McFadden vs Katona Cocaine Allegations - How Pro Woman is everyday life

CDfm

The Daily Telegraph has run a piece today on Kerry Katona and Brian McFadden saying he is consulting lawyers on child custody and that the police are quizzing the childrens nanny about her drug use while she herself has fled the country.

This seems like a rerun of Geldof vs Yates and even Waters vs O'Connor other high profile cases.

How differently are men and women treaded during custody disputes and is it fair?

I found the family law courts in Ireland 10 or so years ago pro woman and while the law itself is equal its application does not appear to be.

So what pro -women aspects are there and how do we experience them.

I can name a few - childrens allowance is always paid to the mother and women get better health care and outlive men.

Brian McFadden bids to get custody of children from Kerry Katona

Brian McFadden has consulted lawyers to discuss the possibility of gaining custody of his children from his marriage to Kerry Katona, it has been reported.



By James Steyn
Published: 1:31PM BST 19 Aug 2009

Kerry Katona is threatened with the loss of custody of her children over alegatiopns of A-Class drug use. Photo: ITV


McFadden, who is divorced from one-time Atomic Kitten star Katona, is planning to fight for custody of their children after her recent cocaine allegations.
The former Westlife star was furious after pictures were taken of Katona apparently snorting cocaine with a £20 note, labelling her as 'disgusting' and 'an embarrasement'.


He has expressed his concern for his children's safety, it has been reported in the Daily Star.
Katona has also been dropped from her £250,000 a year contract with food firm Iceland - thought to be her only significant source of income.
The former Atomic Kitten singer, who has endured a long and public battle with alcohol and drugs, as well as a turbulent romantic life, fronted the supermarket's advertising campaigns for four years.
Iceland said that while the company had stood by her during earlier personal difficulties, it was now "impossible" for her to continue in its advertising campaigns.
Soon after the pictures were released, Kerry 'fled' the country to go on a family holiday, with her children to Tenerife leaving heavy suspicions of her drug use.
While on holiday, her nanny, who was looking after the children, was approached by two police officers.
However, Ms Katona's spokesman claimed that they were there to question her about whether she had been harrased by paparazzi camped outside the £1.3 million house.

Otis Driftwood

Having never being through a custody battle I couldnt say for sure but I do know 1 or 2 men that were and there definitly appears a bias towards the mother.

Now I mean that is the case when both parents are fit to look after the kids,obviously if either person is clearly not a fit parent then it makes proceedings easier.

I reckon it harks back to yesteryear when the female was seen as the person that reared the kids and the man was supplementary.There will always be a bias towards females in custody battles which in general I think is ok.Its worked pretty well up until now anway.

Of course not having any children I dont know how I would feel if I was in that situation and would like to be on an even footing should that ever arise.Somehow though,I dont think I would be.

As for Kerry,she is clearly a train wreck and an unfit mother,if you believe everything you read that is.

994

nedtheshed wrote: »

I reckon it harks back to yesteryear when the female was seen as the person that reared the kids and the man was supplementary.There will always be a bias towards females in custody battles which in general I think is ok.Its worked pretty well up until now anway.

No, it hasn't actually, it has ruined millions of men's lives. And actually, in times past, custody automatically went to the father on the rare occasions that a couple broke up. It still goes to the father under Islamic law - one of the women's rights demands in Iran was fairer child access - a divorcing woman loses all sons under 3 (?) and daughters under 8 ... imagine living under such tyranny...:rolleyes:

Odats

In all fairness she's a coke head and admitted it. That cannot be a good environment to bring children up in. What happened if one of the children accidently took some. Then what would people say.
Obviously maternal instinct comes into law here in judging who will be the best to care for the children but it isn't always the case.
Only thing probably that's not in McFaddens favour here is that he is in Australia and taking the girls half way across the world would cause too much upheavle.

metrovelvet

But the ex walked out on his family. That never goes down well. They prefer coke heads to abandoners. Plus the fact that McFadden lives in Australia. Courts are resistent to that level of upheaval in a child's life.

CDfm

add a little bit of violent behavior and voila -the perfect Mum

Kerry Katona is released on bail


Reality television star Kerry Katona has been released and granted bail after being questioned by police on suspicion of assault.
BBC Online reports that police in Cheshire have confirmed that a 28-year-old woman from Wilmslow was arrested at Hawthorne Business Park in Warrington yesterday. She has now been released on bail until 12 October pending further investigation.

A spokesman for Cheshire Police is quoted as saying: "We arrested a 28-year-old woman from the Wilmslow area on suspicion of assault, criminal damage and a public order offence."

Pherekydes

CDfm wrote: »

So what pro -women aspects are there and how do we experience them.

I can name a few - childrens allowance is always paid to the mother and women get better health care and outlive men.

Child benefit is not always paid to the mother. It is paid to the guardian of the children, i.e. who has custody.

Women get better health care because they look for it. Men tend to avoid seeking help about health issues from health care providers. Women have a higher life expectancy due to men's riskier behaviour.

