Access Rights for Children to their Parents

count66

Hi,

To all parents out there (usually fathers) who are currently having difficulty in seeing their kids please make your voices heard.

Frances Fitzgearld has just been appointed as the new Minister for Children.

I have emailed her stating that one of her first duties is to implement a referendum on childrens rights whereby, the right of the child to care and access to both of their parents are guarenteed.

These rights cannot then be removed, unless after assessment by social services, child counsellors and the thoughts of the child are taken into account, the family courts then decide to do so.

The family courts cannot be initiated by any of the parents, all the parents can do, is after supplying evidence is get assessements instigated as I have talked about above. If complaints are being made mailiciously then this can be punished by a custodial sentence.

This would have 2 effects, firstly it would put children first and not all the infighting that automatically takes place between separated parents who can use the child as a pawn.

Any contravention of one parent of the childs statuory rights to access to one of its parents would be punishable by a custodial sentence.

The childs rights should also include a right to be maintained by both parents which would be independently assessed.

The fortune this would save the state in family law cases alone would be unbelievable, it would also benefit greatly all the kids out there who are prevented from getting the love and care both their parents and wider families wish to shower on them due to the maliciousness of one party or the other.

The New ministers email address is

frances.fitzgerald@oireachtas.ie.

If you have been affected by the current terrible state of the law in relation to access, maintenance, custody etc, then I would urge you to contact the new minister for children and encourage her to enact this referendum and allow children to be put first and to save the state a fortune in court cases.

The only losers would be the solicitors

Klingon Hamlet

Done.

FYI the email link is spelt incorrectly!

count66 wrote: »

Hi,

To all parents out there (usually fathers) who are currently having difficulty in seeing their kids please make your voices heard.

Frances Fitzgearld has just been appointed as the new Minister for Children.

I have emailed her stating that one of her first duties is to implement a referendum on childrens rights whereby, the right of the child to care and access to both of their parents are guarenteed.

These rights cannot then be removed, unless after assessment by social services, child counsellors and the thoughts of the child are taken into account, the family courts then decide to do so.

The family courts cannot be initiated by any of the parents, all the parents can do, is after supplying evidence is get assessements instigated as I have talked about above. If complaints are being made mailiciously then this can be punished by a custodial sentence.

This would have 2 effects, firstly it would put children first and not all the infighting that automatically takes place between separated parents who can use the child as a pawn.

Any contravention of one parent of the childs statuory rights to access to one of its parents would be punishable by a custodial sentence.

The childs rights should also include a right to be maintained by both parents which would be independently assessed.

The fortune this would save the state in family law cases alone would be unbelievable, it would also benefit greatly all the kids out there who are prevented from getting the love and care both their parents and wider families wish to shower on them due to the maliciousness of one party or the other.

The New ministers email address is

frances.fitzgerald@oireachtas.ie.

If you have been affected by the current terrible state of the law in relation to access, maintenance, custody etc, then I would urge you to contact the new minister for children and encourage her to enact this referendum and allow children to be put first and to save the state a fortune in court cases.

The only losers would be the solicitors

metrovelvet

I object to the persistent misuse of 'children's rights' by father's rights advocates when what the mean is 'father's rights.' CHildren have no rights to their parents. End of. If the parents want to walk out of their lives, no law can stop that. Stop pretending legislation can do something that it cant.

smelltheglove

I see where metro is coming from, I would be more than happy to send off an email enquiring into what their intent is on changing the laws to allow fathers more rights but I dont see the need to dress it up as childrens rights, fathers should have a right of access to their children, there is no debating that really (except in extreme circumstances, same could be said for some mothers) we are working off a system that hasnt been changed to suit the times, not nearly as many people marry these days as 20 years ago.

I really wouldnt know how to word it though so if anyone has a simple template they could share for others here to work off that could be a great help. It does not need to say how changing the rights of fathers can save the system money, that is not the point of the argument, the point of the argument is a father should have the right to access the child he created without the necessity of going to court. It should be black and white, mother and father share custody out of wedlock just as they do in wedlock.

