Fathers for justice

Fiona wrote:

PS WhiteRose wrote:

Ahhhhhh - thanks for that Fiona - It is PAS they do not recognise.

That's the problem with the term "Parental Alienation," it is that it 's often used synonymously with "Parental Alienation Syndrome." A syndrome is list of symptoms used to diagnose an illness or medical disorder and you would need expert medical evidence of PAS. No professional association recognises PAS as a relevant medical syndrome or mental disorder and it's unlikely they ever will.

The courts will recognise alienation/extreme rejection/implacable hostility as a child's response to parental conflict if it is backed by evidence from an independent expert witness. Many factors contribute to the problem but there is no presumption of a deliberate campaign of denigration by one parent.

Thanks for clearing that up Fiona - it is clearly something I have confused

As for the previous posts about Matt O'Connor - I don't care how the change comes about, Publicity, Glory - whatever - however - as long as change comes ...............

whoops

Be careful stepper, when your arguments become personal you have generally lost the argument, I don't wear my heart on my sleeve which I find to be a particularly annoying aspect of F4J(ALL) media campaign, emotional blackmail is a pretty ineffective response to a very difficult situation, but suffice to say Stepper your are completely wrong.


Forseti: Its what free speech is all about and your response highlights one of the major downfalls in the F4J campaign, you are not inclusive, it is a small group of no more than around 500 men with an inner circle of about two or three calling all the shots but who knows the whole thing is like some kind of secret society with no accountability to anybody.

To both of you, things are rarely what they seem.

Well, the ability to wield a child as a weapon may not be about gender, Fiona, but gender is certainly a fundamental element in determining how you will be treated in the family courts and what the final outcome will be.

The radio discussion yesterday clearly showed that there are prejudices based on gender which run so deep and are so widely accepted now by society that most people don't recognise them as prejudice. The written law makes distinctions between fathers and mothers in stark black and white and yet people can still claim that it doesn't discriminate. Cameron's Father's Day diatribe was constructed of one prejudice after another. Everything he said about non-resident fathers is demonstrably untrue, but the public is happy to swallow these falsehoods rather than face the truth.

It is profoundly depressing, because it shows what a mountain we have to climb in order to reverse this state of affairs (lots of mixed metaphors there).

Thank God for Erin Pizzey, who tries to put this in historical perspective to explain what has happened over the last 40 or 50 years. Only by studying history will we learn not to repeat it. No wonder Joan Burnie was trying to prevent her putting her view, dismissing 1960s women's collectives as inconsequential cliques. In fact they have had enormous consequence, and continue to do so, demonising men and fathers, excising them from their families, and creating a new societal norm in which a male prime minister can get away with appalling bigotry.

Arnie Saccnuson wrote:

Be careful stepper, when your arguments become personal you have generally lost the argument, I don't wear my heart on my sleeve which I find to be a particularly annoying aspect of F4J(ALL) media campaign, emotional blackmail is a pretty ineffective response to a very difficult situation, but suffice to say Stepper your are completely wrong.

You are the one who is personal arnie - you may not agree with what Matt O'Connor is doing but jibes about his weight have managed to diminish your argument.

It's a pity all your posts in this thread have been deleted. You resurected the thread, but it has left subsequent posters in the dark about any constructive or negative comments you might have previously made.

It is your choice if you prefer the 'stiff upper lip' approach. However change in family law does seem to be a long time coming so if Matt O'Conner wants to try a different approach it might be a courtesy to allow him to do it without ridicule.

stepper wrote:

You are the one who is personal arnie - you may not agree with what Matt O'Connor is doing but jibes about his weight have managed to diminish your argument.

You are correct that is personal but i don't think in this instance it diminishes any of what i say, Mr O Connor encourages controversy as a tactic, he ludicrously decides upon a hunger strike when he is in poor physical condition and he goes all out with a big media campaign for which he wants comment and controversy, but no offence intended to him personally he is the attack point for a stupid campaign.

The brand is fuked, its not about gender, if fathers 4 justice were successful it would make the whole situation worse. Society decides equality not LAWS and i certainly live in a not perfect but a pretty good society where equality is fully embraced, its not perfect but constantly evolving. We don't need any more legal points to argue upon in divorce or child custody its all about mediation.

Where f4j could make a positive contribution is counselling their members in their own personal culpability in the situation they find themselves in rather than providing a simplistic excuse for a VERY difficult problem.

It is your choice if you prefer the 'stiff upper lip' approach. However change in family law does seem to be a long time coming so if someone want to try a different approach it might be a courtesy to allow him to do it without ridicule.

and I am fat too

I certainly agree that mediation is the best way forward.

My personal feeling is that there should be a default by law of 50/50 shared residence which could be titrated downwards as necessary to suit the best interests of the children.

The benefits of this would be firstly, to immediately cut out the 'middle men' i.e. lawyers and barristers who can only gain when fathers have to resort to Court action for custody of their children and secondly, when a 50/50 shared residency is not a workable option, mediation between the two parents would be the next step in ensuring that the best interest of the children are served.


Arnie Saccnuson wrote:
[/quote] and I am fat too[/quote]


May I suggest that you join Matt in his very worthy campain?