Absent Fathers

K-9

Fittle wrote: »

'So the only reason that men would not want to be father's is because they can't deal with the responsibility'

Not 'can't deal' with the responsibility.

Don't want the responsibility.

Why else would they run?

I gave reasons in my first posts on this thread. I don't think it applies to all cases or is as simplistic as that.

CDfm

Fittle wrote: »

Would you like his phone number:rolleyes:

I said it before....

People like my ex are not on websites debating issues about Absent Fathers.
No more than women who will not allow their ex's to see their children are.

A few weeks ago I got a pm from someone that was bang on.

She said those that don't just don't care and the women who fraustrate access just don't care either.

I would have very little in common with the father of Fittle's little boy except that we are fathers. You can't force a man or woman to love a child -it can't be done.

I don't know who mentioned the Suffragette movement but in 1900 there was not 1 true democracy in the World. The Suffragette Movement was part of the Suffrage Movement as less than 1/3 of adult males in Ireland had the vote and suffrage and the Independence was all linked. Both class and gender were issues.


When it comes to this issue we need "democratisation" as well. You only get that when you can see the others point of view.
.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why not?

Well my understanding of the Suffragettes is that they wanted a pretty basic human right of voting in elections. I don't see wanting a right to parental abdication as a basic right. Personally I don't agree that abortion should be seen as part of rights under feminism either and I know many women agree with that, so I have a problem with the basic premise that abortion is a basic woman's right and men need to attain equality in that regard. The debate over abortion and the various different yardsticks people have on the circumstances and various time limits that should be enforced on it make it a very subjective topic.

Maybe you see it as similar as the Suffragettes. I can't see why it would be but if you can outline why it is, I'll take it on board.

The Corinthian wrote:

Isn't that like saying that having back street abortions is the same as having abortion legalized in all intents and purposes? If not, please explain.

No, as I haven't heard of many back street abortions in Ireland, just women avoiding the restrictive laws here and going to England, Holland or where ever else.

I pointed out that abortion is illegal here and you correctly pointed out that to all intents and purposes it isn't. I pointed out that LC4M isn't provided in the law here but many men do walk away from the child and many don't pay maintenance either. If you don't accept the comparison, fair enough.

The Corinthian wrote:

Perhaps if we legalized abortion in Ireland the same set of circumstances would arise as we already have in countries where it is illegal and where no legal alternative is available, by the same logic.

Well that is your logic and you could be right. Getting back to the point I made, there are problems currently that single parent families face, both financially and socially. Not having a Dad around can cause problems. Making it legally and constitutional okay for a Dad to walk away may make the situation worse. Maybe you don't accept that, perhaps you could outline why you would think the situation wouldn't be any worse or maybe even improve it?

The Corinthian wrote:

As I suggested in an earlier post that would be a possible solution, yes.

Agreed with you then and do now as well.

The Corinthian wrote:

I addressed it earlier - it would conflict with said document just the same as adoption would. You have actually read what it says?

Yeah, I'm familiar with it albeit usually I look at it from the right of a child to have their Dad as involved as possible in their life. Adoption is there because the mother and father (where possible and practical) feels it is better that the child is brought up by other parents. Basically the child's right to a better life over rides the right of involvement from the biological parents. The child mightn't be aware they are adopted until older, as far as they are concerned they have a Mum and a Dad. Under LC4M they would be aware that they have no Dad pretty quickly.

The Corinthian wrote:

How is it an appeal to emotion? That makes no sense.

The idea that LC4M is about equal rights, which I don't accept anyway.

The Corinthian wrote:

Without a constitutional right to do so, unlike women and abortion in Ireland.

Only under very restrictive circumstances where the life of the mother is under danger. If you can point out that the lack of LC4M for men may affect the life of the father and result in their death, I'd take it on board definitely.

The Corinthian wrote:

Not in the slightest. Please tell me the last time a woman was prosecuted for getting an abortion outside of the state?

Never as far as I'm aware though the state has intervened in a few cases, the X Case eg. Similarly, I am not aware of a man prosecuted for not being involved in a child's life via access, maybe you are?

I am aware of prosecution regarding maintenance but then you have acknowledged than even under LC4M men would have to financially compensate the mother for the costs of rearing his offspring so I don't think we differ on a man's financial responsibility, regardless of whether he is involved or not.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

A few weeks ago I got a pm from someone that was bang on.

She said those that don't just don't care and the women who fraustrate access just don't care either.

I would have very little in common with the father of Fittle's little boy except that we are fathers. You can't force a man or woman to love a child -it can't be done.

I don't know who mentioned the Suffragette movement but in 1900 there was not 1 true democracy in the World. The Suffragette Movement was part of the Suffrage Movement as less than 1/3 of adult males in Ireland had the vote and suffrage and the Independence was all linked. Both class and gender were issues.


When it comes to this issue we need "democratisation" as well. You only get that when you can see the others point of view.
.

Yep, it comes back to character traits, not a battle of the sexes. I have met a couple of Dads who have walked away and it seems their main concern is paying as little maintenance as possible, the main concern being getting back at the mother and they show no regard for the children or future baby. Now it isn't just in relation to this that they shirk responsibilities, it's in most areas of their life, basically they just aren't nice people and the fact that they have children is just collateral damage. The same would go for a mother who would obstruct and deny access for petty, personal reasons.

That's very true about the electoral system. One of the big reasons that SF had such electoral success in 1918 was the extension of the voting system to include men over 21 and women over 30, dramatically increasing the electorate. Ireland was one of the first countries in the world to give equal voting rights after independence. Northern Ireland retained a system very much focussed on property ownership and gerrymandering and we all know how that ended up!

