Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

illumi

My point is. If all unmarried fathers would get equal rights under our constitution, it will be mothers running to the courts(in larger numbers than unmarried fathers are now) to try and get rights taken off of unwilling fathers who don't bother, so they can move on and make important decisions in their kids lives. So what ever way you put it. there will always be someone less well off, someone will always have to run to court to fight for their kids rights.

And no, not all mothers are good. But from personal experience, and again i say "personal experience" there are more unwilling unmarried fathers than unwilling mothers, and i "guess" the reason being that most women are very emotionally attached to their kids through pregnancy and childbirth, I know I am. And with that I am not saying that fathers aren't attached to their kids. The reason i am talking about unmarried fathers is because this thread is about unmarried fathers rights. Many of my friends and family are single mothers who give their kids their all. They do not go out and spend their money on drink or cigarettes and leave their kids starve or dont buy them new clothes. Those who do that are a minority.

I gave birth to 2 wonderful kids whos father doesn't want anything to do with them and just walked out on us over 8 years back while I was pregnant with our 2nd child. Thank god we were not married and I had all the rights to our children. There would have been lots of trouble and stress in the lives of me and our kids if he had had them.
I tried to talk to him and tried to convince him in taking an active part in our kids lives for the sake of the kids. but to no avail. He just doesnt want to be part of their lives, like many fathers of the kids of close friends of mine. He doesn't help pay for his kids upbringing either. but i couldnt care less about that, and eventually he left the country. What would I have done if he had had the same rights then? I do not agree that we are equal as parents after pregnancy and childbirth. Women and Men are very different,so we can never be equal in that matter. I am definitely not the same person I was back then. But I am not hateful towards my kids father. He probably had his reasons. But I am not a bitter single parent after all of that. In fact, I am not a single parent at all in my opinion.

Now after 8 years I am pregnant and expecting my 3rd child with the most loving guy in the world. He is great to me and my children. He has stuck around the past few years and is a loving parent to my kids. I was a little scared of getting pregnant again. But we both agreed that it is time for us to have our own child.
He asked me for rights to our child and I said yes. He may have them. I guess he asked in case we ever break up, which I hope never happens, but i understand his need to feel "safe and secure" when it comes to our kid. Guardianship and access without having to run to the courts. We did have a little quarrel about the custody part. But its settled now and all is well. When our child is born, we will be going to a commissioner of oaths to sign those forms. And I believe that most mothers should not have a problem with doing this. It is in the best interest of the child after all.

Fathers should not be afraid to ask the mother of their kids for rights. And mothers should not deny a father those rights and make them go to court.
But even if unmarried fathers have to go to court, most of them do get their rights there. Maybe not equal rights. but in most cases guardianship and access to their kids. And that is the most important thing, being in their kids lives. regardless of equal rights or not.

Dont get me wrong. Its sad that unmarried fathers have to go through the unnecessary stress of court. But if they had equal rights under our constitution it would be the mothers running to court to battle it out with the unwilling fathers.
So what ever way you put it. there will always be someone less well off, someone will always have to run to court to fight for their kids rights, like I said earlier.

Yes I would love to live in a perfect utopia where everybody is equal and every person is good and we all have the same rights, there are no such things as bad mothers and fathers. But that will never happen. Equality will never happen because we are all different in our way of thinking, we all want different things. The search for equality between men and women is fuelling a never-ending war between men and women.

Zombrex

efb wrote: »

Of course they should have equal rights, neglectful and abusive parents should be met with the full rigours of the law- irrespective of gender.

Denying all fathers rights based on one's own experience is unfair.

Fathers are not denied the right to guardianship, they simply have to apply for it because the current system is set up to take the child's best interests a priority and it is in the child's bests interest that the State only recognize guardianship to fathers who are interested in having it.

If someone wants to argue that this isn't actually in the child's bests interests, or that the system shouldn't be centered around the child's bests interests, I'm all ears.

The arguments that it is unequal on the father is largely a red herring, the system is not set up with equality between parents as its primary priority, it is set up with the child's best interests as its primary priority. If something makes things more equal but is not in the child's best interests then it will not be done. It can easily be argued that this is unfair on fathers but again it is not the priority of the courts to be fair on fathers at the expense of the children.

efb

Zombrex wrote: »

Fathers are not denied the right to guardianship, they simply have to apply for it because the current system is set up to take the child's best interests a priority and it is in the child's bests interest that the State only recognize guardianship to fathers who are interested in having it.

If someone wants to argue that this isn't actually in the child's bests interests, or that the system shouldn't be centered around the child's bests interests, I'm all ears.