Morag

I think it should be about children's rights, that way it's not the rights of the mother over the rights of the father or vice veras. Making it child focused means that the best for the child come first and not what estranged parents want.

amiable

I have to agree with with metro here.
I think its clever branding by the fathers rights groups.
I'm not saying fathers shouldn't have rights though.
Clever PR exercise IMO
Its a given that childrens rights should be paramount IMO but it looks like some groups are hijacking this

sophia25

Yes I have to agree with Metrovelvet. There is no law that stops a parent abandoning their child or acknowledges the rights of the child to the support of two parents. Even with access orders the child must be available for access as ordered by the court but if the absent parent decides not to turn up there's no breach in the order. It is not about children's right therefore but Father's rights. Now while saying that there is nothing wrong with campaigning for Father's Rights but unless it also is campaigning for penalties against absent parents, then it is not really about what the children deserve. A child is entitled to two parents and this should be encouraged in all but the most extreme cases. However, if Father's groups are only campaigning for Father's who want to see their children (again there is nothing wrong with this), and not advocating on behalf of the many children abandoned by parents, then they can not legitimately claim to be child advocates. Their interest is purely on the rights of Fathers who want to parent their child and ignores the children who have been abandoned. I do think that we do need a seismic mind shift where we acknowledge the rights of a child to two parents and where we stop seeing custody and access arrangements as a punishment or reward for a parent. However if Fathers groups do not want to include the issue of parental abandonment, then is their real agenda really for children's rights?

Fittle

'I have emailed her stating that one of her first duties is to implement a referendum on childrens rights whereby, the right of the child to care and access to both of their parents are guarenteed.'

That's not what you are talking about here at all though - I agree with Metro on this one.

What you are talking about are fathers rights.

Why the fear in just calling it 'fathers rights'?

Morag

amiable wrote: »

I have to disagree with you here and agree with metro.
I think its clever branding by the fathers rights groups.
I'm not saying fathers shouldn't have rights though.
Clever PR exercise IMO

Hang on, I am not a father and I am not a member of a father's right groups and I have always said, it should be about the rights of the child.

amiable

Sharrow wrote: »

Hang on, I am not a father and I am not a member of a father's right groups and I have always said, it should be about the rights of the child.

Apologies, post edited.
Your sex never entered my thinking or alliance with any group

sophia25

I don't think it matters what your gender is. The point is if you are only campaigning for Fathers to have access to their children without a punitive element for absent parents then it is about the Fathers and not the children. Again there is nothing wrong with this but it is not really advocating for all children.

pickarooney

I'm not sure where the sense is in campaigning for a law that would 'allow' a child to see a parent who has no interest in seeing him/her. You can't force someone to care about a child, unfortunately.

If a child wants to see his/her parent and that parent wants to see the child, whatever laws impeding this need to be looked at but fighting for rights that can in no way be guaranteed is futile.

Fittle

pickarooney wrote: »

I'm not sure where the sense is in campaigning for a law that would 'allow' a child to see a parent who has no interest in seeing him/her. You can't force someone to care about a child, unfortunately.

If a child wants to see his/her parent and that parent wants to see the child, whatever laws impeding this need to be looked at but fighting for rights that can in no way be guaranteed is futile.

Look, nobody wants to force a man to be a father when he doesn't want to be - that would be a complete disservice to the child. But if a law existed that gave men equal rights from birth, and was enforced to ensure that he participated in his childs life from the first day, the chances of a bond forming between the child and father from the first day, increase 100%. And if a bond forms, the chances of him walking away decrease.

Alot of men walk during pregnancy, before ever giving themselves the opportunity to bond with their child.

Morag

Fittle wrote: »

Alot of men walk during pregnancy, before ever giving themselves the opportunity to bond with their child.

And?

That is not reason to allow for the rest of them not to see their kids.

That statement is right up there with some men are rapists, all men a rapists.

amiable

Sharrow wrote: »

And?

That is not reason to allow for the rest of them not to see their kids.

