Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

Bannasidhe

Callan57 wrote: »

I really find this term 'rights to their child' objectionable .... IMO when you bring a child into the world what you have are responsibilities ... for about 20 years. This obsession with rights is putting the unfortunate child in the same category as the car or the house or the dog for that matter!

It is more properly rights to their child and a child's rights to their parent.

However, as a child cannot take legal action on their own behalf it is not possible for them to seek under law to have their right to their father legally recognised. Only their mother can do this - and she may be unwilling/opposed to this.

As an unmarried father is legally a stranger to their child - he cannot act legally for the child either. The only recourse left to an unmarried father is to seek his own rights in regard to his legal relationship with his child. Under Irish law an unmarried father already has responsibilities - e.g. payment of maintenance - without having any rights under law.

I doubt anyone here views the relationship between a father and his child as similar as that between a man and his car. We are not discussing 'ownership', we are discussing involvement, access, custody and a legally recognised relationship - equal to that automatically granted to all mothers and married fathers.

illumi

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I doubt anyone here views the relationship between a father and his child as similar as that between a man and his car. We are not discussing 'ownership', we are discussing involvement, access, custody and a legally recognised relationship - equal to that automatically granted to all mothers and married fathers.

exactly. its about parental rights of unmarried fathers and the childs right to their father, and the quick and easy fix in the irish state would be automatic rights to guardianship and custody through the birth-cert like you suggested. It is the simplest and easiest suggestion to implement from all suggestions on this thread, when it comes to the children born outside marriage in Ireland. The unwilling fathers would weed themselves out, as they more than likely wouldn't want to be on the cert. So there would also be no hassle for willing mothers of children of unwilling fathers when they need to make important decisions which requires both guardians signatures etc.

Zombrex

efb wrote: »

Thats so unbelievable sexist- who determines mothers are better- it should start at 50/50!

It is nothing to do with mothers being better it has to do with mothers being there at the hospital when the baby is born, there is a implicate assumption that if the mother leaves hospital with the baby she is interested in at the very least guardianship.

If you can figure out some way to ensure that all fathers go through the same process I'm all ears. As it stands marriage is the only process where a father signals to the State interest of rising children before they are born.

I would also point out that while it isn't, even if that was "unbelievable sexist" that would be irrelevant, the position of the courts is not to ensure fairness and equality between the parents, it is to serve the best interests of the child.

efb wrote: »

How is the childs best interest not served by having access to both parents in most cases?

The child's interests are served by having access to both parents which is why the state does not deny access to fathers without cause. The vast majority of fathers who apply for guardianship obtain it, same with access though there was a discussion earlier in the thread about mothers simply refusing to honour guardianship, custody and access arrangements.

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

It is nothing to do with mothers being better it has to do with mothers being there at the hospital when the baby is born, there is a implicate assumption that if the mother leaves hospital with the baby she is interested in at the very least guardianship.

If you can figure out some way to ensure that all fathers go through the same process I'm all ears. As it stands marriage is the only process where a father signals to the State interest of rising children before they are born.

I say this as a woman and a Feminist but all that ' mothers being there at the hospital when the baby is born' demonstrates is that the mother is able to conceive and carry a baby to full term. It certainly does not prove she is an able mother - or indeed interested in at the very least guardianship! In today's paper was evidence that gender does not define who and who is not an able parent

A 33-year-old mother has pleaded guilty to failing to provide adequate food and clothing for five children.

The woman, who cannot be named to protect the children’s identity, pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to 10 counts of neglecting the children between May 2005 and September 2007.

...The court heard there are outstanding issues in the District Court concerning this sixth child.

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/mother-pleads-guilty-to-neglecting-five-children-527427.html#ixzz1d3bV5a16

Neither does marriage ensure that a man will be an able parent. We all know of men who after a divorce remarry, start a 'new' family and never bother with their 'old' family again.

I would also point out that while it isn't, even if that was "unbelievable sexist" that would be irrelevant, the position of the courts is not to ensure fairness and equality between the parents, it is to serve the best interests of the child.



The child's interests are served by having access to both parents which is why the state does not deny access to fathers without cause. The vast majority of fathers who apply for guardianship obtain it, same with access though there was a discussion earlier in the thread about mothers simply refusing to honour guardianship, custody and access arrangements.

Why should a man have to jump through legal hoops to gain access to his children? A neglectful mother cannot have her rights removed - no matter what she does -but an unmarried father has to go to court just to be able to see his children - and you really think that is ok?

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I say this as a woman and a Feminist but all that ' mothers being there at the hospital when the baby is born' demonstrates is that the mother is able to conceive and carry a baby to full term. It certainly does not prove she is an able mother - or indeed interested in at the very least guardianship! In today's paper was evidence that gender does not define who and who is not an able parent http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/mother-pleads-guilty-to-neglecting-five-children-527427.html#ixzz1d3bV5a16

It has nothing to do with being an able parent. The father doesn't have to demonstrate he is an able parent either, he just has to demonstrate that he is interested in guardianship.

The mother by leaving the hospital with the baby is signally to the State that she is interested in caring for the child. Whether she still will be in a year, a month, by the time she gets home, is a separate issue for social workers.

How perfect that system is is up for debate, I would be all in favour of the mother having to sign a piece of paper in the hospital acknowledging this and I'm all in favour of the father being allowed to dispute the awarding of guardianship if he has grounds. Neither of those are in the current set up.

