I want to be a part of my daughter's life

Bartle

Last April my girlfriend discovered that she was pregnant. We were living in different cities so I didn't see too much of her. We only had contact through phone for a few weeks. The next time I met her in person she told me she was breaking up with me and getting back with her ex. There's nothing I could do about it so I didn't say anything. We went back to being in contact through phone again, she decided she was going to keep the baby and she seemed content to continue her relationship with her ex and allow me to be the father of our child. We got on ok for a while, meeting up on rare occasions. Every time I met her, she seemed more and more distant and very hesitant to be around me. I put this down to hormones and her being angry with me because she was pregnant with my child at so young (20).
She started to turn nasty, making it obvious she didn't want me around and finding new ways of excluding me. She then dropped the bomb about how little she wanted me to see the baby when it was born. She also told me that she wanted to exclude my name from the birth certificate as it would entitle her to more benfits. I since discovered that it was a complete lie, nothing but a method single mothers use to make it easier for them to exclude fathers from the child's life. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to upset her so I let it go. She also told me that any concerns I had were nothing to do with her as she had her own problems so I kept them to myself, and that's fair enough. I kept my problems to myself, no matter how much she excluded me I kept it to myself how much it upset me. I did this for months until one night I had enough of it. I sent her a text telling her how much I resented what she was doing, I told her how I was aware of how she was trying to keep me out of her life and how she wanted her boyfriend to be the dad to her child all along. She replied avoiding any accusations I had against her and told me to write to her If had anything more to say.
I knew for ages that she felt nothing but hatred for me, I knew that after this she was going to hate me alot more, I didn't know what I was going to say to her next. There was silence for the next few months until I had heard from a friend of a friend that the baby was being induced the following day. I got in contact with my ex the next day, sure enough the baby was born. I got a couple of sparse replies (I had to text because I knew that ringing her while she's in hospital was a bad idea). Again she made it obvious that she didn't want contact with me but said to talk later. I gave her two weeks becuase i knew she needed time to recover, both physically and mentally.

I started contacting her this week, she seemed hesitant to talk to me. It was more like she wanted to get it out of the way so she wouldn't have to speak to me again. She told me how she wanted her boyfriend to be the father and that I wasn't allowed to be a parent to my daughter. She's saying now that all the time she excluded me was her giving me space to think the situation over. All she did was alienate me while she spent all the time with her boyfriend.

She said that she would try and be reasonable, that i could see my daughter in a few months time, but only see her. She stressed that I was not allowed to be a parent and that she wanted her boyfriend to be the parent.

A few days later I told her to text me her account number so I could offer some money for child support. She replied telling me not to contact her again. if i wanted to, it would have to be through a solicitor. I replied asking why was she being like this all of a sudden when just a few days previous she was offering to be reasonable. I told her that there should be no need to involved a solicitor and that we could sort this by ourselves. She replied with the same text word for word. I then replied asking why she was treating like a bad guy all of sudden, I asked her to please not shut me out like that. She then replied accusing me of harrassing her (by offering financial support?) and that if I made any more contact with her,she was going to call the guards.

I went straight to the guards,showed them the texts and told them the story of what was happening. (I'm thankful now that alot of our communication was through text, the evidence is there). A very helpful guard told me that I had nothing to worry about, she had no reason to call the guards and that she would be doing nothing except wasting their time. I expressed how concerned I was about looking like a bad person because of how unmarried fathers in this country don't have a leg to stand on, and if she wants to make me look bad people were probably going to believe her as she's a single mother. The guard told me that the day of single mothers being sympathised with so much is well gone and that the law can see the wood for the trees. He made it obvious that she was just trying to scare me so it would make it easier for her to get her way in the long run. He said that as long as I did everything by the book that i would be ok and that there was no reason that I shouldn't have access to my daughter. Anymore contact with her was to be recorded and shown to a solicitor.

I hope he's right, I hope that I do get to see my daughter, I've essentially done nothing wrong here. I was never abusive, we never even raised our voices to each other.. Maybe I'm missing out on something.
Can I get some opinions? Do I have a right to be a parent? I really want to be part of my daughter's life. I can't believe she's 3 weeks old and I don't have a clue what she even looks like. The thought of her calling someone else 'Dad' makes me so sad everytime I think about it.

Sorry this went on for a bit, thanks for taking the time to read it.
What do you think?

Trinity

Sorry to hear about your predicament.

Yes you have rights if you can prove you are the baby's father. Are you sure that you are? It doesnt matter about your name not being on the birth cert.

It will take time going the legal route but worth it in the end if you get regular access. Get yourself a good solicitor and prepare for a long battle.

It sounds like she wants to play happy families with her ex and you are in the way. Brutal as it sounds he may have her under pressure too. Nothing more threatening to insecure people than an ex (you) who due to kids, will always be in the background.

Nevyn

I would suggset that you get legal advice as soon as possible.
You are not on the child's birth cert and you have no parenal rights and as a result she can go about getting her new partner to legall adopt the child with her consent making him legally the child's father in the eyes of the law with gardainship rights.

Bartle

yeah I know that I am the father. She would love to tell me that I wasn't if that was the case. I think it may be her mother more so than her ex telling her what to do. I have a feeling that if I don't have my name on the birth cert then she'll put her ex's name down just to upset me. How much would a solicitor cost me roughly?

Trinity

i'm afraid i have no idea how much a solicitor would cost.

Depending on your personal circumstances, you should look into legal aid first to see if you are entitled to it.

They generally sit in local libraries at given times.

You could try the citizens advice centre.

I dont know where you are based so the most general one is www.oasis.gov.ie - they can show you where your local one is.

embee

Bartle wrote:

yeah I know that I am the father. She would love to tell me that I wasn't if that was the case. I think it may be her mother more so than her ex telling her what to do. I have a feeling that if I don't have my name on the birth cert then she'll put her ex's name down just to upset me. How much would a solicitor cost me roughly?

If I were you, I would go to a solicitor, or maybe try to talk to someone at your local citizens advice bureau. She will be needing to register the babys birth at some stage soon - she won't any benefits until the child is "official". You are the childs father - demand a paternity test. You have rights to this child.

