Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

How does it risk that?

In the same way that the automatic granting of guardianship risks having uninterested fathers awarded undeserved rights (as per your post which to which it was a reply)

The justification has been explained, it is not in the interests of the children for the state to grant guardianship to fathers who are not interested in raising them

No, the 'justification' has been repeated

thus the state must be satifisied that they are interested in raising them. Otherwise they risk granting guardianship to those fathers not interested.

The State is not justified in assuming any such disinterest without evidence

This has been explained many many many times, I'm at a loss how you can say you have read all the posts but have no seen this explanation.

Frankly, I've seen the repeated assertion, nothing more

The State does not assume the father is not interested. The State is neutral about the fathers interest until the father expresses such an interest. When the father acts in the affirmative guardianship rights will be granted. Until then the State does not assume anything.

While the State remains neutral about the father's interest, rights are withheld. That is an implicit assumption and is simply, and you will have guessed my next phrase, not justified

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

I've no idea what part of my post this is referencing. Where did I ever state anything remotely like that?

You said the act of the mother leaving the hospital with the baby is proof that she has an interest in her child, yet at the same the reality is that most fathers are in at birth too, so by the same token should they not also be granted automatic guardianship?

How would it incentivise people to marry?

Greater legal autonomy from the state.

Even if the father has not been involved in raising the children and is a stranger to them? He is still the best person in the world to know what their best interest are?

Go ahead keep referring to the minority to base laws on for the majority.In case you haven't heard thats not how a democracy is supposed to work.

I can readily turn around and say what about heroin addicted babies, the mother gave birth, she didn't abort, she didn't adopt but bang she gets all the legal rights and is a patently unfit mother. But I wouldn't dare to disrespect the majority of fine mothers out there by judging from the few unfit ones.

You do not recognize the term? Are you having a laugh? It is a pretty simple term, absent fathers. It means fathers who are absent from their families.

Why are they absent? It's an absolutely loaded term.

I know what it means, it means putting the interests of the parents above the interests of the children.

You seem to have a fundamental block on common sense. Who should determine the best interest of children? Who should protect and uphold children's rights first and foremost? Are parents the best entity to do this or Is it the state?
If parents are the best entity to uphold their childs rights then does having legally unequal parents help to uphold a child's rights?

If one parent can snatch a child out of the country to live permanently abroad against the wishes of the other active and fit parent, due to default laws, does this uphold the child's right to know and be cared for by both parents? Is this the best interests of that child?

Actually if you had been following you will notice I have, hence the support for the application for guardianship. If I genuinely believe that no unmarried fathers were interested in raising their children what purpose would an application for guardianship serve?

Support for applying for guardianship is support for a regime of bigotry. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the best interests of children and everything to do with blind bigotry.

Do I have the right? or, do I have permission? there's a whole world of difference.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

I hope you are not pointing that out to me since I've never mentioned anything about fathers having to prove their fitness. That is not what the guardianship application does.

If that post was meant for someone else, apologies.

The post was indeed meant for you- I apologise if it was unclear, but I'll rephrase.

You are not in any way debating the question of equal rights, which was the original question- rather you consistently return to the issue of whether a certain section of a certain gender (unmarried fathers) should have to prove interest in guardianship *irrespective of whether other sections of both genders should also have to do so or not*- surely the crux of the matter in determining inequality?

IMO, that's a pretty deliberate framing of the argument that completely shuts out the original question.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

In the same way that the automatic granting of guardianship risks having uninterested fathers awarded undeserved rights (as per your post which to which it was a reply)

I'm not following. If only interested fathers can be awarded guardianship, how does that risk uninterested fathers being awarded guardianship?

Deleted User wrote: »

No, the 'justification' has been repeated

You are going to have to explain then what further you would consider as an explanation.

Deleted User wrote: »

The State is not justified in assuming any such disinterest without evidence

The State is not assuming disinterest. The State is not assuming anything, that is the point. They are leaving it up to the father to express to the State his interest.

Deleted User wrote: »

Frankly, I've seen the repeated assertion, nothing more

Again you wil have to explain what more you require.

Deleted User wrote: »

While the State remains neutral about the father's interest, rights are withheld.

