Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

Options
24567…13

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    rolly1
    Registered Users Posts: 204 ✭✭rolly1


    Should unmarried fathers have equal rights?
    Anyone who truly believes in children's rights would be answering in the affirmative.


  • Options
    #33
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Speaking as somebody (single mum) who has benefited from this law, I still think its hugely unfair. There is no reason why a man shouldnt have as much right to a child just because you are not married, this is 2011 there are a huge amount of family break downs or non married people and all should be protected. Why should children suffer because some men are bad that it gets used against all.


  • Options
    #34
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,215 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I find it disgusting how some people want to turn this issue into a male vs female war of the sexes type discussion, oh look how much better women have it.
    Well I despair of that stuff too (too much of it on Boards - it's hostile as hell) but I don't think that's what people are saying here - the point is that any fathers who are not fit parents waive their parental rights, but on character grounds, not gender grounds. And fathers in general shouldn't have to pay for the shortcomings of a minority of men.
    In reality it has nothing to do with that, the issue if between the father, the State and the child. The mother is irrelevant to the question of the State ensuring the father is interested in raising their children.

    The State has a responsibility to the child to ensure that those it recognizes as guardians of that child have an interest in the child. A father has a responsibility to demonstrate to the State that he has an interest in his child. How inconvenient this is for the father is irrelevant to the principle, though of course the State should ensure that any interested fathers can do this as quickly and easily as possible.
    My friend's son's dad cut her out of his life the moment she told him she was pregnant, and not a peep from him to this day - a few months shy of a decade later. Of course it would be a travesty if it were possible for him to just swoop into his kid's life now and take over guardianship of him, but only because of his behaviour, not because he is a man. And he's not all men. It would be a similar travesty if you reverse the genders, yet I assume it is possible for a mother who was on the missing list for years to just take over raising her kid?

    I don't see why all unmarried fathers should have to apply for guardianship and all mothers should automatically have it and not have to demonstrate their interest in the child. There are negligent, indifferent mothers too.


  • Options
    #35
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    SheFiend wrote: »
    It could just as easily have been your mother who disappeared.

    Correct.
    SheFiend wrote: »
    If so, and if your father wasn't automatically guardian then you would be an orphan! :eek:
    That isn't what orphan means, but I assume you mean I would be in the care of the State.
    SheFiend wrote: »
    Why does the father have to prove this in a court of law, but the mother doesn't?

    Because the State has to be satisfied the father has genuine interest in caring for the child.

    The State assumes the mother does. It also assumes the father does if he is married to the mother. If you want to argue that the State shouldn't assume this and that the mother and/or married parents should apply for guardianship as well go ahead, that is an interesting discussion but doesn't change the argument about the father.

    The argument that the father should get this simply because the mother has it is the worst pettiness in my book, completely ignoring the interests of the child and turning the whole debate into silly battle of the sexes style nonsense.
    SheFiend wrote: »
    Why do you think men should be treated different to women?

    Because like it or not the woman gives birth to the child, the man doesn't. This puts the woman in an automatic opt-out situation. The man is always in an opt-in situation.

    If you don't like that blame nature. Or figure out a way to ensure that every unmarried father will attend the birth of his child. If you can figure out how to do that I'm all for automatic guardianship.
    SheFiend wrote: »
    That IS sexism. It's sexist opinions like this that are making this a gender issue.

    The only people making this a gender issue are those arguing that irrespective of what is best for the child the father should be given guardianship because if we don't that is sexism. What does sexism have to do with the best interests of the children involved?


  • Options
    #36
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Dudess wrote: »
    Well I despair of that stuff too (too much of it on Boards - it's hostile as hell) but I don't think that's what people are saying here - the point is that any fathers who are not fit parents waive their parental rights, but on character grounds, not gender grounds. And fathers in general shouldn't have to pay for the shortcomings of a minority of men.

    It is nothing to do with paying for anything. Again people turn this into a notion that someone is having a go at men, or that this is about women having it so much better.

