Irish Judges

Offy

Over the past eleven years I have been to family court on numerous occasions and seen a variety of different judges. It would appear to me that judges dont have to enforce the law if they dont want to. Im confused as to why this is, perhaps someone in the legal profession can explain to me why women can break court orders (access orders) and never face penalities for it? If a man breaks a court order in family court he faces consequences, why do women in Ireland not face the same consequences? Why can Irish judges sexually discriminate against fathers so often?
Discuss please.

johnnyskeleton

Offy wrote: »

Over the past eleven years I have been to family court on numerous occasions and seen a variety of different judges. It would appear to me that judges dont have to enforce the law if they dont want to. Im confused as to why this is, perhaps someone in the legal profession can explain to me why women can break court orders (access orders) and never face penalities for it? If a man breaks a court order in family court he faces consequences, why do women in Ireland not face the same consequences? Why can Irish judges sexually discriminate against fathers so often?
Discuss please.

I don't think you can make general observations of the entire judiciary based on your own specific circumstances.

In your scenario, is the man breaching a maintenance order and the woman breaching an access order? If so, you may find that if the rolls were reversed it would be percieved as unfair to the woman. The distinction is not because of gender but perhaps because they are different types of order being breached

Offy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think you can make general observations of the entire judiciary based on your own specific circumstances.

In your scenario, is the man breaching a maintenance order and the woman breaching an access order? If so, you may find that if the rolls were reversed it would be percieved as unfair to the woman. The distinction is not because of gender but perhaps because they are different types of order being breached

I never broke any court order, not maintenance which I paid when my ex-wife had custody (PS In four years of sole custody I never received one cent in maintenance and no judge ever did a think about that) nor any other court order for that matter. Maintenance was paid on time in full, access was broken several times with no penalities.
My question isnt about maintenance orders, its about access orders. Why can women in Ireland break access orders and get away with it? It makes me wonder why this type of discrimination by judges in Ireland is acceptable?

BaronVon

Mostly cos Judges aren't really answerable to anyone

johnnyskeleton

Offy wrote: »

My question isnt about maintenance orders, its about access orders. Why can women in Ireland break access orders and get away with it? It makes me wonder why this type of discrimination by judges in Ireland is acceptable?

Your question is faulty. It assumes that there is unequal treatment whereby orders are enforced against men but not women. I had mistakenly assumed that this was your subjective view, but it turns out now that you are in fact basing it on nothing.

Offy

c

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Offy wrote: »

My question isnt about maintenance orders, its about access orders. Why can women in Ireland break access orders and get away with it? It makes me wonder why this type of discrimination by judges in Ireland is acceptable?

Your question is faulty. It assumes that there is unequal treatment whereby orders are enforced against men but not women. I had mistakenly assumed that this was your subjective view, but it turns out now that you are in fact basing it on nothing.

I am basing it on personal experience! Can you expand your answer please?

johnnyskeleton

Offy wrote: »

c

I am basing it on personal experience! Can you expand your answer please?

The whole premise of your thread is that men get punished for breaching court orders and women do not.

In basic terms, if you wish to sustain a logical argument on this, you must demonstrate:

1) that men get punished for breaching court orders;
2) that women do not get punished for breaching court orders; and
3) that this is because of discriminatory treatment by judges rather than due to the nature of the orders.

So far, you asserted that in your experience women do not get punished for breaching court orders. While I don't agree with this as a general proposition, I am prepared to accept that in specific instances this could well be the case.

But you have not demonstrated that men are treated any differently. You have not, for example, asserted that men DO get punished for breaching court orders. You also haven't indicated whether the orders and breaches of same are identical, yet only the woman gets punished.

So you have not shown points 1) and 3) above. If you can show point 1), then you need to show that there is no rational difference in the orders that would justify different treatment.

You have failed to demonstrate a logical argument I'm afraid. That is no personal criticism of you and if you feel that there is discrimination by the judiciary that is fine and you are entitled to that view.

But if you want other people to discuss your views, you will have to substantiate them.

Offy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Offy wrote: »

c

I am basing it on personal experience! Can you expand your answer please?

The whole premise of your thread is that men get punished for breaching court orders and women do not.

In basic terms, if you wish to sustain a logical argument on this, you must demonstrate:

1) that men get punished for breaching court orders;
2) that women do not get punished for breaching court orders; and
3) that this is because of discriminatory treatment by judges rather than due to the nature of the orders.

So far, you asserted that in your experience women do not get punished for breaching court orders. While I don't agree with this as a general proposition, I am prepared to accept that in specific instances this could well be the case.

But you have not demonstrated that men are treated any differently. You have not, for example, asserted that men DO get punished for breaching court orders. You also haven't indicated whether the orders and breaches of same are identical, yet only the woman gets punished.

So you have not shown points 1) and 3) above. If you can show point 1), then you need to show that there is no rational difference in the orders that would justify different treatment.

You have failed to demonstrate a logical argument I'm afraid. That is no personal criticism of you and if you feel that there is discrimination by the judiciary that is fine and you are entitled to that view.

But if you want other people to discuss your views, you will have to substantiate them.

