Children's/Fathers' Rights

Klingon Hamlet

Have any of the contesting parties made any statements regarding their stances on fathers' rights/children's rights?

I wonder, because the parties have been very focussed on the "ground-level" type politicking. Do they realise 33% of future voters are children to unmarried families?

snowpatrol123

As far as im aware no party has even mentioned it.

Its a disgrace seeing as the draft parental responsibility bill was being pushed by Mary White.

If all proposed legislation falls when the Dail is disolved does that mean that a new bill will be drafted or will they just pick up from where they left off?

Lockstep

Page 74 of Labour's manifesto supports paternity leave and will legislate to support their [url=] Guardianship of Children Bill 2010 [/url]

In order to ensure that the child’s rights are vindicated, the Bill will confer an
automatic guardianship role on natural fathers in respect of children born after the passing of the Act (with specified exceptions) and will give the parties or the court a
power to terminate that role in specified circumstances. Such a guardianship role will not depend on whether the father is registered on the birth certificate, as to do so would create a disincentive to registering the father, contrary to the right of the child.
Instead, the role conferred by the Bill will be automatic, but will be complemented by
an automatic registration of fathers on the birth certificate.

Tarobot

Greens have a few things in the manifesto:

Examine the possibility of introducing a system allowing fathers take up any remaining unpaid leave if their partner goes back to work early.
• Implement the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission Report on the Legal Aspects of Family Relationships.
• Legislate for fathers to have automatic guardianship of their child from the birth of the child.
• Legislate to ensure the registration of fathers’ names on the birth certificates of their child.
• Improve the transparency of family court proceedings through relaxation of In Camera rule.

I also like their reference to both male and female sufferers of domestic violence.

Klingon Hamlet

I wonder why Labour reserve the right to terminate a father's guardianship?

sickpuppy32

i've asked FG several times for their policy to no avail

Reilly616

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I wonder why Labour reserve the right to terminate a father's guardianship?

Why wouldn't you?

johngalway

Reckon myself that the childs rights are often brushed aside in the interests of one or other of the parents rights, resulting in a detrimental effect on the child. In this country they're often treated like some type of commodity to be pulled apart. What's best for the child is what the consideration should be. Too often unsuitable adults are foisted upon children simply because they're a biological parent and have "rights".

It's twisted.

Klingon Hamlet

Reilly616 wrote: »

Why wouldn't you?

Cos a mum's guardianship can't be terminated. So why should a dad's? I don't mean it in a tit-for-tat way. I mean it in a let-everything-and-everyone-be-equal way.

mark17

Don't expect too much from Fine Gael on any of these issues. Last time they were in power the brought three seriously anti-man acts, and the funny thing was Alan Shatter has a huge family law business in Dublin. Each of these laws made it much easier for women to win cases against men. And guess who makes loads of money representing them, Alan Shatter. No vested interests in Fine Gael my ARSE....

Klingon Hamlet

mark17 wrote: »

Don't expect too much from Fine Gael on any of these issues. Last time they were in power the brought three seriously anti-man acts, and the funny thing was Alan Shatter has a huge family law business in Dublin. Each of these laws made it much easier for women to win cases against men. And guess who makes loads of money representing them, Alan Shatter. No vested interests in Fine Gael my ARSE....

Hi, what acts were these? Thanks!

mark17

Maintenance Act 1994, Family Law Act 1995, Domestic Violence Act 1996 although each of these acts were necessary they were open to abuse and tweaked in favour of women. There are too many examples to go into here, but barring orders were being handed out against men without any proof of abuse or violence, bank accounts frozen etc. and no proof or indeed the chance for a man to defend himself in court, until months passed. it got so bad the supreme court put a stop to it in 2002. It's one example

Klingon Hamlet

mark17 wrote: »

Maintenance Act 1994, Family Law Act 1995, Domestic Violence Act 1996 although each of these acts were necessary they were open to abuse and tweaked in favour of women. There are too many examples to go into here, but barring orders were being handed out against men without any proof of abuse or violence, bank accounts frozen etc. and no proof or indeed the chance for a man to defend himself in court, until months passed. it got so bad the supreme court put a stop to it in 2002. It's one example

Yikes! Hope that kinda stuff doesn't happen again! I'd love for Labour to get in, I think they really are our best hope at equal guardianship rights for our kiddies.:) Greens went hell-for-leather for it but they've no hope of getting voted in again....

