Talk:Fathers' rights movement in the United Kingdom

message: Material in this page was originally moved from the fathers' rights page in order to focus on activism in the UK. The controversy primarily relates to whether there can genuinely be seen to be good faith on the part of the major players who are:
*judges and others in the legal profession, whose livelihoods depend on there being litigation in the courts
*politicians, whose livelihoods depend on them getting votes at elections and on being popular with their party political masters
*parents (fathers primarily), whose relationship with their children is being disrupted by their ex-partner in so-called child custody disputes.
The material in the article that I have contributed comes from Internet news sources and my personal contact with various lobbyists, fathers, mothers, politicians and judges. Matt Stan 11:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is a view often expressed by family court judges, and it is worth investigating its implications in order to keep this article NPOV. In a case known as V v. V, Judge Bracewell summed up the situation fairly succinctly in her judgment, from which I quote here, and which might usefully be included in the article:
:At present, enforcement of contact orders creates insuperable problems for the courts. Currently, there are only four options available to the court and each is unsatisfactory: one, send the parent who refuses or frustrates contact to prison, or make a suspended order of imprisonment. This option may well not achieve the object of reinstating contact. The child may blame the parent who applied to commit the carer to prison. The child's life may be disrupted if there is no one capable of or willing to care for the child when the parent is in prison. It cannot be anything other than emotionally damaging for a child to be suddenly removed into foster care by social services from a parent, usually a mother, who in all respects except contact is a good parent. Two, impose a fine on the parent. This option is rarely possible because it is not consistent with welfare of a child to deprive a parent on a limited budget. Three, transfer residence. This option is not necessarily available to the court, because the other parent may not have the facilities or capacity to care for the child full-time, and may not even know the child. The current case is one in which this is a real option. Four, give up. Make either an order for indirect contact or no order at all. This is the worst option of all and sometimes the only one available. This is the option which gives rise to the public blaming the judges for refusing to deal with recalcitrant parents. This option results in a perception fostered by the press that family courts are failing in private law cases and that family judges are anti-father. The truth, however, is that without the weapons to use against what is in essence a small group of obdurate mothers, the ability of judges to do better for fathers is strictly limited. It is not commonly recognised by the public that, in order to have enforcement procedures which are effective, legislation by Parliament is necessary.
In the same judgment, Bracewell also put: "This is neither a unique nor even unusual case to come before the courts."
Thus one could conclude that the whole fathers' rights movement's underlying cause is "a small group of obdurate mothers" and a law that doesn't deal with them properly. It is a strange irony that the people whom many activists blame - the judges - are themselves shifting the blame on to mothers, something which fathers' rights campaigners themselves have been loathe to do, for fear that it will just be seen as sour grapes. Matt Stan 12:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Having considered all the factors, weighing all the risks and advantages, I am satisfied that the need for these children to have a relationship with their father can only be met by transferring residence to him. I am confident in his abilities. I, therefore, order a residence order to father.
i.e. the judge switched the residency from the mother to the father. Matt Stan 12:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  In support of the view that the UK courts are not biased

message: This story almost exactly models a case that FNF has held up as a conundrum for some time, that is, should the natural father-child relationship be preserved in a case where the child was the result of the mother's infidelity to the step-father? I posed this question to my teenage children in the company of several of their friends some while ago. They uniformly took the line that the children should not be deprived of their natural father just because of the mother's previous indiscretions. They effectively took the moralistic line that the mother should live with the consequences of her actions, and that preservation of the natural father-child relationship outweighed all other considerations when it came to that child's welfare.Matt Stan 10:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Blunkett Story 

message: As used in the 1st para is probably not NPOV, but it nevertheless reflects the views of activists that it is discriminatory per se for them not to be able freely to consort with their grandchildren, subject to the sensitivities required in light of a failed romance. Others hold that the law, as constituted, is not discriminatory. Cynics might claim that just because a piece of legislation is careful not to use sexist language in its draughtsmanship doesn't mean that it cannot be used in way that discriminates. Matt Stan 17:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination 

message: This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law  - -  Kittybrewster 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal needed 

