does the state care about fathers?

tritium

This from the Irish Times!

[url]
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/court-says-children-should-be-factor-in-father-s-rent-allowance-1.1982594[/URL]

A High Court ruling that the Department of Social Protection must reconsider a decision to grant only single person’s rent allowance to a separated father of four could have significant implications for parents in similar situations.
In a ruling delivered yesterday, Ms Justice Marie Baker found the department’s decision-making process when assessing the man’s application was flawed.
Its deciding officer applied the wrong legal test by assessing only the father’s accommodation needs without having any regard to the complexity of his family relationships,“the accommodation needs of the children when they are visiting their father” and the “intrinsic interconnectedness” of those needs with those of their father.
Ms Justice Marie Baker ruled that reconsideration must be in accordance with her findings. Photograph: ReutersCourt ruling may affect welfare entitlements of one-parent families
Ms Justice Marie Baker’s ruling means the Department of Social Protection will have to reconsider its decision to grant only single person’s rent supplement to a separated father of four who has joint custody of his children

She found given the joint custody arrangements the children could not be viewed as living primarily with one parent, or having one “primary” carer, as the department’s deciding officer had found. The needs of the children were more complex, had been assessed by their parents as involving joint custody, and could not be met in one location only, she said.
The judge said the department must reconsider its decision in light of her findings.
Family home
The Dublin man cared for his children full-time in the family home in the west before separating from his wife in 2011 and moving back to the capital to seek work. He applied for maximum rent supplement of €900 in July 2012 but his application was rejected.
His solicitor, Moya de Paor, said yesterday her client was delighted with the ruling. She said the effect of the department’s decision to treat the man as a single person when assessing rent supplement meant he had been unable to have any meaningful access to his children since he moved to Dublin.
“This has been very distressing for him and for his children, who have also been denied their right to the care and support of their father,” she said.
“The judgment raises significant issues in relation to fathers’ rights as custodians of their children and, in particular, children’s rights to the care and support of their father.”
Focus Ireland also welcomed the ruling. Advocacy manager Roughan McNamara said the housing charity had regularly come across similar cases. Problems with accommodation put considerable strain on parents who have split up, he said.

So my question is- do we value or even acknowledge the role of fathers in this country? What sort of backward nation are we that in the 21st century officialdom is still trying to get its head around the idea that fathers should be part of their children's lives. Hopefully this judges ruling will go one small step further to dragging the state kicking and screaming towards accepting the idea that fathers are important.

myshirt

The children can be a part of his life. The State just didn't want to pay for it.

Wabbit Ears

This is just another "I want my rights and I want the state to pay for it" BS of an entitled welfare society. It has nothing to do with the rights of fathers and is a perversion of a very serious issue which is where fathers actually get little or no visitation or joint custody.

MRnotlob606

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

This is just another "I want my rights and I want the state to pay for it" BS of an entitled welfare society. It has nothing to do with the rights of fathers and is a perversion of a very serious issue.

why don't you put yourself in the position of a single father ?

tritium

myshirt wrote: »

The children can be a part of his life. The State just didn't want to pay for it.

Why should the state deny him the same payment it would make to others though (for example mothers) ostensibly on the basis that his needs as a father shouldn't be a factor in the decision?

tritium

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

This is just another "I want my rights and I want the state to pay for it" BS of an entitled welfare society. It has nothing to do with the rights of fathers and is a perversion of a very serious issue which is where fathers actually get little or no visitation or joint custody.

What nonsense- someone is denied the same treatment given to others on the basis of them being a father and you call that entitlement culture? Personally I call it discrimination. If you think the system is too generous you fix it for everyone rather than selectively exclude based on prejudice.

oceanman

fathers have always been given a raw deal by the state.....high time things changed.

Graham

tritium wrote: »

Why should the state deny him the same payment it would make to others though (for example mothers) ostensibly on the basis that his needs as a father shouldn't be a factor in the decision?