The arguments that it is unequal on the father is largely a red herring, the system is not set up with equality between parents as its primary priority, it is set up with the child's best interests as its primary priority. If something makes things more equal but is not in the child's best interests then it will not be done. It can easily be argued that this is unfair on fathers but again it is not the priority of the courts to be fair on fathers at the expense of the children.

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

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

illumi

efb wrote: »

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

Most Fathers who apply for Guardianship and access through court will get it granted.

wolfpawnat

illumi wrote: »

Most Fathers who apply for Guardianship and access through court will get it granted.

But it costs money and it is not air that they/or the mother should have to pay that.

illumi

wolfpawnat wrote: »

But it costs money and it is not air that they/or the mother should have to pay that.

If I were an unmarried father and the mother would not be willing to sign the guardianship forms with me, I would gladly pay the money for it. My kids would be worth every penny I have.
Unmarried Fathers do have rights. they just need to apply for them.

Just finished reading this. Very interesting and sad read. Id rather pay money than have this happen to me. A must read for all unmarried fathers.

http://www.mccarthy.ie/guardianship-unmarried-fathers/

paddyandy

Don't people have Duties any more or is it only rights?

wolfpawnat

illumi wrote: »

If I were an unmarried father and the mother would not be willing to sign the guardianship forms with me, I would gladly pay the money for it. My kids would be worth every penny I have.
Unmarried Fathers do have rights. they just need to apply for them.

Just finished reading this. Very interesting and sad read. Id rather pay money than have this happen to me. A must read for all unmarried fathers.

My son's father and I forked out €275 each to give him what he deserved from day 1! I am currently unemployed and he is in college so we could have thought of a lot nicer things to do with €550 than to get him what he deserves.

If you are willing to have sex with a man, then you are willing to share a child with him! Simple

paddyandy wrote: »

Don't people have Duties any more or is it only rights?

Duties do not hold up well in a court these days and no matter how much you try to prevent it, the most of situations end up in court!

illumi

wolfpawnat wrote: »

If you are willing to have sex with a man, then you are willing to share a child with him! Simple

That I simply can't agree with. Sex and the responsibility for another human being are very different things.

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

So what ever way you put it. there will always be someone less well off, someone will always have to run to court to fight for their kids rights.

If that is the case and there is ultimately no difference, as someone will always be running to the court, is it not better to adopt the model whereby both parents are equal? Otherwise, you appear to be suggesting that it is all right for fathers to have to run to the court, but not mothers.

illumi wrote: »

Unmarried Fathers do have rights. they just need to apply for them.

De jure, yes. De facto, no.

A father, married or not, essentially may have guardianship and access rights, however the problem is in the enforcement of these rights and this does not occur. Access times, the right to choose the religious and educational upbringing of the child or even medical procedures may be easily ignored by a custodial parent without any consequence.

Why do I say without any consequence? Because there is none. The Gardai will not get involved and if brought to court for a breach of a court order, the custodial parent will at best get a stern talking to. A fine maybe imposed, granted, but it too can be ignored and not paid. How many bench warrants for mothers have had issued? None. How many bench warrants for fathers have had issued? Quite a few.

The only rights that guardianship affords and are in any way enforced are that the child cannot be taken out of the state without the express consent of all guardians, but this can be overturned. As can the right to get custody of the child in the event that the custodian can no longer keep custody. About the only immutable right is the choice of adoption, from what I can see.

My view is that 'rights', automatic or not, are only as good as their enforcement. And while I do not advocate jail time for either parent, the loss of custody as a result of repeated breaking of court orders and disregard for guardianship rights realistically needs to be explored as an option.

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

That I simply can't agree with. Sex and the responsibility for another human being are very different things.

If you reject wolfpawnat's argument with that logic you would have to reject the idea that if you have sex with a woman you need to take responsibility for any child created.

paddyandy wrote: »

Don't people have Duties any more or is it only rights?

With respect, the point of this discussion is that unmarried fathers only have duties and no rights - is it wrong to seek to redress such an inequity?

wolfpawnat

illumi wrote: »

That I simply can't agree with. Sex and the responsibility for another human being are very different things.

The whole point of sex is procreation. Maybe if people took more care with who they go to bed with, then children would not have to grow up in a society where their fathers are all deemed second class parents solely based on gender!

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

If that is the case and there is ultimately no difference, as someone will always be running to the court, is it not better to adopt the model whereby both parents are equal? Otherwise, you appear to be suggesting that it is all right for fathers to have to run to the court, but not mothers.

