Just what the hell's going on in London?

matt b

Indexing all opinion
in 1995 approx 4,000 parents defied court orders re: access. most were women. however, many of those (it seems) are due to the fears of the female (see gaurdian article above for possible reasons why).

most of the parents not doing their bit in terms of payments through the CSA were men (over 1 million).

mothers don't seem to have the time to dress up and highlight this
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
well, the original F4J has been disbanded, because the original founder felt that members were becoming obsessed with PR stunts, not the reasons for the campaign- indeed one member spent time on F4J jaunts rather than with his son.

the other side of your coin:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1770011,00.html

This article really confirms what I feared: that the idea that courts were keeping good men from seeing their children was largely a myth perpetrated by a conservative watchdog group. The numbers offered up in the article actually show that more children are forced to see fathers with criminal histories of abusing children than there are men whose "vindictive wives" are hording their children just to spite their husbands.

Most mothers I know would be more than glad to have a weekend off from their kids. Why would they deny the father access, if nothing's wrong? I know it *could* happen, but the idea that it happens *often* seems based in very negative (and largely outmoded) stereotypes of female behavior.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
I don't have any figures to hand, but I can only assume that the problem must be big enough for men to get upset about it to the point of dressing up as superheroes and trying to storm Parliament, with support from a fair number of guys who feel themselves to be in the same situation. You don't do that because you've had a bad day at the office.

in theory you don't kill your two children and then attempt suicide because your wife says she's leaving you. but it happens
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
There are all sorts of reasons why watchdog groups do things without having any real numbers to back them up. Why do fundamentalist Christians do anything they do?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
There are all sorts of reasons why watchdog groups do things without having any real numbers to back them up. Why do fundamentalist Christians do anything they do?

Because they're driven by an irrational belief in a supernatural being.
I wouldn't call a desire to see one's own kids 'irrational'.

You'll also notice that the "two-thirds" of cases mentioned in the Guardian report mention allegations of violence - but we've been through this in the 'stalking' thread so I don't see any point in bringing it up here.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Because they're driven by an irrational belief in a supernatural being.
I wouldn't call a desire to see one's own kids 'irrational'.

You'll also notice that the "two-thirds" of cases mentioned in the Guardian report mention allegations of violence - but we've been through this in the 'stalking' thread so I don't see any point in bringing it up here.

Reading up on this more, I do think that fathers have it rougher in the U.K. than in the U.S. when it comes to custody battles during divorce hearings. I've read a fair amount of horror stories on blogs and such about women simply defying court orders in the U.K. and nothing really happening to stop them. Here in the U.S., if a woman didn't bring her kids to their father's for his custodial time, I'm pretty sure that would be considered "kidnapping", or at very least, it would quickly become a police matter and the authorities would interfere. At the same time, it seemed in my research that Fathers 4 Justice are basically considered a joke among serious lawmakers or children's rights activists. I read a lot of lawyers on this topic who kept emphasizing how the custody laws are supposed to be in place FIRST AND FOREMOST to protect the rights of children, NOT the rights of the mothers and fathers.

I'm sure there are divorces so messy, and marriages where both partners are so immature and selfish that they'd actually use their children as legal leverage for spitefully denying the other access to their children, but I think divorce is traumatic enough that most ADULTS with an average level of maturity try to work things out to some compromise without dragging custody battles on forever. In many cases, I think women are rewarded primary custody in the U.S., which often includes more literal time with them(note that it's mostly weekdays, not exactly days where "quality" time is an option), because they are usually paid less and required to work fewer overtime hours. In general, women are less likely to be on a "career path", or less likely to need to be married to their jobs and on call constantly, and therefore they are seen as more "reliable" primary caregivers for their children on the weekdays, in an everday sense.

What I had to ask after researching Fathers 4 Justice is: is the motivation of the Fathers 4 Justice really the emotional health and stability of their children? or is it just another divisive group of radicals with a political lobby but no real or practical solutions to the issue they raise? I think it's sad that an issue which seems to have a core of truth in the U.K. is ruined by their extremism and strangely aggressive tactics. It seems that alimony is the real core of F4J's sense of the injustice men are suffering--it almosts seems to me that if they didn't have to pay alimony, the F4J wouldn't be interested in the "right" to father their children this buys them. Their language often seems scarily close to insinuating that wives and children are the property of men. I personally think men always owe money toward the raising of their children, regardless of whether they are seen "fit" to have custodial privileges.

As for "allegations" of abuse, Mr. Tea: I guess I have to throw my hands up in the air here and ask you what kind of bad experiences you've had with women that seem to give you this fairly negative view of them as vindictive people, always looking to make false accusations of violence against men, or to deny men of their natural rights. Because for men to be so unfairly treated under the law due to these false accusations women are making, you'd have to believe that most of them are concocted for the sole purpose of seeking revenge.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Any women I've known have gone into their marriages wanting them to be pleasant and hoping that even if it doesn't work out, things can be handled maturely and with some dignity. The picture F4J seem to paint is of women as crazy shrews sitting around plotting how to entrap men into marriage so they trick him into impregnating them for the alimony later, at which point they'll also deny him custody just for kicks.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
OK, so I admit I went out on a limb on the 'allegations' thing. As it happens, I've not had any particularly bad personal experiences with women, and I certainly wouldn't call myself a 'bitter' person.*

I guess what it boils down to is that I'd rather believe some mothers might try to unfairly deny their ex-husbands access to their kids - which is not a very nice thing to do, but is something I can imagine an angry but otherwise 'rational' person doing, in the wake of a messy and acrimonious divorce - than believe that all these guys want access to their kids just so they can beat or molest them, which is not something I can ever imagine doing.
Sexist, perhaps, but you can see how my instinct here is to want to think the situation is 'merely' one of spite and antagonism, rather than outright wickedness?

It's unfortunate that a group of people as seemingly clueless as F4J have been the ones to draw attention to what I still think is an important issue. I just hope they haven't done more harm than good.

(* a friend of mine was once falsely accused of rape - but then, I know at least two women who have been raped themselves; in one case the attacker was never caught, and in the other he received a desultory sentence due to being under 18. :( )
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Did I ever say that's why every man wants access to his children?

Why is everything a binary for you? My believing that the law should look out for children in the sad event that abuse be occuring in a home does not mean that I think *all* men who seek more custodial time with their children are abusers. It is not an "either/or" situation.

There are usually abuses of laws on all sides--it's just especially important that the law shield children from abusive parents, imo. Mothers, fathers, whoever. Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it isn't commonplace, unfortunately.
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
Exactly how common is sexual abuse within families? Is it a major problem, or is it all muckraking on the tabloids’ behalf?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
There are usually abuses of laws on all sides--it's just especially important that the law shield children from abusive parents, imo. Mothers, fathers, whoever. Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it isn't commonplace, unfortunately.

Oh, for sure. I guess what's needed is a legal system with the resources to properly examine each case on its own merits, although sadly that's going to be a very tall order in the real world.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/index.htm

The government report from 2004:

Child protective services (CPS) agencies respond to the needs of children who are alleged to have been maltreated and ensure that they remain safe. Based on a rate of 47.8 per 1,000 children, an estimated 3,503,000 children received an investigation by CPS agencies in 2004.1 Based on a victim rate of 11.9 per 1,000 children, an estimated 872,000 children were found to be victims. A child was counted each time he or she was A child was counted each time he or she was the subject of a report. The count of child victims is based on the number of investigations that found the child to be a victim of one of more types of maltreatment. The count of victims is, therefore, a report-based count and is a "duplicated count."2 The victimization rates by individual State are illustrated in figure 3-1.

The rate of all children who received an investigation or assessment increased from 36.1 per 1,000 children in 1990 to 47.8 per 1,000 children in 2004, which is a 32.4 percent increase (figure 3-2). The rate of victimization decreased from 13.4 per 1,000 children in 1990 to 11.9 per 1,000 children in 2004, which is an 11.2 percent decrease.3 The highest rate of victimization occurred during 1993, when the rate was 15.3. There has been a 51.3 percent increase in the number of children who received an investigation from 1990 to 2004; there has been 1.4 percent increase in the number of child victims.

First-Time Victims

Based on data from 39 States, nearly three-quarters of the victims (74.3%) had no history of prior victimization.4 Information regarding first-time victims is a Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measure. The Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Program reports this PART measure to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) each year as an average of all States. Individual State data are not reported to OMB.

Types of Maltreatment

During 2004, 62.4 percent of victims experienced neglect, 17.5 percent were physically abused, 9.7 percent were sexually abused, 7.0 percent were psychologically maltreated, and 2.1 percent were medically neglected.5 In addition, 14.5 percent of victims experienced such "other" types of maltreatment as "abandonment," "threats of harm to the child," or "congenital drug addiction." States may code any condition that does not fall into one of the main categories—physical abuse, neglect, medical neglect, sexual abuse, and psychological or emotional maltreatment—as "other." These maltreatment type percentages total more than 100 percent because children who were victims of more than one type of maltreatment were counted for each maltreatment.

Figure 3-3 illustrates that victimization rates by type of maltreatment have fluctuated only slightly during the last 5 years.6

Victims of specific types of maltreatment were analyzed in terms of what the report sources were. Of victims of physical abuse, 24.1 percent were reported by educational personnel, 21.8 percent were reported by law enforcement, and 11.0 percent were reported by medical personnel.7 Overall, 72.7 percent were reported by professionals and 27.3 percent were reported by nonprofessionals. The patterns of reporting of neglect and sexual abuse victims were similar—law enforcement accounted for the largest percentage of neglect victims (26.2%) and the largest percent of sexual abuse victims (26.5%); 60.8 percent of reporters of neglect were professionals and 68.9 percent of reporters of sexual abuse were professionals. The patterns of reporting medical neglect were different. Nearly one-third of all reports of medical neglect victims were made by medical personnel; three-quarters (73.1%) were made by professionals compared with 26.9 percent by nonprofessionals.

