White to look at issue of single fathers' rights

Klingon Hamlet

Irish Times article here:

Minister for Equality Mary White has indicated the plight of unmarried and separated fathers who have difficulty getting access to their children is to be addressed in the near future.


Speaking yesterday, she hinted the legal framework addressing this area is outdated and needs to be modernised.



“I believe the time is right to take another look at the issue of single fathers’ rights. We should consider key issues such as:

1. Whether it would be appropriate to introduce compulsory joint registration of the birth of a child in Ireland.
2. Whether a non-marital father could provide his details independently to the registrar to be registered once it is confirmed that he is the father.
3. And whether we should look at the appropriateness of introducing automatic guardianship/parental responsibility for all fathers in Ireland.”

Ms White’s comments come as the Law Reform Commission prepares to publish a report, Legal Aspects of Family Relationships, within weeks.

(emphasis and numbering are mine)

This is amazing news. Minister White is taking on three of the most important aspects of unmarried parenting in one fell swoop. I'm chuffed!!:)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kev9100

Its better late than never.

Red_Marauder

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While certainly the state has an interest in combatting welfare fraud, and introducing legislation to prevent it is always welcome, I'm not certain that it comes into that aspect of the legislation you refer to.

Whilst there might be nothing to stop a woman declaring 'Nescio', at least it is better than the current situation where all she has to say is that she does not want the father's name being entered on the certificate and it does not appear. Basically it saves the father a trip to the District Court.

Klingon Hamlet

Whether a non-marital father could provide his details independently to the registrar to be registered once it is confirmed that he is the father.

I wonder what kind of confirmation...verbal, from the father? Verbal, from the mother? Or a court enquiry/application?

Either way, this is all leading down a very bright path. Thank god for White. Kudos to her.

Red_Marauder

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I wonder what kind of confirmation...verbal, from the father? Verbal, from the mother? Or a court enquiry/application?

Either way, this is all leading down a very bright path. Thank god for White. Kudos to her.

I guess a blood test, if the parents disagree.

Not to take away from Mary White, who is really one of the brighter deputies, but it really beggars belief why it took so long for a politician to come up with.

Klingon Hamlet

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I guess a blood test, if the parents disagree.

Not to take away from Mary White, who is really one of the brighter deputies, but it really beggars belief why it took so long for a politician to come up with.

It's a huge issue. best we don't look back on all the pain. Now we have a good chance at changing things for the better for everyone I can't describe how good it feels to know things are looking up for unmarried parents. The courts should always be the last resort really, shouldn't they:) Hope there's more on this soon. Chuffed!!:D

Klingon Hamlet

Ray Kelly of the Unmarried and seperated Families of Ireland has just been interviewed by an RTE News crew, regarding the current state of family law and the future changes we hope to see in the best intersts of our kids.

It'll be shown tonight on RTE's SIX ONE NEWS.

changes

Its good they are beginning to take this seriously. I hope they are not just doing this primarily to catch benefit cheats and not because its in the interests of father child relationships.

opo

It's amazing to think that an idealistic twat like Ivana Bacik could still take a million years to realise what a real issue related to equality, actually looks like.

RATM

This is certainly overdue legislation. In fact if it carries on the way it is any longer we'll have Batman climbing Leinster House and Robin scaling the Aras

Hats off the Mary White, its a topical social issue in dire need of attention.

I still can't see how it will combat welfare fraud though. All the mother has to do is say she was hammered and can't remember who slept with her- its such a bullsh1t excuse and the social welfare really need to shut it off. Women always know who the father is, unless they've been date raped or something.

But the new law could state that those who choose this route get a lesser payment for their own benefits (not the childrens allowance). It could be put on personal responsibility grounds, if the mother is not responsible enough to know who the father is then she'll have to accept a lesser payment on her welfare benefits, say for example 50 quid a week.

By penalising them financially for not disclosing the father you'd soon find one of two things happens:-

1) Mother & Father still friendly or in a relationship - in this case mother taps the father for the 50 quid shortfall, he pays up as he knows if he doesn't the mother can reveal him as the father to the Social Welfare who can then pursue him for maintenance

2) Mother & Father estranged. Mother reveals who the father is as she knows unless she does so the SW will dock 50 quid a week off her benefits.

If blood tests and court subpoenas are whats needed to shut down this type of welfare fraud then so be it IMO.

PeterIanStaker

I'd say there's an ulterior motive here somewhere, trying to cast the tax net a bit wider no doubt.

