Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Humanist comment

I didn't understand "Some see the establishment of this movement to precompensate for biased treatment for mothers." Might be reworded? Humanist

Usage of "criticism"

Criticisms, however, have been made to the actual number of women in divorce proceedings who falsibly make claims of violence against the father of the children.

We are not talking about a comparison between actual stated numbers, but a comparison with "the magnitude of claims made by fathers' rights proponents".

By the way, the description of "regardless" isn't quite accurate, say someone makes a claim against the father and it has been disproved before the father has made his counter-argumnt to the claim's falsity, then the father need not make the counter-argument since it has been disproved.

Dysprosia 03:12, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Criticisms ... to the number" is not English. How can one criticise a number? You might want to put "There is no consensus about the size of the problem that false allegations represent" or some such, which would be NPV. Stan 03:27, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about "Criticisms, however, have been made to the validity of the conjectured number of women in divorce proceedings who falsibly make claims of violence against the father of the children." Dysprosia 03:31, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're still trying to criticise a number. My objection is entirely pedantic. Stan 03:34, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what is abhorrently wrong with such a sentence: "John said that several buses went past his house that day, but Chris, who was driving them, criticised that number". There may be a grammatical issue as to criticising the number in a direct way (as in the absurdity of criticising the number 32 for instance), but I thought I had removed this problem in criticising the validity of the number that was proposed, and not the number itself. Dysprosia 03:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you mean critize in the sense of find fault with then you owe it to NPV to indicate what you are finding fault with and what that fault is. If you meant critize in the sense of Pass judgement, esp. unfavourably then again the justification of the judgement should be given; otherwise it may be construed as an ill-informed opinion. I do not think I made any exagerated claims in my original piece, though I appreciate some of the adjustments you made, just not the grammar elsewhere ;-) Stan 12:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Matthew, would you mind changing your sig?, only I keep confusing you with User:Stan Shebs who also uses Stan to sign off. Mintguy (T) 12:13, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)~~

My intention was to indicate what I was finding fault with by means of the juxtaposition of that paragraph against others - this disputed paragraph is meant (for flow) to introduce the subsequent two or so paragraphs which discusses criticisms of the reporting that there is somehow a large number of women who falsify domestic violence claims. Dysprosia 12:53, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

False allegations

For a while I used a form at one of the charity's public weekly meetings in central London on which we asked attendees to indicate whether they had been subject to false allegations. About half the people ticked this box on average. We get 10-20 people at this meeting each week, about half of whom are new. A quick mental calculation gives an average of three (obviously unconfirmed - though there's generally no reason why people would make up most of the stories I hear) instances of false allegation per week, or 150 per year - in one area of London. FNF has two other branches in London as well as a scattering around England, Wales, Scotland and one in Northern Ireland, and is the largest and longest establshed such self-help group in Europe. But I would say that if just one child's relationship was affected with a parent who had been falsely accused and put in the position I described, that should be sufficient to cause alarm, so the size of the statistic is irrelevant to the argument. The fact is there are thousands of parents who find themselves in this situation every year.Stan 13:14, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Make the point in the article, if you feel you need to. The point of what exactly constitutes a "false" allegation may need to be clarified if you do: is a false allegation termed such if: it has been independantly assessed as being false (eg police), by the victim of the allegation asserting that the allegation is false, or that the maker of the allegation has confessed that the allegation is false. In any case, this thread is deviating from the original topic... Dysprosia

Anyone who has had to defend against a false allegation, usually made via a solicitor's letter, is put in the position at the point that the allegation is first made. By their efforts, they might manage to have the allegation thrown out as not proven, but in the mean time, it is usual for all contact to cease between the children and the parent against whom the false allegation has been made. A common false allegation is that of sexual abuse, which is in fact extremely rare between natural fathers and their own children, but once the allegation is made then the damage is done. The system does not operate to discourage false accusations, since, even when they are subsequently shown to be false, there is generally no come-back against the accuser, who can shrug the whole thing off with "Well, I must have been wrong, then." Stan 13:37, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure in what way this deviating from topic. You (Dysprosia) started by indicating that unspecified claims by fathers' rights groups were unfounded. I have replied here with particular claims, based on my own experience. I could put them in the main page, you're right, but they would be anecdotal. I think it is better to accept that the claims of fathers' rights campaigners are made in good faith, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Matt Stan 15:38, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, the topic was the issue of whether the paragraph before was grammatically correct or not - now we are discussing whether the paragraph is factually correct or not. I have not claimed, by doing so, that the claims are unfounded, but that there has been criticism by others of the magnitude of the claims by some FR groups. Whether what I have been contributing is correct or not should ideally be argued in the article unless you have a very serious problem with what I am writing in the article. Dysprosia 22:55, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think, incidentally, that the notion that there should be some real initiatives, perhaps in the form of social engineering, to reduce the incidence of domestic violence in society can only be welcomed. The question that should perhaps be debated then is whether a whole generation of children should unwittingly be used as instruments in that social engineering project. I would say, categorically no. The ends don't justify the means in this case. Matt Stan 15:38, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

The content in this article appears to have become doubled up. It also needs a lot of editing for NPOV, as a tone of passionate advocacy is present in the current version. -- The Anome 19:29, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV (1)

I've reverted a change made by Dysprosia under the Adversarial Court System header because it was wrong, and I've added an example to illustrate. Matt Stan 00:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've also put comments at User talk:Dysprosia which perhaps would have better placed here. Matt Stan 00:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Getting the impression that doing the obligatory NPV thing is making this piece very clumsy. Is there no simpler expedient? Do I either have to say 'it is claimed that' before everything or provide evidence in each and every instance for what is being claimed? Surely the sub-culture of family law can simply be described here as it is, contributed by someone who knows? Or is it a too tabboo subject for most people to come to terms with without total denial? Matt Stan 00:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, you don't need to say that "it is claimed that" verbatim, but you can vary the phrase. You need to however distance the position in the article away from taking a certain line because there always exists another side to the view who may disagree with you - no matter what appears to be "true" or not - this is how NPOV works. Dysprosia 02:43, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When I am expressing a view, yes, when I'm stating what I consider to be fact? If other people don't care to believe then there need to be means of verification, e.g. searching the internet in the first instance. I understand that there can always be another point of view, and I would like to hear any that contradict my own views in order that I should change them if they're wrong. But to change an article to indicate that there is an alternative point of view without saying what that point of view is or providing evidence to support it is tiresome ;-) Matt Stan 03:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what others care to believe, but what NPOV guarantees is that the reader is given all sides of the story, whether they be correct or not.

By saying "It is claimed that", the point that there may be an alternative view is made without saying it, and it can be placed there afterward if need be. Without saying it, the article presumes that what it is saying is fact: compare "It is claimed by some that wholemeal bread is better for you" with "Wholemeal bread is better for you".

Dysprosia 03:07, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Structure

Matthew, isn't it about time you chopped up the page into subsections? It has reached a point where it is too big to read or edit.

--John Foley 01:11, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kafkaesque and Dysprosia's removal of that term twice from this piece

Perhaps you haven't read The Trial. The reason why The Trial is a classic is because it really drives home the message about how state bureaucracy can alter people's lives in a non-totaliotarian context, and the family court system really is like that. I had hoped that, through the stuff and the links I've been putting into this article, you might see that. Having read the book I can testify from personal experience of having helped many fathers through my charity work that what fathers have to go through in this circumstance is very similar, and Kafkaesque is the only correct term. Many people use this term in the context of family law and I would expect people using an encyclopedia easily to be able to look it up. Please would you put it back. Matt Stan 22:00, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A further point about Kafkaesque - it is slightly rhetorical as you suggest but in the context of drawing people's attention to the fact that it is the system that is at fault. One might be drawn otherwise to assume that the witch-hunt was a personal vendetta. Perhaps it is also, but it is pointless from a fathers' rights perspective to reduce their cause to one of people being beastly to each other. Their point is that it is the system being beastly by being utterly bureaucratic and not dealing with the underlying human causes. Drawing an allusion with Kafka's classic is surely salient in this context. Matt Stan 22:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed that point you were trying to make. Perhaps you should explain in the article the reference you are trying to make in with the reference to the book, since not all would have read The Trial? Dysprosia 23:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think Kafkaesque is widely understood and needs no more than the link Kafkaesque in explanation. Paul Beardsell 03:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If that's the way you want it, then I'd suggest a removal of the word "proportion", and say something like "a Kafkaesque witch-hunt" instead. Dysprosia 04:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

News

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1173919,00.html

Belfast Telegraph 19 March 2004

Supporters

The following is a quote, 19 March 2004 Chief Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks on Thought For the Day on Radio 4:

It’s actually fatherhood that makes humanity different from most primate species. Usually it’s the females who look after the young, while a few weeks after birth many males don’t even recognise their own children. Motherhood is biological and almost always strong. Fatherhood is cultural and almost always in need of support. Matt Stan 08:17, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The father's rights in regards to abortion

What I was looking for in this article, and was disappointed not to find, is something on the father's rights if the mother wishes to have an abortion. So much is said about a woman's right to "choose;" does the father get any say in such situations? Garrett Albright 12:04, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's a contentious issue, but I'm not aware of anywhere where a father has any rights over an unborn child; not even here in Ireland where the only option available to women who wish to have an abortion is to travel to the UK. That said, an unmarried father by default (in Ireland) has only the right to be informed if another man wishes to adopt his children, so it'd be reaching a bit far to expect any rights to veto an abortion. -- Jim Regan 00:01, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

If one accepts that a woman should not have the right to terminate a child arbitrarily - in other words, if one accepts that she should not have the right to end a life just, say, because she finds it inconvenient to be pregnant or doesn't want the responsibility of parenthood - then one can start to enumerate what constitute valid reasons for a termination, and these will exclusively be medical reasons. If one introduces the father into the decision-making process, and says that there must be unanimity between the partners in deciding the outcome when the question of abortion arises, then there are still difficult questions of precedence. One could hold that only if both partners agree that there should be a termination then it can take place. From the anti-abortionists' perspective, this is like saying that the father must become party to the 'murder' of the unborn child in order for it to take place. Alternatively one could take the opposite stance and say that if either partner wants the abortion then it must occur, so a father could demand an abortion even though the mother didn't want it (and vice versa). I think both these alternatives create difficulties, the latter more than the former. For those who hold that abortion should not occur except for valid medical reasons, such questions do not arise: abortion is held simply to be wrong and any perpertators of it or collaborators in bringing it about are criminals. Because this is such a difficult area, there hasn't been any clamour amongst fathers' rights campaigners for any increase in fathers' rights when it comes to decisions about abortion. Opinion is generally divided between those who believe abortion is wrong (the anti-abortionists) and those who accept that a woman should have the exclusive right to decide what to do with her own body (and, by extension, with those who grow within it) without anyone one else, e.g. the father, having any overriding right to interfere in her decision. A commonsense argument against giving fathers the right to demand an abortion is that if he didn't want a child then he shouldn't have impregnated the mother, i.e. the pregnancy was the result of a voluntary action on his part and therefore he should have no right stop it having started it. It is less easy, I think, to provide good reasons why a father shouldn't demand that a woman does not abort his child, but if fathers were ever given such a right then there would be obvious problems of enforcement. Matt Stan 10:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

The time has come to internationalise the page by separating out the general issues from the country specific issues. I have made some initial bold edits but a lot still needs to be done. JPF 20:06, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Underlying the issue of rights

I think it would help to get at some of the underlying assumptions, often not stated in debates, to understrand the issues of 'rights' in a family law context. Here are my initial thoughts/questions:

• Does a mother have the right to choose her child's social father?

If the answer is yes, then the fathers' rights angle goes away because it is established that there is an inequality right at the start. This, however, is effectively the status quo in that a mother will often assert this right, and then it is for the father to try to get that assertion overturned in a court of law. Is this the root of the issue of inequality in this context?

If the answer is no, then who has precedence when it comes to being that social father? Some suggest that the natural father should invariably have first call - that the biological relationship is sacred and that it is of paramount interest to the child to have that relationship preserved.

It seems that political debates have missed this point which, if my assumptions are correct, goes some way to link the polarised positions of the UK political parties on this issue. Essentially there are those who, it seems, believe that "a woman's right to choose" should be extended in Single Parent Household situations, and those who wish to assert the "equality argument" and allow that choice also to be exercised by men. Matt Stan 10:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV (2)

While much of this article is well-written and informative, the fact that it contains no criticism of certain anti-feminist subsets of the Fathers' Rights movement renders it biased. Many prominant figures and groups have attacked some Fathers' Rights activists, arguing that they simply want to roll back feminism and return to a more partriarchal way of doing things. Whether one agrees or disagrees with such critiques is not germane here -- but until these matters are treated, this article is biased by omission.Zantastik 08:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there is information about criticism of such anti-feminist subsets then why not at least provide a link? In fact 'father's rights' as it has come to be known might better be classified as a sub-set of men's rights rather than vice versa. There may well be subsets of the men's rights movement that fall into the category identified by Zantastic. Matt Stan 16:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zantastic raises a more interesting point, though, I think. It could be argued that men's rights movement is opposition to what ensues when the feminist notion of empowering women to make their own decisions includes the decision to exclude the father from their children's lives. So, yes the critic above is right that the article doesn't dwell on this erstwhile anti-feminist sentiment underpinning the fathers' rights movement. Perhaps it should. On the other hand, I never thought that feminism was about replacing patriarchy with matriarchy. So whatever should be getting opposed here is not feminism as it is usually portrayed, rather what one of the UK judiciary has described as a "group of obdurate women" mentioned in the context of literature obtained from Women's Aid which has inflamed family disputes over children. Matt Stan 16:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strong Bias towards the UK-based "Fathers Rights" movement

This article, while containing a good deal of useful information about the Fathers Rights movement, is extremely biased in support of it. This article has serious neutrality problems, and needs to be throughly re-written. I cannot do this myself, because I am not an expert on the movement. This article is nothing but a tract for the movement, and wikipedia does not tolerate such issue advocacy in lieu of encyclopaedic articles.Zantastik 06:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"ENGLISH" VISION

My Name is Paulo Quintela, and im from an fathers rights mov, in Portugal . I think, the article is very "neutral", but some people just dont acept it . Only have facts - nothing more . So, whats the problem ? SHOW ME ANY PROBLEM !

The real problem, is that the article, only talks about fathers rights, by "english point of view", or at least, by english or americans or australians point of view . To the point, is clearly an " article made by people that only speaks english " .

Some examples . My organization, have two front cover of national Newsppappers . One, from the biggest seller here. Fathers 4 Justice, have 3 . They are world famous, they have the Queen of England . Who cares, about Lisbon, and our president ? Who cares about if we make very clever, very good articles, at the same time that the Fathers for Justice ? Who cares, what we dont have, a single, but a single, " atack" by anyone . Call it judges, call it mothers, call it whatever u want, and with 2 from covers, of National Newspappers . ( im not against Fathers for Justice . WE EVEN "ADOPT" THE BATMAN "costume", but why ? Cause we WE CAN READ EVERY LANGUAGE , we adopt everything, lol . The other way around, no . Nobody knows what we do, what we defend (even we are a fathers rights organization, WE ARE NOT A MENS RIGHTS ARM, OR WHATEVER ... WE DENY IT - WE ARE THE OPOSITE WAY , SO U HAVE AN IDEA . and we made a pretty good job, but we live in not a "hype country " ( Portugal ) and nobody knows Portuguese, BUT there are more pages about Fathers Rights, Laws, etc, in Portuguese, that in English ... INCREDIBLE . THIS ARTICLE, DONT MENTION IT .

So .... who answerS me, from wikipedia Can i put, other ways of Portuguese, and Brasilian, and even Latin Amercian people, and organizations, see Fathers Rights ? And how we act ? Like, we are not "an arm of mens rights ", anyway ... that comes in 3th place . We are simply, Fathers rights organizations . Then, we are CHILDEN ORGANIZATIONS . Then, more far way, only in 3th place, only mens organizations . [sorry for english mistakes - lol ] ----- END //

.

NPOV again

This is just advertising space for the F4J and others. There is no mention of the many criticisms made about the anti-woman tone the organisation has often adopted, nor of the complications pointed out by neutral observers (do we slice the child in two?).

NEW-->> Sorry, im not used to wikipedia, but i want to answer this . 1- im not english 2- im a divorced father 3 - saying that a man that wants to see his son, is anti -woman, is nothing compared to a woman that is like a dictator/revenger , and dont allow his son to see his dad . Dont talk about neutral observers, cause neutral observers say that a son, have a mother, and a father ... Its easy, to see that . Regarding splice the child in two, i dont know what u mean, but i guess, that a dictator mother, when leaves the child in the school, in the grandmother, in the uncle, in the kindergarten, in the new boyfriends house, dont splice the child in two. Guess what ? Only need to splice the son, when the child goes to the fathers house ... ( paulo quintela is my real name, ok ? From a fathers rights movement 26-4 não , from portugal , yeahhh , land of josé mourinho, and cristiano ronaldo, so dont joke with US !!!

TO WIKIPEDIA PEOPLE .- sorry, if i made some techinical or english mistakes <<--NEW

The author is one of the main figures in the F4J and can't be expected (or asked) to be neutral and actually print the critiques. He reverts them every time someone tries and frankly I'd rather we just gave up and left the NPOV warning so people at least know what they're getting in to.

It is better to correct biassed material, I think, than just to label is as such. If the anonymous writer above (62.252.128.25) knows any of the specific criticisms made about the anti-woman tone of the organisation, then they ought to be put into the article. Unfortunately the comment above is non-specific, so what can be done? It is an accusation of bias by omission - without making good the omission. Surely the same could be said about any article that missed anything out about anything. The fact that an author chooses to include some facts and exclude others may be deemed biassed , but not by the criteria that wikipedia uses, surely? Matt Stan 22:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "slicing children in two" point, it has been argued that shared parenting (such as occurs in most intact families and many broken ones too) is like splitting the CD collection in two when the parents split. However a closer analogy to CDs can be made when the child lives with one parent and is begrudgingly lent out to the other parent on specific occasions. Anybody can treat a child as a possession, but shared parenting is about letting the child share its time with both parents in such a way that neither parent's possessiveness gets in the way. Matt Stan 22:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It might also be worth mentioning that Matt O'Connor, founder of F4J, has this said about him in the Daily Telegraph [1] regarding his nomination for the Great Briton Awards 2004:

MATT O'CONNOR SHORTLISTED FOR THE GREAT BRITON OF THE YEAR AWARD 2004

Short listed amongst 20 others the Judges said 'As founder of the pressure group Fathers4Justice, the judges felt he had displayed great humour, eccentricity and innovation in raising awareness of a very serious social issue. Through his efforts he has succeeded, with minimal funds and minimal infrastructure, to take the issue of access for fathers to a point where, in a short space of time, the huge majority of people in Britain is now fully aware of the issue and the need to find a solution. Matt Stan 22:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the anonymous writer above should inform the Daily Telegraph about "many criticisms made about the anti-woman tone the organisation has often adopted" because I'm sure they'll be interested, and perhaps could get Matt O'Connor withdrawn fron the contest before it's too late!