Funkfield

johngalway wrote: »

Reckon myself that the childs rights are often brushed aside in the interests of one or other of the parents rights, resulting in a detrimental effect on the child. In this country they're often treated like some type of commodity to be pulled apart. What's best for the child is what the consideration should be. Too often unsuitable adults are foisted upon children simply because they're a biological parent and have "rights".

It's twisted.

I think it is better for both parents to have "rights" than one automatically having all rights regardless of their suitability as a parent.

I have seen first hand many cases where a very well-meaning, stable father has been sidelined from a child's life purely on the mother's say-so. I have seen mothers with no income (living off welfare/maintenance) move far from the original family home seemingly only to make visitation harder on the father. I have seen very unfit mothers make capable fathers jump through hoops in order to even see their children.
Whats best for the child should always be considered. But what is best for the child is to give both parents equal rights and to take away those rights if and when it is needed.

mark17

i really hope the whole child-father situation is sorted out, and men get more recognition in both the law and the constitution

cue

This is the main reason why I am giving the greens my no.1 tomorrow.

CDfm

Tarobot wrote: »

Greens have a few things in the manifesto:

Examine the possibility of introducing a system allowing fathers take up any remaining unpaid leave if their partner goes back to work early.
• Implement the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission Report on the Legal Aspects of Family Relationships.
• Legislate for fathers to have automatic guardianship of their child from the birth of the child.
• Legislate to ensure the registration of fathers’ names on the birth certificates of their child.
• Improve the transparency of family court proceedings through relaxation of In Camera rule.

I also like their reference to both male and female sufferers of domestic violence.

And they did what about it when they were in government :rolleyes:

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I wonder why Labour reserve the right to terminate a father's guardianship?

This is my very cynical view upon it.

Labour is linked with the Unions who have recruited women members to get around a membership decline .

This has been an important part of garnering support from the womens movement which is a very important lobby group.

When have you ever heard a Labour politician speak on rights for men.

Take a look at this article and with over half of trade union members women how many leadership positions do women hold

http://www.irishtimes.com/indepth/sisters/ladies-to-women.html

Or the ICTU Equality Charter

http://www.ictu.ie/equality/gender.html

Nowhere does it mention equality for men or criticise groups like Womens Aid for its gender feminist approach. For that matter neither do SF or FG or FF. The Womens Movement is a voter demographic.

Most rightminded people believe in genuine equalty of the gendersin society and in the workplace,owever, that does not mean that the policies adopted by Labour have been fair.

There is no support for women victims of domestic violence in same sex relationships, female victims of women in families or child victims of female violence. You also have elderly abuse.

4% of the male population and 4% of the female population are also victims of domestic violence.Around half of that is mutual violence.

So while its work equality promotion is right and good - but it goes much further in its social policy in a less then honest way and only addresses the rights of heterosexual female victim in an abusive relationship.

It is easy to single out men specifically, but , in real terms its policies exclude huge sections of the population. Not only men, but children, the elderly , and LGBT are also off the radar for issues like domestic violence where the perpetrators are women.

That is not excusing male perpetrators but at the very least you would expect the Labour Party to acknowledge the facts.The only possible justification I can see is its connections with extreme gender feminist groups.

Now how can you have a social policy if the policy is carved up by potential voter support and focus groups and abandons the concepts of right and wrong.

EDIT - http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/child_abuse.aspx

K-9

Another reason not to vote FG then!

I was giving serious consideration voting Green, think this might nail it with Labour up my preferences to 2.

Reilly616

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Cos a mum's guardianship can't be terminated. So why should a dad's? I don't mean it in a tit-for-tat way. I mean it in a let-everything-and-everyone-be-equal way.

Why do you think a mother's guardianship can't be terminated? Do you actually think the state would leave a child in the custody of a woman who beats, cuts, sexually abuses, or mentally abuses them?