That statement is right up there with some men are rapists, all men a rapists.

I fail to see where Fittle said the rest of men should not be allowed see their kids.
The 'men are rapists' is a cheap shot. Like something out of a rag.

Fittle

Sharrow wrote: »

And?

That is not reason to allow for the rest of them not to see their kids.

That statement is right up there with some men are rapists, all men a rapists.

Firstly, comparing what I said to 'some men are rapists, all men are rapists' is scaremongering in the extreme.

Secondly, I don't understand your first sentence at all...the double negative has me confused

count66

Fittle wrote: »

'I have emailed her stating that one of her first duties is to implement a referendum on childrens rights whereby, the right of the child to care and access to both of their parents are guarenteed.'

That's not what you are talking about here at all though - I agree with Metro on this one.

What you are talking about are fathers rights.

Why the fear in just calling it 'fathers rights'?

Are you bitter sexist mothers all finished now!

Obviously the whole statement I made is to remove this kinda crap by having a referendum on childrens rights to both their parents. That included a duty of access, care and maintenance or did you not read my OP.

That covers absent parents too - the bitching here is unbelievable.

This is about the kids rights not your mothers or my fathers rights. The whole point of my arguement was to remove this stupid debate for the very reasons that you all have showed in your niave posting.

If the kid has the rights, then it's not about the father or mother - sigh - this is why the family courts are full!

This is very sad to see

Fittle

count66 wrote: »

Are you bitter sexist mothers all finished now!

Obviously the whole statement I made is to remove this kinda crap by having a referendum on childrens rights to both their parents. That included a duty of access, care and maintenance or did you not read my OP.

That covers absent parents too - the bitching here is unbelievable.

This is about the kids rights not your mothers or my fathers rights. The whole point of my arguement was to remove this stupid debate for the very reasons that you all have showed in your niave posting.

If the kid has the rights, then it's not about the father or mother - sigh - this is why the family courts are full!

This is very sad to see

The kids have NO rights.

You can sigh all you want and call me sexist and bitter all you want but it does nothing to strenghten your argument.

The kids have NO rights. Capiche?

count66

Fittle wrote: »

The kids have NO rights.

You can sigh all you want and call me sexist and bitter all you want but it does nothing to strenghten your argument.

The kids have NO rights. Capiche?

Ok - now I'm starting to lose hope in human intelligence!

The whole point of my OP was to give kids rights - I know they have none currently - sigh.

Morag

Fittle wrote: »

The kids have NO rights.

You can sigh all you want and call me sexist and bitter all you want but it does nothing to strenghten your argument.

The kids have NO rights. Capiche?

The point of this thread is to get people to lobby the new minister for rights for children. :rolleyes:

Fittle

Sharrow wrote: »

The point of this thread is to get people to lobby the new minister for rights for children. :rolleyes:

The point of this thread is to lobby for fathers rights, if you read the OP correctly.

Morag

please poing out where the phrase father's rights appears in the op?

It doesn't.

Read it correctly?

Sorry I am not a woman who is bitter about parenting alone(who wants to derail every thread which may have anything to do with father's rights) and so can't read it in the same skewed way you seem to have.

count66

Fittle wrote: »

The point of this thread is to lobby for fathers rights, if you read the OP correctly.

Incorrect - that is your very poor interpretation and it is obviously something that you wish to manipulate for your own means.

The OP is written in English and as stated can be easily comprehended.

The whole point of the OP is to remove the debate from mothers and fathers rights!

Or did you miss that whole section entirely.

Now that I have explained what I have written - are you now going to tell me again that you can interpret in a better manner what my own brain has poured forth!

Fittle

Sharrow wrote: »

Sorry I am not a woman who is bitter about parenting alone(who wants to derail every thread which may have anything to do with father's rights) and so can't read it in the same skewed way you seem to have.

And I am?

NamelessPhil

The point of Constitutional referendum is to change the Constitution. If rights are granted under the Constitution they are upheld by the Courts.

