The Great Parental Role Robbery

rolly1

Are people aware of this consultative paper from the Law Reform Commission?

Well this almighty tome of spin and bull is recommending the most radical disenfranchising of fathers in the history of this State.

Do you realise in section 1.53 (p.34) that they are putting out there to officially/legally drop joint decision making in relation to children, between a father and a mother, married or otherwise?

For separated parents this means in effect that the person with whom the child lives with most of the time(overwhelmingly the mother) will no longer need to even consult with the other parent on issues such as school choice, religion along with any medical treatment for the child i.e the role/duty that guardians/parents have had for hundreds of years!

No wonder they were so adamant to promote the idea of automatic guardianship for unmarried fathers.............because their version of guardianship will mean absolutely fcuk all to anyone!

This country is seriously regressing, at an awesome speed.

CDfm

Thats an innovative way to deal with law enforcement -remove the law.

Do they say anything about the tv licence, car tax etc cos I hate paying those.

The Corinthian

rolly1 wrote: »

No wonder they were so adamant to promote the idea of automatic guardianship for unmarried fathers.............because their version of guardianship will mean absolutely fcuk all to anyone!

This was clearly on the cards some time ago when they began to talk about guardianship being more about a child's than a parent's rights - I think I even commented on it here - that they would make guardianship universal and neuter it at the same time; thus silencing a criticism against current family law (lack of automatic guardianship to unmarried fathers) and simultaneously eliminating a law (that both guardians need to be consulted in the upbringing of a child) that is never enforced anyway.

Welcome to the Mammy Republic.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

This was clearly on the cards some time ago when they began to talk about guardianship being more about a child's than a parent's rights - I think I even commented on it here - that they would make guardianship universal and neuter it at the same time; thus silencing a criticism against current family law (lack of automatic guardianship to unmarried fathers) and simultaneously eliminating a law (that both guardians need to be consulted in the upbringing of a child) that is never enforced

I think people often confuse fathers duties under the constitution with their rights.

so a childs right is an expectation that the father will perform his duty as guardian effectively and a duty is not a right to be enforced but rather an obligation to be fulfilled.

by changing the definition you are going against fundamental principles of our constitution

as the american revoloutionaries said -no taxation without representation.

and as a management lecturer of mine used to say you can delegate authority but not responsibility.

this proposal cuts out the duty and responsibility obligations of fathers

so if you cut the link between fathers behaving like and acting like fathers then you are promoting the idea that they dont have responsibility either legally or morally. that is not a good precedent.

a step to far on discouraging dads when the whole world is trying to encourage them

