Father fails to be granted custody of his child after death of mother

DeepBlue

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/natural-father-fails-in-bid-for-sole-custody-1.1884254

Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances involved but it seems bizarre to me that such a child would be left in the custody of the mother's partner rather than the child's own natural father.

If every child in the country had a psychiatrist come in and do a report I'd guess there would be lots of cases where they would recommend that the child (or children) be moved away from their natural parents - but there would be outrage if that was allowed but in this case it's ok?

Ave Sodalis

In fairness, in this case, the child isn't being moved away from his natural parent.
It really depends on the age of the child and how long the parents have been separated. I mean, if the child spent most of his life growing up with the mother's partner, then it would make sense for the child to stay with the partner, so as not to disrupt the child's life any more than necessary, especially after such a shock as losing his mother.

same ol sh1te

It was the dying request of the mother, must be a reason

fits

Maybe, just maybe it was in best interest of child that he stay where he is.

Pro Hoc Vice

DeepBlue wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/natural-father-fails-in-bid-for-sole-custody-1.1884254

Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances involved but it seems bizarre to me that such a child would be left in the custody of the mother's partner rather than the child's own natural father.

If every child in the country had a psychiatrist come in and do a report I'd guess there would be lots of cases where they would recommend that the child (or children) be moved away from their natural parents - but there would be outrage if that was allowed but in this case it's ok?

The judge made the decision based on what she believed is in the child's best interests. A childs life should never be decided solely on the rights of interested adults.

In relation to children being moved from parents based on the evidence of professionals, this happens every day up and down the country with care orders removing children from parents for varied reasons.

uck51js9zml2yt

That's a mad judgement. That the partner(not even husband) who has no biological link to the child gets custody over the natural father is mind boggling.

Boskowski

Mauricio Round Threat wrote: »

That's a mad judgement. That the partner(not even husband) who has no biological link to the child gets custody over the natural father is mind boggling.

No, unless you have all the facts, it's not.

The child may have been all their life with the non bio father while the bio father could be a raving lunatic.

Pro Hoc Vice

Mauricio Round Threat wrote: »

That's a mad judgement. That the partner(not even husband) who has no biological link to the child gets custody over the natural father is mind boggling.

So you believe that a child's best interests are less important than an adults rights.

Chattastrophe!

It just demonstrates how a child's father is a legal stranger to him (unless the parents are married, and unless he is made the legal guardian.)

Ireland really needs to update its laws in this regard. My child's father and I have no intention of marrying, but it would make sense if he had the same rights as I do because he's named on the birth cert as the child's father. Instead of having to jump through all these legal hoops to get guardianship.

miamee

Mauricio Round Threat wrote: »

That's a mad judgement. That the partner(not even husband) who has no biological link to the child gets custody over the natural father is mind boggling.

It's hard to say without any further details such as the age of the child, how long the mothers partner was part of his family and fulfilling a father figure role in his life. For all we know, he calls the non-bio father Daddy. Reading between the lines of the article, it seems that had the natural father been granted custody the judge was of the opinion that the child's current guardian would get little or no access to the boy which would be another huge loss for the little fella.

I also think this from the final paragraph is pertinent:

The judge said the natural father had argued in court about his rights under the Constitution and the absence of rights of the mother’s partner. He had taken “a proprietary approach”, she said, and was more focused on his rights and entitlements than on what was in the best interests of the child.

Manach

However in the majority of cases, ignoring the edge cases as being raised for their rareness, the proper place for a child is with their natural parent (Father in this case). The mantra of in the best interests of the child seems to assume that a state expert can clearly distinguish this and as well ignores the wider familial bonds that are present. That the state rather cavalierly imposes this based on their perceived best practice under the auspices of prior judicial rulings is more a case of how browbeaten people are prepared to accept these rules than any inherent normative correctness.

eviltwin

There is not enough detail to make a call either way, maybe its the best thing for this child in this instance.

swht

Manach wrote: »

However in the majority of cases, ignoring the edge cases as being raised for their rareness, the proper place for a child is with their natural parent (Father in this case). The mantra of in the best interests of the child seems to assume that a state expert can clearly distinguish this and as well ignores the wider familial bonds that are present. That the state rather cavalierly imposes this based on their perceived best practice under the auspices of prior judicial rulings is more a case of how browbeaten people are prepared to accept these rules than any inherent normative correctness.

Well there was 2 psychiatrist reports and the judge used these to inform the decision. Both these professionals seemed to agree the child would be best left with the mothers partner.

I actually thought this might've been a case I'm familiar with but it's not the one I was thinking of. I don't see an issue with the verdict given the information provided. The interests of the child are what matters, if the kid is used to one home then it's probably best to leave him/her there.

