Welcome to the DAD.Info forum: We are not open to new posts at this time
Our forum aims to provide support and guidance where it can, however we may not always have the answer. The forum is not moderated 24 hours a day, so If you – or someone you know – are being harmed or in immediate danger of being harmed, call the police on 999.
Alternatively, if you are in crisis, please call Samaritans on 116 123.
If you are worried about you or someone you know is at risk of harm, please click here: How we can help
Most men don’t have a good chance of gaining custody of their children through the courts unless they have a good lawyer that will advocate for fathers rights.A father may be granted full custody by the courts, but it is more common for the courts to assign joint custody to the mother and father. you know more
Has there been no case taken to the courts of [censored] disccrimination, or human rights? Is it lawfull to discriminate on the grounds of what [censored] you are, in the provision of Government services?
I don;t think that the problem is that the courts discriminate against fathers per se, it's that fathers are in a weaker position before they get to court. Most dads go into court with the mum holding the Ace in the pack, the kids live with her. Faced with that, it's very hard to argue for a sole residency order or even a shared residency order where the father has more of the care. That certainly was the situation in my case.
I'd be very interested to see the stats on the split between the sexes on types of residency order sought, split of shared care sought, and what was actually awarded.
I do think though that too much importance is place on 'routine.' It seems to be the stock defence for mothers when arguing for a greater share of care. My thoughts are that the routines are there more for the mothers' benefit than the child's.
Has there been no case taken to the courts of [censored] disccrimination, or human rights? Is it lawfull to discriminate on the grounds of what [censored] you are, in the provision of Government services?
The courts are not government services though and as each case is dealt with on its own merits, it would be practically impossible to prove sexual discrimination without it hinging on a specific point of law.
The courts are not government services though and as each case is dealt with on its own merits, it would be practically impossible to prove sexual discrimination without it hinging on a specific point of law.
Dinner ladies managed to get equal pay, as have other workers, even though some men did those jobs too.
I think the biggest problem right now is that people assume that dads don't have any rights to begin with. A lot of people (Including my sons mother) have absolutely no idea about who has rights to this and that.
I agree, anyone that is going for full custody has one big fight on their hands, but normal contact people always assume that mum's are still always going to win, which just isn't true.
The courts are not government services though and as each case is dealt with on its own merits, it would be practically impossible to prove sexual discrimination without it hinging on a specific point of law.
Dinner ladies managed to get equal pay, as have other workers, even though some men did those jobs too.
You're not comparing apples with apples though.You would have to establish that a court found against you based mainly on your gender. Unless a judge actually said as much in his or her ruling, how would you prove it? Even if the judge did make such an admission, you'd go to the court of appeal not a separate hearing.
You're not comparing apples with apples though.You would have to establish that a court found against you based mainly on your gender. Unless a judge actually said as much in his or her ruling, how would you prove it? Even if the judge did make such an admission, you'd go to the court of appeal not a separate hearing.
I agree, anyone that is going for full custody has one big fight on their hands, but normal contact people always assume that mum's are still always going to win, which just isn't true.
Its not in the childs best interests to have both parents slagging each other in court and making matters worse, so that leaves the obvious - the kids are better off with mum = discrimination.
As said above, the courts are usually dealing with the situation that is in front of them which is often quite a way down the line, usually in the situation that the mother already has responsibility for day to day care of the children, so the courts will consider that the situation is the most settled as anything else will involve changing the status quo, possibly involving change in schools, friends etc (not always the case, but I would imagine the majority). If there is a case for changing that, then the courts will do so, a fact that I can personally attest to as I have residence of my children despite them living with their mother for 2 or 3 years after the divorce.
I also believe that the courts of not an office of the government, but of the Crown, and that automatically gives them Crown Immunity from prosecution. If a judge makes a blatantly illegal statement, then it's possible that there may be disciplinary proceedings and grounds for an appeal, but such cases are, I'm pretty certain, very rare.
- Samaritans – call 116 123
- Shout – text the word ‘Shout’ to 85258