Fair and valid points. As I never did break a court order I cannot prove my point.
Are there any male members that have broken a court order? If so could you post your experiences here? Perhaps we can find out if Im correct or not.

johnnyskeleton

Offy wrote: »

Fair and valid points. As I never did break a court order I cannot prove my point.
Are there any male members that have broken a court order? If so could you post your experiences here? Perhaps we can find out if Im correct or not.

When it comes to family law, judges tend not to seek to punish the parties for not complying with an order if there is a reasonable excuse. If there is a chance that the parties can resolve their difficulties without the court taking a heavy handed approach that is what they will do.

It is different where a judge takes a view that a person is deliberately refusing to comply with the order for no valid reason. It is also a different matter when it relates to maintenance as that is a specific monetary amount and there are specific enforcement mechanisms.

But I don't think there is any discrimination in the treatment by the courts based on gender when it comes to the enforcement of orders. There is a perception abroad (whether it is true or not) that men get a raw deal in family law, but that is due to the law and I suppose to the social presumption in favour of the mother, rather than a deliberate policy by judges to discriminate.

Offy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

When it comes to family law, judges tend not to seek to punish the parties for not complying with an order if there is a reasonable excuse. If there is a chance that the parties can resolve their difficulties without the court taking a heavy handed approach that is what they will do.

It is different where a judge takes a view that a person is deliberately refusing to comply with the order for no valid reason. It is also a different matter when it relates to maintenance as that is a specific monetary amount and there are specific enforcement mechanisms.

But I don't think there is any discrimination in the treatment by the courts based on gender when it comes to the enforcement of orders. There is a perception abroad (whether it is true or not) that men get a raw deal in family law, but that is due to the law and I suppose to the social presumption in favour of the mother, rather than a deliberate policy by judges to discriminate.

Im not assuming its deliberate, nor do I assume that the view that mother make better parents is deliberate but I do assume that it is discrimination. Im stating that in my opinion women should be punished for denying a father access to their children based on excuses like "I was to tired to bring the children to see their father" and other such excuses. What I really want to know is why do Irish judges allow Irish mothers to break court orders? Why do Irish judges send such a clear message to Irish mothers that they are not held accountable in the eyes of the law for disobeying court orders.
How many times is a woman allowed to break court orders without been held accountable? If I were to take access of my children at the court appointed time and decide not to return them to their mother because "I was to tired or I was confused (as have happened to me)" would I get away with some harse words and nothing more? If I do decide to go down that road (hypothetically speaking which is not pratical as Im wodowed) can I expect to get away with it by saying to the judge "Well you see judge I was to tired to return the children."
If I were to be punished could I not say "you cant punish me because my ex did the same on xx/xx/xxxx (insert whatever date is relevant) and did not get punished for it so if you punish me for the exact same thing then you are guilty of discrimination." I know thats tit for tat but hypothetically speaking would it not work? Of course not but is there anything I could legally do about it?
In other words are judges allowed to break the law while in court and if so does that not make a mockery out of the law? Equally are Irish mothers above Irish family law? Please forgive my ignorance if there are straightforward answers, I have no legal training and after eleven years of experience I am more confused now than I was eleven years ago.

MagicSean

Unfortunately until the constitution is updated and the legislature loses the perception of the "Irish Maiden" very little will change in the area of family law in Ireland.

johnnyskeleton

Offy wrote: »

Im not assuming its deliberate, nor do I assume that the view that mother make better parents is deliberate but I do assume that it is discrimination.

That's fine. But other people don't necessarily share your views so don't expect us to discuss your issues. If you want a genuine debate about this, you should substantiate your arguments. Otherwise, perhaps the parenting forum, personal issues or the ranting and raving forum would be a better venue for this thread. If you are maintaining that there is a hidden agenda among judges to positively discriminate to women in Irish courts, I suggest you try the conspiracy theories forum.

Offy wrote: »

How many times is a woman allowed to break court orders without been held accountable? If I were to take access of my children at the court appointed time and decide not to return them to their mother because "I was to tired or I was confused (as have happened to me)" would I get away with some harse words and nothing more? If I do decide to go down that road (hypothetically speaking which is not pratical as Im wodowed) can I expect to get away with it by saying to the judge "Well you see judge I was to tired to return the children."
If I were to be punished could I not say "you cant punish me because my ex did the same on xx/xx/xxxx (insert whatever date is relevant) and did not get punished for it so if you punish me for the exact same thing then you are guilty of discrimination." I know thats tit for tat but hypothetically speaking would it not work? Of course not but is there anything I could legally do about it?

You are presupposing an answer to your own question. If you have any evidence to suggest discrimination that is a different story, but complaining that you anticipate (apropos of nothing, by the way) discrimination against you is not really a matter for "Legal Discussion".

Offy wrote: »

In other words are judges allowed to break the law while in court and if so does that not make a mockery out of the law? Equally are Irish mothers above Irish family law? Please forgive my ignorance if there are straightforward answers, I have no legal training and after eleven years of experience I am more confused now than I was eleven years ago.

A judge has discretion as to how to deal with a person who doesn't comply with an order. So Judges in your hypothetical situation are not breaking the law.

If this whole thread is a backwards way of you trying to find out what would happen if you break your own agreements, you are not going to get an answer here. You should speak to a solicitor.

Offy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Offy wrote: »

Im not assuming its deliberate, nor do I assume that the view that mother make better parents is deliberate but I do assume that it is discrimination.