But some times I get the impression that people are more interested in things be equal even if they just end up being equally bad.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Neither does marriage ensure that a man will be an able parent.

I've no idea where you go the notion this is about how able a parent is.

It is about how interested the parent is.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why should a man have to jump through legal hoops to gain access to his children?

Because the State needs to be satisfied that they are not awarding guardianship to a father who has no interest in his kids.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A neglectful mother cannot have her rights removed - no matter what she does -but an unmarried father has to go to court just to be able to see his children - and you really think that is ok?

Which bit? I'm all in favour of neglectful mothers having their rights removed. I'm also all in favour of unmarried fathers having to demonstrate interest in their children to the State by applying for guardianship.

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

It has nothing to do with being an able parent. The father doesn't have to demonstrate he is an able parent either, he just has to demonstrate that he is interested in guardianship.

The mother by leaving the hospital with the baby is signally to the State that she is interested in caring for the child. Whether she still will be in a year, a month, by the time she gets home, is a separate issue for social workers.

How perfect that system is is up for debate, I would be all in favour of the mother having to sign a piece of paper in the hospital acknowledging this and I'm all in favour of the father being allowed to dispute the awarding of guardianship if he has grounds. Neither of those are in the current set up.

But some times I get the impression that people are more interested in things be equal even if they just end up being equally bad.


I've no idea where you go the notion this is about how able a parent is.

It is about how interested the parent is.



Because the State needs to be satisfied that they are not awarding guardianship to a father who has no interest in his kids.



Which bit? I'm all in favour of neglectful mothers having their rights removed. I'm also all in favour of unmarried fathers having to demonstrate interest in their children to the State by applying for guardianship.

My point is that women do not have to demonstrate anything bar ability to conceive and carry to full term and they automatically have full rights to their children which can never be removed (unless they disavow them by putting the child up for adoption) regardless of how abusive or neglectful they may be but an unmarried man has to claim rights to his child, may have them curtailed should the mother argue for that (e.g. supervised visits),and may have his rights withdrawn. That patiently privileges women over men when it comes to parental rights, it denies children full and easy access to one of their parents. Manages to be sexist against both genders based as it is on gender assumptions of the parenting abilities of women and men.

It is all very well and good to say social workers should be involved in assessing the parental abilities of mothers - it is also completely impractical, unworkable and would be nothing but an extension of the Nanny State to ridiculous levels. Social workers are already over stretched, have in the past failed to recognise genuine abuses and how exactly do you expect them to determine if a woman is an able mother? A questionnaire perhaps?


There is absolutely no reason an unmarried father should be treated any differently from a married father when it comes to his children. It is blatant discrimination which denies both the unmarried father and his children equal status with a married one- furthermore it smacks of the old stigma about illegitimacy.

Whether or not a man has stood in front of an alter or in a registry office and entered a contract of marriage should have no baring on his legal relationship with his children.

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My point is that women do not have to demonstrate anything bar ability to conceive and carry to full term and they automatically have full rights to their children which can never be removed (unless they disavow them by putting the child up for adoption) regardless of how abusive or neglectful they may be but an unmarried man has to claim rights to his child, may have them curtailed should the mother argue for that (e.g. supervised visits),and may have his rights withdrawn. That patiently privileges women over men when it comes to parental rights, it denies children full and easy access to one of their parents. Manages to be sexist against both genders based as it is on gender assumptions of the parenting abilities of women and men.

That is all a bit muddled.

Firstly you are correct that the mother can only lose guardianship rights if the child is put up for adoption, where as the father can have his guardianship rights removed by the court.

If you want to argue that the court should be able to remove the mothers guardianship rights as well go ahead, I've no strong feelings on that either way.

It doesn't have anything to do with the State requiring that the father apply for guardianship.

The worst reason in the world to grant anything to either a mother or father without consideration for the child, is that well its sexist not to. The question isn't should the father have automatic rights because the mother has them. The question is should the father have automatic rights as part of this being in the interests of the child.

I'm more than happy for people to argue that there are rights the mother has that are not in the best interests of the child (for example not being able to remove guardianship), but ignore the child and saying the father should have such and such right just because the mother has it is stupid and dangerous in my opinion.

Again, as I keep saying, the priority of the courts with regards to child welfare is not equality between the parents.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is all very well and good to say social workers should be involved in assessing the parental abilities of mothers - it is also completely impractical, unworkable and would be nothing but an extension of the Nanny State to ridiculous levels. Social workers are already over stretched, have in the past failed to recognise genuine abuses and how exactly do you expect them to determine if a woman is an able mother? A questionnaire perhaps?

I don't expect them to determine if a woman is an able mother, again I don't know where you got the idea that the State determines whether someone is an able parent or not before they get guardianship.

This doesn't happen to the mother nor does it happen to the father.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There is absolutely no reason an unmarried father should be treated any differently from a married father when it comes to his children.

Of course there is. An unmarried father might not even know he has kids, let alone have an interest in rising them.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is blatant discrimination which denies both the unmarried father and his children equal status with a married one

It does do that, and for very good reason. The State has a responsibility to the child, a responsibility that is not served by automatically granting guardianship to fathers that may or may not have an interest in raising their children, or even knowledge they exist.

Once the State is satisfied that both those criteria are met (the father is aware of the existence of his children, and is interested in guardianship of them) then the State in the vast majority of cases is more than happy to recognize the father as a guardian.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Whether or not a man has stood in front of an alter or in a registry office and entered a contract of marriage should have no baring on his legal relationship with his children.