Klingon Hamlet

A loooooot of cynicism here boardsies. Did you consider the possibility that due to there having been several public cases regarding custody/guardianship/access...e.g. the gentleman currently fighting to get his kids back from England...that the goverment are looking at making things a bit simpler for parents and for the courts?

Did you see Ms White's interview?

Goto this page and fast-forward to 14:30

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I wonder what kind of confirmation...verbal, from the father? Verbal, from the mother? Or a court enquiry/application?

Either way, this is all leading down a very bright path. Thank god for White. Kudos to her.

Probably be the same as the US. Mother and Father have to sign an affadavit of paternity for his name to be on the cert. If one refuses, it will go to court and there a blood test will be ordered. And then the court will send an order to ammend the birth cert.

metrovelvet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its also a well known fact that fathers withhold their names from the birthcert so as to avoid paying maintenance for their unwanted children.

Mrmoe

This is definitely good news and it has been wanted for quite a while now. However the devil is in the details. Practically there will be some issues that will be a little tricky such as confirming someone is the father.

PeterIanStaker

Mrmoe wrote: »

This is definitely good news and it has been wanted for quite a while now. However the devil is in the details. Practically there will be some issues that will be a little tricky such as confirming someone is the father.

DNA Test?

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Probably be the same as the US. Mother and Father have to sign an affadavit of paternity for his name to be on the cert. If one refuses, it will go to court and there a blood test will be ordered. And then the court will send an order to ammend the birth cert.

That's how it is at the moment. Surely Minister White implied a new simpler method without requiring legal proceedings?

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

That's how it is at the moment. Surely Minister White implied a new simpler method without requiring legal proceedings?

I assume it will like how it is in the US. Once the name is on birthcert [paternity is established] that he has rights and responsibilities.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its also a well known fact that fathers withhold their names from the birthcert so as to avoid paying maintenance for their unwanted children.

Leaving your name off the birthcert does not save you from paying maintenance (and quite rightly too, as anyone who does so is IMHO a complete weasel).

A mother is entitled to give the father's name to the registrar without his presence or consent. (It can later be contested in court but that's a different matter, and goes down the simple route of DNA testing.) She can then immediately seek maintenance (one would hope it doesn't come to this, but thankfully the courts are there to help.)

However at the moment a father can only give their own name with the mother's consent and presence, or with a court order. White seems to be saying a father should be able to give his name without either's consent---and one would assume the court would only be brought in if the mother contested the man's actual fathering of the child, and wanted him removed.

Overall it seems rights will be considered to become automatic, and the courts will be there to alter/remove those rights only when contested and when absolutely necessary. Whereas at the moment if there is disagreement between both parties regarding registering/guardianship/custody/access, the father is left to fight whereas the mother automatically has vested rights.

I suppose it comes back to the ingrained power-play that often starts early and drags on. Offering equal rights to parents might help dissuade ex-couples from going to court at all. It would also take a lot of strain from the courts, as I can personally attest to there being huge volumes of people in and out of court on a daily basis, and the numbers just seem to be growing at an alarming and rather heartbreaking rate.

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Leaving your name off the birthcert does not save you from paying maintenance (and quite rightly too, as anyone who does so is IMHO a complete weasel).

A mother is entitled to give the father's name to the registrar without his presence or consent. (It can later be contested in court but that's a different matter, and goes down the simple route of DNA testing.)

However at the moment a father can only give their own name with the mother's consent and presence, or with a court order. White seems to be saying a father should be able to give his name without either's consent---and one would assume the court would only be brought in if the mother contested the man's actual fathering of the child, and wanted him removed.

Overall it seems rights will be considered to become automatic, and the courts will be there to alter/remove those rights only when contested and when absolutely necessary. Whereas at the moment if there is disagreement between both parties regarding registering/guardianship/custody/access, the father is left to fight whereas the mother automatically has vested rights.

I suppose it comes back to the ingained power-play that often starts early and drags on. Offering equal rights to parents might help dissuade ex-couples from going to court at all. It would also take a lot of strain from the courts, as I can personally attest to there being huge volumes of people in and out of court on a daily basis, and the numbers just seem to be growing at an alarming and rather heartbreaking rate.

Leaving your name off does not mean you dont have to pay maintenance. You are right about that, but my point is a lot of men think that and refuse to name themselves.

I think you are wrong about women being able to hand over a name to the registrar without the consent of the named father.

I think this will clear up some of the clogged up courts but will create another scenario where the automatic rights will bring more court cases about. That may not be a bad thing though. It may just be the inevitable bi product of the legislation.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Leaving your name off does not mean you dont have to pay maintenance. You are right about that, but my point is a lot of men think that and refuse to name themselves.