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Well my understanding of the Suffragettes is that they wanted a pretty basic human right of voting in elections.

That is a basic human right in your eyes. A century ago it was not quite the same. Many of the basic human rights that we all enjoy nowadays were privlages not too long ago, what changed is that they were won and became the norm, and in doing so became the new base line.

I pointed out that abortion is illegal here and you correctly pointed out that to all intents and purposes it isn't. I pointed out that LC4M isn't provided in the law here but many men do walk away from the child and many don't pay maintenance either. If you don't accept the comparison, fair enough.

Because the comparison is wildly inaccurate. While not legal in Ireland, abortion by proxy is legal - a woman has a right to information and to travel for said. She cannot be blocked, she cannot be charged (for carrying out an illegal act).

A man who 'walks' is only practicing avoidance. The very real threat threat of legal action and even incarceration will continue to follow him for decades, even if he leaves the state.

So to compare the two is frankly bogus and easily dismissed with a simple question - when was the last Irish woman incarcerated for having an abortion?

Not having a Dad around can cause problems. Making it legally and constitutional okay for a Dad to walk away may make the situation worse. Maybe you don't accept that, perhaps you could outline why you would think the situation wouldn't be any worse or maybe even improve it?

However, many of the freedoms and rights that we now have cause problems. For example, the problem of fatherless children or unmarried mothers could be wiped out overnight with the introduction of Shira law. Should we do this? If not, may I ask who why some rights are worth the social problems and others are not?

Yeah, I'm familiar with it albeit usually I look at it from the right of a child to have their Dad as involved as possible in their life. Adoption is there because the mother and father (where possible and practical) feels it is better that the child is brought up by other parents. Basically the child's right to a better life over rides the right of involvement from the biological parents. The child mightn't be aware they are adopted until older, as far as they are concerned they have a Mum and a Dad. Under LC4M they would be aware that they have no Dad pretty quickly.

Then force an adoption in such cases. Or is the right for a mother to keep a child more important for the father not to? And if so should this not be applied in reverse where a mother does not want to keep a child and require consent by the father to adopt or terminate?

The idea that LC4M is about equal rights, which I don't accept anyway.

I think a measure such as LC4M is one possible way to redress the rights imbalance. If there are alternatives, they too should be considered.

Only under very restrictive circumstances where the life of the mother is under danger. If you can point out that the lack of LC4M for men may affect the life of the father and result in their death, I'd take it on board definitely.

Actually there are practically no real restrictions. A mother may cite threat of suicide if challenged and will get to travel (X Case). If you accept that a father may use a similar argument then you have the same measure.

Never as far as I'm aware though the state has intervened in a few cases, the X Case eg. Similarly, I am not aware of a man prosecuted for not being involved in a child's life via access, maybe you are?

A man will be required to pay maintenance for 18 - 23 years, constituting a significant effect on his ability to get a mortgage or secure his financial future. If the child is handicapped, this obligation becomes for life. Inheritance rights are also effected.

Added to this are the social and legal implications - repeated court cases, or constant threat thereof, harassment by the mother, stigma (not unlike the stigma that used to be attached to woman who have abortions, but apparently this is no longer fashionable).

I could go on, but no matter what a man 'chooses' he ends up paying for a long time in various different ways and if not is liable for prosecution and incarceration. You can't dismiss that.

I am aware of prosecution regarding maintenance but then you have acknowledged than even under LC4M men would have to financially compensate the mother for the costs of rearing his offspring so I don't think we differ on a man's financial responsibility, regardless of whether he is involved or not.

It depends on what it would entail. If it meant a lump sum of, say, €20k or maintenance for the first five years, potentially at a reduced rate, then many would grumble but pay if they have the right to get on with their lives without future harassment or ties.

Naturally some would still avoid such measures, but you'll always get that and with the option there, they would get little sympathy from the men who would at present lend them some.

As I said though, I don't know if this is the best solution. I personally am coming round more to the option of needing agreement to keep or not a child from all parties and where it cannot be agreed, a court could rule in favour of the child's best interests - because frankly, there are a lot of kids being kept who would be better off in a loving adoptive family. Or their fathers.

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is a basic human right in your eyes. A century ago it was not quite the same. Many of the basic human rights that we all enjoy nowadays were privlages not too long ago, what changed is that they were won and became the norm, and in doing so became the new base line.

Just because something was the norm back in the dark ages doesn't mean it was right.

Two straight questions: Are women entitled to a vote?

Are men entitled to abdicate their responsibilites as parents?

Why do you try to link these two "rights"? To create a new baseline?

Can you address the issue (absent fathers) without trying to link it to some new privileges that women (and some men) won a century ago?

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is a basic human right in your eyes. A century ago it was not quite the same. Many of the basic human rights that we all enjoy nowadays were privlages not too long ago, what changed is that they were won and became the norm, and in doing so became the new base line.

Very true. What is noticeable as the idea of human rights has developed over the last few decades is that the quest for rights seems to become insatiable and as one right is achieved, others are adopted as causes. Feminism espousing abortion as a woman's right being an example.

Another thing that happens when one group gets granted a human right is usually other groups call for equal rights as well, LC4M as a male abortion would come under that to me.

Another repercussion of this never ending and competing search for rights is that other areas of society can often be affected, so with abortion and LC4M, childrens rights may get affected, the right of the child to know his father in this case.

On top of all that is it seems to me as society becomes more and more selfish and interested in rights, responsibilities seem to become less important, again LC4M encompasses all that IMO.