To be honest with you - if she is living with her ex again, and has his name down as the father on the birth certificate, she won't qualify for Lone Parent Family Payment, as co-habiting will rule you out immediately. And, if you are the father of the child, she needs to be seen to be seeking maintenance from you of some sort (either by a regular standing order from your account to hers or a Maintenance Agreement arranged through the Courts), or again, the Social Welfare are going to be VERY reluctant to grant her the Lone Parent Family Payment. Her saying your name isn't going on the birth cert won't make an iota of difference to whether or not she will or will not get benefits.... she should be glad of the financial support you are offering!

I can't believe you are being so patient with her... your whole thread is dotted with comments like "I left her alone"..."I gave her time"... Dude, she has had 9 months to get her head around it all. She is stalling, pure and simple. It is time for you to start playing hardball tbh.

Good luck though - I know it isn't an easy situation for me. You are better off by miles not being in a relationship with her!! She sounds like a b*tch. Who is she to tell you who is and isn't going to be Daddy to YOUR daughter?!?!?!

Carrigart Exile

Trinity1 wrote:

i'm afraid i have no idea how much a solicitor would cost.

Depending on your personal circumstances, you should look into legal aid first to see if you are entitled to it.

They generally sit in local libraries at given times.

You could try the citizens advice centre.

I dont know where you are based so the most general one is www.oasis.gov.ie - they can show you where your local one is.

Ten years ago, it cost my friend (based in the UK) £800 to get access sorted via the courts after his ex decided to end their marraige and set up home with a guy she was having an affair with. Of course her new relationship meant he was to stay well away and not interfere in her new situation, including forgetting about his daughter. Every case is different, but be prepared for a long and expensive road.

dame

As far as I remember a child's birth has to be registered within 30 days or something so she'll be doing that soon if she hasn't already. I believe there are some single mothers out there who are cohabiting but who claim they're not so that they still get the lone parents allowance. I know of one case where she has a "lodger".

I would say that she is feeling vulnerable right now and is very aware that her boyfriend is not the father of her newborn child. She is trying to keep her boyfriend happy because she is scared that he will decide he's bitten off more than he can chew and will disappear as he has no real ties with the child yet. She'll also not have been getting a lot of sleep so any touchy subject is going to provoke anger and shorter tempers than usual. That's no excuse for her behaviour but just something to be aware of. Do get yourself legal advice and as soon as possible. I'd let all contact be through him/her so that she has zero grounds to say you've been harrassing/upsetting/arguing.

Bartle

I've been on the citizen's information site alot over the past few months, i'm going to meet them on thursday when the have a solicitor present offering legal advice. A friend doing law in college has given me plenty of notes to read over involving family law. It's fairly up to date (2004). It says that the registration now has to be done within 3 months and if she does put his name down it can still be changed if the court sees the that it's wrong. My friend told me that the law was changing with the times and it is slowly moving more in favour of the natural father, but still not much. The constitution is interpreted differently depending on the situation at the time. I guess a big factor here is what judge i get, i know that i have a small chance given that I have a completely clean criminal record, I've never been in serious trouble and I don't have any enemies. One thing I have to do is get a reference from anyone I've worked for so they could be character witnesses. Nobody will have any reason for me not to see my daughter.

Being entitle to free legal aid would be great, but wouldn't it look bad in the eyes of the court? It might make me look like I'm scrounging from the government rather than someone who's financially prepared to support a child.

Thanks for your replies everyone, it's great to have this support.

The Corinthian

Bartle wrote:

She also told me that she wanted to exclude my name from the birth certificate as it would entitle her to more benfits. I since discovered that it was a complete lie, nothing but a method single mothers use to make it easier for them to exclude fathers from the child's life.

My understanding is that what she said is essentially correct as when a father’s name is on the birth cert the State will be demanded that she seeks maintenance from you and that this will be in part deducted from what she receives from them. Many mothers go down this road for this very reason and some will also have a private arrangement from the father for maintenance in addition to what they get from the State.

As for the rest of your post, you have my sympathies. You do have an uphill struggle, but you can and should apply for joint guardianship through the courts if that is what you want. Generally about 70% of fathers who are opposed by the mother will still get this, so my gut feeling is that so long as you come across as a responsible and caring individual in court you will win it.

Given this you will still have an uphill struggle ahead of you as she will most likely continue to block your every attempt at access or use access as a bargaining chip. Be prepared go back to court many times in the future. Good luck.

Shelli

I just wanted to wish you good luck, I hope you ex sees sense and lets you see your daughter.

gonker

Just wanted to send good luck to you. How dare she stop her daughter knowing her father and you knowing your daughter. The best of luck. Keep us posted.

Kimbot

May I offer the following advise....

1. Get a paternity test straight away, this can be arranged through a solicitor. The reason I say do this first is because the way she jumped straight back to her ex, meaning they were probably sleeping together for a while behind your back and the child is not yours!!

2. If the child is yours it doesn't matter who's name is on the birth cert as the paternity test will be used as legal evidence, in this instance you can get guardianship of your child but only if the mother agrees to it!!

3. A day in court with a solicitor will cost €500 on average, depending on how much you earn it could mean you are able to avail of free legal aid but paying a top solicitor will do your case more good than anything!!

4. For the mother to not accept financial support is very very strange, if I were you I would write out a letter stating that if the child is yours you are willing to pay X amount per week/month for maintenance and have it giving to your solicitor for reference!

5. I unterstand the predicament that you are in right now but the best thing you can do until you get the paternity tests done is stand back and get everything out fo your head as it will ruin you in the long run.

If you need any help at all with this just give me a shout!!

Kimbot

The Corinthian wrote:

My understanding is that what she said is essentially correct as when a father’s name is on the birth cert the State will be demanded that she seeks maintenance from you and that this will be in part deducted from what she receives from them. Many mothers go down this road for this very reason and some will also have a private arrangement from the father for maintenance in addition to what they get from the State.

