Fathers campaigning for justice

The secret family court continues to be in crisis. Fathers are still complaining about discrimination in divorce and separation proceedings when trying to see their own children. In most disputed custody and contact cases fathers leave court with little or even a bar to contact with their children. Even the handful of fathers who do get contact to see their children often get frustrated when the mother ignores the order of the court.

Then there are the other batch of cases where the social services will step in to take children off mothers who they disapprove of and use the new powerful legislation in the childrens and families act. A law so powerful that allows the local authority via a social service officer to remove a child at birth based on what is known as “risk of future emotional harm”. The UK is the only country in the world that has such draconian legislation. The state can make parents guilty of something they haven’t done but might do in the future.

Over the years many politicians before elections have promised to reform the family court system. But once in to power, those promises are quickly ditched or watered down. The fact that both our commons and house of Lords are full of lawyers and judges leads one to believe that they have a vested interest in maintaining this legal system which causes years and years of court room battles over children that could and should be sorted out amicably by agreement through mediation. Years of court room battles means solicitors, barristers and judges will never be out of a job.

Theresa May our new PM is a prime example of an MP making promises and breaking them when in power. This is what Theresa May told fathers in 2004:

“That is why, in my first month in Government, I will publish a Bill to give a presumption of co- parenting and a right for both parents to be involved in bringing up their children, when couples separate. We will ensure that the law serves the best interests of the child – and children deserve to see both parents.”

“That is why in my first week in office, I will publish proposals to abolish CAFCASS and replace it with a mediation service. Court should be the last resort, not the first. The aim will be to intervene early to make sure disputes don’t have to go to court but are sorted out quickly in the best interests of the children. -And child safety will remain a priority.”
Never happened.

Now that Theresa May is PM, she has no excuse to reform the family court system. But she won’t.

The main problem is institutionalised bias and stereotyping. The vast majority of Social Workers and Cafcass officers are female and believe that women are the better carers and treated dads as no more than visitors and a cash machine.
Fathers are six times as likely to play an active role in bringing up their kids as fathers a generation or two ago. Nowadays, we don’t just attend the birth of our children – unheard of only 50 years ago – but we are also more likely to play with, bath their children and take them to school. Yet when it comes to contact with their children after a relationship breaks down fathers still have no rights to see their children.

Feminism has made great advances for equality for women in the workplace. Men deserve equality after family breakdown as much as women do in the workplace. Feminists do not preach for equality for fathers rights over their children compared to mothers and they even complain when fathers groups campaign for equality. They label fathers for justice members as misogynist for wanting to see their children. Some even say that a father attempting to gain access to his children is harrassing the mother.

The truly shocking story is that the Government now admit that teenagers are more likely to have a mobile phone than a father according to research by the Centre for Social Justice

John Bolch Still Pretending Dads Treated Fairly In Family Courts

John Bolch just can’t seem to get it right. About the most obvious things, he’s just doggedly wrong. There are a few complex issues in family law, but Bolch can’t even grasp the easy ones. The reason, we’re forced to conclude, is that he’s adamantly opposed to children seeing much of their dads post-divorce. What else can explain such willful ignorance?

His latest effort to convince his readers that fathers’ rights advocates have nothing to complain about appears here (Marilyn Stowe Blog, 8/9/16). His inspiration came from the recent scaling of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s house by members of New Fathers 4 Justice dressed in superhero outfits. That encouraged Bolch (as if he needed it!) to misrepresent New Fathers 4 Justice, the law on parenting following divorce or separation and the background of that law. Not content with that, he also demonstrates, for those familiar with it, an entire lack of knowledge about the science supporting shared parenting. I count that a pretty impressive record for a short blog post. Few others could get so much so wrong in such a small space.

As to New Fathers 4 Justice, Bolch claims,

New Fathers 4 Justice are, of course, under the illusion that the [Children and Families Act of 2014] gives mothers more rights than fathers.

No, actually, the group nowhere says anything of the kind. It merely accepts what’s true, that fathers are routinely sidelined by family courts when ordering parenting time. This is news to no one but Bolch who blithely refuses to glance at the data on primary custody in the U.K. His statement must be called a lie because Bolch clearly visited the group’s website, so he knows what it says about parenting issues.

Now on to the law itself.

Back in 2011 the Family Justice Review recommended against a legal presumption around shared parenting, taking the view that it could create an impression of a parental ‘right’ to a particular amount of time with a child, which would undermine the central principle of the Children Act 1989 that the welfare of the child is paramount.

