Why F4J Should Leave Mumsnet and M&S Alone

Groups such as OnlyDads and OnlyMums have developed a positive on-line profile with their Twitter accounts, blog, and websites during our five years of running. In that time we have never been told of any “anti-male hatred” on the Mumsnet Twitter stream or website. We have, however, been told repeatedly that F4J, while good at raising publicity, do little to help address the fundamental issues and problems experienced by mums and dads and their children during and after divorce and separation.

F4Js current campaign seems to be organised by Matt and Nadine O’Connor. It is aimed at M&S for advertising with Mumsnet. It’s a bit of a conveluted argument, but they seem to be saying that they want to stop M&S spending some of their advertising budget with a group that promotes “anti-male hatred”.

As I say above, running OnlyDads means that quite a few things are brought to our attention; but not once has it ever been suggested that Mumsnet are a group with an anti male agenda. I have seen no evidence of this charge.

This F4J “campaign” resulted in Matt O’Connor being escorted out of the Marble Arch branch of M&S yesterday dressed only in his birthday suit.

He will, inevitably, get some free publicity as a result.

So what?!

Well in my view, such tactics are very undesirable. Picking on a female-led organisation has all the hallmarks of bully boy tactics. It is something all men should distance themselves from. The fact that many children in the UK don’t get enough time with their dad will not be solved by bullying!

(OnlyDads has contacted Nadine and Matt to ask them to stop this campaign. We await their response…)

I really do hope they stop and re-think! There is an awful lot of positive work being done with Dads and their children. Such work and progress is serious in nature. Mums and Dads and more importantly children, do not need to have this progress prejudiced by such pranks and the resulting negative publicity and backlash.

Mumsnet and M&S don’t need us to fight their battles – Justine Roberts (Mumsnet CEO) has given a very good rebuttal to this horrid campaign herself . I do however want to stress to Justine and the millions of mums who utilise the Mumsnet website, that there are countless dads who think that these actions are counter-productive and childish.

Bob Greig, Founder, OnlyDads

About onlydads

Single Dad living near Totnes in Devon. I founded www.onlydads.org in 2007 and live with my daughters Priya, 14 and Anya 11. I write about single parenting, work, overcoming trials and tribulations and sometimes not overcoming trials and tribulations.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Why F4J Should Leave Mumsnet and M&S Alone

  1. Jane Jackson says:

    Thank you for this balanced response, I too am at a loss to see what this sort of thing does to raise awareness of the most important fact in denied contact, the children.
    How did this help any of the children who are not able to be part of both parents lives and their extended family?
    As far as I can see all that has happened is that F4J, got this wrong.
    I do like the iDad advert though!

  2. onlydads says:

    Thanks Jane. I agree with what you say. Like you say, I think if they reflect, F4J will come to appreciate that they have got this campaign wrong.


  3. Aaaaargh! says:

    Bob,when you say “Picking on a female-led organisation has all the hallmarks of bully boy tactics” you are actually highlighting the problem.

    Why should it be seen as bully boy tactics to highlight gender inequality?

    What you are saying, in effect, is that no matter what provocation or abuse men suffer, they mustn’t stand up for their rights.

    You are, by extension, supporting the inequality inherent in the Family Court system but what more can you expect from an organisation that “host a legal directory of Resolution family solicitors” as your ‘Family Law Fortnight’ link says. These are the very people who make it so difficult for Dads to see their kids – and I speak from bitter experience.

    Given the choice between Resolution/Only Dads and Fathers 4 Justice when it comes to promoting gender equality, I know who I would pick.

  4. onlydads says:

    Thanks for the comment Aaaaaaaa!

    We made the decision to add directories of Resolution member solicitors to our websites as part of the “signposting” role our organisations (and I include OnlyMums in this).

    Many Dads contact us with very difficult situations that need resolving. We always offer them the various routes they can take to seek remedies – and sometimes this will involve going to law firms with a full legal service and the ability to respond to emergency situations.

    We are fully aware that Resolution is not a perfect organisation – but their “code” is followed by many solicitors – signposting to these solicitors on our directory works well for many of our dads (and mums).

    Perhaps I need to make it clear that OnlyDads recognises and supports mums and dads regardless of their domestic situation. To the very best of our ability we try and help parents achieve solutions that put children first. Our service goes well beyond just dealing with contact issues. Our websites provide free support via our “panel of experts” on housing, law, money, debt, parenting…etc.

    I really don’t understand the point you make about “gender equality”. I really don’t. The point I was making in this post is that lying down naked in Marks & Spencers is a “prank” and (at best) does nothing to support dads or their children.

    What I really fear is that the public backlash to such childishness will have a negative impact on the many many dads who are trying to establish more meaningful relationships with their children.

    Happy to discuss further – if that would help.



    • aaaaargh says:


      Gender equality is the crux of the matter.

      If we had equality in Family Law, there would be a presumption of equal parenting – there isn’t which is why fathers have to prove they are worthy of seeing their children but it is assumed that all mothers work in the child’s best interest.

      Gender inequality is the reason you see it as F4J as bullies for pointing out that Mumsnet were allowing hateful comments on their forums and asking for them to be removed. The same criticism wouldn’t be levelled at a ‘womens group’ because it would be seen as them sticking up for their rights.

      As to the point of the action at M & S being a ‘prank’, you are missing the point.

      If all you do is write polite letters, you are ignored. F4J has raised the profile of the inequality in Family Law over the last few years by bringing publicity to the issue.

      Would you say the suffragettes were wrong to chain themselves to railings and carry out other actions? Were the feminists wrong to invade the Miss World competition to advance their cause?

      You have 3 choices with regard to the Family Law system in this country:
      – Don’t agree there is a problem
      – Agree it’s wrong but accept the fact
      – Do something about it

      History will show F4J were doing something about it.

      • onlydads says:

        Perhaps we will need to agree to disagree.

        From my perspective – the crux of the matter (family law) is not “gender equality” – it is about getting decisions made that are in the best interests of children. But I have written plenty about that on this blog.

        Can I leave you with a question – if F4J are so concerned to promote gender equality, why have I been repeatedly described as “lacking in testosterone”, a “eunuch” and told I need “to grow a pair” by both its membership and leadership?

        It’s a question worth asking!

      • Menznet says:

        Bob, if you don’t get it you don’t get it. I’d urge you to meet a radfem from mumsnet and try and be polite to ‘it’. It doesn’t like-being called a her or being treated like a women. I’d suggest that until you’ve met one of these vile creatures you have no experience of how nasty, aggressive and irrational these radfems are. I’ll wager whilst you’re smiling and offering her a cuppa it will be eyeing you up to kick you in the balls and rip out your eyes when you bend forward. It cares not for you, your children or for that matter any woman not under it’s spell – they are all equally hated. Your appeasing women has no effect on it, for it is only interested in it’s own power and normal women (handmaidens) are slaves to be used and ignored and punished. One day you’ll meet one of these and finally understand there is no reasoning with them. On my blog I received a detach threat and a ‘kill all men’ message. I fully expected them. How many men send that kind of crap to submitters? I’ve seen them make a claim of such this evening but mysteriously the claimant is unable to produce the screenshot she was asked to grab by others. She claims she has it but won’t share it. Hmmm… One of many lies they make up to whip each other into a frenzy with no grounds. When the one you meet has finished with you, Matt and the boys will swing by to pick you up and protect you thereafter. Best be nice to the guy trying to improve your life and that of your kids.

  5. summerlandc says:

    I can’t help but wonder if Mr O’Connell might have spent his time more productively on a Sunday afternoon, for example, with his own family.
    However misguided I think the route F4J take to highlight in-equality within the family law system I think it even more misguided to attack other organisations in an attempt to raise profile. Deal with the divide in the system, don’t seek to cause more divides between parents and the organisations that they go to for support.

  6. CoffeeCurls says:

    I wonder whether the extreme protestors stop and think about the example they are setting their children?

    Yes, I think anyone who is experiencing inequality has a right to stand up for themselves, but, there are ways and means of doing things which don’t set a bad example to the younger generation; who are after all the point behind this whole complaint.

    I have never understood how dressing up (or down as the case may be) and causing a scene goes any way towards mending broken relationships and fostering an open communication for the future.

    There is far too much anger, aggression, name calling, posturing and shouting about not being allowed to do this/that and not enough clear thinking, compromise, mediation and bridge building. What a wonderful example we could all set the younger generation if we could only communicate like adults.

    Both parents in any set of circumstances would claim to have their children’s best interests at heart. That, surely, is a good place to open dialogue from rather than aiming to score points and be seen to have ‘won’. While quietly, sadly and with a very torn view of relationships and effective communication, the innocent children look on.

    Just my opinion of course.

    • onlydads says:

      CoffeeCurls. In all my time running OnlyDads I have rarely spoken to anyone who thinks “dressing up and causing a scene goes any way towards mending broken relationships and fostering an open communication for the future” – so you are not alone.

      If I can CC, I would like to say that when you first made contact with OnlyDads (must be two years ago?), you were one of three mums that very same week who had taken the initiative to pick up the ‘phone and talk to us about overcoming contact issues and difficulties regarding your children and their dad.

      What struck me that week was the role OnlyDads can play in listening – just to act as a sounding board and to encourage open and exploratory dialogue in a friendly (safe) environment. It’s easy to dismiss this work as lacking testosterone! but I know many of us parents struggle with contact issues (in lots of different ways) and if such exploration produces results for children (and mums and dads) then that has to be a good thing.

      Do you know CoffeeCurls – I don’t think you know just how much I admire you as a Mum. I know things haven’t been easy. But you think of those boys all the time and try and work things out in a way that is best for them. No one can ask more of you.

      I’m convinced this stuff isn’t about grand gestures or show-boating. It’s about developing good comunication. Between Mums and Dads. For the sake of children. You know (like I know) that sometimes this is REALLY difficult.

      The good news is that our organisation continues to learn…and thanks to our interactions with mums like you – well our learning increases that much more.


  7. Jaki Whyte says:

    I am glad that there is a reasoned, sensible response to F4J’s antics on here. I personally have been misquoted by Fathers 4 Justice as making derogatory comments about men, when in fact I was highlighting that you can make a derogatory comment about ONE man without meaning for that comment to apply to ALL men.

    I believe that F4J’s campaign against Mumsnet is a cynical ploy to gain advertising. It does nothing, in truth, to help fathers that SHOULD have decent access arrangements with their children to GET that access.

    And I have no axe to grind against Single Dads, I was brough up by a single father in the 1980’s, when it was VERY unusual to have a family set-up like that. In my personal opinion, the best person to be the main carer for a child or children in the event of a relationship breakdown, is the person who WAS the main carer BEFORE the relationship broke down. That was the case with my own father, he was the main carer before he split with my mother, and he was the main carer afterwards. And in my OWN case, I was the main carer before my relationship breakdown, and I have continued to be the main carer.

    Continuity for the children should be of the greatest importance, NOT ‘point-scoring’.

    I welcome your views, and am pleased to find a more balanced opinion on matters like this that the one being promoted by F4J.

  8. onlydads says:

    Jaki – you say you were brought up by your dad.

    Well if we ever need proof that dads can raise well balanced, intelligent and insightful children who will grow into caring adults, we will call on you as our evidence.

    I rest my case!! 🙂


  9. I suspect if I was kept apart from my kids, I’d walk over hot coals to get to them and try absolutely anything to shout about the injustice. In that respect, I do empathise with any organisation who are doing their best to fight the system where it’s failed. What I don’t understand on this instance however is why F4J are turning against those who could / should be allies. Any reasonable parent, gender aside, would support the cause of loving parents being separated from their children – surely it be more fruitful to gain support and educate rather than confront, insult and alienate?

    I read the Mumsnet thread and have to admit I found a small band of very radical posters who were totally misinformed and anxious to paint the majority of separated fathers as abusers / paedophiles – very uncomfortable reading, even for a fellow mum. Rather than storm in with the kalashnikovs, a more reasoned response from F4J would have shown the bigoted commentaries as being just that – rather than create a gender war which fuels the issue. To then turn on other organisations who are fighting the same cause, like OnlyDads, really is quite bizarre.

    F4J’s best bit of publicity to date is the Children4Justice video – it reminds everyone what this is really about, it attempts to remove the gender politics and it lets the children speak for themselves. IMHO if they continued along that track, leaving out the gun slinging and sniping, they’d win far more supporters for their cause.

    Keep doing what you’re doing OnlyDads, your support to single parent dads is invaluable.


  10. Fiona says:

    I am a Resolution family lawyer and proud of it. I am also extremely proud of all the good work our organisation and many of it’s members do to help separated parents, very often fathers, have a meaningful relationship with their children. I often advise my cl

  11. Fiona says:

    I am a Resolution family lawyer and proud of it. I am also extremely proud of all the good work our organisation and many of it’s members do to help separated parents, very often fathers, have a meaningful relationship with their children. I often advise my clients that the way we go about seeking (for example contact) is as fundamental as what the client hopes to achieve and is likely to be more productive than making noisy demands. That’s one of the reasons Resolution lawyers encourage their clients to approve constructive polite and dignified correspondence.