If I read the OP correctly what is proposed is that social services, psychologists etc. are all called in the assess the situation in the event of a dispute between parents before it goes to court and that the parents cannot initiate a court action. How are the parents and child supposed to uphold their rights under the Constitution if they cannot be vindicated in the Courts?

Can the parents only seek a court order once they have input from a social worker or psychologist?

I would suggest that the OP goes and reads the legislation currently in force that already states that the child is of first and paramount consideration in any dispute between parents.

Fittle

count66 wrote: »

Incorrect - that is your very poor interpretation and it is obviously something that you wish to manipulate for your own means.

The OP is written in English and as stated can be easily comprehended.

The whole point of the OP is to remove the debate from mothers and fathers rights!

Or did you miss that whole section entirely.

Now that I have explained what I have written - are you now going to tell me again that you can interpret in a better manner what my own brain has poured forth!

Why the aggression?

count66

Fittle wrote: »

Why the aggression?

You ask me why the agression - you have just totally interpreted what I wrote for your own end and not actually udnerstood one word of what I wrote.

Secondly when anyone says "Capiche" they are not speaking politely they are speaking rudely and agressively - re read your own posts!

count66

NamelessPhil wrote: »

The point of Constitutional referendum is to change the Constitution. If rights are granted under the Constitution they are upheld by the Courts.

If I read the OP correctly what is proposed is that social services, psychologists etc. are all called in the assess the situation in the event of a dispute between parents before it goes to court and that the parents cannot initiate a court action. How are the parents and child supposed to uphold their rights under the Constitution if they cannot be vindicated in the Courts?

Can the parents only seek a court order once they have input from a social worker or psychologist?

I would suggest that the OP goes and reads the legislation currently in force that already states that the child is of first and paramount consideration in any dispute between parents.

Again a total misunderstanding of what I wrote - if the rights are the childs in the constitution then the parents cannot change those rights only a proxy acting on behalf of the child could. The parents should not have any rights and this would prevent a lot of these stupid disputes which are currently ongoing - they rights should lie with the child and that was the thrust of the legislation that Mary White was preparing prior to the government falling.

Secondly your interpretation of the constitution is very mistaken - the constitution clearly gives the mother a special stance and right to care of the child - it is not the child who is of paramount importance as the mothers rights supercede the childs rights regardless of their fitness or otherwise to be a mother, hence the reason mothers have an automatic right of custody and fathers don't have any rights.

If what you said was true, then the family courts would not be full. Whether we like it or not giving the rights to one parent or the other (regardless of sex) allows emotional clouded judgement come into play when considering the child at the advent of a relationship break up. This can happen from both mother and father.

Giving the rights to a child removes this element and by allowing the childs rights only to be pursued in court by a 3rd party proxy, i.e. social services, it would stop one or other of the parents instigating a mailicious litigation for no reason.

Often in these cases, the issue is that the rights of the child are not put first but rather the preceived injustices felt by the fathers or mothers!

amiable

count66 wrote: »

Are you bitter sexist mothers all finished now!

Excuse me????
I sincerely hope you weren't aiming that at me?
How ironic you use the word bitter

amiable

I smell a rat

count66

amiable wrote: »

I have to agree with with metro here.
I think its clever branding by the fathers rights groups.
I'm not saying fathers shouldn't have rights though.
Clever PR exercise IMO
Its a given that childrens rights should be paramount IMO but it looks like some groups are hijacking this

Ok - if your not bitter - why did you assume my post where I state that I advocate childrens rights and not rights for either the mother or father was a clever hijacking ploy by a father - sexist no?

If I had said that the current discussion around women having more representation in the dail was a clever branding exercise to get more incompetent women into the dail would that not be an comparable sexist comment.

NamelessPhil

the constitution clearly gives the mother a special stance and right to care of the child - it is not the child who is of paramount importance as the mothers rights supercede the childs rights regardless of their fitness or otherwise to be a mother, hence the reason mothers have an automatic right of custody and fathers don't have any rights.