Equality does not exist between people and never will. People need to get real on this one. People don't really want equality. No one would be willing to settle for less than they have now for the sake of equality. They want whats in their best interest. Thats a fact.
And maybe because equality would not always be in the best interest of the child. Would it really be in the best interest of the child living with its single mother to have to put up with the stress the mother would be going through (because kids do pick up on how their parents feel and it affects them) trying to get sole rights to her child because the unwilling father automatically has equal rights, but couldn't care less, or doesn't want anything to do with the child, and important decisions need to made.
Or in case of 50/50 custody where parents don't get along but both want the child to live with them an equal amount of time. Would it really be in the best interest of most children to be torn between 2 homes all the time for the sake of equality? I think not. I personally believe that one satble home is in the best interest of any child.

As a mother I will always think what's in the best interest of my child. And of course its in the best interest of the child to have both parents in their lives.
And yes, I would find it easier on the child if the mothers the kids are living with and unmarried willing fathers could get together and go to a solicitor or commissioner of oaths to sign those forms and share the costs, instead of the child who is living with the mother to have to put up with and feel the stress the mother is going through fighting the rights of an unwilling father through court.
Court should always be the last option. And only if you can not get the mother to do these things through talking about what's in the best interest of your child.

Its about the childs best interests and not the equality of parents.
I have a right to my opinion as everyone else has to theirs. And it still is that unmarried parents should not have equal rights under our constitution, because it may not always be in the best interest of the child.

Stark

"Woman good. Man bad".

No mention whatsoever in your argument about what happens when it's the mother who's the disinterested one.

illumi wrote:

Or in case of 50/50 custody where parents don't get along but both want the child to live with them an equal amount of time.

Just because the father doesn't get along with the mother doesn't mean the father and child aren't going to get along.

illumi

Stark wrote: »

"Woman good. Man bad".

No mention whatsoever in your argument about what happens when it's the mother who's the disinterested one.

I can only speak from personal experience. And I have yet to meet a mother who is not interested in her child. They surely exist, but I know none personally.
I guess if the mother doesn't want the child or is disinterested she would ask the father to take the child and give him sole rights. Give it up for adoption or if she has an unwanted pregnancy she could go and get an abortion in the uk.

I wrote

illumi wrote: »

Or in case of 50/50 custody where parents don't get along but both want the child to live with them an equal amount of time. Would it really be in the best interest of most children to be torn between 2 homes all the time for the sake of equality? I think not. I personally believe that one satble home is in the best interest of any child.

This has nothing to do with fathers and kids not getting along. Its about my belief that children should have 1 stable home.
Its so easy to cut out tiny pieces of posts and twist their meanings isnt it. This part was not about mothers or fathers best interests, but the childs. And the child should always come first.
I am not an unmarried father hater lol. I strongly believe that fathers already do have rights. They just need to pursue them. Even if it does mean going to court. Anything that causes the least amount of stress on the childs well-being

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

Equality does not exist between people and never will. People need to get real on this one. People don't really want equality. No one would be willing to settle for less than they have now for the sake of equality. They want whats in their best interest. Thats a fact.

Were the suffragettes to have followed such advice women would still not have the vote.

And maybe because equality would not always be in the best interest of the child. Would it really be in the best interest of the child living with its single mother to have to put up with the stress the mother would be going through (because kids do pick up on how their parents feel and it affects them) trying to get sole rights to her child because the unwilling father automatically has equal rights, but couldn't care less, or doesn't want anything to do with the child, and important decisions need to made.

It could well be in the best interest of the child, on balance, even if it is not in the best interest of the mother.

Or in case of 50/50 custody where parents don't get along but both want the child to live with them an equal amount of time. Would it really be in the best interest of most children to be torn between 2 homes all the time for the sake of equality? I think not. I personally believe that one satble home is in the best interest of any child.

As long as it's yours, give you're a mother. Which sounds suspiciously like a convenient rationalization of what is in your best interests. Indeed, one minute you argue that people "want whats in their best interest. Thats a fact." Then you claim that "as a mother [you] will always think what's in the best interest of my child."

So which one is it? Or when you said people pursue their own interests, you meant only fathers/men? Out of curiosity, how often would you argue that the child's interests go against the mother's interests or vice versa? If not terribly often, if ever, I'd have to question the validity of your reasoning.