Actually you are slightly wrong there!! I pay maintenance every week and my name is on my son's birth cert. The state don't chase the father or nothing of the sort. Women think that this is a loophole for extra money but it isn't. The mother has to furnish all maintenance payments details to social welfare for their book to be deducted, I know very little that actually do this. My maintance was agree upon on front of a judge so it is a court order and is free to be viewed by welfare but it hasn't dropped her payments at all!!

Nevyn

It does not effect the lone parent's payment but effects the ammount of rent allowance is given as the maintenance is seen as paying to provide a roof over the child's head.

Limerick Dude

Just wanted to wish you good luck man, hopefully it will all work out in the end

Sean.

limklad

Bartle wrote:

I've been on the citizen's information site alot over the past few months, i'm going to meet them on thursday when the have a solicitor present offering legal advice. A friend doing law in college has given me plenty of notes to read over involving family law. It's fairly up to date (2004). It says that the registration now has to be done within 3 months and if she does put his name down it can still be changed if the court sees the that it's wrong. My friend told me that the law was changing with the times and it is slowly moving more in favour of the natural father, but still not much. The constitution is interpreted differently depending on the situation at the time. I guess a big factor here is what judge i get, i know that i have a small chance given that I have a completely clean criminal record, I've never been in serious trouble and I don't have any enemies. One thing I have to do is get a reference from anyone I've worked for so they could be character witnesses. Nobody will have any reason for me not to see my daughter.

Being entitle to free legal aid would be great, but wouldn't it look bad in the eyes of the court? It might make me look like I'm scrounging from the government rather than someone who's financially prepared to support a child.

Thanks for your replies everyone, it's great to have this support.

Hi Bartle,
I been skimming down through the thread and notice I did not see any reference about what is best for the child.
Yes the Mother is acting selfish at the moment, by her choice or is been perverse by others. It is still her choice at the end of the day.
You got plenty of advice about talking to a solicitor. Make sure that records are kept, even if you have to go to court to seek visitation rights, do it. Do you want to know why?
Your Daughter will grow up, and eventually she will find out that the current boyfriend is not the real father. She will start to ask questions. Her mother will probably lie to cover her actions.
You need to do the following:
You need to create evidence. Do not falsify any evidence or else you will lose in the end.
Do not get rid of the phone, create backups of the contents of the phone to a disk and give the backups or phone to your solicitor, this may be needed for courts. You can change the SIM to another phone, if necessary.
Get a camcorder and create a video diary for your daughter. For each time you think about her (daughter) express your feeling and record what the mother is doing and display it on video. Express what you love to do with her. Show everything you get her mother. Note birthdays, first steps, etc. Find people who know you (Good as well as bad), to talk about you, you will change over time, so it good for your daughter to get to know you. Record your interaction with your family, friends, (no acting or change of behavior). She will suss this out as false and it will backfire against you. So be genuine as possible. I know this sound extreme. Create backup to store else where (incase of fire).
Send presents and if not in person then by post and get it recorded (registered) and film it and why you choose the present, tell the truth not matter how lame.
In the end your daughter will grow up. She will be the Judge and it will be difficult for her coming to term with the truth of her mother behavior. Do not do anything to embarrass yourself.
The mother is already taken the first steps of destroying the relationship with her daughter. Do not do the same.
What would look bad for you, is not trying every avenue to see your daughter. If you can’t afford legal aid then use free legal aid. When the economy turns sour, the social welfare will start investigation claims much more vigorous to save money.
Before you take any actions, think about your daughter, not you, remember, she is the important one here.
There will be lots of disappointments, but you need to live your life too. Do it for your daughter, so you can be there when she needs you (if she want to or not). And congrats for being a father, You have already taken one good step for been a good father. Well done. Your daughter is luck to have you, because of all the dead (living :rolleyes: ) fathers out there.
Take care and I hope you do get to see a lot of your daughter.

OfflerCrocGod

jonny24ie wrote:

1. Get a paternity test straight away, this can be arranged through a solicitor. The reason I say do this first is because the way she jumped straight back to her ex, meaning they were probably sleeping together for a while behind your back and the child is not yours!!

This is exactly what I'm wondering about - I mean it seems as if the ex approves of being the legal guardian to this child? I don't know about other guys but for myself I would be less then enthusiastic about taking care of another mans child so soon after them mother dumped him. It just feels a bit fishy overall to me I must confess; don't find yourself paying out cash to a woman who treated you like this for a child who may not even be yours.

The Corinthian

Good point. It may never have been the OP's all along and she simply didn't want to admit she had been unfaithful. Another possibility is that is is the OP's and she's telling the ex that it's his because she sees him as a better potential /partner. It would be one explanation as to why she wants to keep the OP away - that he would blow the whistle.

Kildrought

There's a fair amount of mis-information posted here; jonny24ie's post is probably the most useful.

You will probably never know what your former partner's motivation is, just be clear about your own and take your steps accordingly.

You don't need a soltr to apply for guardianship of your child; contact your local district court - you will find the clerks quite helpful in pointing out the correct documentation etc., though obviously they can't give legal advice. Unless you have something untwoard in your background, you will most likely be granted guardianship. You can then request regular access arrangements. Keep to it. This is important; once you are in your child's life you cannot leave it.

If your former partner disputes your claim to be the child's father, dna tests will be ordered and that will finalise that issue.

Maintenance is based on both parents income and expenditures, estimate what you can afford to pay and request an order based on that.

Nevyn

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/family-and-relationships/cohabiting-couples/legal_guardianship_and_unmarried_couples

If a child in Ireland is born out outside of marriage, the mother is the sole guardian . The position of the unmarried father of the child is not so certain. If the mother agrees, the father can become a joint-guardian if both parents sign a "statutory declaration". The statutory declaration (SI 5 of 1998) must be signed in the presence of a Peace Commissioner or a Commissioner for Oaths .

This declaration states the names of the parents of the child, that they are unmarried and that they agree that the father should be appointed as a joint-guardian. The declaration also states that the parents have agreed arrangements regarding custody of and access to the child. If there is more than one child, a separate statutory declaration should be made for each.