Of course it does, the central purpose of the marriage contract in the first place is an acknowledgement to the State that children produced by the couple are done so as part of a family.

Sonics2k

Zombrex wrote: »

Because the State needs to be satisfied that they are not awarding guardianship to a father who has no interest in his kids.

I'm an unmarried father of two children.

My ex-partner and I had been together for 6 years when we separated, we'd planned on getting married and I had (like a fool I can admit) put it of asking her to sign the Statutory declaration to grant me full legal rights.

However, when we broke up I found myself without any legal rights to my children, despite having been with them every day since their birth, from paying bills, feeding them, teaching them, putting them to sleep and so on.

I went through months of seeing a lawyer, court dates and arguments with my ex about getting equal rights to my children, despite the fact I am biologically their father and have always paid my way for them, and continued to do so after we broke up.

So now tell me, how is fair on a father of a child to have their right to see their own kids taken away because they are not married to the mother?

Zombrex

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm an unmarried father of two children.

My ex-partner and I had been together for 6 years when we separated, we'd planned on getting married and I had (like a fool I can admit) put it of asking her to sign the Statutory declaration to grant me full legal rights.

However, when we broke up I found myself without any legal rights to my children, despite having been with them every day since their birth, from paying bills, feeding them, teaching them, putting them to sleep and so on.

I went through months of seeing a lawyer, court dates and arguments with my ex about getting equal rights to my children, despite the fact I am biologically their father and have always paid my way for them, and continued to do so after we broke up.

So now tell me, how is fair on a father of a child to have their right to see their own kids taken away because they are not married to the mother?

Saying you were with them for 6 years is irrelevant if the State doesn't know you were with them for those 6 years. In those 6 years you never applied for guardianship of your kids, so how is the State to know all that time that you are interested in guardianship of them if you don't tell the State of this fact?

You should have started the guardianship application the day your kids where born. The sooner the State knows you are interested in guardianship of your children the sooner they will recognize you are as guardian. If you simply never tell the State of this there is little they can do.

Sonics2k

Zombrex wrote: »

Saying you were with them for 6 years is irrelevant if the State doesn't know you were with them for those 6 years. In those 6 years you never applied for guardianship of your kids, so how is the State to know all that time that you are interested in guardianship of them if you don't tell the State of this fact?

You should have started the guardianship application the day your kids where born. The sooner the State knows you are interested in guardianship of your children the sooner they will recognize you are as guardian. If you simply never tell the State of this there is little they can do.

Right.

So by your logic, I need to have a piece of paper signed by an office clerk to prove I am a father, and in the mean time everything else I've done with them means absolutely nothing in your eyes.

I'm gonna assume you work in some form of bureaucratic office and are not actually a father.
Because no father would be willing to accept that as a reason to have their right to see their children taken away from them.

Zombrex

Sonics2k wrote: »

Right.

So by your logic, I need to have a piece of paper signed by an office clerk to prove I am a father, and in the mean time everything else I've done with them means absolutely nothing in your eyes.

You need to have a "piece of paper" to be recognized by the State as the guardian of a child. Proving you are the father is a wholly separate matter.

Guardianship is not reliant on you proving that you are the father or not, people who are not parents can be appointed guardians and people who are parents can be refused guardianship.

It is the people that the State recognize as being responsible for the larger issues in the child's life. Clearly the State are not going to simply award this to anyone, neither are they going to award it to fathers who have not expressed any interest to the State that they want this role.

You had 6 years to apply for guardianship. I'm sorry that you are having hassle now because you didn't, but the mechanism was in place from the moment your kids were born. This is not something the State is doing to you, this is something you failed to do.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Because no father would be willing to accept that as a reason to have their right to see their children taken away from them.

I have no idea if you actually have or haven't had your right to see your children taken away from you but if you have it is not because you didn't apply for guardianship, it would be because you pose a physical or emotional threat to your children, or because such accusations have been made against you and the courts are evaluating them.

Since that is unlikely I suspect what you mean is you have to apply to see your children, which is a wholly different matter and again comes down to who the State recognize as being responsible for the care, both long term and short term, of Irish children.

Since you asked no I'm not a father, I was in fact a child in a situation similar to the situation your children find themselves in, and I can tell you for sure that is not in the best interest of the child to have guardianship and other recognitions automatically given to fathers before they have notified the State of interest in such matters.

You seem sincere in your desire to be in your children's lives, but for everyone father like you there is a father with zero interest. The State acts for the children, not the fathers, and it must be satisfied that each father is the former not the latter before it awards guardianship to them.

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

You need to have a "piece of paper" to be recognized by the State as the guardian of a child. Proving you are the father is a wholly separate matter.

Guardianship is not reliant on you proving that you are the father or not, people who are not parents can be appointed guardians and people who are parents can be refused guardianship.

It is the people that the State recognize as being responsible for the larger issues in the child's life. Clearly the State are not going to simply award this to anyone, neither are they going to award it to fathers who have not expressed any interest to the State that they want this role.

You had 6 years to apply for guardianship. I'm sorry that you are having hassle now because you didn't, but the mechanism was in place from the moment your kids were born. This is not something the State is doing to you, this is something you failed to do.



I have no idea if you actually have or haven't had your right to see your children taken away from you but if you have it is not because you didn't apply for guardianship, it would be because you pose a physical or emotional threat to your children, or because such accusations have been made against you and the courts are evaluating them.

