Thread: There's no systematic bias against fathers in family courts

As Oscar Wilde put it "the truth is rarely pure and never simple". Exactly. I suggest that Liz Trinder should go out and talk with 20 divorced men with children who have gone through the system.

"Since the mid-1990s courts have bent over backwards to try to ensure contact takes place."
Dad's in the UK, is this true? Or is it just a load of Bovine Excrement?

In 2010 the courts refused only 300 of 95,000 such applications. Careful research based on analysis of court records finds that the great majority of fathers get the contact they seek and often do better than mothers. Indeed, the contact presumption is so strong that research studies have found concerns raised by mothers – especially about domestic violence – are not being addressed adequately by the courts.

Hah, I knew it! She had to toss in a poor woman statement on domestic violence not being quickly addressed because fathers are supposedly getting more contact with the children. Diversionary, Misandric, and illogical.

Show men the studies and numbers my Dear, without cherry picking the data

an act of kindness that breaks families up at a faster rate than previously and condemns kids to a future that is painful and less rewarding than it could be if they were not chewed up and processed like sausage meat to provide a living for scumbag state busybodies and feminist writers in the shitsheets..

I didnt bother reading the link.. The gaurdian is feminist bogroll and it has long been said that folks who read the gaurdian think they should be running the cuntry..

Anything can be seen anyway you want to look a tit..

I seek the truth and resent it being hidden in all its forms.. Statistics are the most obvious way of decieving folk.. Quote a bunch of numbers and we are all supposed to believe they were obtained under fair questioning?

Bow larks!!

Added after 9 minutes:

A man I remember as being one of the most driven and keen activists against family courts made the statement that "best interests of the family" would be a much better basis for family law to work on..

Another bloke once made the comment "family law should be regarded as the law of the family, not the law imposed upon the family!"

And a young lady who was once on my porkfolio many years ago once made the comment "I think folks should quit the silly idea that everything has to be about what children want all the time"..

One of the wiset remarks I ever heard from an intelligent man (a doctor, none the less).. stated thus:-

"Children have no fucking rights. And so they shouldn't have.. They get what they are fucking given and thats the end of the matter.."

He also used to often say.. "These parents who relate to their kids as if they are should be 'best friends' with them are making a great mistake.."

I think it is not "the law" that matters so much, as "who applies the law"..

Do we really want the state to head our families?

Not I!

Ok let me get this thing straight:

On the one hand, many feminists have perpetuated the myth that motherhood is a curse and a burden, and is put upon women by the patriarchy.

Yet they have thoroughly convinced the family court system(s) that mothers are better for their children than fathers.

Guess that proves that their hatred and contempt for men trumps their desire for women to not be mothers.

I got it figured out now.

These poor excuses of human beings, these scumbags, the only myth in this article is their honesty and anyone that supports their lies deserves to be shamed and ostracized to say the least.

I remember hearing not too long ago that the majority of fathers who make applications to court withdraw them "just at the point they are likely to have some success".. Claim made of course by a family lawyer.. Of course, if they did not withdraw at that point, but continued to keep up the process and pay the lawyers, a few years on they could again choose to withdraw the application (for permission off the state to see your own kids!), again "just before they are likely to have some success.."..

One of the reasons so many applications get withdrawn must surely be that the chances of success are very poor, the father no longer feels he has any hope of a half decent relationship with kids he no longer knows (they change very much in a few years) and continued pissing about in court can potentially lead to a situation where the court formallly tells a father he CANNOT see his children.. Thus putting him a WORSE position than he would have been had he not made the application at all!

Strange, how of all the people in the world, ONLY THE FATHER is legally disallowed from having contact with his own child..

It must always be remembered..

The only person who has to be convinced of the need to allow a father to have a relationship with his kids is the mother..

She can allow it at any time.. thus halting the court process and ending the matter there and then..

She can also disallow it at any time, no matter what the court order says..

So, that s true CUNT POWER for you!

Quote from The Possible Human

"Since the mid-1990s courts have bent over backwards to try to ensure contact takes place."
Dad's in the UK, is this true? Or is it just a load of Bovine Excrement?

When I went through the Family Wringer in 2001, the concept of shared custody had been promoted throughout the EC for over five years. My son had stated he wanted shared custody.

The judge laughed (literally sniggered) at the idea and while I don't recall his exact words he left me in no doubt that in his mind children were better off with their mother.

My ex-wife gained full custody against my wishes and against my son's wishes.

He might indeed have made sure contact was possible (my ex never made contact an issue) so perhaps the exact wording of the quote could be supported even in my case. Just don't believe that it has anything to do with caring for the child or equality for men.

From The Rights Of Man by Reece .M. Wilkes:
Explore the issues of inequality and discrimination affecting men in the 21st century (PDF 237KB)

Geldof On Fathers a documentary aired by Channel 4 in 2005 confirmed that fathers gain custody of their children in only 7% of cases.

All of the comments which I read, stated that the father gets a bad deal.

With the single exception to feminist 'studies', I've as yet not read anything close to her claim that the courts bend over backwards to help fathers, are biased in father's favour and certainly not that fathers aren't discriminated against.

And to be honest, if I look as an outsider at the above psots, it would be hard to convince me that courts are biased. Gentlemen, we need to re-double our efforts in proving things, not asserting them....and remember Matt got his arse kicked on national TV in a similar debate.

Quote from Richard

And to be honest, if I look as an outsider at the above psots, it would be hard to convince me that courts are biased. Gentlemen, we need to re-double our efforts in proving things, not asserting them....and remember Matt got his arse kicked on national TV in a similar debate.

I would agree. It's not nice to hear (well, read), but true. One of the biggest female privileges is that feminists are believed automatically, while men are charged to "prove it" whenever disagreeing. I've known from many arguments before that whenever I come up with a point that doesn't fit into the accepted narrative of evil, powerful men, weak and innocent women, I have to back it up. When I stated that overwhelmingly, men are incarcerated, I had to state where I got that. When I said how men commit suicide far more often than women, I needed to back it up. Whenever we are caught up in a debate, we need to have sources memorized, details and facts.

I think that evil heifer thinks that giving dads four days a month visitation is considered bending over backwards to ensure contact.

Which proves two things.

1} That she and the courts think that four days out of thirty is meaningful and effective parenting time. But as we see the sorry state of kids today it is neither meaningful enough nor effective enough for the well being of children.
2} That they obviously care little for what is in the ACTUAL best interest of the child.

What else would one expect, from the left-wing trash of a paper that is The Guardian?