Correct, for the reasons already outlined. The State puts the interests of the child above the interests of the father. So while the State recognizes that the father has a right to guardianship over his child this right does not supersede the right of the child to only have guardianship of him/her awarded to parties interested in them.

Interests of the children first, above the interests of the parents. Just like everything else.

Deleted User wrote: »

That is an implicit assumption and is simply, and you will have guessed my next phrase, not justified

What is the implicit assumption? That the interests of the child come before the father? How is that not justified?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

The post was indeed meant for you- I apologise if it was unclear, but I'll rephrase.

You are not in any way debating the question of equal rights, which was the original question

I am debating the granting of automatic guardianship to unmarried fathers, which seemed to be the most common method proposed to equal the rights.

Others have suggested removing automatic guardianship for mothers, which I find an interesting proposal but one I'm more interested in observing the debate than leading it.

Deleted User wrote: »

- rather you consistently return to the issue of whether a certain section of a certain gender (unmarried fathers) should have to prove interest in guardianship *irrespective of whether other sections of both genders should also have to do so or not*- surely the crux of the matter in determining inequality?

Correct. Firstly this is not an issue of fitness, but interest. Secondly I "consistently return to the issue" because it is consistently the most popular proposal for equalizing the rights between mother and father.

Deleted User wrote: »

IMO, that's a pretty deliberate framing of the argument that completely shuts out the original question.

That is perhaps due to a lack of understand of the thread as a whole?

Zombrex

I'm off to bed, I will reply to further posts tomorrow. Night everyone.

The State is not assuming disinterest. The State is not assuming anything, that is the point. They are leaving it up to the father to express to the State his interest.

Again, if the right automatically accrues to others, but not to a certain subset, that is a pretty clear assumption on the part of the State- I mean I really do think that this is very obvious.

The State puts the interests of the child above the interests of the father. So while the State recognizes that the father has a right to guardianship over his child this right does not supersede the right of the child to only have guardianship of him/her awarded to parties interested in them.

I refer to my point above- an assumption of disinterest is the default position. I fail to see how this is, in the absence of any further information, in the interest of the child. You cannot merely throw in a hypothetical disinterested party and then legislate.

What is the implicit assumption? That the interests of the child come before the father? How is that not justified?

for about the 12th time, the implicit assumption of disinterest from the unmarried father as opposed to the implicit assumption of interest from all other parent groups.

Nothing in your last reply (or any of your replies) justifies the singling out of unmarried fathers as a potentially disinterested group.

I think that may well be my boiled-down point. Night!

strobe

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't have one since I'm not justifying that not being the case. I can see the merits in such a proposal, though I've considered it in a lot less detail.

That is fair enough...I think.

It does, but the alternative, where genuine reports of abuse go un-checked, seems worse.

Perhaps.

What do you propose as an alternative?

Presume parents will not torture their children for the craic and deploy the Gardai, the facets of the state and community initiatives to try and ensure that.
=========

What is your preferred system Wick? Nothing is perfect. What do you propose? Anything? The way it is? Something different? Anything at all? Do you really think the way it is is best for children? Throw something out there, anything, it doesn't have to be perfect. Anything?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

I refer to my point above- an assumption of disinterest is the default position.

Again that is not true, I'm not sure how much more clear this point can be made. An absence of assumption of interest is not the same as an assumption of disintrest.

Deleted User wrote: »

I fail to see how this is, in the absence of any further information, in the interest of the child. You cannot merely throw in a hypothetical disinterested party and then legislate.

You seem to be debating something that is not the case in Ireland, and is thus irrelevant to this thread.

Deleted User wrote: »

for about the 12th time, the implicit assumption of disinterest from the unmarried father as opposed to the implicit assumption of interest from all other parent groups.

I've already explained how no such assumption exists. You seem content to ignore this and just pretend there is such an assumption in order to attack the current system.

Like I said to others, if one can only attack the current system with straw men then that is a poor argument for changing the current system.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing in your last reply (or any of your replies) justifies the singling out of unmarried fathers as a potentially disinterested group.

The interests of the child justifies considering men a potentially disinterested group, as I've explained.

You seem to have counter argument to than other than to say it is not justified while not explaining why nor explaining what sort of thing you would consider a justification.

