White to look at issue of single fathers' rights

Klingon Hamlet · 13-08-2010 12:44PM #1

Irish Times article here:

Minister for Equality Mary White has indicated the plight of unmarried and separated fathers who have difficulty getting access to their children is to be addressed in the near future.

Speaking yesterday, she hinted the legal framework addressing this area is outdated and needs to be modernised.

“I believe the time is right to take another look at the issue of single fathers’ rights. We should consider key issues such as:

Whether it would be appropriate to introduce compulsory joint registration of the birth of a child in Ireland.

Whether a non-marital father could provide his details independently to the registrar to be registered once it is confirmed that he is the father.

And whether we should look at the appropriateness of introducing automatic guardianship/parental responsibility for all fathers in Ireland.”

Ms White’s comments come as the Law Reform Commission prepares to publish a report, Legal Aspects of Family Relationships, within weeks.

(emphasis and numbering are mine)

This is amazing news. Minister White is taking on three of the most important aspects of unmarried parenting in one fell swoop. I'm chuffed!!:)

Permabear · 13-08-2010 01:16PM

This post has been deleted.

kev9100 · 13-08-2010 01:59PM

Its better late than never.

Red_Marauder · 13-08-2010 02:19PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While certainly the state has an interest in combatting welfare fraud, and introducing legislation to prevent it is always welcome, I'm not certain that it comes into that aspect of the legislation you refer to.

Whilst there might be nothing to stop a woman declaring 'Nescio', at least it is better than the current situation where all she has to say is that she does not want the father's name being entered on the certificate and it does not appear. Basically it saves the father a trip to the District Court.

Klingon Hamlet · 13-08-2010 02:40PM

Whether a non-marital father could provide his details independently to the registrar to be registered once it is confirmed that he is the father.

I wonder what kind of confirmation...verbal, from the father? Verbal, from the mother? Or a court enquiry/application?

Either way, this is all leading down a very bright path. Thank god for White. Kudos to her.

Red_Marauder · 13-08-2010 02:46PM

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I wonder what kind of confirmation...verbal, from the father? Verbal, from the mother? Or a court enquiry/application?

Either way, this is all leading down a very bright path. Thank god for White. Kudos to her.

I guess a blood test, if the parents disagree.

Not to take away from Mary White, who is really one of the brighter deputies, but it really beggars belief why it took so long for a politician to come up with.

Klingon Hamlet · 13-08-2010 02:53PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I guess a blood test, if the parents disagree.

Not to take away from Mary White, who is really one of the brighter deputies, but it really beggars belief why it took so long for a politician to come up with.

It's a huge issue. best we don't look back on all the pain. Now we have a good chance at changing things for the better for everyone

I can't describe how good it feels to know things are looking up for unmarried parents. The courts should always be the last resort really, shouldn't they:) Hope there's more on this soon. Chuffed!!:D

Klingon Hamlet · 13-08-2010 03:13PM

Ray Kelly of the Unmarried and seperated Families of Ireland has just been interviewed by an RTE News crew, regarding the current state of family law and the future changes we hope to see in the best intersts of our kids.

It'll be shown tonight on RTE's SIX ONE NEWS.

changes · 13-08-2010 08:54PM

Its good they are beginning to take this seriously. I hope they are not just doing this primarily to catch benefit cheats and not because its in the interests of father child relationships.

opo · 14-08-2010 12:51AM

It's amazing to think that an idealistic twat like Ivana Bacik could still take a million years to realise what a real issue related to equality, actually looks like.

RATM · 14-08-2010 01:44AM

This is certainly overdue legislation. In fact if it carries on the way it is any longer we'll have Batman climbing Leinster House and Robin scaling the Aras

Hats off the Mary White, its a topical social issue in dire need of attention.

I still can't see how it will combat welfare fraud though. All the mother has to do is say she was hammered and can't remember who slept with her- its such a bullsh1t excuse and the social welfare really need to shut it off. Women always know who the father is, unless they've been date raped or something.

But the new law could state that those who choose this route get a lesser payment for their own benefits (not the childrens allowance). It could be put on personal responsibility grounds, if the mother is not responsible enough to know who the father is then she'll have to accept a lesser payment on her welfare benefits, say for example 50 quid a week.