I have a right to my opinion as everyone else has to theirs. And it still is that unmarried parents should not have equal rights under our constitution, because it may not always be in the best interest of the child.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not to have your opinion untested and unquestioned. Because, by the sounds of things, you appear to be using the best interests of the child as a justification to pursue the best interests of the mother - just an opinion and observation

illumi

I don't see it happening that our constitution will give unmarried parents equal rights anytime soon. And rightfully so.
I will always believe that a child should have both parents in their lives. And if anyone has read all of my posts on this thread, they would know that I have always tried to see things from all 3 sides. Child, Mother and Fathers.
I also have personal experience with both an unwilling and willing father.
I don't see the issue of fathers having no rights whatsoever or their rights being denied. But should unmarried fathers have equal rights.
My answer would still be no.


My partner with whom i am having a child agrees with me that unmarried fathers shouldnt automatically have equal rights.
We will be going to sign those forms together when our child is born. Its best for our child.

I feel very lucky that our constitution protected my first 2 children from their more than unwilling, selfish father with whom i tried to reason in the interest of our kids. But no.. he didn't want to know anything about them and left the country to pursue his career. The kids nor I heard from him since.
I also feel very lucky that the man in my life at present and for the last 6 years is a great parent to my kids from the previous relationship.
We are really looking forward to our first child due early next year.

I have given my opinion and don't need to justify it in any way anymore.

efb

Fine- you like an unequal world that suits you- love the 'I'm alright jack' mentality

Bullseye1

If we are talking about good men who want to have a part in a child's upbringing then absolutely yes they should have equal rights and access to their children.

StudentDad

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If we are talking about good men who want to have a part in a child's upbringing then absolutely yes they should have equal rights and access to their children.

Yes unmarried fathers should have the same rights as a married father.

I know of a couple of friends of mine who pay a decent amount of cash each month for the upbringing of their children but have little or no access to the child or what happens in it's life.

Unfortunately, too many men get swept away by the lust or romance etc and do not consider the legal ramifications of their actions. Until man has a legally binding agreement in place he's better off 'keeping his trowsers firmly zipped up'

As the system currently treats men as little more than sperm donors

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

I don't see it happening that our constitution will give unmarried parents equal rights anytime soon. And rightfully so.

So having failed to actually argue your opinion, you default to the old "that's just the way it is" cop-out.

I'm sorry, but your entire argument has had little to do with the best interests of the child, and more to do with the best interests of the mother (justified as the former). From an ethical viewpoint, it's actually bordering on sociopathic, TBH.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

So having failed to actually argue your opinion, you default to the old "that's just the way it is" cop-out.

I'm sorry, but your entire argument has had little to do with the best interests of the child, and more to do with the best interests of the mother (justified as the former). From an ethical viewpoint, it's actually bordering on sociopathic, TBH.

The reason I am not willing to argue my opinion is because the debate will go on and on and on. which proves the "The search for 'equality' between 'men' and 'women' is fuelling a never-ending war between 'men' and 'women'" theory. Its not because I have nothing to say or don't want to argue my opinion.
Truth is we would be running in circles and I know when I am being attacked or insulted.

There are many reasons why there should be equal rights between unmarried parents but there are also many reasons why there shouldn't be. Let everyone have their opinion. I already gave mine and am not going to change it.

wolfpawnat

illumi wrote: »

The reason I am not willing to argue my opinion is because the debate will go on and on and on. which proves the "The search for 'equality' between 'men' and 'women' is fuelling a never-ending war between 'men' and 'women'" theory. Its not because I have nothing to say or don't want to argue my opinion.
Truth is we would be running in circles and I know when I am being attacked or insulted.

There are many reasons why there should be equal rights between unmarried parents but there are also many reasons why there shouldn't be. Let everyone have their opinion. I already gave mine and am not going to change it.

This is a discussions forum, surely that is what this is about debating different sides to an argument

I think it is interesting. 40 years ago the women who are having children that are now holding all the cards are the same women who were thrown into laundries, their children forcibly taken from them and the men going on with their lives. Odd really we can go from one extreme to the other!

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

Truth is we would be running in circles and I know when I am being attacked or insulted.

I've no doubt that we would end up running around in circles, largely because you have your opinion and are "not going to change it" - no argument or reason will do that, by your own admission. And that's really disturbing.

illumi

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If we are talking about good men who want to have a part in a child's upbringing then absolutely yes they should have equal rights and access to their children.

Yes but equal would mean all.. good and bad, those who care and who don't. those who pay towards the upbringing of their children and who don't. those who run off and those who don't. Now if the constitution could be changed to exclude the bad parents.. be it mother or father. I would say yes great, go ahead. But there is no easy way around that.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've no doubt that we would end up running around in circles, largely because you have your opinion and are "not going to change it" - no argument or reason will do that, by your own admission. And that's really disturbing.

