maintenance and access for unmarried dad

MMKC1

can anyone help with this??

I am a unmarried dad who gets four hours a month access to see my two year old son in a shopping centre in the southwest. The access is supervised by my exs mates who have jumped on the bandwagon. the court has ordered the access to be supervised mostly down to my own Niaevity and bad legal representation.

I pay 500 euro per month for maintenance also court ordered and i feel this is somewht unfair. the courts really dont give a fair deal at all. I have to travel quite far each week to see my son and i feel that my ex is doing her best to cut me out altogether. If this happens do i still have to pay this amount of money or should I. any suggestions?? I have been to the courts for the last 2 years and its going nowhere

K-9

MMKC1 wrote:

I pay 500 euro per month for maintenance also court ordered and i feel this is somewht unfair. the courts really dont give a fair deal at all. I have to travel quite far each week to see my son and i feel that my ex is doing her best to cut me out altogether. If this happens do i still have to pay this amount of money or should I. any suggestions?? I have been to the courts for the last 2 years and its going nowhere

Well first I'll answer the maintenace as it is clear. Even if you are cut out of his life you have to pay the maintenance. How much you see your son doesn't come into it. Access is separate from maintenance. Not paying is an offence and can eventually lead to prison if you ignore the courts.

The only way that it would be reduced is to apply for a variation order. Really unless your income has reduced its unlikely to be reduced.

On the access, really I have to ask the question why its supervised? Solicitors can be bad. Did her friends have a conspiracy against you and lies have been known to be told in court? PM me if you want some privacy.

Deliverance

MMKC1 wrote:

can anyone help with this??

I am a unmarried dad who gets four hours a month access to see my two year old son in a shopping centre in the southwest. The access is supervised by my exs mates who have jumped on the bandwagon. the court has ordered the access to be supervised mostly down to my own Niaevity and bad legal representation.

I pay 500 euro per month for maintenance also court ordered and i feel this is somewht unfair. the courts really dont give a fair deal at all. I have to travel quite far each week to see my son and i feel that my ex is doing her best to cut me out altogether. If this happens do i still have to pay this amount of money or should I. any suggestions?? I have been to the courts for the last 2 years and its going nowhere

You should really elaborate some more on your situation. What you have given so far suggests that there is good reason for you not having access to your child, sorry but that is the way it sounds as you have described it. Your reasoning also sounds pretty financial and one of inconvenience. Maybe you are putting your case across badly?

To be honest the financial thing should not be the problem, that to me would be the least of worries if your interest is really about the child then it should be about having trust from the Mom to leave her child with you, that takes time and patience. I would suggest taking the hits and mistrust for awhile untill you prove yourself. This might take sometime, at least she is giving you some ways towards this.

If you are genuine it will work out and you will get more time with your kid. She sounds like she is willing to do this, take what you have so far, don't question it and prove that you are a good dad. That will benefit you and her at the end of the day. Being a single parent is F'ing hard, having a partner who is reliable seperated or otherwise is a blessing. Do you get what I am saying?

Orion

Sounds a bit strange alright. afaik the courts don't order supervised access without reason.

That aside - there's little you can do. As Seanies said the maintenance is irrelevant to access. You have to pay that regardless. But unmarried fathers have little or no rights in Ireland. Unless you've got a notarised declaration or a family court judgement you're not entitled to any parental privileges unless you're married to the mother. (I didn't hear the result of the court case this week so that may have changed).

K-9

Deliverance wrote:

You should really elaborate some more on your situation. What you have given so far suggests that there is good reason for you not having access to your child, sorry but that is the way it sounds as you have described it. Your reasoning also sounds pretty financial and one of inconvenience. Maybe you are putting your case across badly?

In fairness to the OP, as you say he has to elaborate. Both sides have been known to tell lies in family courts.

That is a big assumption to make from a few paragraphs. Innocent till proven guilty! It may be the OP has serious financial difficulty with paying his maintenance, not an inconvenient cost! Not attacking you, just as you say we haven't much detail here. Give him a chance.

Deliverance wrote:

having trust from the Mom to leave her child with you, that takes time and patience. I would suggest taking the hits and mistrust for awhile untill you prove yourself. This might take sometime, at least she is giving you some ways towards this.

I can see where your coming from, but sometimes mothers put personal feelings ahead of a child interests

Deliverance wrote:

She sounds like she is willing to do this.

I don't get that at all from the post. Too little information.

Give the man a chance. We know very little.

MMKC1

Hi guys, thanks for the replies. My god the situ is so difficult. Firstly i guess i should mention that i left the relationship on the basis that i felt i was no longer in love with my ex and this was three months after the birth of our son. She was previously married with 3 kids and on the date of the birth of our little fella her ex told me he would not mind his own kids while we were in hosptial. this was the vain all through our relationship and there was a lot of unresolved crap from her last relationship. That being said i left cause i felt i no longer loved my ex.

Our relationship was difficult and i found it hard to be a sub dad to three other kids. times it was absolute mayhem and i found it very very hard.

I decided to leave and it was not easy for anyone at all. I told my ex that i was leaving the relationship but would never abandon my son and would be responsible in meeting any need for our son. When i left i was cut off and told i would have to go through the legal route if i wanted to see him. I called up to her house a few weeks after i left and she called the gaurds to say she was afraid of me and she was terrified. I got some shock. Few days later i had a protection order delivered to my place of work.

You know it seems that these things can be granted on a whim and i had to go to court to get the allegations withdrawn as they where.

