A step forward for unmarried fathers' rights?

Daftendirekt

So apparently the government are considering proposals to make it compulsory for the father's name to be included on his child's birth cert. It's still all a bit vague at the moment (I don't think it's even definite), and cases where pregnancy is the result of rape or the father is unknown obviously need to be accounted for, but what think ye of this?

Apologies for not linking to an online source, but I can't find one. This is from page seven of yesterday's Sunday Times:

Sarah McInerney, The Sunday Times 15-01-2012 wrote:

Fathers must go on all birth certificates

The government is planning to make it compulsory for fathers' names to be registered on their children's birth certificates, regardless of whether they are married to the mother.

The Department of Social Protection is taking legal advice on the practicalities of such a move, and plans to include a new provision in the Civil Registration (Amendment) Act 2004, to be published this year.

Families, Fathers and Friends, a charity that represents fathers' rights, said the new law will be the "first step" in addressing unequal rights of parents in regards to their children.

"This is good news for children, as much as it is for fathers," said Sohail Butt, the chief executive of the group. "It means fathers cannot run away from their responsibilities. Once their names are on the birth certificate, they are obliged by law to provide maintenance for their children. This is long overdue."

Butt said the legislation should not be introduced in isolation from other provisions giving equal rights to fathers.

"There are many fathers who want to be involved with their children, but have no rights in that regard," he said. "Along with the duties in this legislation, there should also be rights. It should be done in one swoop."

According to figures released in 2010, more than 4,000 birth certificates are issued every year without a father's name. In 1,032 cases where a father owed child maintenace, the state could not oblige him to pay as his name was not on the certificate.

According to the campaign group One Family, half of one parent families have never received any financial contribution from non-resident fathers.

Frances Byrne, chief executive of One Parent, an organisation for lone parents, said the legislation would be a welcome development, particularly for children.

"This is hugely important, though I would like to see the heads of the bill," she said. "There are issue around this that need to be dealt with carefully, such as what happens in cases of artificial insemination, and cases where a pregnancy has come about as a result of rape or violence."

A spokeswoman for the Department of Social Protection said it was not possible at this stage to say "what precisely [the bill] will contain" as it has yet to go through many stages in the legislative process.

"Whether the matter [of compulsory registration of a father's details] is included is ultimately a matter for the government to decide, based on the advice of the parliamentary counsel and practical considerations concerning its implementation," she said.

The Department is also planning to reform the legislation relating to the rights of grandparents. The move comes after a number of cases came before the courts in recent years in which grandparent were acting as parents but had no legal rights to their grandchildren.

"This would be important for a number of reasons," said Butt. "There is the simple case of access, where the mother and father are in dispute and grandparents are refused the right to see their grandchildren.

"There is also the issue that the extended family should be the first port of call to be given legal guardianship of children, in cases where the parents are unfit and where it is found to be in the best interests of children. At the moment, the extended family have no rights in this regard."

It seems like something that should have been done years ago. Though I'm not the paternal type, I can imagine how troubling it must be for a lot of guys who're raising a kid without even being granted legal recognition of their parental role.

And on the flip side, it can't be easy for any single mother who's struggling to support a child alone.

I do notice that the article seems more concerned about the latter category, though I can't say if that's just the slant the author chose to take, or if it's reflective of the attitude behind the bill. My main hope for this (if it goes ahead) is that it'll be used by the government as an opportunity to genuinely pursue gender equality in family law, and not just a means to chase down deadbeat dads.

smallBiscuit

Daftendirekt wrote: »

My main hope for this (if it goes ahead) is that it'll be used by the government as an opportunity to genuinely pursue gender equality in family law, and not just a means to chase down deadbeat dads.

I've heard of this, I think it''ll just be a means of chasing down deadbeat dads.

But I see some issues in it. What if they dad refuses? What if he says he's not the dad, will there be a forced paternity test?

What if the girl in question doesn't know who the dad is? Say she's been sleeping around, having unprotected sex with a large number of men over the last few weeks. How will she know?

iptba

I think men who are being claimed to be a father (also married men) should have an automatic right to a paternity test. Blood is already taken from children at birth (to test them for cystic fibrosis, phenylketonuria (PKU) and possibly other conditions).