    • onlydads says:

      Fiona. My role running OnlyDads means that we hear daily complaints about the legal profession.

      My response – and it will not change – is that the “system” is not perfect. But there is within Resolution, great experience and many many solicitors who work hard to keep the peace and really safeguard the best interests of children, often working against considerable obstacles.

      OnlyDads is far from perfect – and we have much work to do – but our recipe of encouraging dads to get “proper” legal opinion in what is a legal process, and then zooming in on their children’s welfare, works.

      Stay proud of what you do 🙂


  12. TheRealBIWI says:

    I find it very amusing how so many who jump in to criticise Mumsnet and Mumsnetters seem to have so much knowledge about the site and its posters. If they hate it so much, why bother reading it?!

    Although, actually, their comments illustrate just how warped their own agenda is, such that they totally misconstrue posts and posters on Mumsnet. And as for their supposed rejection of ‘hatred’, whilst then spouting a whole load of bile about posters on the site …

    This is a great blog – one of the good things to come out of this whole debacle is discovering it/you! – and you now have a new Twitter follower.

    I have no person interest in matters pertaining to single parents/contact with their children, but I find it deeply saddening that so much of this juvenile behaviour seems to overlook the needs of the children that are involved.

    • onlydads says:

      well put!

      If nothing else, this post offers a spot-light onto the sort of organisation F4J are.

      Many thanks.


      • Menznet says:


        Bob. Upon reflection, I’m not particularly happy with my previous comment. Given a little more time and in the absence of the aforementioned threats from radfems, I might of managed something a little more reasoned and level headed. Nevertheless, I don’t believe you truly appreciate what you are talking about or dealing with. The people F4J are exposing are not your average run of the mill mum / women. These are self confessed ‘women hating’ radical feminists that pursue supremacy. Others can guwaff in their nativity. For those of us that have suffered at their hands, we perhaps justifiably hold a very different view. It would seem from your support of mumsnets stance that you make the assumption that such radfems hold either legitimate or acceptable views. They do not, Bob. Some of them hate men and boys with a passion that I do not think you quite grasp – and no amount of being nice to them here will ever win you a single brownie point or a get out of jail card if, god forbid, they ever got their way. It is said that there is none so blind as those that do not wish to see. How true. Perhaps you would not be so supportive of the extremists if you saw for yourself what they say and get up to. Yesterday was a bad day for me, insults levelled at my child (I repeat, my ‘child’), another ‘kill all men’ post and a threat that when I am found I will be sorted – for little more than exposing another set of false statistics designed specifically to demonise men. One day Bob you will likely appreciate what you fail to see now.

        Perhaps I’ll risk invoking Godwins law; in time I suspect the more extreme radfem factions will be outlawed and disbanded. Perhaps then you’ll realise all along, in your nativity, you’ve been supporting the modern day equivalent of the Nazi party. And like the Nazi’s you wouldn’t have lasted a moment had they ever actually got their way. They may be a minority over at mumsnet, but they are a vocal lot and some of us feel it undesirable for them to keep preaching their particular brand of anti-male hatred. It would not be acceptable in reverse and rightly so.

        A lovely post on mumsnet at the end of last week should expose what we are dealing with; it asked if it was wrong as a feminist to be unhappy that she’d given birth to a boy. If that were not bad enough her fellow posters went on to discuss how the boy would eventually need to be ‘dealt with’ when he reached puberty as he posed a threat to women. Simply because he was a boy/man. As is often said by others, you really could not make this stuff up. Wake up Bob, in the most polite manner possible, wake up and see what F4J are taking on here. Not the average women or mother, but an extremist group that wishes harm on any male, young or old, and on any women that does not comply to their narrow minded perspective.

        If my last post offended, I apologise. It was written in an emotional state for the reasons outlined. I do not however take back the underlying sentiment. Discrimination towards innocents in all it’s forms must be confronted; if a safe society is to be ensured for our children. Yours as well as mine. If you or others are too scared to do so (after all, be assured it will attract death threats) that’s fine, please don’t knock those that do have the gonads to go out and try and do what’s right for the rest of us. I for one do not intend that my children grow up in a society that is discriminatory.

  13. Posie Parker says:

    I am thoroughly warmed by this blog, although I think even the most blind poster can read the women hating context of F4J. For me their campaign is all about the Mumsnet “We believe you” campaign and Matt O’Connor sees this as an opportunity to further attack women and ride on the coat tails of deserving publicity.

    Calling a man a eunuch or grow some balls completely reveals his misogyny.

  14. onlydads says:

    That is very well put! Thank you for the comment.


  15. Julia says:

    An largely invisible element in this whole debate is the number of parents who genuinely want their ex to spend more – or any – time with the children after separation. We rarely hear about this in the media, but in nearly 20 years of working with families post separation, I’ve lost count of the times parents have been in despair that the other parent doesn’t spend time. Some even want to go to court to get a Judge to “make” the parent see how important it is. I get it that for some separated parents it is too difficult for them to stay close – sometimes as a result of the conflict, sometimes just because it is too hard – but for all we hear about obstruction and difficulty on the part of some parents who have the children living with them, there are many who face this other frustration.

  16. onlydads says:

    Very good point Julia and well put.

    I want to say a couple of things:

    1. What you say is true. In fact we get at least a ‘phone call a week from mums asing us if weknow of techniques or strategies to encourage more contact with their ex. What we (and OnlyDads will never do) is pretend such issues don’t exist.

    2. My second point(and I mention it from time to time on this blog) is that we need to work out why contact agreements fall apart. The media, fathers rights groups, and politicians feed us a diet of “evil mums” and/or “feckless dads”.

    The truth of course is far more complicated. In our experience, (and we are not sociologists) the list of reasons go on an on – and in a tangled web – which leads to heartbreak on all sides.

    I’ll name a few that jump out at us:

    Mental illness (often depression)
    Money (debt)
    Difficulties with new relationships
    An inability to “put the past in the past”
    Children making up their own minds
    …and it goes on and on.

    OnlyDads believes that Courts need to support parents more post contact orders being made. Real support – addressing real issues.

    And that is why I get so frustrated with cheap stunts and childish behaviour grabbing the headlines.

    …if that makes sense?

  17. In an attempt to keep it non-gender specific, I tried using my search engine to look for ‘Co-parenting4justice’. My search had zero results. I added in a few hyphens, ‘Co-parenting-4-justice’. The results mentioned specific genders and weren’t quite what I was looking for.

    There are some websites out there, geared toward separating(ed) parents. Mainly giving advice on the best way forward (on a personal level) for the sake of the children.
    But as far as I could see, there’s nothing coming directly from separated parents, who are united in their plight, to see improvements to the current system(s).

    I have every respect for websites geared toward (single) dads and mums. They can be very beneficial for parents who use them.
    I like ‘Only Dads’ and ‘Only Mums’ websites, because they are affiliated, each clearly in support of the other.

    As the internet expands. Surely it would be better for kids, who are old enough to read/use the internet, not to have to see all of that gender related, mud slinging, that is currently going on?
    If these parents want to see an end to parental gender inequality, it’s down to them to show the way forward. Is that what they are doing?

    In an attempt to see how easy it would be, for an internet savvy child, of a couple going through a break-up, to access help and support. I entered, ‘How do I get get help, when my parents have split up and I’m not happy’?
    I was somewhat disappointed.
    I just hope the children who might do that search, aren’t…

  18. Dave says:

    If it wasn’t’ for the likes of Fathers4Justice then the issue of fathers rights would never have got any attention from any politician or newspaper and even more children would be denied a relationship with their fathers than at present.

    I’m not sure if Mumsnet is run by man-haters but their boards do attract some vile feminists. If this campaign finally forces them to crack down on the hateful comments then it has to be a good thing, though I expect it’ll continue to basically be an extension of The Guardian newspaper on only delete the wrong sort of sexism.

    Does their “we believe you” campaign extend to vicitms of false rape accusations? If so, do they believe both the accuser and the accused? I personally would rather examine the evidence, treat everyone with respect, take note of their accusations and claims, and investigate them fully. This doesn’t require any sort of belief or taking sides based on gender and all we should believe in is the verdict of the jury after they’ve heard the case.

  19. onlydads says:

    What an interesting set of comments!

    The frequent reference to my (lack of) testicular assets in truth, doesn’t concern me. It says more about the name callers that it does me.