By penalising them financially for not disclosing the father you'd soon find one of two things happens:-

1) Mother & Father still friendly or in a relationship - in this case mother taps the father for the 50 quid shortfall, he pays up as he knows if he doesn't the mother can reveal him as the father to the Social Welfare who can then pursue him for maintenance

2) Mother & Father estranged. Mother reveals who the father is as she knows unless she does so the SW will dock 50 quid a week off her benefits.

If blood tests and court subpoenas are whats needed to shut down this type of welfare fraud then so be it IMO.

PeterIanStaker · 14-08-2010 10:53AM

I'd say there's an ulterior motive here somewhere, trying to cast the tax net a bit wider no doubt.

Klingon Hamlet · 14-08-2010 11:22AM

A loooooot of cynicism here boardsies. Did you consider the possibility that due to there having been several public cases regarding custody/guardianship/access...e.g. the gentleman currently fighting to get his kids back from England...that the goverment are looking at making things a bit simpler for parents and for the courts?

Did you see Ms White's interview?

Goto this page and fast-forward to 14:30

metrovelvet · 14-08-2010 06:21PM

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I wonder what kind of confirmation...verbal, from the father? Verbal, from the mother? Or a court enquiry/application?

Either way, this is all leading down a very bright path. Thank god for White. Kudos to her.

Probably be the same as the US. Mother and Father have to sign an affadavit of paternity for his name to be on the cert. If one refuses, it will go to court and there a blood test will be ordered. And then the court will send an order to ammend the birth cert.

metrovelvet · 14-08-2010 06:24PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its also a well known fact that fathers withhold their names from the birthcert so as to avoid paying maintenance for their unwanted children.

Mrmoe · 15-08-2010 08:18AM

This is definitely good news and it has been wanted for quite a while now. However the devil is in the details. Practically there will be some issues that will be a little tricky such as confirming someone is the father.

PeterIanStaker · 15-08-2010 09:57AM

Mrmoe wrote: »

This is definitely good news and it has been wanted for quite a while now. However the devil is in the details. Practically there will be some issues that will be a little tricky such as confirming someone is the father.

DNA Test?

Klingon Hamlet · 15-08-2010 02:02PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Probably be the same as the US. Mother and Father have to sign an affadavit of paternity for his name to be on the cert. If one refuses, it will go to court and there a blood test will be ordered. And then the court will send an order to ammend the birth cert.

That's how it is at the moment. Surely Minister White implied a new simpler method without requiring legal proceedings?

metrovelvet · 15-08-2010 03:49PM

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

That's how it is at the moment. Surely Minister White implied a new simpler method without requiring legal proceedings?

I assume it will like how it is in the US. Once the name is on birthcert [paternity is established] that he has rights and responsibilities.

Klingon Hamlet · 15-08-2010 04:05PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its also a well known fact that fathers withhold their names from the birthcert so as to avoid paying maintenance for their unwanted children.

Leaving your name off the birthcert does not save you from paying maintenance (and quite rightly too, as anyone who does so is IMHO a complete weasel).

A mother is entitled to give the father's name to the registrar without his presence or consent. (It can later be contested in court but that's a different matter, and goes down the simple route of DNA testing.) She can then immediately seek maintenance (one would hope it doesn't come to this, but thankfully the courts are there to help.)

However at the moment a father can only give their own name with the mother's consent and presence, or with a court order. White seems to be saying a father should be able to give his name without either's consent---and one would assume the court would only be brought in if the mother contested the man's actual fathering of the child, and wanted him removed.

Overall it seems rights will be considered to become automatic, and the courts will be there to alter/remove those rights only when contested and when absolutely necessary. Whereas at the moment if there is disagreement between both parties regarding registering/guardianship/custody/access, the father is left to fight whereas the mother automatically has vested rights.

I suppose it comes back to the ingrained power-play that often starts early and drags on. Offering equal rights to parents might help dissuade ex-couples from going to court at all. It would also take a lot of strain from the courts, as I can personally attest to there being huge volumes of people in and out of court on a daily basis, and the numbers just seem to be growing at an alarming and rather heartbreaking rate.

metrovelvet · 15-08-2010 04:11PM

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Leaving your name off the birthcert does not save you from paying maintenance (and quite rightly too, as anyone who does so is IMHO a complete weasel).

A mother is entitled to give the father's name to the registrar without his presence or consent. (It can later be contested in court but that's a different matter, and goes down the simple route of DNA testing.)

However at the moment a father can only give their own name with the mother's consent and presence, or with a court order. White seems to be saying a father should be able to give his name without either's consent---and one would assume the court would only be brought in if the mother contested the man's actual fathering of the child, and wanted him removed.