    The State has to be satisfied that a father has a genuine interest in their child before recognizing them as a guardian.
    Dudess wrote: »
    My friend's son's dad cut her out of his life the moment she told him she was pregnant, and not a peep from him to this day - a few months shy of a decade later. Of course it would be a travesty if it were possible for him to just swoop into his kid's life now and take over guardianship of him, but only because of his behaviour, not because he is a man. And he's not all men. It would be a similar travesty if you reverse the genders, yet I assume it is possible for a mother who was on the missing list for years to just take over raising her kid?

    Which you think is a bad idea, I assume. So why argue that we should make it just as bad in the case of the missing fathers in the interests of fairness?

    It is like arguing against screening for adoptive parents under the idea that it is unfair because sure aren't some normal parents really bad, it would be unfair to stop really bad adoptive parents applying then.

    Some mothers may be really bad mothers and abandon their children. That is not an argument to, in the interest of fairness, ignore the fact that some fathers may be really bad fathers and abandon their children and that the State must be satisfied that the father is actually interested in looking after the child.

    Again people are solely focusing on the interests of the fathers, not the interests of the children.
    Dudess wrote: »
    I don't see why all unmarried fathers should have to apply for guardianship and all mothers should automatically have it and not have to demonstrate their interest in the child. There are negligent, indifferent mothers too.

    There certainly are, so put forward an argument that all mothers should have to apply for guardianship then. I would listen to such an argument and consider what is in it.

    What is nonsense though is to argue that we should make the situation worse in the interests of fairness, utterly ignoring the welfare of the children involved.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    Speaking as somebody (single mum) who has benefited from this law, I still think its hugely unfair. There is no reason why a man shouldnt have as much right to a child just because you are not married, this is 2011 there are a huge amount of family break downs or non married people and all should be protected. Why should children suffer because some men are bad that it gets used against all.

    Even if the father has not participated in the child's life at all and is considered a stranger by the children?

    Does anyone here seriously believe that in such a case the father should have guardianship rights over the children, with all that entails?


  • Options
    #38
    smiles302
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭smiles302


    If you don't like that blame nature. Or figure out a way to ensure that every unmarried father will attend the birth of his child. If you can figure out how to do that I'm all for automatic guardianship.

    Not necessarily, give both parents the choice of equal guardianship or child support payments if they are un-interested / un-able to raise the child.

    The difficulty is only within the first two years of life, where a woman, being female is at an advantage as a parent simply by being female. It is level playing field after that.
    (Assuming the woman is normal, sane etc)

    I would personally give the woman preference over the child while she is on maternity leave with father's entitled to reasonable access to the child. Then once the child is two or so the parents should be ready to plan out equal guardianship or decide who is going to pay support.


  • Options
    #39
    SIMPLYTHE
    Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭SIMPLYTHE


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Correct.


    That isn't what orphan means, but I assume you mean I would be in the care of the State.



    Because the State has to be satisfied the father has genuine interest in caring for the child.

    The State assumes the mother does. It also assumes the father does if he is married to the mother. If you want to argue that the State shouldn't assume this and that the mother and/or married parents should apply for guardianship as well go ahead, that is an interesting discussion but doesn't change the argument about the father.

    The argument that the father should get this simply because the mother has it is the worst pettiness in my book, completely ignoring the interests of the child and turning the whole debate into silly battle of the sexes style nonsense.



    Because like it or not the woman gives birth to the child, the man doesn't. This puts the woman in an automatic opt-out situation. The man is always in an opt-in situation.

    If you don't like that blame nature. Or figure out a way to ensure that every unmarried father will attend the birth of his child. If you can figure out how to do that I'm all for automatic guardianship.



    The only people making this a gender issue are those arguing that irrespective of what is best for the child the father should be given guardianship because if we don't that is sexism. What does sexism have to do with the best interests of the children involved?

