Should non custodial parents be sent to jail for failing to pay child support

Dravokivich

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Obviously, but you can't draw blood from a stone. If the money isn't there to pay the mandated amount then what do you expect the person to do?

If they had the child in their custody and they had no money then the government would provide support.

When going over maintenance the applicant needs to show the requirements and respondent needs to show means. A judge wont sign off on maintenance that the respondent cant afford.

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm genuinely delighted for you that your fight was successful - the judge absolutely should not have presumed that basic guardianship would be enough for you, and you shouldn't have had to fight against preconceptions about who is best suited to raising a child.


Every single case should be judged on its own merits and for the best outcome of the child. Unfortunately many of our judiciary are stuck in a mindset that is about 30 years out of date, (and was wrong even then)

Every single case is judged on its own merits in determining an outcome that is in the best interests of the child or children involved. When you say many of our judiciary are stuck in a mindset that is about 30 years out of date, they’re really not. It’s not even about fighting preconceptions about who is best suited to raising a child. Because decisions are made which are in the best interests of the child, it will often appear to both parents in a dispute over custody that they are being treated unfairly. They miss the point that it’s not about them, and it’s not about preconceptions about who is best suited to raising a child, or what arrangements are more convenient for the parents, or treating the parents fairly above the interests of the child or children. It’s entirely based upon deciding in the circumstances before them, based upon evidence presented by both sides in the dispute, and in some cases social workers and guardians ad litem acting in the best interests of the child or children, or even when it is determined that the child or children are in a position to advocate on their own behalf; all of this contributes to decisions regarding custody and access arrangements which are determined to be in the best interests of the child or children involved in any particular case.

It’s an inevitability that both parents will feel they were hard done by by the Courts, because decisions which were made in the best interests of the child or children don’t align with their self-interest. That statistics tell us that mothers are overwhelmingly granted primary custody doesn’t actually tell anyone anything about individual cases. Statistics also tell us that even today, mothers are the primary caregivers of their children, and because a relationship between their parents breaks down, that shouldn’t mean it should be the child or children who suffer in the pursuit of an ideological notion about being fair to the child or children’s parents.

The reason why custody cases end up in the Courts is because the parents are often more concerned with what is in their best interests rather than that of their children, and that’s why the Courts are acting as an independent arbiter in each case that comes before the Courts, simply because custody battles can often bring out the spiteful nature in some people who fail to consider what is actually in the child or children’s best interests, above their own.

I’m not entirely sure what mindset you’re referring to that’s out of date, but if people are still of that mindset, then it’s still very much a modern mindset, like the mindset that suggests the parent who is in a better financial position to be able to provide for the child should be the sole determining factor in child custody cases. That would overwhelmingly favour fathers, but because it’s not necessarily in the child or children’s best interests overall, that’s one of the reasons why it’s more common that mothers are granted primary custody of their children and fathers are obligated to maintain their children financially. If the father is of the belief that their child or children’s welfare is being neglected, then they have every opportunity to bring that to the attention of the authorities.

Instead, this kind of nonsense sentiment is all too common among men -

Feisar wrote: »

A1, call me psycho however if I'm every in that boat goodbye well paid job, hello rock and roll.

I’m not going to call the poster psycho, that would be almost as silly as their assertion that should they ever find themselves in a position where their relationship with their children’s mother has broken down, they would rather quit their job and go on the dole to spite the mother of their children, rather than maintain their employment and provide for their children as best they can. Not psychotic, just spiteful, and certainly doesn’t demonstrate any evidence that they are acting in the best interests of the child or children, but rather they would be acting in what they believe are their own best interests (it would even be short-sighted on their behalf, but spite makes people behave irrationally anyway).

Kimsang

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Every single case is judged on its own merits in determining an outcome that is in the best interests of the child or children involved. When you say many of our judiciary are stuck in a mindset that is about 30 years out of date, they’re really not. It’s not even about fighting preconceptions about who is best suited to raising a child. Because decisions are made which are in the best interests of the child, it will often appear to both parents in a dispute over custody that they are being treated unfairly. They miss the point that it’s not about them, and it’s not about preconceptions about who is best suited to raising a child, or what arrangements are more convenient for the parents, or treating the parents fairly above the interests of the child or children. It’s entirely based upon deciding in the circumstances before them, based upon evidence presented by both sides in the dispute, and in some cases social workers and guardians ad litem acting in the best interests of the child or children, or even when it is determined that the child or children are in a position to advocate on their own behalf; all of this contributes to decisions regarding custody and access arrangements which are determined to be in the best interests of the child or children involved in any particular case.

It’s an inevitability that both parents will feel they were hard done by by the Courts, because decisions which were made in the best interests of the child or children don’t align with their self-interest. That statistics tell us that mothers are overwhelmingly granted primary custody doesn’t actually tell anyone anything about individual cases. Statistics also tell us that even today, mothers are the primary caregivers of their children, and because a relationship between their parents breaks down, that shouldn’t mean it should be the child or children who suffer in the pursuit of an ideological notion about being fair to the child or children’s parents.

The reason why custody cases end up in the Courts is because the parents are often more concerned with what is in their best interests rather than that of their children, and that’s why the Courts are acting as an independent arbiter in each case that comes before the Courts, simply because custody battles can often bring out the spiteful nature in some people who fail to consider what is actually in the child or children’s best interests, above their own.

I’m not entirely sure what mindset you’re referring to that’s out of date, but if people are still of that mindset, then it’s still very much a modern mindset, like the mindset that suggests the parent who is in a better financial position to be able to provide for the child should be the sole determining factor in child custody cases. That would overwhelmingly favour fathers, but because it’s not necessarily in the child or children’s best interests overall, that’s one of the reasons why it’s more common that mothers are granted primary custody of their children and fathers are obligated to maintain their children financially. If the father is of the belief that their child or children’s welfare is being neglected, then they have every opportunity to bring that to the attention of the authorities.

Instead, this kind of nonsense sentiment is all too common among men -





I’m not going to call the poster psycho, that would be almost as silly as their assertion that should they ever find themselves in a position where their relationship with their children’s mother has broken down, they would rather quit their job and go on the dole to spite the mother of their children, rather than maintain their employment and provide for their children as best they can. Not psychotic, just spiteful, and certainly doesn’t demonstrate any evidence that they are acting in the best interests of the child or children, but rather they would be acting in what they believe are their own best interests (it would even be short-sighted on their behalf, but spite makes people behave irrationally anyway).

That's all well and good when there is a clear option for who is the better care provider.

Unfortunately though, all too often, things cannot be proved in court. This leaves judges with a default position of giving custody to the mother. Do you dispute this?

Even social workers will side with the woman as a default.
All things being equal the mother will get custody. I think this is inherently the problem.

One eyed Jack

Kimsang wrote: »

That's all well and good when there is a clear option for who is the better care provider.

Unfortunately though, all too often, things cannot be proved in court. This leaves judges with a default position of giving custody to the mother. Do you dispute this?

Even social workers will side with the woman as a default.
All things being equal the mother will get custody. I think this is inherently the problem.

You’re still missing the point that decisions aren’t made in the best interests of the parents, they’re made in the best interests of the child or children in each individual case. The overall outcome makes it appear as though the Courts are unfairly biased in favour of mothers, but the same could be said of the statistic that overall in Ireland, 98% of parents working in the home are women. These are overall observations that tell us nothing about individual cases.

There is no default position of giving custody to the mother. It doesn’t exist. I’m not trying to break your balls either so I’m guessing that what you may be referring to is mothers being granted guardianship automatically of the child or children they have given birth to, whereas an unmarried father has no right of automatic guardianship. Social workers will often make every effort to ensure that a father has at least legal guardianship of their children, but some fathers would prefer to have nothing to do with their children. It is those fathers whom you should be targeting, not the Courts, if you want to change societies perception of fathers who wish to have nothing to do with their children. Because it is that minority of fathers who give separated fathers an undeserved reputation at a societal level.