However, if the mother does not agree to sign the statutory declaration or agree that the father be appointed as joint guardian, the father must apply to the court to be appointed as a joint-guardian. You do not require legal representation to do this, you can make the application on your own behalf. Apply directly to the the District Court and contact the clerk of the court to institute proceedings. (This is possible, irrespective of whether your name is on the child's birth certificate or not). Statistics from 2004 show that 70% of the 1,237 unmarried fathers who applied for guardianship had orders granted in their favour.

While the mother's views are taken into account, the fact that she does not consent to the guardianship application does not automatically mean that the court will refuse the order sought by the father. Instead, the court will decide what is in the best interest of the child.

In situations where the father has been appointed joint guardian of a child, then his consent is required for certain things relating to the child's general welfare and other items. (For example, for passport applications for the child). Read more about passports for children of unmarried parents here (pdf). The father's consent is also required for the adoption of the child by another couple (or by the mother and her husband). Read more about adoption here .

K-9

OMG! I thought my situation was bad! Sympathise with u totally Bartle. Definitely get a Paternity test done as it could be a case that the mother has mislead both u and her aprtner. Does the partner know about u? Maybe for some reason he definitely thinks he is the father and is believing what the mother is feeding him.

Also the mother doesn;t need your consent to register the fathers details though if she registers her partner and it turns out u are the father that will really open up the judges eyes. Record your efforts to pay maintenance as well tho it is up to her to accept it or to look for it. It also cannot be backdated before the time that the mother applies to the court to seek it.

Definitely apply for guardianship and access. She can't refuse this if the judge thinks its in the childs best interest. The child has a right to see you.

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

OMG! I thought my situation was bad! Sympathise with u totally Bartle. Definitely get a Paternity test done as it could be a case that the mother has mislead both u and her aprtner. Does the partner know about u? Maybe for some reason he definitely thinks he is the father and is believing what the mother is feeding him.

Also the mother doesn;t need your consent to register the fathers details though if she registers her partner and it turns out u are the father that will really open up the judges eyes. Record your efforts to pay maintenance as well tho it is up to her to accept it or to look for it. It also cannot be backdated before the time that the mother applies to the court to seek it.

Definitely apply for guardianship and access. She can't refuse this if the judge thinks its in the childs best interest. The child has a right to see you.

The court can grant what it will but if the mother refuses and despite being in contempt of court nothing will happen. If she keeps the child deliberatley off school the courts will eventually throw her in prison but if she denies the child access to her father the law does nothing. That's why there was guys in superman outfits on the roofs of Buckingham Palace and 10 Downing Street.

K-9

Yet fathers who don't pay maintenance, often for very valid reasons (e.g. genuinely not being able to pay it) are held in contempt of the court order and jailed. My ex partner denied access for 4 months. When I rang the Guards the Guard said all she'll get is a slap on the wrist. Though if it keeps happening and she's constantly in front of the Judge she will eventually be fined.

Don't think Prison should be used either for the Mother or Father. Maybe a heavy fine after warnings. It's really in the best interests of the child to put a Father in Prison! Child "Where's Daddy" "He's in prison bcause he got laid off and couldn't afford maintenance". And still Judges believe they act in the best interests of the child!

The Corinthian

Carrigart Exile wrote:

The court can grant what it will but if the mother refuses and despite being in contempt of court nothing will happen.

That's not entirely correct. If the mother refuses to such tests the court may it's own conclusions and rule accordingly (source):

Where someone refuses to give a sample, the court can draw whatever conclusions it thinks proper from the refusal. For example, if the alleged father refused to give a sample, the court may take the view that he was afraid the tests would indicate he was the father. If the mother refused to give a sample, the court may take the view she was afraid the test may provide the named man was not the father.

That's why there was guys in superman outfits on the roofs of Buckingham Palace and 10 Downing Street.

The reason we have such drastic inequality in parental rights is because equality movements, more correctly women’s movements have naturally focused on areas where inequality disadvantaged women. Where they advantaged them, they have been largely silent, happy enough with the situation when it suits them. This double standard is why you’ll get, even here, the same posters crying about what is best for the child in one thread and a woman’s right to choose in another.

The concept of men’s rights is still in it’s infancy as women’s rights have progressed only in the last few decades to the point where inequalities on the other side of the gender divide have begun to become apparent. It is (decreasingly) treated with the same contempt and humour as the suffragettes once were – and hostility by some Feminist groups – but will probably over time redress many of these issues.

K-9

The Women's movement of course have valid points in areas but fathers rights does not seem to be taken seriously.

The Corinthian wrote:

- The reason we have such drastic inequality in parental rights is because equality movements, more correctly women’s movements have naturally focused on areas where inequality disadvantaged women. Where they advantaged them, they have been largely silent, happy enough with the situation when it suits them. This double standard is why you’ll get, even here, the same posters crying about what is best for the child in one thread and a woman’s right to choose in another.

I see in America fathers who sued the mother for fraud in relation to paternity where turned down because of children's rights. So after 20 years of marriage and 3 kids that aren't yours you still have to maintain them. Many fathers will still pay because they are the true dads who reared the children. But what the courts are basically saying is its ok for the women to mess around, have different kids to different fathers and it's actually better to lie about it because you'll get maintenace as the poor sap will stay. Tell the truth when they're born and you will get nothing as you will probably never see the true dad. Better to lie to the kids about there father. Thats in the childs best interest. Why should the mother pay back any maintenace sure it's in the childs best interest not to know who the father is. Judgements are starting to change there though and they will eventually here.

The Corinthian

Situation in the past was pretty grim for women, especially those who had children out of wedlock. Conversely, fathers had few if any legal obligations, allowing them to leave a trail of bastards with impunity.

Of course this does not justify the reversal of parental rights that now exists, but it does in part explain it. The other reason is that while Feminism has sought to redress equalities against women, that essentially where it stops. After all, it should not be assumed that Feminism is about equality as it only seeks to represent it’s own constituency i women - and so seeking equality might mean that it would have to act against that constituency, so it doesn’t. And because there has been no male equivalent until recently, the pendulum was able to swing in the other direction.