Dravokivich

Boskowski wrote: »

No, unless you have all the facts, it's not.

The child may have been all their life with the non bio father while the bio father could be a raving lunatic.

Or someone who only had access on alternating weekends and occasional holidays.

I see no reason for why this child is not with their father. The only things that suggest anything to be of issue with the father, is that's he's been rather put off by his kid living with someone else!

Far from the scenario you tried to bring in.

miamee

Dravokivich wrote: »

Or someone who only had access on alternating weekends and occasional holidays.

I see no reason for why this child is not with their father. The only things that suggest anything to be of issue with the father, is that's he's been rather put off by his kid living with someone else!

Far from the scenario you tried to bring in.

The experts involved in the case disagree based on the information they have - a lot more information that any of us are going to have about it.

Dravokivich

miamee wrote: »

The experts involved in the case disagree based on the information they have - a lot more information that any of us are going to have about it.

Who were bias and flaunted that opinion:

In evidence, the psychiatrist said no matter how perfect the family of the unmarried father was, she would not recommend the child be moved.

Ash.J.Williams

Dravokivich wrote: »

Or someone who only had access on alternating weekends and occasional holidays.

I see no reason for why this child is not with their father. The only things that suggest anything to be of issue with the father, is that's he's been rather put off by his kid living with someone else!

Far from the scenario you tried to bring in.

having access at weekends is not the fathers fault usually...if you have access to your kid and you don't mess around then you are an active parent and the child should not be staying with the partner.

Thomas D

The real father got absolutely shafted here.

Through absolutely no fault of his own he has become the secondary father to another man. Heartbreaking.

miamee

Dravokivich wrote: »

Who were bias and flaunted that opinion:

Why would she recommend to move a bereaved child from potentially the only home he has ever known? Maybe to a new area, a new school, have to make new friends, maybe have to leave his sports clubs/team, etc.? On top of dealing with the loss of his mother?

I really feel for the bio father here but my primary concern (and that of most adults) would be for the child's best interests first before everyone else's.

A2LUE42

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

having access at weekends is not the fathers fault usually...if you have access to your kid and you don't mess around then you are an active parent and the child should not be staying with the partner.

Or what is called 'joint custody'

The father may have had the maximum amount of time he was 'allowed' to have by the mother, so by default her partner would have spent more time with the child.

It seems outrageous, but without the full facts it is impossible to tell.

A2LUE42

miamee wrote: »

Why would she recommend to move a bereaved child from potentially the only home he has ever known? Maybe to a new area, a new school, have to make new friends, maybe have to leave his sports clubs/team, etc.? On top of dealing with the loss of his mother?

I really feel for the bio father here but my primary concern (and that of most adults) would be for the child's best interests first before everyone else's.

This argument really annoys me. I hear it a lot, Where it is used as a reason for mothers to retain homes and assets.

If a married couple move house, it is just something that happens. If one of them dies and the other moves house, it is just something that happens. It is not nice, but everyone gets on with life and they move on.

Why is it suddenly such a massive ordeal and so different when the parents are separated.

I have seen cases where couples moved almost yearly when together with their kids, but as soon as there is a breakup, the Mother(usually) develops a love and want for the family 'home' something akin to the Bull McCabe and any change or move is unthinkable for the sake of the children.

Ash.J.Williams

miamee wrote: »

Why would she recommend to move a bereaved child from potentially the only home he has ever known? Maybe to a new area, a new school, have to make new friends, maybe have to leave his sports clubs/team, etc.? On top of dealing with the loss of his mother?

I really feel for the bio father here but my primary concern (and that of most adults) would be for the child's best interests first before everyone else's.

I'm guessing (hoping) the real father wasn't involved in the childs life

Dravokivich

miamee wrote: »

Why would she recommend to move a bereaved child from potentially the only home he has ever known? Maybe to a new area, a new school, have to make new friends, maybe have to leave his sports clubs/team, etc.? On top of dealing with the loss of his mother?

I really feel for the bio father here but my primary concern (and that of most adults) would be for the child's best interests first before everyone else's.

Her bias should discredit her opinion in court as it would a jury no matter what her motives are behind it.

A child has 2 parents. If for what ever reason they spilt up, one obtains primary custody, but the other should not have to forfeit custody as a parent to a third party as a result of their death.

It is grossly unfair to the father and sets a dangerous precedent to the rest of us.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'm guessing (hoping) the real father wasn't involved in the childs life

Article states that he had regular access and seemed to gain more after the death of the mother. It's just seems the primary residence was with the mother.

