| |
|
Its all gotta do more harm to the kids. I mean, I could just think back to when my mum and dad got divorced, when I was a kid. The thought of the old man on a roof dressed in spandex would have led to me in therapy for some time...
Whilst there is a lot of questionable motives for F4J - and when you delve behind the headlines, there is often far more problems than merely access to the children (I mean, not even new anti-terror legislation can send you to jail for texting your child on their birthday), there does seem to be problems with the whole children, divorce processes:
It is possible for the primary caring parent (and I guess statistically it's going to be the mother) to frustrate court orders for the children's access to the other partner, with little impunity. Alot of the time an acrimonious divorce or split can leave the couple using child access as a weapon. Frustrating court order on access (and I think this was a gripe put forward by one of F4J's more eloquent speakers) is difficult to punish, as no-one wants to send a primary carer of children to jail, and fines and suchlike don't often help what is already a difficult time for all parties financially.
Secondly, unmarried fathers have no rights under the law - unless a parental agreement is signed by the principle carer, allowing parental rights. I can understand there can be reasons for that, but its very prejudicial against fathers.
Thirdly, the dreaded CSA. For marriages that dissolve and the primary carer has to go on benefits and declare who the other parent is to the Child Support Agency(unless there is a good reason, such as a history of marital violence). This also applies to single mothers. If they don't their benefit is curbed. Whilst it might be acceptable to make errant parents pay for their children, in personal experience and hearing the horror stories from the press, it seems that the CSA sets payemnts for non-caring partners very high, in some way, no doubt, to pay for teh institution of the CSA. Again, it is geared to collecting money - a faceless institution with only limited and often expensive forms of appeal. It adds to the couldron of bad feelings when a relationship ends.
I suppose what I'm drivign at is that there are areas where non-primary-child-caring partners in a relationship are left feeling discriminated against and bitter in what is usually already a difficult time. The government often makes itself out to be the proponent of stable familty life, yet the process is still very adversarial when it comes to sorting these problems out.
I dunno how much F4J actually bring thses points to the public forum though... |
|
|
