Absent Fathers

edolan

I've never met my father, when my mother found out she was pregnant she told my father who told her to go to England to get an abortion, when she refused he just left. When I was about 8 months old he came to visit and did so about another 3 times according to my mum then he just stopped, when my mother went looking for him to pay child support he quit his job so he wouldn't have to pay. The only reason I would ever want to meet the man is so I could find out if I have any brothers or sisters because of him. It doesen't bother me at all never has and never will but im a bit annoyed with how he has a few sisters who would live around 35 mins away from me who never made an attempt to visit me. It personally just makes me to be determined if I ever have children I will do whatever I can do to support them.

NTMK

edolan wrote: »

The only reason I would ever want to meet the man is so I could find out if I have any brothers or sisters because of him. It doesen't bother me at all never has and never will but im a bit annoyed with how he has a few sisters who would live around 35 mins away from me who never made an attempt to visit me. It personally just makes me to be determined if I ever have children I will do whatever I can do to support them.

Im the same havent seen mine in 8 years never payed a penny of child support his entire family live 10 minutes up the road and not once have they made contact

CDfm

I have a bit of an issue with this study as it is just a study of custody and access agreements made in the courts as is claimed in this article.

Study: Separated fathers in contact more with children

Monday, January 31, 2011 - 11:25 AM

A study of separation agreements made in Irish courts has shown that new forms of shared care are emerging among separated couples.

The study was funded by the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and was carried out by the School of Social Work and Social Policy at Trinity College in Dublin.

It shows that the majority of children of separated parents still reside with their mothers but fathers are now retaining much more regular contact with their children.

It also revealed that child maintenance payments varied considerably and could be in arrears which exposed children to a risk of poverty.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/study-separated-fathers-in-contact-more-with-children-491545.html#ixzz1Cf8n6225

What the study does not do is follow up on the operation of or the enforcement of those agreements.

So the conclusion that fathers have more access is either invalid or flawed.

It can only say if an agreement is reached but not if it is adhered to.

The In Camera rules in Family Law make it highly improbable, and more than likely illegal, for a study of the nature claimed here to occur.

I wonder who issued the report and if they issued a press release.

Fittle

CDfm wrote: »

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.

That's a pretty sweeping, and damning statement and leaves little hope for children who's fathers aren't involved. Stats?

CDfm

Fittle wrote: »

That's a pretty sweeping, and damning statement and leaves little hope for children who's fathers aren't involved. Stats?

It isnt me saying it its researchers

Children benefit from fathers' involvement


June 16, 2000

Just in time for Father's Day, new research shows that dads do make a difference in the lives of their children, and examines what factors influence men's involvement with their kids.
Researchers at the University of Maryland determined that children who have fathers in their lives learn better, have higher self-esteem and show fewer signs of depression than children without fathers.
The results shouldn't be surprising, according to one expert.


http://articles.cnn.com/2000-06-16/health/father.studies_1_fathers-researchers-single-parents?_s=PM:HEALTH

And this link ,but , there are other studies.

http://www.education.com/reference/article/benefits-involving-fathers-schools/

I know I make a difference in my kids lives.

I can't imagine not doing it.

metrovelvet

Fittle wrote: »

That's a pretty sweeping, and damning statement and leaves little hope for children who's fathers aren't involved. Stats?

I think its important not to be hopeless. A lot will depend on the education of the mother and her education ethic.

However, I think these kinds of studies that cdfm posts are important. 1960s feminism promoted the idea that you dont need a man. They tried to promote female independence, [ok fair enough] but mistakingly felt they had to enforce male redundancy.

I think fatherhood has become something like a degree in the humanties, where it is perceived nice to have but not all that crucial or necessary, and that fault lies with the academics who failed and continue to fail to make people realise how important it is.

This is the missing gap in fathers rights, in childrens rights, in family organisations, that everyone is pawing for their rights but no one is getting down to the nitty gritty of changing the perception of fatherhood, as well as the consequences of your choices for the child if you choose not to be there for your child or if as the custodial parent you negate this presence.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

^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.

True, however, the only issue I would see with a first trimester deadline is that some mothers may conceal their pregnancy from their partners, which can actually be done.

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.

It probably would have to be an option to married men as much as unmarried ones - after all, a married man cannot force his wife to keep or abort a child when pregnant - they too have the option to pick and choose.