Overall it seems rights will be considered to become automatic, and the courts will be there to alter/remove those rights only when contested and when absolutely necessary. Whereas at the moment if there is disagreement between both parties regarding registering/guardianship/custody/access, the father is left to fight whereas the mother automatically has vested rights.

I suppose it comes back to the ingained power-play that often starts early and drags on. Offering equal rights to parents might help dissuade ex-couples from going to court at all. It would also take a lot of strain from the courts, as I can personally attest to there being huge volumes of people in and out of court on a daily basis, and the numbers just seem to be growing at an alarming and rather heartbreaking rate.

Leaving your name off does not mean you dont have to pay maintenance. You are right about that, but my point is a lot of men think that and refuse to name themselves.

I think you are wrong about women being able to hand over a name to the registrar without the consent of the named father.

I think this will clear up some of the clogged up courts but will create another scenario where the automatic rights will bring more court cases about. That may not be a bad thing though. It may just be the inevitable bi product of the legislation.

Klingon Hamlet · 15-08-2010 04:47PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Leaving your name off does not mean you dont have to pay maintenance. You are right about that, but my point is a lot of men think that and refuse to name themselves.

I think you are wrong about women being able to hand over a name to the registrar without the consent of the named father.

I think this will clear up some of the clogged up courts but will create another scenario where the automatic rights will bring more court cases about. That may not be a bad thing though. It may just be the inevitable bi product of the legislation.

According to this the mother needs the father's signature on a form to put his name down, so unless she plans to forge his sinature, you're absolutely right---she can't put his name down. However, he cannot, indepndently, of his own accord, give his name where the mother disagrees.

I also dislike Treoir's comments:

3 important things to remember:
1. Having the father's name on the birth certificate does not give the father any rights in respect of his child.
2. Having the father's name on the birth certificate does not prevent the mother from getting One-Parent Family Payment.
3. A child has a right to be financially maintained by both parents and to inherit from them once paternity of the child has been established. This applies whether or not the father's name is on the birth certificate.

Is it me, or does it encourgage a very negative mindset towards the father?

As in,:

1. The dad doesn't get any rights
2. You still get money as if you're parenting alone
3. The dad pays you maintenance with or without his name on the cert.

Gives a very bad perspective on co-parenting IMHO.

metrovelvet · 15-08-2010 04:54PM

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

According to this the mother needs the father's signature on a form to put his name down, so unless she plans to forge his sinature, you're absolutely right---she can't put his name down. However, he cannot, indepndently, of his own accord, give his name where the mother disagrees.

Right. Otherwise anyone could go in and claim to be the father's child. The postman could go and name himself as my child's father, if the situation were that a man can go in on his own accord.

Maternity doest have to be established. Thats why my name is on the birthcert. I dont have a choice about it.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I also dislike Treoir's comments:

Is it me, or does it encourgage a very negative mindset towards the father?

As in,:

1. The dad doesn't get any rights
2. You still get money as if you're parenting alone
3. The dad pays you maintenance with or without his name on the cert.

Gives a very bad perspective on co-parenting IMHO.

I think they are being very factual about the law as it stands.

In the US, no name on the birthcert, no maintenance, no rights. Nada.

Klingon Hamlet · 15-08-2010 05:16PM

More detailed article:

Equality Minister Mary White last night promised to help "decent dads" who are being denied access to their children by their former partners.

She said that after passing the civil partnership legislation for gay and lesbian couples, there was now an opportunity to tackle the issue of single fathers' rights.

"It's heart-breaking to meet these dads. They are well aware where their own personal relationship cannot be resuscitated but they want to be decent dads to their children," she said.

Currently, the mother is the sole guardian if a child is born outside marriage and fathers must apply to the courts for guardianship rights.

Ms White, who is the Green Party deputy leader, said one of the issues currently being considered by Law Reform Commission was whether single fathers should get automatic guardianship rights.

Custody

"We have to have to have a clear path for access -- guardianship or custody or even familial visits of separated and single dads so those visits can be facilitated and not frustrated by a partnership that has been dissolved or that has irretrievably broken down," she said.

Since being appointed as the Junior Minister for Equality and Integration last May, Ms White said she had been contacted by a number of "grieving fathers" and had visited fathers' groups such as Families, Fathers & Friends in Galway city.

"There is a well of unhappiness out there. Their stories of the family law courts in Ireland, their quest for access to their children and their despair in many cases have prompted me to consider how we deal with this painful issue," she said.

