'Labour publishes Guardianship of Children Bill 2010'

Bottle_of_Smoke

http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/12686538688025728.html

Labour Bill wrote:

The Labour Party has published a Private Members Bill, Guardianship of Children Bill, 2010 that will make significant changes to the current law regarding guardianship of children and that will, in particular, enhance the rights of non-marital fathers in regard to their children.

At present the child's right to know and be cared for by both of his or her parents is not fully respected in Irish law insofar as (a) there is no automatic registration of an unmarried father on the child's birth certificate (b) an unmarried father has no automatic guardianship role.

The Labour Bill is designed to give effect to the rights of non-marital families under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In order to ensure that the child's rights are vindicated, the Bill will confer an automatic guardianship role on natural fathers in respect of children born after the passing of the Act (with specified exceptions) and will give the parties or the court a power to terminate that role in specified circumstances.

The Bill will also provides that the registration of the father's name on a birth certificate will be compulsory in all cases after the Act would come into effect.

Might have been posted before but nice idea from labour. Only problem I can see arising is the wrong name being put on the birth cert due to a dishonest mother. Not sure where the cuckolded and biological father would stand if truth came out and cuckolded father's name is on birth cert.

CDfm

Grandstanding Bill of Rights - when do seperated or divorces fathers get these rights - FAIL :rolleyes:

Bottle_of_Smoke

CDfm wrote: »

Grandstanding Bill of Rights - when do seperated or divorces fathers get these rights - FAIL :rolleyes:

"the Bill will confer an automatic guardianship role on natural fathers in respect of children born after the passing of the Act "

Surely that would cover them? I wouold like to see it apply to all fathers though. Not just those after the passing of the act.

I agree it doesn't go far enough - ") and will give the parties or the court a power to terminate that role in specified circumstances." - don't know why they're including this.

CDfm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I agree it doesn't go far enough - ") and will give the parties or the court a power to terminate that role in specified circumstances." - don't know why they're including this.

Its very much like when blacks got the Vote in the South they were not able to register to vote and there was still segregation.

So structurally built into the system is the power not to enforce the rights its enshrining into law.We have that already.

Thats admitting failure before you start.

Well thats no good is it.

metrovelvet

[QUOTE=Bottle_of_Smoke;65515092
I agree it doesn't go far enough - ") and will give the parties or the court a power to terminate that role in specified circumstances." - don't know why they're including this.[/QUOTE]

So people like me dont have to go to court everytime I need a passport application signed or a medical procedure done.

Bottle_of_Smoke

metrovelvet wrote: »

So people like me dont have to go to court everytime I need a passport application signed or a medical procedure done.

if the father of your child had custody would you not want to know if he was getting your child a passport?

metrovelvet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

if the father of your child had custody would you not want to know if he was getting your child a passport?

Sure I might. But if I had done a dissappearing act then chances are what I would want becomes miniscule into the overall problem of clogging up the courts and forcing the custodial parent into a situation whereby s/he has to get a court order to get these things done, particularly if the custodial parent and my child are foreigners and require passports.

If I had done a dissappearing act it would hardly be logical that I would want to know about the passport status or the whereabouts of my child since my whereabouts would not be known for that reason.

CDfm

This is not about passports - even though you have laws in place - its easy for a woman who shares guardianship to go to court and obtain a passport for a child. It happens all the time.

By extending the law you are only bring in a new lot of men in to an ineffective family law system.

I dont think you need worry about anything metrovelvet. The proposed legislation will be about as useful as ashtrays on motorbike.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

This is not about passports - even though you have laws in place - its easy for a woman who shares guardianship to go to court and obtain a passport for a child. It happens all the time.

By extending the law you are only bring in a new lot of men in to an ineffective family law system.

I dont think you need worry about anything metrovelvet. The proposed legislation will be about as useful as ashtrays on motorbike.

It wouldnt apply to me anyway because legally my son is fatherless, but there are mothers out there where this is not the case.

But over all you are right. THere is no enforcement on either access or maintenance or health decisions anyway, so its all pretend court. I honeslty dont see why people bother with it.