OP go and read the Constitution and show me exactly where the mother and child relationship is mentioned. The Constitution in Article 41 talks about the Family, but not the rights of the mother and child specifically.

Married parents automatically have joint guardianship and custody of the child. What you are talking about is rights for unmarried fathers.

Again go and read the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 as amended by the Children Act 1987, the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, the Family Law Divorce Act, 1996 and the Children Act 1997.

The Irish Statute Book is this way.

amiable

count66 wrote: »

Ok - if your not bitter - why did you assume my post where I state that I advocate childrens rights and not rights for either the mother or father was a clever hijacking ploy by a father - sexist no?

If I had said that the current discussion around women having more representation in the dail was a clever branding exercise to get more incompetent women into the dail would that not be an comparable sexist comment.

I'm not at all bitter nor a mother nor a woman.
You assume too much and seems a very emotive topic for you.
I'm no more hijacking the thread than you are pulling a clever PR stunt by rebranding fathers rights to childrens rights cos nobody would dream of going against childrens rights

Orion

Can we calm down here a little bit folks. Different opinions do not have to lead to fighting.

If the thread continues in this manner it will have to be locked - I'd rather let it continue in a civil fashion though.

K-9

I would have thought that is a basic children's right, don't see anything wrong with it at all.

I'd suggest adding automatic Guardianship too, far too much scare mongering about it.

count66

NamelessPhil wrote: »

OP go and read the Constitution and show me exactly where the mother and child relationship is mentioned. The Constitution in Article 41 talks about the Family, but not the rights of the mother and child specifically.

Married parents automatically have joint guardianship and custody of the child. What you are talking about is rights for unmarried fathers.

Again go and read the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 as amended by the Children Act 1987, the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, the Family Law Divorce Act, 1996 and the Children Act 1997.

The Irish Statute Book is this way.

You have defeated your own argument - you talk only about marraige - in case you may not have noticed - over 1 / 3 of children born today are born to couples who are not married! So you think our current constitution is ok as it excludes over 1 / 3 of our kids?

I will say it again I am talking about kids rights not mother, not father and all kids rights not just those of married couples - please stay on the focus of the thread.

If your advocating marraige then that is a different story.

Regarding the mothers automatic rights please read the below link in case you are not aware of this . If you read this link you will note the following - if a couple is unmarried, the father only has rights of guardianship if the mother agrees or if a court grants same. The father can have guardianship rights removed but the mother cannot unless she gives the child up for adoption!

Now to have a court, who are not trained in child welfare, psychology etc determine these things is ridiculous. To leave power in the hands of one parent to disrupt the process is ridiculous as you are expecting all parents to act rationally in all circumstances.

The rights of the child are not taken into account at all in practice and that is why the rights of the child should be enshrined and 3rd parties should act on behalf of those childs rights if needs be.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/cohabiting_couples/legal_guardianship_and_unmarried_couples.html

amiable

K-9 wrote: »

I would have thought that is a basic children's right, don't see anything wrong with it at all.

I'd suggest adding automatic Guardianship too, far too much scare mongering about it.

I have no problem with fathers fighting for their rights.
I don't think fathers should have to fight for their rights.
I don't like them clinging to the childrens rights thing.
Cheap PR stunt IMO.
I'm an unmarried father myself

count66

amiable wrote: »

I'm not at all bitter nor a mother nor a woman.
You assume too much and seems a very emotive topic for you.
I'm no more hijacking the thread than you are pulling a clever PR stunt by rebranding fathers rights to childrens rights cos nobody would dream of going against childrens rights

Sigh my whole point is that it's not about fathers or mothers rights.

Currently the legal system is geared only towards one parents rights.

I personally know two individuals one a mother and one a father.

In the mothers case, the dad is a deadbeat, won't pay maintenance, shows up intermittently for access and randomly calls social services for no reason and nothing really can be done.

In the other case and just as serious, the mother is a deadbeat, the father pays maintenance all the time but the mother never brings the child to the access times / places with the result that he is back in court for the 42nd time trying to get access enforced.