Since that is unlikely I suspect what you mean is you have to apply to see your children, which is a wholly different matter and again comes down to who the State recognize as being responsible for the care, both long term and short term, of Irish children.

Since you asked no I'm not a father, I was in fact a child in a situation similar to the situation your children find themselves in, and I can tell you for sure that is not in the best interest of the child to have guardianship and other recognitions automatically given to fathers before they have notified the State of interest in such matters.

You seem sincere in your desire to be in your children's lives, but for everyone father like you there is a father with zero interest. The State acts for the children, not the fathers, and it must be satisfied that each father is the former not the latter before it awards guardianship to them.

Just to recap what I said earlier (post #280)

A simple solution would be that if the father is named on the child's birth certificate he should automatically have the same rights and responsibilities as the mother. If the child's biological parents are not married the father must give his consent (and I know in the UK must be physically present, am not sure if that is the case in Ireland) to have his name on the birth cert.

Men who have no interest wouldn't bother. Men who are interested in their children will be there.

I think that would qualify as a piece of paper, recognised by the State, in which the father indicates his intentions to be part of his children's lives.
At no point did I ever state all unmarried father's should have automatic rights. I clearly stated that when a child's birth is registered in Ireland and the father is named on the birth certificate (which in the case of unmarried parents can only be done with the father's express consent) that should confer equal status as parents on both mother and father. The willingness of the father to have his name on his child's birth certificate is, in my opinion, a perfectly legitimate way of signalling his intention to the State.

Sonics2k

Zombrex wrote: »

You need to have a "piece of paper" to be recognized by the State as the guardian of a child. Proving you are the father is a wholly separate matter.

Guardianship is not reliant on you proving that you are the father or not, people who are not parents can be appointed guardians and people who are parents can be refused guardianship.

It is the people that the State recognize as being responsible for the larger issues in the child's life. Clearly the State are not going to simply award this to anyone, neither are they going to award it to fathers who have not expressed any interest to the State that they want this role.

You had 6 years to apply for guardianship. I'm sorry that you are having hassle now because you didn't, but the mechanism was in place from the moment your kids were born. This is not something the State is doing to you, this is something you failed to do.



I have no idea if you actually have or haven't had your right to see your children taken away from you but if you have it is not because you didn't apply for guardianship, it would be because you pose a physical or emotional threat to your children, or because such accusations have been made against you and the courts are evaluating them.

Since that is unlikely I suspect what you mean is you have to apply to see your children, which is a wholly different matter and again comes down to who the State recognize as being responsible for the care, both long term and short term, of Irish children.

Since you asked no I'm not a father, I was in fact a child in a situation similar to the situation your children find themselves in, and I can tell you for sure that is not in the best interest of the child to have guardianship and other recognitions automatically given to fathers before they have notified the State of interest in such matters.

You seem sincere in your desire to be in your children's lives, but for everyone father like you there is a father with zero interest. The State acts for the children, not the fathers, and it must be satisfied that each father is the former not the latter before it awards guardianship to them.

I'm named on the Birth Certificate as the father, this can only be done with the father's consent.
Surely this is proof of my interest of being their legal guardian as well as it is in virtually every other country.

But as for your second point.
Under current Irish legislation a Mother can remove all access rights from a Father when they separate for any reason, in fact she doesn't even need to provide a reason.

I do sympathise that you were in an unfortunate position, but that is no reason for those of us who truly want to be part of our childrens lives be forced to fight through the courts to prove it.

As it currently stands, a Mother can force a Father to pay maintenance because of a biological child, however the Father is not entitled to visitation rights without permission from the courts or if the Statutory Declaration is signed and an agreement is arranged in court.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

The worst reason in the world to grant anything to either a mother or father without consideration for the child, is that well its sexist not to.

Actually the state, even if the interests of the child are the priority, should not ignore the interests of either of the parents either - after all, they're people too, and it is overly simplistic to play the "won't someone think of the children" card, as if it is a all or nothing affair. To prioritize something does not mean the exclusion of everything else.

Additionally, 'rights' to a child involve rights to determine the best interests of the child and we still live in a culture that (in theory) presumes that a biological parent is most likely to fit the bill in this regard. Otherwise any decision by a parent would likely require government sanction to see that it is 'in the best interest of the child'.

If we are to accept this, then either parent, regardless of gender should be empowered to act in their child's best interest. At the same time, both parents also have personal rights too, and this too should not be ignored (which is what the "won't someone think of the children" card tends to do).

The question isn't should the father have automatic rights because the mother has them. The question is should the father have automatic rights as part of this being in the interests of the child.

I think there is some misunderstanding as to what 'automatic' rights would be. In reality, fathers would still need to actively register; all that would change is that a mother could only object on the basis of paternity.

In reality even a mother has to do this - unless she too registers as the mother, she's legally a stranger to the child too. There's been a lot of discussion on 'automatic' rights, but it strikes me that few actually understand what this would really mean.

I'm more than happy for people to argue that there are rights the mother has that are not in the best interests of the child (for example not being able to remove guardianship), but ignore the child and saying the father should have such and such right just because the mother has it is stupid and dangerous in my opinion.

If we are to genuinely follow a policy of what is in the best interests of the child, then neither parent should have automatic guardianship. This is not a "if I can't have it neither can she" argument, but basic logic; there is no reason to say that a biological mother as guardian is in the best interests of the child - truth be told, it is actually in the interest of many children to be adopted by a stable, two-parent family with the economic resources to take care of them.