That's fine. But other people don't necessarily share your views so don't expect us to discuss your issues. If you want a genuine debate about this, you should substantiate your arguments. Otherwise, perhaps the parenting forum, personal issues or the ranting and raving forum would be a better venue for this thread. If you are maintaining that there is a hidden agenda among judges to positively discriminate to women in Irish courts, I suggest you try the conspiracy theories forum.

Offy wrote: »

How many times is a woman allowed to break court orders without been held accountable? If I were to take access of my children at the court appointed time and decide not to return them to their mother because "I was to tired or I was confused (as have happened to me)" would I get away with some harse words and nothing more? If I do decide to go down that road (hypothetically speaking which is not pratical as Im wodowed) can I expect to get away with it by saying to the judge "Well you see judge I was to tired to return the children."
If I were to be punished could I not say "you cant punish me because my ex did the same on xx/xx/xxxx (insert whatever date is relevant) and did not get punished for it so if you punish me for the exact same thing then you are guilty of discrimination." I know thats tit for tat but hypothetically speaking would it not work? Of course not but is there anything I could legally do about it?

You are presupposing an answer to your own question. If you have any evidence to suggest discrimination that is a different story, but complaining that you anticipate (apropos of nothing, by the way) discrimination against you is not really a matter for "Legal Discussion".

Offy wrote: »

In other words are judges allowed to break the law while in court and if so does that not make a mockery out of the law? Equally are Irish mothers above Irish family law? Please forgive my ignorance if there are straightforward answers, I have no legal training and after eleven years of experience I am more confused now than I was eleven years ago.

A judge has discretion as to how to deal with a person who doesn't comply with an order. So Judges in your hypothetical situation are not breaking the law.

If this whole thread is a backwards way of you trying to find out what would happen if you break your own agreements, you are not going to get an answer here. You should speak to a solicitor.

I am not looking for advice, Im looking for legal professionals opinions and I believe this is the right place for that. Thank you for yours but it doesnt put my mind at ease. Is it true to say that while a judge is sat at his/her bench that they dont have to obey the law. If its not true has any judge ever been punished for breaking the law while working?
I only used the example above as I can prove that court orders under certain circumstances can be broken without penelty. To me, a non legal professional, I thought that was a serious thing but it seems that it is not.

Offy

Offy wrote: »

I am not looking for advice, Im looking for legal professionals opinions and I believe this is the right place for that. Thank you for yours but it doesnt put my mind at ease.

Actually it appears as if you are looking for people to agree with you.

Offy wrote: »

Is it true to say that while a judge is sat at his/her bench that they dont have to obey the law.

Judges must, and do, obey the law. However there may be somewhat of a divergence between what you think the law is and what the law actually is.

Offy wrote: »

If its not true has any judge ever been punished for breaking the law while working?

If a judge makes a decision you disagree with you have a right to appeal that decision. Just because a judge is appealed does not mean they have "broken the law" in their original decision.

Offy wrote: »

I only used the example above as I can prove that court orders under certain circumstances can be broken without penelty. To me, a non legal professional, I thought that was a serious thing but it seems that it is not.

There are a number of enforcement mechanisms for someone who disobeys a court order. I have no intention of going into them and I have no desire for you to enumerate the situation where you think there has been some form of breach of a court order but it is up to you to ensure an order in your favour is enforced by an appropriate remedy. You can take legal advice on this issue, dependent on the situation of course. Judges, particularly in family law cases, will take a very common sense approach to these sorts of things and will always place the welfare of the child above all other considerations.

johnnyskeleton

Offy wrote: »

Is it true to say that while a judge is sat at his/her bench that they dont have to obey the law. If its not true has any judge ever been punished for breaking the law while working?
I only used the example above as I can prove that court orders under certain circumstances can be broken without penelty. To me, a non legal professional, I thought that was a serious thing but it seems that it is not.

A judge has discretion to punish or not punish someone who breaches an order. It is not against the law for a judge to exercise his discretion on this point. It is not true to say that a judge is only obeying the law if he punishes someone for breach of a court order. If a judge doesn't penalise someone who breaches a court order, he is not breaking the law.

How many times and in how many ways do I have to say it before you will understand?

Offy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Offy wrote: »

Is it true to say that while a judge is sat at his/her bench that they dont have to obey the law. If its not true has any judge ever been punished for breaking the law while working?
I only used the example above as I can prove that court orders under certain circumstances can be broken without penelty. To me, a non legal professional, I thought that was a serious thing but it seems that it is not.

A judge has discretion to punish or not punish someone who breaches an order. It is not against the law for a judge to exercise his discretion on this point. It is not true to say that a judge is only obeying the law if he punishes someone for breach of a court order. If a judge doesn't penalise someone who breaches a court order, he is not breaking the law.

How many times and in how many ways do I have to say it before you will understand?

Perhaps one more way as none of your answers provide the information Im looking for. Maybe Im asking asking the wrong question so I'll try a different question.
Has it ever happened or is it even possible to issue charges (ie to have charges pressed) against a judge in Ireland for discrimination for a decision that judge made in an access case?

johnnyskeleton

Offy wrote: »

Perhaps one more way as none of your answers provide the information Im looking for. Maybe Im asking asking the wrong question so I'll try a different question.
Has it ever happened or is it even possible to issue charges (ie to have charges pressed) against a judge in Ireland for discrimination for a decision that judge made in an access case?

