Legal guardanship

Deliverance

I want to have legal guardianship of my little girl. Myself and the Mother of my girl are seperated because we grew apart.

I love my little girl and she loves her dad. I am a very responsible parent as is her Mum, we get on fine but I am always worried that one day she will pack her bags and decide to do what is best for herself ie: leave for America with my girl. She has a sister over there and I have a feeling that New York is an attractive option to her.

Lately knowing her as I do she layed out her plan well in advance saying that she would take my girl to NY for a week. She always softens her actions this way to test my reaction, I did not reply.

This makes me want to apply for legal guardianship to give her less control over this decision I believe that her actions in that event would be selfish in that she would believe that taking my little girl away from her dad would benefit her more for herself and consequently my girl which in my view is wrong, I am a responsible father and believe that my girl needs her dad.

I have read posts here and it looks like I have a good chance of getting guardianship, However I am fearfull of going that route for obvious reasons, going to court scares me, and I don't want to upset the status quo.

What it comes down to is this, should I go for guardianship now to prevent her possibly taking my girl out of my life and possibly causing ructions in the short term. Or should I sit tight untill she announces 'hey we are moving thousands of miles away and if you try to stop us then you are being selfish' which will be the argument.

If I let it lie as is and it comes down to the wire so to speak ie: if she has a passport for my girl and is set to leave and I don't have guardianship rights then what rights will I have to stop her or will it be to late by then?

This is a scenario, one which I see happening because I know her so well, It worries me and my heart will be broken if I don't do something now. Thanks for any replies.

Ps, My name is on the cert and I pay heating bills and I pay maintenance and I am saving for her education to.
Thanks.

Kimbot

AFAIR you can get guardianship without having to go to court.
For you daughters sake its best for you to become guardian aswell as the mother in case something happens. i.e. if she was in an accident with the mother a guardian will have to give permission to do any operations etc.
Just discuss things with your ex and tell her you want to become a guardian in case anything ever happened and if she is in agreement then pop into a solicitor and sort t out legally.

Deliverance

Cheers, I discussed this briefly very early on in the (ex) relationship with her, and got a negative response, she became very defensive.

I left it at that. I wanted guardianship on principle to feel more recognized as a parent. She would not recognize that. I know I can pressure her for guardianship, believe me that is what it will take. Any attempt at guardianship will be seen as a threat to her. Which makes me suspect that she is keeping her own needs as a priority and to me that seems to be the bottom line.

If I wait untill the last minute as I stand ie: hoping that I'm wrong and she is getting on a plane to leave the next day where would I stand on preventing the emigration? And worse still if she totally decieves me into believing that it is only a weeks holiday when it is permanent, what then, where do I stand?

I feel I should act now and go to court if neccessary or am I just another over protective parent?

Thanks and sorry for the complications but it's never easy.

luckat

Depends on the relationship between the three of you.

If your ex (why ex? you sound like you suit each other?) thought that you would take good care of the little one if anything happened to her, she might be all for co-guardianship.

If she's suspicious and defensive, well, does she have a reason for this? Not attacking you, just asking.

metrovelvet

Are you legally separated? Doesnt that mean you have rights because you were married?

If you are not married to her you dont have a chance of stopping her, however if you are you can have her arrested.

What makes you suspect this is more than a vacation? It hardly seems like a plausible plan for them to live in NYC as illegal aliens, which is what they would both be. Whats she going to do work for $2 an hour in bar as a single mother and no rights whatsover putting her and her child at risk?

Im sorry but that makes NO SENSE.

Deliverance

luckat wrote:

Depends on the relationship between the three of you.

If your ex (why ex? you sound like you suit each other?) thought that you would take good care of the little one if anything happened to her, she might be all for co-guardianship.

If she's suspicious and defensive, well, does she have a reason for this? Not attacking you, just asking.

No reason at all, I think we are both new to the whole process and as it is early days I believe we are both treading lightly. I am really looking for feedback from experience etc to try to cover all angles and know where I stand in possible situations which may or may not arise.
Your right to ask the question I have heard some bad stories of exs etc but it is not the case here at all.

Kildrought

..you can get guardianship without having to go to court..

Only if the current legal guardian agrees; otherwise a court order is required. Having said that, assuming there is nothing untoward in your background, such an application is likely to succeed.

however if you are you can have her arrested

Only if you can establish that there was an attempt to abduct the child.

rights because you were married

I think it's safe to say that the couple were not married - otherwise both parents would have guardianship and the OP would not now be concerned with seeking guardianship.

pressure her for guardianship

You don't need to do that - all it requires is a court application.

My name is on the cert

Makes no difference in regards to guardianship.

So, here's my advice for what its worth - make an application for guardianship of your daughter; speak to your former partner first and let her know what you are doing. You can also point out that it is most unlikely that a court will refuse your application.

