fathers4justice protest

hatrickpatrick

foggy_lad wrote: »

They are not equal though as the mother will always have the upper hand when it comes to the children, they will always run to their mammy when things go wrong.

This is an astoundingly ridiculous remark, even for AH. That might have been the way in your family, but it's certainly not the way in all families.

foggy_lad

foggy_lad wrote: »

Children have a far greater bond with their mothers than they will have with the fathers, maybe this stems from birth and breastfeeding and the nurturing nature of most mothers? Fathers will never replace mothers as the best person for the child to live with, unless the mother is somehow incapacitated.

Certainly, for all the criticism of the Courts here as if it is an Irish thing, there is a strong tendency throughout common law jurisdictions to recognise this. The younger the child, the more likely it is to be applied, I'm afraid the sad advice for the father of a baby or a toddler is not a chance of custody, probably not even an overnight access until the child is 2 or 3 anyway...unless he has some reason why the mother cannot look after the child. And that should be a good reason, like drink or drug abuse, have seen Courts point out that a parent with, say, depression should not lose their child because of their medical condition.

Anyone who says otherwise can have all the psychology or sociology reports they like, that's the way it is in Ireland, England, the USA etc. That's why I specifically said groups like this one would be far better involved in analysis and research as to why this might be so and coming up with arguments against it, rather than stupid stunts.

livedadream

Panthro wrote: »

Quite possibly the most deluded post I have ever read here on Boards.

where do people like that even come from?

the cost of maintaining a household?
how to raise children?

totally deluded... like living on mars deluded...

homerjay2005

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely not. Once the child is born, both parents should be treated absolutely equally in terms of both rights and responsibilities.

except sadly, in the majority of cases where one parent is absent through choice, its the father who is nowhere to be seen.

look, theres lots of genuine dads around who want to see their children, likewise theres lots of genuine mams who want to see the fathers involved. but the law is tipped towards women and in alot (not all) of cases, this is correct.

Fathers For Justice are a bit like the suffragettes of the early 20th century.

I say "a bit" because the denial of their rights to their children has more of a serious impact on their lives than not voting.

Posters that say "equal access" will hopefully be a grotesque quirk of history in 100 years time, much like how we now treat pictures of ladies carrying "Votes for Women" placards.

JRant

foggy_lad wrote: »

Children have a far greater bond with their mothers than they will have with the fathers, maybe this stems from birth and breastfeeding and the nurturing nature of most mothers? Fathers will never replace mothers as the best person for the child to live with, unless the mother is somehow incapacitated.

Lots of men have that attitude towards their ex partners and it leads to their seperation/divorce. "I paid for the house that b%&ch is living in/Car she is driving" etc etc

Lots of men always had complete control over the money in the household and use maintenance to try to hold some control over their ex partners! They are unwilling to pay over maintenance without being seen to get something in return!

Again it is the mother that every child runs to when they are in need regardless of age! the father is not seen as the same by children.

Take the father away and children will adapt, take the mother away and the child is totally lost.

Lots of Fathers only bother fighting over access as revenge for their ex partners going to court over maintenance payments!

They are not equal though as the mother will always have the upper hand when it comes to the children, they will always run to their mammy when things go wrong.

Many women are causing issues with access in tit for tat fashion because their maintenance payments were late or short or just not there at all, it is very easy for a man to say Oh well I was a few days late or i only left you short €20 this week but from my experience of maintenance payments every penny is accounted for and if it is late then the bills are late getting paid or the rent has to be deferred or if the payment is short or not paid at all that leaves the child's household under serious financial pressure!

As I said before very few of the men who would withhold maintenance know anything about the cost of running a household or the cost of raising children!

Well it's clear from your posts that you view fathers as nothing more than sperm donors and a walking wallet, sad really.

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Certainly, for all the criticism of the Courts here as if it is an Irish thing, there is a strong tendency throughout common law jurisdictions to recognise this. The younger the child, the more likely it is to be applied, I'm afraid the sad advice for the father of a baby or a toddler is not a chance of custody, probably not even an overnight access until the child is 2 or 3 anyway...unless he has some reason why the mother cannot look after the child. And that should be a good reason, like drink or drug abuse, have seen Courts point out that a parent with, say, depression should not lose their child because of their medical condition.