1. Discrimination is not a criminal matter, so no.
2. You don't seem to understand or seem to care about what discrimination is. You seem to think it is simply a result against a woman that you don't like. That's not discrimination, that's misogyny on your part at best.
3. If you are genuine about these allegations of discrimination, see a solicitor. If you are simply upset about a decision, again contact a solicitor.

Offy

1. Discrimination is not a criminal matter, so no. - Thank you for that, I didnt know that before.
2. You don't seem to understand or seem to care about what discrimination is. You seem to think it is simply a result against a woman that you don't like. That's not discrimination, that's misogyny on your part at best. - Insults are not needed, Im simply asking questions, you dont have to answer them but regardless of that thank you for your answers.
3. If you are genuine about these allegations of discrimination, see a solicitor. If you are simply upset about a decision, again contact a solicitor. - Neither is true, I just want to know if judges have to obey the same laws as the rest of us and if its ever happened that a judge was punished for nor doing so while at work. I picked family law as Ive had to deal with family law for a number of years, no other reason.

MagicSean

Clearly johnnyskeleton does have the answer and has given it to you in many ways. You appear to have a very limited understanding of the legal system. If you are unhappy with a judges decision your solicitor can appeal it. If you feel your constitutional rights have been infringed upon you appeal to a higher court. If you feel your human rights are infringed upon you can take a case in the EU courts.

A judge showing bias is not illegal unless you can show it was done in exchange for something i.e. Bribery. They cannot be charged for giving unpopular decisions as this would affect their independence.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If a judge doesn't penalise someone who breaches a court order, he is not breaking the law.

What is the point of the order in this case then? If the person is not going to be punished for breaching it, I mean.

Offy

Kathryn Tasteless Rakishly wrote: »

What is the point of the order in this case then? If the person is not going to be punished for breaching it, I mean.

Thats one of the questions I was hoping would be answered with this thread!

johnnyskeleton

Kathryn Tasteless Rakishly wrote: »

What is the point of the order in this case then? If the person is not going to be punished for breaching it, I mean.

The purpose of an order is that it be complied with. Compliance can occur without punishment. Judges tend to avoid having to punish someone for failure to comply if there is a possibility that they will comply voluntarily. Punishing someone for a failure to comply that is out of their hands is utterly pointless. Therefore, where there is a reasonable excuse for non-compliance, judges tend not to punish the person for the breach but instead seek to see if they will comply in the future. Punishment is therefore reserved for persistent and/or deliberate breaches.

This is especially true of family law. But of course litigants in family law very often don't care about the actual compliance with the order, so long as their former partner gets a bit of punishment. Some people in family law disputes prefer petty vengence than having their affairs regularised. That, however, is not what the courts are for.

Seriously, is this thread a wind up or what?

MagicSean

So if I am understanding you correctly Johnnyskeleton compliance cannot be forced in situations like this. Lets say a custody order is in force and one party is refusing to hand over the child without reason. The other party cannot take the child from them or try and get the Gardaí to do so.

Norwayviking

infacteh wrote: »

Mostly cos Judges aren't really answerable to anyone

So your saying that they are above the law!!!!!:rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

So if I am understanding you correctly Johnnyskeleton compliance cannot be forced in situations like this. Lets say a custody order is in force and one party is refusing to hand over the child without reason.

That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. A judge has discretion as to what to do. That means he can take action or he can not take action. It is his choice. If the person is deliberately failing to comply with a court order, a judge is more likely to take steps to ensure compliance, and if it is not a deliberate failure i.e. the person has a genuine excuse, the judge will be less likely to take such steps.

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

The other party cannot take the child from them or try and get the Gardaí to do so

No, at least not by force anyway. If there is a breach it can be brought before the judge. The judge can exercise his JUDICIAL FUNCTION and decide what is the JUST thing to do. That is a judge's role.

Offy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Kathryn Tasteless Rakishly wrote: »

What is the point of the order in this case then? If the person is not going to be punished for breaching it, I mean.

The purpose of an order is that it be complied with. Compliance can occur without punishment. Judges tend to avoid having to punish someone for failure to comply if there is a possibility that they will comply voluntarily. Punishing someone for a failure to comply that is out of their hands is utterly pointless. Therefore, where there is a reasonable excuse for non-compliance, judges tend not to punish the person for the breach but instead seek to see if they will comply in the future. Punishment is therefore reserved for persistent and/or deliberate breaches.

This is especially true of family law. But of course litigants in family law very often don't care about the actual compliance with the order, so long as their former partner gets a bit of punishment. Some people in family law disputes prefer petty vengence than having their affairs regularised. That, however, is not what the courts are for.

Seriously, is this thread a wind up or what?

No its not a wind up, I am trying to understand the law system, nothing more and nothing less. I did not have any judge rule against me either. I dont have it in for judges. I try as much as possible to obey the law and Im simply confused by judges, I was brought up to respect the law but after 11 years of family law I see what I consider to be a major problem. I really can understand why people choose to break the law, they are let away with with it! Im just trying to learn by asking questions. Its very upsetting to watch and not be able to do and I really feel that change is needed to protect both fathers and children - that does not mean that I hate women by the way.