CDfm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Child benefit is not always paid to the mother. It is paid to the guardian of the children, i.e. who has custody.

Women get better health care because they look for it. Men tend to avoid seeking help about health issues from health care providers. Women have a higher life expectancy due to men's riskier behaviour.

Thats the theory but it doesnt happen in practice. I know a guy with custody whose ex gets the Childrens Allowance Payment. It often is a feature in maintenance agreements where it is normally a clause in standard agreements that the mother recieves it.

Here is an and excerpt from Cork City Councils welfare site.

Also known as children’s allowance, this is a universal payment available to all parents or guardians, regardless of their income or PRSI contributions (provided they meet the habitual residence requirement). The amount paid depends on the number of children and benefit is paid each month until the child reaches 16 years (or 19 years if they are still in full time education and/or have a disability).
Child benefit is usually paid to the child’s mother (or stepmother), provided that the child is living with them. However, benefit can be paid to the father/stepfather who is living with and supporting the child if the child is not living with the mother/stepmother, or to another person who is caring for the child.

Dr Galen

ok I've lost you a bit here. The Cork welfare site says that the father CAN get the payment once the kids are living with him and he is doing the active parent bit. So in that case how does that get over-ruled?

Pherekydes

CDfm wrote: »

Thats the theory but it doesnt happen in practice. I know a guy with custody whose ex gets the Childrens Allowance Payment.

It does happen in practise. I know a guy with custody who got it. So it does happen.

The law states that the child must be residing with the recipient. No number of custody agreements invalidates that. My ex thought she could continue to receive the child benefit after she walked, but I had her book cancelled and claimed it for myself.

CDfm

Pherekydes wrote: »

It does happen in practise. I know a guy with custody who got it. So it does happen.

The law states that the child must be residing with the recipient. No number of custody agreements invalidates that. My ex thought she could continue to receive the child benefit after she walked, but I had her book cancelled and claimed it for myself.

I am glad that happened for you and that times are changing. I really am. Go you.

Yes childrens allowance and state benefit are featured in seperation agreements as income or potential sources of income and I believe it is legal to do so.

Dr Galen

so if I get you Cdfm what your saying is that:

in terms of separation/divorce agreements the fact that the father can or is claiming child benefit can be counted as a source of income. This can then effect any payouts etc that a man would be liable to pay to an ex.

Am i right in understanding you here dude?

I would have thought that childrens allowance was money for the kids a such, to go on food, clothes, schooling etc. Alright, in practice it just gets added into the family budget, but I always thought the "official" line was something like I said.

CDfm

I am just saying in my experience that was the case and I got the impression it was fairly normal in seperation agreements. I wasn't on the dole or claiming benefit and neither was she. However, even with joint custody the right to claim all benefit is with my ex.

It may be the official line but the history etc has it treated as "womens income". I think changes may have happened with migrants claiming for non -resident kids but thats only recent. I can only relate what happened in my case.

Dr Galen

thanks Cdfm, I honestly think I read ****tier on a Friday. I just wasn't getting it.

So can I ask why your Ex got all the benefits considering you have joint custody? Please don't feel under any pressure to answer though, I'll understand if you want to keep it private, I just think this is a good discussion to be having.

CDfm

I think its practice and that the mother is treated differently under the Constitution Art 41 women/mothers are not obliged to work etc. Anyway thats what my bunch told me and this filters thru to custody agrrements and maintenance agreements.The constitution being the fundamental law and all that.

994

CDfm wrote: »

I think its practice and that the mother is treated differently under the Constitution Art 41 women/mothers are not obliged to work etc. Anyway thats what my bunch told me and this filters thru to custody agrrements and maintenance agreements.The constitution being the fundamental law and all that.

Not really, that article is too vaguely phrased to have any legal impact, it's more due to tradition and apathy.

CDfm

994 wrote: »

Not really, that article is too vaguely phrased to have any legal impact, it's more due to tradition and apathy.

While the article is vague it does have an impact on the courts and it does have impact as Courts are bound by it and it is taken into account by the High Court and Supreme Court when setting precedents.

CDfm

Concider public health programmes

Guys die 6 years earlier than women and the mortality of Irish men is the fourth worst in Europe. The retirement age for men is 65 but women is 60. This is a real anomaly.

Suicide rates are 8 times higher amongst young men men than young women.

Testicular cancer and prostate cancers are killers and they shouldnt be and there is no public screening programme as there is with breast cancer.Breast cancer scares get national campaigns -prostate cancer doesn't.

Men are more likely to be homeless than women and are treated differently in public housing. A seperated man will not be eligible for Local Authority Housing but a seperated woman will be.

Guys are treated differently in all kinds of ways and we might as well be a different species.

I don't buy into the idea that its the battle of the sexes just that public services don't treat men well. Public health and services should be equal but arent.

Now Im not saying this for a gender debate whinge - but the facts are there and its true.