I have looked at some cases in the past week that have had me shaking my head in sheer disbelief at how unjust and badly administered our laws are these days. Basically the scales of justice are tipped crazily in favour of convicted criminals and those who want to cause harm to others, the human rights brigade have excelled in making crime pay handsomely for the most depraved in our society while at the same time ensuring innocent, vulnerable people have no means of retribution or protection whatsoever.
At the start of the week we all read about the dreadful tragedy of little Elise and Harry Donnison who were killed by their dangerously mad mother Fiona; she had taken the kids and flown the coop with them despite them having a loving, caring dad who could have looked after them while she received the treatment she needed – had she bothered. They would still be alive and she would be in a padded cell somewhere…but no, she had to murder them. Why was nothing done to keep this woman away from those kids – why was there no law to apply that could have had her carted off and those children kept safe away from her…? she had rights you see…not the kids though.
Then just yesterday came the news that a truly repulsive young man, Thomas Smith, was imprisoned for 32 years for the torture, rape and murder of a little girl and her mother, Holly and Diane Fallon. This monster had been allowed to live unchecked beside the home of this mother and daughter despite his previous conviction for assaulting a 10 year old girl – for which he served a paltry six months prison. He was literally freed to go that one step further – and he did – taking out a mother and her child in a most horrific manner. One does not even want to try and contemplate what both of them endured…
During the week I received correspondence from Hugh McCloy regarding anomalies in the law which affect non-custodial parents, namely fathers, and the unbelievable and dangerous contradictions they present. Hugh is part of an organisation that not only fights for the rights of dads to be dads, but also recognises the appalling figures of child abuse and deaths of children subject to custodial issues. An excellent example is that of baby Peter Connolly; here was a child whose own father was not allowed custody and yet he had to endure living with men unrelated to him.
Why, if an allegation of abuse (even one that is fraudulent and made out of spite) against a father results in him being stopped from seeing or being with his child/children, does that not also apply to all males so that the child in question is adequately protected…? why, if a man cannot visit his own child, can then complete strangers take up residence in that child’s home with the mother. Why does the law prevent the father from having contact with his child supposedly for welfare reasons but then NOT extend that to protect that child from unrelated males living with that child?
If the dad cannot see his kids in the least then no way should ‘mum’ be allowed to bring in other men to live in that child’s home – where is the protection for the child, where is the respect for the child to live safely in his/her own home…? right now there are men who can only stand by and watch in anger and helplessness and they are kept apart from their children – on the word of just a bitter ex-partner – while she shacks up with another bloke who moves in on his home and his child. And too often the child that was kept from his/her dad for no good reason at all has ended up abused and/or killed by the mother’s new partner who was allowed to live with the child totally unvetted, totally unsupervised.
If laws were put in place that ensured children were safe from their mother’s new partner and were as rigid and inflexible as those applied to divorced, caring dads who are effectively blocked from seeing their children then maybe, just maybe, children like baby Peter would stop happening. Maybe if laws were in place that treated convicted sex offenders as harshly and protected children as stringently as the laws that allow these monsters to roam the community at will and anonymously, then maybe little Holly Fallon and her mum Diane would still be alive today.
The law today enables those who we have to fear the most to behave as they wish, when you become their victim you simply become a part of the process that works to protect them and stop them from suffering any real consequences. Without a victim they have no rights – we in effect justify their existence, and we of course pay the price.
Copyright © 2007-2010 Cultured Views. All rights reserved.
This article is so bias and is hurtful to the children. There are far more children removed from good mothers and given to pedophile fathers than this article wishes one to know.
Men are indeed gaining custody by their lies of being falsely accused.
Ironically until the last decade or so men did not even want the kids and left them with the mothers and yet, now when they are supposed to pay more in child support, they all of a sudden demand rights to the kids. C’mon be sensible. Good fathers do want to know their5 kids are fine and healthy but to actually be the primaril caregiver==that is not what they really want.
Check out the so called father’s rights group. They sound nice==Every child deserves both parents==than they get 50-50 and say there should be no child support paid–they win that–than they say the child is better off with them==they win the child custody and seek child support from the mother and get the courts to remove any association the child has with the mother except for the money she has to pay him. This is not uncommon and certainly is not what they profess that child deserved both parents.
In reality=these issues are because of child abuse not parental love. Good parents do work out the issues and mothers do want the good father in the child’s life but when a child is molested by that father than the mother does not want the child around that abuse.
No parent male or female should be bringing people into a child’s life without fully knowing who the person is and never give that person full access to the child.
It is the actual fathers who molest the children more but stepfathers/boyfriends also do to. Strangers are muct less apt tp harm a child.
he courts need to really allow evidence and base their decisions on the fact and not criticize a parent for reportiing abuse. Certainly, some fathers are the better parent but not always and sometimes a child should be free of having to be with either or both parents. If in doubt than the court should listen to the child and if the child wants to live with one parent over the other and that parents is fit than honor the child’s wishes.
No to only father’s rights or mother’s rights but RIGHTS FOR THE CHILD
Oh wouldn’t it be wonderful if all fathers fell into the category you have outlined here so that only mothers could retain custody of children.
Strangers DO abuse and kill children – the stepfather of Baby Peter was in effect a complete stranger when that monster was invited into that house, he was not a biological parent, not a relative in any form so yes, he was a stranger to that child. I was writing from the perspective of the father’s side – those fathers who are barred from their children by spiteful, manipulative women (and oh boy have I met some in my time!) for no reason at all and who have to stand by and watch as other men are permitted to just shack up in the same house as his child. I was pointing out that while an allegation of abuse is in place NO unrelated males AT ALL should be allowed to reside with the mother and the child. This is putting children’s rights to work at grassroots level – allowing that child to have safety and security in it’s own home without a procession of males interfering.
We are now seeing more cases of appalling mothers and more often than not there are dads in the background who were sidelined because of the way these family courts work and would have made far better parents to their children. How often do you read of a single dad whose girlfriend killed his child…? name the last time you did! such cases are very, very rare. However children are dying at the hands of non-biological male ‘parents’ at the rate of two a week in the UK.
Your view is more than a little naive in my opinion…
Hope
i understand your comments having worked closely with mothers groups, but to come out with that out burst is unfounded and the vast majority of mothers groups would not agree with you. in fact there has been a huge move in mothers and fathers groups working together this past year to expose social serivces, the courts, bad mothers and bad fathers
the vast majority of child abuse is carried out by biological mothers in the form of sexual, emotional, physical and neglect. Now that is fact and once we get past the fact of abuse we enter a a lawful system that is not helping to protect children.
this is what this article is about, it is one part of a large law that is not working anywhere near good enough to protect children and their parents
can you give a reason why a child would not be given a right of residence with both its parents? shared parenting is not splitting a child in half i think you should read up on it or i will send you some information if you like.
your clearly dont understand the concept of equality and i dont mean to be rude on this, i think you speaking more so on a personal experience, long gone are the days that all men are rapists and bastards and if it is personal experience you speak about then you are living proof of the truth of this article in that good fathers are excluded while bad ones are included
you speak of child support, fathers already pay for there time with and without their child, there are like some mothers, some fathers who dont pay csa and its for the same reasons and as there is such a low percentage of lone fathers is why this is not highlighted. fathers dont get benefits yet are expected to pay up to 40% of their gross wage regardless of what they earn and their need for shelter, food, cloths, heat & light.
the scenario you speak of single dad applies to about 7 % of lone parents in the UK and why do you not hear of ex girlfriends killing children is because when a dad has sole residence of a child, that child has been given the greatest protection it will ever have, its father. there are however vast amounts of cases of mothers involved in family law cases killing their children, that child may only have contact with its father and again numbers come into play here and again shows the adversal family law system in this country is leading to deaths.
residences for children to be abused or killed by ranking and is fact
1- single mother
2-single mother plus new partner
3-parents together
4- children in care
5- single father
if you do need help with anything or a family law matter i will help you if i can, i stand by every good parent to protect their children.
if we are going to base our judgements on personal experience then we are failing to protect our children as there is far more to this than one case, it might seem harsh but it true. personally i come down very hard on social services, i know several social workers and only one of them is bad but i do not class social services as good as i know the system is wrong
I am so angry at what hope has written, this kind of bile has damaged so many men and their relationships with their children. Thank god you stepped in with the voice of reason Hugh because I would have vented my spleen for sure. The overwhelming majority of children abused and killed are in the custody of THE MOTHER ! the mothers choose violent and sadistic men to live with and they look the other way while their kids are tortured, you only have to read these stories in the papers to know this!
Excellent article Wendy, this should really be in the national newspapers because it gets right to the point.
I once wrote in response to a newspaper editorial which had raised the issue of the high incidence of children dying at the hands of the mother’s de-facto partners, the editor had invited readers response so I sure as eggs gave my tuppence worth…he refused to publish it saying my comments contravened the rights of single mothers to engage in relationships – here’s what I wrote:
“It appears to me that the one thing these children need protection from above all else is their mother’s taste in men…”
That was it and I reckoned it said it all in a nut shell and yet the editor came over all PC and claimed it would upset women’s groups…nothing will change until the causes are acknowledged and addressed. I understand your feelings Martin and the fact is that more children die at hands of unrelated males living with them than any other cause. I prefer not to call these men ’stepfathers’ or even ‘boyfriends’ simply because they tend to be merely transient males in the mother’s life rather than long-term relationships. It is sad but these kids don’t seem to be a priority in their mother’s lives.