The State is struggling to provide children with one home. Do you really think the State should also be expected to provide a second?

Knine

The father is much more likely to be able to go out & gain employment as the bulk of the childcare problems usually fall to the parent who has the kids the majority of the time. He should probably use his efforts to find a job instead.

I can see this resulting in absent fathers using this to their advantage- the type of father that sees their child twice a year.

cloud493

So.... he's basically getting a better amount of rent allowance?
What a load of BS.

tritium

Knine wrote: »

The father is much more likely to be able to go out & gain employment as the bulk of the childcare problems usually fall to the parent who has the kids the majority of the time. He should probably use his efforts to find a job instead.

I can see this resulting in absent fathers using this to their advantage- the type of father that sees their child twice a year.

Why would a father with joint custody be more able to work? I wasn't aware the mother was unable to get employment- do tell me more!

Nice the way you've painted single fathers as absentee layabouts though- very progressive thinking!

tritium

Graham wrote: »

The State is struggling to provide children with one home. Do you really think the State should also be expected to provide a second?

I think the state should facilitate a child's right to have a relationship with both parents. Why should the state preferentially discriminate against the father when he has joint custody.

Graham

frank_slade wrote: »

I wouldn't hold my breath , the PC agenda is about eroding the role of the father

I would suggest that it's more a case that the law has not kept up with the changing roles and positions of fathers in modern Irish society. I would fully support changing the law to give fathers a better legal standing. My support would not stretch to incentivising joint custody agreements with the automatic provision/entitlement of a second family home.

A2LUE42

The whole Idea of joint custody in this country is a farce and the more exposure that gets the better.

And the single parent tax credit is just one example.
Child benefit is paid to mother by default.
Even the water allowance is tied to it.

tritium

Graham wrote: »

I would suggest that it's more a case that the law has not kept up with the changing roles and positions of fathers in modern Irish society. I would fully support changing the law to give fathers a better legal standing. My support would not stretch to incentivising joint custody agreements with the automatic provision/entitlement of a second family home.

So in the scenario outlined how would you ensure the child had adequate access to both parents. If there's only enough state support to provide rent for one, which should be discriminated against. If the marital assets mean one partner won't have adequate facilities to ensure their children have a full relationship with them, how should the law avoid discriminating? At present, as this ruling shows, the state sees the father as the optional component

Knine

tritium wrote: »

Why would a father with joint custody be more able to work? I wasn't aware the mother was unable to get employment- do tell me more!

Nice the way you've painted single fathers as absentee layabouts though- very progressive thinking!

Because joint custody does not mean that the care will be split 50/50. Very often it is just access visits. If you read my post again I said 'Absent Fathers' Are you telling me that there are no absent fathers in Ireland?

My friend works in Family Law.

tritium

Knine wrote: »

Because joint custody does not mean that the care will be split 50/50. Very often it is just access visits. If you read my post again I said 'Absent Fathers' Are you telling me that there are no absent fathers in Ireland?

My friend works in Family Law.

No. Are you telling me there are no fathers who don't get to see their kids.

My friend works in McDonalds. Say hi to your friend from my friend

Knine

tritium wrote: »

No. Are you telling me there are no fathers who don't get to see their kids.

My friend works in McDonalds. Say hi to your friend from my friend

And your point is?

tritium

Knine wrote: »

And your point is?

My first point is fathers don't get a fair shout in this country

My second point is your point about your friend is pointless..

Both pretty obvious. Care to answer my question

Graham

tritium wrote: »

So in the scenario outlined how would you ensure the child had adequate access to both parents. If there's only enough state support to provide rent for one, which should be discriminated against. If the marital assets mean one partner won't have adequate facilities to ensure their children have a full relationship with them, how should the law avoid discriminating? At present, as this ruling shows, the state sees the father as the optional component

I don't think the law is discriminating against the father in the provision of housing for children.