Nonetheless, single motherhood is a terrifying situation for any woman to find herself in and, just like men in the past who had the opportunity to act in self interest, the temptation is there to do likewise, even if it adversely affects the rights and lives of others. And some, and in fairness from what I can see not many, do this.

K-9

Corinthian - thats a very good point about feminism. It's more about Fathers getting organised better than womens rights or trying to lessen them.

Don't want to go off topic too much but you're comment about bastard children reminds me of something. I know it's so outdated thank God but I couldn't believe. Don't want to bore with to many details. Row with ex today. Try and bite my tongue but hard sometimes. Anyway things were said about each other and I wasn't innocent but we're both adults. I went out with a girl for a year who had a child. Ex is very competitive, always was but she called her child a bastard child. OMG. This was yesterday not 100 years ago.

The sad thing is my boy is in no way different to this other boy. Circumstances basically the same. When we where together she didn't speak to her sister for a year after the sister called my son the same. She knows far better. I know things are said in anger but i can't believe the ignorance. If u follow logic! my sons the same.

Basically we've had rows before. I can't believe a mother could call any child this. Fast losing respect for her as a mother.

My point is should people have a line that is crossed and go no further. How do u deal with people with this mentality? The ex GF she was chatting about I have alot of respect for and indeed most SP's. I think it just shows u what some SP's are like. There just is no talking to them. Bitter and twisted.

Anyway thats my rant over. Felt she really crossed the line. Hopefully this shows like on the original post that there are some bitter, twisted and prejudiced Mothers as well but u can't hold all SP's to blame. The same has to be said of fathers to.

The Corinthian

Seanies32 wrote:

Basically we've had rows before. I can't believe a mother could call any child this. Fast losing respect for her as a mother.

Your situation may have been as a result of a row where she (I assume she’s the mother of your son) used the term as a means of expressing dissatisfaction in your attention and/or assistance as the father (i.e. she feels that is you’re treating him as a ‘bastard’). That does not make it right, only possibly explains it. I’ll also assume that you’re paying adequate maintenance, etc.

The problem can be, from what I’ve observed, is that where a mother and father are not together, the father will typically get on with his life and career with far greater ease than the mother. This can lead to resentment, especially if she’s still single and you’re not, or you’ve started another family or are financially successful.

Sorry, another off topic tangent. Returning to the OP. I think he has been pretty much informed that if he sticks to his guns legally, he should be OK (probably).

K-9

Thanks Corinthian - My rant over anyway. Do pay maintenance. She made a comment about an ex I used to go out with. It was her son. But by inference she same would apply to our son. Always rise above the pettiness I say, just didn't this time. Just makes u question some peoples mentality.

Jealousy forms a big part to the resentment alright. Alot of women can be more competitive than men. Both parents are going to move on in life, maybe have kids and get married.

OP should be ok. Just have to join the waiting game at the courts and the games that are involved.

Trinity

Sorry to interrupt and sorry for going off topic OP.

At the end of the day its the childs best interest that should matter. People do play games and use children as pawns.

I'm in the opposite situation as Seanie and Bartle - i wanted my sons father to see him. A court couldnt make him, i couldnt make him and he came and went for 6 years.

My son has been really hurt by this. I wonder as a mother if i SHOULD have stopped his sporadic visits but i really wanted my son to be happy. And he did promise to make it regular.

We have had no contact, but my son has his phone number and is allowed to call anytime he wants - he doesnt - cos the last time he sent a text his father ignored it and it killed my son. He hasnt mentioned him since.

I wont go on at lenghts but in my claiming maintenance from abroad post i do outline a bit more detail of what that sad fcuk did to our child.

He is currently residing with a girl with 2 children, i only hope he doesnt mess them around. I bear no jealousy and the kids are lovely i have seen photos - but yes i am resentful that he cant even pick up the damn phone to our boy whether or not he is seeing a girl with kids. He has always been like this even before he met this girl.

It wouldnt kill him to pick up the phone. We parted on good terms, had a drink a laugh and a joke so i wont for a second blame myself for his actions.

I commend you for wanting to play a part in your childs lives. i hope everything works out for you and more importantly the children ASAP.

I also went out with a guy who had a child and his ex was a god damn lunatic. the child wasnt allowed near me, his mum had never met me. He pleaded and begged to see the child, some weekends she would let him, others she would say he was busy - at one point i think the child had to attend 6 birthday parties over a 2 day period - yeah right.

Court has been ongoing for him a couple of years now. So i have seen both sides of the story.

K-9

Quote Trinity 1 - So i have seen both sides of the story.

There is both sides definitely. Everything seems to get involved in a father v. mother thing though. Thats not what fathers rights is about.

Personally I think Guardianship should be automatic for unmarried fathers. If at birth there is no relationship there should be an agency to sort out maintenance and access or indeed paternity in OP's case. Fathers should have the rights and responsibilities automatically. I thought innocent til proven guilty was a legal concept.

The battlefield of the courts should be used for non compliance of fathers and indeed mothers. Unrepsonsible fathers and mothers would have to explain to the judge why. In cases of abuse or neglect access could be denied by the mother and the court could then withdraw the rights if necessary. The adversarial system of the courts just adds to the resentment bitterness and should be avoided if possible. Having to go to court to get access to your child is just ridiculous in this day and age.

Trinity

But thats just it Seanie32 - its the parents (or one of them) that make it personal. They put their own wants and needs before that of the children.

I've never tried to stop him seeing his son - i went to a solicitor to ask if i could take him to court to make him see him!! I was told no but if he took me to court he would be granted access. I thought things were fairly amicable, i thought i was reasonable but my biggest mistake was exactly that - being a pushover letting him come and go.

It is a pity though that parents cant be grown up and sort these things out amongst themselves. But some people are totally unreasonable. The only time i would have tried to stop his dad seeing him is if i thought he was being abusive/neglectful of him but certainly Not out of badness or bitterness. I love my son too much for that.

And yes your suggestions above, in an ideal world, would save a lot of heartache for all involved.