    In my role as founder of http://www.onlydads.org and http://www.onlymums.org my role is to offer support and direction to mums – but predominantly dads – on issues arising out of divorce and separation.
    Helping dads access accurate and reliable information, combined with some encouragement, is work I will carry on doing. It leads to dads enjoying more fulfilling relationships with their children. And that matters.

    F4J members and their leadership can call me what they like – it really is water off a ducks back.
    That said, to get to my computer this morning and read “in your nativity (naivety), you’ve been supporting the modern day equivalent of the Nazi party” made me sit up and take notice.

    This is not the first comment to contain frequent references to “radical feminism”. It is the first to deploy Godwin’s Law!

    From my perspective, it doesn’t take an intellectual genius to see that our existing “patriarchal” justice system and government is not exactly leaning over backwards to support families. Look at the Cabinet or membership of The Supreme Court and you will see the same picture: Groups of privileged men with lots of power!

    Many men (men who can think) appreciate that having more equality of the sexes in the UK can only be a good thing. The status quo is not representative of modern Britain.

    As for the statements that Mumsnet play host to some real “men and boy haters” on its forums – well (as I know!) open forums, by definition, can attract some odd and extreme views. But that isn’t where the debate is at. It really isn’t. Some of the comments above are misogynistic – but by leaving them there, this does not turn me into a woman-hater. That’s illogical

    I do have a question for F4J and its members – why are you spending all this time looking at websites designed for, and run by, women?

    At the risk up upsetting the “radfem” community – I have to say, I personally find these websites *whispers* – well all a little bit, “Mrs Grundy”

    But then I would say that. I’m a bloke. Who doesn’t wear tights.

    (That said, if by these comments, I learn that Netmums and Mumsnet are preparing their armed castration divisions to come and see to me, I may well be shouting for help 🙂


  20. Bob, you’ve the patience of a saint. And Menznet’s comments border on the pathological. Interestingly, Menznet’s rhetorical strategies (calling women ‘it’, reducing the personage of their enemies to objects) is identical to that which, well, extreme right wing organisations intent on normalising hate crimes against ‘others’ deploy. Funny, that.

    • Menznet says:

      I have apologised for the post, it was written in a somewhat ‘upset’ mood having received another ‘kill all men’ message and having my daughter attacked on-line by one of the radfems. Contrary to your interpretation of my earlier using the term ‘it’ – it was a sarcastic reference the the fact that these radfems (at least some of them) resent the use of terms such as woman, lady or her. They are considered sexist and degrading slurs designed by patriarchy. I would never personally refer to a women in that way, but then it seems you are mixing up references to extreme radicals and women in general. As for pathological, perhaps that applies to those that cannot see what is going on in our society. An Asian teen gets slammed by the press for saying derogatory things about British soldiers. When someone takes offence at being equally slurred by extreme feminists it’s considered pathological. Right. Equality? I’ve no doubt your heart is in the right place, I just don’t think you realise what we are dealing with here. Perhaps take a peek at http://www.mumsnet-thenakedtruth.com/ to get some idea, then decide if the above sentiment is entirely unwarranted.

      • From your ‘apology’: ” Perhaps then you’ll realise all along, in your nativity, you’ve been supporting the modern day equivalent of the Nazi party”

        I think that speaks for itself.

        Sorry, Bob. I’ll shut up now.

      • onlydads says:

        Now you see what happens when you have a quick flirtation with the Conservative Party!

        I know, you did try to tell me

        Bob 🙂

  21. Steve Butler says:

    Bob says, ‘…it is about getting decisions made that are in the best interests of children’. This is in fact the ‘Paramount Principle’ of all Family Law, Court Orders. Any order ‘not in the child’s best interests’ would therefore be illegal.

    As there are hundreds of thousands of fathers who want to see their children but are not allowed, under pain of incarceration; logical progression means it is therefore deemed by The Government and Judiciary that it is ‘In the best interests’ of hundreds of thousands of children that they do not see or have any interaction with their fathers, post separation/divorce, in the main on the simple unfounded assertion that ‘mother has concerns’. Perhaps someone may like to attempt to explain how hundreds of thousands of fathers, who were perfectly normal, caring and responsible people before separation; suddenly become a person who is not fit to have contact with their child, simply on the say so of the mother that ‘they have concerns but no substantive evidence’?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s