You don't seem to have a position other than that you don't agree with me. Which is fair enough, you can disagree with me, but it makes a debate rather difficult.

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

Presume parents will not torture their children for the craic and deploy the Gardai, the facets of the state and community initiatives to try and ensure that.

I'm not following. Are you saying the State should ignore claims of abuse based on the idea that parents will not abuse their children?

strobe wrote: »

What is your preferred system Wick? Nothing is perfect. What do you propose? Anything? The way it is? Something different? Anything at all? Do you really think the way it is is best for children? Throw something out there, anything, it doesn't have to be perfect. Anything?

The current system is better than any system anyone has so far proposed.

As you say no system is perfect, some fathers in the current system will have a difficult time gaining guardianship of their children.

This though is preferable to some children having a difficult time with disinterested fathers having guardianship over them.

When in doubt consider the interests of the child above the interests of the parents.

Dilbert75

IMO there can only be one fair system to both parents and child. It includes both parents, once named on the birth cert, being granted equal guardianship and equal responsibility for the care and upbringing of the child. Childcare and financial support of the child should be shared equally. And if the responsibilities of either party are being neglected, they can have their rights limited or removed, depending on the extent of their neglect.
Therefore parents become equal, children have the right to be equally parented by both mother and father, and there is a mechanism for the child to be protected if either parent fails in their responsibility.
And nobody is treated unfairly.

Zombrex

Dilbert75 wrote: »

IMO there can only be one fair system to both parents and child. It includes both parents, once named on the birth cert, being granted equal guardianship and equal responsibility for the care and upbringing of the child. Childcare and financial support of the child should be shared equally.

Saying it should be done is different to ensuring it is. Automatic guardianship will not guarantee that a child has both parents involved in his up-brining.

As such saying that automatic guardianship is required to be fair to the child's right to both parents is disintengous since it has no more effect on this than the current law does.

Dilbert75 wrote: »

And if the responsibilities of either party are being neglected, they can have their rights limited or removed, depending on the extent of their neglect.

Can you describe that mechanism, and how the interests of the child, which take precedence over the interest of the parents, are protected by such a mechanism if guardianship is granted to a father who does not participate in the raising of his child?

Dilbert75 wrote: »

Therefore parents become equal, children have the right to be equally parented by both mother and father, and there is a mechanism for the child to be protected if either parent fails in their responsibility.

That is the current system. If the father is not interested in guardianship (neglects their responsibility as you put it) they are not awarded guardianship.

Automatic guardianship would do the exact opposite of what you claim is important, it would forsakes protection of the child.

wolfpawnat

Wicknight wrote: »

If you want to argue the process should be cheaper go ahead (out of interest where are you getting your figures from?). That doesn't require the scrapping of the system all together.

As I stated already, my son's father and I went to court, so when our day in court was finished, I received my half of the bill, as did he, so we were both charged €275 each for services rendered by the solicitor.

Wicknight wrote: »

No you don't, friends of mine did it only a few months ago and didn't require a solicitor nor did they complain about it costing that much. It would be rude to ask them how much it cost them but it is hard to imagine it cost them half a grand given how little fuss they said it involved.

As previously stated, I know how much it costs because I paid the money out of my own pocket! I think first hand experience is more factual than the "my friend who I didn't question" approach.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, but then giving automatic guardianship doesn't make the mother any less spiteful does it. In fact that is exactly the sort of situation you want the courts involved in.

If people don't like that don't have children with spiteful people.

And if she is spiteful the father at least has enough of a say in the childs life to at least keep the cow half way in check!

KindOfIrish wrote: »

I would advise you to get pregnant, then live with a huge belly for the next 9 months after that give birht and after that feed, wash etc. child for the next 14 (at list) years. And you will understand.

It is not the hardest thing you will ever do on this planet. And my son's father did feeds, washed him, did his nappies too. It is a bit of a stupid argument, there are families all over Ireland where the mother is working and the father is not so he is the primary care giver.

Tayla wrote: »

First of all nobody knows who will or won't be a good parent and I agree with the posters who said that maybe some mothers don't deserve it either, they could be a complete waste of space, however all we have to go on is the fact that we know for sure that the mother wanted the baby or else she could have aborted the baby.