Yes, the Norgrove Commission and its successor did indeed reject a presumption of shared parenting, but the claim that it would have created a “parental right to a particular amount of time with a child” was an excuse, not a reason. Clearly, no shared parenting law has ever been proposed that ignored things like parental fitness, domestic violence, child abuse and the like. Accordingly, the only “right” created would have been for fit parents whose contact with the child is in the child’s best interests. Bolch either doesn’t know the basics or he’s intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

Moreover, the Norgrove Commission, et al took as gospel the least reliable social science on the issue of parenting post-divorce. By that I mean they read a bit of Jennifer MacIntosh and her crowd and let their inquiry into the science go at that. If Bolch knows anything about the science on shared parenting, he’s never let on about it.

What we ended up with was the ‘presumption of parental involvement’, which came into force in October 2014 and says that when a court is considering whether to make an order relating to a child (in particular a child arrangements order) it is to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of both parents in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare.

I suppose we should celebrate the fact that Bolch was actually able to locate the statute governing his chosen topic. But of course actually understanding it proved beyond his ability. I know this because his entire point in summarizing the law is to convince readers that fathers have nothing about which to complain because their issues have already been addressed.

But that of course is so much nonsense. As I asked when the law was passed, what exactly does “involvement” mean? Can one day per year constitute “involvement?” After all, any amount of involvement constitutes involvement. The statute itself bears me out.

In subsection (2A) “involvement” means involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child’s time.”

Bolch of course neglected to quote that part of the law. After all, the fact that “involvement” can apparently mean a single Skype conversation sometime prior to the child’s 18th birthday hardly accords with Bolch’s sunny view of fathers’ position in family courts.

So, as I predicted at the time, the new law changed nothing. Judges are now as free to deny children meaningful contact with their fathers as they were before the law’s effective date. And that’s just what they’re doing. Amazingly, Bolch admits as much.

I think the general consensus is that the presumption has made little, if any, difference to outcomes in disputes over arrangements for children.

I don’t blame the man for not reading his own stuff. It’s that bad. But still, maybe he should take steps not to contradict himself quite so often.

Oh, speaking of self-contradiction, Bolch casually admits that “The ‘discrimination’ against fathers comes not from the law, but from the implementation of the law.” That’s true enough. The words of the statute clearly don’t mandate discrimination against fathers or anyone else. What does happen though is that judges do discriminate against fathers and fairly often. The rate of maternal primary/sole custody in the U.K. is around 90%. Does Bolch or anyone else seriously believe that 90% of British children would be ill-served by having meaningful relationships with their dads? Certainly there’s not a whit of evidence for the proposition and yet that’s what the family courts do.

So, having admitted that those courts mostly give custody to mothers at the expense of fathers’ parenting time, Bolch goes on to contradict himself again.

As for the issue of bias, I have already dealt with this here. Sorry, but the courts are not biased, either against fathers or mothers.

Let’s see, according to Bolch, there’s “discrimination” against fathers, but not “bias” against fathers. Strange.

And finally, no John, you haven’t “dealt with” the issue of bias against fathers in family courts. Here’s my takedown of his particularly silly claim of non-bias in a previous post. Please read if for the detail I can’t offer here.

Put simply, Bolch’s way of “dealing with” the anti-father bias of family courts was to first say – without supporting evidence of course – that there is none and then say that, well, really, there is.

And that is the point: the law reflects society. If there are biases in the law, that is because there are biases within society. In other words, it is not because the law is biased, it is because society is biased.

I know it’s not easy to follow the laughable inconsistencies in Bolch’s “reasoning,” but let’s try. His way of “dealing with” bias in family courts is at first to deny it exists, then admit that it exists, then say that it’s alright that it exists because it reflects society. Except of course it doesn’t “reflect society;” many surveys of public opinion demonstrate massive support for shared parenting. The anti-father bias is all on the part of judges, custody evaluators, social workers, etc.  Finally the very concept that the law is supposed to set right societal bias on the basis of things like sex, not promote it, is one Bolch managed to miss. What does he think the statue of the lady with the scales and the blindfold is all about?

It must be tough to be John Bolch, a man who’s desperately trying to convince readers that courts’ removing fathers from children’s lives is in their “best interests,” while bringing so little in the way of facts or intellectual acumen to the debate.