    You speak the truth. Stop getting on the gender equality fence here people and just think about the issue as people. Some fathers are unknown, some fathers are fathers and mothers rolled into one. It's just the way it is. I cannot see the major problem in an interested father, who wants to participate in his child/ren's life/lives, making a simple application to a district court for guardianship. Very simple procedure and (the Dublin court's especially, outside Dublin less so) grant guardianship almost as of right to father's nowadays. ...so it's not as though there is serious hardship involved in respect of the interested biological father. And on the other side of it, why would you want a father who has no interest in the child registered as a guardian? Be practical!


  • Options
    #40
    Burial
    Registered Users Posts: 817 ✭✭✭Burial


    SIMPLYTHE wrote: »
    You speak the truth. Stop getting on the gender equality fence here people and just think about the issue as people. Some fathers are unknown, some fathers are fathers and mothers rolled into one. It's just the way it is. I cannot see the major problem in an interested father, who wants to participate in his child/ren's life/lives, making a simple application to a district court for guardianship. Very simple procedure and (the Dublin court's especially, outside Dublin less so) grant guardianship almost as of right to father's nowadays. ...so it's not as though there is serious hardship involved in respect of the interested biological father. And on the other side of it, why would you want a father who has no interest in the child registered as a guardian? Be practical!

    Did you even read the posts in this thread?!!


  • Options
    #41
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,215 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    But Wicknight, people are not suggesting a father who has demonstrated a lack of interest in being a parent to his child(ren) shouldn't be restricted if he suddenly expresses an interest, just that those fathers who are interested in parenting their child(ren) shouldn't have to fight for this. Putting up barriers to all fathers and none to all mothers is obviously unfair.

    In terms of the children's interests: absolutely - children who want their fathers in their lives.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    smiles302 wrote: »
    I would personally give the woman preference over the child while she is on maternity leave with father's entitled to reasonable access to the child. Then once the child is two or so the parents should be ready to plan out equal guardianship or decide who is going to pay support.

    So you wouldn't allow a father to become a guardian of the child until the child is 2 years old?


  • Options
    #43
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Dudess wrote: »
    But Wicknight, people are not suggesting a father who has demonstrated a lack of interest in being a parent to his child(ren) shouldn't be restricted if he suddenly expresses an interest

    Define 'demonstrated a lack of interest'

    Isn't demonstrating a lack of interest simply not applying for guardianship.

    Also what process are you envisioning to strip a parent of guardianship?
    Dudess wrote: »
    just that those fathers who are interested in parenting their child(ren) shouldn't have to fight for this.

    They don't have to fight for this, they have to apply for it.

    The only time there is anything like a 'fight' is when the mother contests the guardianship, which is even more reason for the State to take a look at the situation to determine if the mother's objection has any warrant to it.
    Dudess wrote: »
    Putting up barriers to all fathers and none to all mothers is obviously unfair.
    Ok, argue that barriers should be put up for all mothers.
    Dudess wrote: »
    In terms of the children's interests: absolutely - children who want their fathers in their lives.

    Can have their fathers in their lives if the father is willing.


  • Options
    #44
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    With conditions.

    What about children born to a woman through being raped?


  • Options
    #45
    SheFiend
    Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭SheFiend


    Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? Wicknight?


  • Options
    #46
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,215 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Define 'demonstrated a lack of interest'

    Isn't demonstrating a lack of interest simply not applying for guardianship.
    Yes, for years not wanting any involvement - surely retrospective disinterest and indifference over a period of years is sufficient to cancel out a sudden demonstration of interest?


  • Options
    #47
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    SheFiend wrote: »
    Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? Wicknight?

    The interests of the children first, always.


  • Options
    #48
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Dudess wrote: »
    Yes, for years not wanting any involvement - surely retrospective disinterest and indifference over a period of years is sufficient to cancel out a sudden demonstration of interest?

    And what about during the years you are waiting for the clock to tick down demonstrating that the father has no interest?

    He is considered a legal guardian of the children, children he might have never even met?