Under the current circumstances I would not change my mind.
When I think about my first 2 kids father I would not change my mind.
And when I think of the man in my life at present who has taken on the responsibilities of being a parent for the last 6 years to 2 children who are not his own, I would not change my mind.
If for example the biological father of our children, who he doesn't care about, contact (no contact for over 7 years) or support financially had equal rights to them, he could come back at anytime and destroy the stable home my partner and I have made for our kids. There is no doubt that this could be damaging to our kids and my partner as the true parent. That thought makes me shudder.
What about my partners rights as a parent to those kids. There was always more to being a parent than the biological part.

wolfpawnat

illumi wrote: »

Yes but equal would mean all.. good and bad, those who care and who don't. those who pay towards the upbringing of their children and who don't. those who run off and those who don't. Now if the constitution could be changed to exclude the bad parents.. be it mother or father. I would say yes great, go ahead. But there is no easy way around that.

My mother had full guardianship of myself and my sister, she claimed my father was abusing her and then us. Lies of course. From my memory I cannot remember anything other than the occasional smack for being bold and loads of yelling, nothing out of the ordinary for 1980's Ireland with young kids getting into mischief!

She was a terrible mother, abusive, narcissistic, and only interested in what she could get off my father and the SW for us, never cared about us. My father wasn't much better but he was a bit better than that! The system needs an overhaul, we went from one extreme to the other and it is wrong!

Bullseye1

illumi wrote: »

Yes but equal would mean all.. good and bad, those who care and who don't. those who pay towards the upbringing of their children and who don't. those who run off and those who don't. Now if the constitution could be changed to exclude the bad parents.. be it mother or father. I would say yes great, go ahead. But there is no easy way around that.

There are many bad mothers too. You know the ones who let their children wander the streets not knowing where they are but they seem to get a free pass.

Eliot Rosewater

illumi wrote: »

I have given my opinion and don't need to justify it in any way anymore.

If that's your attitude then you'd be better off not posting here. Humanities is for debate and discussion, not for soapboxing. You're expected to defend your views and engage with those who critique them. If you're only interested in beaming out your opinion, get a blog. They're free.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sorry, but your entire argument has had little to do with the best interests of the child, and more to do with the best interests of the mother (justified as the former). From an ethical viewpoint, it's actually bordering on sociopathic, TBH.

Please don't personalize the debate.

/mod.

illumi

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The system needs an overhaul, we went from one extreme to the other and it is wrong!

But giving both Parents equal rights under the constitution could probably make things worse when it comes down to it. Equality isn't the solution here as that would mean both good and bad parents having equal rights. That could end up being disastrous. The solution is about being fair.
Yes the system needs an overhaul. I never thought it didn't. This subject is no doubt an important one.
Maybe start off with giving fathers who put their names on the birth-cert of the child automatic guardianship and access to give them security. Them being there putting down their name must mean that its important to them and they are willing. It could save them a lot of hassle.
But I am still very split on the custody part. And its because I believe a child needs 1 stable home. It can't be fair for the child to be torn between 2 homes. And this could be possible if equal rights were given.
I was raised in a single parent household by my father with 4 of my siblings. It was the best home I could have hoped for. Our mother called us and we went to stay at her place every other weekend.
She wasnt a bad mother. she was just ill and done what was best for us.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If that's your attitude then you'd be better off not posting here. Humanities is for debate and discussion, not for soapboxing. You're expected to defend your views and engage with those who critique them. If you're only interested in beaming out your opinion, get a blog. They're free.

I didnt realise I was soapboxing here.
I change my mind about things all the time. It depends on the circumstances.
If the circumstances change, my opinion changes
And yes I would love them to change.
But if I was soapboxing I do apologize.
I just don't like being personally attacked for my opinion. I see no sense in debating anything with anyone who personally attacks me.
I wouldn't do that to anyone either. And it happened a few times.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

There are many bad mothers too. You know the ones who let their children wander the streets not knowing where they are but they seem to get a free pass.

I see young kids on the streets all the time and also find it wrong. But there are also an equal amount homes with both parents I know about who let them out on the streets till all hours of the night. A few times I have seen kids no older than 6 running on the street after 10. It shocks me every time.

Should fathers who are willing to be there for their kids have equal rights. Yes
But should unmarried fathers who are not willing or don't care about the kids or don't pay maintenance have equal rights. no
The question is about unmarried fathers having equal rights under the constitution. as in 50/50 guardianship and 50/50 custody
The unmarried mother already has them.
But if it would start off with automatic guardianship and access for unmarried fathers who put there name on the birth-cert. Maybe it could start to improve things for unmarried fathers