Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

rolly1 · 23-07-2011 05:13PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Which does not ensure that they will be involved in the up-bringing of their child. So saying that it is a child's right is irrelevant. Neither law will enforce this right.

As already stated it is the states job to provide legal protection to the parenting role; nobody and nothing can obligate a parent to be involved in children's upbringing. And nor should it because it's a job done out of parental love which is either there or not.Legislation should be there to encourage parents to take up and support their parental responsibility, not force them to jump through a legal hoop to get the legal right to be a parent. Its the childs right to know and be cared for both parents, making laws which encourage this is what it's all about.

So why do you keep mentioning a child's right to be raised by both parents? A change to the law to bring in automatic guardianship will not enforce this right?

see above

You seem to be hijacking notions of children's rights to push your own agenda, by making it seem like such a change will enforce the rights of children. It won't.

I am hijacking nothing. Everything I say is underpinned by articles of the UN Convention on the rights of the child, which are very clear about the role of parents and the role of your beloved state. Everything you say is underpinned on nothing but predjudice.

They are not powerful in enforcing parenthood, so again you are being disingenuous by appealing to the rights of children.

see above

The key phrase of course being "majority of cases". Not all cases. The State must be satisfied that the father is interested in acting as a guardian of the child. In the majority of cases this will be the case, but since it won't be the case in all cases the State must assess each case individually.

Absolute balderdash. Laws are based on the behaviour of the many not on the behaviour of the few, hard cases make bad law.

The alternative is to assume interest where none might exist, which is not in the best interest of the child.

The states duty is to find out the generality of the situation and build appropriate laws around them. Giving all legal rights to one parent as of automatic birth right is not in the best interests of children as multiple child abduction cases by the mother testifies to this very day.

The legal rights of children are protected by the State and the bodies acting on behalf of the state such as the judiciary and the police service.

So a child's family has no role in this, charming, and about right for communist China.

You may not like this idea by children are citizens of this country, and as such the State has a responsibility to protect their rights. Parents cannot do what ever they want with their kids.

I acknowledged the state's important role in protecting the child when the parent/s fail in their duty. But it is the state that is failing in it's duty to the child by not giving equal parenting rights to unmarried parents as per abduction examples clearly show. You see just like your mother may not have been aware that she should have made a will in which she named a n other person to be a testamentary guardian, most unmarried fathers are unaware that they are automatically a legal stranger to their own flesh and blood, as it smacks of a barbaric and medieval law and all sense of justice in a civilsed society.

No it isn't. A child's rights exists independently to the parents, they do not require the parents approval to exist. Which is why a parent cannot beat their child to death.

I never stated children required their parents approval to exist. Honestly the stuff you pull out of this is quite bizzarre and I would say deliberately provocative in misconstruing what is said.

The State protects the rights of children, sometimes from the parents themselves. Children are not considered property, they have not been considered that for centuries.

Once again you bring in rubbish which was never said nor even inimated.

The State's responsibility is to act in the best interest of the child involved even if that action is contrary to the wishes or rights of the parent. You do not forsake the rights of children to appease the parents. The State's responsibility is to the child above all else.

The first and foremost persons to protect the rights of children are the parents of those children. Only where it is proven that the parents fail in their duty to do so should the state ever be involved.This underpins best practice both nationally and internationally.

Nonsense, a child does not gain rights when a parent fails in their responsibility. They have rights independently to the performance of the parents.

Once again thats not what I said and looks like a deliberate falsehood of what I did say.

The State's responsibility is to the child.

The first entity with responsibility to a child are it's the parents, the second is the state. Its very clear. You really should be looking at the UN Convention, the accepted inetrnationally agreed convention for all children's rights globally. The Convention does not take responsibility for children away from their parents and give more authority to governments. It does place on governments the responsibility to protect and assist families in fulfilling their essential role as nurturers of children.

But you seem to have a really big problem with children's families being nurturers.You seem to have a statist agenda for all children regardless of their parents; particularly if their parents are male and unmarried.

wolfpawnat · 23-07-2011 06:58PM

Wicknight wrote: »

You do not need a solicitor. In fact if you both agree to the father getting guardianship you don't even need to go to court, so I'm assuming you were contesting his guardianship.

No, there was no contesting, but to have a legally standing one, it MUST be through the courts. The one signed by the Commissioner for the Oaths does not have legal standing.

Wicknight wrote: »

The cost you mention is the cost of legal representation, which is not required. You choose this. I'm making no comment on the correctness of that action, but it is not required.

As above

Wicknight wrote: »

If both parents agree to guardianship (which seems to be the majority of cases) the minium they have to do is sign a declaration in front of a peace commissioner.

Not legally binding.

Wicknight wrote: »

People should not be using their kids to keep their partners in check, that is a disgraceful suggestion. :mad:

That is what women are doing. That is why many are treating men like shíte. Not giving them reasonable access, asking for more than their fair share of raising the child.