A man shouldn't have to ask the mother for permission.

The man, of course, can say that he doesn't want to know but if he chooses to get the result, I don't think the woman should necessarily be told. At the moment, men feel pressure not to ask as the mothers say they are being doubted.

If there is any suggestion of a mix-up in a hospital, with a woman given the wrong child, there is a huge furore. It is seen as terrible if a woman is given a child that is not theirs - why can't the same effort be done for men?

If a man could be 100% confident he was the father, he might put more time into the child. Also, if he wasn't the father, everyone could find out early and it would be easier to trace the biological father early rather than say if he has moved somewhere months or years later. Knowing who your biological parents are can be useful medically.

Not sure this will happen of course. But this seems the time to do it if they're going to do it.

Daftendirekt

Sorry, could a mod fix the typo in the thread title? It's going to annoy me every time I see it.

Edit: Cheers for that, mystery mod!

@ iptba: Don't men already have the right to a paternity test? Or does the mother need to agree?

G-Money

If they changed the law to automatically require blood tests be performed before either person could be listed as a parent, it would probably be more even handed. It would also cut out guys being duped into thinking they are the father of a child that is not theirs.

iptba

Daftendirekt wrote: »

@ iptba: Don't men already have the right to a paternity test? Or does the mother need to agree?

The mother has to agree - Irish professionals won't get involved with you.

It can even be claimed to be abuse if you try to take a sample, from what I understand. So even if you send a sample to a lab abroad, it is risky.

G-Money

iptba wrote: »

The mother has to agree - professionals won't get involved with you.

It can even be claimed to be abuse if you try to take a sample, from what I understand. So even if you send a sample to a lab abroad, it is risky.

Another part of the law that needs to be changed. Why is the mothers consent necessary?

iptba

G-Money wrote: »

Another part of the law that needs to be changed. Why is the mothers consent necessary?

I'm a bit rusty on this now - I think it is because it's claimed to be a medical procedure and as a baby can't give consent themselves, their next-of-kin/guardian has to (and in this case, the man no longer is considered the next-of-kin/guardian!).

---

I think the main reason it doesn't happen is because it suits people (except the man) to have a man to be able to get money from - otherwise the State might have to provide for them and the woman would generally get less money in this situation (maybe no/little money at all).

So rather than using the tools now available to get proper justice, because it's "only a man", this situation is allowed to continue.

And men are possibly/probably socialised to accept this: they should "do the right thing". Maybe some men also feel a bit guilty for having sex and so some feel they deserve to pay whether it is their child or not??? And of course, the main thing is that, in the current situation, if a man does push for a test, they jeopardise their whole relationship with the mother, as the mother very likely won't like it [and even if they're not that close at that stage, if the relationship with the mother is not good, they might get to have a proper relationship with the child/may not get to see the child much, if it does turn out to be theirs]. While if testing was just the default position, it wouldn't put the relationship in jeopardy.

The Corinthian

smallBiscuit wrote: »

I've heard of this, I think it''ll just be a means of chasing down deadbeat dads.

Essentially this is all it is. A name on the birth cert would allow social services to place additional pressure on the mother to peruse maintenance, which in turn would be deducted from SPA or RA.

With regard to this being "a step forward for unmarried fathers' rights", it's not as in Ireland, a father's name on a birth cert actually gives him absolutely no rights whatsoever.

But I see some issues in it. What if they dad refuses? What if he says he's not the dad, will there be a forced paternity test?

Same situation as would occur with father who contests paternity now in maintenance cases. A court ordered DNA test will required to which both the father and mother must consent to samples being taken.

If either refuses, a court will most likely interpret this as an attempt to avoid the outcome and rule accordingly. So, for example, if a mother refuses a court ordered DNA test where the father is contesting that he is not the father, then while there will be no test, a court will rule that he is not because of her refusal.

Costs should then go against the losing party, but in many cases it will be the one who paid up front who will end up footing the bill.

