GOVERNMENT CRUSHES FATHER'S HOPES IN SHAM REVIEW

Sorry for the lack of posts recently, been a very busy time working long hours with the downside being that lack of time to work on the blog but even worse it means I will have been contributing to the extension of the 'mythical' gender pay gap.

This week saw the publication of the interim report of the Family Justice Review which partly is addressed at dealing with the escalating cost of the family law system (both public and private), the time delays/bureaucracy and also looking at how to improve things for fathers and grandparents.

We all know through years of bitter experience and years of campaigning how the family law system system is corrupt and unfair to both children and grandparents alike.

Corrupt because CAFCASS, social services and many judges are anti-male and anti-father with CAFCASS and social services corrupted by feminist fundamentalism with many in positions of power being 'educated' in the 70's and 80's. This has often been done in tandem with solicitors and judges who have played along - solicitors just want their money. The outcome being the undermining of the fundamental natural requirement of a child being allowed to have the presence of their father in their life and the father from having contact with his children.

Secondly, the legal corruption has been the lack of sanction of mothers who breach court orders often costing the father thousands upon thousands and made worse with the Child Support Agency hammering his door down for money when he cannot see them. A state-sanctioned system of hypocrisy leading to the creation of Fathers4Justice and other groups while the mainstream groups such as Families Need Fathers have been working to get the system changed by lobbying.

The one change everyone wanted was an explicit recognition in law of shared parenting, not one based on redisency and non-residency. Not too much to ask.

 This site has commented long and hard about how men had hoped that a new government would ensure there was equality for men and women. Initially there was light with the hope on issues such as anonymity on rape, the lack of anti-male rhetoric and on family law. The government though has danced to the feminist fundamentalist tune and backtracked on everything it promised, been involved in even more male bashing on pay, directorships, pensions and anything else it can lay its hands on.

Yet in the backgorund the flame that still flickered was on family law. That flame has now been snuffed out.

As ever with these things, the government pre-briefed the media so the initial headlines that greeted everyone at the beginning of the week were that grandparents would have a legal right to see their grandchildren  (and Telegraph) and this review would be ground breaking. And then when it was published it was clear when you read it that it was a sham with the grandparents issues a carefully crafted smokescreen that shows no progress for fathers - it is straight out of the spin doctors manual and the dupes in the media fell for it because they are too lazy to do anything except regurgitate the press release.

Basically, there is no real mention of shared parenting at all it says "there should be regard given to the status of shared parental responsibility" - but no presumption! It rules it out (Page 23 - section 108).

The reforms win the backing of lawyers and judges (no surprise) but as the Daily Mail reported - others like Fathers4Justice and the Family Society say it is a sham. Families Need Fathers says it still has a long way to go and organisations such as FNF had made sensible, reaosnable and well thought out submissions. But they were ignored.

It was almost as if the review had been 'got at' by the fundamentalists - that by having shared parenting would mean the value of fathers would be enhanced and that was unacceptable. If the governement enacts these proposals in this 'interim' review then there it will be cleat that the government is as bad as the last.

It gives the hope of equality and justice for men, and then takes it away. That is worse than making clear there is no hope at all.

Posted by Skimmington

Postscript - There are a number of Conservative MP's such as Brian Binley and Charlie Elphicke who are campaigning for shared parenting so we hope they are vocal in their opposition to this. 

Postscript 2 - The sound Brian Hitchcock from the Family Law Society on BBC West Midlands

 

Comments

[John Kimble]

When I reviewed the Lib Dem manifesto I noted their commitment to shared parenting. It states they will "introduce a Default Contact Arrangement which would divide the child’s time between their two parents in the event of family breakdown".

http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2010/04/liberal-democrats-are-the-only-party-committed-to-shared-parenting.html

The review is therefore incompatible with their election manifesto. In particular we need to keep a close eye on any Lib Dem reaction to the document and make sure they stick to their promise.

[Groan]

Thanks for the reminder on the manifesto. It is instructive how easily the coalition has caved in thus far. Get writing to MPs. readers.