CDfm

So its a pretend court. I cant see why the Labour party dont throw their hat in the ring and have proper and effective laws-which this isnt.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

So its a pretend court. I cant see why the Labour party dont throw their hat in the ring and have proper and effective laws-which this isnt.

I think people think going as far as having something in place in principle is enough.

Ireland has always had a fuzzy relationship with the law, accross the board. It carries over from having laws that are not theirs. [Sure they are not our laws anyway so why honour them?] And then when they did start to make their own laws, that fuzzy attitude about the law in general remained - at least selectively. When it comes to revenue from road offenses and road tax they seem to have their act together.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ireland has always had a fuzzy relationship with the law, accross the board. It carries over from having laws that are not theirs. .

thats a sweeping generalisation - men get jailed for non payment of maintenance, breaches of barring orders etc.Up the road from me guys were shot attemting a post office robbery.Drink driving is enforced. Drug dealers are convicted. TV licence evaders are prosecuted.

I have a brother who lives in California and he says that if a father arrives for access under a court order and the chils is not there then the sherrif takes over.Thats not at all fuzzy.

So the problem is not with the family law its with the enforcement.

Its like this if the labour legislative proposal put family law enforcement on a par with TV licence enforcement then I would sit up and listen and applaud.Because it doesn't I wont.

metrovelvet

There is no enforcement for maintenance orders anymore. Your awareness is outdated. Keep up before you start shouting from the pulpit. And by the way, it aint Sunday so why ya preaching?

metrovelvet

Do you know how many tv license evaders are not prosecuted? Thousands and thousands. PUHLEASE.

Move to California if you like it there better. You'll also be paying California child support. See how you like that.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

There is no enforcement for maintenance orders anymore. Your awareness is outdated. Keep up before you start shouting from the pulpit. And by the way, it aint Sunday so why ya preaching?

I think its your info thats outdated -as far as I know someone can still be imprisoned for a debt. There was something about an old lady and a TV licence jail sentence (I think) where the circuit court took action, but, AFAIK its still there -but I will check.

Anyway, that is a complete side issue.

May point is that this is a bull**** legislation proposal. The women who want their children to have a relationship with their fathers dont need courts laws or court orders to tell them whats what. It comes naturally,and thankfully, they are the majority.

Those who don't wont obey court orders and there is nothing done about them.

So making a proposal to put into law something thats already happening is like putting in a mow your lawn law. Kind of pointless.

metrovelvet

The TV license has escaped this legislation. I dont know why. Maybe its not considered debt but something else, like a bill. Obviously being able to broadcast CSI miami is more important than feeding and clothing the nations children.

CDfm

So what benefit is the proposed law to men??

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

The TV license has escaped this legislation. I dont know why. Maybe its not considered debt but something else, like a bill. Obviously being able to broadcast CSI miami is more important than feeding and clothing the nations children.

I checked and the legislation concerning jail to enforce non payment of a debt was passed by the Oireachtas in the summer of 2009

http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/eAct/2009/a2109.pdf

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/lookuppagelink/4D2518AAE894B13680256D2B0046A04D?opendocument&l=en


So it seems jail is on the cards for those who dont pay maintenance

Bottle_of_Smoke

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sure I might. But if I had done a dissappearing act then chances are what I would want becomes miniscule into the overall problem of clogging up the courts and forcing the custodial parent into a situation whereby s/he has to get a court order to get these things done, particularly if the custodial parent and my child are foreigners and require passports.

If I had done a dissappearing act it would hardly be logical that I would want to know about the passport status or the whereabouts of my child since my whereabouts would not be known for that reason.

Ok, didn't know all that from your first response! It gave the impression you we're having custody battles or something.

CDfm wrote:

So what benefit is the proposed law to men??

I guess it means they have automatic guardianship instead of having to go through a procedure. You seem very pessimistic about it without giving the details why! I expect you're right as you've mentioned you're seperated/divorced before so would obviously know the system. But why is it exactly this is so meaningless and what amendements need to be made?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Got an email from Labour today as I sent them one when I read this policy

Many thanks for your query regarding Labour’s Guardianship Bill.

