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.