The so-called family courts promote and perpetuate a system which is flagrantly anti-father. This is done in the name of what's best for the child. Were that truly the case it would be acceptable. But it is not. The mantra "what's best for the child" is actually a smokescreen for the best interests of everybody involved EXCEPT the child and the father. I am mightily relieved that I have never been personally involved in the horror that is the family court system. But that does not stop me feeling for those who lives have been wrecked by this appalling mincing machine. Why don't we let the children speak for themselves - that's more than the courts do. Firstly, here's three videos by the admirable Aimee Nicholls, the first from 2012 and the second from December 2013, and finally some of the back-story from 2011,
And the last video, an excellent testimony of fathers' plight and their abominable treatment by the family courts,
Next, a collection of data and facts (taken from Fathers4Justice, mostly with attributions),
The removal of fathers in legislation - A nation of second class parents
- Successive governments have deliberately removed the need for a father legally, emotionally and biologically through legislation. We now have a generation of socially engineered fatherless families. After the death penalty, the removal of children from their parents is the most draconian action the state can take.
- The 1989 Children Act abolished "The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child" and replaced the "archaic" concept of guardianship with a loosely defined collection of rights under "parental responsibility". PR was awarded automatically to mothers, but fathers only acquired it dependent on their relationship with the mother. (Thus the seed of discrimination was planted).
- Fathers have no legal right in law to see their children. The Government states that 'it does not believe that a legal presumption to contact would be helpful'.
- This position was reiterated again by the Chairman of the Family Justice Review whose conclusion was that fathers have no rights and should have no rights (Family Justice Review, 2011).
- Fathers only have a right to apply to a court to see their children after separation.
- Fathers have been denied a legal presumption to 'shared' or 'equal' parenting which would ensure they had the same rights as mothers.
- Nevertheless, a father is legally responsibility to provide financial support for his children, despite having no parental rights.
- In 2008 The Labour Government introduced the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act which removed the 'need for a father' and changed it to the need for 'supportive parenting'.
- Britain has the highest proportion of fatherless families (2 million) of any major European country. (Office of National Statistics)
- 1 in 3 children – 3.8 million in total – live without their father. (Office of National Statistics)
- 93.1% of broken families are headed by a single mother (Office for National Statistics, 2012).
- 50% of children will have seen their parents divorce by the time they are 16 (Benson, 2010 and Centre for Social Justice).
- 40% of mothers admit to obstructing contact (Department for Social Security, 1998).
- In many parts of the UK, the majority of children are fatherless. In London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds, over 50% of children live in fatherless families. (Office of National Statistics)
- 70% of young offenders come from lone-parent families (Youth Justice Board, 2002).
- One in four secondary school pupils now has a criminal record (Donnellan, 2004).
- An ideologically driven industry has been built around the separation of children from their parents. The public can have no confidence whatsoever in the operations of secret family courts which are above scrutiny and transparency.
- 93% of sole residence awards are made to mothers on the basis of gender.
- Fathers make up 97% of so-called "non-resident parents".
- 50% of all Contact Orders are broken and are not enforced. (The Times, 2003)
- The courts do little to prevent this: contact orders are not monitored for compliance or efficacy, and fewer than 2% of resident parents defaulting on contact orders face any consequence (Hansard, 2006).
- When contact does not happen the onus is on the applicant to prove that the other parent is obstructing it.
- In 2004 Lord Filkin, Minister for the Family Courts, voiced what thousands thought, "Any court that does not enforce its own orders is a sham".
- Sir Paul Coleridge said in 2010 that "if an order is disobeyed, say, three times the residence of the child should be transferred to the other parent".
- One study found contact decreases over time and breaks down entirely in over 20% of cases within 5 years (Simpson, McCarthy, & Walker, 1995). This has been confirmed by other studies (Bradshaw, Stimson, Skinner, & Williams, 1999) (Peacey & Hunt, 2008).
- Fathers4Justice estimates that at least 200 children per day lose contact with their fathers in the family courts (probably more).
- The courts claim to act in the ‘child’s best interests’ yet have kept no records on the outcomes for children to support this claim.
- If, as the courts claim, the rights of the child were paramount, then they would have kept records on the outcomes for the children to understand whether their best interests were being served by the court process.
- In 2003 a Parliamentary Inquiry said, on the issue of court records: "In the absence of data, the identification of what might be best for any particular child in any particular case is fraught with difficulty".
- "Every child has thereby become the subject of an uncontrolled experiment" (Mike Stein, Co-director of the Social Work Research and Development Unit at the University of York). (I would add that it's a pretty crap experiment that does not collect any outcome data!!)
- Underlying social dynamics coupled with the taxation system incentivise single parenting. But marriage remains the securest and most beneficial environment for children. As a result, taxpayers are left subsidising single parenthood and fatherless families which result in the worst outcomes for our children and country.
- Fewer than one in ten married parents have split by the time a child is five compared with more than one in three who were not married.
- Where parents were not living together when a child was born, the break-up rate five years later is 60 per cent. (Centre for Social Justice).
- 97 per cent of all couples still intact by the time a child is 15 are married. (Centre for Social Justice).
- 75 per cent of family breakdown involving children under 5 results from the separation of unmarried parents. (Centre for Social Justice).
- Lone mothers are twice as likely as two-parent families to live in poverty at any one time (69% of lone mothers are in the bottom 40% of household income versus 34% of couples with children). (CIVITAS).