So why do we let biological mothers keep children when it is objectively not in the child's interest? Because it's a compromise between the rights of the parent and the rights of the child and because of the cultural presumption that biological parent is overall in the best interests of the child (or at least the ideal situation).

It does do that, and for very good reason. The State has a responsibility to the child, a responsibility that is not served by automatically granting guardianship to fathers that may or may not have an interest in raising their children, or even knowledge they exist.

Except this is not what would happen and you're operating from a mistaken understanding of what 'automatic' means. Fathers with no interest would simply not register.

Once the State is satisfied that both those criteria are met (the father is aware of the existence of his children, and is interested in guardianship of them) then the State in the vast majority of cases is more than happy to recognize the father as a guardian.

You say the "vast majority of cases" which gives away the difference. Under the present system the mother can object - even if the father is both aware of the existence of his children, and is interested in guardianship of them. This makes little sense given it comes from someone who did not even have to even show interest in guardianship to get it.

Automatic guardianship still requires that the father is aware of the existence of his children, and is interested in guardianship of them - the only difference is that it removes the mother's capacity to block it.

Zombrex

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm named on the Birth Certificate as the father, this can only be done with the father's consent.
Surely this is proof of my interest of being their legal guardian as well as it is in virtually every other country.

Why would that be proof of intent? A birth certificate is a factual document, you are the father whether you have intent or not to be part of the raising of the child.

Sonics2k wrote: »

But as for your second point.
Under current Irish legislation a Mother can remove all access rights from a Father when they separate for any reason, in fact she doesn't even need to provide a reason.

That isn't true. The mother does not grant the father access rights, neither can she remove access rights. The courts grant access rights. While the court will listen to the opinion of the mother with regard to whether the father should or shouldn't have access the court does not simply do as the mother stays.

By the sounds of it you never had access rights to your children in the first place but this was never an issue because you and your partner were co-habitting. It is now an issue because you never had access rights in the first place and thus have to apply to the courts for them. That is not the same as the mother removing access rights.

Sonics2k wrote: »

I do sympathise that you were in an unfortunate position, but that is no reason for those of us who truly want to be part of our childrens lives be forced to fight through the courts to prove it.

Of course there is. Consider the alternative, the State doesn't bother to involve itself in guardianship, custody or access and any it becomes a free for all over who is recognized as being responsible for the child.

Sonics2k wrote: »

As it currently stands, a Mother can force a Father to pay maintenance because of a biological child, however the Father is not entitled to visitation rights without permission from the courts or if the Statutory Declaration is signed and an agreement is arranged in court.

Correct, that is because the child needs financial support irrespective of how involve the father is or isn't in the child's life.

Child maintenance is not a punishment on the father, nor is it a way for the father to buy access. The father is not rewarded for paying maintenance, it is considered a duty and for the child, he shouldn't expect something in return.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Automatic guardianship still requires that the father is aware of the existence of his children, and is interested in guardianship of them - the only difference is that it removes the mother's capacity to block it.

Then fathers already have "automatic" guardianship rights, since the mother is not able to block guardianship for the father.

I think you mean remove the court's ability to not grant it.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

Then fathers already have "automatic" guardianship rights, since the mother is not able to block guardianship for the father.

I think you mean remove the court's ability to not grant it.

And where do you think that the court's ability to not grant it comes from? A mother can object to a father getting guardianship rights; I know of no other instance where a court can refuse to grant it. Additionally, that's if it even goes to court and it only does so if the mother refuses to sign the father's statutory declaration of guardianship - which is a clear attempt to block it. So please don't play with semantics.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

And where do you think that the court's ability to not grant it comes from? A mother can object to a father getting guardianship rights; I know of no other instance where a court can refuse to grant it. So please don't play with semantics.

The court can refuse to grant guardianship for any reason where guardianship is not in the interests of the children involve. Evidence for this can come from any number of sources, including the mother.

Do you believe that there should be no assessment of applications of guardianship? If so can you explain how that is in the best interests of the child?

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

The court can refuse to grant guardianship for any reason where guardianship is not in the interests of the children involve. Evidence for this can come from any number of sources, including the mother.

All of which stem from the mother's original refusal to sign the father's statutory declaration of guardianship - those 'number of sources' all stem from the mother, they cannot act without her express wish. It doesn't even get to court unless she attempts to block it. So again, I'd ask you not to play with semantics.

Do you believe that there should be no assessment of applications of guardianship? If so can you explain how that is in the best interests of the child?

If you had addressed my first response to you, I have already said that you are adopting a simplistic definition of "the best interests of the child". First of all, it does not mean that the parents thus have no rights as a result. Secondly, we do live in a society that presumes that biological parents are in "the best interests of the child" last time I checked, so the law needs to be consistent on this.

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

Why would that be proof of intent? A birth certificate is a factual document, you are the father whether you have intent or not to be part of the raising of the child.



That isn't true. The mother does not grant the father access rights, neither can she remove access rights. The courts grant access rights. While the court will listen to the opinion of the mother with regard to whether the father should or shouldn't have access the court does not simply do as the mother stays.

By the sounds of it you never had access rights to your children in the first place but this was never an issue because you and your partner were co-habitting. It is now an issue because you never had access rights in the first place and thus have to apply to the courts for them. That is not the same as the mother removing access rights.



Of course there is. Consider the alternative, the State doesn't bother to involve itself in guardianship, custody or access and any it becomes a free for all over who is recognized as being responsible for the child.