Anyone who says otherwise can have all the psychology or sociology reports they like, that's the way it is in Ireland, England, the USA etc. That's why I specifically said groups like this one would be far better involved in analysis and research as to why this might be so and coming up with arguments against it, rather than stupid stunts.

Wait a second though, it wasn't all that long ago that the father would automatically get custody of their children. Changed in the late 19th, early 20th century I think. So society can change and common law most certainly can and should to reflect the society it is supposed to protect.

I also can't understand your last paragraph. On the one hand you're saying that no amount of studies or reports will change the current setup and yet advocate groups like F4J should carry out studies to get it changed???
So which is it?

Grandeeod

Deleted User wrote: »

Certainly, for all the criticism of the Courts here as if it is an Irish thing, there is a strong tendency throughout common law jurisdictions to recognise this. The younger the child, the more likely it is to be applied, I'm afraid the sad advice for the father of a baby or a toddler is not a chance of custody, probably not even an overnight access until the child is 2 or 3 anyway...unless he has some reason why the mother cannot look after the child. And that should be a good reason, like drink or drug abuse, have seen Courts point out that a parent with, say, depression should not lose their child because of their medical condition.

Anyone who says otherwise can have all the psychology or sociology reports they like, that's the way it is in Ireland, England, the USA etc. That's why I specifically said groups like this one would be far better involved in analysis and research as to why this might be so and coming up with arguments against it, rather than stupid stunts.

Firstly I'm disappointed you even entertained that clown.

Secondly, groups like F4J can only take analysis and research so far. Like it or not and I'm no particular fan of it, but the stunts get people talking. I think one of the biggest failures is within your own profession and you should look there before referring to stupid stunts.

smash

Deleted User wrote: »

Certainly, for all the criticism of the Courts here as if it is an Irish thing, there is a strong tendency throughout common law jurisdictions to recognise this. The younger the child, the more likely it is to be applied, I'm afraid the sad advice for the father of a baby or a toddler is not a chance of custody, probably not even an overnight access until the child is 2 or 3 anyway...unless he has some reason why the mother cannot look after the child. And that should be a good reason, like drink or drug abuse, have seen Courts point out that a parent with, say, depression should not lose their child because of their medical condition.

Anyone who says otherwise can have all the psychology or sociology reports they like, that's the way it is in Ireland, England, the USA etc. That's why I specifically said groups like this one would be far better involved in analysis and research as to why this might be so and coming up with arguments against it, rather than stupid stunts.

Do you give this kind of advice to your clients?

eviltwin

Grandeeod wrote: »

You live in the stoneage and you have just insulted every single father with full custody and their children.

Just insulted every single father. My dad was a million times the parent my mother was. It would break my heart to think anyone would view him in those terms.

ceadaoin.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Fathers For Justice are a bit like the suffragettes of the early 20th century.

I say "a bit" because the denial of their rights to their children has more of a serious impact on their lives than not voting.

Posters that say "equal access" will hopefully be a grotesque quirk of history in 100 years time, much like how we now treat pictures of ladies carrying "Votes for Women" placards.

the women of the suffragette movement also had no rights to their children, or much else. They knew that if they wanted laws to be changed to be more favourable towards women then they needed the right to vote. To compare the two is a bit ridiculous really IMO.

Grandeeod

eviltwin wrote: »

Just insulted every single father. My dad was a million times the parent my mother was. It would break my heart to think anyone would view him in those terms.

I agree with you completely. But just to state that my original post was in trying to keep on topic with the debate. But yeah, this knuckledragger has made some outrageous statements that are insulting to Dad's.

Grandeeod

ceadaoin. wrote: »

the women of the suffragette movement also had no rights to their children, or much else. They knew that if they wanted laws to be changed to be more favourable towards women then they needed the right to vote. To compare the two is a bit ridiculous really IMO.

And the suffragette movement resorted to "stunts" to draw attention to their cause.

Tasden

Grandeeod wrote: »

And the suffragette movement resorted to "stunts" to draw attention to their cause.

Stunts like going on telly or whatever, fair enough. I may not agree with it but it gets attention and the issue needs to be highlighted.

But telling fathers to withhold maintenance in retaliation to being withheld access is dangerous advice to give fathers that cannot afford (I don't mean financially so excuse that uninintended pun!) to take that kind of risk where their kids are concerned. It only harms their case.

Grandeeod

Grandeeod wrote: »

I think one of the biggest failures is within your own profession and you should look there before referring to stupid stunts.