While you are at it, get a court order to regularise your current maintenance payment (don't understand why you are paying heating bills?); it is better to have maintenance formally documented under court order. If things change for you in the future it is quite easy to apply for a variation order.

However, here's the thing - supposing the shoe was on the other foot and you had family in the US? perhaps there's a parent seriously ill? or a career opportunity arises? or your company transfers you?

How would you feel about someone getting a court order to prevent you from moving? How would you feel about being forced to stay somewhere and unable to be with a parent for the last few months of their life? Or losing a job because you couldn't accept the transfer?

Make sure that what you want to do is for the right reasons.

Deliverance

metrovelvet wrote:

Are you legally separated? Doesnt that mean you have rights because you were married?

If you are not married to her you dont have a chance of stopping her, however if you are you can have her arrested.

What makes you suspect this is more than a vacation? It hardly seems like a plausible plan for them to live in NYC as illegal aliens, which is what they would both be. Whats she going to do work for $2 an hour in bar as a single mother and no rights whatsover putting her and her child at risk?

Im sorry but that makes NO SENSE.

No we were never married. I suppose I'm suspicious and cautious because of what's at stake ie my daughter and I could well be wrong but at the same time if the situation did arise I would like to be one step ahead and informed.

I am not aware of the process of getting a visa for a single parent (with a degree) I presume it is not impossible, at the same time I never considered the illegal alien scenario and I'm sure as you say it would make no sense, she's thankfully not a stupid person and wouldn't go this route.

So the bottom line you reckon is that I have no say whatsoever in my daughters life in the event of a conflict of interest arising?
Even if I had legal guardianship and have plenty of evidence of lots of access, maintenance, bill, and equipment payment etc?

Deliverance

Kildrought wrote:

Only if the current legal guardian agrees; otherwise a court order is required. Having said that, assuming there is nothing untoward in your background, such an application is likely to succeed.


Only if you can establish that there was an attempt to abduct the child.


I think it's safe to say that the couple were not married - otherwise both parents would have guardianship and the OP would not now be concerned with seeking guardianship.


You don't need to do that - all it requires is a court application.


Makes no difference in regards to guardianship.

So, here's my advice for what its worth - make an application for guardianship of your daughter; speak to your former partner first and let her know what you are doing. You can also point out that it is most unlikely that a court will refuse your application.

While you are at it, get a court order to regularise your current maintenance payment (don't understand why you are paying heating bills?); it is better to have maintenance formally documented under court order. If things change for you in the future it is quite easy to apply for a variation order.

However, here's the thing - supposing the shoe was on the other foot and you had family in the US? perhaps there's a parent seriously ill? or a career opportunity arises? or your company transfers you?

How would you feel about someone getting a court order to prevent you from moving? How would you feel about being forced to stay somewhere and unable to be with a parent for the last few months of their life? Or losing a job because you couldn't accept the transfer?

Make sure that what you want to do is for the right reasons.

Thankyou that is very constructive advice. I pay heating bills because I offered to so that she would use the heating and be comfortable without stressing over the bill.

I wouldn't block her out of spite and would look into every reason for a move and choose the solution which would be best for all according to said situation would have to be a really good one though.

metrovelvet

Deliverance,

I can understand your concern but you may be over anticipating here worrying without cause. Be careful not to scare her and give her reason to want to leave the country!

Also, I am from NYC and I can inform you of the laws and how it works with these things . Its a different system and complex system.

First of all, for peace of mind, I think you should just ask her for guardianship. And if she says no, just apply through the courts. Dont even bother having a huge debate. You know you'll get it so you may as well do it. So if something does happen to her, you can have some control over the destiny of your child.

Why wouldnt she give it to you?

Anything other than a tourist visa is really tough these days, although depending on her sister's status she may be able to get "sponsorship". Check the department of state website for more details on this.

Should she start residing here and setting up residency then you will have to deal with the NY state courts. If she is illegal then she will just be shipped back to Ireland with your daughter. If your daughter becomes a resident then it gets complicated with international law and who's supersceded whos law. NY state courts dont like disrupting the childs life, strongly disapprove of kids out of wedlock, despise absentee fathers, and will quite happily throw a man in prison for not paying maintenance. So be careful.

In the event that they do reside legally in the US, you would have to petition her for custodial rights and she would probably counter petition you for child support. You would have to establish paternity and I think they accept a birthcert as sufficient.

Obviously if they are illegals then they will just be deported.

I will send you some links. But dont get histrionic - keep some perspective. And NYC is a great place for kids.

Deliverance

metrovelvet wrote:

Deliverance,

I can understand your concern but you may be over anticipating here worrying without cause. Be careful not to scare her and give her reason to want to leave the country!

