Unmarried father...

Fromthetrees

Today, I was at the family law court to have my application for co-guardianship and joint custody heard.

Long story...

The mother of my daughter agreed to sign the forms ten minutes before we were about to go into the judge. I'm very happy with the outcome.

My question is, why did I have to go to court just to get some basic rights over my daughter?

What pissed me off although I accept it, is that my solicitor made it clear in the written document that we both signed is that the mother is the primary care giver, like I said, I accept this but the judge went on to add a few more paragraphs to give the mother more control, despite the fact that agreement had been reached between both parties before we entered the court room. I genuinely feel there is a strong bias against fathers in our laws and legal system.

I actually think I'm lucky, I get 50% access to my daughter and a say in what happens, up until today it was all literally at the discretion of the mother, that just seems sick to me.

I think there is something wrong with a de facto situation where every single father who has a child outside of marriage has as many rights over them as the bottle of beer beside me.

I think we need to adopt a system similar to the US, if a father has no interest in his child, fine, automatically garnish his income and that's that, but if he wants to be involved in the childs life than give him these rights and responsibilities without having to go through the court system to get some.

wolf moon

Fromthetrees wrote: »

My question is, why did I have to go to court just to get some basic rights over my daughter?

You sexist pig....

robman60

It's all part of the way sexism has gone full circle.

It used to be that discrimination was accepted if it were perpetrated against women, which was dumb of course.

Then the feminist movement started and it no longer became acceptable for women to be equal, they had to be seen as better.

So yeah, that's the reason men struggle to see their children and most women at nightclubs are bitches.

January

If you wanted a serious answer to this question OP, I'd try Humanities... if not, it's fine here.

Fromthetrees

January wrote: »

If you wanted a serious answer to this question OP, I'd try Humanities... if not, it's fine here.

To be fair, I got what I wanted (or the most I possibly could) today. I just wanted to make a point, I hope it's valid.

ash23

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I think we need to adopt a system similar to the US, if a father has no interest in his child, fine, automatically garnish his income and that's that, but if he wants to be involved in the childs life than give him these rights and responsibilities without having to go through the court system to get some.

I agree fathers rights are dismal in this country. However the idea above where if the man wants the child, great, give him equal rights to the mother and if not, fine too, let him shirk his responsibilities (all but fiscally), that just doesn't sit right with me.
If a mother wants to relinquish rights to her child it takes planning, consideration, counselling, court visits etc...the process of adoption in other words.

If a father wants to bail then he can. But he can also arrive back at any time and look for access.
That hardly seems equal either.

Icepick

It's because males eat their cubs if need be.

Bannasidhe

robman60 wrote: »

It's all part of the way sexism has gone full circle.

It used to be that discrimination was accepted if it were perpetrated against women, which was dumb of course.

Then the feminist movement started and it no longer became acceptable for women to be equal, they had to be seen as better.

So yeah, that's the reason men struggle to see their children and most women at nightclubs are bitches.

Given that the relevant legislation was written in 1964 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/act/pub/0007/sec0006.html#zza7y1964s6) its stretching it a bit to blame this on the feminist movement :rolleyes:

Immaculate Pasta

Read the rules in the rule thread at the top of the page please OP, single parents aren't welcome in this forum... :mad:

eth0

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I get 50% access to my daughter

Tis not a feckin private jet :P

Great to see this childish shoite of supposedly mature adults fighting over who gets to keep their children as if they are material wealth being imported from the States, all while making the solicitors richer.

Celly Smunt

Immaculate Pasta wrote: »

Read the rules in the rule thread at the top of the page please OP, single parents aren't welcome in this forum... :mad:

i bet he's a nigerian taxi driver as well :mad:

Dudess

The legal system is biased against fathers OP, depressingly so. And yeah, that bias has its roots in traditional notions of children needing to be under the mother's care at all times - feck all to do with feminism.
You'll just get a load of angry, resentful posts blaming women here though, and rubbish about how sexism has come full circle - as if women face no sexism now, and as if men face the same kind of discrimination across the board that women put up with before the suffragettes - rather than anything constructive.
I agree with January - Humanities, Parenting or The Gentlemen's Club would be good places for a grown-up discussion on this issue.

Hope it works out for you.