There isn’t much of an argument in saying “all things being equal, the mother will get custody”, because the outcome suggests that all things weren’t equal, because it was decided in the best interests of the child or children involved that their mother should be their primary custodian. Whether she was their primary caregiver or not before the breakdown of the relationship between the child or children’s parents is also taken into consideration in any decisions made. It isn’t just a case of suggesting that the breakdown of the relationship means both parents are now on an equal footing in terms of the custody and care of their children. Reality doesn’t work like that, and neither do the Courts.

Kimsang

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re still missing the point that decisions aren’t made in the best interests of the parents, they’re made in the best interests of the child or children in each individual case. The overall outcome makes it appear as though the Courts are unfairly biased in favour of mothers, but the same could be said of the statistic that overall in Ireland, 98% of parents working in the home are women. These are overall observations that tell us nothing about individual cases.

There is no default position of giving custody to the mother. It doesn’t exist. I’m not trying to break your balls either so I’m guessing that what you may be referring to is mothers being granted guardianship automatically of the child or children they have given birth to, whereas an unmarried father has no right of automatic guardianship. Social workers will often make every effort to ensure that a father has at least legal guardianship of their children, but some fathers would prefer to have nothing to do with their children. It is those fathers whom you should be targeting, not the Courts, if you want to change societies perception of fathers who wish to have nothing to do with their children. Because it is that minority of fathers who give separated fathers an undeserved reputation at a societal level.

There isn’t much of an argument in saying “all things being equal, the mother will get custody”, because the outcome suggests that all things weren’t equal, because it was decided in the best interests of the child or children involved that their mother should be their primary custodian. Whether she was their primary caregiver or not before the breakdown of the relationship between the child or children’s parents is also taken into consideration in any decisions made. It isn’t just a case of suggesting that the breakdown of the relationship means both parents are now on an equal footing in terms of the custody and care of their children. Reality doesn’t work like that, and neither do the Courts.

Its impossible to 'prove' in a court who would the child be better served staying with. Finances are no longer taken into account, and it seems who sees the child more usually gets custody. In our gender role society, more men work, and more women look after children. You can see how this ends up with the mother getting custody more.

I realize perfectly well that the decision is made in the best interest of the child(ren) and its a point I've alluded to earlier a few times already in this thread. What I dispute is how this is decided.

because the outcome suggests that all things weren’t equal

To look at the outcome that most women get custody, and then reason that they must be the better care-provider is not right. Before the 19th Century men primarily got custody of children for financial reasons.

but some fathers would prefer to have nothing to do with their children.

This may be true for some fathers, just like it is for some mothers. Although mother's have the option of giving a child for adoption and never having to worry again, a father must have all the responsibility of maintenance without any rights of custody. A mother can even give a child up for adoption without consent of the father.

What bothers me more is the father's that DO want to be involved with their children, and are restricted by our LEGAL PROCESS AND THE COURTS. I can site you numerous examples/news reports/videos of mothers being spiteful and not allowing visitation by the father, by claiming abuse of some sort. Its very easily done.

I honestly believe if we weren't such amicable people (here in Ireland) these current laws wouldn't last long and we would have a lot more problems.

morphman

Kimsang wrote:

What bothers me more is the father's that DO want to be involved with their children, and are restricted by our LEGAL PROCESS AND THE COURTS. I can site you numerous examples/news reports/videos of mothers being spiteful and not allowing visitation by the father, by claiming abuse of some sort. Its very easily done.

This above, do you not think I would have liked to be around for all the birthdays, had input where she went to school, What activities she did etc. I even suggested rainbows counselling to help her through it all and was told I'd never see her again if I brought her. Sometimes there is nothing and I mean nothing you can do. I have friends that were in a similar situation as me and both parents worked together for their children and most of the time it was easy manage, I also had a friend who ended up taking his own life because of the situation.

Kimsang

morphman wrote: »

This above, do you not think I would have liked to be around for all the birthdays, had input where she went to school, What activities she did etc. I even suggested rainbows counselling to help her through it all and was told I'd never see her again if I brought her. Sometimes there is nothing and I mean nothing you can do. I have friends that were in a similar situation as me and both parents worked together for their children and most of the time it was easy manage, I also had a friend who ended up taking his own life because of the situation.

I also had someone close to me take their life in such circumstance. I don't think some people in this thread realize how bad it is for fathers.

morphman

I am not from a big city and myself and this friend travelled a very long way to Dublin to attend a group session or meeting if you will of similar fathers. The stories told by this group myself included was absolutely shocking. Where could we turn, no where, any rights, none at all. The way that some and I mean some mothers had used the children to their own benefit was astounding to say the least.This was back in the early to mid 00's

beejee

I'll jump on the bandwagon. A friend of mine went through absolute hell with a woman over the two children.

Through absolutely no choice or fault of his own he wasn't allowed near the children for years. It got to a point where, for his own sanity, he just had to cut ties and start life over. The bloke was crippled from it. A year or so into the whole thing he got a letter from the woman basically saying "give me 20k and we'll see what happens" (in relation to being allowed see his own children).

All things are individual, but in cases like the above, youd need to be outright, squawking insane to be paying a single cent.

That kind of stuff wont be presented in statistics, or papers or journals or on the news. You cant legislate for such things because its all kept behind closed doors.

But I'll bet more than a few people know of very similar circumstances all round the country!

morphman

When all this happened I lost my father suddenly to cancer and my mam shortly after. Then my daughter you can't fathom all this. I was 30 years of age roughly at the time. Luckily I had a beautiful wife and also a new born daughter (who was also used as a pawn by my ex) to help me through it all.
I am not looking for attention or sympathy, I am merely showing that there are different situations as there are also so called deadbeat dads.

One eyed Jack

Kimsang wrote: »

Its impossible to 'prove' in a court who would the child be better served staying with. Finances are no longer taken into account, and it seems who sees the child more usually gets custody. In our gender role society, more men work, and more women look after children. You can see how this ends up with the mother getting custody more.

I can see how it would be in the best interests of the child that their primary caregiver before, remains their primary caregiver after, as opposed to severing that relationship in the interests of fairness and equality between the parents. This would hold true regardless of the gender of the parents and we would see the same in cases where both parents are of the same sex - decisions aren’t based upon the sex of the parents, but rather decisions are made with regard to the best interests of the child.

I realize perfectly well that the decision is made in the best interest of the child(ren) and its a point I've alluded to earlier a few times already in this thread. What I dispute is how this is decided.

You’re disputing how it’s decided because you are of the belief that outcomes are overwhelmingly in favour of mothers being granted primary custody of their children. That’s not arguing what’s in the best interests of the child, it’s arguing that fathers are treated unfairly by the Courts with regards to custody of their children.

To look at the outcome that most women get custody, and then reason that they must be the better care-provider is not right. Before the 19th Century men primarily got custody of children for financial reasons.

It’s perfectly reasonable to state that in those individual cases, the Courts determined based upon the evidence presented before it that it was in the children’s best interests that their mothers be granted primary custody. It’s not unreasonable to assume that the children’s mother was the primary caregiver beforehand either given that we know from figures gathered by the CSO that mothers in Ireland are the primary caregivers of their children.

Before the 19th century it was wrongly assumed that just because a child’s father could provide for them financially whereas the children’s mother couldn’t, the father was given primary custody because it was determined by the Courts that he could best provide for the children’s needs. In modern times we understand that children’s needs are more than just financial provisions being made for their welfare, and that’s why decisions in the best interests of the child are no longer simply based upon which parent is in a better position to be able to provide financially for their children. One would assume that parents would want to provide for their children anyway without being reminded that they are constitutionally legally obligated to do so.