l wonder do people ever do letter campaigns to the president

CDfm

John -are you there

Ok thanks I will look that up May 13 1997 Irish Times You say

Taylor's Bill still
biased against fathers
OPINION/John Waters
The Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mr Taylor, in responding last Wednesday to my criticisms of his recently published Children Bill, advances an interesting perspective on law creation. He appeared to suggest that bad law is justifiable if it has been preceded by even worse law. Thus, the central plank of his defence of the Children Bill is that it is an improvement on the situation as outlined in the Status of Children Act 1987.
I believe that Act, like the Minister's Bill, together with most of the present laws dealing with the relationships between children and parents, to be unconstitutional on the grounds of offending against Article 42:1 of the Irish Constitution, which "guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children".
At the moment, these rights appear to be guaranteed only to mothers, a situation which the Minister for Equality and Law Reform appears to support.
The Children's Act 1987, in Mr Taylor's words, allowed a father who was not married to the mother of his child or children "to apply to the courts to be appointed as a guardian if he so wished". In this phrasing resides a clue to the nature of the culture pertaining to the legal rights of fathers and their children, and to the tactics of Mervyn Taylor in seeking to maintain that culture.
The implication of the wording is that a father may or may not wish to apply for guardianship of his children, which in turn is based on a deeply prejudiced view of unmarried fathers, presupposing reluctance, recalcitrance and general fecklessness.
This may by true of some cases, but it represents a gross defamation of the generality of such fathers. The problem is that, because this thinking forms the cornerstone of both the culture and the laws and legal processes deriving from that culture, it governs every relationship between an unmarried father and his child that comes up for judgment.
By presupposing irresponsibility as the natural response of an unmarried father, the culture builds a wall against him, ensuring that he could only apply for or obtain guardianship in a manner subservient to the wishes of the mother.
It is hardly surprising if the view of fathers inherent in this legislation can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because, in the absence of a marriage contract, the law gives virtually all rights to the mother, the unmarried father must live by the culture's designation of him as a secondary being.
By bending over backwards to please the mother, he can gain access to his child. But this gives him no rights. By behaving in a manner pleasing to the mother - perhaps, for example, eschewing relationships with other women - he can build a relationship with his child.
Mr Taylor is theoretically correct in stating that "the grant of rights to a natural father does not depend on the mother's consent", but in practice, as he must know, any family lawyer in this State will tell an unmarried father seeking guardianship that he has no business going to court without a letter of consent from the mother. Mr Taylor can assert otherwise only because he knows that the in camera rule means that no case histories or statistics can be quoted against him.
Once you begin from the viewpoint that men are reluctant fathers, it is easy to canonise women and declare them owners of children. But this is, at its core, a lie. Why on earth would I not "wish" to be a guardian of my child? Am I not human? Is she not human? Is the fact that a father is not married to the mother to be held against both father and child?
Do we not live, as we keep being reminded, in a Modern Ireland, which no longer clings to the certitudes and shibboleths of the past? Do we have a right to anything more from our leaders than rhetoric about the virtues of modernity? Mr Taylor does not appear to think so.
"I was not under any obligation to tackle this issue," he wrote. Why? Because "there was no European requirement to review the law on guardianship and I could just as easily have let well enough alone, as Fianna Fail and the PDs did in the years following the Status of Children Act".
So now we know. Our Government and its Ministers feel obliged to bring in laws only when there is a "European requirement" to do so. There is, it appears, no burden on them to uphold the Constitution of Ireland or to to act in accordance with the interests of the people of Ireland.
Mr Taylor accuses me of being "ill-informed". Unfortunately, I am all too well-informed about this matter. I dearly wish I were wrong about his Bill. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to give him a clap on the back.
Many people hoped that a Labour Party initiative in this area might display some of the enlightenment which that party's rhetoric might have led us to expect. However, it appears that Mr Taylor is content to be judged by comparisons with Fianna Fail and the PDs.
Mr Taylor's response to my criticisms, while containing much defensive bluster, offered no reassurance. I read and re-read it in the vain hope that I had, in fact, misread his Bill. But it is clear that I was all too correct about both the Bill and the ideological agenda underlying it.
Mr Taylor asks if I would have preferred him to "leave well enough alone". Yes, I would. By doing nothing to improve things, while making a song and dance about tackling the issue, he has almost certainly postponed proper reform well into the future. Despite the Minister's 1,000-word article, the arguments I made against the Bill last week remain unanswered.
I do not have space here to repeat them, but there will, I hope, be an opportunity to air these and other matters this coming Thursday morning when the Gay Byrne Show has agreed to provide time for a debate between the Minister and me.
I will deal with just one point which, I believe, graphically illustrates the utter uselessness of this Bill in addressing the inequalities it purports to reverse. Mr Taylor makes much of the fact that it allows grandparents and other relatives to apply for access to children. In actual fact, the Bill proposes that such relatives will have the right to apply to a court for leave to apply to a court for access.
Firstly, how is an old-age pensioner to finance such complex and lengthy legal proceedings? Secondly, the Bill states that, in deciding whether to grant leave even to apply for access, the court will "have particular regard to . . . the wishes of the child's guardian". Since the cases in which legal proceedings will be necessary will be those where the child's mother has already refused access, it is not difficult to predict what will occur. In the absence of a comprehensive realignment of rights, we are back to square one: if the mother says it's OK, it's OK, if she doesn't, it isn't.

Wow John -same dog different hair.

Thanks mate -I'll tell the lads.

Can I tell girls too cos some girls are interested in fathers rights cos they have fathers, brothers , cousins and boyfriends and husbands.

See ya.:cool:

rolly1

Wow, Waters writing all of thirteen years ago; the more things change the more they regress..

Whats the story with labour's proposed Guardianship Bill 2010? Will it become law? Or will it be scrapped? Can Santa Claus really be a guardian too under the bill, along with the father and mother? What about Bambi, Bambi would love it too, to be a cute pop of the babies!

Of course if its scrapped guess who's next in line to draw up a new bill for this area?

Yup you have guessed it, the lovely Law Reform Commission which proposes a law to do away with the law.

And then we can really throw the meaningless dad's role round like confetti in the form of "Guardianship extra lite" aka "Parental Responsibility"..

"Welcome to the Mammy Republic." Nail.On.Head.

CDfm

If you have a lobby/pressure groups lobbying for those changes and they haven't gone away then the policies they are lobbying for are still on the table.

Have you written or complained to any politician about it or contacted pressure groups??

Klingon Hamlet

I contacted Mary Banotti.

I would've gotten a better response from a brick wall.

CDfm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I contacted Mary Banotti.

I would've gotten a better response from a brick wall.

She has retired now.