The Corinthian wrote:

Because the comparison is wildly inaccurate. While not legal in Ireland, abortion by proxy is legal - a woman has a right to information and to travel for said. She cannot be blocked, she cannot be charged (for carrying out an illegal act).

A man who 'walks' is only practicing avoidance. The very real threat threat of legal action and even incarceration will continue to follow him for decades, even if he leaves the state.

So to compare the two is frankly bogus and easily dismissed with a simple question - when was the last Irish woman incarcerated for having an abortion?

I answered the question as it is very simple as you say. Men do walk away and nothing happens. As I said, if you don't accept the comparison, fair enough. The two can be easily compared by asking a simple question too, when was the last man incarcerated for not seeing his child?

The financial issue is separate again and even people in favour of LC4M acknowledge that a form of financial compensation is necessary which would be legally enforceable, it's just another form of maintenance.

Even the subject of maintenance is debatable as it is up to the mother to chase the father for it and often they don't or in rare cases, the state will go after the father if the mother is in receipt of LPA, which is fair enough considering the state is subsidising the fathers responsibilities.

The Corinthian wrote:

However, many of the freedoms and rights that we now have cause problems. For example, the problem of fatherless children or unmarried mothers could be wiped out overnight with the introduction of Shira law. Should we do this? If not, may I ask who why some rights are worth the social problems and others are not?

I'll answer that if you answer the question I posed which you answered with another question. It's in the previous post.

The Corinthian wrote:

Then force an adoption in such cases.

Sorry, in what cases? In cases where a Dad avails of LC4M? What happens if the mother doesn't want to give up the child for adoption?

The Corinthian wrote:

Or is the right for a mother to keep a child more important for the father not to?

Ah, we are back to the point I made at the start of my post. Everybody wants equal rights even if it means conflicting ones! They both should have equal rights but the Dads right then conflicts with the mothers and sure if anybody mentions the child's right that is facetiously scoffed at as "would somebody please think of the children", toddler tantrum like!

The Corinthian wrote:

And if so should this not be applied in reverse where a mother does not want to keep a child and require consent by the father to adopt or terminate?

Yep, think I pointed this out way back but again we come back to conflicting rights and how practical is it to force a woman to see a pregnancy to full term, one that she doesn't want or forcing a mother to adopt a child that she does want.

The Corinthian wrote:

I think a measure such as LC4M is one possible way to redress the rights imbalance. If there are alternatives, they too should be considered.

Which unfortunately isn't equal rights for the child.

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually there are practically no real restrictions. A mother may cite threat of suicide if challenged and will get to travel (X Case). If you accept that a father may use a similar argument then you have the same measure.

Indeed. There is one kind of important distinction between a father and mother with suicidal tendencies during a pregnancy though, the one that gets ignored by this argument for LC4M, the child, which lives inside the mother's body. A mother threatening suicide during a pregnancy will obviously also kill the child which makes it even more serious and grave a concern. Still, if a father is threatening suicide if he doesn't have LC4M, it is something that has to be seriously considered.

The Corinthian wrote:

A man will be required to pay maintenance for 18 - 23 years, constituting a significant effect on his ability to get a mortgage or secure his financial future. If the child is handicapped, this obligation becomes for life. Inheritance rights are also effected.

Added to this are the social and legal implications - repeated court cases, or constant threat thereof, harassment by the mother, stigma (not unlike the stigma that used to be attached to woman who have abortions, but apparently this is no longer fashionable).

I could go on, but no matter what a man 'chooses' he ends up paying for a long time in various different ways and if not is liable for prosecution and incarceration. You can't dismiss that.

No, couldn't possibly dismiss them as I don't dismiss your argument at all, fully taking it on board as I've done on previous threads. Again, we come back to conflicting rights and the big difference with a mother having an abortion and LC4M, the child never exists under abortion, it does under LC4M.

The Corinthian wrote:

It depends on what it would entail. If it meant a lump sum of, say, €20k or maintenance for the first five years, potentially at a reduced rate, then many would grumble but pay if they have the right to get on with their lives without future harassment or ties.

Naturally some would still avoid such measures, but you'll always get that and with the option there, they would get little sympathy from the men who would at present lend them some.

But it would be legally enforceable and the mother or state could seek to enforce the obligation, rather like maintenance now.

The Corinthian wrote:

As I said though, I don't know if this is the best solution. I personally am coming round more to the option of needing agreement to keep or not a child from all parties and where it cannot be agreed, a court could rule in favour of the child's best interests - because frankly, there are a lot of kids being kept who would be better off in a loving adoptive family. Or their fathers.

A kind of court on whether a a mother should abort or not would be interesting where a mother wants that but the father doesn't! Fair point on adoption and I'd love to see a few married couples subject to an independent court of arbitration on the matter!

CDfm

This discussion is well off beam.

We are now talking now about reproductive rights and responsibilities.

Mid 1960's the pill was hailed as the great emancipator for women everywhere. Sex as often as you like etc and without the fear and risk of pregnancy.

The amount of children born outside a traditional relationship (marriage or cohabitation) has now skyrocketed in 50 years. Some say a lot of it is a deliberate choice to get pregnant.It does seem to have expanded with the welfare system.

I don't know where in Europe Ireland ranks in all this or whether our welfare system is particulary generous ,but, our constitution enshrines the right of mothers to stay at home and not work.

So if pregnancy is deliberate and the child is unwanted by the Dad and the state does not want the welfare burden -what is to happen?

The Corinthian

Pherekydes wrote: »

Just because something was the norm back in the dark ages doesn't mean it was right.