Also, I am from NYC and I can inform you of the laws and how it works with these things . Its a different system and complex system.

First of all, for peace of mind, I think you should just ask her for guardianship. And if she says no, just apply through the courts. Dont even bother having a huge debate. You know you'll get it so you may as well do it. So if something does happen to her, you can have some control over the destiny of your child.

Why wouldnt she give it to you?

Anything other than a tourist visa is really tough these days, although depending on her sister's status she may be able to get "sponsorship". Check the department of state website for more details on this.

Should she start residing here and setting up residency then you will have to deal with the NY state courts. If she is illegal then she will just be shipped back to Ireland with your daughter. If your daughter becomes a resident then it gets complicated with international law and who's supersceded whos law. NY state courts dont like disrupting the childs life, strongly disapprove of kids out of wedlock, despise absentee fathers, and will quite happily throw a man in prison for not paying maintenance. So be careful.

In the event that they do reside legally in the US, you would have to petition her for custodial rights and she would probably counter petition you for child support. You would have to establish paternity and I think they accept a birthcert as sufficient.

Obviously if they are illegals then they will just be deported.

I will send you some links. But dont get histrionic - keep some perspective. And NYC is a great place for kids.

She has no reason whatsover not to give it to me which raises my alarm bells. My ex is very well read and incredibly inteligent and I am sure that she is aware of the issues that you have raised. Unlike me I would say compared to her I am moderate, I just know her ways and every instinct is telling me that this is a possible scenario which could happen.

I am going to try for legal guardianship again, as I have done before in the same way as suggested with an initial negative response in the hope that this time some thought has been put in, but to be honest I don't think she will go for it, I say that in fear of proving my initial fears right ie: she wants an unfair amount of control meaning that she has open plans which are at the end of the day selfish.

NYC I probably agree would be a great place for kids but is it a substitute for a father? That's my whole point. Oh and the 'Histrionics' no worries I am actually very logical in my approaches and take all valuable information on board. Thank you for your reply it is another take on the issue which I will take on board.

C x

You know you'll get it so you may as well do it............dont be so sure.
Things have a fuuny way of changing.
I know more people that have gone to court with the same attitude and have left very dissapointed.

Did you ask your ex what reasons she has for refusing?

I think there is a mix up here with guardianship and access. Guardianship is not going to stop you from letting them go on a weeks holiday to NY.
I really wouldnt be so up in arms about guardianship as it has nothing to do with your acess whatsoever. Its a seperate issue.

Its obvious your child has a passport which you would of had to signature also.

If you refuse to let your ex go on hoidays under an access order the she can go to court under emergency and be granted the time.

Be very sure what it is you are trying to achieve here.

K-9

C x wrote:

Y


Its obvious your child has a passport which you would of had to signature also.

If you refuse to let your ex go on hoidays under an access order the she can go to court under emergency and be granted the time.

Be very sure what it is you are trying to achieve here.

If he isn't a guardian he doesn't/wouldn't have had to sign the passport application. That is only necessary if he is guardian. Been there myself!

Guardianship doesn't really matter if she is going to take the child out of the country on holidays. She could go to court and it would be hard to defend not bringing the child on holidays.

However if it was a permanent move and you could prove it, she would have to defend that to.

Some mothers do get very defensive when asked for guardianship. Again I know this from experience. Mines was actually granted without the mother being in court, mainly because of delays and her not being there on other days the case was to be heard. Eventually had to go ahead without her or the case would have been thrown out. I suppose it helped that I agreed to a maintenance order that day to. If the mother was uncomfortable with it she could have appealed it.

Guardianship, although not very important on day to day matters is very important if you disagreed on a education/health/residence matters. You would have the right to go to a judge and defend your side of the story which would be decided on by the judge.

K-9

Not prying here Deliverance but why do you think the move would be permanent?

She does have a sister there so maybe it is just to visit her. She would have to tell you well in advance as for most people it is a holiday that they would have to plan well in advance.

Sometimes when in situations like this, especially where she won't grant you guardianship voluntarily, people can get a bit paranoid.

Not getting at you, have been there myself.

Deliverance

Seanies32 wrote:

Not prying here Deliverance but why do you think the move would be permanent?

She does have a sister there so maybe it is just to visit her. She would have to tell you well in advance as for most people it is a holiday that they would have to plan well in advance.

Sometimes when in situations like this, especially where she won't grant you guardianship voluntarily, people can get a bit paranoid.

Not getting at you, have been there myself.

Thanks for the added advice (including C x), that is the kind of feedback I am looking for, the reason I asked for advice on this thread was to be well informed in the event of things changing and of course the initial reaction of my ex.
My main motivation for legal guardianship is the principal, I want recognition as her Dad beyond the unwritten agreement between myself and my ex, my ex was stressed by my initial attempt at going for legal guardianship possibly because she did not understand what it was about and I backed off because I did not want to cause her stress, she has had enough already for reasons I will not go into, not to do with myself.

