« Belated Friday Cat Blogging | Main | Batman Protest Did Him No Good »

September 26, 2004

Fathers 4 Justice Dudes Fighting Amongst Themselves

It just keeps getting better. Now they're fighting amongst themselves.

Two members of Fathers 4 Justice say they've been booted from the group because they refused to wear Santa Claus costumes to a trial.

Yes, you read that right.

F4J Liverpool treasurer Dave Humphrey says he was asked to leave the group "because he refused to dress up as Father Christmas at a trial at Liverpool Crown Court next Tuesday, where he will stand accused of causing public nuisance. Mr Humphrey, [former F4J Liverpool co-ordinator Peter Molloy - the other man who says he was kicked out] and three other men were arrested after a protest last year held on a footbridge over the Strand in Liverpool. He said: "They said to me 'are you going to wear your Santa suit' for the trial and I told them 'you've got to be joking'. They then said they were kicking me out of the organisation. I couldn't believe it. Our barristers told us not to wear the Santa suits and we agreed."

Fathers 4 Justice says it booted only Molloy and says that the fight wasn't over wearing or not wearing the Santa suits.

I swear, you can't make this shit up.

Hey, guys, Christmas is celebrated as Jesus' birthday. Go dressed as Him and really piss some people off. If you're going to earn three hots and a cot, work for it.

Sure, it's easy for the guys not dressing up in costume to demand the ones going in front of a judge show up looking like characters from a Mummer's parade. The guys making the demands aren't the ones who could end up in jail.

They picked the wrong costumes, though. It would have been more fitting if they'd have dressed like village idiots.

There seems to be a bit of power-and-publicity-hungry head-butting going on here, too. Molloy says the London-based F4J honchos were pissed that he organized a "march for justice" between Liverpool and London in August - without asking for their approval first. I bet that's the real reason he was given the boot.

It's like watching a pack of dogs mark their territory, isn't it?

Posted on September 26, 2004 at 09:26 AM | Permalink

Comments

What do you think the English would make of the Mummers? ;D

Posted by: Moi ;) at Sep 26, 2004 7:14:09 PM

...but if they'd dressed up as village idiots, would anybody have noticed anything out of the ordinary?...

Posted by: Nomen Nescio at Sep 27, 2004 8:06:32 PM

GOING TO EAT SOME HUMBLE PIE NOW THAT THE JURY (2/3 OF WHOM WERE LADIES) HAS CONSIDERED F4J BOYS INNOCENT?

Posted by: STEVE MANN at Oct 6, 2004 8:40:07 AM

You don't get it, Steve. Fathers 4 Justice isn't getting the results it wants despite all the publicity it has received for its stunts. The U K has rejected presumptive 50/50 custody. Lord Falconer said that children cannot be divided up like the CD collection. Men will not see their ex's tossed in jail for not giving into their visitation demands. The "boys" are getting ridiculed. Not a great track record.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Oct 6, 2004 9:04:24 AM

Dear Trish

I am sure you appreciate that achieving results through Parliament doesn't happen overnight.
As for "the UK has rejected presumptive 50/50 custody" - I am not sure what you intend to mean. Certainly the relevant legislation indicates that shared parenting should be the norm and the lovely Mrs Hale (one of the senior Family Judges) has gone into print stating that she believes 50/50 would be ideal in situations where parents live close by.
Public surveys also express general support for F4J position.
Whether or not the Uk has made the rejection you suggest or not one thing is indubitably clear: that Parliament did not intend to create the current state of affairs, which runs entirely counter to the aims expressed in the Act. Why do you not use your position to suggest some sensible improvements, which would aid men and women, children and grandparents, i.e. all of our society. What is the axe you seek to grind?
As for Mr Falconer - his views are his own or in any cae hardly those of the UK (as you put it). I would say a presumption would act as a baseline, encouraging parents to make sensible arrangements knowing that if they don't 50/50 is what they will get.
As for jail, well some lovely mums are already there aren't they? See recent press on the subject. And old Thorpey (or was it Munby) another one of our senior Family judges recently said an automatic 3 day jailing should follow breach of contact order. So I wouldn't be too confident on this point.
Boys are indeed being ridiculed (especially by the Guardian and Mirror, and we all know what agendas they follow) and on top of ridicule they are the subject of trials which could compound the tragedy of separating them from their kids (in circumstances where they have been given contact rights by courts which have subsequently failed to uphold their own orders)by sending them to jail for protesting about this, where it is not the protest but the governmet-ordered police response that gives rise to the alleged criminal offence. Fortunately so far the public sympathy has not been with your side of this debate.
Which brings me to my conclusion: why are their sides to this debate? Why should you not want to achieve a society where parents are not separated from their children and vice versa when both Parliament and the Courts have said a continued relationship is desirable (as if that wasn't entirely and undeniably obvious)? What could you possibly have suffered to be consumed by this malice you express? Wouldn't it be better if we worked out what was right and tried to achieve that? perhaps to illustrate your perspective on such matters you might tell us of a protest group you admire/ have admired and say why they should not be ridiculed and jailed while F4J should?

Posted by: steve mann at Oct 6, 2004 10:25:09 AM

Steve, you can claim all the public support for F4J that you like. That doesn't change the fact that the protests aren't leading to what the guys want. Oh, reforms are underway alright, but not the kinds of reforms groups like F4J have in mind. Divorce and custody-related cottage industries are being introduced, not reforms favored by fathers' rights activists. The mental health industry stands to make a lot of money with the introduction of required parenting classes, mandatory mediation, child guardians, custody and psychological evaluations, and the like - and both moms and dads will pay out the nose for them. Read this post of mine and kindly wake up. Fathers' rights activists have been had, and they don't even know it. The guys who protest are about to see the costs of their divorce and custody hearings go up. They won't get presumptive 50/50 custody. They won't be able to jail their ex's to the extent they wish. They won't "win" anything. The ones who will win are the "professionals" who make their living and earn their money from divorce and custody cases, and they will laugh at fathers' rights activists all the way to the bank.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Oct 6, 2004 11:20:23 AM

Trish - you basically say that if dads protest they will end up getting "more of the same but worse". To the extent we are talking about the half-baked ideas being currently mooted by Falconer and chums you're right. However if we consider this as a negotiation spanning a numbers of years, if not decades, then consider this government's "opening bid". Over time, and people will be in it for the long term once the issue becomes widely appreciated, things will change so that "over-politically-corrected" states of affairs are replaced by fairer systems in consequence of pressure exerted by those who become the victims of such policies. You could make these points you make about any cause that seeks to change bad things in government: it may get worse before better. Before F4J nothing was going to happen in the face of a real injustice. Further, as to F4J achieving nothing, they have achieved cross-party support in Northern Ireland so that in itself is a success which should lead to changes there consistent with their program and they have also put the subject on the Tory manifesto (for what that's worth). Also, isn't their now going to be a full enquiry/review on the subject in England.
Finally, if we are to judge the harassment by dads you refer to, is it not appropriate to put it in context: fairly understandable acts of anger by men deprived of their children, in breach of court orders, by mums using the chldren as pawns? Don't you think it ironic that the criminal record attaches to the man and not the woman in this situation?
Do I understand your ultimate conclusion to be that a person entirely separated from his/her children in breach of court orders by an ex acting out of mere spite and contrary to the interest of those children as determined by the court should just shut up and get used to it?
Or if F4J have a right cause can you suggest another way they should go about achievbing their aims?

Posted by: STEVE MANN at Oct 6, 2004 12:02:06 PM

I would say a presumption would act as a baseline, encouraging parents to make sensible arrangements knowing that if they don't 50/50 is what they will get.


Steve,

Forcing a 50/50 split between contentious parties NEVER works. The ones affected by it the most are the children and always negatively.

Is that what you (general you) want? These children will end up in therapy (if the parents can afford it) for years. Their childhood is ruined.

Access is one thing but when that access negatively impacts those that are most vulnerable.. that is a whole different thing. And warring parties, judges, etc.. overlook that.

Posted by: chief at Oct 6, 2004 12:06:50 PM

Save your breath Steve...you're absolutely correct. Trish DOES have an ax to grind, but for the life of her, she will NEVER say exactly what that is.
If you read ALL of her articles, she makes it potently clear that she has absolutely no use for fathers whatsoever.

Also Chief, the mental health care industry is already making money out of these issues. Children who feel the pain of losing their dads (and in some case, their moms) to malicious custodial parents, are being forced into therapy, and having anti-depressents pushed onto them at ages as early as 11 years old. And since no system anywhere in the world follows the presumption of 50/50 custody, how can this be explained...because it's the malicious contention of the custodial parent who forcibly estranges a child from the other parent, who causes this. So let's get real Chief...

As for changes, maybe you all haven't heard about this...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133875,00.html

Across U.S., Non-Custodial Parents Sue

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

By Wendy McElroy

At least 28 federal class action suits in 28 states have been filed in the last two weeks on behalf of non-custodial parents (NCPs). The defendants are the individual states.

The plaintiffs claim to represent an estimated 25 million
non-custodial parents - primarily fathers - whose right to equal custody of minor children in situations of dispute is allegedly being violated by family courts across the nation.

Family law is traditionally a state matter, but the federal government has assumed greater control in the area over the last few decades. Thus, the plaintiffs are appealing to the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent and acts of Congress "to vindicate and restore their various inalienable rights."

In short, federal law is being asked to trump state practice in
custody matters.

According to the suits, state practices appear to be "willful,
reckless, and/or negligent fraud, deceit, collusion, and/or abuse of powers" with a "systematic pattern of obstructing, hindering, and/or otherwise thwarting the rightful and lawful conclusion of due process" of non-custodial parents in child custody proceedings.

In particular, fathers protest the widespread practice of almost automatically granting sole custody to mothers in divorce disputes.

The 28-plus class action suits are identical, as any future suits will be. The ultimate goal is for every state and U.S. possession to be represented in one large consolidated action. Indeed, Torm L. Howse - president of the Indiana Civil Rights Council and coordinator of the suits - says that paperwork is under way for submission to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, a legal body which has the authority to transfer such multiple civil cases to a single district court.

If this happens, every single non-custodial parent in America will be represented by the class action suit, which is nothing more than a lawsuit brought by one person or a small group on behalf of an entire class who shares a grievance.

What specific relief is being sought?

The sweeping legal goals are spelled out in a press release. The main relief sought from federal court is the immediate
"restoration/elevation to equal custodial status" of all current
non-custodial parents against whom no allegations of abuse or neglect have been proven and who have an ongoing relationship with the child.

The establishment of equal custody embraces several other reliefs.

For example, the "prohibition of custodial move-aways of minor children [more than 60 miles] from their original physical residences with natural parents." Also, the "abolishment of forced/court-ordered child support in most cases." Support of the child would be borne by each parent during their own parenting time.

The Plaintiffs argue for restoration of equal custody not merely for the sake of non-custodial parents but also for children's welfare. The press release cites a much-touted study entitled "Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody Arrangements," which was published in the APA's Journal of Family Psychology. The study concluded,
"Children in joint physical or legal custody were better adjusted than children in sole-custody settings, but no different from those in intact families."

In this sense, the suits also advocate children's rights.

Other reliefs being sought are financial in nature; some of them take the suits into murky areas. For example, the suits ask for "reimbursement" from custodial parents to non-custodial parents of any state-ordered child support that exceeded the "maximum limits of federal law." This ceases to be an appeal to constitutional or parental rights and instead pits one set of civil law against another, with retroactive penalties being imposed.