My mother didn't want me, yet here I am, many women do not give a damn about their children, they have them for the benefits (financial) or because they want to hold on to a relationship where the fella is thinking of fécking off!

Tayla wrote: »

The dad, well the state doesn't know whether he wants the baby or not, the mother gives birth to the baby, surely that's a signal that she wants the baby and is fully prepared to be a proper guardian to the baby and if she does that then surely a man can go to the tiny bit of effort to get himself registered as a guardian.

Again no it is not clear that she does want the baby, only that perhaps she could not afford to go to England,etc.

And as for the "tiny bit of effort" perhaps none of us should get guardianship until we go for to "the tiny bit if effort" to get it.

Tayla wrote: »

I think there should be an option (while pregnant) where unmarried couples could automatically state their intention for the man to become a guardian, this could be maybe done through the hospital and that would ensure that those particular men would be instant guardians once the child was born.

This at least would be a step forward!

Tayla wrote: »

I think the fact that some mothers object to men who want to be guardians and are good fathers is absolutely disgraceful and I hope that the judges see through lies etc that these women may tell but automatic guardianship for someone who might not even want a child?? that is ridiculous.

Again the case can be made, if he doesn't want guardianship he could state that before it is born or the mother can go to the "tiny bit of effort" to have him removed from guardianship.

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Saying it should be done is different to ensuring it is. Automatic guardianship will not guarantee that a child has both parents involved in his up-brining.

Automatic guardianship ensures, as of right automatically, that both parents have a legal basis for being involved in the up-bringing of their child. The laws job is not to ensure parent's parent but to provide legal protection and a basis for parenting, which is the best interests of the child.

As such saying that automatic guardianship is required to be fair to the child's right to both parents is disintengous since it has no more effect on this than the current law does.

I think this is my fourth time explaining that legal rights granted automatically are much more powerful than those granted by court or statute, yet you studiously ignore this point. You seem to have a real problem with the simple concept that in the majority of cases parents are the best people to know the best interests of their child, therefore they should be supported in every possible way by the state to do their job.

Can you describe that mechanism, and how the interests of the child, which take precedence over the interest of the parents, are protected by such a mechanism if guardianship is granted to a father who does not participate in the raising of his child?

Your flaw is always pitching the rights of parents against the rights of children, fundamentally you have no grasp of the reality which is that children's rights are best protected, against all others, by their parents. A child's right is interdependent on their parent being there to represent it.Children by the very fact that they are children cannot have similar rights to adults, that is why the parents represent, uphold and protect their rights. Only where the parent fails in their duty to represent the child's right properly should the state or anyone else intervene. Failing in their duty should have a high threshold, that debate is for another thread.

Up until that point the states job is to ensure legal equality between parents ,as it has no evidence to support any other view, so that they both can do their job to the best of their ability with regard to their children.

Tayla

wolfpawnat wrote: »

My mother didn't want me, yet here I am, many women do not give a damn about their children, they have them for the benefits (financial) or because they want to hold on to a relationship where the fella is thinking of fécking off!

My own didn't particularly want me either, however all i'm saying is that short of interviewing and investigating all parents to be, then that is all that there really is to go on.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

And as for the "tiny bit of effort" perhaps none of us should get guardianship until we go for to "the tiny bit if effort" to get it.

Yes I agree but the law will not be changed to say that all women will have to apply so that point can be brought up time and time again but it doesn't change anything.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Again the case can be made, if he doesn't want guardianship he could state that before it is born or the mother can go to the "tiny bit of effort" to have him removed from guardianship.

The state already makes automatic guardians out of mothers whether they're fit to be parents or not, that to me puts children at risk, if they were to also make automatic guardians out of all men then there are more children at risk. IMO it's wrong in both cases and two wrongs don't make a right.

By the way it is only a 'tiny bit of effort', it's a child we're talking about so what most men have to do to actually become a legal guardian is minimal, I don't remember my OH kicking up a big fuss when he became guardian of our children, it wasn't too much effort for him.

K-9

Over 90% of applications before the judge get granted so it's a pretty pointless exercise and waste of court time at this stage. It's only a matter of time before it comes in anyway, its the next issue in family law for the law reform commission to tackle.