CDfm

Reilly616 wrote: »

Why do you think a mother's guardianship can't be terminated? Do you actually think the state would leave a child in the custody of a woman who beats, cuts, sexually abuses, or mentally abuses them?

Yes

Reilly616

CDfm wrote: »

Yes

Well then you're mistaken. But I was actually asking Klingon Hamlet.

johngalway

Reilly616 wrote: »

Do you actually think the state would leave a child in the temporary custody of a woman parent who beats, cuts, sexually abuses, or mentally abuses them?

Taken a slight liberty with your post.

Yes, and you're dead wrong if you think it doesn't happen. I've seen it.

Reilly616

johngalway wrote: »

Taken a slight liberty with your post.

Yes, and you're dead wrong if you think it doesn't happen. I've seen it.

To be fair, you're answering a qustion I didn't ask.

johngalway

Reilly616 wrote: »

To be fair, you're answering a qustion I didn't ask.

True, but it's not all that different either.

Reilly616

The long and short of it is that a mother's guardianship can be revoked by adoption, as can a marital father's. They are equal in that manner. The difference arises when the child is extra-marital. In that case, the father does not have automatic guardianship (lest guardianship be bestowed on a rapist for example), but must apply to the courts for it. Since it is given to him by the court, it can be removed by the court.

I'm not in favour of the system by the way, just setting it out (hopefully) clearly.

CDfm

Reilly616 wrote: »

Well then you're mistaken. But I was actually asking Klingon Hamlet.

I dont think so here is a link to an article by Michelle Elliot of Kidscape - a child advocasy group in the UK

http://www.kidscape.org.uk/assets/downloads/Femalesexualabuseofchildren.pdf

Another by Esther Rantzen

Gender-blindness on child sexual abuse

The myth that sexual abuse is rarely committed by women is sadly contradicted as more boys are calling ChildLine to report it


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/09/boys-sexual-abuse-childline

Erin Pizzey founder of Womens Aid UK and of the first UK womens shelter in the UK in 1971 describes it in her book Prone to Violence available on-line here

http://www.bennett.com/ptv/

So it is not as if it is new or surprising - it is very well known indeed .

Child abuse should offend everybody.

Reilly616

CDfm, apologies if I wasn't clear. When I say the state wouldn't allow it, I mean that in the same way the state soesn't allow murder, or rape. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it legally ought not to, and when it does and is known about then the state ought legally to intervene.

Tarobot

CDfm wrote: »

And they did what about it when they were in government :rolleyes:

You know how conservative FF & FG are when it comes to the family. Just look at what Lucinda Creighton came out with. Greens were a small party but if we keep voting for FF & FG, we'll never get reform of family law.

Labour & Greens have the best policies in this area as far as I can see.

CDfm

Tarobot wrote: »

You know how conservative FF & FG are when it comes to the family. Just look at what Lucinda Creighton came out with. Greens were a small party but if we keep voting for FF & FG, we'll never get reform of family law.

Labour & Greens have the best policies in this area as far as I can see.

Actually I dont.

As far as I can see Labour are more extreme than any of them with Ivana Bacik on their team. She is as extreme feminist as you get in fathers rights areas.

The Greens entered into government and were part of the coalition that delivered the Civil Partnership and Cohabitation Act and were plenty powerful at that time. Big U turns for votes do not impress me.

I am pro gay marriage - but I do not think these people are commited to social change as much as they are commited to electoral soundbites.

sickpuppy32

Reilly616 wrote: »

Why do you think a mother's guardianship can't be terminated? Do you actually think the state would leave a child in the custody of a woman who beats, cuts, sexually abuses, or mentally abuses them?

Wasn't there a case not so long ago in roscommon where exactly this happened?

gcgirl

sickpuppy32 wrote: »

Wasn't there a case not so long ago in roscommon where exactly this happened?

Both parents too

Klingon Hamlet

Labour want a reform of children's rights too so they seem to want to bring a lot of good change for our kiddies:)

It was Labour that introduced a Private members Bill - the "Guardianship of Children Bill" - into the Dail in April 2010, and (if I recall correctly), that Bill actually did include a provision where guardianship could be removed from EITHER parent.

However, that Bill stalled at the first stage and appears to have lapsed.