    And what about fathers who have been involved in their kids lives but who face malicious claims from partners than they haven't? They have to retro-actively demonstrate participation in their children's lives.


  • Options
    #49
    smiles302
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭smiles302


    So you wouldn't allow a father to become a guardian of the child until the child is 2 years old?

    I would allow it, I would simply give preference to the mother. Say for example they go to court during the pregnancy, I would give the mother principal guardianship for the first two years with the condition of having to give the father reasonable access to the child.


  • Options
    #50
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    smiles302 wrote: »
    So you wouldn't allow a father to become a guardian of the child until the child is 2 years old?

    I would allow it, I would simply give preference to the mother. Say for example they go to court during the pregnancy, I would give the mother principal guardianship for the first two years with the condition of having to give the father reasonable access to the child.
    I'm still not following. What if the couple live together?


  • Options
    #51
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Because the State has to be satisfied the father has genuine interest in caring for the child.

    What about the hundreds, perhaps even thousands of mothers who do not have a genuine interest in their child and are given full guardianship, just because you have a child does not mean you actually love/want them. They may feel forced into having the child by family pressure.

    My mother only saw myself and my sister as a hindrance and as a duty, not as her children, there was no love. She is not alone, even today I see mothers who genuinely do not give a toss about their children. and they are not all in the one social class either!
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The State assumes the mother does. It also assumes the father does if he is married to the mother. If you want to argue that the State shouldn't assume this and that the mother and/or married parents should apply for guardianship as well go ahead, that is an interesting discussion but doesn't change the argument about the father.

    A ring on a finger does not signify the ability of a man to be a good parent. My parents were married and they were not fit to raise a smile let alone children. Yet you see fathers who are not married and they are great parents, who love, support and provide for their child, but are not deemed fit by the state for the role that they have!
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The argument that the father should get this simply because the mother has it is the worst pettiness in my book, completely ignoring the interests of the child and turning the whole debate into silly battle of the sexes style nonsense.

    Giving it to one parent solely because of their gender is sexism. Bias towards a gender is THE definition of sexism. And why not give it, if a woman is willing to open her legs to a man, and he is willing to do the dirty with her, then both should have to suffer the consequences.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Because like it or not the woman gives birth to the child, the man doesn't. This puts the woman in an automatic opt-out situation. The man is always in an opt-in situation.

    Men can opt out, it is called walking away, women can opt out via abortion/adoption. Many times men do not get a say when their child is aborted. And so what about giving birth to a child, it is no great feat. Woman have been doing it since the beginning of our species. At this very moment millions of women around the world are giving birth. It is not the hardest cross to bear in this life. Literally billions of women know the feeling!
    Wicknight wrote: »
    If you don't like that blame nature. Or figure out a way to ensure that every unmarried father will attend the birth of his child. If you can figure out how to do that I'm all for automatic guardianship.

    What if he is busy providing an income for his family when his partner goes into labour?

    What if she is a spiteful cow and won't let him attend the birth because they are no longer together but he wants to be a part of his childs life?

    What if he is too busy minding their other child because there is no family member available to look after it?

    Being there for a few hours when until recently most men had nothing to do with is not the defining moment of whether a man will be a good father or not. That argument makes no sense!
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The only people making this a gender issue are those arguing that irrespective of what is best for the child the father should be given guardianship because if we don't that is sexism. What does sexism have to do with the best interests of the children involved?

    The best thing for the child is two willing/caring parents. This should be pushed at all costs. Then if that fails, remove the guardianship of the unfit parent, be they male or female. THAT is what is best for the child!

    A lot of these women who argue the "fathers should have no rights" corner are often the first to have a man into court for maintenance. And though I believe that a father should financially contribute to the care of his child, he should also be expecting some bit of say in the child's life too.

    A good example of why it is important for fathers to have half guardianship is that when a father is out with their child and if the child needs to have medical treatment, and the mother is far away, should the child be allowed to miss out on the necessary treatment because their father has no legal right to sign for it!

