https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_4_Justice
The main reason is most such groups are made up of men who had "lost" a battle for custody. The test for custody in the US had been and is "The best interest of the Child" and a legal presumption that the best interest of a child is to be with a natural parent (Thus Grandparents Rights are secondary to Parental Rights).
This is complicated by the fact that the Courts puts the burden of proof on the person who does NOT have custody that the Child is better off with them then the other parent. Men rights groups tend to hate this later rule, for in something like 90% of the cases, the woman ends up with the child whenever the couple breaks up (Or she gets the child at birth of the Child, for she is not living with the father at that point) and thus the Father has the burden of proof, and is rarely able to carry that burden of proof for the courts find both parents fit to take care of the child and since Mother has the Child, Father gets Visitation.
A lot of men hate how much they have to pay in support (in the 1990s Welfare Reform debate, it was found that the #1 reason women and children were on welfare, was they were NOT getting enough child support, thus Congress ordered higher support orders and permitted attachment up to 60% of a person's salary for that purpose). A lot of men hate how much they have to pay and when told that the only way to reduce the payment is to get custody, sue for custody and are mad when they lose for the courts find both parents fit and since the Mother already had the child, she prevails.
All types of efforts have been made to "Correct" the above, the problem is, right now, it is equal to both sexes. I have had cases where the Father ended up with the children and the Mother gets Visitation and the high child support payments for he ended up with the children at the time of the break up. It is not men who are discriminated against, but the person who does not obtain the children at the time of the break up. In most cases it is the Fathers who get only visitation and has to pay support (for most always deferred to the mother of the child for most care).
The "Norm" in our society is during breakups the Mother ends up with the Child and thus it is up to the Father to show the children are better off with the Father then the Mother. Remember in a break up one of the parents ends up with the child. The Children are rarely in the hands of third parties, thus the rule to preserve the custody is that the parent with out custody must show the child is better off with him then the Mother, as opposed to a true neutral look at both parents. This is what most "Men's Rights" group hate, they want what they consider a "Neutral" look at both parents, and ignore who has the child right now. The problem is, in most cases the parties are about equal when it comes to the best interest of the child, and thus who has the child generally determines who gets custody when custody is in dispute.
In simple terms, what these "Men Rights" groups want is to ignore who has the child today, something the courts have refused to do. Most members of such groups main concern is the high child support involved. Now when there are other concern, for example health, education or safety of the child, father's tend to do better then if the Court determines the main concern in how much child support a father has to pay. When actual facts show a problem with health, education or safety when the child is with a mother, the father has a good chance of winning custody (goes to the issue of best interest).
Another area where non-custodial parents (which tends to be fathers, but can be mothers) win custody is when the custodial parent (Generally the Mother, but I have seen Fathers fall into this trap) denies or interfere with Court Ordered Visitation. It is the number one reason a parent loses custody (Mostly Mother's who try to use the child as a weapon against the child's father).
Another grounds to lose custody is if actual time with the child is minimal with the Custodial Parent, and it is clear the non-custodial parent will spend more time with the child (This happens in the case of many Fathers who have custody of their children, to many Fathers pawn off the child to some female relative, generally their own mother, girlfriend, wife, sometime sister).
Now, the man involved in this case gets visitation once week supervised??? That is NOT the norm in the US and I suspect the UK. Such restrictions are imposed either when they is fear (supported by evidence. evidence more then the fear of the custodial parent) that the non-custodial parent will run off with the child OR abuse the child. In Pennsylvania, Visitation was ordered for a child to see her father in Prison, why was he in prison? He had sexually abused the child. At the Custody and Visitation trial, two psychologists testified that it would NOT cause the child great harm to visit with her father behind bars. That was enough for the Court to order Supervised visitation and it was upheld on appeal.
In another case, Visitation was ordered between an Eight year old male and his father, even through the Father had been convicted and was a well known sexual perpetrator of 12 year old males. Why was Visitation ordered? Again at trial it was determined that since the child was only 8, the father did not see the child as a sexual object (the Father liked 12 year old) and thus no great harm could occur at that time (The Court refused to say what would happen as the child neared 12, leaving that up to the trial court at the time of the child neared 12).
I bring these stories up, for why does this father only get such a limited visitation with his child. Something else is involved, I suspect a fear that the Father will run off with the child more then any sexual or physical harm to the Child (I cite the above cases, but by far the greater number involves people skipping out with the child, those cases are rarely appealed for the courts will tend to support what ever the trial court decided on the factual issue of the possibility of the father skipping with the child). Visitation is an absolute right of a non-custodial parent, unless it causes great harm to the child. Not any harm (Bruises, cuts even broken bones are, by themselves, not grounds to question visitation or custody, through to many can bring up the issue of "Great Harm" i.e. one broken bone, no big thing, kids damage themselves constantly, on the other hand, several broken bones over a time period is another story.
Just pointing out something is wrong here, as a general rule, we do every other week end for it works out between the parents (the other five days a week, most children are in school, and when it comes to school, the courts like it when only one parent is in charge). The every other weekend visitation is more a guideline then an absolute rule, it is modified to reflect what the parents can do (i.e. sometimes parents work on the weekends and thus other days are better). Summer vacation tends to be split (unless the parents live to far apart to do every other weekend, then the trend is to give the non-custodian parent the summer for that does NOT interfere with school).
Just a comment that something is wrong here, and I do not suspect the Court System. What is the problem I do not know, but something is wrong.
= new reply since forum marked as read