In addition, the suits ask for "various damages against the Defendant [the state named] in the aggregate value of $1,000,000 payable per Plaintiff." The court awards would be "executable upon all monies, property, chattels, assets, goods, pecuniary interest and anything whatsoever of any value" owned or controlled by the State. The suits request that "an appropriate portion" of the award be provided by the
liquidation or direct transfer of title of "unused, abandoned, or
unnecessary state property and assets."

The number of non-custodial parent plaintiffs who sign on to a federal class action cannot be predicted but it could run into millions; the collective damages could run into billions or even trillions of dollars. Unfortunately, this gives the appearance of pursuing profit rather than justice.

When asked to elaborate on the amount of damages, Howse clarified, "We are preparing, later this week, to offer proposed settlements that will waive the vast majority of damages, among other things, in exchange for a quick restoral of equal custody rights, a few forms of tax abatements/credits to balance what custodial parents have enjoyed for years and some other basic and related issues, like the setting up of neutral visitation exchange centers, and the like."

He added, "It has never been about winning large amounts of money from the states ... It's about restoring the lives of our children, and restoring our own lives."

I genuinely hope the settlements come to pass. Stripped of their financial demands, the suits could go a long way toward removing what I believe to be the worst laws governing child custody in disputed divorce.

At bare minimum, they are raising the profile of an issue that will not go away: the crying need of non-custodial parents, especially fathers, to know their children.

And the equal need of children to embrace both parents.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.


'I know how much you despise Wendy, Trish, but currently, approximately 40 states have filed with more to come. You can find the actual site at: http://www.indianacrc.org/classaction.html

More press agencies are picking up this story as it unfolds...'

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 6, 2004 2:02:29 PM

Steve, these angry men aren't dads "deprived of their children" who are the victims of women using the children as pawns. These men have been convicted of harassing their ex-wives. Domestic violence is involved. They've been seen drinking and bragging about screwing women in bars. The Batman protester had made death threats against his ex-wife and her mother. These aren't poor, disenfranchised dads who are victims of bias. They use intimidation and harassment when they don't get their way. The claims that courts routinely award custody of children to mothers, therefore courts are biased, is equally specious because most cases are settled out of court with both parents deciding on their own that mom should have custody. Only about 10% of all divorces need to be decided by a judge.

More importantly, you are speculating based on wishful thinking and a misinterpretation of recent trends. I have described trends in family issues that have been underway worldwide for the past decade and are coming to fruition now. While "shared parenting" may be considered a base in a lot of the discussions, the end result will not be "a presumption would act as a baseline, encouraging parents to make sensible arrangements knowing that if they don't 50/50 is what they will get," as you state. It's being recommended as a starting point by the legal and mental health industries in order for them to usher in their money-making reforms, all in the name of "children needing both parents." This is happening right now. If one parent (mom, you mean) balks at shared parenting (making "sensible arrangements") there will be no order to force the couple to abide by 50/50 custody as you state. The trend already in existence is for both mom and dad to be ordered to attend parenting classes, mediation, to see a parenting coordinator to draw up a very detailed parenting plan, and to undergo custody and/or psychological evaluations to allegedly teach them to "get along for the sake of the children." There is no 50/50 time order because no one will make money from that. All of this costs money and both mom and dad have to pay for it, which explains why divorce and custody cases these days frequently costs in the six figures.

This is not speculation. The trend has been underway in the U. S. for the past decade and it is being introduced in Australia and the U. K. right now. I strongly suspect that New Zealand will go in that direction because New Zealand recently rejected presumptive 50/50 custody, which angered fathers' rights activists. The trend follows a very noticeable pattern - fathers' rights activists loudly protest for their rights, in particular presumptive 50/50 custody. A committee to investigate family court reforms is enacted in part due to the protests, but primarily because legal and mental health professionals see an opportunity to set up cottage industries because there is money to be made in divorce and custody cases. Presumptive 50/50 is rejected, as are most of the top demands made by fathers' rights activists... BUT "shared parenting" is cited as a baseline to introduce not the bogus "equality for parents" you talk about but to introduce divorce and custody-related cottage industries that drive up the cost of divorce and custody cases. This pattern has occurred in the U. S., Australia, and now the U. K. You are seriously misreading the trends. I suggest you pay attention to what is actually happening and pay less attention to the way you hope things will turn out.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Oct 6, 2004 2:21:52 PM

As usual, Michael, your personal attacks are out of line and unnecessary. Furthermore, the lawsuits filed by CRC don't include anything new that hasn't been heard in courts around the country already - and have been thrown out. Plus, CRC relies on bogus "research" about joint custody by Robert Bauserman, who co-authored the Rind Study, which sought to normalize pedophilia. Bauserman already has credibility problems because of Rind. He is NOT someone to trust when it comes to what is best for children, and respectable people know that. The real danger in CRC's class action suit frenzy is that groups like the Association for Family and Conciliation Courts will get wind of it and use the publicity the suits may get in order to usher in more money-making cottage industries related to divorce and custody in the U. S.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Oct 6, 2004 2:28:45 PM

"Steve, these angry men aren't dads "deprived of their children" who are the victims of women using the children as pawns. These men have been convicted of harassing their ex-wives. Domestic violence is involved."

Trish, as part of this 'US' Class Action suit, FYI...anyone CRIMINALLY convicted of abuse against their wives or children is NOT included in the suit. Abused alleged within the family court system (which contains NO BURDON TO PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS) are nothing more than orders barring communication. And "Restraining Orders Barring Contact or Communication are NOT the same thing...but you already knew that. They're given all kinds of names, but they are designed to accomplish the same thing...BAR CONTACT!

Harrassment is NOT the same as Domestic Violence. That's the gaff...incorporating one into the other in exactly the same way 'Intolerable Cruelty' which is a fault standard of divorce, is incorporated into 'No Fault' which is, a faultless standard of divorce. Ironic, isn't it?

And that, my dear Trish, is one of the many things that the NCP Class Action Suit seeks to address.

Once this type of suit takes hold in the US, it's ramifications will spread like wildfire across the globe. This will truly be a history making event. And we'll finally get our day in court.

You should be pleased Trish. If all of us bad, bad dads are trying to oppress women, then
when all the data comes out in a court, I guess the jig will finally be up.

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 6, 2004 3:17:28 PM

Actually, M, I look forward to the way these "father's rights" wingnuts will get exposed. Look at what happened to the poor whinging toads in Britian. They were shown up for the psychotic pissheads they are.

And you betray your own issues when you try to pooh-pooh harrassment, dear. If you're so concerned with the welfare of the children, you'd recognize how harrassing their mother can hurt them--and in fact how harrassing one member of a family can kill your chances to see the rest of the family, period.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Oct 6, 2004 3:40:03 PM

Back in the days of slavery, the law of the land was that slavery was LEGAL...remember? Then during the civil rights era, there was a little group known as the Black Panthers. Talk about a dangerous group huh?! Along came a fellow who would ultimately be known as Malcolm X...what a rap sheet this guy had. But did the fact that they espoused violence or had felony criminal records take away from the truthful message that slavery and racism was wrong? Oh, it took awhile for the message to get out. Thank God for Martin Luther King. But don't forget...it took centuries to realize the atrocities of slavery and racism, and the work still isn't finished.

What was going on then was wrong. And it took unconventional means from unconventional people to bring that truth to light. The issues of NCP's (and that includes WOMEN by the way) are true, and they occur. All too often.

And Trish, don't get me started about belittling you in anyway. I've reached out to you in good faith and sense from the time we first met in this blogosphere. You and your pals here have never been anything but absolute jerks to ANY MAN who ever disagreed with you. I've read how you repeatedly RIP scholars like Baskerville and Cornell Smith.

You keep talking about how dads are getting duped by father's rights groups. Now, exactly what does that mean I wonder...are you saying that dads have a point, but we're being conned by self-serving father's rights organizations? Exactly how does duping us serve them? And might that suggest that there IS something rotten in the court system and that dads are getting the shaft, but we've picked the wrong outfit to represent us?

And what about YOUR facts and research. Research from the likes of Tong, Baskerville, McColroy, Davis, Sacks etc. will most likely be presented along with SCORES of other scholars in support of NCP's issues. I wonder...will YOU be bringing your works to trial as an expert to testify in defense of the states? I promise...if these suits are consolidated to appear in Washington DC, I will appear as well. And with bated breath, I will enjoy watching and listening to your expertise on the stand. This is your chance to shine.

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 6, 2004 4:27:56 PM

Michael..... you've been mislead once again. This is from Howse's Verified Complaint......

16. Lastly, that each such above plaintiff, in addition to the above criteria, has either: (a) never been formally convicted, in any competent court of the several States or of the United States, and by proceedings performed with absolute accordance to the full protections of all constitutional due process rights normally afforded every criminal defendant, as having been either seriously abusive, or seriously neglectful, to the health, safety, or physical or emotional welfare, of any minor child – whatsoever – but, specifically excluding from the above criteria only those circumstances wherein such prosecution was solely related to nonpayment of child support; or, (b) obtained full reversal, vacation, overturning, or other like purging, of each, any, and all such convictions in any one or more competent courts of the several States, or of the United States.

and ...

61. Further, the Class alleges that the State, as a whole, has willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently perpetuated and exacerbated the entire situation, by routine violations of the aforementioned federal public family and parent-child relationship policy statutes, by routine usage of protective and restraining orders illegally done “ex parte” to favor default sole custody by one parent (when the whereabouts of other parent are already known for normal service of process), by the routine issuance of ex parte “household” protective and restraining orders used essentially to favor default sole custody by one parent, and directly interfering, without due process of law, with the other parent’s right to uninhibited relationships with the minor children in question, by routine issuance of ex parte protective and restraining orders used essentially to favor default sole custody, by disparately taking property away from the other parent (sudden residential evictions), by the changing of children's names often done without proper notice, or even notice of any kind, for any reason, and by the changing of children’s names often done to assist the fraudulent concealment of the children from the other parent, even though such changing of children’s names is inherently very poor business practice for purposes of social security, medical history, taxes, and other types of nationally administrative reasons.

You need to be able to read between the lines in order to understand what Howse is saying. @@ The whole thing was very poorly written. And comes across as "bitching"... "poor me".. @@

Trish is correct Michael... even though you can't see it. I skimmed the "verified complaint" and each and every item they allege has a remedy in the State courts.... problem is... you (general) don't like the outcome. Taking it to Federal Court...... well. .. one can only speculate at this point. but I doubt it will be go anywhere.

... And since no system anywhere in the world follows the presumption of 50/50 custody, how can this be explained...because it's the malicious contention of the custodial parent who forcibly estranges a child from the other parent, who causes this. So let's get real Chief...


Good Lord Michael..... Parties that have split custody in any amount have their children in counseling and on "drugs"..... IF the relationship is contentious........the percentages would be HIGHER. I know just from reading message boards and blogs of posters who have their child/ren in counseling and the child spend has standard or just above standard... or even "absent" parents that are in counseling. Forcing the parties to have even MORE contact is not good..... common sense would tell you that.

Chances are if they could work amicably there wouldn't have been a separation or divorce to begin with. SHEEZ.......

Posted by: chief at Oct 6, 2004 4:39:12 PM

Chief...are you on pain pills? I mean, you can read...can't you?
Are you a lawyer or judge that can determine whether a pro se(which makes it an actually WEll written action) case is trivial on it's face? Do you have ANY law background that the rest of us quite possibly aren't aware of?

You don't 'read between the lines' of a legal action. You read the action on each point. Because each point constructs the case by which evidence comes to bear at trial, to support the actions and the claims. It's 'reading between the lines' logic that causes the lines to be blurred. that's the disservice of your logic.
Truth is not an 'interpretation', example: 2+2=4 to me, but it might equal 5 to you, it all depends on how you read between the lines...come on. That's just ridiculous logic...you have to do the math.

I don't believe anymore,that you guys are misguided. I used to think that, but not anymore. I think you know exactly what you're doing. Your deception is deliberate.

Do yourself a favor...don't SKIM a court action. Read it thoroughly, make your arguments how ever you want, and let the chips fall where they may...

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 6, 2004 5:14:17 PM

Back in the days of slavery, the law of the land was that slavery was LEGAL...remember? Then during the civil rights era, there was a little group known as the Black Panthers. Talk about a dangerous group huh?! Along came a fellow who would ultimately be known as Malcolm X...what a rap sheet this guy had. But did the fact that they espoused violence or had felony criminal records take away from the truthful message that slavery and racism was wrong? Oh, it took awhile for the message to get out. Thank God for Martin Luther King. But don't forget...it took centuries to realize the atrocities of slavery and racism, and the work still isn't finished.

You are so entertaining. You actually equate the whinging of the bitterman brigade with slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow?

Oh, honey, I think you need you some Haldol.

(And FWIW, Malcolm X didn't espouse violence, and he wasn't a member of the Black Panthers--he was a member of the Nation of Islam. Unlike Father's Rights freaks, he was upfront about his past. He did say he wasn't a pacifist, and he did say that people had a right to defend themselves--he did not espouse violence, though I find it refreshing that you admit in your roundabout way that the whinging wingnuts of the FR movement do. Unlike the Blackshirts, Lowel Jacks, and other wingnuts, Malcolm X didn't kidnap anyone. He didn't harrass anyone. And he didn't threaten anyone.)

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Oct 6, 2004 6:03:16 PM

Michael,

I'm not on drugs, have no reading comprehension problems, not a lawyer.

I do have common sense. I have seen enough LEGAL documents and read enough of them to use my "common sense". I have represented myself (pro se) and won. Not on highly difficult issues though. I know enough to know when I need to retain an atty.

Mr. Howse obviously didn't know that. @@

I did a quick skim.... of his Verified Complaint. I knew, right at the beginning no lawyer would have written it. LOL

This is not rocket science. When I saw all of his "alleged" rights violations and the fact that he filed it as a "class action".. the first thing that my common sense told me was this........

WHY OH WHY didn't he contact the ACLU? I suspect he did. I also suspect that he was turned down... you can't TELL me the ACLU would not take this case IF they thought for one minute it was legit.... not when thousands of NCPs "rights" are affected... SWIM? They would jump on this in EVERY state... etc etc. Don't believe me? Contact them yourself.... hell take his complaint and make an appt and see what they tell you. Then get back to me OK?

Howse is just wasting his time... and energy.

Not to burst your bubble or anything.. but I wouldn't put a lot of stock in this at all. To think that it is going to change the "system" as we now know it... is delusional...

Posted by: chief at Oct 6, 2004 8:25:01 PM

Sheelz, Sheelz, Sheelz....
You need to leave the haldol alone. I'm chuckling at the fact that you know what it is, and what it does...

Malcolm X was a pimp and a murderer before he served time and finally understood what the hell happened to his life...and also where his true calling was. What in the name of God do you think the term 'By Any Means Neccessary' meant? Do you really know anything about the Panthers and Malcolm X? Or are you just playing little 'deversion games' like you guys are so prone to do?

Malcolm X said that when it came to racism and slavery, violence would be met by violence. Victims will use whatever means it takes to NOT be victims anymore. I am certainly NOT going to take up an entire evening to explain to you, that to which you already KNOW as well as every school child by the age of ten...If you have any brains or education whatsoever, you'll stop with the 'diversion tactics... Sorry dullards, but you're on your own.

Do you have any capacity to realize just how twisted your logic just become, and how OBVIOUS it is? Of course not...

And Chief...you need to leave WHATEVER painkiller you're on alone as well. Do you really think that this is just going to go away? That dads are going to BELIEVE your sick, chuckle-head bullshit?
Again...your bullshit lies won't wash. You're just going to have to rally your group together and argue the matter before the nation...nay...the world.
I'm itchey with anticipation, to see YOU GUYS...yes, that's it...YOU, Sheelz, Trish and anyone else you may have slated, to actually sit before a jury, the nation and the world(hopefully) and put up...or shut up.

Talk all the shit you want from here on out. But I'm waiting to see Trish's demands( as well as yours, guys, or girls or whatever) to sit PUBLICALLY and make your case.

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 6, 2004 10:15:38 PM

And Chief...you need to leave WHATEVER painkiller you're on alone as well. Do you really think that this is just going to go away? That dads are going to BELIEVE your sick, chuckle-head bullshit?

What BS Michael? Are you upset because I used common sense? C'mon. Write Mr. Howse... ask him if he contacted the ACLU and what their response was?

Again...your bullshit lies won't wash. You're just going to have to rally your group together and argue the matter before the nation...nay...the world.

What lies? I doubt this ever makes it to Court. @@

I'm itchey with anticipation, to see YOU GUYS...yes, that's it...YOU, Sheelz, Trish and anyone else you may have slated, to actually sit before a jury, the nation and the world(hopefully) and put up...or shut up.

I'd be more than happy to. But it won't be necessary. :-)


Talk all the shit you want from here on out. But I'm waiting to see Trish's demands( as well as yours, guys, or girls or whatever) to sit PUBLICALLY and make your case.

I have a feeling you are going to have a long wait.

And watch your mouth please? You can get your point across w/o resorting to namecalling etc. You can be as angry at my position as you wish.. but the name calling etc is really immature.

I gave you something to think about.... in terms of MY position.. by bringing up the ACLU.... it was a valid point..... you don't like it... which doesn't surprise me. But you didn't refute it either now did you?

Posted by: chief at Oct 6, 2004 10:38:49 PM

Please Chief...grow up. We're adults here and words like bullshit or chucklehead are hardly worth getting your lacey pink panties in a bunch over. Again, I've seen and read you guys calling people here a damn sight worse.

As for the ACLU...you know as well as I do, that the ACLU take whatever cases are politically expedient for them to take.You can't make a shyster lawyer take a case that involves complicity by public officials like judges or other lawyers to criminal legal malpractice, or get a doctor to testify against another doctor about medical malpractice without some serious out-of-pocket graft money...it just ain't gonna happen. And you know this.

The ACLU is going to take whatever case helps them politically and financially. They depend on federal revenue just like the divorce industry, and just like most (so-called) non profit feminist organizations. Probably like you guys as well.

What about the parties that tried to get the ACLU to take on big tobacco. Did they? No! Did they take on the industrialists over Mercury poisoning? No! Did they take on Enron? No! Are they willing to step in and take on big pharmeceutical companies over jacking up the price of medicine? No! And if George Bush was such a liar...where is the ACLU in all this? Nowhere!

I also don't see the ACLU putting out any fires for the demise of radical feminism either. You might ask yourself where the ACLU is for you...

Pure politics buddy, (or miss)...and you damn well know it.

And FYI...I keep in touch regularly with Torm Howsing and other states on this class action suit. I was present for the filing of the suit in Illinois. I work closely with Bob Lasheff and I hear from new dads and moms everyday on how they can sign up. The beauty is...they don't have to...they already qualify just being non-custodial parents. All across the country, in every state. I have a copy of the entire Illinois State Action. And my state isn't even Illinois.

You don't think this will see the light of day? Well, we'll just see about that. But one thing's for sure. You don't seem all that hyped to take your fight to where it matters most. To Court. And if you can't, or are not willing, to argue your position in a court of law...then YOU don't have any position to argue.

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 7, 2004 12:13:12 AM

Trish - you say children in a 50/50 custody situation will grow up disturbed.
Would you then advocate that a single mom who worked 3 night shifts (and if you are going to be pedantic 4 night shifts on alternate weeks) and on her work nights had her kid stay with her parents have her children permanently removed from her and put in care because this was "in their best interest" (since otherwise they would be mentally scarred.)
Of course you wouldn't; myself and partner look after our daughter about half-time each time. Location presumably isn't an issue for you (or you would be advocating all traveller children being put in care I assume) so how can you make the incredible assertion that 50/50 custody is some ludicrous pie-in-the-sky fantasy?
I remind you that a senior English Family Judge described it as ideal where both parents lived close.
When we are talking about trying to remove the alternative and real threat to child mental health of parent-ectomy (to borrow a phrase) the consequences of a presumption of 50/50 custody are not the bogeyman you try and make them out to be.

Posted by: steve mann at Oct 7, 2004 4:54:18 AM

A final comment on the "hatchet job" on the F$J protestors: lets remember that these are all men who are in a situation where a court has adjudged them fit to have proper access to their children but the court's orders have been disobeyed by the mother with the consequence that the fathers can no longer see their own kids (ever). Can you not sympathise? Can you not see a cause for occasional anger borne out of frustration?
Lets focus on the facts: these men have been deprived of their children in breach of court orders. It is hard to imagine any greater wrong being done to anyone, is it not Trish?
From what indications can be observed (eg recent poll on "Richard and Judy") show, most normal UK citizens sympathise.
Why then do certain papers wish to detract from their cause by publishing ephemera about their personal lives. So one or two have expressed a liking for sex. Are you suggesting that this makes a person an unfit parent? Of course you are not. They had a beer or two on a social occasion. Wh Again, Trish- does this justify child-removal for ever?
As for supposed criminal acts: well one of them kicked his wife's car when she again obstructed child access. Big deal. Is this not entirely understandable in circumstances where the wife was obstructing court orders and causing the most unimaginable pain to the kicker? As for harassment.. don't you find it absurd that the continued attempts to obtain court-ordered contact can be converted into a criminal record under the word "harassment". To draw an analogy: if my child was bullying a child of another race at school and that child's parent rang me up 50 times pleading with me to stop this and ultimately, after I said "no chance pal" every time and laughed at him, he said "I'm gonna kill you" but then didn't, who do you think is the "wrongdoer" in this situation? Well its obvious isn't it Trish? We can all say things when goaded beyon endurance by malefactors.
So turn your attention from the men and look to the issue: it is the children whose rights need protecting and if the issue is good it does not matter if the men are bad, although as far as I am concerned the smear attachs on them re little short of desperate.

Posted by: steve mann at Oct 7, 2004 5:12:02 AM

Steve, I never said children in 50/50 grow up disturbed. I have said that 50/50 exacerbates conflict - and so have all the researchers who have studied joint custody. 50/50 is not in the best interests of children. It caters to adults, particularly the adult dads who demand it. Besides, the U. K. rejected presumptive 50/50 so there is no point in even talking about it.

You've seen the links to the articles that show that the guys in F4J are not dads treated unfairly by the system. These guys have some serious problems. Harassment. Domestic violence. Death threats. Boasting in bars about how many women they can bed. Showing extremely poor judgement in endangering their lives and disrupting the public peace by scaling tall buildings. There are good reasons why the courts have refused them contact with their children. F4J make dads look bad.

Michael, knock it off right now with your "are you taking your pills" and other offensive comments. They're out of line. I've read the CRC class action suit and it's very poorly written, hard to follow, and it twists and misinterprets law. There is no "default sole custody to one parent" (mom) and to make that argument is ridiculous. That suit says nothing that hasn't been said before and thrown out. Enough already. Take your whining back to your blog where it belongs.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Oct 7, 2004 7:35:40 AM

Trish- what do you mean by saying "UK rejected 50/50 so no point talking about it" when what we are talking about is changing the law? Please clarify (a) how the "UK" rejected it (here I rmind you that shared parenting was supposed to be the norm under the Children Act) and that senior judges have recently described it as "ideal".
Surely the standard of debate here is not "someone has decided that the law should be "x" so that's it", is it?
Could you please answer my point as to whether you consider a single mum who left her kids with parents 3 nights a week would be acting other than in their best interests? If you accept this is OK then why do you object to it if the purpose of imposing it is to prevent an alternative f total exclusion of one parent?
As to your links I assume they are to left-leaning or scurrilous newspapers that, if one looked back, whose previous tactic (before digging up fairly irrelevant smear material)was to blur the F4J cause by ranting on about abusive parents, when the F4J cause is (inter alia) about enforcing the contact rights awarded to non-resident parents by courts, rather than allowing them to be broken without justification.
In relation to the specific excuses givn by you to separate these men from their children: sexual boasting (who hasn't done this at some point: it is entirely irrelevant to childcare); harassmssment (I think you will find this relates to behaviour in the face of mother flouting court orders and to behaviour no worse than kicking a car door); domestic violence (have you made this up? Which of the protestors has a record of DV?); death threats (as above- who is the orse offender: a man who says "I am gonna kill you" in a fit of rage or the woman who has provoked the rage by taking away his child, in breach of court order: by way of an example- would you cndemn a woman who shouted "I'm gonna kill you" at a person who snatched her child in the street? I doubt it.)
Finally, endangering themselves so must be unfit: I assume you wouldn't argue that black activists who incurred dangers to change unjust laws or Indians who lay in front of tanks thereby proved that their races were not sufficiently rational to have full civil rights/ self-rule?
It would be helpful if you could focus on the issue of how we are going to ensure children see both parents than suggesting the normal human foibles of people to whom the court HAS GRANED ACCESS WHICH HAS BEEN FLOUTED IN BREACH OF COURT ORDERS BY MOM mean they should never see their children again.
The conclusion from your comments above is that anyone who has a beer, talks about sex and if wi engages in any risky activity (rock-climbing/ surfing whatever) should never see their kids again. Do you still think you are talking sense?

Posted by: at Oct 7, 2004 8:23:51 AM

Steve, enough already. You refuse to see that the trend is not to eventually get 50/50 custody for dads but to shunt dads and moms into a wide variety of extras that will drive up the cost of their divorces and custody cases. That includes the cases where dad claims mom is not permitting him access - both parents will be shunted into mediation and parenting classes. 50/50 will not be ordered. Most cases settle out of court anyway with both parents deciding that mom should have custody, so your contention that courts are biased against dads is not based on fact. Parents make various sorts of child care arrangements all the time and their children turn out fine so your personal anecdote is irrelevant. The only thing F4J has managed to do was to get newspaper coverage. They may have influenced investigations into how the family courts operate, but the result will not be getting 50/50 for dads. F4J won't see their demands met. The trend has been going towards conciliation courts and divorce- and custody-related cottage industries for quite some time now. You can believe whatever you like about 50/50 but the fact is that the trend is not going in that direction. I really don't have the time or interest in talking nonsense with you.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Oct 7, 2004 8:41:55 AM

One final point Trish: having scanned your previous links please note that the only referencesces to domestic violence against F4J members are: (i) a reference to one person having to go on an anger management course- the facts underlying this not set out; and (b)one man accused by his partner - and the court not accepting it and granting access to child.
This the best you can do eh? Hardly an impressive smear is it?
Do you not think it would give a little more balance to your site if you didn't rely solely on the Guardian and Mirror? The former is a rent-a-politically-correct quote paper for the woolly-minded and the latter, well little better than toilet-paper for people with no academic qualifications.
I now see also that the bais of your "UK has rejected 50/50 presumption so no point talking abo about it" is referring to the recent Green Paper produced by the government/ family law representatives. Well obviously in a democracy we can change the law and the Green Paper is the work of Mr Blair's chums and the entrenched interests you so criticise rather than the voice of the people which in day-time surveys (on programmes say of "Oprah" popularity) have expressed their support for F4J's aims.
The aims are the thing. Perhaps one or two of the dads in F4J should have limited access .. but that should be decided fairly within a framework where the starting-point is 50/50. No doubt the Judge should also, in their cases, punish the moms who frustrated the court's previous orders saying these guys should see their kids. Their offences are obviously the more serious.
If you are taking this issue seriously you might want to draw greater attention to the lovely lady who contributed to the Guardian article where she said "Mums have their reasons for preventing access- some of them are good reaons". There we have it. Mom knows best! Some reasons are utterly groundless.. but tough on dad!
Trish- you might consider whether you could use this site to try and achieve some good in the world rather than encouraging hatred and division between men and women.

Posted by: steve mann at Oct 7, 2004 8:50:48 AM

Please Chief...grow up. We're adults here and words like bullshit or chucklehead are hardly worth getting your lacey pink panties in a bunch over. Again, I've seen and read you guys calling people here a damn sight worse.

What others do is not of my concern. I want to be treated w/ respect. I can give as good as I get-- don't get me wrong. If you choose to rant and rave and act immaturely, I (and others most likely) will ignore you.


As for the ACLU...you know as well as I do, that the ACLU take whatever cases are politically expedient for them to take.You can't make a shyster lawyer take a case that involves complicity by public officials like judges or other lawyers to criminal legal malpractice, or get a doctor to testify against another doctor about medical malpractice without some serious out-of-pocket graft money...it just ain't gonna happen. And you know this.

Well, that is certainly not my understanding of the ACLU and their purpose. They are "a non-partisan, non-profit membership organization devoted to protecting the basic civil liberties of all Americans, and extending them to groups that have traditionally been denied their basic civil rights."

and

" * We're in the courts every day for hundreds of ordinary Americans - when their rights to equal treatment, fairness, privacy, freedom of speech or religion are threatened.

* We staunchly support every person's right to make personal decisions - without government interference - about religion, abortion, marriage, and other family and lifestyle matters."

http://www.aclu-wa.org/About/about.html

Seems to me that Mr. Howse's complaint would fit that description if it had merit, doesn't it?

The ACLU is going to take whatever case helps them politically and financially. They depend on federal revenue just like the divorce industry, and just like most (so-called) non profit feminist organizations. Probably like you guys as well.

Sorry Michael. I disagree.

"The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding. http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm


What about the parties that tried to get the ACLU to take on big tobacco. Did they? No! Did they take on the industrialists over Mercury poisoning? No! Did they take on Enron? No! Are they willing to step in and take on big pharmeceutical companies over jacking up the price of medicine? No! And if George Bush was such a liar...where is the ACLU in all this? Nowhere!

Civil Liberties Michael.... CIVIL LIBERTIES!


I also don't see the ACLU putting out any fires for the demise of radical feminism either. You might ask yourself where the ACLU is for you...


Pure politics buddy, (or miss)...and you damn well know it.

Michael, check out their website and see what issues they do represent. You will find among them, women's issues and reproductive issues. :-)


And FYI...I keep in touch regularly with Torm Howsing and other states on this class action suit. I was present for the filing of the suit in Illinois. I work closely with Bob Lasheff and I hear from new dads and moms everyday on how they can sign up. The beauty is...they don't have to...they already qualify just being non-custodial parents. All across the country, in every state. I have a copy of the entire Illinois State Action. And my state isn't even Illinois.

If I wanted a copy of the complaint I could easily print it out. It's on the web. Quite frankly, if it were on fire I wouldn't pee on it to put it out. :-) But that's JMO.


You don't think this will see the light of day? Well, we'll just see about that. But one thing's for sure. You don't seem all that hyped to take your fight to where it matters most. To Court. And if you can't, or are not willing, to argue your position in a court of law...then YOU don't have any position to argue.

I HOPE it doesn't see the light of day but stranger things have happened. If and when it does, I can assure you I will do whatever I can to argue my position.

Posted by: chief at Oct 7, 2004 9:43:22 AM

Well Trish - thank you for your deeply intelectual treatment of the arguments I raised.
Basically -and this can be seen from your gloating over the Guardian article whose intellectual level was "these dads wear silly clothes so embarass their kids so shouldn't see them" (perhaps the most banal of a series of banal and idiotic articles in that paper on this issue) your site is not interestedin a proper debate. It is a hate site, pure and simple. You wish to encourage women to hate men and laws that discriminate against men. You don't seem to recognise that such laws hurt little girls and grandmothers and aunts as much as males. Which makes you a queer fish as we say here in Blighty.

Posted by: steve mann at Oct 7, 2004 10:14:12 AM

As to your links I assume they are to left-leaning or scurrilous newspapers that, if one looked back, whose previous tactic (before digging up fairly irrelevant smear material)was to blur the F4J cause by ranting on about abusive parents, when the F4J cause is (inter alia) about enforcing the contact rights awarded to non-resident parents by courts, rather than allowing them to be broken without justification.

Well, you can credit the protesters for the blurring the F4J "cause". They are solely to blame. That is why one should carefully consider the "company they keep". :-) If I were you Steve, I wouldn't align myself nor defend them. I would run away from them as far as I possibly could.

In relation to the specific excuses givn by you to separate these men from their children: sexual boasting (who hasn't done this at some point: it is entirely irrelevant to childcare); harassmssment (I think you will find this relates to behaviour in the face of mother flouting court orders and to behaviour no worse than kicking a car door); domestic violence (have you made this up? Which of the protestors has a record of DV?); death threats (as above- who is the orse offender: a man who says "I am gonna kill you" in a fit of rage or the woman who has provoked the rage by taking away his child, in breach of court order: by way of an example- would you cndemn a woman who shouted "I'm gonna kill you" at a person who snatched her child in the street? I doubt it.

Steve,

All of these examples have been cited in the media as excuses as to why the individual protesters were denied access. You are allowing the behavior of a few to represent the whole. THAT should say something and it is. Think about it.

Posted by: chief at Oct 7, 2004 10:27:27 AM

Well Trish - thank you for your deeply intelectual treatment of the arguments I raised.
Basically -and this can be seen from your gloating over the Guardian article whose intellectual level was "these dads wear silly clothes so embarass their kids so shouldn't see them" (perhaps the most banal of a series of banal and idiotic articles in that paper on this issue) your site is not interestedin a proper debate. It is a hate site, pure and simple.

Geez... LOL Perhaps you could provide links to articles that were published that condoned these actions?

This is not a hate site.... quite the opposite. It is however, hated by those who cannot refute. :-) You would be surprised at the number of NCP's who actually see things quite differently from the militant FR activists. Those are the parents who are truly interested in what is best for their children and work WITH the other parent and the Courts towards that end. :-)

You wish to encourage women to hate men and laws that discriminate against men. You don't seem to recognise that such laws hurt little girls and grandmothers and aunts as much as males. Which makes you a queer fish as we say here in Blighty.

Steve..... I have yet to be convinced that the system is biased towards all fathers. While there may be a few cases where this happens, it doesn't happen EVERY SINGLE TIME and certainly not enough to warrant legislation for it.

Posted by: chief at Oct 7, 2004 10:39:59 AM

Trish -

Lets stay focused on the issue: how to ensure children are not robbed of one parent/ xtended family by the selfish acts of the other parent. I assume you accept that is desirable. if you don't then there is no debate to be had.
You are correct to say that in many cases parents can reach a solution. That doesn't mean the law doesn't need to be changed, because in the cases where they can't, appalling injustices are happening.
I argued for 50/50 custody and gave examples showing it is not harmful. You initially said it was and then said that parents use many practical arrangements in the real world, which supportts my view that it is not harmful.
If you agree that it is not desirable for one parent and the child to be separated then you mst agree that something be done and nothing was being done here prior to F4J. Things are now happening. They may not get what they are looking for but that doesn't mean their campaign is wrong.
From the tone of your writing you appear to come from a left-leaning position. I assume you accept that the fact that say Tony Blair misled the public over Iraq does not mean all socialist thinking is wrong (i.e. that the misdeeds of one member of a political grouping means that politiical grouping must thereafter be shunned). So why do you focus on these desperate smears of F4J members (one talked about his sex life; some had a few beers; one had been accused of DV but the judge had dismissed this; one had an anger-management course imposed upon him (in what circumstanes we do not know)? If you accept these "sins" of one or two people in a large grouping do not in themselves reflect the right or wrong of the cause they espouse then why do you give them so much prominence? Presumably because you wish to blur the issue. These men have not claimed to be saints: just normal men, wanting the normal right to see their kids.
I will defend them thus far: their cause is fair and right. If it turns out that there is proof that they are unfit to care for their own kids (which does not consist of having a beer, talking about sex or wearing costumes on protests and thus being "embarassing" (shame on you Guardian for this)) then of course a court can restrict their involvement. But only on court-proven grounds of abuse or incompetence.
Final word: if you are interested in the truth do you not think that the lives of the wives / partners with whom these boys are in dispute should be before the public before we decide that they should be able to exclude dad from kids life because of dad's pub talk/ drinking/ car kicking?

Lets take another example. Jesus (or substitute a more politically-correct figure if you think it will assist the point) gives a teaching of good will to all men/ do unto others etc. The "Mirror" or "Guardian" write "Long-haired loony hangs around with thieves, whores and smashes up shops".
That doesn't make Jesus' message (empirically correct)wrong or mean that he shouldn't do what he does to draw attention to it, if otherwise no-one would hear the message.
The F4J guys are not perfect but what they done is publicise the issue

Posted by: steve mann at Oct 7, 2004 11:24:58 AM

You need to leave the haldol alone. I'm chuckling at the fact that you know what it is, and what it does...

Translation: I know you are but what am I? Yawn. Of course I know what it is and what it does--as apparently do you. I also know what Vioxx is, and what it does, and what Prilosec is and what it does.

Malcolm X was a pimp and a murderer before he served time and finally understood what the hell happened to his life...and also where his true calling was.

Actually, he wasn't a murderer. He was convicted of robbery, and freely admitted to using and selling drugs, pimping, and breaking into homes. He also admits to being violent in prison, but he didn't kill anyone. Calling him a murderer is slander. If you had read his autobiography, you'd know that.

What in the name of God do you think the term 'By Any Means Neccessary' meant? Do you really know anything about the Panthers and Malcolm X?

Apparently, I know more than you do. I certainly know the difference between the Panthers and the NOI. Telling that you don't. Do you think that all Black organizations are basically the same, staffed by the same people, and hold the same ideologies?

Or are you just playing little 'deversion games' like you guys are so prone to do?

Nope, I'm not playing "deversion" games. Or diversion games, either. I am pointing out that you're factually wrong on something, and yeah, I think it's pretty rich for you to equate the father's rights movement and the whinging of over-privileged white guys like Lowell Jacks with the racism and terrorism Black people have suffered for hundreds of years. Before you start whining, remember, you brought it up.

Malcolm X said that when it came to racism and slavery, violence would be met by violence. Victims will use whatever means it takes to NOT be victims anymore.

You'll note, however, that he did not incite anyone to violence. The NOI did not riot, did not kidnap anyone, and it did not harrass anyone.

I am certainly NOT going to take up an entire evening to explain to you, that to which you already KNOW as well as every school child by the age of ten

That's good, since you obviously don't know what you're talking about, and your lecture would be of no use to anyone.

...If you have any brains or education whatsoever, you'll stop with the 'diversion tactics... Sorry dullards, but you're on your own.

Pot, kettle, black. Sort of like the personal attacks and name-calling against Trish, huh. No real evidence, just lots of eptithets. Cute diversion tactics.

Do you have any capacity to realize just how twisted your logic just become, and how OBVIOUS it is? Of course not...

Do you realize just how patronizing it is to equate your gripes with the oppression of Black people, and just how pathetic is is? Of course not.

I also notice that you haven't brought up any compelling evidence, just a lot of regurgitated FR propaganda and assumptions about Trish, Cheif, and anyone else who has rebutted your rantings with facts and logic. When the best you can do is try to ride the coattails of Malcolm X and trash the ACLU, I'd say you've lost the debate, dear.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Oct 7, 2004 11:42:23 AM

Steve,

I brought up MANY of the points you are posting about. You have YET to respond. Trish has told you her position and you FAIL to see it.

50/50 is NOT going to happen -- not universally. Each case should be adjudicated on its merits. Nothing else is fair..... NOTHING. I wouldn't want 50/50 for a non-interested parent. Would you? Studies show that joint custody exacerbates conflict.

Jason Hatch TAINTED the whole F4J cause. Like it or not... it is a fact. Get over it. Distance yourself..... condone the group. MOVE ON.

Learn from what is currently happening here in the states. Look who is making money off this. Geez... this is NOT a hard concept.

Posted by: chief at Oct 7, 2004 11:50:58 AM

I also notice that you haven't brought up any compelling evidence, just a lot of regurgitated FR propaganda and assumptions about Trish, Cheif, and anyone else who has rebutted your rantings with facts and logic. When the best you can do is try to ride the coattails of Malcolm X and trash the ACLU, I'd say you've lost the debate, dear.

ROFL...... you go girl!!!!!!! lol

:::::::::dusting off hands, brushing off shirt:::::::::::

Next?

LOLOLOL

Posted by: chief at Oct 7, 2004 11:55:29 AM

Steve, didn't you say you had "one final point" three comments ago? ;) You sure have a strong need to get the last word in.

As I already wrote, I have neither the time nor the interest in talking nonsense with you. This is my last post to you. Presumptive 50/50 joint custody does not have the best interests of the child in mind. It caters to adult demands and desires. Courts are supposed to put the interests of children first. Joint custody proponent Sanford Braver had even reluctantly admitted the shortcomings of joint custody. He wrote in his book "Divorced Dads" that "[t]here is simply not enough evidence available at present to substantiate routinely imposing joint residential custody the limited analyses other researchers have performed don't strongly recommend it be imposed either." He also wrote (emphasis mine): "If each parent is empowered by joint legal custody and is allowed involvement in the full variety of child rearing activities, few parents or children will feel deprived. A parent overly concerned that he see his child exactly the same amount of time as his ex-spouse becomes more of an accountant than a parent. Furthermore, this strict accounting of time can also set the stage for many future arguments, when arrangements must be changed because of extenuating circumstances, which routinely come up. Finally, such arrangements are often transitional. As children get older, they frequently don't want to switch households so often. In short, insisting upon strict equality of time spent with the child may be in the weaker parent's interest but it is rarely in the child's." Dr. Judith Wallerstein had written in "Second Chances" that (emphasis mine) "[j]oint custody can be helpful in families where it has been chosen voluntarily by both parents and is suitable for the child. But there is no evidence to support the notion that "one size fits all" or even most. There is, in fact, a lot of evidence for the idea that different custody models are suitable for different families. The policy job ahead is to find the best match for each family. Sadly, when joint custody is imposed by the court on families fighting over custody of children the major consequences of the fighting are shifted onto the least able members of the family--the hapless and helpless children. The children can suffer serious psychological injury when this happens."


Researchers have already determined that joint custody exacerbates conflict. It is inappropriate to apply a cookie cutter approach to custodial decisions that should be investigated on a case-by-case basis.

This is my last post to you. I am not interested in continuing this discussion with you because you are basing your statements on specious fathers' rights positions rather than existing research, existing trends, and concern about what is best for the child.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Oct 7, 2004 11:57:20 AM

Dear Trish

You rely on research: what research says 50/5 doesn't work, based on an analysis of 50/50 experiments? bet you can't point to one such program of reearch, since people like you don't allow it to happen. Then you say there is no research to support it working!
For someone with neither time nor interest in expressing nonsense you certainly manage to fit a lot of it in.
Don't worry, I'm off now and won't be back. I think I can summarise your views as: Trish doesn't want to take any action to stop children being separated from their dads and extended families because the men who ask for this injustice to be healed are a bit silly and sometimes talk dirty. Trish for President with that kind of even-handed logic!

Posted by: STEVE MANN at Oct 7, 2004 12:08:07 PM

STEVE,

She gave you the links. Perhaps you didn't see them or you did and ignored the research?

You summarized incorrectly but that doesn't surprise anyone.

You were here ONLY to attack Trish.... just as the other's are/were. You had no argument..... you lost.... also not surprising.

You are not interested in debating.. you answered no one but Trish. Wonder why?

How many "final" replies are you going to make? Come back Steve and debate all of us? PWEEZE?????

Posted by: chief at Oct 7, 2004 12:20:07 PM

Chief: "She gave you the links. Perhaps you didn't see them or you did and ignored the research?"

Yup. The whole thing is getting boring now. Can't beat a dead horse, you know. ;)

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Oct 7, 2004 12:26:02 PM

Trish, could you clear something up for me, please? Have these F4J guys actually had a court decide that they should have no access to their children, or do they have court orders allowing access which their exes are violating? All this arguing back and forth tends to muddle up the facts and right now I don't have time to go back and read the original articles.

Posted by: Anne at Oct 7, 2004 12:29:19 PM

Trish's note: I have removed this comment, which was a VERY LONG SPAM by Michael Capanzzi. I WILL NOT permit my blog to be used in this manner. If you want to post extremely long posts you do it on your own blog. If I see such a comment here from you again Michael I will ban you.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Oct 7, 2004 12:48:14 PM

Hmmm....once again joint custody turns into someone whining that women slap back when men punch. How is that relevant?

Posted by: Amanda at Oct 7, 2004 12:59:05 PM

Anne, most of these F4J guys have harrassed their ex-wives, threatened them, and gotten violent.

From an article in the Independent:

When details do emerge, it becomes obvious that in many cases, the circumstances are not as clear cut as F4J often portrays them. [F4J founder Matt O'Conner's] former wife Sophie has said - and he has since admitted - that he had affairs, drank heavily and failed to keep to the initial arrangements for access to their children. Another F4J member, Conrad Campbell, told how he was jailed last year for texting his son on his birthday. But he had been sent on an anger management programme for attacking his former partner, and was under a court injunction.

These jamokes are hardly victims of an unfair system. The system has been more than patient with them. You don't neglect the arrangements for access to your kids and then snivel when access gets taken away. Sorry, kids need stability; they don't need to be kept on ice to satisfy the whims of a parent. And when you assault your ex partner, don't be surprised if the courts think you may not be the safest person to have around the kids.

Of course, some of the reality-deprived FR folks would have us believe they are the reincarnation of Malcolm X or Jesus Christ. But neither figure did this (again, from the Independent):

The buildings of the Parker Bird law firm in Huddersfield were stormed this year by more than 15 members of F4J, who graffitied the walls. They presented Karen Woodhead, the head of family law, with a golden petrol can, which they claimed represented her firm "pouring petrol on the flames in divorce and childcare cases".

My level of sympathy for these guys is below sea level.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Oct 7, 2004 2:45:35 PM

Sheelzebub, Yes, I understood that this was what the exes were saying, but what I wanted to know was if the dads' access had been expressly terminated by court orders, based on evidence, or if the exes had stopped the visitation on their own and the courts were simply ignoring it.

Posted by: Anne at Oct 7, 2004 3:39:12 PM

Anne, F4J is a group. Are there some who are claiming their ex's are interfering? Of course. Are the ex's interfering? Probably not. From the few that have been reported on.... those particular ones have had their visitation restricted, reduced or terminated by a Court.

It's the same thing we have here. Children's Rights Council is FULL of groupies. While they are not as flamboyant as F4J, it's basically the same thing.

After you have read message boards and blogs where Dads and Mom's post... you will have a better idea of what this is all about.

The NCP's who are good don't align themselves w/ any group because they work WITH the system... even if they get a bad ruling ... to achieve what they want FOR their children. These groups are not for children's rights, they are however for parent rights (aka Father's rights) at the expense of children. They utilize the Court system as a last resort.. not a first resort. They don't thwart Judge's rulings. They abide by them. and prove their point over time and w/ effort.

Posted by: chief at Oct 7, 2004 4:20:34 PM

Michael said from the post that got RIGHTFULLY yanked:

Incidently, anyone who needs stats...here's a little taste, and I mean just
a LITTLE taste....more 2 come if your not convinced.


Exactly why did you post stats? What was your point?

By the way, I'm curious, was it Sheelz or Chief who said that they saw the entire action but just skimmed. Where did you see it? I don't even see the 58 page action in the site anywhere...

That would be me. It can be found on a link you provided.... I believe it was the IN CRC site. All the documents are there... Verified Complaint -- yes the WHOLE thing and all the attachments and all the filings to date.

Anywasy, here's just a smattering of
statistics...

Michael what you posted was RUDE to do on another's blog. It's not proper Netiquette. Providing a link and a small in the author's words and a brief sentence of your own is MORE than sufficient. If people want to READ the link, they will.

You may not agree with me, or Sheezle or Trish but at LEAST have the respect to stick to the topic at hand and stop bashing and slamming posters. It's RUDE and sets the tone for how other's WILL post to you.

I personally like to hear the "other" side but not at the expense of a poster. Gawd. does that sound ironic or what? LOL

FR'sters do this exact thing.. at the expense of their children. LOL Why am I surprised they do it here?

Michael, Trish didn't make the Court's "biased" as you and others like to claim. Neither did I. Why are you and others here bashing her as if she is responsible for it? Honestly, we all get a good laugh out of it. LOL

Trish just simply explains trends, interpretions, yada yada. If you are going to continue to "debate" and I use that term loosely, at least have the decency to stick to the topic and post relevantly and respectfully. OK?

Now. start by apologizing....... it's the least you can do. You aren't a bad guy.... just a little overzealous maybe. LOL

Posted by: chief at Oct 7, 2004 4:44:33 PM

"I also notice that you haven't brought up any compelling evidence, just a lot of regurgitated FR propaganda and assumptions about Trish, Cheif, and anyone else who has rebutted your rantings with facts and logic. When the best you can do is try to ride the coattails of Malcolm X and trash the ACLU, I'd say you've lost the debate, dear."


Posted by: Sheelzebub

Chief, you guys asked for compelling evidence and compelling evidence is what you got. Instead of reading it, Trish threw it in the trash. THAT is what makes Trish Wilson a bad person.
So don't tell me that the evidence isn't out there for all to see. I'm STILL waiting to see all YOUR facts. Now she gets pissy and says she's going to ban me if I post a comment? Well Boo Hoo...I'm all tore up.

As for an apology...I posted it in my own blog. I won't be back here again, but make no mistake, I'll be watching.

Posted by: Masculiste at Oct 7, 2004 9:23:03 PM

Chief, you guys asked for compelling evidence and compelling evidence is what you got.

No ...... what you posted had NOTHING to do w/ what was asked. Absolutely nothing. We were discussing whether Mr. Howse's complaint had merit. Nothing you posted supported that.

Instead of reading it, Trish threw it in the trash. THAT is what makes Trish Wilson a bad person.

It was spam... it was so incredibly lengthy. I told you in an earlier post how to do things correctly. Trish was absolutely correct in removing it.

So don't tell me that the evidence isn't out there for all to see.

Evidence for what????????? Howse can't support his allegations. You know it... I know it.

I'm STILL waiting to see all YOUR facts.

What facts? For what? I supported my statements w/ LINKS regarding the ACLU. You are the one who got all "pissy" because I said I skimmed his Complaint. It was and IS ridiculous. That's my opinion. There is absolutely no way on this earth Howse can support all of his allegations and state that each and every party to the suit has each and every complaint that he alleged.

Now she gets pissy and says she's going to ban me if I post a comment? Well Boo Hoo...I'm all tore up.

That is not what she said at all but whatever.


As for an apology...I posted it in my own blog. I won't be back here again, but make no mistake, I'll be watching.

I checked your blog... and I posted on it. There was no apology..... just as I figured. You did however, SPAM your own blog. LOL (Yes folks. he posted what he posted here earlier today and Trish removed.Don't bother to check.... it isn't worth reading.) You're just pissed -- hey it happens.

And you called me and sheezlebub names on YOUR blog. I am SOOOOOOOOOOOO offended. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol I don't get upset over idiocy like that. And I know it bothers you... as I said earlier.. it's just entertainment to me. LOLOL

Since you won't be posting here again.. I'll make sure I wave at you ever once in a while when I do post.

:::::::::::waving at Michael::::::::::::: Buh Bye!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: chief at Oct 7, 2004 10:50:04 PM

Anne- just so you get the true picture: recently an English judge determined a case that had run for about 5 years. The mom had breached order after order requiring the court to let dad have access. Mom said access made her angry .. so it wasn't in the child's best interest. So on that basis the judge then tore up all previous orders saying child should see dad; and made an order that child should never see dad. The judge said he was ashamed - thats right ashamed of what the system required him to do. He stated publicly (going to the trouble to lift reporting restrictions) that he believed the system should be changed to stop moms flouting court orders. This is not a "loony" issue involving a few disreputable dads but an issue upon which senior Judges (Thorpe, Hale, Munby) political leaders (Howard, head of Tory party) and family law experts are all speaking out. Don't allow the likes of Trish (and "Chief") to blur the issue by saying how bad the men involved are when the sins they describe are minimal and, I would say, entirely understandable when what is involved is basically state-sponsored kidnap by the other party. The best Trish has managed to point to so far is someone being sent on an anger managemtn course for "attacking" his ex: now this is a very mild punishment and the Independent (which reported it) a left-leaning paper, so lets assume this "attacking" was of a very minor degree (since if it wasn't no doubt the gruesome details would be flagged up by Trish and Chief).
Also, think about this when the Guardian etc say how horrid the F4J lads are: their exes who Trish/Chief support are women who deprive their child (inbreach of court order of a parent and half their extended family). Are they more worthy of condemning (not condoning as you put it Chief: take some English lessons) than the men ? I think any rational person would say so.

Posted by: Steve at Oct 8, 2004 8:15:51 AM

The F4J guys have either no contact or minimal contact/supervised orders. They do not accept any responsibility for their situations. They blame their ex-wives for supposedly "influencing" the judges against them and they blame CAFCASS.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Oct 8, 2004 8:26:30 AM

This is a typical scenario in the cases involving F4J:-

(i) man given contact orders
(ii) mother frustrates contact orders
(iii) man applies to court for enforcement
(iv) man's access reduced because mom objects
(v) mom breaches reduced court order
(vi) dad back to court; mom says seeing dad makes her ill and this affects kids-
(vii) dad totally excluded or because of unfounded allegations by mom has supervised contact only (judges fear taking any "risk" however remote because of recent hysteria involving one or 2 (literally) child abuse cases ironically involving mom/ female relative and her boyfriend (never dad)

So don't be fooled by people who say "all these dads have been banned from contact for a good reason". One of the main F4J chaps is a qualified and registered childminder: that means he can see anyone else's kids apart from his own!

PS I know I said I was going but there is a duty to make sure the full facts appear

Posted by: steve at Oct 8, 2004 8:56:39 AM

Steve, I wasn't going to respond to you anymore but I will this time because I caught you lying.

You wrote: "Finally, if we are to judge the harassment by dads you refer to, is it not appropriate to put it in context: fairly understandable acts of anger by men deprived of their children, in breach of court orders, by mums using the chldren as pawns?"

And this: "Do I understand your ultimate conclusion to be that a person entirely separated from his/her children in breach of court orders by an ex acting out of mere spite and contrary to the interest of those children as determined by the court should just shut up and get used to it?"

And this: "A final comment on the "hatchet job" on the F$J protestors: lets remember that these are all men who are in a situation where a court has adjudged them fit to have proper access to their children but the court's orders have been disobeyed by the mother with the consequence that the fathers can no longer see their own kids (ever)."

And this: "Lets focus on the facts: these men have been deprived of their children in breach of court orders."

And this: "[...] the F4J cause is (inter alia) about enforcing the contact rights awarded to non-resident parents by courts, rather than allowing them to be broken without justification."

There may be a few more in the same line that I missed.

The truth is that the guys have no contact or minimal contact/supervised orders. That fact is mentioned on the F4J Liverpool blog. It's not a statement from someone's ex-wife. No contact orders are supposedly "routine" according to F4J Liverpool, so this isn't about a few isolated dads out there making life difficult for "innocent" men. The guys aren't victims of vindictive ex-wives who breach court orders for no good reason, as you have claimed repeatedly here. Your last couple of posts spin the truth and you backpedal like crazy to blame the no contact and minimal contact/supervised orders on "false allegations" of abuse by mom and spineless judges who won't stand up for these poor dads.

You lied. You got caught. Enough already. Now knock it off and take your fathers' rights grandstanding elsewhere. You are tiresome.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Oct 8, 2004 10:10:38 AM

Trish- let me explain:
(i) these guys generally have had court orders that the missuses don't follow;
(ii) when they try and get those existing orders enforced through the courts the courts have, in many cases, decided the father should get no contact!
So, as you can see, there is no lie: just a misunderstanding by you.
Have a look at the many, many cases where the grounds for dads ending up with no contact order has arisen in situations where contact has been ordered and then prohibited when the mother's actions made the orders a dead letter.
To sum up: the dads get contact orders; the mums break them; the judge then withdraws them. H Hope that clears it up.

Posted by: steve at Oct 8, 2004 10:36:50 AM

I would like to add two points to the discussion...

The men who join Fathers for Justice appear to be unstable personalities. Their main character, Spiderman, who climbed up into the bedroom of the Queen has 4 kids with three differing
mothers and he's only 32 years old. Clearly he is a nut and probably the courts are doing the right thing keeping him away from children, even his own. Actually his latest g/f
just abandoned him, taking their baby with her. Her reason was that he had promised to STOP doing these dangerous stunts (as he almost got shot by one of the queen's guards during latest one) and then went out ON HIS OWN WITH NO APPROVAL FROM THE MAIN GROUP and pulled another stunt on his
own. So clearly there is something wrong with him.

That being said, his cause can STILL be a just one as many societies use unstable characters to risk their lives for good causes.

Anyway I predict the future will see MORE 50/50 Joint Custody arrangements, probably they will become the standard. Unfortunately, this is STILL not going to solve most fathers
main concern which is payment of high child support. You see most places that institute presumptive Joint Custody also REVISE their child support formulas and make child support dependent upon equaling out disparities in income
between households as opposed to making one parent pay the other according to who has custody or visitation. Since women still make less money then men probably because of taking time off from career and educational opportunities in order to 'grow' their families, most of those paying child support will STILL be fathers, no matter the amount of time they spend with their children...

Actually the recent decision in PA Colonna vs. Colonna will probably be the wave of the future, where a custodial father will be paying a non-custodial mother child support to even
out disparity in household. That way children aren't living in a solid middle class household one week and next week eating hotdogs in a trailor park...

It's a totally sensible way to handle these situations, but will it stop men from complaining...somehow I seriously doubt it...


Posted by: NYMOM at Oct 9, 2004 12:50:22 PM

Trish: "You don't get it, Steve. Fathers 4 Justice isn't getting the results it wants despite all the publicity it has received for its stunts. The U K has rejected presumptive 50/50 custody. Lord Falconer said that children cannot be divided up like the CD collection. Men will not see their ex's tossed in jail for not giving into their visitation demands. The "boys" are getting ridiculed. Not a great track record."

The media does not publicize what F4J is about; for instance when Batman heroicaly scaled the palace walls, the story was about security, same as when Blair got powdered. Their cause has received VERY little attention.

Chief:"Access is one thing but when that access negatively impacts those that are most vulnerable.. that is a whole different thing. And warring parties, judges, etc.. overlook that

There's a simple solution; if two parents can't agree on what's in the child's beste interests, the state should take the kids away from both. After all, it's what's in the best interests of the child that's important, right?

Chief:"Steve..... I have yet to be convinced that the system is biased towards all fathers. While there may be a few cases where this happens, it doesn't happen EVERY SINGLE TIME and certainly not enough to warrant legislation for it."

If the law was never changed on slavery, but only 12 slaves existed , would you be for laws that banned slavery? Is it worth it to go to the trouble to change the law so those 12 slaves could be freed? The Supreme Court ruled that woman could abort their children even though back alley abortions were few and far between at that time.

Chief"...ask him if he contacted the ACLU and what their response was?"

The ACLU does not respond AT ALL. The ACLU acronym actually stands for American Clitoris League United. LOL

Trish "Besides, the U. K. rejected presumptive 50/50 so there is no point in even talking about it

We will continue to discuss this Trish. Does the custodial mother stop trying to soak the non custodial father because of one setback? Nope. Do the new "custody moms", formerly welfare moms, stop trying to get pregnant because it didn't take the first time? Nope.

NYMOM "It's a totally sensible way to handle these situations, but will it stop men from complaining...somehow I seriously doubt it..."

If two people bring a child into this world, and both had a choice on parenthood, then BOTH are responsible for that child. If equalizing household incomes is the way to do joint custody, then so be it,as long as TOTAL HOUSEHOLD income is figured, as in including income form other memebers of the household. Sounds fair to me. I have never had a problem with things being equal. Let the people who want to complain keep complaining without a leg to stand on, as long as two people who love their child get treated equally. The exisitng laws do favor women and cash hungry judiciaries and legislatures. Any parent that can't see their way to shared custody can give up their rights to that child, and both can pay child support to the state.

Wha'da'ya say Trish? Sound fair to you? I'm willing to bet "no", because when custody is contested, it's usually the mommie that gets custody.

Trish also brings up the point that many fathers agree with the system and believe the mother should have custody. That statement has nothing to do with contested custody. There were thousands of "down home" slaves that were treated fairly and knew of no other life. In other words, they were not only content with their life, they had no idea what a slave was.
Very much like the modern women's movement. Many women had to be educated that there was another way to live their life. They had to be told that they didn't need a man to complete their life.

Same story with fathers, now. Most don't know of another way, and many are content with the system the way it is. That doesn't make it right.

Posted by: TonySprout at Oct 9, 2004 4:24:56 PM

At the end of the day, its clearly not as simple as the charming lads at F4J mae out.

Im not gonna go over old ground, as every key point has already been borught up many times. But i will say this, and for me it somes it all up. A leading F4J member has recently been heard criticising the campaign by Amnesty International and the charity Refuge to highlight Domestic violence. Why would this bother these good lads, when all they want is to see their kids?? Says it all

Posted by: Dave at Nov 5, 2004 9:22:45 AM

Don't jump to conclusions Dave -

firstly, one man's comments about a separate issue don't define a group;

secondly, men's movement groups/ activists note a general increase in "awareness raising" in respect of "domestic violence" and "child abuse" by NGO's/ charities which actually has the social consequence of demonising all men and assisting in justifying a "presumption of guilt" against men in child custody proceedings.

I assume the Amnesty plamn demonises men when evidence suggests women are just as violent as their partners in the relationships where abuse takes place. We have a smilar campaign on TV here now by the NSPCC which infers that all men are child-molestors.

This is creating a horrid witch-hunt atmosphere of general suspicion [I even find myself suspecting other dads I see at the play centre, for no reason whatsoever] which is to no-one's good.

So F4J are quite right to stand up to campaigns presenting the false impression that until proven innocent all men are wife batterers and child abusers. We all know this is complete rubbish.
If these people want to stamp out violence and abuse in the home they should start by painting a fair picture of it.

And how about beginning by focusing on the worst scenario of demoestic violence: mom killing the child within her own womb. Seems a bit more serious than mom or dad slipping the other one a clip round the ear to me, at least according to any logical scheme I've ever come across.

Oh no though, I forgot .. women have a right,a reproductive right, to commit such violence..and thus they must hve a right to express their emotions through violence against their men as well .. a right to domestic violence .. so thats all right then. Bring on the anti-man advert.

Posted by: Steve at Nov 5, 2004 10:16:05 AM

Cut the crap, at the end of the day 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence, whilst 1 in 6 men are victims. And to say that,"women are just as violent as their partners in the relationships where abuse takes place" is just wrong, most of these cases involve women eventually put in such a desperate situation that they fight back.

The Amnesty campaign to raise awareness is here because domestic violence is still rife in both American and British society.

And finally, and the bit I find most shocking of all is this statement, "And how about beginning by focusing on the worst scenario of demoestic violence: mom killing the child within her own womb. Seems a bit more serious than mom or dad slipping the other one a clip round the ear to me, at least according to any logical scheme I've ever come across"

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this, but in reaility the fact that somebody thinks like this is quite scary. It is a widely ackowledged and supported fact that domestic violence either starts/intensifies once a woman becomes pregnant.

Sometimes I hear views such as those mentioned above, and wonder what century we are living in!

Posted by: Dave at Nov 5, 2004 3:18:51 PM

Tony Sprout...knock it off with comparing mothers having cusody of their children to slavery...it's ridiculous...

AND if you want to be honest about it slavery was NOT the finest hour for fathers...I mean how many fathers abandoned their own children and sold them off for profit in the U.S. for instance...

I never heard of any men expressing moral outrage or having intellectual debates circulating around American fathers concerned about their children then? Where were the voices raised in protest by fathers...Did Jefferson ever think about his poor kids, did Frederick Douglass's father ever worry about him as he was being practically starved to death right under his own father's nose? I mean if there was ever a vulnerable population of children that could have used some help from their fathers, that population was it...yet you all individually and collectively said and did nothing...

So quit using slavery to make ANY points about fathers or fatherhood as it does NOT paint you or any other American man in a favorable light, if anything it does just the opposite...

You should be embarrassed to mention that period of American history and fathers in the same breath...just hope if you shutup about it, no one will recall how totally useless American fathers were for about 300 years or so...and many would say still are doing nothing but causing trouble all the time now with the latest issue of trying to get custody all the time so as not to pay child support...

I think I can safely say many are getting highly sick of it...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 5, 2004 7:45:04 PM

Hi Folks,

I'm new to this site, so wasn't around when this thread started, but since it's still alive, I'd like to go back to a post from chef on October 6, 2004, who maintains:

> Forcing a 50/50 split between contentious parties NEVER works.

What is the evidence for this statement? Is this just wishful thinking, in the hope that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?

I don't have 50/50 custody, but what I have "noticed" is that since the Court made its orders, my ex- does EXACTLY what is laid down in them, and to say that we didn't have a high-conflict custody battle would be, well, something like Dudya saying he didn't go to war with Iraq. But if the Court had ordered 50/50 custody, I have little doubt that that is exactly how it would be. Court Orders seems to have a very strange effect on some people, and I can't see how properly authoritative Court Orders for 50/50 custody would lead to something different...

Please explain why a Legally-imposed and enforced default 50/50 split wouldn't work...

Seems to me that if everyone knew that that is the default unless you mutually agree to something else, well, there would be little need for "Family" Courts. If there's nothing to argue about, there's no argument? I guess I'm just naive....


Oh, and "Dave": you allege that

> "most of these cases involve women eventually put in such a desperate situation that they fight back"

Do you believe all the femi-nazi/anti-male propaganda that men are invariably the initiators and perpetrators of Domestic Violence?

Do you really believe your own statement? In other words: "It's men's fault"? Or are you really a woman using a male pseudonym?


tttwtanbtt

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 6, 2004 3:43:25 AM

Oh, and another point:

Trish,

You repeat several times at the start of this thread that in spite of all the publicity, the F4J "knuckleheads" (as you pejoratively and unnecessarily label them elsewhere - why do you do that?) are not getting the results they want.

Is that "denial"?

What results do they want anyway, in your view?

Down here in New Zealand, the F4J guys are getting great results - the public really admires their courage and sympathises with their situations, because here in NZ, like in the UK, although the Star Chamber is a closely guarded Big Secret, enough people have been affected by it now for a huge groundswell against it to be developing. They (F4J) might not be getting what they immediately want through the Courts (Custody or Fathering time), but they are certainly getting support from the general population.

And Yes, I agree with you about the way "Governments" are pushing the whole process towards compulsory parent training, mediation and so on and so forth. I have no argument with you there at all. It's merely a system for (a) squeezing the MAXIMUM amount of money out of people as possible (actually, by Extortion), and (b) smashing social structures so that children become, in effect, the property of the State (as per Orwell) and parents become obligated "caregivers" (more appropriately "slaves to the State").

But why does so much of what you write come across as unadulterated vituperation towards men? Do you hate us all?


tttwtanbtt

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 6, 2004 4:36:16 AM

"Do you believe all the femi-nazi/anti-male propaganda that men are invariably the initiators and perpetrators of Domestic Violence?"

Yeah, right..why in the heck would anybody believe that? That men are the MAIN perpetrators of domestic violence...or violence at all really...Where would that odd idea come from?

Could it be because throughout history men have been the perpetrators of violence by starting every single war we've ever had? That they commit most crimes, crimes of rape and other deviant crimes often committing violence during the commission of those crimes, that men outnumber women in prisons by about 10 to 1 in every single society on the earth, every single one...?

Do you think that could be the reason?

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 6, 2004 11:26:13 PM

"And Yes, I agree with you about the way "Governments" are pushing the whole process towards compulsory parent training, mediation and so on and so forth. I have no argument with you there at all. It's merely a system for (a) squeezing the MAXIMUM amount of money out of people as possible (actually, by Extortion), and (b) smashing social structures so that children become, in effect, the property of the State (as per Orwell) and parents become obligated "caregivers" (more appropriately "slaves to the State")."

Well if you believe that then why the heck do you keep trying to blame women exercising their roles as mothers for this situation? Just like men complaining that the child support guidelines are unrealistically high, well why in the heck don't you address those issues instead of attacking women about them...cause guess what if you are anything like the US, MEN are STILL the ones primarily running the government...and making these polices...

So address those issues in the appropriate manner and forum but quit trying to blame your wives, your mothers, feminazis and every other women you can think of for this situation...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 6, 2004 11:33:21 PM

"This is creating a horrid witch-hunt atmosphere of general suspicion [I even find myself suspecting other dads I see at the play centre, for no reason whatsoever] which is to no-one's good."


Yes, you're right once again...Other men are really good, it's not really men who commit all these deviant crimes all the time who are doing wrong, it's women TALKING about them doing it, that's really far more horrible then the men who actually commit them...

IF only woman would shutup and be better people ourselves, then men could be free to be better also...probably you would all be like priests here in the US if we would just let you...and you could feel perfectly safe leaving your children with those wonderful men...


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 6, 2004 11:47:06 PM

Hi NYMOM,

Um, well... Yessir, the Americans have re-elected the Village Idiot (as I think was predicted by Nostradamus), and Yes, the US Government probably is still dominated by men and money, but down here in Low Income New Zealand, well, it's just not the same. New Zealand was the first country to give women suffrage, and we're still ahead of most countries on the feminism trail. So we are probably also leading the way on men becoming equal parents to their children... ;-)))

But trust me, feminism is actually a poison to a healthy society, so don't be sad to witness its withering demise. Anyway, down here:

We have a female (apparently, though she tries REAL HARD to talk, sound, look, dress and act like a man) Prime Minister. (She wouldn't even wear a dress to meet female dignitories.)

We have a female Governor General.

We have a female Attorney-General (who's known as the Ice Queen, has a wooden leg and a brain to match, and is also pretty clearly another manhater).

We have a female (apparently) Chief Justice (though if you took away the lipstick and the dress, you could mistake her for a man).

The Head of our "Child Abuse Agency" is a woman.

The Minister in charge of our Environmental Risk Mis-management Authority is (daft) female.

Not to mention various others...

And interestingly, according to informed sources, about 20% of our current parliament are queers.

The head of both major phone companies are women. (They are the most feminine of all those listed so far, particularly the head of the smaller one.)

Now we get to the top men:

The Deputy Prime Minister, the Solicitor General, then a collection of Yes men and women in parliament. (The power in the current Govt is very tightly focussed around our absolute-control freak PM.)

So NYMOM, I don't think you can realistically compare the NZ situation with yours in the US.

But that aside, you still offer no reason why you can't even SEE any value in men contributing to the childcare role. You repeatedly focus on all the negative aspects of men. If you only focus on the negative, well, you'll only see bad.

Just as if I only focus on the negative aspects of women - well, I wouldn't go near them, but I think I'm bigger than that, bigger than fear and negativity.

There are a couple of old maxims that might be relevant.

Not sure who said this, but:

"A person is only as big as the smallest thing it takes to piss them off."

And George Bernard Shaw was right on the money when he said:

"Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated."

Does this mean that you women are intimidated by men?


tttwtanbtt
P.S. I think you are quite wrong about men having started every war, but I don't know history well enough to cite examples. But again, perhaps you miss the point, given my discussion about the need for society to protect women in order to protect the species. Perhaps that knowledge or understanding has also evolved into women, who have almost always relied on men to go out and get themselves killed protecting them.

I would be willing to bet that if some good men hadn't gone out and fought Hitler (and many died doing so), you wouldn't be enjoying your current lifestyle. My point is that if men didn't have the courage to defend, many civilisations would have been walked over. The problem with having courage of that sort is that, as we can easily see, it frequently works the other way, leading to aggression. Every strength is also a weakness. But, considering we apparently evolved in the jungles and savannas of this planet, where hungry and vicious flesh-eating animals would happily have eaten us all, our aggression and ability to defend ourselves (and our women and children) is a trait we can't just dismiss as negative. If we hadn't developed it, we would be extinct. So, why not be grateful to all those men who have sacrificed their lives so that you can live, and why not show us a little kindness and geneoristy for everything we and our forebears have done to protect you and yours?

Where is that warm, soft, womanly strength and generosity that make women so appealing to men?

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 7, 2004 1:28:03 AM

"But, considering we apparently evolved in the jungles and savannas of this planet, where hungry and vicious flesh-eating animals would happily have eaten us all, our aggression and ability to defend ourselves (and our women and children) is a trait we can't just dismiss as negative. If we hadn't developed it, we would be extinct."

But consider if the female of every species was just as aggressive as the male...NOT only would it have been virtually impossible for mating to take place, but any young would probably have never survived as the males of MOST species kills smaller and weaker animals, including his own young...

"Where is that warm, soft, womanly strength and generosity that make women so appealing to men?"

It went right out the window just as soon as we figured out you all were trying to steal our kids...right along with the pushup bra....

So get over it...


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 7, 2004 11:51:22 AM

The only species I know that commonly kills its own young is the lion - when a new Alpha male deposes the previous Ruler of the Pride, he kills the young cubs of the previous male, so as to bring the lionesses into heat and so begin his own line. And that's all programmed by instinct... (Which means, since I will have to explain it, that **Mother Nature** determined that this behaviour enhanced the lions' odds of survival. That's why it happens - because it worked.)

But in case you didn't notice, the killing of smaller and weaker animals is not restricted to the male of any carnivorous species. Female lions, sharks, whales, dolphins, cats, dogs, rats, mice, spiders and especially, praying mantises (mantii??) - who eat the male after insemination - also kill (and eat) smaller animals.

You women just have to face it: in reality, you are NO BETTER than men, as all the recent sexual offence convictions against women shows.

As for this absurd statement:

> we figured out you all were trying to steal our kids

If that's what you really think, no wonder you sound so irrational and screwed up! You are living in a fear-filled fantasy.

There are VERY few fathers who genuinely want SOLE custody. That's the woman's domain - except where it comes to Government "Child Protection Agencies", who DEFINITELY want to steal your kids, and mine. There's money in it, you see.

But most fathers I know ONLY want to share their children with the mother, and those who seem not to, we counsel to change their outlook.

Anyway, you still haven't written a single word to justify why you think women are the only fit parents.

"Your children" are only HALF yours at best...

So get over it!

tt
P.S. A question:

Are your children the only thing of true value in your life? Is that why you are so paranoid about the father "stealing them"? If so, you are living vicariously, and are placing (being) an unfair BURDEN on your children.

Maybe you should GET A LIFE as well!

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 7, 2004 4:16:56 PM

"Your children" are only HALF yours at best...

Well I didn't want to bring this up but if you really want to play on the genetic inheritance of children they have JUST as close a genetic link with their maternal grandmother as they do with their father...

So maybe the rights of fathers and the maternal grandmothers should be equal...but the mother paramount...just playing strictly by the genes...

Okay...I'm just giving you that concession to make you happy...


"You women just have to face it: in reality, you are NO BETTER than men, as all the recent sexual offence convictions against women shows."

Yes, once again you're right...MOST people are more fearful of women then men because women have been shown recently to be such dangerous sexual predators...


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 7, 2004 4:36:33 PM

NYMOM, we don't want you down here, but if you came to visit, you might discover some of the truly negative consequences of men giving women what they want.

Here in NZ, the Femi-Nazis behind our Government decreed that after three years of living in the nature of marriage, a man and a woman are considered legally married, irrespective of their own views on the matter. I call that Totalitarianism, but hey, what do I know? (It's purpose, of course, was simply to (ab)use the law to force a redistribution of wealth towards women, but I'd say the consequences are extremely negative...)

Anyway, people ALWAYS find ways to get around draconian laws, and what's happening in NZ is that most young guys know the game, and really do not want to get sucked into the whole "Property Relationships" law nightmare (a trough for lawyers to slurp from), so they just don't commit to relationships (with women). When the 2 years comes around, they're Outta There! If they were ever committed in the first place.

And who is that really good for?

To men, it's no big deal, moving on. But women find it very hard. And a woman who's past about 45 - well, who wants her? She ends up alone, or turning lesbian.

What's even "BETTER" in this whole nightmare scenario being played out DownUnder is that we have just (a year ago) fully legalised prostitution. (Yes, the FemNi's did that too.) And, contrary to predictions by those who promoted the law, it has seen a huge increase in prostitution. Driving out of the city ANY evening these days, I drive past at least half a dozen hookers on the street. More and more young women (some barely no longer girls) are taking up the lifestyle. They are getting younger, fresher, and better looking. That makes it very good, for men.

It may be the oldest profession, but do you really think it's good for women?

Another interesting side effect though, would appear to be that it's now safer for them. There seem to have been fewer reports of violence, no murdered prostitutes lately (that I've heard of).

It's now (kindof) Socially Acceptable. And it's turning sex into nothing more than a commodity. SO, if all men want is sex, well, NZ is the place to be!

Maybe that's why men are now taking so much more interest in their children - because they can simply buy sex off the street, whenever they want it, no questions asked, no "headache" excuses, no diamond rings, no expensive anniversary dinners, and they also don't have to pay most of their incomes to support, clothe and house the erratic, irrational, unreasonable, demanding bitch that previously satisfied their sexual needs.

Yes, it's a Brave New World we're living in down here. Maybe you US women, and others, should pay more attention to what we men are saying is the folly of this course.

Anyway, Good Luck.

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 7, 2004 5:09:23 PM

P.S. I forgot to ask.

Tell us about the genetic closeness to the maternal grandmother?

Are you trying to say that what they taught me in school about Genetics was all wrong.

Of course, you are misinterpreting the science for this purpose of this forum, aren't you?

Anyway, please post a few links, so we can all see.

And also tell me, irrespective of any closeness to the maternal g/mother, is the Genetic distribution between the mother and the father NOT exactly 50/50?

If it isn't, then so DAMN what?

You are trying another fallacy for the purpose of misleading - attempting to hide the truth?

tt

Posted by: tttwtanbtt at Nov 7, 2004 5:17:47 PM

Well what happens if you get a prostitute pregnant? Are you still responsible for child support or do you get off by just giving her the 'going rate' as per your usual daily or weekly trysts? Hopefully you haven't chosen the more pricey 'top of the line' call girls as opposed to a low-end, but reasonably-priced crack whore...It can probably cost you even MORE then child-support in the long run if you've made this error in judgment...

Anyway, I can see the three year rule. It makes sense. Actually the American Law Institute has recommended the US pass a two year rule where a couple living together would be treated as a married entity, whether or not they wanted to be...

AND the 'father' of any children within the household would be considered as the man who was most responsible for the care of the child (and this includes financial assistance) during a two year period and that might NOT be the genetic match...

Bottom line is that although men would like to just live bed-hopping every couple of years from one woman to another dropping off assorted genetic material all over the place, the state unfortunately has to impose some order on the resulting chaos...

Additionally I guess this is also a response by the state to stop women with children, from allowing said men to move in with them...as unrelated males living within a household with children are responsible for much abuse of children...

I guess it's like everything else...if you don't want to pay, then don't play...

Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 7, 2004 8:33:28 PM

"...is the Genetic distribution between the mother and the father NOT exactly 50/50?

If it isn't, then so DAMN what?"

No...it isn't and you're right...it's not important whether or not the DNA of a child matches that of the legal father or a three-toed green tree frog...

It's men who keep making all the fuss about the DNA matching...I personally think it's totally unimportant.


Posted by: NYMOM at Nov 7, 2004 8:38:37 PM

Dave - use your loaf chum .. I am not condoning domestic violence in any way .. I am just saying it seems absurd to say that on the one hand its OK to kill an unborn child - just because mom wuishes to- but at the same time its an incredible taboo to strike a blow, whether from man to woman or vice versa, whose effect is negligible? Don't you find that paradoxical? PS are you in fact NYMOM in drag?

Posted by: Steve at Nov 8, 2004 5:20:19 AM

Dave - use your loaf chum .. I am not condoning domestic violence in any way .. I am just saying it seems absurd to say that on the one hand its OK to kill an unborn child - just because mom wuishes to- but at the same time its an incredible taboo to strike a blow, whether from man to woman or vice versa, whose effect is negligible? Don't you find that paradoxical? PS are you in fact NYMOM in drag?

Posted by: Steve at Nov 8, 2004 5:20:41 AM

NYMOM- I see you now add anti-Roman Catholicism to your list of prejudices. You really are a charmer aren't you?
As for this law that after 3 years you become legally married (in effect) that is completely outrageous .. and something I believe voices in the Blair government (well, actually, unelected think-tank members of extremist tendencies lurking in the background) are dreaming up a similar law for England's green and pleasant land. These idiots miss the point that the only functioning society is one based on consent: say a well-off guy or lady shacks up with a penniless young waif, from say,Taco Bell, and gives them free bed and board and chow and generally tries to give them a leg-up in life, but without any of the constraints imposed by marriage . whack, he's up the creek for half his fortune .. what absolute bunch of a##e .. another labour attempt to foist people who might otherwise be a burden on the state onto other private imdividuals. Well they can stuff that.

Posted by: Steve at Nov 8, 2004 5:36:35 AM