The Corinthian

Trinity1 wrote:

But thats just it Seanie32 - its the parents (or one of them) that make it personal. They put their own wants and needs before that of the children.

That's an interesting point of view because it begs the question of how far should you follow that principle. Parents have their own wants and needs too, but should these always be secondary for those of the child? Should, say, a father not enter another relationship and have other children because this acts against the interests of the child (which it does as it would have both social and financial implications)? Or should a single mother write off her life simply because she is a mother?

In short, the good of the child is a phrase that gets bandied around a lot in these discussions, but where is the line drawn between the good of the child and the good of the parents or are parents ultimately expected to be the primate equivalent of salmon, making the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of the next generation?

I've never tried to stop him seeing his son - i went to a solicitor to ask if i could take him to court to make him see him!!

Out of curiosity how often is often enough? Or is the regularity more important than the frequency?

Trinity

The Corinthian wrote:

That's an interesting point of view because it begs the question of how far should you follow that principle. Parents have their own wants and needs too, but should these always be secondary for those of the child? Should, say, a father not enter another relationship and have other children because this acts against the interests of the child (which it does as it would have both social and financial implications)? Or should a single mother write off her life simply because she is a mother?

In short, the good of the child is a phrase that gets bandied around a lot in these discussions, but where is the line drawn between the good of the child and the good of the parents or are parents ultimately expected to be the primate equivalent of salmon, making the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of the next generation?

Out of curiosity how often is often enough? Or is the regularity more important than the frequency?

Regularity tbh. Even if its once a year on a set date lets say birthday. That way there is no room for disappointment. Granted the child may miss the absent parent the rest of the year but thats to be expected and it soon becomes 'the norm'. They know what to expect and when to expect it.

I asked him (Dad) accompany me to a professional child psychologist when our son was very young. We asked her to tell us what was best for my son. SHe said anything at all once it was consistant. He promised once a fortnight visits. It never happened.

My son is on a waiting list for the mater child guidance clinic. Hes very deep and full of anger. He has difficulty mixing with other children and feels 'not as good as the other children' yet he is highly intelligent.

I cannot or would not contribute this all to his father but certainly some of it. I cant tell you the times that child sat looking out the window waiting on his dad to arrive having promised he would only not to show up for 6 months. Some of it is also down to me molly coddling him, we are together all the time.

As for who comes first - in my house its my child. However, if he was being unreasonable about a new partner and taking a dislike to him just for the sake of it, i would intervene. If a new partner was cruel or mean to him i would of course kick him to the kerb. Its all about compromise. Most adults do not like change let alone children you have to ease them into it. I have broken up relationships over my child - i dont regret it. They wanted to take on the role of the role of disciplining him without any of the good stuff dads do. I am lucky enough to be with someone very nice now who makes a great deal of effort with my son and it does not go un-noticed. Its not easy taking on someone elses kid let alone a spoiled one!!

There is no reason whatsoever that both parents cannot move on with their own lives. you just have to be a little more sensitive and make them feel included. My son found out about his dad's new stepkids when he sent photos of his new home and he was there in the photos playing with the 2 kids. I had no idea either but my son was only 5 and had been messed around by his Dad since he was born. I thought that was a little insensitive. He coudl have had a chat with him. I had to explain to my son that just cos mammy and daddy do not live together it does not mean we love him any less. I dont think his dad ever told him he loved him but i told him his dad loved him all the time. TBH though i dont think he really does.

Anyway OT again apologies.

Dudess

OP, your girlfriend does indeed sound highly vindictive but, and no disrespect meant, you have only give us your side of the story. Did she really just decide to finish with you and behave obnoxiously from then on for no reason or next to no reason?
That said, no matter what's happened between you two, not allowing you to see your own child is disgusting and it's something that really angers me. I actually did my masters thesis on it. Look up www.treoir.ie and www.parentalequality.ie. There is a group, Unmarried and Separated Fathers of Ireland, but I don't think it has a website. But its contact details are on the Treoir website I mentioned. Contact those guys asap for advice.
From what I learned on the situation, tread very carefully but keep on fighting. Hope I'm not making you feel more miserable than you already are, but I'd feel I was doing you a disservice by not mentioning the fact that some mothers have been known to make up false allegations of sexual or physical abuse on the part of the father - either against her or the child(ren). These allegations are taken very seriously by the courts - plenty end up being thrown out of court, but nevertheless, any abuse allegations (especially of a child, since the welfare of the child is paramount) cannot be taken lightly. If you think your ex is capable of doing such an evil thing, then find out what the best measures to take are.
It's awfully tough for men in this regard. The bias is, sadly, with the mother, but as I learned, family law, which was once rooted in the notion of the nuclear family, is beginning to move with the times.
I've also heard of some very irresponsible solicitors, who say things like "you may as well give up. You won't have a leg to stand on" etc, while pocketing a nice fee, thank you very much. If you get this sort of crap from your legal representation (if it comes to that, mind), tell them their services are no longer required and move on to another.
I've heard some awful stories, but these are in the minority. I sincerely wish you the very best of luck.

Bartle

Dudess wrote:

OP, your girlfriend does indeed sound highly vindictive but, and no disrespect meant, you have only give us your side of the story. Did she really just decide to finish with you and behave obnoxiously from then on for no reason or next to no reason?

I'm sure it's not 'no reason', but it's certainly not a reason that I was the casue of. I'm sure it was simply because she was pregnant with my baby and maybe she started to realise that she didn't like me as much as she thought. I was in absolutely no way abusive towards her. She just simply wanted to be with her boyfriend and not me. Being the way she was to me made things like that easier for her. We lived miles apart, there was nothing i could do.

And to anyone still maintaining that it isn't mine because she got back with him so quick - she is like this. I do believe that because of her background, the girl has some deep seeded issues. Trust me, if you knew the girl, you wouldn't be a bit surprised by any of her actions.

K-9

Quote - Bartle - And to anyone still maintaining that it isn't mine because she got back with him so quick - she is like this. I do believe that because of her background, the girl has some deep seeded issues. Trust me, if you knew the girl, you wouldn't be a bit surprised by any of her actions.

