Families Need Fathers, because Both Parents Matter
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states:
“Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interest.” (Article 9.3)
This has been the objective of the United Nations for the past 50 years, and also the objective of a much smaller organisation called Familes Need Fathers (FNF). For those who haven’t heard of FNF, let me tell you a little about us.
Despite the name we are, and always were, a gender equality outfit. The name Familes Need Fathers reflects the fact that in recent decades nearly all excluded parents were the fathers, but if we had been around back in the days when fathers were given control, our cause would have been for mothers.
As part of our 50th anniversary, we have changed our name to Both Parents Matter, which clarifies what is at the heart of our cause. This isn’t merely a question of semantics; when fathers get control of their children they seem just as likely to exclude the mother, in which case we then support the mother. Our concern is for children, half of them of course girls. Their wider families – who are often excluded by association - contain as many females as males.
How do we try to ensure that both parents matter? We do this first, by personal support work. Helping individual parents to get, on behalf of their children, enough time with them, and to use it for the best. We also offer a helpline to help people deal with the stress of issues related to family breakdown (contact details are at the end of this article). Secondly, by trying, using the conventional and constitutional methods for charities, to get all parties to the issue of parental separation to respect this right of children.
“we know from our own research that the life of men during family breakdown is one of unrelenting misery [....] The main source of their misery [is] obstructions to them seeing their children.”
The name change will not change the charity’s policy and stance. Nor, we suspect, will it change those seeking our support. Perhaps more grandparents will contact us - we already have a ‘niche group’ for them. Already many of the people approaching us are women. Men seem to be hesitant, ashamed, feeling that they should tough it out and not seek help. Less so their mothers, sisters, new partners who ask for our help on their behalf.
For a small, often unfairly vilified, agency, our achievement is impressive. We got ‘parental responsibility’ extended to unmarried fathers who signed the birth certificate. Previously only married fathers had it, on the grounds that other fathers might have had no commitment. We were the drivers of the amendment to the Children Act 1989 that stated there should be a presumption that the ‘involvement’ of both parents would benefit the child, provided it was safe. Very modest indeed, but the first and only statutory statement in this area. There are no statistics, of course, but we assume tens of thousands of children have benefitted from our support work.
The amount of distress suffered by fathers prevented from seeing their children is appalling. One kind journalist said of an instance of suicide that is was one ‘we did not get to in time’. Even in the absence of suicide, we know from our own research that the life of men during family breakdown is one of unrelenting misery; at the start of this 12-month study, 46% of men had seriously low levels of mental wellbeing, and at the end of the study 44% of men were still at this level. The main source of their misery was obstructions to them seeing their children.
“there is a great deal of concern with the stress on mothers, which is understandable, but there is little such concern for fathers despite the high rate of stress and suicide of men in these circumstances.”
Sadly, the debate about shared parenting is, and always was, toxic. Glenda Jackson, brilliant actress but problematic politician, once said we advocated the murder of mothers. Jenni Murray, once the queen of Women’s Hour, said we supported the abduction of children. Umm, how likely! The latest issue now is domestic violence and abuse, and the attempt is to promote the following assumption: every father wanting his children to be allowed to see him more that his ex agrees should be regarded as a ‘perpetrator’ of abuse. Some fathers are of course, but they are a small minority. There is in this field, however, a raft of ‘premature labelling’ where every accusation is presented as true, although in some cases the accusation is false, probably made in order to qualify for free professional advocacy in the family courts. Statements that the family courts routinely award ‘contact’ with children to abusers turn out to be those accused of abuse, not those found responsible, even on the ‘balance of probabilities’. In fact children are prevented from seeing their fathers until he has cleared his name. That can take months, even years.
This seems to be part of a general media trend of stigmatising men. Arguably, the equality agenda has resulted in the right of women to display the negative aspects of the traditional male stereotype. There has been however a total failure, however, to recognise or encourage the capacity of men to show some of a nicer ‘feminine’ side of human nature; to be caring, nurturing, empathetic, to be loving of and loved by our children. Being aligned with men - a stigmatised and marginalised group - agencies such as ours are ignored or misrepresented.
Look at the family courts. Lots of double standards. Legal aid is available to those who make allegations of abuse (usually women) but not those accused of abuse (usually men). Apart from free legal aid potentially incentivising allegations, it doesn’t seem like justice to deny it to the accused. It should be awarded to both parties or neither, unless they are handicapped in some way in arguing for themselves. Similarly, there is a great deal of concern with the stress on mothers, which is understandable, but there is little such concern for fathers despite the high rate of stress and suicide of men in these circumstances. For example, mothers must be protected against being ‘re-traumatised’ e.g. by having screens to protect her from the sight of her ex. Or being questioned by him even if he has no-one to do it on his behalf. Or demands that he be escorted by security going in and out of court, even if he is clearly gentle and considerate. Obviously some fathers are not gentle and considerate, but the same applies, of course, to the ‘other party’. When we encounter a difficult father we firmly point them in a more positive direction, though we wonder whether the same occurs in the support services for women.
“For many men their experience of the legal system is a Kafkaesque nightmare where whatever the true circumstances, he feels he has been allocated the role of perpetrator and the mother allocated the role of victim.”
One test for double standards is to imagine what swapping the roles might seem like. For example, what if a male barrister who identifies as a ‘masculist’ accused a woman judge of being biassed in favour of women? Actually our experience is that female judges are more understanding of fathers than male ones, probably because they don’t feel scared of accusations of prejudice, or because they might be more aware of the demands of childrearing.
What about a father’s feelings in court? He probably has no legal representation. He’s possibly accused, at least sometimes falsely, of foul behaviour. Typically he knows nothing of the procedures and the roles of the various parties. He might be from another culture and not even necessarily confident speaking English. Faced, in his ex’s legal team, with trained combatants seeking to make him look as bad as possible. Often having had his children stopped from seeing him for some time. At stake: whether his children will be allowed to see him, possibly ever again. For many men their experience of the legal system is a Kafkaesque nightmare where whatever the true circumstances, he feels he has been allocated the role of perpetrator and the mother allocated the role of victim.
The bias in and around the ‘family separation industry’ is the charity’s most urgent issue. There are, however, others. The involvement of fathers with children in ‘intact families’ has and is continuing to grow. This needs, but has not had, further encouragement to the point of parity. There should be paternity leave while both mother and baby are frail, and maternity leave for her recovery and for as long as most mothers breast feed. After that, 'baby care leave' should be unisex, with a ‘use it or lose it’ provision for both parents. Leave for family reasons, and the right to ask for reduced hours, should be available in practice on an equal basis. Social benefits should be shared pro rata the care and costs of the parents. There should be more to combat the continuing ‘gender cleansing’ of many occupations, such as teaching, child minding, social work and others. The debate about free places in daycare for children to ‘enable mothers to work’ has totally blanked the potential contribution of free and loving care from fathers.
We hope the name change it will help people understand more easily what our overall aims are i.e. a shared parenting group rather than a ‘fathers’ group’ or even a ‘fathers’ rights group’. Or even regarded as ‘misogynist’, the go-to low blow of those who don’t have any credible criticism to make. How absurd. We acknowledge as keenly as anyone the need of our children for their mothers - but want to make our contribution too. Almost without exception, we adored our mothers. Half our children are girls. Half our extended families are females. Most of us loved our exes. Some of us still do! Yes, misogynist things are sometimes said by some of our service users. Some maybe always were like this, but some might be this way because of their heartbreaking experiences of services and the courts. Such attitudes are, however, called out as unacceptable.
The evidence is overwhelming, but ignored, that children do best with the full involvement of both parents in a loving and stable home. More efforts are needed, please, to promote that. However, if that family environment fails, both parties staying involved is damage limitation at least. This is usually best for the mother too. Lone parenthood damages her life and restricts her opportunities, no matter how good benefits are and how much institutional day care is available. New partners may be beneficial, but that is not guaranteed.
So I propose we put ideology and acrimony to one side and work together to achieve the very best, and if that doesn’t work out, then the second best, to the benefit of all the family members, the benefit of our shared communities that benefit from stable family lives. And although Both Parents Matter is dependent on memberships and donations to keep our support networks alive, we are dedicated to keeping that vision alive of always working towards solutions. There may be 2.5 million children not allowed to see their 'second parent' as much as they would like, and maybe 1.5 million parents excluded from the lives of their children. Please help to put the message out that we are here to help individuals and to reduce the problem at source.
You can find out more about Both Parents Matter here, including our helpline (0300 0300 363) and how to make a donation.
Scroll down to join the discussion
Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.
Like our articles?
Click here to subscribe to our FREE newsletter and be first
to hear about news, events, and publications.
Have you got something to say?
Check out our submissions page to find out how to write for us.
.