And when debating the issue on local radio in her Carlow-Kilkenny constituency, Ms White was also contacted by many grandparents who complained that they were no longer getting access to their sons' children in the wake of relationship breakdowns.

'Love'

"It is a real knock-on effect and it strikes at the heart of grandparents' care and love for their children," she said.

The Law Reform Commission's report on "Legal Aspects of Family Relationships" is scheduled to be published in the autumn. Ms White said she was determined it would not become just another worthwhile report gathering dust on a shelf.

"There needs to be a level playing pitch in the family courts in Ireland. We can no longer be blind to the rights of single and separated fathers and their children," she said.

Although there was some opposition in Fianna Fail to the introduction of civil partnerships for gay and lesbian couples, Ms White said she did not anticipate similar problems with new legislation on access rights for single fathers.

"I think this cuts across party political divides. Each and every one of us primarily before being politicians, we're family people and I don't think it'll meet with huge resistance from the political side," she said.

- Michael Brennan Deputy Political Editor

Cannot say enough good things about Minister White after reading this. I know there've been some comments re: the "real" reson behind this sudden focus on establishing equal rights, e.g. welfare fraud etc... I think those theories are unsound when you read what Minister White has to say. She seems to me to be quite eager to bring in equality to family law and family life no matter the arrangement and status. I'd imagine her meeting victims of access denial really broguht into sharp focus the plight of so many family members nationwide.

Over the years there have been a number of instances where it seemed the rules/laws/etc would change for the better for everyone. I think now is the time that it will finally happen.

Klingon Hamlet · 15-08-2010 05:57PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right. Otherwise anyone could go in and claim to be the father's child. The postman could go and name himself as my child's father, if the situation were that a man can go in on his own accord.

Why would anyone do that?

Besides here's 2 examples of how it could work.

1. Impostor signs up as dad. Mum contests in court. DNA reveals lie. Dad ordered to pay fees. Real dad is entered in records.

2. Real dad signs up as dad. Mum (who disagrees with dad) knows a contest in court would lead to DNA test. Can choose to contest if she believes someone else is the father.

metrovelvet · 15-08-2010 06:37PM

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Why would anyone do that?

Besides here's 2 examples of how it could work.

1. Impostor signs up as dad. Mum contests in court. DNA reveals lie. Dad ordered to pay fees. Real dad is entered in records.

2. Real dad signs up as dad. Mum (who disagrees with dad) knows a contest in court would lead to DNA test. Can choose to contest if she believes someone else is the father.

Who knows.

So I get my child's birthcert in the post with the name of a man on it in the father's identity section. A name Ive never seen before. I dont know who he is or where he lives and I now have to go to court. Yeah. Great idea.

Meanwhile, until the dispute is settled which in the case of Irish courts could take god knows how long, I have to get this man's signature for health and travel documents or apply for a court order not to need them because I dont know where he lives or who he is.

Ridiculous policy.

Oh. BTW two different friends of mine offerred to put their names down on my son's birthcert. If we lived by what you envisaged, either one of them could have walked into the office and done so.

Klingon Hamlet · 15-08-2010 06:49PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right. Otherwise anyone could go in and claim to be the father's child. The postman could go and name himself as my child's father, if the situation were that a man can go in on his own accord.

Maternity doest have to be established. Thats why my name is on the birthcert. I dont have a choice about it.

I think they are being very factual about the law as it stands.

In the US, no name on the birthcert, no maintenance, no rights. Nada.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Who knows.

So I get my child's birthcert in the post with the name of a man on it in the father's identity section. A name Ive never seen before. I dont know who he is or where he lives and I now have to go to court. Yeah. Great idea.

Meanwhile, until the dispute is settled which in the case of Irish courts could take god knows how long, I have to get this man's signature for health and travel documents or apply for a court order not to need them because I dont know where he lives or who he is.

Ridiculous policy.

Oh. BTW two different friends of mine offerred to put their names down on my son's birthcert. If we lived by what you envisaged, either one of them could have walked into the office and done so.

I just can't fathom how a "name you've never seen before" could go in, identify your child's name and date of birth and hospital of birth, and your name and date of birth and address. because those would be the reasonable questions asked before anyone gets registered, clearly.

And I can't fathom why said psychic psychopath would put their name down as father to a child they don't know.

As for your friends who "offerred to put their names down on (your) son's birthcert"---I don't understand this. Why did they offer? Did you refuse? And why would your friends go in and register without your consent?!