    And what about the case not too long ago where an Irish father's child was brought back to Poland/Lithuania because she was going back. He loved his child, he had been there at it's birth(something that seems to matter to Wicknight) and had contributed to its life in both financial and other ways, but due fault of gender was forced to fight for the right to be near his child!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    jemser
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭jemser


    yes


  • Options
    #53
    roy rodgers
    Registered Users Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭roy rodgers


    The law is a load of bullsh1t, I'm fighting to see my kids for the past 3 years because my ex was a greedy,abusive, immature, selfish, and sponged off him till I was a broken man.

    Now the only control she has on me is the children and she will do anything to try and upset me. But I have to be clam and positive and hope that a judge will we see this and give me my rights to enjoy seeing my kids grow up, but still I will never be able to bring back the 3 years that I have already missed because of someone been spiteful.

    If as man had the equal rights well I wouldn't of beeen in this posistion.


  • Options
    #54
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    Yet you see fathers who are not married and they are great parents, who love, support and provide for their child, but are not deemed fit by the state for the role that they have!

    What are you talking about? No one is refusing fathers guardianship, they simply have to apply for it. A interested father would do that.
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    Men can opt out, it is called walking away, women can opt out via abortion/adoption. Many times men do not get a say when their child is aborted. And so what about giving birth to a child, it is no great feat. Woman have been doing it since the beginning of our species. At this very moment millions of women around the world are giving birth. It is not the hardest cross to bear in this life. Literally billions of women know the feeling!

    I literally have no idea what point you think you are making here. You seem to be just ranting about women.
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    What if he is busy providing an income for his family when his partner goes into labour?

    Then he applies for guardianship.
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    What if she is a spiteful cow and won't let him attend the birth because they are no longer together but he wants to be a part of his childs life?

    Then he applies for guardianship.
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    What if he is too busy minding their other child because there is no family member available to look after it?

    Then he applies for guardianship.

    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    A lot of these women who argue the "fathers should have no rights" corner are often the first to have a man into court for maintenance. And though I believe that a father should financially contribute to the care of his child, he should also be expecting some bit of say in the child's life too.

    Which is why he should apply for guardianship.
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    A good example of why it is important for fathers to have half guardianship is that when a father is out with their child and if the child needs to have medical treatment, and the mother is far away, should the child be allowed to miss out on the necessary treatment because their father has no legal right to sign for it!

    Which is why he should apply for guardianship.

    You seem to think a father cannot apply for guardianship of their children. This is incorrect. You need to educate yourself to the law, until then this discussion is just pointless ranting on your part about non-existent restrictions on fathers.


  • Options
    #55
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    roy rodgers wrote: »
    The law is a load of bullsh1t, I'm fighting to see my kids for the past 3 years because my ex was a greedy,abusive, immature, selfish, and sponged off him till I was a broken man.

    Now the only control she has on me is the children and she will do anything to try and upset me. But I have to be clam and positive and hope that a judge will we see this and give me my rights to enjoy seeing my kids grow up, but still I will never be able to bring back the 3 years that I have already missed because of someone been spiteful.

    If as man had the equal rights well I wouldn't of beeen in this posistion.

    Yes you would, she would have simply applied to have your guardianship removed.

    Why did the judge refuse your initial application for guardianship?


  • Options
    #56
    silly
    Registered Users Posts: 1,722 ✭✭✭silly


    Some fathers just ruin it for others. My ex being one of them. Now I did hive him guardianship when he asked for it. But regretted it afterwards, he made it so difficult for me to get a passport for my daughter, eventually he signed it with time running out and enjoyed every bit of me begging.