Time has gone on and while ive tried to keep my emotions in check it has been extremely difficult to maintain any sense of dignity. The truth is always somewhere in the middle and not to the left or right of any situation.

Family law is terribly draconion and if you are an unmarried father you are considered not part of the family and therefore no rights.

I have supervised access as i agreed to it at the start as it was the only way i could get to see our son and it really has taken a life of its own and continued like so for two years.

anyway i have been through the courts for two years now and i feel i am going nowhere in fact its getting worse as i seem to be getting less and less access. I am now considering giving up the legal process as it seems to be a breeding ground for resentment and bitterness. my fear of doing this is that if i do i really put the whole situation in her hands and it could be some time before i see my son again. I would appreciate replies to this suggestion. someone said to me recently that taking her to court is trying to control the situation and to accept that she holds the cards and not me.

In relation to maintemance i was paying 800 quid a month and i always said to her that if we could work our stuff out together it could be good alround. But she does not want to know and will not speak to me at all. I at the moment pay 500 per month as it is what i can afford, but i have to say i am bitter and yes i will have to deal with that.

the answer i think is coming to me and perhaps its to give up the fight and lay the matter back with my ex

gaeilgegrinds

Draconian does not even start to cut it...

Deliverance

It sounds like she is fighting dirty from what you have said via the courts which is a very uneven ground for Dads.I feel that at the moment it is a place to be avoided. I think that you should take and build on any access at the moment even if it is supervised (which must be rather humiliating and cause for more resentment and fuel for fight on your part). But I feel that it is still a start which must be built upon. My suggestion for what it is worth would be to go with that.

If you are a good dad and trustable figure this will grow and the mum will realise this slowly but surely, at the end of the day raising kids is extremely difficult for a single parent and to have a willing ex partner who is interested in their child is a blessing as they will need time out. If you are there to give them this time out you will get access, which will give your ex a break as well.

I would inform her that you were dropping the court fight, because... give a good reason. Then you are being the reasonable person relieving her (and yourself) of the stress of court. From there hopefully you can build a new relationship which is based on mutual respect 'eventually', it takes time. Hope that makes sense and works for you guys.

Ps: As the law stands, I think it is rather complex, if fathers were given more rights for custody and so on there would be more damage done, as lets face it lads women are natural parents, men are not. That's just a fact of life regardless of the exceptions.

K-9

MMKC1 wrote:

Firstly i guess i should mention that i left the relationship on the basis that i felt i was no longer in love with my ex and this was three months after the birth of our son.

Looking at it from her side, definitely not good, but you had your reasons.

MMKC1 wrote:

She was previously married with 3 kids and on the date of the birth of our little fella her ex told me he would not mind his own kids while we were in hosptial. this was the vain all through our relationship and there was a lot of unresolved crap from her last relationship. That being said i left cause i felt i no longer loved my ex.

MMKC1 wrote:

Too much extra crap in a relationship alright. Looking at it from her and your side, the experience with the ex may have affected your relationship with your child.

MMKC1 wrote:

I told my ex that i was leaving the relationship but would never abandon my son and would be responsible in meeting any need for our son.

Unfortunately she probably was putting her personal experience before with her ex first. Not your statement or side of the story.

MMKC1 wrote:

When i left i was cut off and told i would have to go through the legal route if i wanted to see him. I called up to her house a few weeks after i left and she called the gaurds to say she was afraid of me and she was terrified. I got some shock. Few days later i had a protection order delivered to my place of work.

Probably ties in with her previous experience. Women have been known to use the law like this.

MMKC1 wrote:

You know it seems that these things can be granted on a whim and i had to go to court to get the allegations withdrawn as they where.

But they're not, you got it withdrawn.

MMKC1 wrote:

Time has gone on and while ive tried to keep my emotions in check it has been extremely difficult to maintain any sense of dignity. The truth is always somewhere in the middle and not to the left or right of any situation.

Been there, know exactly where you're coming. You want time with your son, she is stopping you. You are 100% right about where the truth is. I've come to the viewpoint that my ex is not worth fighting worth. She is not worth rowing with. She has hit, assaulted me, ignore ir, she is not worth it, you are better than that and she is not worth rising to. I've found that attitude helps alot.

MMKC1 wrote:

I am now considering giving up the legal process as it seems to be a breeding ground for resentment and bitterness. my fear of doing this is that if i do i really put the whole situation in her hands and it could be some time before i see my son again. I would appreciate replies to this suggestion. someone said to me recently that taking her to court is trying to control the situation and to accept that she holds the cards and not me.

You mean like her getting protection orders etc?. She hold the cards to a point. As long as you stay someway normal and keep the head you will get access (unsupervised) eventually.

Breeding ground? Yes, but it seems from your post your ex had that anyway. Your fear is right, if you leave the courts you have lost any independent hope you have. You will not see your son at all and she will totally control the situation.

MMKC1 wrote:

In relation to maintemance i was paying 800 quid a month and i always said to her that if we could work our stuff out together it could be good alround. But she does not want to know and will not speak to me at all. I at the moment pay 500 per month as it is what i can afford, but i have to say i am bitter and yes i will have to deal with that.

Seems being nice and trying to sort maintenance out in situations like this doesn't work. I never had a problem with paying it and the crap I get! Seems that if you pay nothing/little they expect very little! :rolleyes:

MMKC1 wrote:

the answer i think is coming to me and perhaps its to give up the fight and lay the matter back with my ex

And by the sounds of it never see your son again. Maybe there is a reason why her ex was the way he was. Do you want to be like him?