This may be true for some fathers, just like it is for some mothers. Although mother's have the option of giving a child for adoption and never having to worry again, a father must have all the responsibility of maintenance without any rights of custody. A mother can even give a child up for adoption without consent of the father.

In this thread though we’re discussing fathers, and fathers rights and responsibilities towards their children. Because mothers are granted automatic guardianship, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that a father who has no legal guardianship of a child would have no say in that child’s welfare. That’s why it’s important that unmarried fathers apply for guardianship of their children as soon as possible. The same doesn’t apply to married men who are granted automatic guardianship by virtue of being married to the child’s mother, nor does it apply in circumstances where a couple have been cohabiting for a period of time,

Even with all that said, and even if the father is not the legal guardian of the child, it’s absolutely not true to suggest that a father has no right to be consulted if his child is being placed for adoption -

A birth father, with no guardianship rights, is entitled to be consulted about the adoption of his child. If you are concerned that your partner or former partner intends placing your child for adoption without letting you know, you can ask the Adoption Authority of Ireland to notify you by recording your details on the Birth Father Register. You can do this even before your child is born, if necessary. This register is checked against all applications for adoption.

There is a similar register for other relevant non-guardians.

Both parents btw, just to be explicitly clear about this, have a responsibility for maintaining their children, completely separate from any decisions about custody. It would be the same if the father were granted primary custody and it was determined that the mother should maintain her children financially. That rarely happens though because it is usually the father who is in a position to maintain their children financially without State aid. With State aid, children are less dependent upon their parents financial positions and so other factors are considered with regards to the child’s welfare and what is in the best interests of the child. The State doesn’t want to be having to supplant the place of the parents to provide for the child, so it is in the interests of the State too that parents are reminded of their legal obligations and responsibilities towards their children by the Courts -

In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.


And while the opinions of the child’s mother are taken into consideration by the Courts with regard to a fathers application for guardianship of his children, the mothers opinion of the father is by no means the only determining factor in any case -


While the mother's views are taken into account, the fact that she does not consent to the guardianship application does not automatically mean that the court will refuse the order sought by the father. Instead, the court will decide what is in the best interest of the child.

What bothers me more is the father's that DO want to be involved with their children, and are restricted by our LEGAL PROCESS AND THE COURTS. I can site you numerous examples/news reports/videos of mothers being spiteful and not allowing visitation by the father, by claiming abuse of some sort. Its very easily done.

They’re restricted by our legal process and the courts because... and you’re going to be sick of hearing it but you’re still not getting it - any decisions made, are made in the best interests of the child. Obviously if a decision goes against them, a parent is naturally inclined to be of the opinion that they don’t agree with how the courts make their determinations. I know well you could cite me numerous examples/news reports/videos of mothers being spiteful and not allowing visitation and access by the father, by claiming abuse of some sort, and I know it’s easily done (well, not so easily in one case that particularly stands out for how far she was willing to go where she broke her own jaw to claim her ex boyfriend had done it, only for it to emerge in court that he couldn’t have done it because he was with his mistress on the night in question that his ex claimed it happened - awkward shuffles all round for that one :pac:).

My point simply being - the courts are used to hearing those sorts of stories day in, day out. It’s an inevitability that by the time a custody case comes to court, both sides are more riled up than a hotel room full of Jeremy Kyles finest. The courts have to wade through all that bullshìt in order to determine what is in the best interests of the child or children involved, and they do it for a living, whereas the parents involved - it’s often their first time.

I honestly believe if we weren't such amicable people (here in Ireland) these current laws wouldn't last long and we would have a lot more problems.

It’s precisely because we generally are amicable and civilised adults in Ireland, even when our relationships break down and there are children involved, that we still put our children’s welfare above our own, and most people are able to come to amicable arrangements between themselves as to what is in their children’s best interests in the event of a relationship breaking down. It’s when the parents can’t come to an amicable resolution that they have a right to pursue legal recourse through the courts, and the courts will always have a different agenda than the parents who assume that they alone are in the best position to provide for their children, and the other parent is not. The courts effectively look at the case as a whole, and make their determinations with regards to guardianship, custody, maintenance and access on the basis of taking a number of factors into consideration, not just the factors that provide either parent with what they perceive to be an advantage over the other parent, or what they perceive to be a liability against the other parent that should work in their favour.

Dravokivich

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Every single case is judged on its own merits in determining an outcome that is in the best interests of the child or children involved. When you say many of our judiciary are stuck in a mindset that is about 30 years out of date, they’re really not. It’s not even about fighting preconceptions about who is best suited to raising a child. Because decisions are made which are in the best interests of the child, it will often appear to both parents in a dispute over custody that they are being treated unfairly. They miss the point that it’s not about them, and it’s not about preconceptions about who is best suited to raising a child, or what arrangements are more convenient for the parents, or treating the parents fairly above the interests of the child or children. It’s entirely based upon deciding in the circumstances before them, based upon evidence presented by both sides in the dispute, and in some cases social workers and guardians ad litem acting in the best interests of the child or children, or even when it is determined that the child or children are in a position to advocate on their own behalf; all of this contributes to decisions regarding custody and access arrangements which are determined to be in the best interests of the child or children involved in any particular case.

It’s an inevitability that both parents will feel they were hard done by by the Courts, because decisions which were made in the best interests of the child or children don’t align with their self-interest. That statistics tell us that mothers are overwhelmingly granted primary custody doesn’t actually tell anyone anything about individual cases. Statistics also tell us that even today, mothers are the primary caregivers of their children, and because a relationship between their parents breaks down, that shouldn’t mean it should be the child or children who suffer in the pursuit of an ideological notion about being fair to the child or children’s parents.

The reason why custody cases end up in the Courts is because the parents are often more concerned with what is in their best interests rather than that of their children, and that’s why the Courts are acting as an independent arbiter in each case that comes before the Courts, simply because custody battles can often bring out the spiteful nature in some people who fail to consider what is actually in the child or children’s best interests, above their own.

I’m not entirely sure what mindset you’re referring to that’s out of date, but if people are still of that mindset, then it’s still very much a modern mindset, like the mindset that suggests the parent who is in a better financial position to be able to provide for the child should be the sole determining factor in child custody cases. That would overwhelmingly favour fathers, but because it’s not necessarily in the child or children’s best interests overall, that’s one of the reasons why it’s more common that mothers are granted primary custody of their children and fathers are obligated to maintain their children financially. If the father is of the belief that their child or children’s welfare is being neglected, then they have every opportunity to bring that to the attention of the authorities.

Instead, this kind of nonsense sentiment is all too common among men -





I’m not going to call the poster psycho, that would be almost as silly as their assertion that should they ever find themselves in a position where their relationship with their children’s mother has broken down, they would rather quit their job and go on the dole to spite the mother of their children, rather than maintain their employment and provide for their children as best they can. Not psychotic, just spiteful, and certainly doesn’t demonstrate any evidence that they are acting in the best interests of the child or children, but rather they would be acting in what they believe are their own best interests (it would even be short-sighted on their behalf, but spite makes people behave irrationally anyway).

Bojangles was responding to my comments of my experience. If I didn't have the proper support to bring me through it, I would have been unsuccessful due to the judge's prejudice.

FishOnABike

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can see how it would be in the best interests of the child that their primary caregiver before, remains their primary caregiver after, as opposed to severing that relationship in the interests of fairness and equality between the parents. This would hold true regardless of the gender of the parents and we would see the same in cases where both parents are of the same sex - decisions aren’t based upon the sex of the parents, but rather decisions are made with regard to the best interests of the child.





You’re disputing how it’s decided because you are of the belief that outcomes are overwhelmingly in favour of mothers being granted primary custody of their children. That’s not arguing what’s in the best interests of the child, it’s arguing that fathers are treated unfairly by the Courts with regards to custody of their children.





