Single father wins order overturning adoption

Moonbeam

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1007/1224256099886.html?via=mr

Nevyn

Just to clarify the adoption was the husband of the child's mother trying adopt the child.

Single father wins order overturning adoption
AN UNMARRIED father has won a High Court order overturning the adoption without his knowledge of his eight-year-old daughter by his former partner’s husband.

The matter will now go back to the Adoption Board which will have to consult the father before reaching a decision on the adoption application.

The father had brought his proceedings against the Adoption Board over its failure to notify him of the adoption application concerning his daughter, referred to as S.

In a reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill quashed the adoption order of June 2007 after finding the board acted unlawfully in allowing the adoption application to proceed in July 2006 without notifying the father of it and hearing from him.

He ruled that the decision to allow the application to proceed breached the father’s constitutional rights to fair procedures and natural justice. It breached his rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights providing for the right to a fair hearing before an independent tribunal in the determination of civil rights and the right to respect for private and family life.

The case raised issues under the Adoption Act and the European Convention on Human Rights relating to the scope of a natural father’s right to be heard in adoption proceedings and involved interpretation of new provisions in the Adoption Act concerning notification of a natural father of a proposed adoption.

A “child-centred approach” was appropriate to interpreting the relevant provisions of the Adoption Act relating to notification of natural fathers, the judge said.

The judge stressed his decision related only to the requirement to notify the father of the application, not whether the adoption order should be made. He ruled that the board was not entitled to rely wholly on claims by the mother of fears for her safety in deciding not to notify the father.

The mother’s version of events, when compared to the full picture which emerged in court, was not just “wholly inadequate” but also “unjustly damnified” the father and the board should have sought independent reliable evidence.

While the man and woman had been very young at the outset of their relationship and it may have been fractious and inadequate, it was of relatively lengthy duration, some four years, and the man had had “a relatively normal” parental relationship with S for the first three years of her life.

The board was also required under amended provisions of the Adoption Act, but had failed to make efforts to trace the father to notify him.

The applicant father had met the child’s mother in 1999 when he was 19 and she was 15. Their child S was born in early 2001. The man was charged with arson of their council house one time when only he was there. He claimed he was under the influence of controlled drugs at the time and wished to take his own life because he feared the woman was leaving him.

He absconded to Britain in 2004 and his only contact with S then was through birthday and Christmas cards. He later returned, admitted arson and received a three-year suspended sentence. He claimed he was part of S’s life before leaving for Britain, that he had sought access to her on his return but learned of the adoption order in late 2007.

The woman had met another man in late 2003, whom she married in autumn 2005. They applied to adopt S, the adoption order was granted in June 2007 and they also secured a new birth certificate in which the woman’s husband was named as the father of S.

apsalar

I find this story quite depressing on many levels. It's wonderful to see that the courts recognised the right of the natural father to be recognised as such by curtailing the adoption, especially despite of his criminal record and the fact that he had effectively disappeared into Britain for a while.

The depressing bit is in the fact that the mother may have painted any kind of picture to the little girl to prepare her for her "new" daddy and effectively acted as though the natural dad was dead and buried as far as she was concerned. I got the impression the little girl probably has a sketchy picture of her real dad and I can sympathise with this from experience. I also feel bad for the husband trying to adopt. I'll assume he was doing this out of love for the girl and genuinely trying to become a single family unit. If he really cared he may well be quite devastated by this outcome.

But then, I'm also inclined to think that maybe the mum was reasoning that the less the girl thinks of her real dad, th easier for her to accept herself as the step-dad's daughter, esp. if there are other children involved.

In all, a step in the right direction for fathers' rights, but a horrible step into bitterness and hurt for all the members of that family, and I include extended family here as well.

Jo King

apsalar wrote: »

I find this story quite depressing on many levels. It's wonderful to see that the courts recognised the right of the natural father to be recognised as such by curtailing the adoption, especially despite of his criminal record and the fact that he had effectively disappeared into Britain for a while.

