Guardianship, what is it and what it means?

K-9

Guardianship to my understanding is a basic declaration of entitlement to consultation with the other Guardian Re Health and Education and other important decisions in a childs life.

Guardianship status of fathers

All mothers in Ireland, irrespective of whether they are married or unmarried, have automatic guardianship status in relation to their children, unless they give the child up for adoption. A father who is married to the mother of his child also has automatic guardianship rights in relation to that child. This applies even if the couple married after the birth of the child. The rights of parents to guardianship are set down in Section 6 the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964. Guardianship rights entitle a parent to make important decisions regarding that child's upbringing, for example, deciding on the child's religion, education, medical treatment and where he/she lives.
However, a father who is not married to the mother of his child does not have automatic guardianship rights in relation to that child. If the mother agrees for him to be legally appointed guardian, they must sign a joint statutory declaration. The statutory declaration (SI 5 of 1998) must be signed in the presence of a Peace Commissioner or a Commissioner for Oaths. If there is more than one child, a separate statutory declaration should be made for each.
If the mother does not agree for him to have guardianship, he may apply for this status to the District Court. Statistics for 2004 show that 70% of the 1,237 unmarried fathers applying for guardianship in Ireland in that year had orders granted in their favour.
However, he may be removed as guardian at a future date whereas a father married to the mother of the child is normally guardian for life.

As per the form here:


S.I. No. 5/1998 — Guardianship of Children (Statutory Declaration) Regulations, 1998.

6. Guardianship is the collection of rights and duties which a parent has in respect of his or her child. It encompasses the duty to maintain and properly care for the child and the right to make decisions about a child's religious and secular education, health requirements and other matters affecting the welfare of the child. The exercise of guardianship rights may be agreed between parents. In the event of a dispute arising concerning the exercise of guardianship rights the court may determine the matter on the application of either parental guardian. The right to custody is one of the rights that arises under the guardianship relationship. Custody is the physical day to day care and control of a child. Even where one parental guardian has custody of a child the other parental guardian is generally entitled to be consulted in relation to matters affecting the welfare of the child.

In my experience of Guardianship, it means little practically. There seems to be a fear of it from my reading of Internet forums and apparently misleading advice as to what it entails.

Personally I don't see what the evidence is for some of these claims. Does anybody have anything to back this up? Preferably court cases or reports of cases and stories in newspapers.

It isn't a biggie to me and I'm wondering why there seems to be such a fear of it. It shouldn't be an issue in 99% of cases and in the others, the judge decides on the best course of action.

January

Moved here... you'll get a better debate from some of the posters here.

James Jones

Guardianship is very important as it governs the legal relationship between a parent and their child but other than passport applications is generally ignored for fathers. Any activity that requires parental consent should require the consent of BOTH guardians but this has been ignored for years.
However, a few recent cases may be of interest to you. One father made a compalint to the HSE (full report HERE newspaper reports HERE and HERE) which resulted in THESE GUIDELINES being introduced but have been ignored most recently with the Swine Flu vacinations.
Some fathers have taken cases to the Equality Tribunal and won HERE and HERE. Others have taken cases and lost but the reasons were of a technical nature rather than the discrimination not occuring.
If you have a situation where you, as a Guardian, have been excluded, check out Equality For Fathers for more information.

Zombrex

K-9 wrote: »

In my experience of Guardianship, it means little practically. There seems to be a fear of it from my reading of Internet forums and apparently misleading advice as to what it entails.

Personally I don't see what the evidence is for some of these claims. Does anybody have anything to back this up? Preferably court cases or reports of cases and stories in newspapers.

It isn't a biggie to me and I'm wondering why there seems to be such a fear of it. It shouldn't be an issue in 99% of cases and in the others, the judge decides on the best course of action.

I have a friend who is a social worker in a hospital. The times he encountered guardianship issues is if the mother died or otherwise incapacitated (such as in a coma) and the father of the children went to take them home. If the parents were not married and the father is not registered as a guardian the guardianship of the children defaults to the mothers family, not the father. This, needless to say, can cause problems if the children are in the hospitals care, such as if the mother died during child birth. The hospital cannot release the children into the care of the father. It gets even worse if the mothers family and the father don't get along.

I'm all for unmarried fathers not automatically becoming guardians of their children, but this can, in unfortunate cases, cause a lot of problems. So it is very important that any unmarried father apply for guardianship as soon as the children are born. Unfortunately a lot of people are unaware that this is necessary, I've told friends about this and they have literally said they don't think that is right, it can't be right and ignored my advice.

count66

Wicknight wrote: »

I have a friend who is a social worker in a hospital. The times he encountered guardianship issues is if the mother died or otherwise incapacitated (such as in a coma) and the father of the children went to take them home. If the parents were not married and the father is not registered as a guardian the guardianship of the children defaults to the mothers family, not the father. This, needless to say, can cause problems if the children are in the hospitals care, such as if the mother died during child birth. The hospital cannot release the children into the care of the father. It gets even worse if the mothers family and the father don't get along.

I'm all for unmarried fathers not automatically becoming guardians of their children, but this can, in unfortunate cases, cause a lot of problems. So it is very important that any unmarried father apply for guardianship as soon as the children are born. Unfortunately a lot of people are unaware that this is necessary, I've told friends about this and they have literally said they don't think that is right, it can't be right and ignored my advice.

Are you all for unmarried mothers also not having automatic guardianship rights?

Fittle

count66 wrote: »

Are you all for unmarried mothers also not having automatic guardianship rights?

Here we go:rolleyes:

The child happens to grow in the mothers womb and she gives birth to the child. Without the mother doing this, there would BE no child - who in their right mind would not grant a mother automatic guardianship - can you imagine the fun there would be in your average maternity hospital when she gives birth:rolleyes:

count66

Fittle wrote: »

Here we go:rolleyes:

The child happens to grow in the mothers womb and she gives birth to the child. Without the mother doing this, there would BE no child - who in their right mind would not grant a mother automatic guardianship - can you imagine the fun there would be in your average maternity hospital when she gives birth:rolleyes:

Ah so we are dealing with immaculate conceptions only here - well excluding the birth of god's can we deal with where children are conceived by both parents - sigh

Zombrex

count66 wrote: »

Are you all for unmarried mothers also not having automatic guardianship rights?

No, since an unmarried mother has to give birth to the baby and then has to look after it or abandon it.

That could be seen as unfair on the mother, but at the end of the day if the mother doesn't want the baby she has avenues she can proceed down such as adoption. The interests of the child should come first above the interests of the mother. A situation where a mother can give birth to the child and then simply walk out of the hospital because there is no guardian of the child is not tenable.

amiable

count66 wrote: »

Ah so we are dealing with immaculate conceptions only here - well excluding the birth of god's can we deal with where children are conceived by both parents - sigh

Fittle never mentioned immaculate conception.
I don't think she ever suggested it.
I think it would be good to stick to the facts:D

Fittle

count66 wrote: »

Ah so we are dealing with immaculate conceptions only here - well excluding the birth of god's can we deal with where children are conceived by both parents - sigh

You sigh alot, don't you count66?

If you read my post correctly, you will see that I said 'without a mother having the baby grow in her womb...'. I didn't say she makes the baby herself, did I

count66

amiable wrote: »

You'd want to visit the doctor and get your breathing looked at.

Fittle never mentioned immaculate conception.
I don't think she ever suggested it.
I think it would be good to stick to the facts:D

Really - if you re read Fittles post she said that a mother should be granted automatic guardianship for purely biological reasons - that being the case and she wants to exclude fathers automatic guardianship it only leaves immaculate conception! Glad to see your back trolling again!

Back to reality - K-9 made a very good point yesterday - all the people against autonmatic rights for the child to see both parents are all basing it out off personal stories of bad experiences.

I can also supply experiences of bad mothers but I don't think that a few bad mothers means that all mothers should have their rights removed.

The vast majority of dads and mams are good parents and have a genuine interest in raising their children.

Their ability to do this should not be restricted by either of the other parents and the way around this is to enshrine the rights of children to see both parents and to be raised by both parents in the constitution - this is the opinion of most child experts and legal experts.

To follow the logic of some posters on this topic, alcohol should be criminalised due to the inability of some people to handle it properly. If we were to base all legislation on the bad experiences of a very small minority we wouldn't be able to do anything in this state.

count66

Fittle wrote: »

You sigh alot, don't you count66?

If you read my post correctly, you will see that I said 'without a mother having the baby grow in her womb...'. I didn't say she makes the baby herself, did I

I sigh to keep up with your constantly rolling eyes!

Fittle

'Really - if you re read Fittles post she said that a mother should be granted automatic guardianship for purely biological reasons - that being the case and she wants to exclude fathers automatic guardianship it only leaves immaculate conception!'

Really

I want to exclude fathers automatic guardianship

Where did I say that exactly

Fittle

count66 wrote: »

I sigh to keep up with your constantly rolling eyes!

You sigh in almost every post. Sighing is what teenagers write in text messages. If you want to have an intelligent debate, your constant 'sigh' really does nothing to add to the context of your argument.

count66

Fittle wrote: »

You sigh in almost every post. Sighing is what teenagers write in text messages. If you want to have an intelligent debate, your constant 'sigh' really does nothing to add to the context of your argument.

Do you know what - I'm not in future going to respond to posts by Fittle or Amiable - it's pointless

Zombrex

count66 wrote: »

Really - if you re read Fittles post she said that a mother should be granted automatic guardianship for purely biological reasons - that being the case and she wants to exclude fathers automatic guardianship it only leaves immaculate conception!

I would imagine what she means is that the child pops out of the mother, and from that point the mother is expected, by the hospital, to look after it or start proceedings for adoption. Otherwise the mother is prosecuted for neglect.

The father on the other hand could be half way around the world.

If you can devise a system that will ensure that the father has to be present at the birth of his child then it might be possible to discuss automatic guardianship. Otherwise it is an untenable proposal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.