It’s perfectly reasonable to state that in those individual cases, the Courts determined based upon the evidence presented before it that it was in the children’s best interests that their mothers be granted primary custody. It’s not unreasonable to assume that the children’s mother was the primary caregiver beforehand either given that we know from figures gathered by the CSO that mothers in Ireland are the primary caregivers of their children.

Before the 19th century it was wrongly assumed that just because a child’s father could provide for them financially whereas the children’s mother couldn’t, the father was given primary custody because it was determined by the Courts that he could best provide for the children’s needs. In modern times we understand that children’s needs are more than just financial provisions being made for their welfare, and that’s why decisions in the best interests of the child are no longer simply based upon which parent is in a better position to be able to provide financially for their children. One would assume that parents would want to provide for their children anyway without being reminded that they are constitutionally legally obligated to do so.





In this thread though we’re discussing fathers, and fathers rights and responsibilities towards their children. Because mothers are granted automatic guardianship, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that a father who has no legal guardianship of a child would have no say in that child’s welfare. That’s why it’s important that unmarried fathers apply for guardianship of their children as soon as possible. The same doesn’t apply to married men who are granted automatic guardianship by virtue of being married to the child’s mother, nor does it apply in circumstances where a couple have been cohabiting for a period of time,

Even with all that said, and even if the father is not the legal guardian of the child, it’s absolutely not true to suggest that a father has no right to be consulted if his child is being placed for adoption -

A birth father, with no guardianship rights, is entitled to be consulted about the adoption of his child. If you are concerned that your partner or former partner intends placing your child for adoption without letting you know, you can ask the Adoption Authority of Ireland to notify you by recording your details on the Birth Father Register. You can do this even before your child is born, if necessary. This register is checked against all applications for adoption.

There is a similar register for other relevant non-guardians.

Both parents btw, just to be explicitly clear about this, have a responsibility for maintaining their children, completely separate from any decisions about custody. It would be the same if the father were granted primary custody and it was determined that the mother should maintain her children financially. That rarely happens though because it is usually the father who is in a position to maintain their children financially without State aid. With State aid, children are less dependent upon their parents financial positions and so other factors are considered with regards to the child’s welfare and what is in the best interests of the child. The State doesn’t want to be having to supplant the place of the parents to provide for the child, so it is in the interests of the State too that parents are reminded of their legal obligations and responsibilities towards their children by the Courts -

In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.


And while the opinions of the child’s mother are taken into consideration by the Courts with regard to a fathers application for guardianship of his children, the mothers opinion of the father is by no means the only determining factor in any case -


While the mother's views are taken into account, the fact that she does not consent to the guardianship application does not automatically mean that the court will refuse the order sought by the father. Instead, the court will decide what is in the best interest of the child.





They’re restricted by our legal process and the courts because... and you’re going to be sick of hearing it but you’re still not getting it - any decisions made, are made in the best interests of the child. Obviously if a decision goes against them, a parent is naturally inclined to be of the opinion that they don’t agree with how the courts make their determinations. I know well you could cite me numerous examples/news reports/videos of mothers being spiteful and not allowing visitation and access by the father, by claiming abuse of some sort, and I know it’s easily done (well, not so easily in one case that particularly stands out for how far she was willing to go where she broke her own jaw to claim her ex boyfriend had done it, only for it to emerge in court that he couldn’t have done it because he was with his mistress on the night in question that his ex claimed it happened - awkward shuffles all round for that one :pac:).

My point simply being - the courts are used to hearing those sorts of stories day in, day out. It’s an inevitability that by the time a custody case comes to court, both sides are more riled up than a hotel room full of Jeremy Kyles finest. The courts have to wade through all that bullshìt in order to determine what is in the best interests of the child or children involved, and they do it for a living, whereas the parents involved - it’s often their first time.





It’s precisely because we generally are amicable and civilised adults in Ireland, even when our relationships break down and there are children involved, that we still put our children’s welfare above our own, and most people are able to come to amicable arrangements between themselves as to what is in their children’s best interests in the event of a relationship breaking down. It’s when the parents can’t come to an amicable resolution that they have a right to pursue legal recourse through the courts, and the courts will always have a different agenda than the parents who assume that they alone are in the best position to provide for their children, and the other parent is not. The courts effectively look at the case as a whole, and make their determinations with regards to guardianship, custody, maintenance and access on the basis of taking a number of factors into consideration, not just the factors that provide either parent with what they perceive to be an advantage over the other parent, or what they perceive to be a liability against the other parent that should work in their favour.

In theory, yes.

I have to somewhat begrudgingly admire your idealism and naivety in placing so much faith in our court system.

In practice some of our courts can fall far short of the standards one should be entitled to expect of them.

One eyed Jack

FishOnABike wrote: »

In theory, yes.

I have to somewhat begrudgingly admire your idealism and naivety in placing so much faith in our court system.

In practice some of our courts can fall far short of the standards one should be entitled to expect of them.

I’ve already acknowledged that the Courts will appear to fall short of the standards expected of them if one is naive and idealistic enough to imagine that the Courts will regard them the same way they regard themselves. It would be equally naive and idealistic to suggest that the Courts should aim for a 50:50 split in all cases with no regard for the rights of the child or children involved.

There’s a famous Irish case from 2009 which demonstrates exactly why the best interests of the child are paramount in any considerations in cases which come before the Courts, rather than any attempt at “gender equality” between men and women -

Sperm donor granted access to child

The Supreme Court has ruled that a man who donated his sperm to a lesbian couple - enabling one of them to have a baby boy - should have access to the child.

The court overturned a High Court decision that the man was not entitled to access, but it upheld a decision that he was not entitled to guardianship.

This landmark case was taken by a 42-year-old gay man, identified only as ‘A’.

He agreed in 2005 to donate sperm to a lesbian couple and signed an agreement with them that he would have the role of ‘favourite uncle’ and access would be at the discretion of the couple.

The child was born in 2006. The man subsequently went to the High Court seeking guardianship and access to him.

The High Court then found that the welfare of the child was best served by the little boy continuing in the custody of the couple and that the man should not get any court ordered access.

Mr Justice John Hedigan also found that where a lesbian couple lives together in a long-term committed relationship, they could be regarded as being a de facto family and enjoy family rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judge ruled that the only relationship between the man and the child was a biological one and he did not enjoy those rights.

But five judges of the Supreme Court have now overturned this decision.

The court today found the man was not entitled to guardianship of the three-year-old boy at this time. But it found it would be in the child's best interest for his father to have access to him.

Ms Justice Susan Denham ruled there was no such institution as a 'de facto' family in Ireland and that the lesbian couple were not a family under the Constitution.

She found that the High Court had given insufficient weight to the fact that the man is the biological father of the child and she said he had rights as a natural father.

She also found that there was benefit to a child, in general, to have the society of his father and was satisfied that the High Court also gave insufficient weight to this factor.

The court ruled that if it was not possible for the parties to agree on access, the matter should be determined by the High Court.

Plopsu

@One Eyed Jack: I don't think the case you're quoting really makes the case you're trying to make. Also wouldn't happen again as the two women would now be considered a family. That case just comes across as one set of prejudices overruling another set. Also the case had to go to the supreme court.

FishOnABike

Plopsu wrote: »

@One Eyed Jack: I don't think the case you're quoting really makes the case you're trying to make. Also wouldn't happen again as the two women would now be considered a family. That case just comes across as one set of prejudices overruling another set. Also the case had to go to the supreme court.

Indeed, how many people have the resources to take something as far as the Supreme Court to vindicate their rights, or even the High Court?

The President of the High Court is quoted as having said that legal fees have risen to such an extent that it simply wasn't feasable for many people to litigate.

When this is combined with extensive research which found we are utterly failing the vulnerable members of our society,... particularly children, by refusung to hear their voices.