Their is a bit of 'paranoia' on my part about her leaving for good with my daughter, it is a possiblility though, things do change that is life and that is another reason for me to apply.

I would just like to be in a position to deal with this possibility in a proper way based on the situation and experience of others experience, which I do not have and I appreciate the feedback so far.

As things are progressing we are getting on well and the access is suiting us both it is pretty much 50 / 50, I find it ironic myself to be here like this now as a part time single parent, never thought it would happen. But like I said that is life things change and you get on.

She is the best mum a girl could have and I trust her in that respect 100%, she has 'told' me the school options route which our girl will go and it is the same route I would choose, a very good confidence building one, I have saved a lot of money for it already.

Being a man of the world and having a lot of experience in a lot of different matters I just know that it is best to be prepared for all eventualities, I have been given some great advice from members on this thread and it has helped a lot.
Never felt like you were getting at me either 'Seanies', just appreciated the honest feedback, Thanks all.

The Corinthian

Deliverance, legal guardianship is realistically limited in its scope and it should not be confused with custody. Typically, in situations where the father is involved, mothers will oppose it mainly because they will see it as a loss of control. Where this can be an issue is in cases such as where she may choose to take the child out of the country, raise the child in a particular fashion (e.g. she decides to join a cult and raise the child within that) or emigrate.

Another issue that fathers without legal guardianship never seem to think about is in the event of the mother’s death, custody of the child would fall upon the mother’s family - which can sometimes prove disastrous. Outside of that it makes little practical difference.

On the other side of the coin, she does have a right to pursue her own life and happiness. As wrong as it may be for her to go to another country with your daughter, it is also wrong for you to be forcing her to live her life subject to your choice to remain here. Also, if she has better opportunities in the US, this too could benefit your daughter (I’m assuming that she’s actually go real opportunities and not simply going over illegally to work).

I do think that as an active and involved father you should seek guardianship. At the very least you’ve earned that much and it is some form of protection against the worst-case scenarios that I’ve mooted. However you should also consider the wishes and future of the mother as well as the possible, positive, impact on your daughter. So talk to the mother and discuss a compromise - your daughter could live with you some of the year and the rest with her mother, for example.

But do seek legal guardianship; there is no valid reason for you not to do so from what you’ve told us. Indeed, there are good reasons to seek it.

C x

Not all mothers see guardianship as a type of control. You dont know her reasons for refusing this.
Tbh I think you should enjoy what you have : 50/50 acess. Alot of fathers wouldnt get near this outside of marriage.

You can discuss guardianship another time with her. Its not a huge thing apart from one or two points Corinthian made.

The Corinthian

C x wrote:

Not all mothers see guardianship as a type of control. You dont know her reasons for refusing this.

The only other reason I can see is that the mother does not consider him a deserving father, which does not appear to be the case here. Nonetheless he should attempt to discuss it with the mother before taking any action.

Tbh I think you should enjoy what you have : 50/50 acess. Alot of fathers wouldnt get near this outside of marriage.

I disagree as he is, according to his accounts of things here, an admirable father and so easily deserves the right to be a legal guardian to his own child. Simply arguing that maintaining the status quo is preferable, presumably, so as not to upset the mother would be an offensive suggestion at the very least.

He’s a father, not a free baby-sitter and ATM for the mother.

You can discuss guardianship another time with her. Its not a huge thing apart from one or two points Corinthian made.

Except he is facing the real possibility that one of those points very will actually occur making it all the more advisable that he does.

Remember, if he is right and she does plan to emigrate, I’m not suggesting that he tries to stop her. However, as a legal guardian he will have more of a say in his daughters future than he would if he was simply relying upon the whims of someone who appears to be willing to act with little concern for his wishes.

K-9

C x wrote:

Not all mothers see guardianship as a type of control. You dont know her reasons for refusing this.
Tbh I think you should enjoy what you have : 50/50 acess. Alot of fathers wouldnt get near this outside of marriage.

You can discuss guardianship another time with her. Its not a huge thing apart from one or two points Corinthian made.

I did say in my post that some mothers see it as a threat or maybe a control thing, not all, even though that was my personal experience. Both sides, mothers and fathers, are ll-informed on it. Fathers often think it's more important than it really is and some mothers think its more important than it really is.

Going on the fact that Deliverance has 50/50 access then there should be no reason not to get it. He is involved in the day to day life of the child as it is, guardianship is not a day to day thing.He can try to explain why he is looking for it and his ex can say why she doesn't what to give it, but if there is no agreement, he has a right in the childs best interest to get it. By giving 50/50 access the mother obviously trusts the father regarding the childs welfare.