K-9

Deliverance wrote:

It sounds like she is fighting dirty

Deliverance wrote:

I think that you should take and build on any access at the moment even if it is supervised (which must be rather humiliating and cause for more resentment and fuel for fight on your part). But I feel that it is still a start which must be built upon.

There is no reason to think that will work. She's fighting dirty, there could well be an ex who has experience of her attitude before. This man needs to get a court order for access, so if she decides to reduce it there will be consequences for her eventually.

Deliverance wrote:

If you are a good dad and trustable figure this will grow and the mum will realise this slowly but surely

Some mums don't Deliverance. A man has a right to see his son, it is not a mothers right to deny/restrict it except in obviously exceptional cirumstances.

Deliverance wrote:

at the end of the day raising kids is extremely difficult for a single parent

Thanks Deliverance, I'm a single parent too!

Deliverance wrote:

If you are there to give them this time out you will get access, which will give your ex a break as well.

He is willing and he is there!

Deliverance wrote:

I would inform her that you were dropping the court fight, because... give a good reason. Then you are being the reasonable person relieving her (and yourself) of the stress of court. From there hopefully you can build a new relationship which is based on mutual respect 'eventually', it takes time. Hope that makes sense and works for you guys.

If she recognises he is being reasonable and stops bringing previous experience into it.

Deliverance wrote:

Ps: As the law stands, I think it is rather complex, if fathers were given more rights for custody and so on there would be more damage done, as lets face it lads women are natural parents, men are not. That's just a fact of life regardless of the exceptions.

So absent fathers isn't a big deal then? They aren't natural parents.

The law does not punish fathers for walking away from kids. Pay a few euro and thats grand, away you go. Maybe if they had rights and where educated on parenting, less fathers would walk away. If they walked away, rights lost! The taking away of rights can have more effect than having no rights in the first place.

nesf

Deliverance wrote:

lets face it lads women are natural parents, men are not. That's just a fact of life regardless of the exceptions.

And men are the natural providers. I completely agree, now if you could take my partner aside and convince her that her place is in the kitchen and not in the workplace I'd be highly appreciative and we could go back to the natural order of things. The poor dear has all these silly ideas of being a breadwinner after watching "Nine to Five".

Croc

Macros42 wrote:

Sounds a bit strange alright. afaik the courts don't order supervised access without reason.

That aside - there's little you can do. As Seanies said the maintenance is irrelevant to access. You have to pay that regardless. But unmarried fathers have little or no rights in Ireland. Unless you've got a notarised declaration or a family court judgement you're not entitled to any parental privileges unless you're married to the mother. (I didn't hear the result of the court case this week so that may have changed).

It is reffered to as "The Mr G Case" Judgement is due today, listen to the news. If the judgement goes his way it will help you big time.

The Corinthian

MMKC1 wrote:

I decided to leave and it was not easy for anyone at all. I told my ex that i was leaving the relationship but would never abandon my son and would be responsible in meeting any need for our son. When i left i was cut off and told i would have to go through the legal route if i wanted to see him. I called up to her house a few weeks after i left and she called the gaurds to say she was afraid of me and she was terrified. I got some shock. Few days later i had a protection order delivered to my place of work.

If what you say is true and without omission then you have been royally screwed. I also think that in such a scenario doing the 'good dad' routine in the hope that she'll come around is a waste of time. At best she'll not bother taking it into account, at worst she'll exploit it too.

I suggest you seek new legal council and put a plan of action together. To begin with to have supervised access there needs to be a genuine reason for it to be still in place - if it is simply a case to your agreeing to it at the beginning, then you should be able to get this overturned. If there is a reason then you need to be able to disprove it or (if there is truth to it) show reform.

Maintenance is another issue as it is based upon a combination of both your and her income. Have you sought an attachment of earnings and bank statements from her or was it a case of her income being taken at face value? Seek credit card statements also, via the courts if you can, and see what she spends her money on - if she's doing multiple holidays and restaurants, then this will reflect badly on her. Additionally you need to look at your expenditure and look at how you can better reflect it in court. Do this over a period of a few months, gradually changing your expenditure and then seek an order of variance and change to access.

If she intends to play dirty, she needs to understand that the price she'll pay will be too high.

Deliverance wrote:

As the law stands, I think it is rather complex, if fathers were given more rights for custody and so on there would be more damage done, as lets face it lads women are natural parents, men are not. That's just a fact of life regardless of the exceptions.

That really is the most dreadful horseshít. Both men and women are simply different types of parents and unfortunately without both forms of influence you will find that the child suffers.

Using this Gaia-Earth Mother BS to justify the current situation with regard to fathers' rights is actually disgusting, TBH.

Nevyn

Unfortunately with Ireland still not ratifying the UN charter of rights of the child,
the right of a child to know both parents and have them in the child's life are completely dismissed in this country.

Such minimal visitation and it being supervised tends to be in cases where the court has found that the parent is/was capable of harm to the child as it is not standard practice.

There is not such thing as a natural parent just because you gave birth does not mean you have innate parenting abilities or that you are the best parent to be handling a child or that all father's are capable of is the Sunday afternoon in the park for two hours and then a happy meal afterwards.

MMKC1 if you are not happy look to get your case and the situation reviewed.

MMKC1

thanks guys for the steady debate. Helped somewhat. You know what convinces me is this: If i am dealing with someone who really does not want me to see my son and will fight as dirty as hell i am up against it. the reality of the situ is that i have been quite niaeve in the whole thing. I guess i thought i could do the male thing and said to myself "ah sure it will work and eventually we will sort it" I represented myself in court which is not advisable a few times and always got wound up and emotional, basically saying what i exactly felt. The Judge did not like it.