The state provides housing for children, it is a byproduct of this provision (and most custody arrangements) that this usually equates to the provision of a house for the mother. Naturally this position would/should be reversed if the father has custody of the children.

Doff

The state is a joke where Fathers rights are concerned.

In no other country can a woman have a child and get a weekly income of more than a lot of employed people. What if the father gets a job? He has to give a large chunk of that money to the mother to support the child. The court does not care if the father is only left with enough to scrape by. Single mothers get everything handed to them and Fathers are just seen as another source of income for them.

Graham

tritium wrote: »

My first point is fathers don't get a fair shout in this country

My second point is your point about your friend is pointless..

Both pretty obvious. Care to answer my question

By all means argue for fathers rights, you will have my support and I suspect the support of most right thinking people.

I think if you try and convince people that the state should provide 2 family homes for each child from a broken family, the other important issues will be lost in the noise.

FactCheck

There is generally support in Ireland for the idea that children deserve safe, warm shelter, and it is the responsibility of the welfare state to step in and provide that for a child when the parents are unable to.

I do not believe it is the State's responsibility to provide two houses to every child of separated parents. The child has somewhere safe and suitable to live. "Society"'s responsibility ends there. The rest is a private matter for families and the State should not be getting involved in it.

Ironically if the State refused to provide a second home to single parents in circumstances where the other parent has a perfectly adequate home available, this would actually result in a lot more single fathers becoming primary caregivers.

Graham

Doff wrote: »

In no other country can a woman have a child and get a weekly income of more than a lot of employed people. What if the father gets a job? He has to give a large chunk of that money to the mother to support the child. The court does not care if the father is only left with enough to scrape by. Single mothers get everything handed to them and Fathers are just seen as another source of income for them.

This makes for a much better argument than the 2 homes per child being floated at the start of the post.

tritium

Graham wrote: »

I don't think the law is discriminating against the father in the provision of housing for children.

The state provides housing for children, it is a byproduct of this provision (and most custody arrangements) that this usually equates to the provision of a house for the mother. Naturally this position would/should be reversed if the father has custody of the children.

If the state is generally favouring the mother in custody arrangements how is that not discrimination? In this case their was joint custody and a geographical impediment to access (west vs Dublin). To not provide adequate housing would deny the children the joint access to their father

Graham

tritium wrote: »

If the state is generally favouring the mother in custody arrangements how is that not discrimination?

If that is the case (and I strongly believe you are right), then that is what needs to be fixed. The provision of a second family home is not the answer.

tritium

Graham wrote: »

If that is the case (and I strongly believe you are right), then that is what needs to be fixed. The provision of a second family home is not the answer.

I don't disagree, but judgements like this force the state to acknowledge the rights of fathers. If the states reaction is the make the law more equitable then Im all for that. Its worth noting here that the father was entitled to rent supplement anyway, what was in question was how the level of payment was determined- the state essentially wanted to assume he was a single man with no responsibilities

Knine

Graham wrote: »

If that is the case (and I strongly believe you are right), then that is what needs to be fixed. The provision of a second family home is not the answer.

Generally that is because the person with primary care is generally the mother. I have been through the family courts for years. If a father goes to court he will get access. However I can count on my hand the number of times in my situation that the father has actually taken up this access this year. Said father regularly complains about the mother (me) not allowing him to see his child.

Many people who say that fathers get a raw deal have not actually been in the courts. I would actually say it is the children who get the raw deal.

Graham

tritium wrote: »

I don't disagree, but judgements like this force the state to acknowledge the rights of fathers. If the states reaction is the make the law more equitable then Im all for that

I would be very careful before pursuing that particular agenda. Putting forward a bad argument in the hopes of highlighting a good one could very well cause single fathers to loose support/sympathy in general.

(by sympathy I mean sympathy to their cause/argument)

tritium

Graham wrote: »

I would be very careful before pursuing that particular agenda. Putting forward a bad argument in the hopes of highlighting a good one could very well cause single fathers to loose support/sympathy in general.