Guardianship would be very important if they where to emigrate. The father would have a right to go to court, both sides would have there say and an independent third party, the judge, could decide on the issue.

Also, the issue raised by The Corinthian of the mother's death, God forbid, is very important. Your ex's grandparents would have more of a say over your child than you, despite your 50/50 access etc. It's also important that the child knows that the father is involved in decisions on the child life.

Sometimes a childs best interest in the long run is more important than a mothers or indeed fathers feelings.

Deliverance

The Corinthian wrote:

The only other reason I can see is that the mother does not consider him a deserving father, which does not appear to be the case here. Nonetheless he should attempt to discuss it with the mother before taking any action.

I disagree as he is, according to his accounts of things here, an admirable father and so easily deserves the right to be a legal guardian to his own child. Simply arguing that maintaining the status quo is preferable, presumably, so as not to upset the mother would be an offensive suggestion at the very least.

He’s a father, not a free baby-sitter and ATM for the mother.

Except he is facing the real possibility that one of those points very will actually occur making it all the more advisable that he does.

Remember, if he is right and she does plan to emigrate, I’m not suggesting that he tries to stop her. However, as a legal guardian he will have more of a say in his daughters future than he would if he was simply relying upon the whims of someone who appears to be willing to act with little concern for his wishes.

Thanks to Corinthian for a very perceptive and intelligent reply. There is a feeling of being a babysitter more so than a Father.
There is definately a control issue which slightly disturbs me. Why would a mother refuse guardianship when the benifits of guardianship in the relationship is a good thing.

I want to have at the end of the day a real input into my daughters life one that is recognised at all levels on principle and this includes being recognised by law.

If I felt for a moment that she would be better off in another country without her dad then that would be ok. However the benefit would not be for my girl it would be for her Mum if that came to be.
So taking a child away from her dad who has had and will have a great good influence in their life to me is wrong.
I care for my little girl and adore her, her best interests are my priority. Can't say much more than that. Thanks again for replys.

C x

Your original post was that you wanted guardianship so that your ex wouldnt take your child away for good even though a holiday was only suggested.

You need to be more clear about why you want it.

As i said there is obviously a reason why she is refusing and you need to find out what it is so your not shocked if you did go to court.

Best of Luck with everything.

K-9

Well if he is involved on a 50/50 access basis for the child, there should be no reason why guardianship shouldn't be granted.

The Corinthian

C x wrote:

Your original post was that you wanted guardianship so that your ex wouldnt take your child away for good even though a holiday was only suggested.

A holiday was only suggested, but the OP has what he believes to have reasonable grounds to think otherwise.

You need to be more clear about why you want it.

Because of the perceived danger of emigration, but also because he's a father and not a babysitter and should be recognized as such - he's actually been fairly clear in this regard.

Seanies32 wrote:

Well if he is involved on a 50/50 access basis for the child, there should be no reason why guardianship shouldn't be granted.

There's almost certainly a reason, the question is whether it's a reasonable one.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote:

There's almost certainly a reason, the question is whether it's a reasonable one.

Exactly. If the OP has 50/50 access and responsibility in the childs everyday life, a judge is going to find it extremely difficult not to award guardianship.

Deliverance

This thread has alleviated my thinking so much as a newcomer to my situation. As things stand myself and my ex are working together really well and my daughter is very happy and confident, and that is the main thing, we are both good parents who put her first we both love her very much.

From what I have researched and understood so far. I don't think that any good father should have to be treated on principle as a none legal guardian on the basis of marriage and therefore put in a position of guilty untill proven innocent which seems to be the unfortunate precedence.

Every person that replied to this thread contributed and was very much appreciated, including the PM's. Thank you all for informed and intelligent advice from all.

K-9

There was a thread a month or so back where me and I think it might have been Corinthian was making the same point about guardianship. If you are unmarried you are guilty until proven innocent.

Of course, there would be issues that would need to be ironed out if it was changed, but generally I think it's a good principle.

limklad

The Corinthian wrote:

He’s a father, not a free baby-sitter and ATM for the mother.

That really depends on the mother!
Remember child minders cost lost of money and she needs some time for herself to socialize etc..

There are mothers out there will only keep the father around as long as she can milk money out of them. There are some who will change their behavior aggressively as soon as they are threatened by loss of control over their children lives.

On a night out for work, I have overheard one particular mother (next table) who friends complained/critized/angry to her why is she granting access to her kids when he is not giving her money. I was well used to hearing mothers refusing fathers access to kids while accepting lots of money for them, so her answer surprised me,

MotherQuote wrote:

"The kids will judge me in the future for my actions, as the truth will always come out eventually, It will not be the reason and judgment we want them to have."
"As our kids know us better than we do, for they are always listening and watching our actions."
"It will be me they the kids will be angry at for refusing their father access to them. As I am the one who have control over them".
"They grow up fast and they do remember!"