The depressing bit is in the fact that the mother may have painted any kind of picture to the little girl to prepare her for her "new" daddy and effectively acted as though the natural dad was dead and buried as far as she was concerned. I got the impression the little girl probably has a sketchy picture of her real dad and I can sympathise with this from experience. I also feel bad for the husband trying to adopt. I'll assume he was doing this out of love for the girl and genuinely trying to become a single family unit. If he really cared he may well be quite devastated by this outcome.

But then, I'm also inclined to think that maybe the mum was reasoning that the less the girl thinks of her real dad, th easier for her to accept herself as the step-dad's daughter, esp. if there are other children involved.

In all, a step in the right direction for fathers' rights, but a horrible step into bitterness and hurt for all the members of that family, and I include extended family here as well.

The girl will know nothing of this unless she reads the Irish times and is able to recognise herself in an annoynmous court report.
There is nothing to stop the adoption going ahead once the Adoption Board hear from the father before making the order.
It is a very healthy development that those in a position of power cannot make decisions an the basis of statements made by one person, particularly when that person is by no means unbiased.

ash23

This story bothers me. The man left when the child was 3 and had little or no contact (his choice) for many years in order to save himself from a prison sentence. He was an adult when he met this girl. She was a child for all intents and purposes. It all sits wrong with me.

What does that mean for children adopted where the father cannot be found.
In my own personal circumstances, my daughters father cut contact and chose not to be found when I told him I was pregnant. That was 7 years ago and I haven't heard from him since. He is not on her birthcert, has never met her.

If I were to meet and marry a man who then adopted my daughter, does this ruling mean that he could return at any time, filled with remorse and guilt and overturn this adoption order if he so wished?

Victor

ash23 wrote: »

This story bothers me. The man left when the child was 3 and had little or no contact (his choice)

Not quite "his choice" - the piece says "wished to take his own life because he feared the woman was leaving him". that someone was suicidal at this would suggest he at least feared for access.

for many years in order to save himself from a prison sentence.

This isn't clear from the piece. given that this case would have taken time to go to court, we could have been talking of anything from 24 hours to 3 years.

He was an adult when he met this girl.

Yes, but a young adult

She was a child for all intents and purposes.

Not quite, based on the evidence of the case. When the child was conceived she could have been 16 or 17. While that is at the lower bound of acceptable, it is by no means uncommon.

It all sits wrong with me.

Understandably. But this doesn't take away from two facts (a) he is the child's father (b) he acted as her father for 3 years (c) the mother lied (d) the Adoption Board believed these lies, without any further investigation.

What does that mean for children adopted where the father cannot be found.

Little. It merely means that some, reasonable effort needs to be made to find him.

In my own personal circumstances, my daughters father cut contact and chose not to be found when I told him I was pregnant. That was 7 years ago and I haven't heard from him since.

Not admirable.

He is not on her birthcert, has never met her.

Long term, is this fair on you daughter?

If I were to meet and marry a man who then adopted my daughter, does this ruling mean that he could return at any time, filled with remorse and guilt and overturn this adoption order if he so wished?

No, it only means he is entitled to a fair hearing by the adoption board. As a legal curiousity, this case has little to do with adoption and everything to do with the Adoption Board following its own rules.

eviltwin

I'm all for single dad's having more rights but I do worry about a widespread allocation of rights to all fathers

I know a friend of mine with a 5 year old whose dad has never had any input in his life. I would hate to think that he could walk in at some stage and say no to an adoption if her current partner wanted some formal recognition. He's the kind of bloke to do it out of spite and the child would be the one to really suffer.

Dad's who arent married do need their rights protected no doubt about it but there has to be some way to protect the rights of the children too

Victor

eviltwin wrote: »

I do worry about a widespread allocation of rights to all fathers

The rights already exist. Nothing new has been allocated.

I know a friend of mine with a 5 year old whose dad has never had any input in his life. I would hate to think that he could walk in at some stage and say no to an adoption if her current partner wanted some formal recognition. He's the kind of bloke to do it out of spite and the child would be the one to really suffer.

He has the right to say "no", but it is for the Adoption Board to decide, not one parent or the other.

Dad's who arent married do need their rights protected no doubt about it but there has to be some way to protect the rights of the children too

How did the mother lying protect the child in this case?

ash23

Long term, is this fair on you daughter?