CDfm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Labour want a reform of children's rights too so they seem to want to bring a lot of good change for our kiddies:)

They have had loads of time to put forward proposals.

My cynical mind tells me that their policies will have nothing to do with childrens rights snd rverything to do with high profile extreme womens action groups - who deny that there are any female perpetrators at all.

So how is this going yo help children.

Its not childrens rights that concern labour but publicity and votes.

If it were it would have been far more progressive.

So until I see a policy saying "right both genders can abuse" by Labour I wont believe it,

K-9

Well Green No.1 and Labour 2 and the rest after for me. This issue swung it even if both candidates are probably also rans in my constituency.

As for Ivana, tbh most parties have objectionable individuals.

CDfm

Deleted User wrote: »

It was Labour that introduced a Private members Bill - the "Guardianship of Children Bill" - into the Dail in April 2010, and (if I recall correctly), that Bill actually did include a provision where guardianship could be removed from EITHER parent.

However, that Bill stalled at the first stage and appears to have lapsed.

In practice these laws have been used against fathers irrespective of the wording.

K-9 wrote: »

As for Ivana, tbh most parties have objectionable individuals.

I think she is very extreme

CDfm

CDfm wrote: »

In practice these laws have been used against fathers irrespective of the wording.

The wording [within the proposed Guardianship of Children Bill 2010] was "parent" - as opposed to "mother" or "father", so could in practice have been used against mothers too.

It may be moot now however, as it says that particular Bill has lapsed on the Oirechtas.ie website.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

In practice these laws have been used against fathers irrespective of the wording.






I think she is very extreme

I'd agree but FF, FG, SF and Greens all have their own type of extremists.

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

I'd agree but FF, FG, SF and Greens all have their own type of extremists.

but she is extreme in a gender politics way and represents her party which because of the whip system we must tar all with the same brush.

labour and misandry are synonomous

Klingon Hamlet

CDfm wrote: »

but she is extreme in a gender politics way and represents her party which because of the whip system we must tar all with the same brush.

labour and misandry are synonomous

Which party is most pro-fathers/kids then CDFM?

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

but she is extreme in a gender politics way and represents her party which because of the whip system we must tar all with the same brush.

labour and misandry are synonomous

I know that CDfm, but there is more to Labour than that.

They did at least bring forward a bill on Guardianship, imperfect as it was, the Greens had a chance to that in Government and concentrated on civil partnerships instead.

I was disappointed that there was nothing on Fathers Rights in it but I think that is next on the list.

I don't know, do you think FF or FG have that much interest in it? FG have social and economic extremists, SF as well and well, FF are FF.

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

I know that CDfm, but there is more to Labour than that................I don't know, do you think FF or FG have that much interest in it? FG have social and economic extremists, SF as well and well, FF are FF.

I am sorry too.

But you know what , the important part of this for me is that we know we are being played.

I am disappointed in Labour.

takun

This issue was one of the reasons I voted Labour (among many other reasons). I do think they are the most likely to introduce and get passed at least some protection and recognition of father's rights.

I was unaware of this whole area until my son was born, and I think many people are the same - they know nothing much about it until it comes into their own lives. I wasn't, and am not now, married to his father, although we are still in a stable relationship 14 years later. I was completely horrified that he had to go to court to be made guardian of his own son, and equally horrified that I had to provide a signed declaration that I had no objections. We were told at the time that if I did not he would have a significantly reduced chance of the court granting him guardianship (not that it was an issue in our case). It seemed wrong to me then and it seems wrong to me now.

And I say that as a woman and a feminist. I hate the perception that feminism equals anti-man, because it absolutely does not. It's pro equality. This situation is one where men are patently not equal, and it's not right.

CDfm

takun wrote: »

This issue was one of the reasons I voted Labour (among many other reasons). I do think they are the most likely to introduce and get passed at least some protection and recognition of father's rights.

And I say that as a woman and a feminist. I hate the perception that feminism equals anti-man, because it absolutely does not. It's pro equality. This situation is one where men are patently not equal, and it's not right.

Feminism in Ireland isn't pro-equality.

If it was you would not have gender biased domestic violence campaigns and you would have recognition of female perpetrated family violence. Feminism is not about protecting children either.

