Posted by shawthor on Friday, 16 February 2007 09:40:29

Popple, I absolutely agree with the tax breaks and helping change the culture towards families - I do feel that the Labour government has diluted this completely. I have a concern with 'compulsion' and I feel that the father (or mother) should want to be there (it could be an unhappier house otherwise) and maybe the government should be helping families through that.

http://stephenhawthorne.blogspot.com/

Posted by Londoner on Friday, 16 February 2007 11:27:10

David Cameron, at a speech to the National Family and Parenting Institute on June 21, 2006 made two, I believe, important statements.

1. Of course there are bad marriages that shouldn't survive - marriages full of bitterness and even abuse.
2. Of course it can be better for children to be brought up by one happy parent, or a happy parent and a happy step-parent, than two unhappy parents.

It is obviously impossible to keep two unhappy adults together; the trouble is when the now absent father uses the opportunity to reduce his level of financial support especially where the father is self employed and the CSA find it almost impossible to accurately assess his income. I understand that there is one Conservative Peer doing this at this very moment.

Posted by coolcatmillie on Friday, 16 February 2007 11:39:25

As I have said previously David Cameron, is very keen to stress the importance of Dad being around,
But I am yet to hear him say how it should be made easier for absent fathers to see their children and not be in constant battle with the system.
What everyone should remember is when a marriage or relationship breaks down; it is only the partner that the father falls out of love with, not his children.
But the biased and discriminating way in which the courts assess these circumstances is ignoring Dads and Children’s rights to see each other.
I’m really not a fan DC when faced with issues of Gun Crime, violent crime and hoodies, he comes back to the issue of the important role Dad has…. show you are going to Help these dads if you are to be PM.

Posted by StGeorgetrue on Friday, 16 February 2007 12:52:33

It takes a great deal of time, effort, money and persistence to have even a limited access to your child if your ex wife is hostile. There were numerous occasions when I seriously considered just giving up and walking away. The Family Court and solicitors do not really resolve the underlying difficulties. Having subsequently gone through mediation, many problems were resolved, and I now have much more access to my child.

I would recommend that mediation should be the first thing that is done before the legal process makes the situation worse. After say a year of mediation, any unresolved difficulties could be taken to the court for a decision.

At present, a woman has no incentive not to behave selfishly. If she persists in refusing contact, then it may be reasonable that the father would not need to pay any more child maintenance. I should say that I continued to pay the agreed amount of child maintenance throughout, despite my ex stopping all contact for a three month period. She has behaved very irresponsibly, but I felt that it would make matters worse if I played the same game.

Mediation from an early stage would have been very helpful in my case. Solicitors just make the situation worse.

Posted by coolcatmillie on Friday, 16 February 2007 13:42:39

For years governments have totally ignored requests from fathers, and the importance fathers have felt that they play a in their children’s upbringing and they effect they thought it might have on their children, with them not being there for them.
Now, there is a problem in society everyone wants to talk abut the” fathers”.
Society as a whole has ignored this issue, I have in the past posted blogs regarding the importance of father being a part of the children they brought into the worlds life, but even by the amount of comments and responses it has clearly never been a concern.
Lets talk about Green Energy, 9/11 Tax cuts, employees rights, human rights,adption and gay right but lets not discuss “fathers”
I’m sorry if I seem a little annoyed with this, but It is an insult to all Dads who have fought for the right to see their children, and the importance of being in their Childs life, and only discussed it when ministers want to use it as one of reason for Violent Crime

 

Comment edited by coolcatmillie on Friday, 16 February 2007 13:45:34

Posted by Jules2hwt on Friday, 16 February 2007 15:01:12

I was a successful business manager at the RSPB. I have an accountancy qualification , a masters degree in Charity law and Finance and had worked as an assessor with the BRitish Quality Foundation.
After 8 years of marriage and three young children, my wife Brenda decided to take up with a three times convicted criminal. His last offence for Racially agravated criminal damage resulted in a prison sentence.
CAFCASS and the so called Justice system decided to exclude me from my family, to pass my home (the result of my lifes work) to my wife and to leave me financially dependant upon the state.
It is the law that encourages the breakdown of the Family Unit because the financial consequences of breakdown all fall on the Man.
Think, David Cameron, before you levy the blame on absent Fathers - sometimes that is how the system has excluded them.

My Personal Discoveries.
The Legal System is corrupt and uses peer group deals.
The Police are no better than legalised Thugs
There is no JUSTICE in the UK anymore - just preservation of self interests.