What makes you think that we are not still in the dark ages? After all, I'm sure that there was someone just as certain as you, a century ago, of the moral framework of their society. Have we gotten it right? No need to change or question any more?

Can you address the issue (absent fathers) without trying to link it to some new privileges that women (and some men) won a century ago?

Except I believe I am addressing the issue because I am taking a larger view because it is relevant to the specific one. If you don't do that you easily find yourself in the situation where it becomes a simplistic issue - only men walk out on their children and only because they don't want the responsibility - and we have already seen how some people doggedly hold to this ridiculous and misadrist notion.

However, I have already once or twice addressed the specific issue of absent fathers also.

K-9 wrote: »

Very true. What is noticeable as the idea of human rights has developed over the last few decades is that the quest for rights seems to become insatiable and as one right is achieved, others are adopted as causes. Feminism espousing abortion as a woman's right being an example.

Indeed, as is the move that has resulted from the legalization of homosexual marriage to recognize other marriage models, such as polygamy. And in fairness, it is difficult to turn around and deny equality in these cases - to do so would be a hypocrisy - and this naturally leads to situations whereby you are faced with potentially unpalatable choices.

On top of all that is it seems to me as society becomes more and more selfish and interested in rights, responsibilities seem to become less important, again LC4M encompasses all that IMO.

That's fair enough, but if so, and such rights need to be sacrificed for the greater good, you cannot pick a point where one group have all the rights they want and then say, well, the other group can't have equal rights now - because it means they are paying the bill for the first groups freedom of choice.

Sacrifice, for the greater good, needs to be spread out. This is why I asked earlier, what is more important to women - the right for a woman to choose or the lack of right for a man to choose? In the long run women cannot have both and a choice will have to be made.

The financial issue is separate again and even people in favour of LC4M acknowledge that a form of financial compensation is necessary which would be legally enforceable, it's just another form of maintenance.

And I disagreed, because some "form of financial compensation" is not the same thing as maintenance for 18 - 23 years (or life, in some cases). You cannot dismiss that in all honesty.

Even the subject of maintenance is debatable as it is up to the mother to chase the father for it and often they don't or in rare cases, the state will go after the father if the mother is in receipt of LPA, which is fair enough considering the state is subsidising the fathers responsibilities.

Not really, because the state is subsidizing also the mother's responsibilities - and we are only talking financial here. She too has a financial responsibility to the child and herself, but in Ireland she is constitutionally absolved from this.

I'll answer that if you answer the question I posed which you answered with another question. It's in the previous post.

It is difficult to answer. It could make it worse, in that many such single mothers would then be completely dependant on state help. To what level this would make a difference really depends on how much maintenance (after social welfare deductions) single mothers actually get. It wouldn't make any difference in the father's day-to-day involvement, so that's not an issue. On the other hand it may dissuade more women from such scenarios, leading to an increase in abortions and adoptions.

So, I would not be so certain that it will make that much of a difference. Except for men, who will have attained a comparable right to choose as women.

But if men should be denied such a right for the good of society, then at what point do we decide the value of the rights against their cost? Otherwise, Shira law would be a preferable code to adopt for the good of society.

Sorry, in what cases? In cases where a Dad avails of LC4M? What happens if the mother doesn't want to give up the child for adoption?

Then that is her responsibility. Choice and responsibility go hand in hand, and presently the system seems to give women multiple ways to avoid some or all of this, and none to men. It is not uncommon to hear someone argue that if you don't want to run the risk, don't unzip your fly - yet, that does not apply to women, some of whom are frankly completely sexually irresponsible.

Yep, think I pointed this out way back but again we come back to conflicting rights and how practical is it to force a woman to see a pregnancy to full term, one that she doesn't want or forcing a mother to adopt a child that she does want.

That's fair enough, and we're not going to come up with the answers here, however that does not mean that we should not keep the status quo, simply because there are no perfect answers.

Which unfortunately isn't equal rights for the child.

But we don't actually have equal rights for the child anyway. The child's rights are represented by the mother, who may well not have the child's best interests in mind.

It is difficult to concede that a child's best interests are to be aborted, to begin with (hence we define it as not a child). But even then, is it in the best interests for a child to be put up for adoption? Or kept by the mother? Or kept by the father? This is pretty much never considered, because it is all about the mother's interests - not the child's.

No, couldn't possibly dismiss them as I don't dismiss your argument at all, fully taking it on board as I've done on previous threads. Again, we come back to conflicting rights and the big difference with a mother having an abortion and LC4M, the child never exists under abortion, it does under LC4M.

Not at the time that such a right is exercised.

But it would be legally enforceable and the mother or state could seek to enforce the obligation, rather like maintenance now.

Sure, but a man who gets a woman pregnant should not get off Scott free, any more than a woman does. She can have an abortion, but she still has to have, and pay for, that abortion. He may not be party to the decision to keep a child, but he was to the act that got her pregnant.

Additionally, there is a big difference in being asked to pay, say, €20k for a clean slate and paying potentially up to €100k - €200k with no cut. Many will still not pay, but many more will take such an option. Arguing that because some will still avoid payment, especially if substantially decreased, is a weak argument, IMO.

CDfm wrote: »

We are now talking now about reproductive rights and responsibilities.

Well someone brought it up (indeed, I don't actually know what LC4M stands for exactly), but I have run with it. Mia culpa.

The reason I did so is because this thread, from the beginning was based on a biased premise, which was articulated by Fiddle; men 'walk' only because they don't want the responsibility.

Bringing in reproductive rights, abortion and adoption is important because it creates a comparison that demonstrates that men and women are not so different. We are all prone to selfishness, or weakness or great nobility in equal measure.