Just occasionally third parties may see through parental alienation, exposing this nasty behaviour for what it is. An example is provided by this article in which High Court Judge, Mrs.Justice Parker, saw right through one woman's manipulation of her children - and exposed the claim of violence by her husband as a lie. The husband was given custody. Well done Mrs.Justice Parker! I'll be more than happy to have more female judges if this standard were typical.
Unfortunately the anti-male propaganda continues, such as is illustrated by this nasty article by the Harpy-award-winning Janet Street-Porter. My response to it on the Daily Mail web site was this "Campaigns like F4J's are required precisely to counter the anti-male propaganda of which this nasty article is an example. To claim that the courts in this country do not deny dads access to their children unless they are deemed a threat is preposterous, even if you happen to be ignorant of the facts. It's improbability is betrayed by the very number of men excluded from the family, which, as the article notes is in the order of millions. The article is an object lesson in propaganda. The penultimate sentence is a fine example of the artistry of making a non-fact sound like condemnation. I can equally well assert with full confidence that, "If I talked to 1,000 single mothers it would emerge that many were not working, had a poor education and had married or lived with someone three or more times". But would I be justified in concluding that single mothers are feckless and unsuitable as parents, as this article invites us to conclude of fathers?"
One of the most unjust aspects of the ejection of men from families is that this very fact becomes, not a matter for sympathy, but a stick to beat men with. It is claimed as evidence of "deadbeat dads". Of course it is true that some men do not pay the child support ordered by the courts. In view of their treatment this is understandable to a degree. However, men's record of child support payments does not provide evidence of being "deadbeat" as a gender. If it did, mothers would, by the same token, be more deadbeat. Whilst the majority of non-resident parents obliged to pay child support are men, some are women. Women in this position have a poorer record of payment than men - at least as indicated by data from the USA (I have not seen UK data). The United States 2011 Census recently published a report titled, 'Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support'. It reveals the following: Compared with non-resident fathers, non-resident mothers are required to pay less child support, but they actually pay a lower proportion of what they’re required to pay, they are less likely than men to pay all they’re required to pay, and are more likely than men to pay nothing. If we accept that these are measures of being a 'deadbeat parent' then mothers would appear to have a greater tendency to be deadbeat than men - given the same treatment.
Ye, Gods. The deeper I delve into these MRM issues, the worse it gets. You know how my interest in this stuff started? Someone mentioned to me that when women got the vote (in the UK) most men got the vote for the first time too. This factoid lodged in my head because it came as a surprise (I am now embarassed to admit). So eventually I got around to doing a little research - and it was true, right enough. That research gave rise to my essay on Universal Suffrage in the UK - The True History. And that was the start: the loose thread that I pulled and started to unravel the whole darn jumper. I began to wonder just what else I thought was true was actually lies and propaganda. So next I had a crack at domestic violence - again coming at it from all innocence and ignorance. That gave rise to my long essay Partner Violence Against Men. So as I tackle each topic and learn a little bit more I seem to sink further and further into a horror story. I thought this was worth mentioning because my entry into these issues is unusual. I've come at it from essentially an academic angle - unlike most other people who have generally been personally shafted in one way or another. I've been lucky - far luckier than I'd ever realised. But that doesn't stop me being pissed off on behalf of others.
And why has this disadvantage of fathers come about? Part of the reason is that the courts interpret "the best interests of the child" as "the best interests of the mother", and the mothers are happy to go along with that. Part of the reason too is that lawyers are making vast sums of money from the adversarial system which prevails at present. But underpinning these reasons, and behind all the disadvantages that males suffer in our society, is feminism and its obnoxious sexist ideology that masculinity is intrinsically toxic, i.e., patriarchy theory. In other words, the root cause is gender hate. In the run-up to father's day in June 2014, the Twitter feeds #EndFathersDay and #BanFathersDay were very active. There really is no decent reason why a person should be opposed to a celebration of this kind - there is, after all, a far better supported mothers' day. But here are a few examples of feminist womens' tweets,
- #endfathersday because who really needs a father? Boys don't need a rape instructor.
- I agree. All men should be put on HRT until we have the technology to eliminate them entirely. #endfathersday .
- #EndFathersDay because it's a slap in the face to single mothers everywhere.
- The reward for being a dad is the orgasm he gets when he busts in the mother. We don't need to celebrate patriarchy. #EndFathersDay.
- #EndFathersDay because spousal rape, domestic violence, child abuse, and masculinity aren't things to be celebrated.
- #EndFathersDay because 100% of child abuse is from men, typically white men. We need more #singlemothers.
- Fathers Day should be renamed to Semen Day, because that's what men contribute to families. #EndFathersDay.
- Glorifying the rape culture and patriarchy? No thank you. #EndFathersDay.
- #EndFathersDay because masculinity and patriarchal values shouldn't be celebrated or passed on to the next generations
- A holidaty that celebrates men has no place in a progressive society #EndFathersDay
- Men (especially White cis men) are responsible for most of the discrimination and prejudices. #EndFathersDay.
- #EndFathersDay Because masculinity is what causes abuse and is nothing to celebrate!
- Everyone knows we only need mothers. Why do we even need father’s day? Fathers are useless. #endfathersday.
- #EndFathersDay because men shouldn't even be allowed around children.
- #EndFathersDay bc it encourages men not to use protection.
- #FathersDay is so offensive to same-sex parents and single mothers! Stop the #Patriarchy and #BANFATHERSDAY.
- #EndFathersDay Becuase it's a #TriggerWarning for all womyn who have been abused by their fathers!
- #EndFathersDay bc it's literally worshiping the patriarchy. If ur not behind this, #YouAreTheProblem.