I think you are wrong about women being able to hand over a name to the registrar without the consent of the named father.

I think this will clear up some of the clogged up courts but will create another scenario where the automatic rights will bring more court cases about. That may not be a bad thing though. It may just be the inevitable bi product of the legislation.

According to this the mother needs the father's signature on a form to put his name down, so unless she plans to forge his sinature, you're absolutely right---she can't put his name down. However, he cannot, indepndently, of his own accord, give his name where the mother disagrees.

I also dislike Treoir's comments:

3 important things to remember:
1. Having the father's name on the birth certificate does not give the father any rights in respect of his child.
2. Having the father's name on the birth certificate does not prevent the mother from getting One-Parent Family Payment.
3. A child has a right to be financially maintained by both parents and to inherit from them once paternity of the child has been established. This applies whether or not the father's name is on the birth certificate.

Is it me, or does it encourgage a very negative mindset towards the father?

As in,:

1. The dad doesn't get any rights
2. You still get money as if you're parenting alone
3. The dad pays you maintenance with or without his name on the cert.

Gives a very bad perspective on co-parenting IMHO.

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

According to this the mother needs the father's signature on a form to put his name down, so unless she plans to forge his sinature, you're absolutely right---she can't put his name down. However, he cannot, indepndently, of his own accord, give his name where the mother disagrees.

Right. Otherwise anyone could go in and claim to be the father's child. The postman could go and name himself as my child's father, if the situation were that a man can go in on his own accord.

Maternity doest have to be established. Thats why my name is on the birthcert. I dont have a choice about it.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I also dislike Treoir's comments:



Is it me, or does it encourgage a very negative mindset towards the father?

As in,:

1. The dad doesn't get any rights
2. You still get money as if you're parenting alone
3. The dad pays you maintenance with or without his name on the cert.

Gives a very bad perspective on co-parenting IMHO.

I think they are being very factual about the law as it stands.

In the US, no name on the birthcert, no maintenance, no rights. Nada.

Klingon Hamlet

More detailed article:

Equality Minister Mary White last night promised to help "decent dads" who are being denied access to their children by their former partners.

She said that after passing the civil partnership legislation for gay and lesbian couples, there was now an opportunity to tackle the issue of single fathers' rights.

"It's heart-breaking to meet these dads. They are well aware where their own personal relationship cannot be resuscitated but they want to be decent dads to their children," she said.

Currently, the mother is the sole guardian if a child is born outside marriage and fathers must apply to the courts for guardianship rights.

Ms White, who is the Green Party deputy leader, said one of the issues currently being considered by Law Reform Commission was whether single fathers should get automatic guardianship rights.

Custody

"We have to have to have a clear path for access -- guardianship or custody or even familial visits of separated and single dads so those visits can be facilitated and not frustrated by a partnership that has been dissolved or that has irretrievably broken down," she said.

Since being appointed as the Junior Minister for Equality and Integration last May, Ms White said she had been contacted by a number of "grieving fathers" and had visited fathers' groups such as Families, Fathers & Friends in Galway city.

"There is a well of unhappiness out there. Their stories of the family law courts in Ireland, their quest for access to their children and their despair in many cases have prompted me to consider how we deal with this painful issue," she said.

And when debating the issue on local radio in her Carlow-Kilkenny constituency, Ms White was also contacted by many grandparents who complained that they were no longer getting access to their sons' children in the wake of relationship breakdowns.

'Love'

"It is a real knock-on effect and it strikes at the heart of grandparents' care and love for their children," she said.

The Law Reform Commission's report on "Legal Aspects of Family Relationships" is scheduled to be published in the autumn. Ms White said she was determined it would not become just another worthwhile report gathering dust on a shelf.

"There needs to be a level playing pitch in the family courts in Ireland. We can no longer be blind to the rights of single and separated fathers and their children," she said.

Although there was some opposition in Fianna Fail to the introduction of civil partnerships for gay and lesbian couples, Ms White said she did not anticipate similar problems with new legislation on access rights for single fathers.

"I think this cuts across party political divides. Each and every one of us primarily before being politicians, we're family people and I don't think it'll meet with huge resistance from the political side," she said.

- Michael Brennan Deputy Political Editor

Cannot say enough good things about Minister White after reading this. I know there've been some comments re: the "real" reson behind this sudden focus on establishing equal rights, e.g. welfare fraud etc... I think those theories are unsound when you read what Minister White has to say. She seems to me to be quite eager to bring in equality to family law and family life no matter the arrangement and status. I'd imagine her meeting victims of access denial really broguht into sharp focus the plight of so many family members nationwide.