I'll take the NPOV epithet out pending the uncovering of these important factual criticisms which I await with bated breath. Matt Stan 22:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Dear Matt- You seem to have a problem with the characterization of the article as POV. However, as long is there is any dispute about whether or not the article is POV, it should retain the NPOV dispute disclaimer. Please do not remove it in the future until the dispute has been resolved. In the meantime, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum to encourage or support social change, redress injuries, or present groups and movements in favorable or unfavorable lights, or indeed to make any sort of value judgement whatsoever. It is an encyclopedia, and it is supposed to have a completely neutral point of view. You should reduce the amount of time spent on rhetoric such as "Perhaps the anonymous writer above should inform the Daily Telegraph!!!" and instead focus on addressing and documenting any criticisms of the movement as fairly as possible (preferably citing specifics criticisms from specific critics). -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ther rhetoric was on a Talk Page, not in the article itself. I have cited sources to indicate that the founder of F4J has been nominated for a Great Briton Award - not that he is a controversial anti-feminist. If there is a dispute, let's know what is disputed, please. Meanwhile, in the absence of any material disputation, my "wanton vandalism" continues. The more people who get involved, the better. The introducer of the unsubstantiated claim of NPOV is the vandal. He/she or it should go away and check his/her or its facts. All the stuff that I've added to the article has been backed up by references, or personal anecdotes from people I trust who have experienced the nightmare that gave rise to the father's rights movement in the first place. I suppose you'd put an NPOV sticker on a piece about concentration camps if one of the contributors happened to have been in one. So much for neutrallity! Matt Stan 00:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I invoke Godwin's Law. You hereby lose your argument. Sorry. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still POV

This article remains POV. Removing the NPOV disclaimer without addressing any of the concerns (all of which stem from the fact that the primary author of this article is writing from the point of view that the positions of the fathers' rights movement are correct) constitutes vandalism. —Kelly Martin 23:36, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC) (edited to remove stupidism on my part Kelly Martin 00:23, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC))

• I think that you mean the article remains POV? NPOV is our goal. The NPOV disclaimer actually is a not-NPOV disclaimer. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or is the article about the Feminist movement written from the point of view that the positions of the feminist movement are correct? Consider statements like

"In more or less all areas of the world, women are still paid less than men for equivalent work"
"Instead of the onus of childcare resting solely on the female, society has started to recognize male responsibilities in assisting in managing family matters."

--Popsicle stick 22:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am stuck here. You are telling me that until another author comes along who is not as ignorant as you on this subject, you are going to dispute it's neutrality, without offering any evidence. I'll add your criticism into the article itself, since you don't seem to know anything about it, and take out the unjustified NPOV epithet. Matt Stan 00:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, Matthew, what I'm telling you is that as long as the article is written from your point of view, it will remain POV and will continue to get the NPOV warning. The NPOV warning is totally justified. Any place where the article states a conclusory opinion as fact (there are several) constitutes a biased POV and needs to be edited. For example, the way "imbalances" is used in the first paragraph is POV language and should be changed, as is the conclusory claim at the end of the first paragraph (that cutting fathers off from their children is detrimental). Given time, I'm sure I could identify dozens, if not hundreds, of NPOV violations in this article. Please stop treating the POV disclaimer as a slander; it is not, nor is it a criticism of your opinion or your beliefs, but simply a reflection of the fact that Wikipedia desires to refrain from taking a side in this sort of debate. —Kelly Martin 00:23, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

• A neutrality dispute is not an epithet. It is a statement of fact. Kelly Martin thinks the article is not netural. Matt Stan apparently thinks it is. There is therefore a dispute. Leave the warning in place. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

epithet : A word or phrase expressing a quality or attribute regarded as characteristic of the person or thing mentioned. (SOED) I prefer to use epithet in this context as it has a better granularity of meaning that the somewhat nerdy tag. Matt Stan 01:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the article in the two instances cited. Any more? Matt Stan 00:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your changes consisted of adding weasel terms, which is not sufficient to cure a POV problem. I have rewritten the first two paragraphs of the article in an attempt to achieve a result which is, at least, closer to NPOV. Feel free to rewrite the remainder of the article in a similar manner. —Kelly Martin 01:50, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. I changed the article by saying, e.g. "fathers' rights activists claim that ...", thereby providing attribution, which a weasel term does not. Matt Stan 02:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In order to be NPOV in a situation like this you really need to present both sides of the debate. It's not enough to attribute your own opinions to yourself; you need to at least make some effort to express the point of view of those who disagree with you. To that end, I strongly urge you to stop deleting content that expresses opposing points of view, if you are, in fact, dedicated to creating an NPOV article. —Kelly Martin 04:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

If there was a debate, then I would. The interesting thing about the father's rights movement is that no one has come forward with any counter-arguments. One is only left with the conspiracy theory that many mothers in family break-up situations have been got at by highly aggressive lawyers and the darker side of the women's movement with the aim of what one newspaper called a "parentectomy" to have the fathers removed from the children's lives. The so-called fathers' rights movement is just a natural response to that tendency. This conspiracy theory is supported by a recent Court of Appeal judgment in which the judge mentioned that a mother's unfounded fears about the father were whipped up by material from Women's Aid. And you've only got to look at what happened to Erin Pizzey to see that there is a darker side to the women's movement - they killed her dog and forced her to emigrate. A recent CAFCASS audit report drew attention to what it called "old fashioned" ideas being predominant in some quarters there. The fact is however that we are moving on. No longer is it (if it ever was) respectable to make excuses as to why a dedicated father should not be as fully involved in his children's lives as he is able, regardless of irrelevant excuses from the mother. There's still some way to go, but attitudes are changing. Matt Stan 07:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a PRE-EMPTIVE WARNING AND REMINDER that if any of you violate the three-revert rule you will be blocked. Please, use caution. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Part removed

I've removed:

Critics of the fathers' rights movement claim that the men represented by these groups are primarily seeking to avoid financial responsibility or even punish their ex-wives for divorcing them, as often as they are seeking to preserve what interests they have in their children, if indeed they have any.

no sources cited. Matt Stan 01:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surrender

I surrender. I am not going to waste my time in an editwar with an editor who believes that the term "ignorant" can be used in an NPOV manner. Hopefully someone with more energy than I will come along and fix the problems with this page; doing so myself would interfere with my personal quest for domestic tranquillity.

At this point, I think Wikipedia would better served by deleting this page in its entirety.

—Kelly Martin 18:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia would not be better served by deleting this article. And if Kelly thinks so there is a standard procedure to be followed. If Kelly surrenders - if the argument as to why this is not NPOV is not going to be advanced - then the POV tag cannot remain. I have removed it. Paul Beardsell 02:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I notice the "peer review" is by the man who wrote the article, which doesn't bode well. This article is so horribly POV as to be almost worthless as anything other than an ad for his organisation. There is no airing of criticisms, and the extremely partisan edit war is just ridiculous.

A long time ago I set up the peer review process in the hope that some might add comments. I wrote an introduction, but no one else contributed. Perhaps that doesn't bode well in that no one could be bothered to comment. Please be explicit as what you mean by "hobrribly POV", as otherswise it might appear that you are being just that, expressing bigotry on a subject you don't understand. Matt Stan 21:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Read the following, from "the scope of the problem"

There is a suspicion that the current situation is the result of what people have observed as widespread, systematic and persistent abuses of human rights, resulting in financial gain for lawyers. There is also considerable fear of what are viewed as heterophobic and feminist state-funded bodies [11] (http://www.familieslink.co.uk) are obstructing what many would consider to be humane arguments made by aggrieved fathers.

This is incredibly POV, couched in "neutral" sounding phraseology. This article is so throughly biased in favor of this particular British anti-feminist movement that if it is not completely rewritten, it will merit deletion. If there weren't some wheat buried in all the chaff, I'd simply have marked it for deletion myself.Zantastik 06:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflicting_Wikipedia_philosophies#Elusive_virtue Matt Stan 23:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In response to what I construe merely to be an ad hominem attack here by Zantastic, I could just replace anything you object to with quotes from Bob Geldof and commentary, e.g.

"Family Law as it currently stands does not work. It is rarely of benefit to the child, and promotes injustice, conflict and unhappiness on a massive scale."

If Sir Bob is to be believed then, when one considers that there are a large number of people in the legal trade who get paid for practising family law then a question that naturally occurs to people who want to change it is that perhaps lawyers' vested interests are being taken into account in the maintenance of the current status quo. An alternative view might be that there are other political forces at work acting to toward the demise of the family [and then I could quote some Erin Pizzey].

Would that help to overcome the impression that this article might be POV?

I am immensely edified that that someone has taken the trouble to come along to question the material in this article, but I feel that, rather than simply complain ignorantly, you must present some factual information to counter what you consider to be the POV, or as you say "incredibly POV", implying some emotional reaction reaction on your part, perhaps, rather than simply claim POVness as though it were self-evident - this is what is ad hominem. Otherwise I can simply replace much of what I have written with authentic quotes and references. I think, when you do your research, you'll find that I have not misrepresented one iota what fathers' rights is about, regardless of whether you agree with the movement's underlying family values. I'll just sign off with another Geldof and something from Erin Pizzey:

"And yet while individuals struggle with these difficult new conundrums the law governing the, if you will, ‘intimate’ parts of society, the ‘personal’ laws, remain (though some are fairly recently drafted) resolutely unaltered in their presumptions, save for the pathetic pretence that they are gender neutral. This is a grotesque lie that all Family Law professionals have tacitly agreed to be party to, as willingly acknowledged by nearly all the lawyers I have talked to on this issue. And regardless of whether the professionals acknowledge it to be or not, the vast majority of my correspondents, friends and others regard it to be so." (Bob Geldof in 2003)

"Over the last thirty years I saw great corruption in the English courts. I saw fathers of children denied their rights and persecuted. I have seen our own government concur to a television advertisement on Scottish television where children were advised to contact a telephone number should their fathers shout and their mothers. ... I saw the rise of the single parent mother glorified in the women's sections of some newspapers. Four women journalists wrote about their search for the right man to give them their children and the four women promised their readers that the children would never even know their fathers." (Erin Pizzey in 2000)

Matt Stan 07:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Outside Opinion

I glanced over the article, having seen it listed for Deletion, and it looks fine. The article being on "fathers' rights" is going to be a bit POV to a few people inheritently just by existing. Spinboy 21:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If neutrality of this article is disputed, an explanation of a gendered issue ought to be shown grace by the Wikipedia community. How difficult is it to describe up or down, horizontal, if we could only reference left or right, vertical, if to say nothing? What would a wiki-reader appreciate? Markruffolo

The idea that family rights can be relabelled fathers' rights and then presented as such in the wikipedia is absolutely a distorted agenda. These issues need to be wreitten up on a family rights page. Rights to family or their absence affect all those in weak and separated families. The effect of calling it "fathers' rights" as opposed to civil rights in the family actually debilitates the movement. Fathers-4-Justice made their breakthrough on the back of demands for equal civil rights in the family - it was this which distinguisheded them from earlier men's rights groups which often wished to bring back marriage and militate for men's interests rather than those of the whole family, placing them in an extreme minority in the population.

Family rights are also what it is about because it is very clear that different cultures may use the same erosion of basic family rights to attack mothers in one country with one culture (ie the Lebanon and denial of mothers' rights) or fathers and mothers in cultures which are particularly interventionist.

In this sense, family rights/equal parenting initiatives are founded precisely on the desire to abolish the sexual politics which has done so much damage to our families - exclusively fathers' rights groups included.

What is happening on these pages is good evidence of the way organised groups can distort the facts. Weakly argued feminism of the type advanced by Michael Flood in Australia is not the real argument against fathers' rights. The real argument is from fellow parents and children who are absolutely fed up with all the sexism, sexism which is destroying their families. Family rights apply to women as well as men and children, they are equal between parents. They are not just there to protect fathers in dispute with mothers, but to protect either parent from state usurpation of parental decision-making.

Julian

Non-NPOV tag to be removed

Still no argument as to what exactly is POV about the article is being advanced. So I intend to remove the non-NPOV tag. Paul Beardsell 13:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to hop into this dispute but I wanted to point out that there are some obvious POV problems. Take the "adversarial court system" section. Here are some obvious POV problems:

• "then the father has somehow to demonstrate..." - argumentative.
• "Any aggression that the father may have manifested in the past is claimed to be treated as justification for limiting his involvement in his children's upbringing." - a broad characterization
• "Fathers' Rights campaigners question the assumption that it can ever be legitimate for the state to collude in disrupting a loving and natural relationship between a father and his children." - The problem here is that we are declaring that this collusion actually happens.
• "Bob Geldof has written eloquently and emotively on this subject" - too much praise

Other sections:

• "Fathers rights' is unequivocally about redressing an inequality" - again, declaring that this inequality exists

The article is also very UK-centric. That doesn't merit the NPOV tag but it's something to fix. Rhobite 03:06, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

An argument that this article is hopelessly POV

While it might be a bit more efficient to list the portions of this article which are not POV, I will, per a request by Matt Stan, briefly discuss some of the most egregiously POV sections of this article. Let's take it from the top, shall we?

The "traditional view"

According to this article,

The view has traditionally been that there are a small minority of cases where a judge, who is assumed to be high-minded, must make decisions that will affect children's lives drastically. Rather than being criticised, these judges should be commended for performing this undesirable role. For users of the system, i.e. parents involved in litigation, there is frequently the perception that the system is a monstrous bureaucracy of Kafkaesque proportions.

So, apparently there is "frequently the perception" that the system is a "monstrous bureaucracy of Kafkaesque proportions." No opposing views are presented, even though clearly a vast number of people would disagree here. The over-the-top language is almost laughable as well.

Bob Geldof again:

And no need for the laborious and unjust proposals in the Lord Chancellor’s report which is a reductionist brief in a bid to make CAFCASS into the overarching State implementor of Family Law. Perhaps we should call it KAFKASS. This provides for an interminable round of increasing sanctions to a ecalcitrant parent who will not allow access to the child though so ordered. Under the proposed regime it would literally take months and possibly years before the other parent could see his child. At which point he would meet a virtual stranger, possibly poisoned with prejudice (also a problem in the status quo issue) against him.[Geldof gives references here]Why is this permitted?

Quoted from The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name: A Sometimes Coherent Rant by BOB GELDOF. If he can get his views published by Cambridge Press, and is an advisor to the British Government on this issue, and no one has published an attack on this piece as far as I am aware, I argue it is probably acceptable in Wikipedia to echo parts of this copyrighted work. If the perception wasn't frequent, as I allege, then surely by quoting Geldof the perception is likely made more frequent. And in fact, as far as I am aware, there are not a "vast number of people" who disagree. Matt Stan 23:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Counter Claims"

Here, I will reproduce a good deal of text, since it needs to be read in its entirety in order to be fairly judged.

There are as yet unsubstantiated claims that publicity for fathers' rights is just advertising space for F4J and others. Apart from veiled references in the British Court of Appeal to Women's Aid material being used disingenuously to whip up a mother's fears, there have been no serious criticisms made about any anti-woman tone that people emight xpect would be adopted by fathers' rights organisations in the highly charged atmosphere that surrounds the issues. See shared residency for more information about possible complications arising from fathers' rights campaigners' claims.

In the relatively small section devoted to those who do not share this movement's goals (and it's essentially a UK thing -- it's not a "major movement" in the western world), the claims of those who oppose this movement are blithely denounced as "unsubstantiated." We also learn that there have been "no serious criticisms" that people might "xpect."

There's a double bind here: if the movement is primarily restricted to the UK then it's surely OK for the article to focus on UK issues. If not, then the article should perhaps nevertheless take on board other countries' perspectives. The US, arguably more democratic than the UK in this respect, has tended to be more innovative in coming up with solutions that deal better with core fathers' rights issues and therefore perhaps the injustices that the article focuses are less meaningful there because they have been dealt with. One would expect an article on, say, apartheid to talk about South Africa and not make POV claims if that article didn't deal with why there wasn't apartheid in Iceland! Matt Stan 23:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the 'unsubstantiated' matter, surely until something is substantiated it is unsubstantiated. Matt Stan 23:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fathers rights' is unequivocally about redressing an inequality and aupporting the continuation of as normal a family life as is possible for children after their parents separate or divorce. As such there have been few, if any, voices rasied against this cause.

Now, still in the section dealing with critics of this article, we learn that this movement is "unequivocally about redressing an inequality and aupporting the continuation of as normal a family life as is possible for children after their parents." If this is criticism, what is praise?

I'm not sure I understand the rhetoric here. The assumption is that it is normal (i.e. over 50% everywhere) for children to be brought up in families with 2 parents. Therefore most children expect to be brought up by both their parents. The fathers' rights argument is that it is closer to that norm still to be brought up by both their parents after a split than only to be brought up by one parent in that situation. I think I've made it less clear here by trying to explain such an elementary concept than what's in the article. The "inequality" (though I've changed the article to say "perceived inequality") is just that, though perhaps "imbalance" would do equally well to express this idea. Matt Stan 23:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The issue for fathers' rights activists is not one of mens' rights versus feminism, as some would suppose, and fathers' rights activists have been at pains to point out that the adversarial family law system can occasionally operate as badly, if not worse, for mothers who are separated from their children by hostile fathers [11] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4250397.stm).

Other "critics" argue that this movement has nothing against feminism.

Following this section there is a good deal of material about "supporters," to say nothing of the self-described "rants" of celebrities that are reproduced elsewhere in the article.

Surely Bob Geldof is as good an authority as any on this subject, given his record on eliminating poverty and generally getting things done. Should he be disbelieved on this issue? If so, why? Matt Stan 23:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An assessment of the article

I think it is quite a shame to see an article about an important men's movement in the UK be turned into a badly-written, long-winded tract in support of this movement's point of view. I would like to see the views of this movement's members as well of its detractors well represented in a neutral article. However, this article, in its many iterations, has probably never been neutral, and if drastic, systemic changes are not made to it to correct the fact that it is POV through and through, I will be forced to submit it for VfD. There, perhaps, more objective minds will see this article for what it is.

P.S. I know little about this movement. I don't have a lot invested in these matters. However, I do want a well-done wikipedia with no gross POV, whether it's POV against or in favor of my views. Zantastik 03:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that this article has serious POV issues, please don't submit it to VfD again. It went through VfD a week ago and the votes were nearly unanimous in favor of keeping it, because POV is not one of the criteria for deletion here. Any VfD listing you start will be reverted. Rhobite 03:57, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

On 8-jan-2005, Zantastic wrote:

• • While much of this article is well-written and informative, the fact that it contains no criticism of certain anti-feminist subsets of the Fathers' Rights movement renders it biased. Many prominant figures and groups have attacked some Fathers' Rights activists, arguing that they simply want to roll back feminism and return to a more partriarchal way of doing things. Whether one agrees or disagrees with such critiques is not germane here -- but until these matters are treated, this article is biased by omission.Zantastik 08:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article has been hacked about by various authors, true (though not that much since 8 Jan), and maybe some of it is badly written, but I am sensitised to personal attack here, and still would like to find out what these are anti-feminist subsets of the fathers' rights movement are. It's a bit like saying that the church is full of hypocrites - but where else would you expect hypocrites to go? In my experience, the reputable parts of the fathers' rights movement (amongst which I include FNF, the longest established organisation in this field) has always been at pains to marginalise any elements that have a hint of misogynism, and gender politics hasn't really been an issue. I maintain there is nothing anti-feminist about a dad wanting to be with his children. That is what fathers' rights is about, and I haven't heard any feminists speak out against that principle, though I've seen plenty of women acting on it. There has been some polarisation on the issue of domestic violence#Gender, about which some readers might like to look at that article, where I have also contributed. Matt Stan 07:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zantastic, if you have instances of these criticisms directed towards the fathers' rights movement, please post them. Articles, groups which oppose the movement, etc. When pointing out that an article is missing information, it's best to give people examples of this missing information. Rhobite 21:09, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

VfD

This page was listed for deletion on February 7, 2005, the consensus was to keep. see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fathers' rights. Rje 23:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

The Consensus was also that this biased article needed a substantial re-write, something I don't see anyone doing. See my comments on the article's bias above, written in response to a specific request that I do so. Zantastik 06:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a volunteer effort - you can only improve an article up to a point by tagging and talking. At some point you have to start editing. Rhobite 06:59, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Be bold!

Take iniative. Be bold. --Spinboy 07:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zantastic wrote: "I know little about this movement". Some people know a bit more. Let's therefore distinguish between what those who know a bit and those who know little can usefully contribute. If one is describing a point of view and one is informed about what that point of view is then that is not against wikipedia's NPOV policy per se. If there are value judgments unconsciously made, or inferences which are contentious, then let's hear what they are. I'm very keen to try to clear up any misunderstandings that might arise. If one is aiming to inform about a social issue that raises strong emotions then it should perhaps also be conceded that it is that information which is evocative, and that may not have too much to do with the way that it is expressed. WIkipedia is primarily about informing people and letting them make their own minds up. Is it preferable to encourage contributions from people who know little and end up with a content-free anodyne articlw? The failure of the VfD surely mitigates otherwise. This is why I have been so insistent that critics indicate what their criticisms are rather than just make blanket judgments unsupported by any substantive argument. Matt Stan 07:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My criticisms may have gotten lost in all the other discussion, but they're up there and are unanswered. You may want to start there, and look for other examples of the type of value judgments I'm pointing out. Rhobite 07:25, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have taken on board the points that User:Rhobite made and adjusted the article accordingly where appropriate. Otherwise I've given justifications on this discussion page. Hence removal of POV tag for the time being. Please put it back and make any further points as appropriate. Matt Stan 23:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup/npov

This page is biased in favor of the Father's Rights movement, and at times reads like a promotional essay for that movement. Even the "critics" section contains no criticism of it! One need only read the VfD page to see that this article needs a re-write and cleanup. Any attempt to remove these tags prematurely will not work.