There are women like this and of course men too. In a case like this u can't compromise or talk to someone like that. USFI as Dudess mentioned can be helpful. They have meetings in Dublin and it can be good to be able to talk or even ring somebody about it. Your the childs father and your entitled to be involved in their lives. Probably be uproar until u get things sorted but things will settle down eventually.

Dudess alot of these child abuse allegations are false. The problem is the file on these is open for years and there is bias against fathers in these cases. The things is in cases like these when they're proved false nothing seems to be done about the false allegations never mind the damage done to kids in these cases.

Quote The Corinthian - That's an interesting point of view because it begs the question of how far should you follow that principle. Parents have their own wants and needs too, but should these always be secondary for those of the child? Should, say, a father not enter another relationship and have other children because this acts against the interests of the child (which it does as it would have both social and financial implications)? Or should a single mother write off her life simply because she is a mother?

Parents of course have a right to move on. Kids can be adaptable and open minded, they put the parents to shame.
Childrens rights and how much they should have is probably for another thread. They definitely have a right to see there father and above all know who there father is. A father has a right to be involved in the childs life. These are quite basic rights. But as in Trinity1's case responsibilities come with the rights. Regularity is more important than frequency if one of the parents is abroad say. At least the child knows the father is involved in their lives. But if the father is just going to let down the child and not appear when they say, they are probably better off out of the childs life. With rights comes responsibilities.

Dudess

Seanies32 wrote:

Dudess alot of these child abuse allegations are false. The problem is the file on these is open for years and there is bias against fathers in these cases. The things is in cases like these when they're proved false nothing seems to be done about the false allegations never mind the damage done to kids in these cases.

Yeah, that's what I was saying - that women have been known to make up false allegations of abuse, either of them or of the children. It's a vicious thing to do to a man.
Bartle, apologies for the opening sentence in my last post. She does indeed sound extremely unreasonable.

Nevyn

It is a vicious thing to do to any person as even if the allegation is found to be unfounded the case file remains active for two years and even after it is closed it still exists as a record in the system about that person and can disbar them from working with children or certain jobs or college courses.

Father's have been known to do this too, it is not the perserve of either gender;
even misguided grandparents who are bewildered at the break up of a couple and who don't wish to personally interfer have made reports to get offical help.

The system does work but in my opinion those that are found to be abusing it for thier own ends should be fined.

C x

I would drop into Dolphin House and make application for legal access first. You dont need a solicitor for that. However there is a bit of a delay with this but the letter will go out to your ex and maybe that letter might be the kick inthe arse she might need.

Wait for the court hearing. I always advise to have a solicitor present.

As for Guardianship well that could possibly be refused firstly because you have no contact with the child and because of the mess that might be put off.

Personally I think Guardianship should be automatic for unmarried fathers

I dont agree with this at all. Mainly because there are a lot of of dads that walk as soon as baby comes along and have no interest. Why should they be given this right??

Its automatic alright by marriage but outisde of marriage it should not be recognised as a automatic right.

K-9

Cx - My opinion is different to yours. I think it should be given automatically. I'm not disputing that plenty of fathers walk away. But why punish all unmarried fathers for this. We should be innocent til proven guilty.

Then if the father is not fulfilling his access or paying his maintenance the right would be taken away. If he is not fulfilling his responsibilities then take it away. It might concentrate the fathers mind to. Rights taken away would hurt far more and maybe serve as a wake up call for these fathers.

There was arecent UK tax case taken to the European Courts of Human Rights. Basically they agreed that an unmarried father paying maintenance after the break up of a relationship was to all intents and purposes the same as a married after separation. He paid maintenance, had access and was responsible. They said the payments should be treated the same tax wise as if he was married. This wouldn't apply to the South as its a different tax system but the principle was interesting. It will take time but Irish Law will start reflecting changes in society like these.

The Corinthian

C x wrote:

I dont agree with this at all. Mainly because there are a lot of of dads that walk as soon as baby comes along and have no interest. Why should they be given this right??

Because the abuses against a willing father without guardianship outweigh the abuses by an unwilling father with guardianship.

We’ve already heard how without guardianship even a willing father can be denied any form of access to his child, regardless of his intentions. On the other side of the scale, with an unwilling father with guardianship, what can he realistically do? About the only thing is denying the mother the right to take the child out of the country, which while pretty nasty really does not compare to being shut out of a child’s life.

Guardianship is also limited in its scope: While in theory it covers a lot, the practical reality is that the custodian will have de facto final word on almost all matters – and if the father is uninvolved, this essentially translates to all matters.

Finally guardianship for unmarried fathers is not guaranteed, even when awarded or given. Fathers who absent themselves or act otherwise against the interests of the child do lose the status (few do as those who seek it are not likely to fall into those categories). All of which finally assumes that an unwilling father would even want such a status – which given that it would increase the amount of maintenance that he would be forced by a court to pay is unlikely.

Why else? Because he’s the father. It really is bizarre that people think it perfectly acceptable that fathers should be legally treated as fathers when it comes to responsibility but amnesia sets in the moment that rights come into question.

Its automatic alright by marriage but outisde of marriage it should not be recognised as a automatic right.

Why the difference? Does not being married make a man less of a father any more than it makes a woman less of a mother? It might make him less of a husband, but we’re talking about his relationship to his child, not his (former) partner.

Kildrought

If you marry and have a child then it is a clear statement of your intention to raise that child together.

There is also a legal presumption that a husband of a marriage is the father of all the children of that marriage. Hence the fact that both parents when married are automatically guardians of their children.

Bear in mind that many of these laws were enacted at a time when there was no remote possibility of testing parentage. Before DNA testing the only parent who could be confirmed 100% was the mother - since the birth (unlike the conception!) is witnessed by others.

Parents who have not married or are not co-habiting have not signalled their intent to raise the child together; automatically granting guardianship to an non-resident father may cause more issues than it resolves.

As it stands, if a father applies for guardianship (and assuming there is nothing seriously untoward in his background) it is generally granted.