Over the years there have been a number of instances where it seemed the rules/laws/etc would change for the better for everyone. I think now is the time that it will finally happen.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right. Otherwise anyone could go in and claim to be the father's child. The postman could go and name himself as my child's father, if the situation were that a man can go in on his own accord.

Why would anyone do that?

Besides here's 2 examples of how it could work.

1. Impostor signs up as dad. Mum contests in court. DNA reveals lie. Dad ordered to pay fees. Real dad is entered in records.

2. Real dad signs up as dad. Mum (who disagrees with dad) knows a contest in court would lead to DNA test. Can choose to contest if she believes someone else is the father.

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Why would anyone do that?

Besides here's 2 examples of how it could work.

1. Impostor signs up as dad. Mum contests in court. DNA reveals lie. Dad ordered to pay fees. Real dad is entered in records.

2. Real dad signs up as dad. Mum (who disagrees with dad) knows a contest in court would lead to DNA test. Can choose to contest if she believes someone else is the father.

Who knows.

So I get my child's birthcert in the post with the name of a man on it in the father's identity section. A name Ive never seen before. I dont know who he is or where he lives and I now have to go to court. Yeah. Great idea.

Meanwhile, until the dispute is settled which in the case of Irish courts could take god knows how long, I have to get this man's signature for health and travel documents or apply for a court order not to need them because I dont know where he lives or who he is.

Ridiculous policy.

Oh. BTW two different friends of mine offerred to put their names down on my son's birthcert. If we lived by what you envisaged, either one of them could have walked into the office and done so.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right. Otherwise anyone could go in and claim to be the father's child. The postman could go and name himself as my child's father, if the situation were that a man can go in on his own accord.

Maternity doest have to be established. Thats why my name is on the birthcert. I dont have a choice about it.



I think they are being very factual about the law as it stands.

In the US, no name on the birthcert, no maintenance, no rights. Nada.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Who knows.

So I get my child's birthcert in the post with the name of a man on it in the father's identity section. A name Ive never seen before. I dont know who he is or where he lives and I now have to go to court. Yeah. Great idea.

Meanwhile, until the dispute is settled which in the case of Irish courts could take god knows how long, I have to get this man's signature for health and travel documents or apply for a court order not to need them because I dont know where he lives or who he is.

Ridiculous policy.

Oh. BTW two different friends of mine offerred to put their names down on my son's birthcert. If we lived by what you envisaged, either one of them could have walked into the office and done so.

I just can't fathom how a "name you've never seen before" could go in, identify your child's name and date of birth and hospital of birth, and your name and date of birth and address. because those would be the reasonable questions asked before anyone gets registered, clearly.

And I can't fathom why said psychic psychopath would put their name down as father to a child they don't know.

As for your friends who "offerred to put their names down on (your) son's birthcert"---I don't understand this. Why did they offer? Did you refuse? And why would your friends go in and register without your consent?!

Your arguments are surreal. You are far too negative about father's rights. You see the worst in all of this. So I won't argue anymore.

Dads currently have less rights than mums. The legal system is a very difficult and emotionally distressing system of reuniting children with their family. White wants to streamline the whole thing and grant everyone equal rights. I say fair play. So do most reasonable people, metro.

Maybe someone absolutely bonkers will register as a kid's dad. I really bloody doubt it, metro. Good luck!:D

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I just can't fathom how a "name you've never seen before" could go in, identify your child's name and date of birth and hospital of birth, and your name and date of birth and address. because those would be the reasonable questions asked before anyone gets registered, clearly.

And I can't fathom why said psychic psychopath would put their name down as father to a child they don't know.

As for your friends who "offerred to put their names down on (your) son's birthcert"---I don't understand this. Why did they offer? Did you refuse? And why would your friends go in and register without your consent?!

Your arguments are surreal. You are far too negative about father's rights. You see the worst in all of this. So I won't argue anymore.

Dads currently have less rights than mums. The legal system is a very difficult and emotionally distressing system of reuniting children with their family. White wants to streamline the whole thing and grant everyone equal rights. I say fair play. So do most reasonable people, metro.

Maybe someone absolutely bonkers will register as a kid's dad. I really bloody doubt it, metro. Good luck!:D

You could have several possible fathers showing up at the office, who had been dating the woman.

Believe it or not, there are people who are bonkers out there, who spy, who stalk, who are lovestruck, whatever. Humanity does have a dark side you know.

