I can understand where you're coming from Keb and Biter, but I'm a Family Law Barrister and the father is able at any time to take the matter to court. OK, finance is ususally the major barrier (although anyone who can't afford the costs can get Legal Aid), but Judges are even more determined these days to make sure the children have a relationship with the father if that's what they want, and there is no serious abuse going on. The days are gone where the mother can withhold the child/children - that is called implacable hostility and looked upon by the court as a serious misdemeanour by the 'caring parent'. I've even seen a Judge send a mother to jail for it. Unfortunately there are all sorts of cases where the mother and father are fighting so much that all sorts of allegations against each other are made...
The problem with Fathers For Justice is that I don't think they're very good examples - Jason Hatch has been proven to be a bigotted, ignorant, attention-seeking individual. The court has made a decision that he should only see his children once every three weeks and you can bet your bottom dollar that they had very good reasons for doing so. The courts deal with these things on an individual basis, but unless the father uses the right channel and raises the issue with the court in the first place, the mother will have 'control' until the children get older. It's therefore his decision. A lot of fathers either give up and walk away before that stage, or make a decision to start a new life without their children from the first relationship. That's very hard on the children isn't it?
I've not got any axe to grind here, just putting the other side of the story forward really. I only wish parents would see what harm they are causing their children by refusing to be reasonable in the face of all the evidence that it's better for the children to have a relationship with mother AND father unless there are serious reasons why not...
|