Thomas D

Life is going to be even more awkward for this kid spending a third of their time in a different place.

Dravokivich

Thomas D wrote: »

Life is going to be even more awkward for this kid spending a third of their time in a different place.

3 Gaurdians doesn't mean the kid lives between 3 households.

The kids granny merely took the mother's place.

Turtwig

Regardless of how grossly "unfair" it is perceived to be. The child has rights too, IF he spent his entire life with the non biological parent then for all intents and purposes that's who the child's father is. Biology isn't property, the child may be have a parents blood but that doesn't mean the child is automatically anything other than the biological son.

As others have noted information is sorely lacking so we can only speculate with "ifs". Unrealistic to make to an objective assessment or accusation of bias when we've information (and context) is so limited.

Dravokivich

Turtwig wrote: »

Regardless of how grossly "unfair" it is perceived to be. The child has rights too, IF he spent his entire life with the non biological parent then for all intents and purposes that's who the child's father is. Biology isn't property, the child may be have a parents blood but that doesn't mean the child is automatically anything other than the biological son.

As others have noted information is sorely lacking so we can only speculate with "ifs". Unrealistic to make to an objective assessment or accusation of bias when we've information (and context) is so limited.

That should not be how it's perceived and acted on. The father was limited by access rights, which is typical for fathers in general as custody usually goes to the mother. What this says now, is custody extends to whoever the mother's subsequent long term partner is.

A2LUE42

Turtwig wrote: »

Regardless of how grossly "unfair" it is perceived to be. The child has rights too, IF he spent his entire life with the non biological parent then for all intents and purposes that's who the child's father is. Biology isn't property, the child may be have a parents blood but that doesn't mean the child is automatically anything other than the biological son.

Would you have the same argument for children taken from their parents in the Mother and Child homes scenario?

Does the child not have a right to grow up and live with their only remaining biological parent, just because they were prevented from doing so, until the death of the custodial parent?

Ash.J.Williams

i that was me i would launch the mother of all appeals

Ave Sodalis

A2LUE42 wrote: »

This argument really annoys me. I hear it a lot, Where it is used as a reason for mothers to retain homes and assets.

If a married couple move house, it is just something that happens. If one of them dies and the other moves house, it is just something that happens. It is not nice, but everyone gets on with life and they move on.

Why is it suddenly such a massive ordeal and so different when the parents are separated.

I have seen cases where couples moved almost yearly when together with their kids, but as soon as there is a breakup, the Mother(usually) develops a love and want for the family 'home' something akin to the Bull McCabe and any change or move is unthinkable for the sake of the children.

It's not a case of the parents separating here though. The child lost his mother, which is far far far more traumatising than a separation. When there is an option to stay in the family home, to minimise distress to the child, I would take that option. He still sees his father as before and he doesn't lose his mother partner who, depending on how long they were together, may be a primary role model in the child's life.

Dravokivich

sup_dude wrote: »

It's not a case of the parents separating here though. The child lost his mother, which is far far far more traumatising than a separation. When there is an option to stay in the family home, to minimise distress to the child, I would take that option. He still sees his father as before and he doesn't lose his mother partner who, depending on how long they were together, may be a primary role model in the child's life.

Which spins on the issue of access. If this was the other way around, where the father had custody, died, and it transferred to his partner, would you be accepting of that?

I'm putting words in their mouths, but I'd expect the professionals to say:
"No one can give a child the comfort they need when losing a parent, than their mother"

Ave Sodalis

Dravokivich wrote: »

Which spins on the issue of access. If this was the other way around, where the father had custody, died, and it transferred to his partner, would you be accepting of that?

I'm putting words in their mouths, but I'd expect the professionals to say:
"No one can give a child the comfort they need when losing a parent, than their mother"

Yes, why wouldn't I? If the reasons are just and valid, then yes, it would be the same if it was the other way around.

A child will go to the person they know and trust best when seeking comfort. I'm going to assume that it's the mother's partner in this case.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

Who were bias and flaunted that opinion:

Context ffs. I don't know if you're being deliberately disingenuous or what. She obviously meant that things are fine where the kid is now and the only thing that would have her recommend removing the kid would be if that situation degenerated.

Dravokivich

Deleted User wrote: »

Context ffs. I don't know if you're being deliberately disingenuous or what. She obviously meant that things are fine where the kid is now and the only thing that would have her recommend removing the kid would be if that situation degenerated.

I'm not. Fathers rights are already questionable and an issue as it is and this case has shown to disregard them even further, by granting a third party custody regardless of the father's position. And making a point of expressing that!

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not. Fathers rights are already questionable and an issue as it is and this case has shown to disregard them even further, by granting a third party custody regardless of the father's position. And making a point of expressing that!