The current system isn't working. If the time wasted on 90% of the cases was used to take away Guardianship from Dads not interested it would be a better use of resources. Might wake up a few Dads to their responsibilities as well as losing rights tends to hit home more with people. The current system does nothing in that regard.

K-9

Tayla wrote: »

The state already makes automatic guardians out of mothers whether they're fit to be parents or not, that to me puts children at risk, if they were to also make automatic guardians out of all men then there are more children at risk. IMO it's wrong in both cases and two wrongs don't make a right.

By the way it is only a 'tiny bit of effort', it's a child we're talking about so what most men have to do to actually become a legal guardian is minimal, I don't remember my OH kicking up a big fuss when he became guardian of our children, it wasn't too much effort for him.

You just apply to get Guardianship removed if he isn't capable, can't see the problem there at all, it actually highlights the issue.

If the case is amicable parents just sign a declaration at the minute, if it isn't it goes to court and that can take time with adjournments etc. Other cases get higher priority.

strobe

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following. Are you saying the State should ignore claims of abuse based on the idea that parents will not abuse their children?

Do you honestly think that's what I am saying or are you being deliberately obtuse?

The state should investigate any claim of abuse made by anybody, anywhere, against anyone, at any time. But they should not declare de facto guilt on the person accused and place their children, on zero independent evidence, in an orphanage or foster care until the claim is proven false (if it is){which is what leads directly from your suggestion}. Not only is it unethical, it is pixie dust, fairyland, magic pie in the sky unfeasible. Why not just suggest we assign an individual government employee with 5 years training to oversee the well being of every individual child in the country instead? Has about the same chance of ever happening. I don't think you have kids but if you did would you be ok with me being able to have them removed from your guardianship (even temporarily) on zero independent evidence? Would you as a child have been ok with that?
{Guardianship is not custody btw, you appear to be equating the two in some of your posts}

Zombrex

K-9 wrote: »

Over 90% of applications before the judge get granted so it's a pretty pointless exercise and waste of court time at this stage.

How does that make it a waste of time?

Would you say that since most people pass their driving test having a driving test in the first place is a waste of time?

K-9 wrote: »

The current system isn't working.

Clearly it is working since the vast majority of interested fathers get guardianship. These statistics would contradict the idea that the current system is some how causing a large percentage of fathers with genuine interest in guardianship to be denied it.

So most fathers get guardianship and the state ensures that only interested fathers get guardianship. Seems like win win.

K-9 wrote: »

If the time wasted on 90% of the cases was used to take away Guardianship from Dads not interested it would be a better use of resources.

There is no time wasted on 90% of the cases since the State has to satisfy itself that the father is interested in guardianship. A "yes they are" is not wasted time.

You seem to still be viewing it solely from the point of view of the father, not of the child. It is no more a waste of time to assess a genuine father than it is to say assess a genuine adoption couple.

K-9 wrote: »

Might wake up a few Dads to their responsibilities as well as losing rights tends to hit home more with people. The current system does nothing in that regard.

What? The current system requires Dads to proactively seek guardianship. How would removing this requirement 'wake them up'?

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

Do you honestly think that's what I am saying or are you being deliberately obtuse?

That seems to be what you are suggesting, based on the following exchange

Mothers abuse and neglect children too, so you would support such in the case of a father issuing a contention yes?
Yes, of course. It wouldn't even have to be the father, it could be the grand parents or other relatives, or even other concerned adults, such as teachers
Fair enough but opens up a huge realm for potential (and extremely callous) abuse of the system.
It does, but the alternative, where genuine reports of abuse go un-checked, seems worse.
Perhaps.
What do you propose as an alternative?
Presume parents will not torture their children for the craic and deploy the Gardai, the facets of the state and community initiatives to try and ensure that.

You appear to be suggesting in the last paragraph that we do not investigate claims of abuse as we should presume parents will not torture their children.

strobe wrote: »

The state should investigate any claim of abuse made by anybody, anywhere, against anyone, at any time. But they should not presume guilt on the person accused and place their children on zero initial evidence in an orphanage or foster care until the claim is proven false (if it is).

