Fathers seize child agency office

Expatica ^ | 20 November 2003 | Novum Nieuws

[RogerFGay]

Fathers seize child agency office

20 November 2003

AMSTERDAM — A group of angry fathers, who are involved in custody battles over their children, took over an office of the Dutch child protection agency Kinderbescherming on Thursday, the International Day of the Child.

Between 15 and 20 men seized control of the building in Zutphen and effectively imprisoned five staff members, Kinderbescherming spokeswoman Annette van der Hoorn said.

The men, who have been denied visitation to their children, said they had taken the drastic action on World Child Day to highlight the injustice of their situations.

They have not allowed anyone in or out of the offices and hung banners from the window of the offices.

The men have demanded the child protection agency only give advice on how custody arrangements should be made. Present legislation means that parents who breach an imposed custody arrangement forfeit their custodial rights.

The fathers have also demanded a meeting with Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner, the mayor of Zutphen and Kinderbescherming director H. Pasman.

Van der Hoorn said the agency's staff members who were being held in the building did not appear to be in any direct danger. Staff were continuing with their work and the police were not called to the scene.

The UN designated 20 November as the International Day of the Child after the signing of an official convention on the rights of children in 1989.

[Jonx6]

BTW, welcome to FR! I hope you stick around!
We'll get you squared away, but... it may take awhile.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Thank you for sharing that.

I truly believe that you did your best, at the time, according to what you knew and were able to do.

I do believe God gave children two parents for a reason, and I know my husband revels in being a father to his kids, he takes that responsibility to heart, and puts them above all else. I am fortunate that I chose him to be the father of my children.

Many families are not so fortunate. And I often wish that the law was blind to the sex of the parents, when it came to custody. This issue is too important to be divided up based on gender alone.

[Pedantic_Lady]

The same folks that tell me I'm financially responsible for supporting said child.

That's not true; you can forfeit your parental rights. I know someone who did exactly that because he didn't want to pay for someone's choice.

[Rebelbase]

"What makes you think that you have the right to determine the future of a child growing in someone else's body?"

Does the part that its 1/2 of my creation and 1/2 of my responsility to raise to adulthood elude you?

That type of mentality reduces men to nothing but sperm donor status.

[Jonx6]

No, "it's" is also the possessive form of it.
Look it up.

[thoughtomator]

It's plainly indefensible. What we have here is a religious belief that mothers are better parents than fathers. It's secular religion, but it does qualify as an establishment of religion, in my book. Equal protection of the law apparently only applies to women - eerily reminiscent of "some are more equal than others".

[m1-lightning]

What makes you think that you have the right to determine the future of a child growing in someone else's body?

As a parent, I have every right to ensure the life and safety of my child.

Typical selfish ilk straight from the "men's rights" handbook.

No, it's typical personal responsiblity. You feminists expect men to pay for your abortions or child support but you don't want them to have any say so in the life of the child. That's selfishness.

[m1-lightning]

What's your take on this?

[Pedantic_Lady]

As a parent, I have every right to ensure the life and safety of my child.

Only after it has been born.

No, it's typical personal responsiblity. You feminists expect men to pay for your abortions or child support but you don't want them to have any say so in the life of the child. That's selfishness.

LOL...I don't know why I expected you to be above making ridiculous assumptions. First, I've never had an abortion, so I've never asked a man to pay for one. Second, even if I did have one, I would pay for it myself. I have money. I don't need a man's help to pay for an abortion. Third, child support wouldn't even be an issue for me since I am a married woman and I plan to stay that way. And hey...if you don't want to end up paying child support for a kid you don't want, never believe the following line:

"But honey, I'm on the pill."

NEVER believe it unless you watch her take the pill every morning. You wouldn't hear that from a feminist.

[Coop]

That's not true; you can forfeit your parental rights. I know someone who did exactly that because he didn't want to pay for someone's choice.

What's not true? That I can be sued for financial support? You need to wake up. Concerning forfeiting my parental rights - you're correct. Women have abortions despite the man's wishes all the time.

Abortion tickles, huh? I wonder if the child feels the same way you do? Especially a child having a pair of scissors puncturing its skull. All in the name of "choice."

[Pedantic_Lady]

No, "it's" is also the possessive form of it. Look it up.

I don't have to. I'm right and you're wrong. Anyone who finished the fourth grade knows that.

[Coop]

No, "it's" is also the possessive form of it.

No, it's not. It's = it is, it has. Its = possessive (i.e., The dog lost its collar.)

[thoughtomator]

How much do you want to bet she'd get hysterical if someone suggested putting a pair of scissors in her skull and dismembering her? Think she'd enjoy being buried in a landfill as medical waste?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Nope... IT'S is only used as the contraction for IT+IS, never the possessive. The possessive is ITS.

[Coop]

As a parent, I have every right to ensure the life and safety of my child. Only after it has been born.

In other words, only according to your rules.

[Pedantic_Lady]

Abortion tickles, huh? I wonder if the child feels the same way you do? Especially a child having a pair of scissors puncturing its skull. All in the name of "choice."

The vast majority of abortions occurs before the embryo even has a skull. Sorry....peddle that bleeding-heart twaddle elsewhere.

[Pedantic_Lady]

In other words, only according to your rules.

I'm flattered that you think I'm a Supreme Court justice, but I'm not.

[Pedantic_Lady]

That type of mentality reduces men to nothing but sperm donor status.

That's the only thing a lot of them are good for. :-) j/k

[Coop]

The vast majority of abortions occurs before the embryo even has a skull. Sorry....peddle that bleeding-heart twaddle elsewhere.

Bleeding heart twaddle? So since it only occurs occasionally it's okay then? Fine. I only slap my barefoot, pregnant wife when she occasionally deserves it.

Your hypocrisy is really something to behold.