Fathers unite to fight unfair law (From Stroud News and Journal)

Fathers unite to fight unfair law

"We can and do frequently fall out with our partners. It is a pain that is impossible to explain when we feel betrayed by someone we once loved and entirely natural that we feel the desire for revenge.

"Children, however, only fall out with their friends, never mummy, daddy, grandma, grandpa. I cry silently for these children who through no fault of their own are forced to grieve unnecessarily and applaud the heroic fight of Fathers for Justice." Hollyood actor Pierce Brosnan

Across the land, tens of thousands of children are growing up in fatherless households.

Marriages break down with up to one in three ending in divorce and after separation, 40 percent of all fathers lose contact with their children within two years. Two years ago Fathers for Justice, a peaceful, non-violent group started campaigning on behalf of the fathers who were being denied contact with their children.

The group quickly gained notoriety as a result of their radical, protests. One father, dressed as Batman, scaled the barbed wire-topped walls of Buckingham Palace to draw attention to his own plight and to that of hundreds of other fathers nationwide. The frustration, which leads these men to take such dramatic direct action, is familiar to one Stroud dad.

Tom hopes that by telling his own harrowing story, attention will be drawn to a system, which is failing not only children and their fathers but also grandparents and other members of the extended family.

WHEN Tom's marriage broke down and he left the family home, little did he realise that it would be the last time he would see his children, unsupervised, for the next two years.

His wife immediately began to make access to their two children, then aged eight and six, impossible. When challenged, she said that the children themselves did not want to see their father.

"When a father is being denied access to his children," Tom says, "the assumption is that it's because he doesn't care about them or because there is some sort of history of abuse. But these are mostly good fathers and it is they who are being abused - by the system and by the incredible bias the courts have towards the mother."

This is a reference to the recent judgement by Lord Justice Thorpe, one of the best-known Family Law judges in the country, which ordered that mothers could veto contact between children and their fathers, if it made them 'anxious or depressed'.

This has been used time and again against Tom, although he had a good relationship with his children before the separation and no history of violence or abuse.

The problems, in the beginning, were financial, but even after these had been resolved, the door to his children's home remained firmly closed in Tom's face.

"I went to the first court hearing thinking - well, I've been a good parent and I've never done anything wrong and these people are going to help me see my children" he says, visibly distressed.

Rosie, Tom's new partner takes up the story on his behalf. " He came away with a contact order that he could see them twice a week, without his wife being present but she refused from day one and took him back to court saying the children felt abandoned by their father and were too upset to see him. Because nothing could be agreed, a CAFCASS report was ordered."

CAFCASS is the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; it employs Court Welfare Reporters who write reports on parents and their children on behalf of the courts.

The report would take between six and nine months to be prepared. During this time he would have no access to the children at all; no phone calls, no letters, nothing.

"That's when I became very ill, very depressed, " says Tom; "I had to take time off work, which put even more pressure on me, financially."

"Before the CAFCASS report was issued we decided to go to a Fathers for Justice meeting in Cheltenham," said Rosie.

"We were curious but we still had faith in the system at that point and I suppose that's why the people at the meeting seemed a little extreme to us. But it felt good to be in a room with other parents: men and women, who could understand what it's like to be separated from your children - an indescribable feeling."

Rosie is, herself, divorced, but amicably.

"My husband and I went to mediation twice" she says, "and managed to agree on everything without involving the lawyers. We share looking after the children; they live with Tom and I half the week and the other half with him. It's about as civilised as a divorce can be but there are still times when it's sad and the children cry.

"So just imagine the pain that Tom's children are going through." Her ex husband has even offered to stand up in court to vouch for Tom's parenting skills towards his own children.

The CAFCASS report was devastating. Limited contact was recommended but the mother persistently refused to comply. To Tom and Rosie, this is where the law needs urgently to be changed.

"Contact orders are issued but the courts do not have the power or the will to enforce them, " Tom explains.

"If women fail to comply then they should be punished, their legal aid withdrawn or be sent to prison but at the moment the order is not worth the paper it is written on and women and their solicitors know it."

To Rosie, the reasons the report failed them were clear. Interviews had not been recorded, unjustified assumptions had been made and welfare reporters were poorly trained. Tom had not seen his children for months then he was put in a room with them so that the welfare officers could 'observe' them playing together.

"How could that possibly be a true representation of their relationship?" she asks. "The children were totally alienated from their father and he from them." At this point, virtually bankrupt, having spent £12,000 on legal fees, exasperated, frustrated, and demoralised, Tom and Rosie went back to Fathers for Justice.

With encouragement and support from the group, they have been able to take the case forward, giving Rosie the confidence to speak in court on Tom's behalf.

Her concern for his welfare is evident but just as striking is her determination to see justice for him and his children. His problems have become hers.

Endless hours of discussion, form filling and research have made her persuasive and articulate. She talks with ease about legal issues and is very well informed.

Tom and Rosie discovered that they shared their reservations about CAFCASS, its lack of accountability and questionable staffing policies, with Fathers for Justice. Being part of such a high profile organisation can, however, be a double-edged sword. Other members have found that the image of F4J can count against them in court. But the couple are philosophical.

"F4J is a peaceful, non-violent organisation. It raises awareness of the issues in a unique and often humorous way. There are several organisations out there trying to do the same thing but it is F4J which has caught the public imagination."

Tom believes passionately that his children need him in their lives and is anxious that they are being emotionally damaged by the current state of affairs. His contact with them is non-existent. The one letter a month he is allowed to write is never opened. The one permitted phone call a week, on a Sunday evening, is barred. With further hearings now planned and the support of F4J behind him, he feels there is some hope, but remains cautious.

"I would just like the chance to see them and try to explain why they haven't been able to see me. That's going to be more difficult as time goes by. If I saw them now, I would feel like a stranger. People ask me what they are like...I don't even know.

"My wife won't let me have a photograph. She provided one eighteen months ago, but only because the courts told her to."

For Tom and Rosie, the journey has already been long and it is far from over. They are now part of an organisation that understands and supports their predicament.