As for my friends going down to the office. If they went with my verbal consent, there would be absolutely no legal repurcussions for me in that situation whatsoever. Whereas now, if I signed the affadavit of paternity and the biological father protested through the courts and I was found guilty of paternity fraud, there very much would be legal repercussions for me [the mother.]

Sure, fathers rights once the paternity is established. But the procedure you suggest is ridiculous.

The Corinthian

1. Whether it would be appropriate to introduce compulsory joint registration of the birth of a child in Ireland.
2. Whether a non-marital father could provide his details independently to the registrar to be registered once it is confirmed that he is the father.
3. And whether we should look at the appropriateness of introducing automatic guardianship/parental responsibility for all fathers in Ireland.

I really don't see what this has to do with father's rights.

Of the first two proposals, being registered as the father does not actually confer any rights whatsoever, only responsibilities.

And the third is not even a proposal to change anything; it is a proposal to consider looking at something with a view to perhaps changing it - and in what way this might be is not really mentioned. Indeed, there has been discussion in the past that guardianship would be redefined, making it both automatic and removing any rights associated with it and putting those squarely in the hands of the person with custody.

Sorry, but the whole thing is a means to limit SW fraud with some vague conversation tagged on.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rolly1

The Corinthian wrote: »

And the third is not even a proposal to change anything; it is a proposal to consider looking at something with a view to perhaps changing it - and in what way this might be is not really mentioned. Indeed, there has been discussion in the past that guardianship would be redefined, making it both automatic and removing any rights associated with it and putting those squarely in the hands of the person with custody.

Sorry, but the whole thing is a means to limit SW fraud with some vague conversation tagged on.

Nail on head. Did any of you guys getting so wild and ecstatic about Minister White actually read the Law Reform Commision's report to which she refers to?

It's here (warning PDF) Take a look at the following section 1.54:

The Commission provisionally recommends that a broad statutory
definition of parental responsibility should be adopted in Ireland. 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.

What they are saying is that they want to change the term guardianship to "Parental responsibility" while at the same time castrating the legal power of this new term.
The way they are proposing to castrate the legal power is by asking whether the the person with day to day care of the child (predominantly the mother) should decide unilaterally decide on all major welfare aspects to do with the child e.g choice of school, religion health; by not having to consult with the person without day to day care and control of the child(predominantly the father).

Remember this is the report of which Minister White says

she was determined it would not become just another worthwhile report gathering dust on a shelf.

Despite her emotional platitudes, what she is actually doing is softening you guys up for an even greater legal castration than the present set up!!

Klingon Hamlet

Write to Minister White highlighting this. We live in a democracy, and they are people like you and I, they will listen. Do you think I spend the majority of my time waiting to see what'll happen? I keep in touch with those that are interested. I wouldn't ever claim that my communications have even contributed to the changes being considered...but I do feel that I have helped them understand what my personal situation is.

The more of you that do so, the more they will see how big this problem is, and fix it.

rolly1

Ok. I'll write to her and post the reply, if any, here. I will also inform her that I intend to post the reply here if that's allowed as part of boards.ie policy?

As far as I can see this government are using emotional plea bargaining of unmarried fathers to bring in legislation to undermine all fathers, both married and unmarried, by fundamentally altering the legal concept of guardianship in this country. Just like the way they have used the gays as the supposed main reason for the Civil Partnership Bill, while sneakily bringing in a whole raft of undemocratic redress provisions for heterosexual couples.

All I'm saying don't be naive about the people who have brought this country to ruination; always look at what they do rather than what they say.

caseyann

Good news for those women who cant get the father to step up to the mark also.Also for the fathers who cant get a look in with their kids.
I know someone who wanted to be there for their child she refused and used the child as a pawn.Sickens me when people do that.Sickens me the amount of men who also wont step up to the mark.
There will be alot of guys making sure they cover it in future.

sceptre

rolly1 wrote: »

I will also inform her that I intend to post the reply here if that's allowed as part of boards.ie policy?

Yes, please let her know that you're going to do that, then there's no problem with you doing it.

