Press Releases

13 March 2000  (from our allies the Equal Parenting Party)



Last week Tony Coe, Leader of Equal Parenting Party, met with Lady Catherine Meyer at the British Embassy in Washington DC in order to enlist her support for EQUAL PARENTING WEEK in the UK, which starts today. Lady Meyer, wife of the British Ambassador, also has an interest in legal reforms that will put an end to the current situation in the UK where children lose one parent after divorce or separation for no good reason.

Lady Meyer has not seen her two sons for 6 years. She had custody of them in London and, under a divorce settlement with her former German husband, agreed generous access rights for their father to see the boys, including spending part of the school holidays with him in Germany. However, at the end of the boys' first visit to Germany, the father refused to return the boys to London. Lady Meyer was unable to resolve the situation through the courts because, as time went by, the children were alienated against her.

Although this was a case involving international law, the same problem affects millions of divorced and separated parents and their children in the UK without there being any element of international abduction. EQUAL PARENTING WEEK is designed to raise public awareness of this vital issue which is so important for children of broken homes.

David Levy, President of the Children's Rights Council, which is headquartered in Washington DC, was also at the meeting at the British Embassy, Mr Levy said:

"The Children's Rights Council fully supports the Equal Parenting Week you are holding in the United Kingdom. It is vitally important that children have frequent and continuing contact with both their parents. This is the child's inherent right."

Mr Levy has asked Tony Coe's wife, Christine, to start a branch of The Children's Rights Council here in the UK.

1 March 2000  (from our allies the Equal Parenting Party)


The first ever EQUAL PARENTING WEEK in the UK has been scheduled for March 12 through 19th, sponsored by EQUAL PARENTING the political party dedicated to a single issue - that BOTH parents should be treated equally by the law after divorce or separation FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN.

EQUAL PARENTING WEEK comes at a time when the legal system is facing a record number of Appeals from parents (90% fathers) who are being prevented from having a proper relationship with their children for no reason other than the hostility of the parent with care, almost always the mother.

This state of affairs is bad for the children concerned. It is clear that the system is not working, although the Government continually claims that the courts are looking after the best interests of children.

Tony Coe, Leader of the Equal Parenting Party says:

"How can it be in the interests of children to lose one perfectly good parent for no reason when Experts agree that this causes damage to children in the medium and long term!? The Government is behaving like an Alcoholic with a whisky bottle that won't admit to having a drinking problem! They need to face the fact that the system is in deep trouble and start working on urgent reform immediately to stop further damage being done to children."


During Equal Parenting Week, one father, supported by Equal Parenting Party, will be begging the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against the decision in his case which defies all reason. (There is in effect almost no right of appeal in these cases. Most are dismissed out of hand.)

This father is a professional, Registered Childminder. He separated from his wife 2 years ago. They have a 2 year old son who lives with the mother. Mother has decided to put her career before the child - she works full time.

However, instead of letting the boy's own father look after the child while she's at work, she insists that he be left with a strange Childminder for nearly 50 hours a week! Meanwhile, after fighting through the courts for 2 years, and after some 16 court appearances, this father gets to see his child about 4 hours a week, for which he makes a 400 mile round trip every week!!!

The mother resists all attempts to come to a reasonable agreement that will benefit the child. She is supported by a legal system that blindly backs mothers and with the support of the taxpayer. It is commonplace for a case like this to cost the Legal Aid fund at least 100,000. Faced with this sort of opposition, most fathers give up and then are accused of abandonment.

This father must remain anonymous because the family courts are held in secret, so the parents in this position can't even tell the public about the cruel injustice they and their children are suffering!

Some mother too, who become the non-resident parent, are facing the same injustice. It is an increasing trend which is why Equal Parenting is a gender-neutral campaign. It's about children who don't want to have to choose between 2 parents they love. That is what the currents system forces them to do where the parents can't agree custody and access arrangements.

Details are the reforms the Equal Parenting Party are seeking can be found on its website - link below.

The date of this news release is 1 March 2000.