When this is combined with a difficulty in finding consistencies from court to court and where the outcome was wholly dependent on the individual judge and some judges displaying a dislike for categories of litigants that could only be described as prejudicial one has to wonder if our courts are really fit for purpose.

Kimsang

I can see how it would be in the best interests of the child that their primary caregiver before, remains their primary caregiver after, as opposed to severing that relationship in the interests of fairness and equality between the parents. This would hold true regardless of the gender of the parents and we would see the same in cases where both parents are of the same sex - decisions aren’t based upon the sex of the parents, but rather decisions are made with regard to the best interests of the child.

I can see how it would be in the best interests of the child that their primary bread-winner before, becomes their primary caregiver after. Unfortunately bread winners aren't taken into account, since the state will foot any bills.

You’re disputing how it’s decided because you are of the belief that outcomes are overwhelmingly in favour of mothers being granted primary custody of their children. That’s not arguing what’s in the best interests of the child, it’s arguing that fathers are treated unfairly by the Courts with regards to custody of their children.

I'm arguing that who sees the child more doesn't automatically mean who is the better care-giver. That seems to be the metric by which theses decisions are made. There seems to be an underlying supposition in what you say that this is in fact true, which I do not agree.

It’s perfectly reasonable to state that in those individual cases, the Courts determined based upon the evidence presented before it that it was in the children’s best interests that their mothers be granted primary custody. It’s not unreasonable to assume that the children’s mother was the primary caregiver beforehand either given that we know from figures gathered by the CSO that mothers in Ireland are the primary caregivers of their children.

This may seem reasonable yes...
It may also be reasonable to state that since a court can't adequately 'prove' who is the better care-giver, women are given custody by default. Its not safe to assume such things in court.

Before the 19th century it was wrongly assumed that just because a child’s father could provide for them financially whereas the children’s mother couldn’t, the father was given primary custody because it was determined by the Courts that he could best provide for the children’s needs. In modern times we understand that children’s needs are more than just financial provisions being made for their welfare, and that’s why decisions in the best interests of the child are no longer simply based upon which parent is in a better position to be able to provide financially for their children. One would assume that parents would want to provide for their children anyway without being reminded that they are constitutionally legally obligated to do so.

Today in the 21st Century we wrongly assume that just because a child's mother had enough free time to provide care for children, whereas a father couldn't because he was busy working a 60hour week, the mother is given primary custody because it is determined by the courts that she could best provide for the children's needs.

In modern times child-less people foot the bill to provide to the child households. If us child-less people weren't footing such bills, the custody of children would be given to the primary BREAD-WINNER, because children need to eat, they need shelter and they need clothes just as much as anything else.

In this thread though we’re discussing fathers, and fathers rights and responsibilities towards their children.

Actually we are talking about non custodial parents

Because mothers are granted automatic guardianship, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that a father who has no legal guardianship of a child would have no say in that child’s welfare. That’s why it’s important that unmarried fathers apply for guardianship of their children as soon as possible. The same doesn’t apply to married men who are granted automatic guardianship by virtue of being married to the child’s mother, nor does it apply in circumstances where a couple have been cohabiting for a period of time,

Think about that for a minute, a father has no automatic guardianship of his own child unless he marries the mother of that child. What difference should that make? (except in your extreme example of sperm donors, I will grant you)

Even with all that said, and even if the father is not the legal guardian of the child, it’s absolutely not true to suggest that a father has no right to be consulted if his child is being placed for adoption -

I never said a father has no right to be consulted. I said a child can be given up for adoption without a father knowing or having any say in it. What do you think happens to the mother if she doesn't consult the father? What happens if the father disagrees? The child still gets given up for adoption even though he was 'consulted', if the mother so chooses.

Both parents btw, just to be explicitly clear about this, have a responsibility for maintaining their children, completely separate from any decisions about custody.

Its funny how when custody is being awarded, who is the more financially responsible is not taken into account because child-less people are supporting people with children. If we weren't financial means would be a much larger factor in custody cases.

It would be the same if the father were granted primary custody and it was determined that the mother should maintain her children financially. That rarely happens though because it is usually the father who is in a position to maintain their children financially without State aid. With State aid, children are less dependent upon their parents financial positions and so other factors are considered with regards to the child’s welfare and what is in the best interests of the child. The State doesn’t want to be having to supplant the place of the parents to provide for the child, so it is in the interests of the State too that parents are reminded of their legal obligations and responsibilities towards their children by the Courts -

Mother's can turn around to the father and say don't need you anymore, the state will foot the bill. I don't really care what the state wants.

And while the opinions of the child’s mother are taken into consideration by the Courts with regard to a fathers application for guardianship of his children, the mothers opinion of the father is by no means the only determining factor in any case -


While the mother's views are taken into account, the fact that she does not consent to the guardianship application does not automatically mean that the court will refuse the order sought by the father. Instead, the court will decide what is in the best interest of the child.

Really, how do you think this works in practise? A mother is sought to consent a father's guardianship, this is the height of ridiculousness. She can disagree on any whim, or use it as leverage. A father has absolutely no leverage, and isn't sought for 'consent' about anything.

The best way to tell if something is a 'right' or not is to see if it can be revoked.
in the next sentence on that website you quote:
Removal of guardianship rights
Fathers and others who have been appointed joint guardians by a court or by statutory declaration can be removed from their position if the court is satisfied it is in the child's best interest. The only way a mother can give up her guardianship rights in Ireland, is if the child is placed for adoption

They’re restricted by our legal process and the courts because... and you’re going to be sick of hearing it but you’re still not getting it - any decisions made, are made in the best interests of the child. Obviously if a decision goes against them, a parent is naturally inclined to be of the opinion that they don’t agree with how the courts make their determinations. I know well you could cite me numerous examples/news reports/videos of mothers being spiteful and not allowing visitation and access by the father, by claiming abuse of some sort, and I know it’s easily done (well, not so easily in one case that particularly stands out for how far she was willing to go where she broke her own jaw to claim her ex boyfriend had done it, only for it to emerge in court that he couldn’t have done it because he was with his mistress on the night in question that his ex claimed it happened - awkward shuffles all round for that one :pac:).

I wish this was true. Unfortunately our society has been corrupted by feminism.

My point simply being - the courts are used to hearing those sorts of stories day in, day out. It’s an inevitability that by the time a custody case comes to court, both sides are more riled up than a hotel room full of Jeremy Kyles finest. The courts have to wade through all that bullshìt in order to determine what is in the best interests of the child or children involved, and they do it for a living, whereas the parents involved - it’s often their first time.

You seem convinced that the courts are doing a great job and that its all very easy to determine which parent would be better suited with the child. You seem quite happy with your metric of 'who sees the child the most'. I wish I were as confident.

One eyed Jack

Plopsu wrote: »

@One Eyed Jack: I don't think the case you're quoting really makes the case you're trying to make. Also wouldn't happen again as the two women would now be considered a family. That case just comes across as one set of prejudices overruling another set. Also the case had to go to the supreme court.

They actually wouldn’t, and it still happens, all the time, regardless of the sex or sexual orientation of the parents, because in Ireland (and this is the point you definitely missed), the Family in Irish law is defined through the institution of Marriage. That’s why marriage equality was so important to same-sex couples and their children because it gave the children of same sex couples the same legal rights and protections as the children of heterosexual married couples.

Government had a chance to change this with the introduction of the Children and Family Relationships Act In 2015, but they didn’t, so it still stands in law that the children of unmarried parents do not enjoy the same legal rights and protections as children whose parents are married, or were married.