Ostrom

This has huge implications for adopted people and birth parents also. Many fathers have attempted to amend their details to the child's original certificate without success - nor any right to have details filed for discovery by tracing adoptees. I would hope the review body takes this into consideration.

rolly1

Sent today

Dear Minister White,


It was with great interest that I read your recent public statements regarding single fathers and access, custody and guardianship issues in the Irish Independent, see link here. I particularly welcome your statement where you say that "We have to have to have a clear path for access -- guardianship or custody or even familial visits of separated and single dads so those visits can be facilitated and not frustrated by a partnership that has been dissolved or that has irretrievably broken down,".
I came across the above article after following a discussion thread on the well known internet discussion website “boards.ie”, see link here. I have contributed to this internet discussion and will be posting this letter to you on the aforementioned site; I am hoping that you will not mind any response from you being posted on the site also.
On further reading into the above newspaper article I note that you are determined that the Law Reform Commission’s (LRC)report "Legal Aspects of Family Relationships" would not “become just another worthwhile report gathering dust on a shelf.”
However I draw your attention to section 1.54 of the above named report which recommends the following: “The Commission provisionally recommends that a broad statutory definition of parental responsibility should be adopted in Ireland. 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 all legal guardians have a duty and responsibility to act jointly in matters concerning the welfare of their child. Let me quote from the statutory declaration on Guardianship as presented by the well known Barrister Kieron Wood on his website linked here:
Guardianship is the collection of rights and duties of a parent towards a child. It includes the duty to maintain and properly care for the child, as well as the right to make decisions about a child's religious and secular education, health requirements and other matters affecting the child’s welfare. The exercise of guardianship rights may be agreed between parents. If they disagree about the exercise of these rights, either parental guardian may ask the court to decide the matter.
The right to custody is one of the rights that arises under the guardianship relationship. Custody is the physical day-to-day care and control of a child. Even where one parental guardian has custody of a child, the other parental guardian is generally entitled to be consulted about matters affecting the child’s welfare.
Under section 1.54 the Law Reform report is essentially asking will we do away with the need for consultation between Guardians about matters affecting the child’s welfare?
Doing away with consultation between guardians is completely contrary to the current law and is harmful to both the rights of the child and the rights of the father (as in the vast majority of cases it will be the father most affected as the person without day to day care of the child). Every child should have the right to have both parents decide on what’s best for them, as part of every parent’s natural duty and responsibility. This has been established in Irish case law down through the decades and is utter common sense, no individual parent knows best what’s right for the child in every decision affecting major aspects of the child’s welfare e.g. what school the child goes to. The best outcome for every child in this country is that their parents decide jointly on major welfare decisions affecting that child, where practicable to do so. Where agreement can’t be reached then each guardian should then be able to ask the court to assist them in formulating what’s best for the child.
Under “Parental Responsibility” the LRC is in effect asking whether we should completely undermine the legal power of guardianship by questioning whether to keep the legal requirement of guardians to consult. I can assure you Minister that adoption of non-consultation amongst guardians will be the quickest way to lay an extra large legal landmine on this clear path for fathers that you speak of.
It is also interesting to see that in the same LRC report that the New Zealand approach, which specifically requires that each guardian must act jointly with the other guardian by consulting with him/her with the aim of reaching agreement, is glossed over to a large extent. No reasoning is put forth in the LRC report as to why the New Zealand “detailed approach” in this area is rejected in favour of the “broad approach” as adopted by England. One can only surmise that it is to facilitate the removal of the aforementioned consultation requirement.
I believe the New Zealand Care of Children Act 2004, linked here, is an outstandingly fair and relevant piece of legislation which would greatly enhance the rights of both children and fathers throughout Ireland, if large elements of this model were adopted. In particular I draw your attention to sections 15-30 of this Act concerning guardianship, which are a proven blueprint for a fair and just society for all parents and their children.
If you are genuine in your concern for both fathers and their children then I believe at minimum public assurance is now required from you to uphold into the future the existing requirement of consultation between legal guardians. In addition your views on the aforementioned sections of the New Zealand Care of Children Act 2004 would also be particularly welcomed at this juncture.

Yours sincerely,

The Corinthian

caseyann wrote: »

Good news for those women who cant get the father to step up to the mark also.Also for the fathers who cant get a look in with their kids.

If you look at the last few posts in this thread, you'll actually find that what is being proposed addresses neither of those two. If anything, it does the opposite.