No one would suggest that the only reason a woman want's to abort or put a child up for adoption is because she doesn't want the responsibility, so why do some automatically assume this of men? Only when you face them with this comparison are they forced to question such prejudices - or leave the argument before they allow themselves to do so.

So if pregnancy is deliberate and the child is unwanted by the Dad and the state does not want the welfare burden -what is to happen?

Passing the financial buck to the father is akin to a moral tax - it's a bit like the tax on cigarettes or betting - it is very difficult to argue against it because of public perception.

I think we already saw the government shift the financial buck to the father with the cohabitation bill. Presently, there are lots of unmarried couples happily raising families. However, up until the change in law, if they broke up the father would only be responsible for child maintenance, leading to many mothers requiring social assistance.

With the law changed, an unmarried couple, together for five years, would break up and the father would also be liable for spousal maintenance (or whatever name it will have), thus limiting the cost to the social welfare system in the future.

K-9

@CDfm, yeah we have wandered a bit but as The Corinthian puts it, women do have the option of adoption or abortion. It seems while adoption has become a bit of a no no here abortion has replaced it as more acceptable, carrying far less of a stigma than it used to, yet women get sympathy and understanding in that case, whereas a man walking away is derided. To me there is a definite double standard there.

@The Corinthian, good points and I think I'll bow out here as we could go round and round here.

I would disagree about a "form of compensation" though. Rather like your logic on equal rights and the idea that you can't pick and choose it, to me compensation to a mother for LC4M is maintenance, otherwise why bother compensating her at all? Like your concept of equality, you either have it or you don't.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

I would disagree about a "form of compensation" though. Rather like your logic on equal rights and the idea that you can't pick and choose it, to me compensation to a mother for LC4M is maintenance, otherwise why bother compensating her at all? Like your concept of equality, you either have it or you don't.

Fair enough, but as I said I'm not really arguing in favour of LC4M or even looking to turn this discussion into one on LC4M or any alternative options, so I certainly do not have all of the answers, nor pretend to have them.

My primary purpose, was to expand the discussion so that we view the matter in a more balanced fashion rather than remaining trapped in the simplistic paradigms of "father bad, mother good". When you start comparing why men 'walk' against why women 'walk' and deconstruct the question of rights, you realize that it is not so black and white.

CDfm

But Corinthian cant you see that when threads turn like this that we are no longer discussing the reality of the here and now we are getting into the theoretical Lala land.

The factual that happens in courts etc show that there is a far more diverse world out there now then was ever envisaged when the Irish Constitution was drafted.

Here are a few bits and pieces I picked up by googling " irish homosexual sperm donor"

Although the civil partnership legislation that came into force on January 1st recognises same-sex couples for matters such as tax, pensions and inheritance, it does not acknowledge they might have children, writes SHEILA WAYMAN
PAULA FAGAN’S partner was working abroad when their eldest, asthmatic son became ill. She brought him to the GP who advised her to take him to the emergency department straight away.
“All the way in I was so worried that I was not going to be able to sign a form for his treatment,” says Paula, who as the partner of his biological mother is the boy’s other parent, though she has no legal recognition of her relationship with him.
“In the end I just didn’t tell them. He was calling me ‘Mummy’ so they didn’t pass any heed, but it was very stressful for me, which was ridiculous because I am his other primary carer.” At the hospital X-rays showed the boy had pneumonia.
Day-to-day parenting for same-sex couples is no different from that of most other families – until questions such as parental consent arise. Generally people are very positive, says Paula, who lives in Dalkey, Co Dublin, with her partner, Denise Charlton, and their two boys, aged four and one.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0118/1224287749988.html

I wonder if this is the same Denise Charlton who headed up Womens Aid

Paula and Denise were in their thirties when they moved in together eight years ago and both were keen to have children. As Denise was the eldest, she went first. One child was conceived with sperm from a known donor – he and his partner are both “friendly uncles” to the two boys – and an anonymous sperm donor was used for the other.
But Paula is frustrated that under law she and Denise are not treated the same as heterosexual parents in a similar situation. “We planned the pregnancies together; we went through the treatment together. It is like any other opposite sex couple who may use donor sperm if there are fertility issues but then the male partner is recognised as the parent.”

Here is another article

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/martina-devlin/martina-devlin-children-of-gay-couples-pay-high-price-for-our-prejudice-2241240.html

Lesbian ex-partner does not have to pay maintenance

By Admin on 19th June 2010. ~ Categories: Marriage and the Family A lesbian whose former partner bore a child through sperm donation cannot be ordered to pay any maintenance, a High Court judge in the UK ruled yesterday. The former couple never contracted a legal civil partnership and, as the law stands, the woman who did not have the child could not be defined as a 'parent'. Read more...

Or this case and the definition favorite uncle

[homosexual father ]rights to lesbian couple's child

Supreme Court says lesbians are not a valid family unit

By DONAL THORNTON
, Irish Central.com



Published Friday, December 11, 2009, 9:32 AM
Updated Friday, December 11, 2009, 9:58 AM




The Irish Supreme Court ruled that the gay sperm donor had visiting rights






An Irish gay sperm donor has been granted access to a lesbian couple's three-year-old child.
The Irish Supreme Court ruled that the man should be allowed regular visits to his three-year-old son partly because Ireland's constitution does not recognise the lesbians as a family unit.
The ruling is a legal first in Ireland, where homosexuality was outlawed until 1993 and gay couples are denied many rights.
The man had donated sperm to the lesbian couple and it was agreed at the time that the man would be a "favourite uncle" to the child.