(by sympathy I mean sympathy to their cause/argument)

I don't think its a bad argument to argue for the same baseline presumptions to apply to fathers and mother's (which is the crux of this case). Its entirely in the states gift as to how they deliver services within that framework

Graham

Knine wrote: »

Generally that is because the person with primary care is generally the mother.

Agreed but that's not to say it should always be the case.

Knine wrote: »

I would actually say it is the children who get the raw deal.

Always, in any separation.

myshirt

Best advice I ever heard was for the mother to give as much time as possible. And the father to give as much money as possible. Or vice versa. Typically Mammy is the carer though.

Putting it in a solicitors pocket helps no one.

What I found (in limited exposure to family law) is that fathers just plainly want to see their kids. Some need a kick in the hole, they really do, but the very large majority were sincere and good hearted. However, nearly all the women I encountered seemed to carry a lot of sustained bitterness or anger with them - it was a game almost, control, wins, aim to hurt and get one over. Common client meeting topics were the new woman he had and he'll pay for that. Or can you get me more off him (for purely the sake of getting more).

Fair enough if the focus was on something like I don't know this woman, so I'm concerned with the people he is bringing around, concerned for my kids in that environment. Ok, let's address it. Let's thrash that out. See if there's something there.

But no, it was bitterness, jealously and a control game.

Knine

myshirt wrote: »

Best advice I ever heard was for the mother to give as much time as possible. And the father to give as much money as possible. Or vice versa. Typically Mammy is the carer though.

Putting it in a solicitors pocket helps no one.

What I found (in limited exposure to family law) is that fathers just plainly want to see their kids. Some need a kick in the hole, they really do, but the very large majority were sincere and good hearted. However, nearly all the women I encountered seemed to carry a lot of sustained bitterness or anger with them - it was a game almost, control, wins, aim to hurt and get one over. Common client meeting topics were the new woman he had and he'll pay for that. Or can you get me more off him (for purely the sake of getting more).

Fair enough if the focus was on something like I don't know this woman, so I'm concerned with the people he is bringing around, concerned for my kids in that environment. Ok, let's address it. Let's thrash that out. See if there's something there.

But no, it was bitterness, jealously and a control game.

I don't agree at all. All those issues you describe can also apply to men. Believe me when I say it us mothers do be delighted for a bit of time off.

My ex was an extreme control freak. He took me to court simply because he could. He seldom takes up his access. He even refused to sign a passport so I could go to the UK for medical treatment.

Please don't tar us all with the same brush. Control issues, bitterness etc is not just confined to women.

My experience through years & years of court is that tge judges need to actually look at the rights of the child.

Turtyturd

myshirt wrote: »

Best advice I ever heard was for the mother to give as much time as possible. And the father to give as much money as possible. Or vice versa. Typically Mammy is the carer though.

Putting it in a solicitors pocket helps no one.

What I found (in limited exposure to family law) is that fathers just plainly want to see their kids. Some need a kick in the hole, they really do, but the very large majority were sincere and good hearted. However, nearly all the women I encountered seemed to carry a lot of sustained bitterness or anger with them - it was a game almost, control, wins, aim to hurt and get one over. Common client meeting topics were the new woman he had and he'll pay for that. Or can you get me more off him (for purely the sake of getting more).

Fair enough if the focus was on something like I don't know this woman, so I'm concerned with the people he is bringing around, concerned for my kids in that environment. Ok, let's address it. Let's thrash that out. See if there's something there.

But no, it was bitterness, jealously and a control game.

I have done some research in the area and this is pretty much exactly what I found, and it's even evident in some of the posts here. The kids are used as weapons by the mothers a lot of the time.

Knine

Turtyturd wrote: »

I have done some research in the area and this is pretty much exactly what I found, and it's even evident in some of the posts here. The kids are used as weapons by the mothers a lot of the time.