No. But I can't do anything about it. He disappeared, doesn't want to be found. I find it galling that I could have met a man, married him, raised my daughter with him and then have to go looking for permission from a man who has never wanted to know.

I truly believe all fathers should have automatic rights from birth but if they abscond for any lengthy period of time (say, more than 24 months) without contact, then they lose those rights. Including the right to be informed about the adoption of their biological child.
Easier said than done, I know.

LegacyUser

How is anyone to know that the man has absconded. Could not the mother make up a pack of lies? Unless he is heard from and is able to confirm whether or not he absconded, or some reasonable attempt is made to trace him, any procedure carried out in his absence is unfair. The decision does not say that the absent father must give permission for anything. What it is saying is that if his contact with the child is being impugned he should have the right of reply.
What if he said that the mother refused him contact, and moved around without telling him where she was living?
It is not unknown for tall tales to be told in family law situations. The rules are there to protect all parties.

Hotblack Desiato

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm all for single mums having more rights but I do worry about a widespread allocation of rights to all mothers.

Fixed your post :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

ash23 wrote: »

No. But I can't do anything about it. He disappeared, doesn't want to be found. I find it galling that I could have met a man, married him, raised my daughter with him and then have to go looking for permission from a man who has never wanted to know.

He's still her father and has a right to be heard. If he really is a useless excuse for a man (no-one who would disown their child is worthy of being called a man, imho) then he won't get anywhere. But it's unjust for the adoption board to take one side of the story as fact and refuse to hear the other side.

eviltwin

ninja900 wrote: »

Fixed your post :rolleyes:

Fixed it why? Oh I see because obviously I must believe that woman should have all the rights where a child is concerned and that a dads role doesnt matter....mmm yeah of course I do :mad:

Actually I don't. I think when it comes to parenting, and this I feel should apply to all parents married or not, that you should have to prove you are worthy of the job.

I think most men do a brilliant job with their kids..we aint talking about them though are we? We're talking about the small minority who do a bunk and let the mother carry the burden

I dont believe that a father should be able to feck off and then walk back into his child's life at a time that suits him and suddenly start laying down the law. Then again, if a mother does the same the same rules should apply to her.

Someone put it very well above, that if you are gone for a certain length of time then your you should forfeit your rights. I would hate to think someone who left me high and dry when I was pregnant could waltz back in and start having a say about the school my child goes to, or the type of upbringing they have or the kind of health care they receive once that child turns 5 or 10 or whatever. What on earth would make them think they have that right?????

I dont know what school of parenting other people come from but I believe your job starts the moment that baby is conceived..you dont just pick and choose when you are going to start playing mammy or daddy.

This isnt a mother vs fathers debate..everyone knows mums can be just as bad parents as dads can be but seeing as in the vast majority of cases its the woman who is left holding the baby and Someone has to have a say then it makes sense its the parent actually doing their job who should have the final say

I wonder ninja how you would feel if it was your daughter who was raising a child alone and her piece of crap ex suddenly started wanting to be a part of the childs life years later...you might think a little bit differently then

ash23

ninja900 wrote: »

He's still her father and has a right to be heard. If he really is a useless excuse for a man (no-one who would disown their child is worthy of being called a man, imho) then he won't get anywhere. But it's unjust for the adoption board to take one side of the story as fact and refuse to hear the other side.

But my point is that I wouldn't even know how to find him. All I have is a name and an address for a house he rented a room in 7 years ago. I also have previous employers and dates but whaddya know, they wouldn't give me a forwarding address for him.

I passed all these details on to social welfare when applying for one parent family allowance but whaddya know, they never followed it up.

So feasibly, the adoption board could find him. I still have the same phone number I had when I was with him. I am on social networking sites. I am easily found. He has never tried.

So i could be living in married bliss with a man who loves my daughter as his own and who my daughter adores. I could get married, apply for adoption and have a man who has NEVER contributed in any way to my daughters life (either fiscally, emotionally, supportively) come along and decide that he feels guilty after 7 years and throw a spanner in the works. he could apply for access and start paying maintenance and stop the adoption and then feck off for another 7 years.