There was another case of a homosexual sperm donor who has to pay maintenence and gets no access.

I posted at Christmas Time on an ISPCC advert thread stereotyped a male perpetrator female victim model when it is more likely that mothers harm kids.I also listed a whole lot of other victims whose rights are not helped, homosexual & lesbian victims, elderly etc for instance and listed a whole list of relationships that did not fit the model. My point being that human rights should be there irrespective of gender, age or orientation.

As a society these things are already here. You have lesbian mothers- I am very friendly with one and she's deadly & one of the most balanced people I am ever likely to meet.

I am heterosexual and have always been.

When it comes to fathers rights I can never understand how fathers can be expected to pay an not see the children. I spend lots more on my kids because I am motivated.

In social policy in Ireland, what has happened is a generation or two of Dad's have been excluded. Culturally, its currency is at a low ebb.

Lesbian mothers have lots of rights anyway, they have the wombs and with some sperm they are good to go. Biologically and legally it is easier for them to achieve what they want then guys. Its already there and there was no legislation needed really. They didn't need permission.

You are not going to have all singing and dancing fatherhood -but we are currently still with the concept of going down the mines 12 hours a day 6 days a week etc.

Its not just Dads that get screwed by the system, kids do too, but also a whole host of others who want to get on with life.

Thats why I think when I see people talking about mens rights , that just like you had the Suffrage movement and Suffragettes, that there will be a lot better outcome aligning themselves with others who want practical changes to the law for all then interest groups that just want the grass to grow in their little patch.

In that way, I reckon we will achieve a lot more , when we look at these with a checklist and say well have we included the other marginalised sectors in all this. A bit radical but, well why not.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

But Corinthian cant you see that when threads turn like this that we are no longer discussing the reality of the here and now we are getting into the theoretical Lala land.

But if these fundamental questions are not asked, if these prejudices are not challenged, then you remain with viewpoints such as Fiddle's remaining the unchallenged 'truth'.

And there's not much progress then, because all that would happen is that the discussion would concentrate on fathers who 'walk' because they don't want to be fathers and ignore the myriad of other scenarios and causes for the problem. And that's frankly worse.

Here are a few bits and pieces I picked up by googling " irish homosexual sperm donor"

Ironically, while marriage (or civil partnership) was reformed, it left parenthood untouched. This is probably because marriage and parenthood have been largely considered separate for a good few years, ever since the abolition of the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate.

Parental responsibility, and by extension any potential rights, is only conferred automatically on the basis of biology. A step-father would be in the same position as the lesbian in the article you quoted, unless he actively sought (and got) adoptive rights.

The only remaining connection between the two is guardianship for a father who is married and that connection is most likely going to be eviscerated within the next 18 months.

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

@CDfm, yeah we have wandered a bit but as The Corinthian puts it, women do have the option of adoption or abortion. It seems while adoption has become a bit of a no no here abortion has replaced it as more acceptable, carrying far less of a stigma than it used to, yet women get sympathy and understanding in that case, whereas a man walking away is derided. To me there is a definite double standard there.

Biologically , women have wombs and guys have testicles.

In my book, that gives them first dibbs on the abortion issue as biologically its their womb.

We men have the right to pee standing up .

Its biology innit. Nowdays, there are so many marriage breakups and single parents that there is no real stigma.

The reality is that a guy whose relationship breaks down wants to be able to maintain a reasonable lifestyle , home etc, with overnight access with his kids and all the rest.

I reckon, that men should have a resonable expectation of these things and whether that has to be done by the state with social housing or whatever then it should be done.

If every, divorced , seperated, or single Dad in the country applied for housing to facitate overnight access then maybe people would take notice politically.

Maybe, if men got used to asking for the things we need to be effective fathers we would do a lot better.

Looking for hypothetical hard to enforce rights is stupid.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

But if these fundamental questions are not asked, if these prejudices are not challenged, then you remain with viewpoints such as Fiddle's remaining the unchallenged 'truth'.

Kids grow up and you have to deal with the practical issues pragmatically.

Ironically, while marriage (or civil partnership) was reformed, it left parenthood untouched. This is probably because marriage and parenthood have been largely considered separate for a good few years, ever since the abolition of the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate.

Parental responsibility, and by extension any potential rights, is only conferred automatically on the basis of biology. A step-father would be in the same position as the lesbian in the article you quoted, unless he actively sought (and got) adoptive rights.

The only remaining connection between the two is guardianship for a father who is married and that connection is most likely going to be eviscerated within the next 18 months.

The whole process of not dealing with reality is a feature of all this.

Woman divorces and new partner moves in and maintenence is unchanged is madness. One guy subsidising another etc. Family home issues left unsettled etc and guys left without suitable accomadation. Nuts.

The rights of lesbians in their relationships or homosexuals in their relationships are of equal importance, and, to arrive at a fairer and more equitable system should be given equal prominence.

You have lesbian mothers anyway and lesbian family units -so we should get real and deal with it.

So when we start looking at it with the rights of others in mind you get a fairer system.

You also get a broader redistribution of resourses and perhaps a more tolerant society.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Biologically , women have wombs and guys have testicles.

In my book, that gives them first dibbs on the abortion issue as biologically its their womb.

We men have the right to pee standing up .

The women have wombs and guys have testicles argument may be sufficent for the redtop readers, but it does at the very least have limits, if not indeed fall apart, upon examination.

Without going into the abortion debate and thus taking that aside for a moment, biology should not be seen as a reason not to strive for sexual equality. For example, women are protected in law against discrimination because of their wombs, so the disadvantage of having one is compensated against in the interests of equality.