NPOV or vandalism?

Please realise that the NPOV tag has been put in by someone who doesn't know enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing controversial has actually been said. The article eloquently explains the fathers' rights perspective for what it is, and this has led to nonspecific allegations that it is biased by a few people who are, by drawing attention to it, helping to get it more widely read. Many thanks! Keep it controversial - people enjoy that - though it would, as I've hinted before, be helpful, rather than saying it's "hopelessly POV" to say why. This request has been made so many times now, with no substantive result, that perhaps the people who keep making this unjustified claim should be blocked for vandalism. Matt Stan 00:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where a specific disputed point is raised, I'm always happy to make amendments, bring in more reference material, etc. Matt Stan 00:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

npov/cleanup tags aren't going away

Fine, I'll give my reasons. I agree with what "Zantastik" said. but here:

1. Sorry, if calling a subset of the british judicial system a "monstrous bureaucracy of Kafkaesque proportions" isn't expressing a definite point of view, what is?

Note that the NPOV does not forbid the expression of a definite point of view. It merely requires the author to attribute that definite point of view to its source. So although a statement such as "A subset of the british judicial system is a monstrous bureaucracy of Kafkaesque proportions" does not conform to the NPOV, a statement such as "Some members of the Fathers' Rights movement believe that a subset of the british judicial system is a monstrous bureaucracy of Kafkaesque proportions" does conform to the NPOV. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

2. "There have been no serious criticisms made about any anti-woman tone that people emight xpect would be adopted by fathers' rights organisations in the highly charged atmosphere that surrounds the issues." -- There have been no'serious criticisms? So everyone's in total agreement here, huh.

You presumably haven't heard of any serious criticisms, or you would have cited them, QED :-) Matt Stan

It is so pov to state that this movement is "unequivocally about redressing an inequality and supporting the continuation of as normal a family life as is possible for children after their parents." Instead, we should say that the supporters of the movement claim this. Putting such a quote in the "critics" section is crazy.

Surely something is either expressed from a neutral point of view or it isn't. How can there be degrees of 'point of view', as in so pov? The point here though is that if the view of the supporters of some movement is such and such, surely we don't need to say that supporters claim that that is their view; it just is their view. If we are going to extend pov dogma to this extent then we couldn't say that science operates through empiricism, only that scientissts claim it does, and so on. Isn't that taking things to rather an absurd extreme? Matt Stan 00:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The criticism - only as far as I am aware provided here as "original research" by wikipedia contributors - is that the fathers' rights movement is an anti-feminist patriarchal throwback. In order to satisfy my detractors, I put the Critics section in - somewhat tongue-in-cheek I confess - but hoping that it might open up an opportunity for genuine critics af a movement that is unequivocally about redressing an inequality and supporting the continuation of as normal a family life as is possible for children after their parents split to be cited. My initiative seems to have failed, since no such criticisms have yet been voiced. That's not to say they might not become so, at some point. Matt Stan 00:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Matt, when you say that no one has listed specific disputed points, you ignore that "Zantastik" and you have disputed several.

I'll have another check through Zantastic's postings, but I think I've already covered any specific points made in that regard. Of course, I'm having now to search through all the old vitriol to find anything specific that anyone might have disputed to support the alleged POV nature of the article. Any every time I think I've covered it, someone puts the POV tag back again, most recently with the epither that /* npov/cleanup tags aren't going away */. Anyone would thing someone was trying to do a wind-up here. Hence my claim that this article is being vandalised. Matt Stan 00:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But there you go, you admit that this "article eloquently explains the fathers' rights perspective for what it is." The article should describe the movement, not parrot its perspective! Matt, are you trying to get out of doing what the VfD panel said to do? -- (said somebody who didn't bother to sign their comments)

Couldn't you say that any of the wikipedia articles picked for the main page 'eloquently explain their subject-matter for what it is'? How could it be otherswise? The wikipedia convention of only relying on other sources effectively means that it is a parrot in every respect. The editors distinguish the encyclopedia by their eloquence alone, by making clear that which might otherwise be unclear. Matt Stan 00:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The VfD panel voted pretty impressively to keep the article, and I have stated that any aspect of the article which is queried I am happy to change or back-up with extra material. As is I hope evidently clear, I have sources of information that bely claims that the article is slanted and I can only answer specific claims of POV in parts of the article.

I have left in the bit about there being a perception of the monstrous bureaucracy of kafkaesque proportions as I think it actually is a toning down of the manner in which the same sentiment was exrpressed by a UK judge in a published court judgement, with reference cited. Whilst conceding that this perception might be amplified by the article itself, I don't think that such a proclamation is anything other than being Q.E.D, rather than POV. I hope the detractors of this article will just begin to see just a little bit that my purpose in this article is to inform about what no doubt some find to be shocking facts, but which nevertheless are facts rather than any POV diatribe. This branch of the British juduicial system is indeed, I would hazard, rotten to the core, and it needs whistle-blowers (i.e. informers who provide information, including, in this instance a senior judge) to show those who find such facts unpalatable that they are in fact true, and perhaps this will act as a frightening reality checkpoint to those complacent enough to believe that they might not one day find themselves in the same position as fathers' rights campaigners have found themselves. Matt Stan 23:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of first section

I have rewritten the first section, which I have broken up into sections and renamed Main Beliefs and Goals (of the movement). The text is clearer, less colloquial, more analytical and there is (finally!) no bias shown to either the fathers' rights activists or their critics. This style is more suited to an encyclopaedia -- before the rewrite, the style suited an informal speech given at a "what is the Fathers' Rights movement" meeting. The rest of the article needs to be rewritten in a similar vein; this is a pretty daunting task, so perhaps those who want to follow, not dodge, the instructions of the VfD committee should lend a hand, doing a section at a time. Zantastik 05:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is the title the problem?

I've kept my distance from this article, mostly due to the fact that I myself am a father currently living the nightmare of lengthy Family Court proceedings to remain in contact with my son. This article has had a history of neutrality problems, which is not unexpected. Mothers and fathers are both parents. I've witnessed both sexes experiencing alienation from their child at the hands of bitter ex's. It's not a problem that is gender specific. Perhaps the title of the article lends itself to being biased towards a fathers movement? Maybe the title should be moved to Parents' rights or similar? (although for the past 5 years, I've been told I have no right whatsoever of seeing my child - every right belongs to my son). What do others think? Is the title a problem? Longhair 11:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I take your point about parents' rights rather than fathers' rights but I don't think that it's a major problem. It might be better at "Fathers' rights movements" or "Parents' rights movements" but I would say that it's much more important to make the contents neutral. Since the article describes the views of the Fathers' rights movement at the moment, the title is at least accurate. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:51, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think the title is the problem. "Fathers' Rights Movement" is more appropriate because this article is about the movement of men who think their rights as fathers have been violated. The existence and nature of the rights themselves is a separate matter.

Further, I think father's rights can be distinct from parents rights because proponents of father's rights claim a christian-religious basis for those rights, where fathers are given extra rights or duties to discharge that do not apply to parents in general. Conceivably there could be an article documenting the actual nature of parents' rights at law, while another documents what fathers' rights people believe their rights are. --Decr32 11:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Limited Perspetive

If this were one's sole introduction to the topic of Fathers' Rights, one would believe the movement did not exist until the creation of Fathers 4 Justice. One would also believe that almost all activity were taking place in the UK, at the hands of F4J.

Of course, this is not the case. The Parents/Childrens/Fathers rights movement has been around for over thirty years. There are many hundreds of organizations, some well funded, some small and local.

The entire article need to be rewritten. Agwiii 22:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tag Reinstated

As summarized by numerous other commentators above, this entire article is hopelessly POV. I have reinserted the NPOV tag, and made various other edits in an attempt to move the article closer to neutrality. It will probably have to be rewritten completely. Firebug 07:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've gone and reverted the edits since this page had reached a consensus. NPOV tags aren't meant to stay on a page forever. --Spinboy 16:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No such consensus was reached. Rather, the article had been taken over by a small handful of F4J campaigners who inserted their own POVs throughout. This is not the first time the neutrality of this article has been called into question. Sections claiming (with no evidence or citations whatsoever) that no-fault divorce is a Leninist invention, and sections uncritically parroting propaganda ("There is also considerable fear of what are viewed as heterophobic and feminist state-funded bodies [2] are obstructing what many would consider to be humane arguments made by aggrieved fathers.") If you doubt me, I ask you to call in five long-time, well-regarded Wikipedians who have never seen this article before, and ask them whether it violates NPOV in the form that you reverted back to. I'm considering a complete rewrite of the article since it was written from a POV standpoint in the first place and cleanups are merely shoving the mess into the closet. Firebug 18:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have just read this article, and am shocked. It is badly written, and very POV. I tend to agree, it needs to be completely overhauled.MollyBloom 23:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is documented and cited evidence that Women's Aid helpers have acted as agents provocateurs in whipping up anti-father sentiment, which gives rise to the fears mentioned in the article. Since this is factual (and whether or not this is Women's Aid policy, the fears are real), don't see how NPOV applies in this instance. NPOV tag can be removed now, since Firebug seems to have run out of steam, I think. Matt Stan 08:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

F4J Advertisement

Most of this article remains as a F4J advertisement. The entire Fathers' Rights discussion has been hijacked to England! Agwiii 17:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you two don't like how it's written, why don't you rewrite it then instead of complaining? --Spinboy 19:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's so F4J-centric it can't be re-written. I think it should be deleted and let someone start over. Agwiii 21:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was already a vfd, and the vote was to keep. So if you don't want to re-write it, go away and don't read it. --Spinboy 21:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fathers rights has obtained considerable publicity and therefore public interest since F4J's coming to prominence. I don't think giving coverave of what they have done is an advertisement inasmuch as they get enough coverage on BBC and other media outlets without bothering about wikipedia. Incidentally, apart from having been involved in a radio broadcast with Matt O'Connor and Bob geldof a couple of years ago I have nothing to do with F4J and am not a member of it. Matt Stan 22:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whilst there is evidently much activity regarding fathers rights particularly in the US, worldwide publicity for the plight of affected fathers has centred in the UK for the last two years, with a focus provided by F4J. Therefore it doesn't seem unreasonable to provide coverage that includes the UK perspective. There's nothing to prevent others from giving equal coverage from other national perspetives. Matt Stan 22:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• What a typically European slur against the United States. Worldwide publicity indeed - throwing condoms at your Prime Minister. Not one piece of legislation has been passed based upon the F4J stunts. However, many of the organizations in the United States have passed reform legislation. It's the difference between style and substance. If you want substance, then you take the example of the activists in the United States. if you want noise and self-serving publicity stunts, go for the F4J. Agwiii 08:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No slur implied nor intended, I am sure. If you are accusing the British of parochialism on a world stage then you may be right. But throwing a purple powder-filled condom at the Prime Minister did at least get heard about by Americans. What have Europeans heard about what is going on in the US and elsewhere? Surely wikipedia is the place to put such information. Then I might learn something. Which laws have been changed, in which states, and what have the effects been? Matt Stan 20:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agwiii (talk · contribs) is a suspected wikipedia:sockpuppet of RexJudicata (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RexJudicata. --SqueakBox 04:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Deletionist

The following appeared at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Russian_Communist_attempt_to_abolish_the_family:

• By the way - I know this is probably the wrong place to ask, but can we get neutral parties to overview the content of the main Fathers' rights article? While the movement is newsworthy enough to deserve an article, the existing article is hopelessly POV, consisting largely of propaganda couched in weasel words. (Examples: "This has led to speculation by fathers' rights campaigners that there are elements in society that would rather have a child brought up in a single parent household by the mother even when the father is available to share in the upbringing of his child." And "The issue for fathers' rights activists is not one of mens' rights versus feminism, as some would suppose, and fathers' rights activists have been at pains to point out that the adversarial family law system can occasionally operate as badly, if not worse, for mothers who are separated from their children by hostile fathers". Both of which I have removed, along with unsourced comments trying to tar no-fault divorce by comparison with Leninist atrocities.) I'd like to see this entire article rewritten from a NPOV. Firebug 18:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want corroboration of "This has led to speculation by fathers' rights campaigners that there are elements in society that would rather have a child brought up in a single parent household by the mother even when the father is available to share in the upbringing of his child." then I suggest you just read the court cases referenced from Family law system in the UK#Case_Law. They do make fascinating reading, and are generally very well written by senior family court judges - who ought to know what they are talking about. A paragraph from one of those cases might suffice, from the Wall judgment:

"34 Mrs. P [social worker] was able to observe the interaction between B [son] and Mr. A [father]. She thought they had a warm, loving and entirely appropriate father son relationship. Mrs. P returned home at about 9.00pm to find a telephone message from Mrs. A [mother], to whom she then spoke. Mrs. A told her that the more she had read the Women?s Aid literature, she more concerned she was about C [daughter] having contact with her father. She related a number of incidents, with which I will deal later. She also told Mrs P that C had asked her to tell Mrs. P that she wished to see Mrs P as she had something to tell her."

It has been my common experience that mothers who have taken advice from Women's Aid activists (whether those mothers have been abused or not) are commonly told to ask the court to impose supervised contact of two hours per month at a contact centre. This seems to be standard, but it's hard to equate that arrangement with what the Human Rights Act calls family life. So what should one conclude?

Whilst it may or may not be true that there elements in society that want fathers eliminated from children's lives, it certainly is the perception of those who've encountered or been involved in cases such as that covered by Wall (and the other cases that have been published by the courts) that there are such elements. Therefore it is POV censorship to delete that fact from this article.

Similarly, the other deletion: "The issue for fathers' rights activists is not one of mens' rights versus feminism, as some would suppose, and fathers' rights activists have been at pains to point out that the adversarial family law system can occasionally operate as badly, if not worse, for mothers who are separated from their children by hostile fathers" It interests me that someone who evidently doesn't really know very much about the subject is so offended by the truth that they just delete it. Surely it's OK, if someone gets up and says they want the law changed - isn't that what fathers' rights people in general say? - to point out that bad family law can affect both fathers and mothers badly. I have seen distressed mothers restricted from being with their children. (They sometimes come to FNF for support as a last resort, and get it.) They are equally victims of the system; there just aren't nearly as many women in this position as men. Matt Stan 22:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's okay if someone gets up and says they want the law changed. There are web pages, letters, magazine articles, pamphlets, books, TV, and radio to do that in. But an encyclopedia is not the right place to make a call for action like that. Our articles are supposed to describe people's beliefs not to state which of them should be put into effect. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:26, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, in which case is not the paragraph cited above that starts "The issue for fathers' rights activists is not one of ..." simply an instance of "describing people's beliefs", as you put it. So why delete it? (The fact that you know my stance should surely not detract from what I actually write. You need to look at the writing itself, and forget who might have written it. That is what wikipedia is about.) Matt Stan 20:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reverted an anon because they had deleted what another contributer had written, without explanation and with no obvious reason, and because they added several pages on Parental Alienation Syndrome. That much on a separate, even if related, topic deserves its own article. DJ Clayworth 21:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Parts cut from the article

Many people fail to understand the fathers' rights movement as such, rather seeing it as the reaction of individuals who have had unfortunate judgments made against them in family courts, or who have found that, even when a court has established that it is in a child's interest to maintain a relationship with the father, this does not occur because the mother obstructs it. A UK family court judge declared in 2004 that material provided by Women's Aid had unnecessarily caused a mother to express fear about a father's involvement with the children. This has led to speculation by fathers' rights campaigners that there are elements in society that would rather have a child brought up in a single parent household by the mother even when the father is available to share in the upbringing of his child. The idea that a father provides advantages to his offspring, which is supported by research, is discounted by what a judge has described as a "group of obdurate women" on the grounds that mothers should be able to choose to bring up their children alone if they want to. Such a view is not acceptable in a UK family court and therefore women who hold this belief have to adopt other means to achieve their aims.

Those who have been to court cases where Women's Aid helpers have also been in evidence would be unlikely to dispute the paragraph above. Matt Stan 21:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am interested in the level of sophistication of those who tend to delete anything that indicates that some people believe there might be a hidden agenda by those who oppose fathers' rights. From my observations here of edits to this article, an interesting body of evidence is growing (bearing in mind that wikipedia keeps all old edits). The only way to remove this evidence is to delete the whole article, an expedient that was tried and rejected wholeheartedly by wikipedians earlier this year. Please keep coming, you deletionists, you are providing prima facie evidence! Matt Stan 09:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I took this link out: * Satan Revealed by Reverend Michael. The link takes you to a page that advertises a book: "The book was written to show the black man, and the world the true source of their problem is due to 33% of the black women of America (Babylon). That black woman is Jezebel, Lilith the Devil." This does not seem to support the gist of the article, which is about a movement trying to establish that men should remain with their children, not that the cause of all their troubles is demonic black women. Matt Stan 12:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External links

This article has an insane number of external links.. in the interests of keeping Wikipedia from becoming an anything-goes web directory, we need to cut almost all of the links out of this article. It would be best to decide what to keep and delete everything else. This ain't dmoz. Rhobite 04:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It is apparently well past the Spam Event Horizon. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have removed all external links with a .com extension, as most of them seemed to have an agenda to sell something or provide legal services (go figure). I also removed a link to Jail for Judges, which seemed to me to be somewhat non-related (and controversial). If any of these links do belong here, I suppose they can be added again, but at least they will be visible in recent changes and can be scrutinized there. I left links to .org and .gov sites, but some of these may also need a good scrubbing. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 12:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have culled some dead links and those that blatantly don't meet the WP:EL criteria because they require a login or go to a blog. Left the remaining links but these need review as some seem only marginally relevant. I've put a NoNewLinks template in the section to inform external linkers of the spam problem with this article Decr32 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no merge. Skeezix1000 12:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article on "marriage strike" is short, and the term has relatively few Google hits; it seems to me it would get better coverage as part of this article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a mismatch; certainly not all of those choosing not to marry would be fathers, if anything the opposite correlation would be probable. --carlb 00:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed marriage strike is something of a growing issue from a relitive minority of so called "personal freedom" advocates as such the issue falls almost compleatly outside the fathers issue as it relates to protecting your money rather than children. --Lord Matt 14:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Against: Misogyny and family law are distinct and merging Marriage strike into this article only makes that confusion worse. Abstention from marriage is also moderately common among advocates for polyamory and heterosexual supporters of gay rights, including many political feminists. If anything, perhaps an AfD for Marriage strike as non-notable. Rorybowman 16:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Family law and gender

This article could be improved by a sharper focus. Some of the material here relating to family law would probably better be place either in that article or in a sparate Family law and gender or similar article. -- Paul foord 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

1. UK material should go to Fathers' rights movement in the UK

A lot of the detail should go to Fathers' rights movement in the UK, this article should have a summary of the issues. -- Paul foord 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Support: Excellent idea. This is currently being tried over at fox hunting with fox hunting legislation and so far seems to be working... -Rorybowman 23:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Support: Will make the main article less UK centric.

PAS

Whilst PAS is contentious - this article needs to present an assessment - replacement text was total POV - illustrated by the external link to a hate page on Philip Gardner's suicide, the relevance of his suicide here is not explained. -- Paul foord 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What work still needed for NPOV?

Please, would those people involved in earlier discussions review the article and note POV issues to assist future editing (or edit it for NPOV themselves)? If no comment then will remove notice. -- Paul foord 09:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Quickie: Family Law and the Family Court sub-section

I'm not really sure what the following two paragraphs are trying to say. Could someone who knows the subject re-write them:

"Fathers' rights [campaigners? activists? organisations?] believe family court judges are seen generally as high-minded and impartial. Such judges would thus be faced with difficult decisions and should be commended for acting out this difficult role."