August 10, 2016 by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

New Fathers 4 Justice protester lock-in at Royal Courts of Justice

Martin Matthews chained himself to the gates of the court to highlight the plight of fathers who are denied access to their children

Martin Matthews padlocked himself to the Royal Courts of Justice

A fathers’ rights campaigner from Bookham chained himself to the gates of the Royal Courts of Justice this week using a giant homemade padlock.

Martin Matthews, 48, of Middlemead Road, took part in the stunt in a bid to highlight the plight of fathers who are denied access to their children by the family courts system.

Mr Matthews, who was convicted of causing criminal damage to MP Chris Grayling’s Ashtead home last year, is a member of the New Fathers 4 Justice movement, a breakaway fringe of Fathers 4 Justice.

He, said: “The Government has got the power to make a real change for children.

“There are 13 million children in this country and four million of them have not got a father in the home.

“That’s set to double in the next five years.

“The justice secretary, Michael Gove, has a wonderful opportunity to make a real change and help the children of this country.”

The protester arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice, in the Strand, London, at around 8.30am on Tuesday and remained locked at its gates, with a large padlock around his neck, for two-and-a-half hours.

Mr Matthews added: “The courts deny us access to our children so we decided to deny them access to their court. That was the point I was getting across.

“I am pleased with the result and I did not get arrested, which is an unusual result for me.

“I expected to get nicked for something.

“Someone at the Royal Courts of Justice must have agreed with what I was doing, which is very interesting.

“Why the decision was made not to arrest, I am not sure.”

Mr Matthews said that after unlocking himself from the gate, he remained outside the building in case the police wished to question him.

He said: “I hung about for a while afterwards to see if anyone wanted to speak to me from the police.

“It was better to do that than to travel back to Surrey and get nicked there.

“I got there when the security were opening the gates in the morning.

“I believe they started letting people in through a side door later on in the day.

“I could have been charged with aggravating trespass, which carries quite a heavy common law sentence, of which I did not know before I started.

“The response to the protest was very encouraging and I plan to do something similar in the future.”

Mr Matthews has previously scaled the roof of South East Surrey Magistrates’ Court, in Redhill before his trial for criminal damage of Mr Grayling’s home.

For that, he received a fine of £100 and ordered to pay £200.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/new-fathers-4-justice-protester-9578822

Harriet Harman’s pink bus tour kicks off in Stevenage

Well done again Bobby Smith

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11406076/Harriet-Harmans-pink-bus-tour-kicks-off-in-Stevenage.html

Harriet Harman has been confronted by a man who said her plan to tour the country in a pink bus was “patronising and wrong”.

The deputy leader of the Labour party was challenged during a visit to an Asda in Stevenage, as she kicked off a 70-constituency “women’s tour”.

Senior Labour figures are due to tour the country in a 16-seater pink bus to “reach out to women” ahead of the election. However, the decision to tour the country on a “Barbie Bus” was criticised for being sexist and stereotypical.

Miss Harman dismissed the criticism, saying it was crucial to hear what women wanted from political parties.

“We wanted an eye-catching bus, which would go round the country and we as women politicians in the Labour party, talking to women in this country, listening to their views because 9.1m women didn’t vote in the last election,” said Miss Harman.

The countrywide tour will address key issues like childcare, family care, equal pay and tackling domestic violence.

After the event, Bobby Smith, the man who confronted Miss Harman told Sky News that he would no longer vote Labour because of the pink bus.

“You’re dividing up men and women,” he said. “You’re making it them v. us.”

Mr Smith has held several protests over for equal rights for fathers in divorce and separation proceedings and reform of the family courts.

The Prime Minister’s sister-in-law mocked the van on Twitter, saying it looked like it was “trying to sell me tampons”. Emily Sheffield, Samantha Cameron’s sister, is the deputy editor of Vogue.

There has been, however, some debate over the precise colour of the 16-seater van.

^{The magenta van (PA)}

Gloria De Piero MP, the shadow Minister for women and equalities, said she thought it was “cerise”, while Ms Harman said it was “magenta”.

Pink was chosen so that it stood out from other vehicles in traditional Labour red. White vans were rejected for not being conspicuous enough.

A CHILD’S FATHER IS THE REAL SUPER HERO.

Canadian Kyle Langford said ‘She can steal my house my money my children. But can never steal the fight and love I have for my babies. A fathers love is forever’

Fathers 4 Justice is a world wide organization that fights for the rights to equal parenting we all need to support and join the cause. Let your children know you are a super hero and will never give up. Together we will make a difference.

