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

AulWan

chuchuchu wrote: »

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.

Of course he can still request a paternity test, even in these circumstances.

One eyed Jack

Kimsang wrote: »

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.

Because it’s generally in the best interests of the child that their primary caregiver remains their primary caregiver. This isn’t always possible when the relationship between the child’s parents breaks down, but it is the ideal scenario, in the same way as the child remaining with their parents rather than being made a ward of court or taken into the ‘care’ of the State is the ideal scenario - and again, this is not always possible. As things are currently, ultimately it’s the State has responsibility for the welfare of children, rather than au pairs and nannies (the word you’re reaching for is guardianship, not ‘ownership’).

Kimsang wrote: »

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.

Actually they don’t.

Employed people contribute more tax than people who are unemployed, and there are about a third more men unemployed than women in Ireland in 2019 according to figures from the Central Statistics Office, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that while men who are employed contribute tax, men who are unemployed also claim more in benefits, than any other group in society. This means people who are employed pay tax, and people who are unemployed claim benefits. People who are employed also claim benefits, so your whole point about childless men supplementing households with children is nothing more than a load of nonsense and is in no way related to the number of men who are employed employed, and are capable of providing for their children, but simply refuse to. They’re not expected to support anyone else’s children, just their own, and they aren’t even willing to do that much.

Kimsang wrote: »

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

Tomayto, tomahto. I’m not missing your point, you just don’t have a legitimate point is all. Your whole argument is based upon trying to portray men as the victim, not unlike feminists who try to portray women as victims (though I doubt you’d get any further than they did wearing dodgy headgear that in no way resembled any vulva I’ve ever seen, and waving their knickers about in the Dail).

The responsibility of guardianship is one you appear to be missing - it’s not just a right. Automatic guardianship granted to the mother of the child means that she bears all the responsibility for that child. A man who has no automatic guardianship, also has no automatic responsibilities towards their child. A man can simply deny all knowledge of the child’s existence and there is not a whole pile the law can currently do about it, which is the point of this thread really. It also affects the child’s claim on their fathers estate should the father pop his clogs.

Human rights btw are anything but inalienable, but that aside, neither parent has any right to abdicate their responsibilities towards their children. That applies to mothers as much as it does to fathers, because the point you keep missing, is that the child also has human rights (as poorly protected and enforced and all as they are). For shìts and giggles though, when you get time look up the Bastardy Acts (aside from the colourful language used, they give an insight into the thinking in society at the time, and not a feminist in sight :pac:)

Kimsang wrote: »

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?

I’m all for men who give birth to their children having the choice to give those children up for adoption. I’d prefer though that those men were supported after giving birth so that they wouldn’t feel they had no choice but to give their children up for adoption. Of course that position is predicated upon the impossibility that men can become pregnant in the first place, let alone that they could give birth (wouldn’t fancy it myself, I’d be far too posh to push when push came to shove :pac:).

Btw, if you’re attempting to argue the case for fathers who want access to their children, it’s probably best to avoid shining a spotlight on men who wish to abandon their children and have that abandonment codified in law as a legal right. It won’t happen, because of that whole catch about the rights of the child that already exist in Irish law and numerous treaties and conventions that Ireland has signed up to. Who do you imagine is supposed to pick up the tab for the men who wish to have no financial responsibilities towards their children? Those men who are paying all that tax, or the unemployed men who aren’t?

Rhetorical question, no need to answer. I’m pointing out the absurdity of your attempt to argue both sides which are inherently contradictory and only serve the interests of men with no regard for the rights of the child. Frankly, it’s dumb, and I really shouldn’t have entertained it thus far but in for a penny and all that.

Kimsang wrote: »

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 really not. Whoever was previously the child’s primary caregiver is but one consideration in determining an outcome that is in the best interests of the child in any case. It’s true that children have new influences in their lives all the time and it doesn’t help the children if the parents add to their stress by putting them through lengthy processes in the Courts because the parents are incapable of coming to an amicable agreement between themselves as to what is in their children’s best interests. Attempting to ensure the other parent suffers, is not the best way to demonstrate an interest in the best interests of any children involved, and it’s never a good influence on them either to learn that blaming everyone else for their problems is a useful coping strategy in times of distress.

Kimsang wrote: »

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.

What part of “outcomes are dependent upon the circumstances of each individual case”, are you missing exactly? I can’t tell you what would happen in hypothetical circumstances.

Kimsang wrote: »

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.

Ahh God love ya! I don’t care enough about other people to ever be curious enough as to what they get up to behind closed doors, but I can at least tell you from my own experience that I have never worked my ass off (as my obesity levels will attest to, I’ve still got plenty of junk in the trunk from sedentary office work and an allergy to exercise :pac:), whereas my wife on the other hand it was as though she would work in the home from morning till night, not really my bag tbh. It wasn’t as though the home was unclean or needed the kind of forensic cleaning my wife would engage in, as well as raising our child, it was just that she has a rather unfortunate obsessive compulsive streak. The concept of “downtime” appears to be lost on her. Can’t fault her parenting though, which is why it’s important to me that she would maintain a relationship with our child, because it’s just as important to our child as it is to me that they enjoy a relationship. He does get his healthy lifestyle ideas from her though which, while annoying for me, it’s not the worst influence on a child.