The prejudice you see isn’t the one I was pointing to as their sex or sexual orientation of the parents is irrelevant, it’s the fact that they weren’t married, so were not and could not be regarded as a Family in Irish law, which as it happens, also supersedes International Human Rights law in the area of Family Law. There are other anomalies in Irish Family Law which are all sorts of interesting which people often aren’t aware of until they find themselves in those circumstances, which often make me think never mind banging on about piss poor sex education in schools, a civics lesson with an introduction to Irish law might be far more useful in terms of an education that children would actually make use of as adults (but that’s an aside that’s outside the scope of this discussion to be fair).

Yes, the case had to go to the Supreme Court, because decisions were made between the parties involved among themselves with what appears to be little regard for the rights of the child involved. It would have been unlikely to have reached the Supreme Court had the parties concerned actually bothered to consider the rights of the child they were going to bring into the world. That’s why it went as far as the Supreme Court to vindicate the rights of the child, in the best interests of the child involved in the case.

Plopsu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They actually wouldn’t, and it still happens, all the time, regardless of the sex or sexual orientation of the parents, because in Ireland (and this is the point you definitely missed), the Family in Irish law is defined through the institution of Marriage. That’s why marriage equality was so important to same-sex couples and their children because it gave the children of same sex couples the same legal rights and protections as the children of heterosexual married couples.

Government had a chance to change this with the introduction of the Children and Family Relationships Act In 2015, but they didn’t, so it still stands in law that the children of unmarried parents do not enjoy the same legal rights and protections as children whose parents are married, or were married.

The prejudice you see isn’t the one I was pointing to as their sex or sexual orientation of the parents is irrelevant, it’s the fact that they weren’t married, so were not and could not be regarded as a Family in Irish law, which as it happens, also supersedes International Human Rights law in the area of Family Law. There are other anomalies in Irish Family Law which are all sorts of interesting which people often aren’t aware of until they find themselves in those circumstances, which often make me think never mind banging on about piss poor sex education in schools, a civics lesson with an introduction to Irish law might be far more useful in terms of an education that children would actually make use of as adults (but that’s an aside that’s outside the scope of this discussion to be fair).

Yes, the case had to go to the Supreme Court, because decisions were made between the parties involved among themselves with what appears to be little regard for the rights of the child involved. It would have been unlikely to have reached the Supreme Court had the parties concerned actually bothered to consider the rights of the child they were going to bring into the world. That’s why it went as far as the Supreme Court to vindicate the rights of the child, in the best interests of the child involved in the case.

There's a good chance if the two women were having a child together they would have been married had it been possible for them.
Regardless, the case you quoted is a massive outlier, the details of which would be largely irrelevant the vast majority of custody cases. It also seem to paint a picture where the lower court were so biased that they acted outside the constitution and declared the two women a family even though, as according to the law you yourself quoted, the court had no basis to do this. That really doesn't point to a lack of bias in the lower court, which I though was the point you were trying to make.

One eyed Jack

Kimsang wrote: »

I can see how it would be in the best interests of the child that their primary bread-winner before, becomes their primary caregiver after. Unfortunately bread winners aren't taken into account, since the state will foot any bills.

They’re two completely different things. You fail to explain why the primary breadwinner should become the primary caregiver of the child, when the child’s primary caregiver is still perfectly capable of fulfilling that role, and the primary breadwinner is perfectly capable of fulfilling that role (unless, as another poster alluded to - they would sooner go on the dole and experience a significant reduction in their income which would then be provided by the State). The State btw doesn’t foot any bills unless an application to foot those bills is successful, and in many cases, it isn’t. That’s why, again from figures collated in the last census, we know that unmarried mothers and their children experience poverty in greater numbers than any other social group in Irish society. Fathers unwilling to provide for their children contribute to their children being forced to live in poverty, because all too often they are more interested in spiting the mother of their child. If you expect that anyone in society should feel any sympathy towards such men, you’ll be waiting. Two wrongs as they say, do not make a right - If fathers are denied access to their children, it doesn’t follow that they should have any right to forego providing for the welfare of their children.

I'm arguing that who sees the child more doesn't automatically mean who is the better care-giver. That seems to be the metric by which theses decisions are made. There seems to be an underlying supposition in what you say that this is in fact true, which I do not agree.

That’s not the metric by which these decisions are made, and there’s no underlying supposition in anything I’ve said which could indicate that what you’re saying, is true. I’ve been very up front about the reality of how these decisions are made, but you appear to be entrenched in ignoring the facts in favour of your own point of view. The law doesn’t agree with you, and the Courts don’t agree with you, because of paramount interest in any case is the rights and welfare of the child, and to that end, all circumstances are considered in determining an outcome which is in the best interests of the child.

This may seem reasonable yes...
It may also be reasonable to state that since a court can't adequately 'prove' who is the better care-giver, women are given custody by default. Its not safe to assume such things in court.

The Courts aren’t interested in proving who is the better caregiver or who can better provide financially for the child, and women aren’t given custody by default. They are granted legal guardianship by default in Irish law, nothing to do with the outcome of custody cases but solely by virtue of the fact that there can be no question over the fact that they have given birth to the child (that relates to other interesting anomalies in Irish family law regarding surrogate parents, parental rights and the rights of the child, still the same, three years after this article was written).

Today in the 21st Century we wrongly assume that just because a child's mother had enough free time to provide care for children, whereas a father couldn't because he was busy working a 60hour week, the mother is given primary custody because it is determined by the courts that she could best provide for the children's needs.

Nobody wrongly assumes that only people who don’t know any better and don’t care enough to inform themselves about the function of the Courts and Irish law. It’s one of the reasons why I recommend that people settle their differences amicably to try and avoid the intervention of the Courts, because once a case comes before the Courts - everyone loses, because the Courts aren’t interested in proving anything, their only interest is in the application of law in determining how the best interests of the child are served.

In modern times child-less people foot the bill to provide to the child households. If us child-less people weren't footing such bills, the custody of children would be given to the primary BREAD-WINNER, because children need to eat, they need shelter and they need clothes just as much as anything else.

Don’t kid yourself, you’re providing nothing for households with children. People who are employed who have children, also don’t provide for people who are unemployed with no children. It doesn’t follow at all that custody would be given to the primary breadwinner simply because whoever can provide financially for the child is but one factor in determining the best interests of the child. If both parents were employed it would still only be one factor taken into consideration. If the father was the primary caregiver staying at home then it would still only be one factor in determining the best interests of the child. As it happens, in Ireland less than 2% of men are the primary caregiver in the home. If you want to bang on about when you imagine gender equality should apply, you’ll come up against the same realities that any gender ideologues come up against - people will decide for themselves what works best for them in their circumstances. You’re arguing in theory based upon all circumstances being equal, whereas in reality, all circumstances aren’t equal, because people’s practical concerns take precedence over other people’s misguided ideological beliefs.

Think about that for a minute, a father has no automatic guardianship of his own child unless he marries the mother of that child. What difference should that make? (except in your extreme example of sperm donors, I will grant you)

I’ve already explained in the previous post above what difference it makes, quite a big difference in fact and one that people unfortunately don’t appear to think about all that often because they imagine it could only apply in extreme examples. The reality is it applies in all circumstances where children are involved, but it only becomes an issue in circumstances when amicable relationships break down and the Courts have to make determinations in the best interests of the child.

I never said a father has no right to be consulted. I said a child can be given up for adoption without a father knowing or having any say in it. What do you think happens to the mother if she doesn't consult the father? What happens if the father disagrees? The child still gets given up for adoption even though he was 'consulted', if the mother so chooses.

No, they don’t, and a child can not be given up for adoption by the mother without a father knowing or having any say in it unless the father makes the choice himself that he doesn’t want to know or doesn’t want any say in it. This is again done with the best interests of the child in mind given the rather dubious history of children who were placed for adoption and the outcomes for the child that were not taken into consideration at the time.

Its funny how when custody is being awarded, who is the more financially responsible is not taken into account because child-less people are supporting people with children. If we weren't financial means would be a much larger factor in custody cases.

