Not only did Bob Geldof and the Prince of Wales express sympathy with the plight of divorced (and in some cases, never-married) fathers who are denied sufficient access to their children. But now, according to a leaked Cabinet document, the Government is planning new laws to give Fathers 4 Justice more of what it demands: better access to their children, and heavier penalties upon mothers who try to deny it. Women who fail to comply with court orders that give fathers more time with their children will be subjected to community service orders.

A loving father is a valuable asset in a child’s life, as those of us who grew up without a father’s presence know very well. But, particularly in a young child’s life, the mother’s care is of greater importance. It is more of a disadvantage in life to grow up motherless than to grow up fatherless.

Nature has not awarded equality to mothers and fathers, and neither should the law. Save in exceptional cases, where a woman is unbalanced, abusive, alcoholic or drug-dependent, it is quite right that the courts should favour mothers in custody rulings. This is tough on decent men who want to show love and a sense of responsibility for their children — and in a way, it is impressive that Fathers 4 Justice will go to such extremes to underline this — but laws are not just about individual rights. They are about the common good, and more: they are about incentives and deterrents. Law should be structured in a way that encourages good behaviour and stable relationships.

IN THE case of parenting, what the law should do, first, is favour marriage and commitment, and the maintenance of stable relations between parents. Fathers 4 Justice should not just campaign for fathers’ rights for contact with their children: they might also encourage fathers to marry, and remain with, the mothers of their children, wherever it is possible. Of course, it isn’t always possible: some relationships turn hateful and cause misery to all involved.

But the larger problem, throughout the ages, has not been granting fathers access to their offspring, but trying to stop them walking away from their families.

For every father who claims he is denied access there must be four more who seldom bother with their discarded offspring. The percentage of fathers who lose touch with their “first families” after divorce is said to be 40 per cent. For some, the problem is with the courts; but for many, the problem is the divorce. One study I read on men and divorce declared: “For many men, when the marriage is over, the children are over.”

It is a fact that it is women, rather than men, who more often request divorce. Yet, according to research done by One to One, the marriage and parenting think-tank, women frequently take this step after the man has already walked away, or after the man has effectively dumped her and her children for another partner. The “love rats” who feature in the popular prints will be subsequently divorced by the missus, but it is the love rat’s conduct that has finished off the marriage. One to One says that women will usually try to save a marriage when they can, but once it is past repair, then they request divorce.

It is not that women and mothers are all hapless victims, while men and fathers are feckless offenders: there are harridans and vixens who have driven honourable men to emotional ruin. But in most cases the mother should remain a child’s primary custodian: the father’s role is to protect and care for the mother as well the offspring.

Fathers 4 Justice says that the Government’s plan is a step forward, but it doesn’t go far enough to compel mothers to grant access. Fair enough. But are these campaigners doing enough themselves to persuade fathers that the best thing they could do would be to stay on good terms with the mothers of their children?

Join the Debate at comment@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• Police beg us for food. What hope is there?
• Moral darkness that engulfed Baby P
• More to Advent than cheap chocolate