TD calls for reform of family law

Klingon Hamlet

This is an article from the Herald:

A junior minister has called for reform of family law to give equal rights to single fathers and unmarried couples.

Mary White, Green Party TD and minister for equality, warned many men suffer difficulties from marital or relationship breakdown and a lack of access to their children.

She said: "In parallel with the need for support and services for fathers is the need for reform of family law. At the heart of society there must be equality before the law and I hope that soon there will be equality between parents, regardless of gender or marital status."

The junior minister opened a new office of the charity Families, Fathers and Friends at the Guinness enterprise centre in Dublin. The charity provides counselling, mediation, advice and information to fathers.

The Government is considering a Law Reform Commission report from last December on reforming legislation on fathers' rights. It called for mothers and fathers, regardless of marital status, to be given automatic joint parental responsibility for their children.

The commission also called for the automatic joint registration of both parents on a birth certificate to reinforce the right of a child to know their parents.

Ms White said she would raise the issue with Justice Minister Dermot Ahern.

"I look forward to meeting the Minister for Justice to advance the review of such legislation in the coming weeks," she said.

Ms White said she was pleased the charity would be available to fathers in the Dublin area after several years serving the Galway region.

She added: "There are many men in Ireland who suffer difficulties from marital or relationship breakdown and a lack of access to their children for various reasons. Not being able to participate fully in a child's life is painful for any committed parent. There is an ongoing need for supports and services for decent dads in such situations."

Things are going to improve soon, I think...I hope:D

Nevyn

Given the fact there is to be a general election and long time it takes for any policey to be turned into a bill I would not be waiting on any TD never mind a Green Party one to get anything accmplished between now and the General Election in March.

Klingon Hamlet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Given the fact there is to be a general election and long time it takes for any policey to be turned into a bill I would not be waiting on any TD never mind a Green Party one to get anything accmplished between now and the General Election in March.

If everyone brings it up to the candidates when they come to your door, they'll have to at least give it a think-over.

Fittle

Mary White has been going on about this for a long time - it remains to be seen if she will even be in Government after March 11th, regardless of what Dept she's in. I find it has always been her trying to get this into the public domain more recently - very few others have been as vocal about it.

As far as I can tell, this is down to her own personal interest in this issue and I hope the next Minister feels as passionate about fathers rights as she does.

I will mention it when they come knocking - another point to add to my list - they'll be at my door for a very long time;)

Klingon Hamlet

Fittle wrote: »

Mary White has been going on about this for a long time - it remains to be seen if she will even be in Government after March 11th, regardless of what Dept she's in. I find it has always been her trying to get this into the public domain more recently - very few others have been as vocal about it.

As far as I can tell, this is down to her own personal interest in this issue and I hope the next Minister feels as passionate about fathers rights as she does.

I will mention it when they come knocking - another point to add to my list - they'll be at my door for a very long time;)

She has stated that if she is not re-elected, that she will continue to do what she can to promote this issue and have equal rights introduced. She seems to have taken this major problem very personally and I commend her for her selfless and courageous campaigning to make things right. After all fighting for father's rights is not high on anyone's list---ever---so she never did it to make a name for herself.

And after meeting with her face-to-face, I can honestly say we would be blessed to have her re-elected. One can only hope.

wolfpawnat

Actually that is something I never thought to ask prospective TD's! I will now question them on this too when they come to my door!

Since it cost me and my ex for court, some men cannot afford this and should not have to do this! It's not fair

James Jones

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Things are going to improve soon, I think...I hope:D

If anyone believes that the Law Reform Commission proposals is an advancement for fathers, they should read the report itself HERE and not be taken in by the spin put forward by either Mary White or the Law Reform Commission in its Press Release. The press release fails to mention the purposeful diminution of Guardianship as follows:
1) CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS “The Commission recommends that a general statutory requirement to consult should not be included in legislation concerning parental responsibility”. At the moment, married parents act JOINTLY as Guardians and if they cannot agree, they can have any issued decided in Court. However, by recommending “that a general statutory requirement to consult should not be included”, they are giving the custodial parent (generally the mother) a greater say in guardianship matters. The Commission then propose to grant this weakened position to unmarried fathers. It is similar to granting Gays the right to formalise a relationship by Civil Partnership which, although similar to marriage, is not as strong. If they think it ok for gays to have a formal relationship, then let them get married. If they think unmarried fathers should be treated equally to married fathers, let them simply grant automatic guardianship to unmarried fathers WITHOUT weakening the rights of married fathers.
2) By allowing aunts, uncles, grandparents (and whoever happens to be the partner of the mother at the time) a right to apply for Guardianship weakens the position of fathers further. If a father has little or no say in Guardianship matters as it is, his position will be worse when there are more guardians involved as he will always be in the minority. There is no point in having a say if you are always going to be overruled.
3) The proposed legislation includes an Amendment of the Civil Registration Act 2004
10.—The Civil Registration Act 2004 is amended—
(a) by the insertion of the following after section 19(1) —(1A)(a) Where a mother reasonably believes that her safety or welfare or the safety or welfare of the child so requires it, she may request the exclusion of the required particulars of the birth pertaining to the father.
(b) Such request shall be in writing to the Registrar and be accompanied by a statutory declaration setting out the reasons for the request.
(c) The Registrar shall comply with the request.
The mother does not have to prove, “beyond all reasonable doubt” or even “on the balance of probabilities” that she or the child have anything to fear from the father. She just has to make a statutory declaration stating the reasons that the father should be excluded from the registration of the birth of their child.
Note section (c) which states, quite clearly, that "The Registrar shall comply with the request". The Registrar does not have a choice. If the mother says that the father might be a bold boy the Registrar has NO CHOICE but to exclude him from the registration. The father does not have to be a junkie, have a criminal record or even have had a previous allegation made against him. All that is required is that the mother ”reasonably believes that her safety or welfare or the safety or welfare of the child so requires it, she may request the exclusion of the required particulars of the birth pertaining to the father”. So it’s not even a safety issue. So much for "Innocent until proven guilty".
I believe the entire amendment of the Guardianship of Infants Act is a political correct exercise in pretending that unmarried fathers will now have rights but what they are actually proposing is weakening the rights of married fathers (who won’t notice until they separate or divorce) and then granting them to unmarried fathers (who are being led to believe that they will be equal to married fathers).
If the rights of fathers were being addressed, they would simply ensure that the current legislation was enforced and grant Guardianship to any father who cared to apply for it.

Kildrought

Well lets hope they include reform of the Child Maintenance law while they are at it.

Klingon Hamlet

Kildrought wrote: »

Well lets hope they include reform of the Child Maintenance law while they are at it.

Out of curiosity, what would you like to see reformed?

The Corinthian

James Jones wrote: »

I believe the entire amendment of the Guardianship of Infants Act is a political correct exercise in pretending that unmarried fathers will now have rights but what they are actually proposing is weakening the rights of married fathers (who won’t notice until they separate or divorce) and then granting them to unmarried fathers (who are being led to believe that they will be equal to married fathers).

I tend to agree and this has been debated a few times now, with Klingon Hamlet generally evangelizing the proposal and Mary White, then ignoring these criticisms when made.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

And after meeting with her face-to-face, I can honestly say we would be blessed to have her re-elected. One can only hope.

I've asked this before elsewhere, but what is your personal connection to Mary White and/or the Green Party? Why do you repeatedly push her and this proposal, yet refuse to engage in any critical debate of it?

nesf

The Corinthian, please don't drag up threads almost a month old to reignite a debate on political grounds.