Who said anything about placing children in orphanages based on zero initial evidence? I already stated that it is the job of the social worker to assess the evidence of abuse an act accordingly. Nothing is done based on zero intial evidence, guardianship is not denied to fathers in the current system based on zero initial evidence.

You asked me should the State investigate claims by the father against the mother and I said yes, not only claims by the father but claims by anyone else. All claims of abuse against a parent should be investigated. You seem to object to that costing mulit-billions of dollars, though now you seem to agree that all claims should be investigated.

strobe wrote: »

I don't think you have kids but if you did would you be ok with me being able to have them removed from your guardianship (even temporarily) on zero evidence?

No, but again you just now introduced this "zero evidence" notion. So you have changed the goal posts quite dramatically.

K-9

Wicknight wrote: »

How does that make it a waste of time?

Would you say that since most people pass their driving test having a driving test in the first place is a waste of time?



Clearly it is working since the vast majority of interested fathers get guardianship. These statistics would contradict the idea that the current system is some how causing a large percentage of fathers with genuine interest in guardianship to be denied it.

So most fathers get guardianship and the state ensures that only interested fathers get guardianship. Seems like win win.



There is no time wasted on 90% of the cases since the State has to satisfy itself that the father is interested in guardianship. A "yes they are" is not wasted time.

You seem to still be viewing it solely from the point of view of the father, not of the child. It is no more a waste of time to assess a genuine father than it is to say assess a genuine adoption couple.



What? The current system requires Dads to proactively seek guardianship. How would removing this requirement 'wake them up'?

I think you are just being obtuse now for the sake of it.

I never mentioned a driving test.

90% suggests it's a rather stupid process to weed out the 10%.

People take rights being taken away far more seriously. If the genuine cases of concern are highlighted by applications to get it taken away, it will send a message to irresponsible Dads and they are a parent of you know, children, the ones you are so concerned about. It removes their involvement in rights over children. You seen to see that as a bad thing.

Not being smart, I think your agenda is a way to get back at your Dad and you'll defend the current system regardless of a better solution being offered that actually highlights them and might buck them up. It's a very selfish attitude to me. Concentrating on the 10% makes far more sense for children.

Zombrex

rolly1 wrote: »

Automatic guardianship ensures, as of right automatically, that both parents have a legal basis for being involved in the up-bringing of their child.

Which does not ensure that they will be involved in the up-bringing of their child. So saying that it is a child's right is irrelevant. Neither law will enforce this right.

rolly1 wrote: »

The laws job is not to ensure parent's parent but to provide legal protection and a basis for parenting, which is the best interests of the child.

So why do you keep mentioning a child's right to be raised by both parents? A change to the law to bring in automatic guardianship will not enforce this right?

You seem to be hijacking notions of children's rights to push your own agenda, by making it seem like such a change will enforce the rights of children. It won't.

rolly1 wrote: »

I think this is my fourth time explaining that legal rights granted automatically are much more powerful than those granted by court or statute, yet you studiously ignore this point.

They are not powerful in enforcing parenthood, so again you are being disingenuous by appealing to the rights of children.

rolly1 wrote: »

You seem to have a real problem with the simple concept that in the majority of cases parents are the best people to know the best interests of their child, therefore they should be supported in every possible way by the state to do their job.

The key phrase of course being "majority of cases". Not all cases. The State must be satisfied that the father is interested in acting as a guardian of the child. In the majority of cases this will be the case, but since it won't be the case in all cases the State must assess each case individually.

The alternative is to assume interest where none might exist, which is not in the best interest of the child.

rolly1 wrote: »

Your flaw is always pitching the rights of parents against the rights of children, fundamentally you have no grasp of the reality which is that children's rights are best protected, against all others, by their parents.

The legal rights of children are protected by the State and the bodies acting on behalf of the state such as the judiciary and the police service.

You may not like this idea by children are citizens of this country, and as such the State has a responsibility to protect their rights. Parents cannot do what ever they want with their kids.

rolly1 wrote: »

A child's right is interdependent on their parent being there to represent it.

No it isn't. A child's rights exists independently to the parents, they do not require the parents approval to exist. Which is why a parent cannot beat their child to death.

rolly1 wrote: »

Children by the very fact that they are children cannot have similar rights to adults, that is why the parents represent, uphold and protect their rights.