Your arguments are surreal. You are far too negative about father's rights. You see the worst in all of this. So I won't argue anymore.

Dads currently have less rights than mums. The legal system is a very difficult and emotionally distressing system of reuniting children with their family. White wants to streamline the whole thing and grant everyone equal rights. I say fair play. So do most reasonable people, metro.

Maybe someone absolutely bonkers will register as a kid's dad. I really bloody doubt it, metro. Good luck!:D

metrovelvet · 15-08-2010 06:58PM

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I just can't fathom how a "name you've never seen before" could go in, identify your child's name and date of birth and hospital of birth, and your name and date of birth and address. because those would be the reasonable questions asked before anyone gets registered, clearly.

And I can't fathom why said psychic psychopath would put their name down as father to a child they don't know.

As for your friends who "offerred to put their names down on (your) son's birthcert"---I don't understand this. Why did they offer? Did you refuse? And why would your friends go in and register without your consent?!

Your arguments are surreal. You are far too negative about father's rights. You see the worst in all of this. So I won't argue anymore.

Dads currently have less rights than mums. The legal system is a very difficult and emotionally distressing system of reuniting children with their family. White wants to streamline the whole thing and grant everyone equal rights. I say fair play. So do most reasonable people, metro.

Maybe someone absolutely bonkers will register as a kid's dad. I really bloody doubt it, metro. Good luck!:D

You could have several possible fathers showing up at the office, who had been dating the woman.

Believe it or not, there are people who are bonkers out there, who spy, who stalk, who are lovestruck, whatever. Humanity does have a dark side you know.

As for my friends going down to the office. If they went with my verbal consent, there would be absolutely no legal repurcussions for me in that situation whatsoever. Whereas now, if I signed the affadavit of paternity and the biological father protested through the courts and I was found guilty of paternity fraud, there very much would be legal repercussions for me [the mother.]

Sure, fathers rights once the paternity is established. But the procedure you suggest is ridiculous.

The Corinthian · 16-08-2010 09:49AM

Whether it would be appropriate to introduce compulsory joint registration of the birth of a child in Ireland.

Whether a non-marital father could provide his details independently to the registrar to be registered once it is confirmed that he is the father.

And whether we should look at the appropriateness of introducing automatic guardianship/parental responsibility for all fathers in Ireland.

I really don't see what this has to do with father's rights.

Of the first two proposals, being registered as the father does not actually confer any rights whatsoever, only responsibilities.

And the third is not even a proposal to change anything; it is a proposal to consider looking at something with a view to perhaps changing it - and in what way this might be is not really mentioned. Indeed, there has been discussion in the past that guardianship would be redefined, making it both automatic and removing any rights associated with it and putting those squarely in the hands of the person with custody.

Sorry, but the whole thing is a means to limit SW fraud with some vague conversation tagged on.

Permabear · 16-08-2010 10:41AM

This post has been deleted.

rolly1 · 16-08-2010 12:14PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

And the third is not even a proposal to change anything; it is a proposal to consider looking at something with a view to perhaps changing it - and in what way this might be is not really mentioned. Indeed, there has been discussion in the past that guardianship would be redefined, making it both automatic and removing any rights associated with it and putting those squarely in the hands of the person with custody.

Sorry, but the whole thing is a means to limit SW fraud with some vague conversation tagged on.

Nail on head. Did any of you guys getting so wild and ecstatic about Minister White actually read the Law Reform Commision's report to which she refers to?

It's here (warning PDF) Take a look at the following section 1.54:

The Commission provisionally recommends that a broad statutory
definition of parental responsibility should be adopted in Ireland. The
Commission invites submissions on whether this should include a requirement to consult with other parties who have parental responsibility for the child where it is practical to do so.

What they are saying is that they want to change the term guardianship to "Parental responsibility" while at the same time castrating the legal power of this new term.
The way they are proposing to castrate the legal power is by asking whether the the person with day to day care of the child (predominantly the mother) should decide unilaterally decide on all major welfare aspects to do with the child e.g choice of school, religion health; by not having to consult with the person without day to day care and control of the child(predominantly the father).

Remember this is the report of which Minister White says

she was determined it would not become just another worthwhile report gathering dust on a shelf.

Despite her emotional platitudes, what she is actually doing is softening you guys up for an even greater legal castration than the present set up!!

White to look at issue of single fathers' rights

Comments