    He is such a bad bad father, and I wish when I had left him that I cut him out completely. It's too late now as my daughter is 10 and he is constantly hurting her feelings by being a sh1t dad. He has forgot her birthday for the last 3 years, no phone call... And I'm the one making excuses for him. I go out of my way to let him and his family see her, I drop her to him which is 1.5 hours from me and he promises to drive the same distance to drop her back but he never does, I end up driving down to get her again without even getting one cent from him.
    So I'm done with him now, he is so nasty that when I organised for us to meet a mediator he never turned up, despite the meeting being arranged closer to his home than mine. I had to pay the €95 fee to the mediator. He said his grand mother was dying and that's why he didn't turn up but when I spoke to his father the following day he said he hadn't a clue why he wouldn't turn up...

    He's just nasty nasty nasty and I will protect my daughter from him by keeping her well away from him from now on.
    He doesn't deserve guardianship and he should rot in hell.


  • Options
    #57
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    Wicknight wrote: »
    What are you talking about? No one is refusing fathers guardianship, they simply have to apply for it. A interested father would do that.

    Why should they have to apply, a father is there at the conception, he is good enough to do the deed with, he is good enough to accept as the childs other parent, and in turn he is good enough to be guardianship, until otherwise proven.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I literally have no idea what point you think you are making here. You seem to be just ranting about women.

    You make the argument that the mother should automatically have the rights to the childs guardianship because she carried it for 9 months. I am merely saying that so what if she carried it, it does not signify that she loves it or took care of herself or the child for those few months. You would not have cocaine and heroine addicted babies if their mothers were responsible and good human beings, why should they get guardianship?

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Then he applies for guardianship.



    Then he applies for guardianship.



    Then he applies for guardianship.




    Which is why he should apply for guardianship.



    Which is why he should apply for guardianship.

    You seem to think a father cannot apply for guardianship of their children. This is incorrect. You need to educate yourself to the law, until then this discussion is just pointless ranting on your part about non-existent restrictions on fathers.

    It costs money and a day in court for a father to get legal guardianship of their child. Both parents have to pay a solicitor, go to court, wait for several hours to be seen, go in for 10 min, both parents agree to it, and you get a fine €550 bill off a solicitor for your troubles. Why should there be a financial cost to getting guardianship for your child.

    And don't say for a second the courts need not be involved. If you want an agreement with ANY legal standing it must be signed by the District Court. It took my ex and I months to get this issue sorted and we were both willing and happy to get both of us joint guardianship.

    It is plain and simple, 2 parents = 2 guardians until one/both parents should they are not fit to be in charge of a child. It is the only thing that is RIGHT for the child, not a vindictive mother who enjoys using her child as a weapon against its father as my mother did to my father and as other mothers (who I am ashamed to say I know) are doing to their childrens fathers!


  • Options
    #58
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    Why should they have to apply

    Because the state needs to be satisfied that the father has an interest in guardianship.

    Remember guardianship is a recognition by the State. The State isn't saying the person is or isn't the father, they are saying that they are happy that the father is interested in guardianship, a recognition by the State.
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    You make the argument that the mother should automatically have the rights to the childs guardianship because she carried it for 9 months.
    I've made no such argument.
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    It costs money and a day in court for a father to get legal guardianship of their child.

    Children cost money and time. If a father doesn't want to spend the money or the time in order to gain guardianship of his child I would seriously question his interest in looking after the child.
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    Both parents have to pay a solicitor, go to court, wait for several hours to be seen, go in for 10 min, both parents agree to it, and you get a fine €550 bill off a solicitor for your troubles. Why should there be a financial cost to getting guardianship for your child.

    You do not need a solicitor to apply for guardianship. But again anyone who thinks it is too much trouble I would seriously question their dedication.
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    It is plain and simple, 2 parents = 2 guardians until one/both parents should they are not fit to be in charge of a child. It is the only thing that is RIGHT for the child, not a vindictive mother who enjoys using her child as a weapon against its father as my mother did to my father and as other mothers (who I am ashamed to say I know) are doing to their childrens fathers!

    You have moved into nonsense ranting territory again, 'vindictive mothers' have nothing to do with the principle at play here.


  • Options
    #59
    replica
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭replica


    Justask wrote: »
    What about the mothers who have to fight for their kids to see the fathers when the fathers dont want to know.:mad:

    Not all father deserve equal rights.