What about the right of the child? I believe a child should know both parents where possible. And despite everything I would encourage a relationship with her father if he were to appear. But I draw the line at him having any legal rights to her at all.
I EARNED my legal rights to my daughter. 7 years of raising her, loving her, paying for her, worrying about her, bonding with her, KNOWING her.....
I believe at this point that all legal rights to my child are mine and mine alone. And if I had been with someone for her life and he had done as I have done for 7 years, then HE should be the one who has the legal rights. Not the man who just happened to ejaculate while I was fertile.

Eoineo

I think that the point of the court case was that the mother DID have contact details for him but didn't pass them on to the Adoption Board and they just took her at her word. The decision to have the child adopted was taken without the Adoption Board making their own efforts to get in touch with him.

Just because a biological father has access and pays maintenance it doesn't prevent the mother from still applying to the Adoption Board to have her spouse adopt their child. It's up to the Adoption Board to decide what is in the child's best interests and it's their obligation to take the wishes of the father into account but it's not his choice that matters in the end.

eviltwin

I think any father with any cop on would start thinking about his rights even before the birth.

If he really wanted to be in his childs life wouldnt he apply for legal guardianship...unless the mother has a good reason for saying no the judge should rule in his favour.

ash23

People here are all saying "the mum could lie" and I see their point. But the dad could lie too and that really worries me.

Nothing to stop my daughters dad (post an adoption order) sauntering in and claiming I never told him I was pregnant. Or that I cut him out of my daughters life. Or that I had contact details for him.

And then what?

I see that the fathers rights need to be protected. But I worry that the rights of the child to stability are being put at a disadvantage because of this.
If a child cannot be adopted by a step parent because a bio father objects, even though he has absconded from the childs life (and imo, there is NO reason good enough to disappear and abandon your child), is this not putting a barrier between the child and the possibilty of a stable "family" unit.

For eg, my surname is "Smith", as is my daughters.
If I were to remarry "Mr Jones" I would want to be Mrs Jones and for our future children to be Jones.

However I wouldn't want my daughter to feel like the odd one out, for it to be evident that the man raising her is not her bio dad, for it to be evident that her siblings are not her full siblings. I would like for her to be Jones too. But I can't. Because a father who frigged off for 7 years has decided he NOW wants his "rights" (if he were to decide to contest the adoption).

It just doesn't seem fair.

Eoineo

ash23 wrote: »

If a child cannot be adopted by a step parent because a bio father objects, even though he has absconded from the childs life (and imo, there is NO reason good enough to disappear and abandon your child), is this not putting a barrier between the child and the possibilty of a stable "family" unit.

As I've already said, just because the bio father objects it doesn't mean that the Adoption Board will turn down an application for a stepfather to adopt. They assess what is in the child's best interests.

When a child reaches a certain age, the child's wishes are also taken into account.

If you are worried that the Dad may lie, then keep records of where he is and your own attempts to contact him on behalf of your child. He can't argue with that if you did ever decide to have your child adopted by a step parent.

metrovelvet

No matter how much we hate it, or how unfair it is, blood still means something. I completely understand where ash23 is coming from, but like it or not the genetic connection is still valued and is priveleged.

I think the modern conditions of sperm donation, surrogacy, etc etc has somehow altered our perceptions of the power of a blood connection and ushered us dangerously, imo into a more behavioral assessment of what a mother or father is.

eviltwin

metrovelvet wrote: »

No matter how much we hate it, or how unfair it is, blood still means something. I completely understand where ash23 is coming from, but like it or not the genetic connection is still valued and is priveleged.

I think the modern conditions of sperm donation, surrogacy, etc etc has somehow altered our perceptions of the power of a blood connection and ushered us dangerously, imo into a more behavioral assessment of what a mother or father is.

I wonder if you would feel the same way if your birth father did a bunk and left you as a baby

I think if your mum had met someone else then you would treat that person like your real dad

Ask anyone whose been adopted and see what they say...

metrovelvet

eviltwin wrote: »

I wonder if you would feel the same way if your birth father did a bunk and left you as a baby

I think if your mum had met someone else then you would treat that person like your real dad

Ask anyone whose been adopted and see what they say...