Really? Have you been actually inside the family courts?
Sure I guess the fathers could never be bitter or control freaks? How many women do you reckon leave abusive control freak men? I wonder why we have 'Women's Aid' so if there is no need for it.

myshirt

Knine wrote: »

Really? Have you been actually inside the family courts?
Sure I guess the fathers could never be bitter or control freaks? How many women do you reckon leave abusive control freak men? I wonder why we have 'Women's Aid' so if there is no need for it.

Officially, men don't have feelings. Unofficially, they do.

It's a cultural thing. A lot of men's needs possibly go unserviced as a result, and if so, then it's a shame.

Women's Aid is a great facility for rehabilitating women who step out of line, fall out of favour or whatever. But that doesn't mean that men do not also have faults.

Fiolina

Turtyturd wrote: »

I have done some research in the area and this is pretty much exactly what I found, and it's even evident in some of the posts here. The kids are used as weapons by the mothers a lot of the time.

Bit of a sweeping statement. I've been through the courts and would never consider using my child as a "weapon". Her father brought me to court purely for spite and a kind of "fcuk you", he never even showed up on the day!

tritium

Knine wrote: »

Really? Have you been actually inside the family courts?
Sure I guess the fathers could never be bitter or control freaks? How many women do you reckon leave abusive control freak men? I wonder why we have 'Women's Aid' so if there is no need for it.

We have women's aid for the same reason that we have services like AMEN (both woefully under resourced, one more so than the other)

I'm not sure how bringing domestic violence into it addresses the question of discrimination against fathers by the state (unless you're tarring most if all single fathers with a single brush)

Turtyturd

Knine wrote: »

Really? Have you been actually inside the family courts?
Sure I guess the fathers could never be bitter or control freaks? How many women do you reckon leave abusive control freak men? I wonder why we have 'Women's Aid' so if there is no need for it.

I have been inside family courts, and the fact that fathers even have to go to court to get access shows how much of a disadvantage they are at.

Your other points aren't really relevant.

Knine

myshirt wrote: »

Women's Aid is a great facility for rehabilitating women who step out of line, fall out of favour or whatever. But that doesn't mean that men do not also have faults.

Wow just wow. Where you born in the 1950's?

Turtyturd

Fiolina wrote: »

Bit of a sweeping statement. I've been through the courts and would never consider using my child as a "weapon". Her father brought me to court purely for spite and a kind of "fcuk you", he never even showed up on the day!

I never said all cases. In my experience it happened in a lot of cases, with some mothers even hoping that fathers would miss their maintenance payments so they could stop them seeing the kids.

I also found that with the stories of 'he did this' and 'she did that' they need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Knine

Turtyturd wrote: »

I never said all cases. In my experience it happened in a lot of cases, with some mothers even hoping that fathers would miss their maintenance payments so they could stop them seeing the kids.

I also found that with the stories of 'he did this' and 'she did that' they need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Absolute rubbish. Maintenance payments are completely separate from Access. Stopping maintenance does not mean a father can't see his children. In Ireland a breach of Access order i.e. custodial parent not allowing access is taken much more seriously then breach of maintenance. As family Law cases are heard In Camera, would you be relying on he said, she said then?

Grayson

myshirt wrote: »

However, nearly all the women I encountered seemed to carry a lot of sustained bitterness or anger with them - it was a game almost, control, wins, aim to hurt and get one over. Common client meeting topics were the new woman he had and he'll pay for that. Or can you get me more off him (for purely the sake of getting more).

Fair enough if the focus was on something like I don't know this woman, so I'm concerned with the people he is bringing around, concerned for my kids in that environment. Ok, let's address it. Let's thrash that out. See if there's something there.

But no, it was bitterness, jealously and a control game.

I agree.... if your talking about twink.

One eyed Jack

Turtyturd wrote: »

I have been inside family courts, and the fact that fathers even have to go to court to get access shows how much of a disadvantage they are at.