Funny thing the judge said to me and it was this" i have seen people come into this court and remain calm but very dishonest and generally come away with what they want, and those who are decent people but emotional about things and dont get what they want" How mad is that??

That was the last time i seen that guy. When your dealing with district courts you get a different judge all the time and essentially the judges want things outta the way as quick as they can. They seem to go " right grand sorted, next please"


I am sick of going into court which is costing me a grand a go and if i cant see my little fella for now i will have to deal with it. I think i might have the supervised stuff though so it will be dealable but not good.

Yes i left which was very hard for her, but i thought the decent thing to do was to be an available DAD?? and meet whatever was needed. Funny the things you want you cant have. Maybe if i legged it altogether she would be running down the road after me.

I am going to take a chance and cancel the court thing as i have done previously and perhaps i will look like a nutbag but i cant do the fight anymore.

The best thing for me so far is when i see the little fella he knows who i am and for two hours every time i see him its gotta be the best two hours of the week for him.

Thnks fellow debaters

K-9

MMKC1 wrote:

You know what convinces me is this: If i am dealing with someone who really does not want me to see my son and will fight as dirty as hell i am up against it.

Do keep your cool though, fight calmly and logically too! :rolleyes:

There have been 2 cases recently in the UK where the fathers kept the cool in an even worse situation than the above and got custody eventually. Probably be years before that comes here but shows you patience and coolness can win.

MMKC1 wrote:

I represented myself in court which is not advisable a few times and always got wound up and emotional, basically saying what i exactly felt. The Judge did not like it.
Funny thing the judge said to me and it was this" i have seen people come into this court and remain calm but very dishonest and generally come away with what they want, and those who are decent people but emotional about things and dont get what they want" How mad is that??

Yeah you show some emotion and they knock you. Shows you how outdated they are!:rolleyes: Nah really, you have to keep your cool and head with judges, shows you area calm and responsible fella. Think they wonder "well if he's like that with me?"

MMKC1 wrote:

I think i might have the supervised stuff though so it will be dealable but not good.

Grin and bear it. It will stand to you, despite your high dissaproval of it you kept it up for your child. Just make it clear that you don't approve and make it clear as possible to the judge that there is no need for supervised access. Supervised is only in extreme circumstances, so don't act extreme and I'd say you've a good chance. Don't expect women like this to agree with court orders, but thats another thread and led to the UK Court cases!

MMKC1 wrote:

Yes i left which was very hard for her, but i thought the decent thing to do was to be an available DAD?? and meet whatever was needed. Funny the things you want you cant have. Maybe if i legged it altogether she would be running down the road after me.

Yeah it was. Still she has to get over it eventually and put the child first. You apologising 100 times isn't going to help. She has to see her child seeing their dad is more important than what you did/didn't do. Takes time though.

You've touched the female psychology there! Nice guys who try and do the decent thing seem to get walked over, the fathers who don't care, they obsess over how to get him back in my/childs life! Wimmin:D

MMKC1 wrote:

The best thing for me so far is when i see the little fella he knows who i am and for two hours every time i see him its gotta be the best two hours of the week for him.

Only cancel the court if you seruiously think she will change. If not go the court route, but expect drama along the way! It will work out in the end. Sometimes the easy route isn't the best!

Deliverance

The Corinthian wrote:

If what you say is true and without omission then you have been royally screwed. I also think that in such a scenario doing the 'good dad' routine in the hope that she'll come around is a waste of time. At best she'll not bother taking it into account, at worst she'll exploit it too.

I suggest you seek new legal council and put a plan of action together. To begin with to have supervised access there needs to be a genuine reason for it to be still in place - if it is simply a case to your agreeing to it at the beginning, then you should be able to get this overturned. If there is a reason then you need to be able to disprove it or (if there is truth to it) show reform.

Maintenance is another issue as it is based upon a combination of both your and her income. Have you sought an attachment of earnings and bank statements from her or was it a case of her income being taken at face value? Seek credit card statements also, via the courts if you can, and see what she spends her money on - if she's doing multiple holidays and restaurants, then this will reflect badly on her. Additionally you need to look at your expenditure and look at how you can better reflect it in court. Do this over a period of a few months, gradually changing your expenditure and then seek an order of variance and change to access.

If she intends to play dirty, she needs to understand that the price she'll pay will be too high.

That really is the most dreadful horseshít. Both men and women are simply different types of parents and unfortunately without both forms of influence you will find that the child suffers.

Using this Gaia-Earth Mother BS to justify the current situation with regard to fathers' rights is actually disgusting, TBH.

I really respect your opinion and see your advice to people to be informed and a benefit to them, and myself. But to misconstrue my opinion with the reply of it being 'the most dreadful horse****' is to me a direct insult. I can understand your passion and very much appreciate it but I feel you got me wrong there. I think I didn't give my comment enough thought and I put it across abruptly which inspired your abrupt response, so I am as guilty as yourself.

To regress, I suppose I gave that particular comment by general experience from what I have seen (it was an opinion) based on the fathers and mothers I have come across.

I am a single dad with access and a very responsible one at that so my opinion was not biased. And it was certainly not a Gaia-Earth over done Hippy type of opinion which you seem to have issue with, which is nothing to do with me.