Both of these situations are unacceptable, both clog up the family court system at great expense to the state, both can be prevented by enshrining the rights of children and having those rights enacted by a 3rd party who is independent. Errant fathers and mothers would be punishable in law, malicious inistigation of litigation, social services etc would be punishable by law.

This is the only fair way to treat these sort of situations!

So will everyone please stop lying and say that this is about fathers rights - its about removing fathers and mothers rights and having childrens rights.

Please stop being disingenuious and misrepresenting my OP

angelfire9

Children's rights and the rights of both parents will always be an emotive subject for single parents of both sexes
In an ideal world every child would grow up knowing both parents but unfortunately there are always circumstances where that doesn't happen

There are situations where the father does not want to know his child for one reason or another
Equally there are situations where a mother will walk away and leave the child in the care of it's father

There are situations where a parent will do everything in their power to make access difficult for the absent parent

Automatic guardianship is not necessarily the solution

I firmly believe that DNA does not a parent make!

Having said that any child who grows up in a one parent family or in a blended family for that matter will always wonder about the absent parent if they are not part of the child's life during their formative years

Forcing parents to have access will only breed resentment

But equally leaving a parent with the right to walk away without any consequences is unfair to the child

My solution:
At the time of registration of the birth where the father's name is to go on the birth cert both parents should have to be present for the registration (regardless of marital status) and both parents should have to sign a document either accepting or rejecting guardianship of the child from that time

There will always be circumstances where the mother does not wish to name a father on the birth cert but that is a separate issue altogether

Once a parent has accepted guardianship there should be automatic procedures in place regarding access & maintenance in situations where the parents are not married or co-habiting

amiable

count66 wrote: »

Sigh my whole point is that it's not about fathers or mothers rights.

Currently the legal system is geared only towards one parents rights.

I personally know two individuals one a mother and one a father.

In the mothers case, the dad is a deadbeat, won't pay maintenance, shows up intermittently for access and randomly calls social services for no reason and nothing really can be done.

In the other case and just as serious, the mother is a deadbeat, the father pays maintenance all the time but the mother never brings the child to the access times / places with the result that he is back in court for the 42nd time trying to get access enforced.

Both of these situations are unacceptable, both clog up the family court system at great expense to the state, both can be prevented by enshrining the rights of children and having those rights enacted by a 3rd party who is independent. Errant fathers and mothers would be punishable in law, malicious inistigation of litigation, social services etc would be punishable by law.

This is the only fair way to treat these sort of situations!

So will everyone please stop lying and say that this is about fathers rights - its about removing fathers and mothers rights and having childrens rights.

Please stop being disingenuious and misrepresenting my OP

Apology accepted

sophia25

Count66 your call to action in your first line was to all parents (usually fathers) who are currently having difficulty seeing their kids please make your voices heard.

Now I think it is a very legitimate and worthwhile cause but your first line quite clearly is a call to men who are being hindered in their kids relationship. While you then do go onto say that maintenance etc should be seen as a child's right (which it is actually under current legislation), you talk about the right of access only being lost where social services instigate a court case. What about the parents who just don't and won't parent. You talk about a parent being liable for a jail sentence if they interfere with a child's right of access, does this apply if a parent neglects the child by ignoring them. What about the parents who let the children down at a planned access time? Do they go to jail too??

I agree that a child should not be forced to have access with a reluctant parent, so how can you legislate for it? Well a young child needs care 168 hours per week and it is tiring for one person to do that alone. I think there should be financial penalties for any parent unwilling to share the burden. They are responsible for 64 hours a week, so if they are not willing to provide this they should be forced to pay compensation to the other parent who is left to do it. A child has a right of care from their parents and if there are financial implications for shirking your duty towards your child, then perhaps people will act more responsibly in both the creation of life and the ongoing duty of care.

Now if we really want rights for children, we would ensure that parents accept that the child has a right and a parent has a duty. A concept much forgotten in todays world!

NamelessPhil

It was your original posts about parents and children that did not differentiate between children of married parents and those of unmarried parents. You have not answered any of my previous questions. Stop changing the goal posts.