Bar a few, I have nothing but admiration for those who work in the family law area. Some Solicitors working in the Legal Aid Board who deal with this stuff daily are amongst the best and most pragmatic around, the best to deal with, the best at reining in their clients and telling them what will happen. Family law is understandably very vicious and full of emotion. It's the area where you have to keep telling clients again and again that trying to avoid law as far as possible, and trying to deal with matters amongst themselves and not have every single access appointment, every maintenance payment, surrounded by a volley of emails between Solicitors, is ideal.

smash wrote: »

Do you give this kind of advice to your clients?

Always. Any Solicitor who fails to warn the father that an application for overnight access to babies where there are no concerns about the mother is usually doomed to failure is overlooking the simple reality.

smash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Always. Any Solicitor who fails to warn the father that an application for overnight access to babies where there are no concerns about the mother is usually doomed to failure is overlooking the simple reality.

You see, you're saying 'warning' but all I can see from what you've been posting so far is an attitude of giving up because of perceived impending failure. Like you're not even bothered to try.

A Little Pony

And women talk about men having all the rights. People probably don't realize how humiliating it is for a man to protest about this stuff.

Grandeeod

Tasden wrote: »

Stunts like going on telly or whatever, fair enough. I may not agree with it but it gets attention and the issue needs to be highlighted.

But telling fathers to withhold maintenance in retaliation to being withheld access is dangerous advice to give fathers that cannot afford (I don't mean financially so excuse that uninintended pun!) to take that kind of risk where their kids are concerned. It only harms their case.

See that's where the inequality peeps through the door. It's father's that have to bring the case in the first place. Then they have to behave like saints, while in many cases the mother doesn't and there is no legal penalty for her. I spent over 15 years going through this to a point where the child knew what was going on. I had access orders broken on a regular basis with no accountability. But if I dared withold maintenance, jail beckoned. My child wanted for nothing. On top of the maintenance my child got all they wanted, but receipts meant nothing to a judge if you witheld maintenance and then presented receipts and proof that you spent money on the child. Its family law and judges, solicitors etc. only care about the legal bottom line. There is absolutely no compassion from those with the power to effect change.

Tasden

Grandeeod wrote: »

See that's where the inequality peeps through the door. It's father's that have to bring the case in the first place. Then they have to behave like saints, while in many cases the mother doesn't and there is no legal penalty for her. I spent over 15 years going through this to a point where the child knew what was going on. I had access orders broken on a regular basis with no accountability. But if I dared withold maintenance, jail beckoned. My child wanted for nothing. On top of the maintenance my child got all they wanted, but receipts meant nothing to a judge if you witheld maintenance and then presented receipts and proof that you spent money on the child. Its family law and judges, solicitors etc. only care about the legal bottom line. There is absolutely no compassion from those with the power to effect change.

And how would withholding maintenance have helped your case? I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying the cold hard truth- that it will not help their case, as you well know from your own situation. So fathers who know the system and how it works against the father should not be telling fathers to sacrifice their case in that way, know matter how much they think it may further their overall cause- which I'd be fairly confident it won't.

XR3i

i'm with this campaign in spirit

smash

smash wrote: »

You see, you're saying 'warning' but all I can see from what you've been posting so far is an attitude of giving up because of perceived impending failure. Like you're not even bothered to try.

So because I tell clients how a Court is likely to receive their case, you think I don't do my best? As a practitioner, the one thing I like about family law is the fight, it's the one area where you get to have stand up pitched battles in the District Court that can go on for hours, I have left District Court at 9pm half hoarse. I'm told I'm good at it by clients, so your rather bizarre claim that giving an honest appraisal is actually doing a bad job doesn't bother me.

You sound embittered by your own experience. Which is totally understandable, I always warn clients that family law is very draining on their lives, their health and stress levels, it consumes people and brings out the worst. You seem to be underlining my point.

Fleawuss

People who create change always do it by action. Sitting quiet suits those who want things to stay exactly the same. Past time the rest of the country realized that until you stand up and disrupt the sacred cows of RTE and Rose of Tralee ( no pun intended or slur) then nothing changes. Good on him.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Grandeeod

Tasden wrote: »

And how would withholding maintenance have helped your case? I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying the cold hard truth- that it will not help their case, as you well know from your own situation. So fathers who know the system and how it works against the father should not be telling fathers to sacrifice their case in that way, know mathere how much they think it may further their overall cause- which I'd be fairly confident it won't.