Correct, that is because the child needs financial support irrespective of how involve the father is or isn't in the child's life.

Child maintenance is not a punishment on the father, nor is it a way for the father to buy access. The father is not rewarded for paying maintenance, it is considered a duty and for the child, he shouldn't expect something in return.

You do not seem to understand is what I and others here are advocating is a means of giving the children of unmarried fathers the same legal status with their father's as currently enjoyed by married fathers. I cannot understand why the fact of being married/unmarried should in anyway impact legally on a parent/child relationship.
You advocate the importance of unmarried father's signalling their intentions to the State - but ignored my suggestion re: inclusion on Birth Certificate. Which, as The Corinthian has pointed out is exactly how a mother's legal relationship with her child is registered. If the women is married - her husbands name can be placed on the register in his absence - even if he is not the biological father of the child (and yes, this does happen). In the case of an unmarried couple the father must actively participate in the birth registration process.
Why is it, in your opinion, just that it is acceptable for the process of registering a birth can confirm the legal relationship between a mother and child/ husband of mother and her child but not unmarried biological father of child?

How is it in the interests of a child to have their legal relationship with their father be that of strangers simply because their biological parents didn't or couldn't marry?

IMHO - it is nothing but left over residue from the old stigma of illegitimacy - a legal concept which may have been abandoned but still de facto exists when the children of married couples automatically enjoy a full legal relationship with their parents which is denied to the children of unmarried parents unless court permission is obtained to recognise it.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

All of which stem from the mother's original refusal to sign the father's statutory declaration of guardianship - those 'number of sources' all stem from the mother, they cannot act without her express wish. It doesn't even get to court unless she attempts to block it. So again, I'd ask you not to play with semantics.

That is ridiculous. The statutory declaration is a stream line system to allow couples to avoid the courts all together. It is not a method for the mother to tell the courts she wishes they would act.

The father can in fact ignore the statutory declaration entirely and just apply to the courts. Your notion that the courts "cannot act without her express wish" is nonsense.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you had addressed my first response to you, I have already said that you are adopting a simplistic definition of "the best interests of the child". First of all, it does not mean that the parents thus have no rights as a result. Secondly, we do live in a society that presumes that biological parents are in "the best interests of the child" last time I checked, so the law needs to be consistent on this.

The current set up does not contract the notion that parents are in the best interests of the child.

You didn't answer my question by the way.

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You do not seem to understand is what I and others here are advocating is a means of giving the children of unmarried fathers the same legal status with their father's as currently enjoyed by married fathers. I cannot understand why the fact of being married/unmarried should in anyway impact legally on a parent/child relationship.

The reasons why have already been given. Did you miss them or do you reject them?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You advocate the importance of unmarried father's signalling their intentions to the State - but ignored my suggestion re: inclusion on Birth Certificate.

I didn't ignore it I specifically explained how inclusion on a birth certification is not signallying intent.

A father can be on a birth certificate and have no interest in guardianship, and a father not on a birth certificate can have interest in guardianship.

The two things have nothing to do with each other.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is it in the interests of a child to have their legal relationship with their father be that of strangers simply because their biological parents didn't or couldn't marry?

It isn't. Which is why there is in place a relatively simply process for the father to obtain guardianship for his children if he wishes.

Now answer me this, how is it in the best interests of the child for the State to recognize guardianship of a father who may have no interest in being in the child's life and has given no indication to the State that they wish to be considered a guardian?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

IMHO - it is nothing but left over residue from the old stigma of illegitimacy - a legal concept which may have been abandoned but still de facto exists when the children of married couples automatically enjoy a full legal relationship with their parents which is denied to the children of unmarried parents unless court permission is obtained to recognise it.

So it is not denied then. It is simply managed, like most things in society.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

That is ridiculous. The statutory declaration is a stream line system to allow couples to avoid the courts all together. It is not a method for the mother to tell the courts she wishes they would act.

You're still playing with semantics. You have been attempting to claim that if a father fails to get guardianship then it's down to the court, not the mother. Yet the only way this can happen is if the mother blocks the father and she convinces the court that he should have his application turned down. It actually cannot happen any other way.

The father can in fact ignore the statutory declaration entirely and just apply to the courts. Your notion that the courts "cannot act without her express wish" is nonsense.

Of course he can, but who would oppose it then? Try as you might, all roads lead back to guardianship being blocked by the mother - all the courts do is judge if this objection is sufficient for them to rule so.

The current set up does not contract the notion that parents are in the best interests of the child.

Actually, it actively promotes it de facto.

You didn't answer my question by the way.

I did; last line in my last post.

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

That is ridiculous. The statutory declaration is a stream line system to allow couples to avoid the courts all together. It is not a method for the mother to tell the courts she wishes they would act.

The Statutory Declaration system is 'streamlined' only if the mother consents to sign the form. It is also not recorded on any central registry and can be pretty much ignored by the mother without any legal repercussions

The father can in fact ignore the statutory declaration entirely and just apply to the courts. Your notion that the courts "cannot act without her express wish" is nonsense.

The father has the option of applying to the courts if the mother refuses to sign the Statutory Declaration. She does not need to have a 'reason'. There is no guarantee the father will be granted joint-guardianship - that is at the discretion of the judge. In fact the Clerk of Cork family court told me that generally the judges there tell all applications - regardless of the level of their demonstrable involvement with their children - to come back in 6 months!