One Her friend in a dismissal tone, told her that she was stupid, and that all kids are stupid and that she had plenty of chances to milk money from him.

The mother proceeded to tell them that it was her choice and that she wanted to have the kid, not his, for he did not want kids yet and she used him to have one. One of her friends said again with a dismissal tone. "I want kids too, so I can get easy money"

So they are extremes in this world, mothers who love their kids and mother who uses their kids for selfish reasons.
Each situation is different, and I have to admire her attitude to putting her kids first as they will be the unwanted victims in these terrible situations or it just that she is afraid/worried in losing her kids when they flee home when they grow up.

"The kids will judge me in the future for my actions, as the truth will always come out eventually, It will not be the reason and judgment we want them to have."
"They grow up fast and they do remember!"
It reminds me of the following old saying

OLDSAYING wrote:

“How your kids treat you when you are old, depends how you treat them when they are young”

So OP. I do not know your kid mother as any of us really do or her true reason for been defensive as every mother is different. She may even be worried that you want more control over their lives and she will lose more independence. I do not know how good or bad you relationship you have with each other, but there is a trust issue from reading your posts, in which you must resolve (peacefully in a calm manner) for your kids sake.
Most people don’t know what they are like until they see a recording of themselves and then relies how terrible they are and they are the same ones who are very defensive in the first place.

My main advice, make sure you reasons for doing anything is for your kids welfare, Not yours, for your kid will judge you when it is older, when it will be wiser.

metrovelvet

And there are some babysitters who will know these kids better than their father's ever will because the baby sitter actually spends time with them and the kids will grow up loving and bonding with the baby sitter, while the dad is off doing whatever he thinks is more important.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote:

And there are some babysitters who will know these kids better than their father's ever will because the baby sitter actually spends time with them and the kids will grow up loving and bonding with the baby sitter, while the dad is off doing whatever he thinks is more important.

I take it you recognise this can apply to mothers too in this day and age.

metrovelvet

We werent talking about mothers. The remark I was referring to was to imply that a father is more than an atm and a babysitter. Sometimes he is far less. The babysitter will see the kids moreso when the father is not around.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote:

We werent talking about mothers. The remark I was referring to was to imply that a father is more than an atm and a babysitter. Sometimes he is far less. The babysitter will see the kids moreso when the father is not around.

So if the father is around, 50/50 access would be a good thing?

The babysitter often sees the child more than the mother and father with high mortgages etc etc. Doesn't just happen when the father isn't around.

metrovelvet

Im not going to argue the toss with you about it but obviously a parent who does not live with their child nor sees them that often will not know their child better than a regular baby sitter would. Parents who live with their child, will still have a bond and familiarity [note the root] regardless of how much they work than an absentee parent who pops in once in a while. The bond the child feels will also be quite different. While the absentee parent may feel love for the child, there is no guarantee or even likely hood that the child will have any attachment or regard for that parent if time wasn't spend bonding. The parent will be like like the god who foresook him, admired but not loved.

It's not for me to say about 50 50 access. Every situation is different, it's unfair and inappropriate to make a blanket judgement on it. And what's good for one child may not be good for another. As a child of divorce myself, I can say that 50/50 would have been a great pain in the ass for us as children logistically, if it were divided up equally in a split week, but our father was such a regular part of our lives we didn't need to stick to these things so rigidly and we knew he was there for us, and our mother never interfered, despite having many good causes to. There were of course problems, like in any family, but managed to avoid court.

And then there were some kids who did have very regimented custody regimes, where it was every other weekend or whatever, which could get in the way of their lives, like missing friends birthday parties or trips because that was their dad's weekend, and then there were the kids who got bullied and teased at school for having no daddies.

So everybody, please try to remember what this is like from a child's perspective who is the one getting tossed around like a beanbag. This is hard for them and SHOULD BE about the CHILD'S right to a mother and father who respect each other, regardless of what their marital status is or isn't. They did not ask to be born to a pair of immature assholes stuck in a power struggle. They have the right to be fed, loved, nurtured and protected, whatever that takes.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote:

Im not going to argue the toss with you about it but obviously a parent who does not live with their child nor sees them that often will not know their child better than a regular baby sitter would. Parents who live with their child, will still have a bond and familiarity [note the root] regardless of how much they work than an absentee parent who pops in once in a while. The bond the child feels will also be quite different. While the absentee parent may feel love for the child, there is no guarantee or even likely hood that the child will have any attachment or regard for that parent if time wasn't spend bonding. The parent will be like like the god who foresook him, admired but not loved.

Thats you're personal perspective. My childs babysitter/childminder is excellent. So I'm not saying childminders can't be excellent. Thats not the issue here.