message: Added the unbalanced tag and several citation needed tags. I've highlighted a few paragraphs I have issues with below:
F4J achieved its main objective of bringing to the issues to the public's attention, creating fear in men who have not yet faced the dilemmas of divorce that their relationship with their children could be devastated if they fell out with their partners. By having generated this fear, campaigners are optimistic that governments must now be seen to be actually doing something that will palliate public concerns and fears
This needs a citation. Also, I suggest that it should be rephrased in some way. I very much doubt that F4J were out to create fear in men who haven't 'yet' faced divorce. The 'yet' is also perhaps inappropriate. Not all marriages end in divorce!
In 2004, it became very apparent (because of the qualification always provided by politicians that they were in favour of fathers' rights provided it was safe), that there was a desire to create an innuendo that men are intrinsically unsafe. This was then followed by the Metropolitan Police launching a large advertising campaign in early 2005 explicitly decrying male domestic violence.
I was tempted to remove this outright. Not only does it lack any citations, but it seems to be suggesting that politicians and the police are trying to convince people that men are unsafe. I suggest that this paragraph be removed.
 If she can show she has fears about domestic violence, and, in extreme cases, may have driven her partner into appearing to be a perpetrator, then she "wins" the children. Whilst fathers' groups make a unified plea for a child's right to a father and for a presumption of shared parenting, this is viewed cautiously by those in power as a potential threat to the advance of feminism, and possibly as a slap in the face to those who want any social engineering efforts to be focused against the scourge of male domestic violence.
Again, this seems to have been written with an agenda. Firstly, I think the word 'wins' is inappropriate. It's discussing children, not prizes. I also have issues with 'may have driven her partner into appearing to be a perpetrator'. What is meant by this? That mothers drive purposefully their partners to domestic violence in order to gain custody of children? Also I very much suggest that everything after 'shared parenting' be removed, as it sounds like a conspiracy theory. I would agree on including something about fathers fearing exaggerated claims of domestic violence, but this entire paragraph needs to be rewritten.
The section on F4J is quite negative. I suggest a re-write to highlight that that have done some good, and attracted quite a bit of support.
Some observers have expressed regret that this has become a party political issue, but this development goes to the heart of gender politics and could become an important vote swinger at the forthcoming General Election. The Labour Party is seen to support the status quo, reflecting the radical feminist stance taken by CAFCASS's trade union NAPO. This position, originally detailed in NAPO's anti-sexist policy document (which includes the statements: Family Court work is an important opportunity to build on the strengths and the expansion of women's roles and ...to develop policies and strategies which challenge the discrimination against women in contested residence and contact decisions), espouses the view that women in society need to be supported in their decision-making capacity in order to resist the forces of patriarchy.
To be honest, this comes across as extremely paranoid, and is beginning to border on misogynistic. The fact that there are no citations makes it look even worse. I suggest removal. A section on the party political views would be good, but preferably not one that focuses quite so heavily on 'radical feminism' and 'resisting the forces of patriarchy'.
The Fathers Rights' movement has drawn attention to the marginalisation of men in society by this radical feminist tendency, supported by the Government most particularly in the appointment of Margaret Hodge, a skilful non-denial denier and feminist who is a key figure in the ministerial sisterhood, that group of long-standing feminist friends who have managed to network their way into the very heart of government
I'm not even sure this has anything to do with the father's rights movement. Again, this sounds like a paranoid conspiracy thoery written by someone with a serious problem with women. I suggest removal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.84.64 (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced tag 

message: This is an important social, political, legal area, and the wiki page really needs to be improved a lot.  Many parts of it are opinionated and anecdotal, demonstrating clear bias.   I'm pro-fathers' rights, I think it can be explained better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.251.189 (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Weak Wikipage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fathers' rights movement in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041212111501/http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2466/f-v-m.htm to http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2466/f-v-m.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Fathers' rights movement in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070527205309/http://www.dfes.gov.uk/childrensneeds/ to http://www.dfes.gov.uk/childrensneeds
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040513011732/http://www.politicallinks.co.uk/politics2/biog/LD_Biogs/bio.asp?id=2441 to http://www.politicallinks.co.uk/politics2/biog/LD_Biogs/bio.asp?id=2441
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040722012751/http://www.dfes.gov.uk/childrensneeds/docs/DfesChildrensNeeds.pdf to http://www.dfes.gov.uk/childrensneeds/docs/DfesChildrensNeeds.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060109122241/http://purplehearts.f4jnorthwest.co.uk/ to http://purplehearts.f4jnorthwest.co.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040803080237/http://www.dfes.gov.uk/childrensneeds/ to http://www.dfes.gov.uk/childrensneeds/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040722012911/http://www.dfes.gov.uk/childcontactsurvey/ to http://www.dfes.gov.uk/childcontactsurvey/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050323080426/http://www.womensaid.org.uk/policy%26consultations/consultationresponses/Parental_separation_full_response.htm to http://www.womensaid.org.uk/policy%26consultations/consultationresponses/Parental_separation_full_response.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060101142516/http://www.fathers.ca/bob_geldof.htm to http://www.fathers.ca/bob_geldof.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040722012751/http://www.dfes.gov.uk/childrensneeds/docs/DfesChildrensNeeds.pdf to http://www.dfes.gov.uk/childrensneeds/docs/DfesChildrensNeeds.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040606133843/http://www.dfes.gov.uk/everychildmatters/ to http://www.dfes.gov.uk/everychildmatters/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040923063120/http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=694 to http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=694
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified