I dont normally want to associate myself with a particular group...id rather sit back and watch all sides bitching and pulling themselves apart to get their point across...however today i am going to have my say.
I can see both sides of the argument that fathers for justice are putting across. In a genuine case of a mother preventing a father from seeing their child i think it should warrant a cause for the fathers.
I cant be seen to be siding with any enemy as i am a parent myself...a single one at that who is currently fighting my childs father. Hes a twat and an utter waste of space and is of no benefit to my child whatsoever...however i do see the importance of that child having access to their natural father and would not prevent this from happening.
My point is simply this...is fathers for justice really about justice? Or is it just an excuse for the father to play the judicial sympathy vote and use it for all he's worth to get his own way. I think sadly its more often than not a case of the latter.
It would seem that any father of a mind to retaliate against a mother is using the 'fathers for justice' cause to bend the judicial system and get anything they want. Not just access to the child...which inevitably ends up being a pawn, in a very bitter argument between 2 adults, behaving an age less than that of a spoiled infant.....but to mothers being shunted to the background and not being given any rights at all.
At one time it used to be a case of mothers being given automatic rights....no longer. It doesnt matter if you werent married or lived together, or if the absent father isnt on the birth certificate....none of this is considered anymore. Now mothers are considered to be obstructive and argumentative by the judicial system and therefore are quite often dismissed by the courts.
Fathers for justice...as i understand it....want the same rights for absent fathers as mothers have. Mostly im all for it. As i said i can see the benefits of having the natural father in the childs life...even if the guy is despised. After all...arent the feelings of the 2 adults in this instance considered to be moot. It is supposed to be about whats best for the child....isnt it?
However how on earth can they justify generalising their cause. Each case for absent fathers is an individual one and me personally i feel as if the original reason that fathers for justice was created has been lost. Now ANY father...with ANY grievance is using this to manipulate the family courts to get their own way.
Anyways...this was just rattling round my head and winding me up excessively and needed to be put down....now i have im done.
p.s not an expletive in sight...well done me i think!!!!