However it was my choice when me and my ex was together to make decisions so that the babysitter did not see the child more than the parents. Luckily enough the chance came up and I was able to come back to see the child at 5.00 after he was with the childminder from 3 after school. Where as my ex was working or studying to 9/10 O'Clock at night and seen the child far less than I did. Not blaming her or anything,but unfortunately when the relationship ended, because we weren't married it didn't matter how close I was to the child, more who was the mother.

Who cares who spent most time with the child? Not the courts anyway, Mothers rights are more important than who spent the most time with the child.

I can see your point, but unfortunately the absentee parent(well more so than me in this situation) had more rights than me.

So if as an unmarried father you try to play an important part in the childs life, it doesn't really matter, because the mother gets all the rights. No guardianship for the father automatically, you have to apply for it.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote:

It's not for me to say about 50 50 access. Every situation is different, it's unfair and inappropriate to make a blanket judgement on it. And what's good for one child may not be good for another. As a child of divorce myself, I can say that 50/50 would have been a great pain in the ass for us as children logistically, if it were divided up equally in a split week, but our father was such a regular part of our lives we didn't need to stick to these things so rigidly and we knew he was there for us, and our mother never interfered, despite having many good causes to. There were of course problems, like in any family, but managed to avoid court.

So everybody, please try to remember what this is like from a child's perspective who is the one getting tossed around like a beanbag. This is hard for them and SHOULD BE about the CHILD'S right to a mother and father who respect each other, regardless of what their marital status is or isn't. They did not ask to be born to a pair of immature assholes stuck in a power struggle. They have the right to be fed, loved, nurtured and protected, whatever that takes.

Well said, it's not about a power struggle. 50/50 mightn't be practical for the the child and that works for the mother just as much as the father. Every case on its individual merits but unfortunately the courts don't see that.

Unfortunately, mothers are given the most rights by the legal system and fathers feel victimised by it. The court system definitely does not help in childs rights. It promotes the power struggle. Mothers feel they have some sort of control over the child and fathers feel victimised.

I know in my case it made more sense for me to have 50/50 access, but sure what does the court care.

metrovelvet

Unfortunately, the courts do have their victims, some men, some women and often children, on every scale of justice from family to tort to criminal law.

The other bias you need to remember here is that, the mother often has to take primary custody while the father cannot be forced into access or to see the child at all while the woman is "left holding the baby." This, too is an injustice and bias, as is the E20 a week in maintenance awarded you hear about. You have to remember that the burden as well as the privalege of care is placed on the mother.

A primary custodian [most of the time, the mother] can not take the absentee parent to court to force him to see his kids, but the absentee or secondary custodian can sue for more access? How fair does that sound?

Do you think marriage would have really earned you 50/50 access? There's lots of divorced dads who also dont have 50/50 [nor want it I might add.]

And I would agree that the issue is not about babysitters, but the reference to them was used in a somewhat demotive manner, and I wanted to point out that they are there for these kids in many instances more than the fathers [or absentee parent ]are, obviously in your instance this is not the case, but in many it is.

I think what you're trying to say is that guardianship should be automatic but have a proceedure in place to petition to remove it?

The Corinthian

limklad wrote:

That really depends on the mother!
Remember child minders cost lost of money and she needs some time for herself to socialize etc..

Of course, but what you’ve posted has little or nothing to do with my comment.

metrovelvet wrote:

The other bias you need to remember here is that, the mother often has to take primary custody while the father cannot be forced into access or to see the child at all while the woman is "left holding the baby." This, too is an injustice and bias, as is the E20 a week in maintenance awarded you hear about.

Feel free to come back and make that argument when mothers are legally obliged to bring to term and raise a child under all circumstances.

If on the other hand that is not the case and you support a woman’s right to choose (not necessarily abortion, but other options such as adoption) while suggesting that a father should then be ‘forced into access’ if that choice is to keep it, then you’re just looking to have your cake and eat it.

Beruthiel

Deliverance wrote:

She has no reason whatsover not to give it to me which raises my alarm bells.

You're not wrong to be worried about that. You are the childs father, I don't understand her issue as you are there for your daughter and want to be involved.
When I seperated from my daughters father we got a standard legal seperation drawn up by our solicitors (didn't bother going to court) where we just shared the guardanship 50/50.
Perhaps just broach the subject again, tell your ex that you would just like to have the whole thing down on paper in the event of her untimely death you'd like there to be no problem with your daughter living with you under such circumstances. Imo it's actually a sensible move to get that sorted as none of us can predict the future.
hope it works out for you.

metrovelvet

Automatic guardianship would take away those options and still not put in place any measurements to guarantee the child would have a present and responsible father who would be around for his child. So in effect what you could end up with is a "father" who never sees his child, maybe never met him or her, but still has rights over where the mother and child live, where its educated, how it should be treated medically, and what happens to it if the mother dies?