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. A judge has discretion as to what to do. That means he can take action or he can not take action. It is his choice. If the person is deliberately failing to comply with a court order, a judge is more likely to take steps to ensure compliance, and if it is not a deliberate failure i.e. the person has a genuine excuse, the judge will be less likely to take such steps.

Sorry, should have been clearer. I meant outside of court.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No, at least not by force anyway. If there is a breach it can be brought before the judge. The judge can exercise his JUDICIAL FUNCTION and decide what is the JUST thing to do. That is a judge's role.

Thanks. So basically if an order is not complied with their is really nothing that can be done until the parties return to court.

angelfire9

Surprising as it may seem I have actually seen incidents like Offy is referring to in family court cases in the District Court in Ireland
For Example:
Husband & wife separate
Separation agreement is drawn up and agreed to
Access & Maintenance are court ordered with the wife getting full custody with the husband having visitation rights every month alternating between Dublin (where she lives) and Cork (where the husband moved to)

4 years down the line the wife decides that it isn't convenient for her to drop the children to Cork for their visits with their father

Father's solicitor writes to wife but she ignores letters
Father decides to take wife back to District court (summons issues on 1st of January for arguments sake for a hearing on March 1st)

Wife recieves summons sometime between Jan 1st and 5th

Wife files Divorce papers in Circuit Court on Jan 6th

District court hearing on March 1st judge decides that because visitation & maintenance are going to be revisited in Divorce hearing (Sometime in 2012/2013) that he is not going to do anything about the wife's breach of district court order

Husband is left with no choice but to go to Dublin every month instead of every alternate month if he wants to see the kids!

Now the wife is making sure that the kids are never available when he goes to Dublin
And there is NOTHING the husband can do about it!

The law is an ass and women are favoured more in my experience
(and I say that as a woman who does not think that that is right)

johnnyskeleton

angelfire9 wrote: »

Surprising as it may seem I have actually seen incidents like Offy is referring to in family court cases in the District Court in Ireland
For Example:
Husband & wife separate
Separation agreement is drawn up and agreed to
Access & Maintenance are court ordered with the wife getting full custody with the husband having visitation rights every month alternating between Dublin (where she lives) and Cork (where the husband moved to)

4 years down the line the wife decides that it isn't convenient for her to drop the children to Cork for their visits with their father

Father's solicitor writes to wife but she ignores letters
Father decides to take wife back to District court (summons issues on 1st of January for arguments sake for a hearing on March 1st)

Wife recieves summons sometime between Jan 1st and 5th

Wife files Divorce papers in Circuit Court on Jan 6th

District court hearing on March 1st judge decides that because visitation & maintenance are going to be revisited in Divorce hearing (Sometime in 2012/2013) that he is not going to do anything about the wife's breach of district court order

Husband is left with no choice but to go to Dublin every month instead of every alternate month if he wants to see the kids!

Now the wife is making sure that the kids are never available when he goes to Dublin
And there is NOTHING the husband can do about it!

The law is an ass and women are favoured more in my experience
(and I say that as a woman who does not think that that is right)

that is a jurisdictional issue. District court judges have no power to deal with circuit court orders.

Moreover, there is nothing to suggest discrimination. If the shoe was on the other foot and it was the man refusing to drop the kids to the woman, the same situation would arise.

Putting this forward as evidence of discrimination shows a willingness to infer discrimination and that judges are unfair because to many people that is an easier answer than trying to understand what went wrong and a cheaper option than engaging a solicitor to fix the problem. It's like people who don't vote and then complain that they don't have a say in how the country is run.

Offy

So why will the judges involved allow the children to be abused in this way? Why do they not uphold the rights of the children? By not punishing those that break court orders are judges not guilty of aiding emotional child abuse? Please dont be offended by my lack of legal knowledge.

Offy

Offy wrote: »

So why will the judges involved allow the children to be abused in this way? Why do they not uphold the rights of the children? By not punishing those that break court orders are judges not guilty of aiding emotional child abuse? Please dont be offended by my lack of legal knowledge.

You are starting to sound like Cartman in the Glenn Beck episode of South Park "I'm not being offensive, I'm just asking questions!"

You clearly have an agenda here though, to be honest, I fail to see what you hope to achieve.

You have phrased your opening question in the quoted post above, as well as the remainder of the post, in terms involving child abuse. That is a fairly enormous logical leap from a general discussion about Court orders.

Look, in the simplest way possible this is the situation:

1. If a person breaks a Court order willingly then they will be punished. Willingly is not for you to decide, it is for the judge.

2. If a person breaks a Court order through no fault of their own or through circumstances reasonably beyond their control then they will more than likely not be punished.

3. If a higher court is going to decide a matter between two people (as in the case mentioned above) then a lower court, such as the District Court, will not interfere with the situation as the matter is under consideration of a more appropriate forum (in that case the Circuit Court).

If there are any genuine child protection issues then either party are always at liberty to take legal advice and act accordingly. The judge has no power to act unless matters are put before them however.