Anyway I do apologize for giving you a reason to insult my opinion with a minor profanity, I feel that I had to answer this to give my further opinions from my experience, the deserved weight I feel they deserve ie: I don't talk 'horse****'. I guess I should think a bit more about what I post as should you. Sorry.

Hotblack Desiato

Deliverance wrote:

I am a single dad with access and a very responsible one at that so my opinion was not biased. And it was certainly not a Gaia-Earth over done Hippy type of opinion which you seem to have issue with, which is nothing to do with me.

I think you inadvertently pushed a 'hot button' for a lot of dads and not just separated ones. The perception that women should be automaticaly preferred when it comes to custody etc. is widespread here, and family law here seems totally based on this idea. That idea IS horses**t, in my and many other people's opinion.
What's really sad is that it's not just fathers who suffer as a result, it's the kids too.

nesf

ninja900 wrote:

I think you inadvertently pushed a 'hot button' for a lot of dads and not just separated ones. The perception that women should be automaticaly preferred when it comes to custody etc. is widespread here, and family law here seems totally based on this idea. That idea IS horses**t, in my and many other people's opinion.
What's really sad is that it's not just fathers who suffer as a result, it's the kids too.

Pretty much. The automatic presumption of giving single or joint to the mother and joint or no custody to the father is just wrong.

Carrigart Exile

MMKC1 wrote:

can anyone help with this??

I am a unmarried dad who gets four hours a month access to see my two year old son in a shopping centre in the southwest. The access is supervised by my exs mates who have jumped on the bandwagon. the court has ordered the access to be supervised mostly down to my own Niaevity and bad legal representation.

I pay 500 euro per month for maintenance also court ordered and i feel this is somewht unfair. the courts really dont give a fair deal at all. I have to travel quite far each week to see my son and i feel that my ex is doing her best to cut me out altogether. If this happens do i still have to pay this amount of money or should I. any suggestions?? I have been to the courts for the last 2 years and its going nowhere

I am truly sorry for you and find it impossible to answer this kind of thread ithout exploding in anger so I will stay out of it. However, if you wish to experience the worst kind of state sponsored sexual discrimination, be a dad in a divorce court.

Deliverance

nesf wrote:

Pretty much. The automatic presumption of giving single or joint to the mother and joint or no custody to the father is just wrong.

completely agree, I guess my reply which I apologized for was based on my limited experience. I have been lucky enough to have a reasonable partner so I have been able to avoid courts.

I feel for the folks that have to fight injustice and find that the law is an ass at the moment with regard to the gender of parents, which should not be the case. Both parents should be given equal regard as individuals, otherwise there is a case for discrimination by gender.

I will think before I leap in future, I think my opinion was right in some cases but not valid or fair enough for all, which is what the law is doing right now. Hopefully the folks that administrate the laws at the moment will become more understanding of the complexities that exist and deal with them as such.

tippbhoy

Deliverance wrote:

Ps: As the law stands, I think it is rather complex, if fathers were given more rights for custody and so on there would be more damage done, as lets face it lads women are natural parents, men are not. That's just a fact of life regardless of the exceptions.

What sort of comment is that, if you had your child from day one and the mother once a week, who do you think would be the natural parent. Comments like that are indicative of draconian laws and a backwards society where the dad is getting shafted all the time.

Deliverance

tippbhoy wrote:

What sort of comment is that, if you had your child from day one and the mother once a week, who do you think would be the natural parent. Comments like that are indicative of draconian laws and a backwards society where the dad is getting shafted all the time.

Maybe you should read the whole thread rather than jumping to conclusions on my opinion.

tippbhoy

Deliverance wrote:

Maybe you should read the whole thread rather than jumping to conclusions on my opinion.

I have read the whole thread again as i did the first time.

I want to make sure you realise the significance of your statement versus a lot of the male population. I would take it your statement would indicate your opinion but maybe not.

Anyway, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate if you can you refrain from that comment again.

Deliverance

tippbhoy wrote:

I have read the whole thread again as i did the first time.

I want to make sure you realise the significance of your statement versus a lot of the male population. I would take it your statement would indicate your opinion but maybe not.

Anyway, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate if you can you refrain from that comment again.

What is the significance of my statement in your opinion? I would like to hear it.

K-9

Deliverance wrote:

What is the significance of my statement in your opinion? I would like to hear it.

You hear about the G case Deliverance, yesterday. Seems they believed the natural parent took the children out of Ireland despite the father applying for guardianship and despite the father being the main carer.

The father took and collected the children at the creche.The creche contacted him and only him re the children. He was the natural parent here. Despite this the mother basically abducted the children to the UK.

At last, the courts are starting to see that unmarried fathers can be the so called natural parents.

The Corinthian

Deliverance wrote:

What is the significance of my statement in your opinion? I would like to hear it.

Your original statement was based upon the basic assumption that woman are natural parents and men are not. This is horseshít.

The truth of the matter is some people are natural parents, some are not and many more start off not and learn to become so. Most mothers do not take to parenting naturally, they only appear to do so because, as primary custodian, they are forced to learn fast or sink.

Other than historical prejudice, the reason that we don't notice as many mothers who are not 'natural parents' is because they simply don't keep the child, leaving us with those who make a conscience decision to do so and thus more likely to be a 'natural parent'.

For similar reasons Society tends to become more forgiving of fathers who walk simply because it is the only other avenue open to them. Fathers don't have a 'right to choose', so we will tend to demonize them but turn a blind eye to their abdication. On the other hand, if a woman has an abortion or gives a child up for adoption, we are supposed to feel sympathy.