Fromthetrees

This is my two cents, when I figured out that I had absolutely no legal rights over my child at all I went into the local district court office to apply for co guardianship and joint custody. The female clerk that took my application asked me 'was I sure I wanted to apply for it', I said yes, then she said 'are you aware that if you put this through you will now be eligible to pay maintenance', I just said okay. When I went to the solicitor that's taking on my case the first thing she said was that it's very rare and unusual for an unmarried father to apply for co guardianship and joint custody, she said you usually only apply for joint custody in 'exceptional circumstances', I just said what I knew which was that I thought co guardianship just gives you some very basic rights (like taking the child out of the country and religion ect.) and the joint custody would guarantee me two or three days a week with my child (which I have now btw).
To be clear, I currently take my child at least three days a week and have been as equally involved as the mother since the beginning but I find the whole situation grossly unfair and unnecessarily stressful.
The thing is I've been 'lucky' if you can call it that in my situation so far but I literally feel the whole thing can be ripped from under me in a moment if my kids mother simply decided so.
From the information I've gathered, much of it here on boards, if I am awarded co guardianship and joint custody, (and as things stand in reality I don't need it today, it's literally just some protection from her leaving the country in two, five or ten years time) if she simply decides at anytime in the future that I'm not allowed see my kid there is very very little I can do, the guards won't get involved, so the only thing I can do in this situation is take the mother to court again and from my understanding no mother has ever gotten in serious trouble for stopping the father from seeing his kids despite having applied for legal rights and recognition and has been given them, my understanding is that joint custody doesn't mean a whole lot at the end of the day despite the hassle and crap that's involved in getting it.
This country is backward.

smallBiscuit

Fromthetrees wrote: »

This is my two cents, when I figured out that I had absolutely no legal rights over my child at all I went into the local district court office to apply for co guardianship and joint custody. The female clerk that took my application asked me 'was I sure I wanted to apply for it', I said yes, then she said 'are you aware that if you put this through you will now be eligible to pay maintenance', I just said okay. When I went to the solicitor that's taking on my case the first thing she said was that it's very rare and unusual for an unmarried father to apply for co guardianship and joint custody, she said you usually only apply for joint custody in 'exceptional circumstances', I just said what I knew which was that I thought co guardianship just gives you some very basic rights (like taking the child out of the country and religion ect.) and the joint custody would guarantee me two or three days a week with my child (which I have now btw).
To be clear, I currently take my child at least three days a week and have been as equally involved as the mother since the beginning but I find the whole situation grossly unfair and unnecessarily stressful.
The thing is I've been 'lucky' if you can call it that in my situation so far but I literally feel the whole thing can be ripped from under me in a moment if my kids mother simply decided so.
From the information I've gathered, much of it here on boards, if I am awarded co guardianship and joint custody, (and as things stand in reality I don't need it today, it's literally just some protection from her leaving the country in two, five or ten years time) if she simply decides at anytime in the future that I'm not allowed see my kid there is very very little I can do, the guards won't get involved, so the only thing I can do in this situation is take the mother to court again and from my understanding no mother has ever gotten in serious trouble for stopping the father from seeing his kids despite having applied for legal rights and recognition and has been given them, my understanding is that joint custody doesn't mean a whole lot at the end of the day despite the hassle and crap that's involved in getting it.
This country is backward.

Has anyone ever tried attacking the problem through the courts, ie taking the courts to court for sexual discrimination?

In a case say where a crack head mother is awarded custody over a respectable working father

Evan La Crey

This is how it already is in the USA. My girlfriend wants to emigrate from America to Ireland, but she needs her son's biological Dad's signature on some documents, releasing him, allowing her to take her child out of the States. This seems fair for protecting single fathers... good single fathers.

But this guy doesn't bother with the kid at all and yet refuses to sign the documents to allow her to leave with her kid. This means it could take her years to get his Visa sorted instead of months.

Does anyone have any experience of this and any advice on ways to speed things up?

MadsL

G-Money wrote: »

It would also cut out guys being duped into thinking they are the father of a child that is not theirs.