I am sure you'll beg me to forgive your legal ignorance and ask more leading questions about the evils of the judiciary but such is life I suppose.

angelfire9

Kayroo wrote: »

Offy wrote: »

So why will the judges involved allow the children to be abused in this way? Why do they not uphold the rights of the children? By not punishing those that break court orders are judges not guilty of aiding emotional child abuse? Please dont be offended by my lack of legal knowledge.

You are starting to sound like Cartman in the Glenn Beck episode of South Park "I'm not being offensive, I'm just asking questions!"

You clearly have an agenda here though, to be honest, I fail to see what you hope to achieve.

You have phrased your opening question in the quoted post above, as well as the remainder of the post, in terms involving child abuse. That is a fairly enormous logical leap from a general discussion about Court orders.

Look, in the simplest way possible this is the situation:

1. If a person breaks a Court order willingly then they will be punished. Willingly is not for you to decide, it is for the judge.

2. If a person breaks a Court order through no fault of their own or through circumstances reasonably beyond their control then they will more than likely not be punished.

3. If a higher court is going to decide a matter between two people (as in the case mentioned above) then a lower court, such as the District Court, will not interfere with the situation as the matter is under consideration of a more appropriate forum (in that case the Circuit Court).

If there are any genuine child protection issues then either party are always at liberty to take legal advice and act accordingly. The judge has no power to act unless matters are put before them however.

I am sure you'll beg me to forgive your legal ignorance and ask more leading questions about the evils of the judiciary but such is life I suppose.

In my example the higher court (circuit) would not be considering the matter (the access arrangements) for a minimum of 12 months
The children's mother is WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY ignoring an existing court order of the district court
For you to say that the district court is right to leave the situation lie for 12 months pending a circuit court hearing may be technically correct but morally reprehensible
The children's mother is doing everything in her power to deny the children access to their father and the district court is basically saying "Arra sure we'll let the circuit court sort it"

Are the rights of the children so unimportant that a breech if an existing court order can be ignored for the sake of legal etiquette?

And before ye start telling me about the operation of the judiciary I have a degree in Law and Accountancy and am married to a cop so I do understand the Irish legal system
I just happen to believe that at times the law us a complete ass!!!

angelfire9

angelfire9 wrote: »

For you to say that the district court is right to leave the situation lie for 12 months pending a circuit court hearing may be technically correct but morally reprehensible

I'm not saying that it's either right or wrong. I, unlike you, am making no judgments on the issue be it moral or otherwise. What I am saying is that a District Court judge cannot make an order in a case before a higher Court. In the instance referred to by you previously the man has a right of appeal from the decision of the District Court or a number of other remedies. His failure to not seek a proper remedy is not the judge's fault.

angelfire9 wrote: »

Are the rights of the children so unimportant that a breech if an existing court order can be ignored for the sake of legal etiquette?

The breach isn't being ignored. The District Court said it would be inappropriate for it to rule on these matters given they would be revisited by the Circuit Court. So, with your law degree, would you hazard a guess what Court would be the appropriate forum to enforce current access orders? Quite often the parents in divorce proceedings use the child to spitefully attack each other. Sounds like one of those instances and I have every sympathy for the father but the District Court judge was right not to give an order, the Circuit Court was the right court from whom to seek redress.

johnnyskeleton

Offy wrote: »

So why will the judges involved allow the children to be abused in this way? Why do they not uphold the rights of the children? By not punishing those that break court orders are judges not guilty of aiding emotional child abuse? Please dont be offended by my lack of legal knowledge.

it's not child abuse. Which is worse - a child doesn't see her father one weekend because of unforseen circumstances but will do so going forward, or a child is without his/her mother for two weeks because a judge has put her in jail as punishment for failing to comply with an acess order once in circumstances beyond her control?

Your whole shtick about punishing every breach is ridiculous.

johnnyskeleton

angelfire9 wrote: »

And before ye start telling me about the operation of the judiciary I have a degree in Law and Accountancy and am married to a cop so I do understand the Irish legal system
I just happen to believe that at times the law us a complete ass!!!

I fail to see how that qualifies you to make sweeping statements about the Irish legal system and judiciary, particularly since neither nor lecturers nor your husband (what do cops know about law other than giving evidence in criminal trials?) ever disussed with you liberty to mention default of agreement procedures nor acess pending suit applications.

It seems that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and you think a Garda and a law and accounting degree is a good substitute for a solicitor, but it's not.

Offy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

it's not child abuse. Which is worse - a child doesn't see her father one weekend because of unforseen circumstances but will do so going forward, or a child is without his/her mother for two weeks because a judge has put her in jail as punishment for failing to comply with an acess order once in circumstances beyond her control?

Your whole shtick about punishing every breach is ridiculous.

A child that doesnt see their father one weekend is not what Im talking about. Im talking about judges that continuously accept stupid excuses for breaking court orders. Not ONCE as you have stated but on an ongoing basis. Im not suggesting that every breach be punished, nor am I suggesting that the punishment be a jail term, I would like to know why when stupid excuses are uses like "I was confused, I was to tired, ect." that judges allow this to go on.
On a different note I fail to see why a judge cannot be put on trial for committing an offence while at work. Please johnnyskeleton, explain to me why judges should be unaccountable for their actions.

Offy

Offy wrote: »

On a different note I fail to see why a judge cannot be put on trial for committing an offence while at work. Please johnnyskeleton, explain to me why judges should be unaccountable for their actions.

Judges are accountable for their actions. Decisions made by judges are appealed every day of the week.

If a judge commits an offence then they are also accountable under the law but what you seem to be insistent upon not understanding is that a judge choosing to exercise their discretion with regards to the enforcement of orders is NOT an offence. If you disagree with a judge's decision then appeal him/her. It's as simple as that.

MagicSean

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

(what do cops know about law other than giving evidence in criminal trials?)

How very condescending

Offy

Kayroo wrote: »

Offy wrote: »

On a different note I fail to see why a judge cannot be put on trial for committing an offence while at work. Please johnnyskeleton, explain to me why judges should be unaccountable for their actions.

Judges are accountable for their actions. Decisions made by judges are appealed every day of the week.

Appealing a decision is different to the judge been held accountable for that decision.

Offy

Offy wrote: »

Appealing a decision is different to the judge been held accountable for that decision.

You think a judge should suffer some form of punishment if they are successfully appealed? That's simply laughable. What sort of nonsense agenda are you espousing here?

Offy

Kayroo wrote: »

Offy wrote: »

Appealing a decision is different to the judge been held accountable for that decision.

You think a judge should suffer some form of punishment if they are successfully appealed? That's simply laughable. What sort of nonsense agenda are you espousing here?

So your saying no accountability? Everyone should be accountable for their actions, judges too.

Offy

Offy wrote: »

So your saying no accountability? Everyone should be accountable for their actions, judges too.

No, I am saying they are accountable and that the method for this is appeals to superior courts. You are saying this is insufficient without saying what you think the proper method should be.

Offy

Kayroo wrote: »

Offy wrote: »

So your saying no accountability? Everyone should be accountable for their actions, judges too.

No, I am saying they are accountable and that the method for this is appeals to superior courts. You are saying this is insufficient without saying what you think the proper method should be.

I think anything from a slap on the wrist to getting put in jail depending on the outcome of the decision.

Offy

Offy wrote: »

I think anything from a slap on the wrist to getting put in jail depending on the outcome of the decision.

Either you're an excellent troll or you're out of your mind.

What situation is it that you envisage happening? In the only examples given in this thread to bolster your argument the judge absolutely acted appropriately and the people before the Court has all remedies available to them had they bothered seeking them.

Offy

Deleted User wrote: »

Either you're an excellent troll or you're out of your mind.

What situation is it that you envisage happening? In the only examples given in this thread to bolster your argument the judge absolutely acted appropriately and the people before the Court has all remedies available to them had they bothered seeking them.

If a judge refuses to hear evidence in a case for example and makes a ruling that causes that much distress to someone that they commit suicide then the judge should be punished.

Lets look at this from a different angle. For years I argued that ladydriver insurance was sexual discrimination. Now I hear it is been scraped because it is sexual discrimination to offer cheaper insurance to someone based on their gender. I would also argue that awarding a woman sole custody of children based on the assumption that women make better parents is sexual discrimination. The mother gets sole custody based on her gender. I think (rightly or wrongly) that its up to judges to say in court "prove it please" rather than fathers having to prove they are innocent. I dont believe judges will change unless they are held accountable for decisions they make.

Offy

Offy wrote: »

If a judge refuses to hear evidence in a case for example and makes a ruling that causes that much distress to someone that they commit suicide then the judge should be punished.

This is just total nonsense. A judge cannot be held responsible for the actions of others and you are excluding the possibility that the decision was correct. One side always dislikes a decision a judge makes, such is the way of things.

Offy wrote: »

Lets look at this from a different angle. For years I argued that ladydriver insurance was sexual discrimination. Now I hear it is been scraped because it is sexual discrimination to offer cheaper insurance to someone based on their gender.

Yes, because someone took a case and a judge made a decision.

Offy wrote: »

I would also argue that awarding a woman sole custody of children based on the assumption that women make better parents is sexual discrimination. The mother gets sole custody based on her gender. I think (rightly or wrongly) that its up to judges to say in court "prove it please" rather than fathers having to prove they are innocent. I dont believe judges will change unless they are held accountable for decisions they make.

What you are saying here is that you believe judges won't give a decision that you agree with unless they are punished for not doing so. Judges are accountable and you have not made a single valid point thus far. I'm done with this thread at this stage as it seems you have a pretty ill-thought out position from which you will not be swayed. Best of luck with that.

Offy

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, because someone took a case and a judge made a decision.

Now you have hit the nail on the head, so how would someone take a case against a judge for ruling that a mother should have sole custody based on her gender? Is it even possible to do this in Ireland?

Offy

Offy wrote: »

Now you have hit the nail on the head, so how would someone take a case against a judge for ruling that a mother should have sole custody based on her gender? Is it even possible to do this in Ireland?

APPEAL THEM!

rolly1

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The whole premise of your thread is that men get punished for breaching court orders and women do not.