I'm still waiting for a response on where the Constitution currently guarantees a mother's rights.

Again this is about unmarried father's rights, not about the the rights of a child. A child already has the right to both a mother and father as you would know if you read the Acts cited above.

As a child is legally a minor until it turns 18 it will always have to live with one parent, or legally appointed guardian. Having a third party act to represent that child does not change the fact that there will always be arguments between parents as to access.

What you propose will not change the role of the Courts in resolving disputes between parents.

count66

angelfire9 wrote: »

Children's rights and the rights of both parents will always be an emotive subject for single parents of both sexes
In an ideal world every child would grow up knowing both parents but unfortunately there are always circumstances where that doesn't happen

There are situations where the father does not want to know his child for one reason or another
Equally there are situations where a mother will walk away and leave the child in the care of it's father

There are situations where a parent will do everything in their power to make access difficult for the absent parent

Automatic guardianship is not necessarily the solution

I firmly believe that DNA does not a parent make!

Having said that any child who grows up in a one parent family or in a blended family for that matter will always wonder about the absent parent if they are not part of the child's life during their formative years

Forcing parents to have access will only breed resentment

But equally leaving a parent with the right to walk away without any consequences is unfair to the child

My solution:
At the time of registration of the birth where the father's name is to go on the birth cert both parents should have to be present for the registration (regardless of marital status) and both parents should have to sign a document either accepting or rejecting guardianship of the child from that time

There will always be circumstances where the mother does not wish to name a father on the birth cert but that is a separate issue altogether

Once a parent has accepted guardianship there should be automatic procedures in place regarding access & maintenance in situations where the parents are not married or co-habiting

Thank you for adding some intelligent, logical debate to the original OP - I appreciate that.

Don't necessarily agree with all you say but you have some interesting ideas!

K-9

I think count66 nails it, 1/3 of children born in this country are discriminated by virtue of not having married parents.

It's the last vestige of illegitimate children.

count66

sophia25 wrote: »

Count66 your call to action in your first line was to all parents (usually fathers) who are currently having difficulty seeing their kids please make your voices heard.

Now I think it is a very legitimate and worthwhile cause but your first line quite clearly is a call to men who are being hindered in their kids relationship. While you then do go onto say that maintenance etc should be seen as a child's right (which it is actually under current legislation), you talk about the right of access only being lost where social services instigate a court case. What about the parents who just don't and won't parent. You talk about a parent being liable for a jail sentence if they interfere with a child's right of access, does this apply if a parent neglects the child by ignoring them. What about the parents who let the children down at a planned access time? Do they go to jail too??

I agree that a child should not be forced to have access with a reluctant parent, so how can you legislate for it? Well a young child needs care 168 hours per week and it is tiring for one person to do that alone. I think there should be financial penalties for any parent unwilling to share the burden. They are responsible for 64 hours a week, so if they are not willing to provide this they should be forced to pay compensation to the other parent who is left to do it. A child has a right of care from their parents and if there are financial implications for shirking your duty towards your child, then perhaps people will act more responsibly in both the creation of life and the ongoing duty of care.

Now if we really want rights for children, we would ensure that parents accept that the child has a right and a parent has a duty. A concept much forgotten in todays world!

I totally agree with you and I think any absent parent should be also subject to some punishment to be determined by an independent 3rd party acting on behalf of the child.

I used the phrase "usually fathers" as currently as you rightly pointed out maintenance orders can be enforced - access orders even though granted cannot in reality be enforced. Maybe I should edit to take out that phrase!

But the whole point is parenting is a hard job and parents are human - they don't always act logically or in the best interest of the child when it comes to determining who has what rights after a relationship split. Neither do I think that the courts are the appropriate body to decided it.