I would feel crap - precisely because of the blood tie. If it didnt matter, then no one would feel crap about it.

eviltwin

I dont get what it is your saying Metrovelvet.

Do you think that being the biological parent of a child should guarantee you automatic rights ? If so to what degree?

And where does the child come into this? Don't we accept that at a certain age a child is old enough to make decisions that affect their own life for themselves independant of another person?

And I still think that if any father out there is worried that his rights might be compromised because he's not married to the mother then he should show some inititive and get it sorted asap and not wait until a new man appears on the scene

metrovelvet

eviltwin wrote: »

I dont get what it is your saying Metrovelvet.

Do you think that being the biological parent of a child should guarantee you automatic rights ? If so to what degree?

And where does the child come into this? Don't we accept that at a certain age a child is old enough to make decisions that affect their own life for themselves independant of another person?

And I still think that if any father out there is worried that his rights might be compromised because he's not married to the mother then he should show some inititive and get it sorted asap and not wait until a new man appears on the scene

What I am saying is that it is complex, probably far more so than any of us can work out.

What I am saying is that like it or not, biology bestows upon us a certain privalege, [note I say privalege - not right] that is why bio parents have a year to change their minds after an adoption. That is why bio fathers can walk in and out of a child's life at will.

The thing is - and I do believe this- that if the father does do a bunk- and even if he is replaced by an adoptive step father, the child will still need and want to know who the bio father is and imo he has a right to know that.

My fear in a law like this, is that dads who do a runner because they hate the mother, and are consulted on the adoption, will only consent if the father himself can adopt the child and wipe the mother out completely.

ash23

metrovelvet wrote: »

What I am saying is that it is complex, probably far more so than any of us can work out.

What I am saying is that like it or not, biology bestows upon us a certain privalege, [note I say privalege - not right] that is why bio parents have a year to change their minds after an adoption. That is why bio fathers can walk in and out of a child's life at will.

The thing is - and I do believe this- that if the father does do a bunk- and even if he is replaced by an adoptive step father, the child will still need and want to know who the bio father is and imo he has a right to know that.

My fear in a law like this, is that dads who do a runner because they hate the mother, and are consulted on the adoption, will only consent if the father himself can adopt the child and wipe the mother out completely.

I agree that the child has a right to know the bio parent who left. But I disagree that the parent who left has the right to walk in and out of a childs life at will. How much damage can you allow a person to cause your child before you say enough?
As for the last paragraph, I'm not sure I understand. If the child is living with the mother and the father absconds (and I don't buy "hating" the mother as reason enough to cut your child out of your life) then it would be ridiculous for the father to even suggest that he suddenly take control of the child and the mother have no rights.

Again, I think that mothers and fathers should have equal rights. If one parent neglects to use those rights then they are lost. Only with the other parents consent can they be reinstated.

metrovelvet

ash23 wrote: »

I agree that the child has a right to know the bio parent who left. But I disagree that the parent who left has the right to walk in and out of a childs life at will. How much damage can you allow a person to cause your child before you say enough?

Then you get accused of denying access.

ash23 wrote: »

As for the last paragraph, I'm not sure I understand. If the child is living with the mother and the father absconds (and I don't buy "hating" the mother as reason enough to cut your child out of your life) then it would be ridiculous for the father to even suggest that he suddenly take control of the child and the mother have no rights.

No its not a good reason but people use it. ANd yes it is a ridiculous suggestion, but believe you me it does get suggested.

ash23 wrote: »

Again, I think that mothers and fathers should have equal rights. If one parent neglects to use those rights then they are lost. Only with the other parents consent can they be reinstated.

I think you would need a judge. This area gets very murky.

Hotblack Desiato

eviltwin wrote: »

Fixed it why? Oh I see because obviously I must believe that woman should have all the rights where a child is concerned and that a dads role doesnt matter....mmm yeah of course I do :mad:

No, you missed the point.

All I had to do to your post to make it look like the ridiculous, grossly sexist, sweeping generalisation that it is, was to change the sex to which it refers.

If it's so obviously wrong to make such a statement about mothers in general, why is it ok to do it about fathers? It seems to me that 'equality' and 'rights' are all well and good provided they're being asserted by women not men.