    Not all parents deserve equal rights. What really needs to be done in this country is a system where every woman who files for OPFP, is obliged to give the details of the father and he should be forced by law to pay child support whether he wants a role in the childs life or not. To many young bucks out there sowing seeds left right and centre and no accountability. I pay €120 per week in child maintenance for my son whom I haven't seen in 3 years because his mother and I divorced and she moved back to NY where she is from. because she is a US citizen I have no rights in the US. But every week I pay €120. And yes I want to see my son...he is the only child I will ever have.


  • Options
    #60
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Because the state needs to be satisfied that the father has an interest in guardianship.

    Remember guardianship is a recognition by the State. The State isn't saying the person is or isn't the father, they are saying that they are happy that the father is interested in guardianship, a recognition by the State.

    A mother should then, if we are to go on a level playing field, have to provide the same proof. Carrying a child alone should not be proof of this, as I said already, too many mothers do things throughout their pregnancy that prove they are not thinking of the best interests of the child, Drugs, excessive drinking, etc.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Children cost money and time. If a father doesn't want to spend the money or the time in order to gain guardianship of his child I would seriously question his interest in looking after the child.

    My sons father spends as much time as he can with him, but he is in college trying to get a career so he can provide for himself and the little fella. I do not think wanting something to be easier and inexpensive rather than a fee of €275 each of of himself and myself when we are very low on disposable income is not too much to ask.

    He is a good father. My own father was a useless sh!t who didn't deserve the time of day. He did not pay for myself and my sister and he did not want to spend time with us, but I do not blame all men for the shortcomings of a few!


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You do not need a solicitor to apply for guardianship. But again anyone who thinks it is too much trouble I would seriously question their dedication.

    If you are serious about getting legal joint guardianship through the courts system and ensuring both sides are equally represented you do. Again it is not reluctance to do this was our problem, but merely the pain of having to get the courthouse an hour away with no car as transport, paying for transport and a babysitter, not to mention food when your income is bare minimal!

    Wicknight wrote: »
    You have moved into nonsense ranting territory again, 'vindictive mothers' have nothing to do with the principle at play here.

    To go through getting joint guardianship as quickly as possible, both parents have to be in agreement, so if you have a spiteful mother (and I know a few) you hinder the process for the fathers who wish to have a large role to play in their childs life!

    There are b!tches as mothers. I have one. She should have been sterilized! And there are many more like her too, men aren't all evil and mothers aren't all Godlike :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    A mother should then, if we are to go on a level playing field, have to provide the same proof.

    Ok. Like I said to other posters I'm more than interested if someone wants to make that argument.

    Doesn't change the requirement on the father though does it.
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    My sons father spends as much time as he can with him, but he is in college trying to get a career so he can provide for himself and the little fella. I do not think wanting something to be easier and inexpensive rather than a fee of €275 each of of himself and myself when we are very low on disposable income is not too much to ask.

    If you want to argue the process should be cheaper go ahead (out of interest where are you getting your figures from?). That doesn't require the scrapping of the system all together.
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    If you are serious about getting legal joint guardianship through the courts system and ensuring both sides are equally represented you do.

    No you don't, friends of mine did it only a few months ago and didn't require a solicitor nor did they complain about it costing that much. It would be rude to ask them how much it cost them but it is hard to imagine it cost them half a grand given how little fuss they said it involved.

    This is of course when both parents are happy for the father to become a guardian. I'm sure it is more complicated when one is contesting the issue, but then that is exactly when you want a court to be examining the case.
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    To go through getting joint guardianship as quickly as possible, both parents have to be in agreement, so if you have a spiteful mother (and I know a few) you hinder the process for the fathers who wish to have a large role to play in their childs life!

    Yes, but then giving automatic guardianship doesn't make the mother any less spiteful does it. In fact that is exactly the sort of situation you want the courts involved in.

    If people don't like that don't have children with spiteful people.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement