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
Comments
-
That is not true, the mother does not control whether the father gets guardianship. She can object to this, but that does not mean automatic refusal. This is a myth that only seems to exist on internet forums.
And given that what people are calling for is automatic guardianship for unmarried fathers, that does seem to be the issue.
People are saying that there should be equal guardianship rights for all parents. That's different.0 -
That is not true, the mother does not control whether the father gets guardianship. She can object to this, but that does not mean automatic refusal. This is a myth that only seems to exist on internet forums.
I know several guys in RL who were royally screwed over when their relationships ended. Just because the court has the power to grant guardianship against the mother's wishes doesn't mean that they typically exercise this power.⛥ ̸̱̼̞͛̀̓̈́͘#C̶̼̭͕̎̿͝R̶̦̮̜̃̓͌O̶̬͙̓͝W̸̜̥͈̐̾͐Ṋ̵̲͔̫̽̎̚͠ͅT̸͓͒͐H̵͔͠È̶̖̳̘͍͓̂W̴̢̋̈͒͛̋I̶͕͑͠T̵̻͈̜͂̇Č̵̤̟̑̾̂̽H̸̰̺̏̓ ̴̜̗̝̱̹͛́̊̒͝⛥
0 -
I think it is in the children's best interests that their parents be given equal and joint responsibilities and rights for their proper upbringing.
Even if the father is absent and has no involvement in the raising of the children? They should still have automatic guardianship rights.
Can you explain how this is in the best interest of the child involved?
Yes, that is generally how laws work. What is the alternative, assuming that none of the population will ever have failings so no checks are required?Your entire argument seems to be based on legislating for the whole population based on the failings of a fraction of it.
Again do you believe it is in the best interest of the child to have automatic guardianship granted to the father irrespective of whether they are interested in being involved in the child's upbringing or not.0 -
I know several guys in RL who were royally screwed over when their relationships ended. Just because the court has the power to grant guardianship against the mother's wishes doesn't mean that they typically exercise this power.
It doesn't but that is irrelevant to what the law says. Sure the judge could be a corrupt bastard who took a bribe, such hypotheticals are of little relevance in a general discussion on the law. Dealing with such issues does not require a change of the law, only the enforcing of the current laws.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Wow so because a mother is a mother and doesn't abort her child she gets to have superior legal rights over the child to the father; regardless of her fitness as a parent. Class argument.
It's all that there is to go on before the birth.Must be magical this motherhood thing, whereby actually giving birth to the baby automatically proves to the world that you are a fit parent and as such deserve superior legal rights to the parent without the uterus.
It doesn't prove to the world that you're a fit parent but as I said before it's all that there is to go on before the baby is born unless they're going to look into criminal records etc which IMO in an ideal world would always happen but obviously it never will.I'm struggling to remember when I read a statement of such wild assumption or one which was so bizarrely deluded. Its pointless anyone debating with someone who could think this to be rational.
Don't debate with me so, i'll debate with others instead but all I said was that is all we have to go on and that is a fact. There's no social worker checks for pregnant women to see if they will make a good parent for their unborn child. In an ideal world everyone would be vetted before being allowed to be a parent, mothers and fathers, but it doesn't happen that way and never will but the way the law sees it someone has to be an automatic guardian and for me it would make more sense if a mother is granted it and the father has to apply (or as I mentioned above this could be agreed while the woman was pregnant and eliminate the courts entirely for the large percentage of women who would agree to the father having guardianship). Guardianship should also be taken away from mothers who are not up to being parents.
Personally I don't think guardianship should be automatic for mothers either in an ideal world, it breaks my heart to think of children being brought up by people unfit to look after a dog, let alone a child but that's the way the law is.0 -
Again do you believe it is in the best interest of the child to have automatic guardianship granted to the father irrespective of whether they are interested in being involved in the child's upbringing or not.
The consistent return to this point is a false imperative in my opinion.
There exists a clear imbalance on the rights of mothers at birth and the rights of fathers. Would you disagree with this (regardless of whether you believe that mothers *should* have to go through the same process as fathers currently do or not)?
If you accept this to be the case (and, given that it is fact, I fail to see how you could not, to be perfectly honest) then I think it falls on you to justify this imbalance.
Constant repetition that a father *should* have to prove an interest is far from any such justification.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »The consistent return to this point is a false imperative in my opinion.
There exists a clear imbalance on the rights of mothers at birth and the rights of fathers. Would you disagree with this (regardless of whether you believe that mothers *should* have to go through the same process as fathers currently do or not)?
Yes I agree.Deleted User wrote: »If you accept this to be the case (and, given that it is fact, I fail to see how you could not, to be perfectly honest) then I think it falls on you to justify this imbalance.
Sure, it is easy to justify this imbalance. It is in the child's best interests that guardianship is not granted to the father by the State until he has express interest, through the application for guardianship, for being the child's guardian.Deleted User wrote: »Constant repetition that a father *should* have to prove an interest is far from any such justification.
I would see it as the only justification required. It either is or isn't in the child's best interests. Anything is is (or at least should) be irrelevant.
This idea that we have to equalize the rights but it doesn't matter how we do that is a red herring and, in my opinion, an utterly stupid position to take as it completely ignores the effect on the children involved, which again should be the primary concern.0 -
If anyone wants to make an argument for removal of automatic guardianship for the mother I would be interested, as I've said, to listen to such an argument. Tayla though did make a good point, which I hadn't considered, that the mother is seen to express interest in guardianship by leaving the hospital with the baby, rather than putting the baby up for adoption (abortion is not available in Ireland). How good an argument that is for automatic guardianship being granted to the mother I'm more than happy to debate.
Thats right and nobody else leaves the hospital with her and nobody else is there for the birth of the child cause we all know that all unmarried fathers just aren't interested in their children right?
And yes the ability to remove guardianship should be there for unmarried mothers the same as unmarried fathers. This would incentivise people to marry as all studies show that marriage is the most stable place in which to bring up children.
Because he is the father and he, along with the mother, are the two people on the planet who know what the best interests of their own child is, as opposed to any other interfering judgemental bigots in general society or the corrupt state itself.No one is debating otherwise. The question you are not answering, perhaps on purpose, is how is it in the best interests of the child to have the father be granted automatic guardianship.It was a pretty straight forward point. You stated that automatic guardianship cannot be removed by the courts. Do you stand by that statement, or did I misunderstand you.
Yes, automatic guardianship in its present form, cannot be removed by the courts.
Oh the stroke of a pen can be a mighty thing, but as above for the mother.If you stand by it then how do you propose the State remove guardianship for absent fathers who have no interest in raising their children but who have been given guardianship rights automatically under your proposed system?
An "absent father" can be a person found at the bottom of a cliff, the question should be on this term "was he pushed" or "did he jump"? I don't recognise the term because it is loaded against all fathers irrespective of their situation.Or do you not propose that the courts can remove such guardianship even in the case of absent fathers?You seem to have no position on these topics other than they should, what ever they are, be equal between the father and the mother. Would that be a correct assessment?
Wrap you mouth around this: "PARENTAL EQUALITY" and please reflect on what that means.I've never in this entire thread, or any thread on Boards.ie, stated that all unmarried fathers are uninterested in their children.
You have said nothing otherwise! You have constantly asserted & backed up the state assumption that all unmarried fathers need to prove their interest in their children by applying for guardianship. Unbelievable!0 -
Hmmm
I'm not sure that stating your position is justifying anything, though in reading the thread I can see you're not for turning on it.
Again, there is an unjustified assumption at work that the father has to prove fitness, or that such fitness is lacking where such action is not taken.
Again, can you justify this assumption?0 -
Advertisement
-
More straw man nonsense.
Tayla's point was that this demonstrates an interest in guardianship of the child. If you want to argue it doesn't, go ahead.
The father demonstrates interest through the application for guardianship. They end up with the same guardianship.
Since this has been explained so many times I can only assume that at this stage you are simply ignoring this point because you have to response to it.
It demonstrates that the woman wants to have a child, nothing more and nothing less. It has absolutely zero to do with their fitness as a parent and is even less of an excuse that they should somehow have legally superior rights to the father.0 -
You have said nothing otherwise! You have constantly asserted & backed up the state assumption that all unmarried fathers need to prove their interest in their children by applying for guardianship. Unbelievable!
For most of them though it is simply a case of applying, it's a very simple process and if a man doesn't even think he should put in that small bit of effort into *proving* he's interested in the child then should he really deserve guardianship. It's not like they're asked to prove themselves jumping through hoops and completing exams.
My partner is legal guardian for our kids which i'm very glad of.
You do realise don't you that the the men who want to be guardians are probably already guardians? and the ones who aren't clearly don't see the importance of it so really you're trying to fight a battle here for the fathers who don't really care about how important it is to be a guardian.0 -
A system where the father has to go through a process of proof (regardless of simplicity/expense of that process, or indeed the effectiveness of it) should be justified.
"Just because, it's easy and cheap" is no answer to "why should I be required to do this?"0 -
Thats right and nobody else leaves the hospital with her and nobody else is there for the birth of the child cause we all know that all unmarried fathers just aren't interested in their children right?
I've no idea what part of my post this is referencing. Where did I ever state anything remotely like that?And yes the ability to remove guardianship should be there for unmarried mothers the same as unmarried fathers. This would incentivise people to marry as all studies show that marriage is the most stable place in which to bring up children.
How would it incentivise people to marry?Because he is the father and he, along with the mother, are the two people on the planet who know what the best interests of their own child is, as opposed to any other interfering judgemental bigots in general society or the corrupt state itself.
Even if the father has not been involved in raising the children and is a stranger to them? He is still the best person in the world to know what their best interest are?I don't recognise the term because it is loaded against all fathers irrespective of their situation.
You do not recognize the term? Are you having a laugh? It is a pretty simple term, absent fathers. It means fathers who are absent from their families.Wrap you mouth around this: "PARENTAL EQUALITY" and please reflect on what that means.
I know what it means, it means putting the interests of the parents above the interests of the children.You have said nothing otherwise!
Actually if you had been following you will notice I have, hence the support for the application for guardianship. If I genuinely believe that no unmarried fathers were interested in raising their children what purpose would an application for guardianship serve?You have constantly asserted & backed up the state assumption that all unmarried fathers need to prove their interest in their children by applying for guardianship.
Which would be a bit stupid of me if I didn't believe any of them were interested in this, wouldn't it.0 -
It demonstrates that the woman wants to have a child, nothing more and nothing less. It has absolutely zero to do with their fitness as a parent
The fitness of the father or mother is not in question.and is even less of an excuse that they should somehow have legally superior rights to the father.
They don't have legally superior rights to the father in the same situation (ie who has also expressed interest to be guardian of his children).
Like I said, your argument is straw man nonsense.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Hmmm
I'm not sure that stating your position is justifying anything, though in reading the thread I can see you're not for turning on it.
Stating my position would be saying Unmarried fathers should have to apply for guardianship.
Justifying it would be saying Because it is in the best interest of the child involved that the State only aware guardianship to the father if the father is interested in it.
Again I'm not sure what else you mean by justifying.
The father does not have to prove fitness, the application for guardianship is not an assessment of fitness. Fitness only becomes an issue if the application is contested.Deleted User wrote: »Again, there is an unjustified assumption at work that the father has to prove fitness, or that such fitness is lacking where such action is not taken.
I can not justify the ignorance of other posters on this thread, and thus cannot justify their inaccurate assumptions.Deleted User wrote: »Again, can you justify this assumption?0 -
Because it is in the child's best interest for the State to grant guardianship to fathers who have demonstrated an interest in raising them, rather than to fathers who have not demonstrate this.
Why does marriage convince you so much?
Serious question.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Justifying it would be saying Because it is in the best interest of the child involved that the State only aware guardianship to the father if the father is interested in it.
We disagree, clearly.
There is nothing naturally just in a barrier to automatic guardianship being put in place, and there is nothing self-evident about the State's right to automatically deny such automatic guardianship.
You seem to be working from an assumption that all parents are uninterested until they indicate otherwise. I believe that, again, you are failing to substantiate this assumption.0 -
Why does marriage convince you so much?
Serious question.
Because marriage is seen as a commitment to a single person and to raising a family with that person. This recognition is reflected in all aspects of the law with regard to marriage, from who you are allowed marry, to children guardianship.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »We disagree, clearly.
Apparently so. Can you be more specific in what format you think a justification should take?Deleted User wrote: »There is nothing naturally just in a barrier to automatic guardianship being put in place, and there is nothing self-evident about the State's right to automatically deny such automatic guardianship.
If you say so. I unfortunately do not have access to the "naturally just" nor "self-evident" guidelines, so I can't comment. I do know that it is not in the child's best interests for this to be the case, for the reasons I've outlined.
Why would you not operate under this assumption given that the alternative to this is to operate under the assumption that all parents are interested and therefore do not have to indicate so, which risks granting guardianship to parents with no interest in raising their children, which again is not in the best interest of their children.Deleted User wrote: »You seem to be working from an assumption that all parents are uninterested until they indicate otherwise.
If someone wants to argue that every parent is interested in raising their own children then there is a logical conclusion to follow that up with automatic guardianship. But then that is not based on the real world.Deleted User wrote: »I believe that, again, you are failing to substantiate this assumption.
Are you suggesting that ever parent is interested in raising their children? If not then the alternative is that not every parent is interested in this.0 -
Advertisement
-
Because marriage is seen as a commitment to a single person and to raising a family with that person. This recognition is reflected in all aspects of the law with regard to marriage, from who you are allowed marry, to children guardianship.
Indeed.
We've civil partnership now and things like that.
You seem noble but I think times are passing you out.
Suppose we'll find out how detrimental it is.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
For most of them though it is simply a case of applying, it's a very simple process and if a man doesn't even think he should put in that small bit of effort into *proving* he's interested in the child then should he really deserve guardianship. It's not like they're asked to prove themselves jumping through hoops and completing exams.
My partner is legal guardian for our kids which i'm very glad of.
You do realise don't you that the the men who want to be guardians are probably already guardians? and the ones who aren't clearly don't see the importance of it so really you're trying to fight a battle here for the fathers who don't really care about how important it is to be a guardian.
Guardianship, 2 types
1. Automatic
2. Court/statute appointed
1 is much stronger than 2, get it?
let me tell you Tayla I don't fight a battle for fathers, I fight a battle for children. I fight a battle for all those kids who are brought up in a bigoted state which deems their fathers to be unfit till he has a stupid piece of paper in his hand, which the mother doesn't have to.
I fight for the countless kids who have been snatched from this country by vindictive mothers who continually use the corrupt and bigoted guardianship laws to wreak havoc and misery upon them.
I fight a stupid and nosensical system which screws men and their children over for no other reason than they are unmarried men.
I fight against a society which deems it ok for a father to be there for his kids 110% in every possible way but still denies him the basic respect & justice of minimal legal rights, which the other parent has, as a result of their gender alone.
I fight against a system which deems it ok to deny the unmarried father all legal rights as a default position and yet sets him up for all the legal liabillities of a failed marriage should his cohabitation relationship break down after 2 years.
When the blind bigots come to see the error of their ways, when justice for children and parental equality exists for all, then and only then will I stop.0 -
That is a difficult question. The initial answer would be yes, the State must satisfy itself that children are not at harm. There is an issue though with the disruption such a move could cause on the children themselves, particularly if a false accusation if made. Ultimately I think the social workers involved must made a judgement as quickly as possible about the merit of such an accusation on a case by case basis.
I agree....I would point out that this response is based solely on the disruption cause to the children, not the mother.
2 for 2, I agree...Since the father will not already have guardianship the disruption to the children from such an assessment will be limited compared to the disruption to the children from assessment of the mother (assuming the children are with the mother).
I contest that the mother shouldn't already have guardianship, she should have to apply just like the father should. Out of interest what is your justification for this not being the case?Yes, of course. It wouldn't even have to be the father, it could be the grand parents or other relatives, or even other concerned adults, such as teachers.
Fair enough but opens up a huge realm for potential (and extremely callous) abuse of the system.More money to social workers is badly needed in this country, though I'm not sure what the multi-billion euro refers to?
A mother or father contests guardianship and the other parent responds by doing the same, out of spite or genuine concern or a lot of other reasons. Multi-billion may be a stretch. (I meant to type million). But even our current HSE(...) child care system has never been sufficiently funded, even in the 'lets spend German credit and not worry about the fact we will need to pay it back some day' years. I'm a pragmatist as far as imaginary funding is concerned Wick.0 -
I contest that the mother shouldn't already have guardianship, she should have to apply just like the father should. Out of interest what is your justification for this not being the case?
I don't have one since I'm not justifying that not being the case. I can see the merits in such a proposal, though I've considered it in a lot less detail.Fair enough but opens up a huge realm for potential (and extremely callous) abuse of the system.
It does, but the alternative, where genuine reports of abuse go un-checked, seems worse.A mother or father contests guardianship and the other parent responds by doing the same, out of spite or genuine concern or a lot of other reasons. Multi-billion may be a stretch. (I meant to type million). But even our current HSE(...) child care system has never been sufficiently funded, even in the 'lets spend German credit and not worry about the fact we will need to pay it back some day' years. I'm a pragmatist as far as imaginary funding is concerned Wick.
What do you propose as an alternative?0 -
Why would you not operate under this assumption given that the alternative to this is to operate under the assumption that all parents are interested and therefore do not have to indicate so, which risks granting guardianship to parents with no interest in raising their children, which again is not in the best interest of their children.
The alternative you support risks denying guardianship to parents with an interest in their child, which is also not in the interests of the children. It's no point at all.
Under the current system an unnecessary assumption is made about fathers. You say that you have explained why, but I've reas and followed all of your posts without seeing any such explanation beyond "if they were interested they'd follow the procedure"- this isn't a justification of the procedure!
Again, merely stating that the current system of 'father must register interest' is in the interests of the child doesn't make it so.If someone wants to argue that every parent is interested in raising their own children then there is a logical conclusion to follow that up with automatic guardianship. But then that is not based on the real world.
Neither is an argument that a father is not, which is the view underlying the current system.Are you suggesting that ever parent is interested in raising their children? If not then the alternative is that not every parent is interested in this.
I'm not, not at all. But the legal system as it stands is making an unjustified assumption of fathers, and I don't think anybody could be convinced of the logic of this assumption.0 -
I would also point out that the original question wasn't 'should unmarried fathers have to prove their fitness', which seems to be what you wish to debate here. The original question was whether they shoudl enjoy equal rights in this area.0
-
Guardianship, 2 types
1. Automatic
2. Court/statute appointed
1 is much stronger than 2, get it?
Yes I get that, the guardianship types should be equal in that both can be taken away.let me tell you Tayla I don't fight a battle for fathers, I fight a battle for children. I fight a battle for all those kids who are brought up in a bigoted state which deems their fathers to be unfit till he has a stupid piece of paper in his hand, which the mother doesn't have to.
We both want what's best for children here, as I said I would love if everyone was vetted, I would love if people with abusive personalities couldn't have children or the very least were very closely monitored as more often than not these abusive parents end up doing too much damage before the social workers even try to do anything about.
I do understand where you are coming from but at the end of the day if you give these rights automatically to fathers then you have also automatically given them to some fathers who simply do not give a **** and that to me actually cheapens guardianship for fathers.
There's no point in comparing it to automatic guardianship for the mothers, it shouldn't be automatic...but unfortunately for some poor children it is and this state isn't going to change that.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »The alternative you support risks denying guardianship to parents with an interest in their child, which is also not in the interests of the children. It's no point at all.
How does it risk that?Deleted User wrote: »Under the current system an unnecessary assumption is made about fathers. You say that you have explained why, but I've reas and followed all of your posts without seeing any such explanation beyond "if they were interested they'd follow the procedure"- this isn't a justification of the procedure!
The justification has been explained, it is not in the interests of the children for the state to grant guardianship to fathers who are not interested in raising them, thus the state must be satifisied that they are interested in raising them. Otherwise they risk granting guardianship to those fathers not interested.
This has been explained many many many times, I'm at a loss how you can say you have read all the posts but have no seen this explanation.
The State does not assume the father is not interested. The State is neutral about the fathers interest until the father expresses such an interest. When the father acts in the affirmative guardianship rights will be granted. Until then the State does not assume anything.Deleted User wrote: »Neither is an argument that a father is not, which is the view underlying the current system.
If the State genuinely assumed the father was not interested then it would not provide the application process in the first place, since what would be the point?
Yet this is the only way the alternative to what I'm saying can work. So clearly the alternative cannot work.Deleted User wrote: »I'm not, not at all.Deleted User wrote: »But the legal system as it stands is making an unjustified assumption of fathers, and I don't think anybody could be convinced of the logic of this assumption.
What is the unjustified assumption, baring in mind the State is not assuming that all unmarried fathers do not wish to have guardianship over their children (if that was the States position it would not prove the application process in the first place).0 -
I do understand where you are coming from but at the end of the day if you give these rights automatically to fathers then you have also automatically given them to some fathers who simply do not give a **** and that to me actually cheapens guardianship for fathers.
Either this point also stands for mothers or it does not stand- therefore, it can't explain a lack of equal rights to guardianshipThere's no point in comparing it to automatic guardianship for the mothers,
I don't know why you would say that. There is inequality, but there's no point in questioning it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »I would also point out that the original question wasn't 'should unmarried fathers have to prove their fitness', which seems to be what you wish to debate here. The original question was whether they shoudl enjoy equal rights in this area.
I hope you are not pointing that out to me since I've never mentioned anything about fathers having to prove their fitness. That is not what the guardianship application does.
If that post was meant for someone else, apologies.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement