Are Brits Oblivious of Reality or Naive when it comes to Defending the Rights of Children and Fathers?

Denboba Natie

December 2, 2013

In Britain for the past half a century, pro-equal rights campaigners have often argued and justified their claims about the failure of UK's government in assuring the rights of fathers to have access to their children once they are divorced or separated. Particularly, such argument became more relevant and tenser in the past three to four decades in the UK in general, in Scotland in particular. And this is also ongoing practice in most Scottish Child Welfare Courts (CWCs) to date. As we speak there are several thousands of English, Welsh, Irish and in particular Scottish fathers who are left in utter dismay and dilemma not knowing where to turn to once they are denied contacts, and when all involved obliviously prefer silence.

Statutory and voluntary organisations involved in Child protection usually approve the unbalanced- often wrong and vindictive actions of estranged mothers even without questioning as to whether the procedures, policies and guidelines are fully followed and adhered to. Solicitors those are hired by the fathers often systematically delay the cases as doing so is their business simply because whenever the case takes longer so does their incomes. From the groups of people involved in such process including Police, Social services workforces and at worst lawyers and some mislead judges; the silence is their way of syntactically approving the denial and the sign of trying to justify their own accounts whilst the Children concerned are left with no or little choice- but with continued psycho-emotional trauma and inevitable social disintegration and confusion in their later lives. This is the case simply because the children are lied to by their mothers on most occasions about their father's being inhuman monsters. However, in such scenario it is crystal clear who might be the real monster. 

It seems to me that there is tacit approval of the denial of fathers' contacts by the British wider society or their ignorance about the fact that the human rights of fathers and children are at stake at their door-steps. I'm arguing this simply because the fact is that once fathers are separated or divorced, they are automatically regarded irrelevant to their kids by the mothers, the system and the whole spectrum of law enforcing agencies and organisations. Neither law enforcers nor society demand clarifications as to how this can be the case. 

The refusal of mothers rarely or not at all challenged in any way at all levels. Their erroneous assertions and claims rather further embellished by all involved to justify the denial of contacts for whatever reasons.
 

There are ample evidences stressing countless facts on irrefutable realities about the dire consequences of denying fathers of their rights to family life and flagrantly violating their Human rights (European human rights Act Article 8 and 6), without substantiating whatever claims with relevant evidences. Usually such silence of law enforcers are solely based on fictitious fabrications of mothers and their petty councillors (in my case Curatrix and by Curatrix mislead judges for the past over four years) as is the case with others subjects.

The equal rights campaigners further argue that whilst the CWCs are established to defend the rights of Children, apparently they and their elements focus on making their business more lucrative by delaying single case that doesn't last 4 months to last several years. Such immoral and unjustifiable actions are sadly taking place in several British CWCs- as we speak seriously making the noble British legal system questionable. 

Under tacit slogan of elements that 'Children will be OK as long as they are not starved to death and are able to go to school (just for the purposes of filling in boxes)', the elements systematically and surreptitiously milk fathers all they have, at times driving the subject to the level of serious nervous breakdown and intolerable life; and Children to unknown futurity.

In such a case, as the children are often advised by their mothers, her relatives, petty councillors and some time by the Curators and reporters (who are supposed to genuinely defend the rights of children); that their fathers are irrelevant monsters with whom they don't need to have any contacts. Suddenly the child who has his/her father as part of her/his during the periods of pre divorce/separation, feel totally lost and confused. With aim of punishing fathers, mothers usually avoid any places that used to be part of child's life and cut all the necessary links with fathers and something that reminds the children of their fathers. The attitudes of such groups of individuals including vindictive mothers undoubtedly reflect some form of anti-men hidden agendas in the Western world.  

Pro-equal rights campaigners also assert that the fathers are automatically denied contact with their children often based on erroneous decisions of mothers whose claims are taken at its face value. As this land (the UK) is one of the pioneers of Western democracy, where the rule of law remained supreme for several centuries, it makes the status-quo absolutely wrong -needing urgent remedial actions. The Status-Quo doesn't need to go on forever unchallenged. From statutory or voluntary organisations that are established to safeguard the children, very few or none argue against mother’s wrong claims to deny the rights of Children to have contact with their fathers. 

 

Ironically, all involved however rush to make decisions to get mandatory Child maintenance (15% -16%) of fathers’ earnings to give it to mothers (God knows where the money goes as fathers don't have any access to know whether the child is safe or not several thousands of pounds he pays for his kids is for the purposes it is meant for); whether father has got chance to make positive impacts in the lives of their children.

None of the fathers I came across including this blogger however complained about the child maintenance; but all agree in one critically relevant issue. It's about their dismay and bitterness for the fact that the system is supporting the indirect abuses of and suffering of their children at their tender ages by denying contacts. Denying contact at their tender age will have a lifelong detrimental impact on the child's all round life whether or we like it!!

The groups of fathers' right campaigners assert that several mothers in such mind-set never rationalise the consequences of their actions on the futurity of their own children as they simply busy themselves planning to punish fathers and to satisfy their misguided egos. Contrary to this, others groups of people those who strongly believe that there can't be justifiable reasons for denying contacts of fathers with their kids argue that there is miscarriage of justices by those who are given such huge burden to treat all with fairness, respect and dignity. These all rights and privileges are denied to tens of thousands of British fathers as we speak.

The UK's Children Welfare Courts (CWC) always depend on the accounts of mothers on several occasions despite the continued outcries of fathers and children in spite of available evidences on the counter-productiveness of denying contacts to both children and fathers concerned. Time and again fathers are often dined contacts with their children in the UK. Why?

Is British Public is too naive or unaware of the blatant violations of Children's Human Rights by the Children Welfare Courts  (CWC) in most parts of the country with particular variations and intensity in some and leniency in the others? Does the wider Brits know the magnitude and depth of damage the actions of CWC’s inflict on genuine fathers who are only wanted to be part of their children's life? Do the politicians who boast on protecting the rights of others in others countries in another parts of the world know the level of pain and misery CWC's inflict on the children and fathers concerned?

When the British forefathers/mothers laid down an excellent legal framework and its foundations for the generations to come, their ethos was on protecting the rights of most vulnerable and on treating all fairly. It's wasn't about enriching the solicitors and denying justice to fathers and their kids. It wasn't about allowing prejudices, sexism and racism to be part of this noble system. It wasn't about entertaining symbiotic relationships between law enforcing agencies, the court officials and the solicitors.

The British society has got serious obligations as a society and its government must act decisively to stop such injustice from continuing to unfold. The ethos of justices and fairness for all must be exercised and all citizens must be treated equally and fairly without prejudice and discrimination. The consequences of vindictive mothers’ unbalanced actions on children's futurity must be revisited and must be taken seriously. Those who are involved in promoting discrimination against fathers (indirectly Children) must be stopped from practising their noble profession illegally if justices system to be fair and just. Brits must walk up from their sleeps; stand their grounds to denounce such injustice and discriminations once and for all.

Britain must be fair and just for all where surreptitiously embellished illegality, discrimination, prejudice, racism and sexism can never have place.

Denboba Natie

December 2, 2013