"Governments are often seen as reluctant to change child custody law. Fathers' rights campaigners argue that parents, not legal experts, but the family courts became involved when there are intractable differences between parents who cannot agree on what their children's "best interests" actually are." Paulleake 01:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Grammar Edits

There is plenty in this article that is very confusing and here are some examples:

"This enables parents satisfactorily to agree their own arrangements and a court will accept this."

The above sentence doesn't make any sense and appears to be in the wrong grammatical order. Also who says it is satisfactory? It seems to be missing the word "to" as well as I'm not sure what "to agree their own" means. It makes a bit more sense with "to agree to their own".

"Unfortunately this does not always occur and frequently one or both of the parents appeals to a family court to have the matter resolved."

Because this sentence directly follows the previous example, I don't understand why this "does not always occur" if is it still "satisfactory"? Who finds it unfortunate?

"In continuing existing arrangements in care and income generation from the intact family unit, often these had been implicitly negotiated by the parents and strongly influenced by social mores, fathers' can be denied a significant ongoing role."

The grammar here is not good. For example "continuing" with "existing" sounds redundant, even if it is not meant to be. I would find it easier to understand if said, "current continuing..." instead. "Fathers' " is possessive and is inappropriate, so it should be "fathers." Where does the word "from" come into play? None of those comes "from" the intact family unit, but perhaps is "within" the intact family unit, unless I am misunderstanding what is meant here and that is a distinct possibility because I'm having trouble even understanding what the subject is of this sentence. What kind of care are you talking about? Child care as in day care or caring for the child as in love and attention or diaper changing?

Maybe I'm alone in my thoughts here, but I feel that a grammar overhaul is most definitely needed. I'm not trying to nitpick, but to suggest ways to make it more readable. MagnoliaSouth 21:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A grammar and style overview is needed. In short, it is bad writing. The article is very POV, also. MollyBloom 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The way the artcle has been chopped, diced, chewed and spat back up numerous times, it's a wonder it remains readable at all. If anyone dared clean it up again it would leave it open to more attack. --Jgda 05:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In North Dakota, voters rejected a bill that would provide for joint physical custody unless either parent was ruled unfit by clear and convincing evidence, even if parents lived in separate school districts, and reduced most child support payments by a margin of 56% to 43%.

The prior sentence could be improved grammatically. The statistics sited, "56% to 43%", were not included in the bill.

Michael H 34 05:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Divorce Rate

• I've edited the "Marriage Breakdon" section which claims the US has a divorce rate of 50%. From Wikipedia's Divorce article:

In the United States, in 2003 there were 7.5 new marriages per 1000 people and 3.8 divorces per 1000, a ratio which has existed for many individual years since the 1960s. As many statisticians have pointed out, virtually none of the marriages taking place in a given year are the same couples divorcing that year, so there is in fact no predictive relationship between the two annual totals. Nonetheless the claim that "half of all marriages end in divorce" became widely accepted in the US in the 1970s, on the basis of this statistic, and has remained conventional wisdom. Pollster Lewis Harris in his 1987 book "Inside America" wrote that "the idea that half of American marriages are doomed is one of the most specious pieces of statistical nonsense ever perpetuated in modern times."

It seems a little wordy now, but I couldn't figure out how to make it flow more smoothly. I would like to have mentioned if the divorce rate has been rising, but could not find any reliable sources. -DejahThoris 21:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Portal needed

This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law - - Kittybrewster 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag added (again)

This page details an on-going dispute over the neutrality of this page. Many NPOV violations have been detailed on this talk page by diligent wikipedeans regarding the biased language and lack of citation which features heavily in this article. As this dispute has not been settled and the NPOV issues not resolved I have had no choice but to reattach the NPOV tag.

Before removing the tag please ensure that you have deleted all content which lacks citation and reworded the article to remove bias. For a start there are the examples highlighted on this talk page, however, the problem is not just limited to them, it permeates the whole (LONG) article.

There has been suggestion on this talk page that criticisms of the father's rights movement (claims of misogyny, anti-feminism etc.) have not been cited. This is true, however, no criticism has actually made it into the article so this issue is NOT a reason for deletion of the NPOV tag/epithet.

Until the above issues (lack of citation and biased language) have been resolved to the satisfaction of the majority of wikipedeans on this talk page please DO NOT remove the NPOV tag.

Many thanks,

Joel

Needs NPOV, clean-up

This article is POV for, well, basically all the reasons given here. It is also excessively long, and in need of a clean-up. NeoApsara 22:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for a start that Criticism section must be the most strident and excessive piece of POV writing I've seen. Could it be moved to the anti-Fathers' Rights page? --Jgda 05:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is criticism. It should be critical in whatever way of the subject at hand:. NeoApsara 15:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is being critiqued. How dare a father think he has rights. This is exactly why an entry for 'fathers rights' needs to exist, and the fact that it is being disputed so aggressively shows the discrimination fathers DO face.

No, the fact that it is being "disputed" shows that this is Wikipedia and just about every entry is fair-game if the crticisms are Wiki-legitimate. Father's Rights won't be exempt simply because "fathers have rights"; its got nothing to do with it.NeoApsara

"Domestic violence" problems

Many domestic violence studies that conclude men and women are equally violent and Father's Rights advocates reject inferences that instill gender politics by portrayal of women as victems and men as perpetrators.

What are the "many" studies and where do they say they reject such "inferences"?

Failure of the courts to prosecute false domestic violence allegations in divorce and custody disputes tends to advocate the tactic of making false domestic violence accusations.

Is there a citation from a study by fathers rights activists, or anybody, about this?

"Thomas Kasper writes in the Illinois Bar Journal, domestic violence measures funded by VAWA readily “become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”

Is there some sort of link to this, or citation or anything?

Father's Rights and men's rights activists seek to better protect real victems of domestic violence by reducing false accusations

Link/citation?

"and exposing the radical feminist or feminazi tactics to use this topic to advance discrimination and villification of men."

POV. If a fathers rights activist thinks this then it should be noted in a second-hand context with a citation from a father's right activist. However it should not be written as if Wiki accepts there are "femininazis" and that they have tactics. Also, it needs citation. Those links to notes go nowhere.

The topic of Domestic Violence is a key element of Father's Rights [this article]. The feminist, gynocentric, misandrous manipulation of domestic violence propaganda to portray men as perpetrators and women as victems is a central issue that should not be brushed aside to advance feminist POV, especiall within an article on Father's rights.

This isn't a place to get on a soap box nor to accuse editors of advancing an agenda. People will edit things whether they are feminists, mascuilists, communists, fascists, from Saturn, or whatever. With Wiki policy, you cannot just use an encyclopedia to air your opinion with nothing to substantiate it. When you discuss domestic violence and whatnot, there has to be something said by Father's Rights Activists that sufficiently represents them (or contrary studies/whatever that will represent opposing view pioints within the movement) in order to be approrpiate for the article, or if you are going to use epithets and insults then a quote from a noteable person in the movement who used them as atrributing it to WIKI is POV and that goes against policy. Not just somebody who comes on here, makes accusations and throws around labels and name-calling for things that they don't back-up.

I have removed the damaged links, I will research later and add in better links - or others may do this. --loneranger4justice 18 september 2006

For the time-being, I'm going to fix some spelling errors and whatever name-calling. Some researching Father's Rights who comes on here will not get an appropriate encyclopediac setting with rant-style columns.

ps: you can go to the linked 'domestic violence' article for some of the 'studies' that show men v women are equally violent. [that article is so biased, with feminist pov, it may be hard to find]. Dozens of articles, links, studies, etc under the topics domestic violence and VAWA address the perjoritive nature of the VAWA, which is just as discriminatory on it's face as a 'violence against white's act' would be to blacks. these sites/articles, etc typically include statement that domestic violence is not supported, and 'real' domestic violence should be delt with sternly, but the greater problem is lack of enforcement on perjury or false accusations.

Whatever. It just has to back up what is being said in the article.

this is a 'father's right's' article, but it seems to be controled and edited by feminist spin miesters, just look at the pages of 'criticisms' included here in 'father's rights' and the lack of balanced POV, and key issues such as domestic violence are only presented in the feminist, mysogonist, or gynocentric view. --loneranger4justice 18 september 2006

--loneranger4justice 18 september 2006

No article on Wikipedia is exempt from a criticism section. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Father's Rights soap-box or think-tank. The same goes for feminism, masculism, humanism, etc.NeoApsara

Feminism doesn't have a criticism section. Although I agree with the idea that criticism sections are needed. Zslevi 14:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Feminism does have a criticism section. Its called Contemporary criticism of feminism.NeoApsara 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevent/non-contextualized statistics

According to "Americans for Divorce Reform", as the divorce rate soared, so did the number of children involved in divorce. The number of children involved in divorces and annulments stood at 6.3 per 1,000 children under 18 years of age in 1950, and 7.2 in 1960. By 1970 it had increased to 12.5; by 1975, 16.7; by 1980, the rate stood at 17.3, a 175 percent increase from 1950. Since in 1972, one million American children every year have seen their parents divorce. (Brian Willats, Breaking Up is Easy To Do, available from Michigan Family Forum, citing Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1993.)

Okay, these are really just excessive statistics that aren’t presented in the context of what FRAs are trying to say. Rather they’d belong in a divorce article. Perhaps somebody can work them in a way that speaks to what FRAs feel to be appropriate for the article.NeoApsara

Mother's rights

Would anyone be interested in doing an article to accompany this which describes mother's rights? It seems to be lacking to only cover it under the name of father, even though it does speak extensively on the rights of mothers by default. Possibly much of the information here could be used to create that. I just finished making a slew of articles and I'd rather someone more familiar with the issue create it.

I notice Mothers' rights redirects here. I don't feel this is very neutral. If the article is going to be used to discuss both, parents' rights (need to create and redirect parent's rights to it) are a better place for the topics and terms to congregate. Parent's movement is mentioned in this article as something that includes this as well as men's rights. When creating the parent's rights article I suppose this could be mentioned along with mother's rights, and their respective relations to men's rights and women's rights.Tyciol 11:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section on this page doesn't seem to be fair. It's seems to be a POV of Trish Wilson. And it lacks references. One bad egg shouldn't be used to discredit a whole movement. And it is unproportional in this way. I think a criticism section should be about the criticism of ideas. It's like making the Jews collectively responsible of Jesus's crucifiction. Or like putting some extremist quotation in a feminist article, to discredit the movement e.g.:

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson

"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression." -- Sheila Jeffrys

You are a bit incoherent regarding your issue with the section, but in terms of what is relevent how do you believe it violates Wiki policy? I saw one reference missing and found it at the bottom of the page; the rest is cited (look at the little numbers and/or arrows at the end of a sentence - that is a reference). If you do not believe Trish Wilson's criticisms of the Father's Rights Movement is sufficient, you are allowed to cite and quote further criticisms to add to the section.NeoApsara 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In what terms am I incoherent?

Citation

"Trish Wilson claimed fathers' rights activists "showed their true colors" by having "supported" and "excused" what Mack is alleged to have done." I don't like this double indirection in references. (Trish Wilson said, that others said ...; not to mention weasel words...)

(By the way: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060614/NEWS10/606140341/1002 is a broken link ) Zslevi 14:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What weasle words? It is made clear the opinion come from the critic and not laid out definitively as a fact from Wikipedia. As for the missing citation, it seems to have only recently deleted; it may either be in history or somewhere in the mess of links at the bottom of the page. I'm not even sure what that broken link ever was.NeoApsara 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Trish Wilson, writer and freelance journalist, holds that while fathers' rights activists claim they are "only concerned with helping dads see their children", they actually "lobby for presumptive joint custody (a. k. a. shared parenting), seek to reduce protections for battered women" and that they "want laws that would lower their child support obligations".

(1) The sentence states that the fathers' rights activists have a hidden agenda. Why? Is this true?

(2) In the sentence, something laudable, helping dads see their children, is counterposed against the goals of the fathers' rights movement, which are thus by implication undesirable.

Isn't it true that the statement is inaccurate because many fathers' rights activists do not claim that they are "only" trying to help dads "see" their children?

Isn't it true that most fathers' rights activists support a legal presumption for shared parenting, ask courts to consider evidence in evaluating accusations that are used to take more than half custody away from any parent, and are concerned if child support does not take into account fathers' time as parents?

Michael H 34 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

That depends on the individual Father's Rights Activist, for which Wiki cannot act as a soapbox. What it can have is a something verifiable and information based on a consensus, not the opinion of any editor. As for the criticism, it is a criticism - not a "truth" as Wiki itself is neutral. It, like the rest of the article, depends on citations, verifiability, and its NPOV - in this case being written as the opinion of the critic, not of Wiki.NeoApsara 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, my problem with Trish Wilson's criticism, that she simply states (or suggests) that father's movement activists are simply criminals. I doubt that it reaches the wikipedia quality standard.Zslevi 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is Trish Wilson's opinion included? Her clever use of language makes fathers' rights activists (not some fathers' rights activists) appear intellectually dishonest and at the same time she counterposes goals of many fathers' rights activists implying that the latter goals are undesirable.

Michael H 34 12:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hi. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so please be patient with me. This is the first time I've done an edit. I updated statements attributed to me, Trish Wilson, on the "father's rights" page. I also gave a source when one was asked for. I did not write the passages where I am referenced and quoted. I don't know who did. Since I'm mentioned, I figured it was best to figure out how to use Wiki and update the entry. I might add to the page, but I haven't decided yet. If I made any mistakes in updating the entry, Wiki editors please let me know. Please be kind. I'm new.  ;)

Trish Wilson 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I somehow didn't noticed the following part: "who included the story about Darren Mack in a letter to a legislator". So that the JFK quotation obviously referenced to Mack Darren's case. So it was Randy Dickinson, who have excused Mack. I retract my previous post about the "gossip party". --Zslevi 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"As with many social movements, some of the strongest criticisms of men's groups come from other groups and activists. Some feminists and pro-feminist men hold that fathers' rights groups seek to entrench patriarchy and oppose the advances made by women in society."

The second sentence of this section is inaccurate and is therefore inappropriate.

A Wikipedia article describes 4 categories of feminist beliefs. Feminists in one of the categories advocate an "emphasize are sameness" approach in support of gender equality. This is why the second sentence had to start with the words "some feminists." An undetermined number of feminists support gender equality and the fathers' rights efforts with respect to Shared Parenting.

Fathers' rights criticism by some feminist groups is too generic and paints the word feminism with a very broad brush. There is no telling whether a false dichotomy is created.

It may be more accurate to say that MOST feminists support gender equality and the fathers' rights groups.

In this section, the word feminism is co-opted by feminists from the "males dominate" category of feminism.

Many fathers' rights activists, including Will Farrell, call themselves pro-feminist. Their beliefs very much overlap with the feminists from the emphasize-are-sameness school of thought.

It is very possible that nearly all of the men who would call themselves fathers' rights activists are pro-feminist men. Almost all fathers' rights activists advocate Shared Parenting, not a return to automatic father custody.

Therefore, the second sentence, which begins "Some feminists and pro-feminist men", is inaccurate. Pro-feminist men, like Will Farrell, are fathers' rights activists.

Fathers' rights and gender equality are very similar civil rights issues and the entire Criticism section of this article has been inaccurately used to disguise this fact.

Michael H 34 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I tend to agree with your points Michael H 34. I dropped Trish Wilson a line on her talk page becuase unfortunately, her comments are referenced from a non-notable source, I've asked if she can provide a notable source for the material - if she, or nobody else can, that paragraph will have to be changed. Critcism must be specific and notable, just as article content should be. However Michael H 34, in relation to the above post, replacing SOME feminists with MOST or A FACTION (or such terms) is not enough. Specific critiques of the subject of an article are the only ones that should be mentioned in articles otherwise they introduce elements of POV. I will try to find such specifics myself but if anyone else has them please post them.--Cailil 17:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

She cited from Timesunion. Isn't it a notable source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zslevi (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

The piece about Darren Mack is okay - that's cited from Timesunion (ref no. 37). The quotes from her are sourced from a blog (ref no. 36) - she probably has had these published in a paper but those sources must be referenced rather than a blog (because blogs are not WP:RS). Also the comments Trish Wilson, writer and freelance journalist, holds that while fathers' rights activists claim they are "only concerned with helping dads see their children", they actually "lobby for presumptive joint custody (a. k. a. shared parenting), seek to reduce protections for battered women" and that they "want laws that would lower their child support obligations". are uncited - they need to be referenced from a WP:V or WP:RS source, otherwise it looks like POV. I've found these comments in an article on alternet but once again this doesn't fulfill WP:RS.--Cailil 18:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Has a source been found for this sentence? Michael H 34 15:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Sources and Citations

Since there has been recently some controversy about the editing of this page, can I suggest that all editors are careful to cite sources for any additions that they make to the article? For those who need it, information about citing sources can be found here WP:CITE. --Slp1 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Custody

I would like to insert the following text into the custody section.

"In a non-binding ballot initiative in 2004, 86% of Massachusetts voters agreed that the best outcome of a custody determination is joint physical custody of children. The question was put before approximately 700,000 Massachusetts voters, approximately one-quarter of the electorate, with broad geographical, ethnic and socio-economic diversity. Approximately 600,000 of those voters recorded a vote on the question, of whom 86% endorsed joint physical custody."

"The exact wording of the question was, 'Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation requiring that in all separation and divorce proceedings involving minor children, the court shall uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their children and the children’s right to maximize their time with each parent, so far as is practical, unless one parent is found unfit or the parents agree otherwise, subject to the requirements of existing child support and abuse prevention laws?'"

I'm trying to get verification that would be acceptable to Wikipedia.

The following link is from the Boston.Com / Boston Globe / New York Times. It does not include a summary of the results for all localities. The bottom of the webpage shows that information is copyrighted. A link on the page shows the wording of the non-binding ballot question.

http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2004_results/general_election/questions_all_by_town.htm

Here's a link to an article in the Chattanoogan that mentions the results of the 2004 Massachusetts non-binding ballot initiative.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_65642.asp

I don't know if this is good enough. Would someone be kind enough to let me know if these links provide sufficient verification? Thank you.

Michael H 34 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I've given a first answer on Micheal H's talkpage but others welcomed!--Slp1 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Slp1 makes a good point on your talk page Michael H 34 - this info is really specific to the US and should probably be in that section. Other than that it seems fine to me.--Cailil 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael H 34 was open to this (see my talk page) and so I have boldy moved it into the US section. --Slp1 18:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's okay by me. Thanks again for your help. Michael H 34

"Where clear guidance is provided in a court at the outset regarding outcomes, the result is less hostility and a reduced workload for the courts."

This sentence is unsupported by a citation. What guidance would be provided in court regarding outcomes? Fathers rights activists object to the outcomes and would prefer the judges to receive clear directives from the legislature for a presumption for shared parenting.

"Fathers' rights campaigners claim that vested interests in the legal trade are politically operative to preserve lawyers' revenue streams from this type of business."

This sentence is confusing. Reduced workload for the courts contradicts preserve lawyers' revenue streams. The idea that members of a divorce industry have a vested interest in divorce is redundant since it is mentioned elsewhere in the article.

"Judicial powers already exist to endeavor to ensure that continuity is maintained in relationships between children and fathers. Interim contact orders can be issued before the establishment of a routine that excludes the father from the children's lives."

Why is the word already used? In addition, the word contact (or visitation) is controversial and objectionable. This section reads like a rebuttal to Bob Geldof. Fathers' rights activists object to the idea that a judge is empowered to take more than half custody away from any capable and willing parent, regardless of whether a routine has been established.

If there is no objection, I would prefer to remove these 4 sentences from this section.

Michael H 34 02:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Regarding this statement: "Where clear guidance is provided in a court at the outset regarding outcomes, the result is less hostility and a reduced workload for the courts.", I can provide a footnote that supports it. The web page is about collaborative law. Here's the URL:

http://www.divorcesource.com/CT/ARTICLES/prince1.html

That said, there is a trend today for some courts to hire "extras", like guardians ad litem, custody and psychological evaluators, and parenting coordinators - all who make a lot of money from divorces and custody cases. That's where the high fees are coming from, not necessarily from divorce lawyers themselves.