Your other points aren't really relevant.

How do you make that out?

With regard to this specific case itself, there's a lot of background we're not privy to, and as the Judge herself said, she was only basing her decision on the legality of the deciding officers assessment, that they had applied the wrong standard in assessing the father as a single person, ignoring the fact that he had joint custody of his children -


http://m.rte.ie/news/ireland/2014/1030/655914-ruling-over-single-parent-rent-allowance/


I've seen a lot of cases where the father, because they are assessed as a single person, is only able to afford a shìtty bedsit that is totally unsuitable for when their child visits at the weekend, so I can certainly see an argument could be made for parents with joint custody and neither parent is considered the primary carer...

But, what looks to me like what's happening in this case is that the man was told that as a single person he would be on the housing list for five years and receive a single person's payment, so by including his children, he is now entitled to be bumped up the list and gains a full payment!

It's a terrible case to highlight the issue of the State ignoring father's rights, because the only people that seem to be suffering the most here are the children who have to do the travelling from one side of the country to the other and vice versa, to accommodate the wishes of both parents to have equal access.

I'd love to know the particulars of the custody hearing as to me that doesn't seem like the family courts considered the effects of all the travelling on the children at all and seems to have acted more in the interests of the parents.

DeadHand

It's an emotive topic with no black and white, definitive answer.

Personally, I've found in these cases if you can relentlessly leave your own interests and bitterness firmly secondary to what's best for the child you will not go too far wrong.

In this case, my feeling would be it isn't up to the state to raise your child, it's up to you. The state is imperfect and can operate only in generalities.

Yet, there is a huge bias in favour of females in how it operates in this area. I know women who were put into fine houses in their youth by virtue of being female and a parent having never worked a day in their lives out in the world at a time when I worked like a dog every day of my life yet could not even nearly afford to live in such comfort. I was also a parent. The only difference being I was male and they were female. So, I had to work, providing for the state and my own while they and their own were provided for by the state and often a male in a similar situation to myself.

I'm not complaining about this and I cannot devise a fairer alternative. Just articulating the obvious bias in the system. I understand the reasoning behind this bias namely that the burden of being primary care giver falls in the majority of cases on the mother.

Yet, the bias and inequality exist nonetheless. To an extent that would not be tolerated in other, simpler areas.

eviltwin

myshirt wrote: »

Women's Aid is a great facility for rehabilitating women who step out of line, fall out of favour or whatever. But that doesn't mean that men do not also have faults.

What does this even mean?

DeadHand

eviltwin wrote: »

What does this even mean?

Don't dwell on it, it's nonsense.

tritium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But, what looks to me like what's happening in this case is that the man was told that as a single person he would be on the housing list for five years and receive a single person's payment, so by including his children, he is now entitled to be bumped up the list and gains a full payment!

It's a terrible case to highlight the issue of the State ignoring father's rights, because the only people that seem to be suffering the most here are the children who have to do the travelling from one side of the country to the other and vice versa, to accommodate the wishes of both parents to have equal access.

I'd love to know the particulars of the custody hearing as to me that doesn't seem like the family courts considered the effects of all the travelling on the children at all and seems to have acted more in the interests of the parents.

I agree with most of your post except this. If the children are to have a relationship with both parents what alternative to travelling do they have? I'm going to assume that they haven't objected to spending time with both parents. Given that would it be appropriate for a court to remove access to one parent purely because they moved elsewhere to find work for example?

(As an aside its interesting what we consider a lot of travelling to be- in larger countries that journey wouldn't be considered at all unusual)

A2LUE42

Knine wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. Maintenance payments are completely separate from Access. Stopping maintenance does not mean a father can't see his children. In Ireland a breach of Access order i.e. custodial parent not allowing access is taken much more seriously then breach of maintenance. As family Law cases are heard In Camera, would you be relying on he said, she said then?

You sure about that? How many mothers have been jailed for repeatedly breaching access agreements?