It still wouldn’t be funny if that were true, but as it stands, your point of view is based upon nothing more than an unfortunate lack of understanding of Irish law and how it is applied and applies, and the function of the Courts in cases where there is a dispute between the parents of a child.

Mother's can turn around to the father and say don't need you anymore, the state will foot the bill. I don't really care what the state wants.

They can, and the father can do the same. Well, in their ignorance they can expect the State to foot the bill at least. The State generally tends to have other ideas. As for the idea that you don’t care what the State wants, the State has other ideas about that too :pac:

Really, how do you think this works in practise? A mother is sought to consent a father's guardianship, this is the height of ridiculousness. She can disagree on any whim, or use it as leverage. A father has absolutely no leverage, and isn't sought for 'consent' about anything.

How it works in practice is that while the mothers opinion is taken into consideration, it does not automatically mean that a father is denied guardianship by the Courts. She can use her disagreement as leverage all she wants, the Courts are only interested in the best interests of the child. The father, if he is employed and thinks that the fact he is the primary breadwinner should be a relevant consideration in the Courts deliberations, has that to use as... leverage :rolleyes:

(the idea that you would even consider “leverage” with regard to the welfare of children is just, unfortunate)

The best way to tell if something is a 'right' or not is to see if it can be revoked.
in the next sentence on that website you quote:
Removal of guardianship rights Fathers and others who have been appointed joint guardians by a court or by statutory declaration can be removed from their position if the court is satisfied it is in the child's best interest. The only way a mother can give up her guardianship rights in Ireland, is if the child is placed for adoption

Guardianship rights can be removed by the Courts from a mother in just the same way as they can be removed from the child’s father if the Court is satisfied it is in the child’s best interest. A parent voluntarily foregoing their right of guardianship is not the same thing, and the sentence you emphasised says nothing about the Courts ability to revoke the right to guardianship of the child. The Courts are generally reluctant to revoke parents guardianship of their children, quite the opposite in fact, because doing so is not generally considered to be in the best interests of the child.

I wish this was true. Unfortunately our society has been corrupted by feminism.

While feminism can be held responsible for a lot, they can not be held responsible for either what you see as the corruption of society, nor can they be held responsible for the fact that the Courts take all factors into consideration when determining the best interests of the child. They just don’t have that kind of power or influence, thankfully :pac:

You seem convinced that the courts are doing a great job and that its all very easy to determine which parent would be better suited with the child. You seem quite happy with your metric of 'who sees the child the most'. I wish I were as confident.

Actually quite the contrary - I don’t think the Courts do a great job, and I truly wish they didn’t have to do the job of having to determine the best interests of the child when the child’s parents can’t come to an agreement between themselves which is in the best interests of the child, because they are more concerned with their own interests and what they believe is in the best interests of their children, like imagining that because they are the primary breadwinner, they should become the primary caregiver as though the interests of the child are a secondary concern over ensuring that the child’s other parent should suffer.

“Whoever sees the child the most” is absolutely not the primary consideration of the Courts (nor is it mine, given that by using that rationale, I would see my child the most and I am their primary caregiver and currently the primary breadwinner and I’m not dependent upon either the State, or you, to provide for my child). There are a number of factors taken into consideration in determining the best interests of the child, not just the ones that you or I would consider the most important factors, because the circumstances in each and every case are different, and that’s why the idea of “all things being equal” doesn’t work on any practical level beyond a misguided belief in a malignant application of “gender equality” to make a point about the lack of equality between men and women when this is not a matter for the Courts, it’s a matter for the parents of the child to decide between themselves. The Courts only apply the law as it pertains to every individual case.

What you appear to be arguing for is equal outcomes where the circumstances aren’t equal, which is not unlike feminists arguing for for equal outcomes where the circumstances aren’t equal, and arguing for quotas to be introduced. I don’t think quotas are a good idea when it comes to children’s welfare and determining what is in the best interests of children. Such ideas have always struck me as pathetic point-scoring rather than any interest in acting in children’s best interests.

AulWan

machiavellianme wrote: »

Does the father get any access at all? If not, then why should they pay?

He should pay because his children are not "pay per view", and whether he sees them or not, they still have to eat, need clothes, and a roof over their heads.

Access and maintenance are two seperate issues and should be kept that way - one should never rely upon the other.

In the same way as a parent who does not pay maintenance, should never be denied access for not paying.

I don't believe someone should be jailed for non-payment of maintenance, but I do think there needs to be more serious repercussions then there are currently.

Attachments of Orders only apply to those in insurable employment, (ie employees) - you can't get an attachment against social welfare payments or the self-employed, and if someone changes jobs, the order has to be applied for again for the new employment.

I quite like the American way of removing a driving licence for non-payment.

alta stare

Im still paying it....16 years, and will continue to do so until he finishes his exams and gets a job.

Its a shame when one parent has to chase the other just so as to help raise a child or children they created together.

hairyprincess

I’ll give my own personal experience, and a few others. I realise we are not the norm.

I had to take my child’s father to court to get him to pay maintenance. It took a year and the legal fees fell to him as my costs were awarded against him. I think they were around €300 at the time. He refuses to see his child who is now almost an adult. He has paid maintenance on time for the last 16 years, bar two times when it was a week late.

My friend took her ex to court for maintenance and in turn he looked for access. Both were granted and no issues between them in the last nine years. Both parties used free legal aid in this circumstance.

A male friend and his ex are doing 50:50 care of their children, week on, week off. Parent A moves in for the week and parent B moves, and vice versa on the alternate week. The parent was on ‘off’ stays in a house which my friend has rented. It mostly works but it’s not sustainable long term. My friend wants his own permanent home, as I’m sure his ex does. He is in a well paid job so is in a comfortable position to be able to do this. His legal fees are becoming extortionate though and it’s just back and forth squabbling, they aren’t actually getting anywhere. Despite having the kids 50% of the time he pays a high level of maintenance.

The biggest winners in all these scenarios are the legal profession.

Finally, a very important fact to note. Not all single parents receive a ‘free’ house or social welfare benefits or do women in divorce situations automatically get the house. This crap annoys the hell out of me. I realise I am ‘lucky’ that I receive maintenance for my child but I also work two jobs and my child has her own weekend job. And I know many others in the same situation as me.

AulWan

I applied for maintenance for my daughter when she was a couple of months old. Her father demanded a paternity test as a delaying tactic, and my daughter was 13 months old when I finally got him into court and I was awarded £20 a week in child maintenance. (Note, I was in full time employment, paying all my own living costs, including a mortgage and childcare). I was told he "could not afford" to pay more than this, despite earning a large salary in a very good job in the financial sector. His lifestyle choices were prioritised by the Court over his child (his car loan, etc).

He paid this sum off and on, for a few years, often late, once or twice I had to go back for enforcement orders. He lost his job when she was 8 years old due to dishonesty, and it went back to court who reduced the order to Nil as "he couldn't afford" to pay maintenance on a social welfare payment. In the meantime, my daughter continued to grow, and eat, and need a roof over her head, and I continued to pay for it.

He never paid another cent after that last court appearance when my daughter was 8. I stopped trying to have the order amount reinstated (with any amount) when she turned 12. She is now an adult.

In my experience, and in that of many other custodial parents I've talked to about this, "affordability" is regularly the excuse made for not paying mainenance, and for Courts ordering mere token amounts of maintenance that come nowhere near equal support for a child. This needs to be looked at.

Kimsang

They’re two completely different things. You fail to explain why the primary breadwinner should become the primary caregiver of the child, when the child’s primary caregiver is still perfectly capable of fulfilling that role

You are taking me far too literally. I was trying to disprove your argument reductio ad absurdum. Indeed I fail to explain why the primary breadwinner should be caregiver, just as you fail to explain why the primary caregiver should continue this role. If this was the case then Au Pairs and Nannys should own all of our children.