It's not uncommon to have the scenario where a family may have, say, three boys and the wife may want at least one girl while the man wants no more. An accident (and by that I mean on purpose) will occur and this can put a serious strain on the marriage, often leading to a breakup or the child being effectively rejected by the father. The number of men I've known who've been in this situation is staggering.

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.

Agreed. I would think it should be treated in much the same way as the existing registry for adoptions.

CDfm wrote: »

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

In my mind it really comes down to societal attitudes. The bias towards mothers being the child carer, with the father at best being some form of assistant, is at the core of why the law is as it is and enforcement is one sided. Change those attitudes and the rest will follow (although, in practice it will have to be done in tandem to succeed).

Of the latter, men will routinely be jailed for non-payment of maintenance, while women are never penalized for flaunting access orders, effectively hiding behind the child, because any action would be seen as punishing the child too - a latter day equivalent of 'pleading the belly'.

Personally, I think custodial sentences for either are barbaric and ultimately counter productive. Fiscal devices, fines, cuts in social welfare, should instead be employed.

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

Unfortunately, in such cases, what happens is the child becomes so paramout that the fraud is effectively rewarded by a court. An interesting example is that of Boris Becker, who allegedly only had oral sex, but the woman 'saved' the sperm and was able to successfully impregnate herself with it.

If true, it was out-and-out fraud, but because of the emphasis on the rights of the child (which are in turn administered by the mother), it was a fraud that was rewarded.

metrovelvet

^ Sorry I have to disagree with maintenance enforcement.

Between data protection and the uselessness of attachment of earnings, maintenance enforcement is a joke too. The justice system at large in Ireland is a bit of a virtual reality anyway.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ Sorry I have to disagree with maintenance enforcement.

Between data protection and the uselessness of attachment of earnings, maintenance enforcement is a joke too. The justice system at large in Ireland is a bit of a virtual reality anyway.

Perhaps, but at least there is some maintenance enforcement, however imperfect - there is absolutely no enforcement for access.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ Sorry I have to disagree with maintenance enforcement.

Between data protection and the uselessness of attachment of earnings, maintenance enforcement is a joke too. The justice system at large in Ireland is a bit of a virtual reality anyway.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Perhaps, but at least there is some maintenance enforcement, however imperfect - there is absolutely no enforcement for access.

The enforcement procedure is jail for non payment. That is the legal remedy in Ireland.

The numbers jailed are not reported because the court cases are held in-camera and not picked up by the newspapers.

I dont know if there are any figures actually published on this. 8 or 10 years ago I was in Dolphin House and a guy was taken out of the court in handcuffs. The garda put him in one of the conference booths .He owed 60 punts and had 40 and it wasn't accepted by the judge. The guard lent him his mobile phone to try to get the 20 and it had to be quick because once he was taken into custody by the prison service he was stuck. Myself and another guy chipped in a tenner each. It was weird because the garda would not take the money from us as we weren't supposed to know what was going on and we could not talk to him directly as he was in "custody" . So the twenty was thrown into the booth and the garda went in and found it.

Any man who has been thru the system knows that the penalty for non-payment is jail.

In theory, maintenance and access are not linked, but in practice they are. Court applications are heard by the same judge at the same time-so how can they not be linked.

So maintenance and court can be a powerful weapon in the hands of some women, so the expectation by guys in this situation will be that it is the way it works. My son will have seen what happened to me -so he will know what happens.

From a practical point of view state agencies are not set up to deal with men looking for access , neither the courts of the Department of the Family.

Years back, I talked to a social worker and at the time was told before the rebranding of the Department from the Department of Women & Children, that as a man she was not able to help me. If I hadn't heard it myself I would not have believed it.I do not believe times have changed.

metrovelvet

^Maybe de jure but not de facto, and even de jure that has changed. They can get an arrest warrent for not showing up in court but not for non payment.

cdfm- Do you have any more in depth studies that differentiate between resident and non resident fathers, because what I have found on non resident fathers is pretty grim.

Its pretty obvious in some respects - two parents means double the love, one means half the love. And that means T-I-M-E, that is how kids spell LOVE.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

^Maybe de jure but not de facto, and even de jure that has changed. They can get an arrest warrent for not showing up in court but not for non payment.

I think CDfm's anecdote disproves that assertion.

As for an arrest (bench) warrant for not showing up in court, that covers both genders in theory - I say in theory, because I would have to ask when was the last time a mother was jailed for breach of any order or summons?

That's really the bottom line; however imperfect the system, fathers get jailed, mothers do not and indeed, there appears to be absolutely no enforcement on them whatsoever. Can anyone even point to even anecdotal evidence of any enforcement?

metrovelvet

I dont know anyone or heard of anyone who has been in jail for non payment of maintenance [I have heard of it for parking fines and a dog license].

I dont know of anyone or heard of anyone who has been in jail for breach of access order, either mother or father either.

cdfms anecdote happenned 8 or 10 years ago. As I have reminded him a couple of times, this procedures are no longer in force.

However, his anecdote only confirms in a way what I have been saying, and that is the government is only concerned with money when it comes to children of single parent households and not with psychological or community, and even national well being. That is not to say money isnt important, because it is, but it is obvious the government will not initiate a campaign to change cultural attitudes nor should it, as it is really not its place to do that [others will disagree depending on how much they want the government involved in their family lives], so it has to start from the bottom up.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

^Maybe de jure but not de facto, and even de jure that has changed. They can get an arrest warrent for not showing up in court but not for non payment.

cdfm- Do you have any more in depth studies that differentiate between resident and non resident fathers, because what I have found on non resident fathers is pretty grim.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think CDfm's anecdote disproves that assertion.

As for an arrest (bench) warrant for not showing up in court,

@metro - that is due process and though Family Law is Civil Law -its enforcement is done by way of Criminal Penalties.

I am just saying thats the way it is and how it works.

I know when I hear Family Law as a man, I instinctively know that maintenance can and can be used that way.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont know anyone or heard of anyone who has been in jail for non payment of maintenance

I have.

I dont know of anyone or heard of anyone who has been in jail for breach of access order, either mother or father either.

Neither have I.

However, his anecdote only confirms in a way what I have been saying, and that is the government is only concerned with money when it comes to children of single parent households and not with psychological or community, and even national well being.

No disagreement there. The cohabitation bill, imho, was largely designed to save on social welfare costs, and when cuts in government spending were sought, one of the first things that the DSW did was send out threatening letters to single fathers demanding that they increase maintenance payments.

It's about money and where to squeeze it with the least popular resistance.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I have.

Neither have I.

No disagreement there. The cohabitation bill, imho, was largely designed to save on social welfare costs, and when cuts in government spending were sought, one of the first things that the DSW did was send out threatening letters to single fathers demanding that they increase maintenance payments.

It's about money and where to squeeze it with the least popular resistance.

OT for a sec RE cohabitation bill. That was fairly obvious that it was not a principal of equality when there was no mention of other marital privaledges such as citizenship or immigration rights.

I dont understand how they sent out threatening letters re maintenance to single fathers. Maintenance is not the same as alimony. Did they send out alimony letters? Do you have any documentation of this? I love how they can breach in camera rules to demand court orders but they are protected by data protection to disclose the whereabouts of deadbeats.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont understand how they sent out threatening letters re maintenance to single fathers. Maintenance is not the same as alimony. Did they send out alimony letters? Do you have any documentation of this? I love how they can breach in camera rules to demand court orders but they are protected by data protection to disclose the whereabouts of deadbeats.

I think they originally got their information from the mothers, when they registered for LPA. If a man was not registered with them, he would not have received a letter.

There were numerous threads about this here and on other sites about two years ago from men about this - indeed, some threads were from women who were also oblivious to this until they got irate calls from the men in question.

metrovelvet

But then how did the dsa know they were former cohabitants? I assume you are talking about fathers who no longer live with the mother? I also dont understand this because the cohabitation bill does not work retroactively. In other words, alimony would be entitlement to ex partners who BEGAN living together AFTER the law is passed. Has it passed btw?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

But then how did the dsa know they were former cohabitants? I assume you are talking about fathers who no longer live with the mother?

I think it came about when the mother registered for LPA, she would be asked for details of the father and if he was making maintenance payments (and she would be generally required to pursue these if not). The details would remain on file and then one day someone got the bright idea of giving them a shakedown independent of the mother - I believe that the DSW even has some legal powers to do this.

I also dont understand this because the cohabitation bill does not work retroactively. In other words, alimony would be entitlement to ex partners who BEGAN living together AFTER the law is passed. Has it passed btw?

I believe the law was enacted recently. If a couple was living together for five years in a "committed relationship", regardless of whether that cohabitation began before or after that enactment, then a claim can be made. The only way out of it is if they signed an opt-out contract in the meantime, and even that is not ironclad.

I don't think such a claim is retrospective for relationships that ended before the law was enacted though - that would screw Bertie, after all, and we can't have that, can we?

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think it came about when the mother registered for LPA, she would be asked for details of the father and if he was making maintenance payments (and she would be generally required to pursue these if not). The details would remain on file and then one day someone got the bright idea of giving them a shakedown independent of the mother - I believe that the DSW even has some legal powers to do this.

That has nothing to do with the cohabitation bill or whether or not the mother was living with the father or the duration of their cohabitation.

They do that with every mother claiming it. And again, that is maintenance, not alimony.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

That has nothing to do with the cohabitation bill or whether or not the mother was living with the father or the duration of their cohabitation.

I know, I was agreeing and expanding upon your point that "the government is only concerned with money" with two different examples of policies designed to shift the fiscal responsibility of the state onto private individuals.

Consider that about 35% (apparently) of children are presently born outside of marriage in the state. If even only 40% of those are to cohabitating couples, and 20% of those then break up, then it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the increased income from 'palimony' would offset social welfare payments that would otherwise have to be made.

The potential savings to the state are gigantic, and all it costs is a few civil rights.

metrovelvet

Ok. I get it now.

I suppose it would create a greater incentive too for fathers to remain non residential, keep housing demand up, creating more consumers for utilities and other product, etc.

tbh

The Corinthian wrote: »

No disagreement there.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok. I get it now.

this is a big day for the GC

metrovelvet

It must be a leap year.:p

cdfm- I got this in my inbox.

http://www.uci.edu/features/2011/01/feature_neumark_110124.php

Locking up bad fathers is good for the kids?

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

It must be a leap year.:p

cdfm- I got this in my inbox.

http://www.uci.edu/features/2011/01/feature_neumark_110124.php

Locking up bad fathers is good for the kids?

This is not America.

We have discussed the US & Ireland before, where access orders are enforced by the County Sherrifs Department and compliance enforced by them thru their powers of arrest. They arrest mothers for this and they can be charged with kidnapping for moving children out of the jurisdiction.

I thought you were against the whole arrest thing. :pac:

metrovelvet

cdfm- A lot of your studies are US studies so you are sending me mixed messages here... the study you posted earlier today is based on the US too.

And its not about locking up parents for maintenance, its basically saying the lack of the bad role model around is better than the bad role model being around.

im showing you this link to give you food for thought, that's not to say I agree or disagree with it.

Fittle

CDfm wrote: »

This is not America.

We have discussed the US & Ireland before, where access orders are enforced by the County Sherrifs Department and compliance enforced by them thru their powers of arrest. They arrest mothers for this and they can be charged with kidnapping for moving children out of the jurisdiction.

I thought you were against the whole arrest thing. :pac:

So here you say this is not america.

But when I asked you previously where the stats were to prove that children don't do well with no fathers around, you quoted american 11yr old stats

CDfm

Fittle wrote: »

So here you say this is not america.

But when I asked you previously where the stats were to prove that children don't do well with no fathers around, you quoted american 11yr old stats

I am not a social worker or sociologist .

I do not know if there are Irish studies done and tbh my kids are finished and it is irrelevant to my life now.

The challenge for all parents is to do what is best for their children.

20 y/o CD junior and LC studying CDfmette are reared so its up to those who are parents now to decide for themselves.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

tbh my kids are finished and it is irrelevant to my life now.

Isn't that a bit 'throwing the toys out of the pram'? Don't get me wrong - Fiddle does the same if she doesn't like how the discussion is going, but I don't think anyone should be allowed to sidestep questions or points by simply saying they don't want to play anymore.

As to the study itself, it really depends on how it was conducted and particularly the demographics it examined. It could be flawed or skewed to push an agenda or, more likely, concentrates only on one demographic segment of society, where it is true - after all just as not all mothers are good mothers, not all fathers are good fathers.

However, the danger is always that some Muppet will point to this study in another debate as some sort of proof that the findings are somehow universal.

Fittle

I know you are not a social worker or psychologist.

To use the sentence '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' is way too general, negates the (parenting) work that women who parent alone do and is based on nothing other than stereotyping children who grow up with their mothers raising them (alone).

So the kids who don't have a dad around...don't do as well in school as those with a dad around?
And the kids who don't have a dad around don't do well in society in general? So what exactly is lacking in the parenting that the mother is doing?

I know many children who are being raised by mothers only. Some are top of their class, and are very sociable children. I also know many children who have both parents in their lives. Some are getting extra resources in school, are bullies and aggressive due to their home environment of their parents arguing (monkey see-monkey do).

Your sentence is quite misleading.