Sam Butt

Having watched all the communication on these pages it brings home to me that men have learned little and still have personalised issues and also personal issues to be dealt with.
Minister White is the first minister to come out openly and state the case of fathers, unmarried/ married separated et al. Also she categorically states that she intends to bring equality in all forms of life, especially in family law and she also states she intends doing it in a hurry.
The media at times still invites a clown or two as a victimised father or a journalist to state the case of fathers especially journalists with poor parenting records to state the case of fathers, especially decent fathers. These people have little knowledge of the complex workings of a mediocre and corrupt system while they have even less knowledge of the reality of what fathers have to face and put up with on a daily basis.
Minister White has made bold statements and she is grabbing a dinosaur of huge proportions and intends dealing with it one step at a time.
Lets see what she has to deal with:
flawed and vague legislation
antiquated judiciary not answerable to anyone. They have constitutional protection, hence accountable to no one. Remember Judge Curtin.
judicial discretion, legal interpretation and jurisprudence
Bar council. extremely arrogant and answerable and accountable to no one
Law society. self regulatory. Their members arrogant, mostly incompetent, condescending and extremely expensive
All of the above self serving and extremely well protected by lobbies and legislators. They all blame evryone else for the failings of this system.
An garda Siochana who do not want to know the afflictions of domestic violence or child abduction when its the father who is a victim. Their response changes when the alleged victim happens to be a woman.
Domestic violence unit is beginning to acknowledge they have been repeatedly used by vindictive women. The district court judges are beginning to acknowledge the same.
Childcare services only now beginning to wake up to the plight of fathers.
HSE riddled with anti father practices.
Media giving selective coverage to the real life traumas fathers are facing and enduring.
Guardianship is a general application with little weight in law. All rights apply to and enforced by the custodial parent
This is just the tip of the iceberg and I can write books about it with ample proof!!!!
On top of that we have politicians with strong affiliations to the legal industry who not only create obstacles but are extremely resistant to change for the common good.
What do they have in common. A very lucrative industry!!!
As Former Justice minister Michael McDowell once said that there has to be an element of inequality for the society to function. I think he meant economy, favourable to few while maintaining staus quo.
Minister for Equality Mary White has to face all of this and much more and I wish her the best in her endeavours.
Law reform Commission in its third programme of law reform has compiled a very comprehensive study recommending changes in detail. Dr Carol Coulter has published an excellent book recommending changes to be brought to our family law system/industry. I suggest every man reads all of the above two. Selective with one or two words or a quote or two does not make one an intellectual nor does a barber's pole tell a client that he is a competent surgeon!!!
I suggest every decent father, no every decent Irish citizen gets behind Miinister White and explain his/her cause while offering her much needed support. She has met with a lot of unmarried and separated fathers around the country and extremely hurt by what she heard. First minister to do so.
Why do I say this. Because I have met this astonishing lady and am proud of the said fact. Of all the ministers I have met, she is more that their collective in principle and I shall suport her in every which way possible.
Yes I am a separated father who could and still can prove that I love and adore my kids and have done everything a mother does or for that matter a father, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for close to eighteen years.
And yes I have found this system the most incorrigible, dysfunctional and morally bankrupt. Yet I am trying to change the system, for the common good. For all our sons and daughters who are the mothers and fathers of the future so they do not have to face this abomination of a family law system.
Lets all drink to the health of a decent future for us all and wish Minister white the best of luck in her endeavours. I do.I suggest every decent father does the same.

The Corinthian

Sam Butt wrote: »

Minister White has made bold statements and she is grabbing a dinosaur of huge proportions and intends dealing with it one step at a time.

She's not really, though. The only things she's committed to are largely designed to decrease social welfare fraud and apart from that she's only committed to potentially implement recommendations of a future report that has already been highlighted to contain steps backward, rather than forward, in father's rights.

This is not to say that she does not mean well and genuinely intends to reform the present system, but outside of a few encouraging sound-bytes, she's been pretty non-committal, preferring to defer to this forthcoming report. In absence of any actual commitment to reform, I can only judge on the basis of past government policy, which most recently (in the cohabitation bill) was strongly anti-male in practical terms where it came to heterosexual couples.

So I'm not holding my breath.

robresearch

Hi Everyone,

I have been following your debate with much interest. I am doing my PhD in UCC at the moment on gathering the stories of fathers in Ireland who do not fit the 'traditional' mold and the issues that they face. My particular foucs is on unmarried fathers and obviously enough the main issues are all those identified above.

I am currently doing interviews with men who fit the bill who would like to express their views on the issues affecting them. As there seem to be some strong and valid opinions expressed here I was wondering if anyone would like to have a chat with me about thier experiences and give their 2 cents on the issue? My background is in social policy so the goal of the research would be to identify the issues fathers face, from their own mouths, and use this to make policy recommendations.

If there would be any interest my e-mail address is razza.rob@gmail.com. Feel free to e-mail me anytime.

rolly1

Sam Butt wrote: »

Law reform Commission in its third programme of law reform has compiled a very comprehensive study recommending changes in detail. Dr Carol Coulter has published an excellent book recommending changes to be brought to our family law system/industry. I suggest every man reads all of the above two. Selective with one or two words or a quote or two does not make one an intellectual nor does a barber's pole tell a client that he is a competent surgeon!!!
.....Lets all drink to the health of a decent future for us all and wish Minister white the best of luck in her endeavours. I do.I suggest every decent father does the same.

