The family court system is designed in a manner that purports to pursue gender neutrality in making decisions that prioritize the best interests of the child. What happens when that child is removed from their home, a secure environment.
Parental rights are said to hold greater significance for fathers if they are included on the child’s birth certificate; however, mothers can register the birth independently, while fathers must either attend with the mother or obtain a declaration of parentage form from the mother. 
Fathers often find themselves at a disadvantage regarding parental rights, and many end up paying child maintenance even when they are not the biological father.
Child maintenance is not contingent upon 'visitation' arrangements, so regardless of whether you see the children or not, you are obligated to pay maintenance. Conversely, whether or not you pay child maintenance, the other parent cannot restrict contact due to personal grievances yet it remains within the mother's authority to determine whether you can see your children, even if you are fulfilling your maintenance obligations.
Family courts suggest that if court-ordered agreements are not adhered to, one should contact the police; however, the police do not intervene as it is considered a civil matter, this situation forces fathers to return to court.
The entire family court process, including Cafcass involvement, can keep a child away from their loving father for more than 11 months from start to finish.
Subsequently, fathers are expected to repeatedly navigate the court system whenever rules are violated by the other parent, showing a lack of maturity to recognize the children's needs.
It is exceedingly straightforward for mothers to secure legal aid, whereas fathers are forced to navigate the process as self-represented litigants due to baseless allegations of domestic abuse, unless they can afford over £10,000 for legal services, which is impractical given that child maintenance does not account for a father's financial obligations. 
In the less common instances where joint custody is granted, the father continues to pay the mother even if both parents earn the same income, the father still pays the mother, resulting in less money available for the child during his custody time. 
Meanwhile, the mother can claim additional benefits on top of child maintenance, such as family tax credits and universal credit top-ups, and may reduce her working hours, thereby placing a greater burden on the public purse. This is particularly concerning when the children are of school age, as there is little justification for viewing the benefit system of Universal Credit or PIP as a sustainable lifestyle, especially when the father cannot depend on benefits for assistance in financial support.
As a father, we desire and should not have to request access to our children. They have one life, one childhood, and numerous men are ending their own lives due to the profound anguish it inflicts upon them, as well as the evident distress it brings to the children who are living with an alienating parent.
Some mothers relocate several hours away, raising concerns about distance. It is crucial to consider the child's best interests in relation to their upbringing, suggesting that parents should remain close enough to avoid disrupting the child's life. Heartless actions are solely intended to cause pain and suffering to both the father and child demonstrate a total lack of consideration for what is truly best for the child.
If both parents reside close to one another, 50/50 joint custody arrangement should be obligatory. There is no valid justification for not enforcing this, except in cases where the child is truly at risk of physical harm, where police would have been made aware and sanctions put in place, not fabricated narratives intended to mislead unfamiliar court judges.
Phone calls made through parental applications ought to be considered by the courts and Cafcass, particularly when there is evident distress from the child expressing a desire to see their father. 
This may manifest in the child drawing sad faces, composing stories about wanting to reunite with their father, or directly requesting their father's presence. Such behaviours clearly indicate the child's attempt to articulate their feelings and the loneliness stemming from missing their father. 
Fathers do not wish to hinder contact for mothers; however, some mothers strive to create such obstacles for fathers.
This brings us back to the initial assertion that family courts claim to make decisions that prioritize the child's best interests. Urgent actions are required; the process is drawn-out and assessment of the interactions between the father and child could effectively dispel or at least give clear insight into accusations and claims, preventing emotional scars on children who endure the loss of a loving father simply because a mother wishing to restrict their access between one another. Why is this permitted? It is solely harming children.