I wonder ninja how you would feel if it was your daughter who was raising a child alone and her piece of crap ex suddenly started wanting to be a part of the childs life years later...you might think a little bit differently then

If he wants to make a case before a court or adoption board about how he's not a piece of crap, he should have that right. The problem here was not the conduct of the father in question good or bad, the problem was the denial of a fair hearing.

metrovelvet

^ Who makes the call, the family court judge or the adoption board?

eviltwin

I'm hearing a lot about the rights of the parents here but what about the rights of the child?

Ash is 100% right in what she says. You can't possibly allow a parent to walk in and out of a childs life when its suits them, what kind of messed up kid would you have then?

If a parent isnt committed 100% to the job then they should stay away full stop and perhaps wait until the child becomes a teen or adult before they start trying to build a relationship....fair enough if they see the error of their ways and really want to get involved fully but they can't expect to be allowed to come and go as they please and the can't expect to have much of a say in the way the child is raised.

Funnily enough the men in here are ignoring a point I've made twice now. If your unmarried and have any concerns about your rights why not be made legal guardian?

metrovelvet

No it certainly wouldnt be fair for a bio dad to pull a dog in the manger stunt.

The thing is that I honestly do not know what is worse. You are going to have a ****ed up child either way, whether the father breezes in and out or you have a child at home trying to imagine what his father looks like, constantly wondering.

Khannie

eviltwin wrote: »

If your unmarried and have any concerns about your rights why not be made legal guardian?

The age of the child determines how easy or difficult this is. We're only now getting around to me legally adopting my son now (I'm not his biological father).

Other things that may hinder it: Their biological parent. The parent they live with may consider this a step too far. etc. etc.

Note: I haven't read the rest of the thread yet. My default sort order is reverse, so I'm going backwards.

eviltwin

metrovelvet wrote: »

No it certainly wouldnt be fair for a bio dad to pull a dog in the manger stunt.

The thing is that I honestly do not know what is worse. You are going to have a ****ed up child either way, whether the father breezes in and out or you have a child at home trying to imagine what his father looks like, constantly wondering.

Yeah I can understand it must be hard not knowing your dad and I think contact is important but thats not the same as rights.

Rights in my opinion have to be earned. Yes its important all parents have suitable access to their children but I think its a bit rich that I could walk out on my child and then walk back in at some stage down the road and start expecting that I can have some say in her upbringing.

Its a terrible insult to the parent who has stuck to their responsibilities

metrovelvet

eviltwin wrote: »

Yeah I can understand it must be hard not knowing your dad and I think contact is important but thats not the same as rights.

Rights in my opinion have to be earned. Yes its important all parents have suitable access to their children but I think its a bit rich that I could walk out on my child and then walk back in at some stage down the road and start expecting that I can have some say in her upbringing.

Its a terrible insult to the parent who has stuck to their responsibilities

I dont know about rights having to be earned. But some rights are not "inalienable", they are not absolute. In other words, once you have repeatedly violated the rights of the child, by not being there for him or her then you can say goodbye to your "rights."

ash23

I think that access and legal rights over the child need to be separate issues, much the same as maintenance and access are separate issues.
I think a lot more parents who have absconded would have access to their children if it was accepted that they would have no legal rights over things like education etc.

If it is widely accepted that a parent can not pay maintenance but still have access. Imo, it should be as acceptable that a parent can have limited access as judged by the courts, even if the other parent holds all legal rights. Even if the child has been adopted by a step parent.

Nevyn

Unfortunatly it tends to be up to the custodial parent to chase mataince, that may be changing with the letters which have started to go out but the whole system needs an over haul.

eviltwin

I presume these guys dont pay maintanance

If they can't be arsed contributing to their child in any way either financial or personally why the hell should they have any say

ash23

eviltwin wrote: »

I presume these guys dont pay maintanance

If they can't be arsed contributing to their child in any way either financial or personally why the hell should they have any say

It depends. I would rather a man be actively involved than pay maintanance and have no interest in the child.

If a man is very hands on and involved then he should have rights.