Our bill would not make DNA testing any more widespread or required than at present where it is voluntary unless ordered by a court.

Our bill would extend the rights of the person in loco parentis who can apply for guardianship. Thus if a father brings up a child under the incorrect belief that he is the natural father, even if a DNA test is negative he can still apply for guardianship. The natural father would also be a guardian unless the court ordered otherwise.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

With best regards,

Kirsi Hanifin
Women & Equality Officer
Constituency Support Officer
Labour Party

CDfm

Guardianship is more like taking the adult responsibility for a child. Like signing for passports and making decisions.

Now labour are talking about extending guardianship to like whom.

It took me years to actually get proper court ordered access to my kids and one year I was in court 12 times -4 of them trying to get holidays with the kids which were already part of a court order.I just think my ex got sick and tired of going to court.

Now I actually could have lost my access if a judge decided access was unworkable and it happens lots of guys.So there was always that risk.

I always say I am one of the lucky ones who managed to keep contact with my kids.On the other hand if I had breached the orders I would have had gardai to deal with and possibly imprisonment.

So from a practical point of view my guardianship was at the whim of the mother.The only practical issue is signing for passports and she could have gone in to court and the court would have automatically made an order for passports to be granted without my signature.

Forget about any education, medical or other upbringing matters - that just didnt happen.

So this bill has nothing to do with the rights of fathers at all as de facto I guardianship is automatically being exercised by mothers anyway. I would be more interested in the list of reasons to extinguish guardianship being put into law here.

I can't see any practical aspect of passing such a law if de facto guardianship is being exercised without restriction or enforcement by mothers anyway.

If Labour are serious about reform why not tackle the whole area of fathers and fathers rights by putting legal enforcement of access orders in or making the required constitutional changes to give fathers equal rights.

Revoloutionary socialists my arse -they have bottled out on the issue and probably picked the only area they cant get pinned down on. Its a bull**** proposal so career politicians can say they are pro-fathers rights and talk ****e on TV while at a practical level doing SFA.

I think they need to take on a more serious issue like campaigning for the rights of nudists in Greenland or Goldfish in petshops.

This proposal is pure spin.

rolly1

If automatic guardianship had been in place for this chap there is little doubt but that he'd have his kids back in Ireland right now.

So yeah Guardianship is vital in abduction cases. I would strongly advise any unmarried fathers out there to get it immediately if they have not already done so.

But in order to be effective and counter the vile child abductions that take place the bill must be amended to include the tens of thousands of existing fathers and their children; to ensure abducted children are returned to their rightful homes.

citytillidie

I would read this before praising Labour

LABOUR'S SEXIST MANIFESTO FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION
Most major parties have now published their manifestos for the 2010 General Election. Over the next week we'll be reviewing the proposals of the various parties analysing any obvious misandry as well as pro gender equality content. Let's start by taking a look at Labour's plans for the next five years.


Given their track record since 1997, not to mention their sexist MPs, and the use of All Women Shortlists, the Labour Party is a almost certainly the most sexist party in Britain. However, for the purpose of this post, lets stick solely to the content of the manifesto as we are going to do with the other parties. The first sign of sexism is their boasts regarding the disastrous Equality Act. This legislation allows employers to discriminate on the basis of gender when recruiting staff instead of choosing the best person for the job. Legalising sex discrimination really isn't a valid method of promoting "fairness across our society" as they claim. The manifesto cites how the Equality Act will increase equality of opportunity when it's actually reducing equality and pushing unfair equal outcomes instead.

Further notable sexism in Labour's manifesto concerns the area of domestic violence. Section 5:3 concerning domestic violence states "we are committed to zero tolerance of violence against women". Whilst such a commitment is impressive, we mustn't forget that Home Office figures show that 40% of domestic violence vicitms are men. It's quite sickening that so many domestic violence vicitms dont' even get the slightest mention, nevermind any sort of commitment to their well-being or deal with their attackers. The party do at least note how domestic violence had fallen by 50%, though unsurprisingly, under New Labour the number of male vicitms bucked the trend and actually risen significantly! Clearly the number of male vicitms is likely to continue to rise under a Labour government given such a willingness to pretend that female perpetrators don't exist.