Well I and my case predates F4J. However it was a method of argument back then too. What needs to change is a similar level of penalty applying to the mother if an access order is broken or defended on the basis of lies. It does happen. I had a lot of defamatory stuff thrown at me in the early days with no comment from the judge or my solicitor. I was left at a meeting points with no shows lots of times too. I had one "supervised" visit suddenly end because I gave my child sweets. All my early access visits were supervised because of unsubstantiated lies in court and a request that they be supervised. How can you accuse a Dad of doing things with no proof and then have it influence access???? This happened in 1994. I hope things have improved.

If we aren't going to go down the road of compulsory mediation, then family law courts need to get real on so many things.

Tasden

Ocean Dinner wrote: »

What basis does the judge usually for denying a Father guardianship even though he is clearly the better Father?

My figures may be off so hopefully the experts can clarify but something like 90% of applications to court for guardianship are actually granted. It's not denied in the majority of cases. Only problem is that it has no real legal bearing on access/custody orders.

Ocean Dinner

Ocean Dinner wrote: »

What basis does the judge usually for denying a Father guardianship even though he is clearly the better Father?

Very few and very rare.

Actually guardianship applications are one area where you can give the natural father/applicant good news, they are usually granted. They may be adjourned and a Judge may tut tut if the father has not stepped forward with an offer to pay towards the child, but most of them will be granted and there is a huge and correct bias in the natural father being Guardian. I was in one refusal where the natural father was a drug addict who had ODed while in charge of the child.

Tasden

Grandeeod wrote: »

Well I and my case predates F4J. However it was a method of argument back then too. What needs to change is a similar level of penalty applying to the mother if an access order is broken or defended on the basis of lies. It does happen. I had a lot of defamatory stuff thrown at me in the early days with no comment from the judge or my solicitor. I was left at a meeting points with no shows lots of times too. I had one "supervised" visit suddenly end because I gave my child sweets. All my early access visits were supervised because of unsubstantiated lies in court and a request that they be supervised. How can you accuse a Dad of doing things with no proof and then have it influence access???? This happened in 1994. I hope things have improved.

If we aren't going to go down the road of compulsory mediation, then family law courts need to get real on so many things.

But I'm not saying there is fairness in the courts. I am not saying that it is all OK.
I am saying that withholding maintenance as a form of protest is not going to help fathers get access to their kids and there is a risk (due to the unfairness you are pointing out) that it will negatively impact their case so they should not be advised to do that by people who already know this.

smash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So because I tell clients how a Court is likely to receive their case, you think I don't do my best? As a practitioner, the one thing I like about family law is the fight, it's the one area where you get to have stand up pitched battles in the District Court that can go on for hours, I have left District Court at 9pm half hoarse. I'm told I'm good at it by clients, so your rather bizarre claim that giving an honest appraisal is actually doing a bad job doesn't bother me.

No, it's just that you appear to have a somewhat defeatist attitude. As if you've given up on the system in some ways.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You sound embittered by your own experience. Which is totally understandable, I always warn clients that family law is very draining on their lives, their health and stress levels, it consumes people and brings out the worst. You seem to be underlining my point.

I actually don't. I did at the start but I dropped my solicitor because of their attitude which was one of 'we don't want this to get to court' whereas I did want it to get to court. I got a new solicitor and a good barrister and have been to court 3 times in which it has gone my way but I still have a bit to go.

smash

smash wrote: »

I got a new solicitor and a good barrister and have been to court 3 times in which it has gone my way but I still have a bit to go.

3 times in the a District or Circuit Court?

hawkwind23

Interesting thread with a few "unbelievable" posts , surely their cant be folk out there with views like that?

Anyways.

Not a fan of F4J but can understand why they do what they do.

The pain of seeing your children damaged by a dysfunctional parent is unspeakable
Its a tragic cycle that you are doomed to watch until the child(adult by age) hopefully starts a very painful journey of their own.

On the subject of maintenance , as stated, its separate from access.
Its used to further degenerate the other parent to the child or anyone who will listen and of course mostly to open palms outward and say i told you it was all him/her. Look at how bad this person is and how angelic i am ,a martyr.
Its only a tool yet we all fall for the pretence , hence why its used so much.