I was very surprised to see that there is still this bias. Twenty six years ago, my wife had an affair, left me, for a while with the responsibility for four children, and asked me to apply for a divorce. When I refused, she applied, and decided that she now wanted the children most of the time, allowing me to have them at weekends. She provided a page and a half of lies and misrepresentations, claiming 'Unreasonable Behaviour'. I prepared a refutation of eleven pages and consulted a solicitor. She was very surprised and disappointed when I told her that I wanted to contest the application. It was clear that one didn't do that. I represented myself and we went to to court. This time, the judge was very surprised, and asked what I wanted. It was again made clear that I was supposed to accept the charges, as it were. The divorce was granted, with custody to my wife as the person with the time to look after the children, and I was to have the children at the weekends. At that point, the court had no further interest.
Next, my wife moved twenty five miles away, and arranged weekend activities for all the children, which meant that I didn't see them or I did a series of fifty mile round trips, collecting and returning them to fit in with activities and parties. Often weekend journeys came to more than two hundred miles.
Next, enter the Child Support Agency. In spite of my paying half of almost everything to my wife, she wanted more. The CSA awarded her more. But on top of that, I paid voluntary payments, often several hundred pounds a month. Whenever my wife made a claim for increased payments, the claim was granted, with backdating, which meant that each time, there was a large sum of 'arrears', for which my additional voluntary payments could not be used an offset. When I complained about this, I was told that it wasn't their decision: it was my wife's. They had no control over it.
This is as brief as I can make it, and is not intended to share my woes, but to show the bias towards the wife and mother at every stage of the process. Whatever my wife stated was believed; whatever she claimed was granted.
When I joined Families Need Fathers (to which I still contribute a monthly amount, although the problems are well behind us now), I went to a meeting and heard of cases which were worse then mine. Fathers were forbidden to see their children at all; wives moved thousands of miles away, making it virtually impossible.
So here we are, a quarter of a century later, still, apparently, with the same problem. Over a period in which women (and men) have made so many adaptations to their domestic and social roles and responsibilities, and 'rights', we have the same prejudice and bias, being further reinforced by current legislation.
I was very surprised to see that there is still this bias. Twenty six years ago, my wife had an affair, left me, for a while with the responsibility for four children, and asked me to apply for a divorce. When I refused, she applied, and decided that she now wanted the children most of the time, allowing me to have them at weekends. She provided a page and a half of lies and misrepresentations, claiming 'Unreasonable Behaviour'. I prepared a refutation of eleven pages and consulted a solicitor. She was very surprised and disappointed when I told her that I wanted to contest the application. It was clear that one didn't do that. I represented myself and we went to to court. This time, the judge was very surprised, and asked what I wanted. It was again made clear that I was supposed to accept the charges, as it were. The divorce was granted, with custody to my wife as the person with the time to look after the children, and I was to have the children at the weekends. At that point, the court had no further interest.
Next, my wife moved twenty five miles away, and arranged weekend activities for all the children, which meant that I didn't see them or I did a series of fifty mile round trips, collecting and returning them to fit in with activities and parties. Often weekend journeys came to more than two hundred miles.
Next, enter the Child Support Agency. In spite of my paying half of almost everything to my wife, she wanted more. The CSA awarded her more. But on top of that, I paid voluntary payments, often several hundred pounds a month. Whenever my wife made a claim for increased payments, the claim was granted, with backdating, which meant that each time, there was a large sum of 'arrears', for which my additional voluntary payments could not be used an offset. When I complained about this, I was told that it wasn't their decision: it was my wife's. They had no control over it.
This is as brief as I can make it, and is not intended to share my woes, but to show the bias towards the wife and mother at every stage of the process. Whatever my wife stated was believed; whatever she claimed was granted.
When I joined Families Need Fathers (to which I still contribute a monthly amount, although the problems are well behind us now), I went to a meeting and heard of cases which were worse then mine. Fathers were forbidden to see their children at all; wives moved thousands of miles away, making it virtually impossible.
So here we are, a quarter of a century later, still, apparently, with the same problem. Over a period in which women (and men) have made so many adaptations to their domestic and social roles and responsibilities, and 'rights', we have the same prejudice and bias, being further reinforced by current legislation.