Kimsang wrote: »

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.

The reason this thread exists is precisely because of the attitude among some people who think that they shouldn’t have to provide for their children. It’s an attitude that is undoubtedly more prevalent among men than women, and the idea that women won’t allow men to stay at home and care for their children is pure bollocks, frankly. It certainly is not women’s fault that men are discouraged from becoming stay at home fathers. Depending upon where you get your research, the reasons can be anything from men being insecure about how they are perceived by other men, to more practical reasons such as it simply isn’t affordable for them to be able to do so. Again, the overall observations don’t dig down into the individual circumstances.

Kimsang wrote: »

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.

Divorce rates are primarily indicative of people who signed up for something they thought they were getting, before they realised that they weren’t getting it, and decided they wanted out of the contract. Irish law means that even when a divorce is finalised, there is no such thing as “clean break” divorce, and an ex spouse must maintain their spouse and any children who are borne of the marriage. That way the dad can be a stay at home dad if he wants, and he might be successful in an application to become the primary custodian of his children, but given that there don’t appear to be that many men interested in becoming stay at home fathers anyway, I don’t think the responsibility for men not wishing to give up employment to become stay at home fathers can be laid at the feet of women. The fact that some women have no interest in a man who wishes to become a stay at home father is no different to the fact that some men have no interest in a woman who wishes to become a stay at home mother. It’s probably best get these things out of the way before exchanging vows, though I grant you that people are more likely to become unhappy when their expectations aren’t being met and they struggle to cope with their changing circumstances. Some people are just like that, I don’t imagine it’s peculiar to one sex or the other.

Kimsang wrote: »

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.

Assume you’re right about what? I won’t be playing any devils advocate when you follow it up with a bullshìt statement. Nobody should have to entertain that sort of nonsense. That women and men are happy in the roles of breadwinner or caregiver has no bearing on what is determined to be in the best interests of the child. This is precisely the point you keep missing - your point above regarding the interests of the parents are just that, the interests of the parents, what makes them happy. You’re ignoring the fact that it is not the function of the Courts to keep the parents happy. It is the function of the Courts to determine an outcome which is in the best interests of the child.

Kimsang wrote: »

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.

You’re talking about the possibility of mothers being vindictively inclined, while arguing the certainty that fathers should have the legal right to abdicate all responsibilities towards their children... do you even hear yourself? That’s an indication of an individual who is vindictively inclined if ever I heard one. Do you imagine that the Courts should consider that actually your intentions are entirely benign?

No, I wouldn’t assume anyone is that stupid either that they couldn’t see right though that effort.

Kimsang wrote: »

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.

She doesn’t. The Courts have the final say on everything. If a father was so vindictively inclined, he could of course deny an innocent mother full access, and just like a mother who would attempt to deny the child access to their father, we’ve already seen that even when the father plays no more role in the child’s life than that of the sperm donor, the Courts will ensure that the child has access to their father, if it is determined by the Courts that it is the child’s best interests to do so. Either parent can spin all the yarns they want (and generally they do, in order to paint themselves as the victim, to engender the sympathy of the Courts), and you’re correct in suggesting at least that fathers do know this and act accordingly in the Courts by attempting to paint the child’s mother as an unfit parent incapable of providing for the child while they are taking their child to play in the park right after their appearance before the Courts or some other such nonsense as accusing the child’s mother of all sorts.

Playing the hard put-upon victim of their ex, again isn’t something exclusive to either sex.

Kimsang wrote: »

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

Used to be a regular reader as it happens, but the more and more petty nonsense and literally struggling to portray some sort of victimhood just got too much for me to bother with tbh. For the same reasons I tend not to bother entertaining people who identify themselves as feminists, so I was somewhat relieved that they wear the mangled vulva hats (I could knit a better one myself, but would I want to? No, not really :rolleyes:), it makes them easier to identify in order to give them as wide a berth as possible. If men who want to constantly blame everyone else for their problems wore the same sort of dodgy headgear by way of identifying themselves, I don’t imagine anyone would have an issue with them resembling dickheads, it’s no worse than fannyheads really.

Kimsang wrote: »

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.

You’re right, that is nonsense. You want to talk about anecdotes which support your opinion that men are the real victims when a relationship breaks down. However your anecdotes aren’t worth much when you’re also arguing that men should have the choice to have no responsibilities they don’t want. Who do you imagine should take responsibility for their children in place of the men who fathered them? Oh that’s right - you don’t care about what the State wants, yet you want the State to support you and you want society to change to suit you, all to fit in with what you want.

You have no right to complain about being treated badly by society and by the Courts when you’re not prepared to play fair with others. That’s a concept that’s generally instilled in childhood, but some people never grow out of the idea that the world does not revolve around them.

Kimsang

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was happy to continue this thread of conversation in good faith, but your replies are becoming increasingly pedantic and completely overlooking the primary points I'm asking you about. Basically this is going no where so I will waste no more time repeating myself.