Their wombs do also give rise to disadvantages for those without them (i.e. men), especially where it comes to guardianship, custody or even the choice to keep a child or not after birth - law turns a blind eye to equality there.

So frankly, I don't think that the biology argument goes far, unless you are happy to accept double standards. I'm not.

If every, divorced , seperated, or single Dad in the country applied for housing to facitate overnight access then maybe people would take notice politically.

TBH, the problem in my eyes is not that enough help is given by the state, but too much. Having a child may be a right, getting bankrolled to do so is not. More emphasis should be made on people to be financially responsible for themselves, to encourage self-enabling initiatives such as free or affordable child care, than encouraging the culture of dependence that presently exists and in some cases encourages such behaviour.

CDfm wrote: »

Kids grow up and you have to deal with the practical issues pragmatically.

That has absolutely no relevance to what I wrote. It's a non sequitor.

So when we start looking at it with the rights of others in mind you get a fairer system.

Which is what I have been trying to do here, oddly enough.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

The women have wombs and guys have testicles argument may be sufficent for the redtop readers, but it does at the very least have limits, if not indeed fall apart, upon examination................So frankly, I don't think that the biology argument goes far, unless you are happy to accept double standards. I'm not.

Its the way it is. Its a biological fact. Anyway, its not a discussion I would want to get into.

TBH, the problem in my eyes is not that enough help is given by the state, but too much. Having a child may be a right, getting bankrolled to do so is not. More emphasis should be made on people to be financially responsible for themselves, to encourage self-enabling initiatives such as free or affordable child care, than encouraging the culture of dependence that presently exists and in some cases encourages such behaviour.

That has absolutely no relevance to what I wrote. It's a non sequitor.

Which is what I have been trying to do here, oddly enough.

You sometimes come across as a bit harsh and we often see things differently.

I agree with the affordable childcare thing etc,but, that is also an equality issue that women and men in general have to want. In Belgium, the benefit system evolved into that and in a modern society you need to go beyond traditional roles and concepts and stereotypes.

I have absolutely no idea how we ended up with the messy law and social policies we have.

What I do think is that not acknowledging or discussing homosexual and lesbian rights in the same way leads to wacko anomalies.

In Ireland , 3,000 kids a year are registered without any father in the father box of birth certificates , that could be to lesbian mothers, but nobody knows because we have shoved them underground. We also dont provide help for lesbians in abusive relationships with their partners.

So why not recognise their family units in any discussion as I imagine like the rest of us they have many of the same everyday problems.

I am not in anyway trying to make light of the absent father issue ,and, I do imagine if I had known what was facing me at the very begining I would have have been slower to tackle it.

edit :

What I am saying is that unacknowledged groups have a lot in common in these areas because they are unacknowledged .

Thats my 10 cents worth.

sam34

post deleted due to backseat modding

please stick to the discussion at hand

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Its the way it is. Its a biological fact. Anyway, its not a discussion I would want to get into.

'Biological fact' or not does not change the equally valid fact that we compensate in law for 'biological facts', regardless if you want to get into it or not.

You sometimes come across as a bit harsh and we often see things differently.

I agree with the affordable childcare thing etc,but, that is also an equality issue that women and men in general have to want.

Completely agree and, TBH, a discussion on the part that the social welfare system plays in the lives of single families, or anyone else for that matter, is a separate and completely off-topic discussion TBH.

I have absolutely no idea how we ended up with the messy law and social policies we have.

No doubt there's a reason.

What I do think is that not acknowledging or discussing homosexual and lesbian rights in the same way leads to wacko anomalies.

If I remember correctly, the civil partnership bill, when related to homosexuals (aren't lesbians also homosexuals, seeing as homo refers to the Greek and not Latin?) was a bit of a fudge on a lot of these issues. Full equality with marriage would have conflicted with the constitution and the government wanted to avoid a contentious referendum that would have challenged the heterosexual definition of the family - many polls, AFAIR, showed that it could well have failed.

What I am saying is that unacknowledged groups have a lot in common in these areas because they are unacknowledged .

Yes, you are probably right.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

'Biological fact' or not does not change the equally valid fact that we compensate in law for 'biological facts', regardless if you want to get into it or not.

Its one of those area's where you get circular arguments.

Completely agree and, TBH, a discussion on the part that the social welfare system plays in the lives of single families, or anyone else for that matter, is a separate and completely off-topic discussion TBH.

There is only a certain budget to go around - I am really surprised lots of people are not interested in it.

Certainly other countries do that , like Belgium, and childcare costs are low addressing multiple equalityand social issues rather than just childcare costs get addressed with it.

It is impossible economically to deliver childcare cost subsidies and reform to society while at the same time supporting the lone parent social welfare system.

many polls, AFAIR, showed that it could well have failed.

Yes, you are probably right.

The only important poll was the votes in the Oireachtas - Dail & Seanad - and the Party Whip System would take care of the rest.

The only people who squawked were the usual interest groups.

The real issue is that to extend the rights to gays and lesbians would mean delivering them to the rest of us.

Think Countess Markiewicz marching on the GPO with James Connolly - her a suffragette looking for votes for women and him a labour leader looking for votes for the working man. It has a precedent and you can do things like this in a small country.

When you look at it that way the leaders of our political parties and interest groups are more conservative and less inventive then they were in 1916. Its like saying that the principle of universal suffrage for men and women which was introduced on Irish Independence never actually happened. Thats a value system we have lost.

Thats why I think rights should be viewed as "universal" and not gender or orientation based.

I hope I have not gone too off topic here, but, when I hear some groups chatter on rights I wonder if they really think it thru what impact and legacy they give us.