The State protects the rights of children, sometimes from the parents themselves. Children are not considered property, they have not been considered that for centuries.

The State's responsibility is to act in the best interest of the child involved even if that action is contrary to the wishes or rights of the parent. You do not forsake the rights of children to appease the parents. The State's responsibility is to the child above all else.

rolly1 wrote: »

Only where the parent fails in their duty to represent the child's right properly should the state or anyone else intervene. Failing in their duty should have a high threshold, that debate is for another thread.

Nonsense, a child does not gain rights when a parent fails in their responsibility. They have rights independently to the performance of the parents.

rolly1 wrote: »

Up until that point the states job is to ensure legal equality between parents

The State's responsibility is to the child.

strobe

Wicknight wrote: »

No, but again you just now introduced this "zero evidence" notion. So you have changed the goal posts quite dramatically.

I haven't shifted any goal post you lunatic (:pac:).

You said you think the current system is the best one. Under the current system if a mother objects to a fathers guardianship it is not granted. It is not rejected once a social worker has established it is a valid objection. It is rejected first on just the mothers accusation (an accusation is not evidence). Therefore the term zero evidence is applicable.

You appear to be suggesting in the last paragraph that we do not investigate claims of abuse as we should presume parents will not torture their children.

It is suggesting the exact opposite, as I already said in the last post.

Zombrex

K-9 wrote: »

I think you are just being obtuse now for the sake of it.

I never mentioned a driving test.

No, you said the State assessing something where most people pass anyway is a waste of time. That is, frankly, nonsense. The driving test was an example of why such an idea is nonsense.

The requirement is that all fathers awarded guardianship have an interest in guardianship. To ensure that it must be assessed, even if it turns out that the vast majority who apply do.

Same with driving. The requirement is that all people who wish to drive can, even if it turns out that the vast majority who apply can.

Assessments to ensure a particular standard do not become a waste of time simply because most people who apply for the assessment pass.

K-9 wrote: »

90% suggests it's a rather stupid process to weed out the 10%.

That idea is, frankly, stupid, for the reasons given above.

K-9 wrote: »

People take rights being taken away far more seriously. If the genuine cases of concern are highlighted by applications to get it taken away, it will send a message to irresponsible Dads and they are a parent of you know, children, the ones you are so concerned about. It removes their involvement in rights over children. You seen to see that as a bad thing.

Sorry, what message exactly does it send? An absent father who has no interest in raising his kids is informed that his guardianship is being revoked. Assuming his first response isn't simply "What? I had guardianship of that kid? Are these people stupid?" what message do you think they will take from that?

K-9 wrote: »

Not being smart, I think your agenda is a way to get back at your Dad and you'll defend the current system regardless of a better solution being offered that actually highlights them and might buck them up.

I'm not quite sure how you think the current law "gets back" at my biological father. Perhaps you think all absent fathers secretly long to raise their children.

But anyways, my agenda is to protect children who were in my situation. My father was a reasonably nice man, he was not malicious or violent or anything like that. But he was not interested in raising me. So why would he be given guardianship rights.

For all the blust and back and forth about equality, this seems to be a question no one can answer. How would it have been in my best interest that a stranger to me who has not participated in my upbringing be given guardianship rights?

If someone can explain to my why that is actually in my best interests I'm all ears. So far no one I can see has even attempted to answer that question.

K-9 wrote: »

Concentrating on the 10% makes far more sense for children.

You seem to be confusing the statistics. 10% is the number of fathers who apply, not the number of fathers. You would not be granting guardianship to this 10%, it would be this 10% plus all the fathers who didn't apply. I don't have the statistics for this number, I would be interested if anyone does.

But again this is some what beside the point. Even if it was 99.9 percent, it is in the child's best interests to only have parents interested in guardianship awarded guardianship, not strangers with no interest.

The current system insures, as much as possible, this is the case. The proposed automatic guardianship sysetm doesn't.

So again how is it in the best interest of the child? So far no one has an answer for that.

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

You said you think the current system is the best one. Under the current system if a mother objects to a fathers guardianship it is not granted.

