According news, Britain is about to ‘enshrine’ parents’ right to their child in the child welfare law. Oops, no, it’s actually the child’s right to both parents. Well, that’s one big difference. It means that someone can decide for the child that the child does want to exercise that right. So bring on the lawyers. That’s the first issue. Then we see that Mr Loughton, one of the select ministers working on the new law, says (according to the linked article in the Telegraph by Christopher Hope), “Quite clearly, ordinary living and working arrangements make an equal division impossible, and undesirable, in all but a small minority of cases.” So, with that flip of the lip, equal parenting is gone. Bring on the lawyers. Then, as a ‘coup de grace’ to the long maligned fathers of Britain, said minister adds, “the most important thing remains the principle that the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration and this must not be diluted.” So we must still decide precisely how child’s welfare is best achieved — bring on the lawyers. We see then that the minister throws out any sense of changing the mantra “the best interests of the child” that has destroyed fathers and families ‘en masse’ for generations, and effectively announces “Divorce Industry as usual”.
Here’s what the select ministers including Mr Loughton need to know and understand:
Parental rights: parents do have rights including equality rights just like everyone else in every other aspect of modern society;
Equal parenting: 50-50 parenting is easy to arrange in all but the most unusual cases because it does not have to be on a daily, or a weekly, or a monthly, or even on a yearly basis — it just has to work out that the parents share the child equally over time (no need to chop the child in two as proposed by King Solomon);
Welfare of the child: the community standard for the welfare of the child across the western world is protection of the child from abuse and neglect. It is a matter between the child-protection agency and any remiss parent. Child welfare has no business being discussed in family separation arrangements unless the child protection agency is engaged in the matter. Family law should encourage diversity in parenting (subject to the community standard) just as we encourage diversity throughout modern society, including our schools. Applying different standards for child welfare to parents in separation is arbitrary and unfair to both parents and to the child and it must be defeated in the best interests of a just society.
Where there is a wrong there is a remedy. Restitution of the family finances and dignity of fathers is the remedy for the systematic destruction of fatherhood in the western world. But is it possible? Examples of governments providing redress, including paying damages, and restoring dignity to previously persecuted persons abound. Classic examples are the WW II interned national citizens of Japanese descent in Canada and the USA., German reparations to Israel, apology and compensation to Chinese laborers for the ‘head tax’; and the recent apology to Canadian POWs by the Japanese government (see link).
Japanese government apologizes to Canada’s World War II POWs:
Here’s the story — fathers have had their children stolen from them. Then, the father’s money is taken fraudulently. Fathers have been robbed. It was not necessary, and it was not right. The law says where there’s a wrong, there’s a remedy. Here’s the remedy — restitution. Restitution of family, of finances, and of dignity. Join with all the other fathers, mothers, step mothers, step fathers, grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, associates and civic-minded individuals who are fighting the family court system to end the separation of all parents and children. The loan is due and payable now, with interest and damages for the loss of family, finances, and dignity.
It sounds very much like the Britain’s Families Minister has no intention of fixing the problem of separated fathers and children. Instead she is putting the blame on the shoulders of the parents rather than the perpetrators of the abuse. According to the Mail Online article, families minister Maria Miller said parents should take responsibility for their offspring for life and reach civilized agreements. Ex-fathers can assure the Minister it’s not the parents that are the problem but the Government’s own Star Chamber child-abduction courts.
Mrs Miller also is reported to have said the child maintenance system had failed, with only around half of the three million children growing up in separated families benefiting from it. Again the minster has missed the point. The so-called ‘child maintenance system’ is nothing but a the shakedown racket filching fathers finances and feeding nothing but the Divorce Industry. Ex-fathers supports all those who fight this ideologically-based misandric bureaucracy and all who are involved its operations.
The Minister should immediately implement legislation to guarantee that no one has the right to take any man’s child just because he is separated from the mother; no father should pay “maintenance” for a baby-sitter he doesn’t want or need; and that restitution be paid to the ex-fathers for the families, dignity and finances destroyed by the family courts. Clearly, these measures should be applied to all parents and children who have suffered under the generations of abuse under the hateful family-law regime.