More information from:

Tony Coe - Leader - EQUAL PARENTING PARTY Fighting for Children's Right to keep BOTH Parents Tel: 020 7589 9003 Mobile: 0468 366 100 Fax: 020 7584 4230 Party Headquarters: 38-40 Gloucester Road, Kensington, London, England, SW7 4QU  CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS!

October 1999

United Kingdom (UK) government is asked to respond

to the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights

over assertions of human rights violations against men in marriage


The Cheltenham Group has investigated the benefits and rights provided for men within marriage in the UK. This investigation has resulted in a submission to the UN, asserting violations of UN human rights articles which guarantee "the right of men and women … to marry and to found a family".

The submission provides evidence to show that :

This situation is not compatible with a guaranteed right to marry, which is provided by the UN human rights articles.

The Cheltenham Group’s submission to the UN also provides evidence that :

This submission has been made under the UN’s ‘1503’ procedure for the reporting of a ‘consistent pattern of violations’, quoting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) :

The submission was made in April 1999, and the UN Commission on Human Rights have informed in July 1999 that the UK Government has now been asked to respond to these assertions.

The Cheltenham Group’s submission to the UN is available at ‘’ under ‘campaigns/human rights for men’, and the supporting report "The Emperor’s New Clothes" under ‘publications/bookshelf’. Further information about this development may be obtained from the Cheltenham Group.

Barry Worrall, Director, The Cheltenham Group

21 May 1999

'Equal Parenting' candidate stands for Parliament

in Leeds Central by-election on 10 June 1999


Equal Parenting Campaign LET'S DO SOMETHING!

If you are not already aware, I'd like to let you know that Julian Fitzgerald of FAMILY ROUTES is going to stand in the upcoming Leeds Central By Election for the specific purpose of raising awareness on the issue of EQUAL PARENTING.  In fact, I understand that, for the sake of clarity, FAMILY ROUTES is changing its name to the EQUAL PARENTING CAMPAIGN.  The announcement will be made public in just under one week's time.

I think this is a terrific initiative and myself and others are aiming to help get this campaign off the ground.  I hope individually you will consider lending support too.   This will be a learning experience.  Perhaps it can be repeated in other areas once we know the ropes.

Time is extremely short, because of the way the Authorities organize these things!   The deposit of 500 needs to be raised within a few days.  Several people have already pledged donations.  More funds are obviously needed to carry the campaign forward and there are many other tasks that need doing.   How can you help?  Please get in touch if you can help.

My company Anorak has set up an Email address for the campaign

Donations (however small) should be sent to Julian Fitzgerald.  Please write on the back of cheques EQUAL PARENTING CAMPAIGN DONATION and mail to:

56 St Louis Street, Leeds, LS7 4BN

Not only donations, but practical support is needed fast to mobilize this campaign.   If you're in the Leeds area, please call Julian on  0113 229 8949.   If you want to call me to find out more about what you can do to assist, or if you have some ideas about how we can make this campaign as effective as possible, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

That's all for now.  Best wishes to you all,  Tony Coe

1 May 1999

Gloucester man denied all access with his four children until they become of age, vows to expose in the High Court of Appeal the shameful way that Family Courts Judges have brought about the loss of relationship with his children.

Mr Short (46) is outraged that in the four plus years that he has been denied access to his children, on no occassion has his relationship with his children, in their presence, been assessed for the preparation of the three Court Welfare and one Official Solicitor reports. His ex wife, who has never wanted his children to be assessed with him has accordingly had free reign, with the Court's connivance, to bring about the loss to four impressionable children of their father. Being aware that this unfair treatment by the Family Courts is widespread, and therefore many other children are suffering in silence, Mr Short is prepared to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights to bring about equality in the Family Courts, and thereby, a change in the law.

High Court Leave to Appeal hearing is on Friday 14th May 1999 before two Lords Justices. Mr Short represents himself.

21 May 98



Immediate: 21 May 98, 14.00

The Cheltenham Group

The Cheltenham Group is the family policy wing of the United Kingdom Men's Movement

Contact: Dr John Campion (CG Director)

Tel: 01730 815347 & 0410 989301

A single mother underground train driver has had her allegation of sex discrimination against her employer upheld in the appeal court. Her employers changed her shift pattern and she said she could not manage to work to them and look after her son. The judgement was made that the change was sex discriminatory because it would be easier for men to comply than women.

DR CAMPION (Group Director) today said:

"This judgement shows that the world has gone completely mad. It is outrageous for a court to interfere in the work practices of an employer which it sets up in order to operate effectively".

How on earth can it be sex-discriminatory when the woman found herself unable to comply with her employers' wishes. This is what caused the problem, not her sex.. People (both men and women) find themselves unable, for many reasons, to comply with work requirements and don't take up the jobs or leave. This judgement implies that all employers will have to adjust their work practices to suit the needs of single mothers !

This points up the utter selfishness and self-centredness of the women's movement.It is normal to expect employees to adjust their lives to suit their employment - not the other way round. This judgement shows no regard for commercial imperatives or service to the public. This judgement will cost yet more job losses - losses which will fall most heavily on men who have families to support. This case has also wasted many tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money.

The judgement is all the more insulting when men have to suffer the most blatant and serious sex discrimination in the divorce courts in having their children and homes confiscated on the basis of their sex and not on the basis of their conduct or qualities as a parent. No one is prepared even to listen to us, let alone take action. ENDS

22 June 98

Cheltenham Group challenges

the NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy and its effect on family law

- no remedy is available

The Cheltenham Group have pressed those authorities responsible for the interpretation of family law, and for the Court Welfare Service in particular, to remedy the problems created by the NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy in contested children’s issues under the Children Act 1989. Court Welfare Officers who operate under this policy cannot act in accordance with the principles in the Children Act, that is of the children’s best interests, as the NAPO policy clearly subverts these principles.

The Cheltenham Group has, between 10 November 1997 until 11 June 1998, contacted all those responsible with information about the present serious situation, that is :

HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMiP), who referred the matter to :

the Home Office, Probation Unit (HOPU);

the Lord Chancellor’s Dept (LC’s Dept), who also referred the matter to HOPU;

the Law Society (LS);

the General Council of the Bar (BC), who referred the matter to :

the Family Law Bar Association (FLBA);

the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), who have requested a meeting with :

the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO).

None of these responsible bodies has accepted any responsibility, and the NAPO policy still exists.

The programme of submissions culminated when Dr John Campion and Barry Worrall met Mr Geoff Hoon MP at 11.30am on Thursday 11 June 1998 in Selborne House, 54-60 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QW. The agenda of the meeting was to present Mr Hoon with information on the Court Welfare Service and the interpretation of family law. Mr Hoon was presented with copies of :

The Emperor’s New Clothes, CG, ISBN 1 900080 03 6, 2nd Edition 1998;

The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies, CG, 11 June 1998.

Mr Hoon constantly denied any problems in the interpretation of the law but repeated the ‘formal’ version as stated in the written law. He also said that marriage conveyed rights on fathers which unmarried fathers did not have. When asked what these rights were he stated the provisions of the written law e.g. over contact.

The conclusion to be drawn from this situation is that at least one component of family law has been clearly shown to be out of control of responsible authority.

A record of the programme of submissions and responses is available in the Cheltenham Group report The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies.

Contacts : Barry Worrall : 0191 285 3296   Dr John Campion : 01730 815 347

Barry Worrall, Coordinator, The Cheltenham Group, 22 June 1998

4 November 1998


The Government's Green Paper on support for the family shows yet again how out of touch Ministers are about the reality of family issues.

Further meddling on the periphery of the problem, instead of dealing with the fundamentals, will simply waste further public money without any expectation of significant improvement.

The fundamentals should include :

* removal of support for the 'alternative' family of a woman and 'her' children;

* priority support for the normal family;

* the restoration of full men's rights within the family on a legal basis.

The cost to the nation of subsidising 'alternative' families is in excess of œ20 billion per annum. This equates to around 500 per year for every taxpayer in the country.

This squandered money would pay for increased pensions, cover the cost of bringing nurses pay up to the level it should be, and cease the practice of selling the homes of elderly people who have paid national insurance throughout their working lives when they require residential medical care, etc., etc., etc...

Ian Kelly, representing the United Kingdom Men's Movement, will be available on 01242-691110 for a response to the Green Paper during Wednesday 4th November