much maintenance as the court can impose while granting as little access as the court will impose.

They are dealt with as two separate issues legally to discourage what you described in your post. So how does allowing one to depend on the other actually help?

smash

Tasden wrote: »

So in a case where access is constantly denied by the mother, the father will give her more ammo for when it finally gets to court- she can say that the dad is in jail/going to jail/just got out of jail for not supporting his child financially. Hardly going to portray the father in a better light than the mother regardless of her wrongdoings.

It's up to the court whether they want to jail the guy or not. It doesn't have to happen. I think there needs to be an intermediary service that's not the usual social welfare officials who can step in before it needs to get to a court hearing. If a father is being denied access or a mother is being denied maintenance then an intermediariy should be able to knock on the door and oversee access or collect maintenance or at least find out what's happening and propose a resolution before dragging anyone through court.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

It's up to the court whether they want to jail the guy or not. It doesn't have to happen. I think there needs to be an intermediary service that's not the usual social welfare officials who can step in before it needs to get to a court hearing. If a father is being denied access or a mother is being denied maintenance then an intermediariy should be able to knock on the door and oversee access or collect maintenance or at least find out what's happening and propose a resolution before dragging anyone through court.

But you're saying it does happen.

foggy_lad

smash wrote: »

So they told him to pay up...

Fathers for justice wanted him to see their solicitors and go to court but someone in the citizens information centre advised him against that unless he could show that he had been paying substantial amounts for his children each year as he was not paying maintenance for so much of the time.

Snugglebunnies

Ya but id imagine they won't order something that will negatively impact the child no matter who's fault it is.

A whole overhaul of the system is needed. Judges with no clue about children or qualifications in the area of development or welbeing should not be bandying around court orders that can have massive impacts on people's lives. Courts should not come into it. A team of child welfare experts should meet all involved and make up a sustainable plan that really works in the best interest of the child. The needs of children get lost once the legal system comes into play. It's sad.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

They are dealt with as two separate issues legally to discourage what you described in your post. So how does allowing one to depend on the other actually help?

Because to an extent (day to day costs) one does depend on the other. If you don't see your child next week for example, you've no day to day costs for those few days. Less food to buy, less electricity used, no fuel used for trips to school or Creche etc.