Again, I believe that access, maintenance and legal rights should all be separate issues and taken on their own merit.

For eg, if my daughters dad came back then I think that he should not be allowed to have legal rights over my child due to to his absence.
I think I should be able to take legal action about maintenance and then he should also be able to take legal action about access if we couldn't come to an agreement through mediation.

metrovelvet

eviltwin wrote: »

I presume these guys dont pay maintanance

If they can't be arsed contributing to their child in any way either financial or personally why the hell should they have any say

What about guys who have paid maintenance for many years but have never met their child?

eviltwin

metrovelvet wrote: »

What about guys who have paid maintenance for many years but have never met their child?

Dont agree with it unless there is a very good reason why he shouldnt be allowed near the child ie he's violent or has a drug problem or whatever.

I dont know why this is becoming a mother's vs father's issue...it should be about the child. No parent would want their child to have anything other than a great relationship with BOTH parents.

Usually that is the case and even in situations where a parent absconds something can be sorted out. My point is though that you'd want to be pretty thick to think you can do a runner and then start making demands about the raising of a child you dont even know.

metrovelvet

^ But you can anyway. Anyone can get their guardianship and then do a runner.

And men who got married and did a runner still have their rights.

Hotblack Desiato

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm hearing a lot about the rights of the parents here but what about the rights of the child?

Many children in Ireland are denied their right to have their father involved in their lives. Sometimes through his choice, but sometimes not. In practice if a mother does not want the father involved in his child's life, there is little enough he can do about it, and she does not need any reason whatsoever.

Ash is 100% right in what she says. You can't possibly allow a parent to walk in and out of a childs life when its suits them, what kind of messed up kid would you have then?

He has a right to a hearing - which is what was denied in this case. Without a hearing you cannot just assume that the absent parent is absent by their choice.

Funnily enough the men in here are ignoring a point I've made twice now. If your unmarried and have any concerns about your rights why not be made legal guardian?

Even married fathers don't have much in the way of enforceable legal rights when it comes down to it, especially if they're not wealthy enough to afford court fees on top of maintenance. Our whole system of family law is adversarial, out-dated and too often does not act in the interests of children.

Splendour

eviltwin wrote: »

No parent would want their child to have anything other than a great relationship with BOTH parents.

Sadly this is not always the case...

Splendour

ninja900 wrote: »

Even married fathers don't have much in the way of enforceable legal rights when it comes down to it, especially if they're not wealthy enough to afford court fees on top of maintenance. Our whole system of family law is adversarial, out-dated and too often does not act in the interests of children.

Married fathers have the same legal rights as mothers have. Although courts don't always act in the best interest of children... I think our judges are way out of touch with reality to be able to make any decisions on family law.

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

I think I should be able to take legal action about maintenance and then he should also be able to take legal action about access if we couldn't come to an agreement through mediation.

I do think this is at the core of the present debate. Like it or not, if you ascribe responsibilities in Society to someone, you will get the double edged sword of rights - however tenuous or limited they may be.

Remember, the reality is that it is not simply "all about the child" - there are at least two other parties involved, and you cannot use this as a convenient moral justification to nullify the rights of one of them, while maintaining their responsibilities - especially if the custodial parent conveniently has a monopoly on the "child's best interests".

Splendour wrote: »

Married fathers have the same legal rights as mothers have.

Sorry, they don't - both de jure and de facto.

De jure, that is in law, married fathers may get automatic guardianship upon birth, like mothers, but unlike them they can lose it through court action. Mothers can only lose guardianship if the child is adopted - she could abscond when the child is young, never to be seen again, but she can never lose her guardianship rights. Reverse the genders and he can.

De facto, in practice, custody rights are not awarded equally between married parents. Full custody to fathers is a rarity, while it is commonplace with mothers, even when a father may seek it in court.

SerafinaP

I realise this is a change of direction but what are your opinions on the proposal by the LRC to widen the category of persons who are permitted to apply for custody, access and guardianship to bona fide 3rd parties with an interest, i.e. grandparents, stepparents, uncles, aunts.. etc?

hacked

ash23 wrote: »

No. But I can't do anything about it. He disappeared, doesn't want to be found. I find it galling that I could have met a man, married him, raised my daughter with him and then have to go looking for permission from a man who has never wanted to know.