And don't put words in my mouth. I did not suggest what the courts should and should not do, I am pointing out there are injustices on all sides.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote:

Automatic guardianship would take away those options and still not put in place any measurements to guarantee the child would have a present and responsible father who would be around for his child. So in effect what you could end up with is a "father" who never sees his child, maybe never met him or her, but still has rights over where the mother and child live, where its educated, how it should be treated medically, and what happens to it if the mother dies?

And don't put words in my mouth. I did not suggest what the courts should and should not do, I am pointing out there are injustices on all sides.

Of course there are injustices in all sides. My idea behind automatic guardianship is that absentee/irresponsible fathers would then be brought to court to explain their actions/inactions.

Maybe a parenting course or something similar could be introduced for them to try and correct their failures. Maybe if there was a threat of taking away automatic rights it might concentrate minds more for absentee/irresponsible fathers.

I don't think it would be any worse than the situation at the minute and might actually get more fathers to stick around and not leave the mother "holding the baby".

metrovelvet

Seanies 32 -Ive often thought that too - that fathers would feel more involved but I do wonder and thereby step up and do the right thing, but I dont know.

Thats a really interesting idea though - that with guardianship you could be held accountible to a court for your absenteeism or your lousy parenting?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote:

And don't put words in my mouth. I did not suggest what the courts should and should not do, I am pointing out there are injustices on all sides.

You were not particularly clear in your post that you were referring only to those cases where guardianship was awarded, but fair enough.

As an addendum, if fathers who disappear from their children’s lives should lose their guardianship status, should this not also happen to mothers who do the same? It certainly does not happen as often as the reverse, but it does still happen and as the law stands a mother cannot lose guardianship, no matter how neglectful or even abusive she is.

This, too is an injustice and bias, as is the E20 a week in maintenance awarded you hear about.

Returning to this point you made earlier, it depends on the circumstances. It may well be that a father really cannot afford much (especially if unemployed). Why do mothers how can’t financially afford to be mothers to begin with get upset if the fathers can’t afford it either?

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote:

You were not particularly clear in your post that you were referring only to those cases where guardianship was awarded, but fair enough.

No. I was talking about a theoretical future where guardianship was automatic, to the extent that it didn't exist as a status and that the rights were assumed once paternity was established.

The Corinthian wrote:

As an addendum, if fathers who disappear from their children’s lives should lose their guardianship status, should this not also happen to mothers who do the same? It certainly does not happen as often as the reverse, but it does still happen and as the law stands a mother cannot lose guardianship, no matter how neglectful or even abusive she is.

Sure she can. She can lose all custodial and parental rights. The state can take her kids and put them in foster care. And she can be put in jail.

And its not like you can charge abandoning or absentee fathers with "neglect" either, guardianship or no guardianship.

The Corinthian wrote:

Returning to this point you made earlier, it depends on the circumstances. It may well be that a father really cannot afford much (especially if unemployed). Why do mothers how can’t financially afford to be mothers to begin with get upset if the fathers can’t afford it either?

Well that may be. Or it could be that he has three kids and a wife that he failed to mention or a hefty payments left on his Jeep or just lied in court about how much money he makes.

As for mothers who cant afford it but get upset with fathers who cant either - it is most likely because the men are perceived to be in a better position to accrue or resource funds since they are not taking care of children.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote:

As an addendum, if fathers who disappear from their children’s lives should lose their guardianship status, should this not also happen to mothers who do the same? It certainly does not happen as often as the reverse, but it does still happen and as the law stands a mother cannot lose guardianship, no matter how neglectful or even abusive she is.

As metrovelvet has said, kids can be taken into care or the father siven custody. Definitely guardianship should be taken of the mother in cases like this and regranted depending on the mothers progress.

metrovelevet wrote:

And its not like you can charge abandoning or absentee fathers with "neglect" either, guardianship or no guardianship.

Unfortunately not. But if guardianship was granted automatically for fathers, questions could be asked by the courts as to why the mother is applying to have it removed. Education or counselling could be provided to the father to try and help his attitude. Would be better than just letting them getting away with ignoring their children/responsibilities.

metrovelvet wrote:

Well that may be. Or it could be that he has three kids and a wife that he failed to mention or a hefty payments left on his Jeep or just lied in court about how much money he makes.

I think the other mother would know about a father having another three kids. Of course if he had 4 kids altogether, in this example, he would have to look after all 4, hopefully equally. As you say I hate that argument, ah sure I have to pay for my SUV,3 holidays a year. The Courts should demand that he sells the SUV and repay the finance thus freeing up more money for maintenance.

And if the father lies about earnings, there are ways to prove he is earning more.