In basic terms, if you wish to sustain a logical argument on this, you must demonstrate:

1) that men get punished for breaching court orders;

Family Law Matters Winter 2009

Man faces jail for failure to pay maintenance p.32
A man jailed for three weeks because he failed to comply with a maintenance order appeared before Judge Rory McCabe to purge his contempt


Wife seeks order to sell family home situated next to husband’s business p.66
The wife said she had problems getting him to pay maintenance. It had been €200 but he stopped paying it. He ignored an interim court order and went to jail for one night after which “he never missed a payment”, she said

Family law matters spring 2008 p.28

A 20-year-old father of two had gone to jail for non-payment of maintenance

And lots more here:

http://www.courts.ie

2) that women do not get punished for breaching court orders;

Family Law Matters Winter 2009

Father has had no access for a year p.15
In a matter before Judge Terence O’Sullivan on the Eastern Circuit there was no
appearance by the respondent mother. Counsel for the applicant father complained to the
judge that this was the second occasion that the mother had failed to show up. She said
the mother was attempting to delay matters by not co-operating.
Mother denies a father’s access for non compliance with a maintenance order p.8
At Bray District Court the solicitor for a mother of two advised the court that the
parties had appeared in court a month ago and on that date the father of the two children
had been ordered to pay maintenance. He had failed to pay any maintenance so the
mother had suspended all communication and the father’s access with the children until
he complied with the court order.
Parents asked to focus on generosity
A father came before Judge Donagh McDonagh on the Southwestern Circuit
seeking enforcement of an access order because the mother was refusing it. The mother
was in court to contest this allegation.
Rows between parents not the issue, says judge P. 17
A father who said the mother of his child was refusing access since he had declined
to get back with her came before Judge Mary O’Halloran in the District Court.
Father worried that his child would become alienated from him if access couldn’t be
sorted out.p.23
In an application for access by a separated father before Judge John O’Hagan there
was no appearance in court by the respondent wife
Each time access is due, father is told that child is sick p.24
An unmarried couple were in Cork Circuit Court where the father of their young
child was seeking to have a District Court Order affirmed.
I don’t agree to access – we won’t be there, says mother p.29
A man who had brought a summons for breach of access before Dublin District
Court was challenged by his partner who said: “I don’t know why I’m here. There is no
access order.” Neither party was legally represented. In the spat that followed, the mother
persisted with her argument and the father with his that an order was in place.
Judge Dermot Dempsey said: “Judge Furlong made an order for access. It was to be
as agreed by the mother.”
The father said: “I’ll pick her up at the shopping centre on Saturdays at 12 noon.”
The order was interim and for one month only and the man was warned that if he
breached it, was late or did not turn up, it would be discharged entirely. As they left
court, the mother told the father: “We won’t be there.”

Not a single one of the above cases resulted in the mother receiving the full legal sanction for their clear breach of access orders. There's lots more of the same scattered throughout the family law reports..

And you wont find a single case where the mother has recieved the full legal sanction for breaching an access order anywhere in here either:
http://www.courts.ie

and
3) that this is because of discriminatory treatment by judges rather than due to the nature of the orders.

A breach of an access order is a breach of an access order, it has nothing to do with the nature of the order.

So far, you asserted that in your experience women do not get punished for breaching court orders. While I don't agree with this as a general proposition, I am prepared to accept that in specific instances this could well be the case.

But you have not demonstrated that men are treated any differently. You have not, for example, asserted that men DO get punished for breaching court orders. You also haven't indicated whether the orders and breaches of same are identical, yet only the woman gets punished.

As you are probably aware in 99% of cases the mother resides in the family home and the father pays maintenance (mainly child maintenance)to the mother. Out of 675 Circuit Court cases observed in this report no case of a mother paying maintenance to the father was observed. Therefore it is extremely rare that the same type of court order will occur between men and women, so rare that trying to infer anything from them would be a nonsense.
Even by Carol Coulter's carefully selected,completely unscientific case reporting she still managed to leave the cat out of the bag about men and jail and women and jail in our family courts.

angelfire9

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I fail to see how that qualifies you to make sweeping statements about the Irish legal system and judiciary, particularly since neither nor lecturers nor your husband (what do cops know about law other than giving evidence in criminal trials?) ever disussed with you liberty to mention default of agreement procedures nor acess pending suit applications.

It seems that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and you think a Garda and a law and accounting degree is a good substitute for a solicitor, but it's not.

I never said that my degree was a substitute for having a solicitor
I simply stated the fact that I have a degree as you in particular appear to have the opinion that anyone who posts on this forum who is not a barrister or a solicitor is an idiot!
I find in particular your comment with regard to the Gardai to be offensive & condescending in the extreme

I think you will find if you can recall your constitutional law that Ireland is still a free country and if, i make a statement, which is in fact a true reflection of my opinion, which in this case it is, then you as a barrister or solicitor do not have a right to castigate me or my opinions

I as an accountant have provided dozens of affidavits of means for various clients (requested through various solicitors) and have been present at a number of circuit court hearings to present financial information to the courts as an expert witness
Again and again I have seen parties to divorces use every available mechanism to get around the legal system by & large to punish their exes and in the majority of cases its women who do it

newmug

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A judge has discretion to punish or not punish someone who breaches an order. It is not against the law for a judge to exercise his discretion on this point. It is not true to say that a judge is only obeying the law if he punishes someone for breach of a court order. If a judge doesn't penalise someone who breaches a court order, he is not breaking the law.

How many times and in how many ways do I have to say it before you will understand?

To be fair to Offy, thats the first time you've answered his question clearly and directly.