If the kid is comfortable and happier in the stable household he's been in for the past few years if not more then why move him? You're really missing the point here.

Dravokivich

Deleted User wrote: »

If the kid is comfortable and happier in the stable household he's been in for the past few years if not more then why move him? You're really missing the point here.

I'm not. This reason for the case in the first place is the father's continuing diminished rights to custody of his child. It has now passed from the mother, to her mother + the mother's partner.

Maguined

Deleted User wrote: »

If the kid is comfortable and happier in the stable household he's been in for the past few years if not more then why move him? You're really missing the point here.

How stable do you think this household is? The article does not give a lot of details but the few it does give does not pose a stable household.

Firstly the judge awarded guardianship to the late mothers partner. Guardianship is something that could of been looked into before the mother passed away however the family never did. It was only the dying mothers wish that the child remain with her partner that the judge decided to award guardianship to the partner.

Secondly the grandmother criticised how quickly the partner engaged in a new relationship after the mothers death. I cannot understand how awarding primary custody to the childs biological father is considered more unstable or unsettling than having his own mother replaced by a random women so soon after his mother has passed away.

Tigger

Dravokivich wrote: »

Who were bias and flaunted that opinion:

exactly

Thomas D

The stability thing is way over emphasised. How stable is her life with a brand new mother? And what is he is to have more partners over the years?

Pro Hoc Vice

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not. This reason for the case in the first place is the father's continuing diminished rights to custody of his child. It has now passed from the mother, to her mother + the mother's partner.

A few facts, the Father was involved in the child's life and had access, when the mother passed the father either before or after was a guardian of the child with the grandparent and the mothers partner. So all treated fairly so far. That worked for some time but then the father decided that he wanted sole custody. It seems the main reason the judge would not grant same was her belief that the father would not keep to a promise for access to the other person.

It seems to me a fair decision to keep all the important people who have this child best interests in mind, involved with the child. It also amazes me that people who have only read a newspaper article seem to think they are better informed than all the people involved in this case.

Maguined

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

A few facts, the Father was involved in the child's life and had access, when the mother passed the father either before or after was a guardian of the child with the grandparent and the mothers partner. So all treated fairly so far. That worked for some time but then the father decided that he wanted sole custody. It seems the main reason the judge would not grant same was her belief that the father would not keep to a promise for access to the other person.

It seems to me a fair decision to keep all the important people who have this child best interests in mind, involved with the child. It also amazes me that people who have only read a newspaper article seem to think they are better informed than all the people involved in this case.

Do you believe it is fair to make a decision based upon an assumption and no evidence? Surely in a court of law they are supposed to make decisions based on proof not a guess on the future?

Dravokivich

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

A few facts, the Father was involved in the child's life and had access, when the mother passed the father either before or after was a guardian of the child with the grandparent and the mothers partner. So all treated fairly so far. That worked for some time but then the father decided that he wanted sole custody. It seems the main reason the judge would not grant same was her belief that the father would not keep to a promise for access to the other person.

It seems to me a fair decision to keep all the important people who have this child best interests in mind, involved with the child. It also amazes me that people who have only read a newspaper article seem to think they are better informed than all the people involved in this case.

The issues highlighted in the article, were around the father's frustration that he did not have custody and had to go through this to attempt to obtain it and ultimately fail with the deck stacked against him.

I'm worried it sets a precedent now against fathers with the court ruling.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not. This reason for the case in the first place is the father's continuing diminished rights to custody of his child. It has now passed from the mother, to her mother + the mother's partner.

How far would you go with the father's rights?

Maguined wrote: »

How stable do you think this household is? The article does not give a lot of details but the few it does give does not pose a stable household.

Firstly the judge awarded guardianship to the late mothers partner. Guardianship is something that could of been looked into before the mother passed away however the family never did. It was only the dying mothers wish that the child remain with her partner that the judge decided to award guardianship to the partner.

Secondly the grandmother criticised how quickly the partner engaged in a new relationship after the mothers death. I cannot understand how awarding primary custody to the childs biological father is considered more unstable or unsettling than having his own mother replaced by a random women so soon after his mother has passed away.

I wasn't in court so I don't know the specifics and I'm not going to pretend to.

quad_red

sup_dude wrote: »

It's not a case of the parents separating here though. The child lost his mother, which is far far far more traumatising than a separation. When there is an option to stay in the family home, to minimise distress to the child, I would take that option. He still sees his father as before and he doesn't lose his mother partner who, depending on how long they were together, may be a primary role model in the child's life.

Exactly!

