Children from fatherless homes are:

[marby]

I'd fight in court instead of scaling buckingham palace in a batman outfit and kidnapping random kids

[The Colonel]

Thank you Colonel for your reply to me. I do feel it is an injustice for fathers (that care) in the UK if this is truly the law. I find this hard to believe for the UK. Someone need to fight to change this law. It deserves to be heard and reconsidered.

There is. There is a group called Fathers for Justice. They've thrown condoms of flour at Tony Blair in the House of Commons, climbed onto the Queen's balcony at Buckingham Palace and interupted a live National Lottery Draw. Nobody cares Zia.

In the US, a man has the right to fight for custody and it is not impossible by any means for him to gain custody. I've known women that has paid child support. All the father must have is perseverance and truth (and a good attorney helps). If I was a man, I'd fight if I knew the mother could not or would not provide the best for my child or have the control nor see the need to involve the father without conflict or negative influence on the child.

I too would fight.

Colonel, is that the mean of effective communication? NO! I would not give them time of day either by those actions if that is the mentality of the protesters. Not an efficient means to a intellectual civil dialog. Nada.

Although they are a bad example - I can understand their position.

If you were a decent father (or mother) and couldn't see your kids, what would you do?

I would go out of my mind.

I'd fight in court instead of scaling buckingham palace in a batman outfit and kidnapping random kids

I know of friends who have had to fight tooth and nail in court just to see their kids marble! In ALL those cases the mother WANTED the dad to have contact!!!

But STILL the judge was actively considering cutting the father COMPLETELY out of the child's life.

It is no wonder some people do what they do. I don't agree with them, and they probably aren't the best of fathers - but nevertheless, children have a right to their dad.

Full stop marble.

What planet are you on?!

[marby]

a minority fight to see their kids, the rest sit on their arses watching freeview

[Gibbous Moon]

I think Fathers for Justice have a valid point when they say that in practise it is hard for absent fathers to gain useful access to their children. Whilst the practical application of the law is swinging back to a situation where fathers and children can expect reasonable access to each other if the mother decide to be difficult it’s still a hard row to hoe to get access in the face of a determined mother.

It’s been about three years since I wrote to my daughter’s mother saying that I would like to formalise access arrangements and I think there’s probably about another six months of court appearances to go. I’m sure you can get things done quicker if you push things (which I would do if I weren’t getting reasonable access) but it’s still a slow and expensive business.

I’m lucky, I can afford to pay for good laywers, I can afford to fly from Edinburgh to the south of England every month to see my daughter, that my wife and I know lots of people with two spare bedrooms down south and I’m valuable enough to my employer that I can “work from home” wink, wink nudge, nudge on the Friday afternoon before I visit so I can fly down on the early evening flight. Also, crucially, my wife is very keen on me having a continuing relationship with my daughter. In fact I think that if I were a less diligent father she’d not be so keen on me being the father of her children.

Most people aren’t so lucky and I understand why most men in my situation drift away from the relationship with their child.

GM

[GayandProud]

It is all about personal choice

Bingo !

No.
It's NOT about selfish desires.
It's about the RESPONSIBILITY and OBLIGATION you have to raise the child properly.

PERSONAL CHOICE is just another way of saying to hell with good family values.

I take it you are writing to all the feckless no-mark "fathers" who get someone pregnant and bugger off at the first sign or responsibilty and leave it all to the mums. Men like that made me sick.

Why dont you concentrate on getting MEN to take responsibilty for where they put their dicks and the consequences of that....face facts Fred - in some fatherless homes its becasue some fathers fuck off and leave them becasue they havent got the balls to stick around.

Or is that just too much for your sexist narrow minded woman hating brain to cope with.

[ZiaAries]

G & P,

Well said.

[azraelle]

G & P,

Well said.

A big plus one.

[marby]

Remarkably well put and anyone who supports men who do this are laying in the gutter with them

[Fred75]

It is all about personal choice

Bingo !

No.
It's NOT about selfish desires.
It's about the RESPONSIBILITY and OBLIGATION you have to raise the child properly.