I repeat - there is no logical reason why the Act of Marriage should legally impact on the legal relationship between father and child. Married men can and do abandon their children regardless of what you believe Marriage signals about their 'intentions' towards their children.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're still playing with semantics. You have been attempting to claim that if a father fails to get guardianship then it's down to the court, not the mother. Yet the only way this can happen is if the mother blocks the father and she convinces the court that he should have his application turned down. It actually cannot happen any other way.

It can happen other ways. The court can block the father without the court ever hearing from the mother.

You have been attempting to make out that the court is a mechanism the mother uses to deny or grant guardianship to the father. It isn't, and pointing this out is far more than simple semantics.

The notion that the mother controls whether you get guardianship or not is not only untrue it is also dangerous propaganda that can put fathers who have a perfectly legitimate case for guardianship off applying for guardianship because they already know that the mother does not approve of it.

In reality while the mother can express her opinion to the courts she does not control the courts nor controls the granting of guardianship. Just because the mother does not approve of guardianship is not a reason to not seek it, the courts can simply ignore her.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course he can, but who would oppose it then?

Relatives, social workers (they don't "oppose it" but they can give the court information on the state of the father's life), the police, doctors etc.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Try as you might, all roads lead back to guardianship being blocked by the mother - all the courts do is judge if this objection is sufficient for them to rule so.

That is not all the courts do but even if it was that doesn't mean the mother blocks guardianship.

An analogy used already on this thread is the one of planning permission. Do you neighbors grant you planning permission to build an extension on your house? No, of course not. They can though express their opinions to the planning board if they object, opinions that may or may not be entertained.

It would be as ridiculous to suppose that neighbors control planning permission in this country (and thus applying for planning permission is pointless if you already know your neighbors object), as it is to suppose that mother control guardianship access to children.

I find the biggest issue with this whole topic is not what the law actually is but what people like to pretend the law is so they can have a go a particular parties, be it the courts, the mother or the father.

Miseducation and propaganda is a far bigger concern than the current state of the law.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I did; last line in my last post.

No you didn't. I asked how automatic guardianship is in the best interset of the child, not how having a parent is in the best interest of the child. Non-automatic guardianship does not stop the child from having a father.

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

Non-automatic guardianship does not stop the child from having a father.

In law in does unless the father fulfils certain criteria. Mother's do not have to fulfil any such criteria or apply to any court- neither do married men.Both od those are granted automatic guardianship. Why do you not see this is blatant discrimination against unmarried fathers based only on whether or not they have married the child's biological mother? It has nothing to do with the welfare of the child - who is being denied a legal relationship with their father (the implications of which are the father cannot give permission for medical treatment, inheritance difficulties etc) for purely bureaucratic reasons.

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Statutory Declaration system is 'streamlined' only if the mother consents to sign the form.

Actually it is steamlined only if both the mother and father sign the form.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is also not recorded on any central registry and can be pretty much ignored by the mother without any legal repercussions

That isn't true, as has already been discussed on this forum ad nausea. The declaration is witnessed and recorded by a peace officer and becomes a document of the court.

The father can refer back to it any time he feels his guardianship rights are being ignored.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The father has the option of applying to the courts if the mother refuses to sign the Statutory Declaration. She does not need to have a 'reason'. There is no guarantee the father will be granted joint-guardianship - that is at the discretion of the judge.

And the judge will award guardianship if there is no significant reason not to, which happens in 90% of all cases that go before the court.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In fact the Clerk of Cork family court told me that generally the judges there tell all applications - regardless of the level of their demonstrable involvement with their children - to come back in 6 months!

If that actually happens, and I suspect it doesn't, I would suggest that all relevant parties effected by this complaint to the relevant authorities, in the cases of judge misconduct that would probably be your local TD and will soon be the judicial council.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I repeat - there is no logical reason why the Act of Marriage should legally impact on the legal relationship between father and child. Married men can and do abandon their children regardless of what you believe Marriage signals about their 'intentions' towards their children.

And?

Anyone can back out of something they stated they intended to do. That doesn't mean stating you intend to do something is meaningless and we should regard people who haven't even stated it in the first place.

For example one thing marriage so signals to the State is that you intend to care for your spouse in the event that they are seriously ill, and that they are happy about this, which is why husbands and wives are often considered closest next of kin and carers.

Now you may flake on this responsibility. But that doesn't mean that the same responsibility should be handed to you if you have been going out with someone for 3 weeks, aren't married, have no intension of being married and have no interest in being the primary carrier of your boyfriend.

You cannot force someone to adhere to what they have signaled through something like marriage or applying for guardianship.

That doesn't mean those who haven't even done this should be regarded as also signaling intent.

This is such a basic and fundamental concept in society I really can't help but think you are just being argumentative for the sake of it.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

It can happen other ways. The court can block the father without the court ever hearing from the mother.

The only possible way I can think of is that the mother dies, guardianship falls to her next of kin, in which case they simply assume her rights. How else could it happen?

You have been attempting to make out that the court is a mechanism the mother uses to deny or grant guardianship to the father. It isn't, and pointing this out is far more than simple semantics.

No, I have been pointing out that the mother can potentially block the father from getting guardianship, by refusing to sign the declaration and then objecting in court.

You've gone so far as to suggest that a father could simply apply to the courts regardless, which makes no sense - it's like suing someone for bad debts when they're offering you a cheque.