"Interim contact order" and "visitation" are only terms of art. They have legal meanings that differ from the Webster's dictionary definitions. The term "visitation" does not reduce fathers to visitors. It only refers to the specific times the child is with the non-custodial parent. It has nothing to do with parenting itself. The word "contact" is not controversial or objectionable except to fathers' rights advocates. Some states have changed the language, but there are plenty of states who still call it "contact" or "visitation". I would like to see the "judicial powers already exist..." statement to stay in.

Trish Wilson 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added the footnote I provided above to the text of the article.

Trish Wilson 21:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Regarding this statement: "Where clear guidance is provided in a court at the outset regarding outcomes, the result is less hostility and a reduced workload for the courts.", I can provide a footnote that supports it. The web page is about collaborative law."

I believe that these sentences would be more appropriate in a different section. Collaborative law involves more than custody. Fathers' Rights activists want Shared Parenting and this article is improved if this point is made clear in the section on Custody.

"Interim contact order" and "visitation" are only terms of art. They have legal meanings that differ from the Webster's dictionary definitions. The term "visitation" does not reduce fathers to visitors. It only refers to the specific times the child is with the non-custodial parent. It has nothing to do with parenting itself. The word "contact" is not controversial or objectionable except to fathers' rights advocates. Some states have changed the language, but there are plenty of states who still call it "contact" or "visitation".

Fathers' rights activists probably prefer the word parenting time to contact. However, the word visitation is particularly objectionable to fathers' rights activists. The use of this word as a substitute for parenting time reinforces the idea in the minds of decision-makers that only custodial parents "raise the children" and that the non-custodial parent (another objectionable term - the non-parent if you will) makes no contribution except for financial contributions.

I would like to see the "judicial powers already exist..." statement to stay in."

I propose the following as a replacement for the 4 existing sentences.

Judges are empowered to enforce custody agreements, and even when agreements have not yet been reached, judges are empowered, taking into consideration the best interests of the children, to order mothers and fathers to share custody of their children on an interim basis while the parents develop a parenting plan.

Michael H 34 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I invite all readers to please feel free to comment on this suggestion.

Michael H 34 15:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Suggested edit to the beginning of the Article

I would like to expand the following bullet:

• The introduction of no-fault divorce in the 1960s, resulting in a rise in divorce rates throughout the world.

I would like to see it read as follows:

• The decline in the power of religious belief to support marriage and the introduction of no-fault divorce in the 1960s, resulting in a rise in divorce rates throughout the world.

How can I make it so?

Michael H 34 16:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Can you find a reliable source for this? I realize that very few things have citations at present, but any changes should have references to support them. If you have, go ahead! --Slp1 01:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6816 Michael H 34 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be a bit wary of using the Catholic News Agency as a WP:RS source, on the grounds that it has a partisan point of view - if you there's another source it would be better.--Cailil 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interim Contact Orders

I just noticed that the paragraph about interim contact orders in the section about "Child Custody/Residence and Parenting Time" has been changed. The problem is that the changes are not supported by any citations. Here is the changed statement:

"Judges are empowered to direct parents to share parenting time, and even before custody issues are resolved, judges are empowered, taking into account the best interests of the children, to order an interim parenting plan, which can prevent the father from being excluded from the children's lives, while the parents develop their own parenting plan."

I would like to see the original statements reposted, with the following citations (keep reading):

Interim contact orders are common in the U. K and in Australia. They have to do with all kinds of contact orders, not only joint custody (a. k. a. "shared parenting") orders. Sometimes parenting plans are included with these contact orders, but not all the time. Focusing only on joint custody/shared parenting orders limits the nature of interim contact orders. I would like to see the statement about these orders changed back to the original, which was this:

"Judicial powers already exist to endeavor to ensure that continuity is maintained in relationships between children and fathers. Interim contact orders can be issued before the establishment of a routine that excludes the father from the children's lives."

Here are three sources to back up that statement above. One is from the U. K., and two are from Australia. Wiki editors, please let me know if these sources are okay to use. Two of them are rather lengthy papers. Just look for "interim contact orders" in them to see the pertinent information you need.

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/resources/file/eb0012059e946e8/fla.pdf

http://www.custodyissues.co.uk/court_welfare_officers.html

http://www.ema.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(03995EABC73F94816C2AF4AA2645824B)~Contact+Services+Report0605.doc/$file/Contact+Services+Report0605.doc [note: this is a Word document]

I would like to add the following sentence to the statement, since two of the three sources mentioned contact and domestic violence:

"While interim contact orders have helped more non-custodial parents have access to their children, they have been criticized for prioritizing the non-custodial parent's access to the child over the child's safety when domestic violence has been alleged."

I would also like to see the following statement reinstated, since it is accurate and supported with a footnote:

"Where clear guidance is provided in a court at the outset regarding outcomes, the result is less hostility and a reduced workload for the courts." I can provide a footnote that supports it. The web page is about collaborative law. Here's the URL:

http://www.divorcesource.com/CT/ARTICLES/prince1.html

If the sources are okay, I would like to change the paragraph as it is now written to read as follows, including the four sources listed above:

"Where clear guidance is provided in a court at the outset regarding outcomes, the result is less hostility and a reduced workload for the courts. Judicial powers already exist to endeavor to ensure that continuity is maintained in relationships between children and fathers. Interim contact orders can be issued before the establishment of a routine that excludes the father from the children's lives. While interim contact orders have helped more non-custodial parents have access to their children, they have been criticized for prioritizing the non-custodial parent's access to the child over the child's safety when domestic violence has been alleged."

Trish Wilson 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I just had another thought. Keep the rewritten section in, but find some citations for it. Place the section I wrote either in the same section as the rewritten section, or move my paragraph to another section.

Trish Wilson 12:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Shared Parenting

I would like to add the following to the end of the Child custody/residence and parenting time section. It clarifies when joint custody/shared parenting works, and when it doesn't. I have included sources.

Researcher Paul Amato had found that when parents have an amicable relations, children are likely to benefit from joint custody. However, when children are exposed to conflict, joint custody can be harmful. Most parents with joint custody arrangements had only one child. They were relatively wealthy and educated. They also were relatively friendly towards each other. These parents were friendly and cooperative before and after the divorce, showing it was the predivorce characteristics of the parents that reflected the postdivorce relationship, not the type of custody arrangement itself. Ordering joint custody between parents who could not cooperate with each other has been shown to be detrimental. Joint custody parents "had reported the lowest satisfaction with the legal agreement one year after the child custody order." Paul Amato had also noted the lack of satisfaction when courts order joint custody when it is not the first choice of both parents. He wrote that "in a large California study, Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) found that joint custody is sometimes used to resolve custody disputes. They found that joint custody was awarded in about one-third of cases in which mothers and fathers had each sought sole custody. And the more legal conflict that occurred between parents, the more likely joint custody was to be awarded. Three and one-half years after separation, these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent."

The sources are as follows:

Amato: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/resolve/ncpreport/amato(1993).html

Other joint custody info: http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/SIPP/pt2.htm

Trish Wilson 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Three and one-half years after separation, these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent."

In other words, parents that are willing to collaborate prior to a divorce are able to collaborate better after a divorce.

Michael H 34 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following section could also be included in relation to shared parenting. However, I believe that claims about the appropriateness of Shared Parenting are better suited to an article titled "Shared Parenting."

"This is a case where a shared residence order is appropriate. But it also demonstrates clearly that shared residence orders are not a panacea. Shared residence and an equal division of the children's time between their parents' houses is possible in this case because the parents live close to each other, and the children can go to school from either home. The children welcome it because, in C's words, which I have already quoted, it gives his parents nothing left to fight about. But it is a pragmatic solution, which does nothing to address the underlying hostility between the parents. Whether or not it succeeds, only time will tell."

"This case has been about control throughout. Mrs. A sought to control the children, with seriously adverse consequence for the family. She failed. Control is not what this family needs. What it needs is co-operation. By making a shared residence order the court is making that point."

Michael H 34 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Overall look at this article

I am concerned that this article is getting away from the topic at hand (Fathers' rights) and getting into long paragraphs about particular issues such as Domestic Violence, Child custody/residence and parenting time etc. I believe that most of this argument/research should be placed in the articles dealing this those specific issues rather than in this article. For this article the focus should be on (sourced) opinions about what fathers' rights activists say about specific issues, there also needs to be a critique/criticism for each short section (if appropriate) and at the end. Of course there would be links the specific articles where the issues are laid out in more detail. Any thoughts.--Slp1 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you.

Michael H 34 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I like the various points of view in the article. They give the article depth, and prevent it from being biased in favor of one point of view. The article is already divided into the fathers' rights point of view, and then criticism, either at the end of the article, or within each section. I think that both ways work well. Maybe the article just needs editing so that it flows better. I also agree that much of the article needs to cite citations. More than anything the article needs to cite its sources, and the sources have to be valid.

Trish Wilson 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Don't get me wrong, Trish, I absolutely think that the article needs both perspectives and to avoid being biased. I just think we are getting bogged down in argument and detail about specific subjects that would be better covered in detail in the relevant article themselves. Here should just be a summary of the arguments so that we can focus specifically on the topic at hand... what Fathers' rights issues are, as well as how these perspectives are criticised. All cited from reliable sources as you say! Slp1 03:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the problem with this article is that it has digressed from describing Men's Rights and what they believe, and goes into argument attempting to justify those views. That makes this article read like advocacy Decr32 05:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article reads like advocacy. It's going to take a lot of work to fix that. I'd recommend creating - here - an outline. Start with opening statements/paragraphs, then outlining describing Father's Rights with criticisms, and then a closing paragraph/statements. I think outlining what needs to be done will make the work needed seem less onerous. Trish Wilson 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

____________

The members of the Fathers' Rights Movement advocate for change and their major goal is a legislative presumption for shared parenting. If the article does not make this clear, then it should. Please feel free to comment on anything which is not written from a neutral point of view.

I would like to communicate the idea that members of the Fathers' Rights movement believe that the Fathers' Rights movement and shared parenting can benefit some women.

(1) Shared parenting can help more women enjoy more freedom by providing them with more time and greater opportunities to develop fulfilling careers (2) To the same extent that some women receive additional child support income because they have had children with more than one man as opposed to one man, other women are not able to find a suitable man, who is willing to have a child with them. If anyone can find Wikipedia acceptable links that would help communicate these ideas, I believe that they would improve the article.

I found what I believe to be a good link for the first point. If anyone can find a good link for the second point, I believe that it would improve the article.

Michael H 34 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thanks for your comments all, and it looks like we are agreed that this article needs work, and I am sure it will be better as a result.
I suggest that we all take a look at the new combined policy of attribution and also WP is not a soapbox before we start on this.
Trish has suggested making an outline here first. That sounds like a good idea to me. I also have found editing one section at a time is helpful. We need to find reliable sources for every thought and idea, and that is a lot of work!!
I also think we need to be prepared for the fact that the article is likely going to be much shorter after the job is done. I think the article contains lots of detail about specific issues which reads like advocacy and which we need to boldly move into the relevant WP articles on Child custody/residence and parenting time, for example. It isn't that the information isn't interesting, just that it is not really relevant or necessary in this article. In my opinion, each section should begin with something like: "Fathers' rights activists say/report/want/another verb" followed by sourced information about what they believe and very briefly why. If there is a critique, then it can be followed by another paragraph starting with something like "Critics say/report etc...." with more sourced information. --Slp1 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree.

With respect to the section labeled Child custody/residence and parenting time, I suggest that the last two paragraphs that begin "Where clear guidance is provided...." and "Judges are empowered...." could be eliminated or moved to the article on Shared Parenting.

Michael H 34 17:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I'm glad you liked my suggestion re: outline, Slp1. The article as it stands now rambles so much that I think you'd lose readers after the first paragraph. Creating the outline here can help all editors break the article down so that they may be able to work on it with more ease. Plus, everything needs reliable sources, which is another problem the article has (lack of reliable sources). The outline can help editors avoid turning an encyclopedia page into advocacy. I think in the long run outlining the article will lead to the creating of a much better article. I have no personal problem with the article being much shorter. I expect it to be much shorter after much-needed editing. That will keep it from rambling, and that will keep it from leaning to heavily into activism.

I'd recommend not adding or deleting anything in the article until the outline is ready and posted. Maybe treat the article as a slush page. The part of the Child custody/residence and parenting time section Michael mentioned could be placed in a "criticism" portion of that particular section. I recommend not removing or adding anything to the article at this point in time. Wait until the outline is ready.

Trish Wilson 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good.

Michael H 34 23:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Disputed

The bit on million dads march in this article contradicts the million dads march article, which claims million dads march network was founded in 2002 by Thomas Lessman. From the history of both articles it seems there are competing claims for credit for "founding" the MDM.

Decr32 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Outline

How's this for the start of an outline? It's just a start. I hope it makes sense. I couldn't add numbers and letters like a normal outline because Wiki kept boxing everything. So, I used bullets. Everyone feel free to add or delete from it. I think it covers the major points.

1. Intro - Fathers Rights

Description of movement

Criticism

2. Main Issues

Family law and the family court

Adversarial court system

language

++::bias against fathers

criticism

Child Custody - Shared Parenting

criticism

Child Support

criticism

Domestic Violence and Child Abuse

criticism

Parental Alienation Syndrome

criticism

3. In the UK

Fathers 4 Justice

Families Need Fathers

criticism

4. In Australia

Men's Rights Agency

The Blackshirts

criticism

5. In the USA

Fathers and Families

Children's Rights Council

American Coalition For Fathers And Children

Alliance For Noncustodial Parents Rights

criticism

6. Famous Supporters

7. Conclusion, supportive and critical

Trish Wilson 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed up the formatting for an easier read and have added "Famous supporters" at the end, otherwise it looks good, though I am not an expert in this at all! Slp1 18:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for fixing the formatting, Slp1. I couldn't figure that out for the life of me. I see the code for it now.

I'm not sure that "Famous supporters" are the right words. Do you mean famous supporters as in famous people who support the movement, like Sir Bob Geldof, or notable members of the movement? Fathers' rights activists aren't really "famous" except within the movement. Maybe "Notable Supporters" is a better choice of words.

Trish Wilson 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, notable would be much better! Slp1 22:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable is better. Though father's rights activists aren't really notable outside their own group. Would this section contribute anything of encyclopedic value to the article? Decr32 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Decr32 makes some good points. It will probably not be necessary to have a separate section entitled "Notable Supporters", since the UK, Australian, and USA sections would already discuss the better-known groups and activists. Having a "Notable Supporters" section might be redundant in light of the previous sections. Trish Wilson 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

____

I think creating the outline was a good start.

I hope that the outline will not prevent this article from including phrases like "In response to such criticism, members of the fathers' rights movement state...."

I also hope that the outline will not prevent this article from including developments like Australia's new law on Shared Parenting legislation or the nonbinding ballot referendum in Massachusetts.

I also hope that you will consider Karen DeCrow notable.

Michael H 34 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Should Paternity Fraud be included in the outline?

Michael H 34 14:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Micheal H 34

Flood criticism

If anyone can find a citation for the following expansion of the response to Michael Flood's criticism, I would appreciate it.

"While fathers' rights advocates acknowledge that some men are not interested in their children, they also state that many more fathers are interested in their children, and that discrimination against fathers as a group is unfair. Fathers rights activists continue their response by comparing their situation to those of working women by asking, "if some women are not interested in working, is it then fair to discriminate against women as a group in the workplace?"

Michael H 34 15:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following is from the Michael Flood link http://www.xyonline.net/Respondingtomen.shtml provided:

"The men in men's rights groups are typically in their forties and fifties, often divorced or separated, and nearly always heterosexual. In both general men's rights groups and fathers' rights groups, participants often are very angry, bitter and hurting (with good reason, they would say), and they often have gone through deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles."

This is from the Criticism section of the article:

"Critics, such as Michael Flood, a researcher in gender studies, especially in relation to men and masculinities,[45] see the men's rights movement and fathers' rights movement as the most extreme part of the broader men's movement[46]. According to this view, most fathers' rights advocates have joined the movement as the result of negative personal experience during a divorce or custody battle and not genuine concern for children and as fathers."

The inclusion of the words "and not genuine concern for children and as fathers" is a misrepresentation of what Dr. Flood published. Many fathers may be bitter because they feel that their children have been taken away from them. This does not mean that they do not love their children. In the linked document, Dr. Flood never stated that fathers are not genuinely concerned for their children. After providing time for comment, I intend to delete the words "and not genuine concern for children and as fathers" from the article. Michael H 34 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I agree. That phrase is not an accurate paraphrase of Flood's conclusion. As such it is unsourced opinion.

Decr32 07:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll wait longer to see if there are any more comments. Michael H 34 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michel H 34

Outline - Intro

How's this for the Intro - Fathers Rights? It's brief enough. I've included my sources after the relevant statements. It is a brief description of the movement, along with the major tenets, as well as criticism.

The fathers' rights movement claims that courts discriminate against fathers in court, citing the fact that mothers most often get custody of the children in divorce as proof that courts discriminate against fathers. (http://www.dadsrights.org/articles/advocates.html) Fathers rights groups also blame "fatherlessness" (single and divorced-mother homes) for a variety of social ills, including low SAT scores, juvenile crime, teen pregnancy, and teen substance abuse. (http://www.dadsrights.org/articles/advocates.html) To remedy this alleged discrimination, fathers' rights groups call for a presumption for joint physical custody (a. k. a. shared parenting). (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/child_custody/fathers_rights.html) They also believe that child support awards are too high. (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/child_custody/fathers_rights.html) Shared parenting often results in a lowering of child support. (http://www.divorcenet.com/states/oklahoma/child_support_in_oklahoma) Father's rights groups claim that they only wish to encourage that divorced fathers are able to remain a part of their children's lives. (http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070113/NEWS02/70112025) They also claim that women frequently fabricate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse to get an upper hand in divorce and custody proceedings. (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/22775.html) They cite Parental Alienation Syndrome as evidence that mothers frequently alienate children from their fathers, and they want to see this alienation stop. (http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/html/custody/parental-alienation-syndrome.html) They claim that women and men are equally abusive, and they want to see more protections for battered men. (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/html/mlintima_e.html)

Critics charge that the fathers' rights movement is a backlash to the gains made by the women's movement since the 1970s that have contributed to more women being able to file for divorce. Some feminists have reported harassing behavior from fathers' rights activists at legislative hearings. (http://www.owjn.org/custody/lobby2.htm) Some non-custodial parents have sought shared parenting in the hope of getting their child support obligation reduced. Once the order is in place, that parent does not make good on the order. The custodial parent then spends the most time with the child, but is receiving less in child support than a sole custody/visitation award. (http://www.ontariodivorces.com/child-support.html) They also say that fathers' rights groups misrepresent valid research that has shown that joint physical custody (shared parenting) does not result in an increase in child support compliance as well as improving the lives of children who have more contact with their fathers. It is the quality of the relationship between the child and the fathers as well as the quality of the relationship between the father and mother that makes the difference. Critics state that joint physical custody ignores the contributions of the primary caregiver, most often the mother. (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/child_custody/fathers_rights.html) They say that children are harmed by joint custody when exposed to conflict, and especially when the relationship between the parents is abusive. The desires of adults, in particular non-custodial parents, are favored over what is best for the children. (http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/deans/mason/bookscutody.shtml) They also claim that, contrary to fathers' rights views, bona fide false allegations of abuse are rare, and that research showing that women and men are equally abusive is flawed. (http://www.omsys.com/mmcd/courtrev.htm) (Rita Smith (NCADV) & Pamela Coukos (PCADV), "Fairness and Accuracy in Evaluations of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Custody Determinations", The Judges Journal, Fall 1997, Pp. 38-56) (http://thesafetyzone.org/everyone/gelles.html) Parental Alienation Syndrome is "junk science", unrecognized as a valid syndrome by the American Medical Association. (http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/ocean/host.php?folder=110&page=366&T=) Critics say that fathers' rights misrepresent research to support their contention that men and women are equally abusive. When the abusive relationship is examined, it becomes clear that most victims of domestic violence are women. (http://thesafetyzone.org/everyone/gelles.html)

Trish Wilson 17:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Trish for the great start. The following are my very preliminary comments:

1. I particularly appreciate the citations which gives us a good example to follow.

2. I like the way the article starts at present with a bit of a historical context: I think it would be a bit sudden to launch into these paragraphs without a more general intro.

3. I think the word "claim" is overused: it implies a POV, to me. Here are some other suggestions for verbs to use: argue, say, suggest, note, believe, speculate.--Slp1 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Trish, I also congratulate you on your efforts. I also have some preliminary comments.

"They cite Parental Alienation Syndrome as evidence that mothers frequently alienate children from their fathers, and they want to see this alienation stop. They also claim that women frequently fabricate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse to get an upper hand in divorce and custody proceedings." In both cases, the word "frequently" is inappropriate. Michael H 34 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Shared parenting often results in a lowering of child support." I would add "Some researchers have found that" to the beginning of this sentence. I also suggest that this valid finding should moved to the section on Shared Parenting. Michael H 34 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Father's rights groups claim that they only wish to encourage that divorced fathers are able to remain a part of their children's lives." The word "only" is inappropriate. Michael H 34 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Some non-custodial parents have sought shared parenting in the hope of getting their child support obligation reduced. Once the order is in place, that parent does not make good on the order." I think that this valid point should be moved to the section on Shared Parenting. Michael H 34 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"including low SAT scores" I would change "SAT scores", which is provincial, to academic achievement. Michael H 34 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"It is the quality of the relationship between the child and the fathers as well as the quality of the relationship between the father and mother that makes the difference." This sentence needs an introduction such as: "they also say that." Michael H 34 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Michael H 34

"Fathers' rights campaigners argue that their own and their children's rights and best interests are breached; they cite research[2]to argue that even after separation and divorce, children gain critical mental and emotional health benefits from continuing quality involvement by and with their father. Fathers' rights activists state that it is destructive to deny children the right to know and be cared for by both parents when both are available."

What will happen to this sentence and its link? Michael H 34 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

That sentence and link should be deleted unless a reference can be found because it is a presentation of original research. A cite for that sentence should be a reference to Father's Rights activists citing research. Currently it is just a link to the original research, and the statement that FRs cite that research is an original synthesis of ideas.

Decr32 20:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Slp1. I like the word "say" as well. I have no problem using it instead of "claim". Michael, fathers rights supporters have said quite often that they think false allegations of abuse are frequently made by women. I think the word "frequently" acknowledges that. I think that the points I made about shared parenting and child support are fine where they are. Maybe elaborate a bit in the Shared Parenting section. Changing SAT scores to "academic achievement" sounds fine to me. I used the word "only" to make the point sound more personal. I have no problem leaving it out. I think that the sentence, "It is the quality of the relationship" sounds fine the way it is, but I'll think about it, and possibly come up with a better sentence. "They also say that..." makes me wonder who "they" are.

Trish Wilson 16:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement about false allegations is clearly false without context. Why would the article be improved if a false statement is attributed to a group of people? If the word frequently is used in the sentence about false allegations, then the sentence could finish with "when custody is contested in an adversarial court system inclined to award sole custody to one parent" in order to give the attributed statement its context.

Wherever they are located, the statements about shared parenting and child support could be attributed with phrases such as "critics of fathers' rights groups state that" so that the article can maintain a neutral point of view.

Michael H 34 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Actually the statement on false allegations had more context than the statement on Parental Alienation Syndrome. "They cite Parental Alienation Syndrome as evidence that mothers frequently alienate children from their fathers, and they want to see this alienation stop." Michael H 34 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Discussion on inclusion of Australian Law on Shared Parenting

I also hope that the outline will not prevent this article from including developments like Australia's new law on Shared Parenting legislation or the nonbinding ballot referendum in Massachusetts.

I also hope that you will consider Karen DeCrow notable.

Michael H 34 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Developments in family law belong in an article about "history of Family Law in Australia" or whatever. It doesn't belong in this article because:

1 inclusion implies the development in law is related to or caused by Father's Rights Activists. WP:A.

2 a list of 'recent developments in law' is an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.

3 there is no consensus among the activists about these laws. eg Lionel Richards was livid about the new shared parenting laws in Australia.

Decr32 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you.

Shared Parenting is the key topic for this article.

Members of the fathers' rights movement do advocate for shared parenting.

Developments related to Shared Parenting are most relevant for this article.

Just because consensus is not achieved on an issue doesn't make it irrelevant. I don't know who Lionel Richards is, but maybe his views are irrelevant.

Michael H 34 14:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

1. Shared parenting is the key topic for the article on Shared parenting.

2. The article can say FR's advocate for shared parenting. However Father's Righters are only a subset of the people/groups who advocate a position on Shared Parenting. The interest in Shared parenting is broad enough that Shared parenting requires its own article.

3. I didn't suggest development in law is irrelevant. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry about Father's Right's because it fails salience, WP:A and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. (and probably also wikipedia is not a soapbox).

I submit recent developments are in the nature of News, which doesn't belong in encyclopedia. And a list of developments is more in the nature of history of law or history of Shared parenting and should go in that article.

Decr32 21:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend towards Decr32's view here. In my view, we should focus on what Father's rights people advocate for, and not include the arguments per se. These should be in the other relevant articles. If we can find citations that say that father right's activists were instrumental in getting the Australian laws passed, then it deserves a mention, perhaps as part of the successes of the movement in the area of shared parenting. Slp1 23:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There currently exists a section on Supporters. In the new outline, some contributors have planned to include a section or subsections titled "Supporters." Should Bob Geldof be included? Is what he said history? Was it recent news when he said it? The leadership of an entire nation has just passed laws in support of Shared Parenting! Just because this was a recent development, just because it is news, just because Wikipedia is encyclopedic in its content and style, doesn't mean that this information is inappropriate for this article on fathers' rights. In terms of including supporters of fathers' rights, nothing could be more relevant.

I write the following politely and with respect to all readers and contributors, and with continued thanks to SPL1 who helped me earlier. Anyone who supports Shared Parenting supports fathers' rights. I question the need for further documentation regarding the Australian Law. This article is titled fathers' rights, not fathers' rights groups.

Michael H 34 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

My point is less that it is news, and more because it is about Shared Parenting, and so far a cited link between the new law and the father's rights movement is entirely absent. But as I said above, if we can find a reference then it may well be appropriate as a sign that FR movement is being successful (depends what the reference says, though!)Slp1 00:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember when Australia made the changes. There was no change in time related to residence. The change was "shared parenting responsibility", which is the same as joint legal custody. It didn't affect the amount of time non-custodial parents would spend with their children. Australian fathers rights groups weren't happy with this at all. They saw it as no change at all. They didn't get the 50/50 shared parenting that they had lobbied for. So, the changes in family law were indirectly due to fathers' rights advocacy, but fathers' rights groups didn't get what they wanted. Family law and psychiatric industry people also lobbied for the changes in Australian family court. THEY got what they wanted - not fathers' rights activists. What actually happened was that professionals who made their livings with mediation, Guardians ad Litem, parenting coordinators, psychological and custody evaluations did well with these changes. Fathers rights activists didn't get the 50/50 shared parenting they had wanted.

Here's a link about it:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/shared-parenting-more-a-mirage-than-a-breakthrough/2006/01/01/1136050344137.html

And this. Check section 2.35. 50/50 shared parenting was rejected in Australia:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/report/chapter2.pdf

If there have been changes in the past year or so, I don't know because I haven't been following Australia in a bit of awhile. I do know that fathers' rights activists weren't happy with the Australian committee's final decisions. They were actually quite livid about it.

Trish Wilson 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is fathers' rights groups being substituted for the fathers' rights movement? Please let me clarify my point. Anyone who supports Shared Parenting is a member of the fathers' rights movement. The fathers' rights movement was by definition responsible for the Australian Law. The existence of fathers' rights groups does not change this.

Please let me use myself as an example. Am I a member of the National Organization of Women? No. Do I support gender equality in employment? Yes. If we were working on an article about women's rights, and a law were passed concerning gender equality in employment, would it be relevant to the article? Yes, of course. Would there be a need to show that the National Organization of Women (why should the National Organization of Women be substituted for womens' rights?) was responsible? I strongly suggest no. Why wouldn't I be considered a member of the womens' rights movement simply because I am not a member of the National Organization of Women? Would the answer be different if the National Organization of Women did not exist? The article is about womens' rights, not womens' rights groups.

Fathers' rights and Shared Parenting overlap almost completely. With that said, I've also noted above that some information about Shared Parenting could be moved to the article about Shared Parenting. However, this article could become a list of links with everything moved to other articles. Do you think that such a change would improve the article? I don't. I thought that Trish Wilson did a good job with the outline. Michael H 34 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

If Fathers' rights and Shared Parenting overlap almost completely this article should say that and refer to the shared parenting article. This article then covers the areas which don't overlap, eg fathers rights groups and what they say about other things such as no fault divorce and misuse of DV proceedings.

Decr32 21:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I like Trish Wilson's outline. If you wish to move all references to fathers' rights groups to another article titled "fathers' rights groups", please build a consensus and make it so. Michael H 34 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

From the Australian Law:

"(1) If a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:

(a) consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and

(b) consider whether the child spending equal time with each of

the parents is reasonably practicable; and

(c) if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order)for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents."

I imagine that if there were no gender bias or perceived gender bias in family courts, then more women would be for Shared Parenting and fewer men would support it.

This law is shared parenting. If other countries or states adopted shared parenting, then appropriately, there will be allowances for and guidance on judicial discretion. Michael H 34 23:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael, you still have not shown any connection between the Australian law and father's rights. Asserting father's rights == shared parenting over and over is not a connection.

Decr32 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Trish's first link above [3] the job connecting the fathers' rights movement to the law, at least in regard to the how they campaigned for changes. --Slp1 12:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that because the article is titled fathers' rights and not fathers' rights groups, there is no need to attribute the law to the campaign of fathers' rights groups, and I submit the following hypothetical question: "What is the relevance of the Australian law on Shared Parenting to this article if fathers' rights groups did not exist?", as support of my belief. Michael H 34 18:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The changes to Australian law are based on children's rights, not father's rights. Section 60B of the [Family Law Act] sets out the principles underlying that part of the Act, specifically: "children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together". That section lists numerous childrens' rights the Australian parliament recognises and zero fathers' rights. To answer your hypothetical question, the australian law per se is not relevant to this article whether FR groups exist or not - the Australian law has nothing to do with fathers rights. The fact that FR groups lobbied for change and are disappointed with the result might be relevant.

Decr32 23:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fathers rights groups were not the only groups that lobbied the Australian government regarding changes in the family court system. The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts lobbied heavily, and the changes that were made in Australia gave members work. Look at this conference brochure to see the kinds of work AFCC members make for themselves, all related to divorce and custody cases.

http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/2007%20AFCC%20Washington%20DC%20Program.pdf (Acrobat file)

Here is the history of AFCC. This group is very active in Australia, and it heavily influenced the changes in Australia's family court system.

http://www.afccnet.org/about/history.asp

AFCC made out very well with the changes in Australian family court, not fathers' rights groups. Remember that presumptive 50/50 shared parenting was rejected in Australia. Australia focused on "shared parental responsibility", which is NOT the presumptive 50/50 shared parenting that fathers rights groups wanted. "Shared parental responsibility" is the same as joint legal custody. Courts may order 50/50 timeshare, but only at their discretion. 50/50 timeshare is not automatic, and fathers' rights groups wanted it to be automatic. They failed to get what they wanted. Yes, they lobbied the Australian government, but so did many other groups, most notably AFCC. Fathers rights groups did not cause the changes in Australian law.

Trish Wilson 15:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"The changes to Australian law are based on children's rights...." Excellent point. It is the effect of shared parenting in the context of courts more typically awarding sole or majority custody to one parent (typically the mother) that has created the conditional right of fathers (or more rarely working mothers whose husbands are the primary caretaker) to elect half custody or bargain more effectively for terms of separation that are more acceptable to him (or less typically her) (i.e. custody for two weekends out of three with a modest reduction in child support). If courts more typically awarded sole or majority custody to fathers, then shared parenting would certainly overlap almost completely with mothers' rights. Michael H 34 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"The fact that FR groups lobbied for change and are disappointed with the result might be relevant." It might be relevant. As you pointed out the consensus of members on this issue is not 100%. Fathers' rights groups advocate for shared parenting. Shared parenting includes judicial discretion*. In response to critics of shared parenting, who state that shared parenting may allow some fathers to continue domestic violence and/or abuse, fathers' rights advocates point out that shared parenting is not and should not be an option for parents who commit domestic violence or abuse. *Fathers' rights groups want allegations of domestic violence to be evaluated based on evidence, and they prefer that judges not "err on the side of caution." Michael H 34 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Remember that presumptive 50/50 shared parenting was rejected in Australia." This statement is clearly contradicted by the quoted section of the Australian law above. The Australian law created a presumption for 50/50 shared parenting, which is conditional based on judicial discretion. Michael H 34 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"The changes to Australian law are based on children's rights...."

In response I wrote, "If courts more typically awarded sole or majority custody to fathers, then shared parenting would certainly overlap almost completely with mothers' rights."

I would like to expand what I wrote here. Individual custody decisions apply to individual parents. The effect of shared parenting is relevant to mothers' rights as well as fathers' rights regardless of how courts "typically" decide custody. Michael H 34 14:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Editing Notes

Thank you for adding this new section, Michael. It makes it much clearer.
Can I suggest that we all add comments at the end of the sections, in time order, rather in the middle, as otherwise important posts might get lost? I have moved one of yours to the end, Michael, for this reason.
Another point of wikithequette is that it is not considered a good idea to edit comments (even your own comments) after they have been posted. See the talkpage guidelines for details of why, etc!! I figure it is okay to write a few clarifying changes within minutes of a first post, but additions and deletions otherwise should be done as a separate post, I believe. --Slp1 12:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Michael H 34 18:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I left out and later added a word to the following sentence from my prior post: "In response to critics of shared parenting, who state that shared parenting may allow some fathers to continue domestic violence and/or abuse, fathers' rights advocates point out that shared parenting is not and should not be an option for parents who commit domestic violence or abuse." I'm sorry if I created any confusion or if I violated any rules on etiquette. Michael H 34 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Shared Parenting Section - Outline

I apologize in advance for the paucity of citations. I believe that the following paragrpahs could be used for the section on shared parenting.

Members of the fathers’ rights movement want shared parenting laws. Shared parenting legislation includes guidance from legislators to family court judges on how to decide custody proceedings in case of divorce or separation of parents with dependent children. Shared Parenting legislation does not mean that children must reside half of the time with each parent. Shared parenting legislation does not preclude judicial discretion to decide that children should primarily reside with one of the parents.

Australia’s law titled Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 is an example of a shared parenting law. Based on this law, judges are directed to “(a) consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and (b) consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable.” If the judge decides that both (a) and (b) apply, then the judge is directed “to consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the children to spend equal time with each of the parents."

Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that there are many reasons why they support shared parenting. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that they love their children and want to remain a part of their lives, and fear that if separation or divorce does occur, that they will lose meaningful contact with their children. Many members of the fathers’ rights movement state, “Children need both parents.” Members of the fathers’ rights movement cite a report http://www.apa.org/releases/custody2.html from the American Psychological Association, the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists, which states that “children [are] likely to be better adjusted in joint vs. sole custody arrangements in most cases.”

Critics of the fathers’ rights movement state that fathers want to lower their child support payments. Critics of the fathers’ rights movement state that fathers could choose half custody and then renege on providing half of the care. In response to these critics, many fathers’ rights activists state that child support payments are too generous and that courts can increase the child support for those parents who have shown that they are unwilling to provide half of the care.

Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that with respect to decisions of custody, there is both a bias against shared parenting and a bias against fathers as parents. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that mothers anticipate http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/divrates.php this gender bias within an adversarial court system and that is why mothers initiate divorce significantly more often than fathers. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that women’s groups such as the National Organization of Women also realize the gender bias in the courts in favor of awarding majority or sole custody to the nurturing parent over the breadwinning parent, and further state that this is why the National Organization of Women currently advocates against shared parenting laws, which members of the fathers’ rights movement say is contrary to the National Organization of Women’s positions on gender equality. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that shared parenting laws are needed to counteract the actual and/or perceived gender bias in family courts.

Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that because mothers are able to anticipate the gender bias of the family court, they need not negotiate the terms of the separation, and they need only refuse to cooperate in order to win majority or sole custody (based on the idea that this is in the best interest of children since the parties could not get along enough to agree on custody) and generous child support (since this must be in the best interest of the children since majority or sole custody has been awarded to the mother). Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that negotiations of the terms of separation would be fairer if custody were removed from the negotiations. Critics of the fathers’ rights movement state that sole custody or majority custody is more appropriate in order to provide the children with a home base and that the terms of separation should not be negotiated if a financial power imbalance exists because one parent does not earn income in order to take care of the children.

Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that if custody is contested, the stress between the parties can be overwhelming and manifest, but that much of this stress is a result of the win or lose nature of the custody proceedings. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that often, the parties are able to collaborate after this stressful period has ended and that shared parenting is in the best interest of children. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that the adversarial nature of custody proceedings has resulted in the proposed idea whereby judges should evaluate fathers who act cooperatively and politely in court as potential abusers who are able to hide their true nature.

Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that most parents are competent, capable and love their children. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that judges are elected government officials who are sensitive to political pressure, and who should not prefer to take more than half custody away from a competent, capable and loving parent. Critics of shared parenting laws state that any legislative presumptions are not optimal for the best functioning of judges to evaluate the best interests of the children. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that in most cases, (1) it is not possible to decide on the best interest of the children if sole custody is awarded, since both parents are competent, capable and loving and (2) shared parenting is in the best interest of the children.

Michael H 34 18:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

WP:A An article should report what reliable sources say. This piece is an editor's original thoughts of what FR's position on shared parenting might be. Find sources first, then write.

Decr32 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You've done a lot of work on this, Michael, which is greatly appreciated, and I think it is well organized into sections. The problem, as you noted yourself, is the lack of citations. In my experience writing an article can go two ways: either Decr32's suggestion which is to find the sources first and then write the article, or to write a draft as you have and then try to find reliable resources to support the ideas. (The problem with the second route is the depression that sets in when one can't find a reliable source for an important point that one has spent ages carefully writing about. Very frustrating!!!!) Whichever route is taken, the citations are needed before adding it to the article proper. It looks like Decr32 has started the work below in any case. --Slp1 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree with Decr32 and Slp1 . You need sources for what you've written. It reads like an opinion piece. Also, you may want to reconsider citing Robert Bauserman's meta-analysis of existing joint custody studies. You gave a link to the APA's page on it: http://www.apa.org/releases/custody2.html. While his analysis has its own problems, a serious problem is that Bauserman is a co-author of the controverial Rind Study, which sought to normalize pedophilia. The APA took so much heat for publishing the Rind Study that it had to publicly apologize for publishing it. Robert Bauserman is already mentioned in the Wiki page Rind et al.. Any mention of Bauserman in an article about shared parenting will have to link to the Rind Wiki page. Trish Wilson 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. After reading the link, I didn't conclude that the Rind study was an attempt "normalize pedophilia." Best wishes, Michael H 34 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Proposed shared parenting section

The fathers rights movement advocates for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50:50 shared custody [[4]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[5]].

Decr32 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote something for the shared parenting section that I'd like to submit for everyone's consideration. I included what Decr32 wrote above and I included some of what Michael H 34 had written.

JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY (SHARED PARENTING)

FATHERS RIGHTS VIEW

Members of the fathers rights movement say that courts discriminate against fathers. They say that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions. In her article for The Washington Times, Gabriella Boston pointed out that "about 85 percent of custodial parents in the United States are mothers, according to a 2001 report by the U. S. Census Bureau." [[6]] [[7]]Members of the fathers rights movement feel that upon divorce, fathers have become nothing more than "visitors" in their children's lives. They call for equality in custody decisions. [[8]] Mike McCormick, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, stated in the Washington Times article that,"we believe the baseline should be equal time. We're encouraging states and courts to see there's a need for equality," referring to custody rulings. [[9]] Therefore, fathers rights groups lobby for laws that would make presumptive joint physical custody, also known as shared parenting, the favored form of custody. Presumptive joint physical custody would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father upwards of 35 – 50 percent of the time with his children. It also would result in a substantial decrease in child support the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually dad – would have to pay. [[10]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that there are many reasons why they support shared parenting. Members of the fathers' rights movement state that they love their children and want to remain a part of their lives, and fear that if separation or divorce does occur, that they will lose meaningful contact with their children. [[11]] Many members of the fathers' rights movement state, "Children need both parents." [[12]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that because mothers are able to anticipate the gender bias of the family court, they need not negotiate the terms of the separation, and they need only refuse to cooperate in order to win majority or sole custody (based on the idea that this is in the best interest of children since the parties could not get along enough to agree on custody) and generous child support (since this must be in the best interest of the children since majority or sole custody has been awarded to the mother). Members of the fathers' rights movement state that negotiations of the terms of separation would be fairer if custody were removed from the negotiations. [[13]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that if custody is contested, the stress between the parties can be overwhelming and manifest, but that much of this stress is a result of the win or lose nature of the custody proceedings. Members of the fathers' rights movement state that often, the parties are able to collaborate after this stressful period has ended and that shared parenting is in the best interest of children. Members of the fathers' rights movement state that the adversarial nature of custody proceedings has resulted in the proposed idea whereby judges should evaluate fathers who act cooperatively and politely in court as potential abusers who are able to hide their true nature. (Need sources for this paragraph.)

CRITIC'S VIEW

Shared parenting" is a euphemism for joint physical custody. The fathers rights movement advocates for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 shared custody [[14]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[15]]." Critics have pointed out that one appealing characteristic of shared parenting for fathers rights groups is the lowered or complete termination of the child support order the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually dad – is likely to have. [[16]] Critics also say that shared parenting ignores the dynamics of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse. [[17]]

Members of the father's rights movement often cite studies conducted in the 1980s to support presumptive shared parenting. Fathers rights activists do not point out that these studies involved rare couples who tended to have higher incomes, higher education, who had only one child, not much interpersonal conflict, and they chose joint custody because they wanted to make it work. The characteristics of the pre-divorce family lead to the success of shared parenting, not the shared parenting order itself. Those cases were not representative of most divorces, yet fathers' rights activists cited them to support their contention that shared parenting is far superior and preferable to sole custody, [[18]]

Critics point out that, in promoting shared parenting, fathers rights activists elevate the desires of adults, in particular non-custodial fathers, over what is best for the children. [[19]] Custody decisions should focus on the developmental needs of children, depending on their ages and what is appropriate for them. [[20]] Parents should pay attention to the stress their children are under when deciding how to care for them, especially if they are considering shared parenting. Some children cannot handle the shunting back and forth between two homes. They lose track of friends, and the shared parenting schedule interferes with their extracurricular activities and social lives. They lose out on birthday parties, sleep-overs, and play dates in favor of abiding by a strict shared parenting schedule. [[21]] Fighting over adult "rights" takes the focus away from what is best and most appropriate for children. The wishes and needs of children are not given enough importance in divorce and custody cases. [[22]]

The Washington Times article cited earlier in this section described the truth behind the 85 percent rate of custody to mothers. In most cases, the parents settle out of court, and dad did not want custody. When he fought for it, he won either joint or sole custody about 70 percent of the time. [[23]] [[24]] That is why mothers most often get sole custody. It is not due to bias against dads in court. Contrary to what fathers rights activists say, mothers do not refuse to cooperate in divorce cases because the court system is biased in favor of them, and they know they will get sole custody.

While shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, shared parenting has been shown to be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict and abuse between their parents. [[25]] When joint custody is ordered in those cases, the conflict and abuse escalate, which is harmful for children. [[26]] When one parent wants shared parenting and the other doesn't, there will be conflict between those parents that shared parenting will not alleviate. Paul Amato noted in his article "Contact With Non-custodial Fathers and Children's Well-Being that "In a large California study, Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) found that joint custody is sometimes used to resolve custody disputes. They found that joint custody was awarded in about one-third of cases in which mothers and fathers had each sought sole custody. And the more legal conflict that occurred between parents, the more likely joint custody was to be awarded. Three and one-half years after separation, these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent." [[27]]

Trish Wilson 15:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Trish. I have a go at editing your version. Mostly minor changes, but I have made significant changes to the 'critics' section, including the order of points etc. It also seemed a bit advocacy-like, so I have tried to reword to change that. It is a bit shorter as a result, but I think the points are mostly there. I think it would be useful to have information about the 1980s studies that FRM people cite in the first section, since it seems a bit weird to criticise something that has noted been mentioned!!! Let me know what you all think.

JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY (SHARED PARENTING)

FATHERS RIGHTS VIEW

Members of the fathers’ rights movement say that courts discriminate against fathers and that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions and that about 85 percent of custodial parents in the United States are mothers, according to a 2001 report by the U. S. Census Bureau. [[28]] [[29]] Members of the father’s rights movement feel that upon divorce, fathers often become nothing more than "visitors" in their children's lives and call for equality in custody decisions. [[30]] For example, Mike McCormick, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, referred to custody rulings and stated, "we believe the baseline should be equal time. We're encouraging states and courts to see there's a need for equality,". [[31]] As a result, fathers’ rights groups lobby for laws that would make presumptive joint physical custody, also known as shared parenting, the preferred form of custody[[32]]. and equal parental responsibility following separation. [[33]] Presumptive joint physical custody would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father upwards of 35 – 50 percent of the time with his children as well as a substantial decrease in child support the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually the father– would have to pay. [[34]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement support shared parenting for several reasons: they state that they love their children and want to remain a part of their lives, and fear that if separation or divorce does occur, that they will lose meaningful contact with their children. [[35]] They also argue that, "children need both parents." [[36]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement suggest that because mothers are able to anticipate the gender bias of the family court, they do not need negotiate the terms of the separation, and by refusing to cooperate they win majority or sole custody, based on the idea that this is in the best interest of children since the parties could not get along enough to agree on custody. They claim that as a result mothers also obtain generous child support, since this must be in the best interest of the children since majority or sole custody has been awarded to the mother. Members of the fathers' rights movement propose that negotiations of the terms of separation would be fairer if custody were removed from the negotiations. [[37]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that if custody is contested, the stress between the parties can be overwhelming and manifest, but that much of this stress is a result of the win or lose nature of the custody proceedings. They report that the parties are often able to collaborate after this stressful period has ended and that shared parenting is in the best interest of children. Members of the fathers' rights movement propose that the adversarial nature of custody proceedings has resulted in judges evaluating fathers who act cooperatively and politely in court as potential abusers who are able to hide their true nature. (Need sources for this paragraph.)

CRITIC'S VIEW

Critics of the fathers’ rights movement point out that, in promoting shared parenting, fathers rights activists elevate the desires of adults, in particular non-custodial fathers, over what is best for the children. They argue that custody decisions should focus on appropriately meeting the developmental needs of children.[[38]] as well as their wishes. [[39]] Possible difficulties include problems transitioning between two homes, routines, sets of friends etc. [[40]]

Critics note that the studies from the 1980s often cited by fathers’ rights activities studies to support presumptive shared parenting, involved couples who tended to have higher incomes, higher education, who had only one child, not much interpersonal conflict, and who chose joint custody because they wanted to make it work. They report that such cases are not representative of most divorces, and that characteristics of the pre-divorce family led to the success of shared parenting, rather than shared parenting order itself.[[41]] [[42]] They argue that while shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, shared parenting may be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict and abuse between their parents. [[43]] Research has noted that joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual custody disputes, and that “these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent." [[44]]
:Critics of the fathers’ rights movement also say that shared parenting ignores the dynamics of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse. [[45]]

While agreeing that the custody is mainly awarded to women, critics point out this is because fathers often do not seek custody. When they do, fathers win joint or sole custody 70 percent of the time. [[46]] [[47]]

Critics also point out that a characteristic of shared parenting for fathers’ rights groups is the lowered or complete termination of the child support order the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually the father– is likely to have to pay. [[48]]

Slp1 20:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Trish. I would just point out this contribution is longer than the section on shared parenting already in the article. I suggest much of the length is scope creep from presenting the subject as an argument from first principles - For example the first paragraph introduces 'bias in the court' and presents evidence and argument that there is bias, which is then said to justify FR's position. The scope creep is then mirrored with an argument that there is no 'bias in the courts' in the criticism section.

I submit this article should describe what FR's believe without uneccessary argument about the justification for those views. Eg the first 3 paragraphs can be rewritten something like:

Members of the fathers rights movement say that courts discriminate against fathers and that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions. They say mothers are able to anticipate the gender bias of the family court, they need not negotiate the terms of the separation, and they need only refuse to cooperate in order to win majority or sole custody and generous child support. Members of the fathers' rights movement state that negotiations of the terms of separation would be fairer if custody were removed from the negotiations. [[49]]

Decr32 20:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Response to Criticism subsection of Shared Parenting:

Members' of the fathers' rights movement state that shared parenting laws couple a presumption for 50% physical custody with consideration of the best interests of the children, and that assertions to the contrary, that the interest of parents are elevated above those of the children, are attempts to influence people against shared parenting based on a strawman argument. http://acfc.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=Lansing_State_Journal Michael H 34 22:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that shared parenting does not put the interests of parents above those of the children and quote a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, which found that children of divorce “express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,” and cite the “benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important factor. http://acfc.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=Lansing_State_Journal Michael H 34 22:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Here are citations for the paragraph for which citations were requested:

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that if custody is contested, the stress between the parties can be overwhelming and manifest, but that much of this stress is a result of the win or lose nature of the custody proceedings. They report that the parties are often able to collaborate after this stressful period has ended and that shared parenting is in the best interest of children. [ source first cited was insufficient - source still needed ]

Members of the fathers' rights movement propose that the adversarial nature of custody proceedings has resulted in judges evaluating fathers who act cooperatively and politely in court as potential abusers who are able to hide their true nature. http://www.glennsacks.com/shockome_syndrome.htm Michael H 34 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I had to amend the second sentence:

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that the adversarial nature of custody proceedings has resulted in judges being asked to evaluate fathers who act cooperatively and politely in court as potential abusers who are able to hide their true nature. http://www.glennsacks.com/shockome_syndrome.htm Michael H 34 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"While agreeing that the custody is mainly awarded to women, critics point out this is because fathers often do not seek custody. When they do, fathers win joint or sole custody 70 percent of the time."

It would be nice if this statistic included more information. What is the breakdown between joint custody and sole custody, and what is meant by joint custody? Sometimes, joint custody is used to mean joint legal custody without reference to where the children reside.

Is it meaningful to include this statistic if the actual breakdown were 30% sole custody for the mother, 65% joint legal custody, but the children reside with the mother and the father has some "visitation" and 5% sole custody for the father? Michael H 34 00:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following is from the next page of the link in which the statistic is cited:

"More and more men realize the possibility that they can be involved. ... It's not that they didn't want to be involved -- or share custody -- in the past; they just didn't think they had a chance."

I don't think that the 70% statistic should be included. However, if it remains, then I think that it is appropriate to include the following in the Response to Criticism Subsection: "Members of the fathers' rights movement believe that fathers should not have to "win" half custody and that those fathers who do not have sufficient financial resources should not be at a disadvantage because of the need to pay legal fees in order to contest for half custody. [I'll try to find a link if necessary.] Michael H 34 02:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Presumptive joint physical custody would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father upwards of 35 – 50 percent of the time with his children as well as a substantial decrease in child support the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually the father– would have to pay."

The link does not show this and it's also not true. The following section contributed by Decr32 is accurate and correct.

The members of the fathers' rights movement "advocate for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50:50 shared custody [[50]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[51]]."

Michael H 34 02:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Presumptive joint physical custody would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father upwards of 35 – 50 percent of the time with his children as well as a substantial decrease in child support the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually the father– would have to pay."

I propose the following replacement for this sentence. I believe that what is meant by shared parenting should be made as clear as possible. This is the crux of the article.

The members of the fathers' rights movement "advocate for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50:50 shared custody [[52]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[53]]." If, in the absence of agreement between the parents, a family court judge decides that the presumption of 50:50 shared custody has not been rebutted because it is both in the best interests of the children and practical, then the judge would order that physical custody of the children would be shared equally by the parents. As a consequence of this, the otherwise non-custodial father would be required to pay significantly less in child support, and if the mother had a greater income than the father, she would be required to pay child support to the father. Critics of the fathers' rights movement state that even if ordered, many fathers will not provide 50% of the child care after separation.

Michael H 34 14:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thanks for the comments. I agree with you, Decr, that what I wrote was too long. I wasn't sure what to do about that. I agree with what you said about scope creep, too. Thanks, Slp1, for taking the time and effort to edit what I had written. I like what you wrote. The Bauserman link that Michael had posted could be reinserted into the FRM section to bring up the 1980s studies. Most of the studies Bauserman analyzed were from the 1980s, and fathers' rights activists like to cite his analysis when they support shared parenting. Bauserman still has problems related to Rind et al., which could also be briefly mentioned in the critics section. Maybe write something like this in the FRM section:

Fathers rights activists refer to studies about joint custody, in particular studies from the 1980s, when they state their preference for shared parenting over sole custody. [[54]]

Trish Wilson 14:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The meta-study was published in 2002 and includes studies from 1982 - 1999. Michael H 34 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

__________________

Here's a proposal for a new shared parenting section for the outline. I believe that the term shared parenting should be carefully defined.

JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY (SHARED PARENTING)

The members of the fathers' rights movement advocate for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50:50 shared custody [[55]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[56]], also known as shared parenting. If, in the absence of agreement between the parents, a family court judge decides that the presumption of 50:50 shared custody has not been rebutted because it is both in the best interests of the children and practical, then the judge would order that physical custody of the children would be shared equally by the parents. As a consequence of this, the otherwise non-custodial father would be required to pay significantly less in child support, and if the mother had a greater income than the father, the mother would be required to pay child support to the father. Critics of the fathers' rights movement state that even if ordered, many fathers will not provide 50% of the child care after separation.

FATHERS RIGHTS VIEW

Members of the fathers’ rights movement say that courts discriminate against fathers and that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions and that about 85 percent of custodial parents in the United States are mothers, according to a 2001 report by the U. S. Census Bureau. [[57]] [[58]] Members of the father’s rights movement feel that upon divorce, fathers often become nothing more than "visitors" in their children's lives and call for equality in custody decisions. [[59]] For example, Mike McCormick, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, referred to custody rulings and stated, "we believe the baseline should be equal time. We're encouraging states and courts to see there's a need for equality,". [[60]] As a result, fathers’ rights groups lobby for laws that would make a rebuttable presumption for joint physical custody, also known as shared parenting, the preferred form of custody[[61]] and equal parental responsibility following separation. [[62]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement note that the presumption for shared parenting is rebuttable and custody decisions are still based on the best interest of the children. In response to criticisms of shared parenting, members of the fathers' rights movement state that shared parenting does not put the interests of parents above those of the children and quote a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, which found that children of divorce “express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,” and cite the “benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important factor. [[63]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement support shared parenting for several reasons: they state that they love their children and want to remain a part of their lives, and fear that if separation or divorce does occur, that they will lose meaningful contact with their children. [[64]] They also argue that, "children need both parents." [[65]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that if custody is contested, the stress between the parties can be overwhelming and manifest, but that much of this stress is a result of the win or lose nature of the custody proceedings. They report that the parties are often able to collaborate after this stressful period has ended and that shared parenting is in the best interest of children. source needed Members of the fathers' rights movement propose that the adversarial nature of custody proceedings has resulted in judges evaluating fathers who act cooperatively and politely in court as potential abusers who are able to hide their true nature. [[66]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement suggest that because mothers are able to anticipate the gender bias of the family court, they do not need to negotiate the terms of the separation, and by refusing to cooperate they win majority or sole custody, based on the idea that this is in the best interest of children since the parties could not get along enough to agree on custody. They claim that as a result mothers also obtain generous child support, since this must be in the best interest of the children since majority or sole custody has been awarded to the mother. Members of the fathers' rights movement propose that negotiations of the terms of separation would be fairer if custody were removed from the negotiations. [[67]]

CRITIC'S VIEW

Critics of the fathers’ rights movement point out that, in promoting shared parenting, fathers rights activists elevate the desires of adults, in particular non-custodial fathers, over what is best for the children. They argue that custody decisions should focus on appropriately meeting the developmental needs of children.[[68]] as well as their wishes. [[69]] Possible difficulties include problems transitioning between two homes, routines, sets of friends etc. [[70]]

Critics note that the studies from the 1980s often cited by fathers’ rights activities studies to support presumptive shared parenting, involved couples who tended to have higher incomes, higher education, who had only one child, not much interpersonal conflict, and who chose joint custody because they wanted to make it work. They report that such cases are not representative of most divorces, and that characteristics of the pre-divorce family led to the success of shared parenting, rather than shared parenting order itself.[[71]] [[72]] They argue that while shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, shared parenting may be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict and abuse between their parents. [[73]] Research has noted that joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual custody disputes, and that “these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent." [[74]]
:Critics of the fathers’ rights movement also say that shared parenting ignores the dynamics of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse. [[75]]

While agreeing that the custody is mainly awarded to women, critics point out this is because fathers often do not seek custody. When they do, fathers win joint or sole custody 70 percent of the time. <a more informative statistic is requested> [[76]] [[77]]

Critics also point out that a characteristic of shared parenting for fathers’ rights groups is the lowered or complete termination of the child support order the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually the father– is likely to have to pay. [[78]]

Michael H 34 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

________

"Research has noted that joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual custody disputes...."

The conclusion is not universally true. In New York State, Braiman vs. Braiman and its progeny are used as a presumption to award sole custody when conflict between the parties is high. Michael H 34 16:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"While agreeing that the custody is mainly awarded to women, critics point out this is because fathers often do not seek custody. When they do, fathers win joint or sole custody 70 percent of the time."

Thus, ignoring these potential gender biases against fathers allowed the study to conclude that “fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time.”116However, based on its own data and not ignoring potential gender bias against fathers, the study could also have trumpeted any of the following results, leading to far different conclusions:

Mothers get primary residential custody 93.4% of the time in divorces.

Fathers in divorce get primary residential custody only 2.5% of the time.

Fathers in divorce get joint physical custody only 4% of the time.

Fathers in divorce get primary or joint physical custody less than 7% of the time.

Where fathers actively seek custody, they receive primary residency in less than one out of three cases (29%),121 and joint physical residency in less than half (46%).122[[79]]

Michael H 34 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Proposed Shared Parenting Section - Continued

I'm continuing the shared parenting discussion here because the other section is so long it's truncating on my computer.

Michael H 34 wrote (regarding Bauserman's joint custody analysis): "The meta-study was published in 2002 and includes studies from 1982 - 1999."

Most of those studies were from the 1980s and early 1990s. Some were even from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. They are listed at the end of the report, which is available online. What I wrote about those early joint custody studies in my proposed shared parenting section stands.

Michael H 34 wrote: "The conclusion is not universally true. In New York State, Braiman vs. Braiman and its progeny are used as a presumption to award sole custody when conflict between the parties is high"

The statement I had made didn't say that the conclusion was universally true. It said "joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual custody disputes." That New York State awards sole custody in conflicted cases doesn't change the fact that joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual cases. What I wrote in my proposed shared parenting section stands.

Michael H 34, re: comments about gender bias – What you've written doesn't discount what I had written in my proposed shared parenting section. The first important point: Regarding this quote you made from Cynthia McNeely's paper: "Where fathers actively seek custody, they receive primary residency in less than one out of three cases (29%), and joint physical residency in less than half (46%)." 29 plus 46 equals 75% - only five points over what the Mass. Gender Bias Report had said. The 70% figure stands. It's even a bit low, according to Cynthia McNeely. And she was talking about residency, not legal custody.

You (and Cynthia McNeely, for that matter) are making the mistake of assuming that a low number of fathers winning some form of custody in that report means that lots of dads had asked for custody and most of them did not get it. That report you linked to included McNeely's commentary about the Massachusetts Gender Bias Report. The Massachusetts Gender Bias Reported stated dads get custody 70% of the time. Fathers who contested custody usually get some form of it. There weren't many of them, but they did win quite often in the small percentage of total cases that existed at that time. Keep in mind that that report was from about 1990, when few dads were asking for custody. I already pointed that out in the "critics" section of what I wrote about shared parenting that the early joint custody studies were about rare families with unusual qualities. Dads who wanted custody back then often got it when they asked for it, and most of the time both parents wanted it. Most dads didn't ask for custody at that time. Most dads today don't ask for it. . I've already posted information about how some courts would order joint custody to deal with custody disputes – so dad is getting some form of custody when he makes an issue of it. There are (I believe) 40 state gender bias reports. All of them found that fathers get either sole or joint custody more than half the time when they make an issue of it. 70% was the highest figure reported in the gender bias reports.

Some of the talk over the last two days has leaned towards debate about fathers' rights. I've defended the points I've made in the shared parenting section. I don't want to debate or argue here. It's inappropriate on Wikipedia.

Trish Wilson 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Couple of real quick points, and then I won't say anymore. I promise. I don't want to debate here.

From Michael H 34 (quoting Cynthia McNeely):

Mothers get primary residential custody 93.4% of the time in divorces.

Fathers in divorce get primary residential custody only 2.5% of the time.

Fathers in divorce get joint physical custody only 4% of the time.

Fathers in divorce get primary or joint physical custody less than 7% of the time.

All total cases, including the most common ones where both parents agreed on their own that mom should have custody. These figures include the vast majority of cases where dad did not request custody.

Where fathers actively seek custody, they receive primary residency in less than one out of three cases (29%),121 and joint physical residency in less than half (46%).

These figures reflect the Massachusetts Gender Bias Report. When dads seek custody, they get some form of residential custody 75% of the time. Cynthia McNeely had tried to discredit the 70% figure from the Mass. Gender Bias Report, and she probably doesn't even know that she verified it - even added to it a little.

Trish Wilson 00:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ms. McNeely concluded that based on the results of the study that included the 70% statistic, one should not conclude that "fathers do not want custody."

I believe that the 70% statistic should not be included in this article and therefore, the following sentence in a Response to Criticism subsection would not be necessary:

Members of the fathers' rights movement note that high legal fees and preliminary legal advice guide many fathers to avoid contesting for custody and the fact that few fathers believe that they can still prevail in court despite a bias in favor of the primary caregiver and a perceived gender bias in favor of mothers does not mean that fathers do not want custody. Members of the fathers' rights movement further note that despite the selection for cases in which the father believes that he has a chance of succeeding, fathers receive primary residency in less than one out of three cases (29%), and joint physical residency in less than half (46%).". <C. McNeely link> Michael H 34 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Ms. McNeely also concluded that the study did not disprove gender bias. Michael H 34 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"The statement I had made didn't say that the conclusion was universally true. It said "joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual custody disputes." That New York State awards sole custody in conflicted cases doesn't change the fact that joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual cases. What I wrote in my proposed shared parenting section stands."

Please contrast "84.5% of people support shared parenting" with "In Massachusetts, some voters...." (A representation that the subset of counties for which results were available were a good representation of the diverse demographics within the state was not included in the article because even if true, it was not supported by the notable source.)

"....doesn't change the fact that joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual cases." This is not universally true. What if it were not true except in one country, or one province of one country, or just for one judge of one province of one country? Michael H 34 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

A "Response to Criticism" subsection sounds like debate and activism, which are inappopriate on Wikipedia. You've proposed a "Response To Criticism" section twice on the "Talk" page when you didn't like what was written in the "criticism" section. There are no sources cited for the paragraph you've written (except for the McNeely link), and it reads like your personal point of view. That paragraph sounds like activism and debate, not a description of the major points about shared parenting. It's a debate about inclusion of the 70% figure regarding gender bias, which you don't like.

I am not going to debate here. It's inappropriate on Wikipedia.

Trish Wilson 15:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Section

Here's a start for the domestic violence section. I've amended it to call it Domestic Violence/Child Abuse, since child abuse sometimes comes up in divorce and custody cases. I think what I've written covers the main points. Since Parental Alienation Syndrome already has a page on Wikipedia, I've included some general information about it in this section. Any additional information about Parental Alienation Syndrome should probably be written on that page.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/CHILD ABUSE

THE FATHERS RIGHTS VIEW

The fathers rights movement does not agree with the prevailing wisdom that women are the most common victims of domestic violence. They say that some research (especially research by Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz [[80]]) has found that women are as abusive as men. Fathers rights advocates say that men who say they are abused are not taken seriously and that they are seen as weak. [[81]] The fathers rights movement says that shelters for battered women discriminate against men. It wants to see more services for battered men, and therefore it has sued women's shelters for discrimination. [[82]] Fathers rights activists also believe that most domestic violence and child abuse allegations made by women are false. They say that child custody disputes drive most fabrications of domestic violence and child abuse. [[83]] The fathers rights movement says that the most common false allegations made are allegations of domestic violence and child sexual abuse, and that wives are more likely to make these false allegations than husbands, especially in the context of a custody dispute. [[84]] In line with their beliefs that mothers frequently fabricate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, father's rights activists have supported the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) in court to prevent mothers from falsely accusing fathers. PAS that says that mothers frequently try to alienate their children from the fathers during divorce and custody cases. [[85]].Fathers rights activists say that mothers who suffer from PAS want to eliminate the father from the children's lives. PAS mothers are described as making false allegations of domestic violence and sexual and/or physical or emotional abuse of the child. These mothers may also accuse the father of suffering from a mental illness, alcoholism/drug abuse, or of being gay. [[86]]

CRITIC'S VIEW

Critics say that fathers' rights activists have tried to roll back protections for battered women by claiming that most allegations of abuse are false and that men and women are equally abusive. [[87]]While there are male victims of domestic violence, most victims of domestic violence are women. [[88]] Men who are victims of domestic violence tend to be abused by their male partners in gay relationships. [[89]] While some fathers' rights activists have sued women's shelters, alleging that they discriminate against men, they have lost their cases due to the lack of evidence that they had suffered discrimination and that they lacked standing. [[90]] Researcher Richard Gelles had written that when looking at injuries, it is false to imply that there are the same number of battered men as battered women.[[91]] Gelles had written that it is a "significant distortion of well-grounded research data" for fathers' rights activists to say that there are significant numbers of battered men and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. [[92]]Critics say that women do not frequently make false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, and that false allegations of both are rare. [[93]] [[94]] Critics say that allegations of domestic violence and child abuse made by women are often assumed to be false because they are made in a contentious legal environment. However, such beliefs are incorrect. [[95]] Bona fide false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse are rare. [[96]] [[97]] Most bona fide false allegations of child abuse are made by men. [[98]] Parental Alienation Syndrome is not considered a valid medical syndrome by the American Psychological Association. [[99]] [[100]] PAS has never been subjected to testing, research, or study. It is also biased against women. [[101]] Critics say that Parental Alienation Syndrome is being used by abusive and controlling fathers as a weapon against mothers. The use of Parental Alienation Syndrome in court has lead to fit and good mothers losing custody of their children to their abusive and controlling ex-partners. [[102]]

Trish Wilson 00:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"The fathers rights movement does not agree with the prevailing wisdom that women are the most common victims of domestic violence." NPOV

Members of the fathers' rights movement prefer that the judiciary hold responsible parents who have been found to have made false accusations of abuse in order to win custody. Michael H 34 04:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I just updated what I wrote above. It's much shorter, and I took out the arguments for both sides. Sorry about the arguments. How's this sound?

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/CHILD ABUSE

The fathers rights movement does not believe that women are the most common victims of domestic violence. They say that some studies have found that women are as abusive as men. [[103]] Fathers rights activists also believe that most domestic violence and child abuse allegations made by women are false. [[104]] ]] In line with their beliefs that mothers frequently fabricate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, father's rights activists have supported the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome, which says that mothers frequently try to alienate their children from the fathers during divorce and custody cases. [[105]]. Critics say that while there are male victims of domestic violence, most victims of domestic violence are women. [[106]] Critics say that women do not frequently make false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, and that false allegations of both are rare. [[107]] [[108]] Parental Alienation Syndrome is not considered a valid medical syndrome by the American Psychological Association. [[109]] [[110]] Critics say that PAS has never been subjected to testing, research, or study, and that it is biased against women. [[111]] Critics say that Parental Alienation Syndrome is being used by abusive and controlling fathers as a weapon against mothers. [[112]]

Trish Wilson 13:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be similarities between the accusations of a father concerning parental alienation syndrome (PAS) (sometimes just in order to win custody) and the accusations of a mother regarding domestic violence / child abuse (sometimes just in order to win custody). However, should parental alienation syndrome have its own section? I suggest that it should. Michael H 34 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

In the outline, parental alienation syndrome already has its own section. Sorry for not checking first. Michael H 34 23:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Time out!!!

I observe all this hive of activity from afar, amazed and impressed by the hardwork of well-informed editors, as well as the civility of people who probably hold very different POVs. It is an inspiration to see how things are working.

I think we need to make some decisions, though.

1. I think we have all agreed that this article is not the place for argument about the specific issues, but as the sections are worked on, every section seems to end up longer and with more argument and more evidence than is in the article now!! I am strongly with Decr32 above about this. What are we going to do to solve this? One of my suggestions is that Michael and Trish should branch out and start editing the related articles (e.g Child custody, Shared parenting etc etc) since they have such good information about these topics!!!
2. Once we have got this sorted out, I am wondering if all this editing on the talkpage is such a good idea in the longterm. It means that we never make any final decisions. Since politeness and civility have been so well established on this page, maybe we could start editing the article page itself. Once major changes have been made, we can then discuss possible changes or revisions to this here on the talk page, and make minor changes directly to the article with good edit summaries.

--Slp1 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Slp1. Everyone seemed to agree with the main intro of the article that was written here. Is it okay if that goes up? Everyone liked the idea of working on an outline, too. I thought we were going to work out the main sections here on the "Talk" page, and then post on the main article page what we had written after the main sections were finished. I guess the only section everyone seemed to agree on was the Intro.

What would you suggest for making the sections shorter? I liked your revision of what I had written for the Shared Parenting section. Is it okay if that goes up on the main page?

I think it's important to repeat that whatever is posted on the article page needs sources. Don't post anything there unless you have a source to back it up.

Also, what do we do with sections already written on the main article page? Do we delete what's there and write something new, more concise, and shorter? Do we save them somewhere on Wiki or offline? I'm not sure how to handle editing what is on the main article page. I've never done a substantial edit of a main article page before, and I don't know what the protocol is.

Trish Wilson 13:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Slp1, I just updated my entry on Domestic Violence/Child Abuse. It's much shorter, and the arguments for both sides are gone. What does everyone think of it?

Trish Wilson 13:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

____

Trish, I'll get back to you with more comments on the section on Domestic Violence/Child Abuse. I think it is a good start.

_____________

Since there is a proposal to amend the article sooner rather than later and since there is some consensus that the section on Shared Parenting should be shortened to eliminate scope creep, I propose the following as the section on Shared Parenting with the idea that certain concepts may be introduced in other sections, namely child support and domestic violence/abuse. I believe strongly that the term shared parenting should be carefully defined.

JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY (SHARED PARENTING)

The members of the fathers' rights movement advocate for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50:50 shared custody 53 and equal parental responsibility following separation 54, also known as shared parenting. If, in the absence of agreement between the parents, a family court judge decides that the presumption of 50:50 shared custody has not been rebutted because it is both in the best interests of the children and practical, then the judge would order that physical custody of the children would be shared equally by the parents.

FATHERS RIGHTS VIEW

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that most fathers love their children and want to remain a part of their lives, and fear that if separation or divorce does occur, that they will lose meaningful contact with their children. 62 Members of the father’s rights movement feel that upon divorce, fathers often become nothing more than "visitors" in their children's lives and call for equality in custody decisions. 57 For example, Mike McCormick, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, referred to custody rulings and stated, "we believe the baseline should be equal time. We're encouraging states and courts to see there's a need for equality." 58 Members of the fathers' rights movement argue that, "children need both parents." 63 As a result, fathers’ rights groups lobby for laws that would make a rebuttable presumption for joint physical custody, also known as shared parenting, the preferred form of custody 59.

Members of the fathers' rights movement note that the presumption for shared parenting is rebuttable and custody decisions are still based on the best interest of the children. In response to criticisms of shared parenting, members of the fathers' rights movement state that shared parenting does not put the interests of parents above those of the children and quote a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, which found that children of divorce “express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,” and cite the “benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important factor. 61

Members of the fathers' rights movement acknowledge that policy makers are concerned with creating conflict between parents with respect to child support and the willingness of parents to desire parenting time in order to increase the amount of child support they receive or decrease the amount of child support that they have to pay. However, they state that this concern applies to both parents. G. Sacks and/or [[113]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement also state that the win/lose nature of the adversarial court system has lead to an increase in the accusations of abuse associated with winning custody hearings and that shared parenting is the solution for this problem. [[114]]

CRITIC'S VIEW

Critics of the fathers’ rights movement point out that, in promoting shared parenting, fathers rights activists elevate the desires of adults, in particular non-custodial fathers, over what is best for the children. They argue that custody decisions should focus on appropriately meeting the developmental needs of children. 66 as well as their wishes. 67 Possible difficulties include problems transitioning between two homes, routines, sets of friends etc. 68

Critics note that the studies from the 1980s often cited by fathers’ rights activities studies to support presumptive shared parenting, involved couples who tended to have higher incomes, higher education, who had only one child, not much interpersonal conflict, and who chose joint custody because they wanted to make it work. They report that such cases are not representative of most divorces, and that characteristics of the pre-divorce family led to the success of shared parenting, rather than shared parenting order itself. 69 70 They argue that while shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, shared parenting may be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict and abuse between their parents. 71

Critics of the fathers’ rights movement also say that shared parenting ignores the dynamics of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse. 73 Critics also point out that a characteristic of shared parenting for fathers’ rights groups is the lowered or complete termination of the child support order the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually the father– is likely to have to pay. 76

Michael H 34 15:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I think that both views are presented well, but the section is still way too long. Lots of the material could be added to the shared parenting section itself, as you wrote. I've shortened the shared parenting section a great deal, and I included in the beginning exactly what shared parenting is. How does this sound?

SHARED PARENTING

Members of the fathers rights movement say that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions. [[115]] [[116]] Therefore, the fathers rights movement advocates for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 shared custody [[117]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[118]]. Shared parenting, also known as joint physical custody, would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father with more time with his children than he would have with sole custody. The fathers rights movement says studies show that children are happier with shared parenting than with sole custody. [[119]] Critics have pointed out that shared parenting would result in a substantial decrease in child support the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually dad – would have to pay. [[120]] [[121]] Critics also say that shared parenting ignores the dynamics of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse. [[122]] Critics of the fathers' rights movement say that, in promoting shared parenting, fathers rights activists elevate the desires of adults, in particular non-custodial fathers, over the developmental needs and wishes of children. [[123]] [[124]] Critics say that while shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, it may be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict and abuse between their parents. [[125]]

Trish Wilson 16:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I like that you included the word rebuttable. I prefer the prior version though, because I believe that it's clear. I don't think that it's too long although I'm open to suggestions.

"Shared parenting, also known as joint physical custody, would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father with more time with his children than he would have with sole custody. "

Shared parenting does not create anything. Michael H 34 16:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Members of the fathers rights movement say that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions. Therefore,...."

This statement is insufficient. "Children need both parents", is the heart of the fathers' rights movement (ACFC website - home page, G. Sacks). I believe that the prior version mentions various issues associated with Shared Parenting without delving into too much detail. Michael H 34 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

How's this? I don't think it should get much longer than what's below. Anyone interested can elaborate on the shared parenting page.

Members of the fathers rights movement say that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions. [[126]] [[127]] They state, "Children need both parents." [[128]] They feel that upon divorce, fathers often become nothing more than "visitors" in their children's lives and call for equality in custody decisions. [[129]] Therefore, the fathers rights movement advocates for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 shared custody [[130]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[131]]. Shared parenting, also known as joint physical custody, would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father with more time with his children than he would have with sole custody. The fathers rights movement says studies show that children are happier with shared parenting than with sole custody. [[132]] While agreeing that the custody is mainly awarded to women, critics point out this is because fathers often do not seek custody. When they do, fathers win joint or sole custody 70 percent of the time. [[133]] [[134]] Critics have pointed out that shared parenting would result in a substantial decrease in child support the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually dad – would have to pay. [[135]] [[136]] Critics also say that shared parenting ignores the dynamics of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse. [[137]] Critics of the fathers' rights movement say that, in promoting shared parenting, fathers rights activists elevate the desires of adults, in particular non-custodial fathers, over the developmental needs and wishes of children. [[138]] Possible difficulties children may experience include problems transitioning between two homes, routines, sets of friends etc. [[139]] Critics say that while shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, it may be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict and abuse between their parents. [[140]]

Trish Wilson 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Slp1, I'd like to add the intro to the beginning of the article, but Wiki won't let me do it. I think it's because the entire article is so long. Should I remove the content appearing before "supporters", save it to a Word file offline, and then try a cut and paste? How do you add to the beginning of the article?

Trish Wilson 18:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I ask that the longer version of Shared Parenting that I proposed above please be considered for inclusion in the article. Let's make the issue of family court bias the topic of another section. (Even in another section, the 70% statistic is not valid.) Michael H 34 20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Updated Article Page

Slp1, I just saw the updates you made (I assume it was you) on the main article page. I like what you did very much. I don't have anything to add at the moment. I saw your two new templates at the top, so I won't add anything until I run it past you here first.

Thanks so much for doing all that work, and for helping out here in the discussion page. I know fathers' rights is a very contentious topic. I've enjoyed working with you and everyone else here so far.

Trish Wilson 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My evening's efforts

Hi all,
So I have bitten the bullet...

1. I added the new outline and moved the old article to roughly fit into the categories
2. I have added "improved" sections from the talk page into the appropriate spot on the outline
3. I made some changes to reflect the comments made by others
4. I made some of my own changes too. A major one has been to move most of the criticism from the intro down to a criticism section at the bottom of the article. I just felt the flow will be better that way, but others may disagree.

It is a start but we still have a lot of work to do!!!

• Since footnotes have been used in this article as the way of marking citations, we need to use that method too. Take a look at footnotes to learn how to do it. I have found the citation templates useful to help organize myself and make it a bit easier. I am happy to help with this, but don't want to do it all myself as it is very boring and labourious!!!
• There are lots of other sections to work on, of course.
• You may feel like altering the wording of some of the sections I have added and any other sections there. Please feel free!! This is a wiki and the whole point is that we can all edit the article and improve it as we all see fit (within WP policies, of course!). I think we have developed a good working relationship here, but it is worth proposing any potentially controversial edits here before making them, or at least mentioning them here after you make them! Good edit summaries are also very useful too.
  Trish is right that we need to make sure that we can provide reliable sources and citations for changes that we make.
  I still think that the there is creep going on here so I intend to be bold (as recommended by WP) and do a bit of pruning and condensing once I surface from the pile of other work I have do to in the next few days. You have been warned!!!!!

Trish, I am not sure why you had trouble editing the article page. Let me know if you have problems again and I will try to help figure out why. You could leave a message on my talk page. --Slp1 01:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Slp1. I made some minor edits, mainly adding paragraph breaks, especially for the criticism section. That section was one long, tedious paragraph, and it needed to be broken up. I also added to this statement in the Intro: "Critics dispute many of these points." I added: "Please see the "Criticism" section at the end of this article for some examples." I think the reader was just left hanging there without a clarifying comment about what the critics dispute.

I see what you mean about footnotes. I will probably tackle the footnotes formatting, but not right now. Yeah, it's very boring and labourious.  ;)

I did write a shorter version of both the shared parenting section and the domestic violence/child abuse section on this Talk Page, so you may want to go to those for future edits, since you mentioned wanting to do some pruning. Anyone interested could put the more extensive material in the Wikipedia "shared parenting", "domestic violence", and "child abuse" articles.

Slp1, I always have trouble editing the beginning of a Wiki page because there is no "edit" link on the right. I have to click on the top where it says "edit this page". The entire page comes up for editing, rather than bits and pieces of it. I can never add anything when I do this. I won't worry about it now, since I don't see a need after your edits to do anything to the very beginning of the article.

Once again, thanks for all your hard work.

Trish Wilson 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)