So you may need to try her sucessor.

Interestingly enough she owes her political career in some small way to a man as both her and fellow former public representative & Fine Gael member and sister, Nora Owens are nieces of Michael Collins.

rolly1

CDfm wrote: »

If you have a lobby/pressure groups lobbying for those changes and they haven't gone away then the policies they are lobbying for are still on the table.

Have you written or complained to any politician about it or contacted pressure groups??

I'm not sure yet as to where this paper fits in the grand scheme of things. Labour's Guardianship Bill has gone through the first stage in the dail. If this Bill went through it would make this paper redundant. However I had a look at the LRC paper after the Irish Times referred to it in their recent editorial on unmarried fathers.

I thought it strange that they should refer only to the LRC paper, rather than the actual labour bill giong through the dail..

NamelessPhil

rolly1 - I don't think you quite understand what this paper is about.

It was a consultation paper for anyone to comment on, the closing date for comments was 31st December 2009. A consultation paper sets out the issues that may lead to a change in legislation only if taken on board by the government. It does not change the legislation by itself, the Commission can only make recommendations. Any member of the public can make submissions to the Commission you don't have to be a member of a group.

Have you actually read the full paper, because the section you quote (1.54) does not propose to take away father's rights?

What it does propose is as follows:-

"Having examined the various approaches taken in other jurisdictions,
the Commission has provisionally concluded that a broad statutory definition of
parental responsibility should be adopted in Ireland."

If you had read the paper you would know that there is no definition of parental responsibility in any Irish legislation at present. In paragraph 1.49 the Commission specifically states that it is not happy with the idea that one parent makes all the decisions, see below.

"The Commission is of the opinion that there are other
matters, outside of removing the child from the jurisdiction that would come
within the terms of parental responsibility which ought not to be done without
consulting with any other party with parental responsibility. Examples of this
would be a decision to change the child‘s name or religion or to move the child
to another school. Failure to require some consultation with the other party in
the exercise of significant aspects of parental responsibility could create
unnecessary tension."

Pages 99-101 set out the Commission's recommendations for changes to the legislation. Among other suggestions these include:-

"5.11 The Commission provisionally recommends the introduction of a
statutory presumption that a non-marital father be granted an order for
guardianship/parental responsibility unless to do so would be contrary to the
best interests of the child or would jeopardise the welfare of the child.
[Paragraph 3.09]"

"5.13 The Commission invites submissions on whether it would be
appropriate to introduce automatic guardianship/parental responsibility for all
fathers in Ireland. [Paragraph 3.21]"

rolly1

NamelessPhil wrote: »

rolly1 - I don't think you quite understand what this paper is about.

Er, yes I do, what makes you think I don't?

I'm also fully aware of the token gesture of a circa 3 month consultation period that they had for the paper. 3 months for one of the most wide ranging set of recommendations ever put forward on family law in this country, which could potentially effect every single father and mother in Ireland along with their children. I wonder how many Joe and Mary soaps out there are even aware of it's existence?

NamelessPhil wrote: »

Have you actually read the full paper, because the section you quote (1.54) does not propose to take away father's rights?

I quoted section 1.53 not 1.54.

But anyawy, have you actually read section 1.54 at all?... because somehow you seem to have missed this line:

The Commission invites submissions on whether this should include a requirement to consult with other parties who have parental responsibility for the child where it is practical to do so.

As the law currently stands guardians have a legal obligation to consult and agree where possible on all major decisions affecting the welfare of a child, they have a duty to act jointly in the best interest of their child. Where they can't do this/can't agree then seeking the court's direction is the next option.

The above LRC specific recommendation puts it out there that in this shiny new world of "parental responsibility" we must now question whether parents should have a duty to act jointly in major decision making anymore.They give no reason for this recommendation, other than to emulate the disastorous (for fathers and children) english law model.

NamelessPhil wrote: »

If you had read the paper you would know that there is no definition of parental responsibility in any Irish legislation at present. In paragraph 1.49 the Commission specifically states that it is not happy with the idea that one parent makes all the decisions, see below.

I don't need to read any paper to tell me that there is no definition of parental responsibility, because the term "parental responsibility" doesn't exist in irish legislation at the moment!

Furthermore if you had bothered to read even the headings of the sections you quote you would clearly see that section 1.49 refers to the Scottish model and has nothing to do with the specific recommendations made by the LRC.

Hmmmm.. you know on second thoughts, your post strikes me as mischievous.

You are not wishing to deliberately cause confusion/throw doubt for some hidden agenda by any chance there NamelessPhil?