I truly believe all fathers should have automatic rights from birth but if they abscond for any lengthy period of time (say, more than 24 months) without contact, then they lose those rights. Including the right to be informed about the adoption of their biological child.
Easier said than done, I know.

Victor, I actually find your statment kind of offensive. Why are you asking ash if it's fair? As if it were her descision.

The Father chose to leave, doesn't want to be found....honestly, I think she did the responsible thing by leaving him off the birth cert.

What the majority of people making statments like this don't seem to realise IS that a fathers name can be added to the cert at any time....it can not be taken off. (Providing it is the biological father). I know a few people in giant messes because they decided to put the father's name on the cert.

And seriously...what the hell child takes regular peeks at their birth cert?? Just because there is no name DOES NOT MEAN that the mother is not going to tell the child about his or her father.

Ultimately, it's not fair...but who's fault is it? The name on the birth cert is only a minor detail.

banie01

SerafinaP wrote: »

I realise this is a change of direction but what are your opinions on the proposal by the LRC to widen the category of persons who are permitted to apply for custody, access and guardianship to bona fide 3rd parties with an interest, i.e. grandparents, stepparents, uncles, aunts.. etc?

We live in a country where at the moment unmarried fathers have no statutory parental rights apart from being financially responsible to their progeny with regards to maintanence and inheritance rights. I feel Paternal and Parental rights HAVE to be normalised before the Law Reform Comission start to reform any the custody rights of anciallary/secondary caregivers.


In my own situation, After my partner passed away I had to obtain a grant of guardianship for our Son as thanks to way the archaic legal system in this country works..... My Mother in Law(In spirit Not law) was our son's next of kin!
Despite me and my partner being together 12 years....
Despite our son's only home being our home....
And despite being named on his birth cert...
Luckily I never encountered a situation in the interim where this may have presented a problem and in any event at the time neither my MIL or I were even aware of it.

Even more worrying for me in this situation was that despite dealing with various Govt Departments with regard to transferring his CB into my name, Getting his 1st passport issued and various other ancilliary things it was not until I was sorting out my will that my solicitor queried guardianship!!
(And before its pointed out that by making wills my partner could have avoided all these issues, My partner died at 26 and at that age don't we all think we are invincible!)

I know that the commission for Law Reform are currently addressing this area, Yet to my ear currently all the rhetoric seems to be surrounding Civil Partnerships and the rights of children in that situation....
But surely it would make more sense to normalise the relationships, responsibilities and rights of biological parents and bring these into line with international norms as parental rights! Not maternal or paternal rights!

eviltwin

I'm all for parental rights but it shouldnt be retrospective...its unfair to a mum ( or a dad ) who has done the lions share of the work to have someone come in on the basis of biology and start throwing their weight around.

The Corinthian

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm all for parental rights but it shouldnt be retrospective...its unfair to a mum ( or a dad ) who has done the lions share of the work to have someone come in on the basis of biology and start throwing their weight around.

That's all very well, but if you want to negate or diminish the importance of biology in terms of rights, then you will have to also to negate or diminish the importance of biology in terms of responsibility.

Otherwise you're just trying to have your cake and eat it.

banie01

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's all very well, but if you want to negate or diminish the importance of biology in terms of rights, then you will have to also to negate or diminish the importance of biology in terms of responsibility.

Otherwise you're just trying to have your cake and eat it.

I agree 100%.... Good post!

metrovelvet

If they have walked they have already negated their biology in terms of responsibility.

And before anyone jumps in about maintenance, that is a very very small piece of the responsibility pie.

Eoineo

metrovelvet wrote: »

If they have walked they have already negated their biology in terms of responsibility.

And before anyone jumps in about maintenance, that is a very very small piece of the responsibility pie.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying?

Is your point that if someone walks then their opportunity to be responsible is also diminished? It doesn't leave the door open for them to stand up their responsibilities at a later date then. Actually it means that it's a disincentive for any parent to come back to a parenting role after a break. Not great for the child or the absent parent who has a change of heart.