Fromthetrees

ash23 wrote: »

I agree fathers rights are dismal in this country. However the idea above where if the man wants the child, great, give him equal rights to the mother and if not, fine too, let him shirk his responsibilities (all but fiscally), that just doesn't sit right with me.
If a mother wants to relinquish rights to her child it takes planning, consideration, counselling, court visits etc...the process of adoption in other words.

If a father wants to bail then he can. But he can also arrive back at any time and look for access.
That hardly seems equal either.

Fine, I'm very sure there are easy ways around problems like this without much trouble.
It doesn't, in my opinion, need to go from one extreme to the other.
If the father isn't involved in his child's life for years than I have no doubt it would be easy to stop him gaining access at a time of his choosing. In no way is that a legitimate point against the treatment of all unmarried fathers and I think no rational person would argue against some change to the status quo.

Fromthetrees

eth0 wrote: »

Tis not a feckin private jet :P

Great to see this childish shoite of supposedly mature adults fighting over who gets to keep their children as if they are material wealth being imported from the States, all while making the solicitors richer.

50% of her time. :rolleyes:
Free legal aid.

Bannasidhe

Fromthetrees - my heart felt congratulations . My own son is going through this ridiculous process at the moment. Hopefully someday soon he will get 50% access too instead of the 3 days a month he is currently allowed.

ash23

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Fine, I'm very sure there are easy ways around problems like this without much trouble.
It doesn't, in my opinion, need to go from one extreme to the other.
If the father isn't involved in his child's life for years than I have no doubt it would be easy to stop him gaining access at a time of his choosing. In no way is that a legitimate point against the treatment of all unmarried fathers and I think no rational person would argue against some change to the status quo.

Ok, so men get joint guardianship and custody at birth. Good in theory. But just how useless do they have to be? How long do they need to not pay maintenance? How long do we give them not seeing their child before they lose those rights?
I'm not trying to be difficult. I agree in theory with what you are saying. However, doing that just leads to a different set of problems, of court cases etc.
Is it right that men have to prove themselves in court at the moment? No. Would it be right if women had to go to court to prove the men unfit to parent? No, probably not.

marcsignal

I've no children OP, so I don't feel qualified to contribute here, other than to say I'm glad the result was to your satisfaction, and to hope it continues that way for you.

Celly Smunt

Domo230 wrote: »

I never get why Mothers would refuse to let the father see their daughter providing they are not a junkie or some other extremely bad influence.

Do they not remember there was once a time when they (supposedly) loved this person.

I wish true love and marriage worked but all the evidence sadly seems to suggest otherwise.

i think a question of "do they not remember their (if good) relationship with their father growing up?" and how damaging it could be to the child not to have his/her father around.

strobe

January wrote: »

If you wanted a serious answer to this question OP, I'd try Humanities... if not, it's fine here.

Just on that note, if anyone is interested here is the circa 400 post long thread on the topic in Humanities. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056332703
It's a bit of a ****ing trainwreck to be honest, but if you are willing wade through it anyway there is also some pretty good points put forward and information and stuff in there.

strobe

Domo230 wrote: »

I never get why Mothers would refuse to let the father see their daughter providing they are not a junkie or some other extremely bad influence.

Do they not remember there was once a time when they (supposedly) loved this person.

'Because they are really ****ty, bitter and self centred parents' appears to be the logical answer a lot of the time unfortunately, I think.

PrincessLola

I don't understand why the mother would refuse to let the father see their child.

I fail to see how this is feminism's fault tho. A true feminist would support the father as an equal parent because its important that men do their part in bringing up a child. But whatever; LOL femnazi's/ women r bitches etc.. etc..

Fromthetrees

ash23 wrote: »

Ok, so men get joint guardianship and custody at birth. Good in theory. But just how useless do they have to be? How long do they need to not pay maintenance? How long do we give them not seeing their child before they lose those rights?
I'm not trying to be difficult. I agree in theory with what you are saying. However, doing that just leads to a different set of problems, of court cases etc.
Is it right that men have to prove themselves in court at the moment? No. Would it be right if women had to go to court to prove the men unfit to parent? No, probably not.