I am not saying it can'L happen but Labour is affiliated to extreme groups and adopts extreme policies.

Being pro equality for me means that I have to acknowledge the plight of other groups in society, women, children, LGBT and the elderly . Organisations and individuals who cant do that are nit pro-equality.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

I am sorry too.

But you know what , the important part of this for me is that we know we are being played.

I am disappointed in Labour.

Welcome to politics and I amn't being flippant on that!

It's about competing interests and compromise which is why so many people are disappointed in it.

FG used to be a liberal and progressive party for its time under Garret, I'm disappointed in this bunch.

FF just do what will get them votes.

Really, what socially progressive parties are left?

Not that this issue is particularly world changing!

CDfm

Thanks k-9

There is nothing wrong with our politicians that a guiolitine would not fix.

James Jones

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Have any of the contesting parties made any statements regarding their stances on fathers' rights/children's rights?

I wonder, because the parties have been very focussed on the "ground-level" type politicking. Do they realise 33% of future voters are children to unmarried families?

Sorry I missed this thread but I e-mailed over 300 candidates on 1st February and the only one who got back to me with any sort of declaration was Nicholas Crawford.
I asked Dermot Lacey of Labour "for your views on my proposal that unmarried fathers should be granted the same status as married fathers as per current legislation. What fathers and their children need is for the current legislation to be enforced rather than being ignored by schools, hospitals and the Courts who fail to enforce Court orders".
In his answer he said "You raise a number of issues, which I will try to deal with in turn. I answer this on behalf of all Labour candidates" and said as follows: "you correctly point to the fact that the LRC decided against imposing a statutory duty on joint guardians to consult. This seems to mean that joint guardianship means that either guardian can separately make important guardianship decisions. In practice this will mean the one who has custody.
The Party has not considered this particular aspect of the argument. It is of course important to recognise the equal status of both parents but whether that should mean equal and independent status is open to question.
Any proposals put forward by Labour in response to the LRC Report and its draft Bill will take into account the points you have made here and we look forward to receiving more detailed submissions from your organisation at the appropriate stage".

I was looking for something on which to base my vote but he would go no further, stating on 3rd February "I have been advised by the relevant Officials that they feel they have answered fully and given a commitment to review the matters you have raised".

Fine Gael failed to respond to my query
"The Fine Gael manifesto says the following:
Supporting Marriage: Fine Gael recognises the value of the family based on the institution of marriage.
Family Law Reform: We will modernise and reform outdated elements of family law.
As there is no further detail, could you please explain what Fine Gael actually mean by these statements?"

I spoke to Senator Mark Deary who was quite shocked to learn the the Law Reform Commission proposals intend to dilute the guardianship rights of married fathers and then grant this weakened position to unmarried fathers so the Greens didn't actually know the implications of their own proposals.

CDfm

@james jones Why dont you email all the sucessful candidates when they get their dail email addresses.

Now there are 14 independents and 20 Fianna Failers they will be looking for new policies and interest groups to infiltrate.

Men are treated like crap should appeal to 50% of voters and might get transfers.

James Jones

The plan is to get opposition TD's to ask ministers PQ's and then post them HERE.

That requires

1. The Govt to be formed (a matter of days)
2. Communication with Opposition TD's (a matter of weeks)
3. Patience on my part (a matter of years!!!)

metrovelvet

I think all the parties missed a huge campaign opportunity around the IRISH FAMILY, because it will disintegrate under current conditions and then the whole fathers rights thing will be ever more complicated.

With the economic crisis more and more breadwinners will have to emigrate for work. Most likely the single dads will leave and the children and mothers will remain in Ireland.

The married men will have to emigrate but obviously their spouses and children will follow but they will be disconnected from their extended families.

The former leaders and banks of this nation have effectively compromised and possibly have broken up many many Irish families and no one has looked at the long term implications of what this mean for the country, the nation and the mental health and finances for all of us.

No politician, lobbyist or media have addressed how we are going to put Humpty Dumpty [the IRish family] back together again.

TBH guardianship is just one drop in one very troubled ocean.

CDfm

So why dont we just roll back the laws to the 60's and start with a clean slate.

That would uncomplicate everything.