Also, there is nothing in law to prevent malicious behaviour. To me the only rational solution is to place the child rights to be parented first and the rights of the mother and father subject to that paramount right of the child

Fittle

angelfire9 wrote: »

My solution:
At the time of registration of the birth where the father's name is to go on the birth cert both parents should have to be present for the registration (regardless of marital status) and both parents should have to sign a document either accepting or rejecting guardianship of the child from that time

There will always be circumstances where the mother does not wish to name a father on the birth cert but that is a separate issue altogether

Once a parent has accepted guardianship there should be automatic procedures in place regarding access & maintenance in situations where the parents are not married or co-habiting

I completely agree.

Is this what happens in the States, the system that coined the phrase 'deadbeat dads' when fathers don't take up their legal rights, they are prosecuted

NamelessPhil

Courts are very reluctant to jail a parent even for repeated breaches of court orders. It does happen that people are jailed for non-payment of maintenance and of breaches of access orders, but it is very rare. I can think of two cases in the Dublin Circuit Court in the last three years, and that is a very busy Family Law list.

count66

NamelessPhil wrote: »

It was your original posts about parents and children that did not differentiate between children of married parents and those of unmarried parents. You have not answered any of my previous questions. Stop changing the goal posts.

I'm still waiting for a response on where the Constitution currently guarantees a mother's rights.

Again this is about unmarried father's rights, not about the the rights of a child. A child already has the right to both a mother and father as you would know if you read the Acts cited above.

As a child is legally a minor until it turns 18 it will always have to live with one parent, or legally appointed guardian. Having a third party act to represent that child does not change the fact that there will always be arguments between parents as to access.

What you propose will not change the role of the Courts in resolving disputes between parents.

A child has the right to both a father and mother you say? - well I did read the acts and have pointed out to you that guardianship, access etc for an unmarried father has to be sought from the courts - therefore the child does not have a right to a father - plus a father does not even have the right to insist that his name be on the birth certificate. What the constitution states and the acts state and how they are subsequently interpreted by the courts are two seperate things.

Case law states that a mother (and this is the answer to your question) who is unmarried has automatic rights to guardianship which cannot be removed unless she gives the child up for adoption.

A father, unmarried, has to seek those rights and can have them removed at any time by the courts. So please tell me how in case law operation you see that the childs rights are paramount over those of the mother?

Fittle

NamelessPhil wrote: »

Courts are very reluctant to jail a parent even for repeated breaches of court orders. It does happen that people are jailed for non-payment of maintenance and of breaches of access orders, but it is very rare. I can think of two cases in the Dublin Circuit Court in the last three years, and that is a very busy Family Law list.

But what happens in the States? Just out of curiosity...are dads who don't take responsibility for their kids prosecuted do you know? Im trying to find something online, but can't thanks.

amiable

K-9 wrote: »

I think count66 nails it, 1/3 of children born in this country are discriminated by virtue of not having married parents.

It's the last vestige of illegitimate children.

I like you as a poster K-9 and we post in another forum regularly and think you are a good bloke but i take offence to this post.
My kids are some of those 1/3 born to unmarried parents.
Nobody discriminates against them.
Illegitimate children is only a problem cos the country still buys into that crap.
1/3 is taking into account all the kids born to unmarried parents who don't want to get married either.
Its a stupid expression imo and if people keep rolling it out its still in society.
I know you were only using it to make a point but i know you are articulate enough to make it another way

K-9

amiable wrote: »

I like you as a poster K-9 and we post in another forum regularly and think you are a good bloke but i take offence to this post.
My kids are some of those 1/3 born to unmarried parents.
Nobody discriminates against them.
Illegitimate children is only a problem cos the country still buys into that crap.
1/3 is taking into account all the kids born to unmarried parents who don't want to get married either.
Its a stupid expression imo and if people keep rolling it out its still in society.
I know you were only using it to make a point but i know you are articulate enough to make it another way

The country doesn't still buy into that crap, well barring the odd eejit, that is why I used the term vestige, it's a remnant of bygone days that needs reformed. An unmarried father deserves to be treated the same as a married parent, the child deserves it.

We had a referendum in the 70's to give equal rights to illegitimate children, we have divorce, civil partnerships etc. Why are married fathers treated like as superior in this day and age?