Fathers unwilling to provide for their children contribute to their children being forced to live in poverty, because all too often they are more interested in spiting the mother of their child.

Child-less men contribute more in tax to society than anyone else. This means they pay more tax than child-households, and receive less benefits. This means they supplement households with children.

If you expect that anyone in society should feel any sympathy towards such men, you’ll be waiting. Two wrongs as they say, do not make a right - If fathers are denied access to their children, it doesn’t follow that they should have any right to forego providing for the welfare of their children.

Here; you are completely missing the point. No one is looking for sympathy, only for things to change. Where else in society is a person burdened with all the responsibilities without any of the rights? There is no where. Human rights should be inalienable.
"They can never be taken away, although they can sometimes be restricted – for example if a person breaks the law, or in the interests of national security."
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/what-are-human-rights

A woman can choose to give her child up for adoption. Where is a man's choice? Would you call a mother who gives her child up for adoption a deadbeat mother? That is precisely the choice some men want to make, just as their female counterparts can. What concerns me more though is the men that actively want to take part in their child's life, but the mothers who deny this because they're vindictive or such, and they have the complete weight of the law behind them. Just listen to the language they use on citizensinformation:
"If the mother agrees, the father can become a joint guardian if both parents sign a statutory declaration. "
"If the mother does not agree to sign the statutory declaration or agree that the father be appointed as joint guardian, the father must apply to the court to be appointed as a joint-guardian. "

Where is the part about the father agrees or not?

The law doesn’t agree with you, and the Courts don’t agree with you, because of paramount interest in any case is the rights and welfare of the child, and to that end, all circumstances are considered in determining an outcome which is in the best interests of the child.

This is the part I have a problem with. This is decided based on who gives care the most to the kids. If this was the case, Au Pairs and Nannys should have guardianship. Moving children to a new school should be considered terrible parenting since they will have new teachers.
Children have new influences in their lives all the time, and it is only stressful if the parents choose to make it that way.

It’s one of the reasons why I recommend that people settle their differences amicably to try and avoid the intervention of the Courts, because once a case comes before the Courts - everyone loses, because the Courts aren’t interested in proving anything, their only interest is in the application of law in determining how the best interests of the child are served.

Please explain precisely what would happen in court if a mother said that the father was abusive in some way, you've already said they are not interested in proof. Or what would happen if a mother wanted to give her child up for adoption and the father said no. Please explain how they determine whats in the best interest for the child.

As it happens, in Ireland less than 2% of men are the primary caregiver in the home. If you want to bang on about when you imagine gender equality should apply, you’ll come up against the same realities that any gender ideologues come up against - people will decide for themselves what works best for them in their circumstances.

It is precisely this attitude that enrages me the most. In the other 98% of households where women are the primary caregivers, what do you think men are doing? Working their asses off. There seems to be this attitude of breadwinners don't want to give care to their children which is completely ridiculous. In fact it is hypergamous women that largely won't allow men to be stay at home dads. The research is clear on this.
"A vast body of research shows that a husband’s employment still matters for marital stability"
Professor Alexandra Killewald, Harvard
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-breadwinner-husband-still-matters-in-marriage/

Women are largely NOT HAPPY being the breadwinners with a stay at home dad.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160728100919.htm
Divorce rates are indicative of this.

Just for a moment, play devil's advocate and assume I'm right. That women and men largely are happy in the roles of man breadwinner and woman caregiver. This would entitle women automatically under our laws to get custody whenever they choose, solely if they choose, because she was previously the primary caregiver.

No, they don’t, and a child can not be given up for adoption by the mother without a father knowing or having any say in it unless the father makes the choice himself that he doesn’t want to know or doesn’t want any say in it.

From the citizensinformation website
"A birth father, with no guardianship rights, is entitled to be consulted about the adoption of his child. If you are concerned that your partner or former partner intends placing your child for adoption without letting you know, you can ask the Adoption Authority of Ireland to notify you by recording your details on the Birth Father Register. You can do this even before your child is born, if necessary. This register is checked against all applications for adoption."

So it seems the fathers only 'right' here is to notified when the mother puts the child up for adoption. Sure hes 'entitled' to be consulted, but the mother can say anything about abuse or such it is very easy to lie if the person is vindictively inclined.

How it works in practice is that while the mothers opinion is taken into consideration, it does not automatically mean that a father is denied guardianship by the Courts.

The mother gets the final say on everything. The language and wording is very clear as I've already alluded to. I'm saying if a father was so vindictively inclined, he could never deny an innocent mother full access. But an innocent man can be denied complete access under our laws if a mother chooses to spin a yarn(for whatever reason). Fathers know this and act accordingly when dealing in courts.

While feminism can be held responsible for a lot, they can not be held responsible for either what you see as the corruption of society, nor can they be held responsible for the fact that the Courts take all factors into consideration when determining the best interests of the child. They just don’t have that kind of power or influence, thankfully :pac:

You'd be suprised. 613 pages of reading here if you are interested https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056896023

What you appear to be arguing for is equal outcomes where the circumstances aren’t equal, which is not unlike feminists arguing for for equal outcomes where the circumstances aren’t equal, and arguing for quotas to be introduced. I don’t think quotas are a good idea when it comes to children’s welfare and determining what is in the best interests of children. Such ideas have always struck me as pathetic point-scoring rather than any interest in acting in children’s best interests.

This is just ridiculous. As interested I'd be in seeing the statistics in outcomes in these kinds of cases, I'm yet to see them (I think I said this earlier in the thread also). I'm talking about anecdotal stories where I believe innocent men to have access to their kids not given or removed, because of what a mother says. They have final say on everything. A vindictive man could not achieve the same under our law(thankfully)- but either should a woman be able to.

chuchuchu

If a father is to pay child maintenance, then paternity testing should be made mandatory. I couldn't imagine there been anything worse that having to pay for a kid that's not biologically yours.

hairyprincess

chuchuchu wrote: »

If a father is to pay child maintenance, then paternity testing should be made mandatory. I couldn't imagine there been anything worse that having to pay for a kid that's not biologically yours.

As far as I remember, if a man is denying paternity and it is proven that he is the father, he has to pay for the test. If it proves he is not the father then the woman who named him in court proceedings has to pay. I think that’s a pretty fair way of working it.

AulWan

chuchuchu wrote: »

If a father is to pay child maintenance, then paternity testing should be made mandatory. I couldn't imagine there been anything worse that having to pay for a kid that's not biologically yours.

Paternity testing should only be requested when a man has a real and genuine doubt about paternity and there are circumstances where asking for a test would be justified, e.g. after a one night stand.

But when a couple have been in a long term relationship and have raised children together for a number of years then there should be no "mandatory" requirement for paternity testing when the relationship with the mother ends.

Especially not if the father has already acknowledged and accepted paternity by registering as such on a child's birth certificate.

AulWan

hairyprincess wrote: »

As far as I remember, if a man is denying paternity and it is proven that he is the father, he has to pay for the test. If it proves he is not the father then the woman who named him in court proceedings has to pay. I think that’s a pretty fair way of working it.

That is what happened in my case. He questioned paternity and asked for the test. He had to pay the full costs upfront.

My solicitor advised me that if it came back he was not the father, I would be ordered to reimburse him, but obviously I knew that wouldn't happen.

chuchuchu

hairyprincess wrote: »

As far as I remember, if a man is denying paternity and it is proven that he is the father, he has to pay for the test. If it proves he is not the father then the woman who named him in court proceedings has to pay. I think that’s a pretty fair way of working it.

I think you're right in the case outside of marriage. But I think there is a scenario where if the man is married at the time, and suspects his wife cheated on him, I don't think he can request a paternity test in that scenario, by law he is presumed the legal father regardless, and if they were to separate/divorce later on, he would still have to pay child maintenance even though the child may not be his.