The notion that the mother controls whether you get guardianship or not is not only untrue it is also dangerous propaganda that can put fathers who have a perfectly legitimate case for guardianship off applying for guardianship because they already know that the mother does not approve of it.

I never said "the mother controls whether you get guardianship or not", I've said that she can attempt to block it, and to date, as sole guardian she is the only one who could in reality block it. Doesn't mean she'll succeed, but she could. So please do not misrepresent what I've written.

Relatives, social workers (they don't "oppose it" but they can give the court information on the state of the father's life), the police, doctors etc.

So relatives and social workers would spontaneously appear in court, while the mother has no opinion either way? How often does that happen out of interest? You're scraping the bottom of the barrel at this stage.

I find the biggest issue with this whole topic is not what the law actually is but what people like to pretend the law is so they can have a go a particular parties, be it the courts, the mother or the father.

Miseducation and propaganda is a far bigger concern than the current state of the law.

I actually would direct the same accusation at you. You've been using semantics to detract from the fact that a father will be refused guardianship only if the child's sole guardian (the mother) refuses to consent to this and makes this opposition known to the judge. It's reached the point that you are creating unlikely, indeed impossible, scenarios where a father goes to court (even if the mother would not object / is willing to sign) and social workers would then catch wind of this and arrive with a case file in hand.

It's a gross and blatant attempt to manipulate the facts in a desperate attempt to hide the elephant in the middle of the room.

No you didn't. I asked how automatic guardianship is in the best interset of the child, not how having a parent is in the best interest of the child. Non-automatic guardianship does not stop the child from having a father.

If you actually read what I said, it was that we do live in a society that presumes that biological parents are in "the best interests of the child" last time I checked, so the law needs to be consistent on this. I've emboldened the key word there for you.

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In law in does unless the father fulfils certain criteria.

That "criteria" being that they apply for guardianship. Which means it does not stop the child from having a father. What stops the child from having a father is the father.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Mother's do not have to fulfil any such criteria or apply to any court- neither do married men.Both od those are granted automatic guardianship. Why do you not see this is blatant discrimination against unmarried fathers based only on whether or not they have married the child's biological mother?

I do see is as blatant discrimination against unmarried fathers. But as I keep reminding you the priority of the courts is not equality among sexes, it is the interestes and welfare of the child.

This is not uncommon, for example not allowing a 70 year old woman to adopt a child is blatant ageism. It is only because of her age that she is being stopped. It though in the interests of the adopted child.

The interests of the children come above issues of gender equality.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It has nothing to do with the welfare of the child - who is being denied a legal relationship with their father (the implications of which are the father cannot give permission for medical treatment, inheritance difficulties etc) for purely bureaucratic reasons.

Actually it has everything to do with the welfare of the child.

This should be obvious by the fact that the vast majority of arguments for equal rights focus on how much easier it will be the father, they don't explain how it is better for the children involved. Quite the opposite in fact, they are prepared to sacrifice the welfare of the children to make it easier for the father.

Your focus is on the father and gender equality between the mother and the father. My focus is on the children.

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

Actually it is steamlined only if both the mother and father sign the form.



That isn't true, as has already been discussed on this forum ad nausea. The declaration is witnessed and recorded by a peace officer and becomes a document of the court.

The father can refer back to it any time he feels his guardianship rights are being ignored.



And the judge will award guardianship if there is no significant reason not to, which happens in 90% of all cases that go before the court.


If that actually happens, and I suspect it doesn't, I would suggest that all relevant parties effected by this complaint to the relevant authorities, in the cases of judge misconduct that would probably be your local TD and will soon be the judicial council.



And?

Anyone can back out of something they stated they intended to do. That doesn't mean stating you intend to do something is meaningless and we should regard people who haven't even stated it in the first place.

For example one thing marriage so signals to the State is that you intend to care for your spouse in the event that they are seriously ill, and that they are happy about this, which is why husbands and wives are often considered closest next of kin and carers.

Now you may flake on this responsibility. But that doesn't mean that the same responsibility should be handed to you if you have been going out with someone for 3 weeks, aren't married, have no intension of being married and have no interest in being the primary carrier of your boyfriend.

You cannot force someone to adhere to what they have signaled through something like marriage or applying for guardianship.

That doesn't mean those who haven't even done this should be regarded as also signaling intent.

This is such a basic and fundamental concept in society I really can't help but think you are just being argumentative for the sake of it.

Frankly for all of your theory - you have not been through this 'streamlined' system nor I suspect have you have to support someone going through it.

Ad nausea on this forum men have written on joint-guardianships being ignored, of access arrangements being broken repeatedly with no actions being taken by the courts. One can complain all one likes - the reality is the Family Court rarely if ever enforces its own rulings. Theory is all very well and good but it does not bare up under the reality of the situation thousands of men and their children are needlessly facing every day - for no good reason.

The uncertainty of the legal relationship between unmarried fathers and their children could be dealt with easily. You seem determined to argue against this basic right for a child/father relationship to be at the mercy of the court system for your own personal reasons. Therefore there is little point continuing debating with you as you are blind to the inherent injustices of the current system.

I will ignore the implication of your comment re 'If that actually happens, and I suspect it doesn't' that I am lying. That is what the Clerk told me and my son. Several people heard her. Perhaps she was lying to 2 complete strangers or perhaps she was trying to give a concerned young man a reality check not to get his hopes up as she see the system in action every day! As for 'complaining' to my TD - are you for real? How does one 'prove' what happens in judicial proceeding held in camera?