In short, a father who walks away from three children is no worse a parent than a mother who has three discrete abortions - you just never hear about the latter.

As a result of the two, you get a false and pretty offensive prejudice that there is a correlation between good parenting and a lack of Y-chromosomes - one which you mooted. To add injury onto insult, it is precisely this prejudice that the law is presently based upon and so perpetuating it simply reinforces the injustice that presently exists.

This is the view you expressed, and unless you want to do a complete U-turn on it, your subsequent apology is meaningless and my response stands.

Kildrought

Most mothers do not take to parenting naturally

Generalised statements made by others are condemed but you are happy to make your own?

Do please let me know the researched based, peer-reviewed evidence you have for the above statment.

K-9

thecorinthian wrote:

Most mothers do not take to parenting naturally

Kildrought wrote:

Generalised statements made by others are condemed but you are happy to make your own?

If you quote the full sentence it might help:

thecorinthian wrote:

Most mothers do not take to parenting naturally, they only appear to do so because, as primary custodian, they are forced to learn fast or sink.

thecorinthian wrote:

Other than historical prejudice, the reason that we don't notice as many mothers who are not 'natural parents' is because they simply don't keep the child, leaving us with those who make a conscience decision to do so and thus more likely to be a 'natural parent'.

A woman who has an abortion, often does so because she isn't ready to be the "natural parent". A father who walk away is condemned and called useless or irresponsible. Yet, we all sympathise with a girl who has an abortion and chooses not to parent at this time. Seems to be a double standard there.

If you take women who have post natal depression and women who have to work to develop a bond and also the women who do have to learn fast or sink, together with women who have abortions, we'd have quite a high percentage.

You could go even go further and say what women who take the morning after pill, are they not ready to be the natural parent either!

The Corinthian

Seanies32 wrote:

If you quote the full sentence it might help

Indeed.

A woman who has an abortion, often does so because she isn't ready to be the "natural parent". A father who walk away is condemned and called useless or irresponsible. Yet, we all sympathise with a girl who has an abortion and chooses not to parent at this time. Seems to be a double standard there.

This double standard is one of the main things that pisses me off about this entire debate on father's rights and responsibilities. On one side we are bombarded with demands of a woman's right to choose, yet if that woman chooses to keep a child we hear nothing but cries from the same people about "won't someone think of the child". All terribly convenient.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote:

This double standard is one of the main things that pisses me off about this entire debate on father's rights and responsibilities. On one side we are bombarded with demands of a woman's right to choose, yet if that woman chooses to keep a child we hear nothing but cries from the same people about "won't someone think of the child". All terribly convenient.

Verry convenient when the father doesn't have any right to choose, and is useless and irresponsible if he walks away. If a women walks away and has an abortion (and of course it's her choice and it could well be the right decision) "oh that's your personal choice dear. Oh, the father told you in no uncertain terms, that he doesn't want to be the father. B*****d" :mad::rolleyes:

hshortt

OP, this might sound rather silly, but could you write your EX a letter and just ask her for more time with your son. Writing down your thoughts and organising them in a letter will prevent snap reactions to comments that might come up in a face to face.

As for giving up the court route, why not also put that in writing to your EX and suggest that you are willing to stop the process?

Don't give up.

There are many in similar circumstances and there is an unmarried fathers association that would be able to listen, share experiences and offer ideas and suggestions for improving your situation.

Some links
http://www.usfi.ie/
http://www.treoir.ie/

Best of luck,
Howard

Deliverance

The Corinthian wrote:

Your original statement was based upon the basic assumption that woman are natural parents and men are not. This is horseshít.

The truth of the matter is some people are natural parents, some are not and many more start off not and learn to become so. Most mothers do not take to parenting naturally, they only appear to do so because, as primary custodian, they are forced to learn fast or sink.

Other than historical prejudice, the reason that we don't notice as many mothers who are not 'natural parents' is because they simply don't keep the child, leaving us with those who make a conscience decision to do so and thus more likely to be a 'natural parent'.

For similar reasons Society tends to become more forgiving of fathers who walk simply because it is the only other avenue open to them. Fathers don't have a 'right to choose', so we will tend to demonize them but turn a blind eye to their abdication. On the other hand, if a woman has an abortion or gives a child up for adoption, we are supposed to feel sympathy.

In short, a father who walks away from three children is no worse a parent than a mother who has three discrete abortions - you just never hear about the latter.

As a result of the two, you get a false and pretty offensive prejudice that there is a correlation between good parenting and a lack of Y-chromosomes - one which you mooted. To add injury onto insult, it is precisely this prejudice that the law is presently based upon and so perpetuating it simply reinforces the injustice that presently exists.

This is the view you expressed, and unless you want to do a complete U-turn on it, your subsequent apology is meaningless and my response stands.

My statement as it stands is being over used, understandably so. I have experience of all that you have mentioned, and I understand where you are coming from. I do not wish to give out personal details based on previous experience, but from what you have said I have been through the same thing.

Sorry about that, I know what it feels like. I base my opinion on real issues and folks that I have come across. I'm relitavely intelligent, and have seen lunatic Moms and Dads in different situations, far to complex to address here.

But the opinion, I formed was and is from real experience based on them, and more recently myself. It is only my opinion, and as such should be taken aboard as such, from given experience. I hope you can realise this and move past the ridiculousness of the argument which I feel is obsolete really.

nesf

Deliverance wrote:

Sorry about that, I know what it feels like. I base my opinion on real issues and folks that I have come across. I'm relitavely intelligent, and have seen lunatic Moms and Dads in different situations, far to complex to address here.