K-9

Kildrought wrote:

If you marry and have a child then it is a clear statement of your intention to raise that child together.

Parents who have not married or are not co-habiting have not signalled their intent to raise the child together; automatically granting guardianship to an non-resident father may cause more issues than it resolves.

As it stands, if a father applies for guardianship (and assuming there is nothing seriously untoward in his background) it is generally granted.

Co-habitating fathers do not get this recognised. I was in a similar situation.
Both parents may want to raise the child together but may not be co-habitating. The father (as in this thread) may be very serious about being involved in the childs life. There is no recognition of this either.
It would be interesting to see if there was any figures on how many unmarried fathers have guardianship and if not the reasons why not. In my case even though we where cohabitating the mother would not give me guardianship. Obviously if you are in a relationship u are not going to go to a judge to get it without the mother's consent. Men in this situation would depress the figure gaining guardianship.

At the moment we basically have to earn the right. Fathers's should not have to earn this basic right. Dept. of Justice just couldn't be bothered updating the law. McDowell's reply on a register of Guardians, " I don't see the need for it".

The Corinthian

Kildrought wrote:

If you marry and have a child then it is a clear statement of your intention to raise that child together.

That is certainly the preferable scenario, but should we judge fathers, and to be fair mothers too, as valid parents on the basis that they fall into the optimal category?

Perhaps we should put a financial threshold on parental rights? Unless the combined family income is a minimum of €30,000 p.a. they should not be given guardianship, as it would be a sub optimal environment for the child.

There is also a legal presumption that a husband of a marriage is the father of all the children of that marriage.

Unless you're in Liverpool:

"The researchers in Liverpool found that rates of cases where a man was not the biological father of his child ranged from 1% in some studies to as much as 30%."

Parents who have not married or are not co-habiting have not signalled their intent to raise the child together; automatically granting guardianship to an non-resident father may cause more issues than it resolves.

Like what issues? I’ve already pointed out how the opposite is the case, so I’d be very interested in your rebuttal.

As it stands, if a father applies for guardianship (and assuming there is nothing seriously untoward in his background) it is generally granted.

Indeed, which begs the question that if there is something seriously untoward in his background, but he’s married he gets it automatically. Is this an acceptable part of your logic?

K-9

The Corinthian wrote:

Unless you're in Liverpool:

"The researchers in Liverpool found that rates of cases where a man was not the biological father of his child ranged from 1% in some studies to as much as 30%."

I think other surveys have suggested nationally in the UK it is somewhere between 10 and 20%. Most of these surveys concern married relationships.

Quote:
As it stands, if a father applies for guardianship (and assuming there is nothing seriously untoward in his background) it is generally granted.

Which begs the question, why waste the courts time? Why not use this time granting it? This time could be used to withdraw it if was thought that it was not in the best interest of the child.

Quote:Parents who have not married or are not co-habiting have not signalled their intent to raise the child together; automatically granting guardianship to an non-resident father may cause more issues than it resolves.

And maybe not. God Forbid we might actually change family law. The world would collapse! Could it be any worse than the mess there is in family law at the minute. I still think that if it was granted automatically and then applied to be withdrawn it might wake up alot of fathers to their responsibilities. A right taken away is just pschologically more important than not having a right u never had anyway. U don't miss what u never had!

Kildrought

As I previously stated it is a legal presumption that a husband of a marriage is the father of all the children of that marriage and that is the reason married parents are automatically granted guardianship; no such legal presumption exists in the case of parents who are not married.

Unless the combined family income is a minimum of €30,000 p.a. they should not be given guardianship, as it would be a sub optimal environment for the child.

Guardianship and child maintenance are not linked; I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

I wouldn't disagree that Family Law needs an overhaul - but tinkering round the edges isn't going to fix things.

K-9

Kildrought wrote:

As I previously stated it is a legal presumption that a husband of a marriage is the father of all the children of that marriage and that is the reason married parents are automatically granted guardianship; no such legal presumption exists in the case of parents who are not married.

I wouldn't disagree that Family Law needs an overhaul - but tinkering round the edges isn't going to fix things.

An example of the law being an ass then. If up to 20% of children are not the husbands that's abit of a presumption to make. We can be sure there's no figures on the unmarried fathers side but I would say there wouldn't be a substantial difference. With an unmarried father if there is a doubt with paternity he will usually get a test done. Many married fathers wouldn't be aware that they weren't the fathers. There is an interest on the part of the mother in these cases to keep it hidden.

In this day and age should the law be presuming the paternity or indeed guardianship rights for married fathers over unmarried.

Kildrought - Things never change radically, it's just the political reality. Guardianship would be a start. Maybe they could tye in maintenance at birth too if parents aren't cohabitating.

The Corinthian

Kildrought wrote:

Guardianship and child maintenance are not linked; I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

As you pointed out yourself "if you marry and have a child then it is a clear statement of your intention to raise that child together", I can only infer from this that you meant that a two parent household was an optimal position that thus merited automatic guardianship to the father. By the same logic other non-optimal family scenarios should not be given guardianship, of which poverty or earning below a certain threshold is one.

If you respond, please feel free to also expand to you so-far unsubstantiated claim that "automatically granting guardianship to an non-resident father may cause more issues than it resolves".

Kildrought

unsubstantiated claim that "automatically granting guardianship to an non-resident father may cause more issues than it resolves".

It was not a "claim", I was not declaring a fact, I do not need to "substantiate" an opinion; I am happy to expand on my opinion - given the current tone however, I don't see much point.

I can only infer from this that you meant that a two parent household was an optimal position that thus merited automatic guardianship to the father.

I have no idea how you managed to infer this - I did not state that a two-parent household was optimal - my statement was that as married couple having a baby, your intention to raise the child together is clear.

I have already explained the reasoning behind the automatic guardianship that occurs where a couple are married.

By the same logic other non-optimal family scenarios should not be given guardianship, of which poverty or earning below a certain threshold is one.

This is your logic - not mine - and I have to say I find it a peculiar statement; but if that's your opinion you are entitled to hold it.