Perhaps the most offensive part of labour's plans for the next five years is the section titled "Punishment and Reform". On the one hand it talks about giving longer sentences to the most violent and serious offenders, yet the next sentence makes a commitment to "work to reduce the number of women, young and mentally ill people in prison". Given that violence by females is on of the fastest growing crimes in society and that the number of male domestic violence vicitms is increasing, then surely the two statements are completely contradictory? Further still, given that the police have largely ignored female paedophiles until recently and caught a shamefully small proportion of them, is the party suggesting that raping children isn't a serious crime? A Labour candidate yesterday suggested the Liberal Democrats would be giving the vote to the likes of Vanessa George, yet given the content of the manifesto, presumably his own party is going to go further and release her altogether!

We should note that the policies proposed here aren't just misandric, the manifestos is also extremely offensive and damaging to women. Labour are also lumping in adult females with children and the mentally ill. There's a clear suggestion that women aren't at all equal to men, instead they're some sort of child like and mentally deficient beings, incapable of telling right from wrong and thus immune from punishment. Ending such infantalisation of women would do far more for equality in the workplace than any so called "positive" discrimination or pay audits.

Labour talk about a commitment to "always put the victim first" in criminal cases, yet there's no mention of how they' will protect men form false allegation allegations and put a stop to the deadly consequences of such incredibly serious offences.

In the interests of balance, we should examine any positive aspects of the manifesto in terms of commitments to gender equality. However, having read the documents I saw no mention of the gender education gap, the suicide rate, deaths at work, men's health and poor life expectancy, nor even any mention of equal parenting. It's all very well Labour proposing slightly more time off for fathers, but if they can't actually get to see their kids or if requires the mother's permission then they're basically just rubbing salt into the wound for so many dads. Further still, proposing four week's paternity leave for fathers, and 52 for mothers seems strange at best. The only positive aspects of the document are the recognition of the importance of marriage and that the Family Courts are in need of review. Yet even when talking about issues such as helping parents back to work, they bizarrely continue their misandry by stating the importance of "especially" helping mothers out of poverty.

Rather tellingly, Labour's manifesto doesn't' even restrict misandry to these shores, there's also a commitment to doubling funding to the new UN Women's Agency. I'm not exactly sure what the point of that is as most of the UN tend to be only concerned with the needs of women as it is, even going as far as denying food to male earthquake vicitms. If nothing else this certainly demonstrates quite clearly Labour's contempt for men, not only at home, but abroad too

Bottle_of_Smoke

citytillidie wrote: »

I would read this before praising Labour

This threads about the Irish Labour party. They're not linked to the British one.

CDfm

rolly1 wrote: »

If automatic guardianship had been in place for this chap there is little doubt but that he'd have his kids back in Ireland right now.

So yeah Guardianship is vital in abduction cases. I would strongly advise any unmarried fathers out there to get it immediately if they have not already done so.

But in order to be effective and counter the vile child abductions that take place the bill must be amended to include the tens of thousands of existing fathers and their children; to ensure abducted children are returned to their rightful homes.

it might well be vital in child abduction cases but the general issue concerning access and custody issues in the here and now its fairly useless.

you can have a custody order and a woman may refuse to comply with it and you still cannot get enforcement for non compliance

Dr Galen

so then enforcement is the problem, not the law?

CDfm

Dr Galen wrote: »

so then enforcement is the problem, not the law?

In a word yes. It is virtually impossible in Ireland for a guy to enforce a custody order in the Family Law Courts.

The Courts are held in-camera (not open to the public or reported on) which means that they are in effect summary justice.

The only tools which a court normally have to put sanctions on an individual are either by way of a fine, imprisonment or in the case of child access,putting conditions on access,limiting it or reducing it to nil.