But the opinion, I formed was and is from real experience based on them, and more recently myself. It is only my opinion, and as such should be taken aboard as such, from given experience. I hope you can realise this and move past the ridiculousness of the argument which I feel is obsolete really.

As far as I can see, you implied the status quo was "natural" which was going to get under a lot of people's skins and are now calling the argument against the implication ridiculous and obsolete which is just reinforcing your original statement which got you into this argument in the first place.

That, and calling something your opinion doesn't make it immune to criticism nor counter argument. Just because I respect your right to your own opinion doesn't mean I won't rake it over the coals and poke holes in it and so on.

K-9

Deliverance wrote:

My statement as it stands is being over used, understandably so. I have experience of all that you have mentioned, and I understand where you are coming from. I do not wish to give out personal details based on previous experience, but from what you have said I have been through the same thing.

Sorry about that, I know what it feels like. I base my opinion on real issues and folks that I have come across. I'm relitavely intelligent, and have seen lunatic Moms and Dads in different situations, far to complex to address here.

But the opinion, I formed was and is from real experience based on them, and more recently myself. It is only my opinion, and as such should be taken aboard as such, from given experience. I hope you can realise this and move past the ridiculousness of the argument which I feel is obsolete really.

That's fine deliverance, that's fine. You made a statement IYHO. That statement is wrong.

My ex was the natural parent for the first 2 years when my wee boy was born. Then she wanted to do nursing, with the studying,placements and college time involved. Fair play to her, but then I was the "natural parent".

She wasn't back to 9/10 or was away in the morning at 8. I became the so called "natural parent" because somebody had to. I was/am in no way an "unnatural parent".

Many other men do this, so that the mother can train or advance her career, "in the interests of the child." Your statement is based on a 50/60's idea of men and women and you've apologised.

It's outdated and suggests the man involved in the G case was not "natural". It's 2007. Plenty of fathers are denied the right of being parents, never mind "natural parents". Me, being the "natural parent" for 3 years, is part of the reason me and him will always be close, despite interference from the ex, denial of access for months, etc.

The time being the "natural parent" was worth it, knowing that he knows now, and will remember, that I was always there for him.

I know you've apologised and this may seem a personal attack,but you've also suggested that fathers being main carers are in some way "unnatural" . May not have been your intention, but that's what your post implied! Part of the reason we got defensive!

Deliverance, you should post some details of your circumstances and why you came to this opinion. You will find that there are male and indeed female posters on here, who will understand and defend you and maybe suggest new opinions as well!

Kildrought

If you quote the full sentence it might help:

Doesn't help in the slightest - it is still a generalised statement with no evidence based research to back it up.

The Corinthian

Kildrought wrote:

Doesn't help in the slightest - it is still a generalised statement with no evidence based research to back it up.

So what? As far as generalized statements go it was so qualified as to render its generalization meaningless.

As for evidence and research? One hardly need either to point out that women do have the right to choose and men do not and so it's a valid contention which I have put forward. If you disagree, feel free to argue your case.

MMKC1

Hi guys, wow see the story on the Mr G case. Maybe this is contraversial to say but if a man did what she did he would be locked up straight away. How can some one get away with this. Perhaps things will begin to change although i would nt hold my breath given the Supreme courts past decisions on a similar situation. You will find the states mentality is as bad as an unwilling mother to be sensible about access.

there has been much said in previous mails regarding natural parents.... guys as we all know there is no guide book on how to be a good parent and what makes a good parent is being there for the child through all their formative and developing years amongst other things. But if the state wont get its act together and let me be a good parent how does this help my little fella.

Hopefully the g case will push the doors open in the conservative supreme court and ask these guys not to continue to have state assisted discrimanation against unmarried dads. Saw my son today and he seems to of accepted that he sees dad for a couple of hours every other week. Thats sad really as i have so much more to offer him but the state or his mother wont allow it.

K-9

In the G case the judges basically recognised the mother abducted the children from the main carer. They seen it was immoral.

Now if the unmarried father had some basic rights here, the mother would have been guilty of child abduction and imprisonment, like fathers who abduct their children.

I don't agree with imprisoning parents for family law issues, but if the father would have been imprisoned in the same circumstances, why not the mother? Equal rights and all that! :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Seanies32 wrote:

Equal rights and all that! :rolleyes:

Never existed. The situation that used to exist typically favoured men, however it did not mean that women did not have social privileges either.

To pick a silly example, if a man and woman went out on a date, the man was expected to pick up the bill. What the twentieth century saw was where the social privileges that men had were rolled back, in favour of equality, however as this movement was centered around womens' rights, the social privileges that women had were left largely untouched. This is what, returning to the above example, give us the situation whereby a woman can be earning as much as a man, but the man is still expected to pay the bill.

It is only now, that this situation has become so blatantly obvious that it is beginning to be addressed.

Kildrought

So you are unable to show evidence based, peer reviewed research to support your statement....

Most mothers do not take to parenting naturally

I don't need to say anymore.

The Corinthian

Kildrought wrote:

So you are unable to show evidence based, peer reviewed research to support your statement....

And has been already pointed out you took the statement out of context. The full statement has quite a different meaning, in that mothers appear to be 'natural' parents because of their situation. I further expanded on that comment in the rest of my post.

You on the other hand, have managed to add little more than sniping, not proffering any real rebuttal to speak of. If you did so I might take your objection seriously.

I don't need to say anymore.