PERSONAL CHOICE is just another way of saying to hell with good family values.

I take it you are writing to all the feckless no-mark "fathers" who get someone pregnant and bugger off at the first sign or responsibilty and leave it all to the mums. Men like that made me sick.

Why dont you concentrate on getting MEN to take responsibilty for where they put their dicks and the consequences of that....face facts Fred - in some fatherless homes its becasue some fathers fuck off and leave them becasue they havent got the balls to stick around.

Or is that just too much for your sexist narrow minded woman hating brain to cope with.

Because WOMEN are left with the children.
And since POSSESSION is 9/10the the law.... well... that means women are 9/10ths responsible for who they spread their legs for.

Theres a reason certain countries make women wear burkahs and stone them for adultry....
It's because of todays liberal society that has unwed mothers, children on welfare, girls having abortions.

Add up all the children killed by abortion and tell me it's greater than the women stoned for immoral acts!

Mind you... I am not saying we should do that.... I just see their system as better for children because they don't have abortions and unwed mothers on welfare banging out more children!

[marby]

Mind you... I am not saying we should do that.... I just see their system as better for children because they don't have abortions and unwed mothers on welfare banging out more children![/b]

You're avoiding his point, which was very well made. Half of the homes are fatherless because of people like this. It has nothing to do with abortion because they have kept their children, whilst the father has gone awol and refused to take any responsibility.

[Fred75]

Mind you... I am not saying we should do that.... I just see their system as better for children because they don't have abortions and unwed mothers on welfare banging out more children![/b]

You're avoiding his point, which was very well made. Half of the homes are fatherless because of people like this. It has nothing to do with abortion because they have kept their children, whilst the father has gone awol and refused to take any responsibility.

No.
Half the homes are fatherless because women spread their legs for losers they barely knew or thought shacking up was commitment on the mans part!

WE ARE NOT EQUALS.
You bear the children and you end up with them.
YOU HAVE MORE RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE OF THAT.
PERIOD!

[marby]

Mind you... I am not saying we should do that.... I just see their system as better for children because they don't have abortions and unwed mothers on welfare banging out more children![/b]

You're avoiding his point, which was very well made. Half of the homes are fatherless because of people like this. It has nothing to do with abortion because they have kept their children, whilst the father has gone awol and refused to take any responsibility.

No.
Half the homes are fatherless because women spread their legs for losers they barely knew or thought shacking up was commitment on the mans part!

WE ARE NOT EQUALS.
You bear the children and you end up with them.
YOU HAVE MORE RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE OF THAT.
PERIOD!

Wrong again, some mothers in those situations are lucky enough to have families to turn to, while others have nobody and are entitled to welfare to support them. I'd support them over some useless loser who gets women pregnant and bottles it then claims he was tricked.

[Fred75]

Mind you... I am not saying we should do that.... I just see their system as better for children because they don't have abortions and unwed mothers on welfare banging out more children![/b]

You're avoiding his point, which was very well made. Half of the homes are fatherless because of people like this. It has nothing to do with abortion because they have kept their children, whilst the father has gone awol and refused to take any responsibility.

No.
Half the homes are fatherless because women spread their legs for losers they barely knew or thought shacking up was commitment on the mans part!

WE ARE NOT EQUALS.
You bear the children and you end up with them.
YOU HAVE MORE RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE OF THAT.
PERIOD!

Wrong again, some mothers in those situations are lucky enough to have families to turn to, while others have nobody and are entitled to welfare to support them. I'd support them over some useless loser who gets women pregnant and bottles it then claims he was tricked.

WELFARE just makes women more careless as to who they spread their legs for.
WELFARE is now the child's father/breadwinner.

WELFARE is a mistake because women no longer have to care.

[Fred75]

WELFARE in the UK means 25% of your homes are living SOLELY on the teat of your nanny state!

[marby]

WELFARE in the UK means 25% of your homes are living SOLELY on the teat of your nanny state!

Until the father re-appears and puts all his wrong doings right by providing financial support, they deserve every penny they get