What happens is the Family Law Courts is that the Judges do not penalise for breach of an order if the respondant is a woman. They also do not award legal costs or compensation. A Court Order will not be enforced by the Guards you have to go back to Court.

Though you can represent yourself you are better off with a Solicitor.

A guy may have holidays booked or have rented accomadation to bring the children too and no dice.

Also, mothers rights are given priority in the constitution and normally retain the family home.

When custody and access works it is because the mother either desires it or has decided not to fraustrate it.

Its not just deadbeat dads this happens to as access and maintenance are not linked.Its ordinary guys.

Its common practice too for mothers to hold passports or to be granted them by the courts.

So on the list of earth shattering things on the to do list on Family Law it comes fairly well down the list -its like giving a person a free bus pass but not having a bus service.

For most guys with children going to the Family Law Courts is like going to jail and getting buggered by Bubba (no disrespect intended to anyone here) and thats why you get some many guys posting in a bitter way on mens rights.

There are lots who will disagree with me but I wouldnt go popping an corks of TK Lemonade just yet :rolleyes:

rolly1

it might well be vital in child abduction cases but the general issue concerning access and custody issues in the here and now its fairly useless.

you can have a custody order and a woman may refuse to comply with it and you still cannot get enforcement for non compliance

I completely agree with you re enforcement of access and custody, but if this proposed legislation saves one child from being abducted and not returned then imo its worth it.I think it should be amended though to afford protection to existing fathers and their children.

Yesterday's awful ruling in the High Court really highlights how unscrupulous mothers can get away with child abduction. I don't particularly blame the judge, he was restricted by the existing lack of automatic guardianship for unmarried fathers.

CDfm

If thats the best they can come up f*** em

my situation is over as the kids are lots older. if a politician spoke to me about that issue at my door i would show him the road.

rolly1

CDfm,
while I can totally see where you are coming from, have been there and worn the t-shirt I still think there is a lot of merit in this Bill, even apart from the child abduction issue. By accident or design there is little awareness amongst men generally of the actual power that resides in the guardianship role in having an equal say in major long term decisions effecting the welfare of their children.

For example whether schools are aware of it or not, legally no child can be enrolled in a school without the consent of both guardians, assuming the child has two guardians. Technically all school enrolment forms should have the signature of both guardians on the document, again where two guardians exist. Once as a guardian makes it known to the school beforehand that they exist then they are obliged to seek consent for enrolment from them. Where this is breached and not amended the father can either take the school to court or take it up with the equality tribunal for being in breach of equality legislation. On top of this if the guardian has asked the school to attend parent teacher meetings and they ignore/refuse him, once again he has a case to make to the equality tribunal for discrimination against the school.The complaint from to start the process is here:

http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/uploadedfiles/AboutUs/es_1.pdf

While it might be recommended, it is not necessary to use a solicitor to carry out the process and the whole process is nowhere near as intimidating as the courts as its open to a lot more public scrutiny.

Until fathers actually start making themselves known to the likes of the equality tribunal nothing much will change. The judgement arising from the tribunal as well are published so the same level of secrecy does not apply to this arena and also creates a real impact at a societal level.

Guardianship is important, it confers legal standing on a father for all public bodies and institutions and should not be dismissed as useless.

CDfm

Eh Rolly1 - so if schools enroll pupils without the fathers consent, doctors enroll them without consent , dentists treat them, sports clubs, dance classes and the guards dont enforce court orders. Do airlines or airports check that a child has a right to travel??

The party proposing the Bill have included a rider on non-enforcement of the proposed.

So why negate the right -why not start by saying we intend to enforce the legal rights of fathers.

By the way what are called "fathers rights" are not really rights at all but responsibilities that a parent has a duty to perform.

There is more enforcement on selling alcohol and cigerettes to underage people than there is on these parenting issues for men.

So why dont the Labour Party want to impress me and tell me -we are going to be tough on enforcement on these issues.

Enforce whats there first before adding to it & dont add another unenforceable item to the list-it should be unacceptable. No taxation without representation.