Posted by jaycee1940 on Friday, 16 February 2007 15:09:23

As well as the abused Fathers you have pointed out on here, we have the ones of who there are thousands who come home from a hard days work keeping a nice family household to find their so called Wives/Girlfriends have been neglecting their Families whilst having an affair and have installed the New Boyfriend in the house. Usually the Children have to witness their Father being taken out of the home by the Police and this "New Daddy" taking their Fathers place. The Mothers will lie their heads off in court knowing the Fathers are too broken to fight and accuse them of all sorts of things that make a divorce possible on the "Unreasonable Behaviour Grounds", Most times they ar pregnant with this New Mans Child. They are allowed Residential Custody of the Children and then refuse to let the Father see his Children at the same time screaming "Maintenance". So here we have thousands of Abused Fathers not Absent Fathers (I hate that expression) who have No Home, usually No Job because of their mental state, and No Family. A lot of broken homes would still be intact if we went back to basics with families and made the guilty ones pay.

Posted by coolcatmillie on Friday, 16 February 2007 15:21:50

And lets not forget that some husbands lose most of their income and end up living in a one bedroom flat, which under law does not allow the children to say at their father home, so contact starts to break down.
I’m so pleased that we are starting to discuss this issue, much needed debate.
Everyman with children must realise that they are vulnerable at the hands of the current system and rough justice for dads, if your wife decides one day she’s had enough.
Most people think “we are happy our marriage is strong” but things change and the children that you live for now, may not be in your life, because the discriminating decisions go against an innocent father.

Please not that all my blogs regarding fathers rights are for those who have no history of abuse.

Posted by Londoner on Friday, 16 February 2007 17:06:07

You all appear to be fathers with a firm belief that it is all a woman’s fault; no, not in my case but I accept that none of us, male or female is infallible. However, it is still amazingly difficult for people to reach an agreeable, non-confrontational, financial arrangement under today’s laws. I do not advocate bankrupting a spouse but surely, one cannot assume or expect a moral right without assuming a financial obligation. I think that David Cameron should bring his own ‘house’ into order before pontificating.

Posted by Popple on Saturday, 17 February 2007 12:36:02

In the case I know most about because it involves a member of my family the mother left with the three children. It was suggested that the couple should go to Relate for counselling. The mother refused to take part having decided to divorce. At that stage the mother refused to allow the father to make contact with his children but eventually relented and the children, living only a mile or two from their father were allowed to visit him and even stayed over-night but slowly but surely the lady reduced contact time to only a few hours every second weekend, with no overnight stays.

Despite a written proposal by the mother on new contact arrangements reluctantly accepted by the father she soon renegaded on that arrangement eventually stopping all visits by the children to their father.

The children had maintained some contact with their father through emails and telephone calls but the mother changed the childrens email addresses and refused to let the father speak to the children when he called on the telephone.

So what do you suggest the father does next in this case where the mother has deliberately prevented contact?

Posted by coolcatmillie on Saturday, 17 February 2007 14:00:56

Popple.
My husband and his ex have had the similar experience and we went back to the solicitor again!
And we were then told to leave it alone and not rock the boat and the children were happy enough, as it would cost and if it went back to court the it may not go in his favour, anyway.
It was a case of children are happy so leave it.... but of course my husband and the solicitor did not know if the children were happy.... so it all went pear shaped, and now there is no contact...very sad but a very real situation that is happening right across Britain.
He now has to wait until they are older and hope he can salvage something, we have kept all correspondence from all side including letters from ex demanding more money for contact so they can see that HE DID try against all odds.
In the end hopefully it will come good and its not too late,but unfortnatly the children form the first marriage will missout on time with thier new siblings and they may end up resenting the ex for her action..

 

Comment edited by coolcatmillie on Saturday, 17 February 2007 14:18:52

Posted by Popple on Thursday, 22 February 2007 09:30:22

Well, the family court said that CAFCAS should make a report and in the meantime the father should be allowed to see his three children at a contact centre. The mother however protested about going to a contact centre and it was agreed that he should see his children in th emothers home for two hours every fortnight.

So the other day the father went to his former home to find that only one child was present. He was told that the oldest did not want to see him because the father had not kept in contact with him. Which was hardly surprising given that the mother had not allowed the father to phone his eldest child and had changed the email address to stop that channel of communication. Later during the 2 hour slot the second child appeared; it turns out that the three children had been staying with their granny the previous night.

So once again a mother ignores the wishes of the court and CAFCAS, a child thinks its father does not care for it because of the mothers actions.

When is David going to talk about this problem and give a commitment that he is going to do something about it?

Posted by coolcatmillie on Thursday, 22 February 2007 11:17:40

Never!!!
Nobody is interested, as I have said before,
Its a really important issue, but some many people don’t even have an opinion on it…hence the number of comments, other than those who are in the situation we speak of.
DC is making more public appearances today along with statements about the importance of families and the issue surrounding "broken homes" and its apparent link to crime!
So we will wait and see if he mentions anything regarding the need for courts/mothers and government to allow children and fathers the right to see each other with out everyone playing silly beggers!
But somehow I doubt it,popple