NamelessPhil

[/Hmmmm.. you know on second thoughts, your post strikes me as mischievous.

rolly1 - It's strange how much inference can be drawn from an anonymous post on the internet.:rolleyes:

Did you send in your thoughts on this paper to the Law Reform Commission? They haven't given a date for the final publication of their recommendations. You can contact them here. They state that they welcome submissions at any point in their deliberations.

Rather than ranting here on boards, why not send them your recommendations and maybe that will make a difference.

On the substance of the report, you are mistaken if you think that "parental responsibility" does not have any impact on Irish legislation. If you had read the report as carefully as you claim you will have seen paragraph 1.17 page 19 as follows:-

"For the purposes of this Consultation Paper it is important to note the
use of the term parental responsibility in Brussels II bis as this has the effect of
introducing the concept directly into Irish family law. Therefore at present
parental responsibility and guardianship are terms that exist within Irish law to
describe the legal rights and responsibilities associated with raising a child. The
Commission believes that where appropriate it is helpful to ensure consistency
in the terms used."

In this report the Commission does not appear to wish to reduce the decision making power of fathers, rather to change the terminology to reflect the impact of European and international legislation.

Paragraph 1.49 does indeed refer to the Scottish model, but the section I quoted sets out the Irish Law Reform Commission's desire to differentiate from the Scottish model.

I notice that you appear to take no issue with the recommendations at paragraphs 5.11 and 5.13 as quoted in my post above which are the crux of the matter in relation to guardianship.

The Corinthian

NamelessPhil wrote: »

Did you send in your thoughts on this paper to the Law Reform Commission? They haven't given a date for the final publication of their recommendations. You can contact them here. They state that they welcome submissions at any point in their deliberations.

Let's get real for a minute. All government sponsored or otherwise backed consultation papers will "welcome submissions", however how often are any of these external submissions ever actually incorporated in the finished document? Certainly they are acknowledged, and upon occasion an argument (however thin and with no possibility of appeal) is given as to why they were rejected, but on the whole these committees don't like outside interference (unless invited through unofficial channels).

If you believe that this is not the case, please give evidence to the contrary.

Rather than ranting here on boards, why not send them your recommendations and maybe that will make a difference.

I do believe that ranting on Boards, while creating some awareness on such issues, is a waste of time in the long run. However Joe Blogs simply sending in recommendations is equally a waste of time too.

Government policy does not change simply because a few people send in complaints or rant on Internet bulletin boards - it changes as a result of tactical and, frankly, ruthless lobbying and use of the media, so that an issue goes from being a marginal (read; no votes) to a mainstream (read; votes) issue.

In this report the Commission does not appear to wish to reduce the decision making power of fathers, rather to change the terminology to reflect the impact of European and international legislation.

That is clearly untrue. Presently both guardians have a legal right to determine various important aspects of a child's life, such as education and religion. As per the recommendation in section 1.49, almost all these rights would be lost and reduced to only the right to stop a child being removed from the jurisdiction, while all other rights would be held by the custodial parent (almost always the mother) - so the report very clearly appears to wish to reduce the decision making power of fathers.

I notice that you appear to take no issue with the recommendations at paragraphs 5.11 and 5.13 as quoted in my post above which are the crux of the matter in relation to guardianship.

So what? That unmarried fathers will automatically gain a status that no longer means anything? That parental rights will now officially shift from guardianship to custody - and thus 9/10 times belong entirely to the mother? That this new form of guardianship can still be removed from a father, but never from a mother, regardless of who has custody or even the best interests of the child? How the Hell did the fact that a mother cannot lose guardianship rights, no matter how much in the child's interests this would be, not get addressed in this report?

As such the recommendations at paragraphs 5.11 and 5.13 are basic rights - like universal suffrage for parents - and so of course he is not going to take issue with them. The problem is (continuing the analogy) that this document recommends universal suffrage, with one hand, and then does not allow fathers to register to vote, with the other.

rolly1

Thanks The Corinthian. You saved my breath on the matter and point out once again where NamelessPhil is being disingenuous in claiming

the Commission does not appear to wish to reduce the decision making power of fathers

when it is clear that's exactly what they are recommending by making guardianship/parental responsibility near worthless in law.

I raise the matter here on a discussion forum to

1. see if anybody else out there is actually following this stuff, in the hope of clarifying my understanding on topics.

2. test whether personal observations are factually correct; this helps to hone the argument in submissions.

3. To raise awareness on the matter.

Yeah it might be all pointless in terms of impact, but somebody has got to start somewhere and it's just not me to stand idly by and watch the wave of ****e wash over.

Family Law is at the heart of massive hidden problems in this country and is very much linked to high rates of suicide amongst men.

The potential creation of yet more bad law is something that should not be ignored.