Hi Sam,

Despite your post you have still not addressed my observations on the recommendation laid out in section 1.54 of the LRC consultative report. You see my interpretation of the question arising in 1.54 is that it is asking whether or not fathers rights, which of course are co-joined and inseparable from their children's rights, should be further slashed to pieces.

But I think a comment from yourself on this section would be really welcome. If you can refute my interpretation of it and demonstrate how its a positive question for fathers then I'd be be more than interested; as the Minister hasn't responded yet.


The Minister has consistently made one reference and one reference only i.e. The Law Reform Commision's consultative report "Legal Aspects of Family Relationships". This report was first published in September 2009 (consultation period for submissions was up to 31st of December, 2009:rolleyes:).

Minister White has not referred to Carol Coulter's book in any of her recent public statements, so I will only deal with the Minister's stated 'road map'.

As you have read the report then you are also aware that within the first few pages the people thanked for their “valuable assistance” are Treoir, ombudsman for children’s office and a whole bunch of solicitor’s and barristers.
No mens or fathers groups were thanked for their “valuable assistance” in a consultative report based on "an examination of the rights and duties of fathers in relation to guardianship, custody and access to their children;"
Further to this, no man or men's group sits either on the executive or the council of Treoir.

You see when an unelected and completely unrepresentative (for fathers) group sits around to sort out the problems for fathers and our Minister starts quoting their work left and right, that kinda of gets my antenna twitching...along with the fact that the Guardianship of Children Bill 2010 is winging its way through the dail and the Minister hasn't referred to it once.

When you have got some concrete good news I'll have that drink, Ill take sober reality in the meantime, thanks.

limklad

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You hit the nail on the head here for the real motivation the Government is doing this.
It is definitely not for the concern of rights for the unmarried Father. :rolleyes:

veritable

Slightly off topic but I just can't believe the Irish times or a minister for equality would even acknowledge let own pledge to tackle the plight of dads in a Western country - normally men are simply dismissed or further denigrated (look at NOW in the US and Harriet Harmsmen in the UK). Maybe it's just lip service but I hope not.

The Corinthian

veritable wrote: »

Slightly off topic but I just can't believe the Irish times or a minister for equality would even acknowledge let own pledge to tackle the plight of dads in a Western country - normally men are simply dismissed or further denigrated (look at NOW in the US and Harriet Harmsmen in the UK). Maybe it's just lip service but I hope not.

It's becoming a political topic largely because of the punitive and unbalanced nature of family law in Ireland compared to many other Western countries.

Given this, while full of 'good will', the ministers sound bites don't actually commit to anything, at least without the hint of numerous caveats. Like rolly, I wouldn't hold my breath.

veritable

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's becoming a political topic largely because of the punitive and unbalanced nature of family law in Ireland compared to many other Western countries.

Given this, while full of 'good will', the ministers sound bites don't actually commit to anything, at least without the hint of numerous caveats. Like rolly, I wouldn't hold my breath.

I respectfully disagree with the first part of your reply. The family law courts in the US, Uk and Australia, to name but a few, are far worse than Ireland.
This is an industry driven by lawyers and most mothers where discrimination of fathers is standard practice. Laws made for women allow them to have men separated from their children on a whim.
Men are told they can only see their children if they pay extorntionate child support sums (not based on the ability of the dad to pay). Enforcement of visitation is non-existent.

Please check out some sites like www.glennsacks.com among others.

The Corinthian

Fair enough.

rolly1

1 week and no reply from our Minister for Equality and no reply from Sam Butt either...:rolleyes: a response to section 1.54 is not that tricky, surely?

metrovelvet

rolly1 wrote: »

1 week and no reply from our Minister for Equality and no reply from Sam Butt either...:rolleyes: a response to section 1.54 is not that tricky, surely?

Don't get your hopes up. I just got a response from a government department that I wrote in 2005. And it wasn't really a response but an acknowledgement that my letter had been received.

rolly1

Mary White is either complicit in undermining fathers rights through section 1.54(along with non-support of the 2010 Guardianship of Children Bill) or else she is incompetent, in that she doesn't understand/hasn't read the report she is promoting.

Either way it doesn't look good for her so I don't expect a reply.

My point mainly is to highlight the contrast between what she is saying and the written report she is promoting.

Klingon Hamlet

I stumbled across this online:

University Cork study

Short and sweet: it's very good.