| Film Details | 19 - Fathers' Rights - 32m 22s |
|---|---|
| Notes | |
| Age Rating | 15 (strong footage/language, possibly including violence and sexual imagery) |
| Synopsis | Explores the lack of legal rights for fathers in the UK and the treatment of fathers in the family court. Also looks at the poor choices made by mothers and the use in law of the term “best interests of the child” to deny fathers adequate rights. • F4J • Fathers’ inadequate rights in what is often called a male-dominated society • Fathers’ lack of protection from the law and mothers’ disregard of the law |
| Interviewees | Stephen Fitzgerald, National Organiser of the Mankind Initiative Men’s Charity. Simon, Psychologist and Writer. Erin Pizzey, Author and Domestic Violence expert. Opened the world’s first domestic violence shelter in London and is a patron of the Mankind Initiative Men’s Charity. Author of the book “Prone to Violence”. Daniel Monk, Law Lecturer at Birkbeck University, London, and a specialist in Family law. Brian, Teacher and victim of domestic violence. Allan, Father and youth worker. All interviews recorded in 2004 |
In the event of any issue with playback, this film can also be found here.
The slimey law lecturer Daniel Monk summed up the legal professions’ attitude to Fathers; namely, he might be a rapist/violent man/serial child abuser, so just keep things as they are and let the mother decide if the Dad should see his kids-and of course, keep giving money to wankers like Daniel Monk in futile court battles. And as always, the mothers new men are totally ignored, they are all assumed fine, no questions asked-despite step fathers being the number one child abusers walking the planet.
The number one child abusers on the planet are mothers, especially single mothers. Otherwise, I agree with your synopsis.
I have always thought the best approach would be to assume married fathers to be heads of their families and wives to have consented to this in the wedding vows.. But then again, the femistate would not allow such vows to be made would it now?
Fathers do not generally have any desire to deny contact to mothers, unlike the scenario that seems common when mothers have all the power..
If women really want to have children as single mothers, and have all the power, they have always been able to do this.. Simply dont marry, or cohabit..
But the state is perversely incentivising and encouraging them to do this, even when they have previously agreed to raise children with their father in marraige..
The family courts should be totally abolished as a concept entirely, they are worse than useless, merely a vehicle to enrich parasitic lawyers whose incentives lie in creating the maximum adversity and moving as slowly as possible..
This serves the government whose aim is to break up families in order to be able to have more control of the parents and especially the children..
The childrens act shows how the state has now assumed itself to be the head of every family, and section 4 shows how it irradicates the traditional fathers role in marraige.
I do not recall any public demand for the state to take a fathers role, so this is clearly something that has been foisted upon us without our consent for the purpose of social engineering.
The expense is huge, which is why the state has to tax fathers an additional amount to their already high burden by its “child tax” which it calls “child support”.. However, child support is more like “chancellors support” as the main beneficiary is of course the state..
I see the most valid protest against the family courts and the state theft of our children as being for all affected parents to refuse to work and pay taxes to this vile entity, reject the courts entirely, starve the beast that is destroying our families.
Very well said.