Well said Kyle, keep up the great protests

Protesters Scale Central London Landmark at Hyde Park

Protestors for www.humanworth.co.uk, in support of New Fathers 4 Justice have this morning climbed onto the archway at Hyde Park Corner.

At just after 5.30 am this morning ‘New Fathers 4 Justice’ activist Archi Ssan ,53 from Streatham and 5 other activists scaled Hyde Park gate  in an international protest over fathers rights. He has been joined by Carol Wheeler, 41 from Honiton, Devon, Steven Dawe from London. Scott Alexander Gabriel Reiss,an American who has lived in Ardeche, France for decades, Jean Le Bail from Caen, and Michel Calbray from Chartres.

On Fathers day this year Archi Ssan abseiled down the front of Exeter Cathedral in protest with Jolly Stanesby against the ‘Evil’ family court system that prevents fathers from having contact with their children.

Scott Alexander Gabriel Reiss and Jean Le Bail participated in the occupation of the Orleans Cathedral in May 2013 when 9 French fathers climbed on a terrace on the roof of the famous cathedral.

In a statement, the protesters wrote:

Safety and damage

“We’re responsible protesters and our rules are simple – no damage and no abuse.

“We take precautions to avoid damage to the structures we scale, some of which are:-

“Duck taping carpet or foam pieces to our ladders where they may contact masonry.

“Devices to step on as we cross cornices to protect the anti bird wires.

“Where necessary, additional padding placed between ropes/string and masonry where the load on the ropes/string warrants it.
Etc.

“Our attitude and policy are of respect and sensitivity to the structures being scaled.

“We are also safety conscious and responsible in our endeavours during the course of the scaling protest. We are mindful of the heights we protest at and conduct ourselves with vigilance towards our safety and the safety of the public.

“We intend to peacefully protest for more than one day and have ample supplies, however we are concerned about authorities exceeding due regard for safety if they attempt to apprehend us, end our protest or interfere with us or our equipment in any way. When the protest is over, we will come back to ground level using our own equipment and taking everything with us to be available to the authorities to apprehend then if they wish to.

“If any attempt is made to apprehend us prior to when we are ready to come down, we will resist. Attempts to apprehend us at these heights would make our position precarious and vulnerable.

“We urge the authorities not to conduct any act which may compromise our safety “

New Fathers 4 Justice want nothing less than a legal presumption of 50/50 contact for a child with their parents if they split up, and the abolition of the deeply controversial, undemocratic secret court system that still exists within the ‘family’ division despite forty years of inequality and protest.

Batman Returns – Belfast City Hall and various other locations

‘It’s not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.’

Demos4Children Batman

Fathers rights campaigners will be targeting the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Queens baton relay

Fathers rights campaigners will be targeting the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Queens baton relay in response to the governments changes to the family court system.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/major-changes-in-family-courts

In 2010 Mr Cameron promised a presumption of contact for fathers with their children after family breakdown but the Prime Government has failed to keep that promise.

We want nothing less than a legal presumption of 50/50 contact for a child with their parents if they split up, and the abolition of the deeply controversial, undemocratic secret court system that still exists within the ‘family’ division despite forty years of inequality and protest.

We’d like nothing more than to be simply with our families, and happy in the knowledge our children would grow up with equal rights, but until anything is done – this is the only way anyone takes any notice of our message.

Further protests are planned

These comments on Facebook sum the new Bill up well:-

I’ve been re-reading the Children and Families Act 2014 (due to take effect on April 22nd) and seeing how it relates to the Children Act 1989.

I hadn’t quite realised before just to what extent the term ‘contact’ is to be replaced by the term ‘involvement’. This is following Butler-Sloss’s amendment, and she has provided the definition of ‘involvement’ as:

“involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child’s time.”

It seems to me that a father whose only role is to pay child support may be said to have ‘involvement’, whereas he could not have been said to have ‘contact’. Thus a measure initially intended to make matters better for excluded fathers will in practice make matters very much worse, and fathers who were once at least the ‘contact parent’ will be reduced to being the ‘involvement (or involved) parent’.

The new Child Arrangements Orders which will enable fathers to apply for ‘involvement’ will offer them even less than the existing contact orders. Similarly, enforcement of ‘involvement’ will become almost meaningless.