We can but hope.

bored and tired

my heart goes out to any man who is being given the run around by vicous ex in the courts. i had a man do it to me for 2 years, he finally decided to go to england rather than go to the court recommended classes or pay €50pw maintenance. i have to say though that i hate the fathers groups that plague the media in a circus of christmas and fathers day stunts. climbing a tall building with no supports really shows good parenting skills.

My advice from being through the courts system, is first apply for legal aid. my legal aid solicitor actually cared more about my case than the solicitor i was paying originanlly did. you would be surprised by how much of your wage they discount ie rent, maintenance, travel to work costs in ariving at your eligability criteria.

secondly, address your ex's concerns - regardless of how ridiculus they are, if it is drink or drugs tell the judge you would be willing to pay for weekly urine analysis at docs. if it is anger management issues, get doctor to sign you up for course.
Sign yourself up for parenting classes, first aid course, neuro lingusitic programming classes. fetac child care course, anything that will show how much you are interested in learning and improving yourself so you will be a better dad.

thirdly, pay maintenance, but also tell your ex that you would be willing to pay for extras, shoes, clothes if you could go shopping with her and your son. you said it was her friends who supervise visitation, is she present at all??, try and get her to be their during visitation with the friends, so she sees first hand how you interact with your son,

best wishes to all the good dads - there is plenty of you, i have the best in the world now, but the bad lot tend to tar the rest with the same brush as they say.

Kildrought

a. There is no 'out of context'; you still can't provide any research to back up your statement. There is nothing more to be said on that point.

b. On most boards it is considered contrary to the rules of the board to make personal or derogatory remarks on another poster. I would have expected better from a moderator.

Nevyn

Kildrought if you have an isseu with any post use the report post function,
there have been no posted reported in this thread at all.

All mods are just posters outside of the forums they mod and can and will be banned.

Deliverance

I think that Corinthian has a very good view and sharp opinion which I have a lot of respect for as a consequence. A very good moderator methinks. I myself fired off conclusions based on my own vast experience and was called up for it as such. Fair play (based on the overall current view).

It is good to see that, Corinthian has given views and replies very inteligently, to a point besides the horse**** thing, but I can see I was let off lightly in a way through that view. I was kind of annoyed about the insult but in hindsight it was horse**** in part at least, in my defence I fired off an opinion to fast without thinking about others as well. So fair play Corinthian and here is my real apology. Sorry, and thanks for not promoting real idiots jumping on the band wagon. I was a bit worried that it would decay this way, thanks for not making it so.

The Corinthian

Shucks

gcgirl

MMKC1 wrote:

Hi guys, thanks for the replies. My god the situ is so difficult. Firstly i guess i should mention that i left the relationship on the basis that i felt i was no longer in love with my ex and this was three months after the birth of our son. She was previously married with 3 kids and on the date of the birth of our little fella her ex told me he would not mind his own kids while we were in hosptial. this was the vain all through our relationship and there was a lot of unresolved crap from her last relationship. That being said i left cause i felt i no longer loved my ex.

Our relationship was difficult and i found it hard to be a sub dad to three other kids. times it was absolute mayhem and i found it very very hard.

I decided to leave and it was not easy for anyone at all. I told my ex that i was leaving the relationship but would never abandon my son and would be responsible in meeting any need for our son. When i left i was cut off and told i would have to go through the legal route if i wanted to see him. I called up to her house a few weeks after i left and she called the gaurds to say she was afraid of me and she was terrified. I got some shock. Few days later i had a protection order delivered to my place of work.

You know it seems that these things can be granted on a whim and i had to go to court to get the allegations withdrawn as they where.

Time has gone on and while ive tried to keep my emotions in check it has been extremely difficult to maintain any sense of dignity. The truth is always somewhere in the middle and not to the left or right of any situation.

Family law is terribly draconion and if you are an unmarried father you are considered not part of the family and therefore no rights.

I have supervised access as i agreed to it at the start as it was the only way i could get to see our son and it really has taken a life of its own and continued like so for two years.

anyway i have been through the courts for two years now and i feel i am going nowhere in fact its getting worse as i seem to be getting less and less access. I am now considering giving up the legal process as it seems to be a breeding ground for resentment and bitterness. my fear of doing this is that if i do i really put the whole situation in her hands and it could be some time before i see my son again. I would appreciate replies to this suggestion. someone said to me recently that taking her to court is trying to control the situation and to accept that she holds the cards and not me.

In relation to maintemance i was paying 800 quid a month and i always said to her that if we could work our stuff out together it could be good alround. But she does not want to know and will not speak to me at all. I at the moment pay 500 per month as it is what i can afford, but i have to say i am bitter and yes i will have to deal with that.

the answer i think is coming to me and perhaps its to give up the fight and lay the matter back with my ex

you can not get a protection order on a whim there has to be some kind of prior reason (mental or pysical abuse) for it i know because i had to get one in my own case i took 7 and a half years of **** off a guy i had 3 kids for, he was not much of a hands on dad just lets say he works 6 days and on his day off he plays golf, constantly put me down, went off with several women, hit me, at least with a bruse you have something to show, but with mental abuse you don't have anything to show, my ex now see his kids twice a week supervised visits supervised by my mum (whom is impartal super really considering what he done to me and to a certain extent the kids) 3 hours and 45 mins in total he is also seeking guardingship which is really only getting back at me because i found out bout he sleeping with some young one(same night he refused to come home after his son had an accident and was nearly addmitted to hospital) a week after i had had enough in which we spilt