There's a difference between co guardianship and joint custody, personally I think, and it shouldn't be up to me to fix the inept rules that prevail today, each father should have automatic access in law at least and be given some of the rights of guardianship. These rights and responsibilities should be considered privileges in a way but I think this should apply to mothers as well.
The way the system should be automatically is assume that both parents are able (same criteria as married parents). One simple step, if the father doesn't show up to register his name on the birth cert., well, that's a start (it will also weasel out some woman claiming single parent allowance unfairly). Why not have a very simple process where the mother tells the community health nurse that the father hasn't been involved and her word is good enough unless challenged by the father. I haven't thought through an entire new system, I just know the current system is wrong and unfair and can with thought be fixed. I am convinced that the vast majority of fathers want to be in their kids lives meaning if the current system was changed it would have a beneficial impact on the vast majority of fathers.

starbelgrade

Men have hairy tits.

Micky Dolenz

January wrote: »

If you wanted a serious answer to this question OP, I'd try Humanities... if not, it's fine here.

You get serious answers here too along with the more light hearted responses.

After Hours is the best forum on boards.

Fair play OP. It's a shambles and the sooner it is changed the better. It is used as a weapon against a lot of genuine fathers.

Rented Mule

starbelgrade wrote: »

Men have hairy tits.

Wax on, wax off Grasshopper.

micropig

Hopefully this changes soon. It's a disgrace that fathers are not recognised and given equal rights and access, without bitterness calling the shots

King of Kings

I was in family court last week for my divorce.

Even though we had an agreement prior to the case the judge chose to stick her beak in - changing provisions etc..

Even my ex called her a stupid cnut - oiutside of course neithe rof us were brave enough

but I really felt that this woman has ultimate power and sought to use it as she saw fit - even at the pleading of both sides who called her meddling unneccessary.

lastlaugh

PrincessLola wrote: »

I don't understand why the mother would refuse to let the father see their child.

I fail to see how this is feminism's fault tho. A true feminist would support the father as an equal parent because its important that men do their part in bringing up a child. But whatever; LOL femnazi's/ women r bitches etc.. etc..

What better way to get back on an ex partner than to make it difficult for them to see their child?

Children are used in this way sometimes and it's a real pity for the children and father.

Ash.J.Williams

PrincessLola wrote: »

I don't understand why the mother would refuse to let the father see their child.

I fail to see how this is feminism's fault tho. A true feminist would support the father as an equal parent because its important that men do their part in bringing up a child. But whatever; LOL femnazi's/ women r bitches etc.. etc..

if only you could see the metaphorical hoops i have to jump through to see my daughter....

Funny thing is (not funny at all)...I'm being treated like a woman abuser and I never behaved out of line with a woman in my life, it's simply inconvenient for my ex that I am alive!

Nothingbetter2d

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Today, I was at the family law court to have my application for co-guardianship and joint custody heard.

Long story...

The mother of my daughter agreed to sign the forms ten minutes before we were about to go into the judge. I'm very happy with the outcome.

My question is, why did I have to go to court just to get some basic rights over my daughter?

What pissed me off although I accept it, is that my solicitor made it clear in the written document that we both signed is that the mother is the primary care giver, like I said, I accept this but the judge went on to add a few more paragraphs to give the mother more control, despite the fact that agreement had been reached between both parties before we entered the court room. I genuinely feel there is a strong bias against fathers in our laws and legal system.

I actually think I'm lucky, I get 50% access to my daughter and a say in what happens, up until today it was all literally at the discretion of the mother, that just seems sick to me.

I think there is something wrong with a de facto situation where every single father who has a child outside of marriage has as many rights over them as the bottle of beer beside me.

I think we need to adopt a system similar to the US, if a father has no interest in his child, fine, automatically garnish his income and that's that, but if he wants to be involved in the childs life than give him these rights and responsibilities without having to go through the court system to get some.

fair play to ya for standing up for yourself and your daughter.

your daughter is lucky to have a dad that wants to be a part of her life.

my niece's father on the otherhand show zero interest in his beautiful little 2 year old daughter.

PrincessLola

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

if only you could see the metaphorical hoops i have to jump through to see my daughter....

Funny thing is (not funny at all)...I'm being treated like a woman abuser and I never behaved out of line with a woman in my life, it's simply inconvenient for my ex that I am alive!

Who is treating you like a woman abuser?

Anyway, don't get mad mad at all women, your daughter will be a young woman some day:)