Sex and Age of Victims

For 2004, 48.3 percent of child victims were boys, and 51.7 percent of the victims were girls.8 The youngest children had the highest rate of victimization. The rate of child victimization of the age group of birth to 3 years was 16.1 per 1,000 children of the same age group. The victimization rate of children in the age group of 4-7 years was 13.4 per 1,000 children in the same age group.9 Overall, the rate of victimization was inversely related to the age of the child (figure 3-4).

The youngest children accounted for the largest percentage of victims. Children younger than 1 year accounted for 10.3 percent of victims.10

Nearly three-quarters of child victims (72.9%) ages birth to 3 years were neglected compared with 52.4 percent of victims ages 16 years and older. For victims in the age group of 12-15 years, 22.8 percent were physically abused and 16.5 percent were sexually abused, compared with 16.8 percent and 9.1 percent, respectively, for victims in the age group of 4-7 years old.11
...

Children who had been prior victims of maltreatment were 84 percent more likely to experience a recurrence than those who were not prior victims.
Child victims who were reported with a disability were 61 percent more likely to experience recurrence than children without a disability.
The oldest children (16-21 years of age) were the least likely to experience a recurrence, and were 52 percent less likely than children who were the youngest children (0-3 years of age).
Compared with White children, Asian-Pacific Islander children were 59 percent less likely to experience recurrence.
Perpetrators of Maltreatment

Nearly 84 percent (83.4%) of victims were abused by a parent acting alone or with another person.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Good point that there are many ways a child can be abused - not just sexually, but physically/psychologically, through exposure to drugs or alcohol, or by simple neglect.

In the UK, at any rate, the effect of the tabloid hysteria has been to make parents terrified of the "man in the dirty mac"-type abuser, who (while not entirely imaginary) accounts for far less abuse than parents, other relatives or people known to the victim, such as care workers or priests. An upshot of this is that there's now a phantom nonce on every street corner, so parents won't let their kids walk to school or play outside, further exacerbating the obesity epidemic, urban congestion and pollution due to the completely unnecessary 'school run' and, in all probability, rates of childhood depression.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
The press in the U.S. tends to sensationalize the relatively few incidents of child abuse at the hands of strangers, too, but in the end I think everyone here realizes that there are so many abused at the hands of "caretakers" (so many more than are ever reported) that it's silly to focus on those cases in lawmaking.

Although we did get some good laws out of that one parent. "Megan's Law", I think it's called. After this one girl was abducted and killed by a crazy neighbor with a history of sex abuse and violence, her parents fought to get legislation passed that required all sex offenders to alert neighbors of their status.

I think it's actually been working in terms of keeping parents informed of who is a tangible threat...
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I think lawmakers are working on something like that over here (or it may even have been recently introduced, I'm not sure).
Typically, the tabloid pressed had to stick their oar in and fuck things up - there were protets in several cities in the UK a couple of years ago which culminated in a paediatrician being hounded from her home. Semi-literate mob + righteous indignation = trouble. :(
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
I think lawmakers are working on something like that over here (or it may even have been recently introduced, I'm not sure).
Typically, the tabloid pressed had to stick their oar in and fuck things up - there were protets in several cities in the UK a couple of years ago which culminated in a paediatrician being hounded from her home. Semi-literate mob + righteous indignation = trouble. :(

You know, the world wants to think of Americans as stupid, but really, I've been noticing recently that Americans don't take most pop culture very seriously. Tabloids have no credibility here--sure, a few hillbillies might think Martians took over the Pentagon because the Weekly World News says so, but in general, most Americans look at all media with a very healthy dose of skepticism. I've noticed that people from the rest of the world take American media more at face value. (Especially since Bush's approval rating has plummeted drastically in public opinion)

In America, all of our commercials now are metatexts on how stupid and annoying commercials are. They're always a spoof of themselves, it's becoming very rare to see an ad that doesn't have a huge dose of irony in its dialogue, or the way it presents its product, etc.

Americans aren't all bad. They know that, say, Steven Segal movies are utter trash, completely camp, and they treat them with requisite lack of seriousness...
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Wait--people protested a mandatory registry for sex offenders? Ouch.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Wait--people protested a mandatory registry for sex offenders? Ouch.

Ah no, I should have explained.
A tabloid published the names and addresses of some convicted paedophiles, and an angry mob rioted outside the homes of some of them. In the ensuing ruckus (not exactly surprising, given the average levels of intellignece and education of people who read News Of The World) a paediatrician was victimised too - as was anyone with a similar name to one of the paedophiles, or probably anyone they thought looked a bit 'dodgy'.
 
Last edited:
Top