The article doesn't give the childs age. But say there are 12. And they've spent the last 10 years living in a household with their mother and her partner.

Even after the mothers passing, this is still 'home'. Ripping the child out of that could destroy their lives.

The fact that the judge openly stated that he disbelieved the biological father would give access as directed to the mother's partner could say allot.

The interests of the child are paramount.

Pro Hoc Vice

Dravokivich wrote: »

The issues highlighted in the article, were around the father's frustration that he did not have custody and had to go through this to attempt to obtain it and ultimately fail with the deck stacked against him.

The father applied for sole custody, "A natural father who applied for sole custody of his child following the death of the child’s mother has lost his application"

The father had before the mothers death regular access "The natural father had regular access to the child prior to the mother’s death" and afterwards "After her death, his access was increased, but the child remained living with the mother’s partner."

The evidence presented to the Court was the child wanted to remain with the partner, "A more recent psychiatrist’s report ordered by the court made the same recommendation. It described the child as bright and sociable and its author also said she believed the child wished to remain with the mother’s partner."

In relation to the father the Judge said "She noted he had said if he was given sole custody of the child, he would be “generous” about access, but she did not believe that would be the case."

This is an issue that would tax Solomon, but all the Court can do is weigh up the evidence and try and do what is in the best interest of the Child.

Dravokivich

Deleted User wrote: »

How far would you go with the father's rights?

What do you mean?

If by my repeated reference to'em here, all the way. This occurred for no other reason than a lack of them in the first place.

A natural father who applied for sole custody of his child following the death of the child’s mother has lost his application at the Dublin Circuit Family Court. Judge Catherine Murphy ruled sole custody should instead be granted to the deceased mother’s partner, with access for the natural father of 10 nights a month.

This case came of his actions to gain custody of his child, because it wasn't obtained with the death of the mother. The result was a denial of custody of his child. This is a Fathers Rights issue.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The father applied for sole custody, "A natural father who applied for sole custody of his child following the death of the child’s mother has lost his application"

The father had before the mothers death regular access "The natural father had regular access to the child prior to the mother’s death" and afterwards "After her death, his access was increased, but the child remained living with the mother’s partner."

The evidence presented to the Court was the child wanted to remain with the partner, "A more recent psychiatrist’s report ordered by the court made the same recommendation. It described the child as bright and sociable and its author also said she believed the child wished to remain with the mother’s partner."

In relation to the father the Judge said "She noted he had said if he was given sole custody of the child, he would be “generous” about access, but she did not believe that would be the case."

This is an issue that would tax Solomon, but all the Court can do is weigh up the evidence and try and do what is in the best interest of the Child.

What you are arguing over is the difference between Shared / Sole custody. You don't need any amount of custody to have access. He had a lower amount of custody over his child shared with the mother of his child. With her death, he should obtain sole custody of the child. That doesn't result in a lack of access to the child for the mothers family. That woman was looking to discredit both men!

Pro Hoc Vice

Maguined wrote: »

Do you believe it is fair to make a decision based upon an assumption and no evidence? Surely in a court of law they are supposed to make decisions based on proof not a guess on the future?

It is a very valid decision to make, based on the "Evidence" that is all the information before the Judge including the fathers verbal evidence, judges every day have to make such decisions based on a lot more than assumptions, but on the past actions of the person giving their evidence. In fact the article says "Judge Murphy said a disproportionate amount of hostility “appeared to emanate” from the natural father toward the mother’s partner and this posed “a serious and ongoing difficulty” for the child." So a fact based decision.

quad_red

Maguined wrote: »

Do you beliefe it is fair to make a decision based upon an assumption and no evidence? Surely in a court of law they are supposed to make decisions based on proof not a guess on the future?

? I would wager that the vast majority of judgements involve analysis of what the future actions of the parties involved are likely to be.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

What do you mean?

If by my repeated reference to'em here, all the way. This occurred for no other reason than a lack of them in the first place.



This case came of his actions to gain custody of his child, because it wasn't obtained with the death of the mother. The result was a denial of custody of his child. This is a Fathers Rights issue.

So if the father lived in Australia and had never met the kid for 17 years they kid should be forcibly removed and sent over if the father wants it?

Pro Hoc Vice

Dravokivich wrote: »

What do you mean?

If by my repeated reference to'em here, all the way. This occurred for no other reason than a lack of them in the first place.



This case came of his actions to gain custody of his child, because it wasn't obtained with the death of the mother. The result was a denial of custody of his child. This is a Fathers Rights issue.

He is guardian of the child he has access for 1/3 of the year, he is involved with all decisions of the rearing of the child and according to an independent person the child wishes to remain with the partner. It is a child's rights issue.