'Throw out children law and be fairer to fathers'

PROPOSED new legislation for children is paying lip service to the father's rights. Peter Rose lost everyday contact with his two children after his ex-wife took them live in the USA.

The institutionalised bias he perceives has driven him to write to every States deputy urging them to reject proposals for new legislation for children.

'I'm so incensed that they are doing nothing ' and it's about time they did. They're completely ignoring what's happening in the rest of the world,' he said.

Not only were fathers affected, he said, but more importantly children and grandparents.

'I'm not a member of a father's rights group, nor have I ever been, but I do have direct experience at the hands of the current law and the practices and biases of those working in support of it,' he said.

Four years ago his ex-wife, with the approval of the Guernsey court, took the children, then aged 11 and 16, to live in the USA and as a result they have lost their right to live in Guernsey.

Mr Rose, who has remarried, said this was just one illustration of the law pandering to the desires of the mother and ignoring the children.

'Most people, even lawyers and judges, fail to recognise the enormity of the discrimination against fathers until they have direct exposure to it, by which time it is too late.'

He accused the authors of the review of children legislation ' which comes before the House next month ' of bias.

'The paper pays lip service to the fact it considers the UK law to be flawed,' he said.

'It is like patting the fathers on the head and offering a cup of tea, while sliding the knife in between the ribs.'

Mr Rose added that if the report was written in plain English, it would become clearer how fathers were discriminated against in private law cases, both historically and by the proposals.

'How exactly can a court have an open mind on who should be given a residence order if the Health and Social Services department has made it clear that it should always be a mother?' he said.

'Why should mothers bother to opt for mediation if they know that a court is automatically going to favour them?

'Why should mothers bother to adhere to contact orders? The Court Welfare system is apparently under-resourced and unlikely to help and there are no new ideas that might encourage mothers to comply.'

A father stands a less than 5% chance of being successful in obtaining a residence order, he said.

'In the absence of equal treatment, there is no reason for mothers to be reasonable at all. Fine words about encouraging mediation will not force mothers to think twice before litigation if they have nothing to lose.'

Mr Rose submitted written comments on the proposals, but believed they had simply been dismissed and were lumped together with father's rights groups and mavericks.

'They cannot justify the institutionalised bias in the status quo, so they don't bother to try,' he added.

'It was a pretty pointless exercise fronted by Deputy Peter Roffey; he may be well-meaning enough, but he has been completely had by the establishment and has been na've.'

Mr Rose did not want his views dismissed because they were similar to those of less-creditable people.

'I strongly urge every States deputy to reject this ill-considered Billet. It will set out the future for several generations of our children and it is vital to get it right ' this half-baked paper is simply not good enough.'