That isn't true. If the mother objects to a fathers guardianship then the objection is investigated. As I mentioned earlier a mother cannot simply veto a father's guardianship.

Your posts make more sense given that assumption, but that isn't the current state of the law in Ireland, so don't assume I was making the same assumption.

strobe wrote: »

It is not rejected once a social worker has established it is a valid objection.

Yes actually that is exactly when it is rejected. All objections to guardianship are investigated, and they only count against the fathers application if they are found to have merit.

From citzeninformation.ie

While the mother's views are taken into account, the fact that she does not consent to the guardianship application does not automatically mean that the court will refuse the order sought by the father. Instead, the court will decide what is in the best interest of the child.

Zombrex

wolfpawnat wrote: »

As I stated already, my son's father and I went to court, so when our day in court was finished, I received my half of the bill, as did he, so we were both charged €275 each for services rendered by the solicitor.

You do not need a solicitor. In fact if you both agree to the father getting guardianship you don't even need to go to court, so I'm assuming you were contesting his guardianship.

It may have been prudent to retain the services of a solicitor in your case, I don't know, but it is not a requirement, thus not relevant to the law.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

As previously stated, I know how much it costs because I paid the money out of my own pocket! I think first hand experience is more factual than the "my friend who I didn't question" approach.

The cost you mention is the cost of legal representation, which is not required. You choose this. I'm making no comment on the correctness of that action, but it is not required.

If both parents agree to guardianship (which seems to be the majority of cases) the minium they have to do is sign a declaration in front of a peace commissioner.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

And if she is spiteful the father at least has enough of a say in the childs life to at least keep the cow half way in check!

People should not be using their kids to keep their partners in check, that is a disgraceful suggestion. :mad:

K-9

Let's run with your stupid driving licence analogy. What happens if you drink drive or get too many points? The analogy doesn't work. If you aren't a responsible driver it gets taken away.

The idea isn't stupid, your analogy is and in fact proves my point, not yours. Courts should be used for punishments, it's their primary purpose.

The Dad would have to go to court to try and keep his guardianship. You are really aren't even open to considering the other side at all, don't even want to think this through.

The system would and indeed currently does deal with revoking Guardianship so that argument doesn't hold up either.

Your question has been answered in this and several other threads as you have an interest in these threads.

PS. There is no Guardianship register so it's very hard to know how many unmarried Dads have Guardianship. It doesn't actually give that many rights and it's rare issues arise. I think you are getting worried about not a whole lot in particular.

Zombrex

K-9 wrote: »

Let's run with your stupid driving licence analogy. What happens if you drink drive or get too many points? The analogy doesn't work. If you aren't a responsible driver it gets taken away.

Do we grant everyone in Ireland a driving license automatically because everyone will probably end up getting one anyway? No, no we don't. Cause that would be stupid.

An assessment is not invalid or a waste of time even if everyone, or nearly everyone, passes it anyway.

K-9 wrote: »

Courts should be used for punishments, it's their primary purpose.

Punishment happens after the fact, the damage is already done.

It is not in the best interest of children to assume everything is going to be ok and then punish people when it is not. The damage is already done.

K-9 wrote: »

The Dad would have to go to court to try and keep his guardianship.

And why would he do that if he doesn't care about his guardianship?

K-9 wrote: »

You are really aren't even open to considering the other side at all, don't even want to think this through.

I'm happy to accept the other side if you can show how it is in the interests of the children, rather than the father. So far no one has done that, few have even attempted to answer that question.

People keep telling me either that equality is what matters, or in your case that the current system is a waste of time and money.

You will notice that neither of those arguments is an argument for the interest of the children involve.

Franky I don't really think many people here actually care that much about the children, the focus seems entirely on the father and the inconvenience the current system poses to them.

K-9 wrote: »

PS. There is no Guardianship register so it's very hard to know how many unmarried Dads have Guardianship. It doesn't actually give that many rights and it's rare issues arise. I think you are getting worried about not a whole lot in particular.

You guys are the ones suggesting the law needs to be changed.

K-9

Driving tests apply to everybody, another big difference.

What damage Wicknight? Do you actually realise what Guardianship is? I don't think you've a clue tbh or else you are making it into a much bigger thing than it is.