Bill2673

Fittle wrote: »

Just to add that my boy brings me pleasure every second of every day, so it's not HIM I'm referring to when I said there's no pleasure....

Fittle that was absolutely never in question......:)

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Its one of those area's where you get circular arguments.

If you mean that it's one of those area's where you get someone who inevitably put's their fingers in their ears and starts humming loudly, then yes, it does often attract that type of response.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you mean that it's one of those area's where you get someone who inevitably put's their fingers in their ears and starts humming loudly, then yes, it does often attract that type of response.

It is one of those things.

It seems odd that it takes a lot for a child of a normal relationship to get put into foster care etc, but, put a seperation there and bingo a child whose diaper you changed one week can be cared by anyone else in the world except you.

A bit nonsensical.

Its the same when you come to high earning women, if you had parental leave rather than maternity leave financially a couple could work out their own arrangements.

So some issues certainly need a different mindset but I would not include abortion/adoption in the mix , especially, as when a child exists the decision exists only in theory.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you mean that it's one of those area's where you get someone who inevitably put's their fingers in their ears and starts humming loudly, then yes, it does often attract that type of response.

You'll get that al right from some people, but sometimes it becomes a stalemate, going round and round with decent points on both sides.

Reward

Legal choice for men has nothing to do with forcing women to carry full term or have abortions. That would be absurd, and put women in similar bind to the one that men are presently in.

Here is a time article on LC4M - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1173414,00.html

CDfm

I think the idea is that rights are or should be universal where possible but on some issues there will be a biological imperative with women - not with everything but until birth it does seem to me that guys do not really have a say.

It isn't your body.

When I think rights , I think universally and on issues like this we have had a great opportunity to discuss gay rights on issues too, and, I am not gay, but because when you support a minority right and enforce them what happens is that it raises the bar for the rest of us.

So every time I hear or see rights debated on guys being capable parents I see that the arguments used on guys being incapable are universal.

The debate badly needs to be contemparized and updated.

It does seem to me that rights are currently eroded with reference to the lowest common denominator in society. DV stereotyping.

Women work and have rights and careers and have the opportunity to be parents.

The means to be a parent should include things like social housing and support for men of all types.

We should be saying things like ,if the social services departments cant handle universal rights and the idea that guys can be good parents then they should be got rid of.

If our legislators cannot legislate some clear rules that apply to everyone then they are in the wrong job.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

I think the idea is that rights are or should be universal where possible but on some issues there will be a biological imperative with women - not with everything but until birth it does seem to me that guys do not really have a say.

It isn't your body.

The abortion debate is, TBH, a more complex thing than simply saying it is or not 'your body'. To begin with it can be argued that it also involved the body of someone who is not the woman too, the (unborn) child and if we wanted to get pedantic about biology, then it does involve genetic material that is not solely belonging to the mother.

That aside (because the abortion debate is a rabbit hole that we'll never get out of) and even if it is 'her body' alone, her choices have a very serious impact on the life and, by extension, body of the father.

All of which is irrelevant to a debate on LC4M, because that does not in any way challenge a woman's rights to 'her body' - it simply adds a post natal choice of avoiding parenthood for men, which already exists in both pre and post-natal form for women.

As such I don't get why you keep on bringing it up as no one has suggested forcing women to have or not have an abortion when discussing LC4M. Neither is the fact that women have wombs an argument either way, as the law is full of legislation designed to protect women where this is a disadvantage, so it seems a bit hypocritical to hide behind this when it becomes an advantage.

metrovelvet

^That is true. The Legal Choice for Men does not force a woman to have a baby or an abortion. However, from what I understand from the article, the is not a post natal decision as he would be given the same time or less to make a decision on his financial abortion as a woman does to have an abortion, within the first trimester. It's not called Roe v Wade for men for nothing; it like a woman's is PRE NATAL.

The other questions I have is does it apply to married men who have two kids let's say, but then don't want the third one. Can they pick and choose which kids they will have not have to support or would there be another gap between married and unmarried father's rights.

In any case, there should be a registrar of paternity that is public information for the likes of men like the brother of whom I met in the Rotunda and had eight kids scattered around Ireland and paid nothing towards any of them without fines or punishment. His choices, all eight of them, went without any kind of repercussions even if they are not legislatively protected.

CDfm

We all know that mothers and fathers have different skills and that kids with their dad in their lives do better in school and in society and that a mum cannot do it all.

Child equality and child welfare should dictate that unless there are very exceptional circumstances a child should have access to their father automatically. Lots of good genuine men do not get to see their kids and its wrong.

I saw Alan Shatter on a Newspaper Headline today and am very disappointed that Fine Gael have him talking about justice again after his abyssmal record on Family Law Reform. It might be a small thing but it is big enough for me not to vote Fine Gael.

It seems to me that a woman would need to be certifiable not to get access custody of her children.Sinead O'Connor and Paula Yates are the only ones I know of in the public domain that were actually sucessfully challenged. Kerry Katona was not.

If you take away all the resourses from a Dad to be a Dad then what is the point of giving rights.

The issue of the right not to want to become a father is a key thing too. Sperm theft - is that what its called.

"No taxation without representation" was a good slogan for the Colonies in 1776.

I am glad I am out of it all now -bar the college years.

Lucky me.

DublinWriter

Blisterman wrote: »

Should something be done? What could be done? How come it's happening so much nowadays, when it didn't before?

Have you watched the Jeremy Kyle show lately?

In common with the UK and US we have a growing underclass whom we allow to rut without repercussion thanks to a still-generous social welfare system.