Equally men who raise a child who isn't biologically 'theirs' should have some rights in the event of a relationship breakdown after a bond has been formed with the child.
Adoption or guardianship is not possible without the consent of the mother.

Sn@kebite

smallBiscuit wrote: »

Has anyone ever tried attacking the problem through the courts, ie taking the courts to court for sexual discrimination?

In a case say where a crack head mother is awarded custody over a respectable working father

A bit like trying to prosecute a police officer. One word; corruption.

The Family Law courts are making money out holding these imbalanced laws between the parents it's to keep the parent bickering so as you need to keep hiring the lawyers. It's naive to think they don't have some sort of lobby set up to block the laws being amended to give parents equal rights because equality between parents means less bickering = less court cases = less cash for the lawyers and the Family Courts.

chirogirl

When I registered the birth of my baby, I was unable to include the Fathers details as he had to be present himself to register. He refused to do this. Now we're in court over maintenance. He has requested a Paternity test ( just to delay things), once the paternity result comes back, it means I can issue him with an order to force him to register his details onto the childs birth cert. Which means its gonna be a costly and timely process doing it via the courts. I would back it to be compulsory in the future.

The Corinthian

chirogirl wrote: »

When I registered the birth of my baby, I was unable to include the Fathers details as he had to be present himself to register. He refused to do this. Now we're in court over maintenance. He has requested a Paternity test ( just to delay things), once the paternity result comes back, it means I can issue him with an order to force him to register his details onto the childs birth cert. Which means its gonna be a costly and timely process doing it via the courts. I would back it to be compulsory in the future.

This proposed legislation is unlikely to make a difference to cases such as yours. Checks and balances need to be maintained and so unless you believe that they will allow mothers to put any name they like without any verification on a birth cert, there will remain the opportunity to challenge such admissions.

As I suggested earlier, the entire thing is more likely a cynical attempt by the government to get names on birth certs so that mothers seeking LPA can then be forced to pursue the father for maintenance (which is then deducted from social welfare payments to the mother).

With regards to cost and time in your case, costs will be awarded to you if it turns out that there is a positive match and maintenance can be dealt with at the same sitting. With both no solicitor is actually required.

chirogirl

I agree with the above poster, however i find the issue frustrating that my child has a half completed birth cert and apart from a paternity test there was no other way of making him register.
I haven't and won't be hiring any legal representation. Although my ex had a solicitor and Barrister in with him, which I personally thought was a bit extreme.

The Corinthian

chirogirl wrote: »

I agree with the above poster, however i find the issue frustrating that my child has a half completed birth cert and apart from a paternity test there was no other way of making him register.
I haven't and won't be hiring any legal representation. Although my ex had a solicitor and Barrister in with him, which I personally thought was a bit extreme.

I understand where you're coming from but TBH, as a delaying tactic, using a challenge on paternity if you know that the child is yours is really dumb. It really does not delay things much. You'll end up paying for the test. The judge will likely see your challenge as wasting the courts time and turn against you.

It is quite possible that your ex received poor advice from his solicitor - that he had a barrister in with him would lead me to believe that his solicitor was rolling him over, big time.

However, sometimes there is reasonable doubt as to paternity. Or sometimes tests are demanded by the paternal family to put their minds at ease. Or sometimes these tests become part of a wider power struggle between the parents. Or all of the above and more.

chirogirl

Sorry, i think i've confused you. The father requested the test, not me. Though his legal wanted me to pick up the tab, to which i refused. Though we haggled for a while an i offered to go halves, and stipulated on a positive result he would refund me my half, the judge backed me up.

The Corinthian

chirogirl wrote: »

Sorry, i think i've confused you. The father requested the test, not me.

I understood that. I used the term 'you' in the same way as you might use the term 'one' - in the third person. Sorry if that was unclear or confusing.

Though his legal wanted me to pick up the tab, to which i refused. Though we haggled for a while an i offered to go halves, and stipulated on a positive result he would refund me my half, the judge backed me up.

His legal team were bluffing.

chirogirl

Gotcha. It doesn't take much to confuse me these days.