If a father has his half guardianship, he can have a say in his childs life. Not be bossed around and therefore, not resent the child or its mother if she is a cow!

kate.m · 23-07-2011 07:13PM

Stark wrote: »

My view is it's disgusting how you've allowed your bitterness with one man to cause you to take pleasure from every man's suffering. I bet you wouldn't be so delighted if the actions of a minority of unfit mothers meant all women such as yourself lost access to their children.

She said in her case. As in not every father.

Stark · 23-07-2011 07:30PM

She edited the original sentiment out of her post.

Zombrex · 24-07-2011 11:31AM

K-9 wrote: »

Driving tests apply to everybody, another big difference.

The only point of the driving test analogy was to point out how silly your idea that if most people eventually pass the assessment then the assessment is pointless and a waste of time.

K-9 wrote: »

What damage Wicknight?

The damage is that such a change risks awarding guardianship to strangers, ie fathers who are not involved in the raising of the children and who the children have had no contact with. This is not in the best intests fo the children involved.

Does anyone actually have a counter to that idea?

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think you've a clue tbh or else you are making it into a much bigger thing than it is.

It is funny how everyone just ends up resorting nonsense rhetoric and insults while my question continues to be unanswered.

It is not my fault you guys jumped on the band wagon of righteous fury about inequality and men's rights without properly considering how changes to the law will effect the children involved.

Zombrex · 24-07-2011 11:42AM

rolly1 wrote: »

As already stated it is the states job to provide legal protection to the parenting role; nobody and nothing can obligate a parent to be involved in children's upbringing. And nor should it because it's a job done out of parental love which is either there or not.Legislation should be there to encourage parents to take up and support their parental responsibility, not force them to jump through a legal hoop to get the legal right to be a parent. Its the childs right to know and be cared for both parents, making laws which encourage this is what it's all about.

It is the child's right to be parented by those interested in parenting them, and to not have the State grant guardianship to strangers (to the child) who do not have interest in parenting them.

rolly1 wrote: »

I am hijacking nothing.

You highjacked the notion of children's right to be parented, ignoring that the child's right to be parented is only by people interested in being their parent.

Children have a right not to have guardianship awarded to people who to them are strangers.

You ignore this cause it doesn't suit your agenda.

rolly1 wrote: »

Absolute balderdash. Laws are based on the behaviour of the many not on the behaviour of the few, hard cases make bad law.

Utter nonsense. The States role is to protect all children, not just the majority of children. Laws are made by the majority to apply to the entire population. That is the bases of modern Western democracy, since We the people 300 years ago. The idea that something is only worthy of a law if it effects the majority of children is an idea that hasn't existed for hundreds of years.

Your distain for child's rights, while disintengously trying to manipulate the notions of children's rights to push your agenda, is truly distasteful.

rolly1 wrote: »

The states duty is to find out the generality of the situation and build appropriate laws around them.

No it is not, such an idea is disgusting. The States duty is to protect all its citizens, not just the majority. If it wasn't we wouldn't have laws against murder or rape since the generally of the situation is that most people won't murder or rape so clearly we do not need laws dealing with murder and rape them :rolleyes:

I've tried to be calm in the majority of this thread despite some pretty horrible ideas being put forward but frankly I'm done with you, your ideas are disgusting and go against all principles of modern society. It is not a question of explaining my position with relation to a specific law in Ireland, you need a history lesson about modern Western democracy. :mad:

looksee · 24-07-2011 11:49AM

Two people in a casual relationship thoughtlessly make a child. It happens far too often for it to be an issue of failed contraception, and it has to be a casual relationship or there would not be so many single parents.

Then two irresponsible people have to decide who is the least irresponsible, and competent to look after that child. If they were seriously interested of the 'rights of the child' they would not have produced it in the first place. The time for commitment is before sex, call it marriage or come up with a different arrangement, but it's a bit pathetic to be so uptight about the 'rights' of two people who engaged in casual, unprotected sex.

Zombrex · 24-07-2011 11:53AM

wolfpawnat wrote: »

No, there was no contesting, but to have a legally standing one, it MUST be through the courts. The one signed by the Commissioner for the Oaths does not have legal standing.

Again that is not true. You can read the law dealing with the statutory declaration here.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0005.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0040/sec0004.html#sec4

A statutory declaration signed by both parents and witnessed by a peace commissioner will grant guardianship to the father. It is a legal document, which is why it has to be witnessed.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Not legally binding.

What would be the purpose of it if it wasn't legally binding? That is what a statutory declaration is, it is a legal document.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

That is what women are doing.

So, what that makes it ok for the fathers to do it?

wolfpawnat wrote: »

If a father has his half guardianship, he can have a say in his childs life. Not be bossed around and therefore, not resent the child or its mother if she is a cow!

Again a father should not be using his children to get back at their mother. Saying well the women do that also is irrelevant to this.

Again there is an underlying tone through out this whole discussion that the reason people want this change is to get back at mothers. The interests of the children involved seem a distant second. I find this frankly disgusting.

wolfpawnat · 24-07-2011 01:49PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that is not true. You can read the law dealing with the statutory declaration here.

A statutory declaration signed by both parents and witnessed by a peace commissioner will grant guardianship to the father. It is a legal document, which is why it has to be witnessed.

What would be the purpose of it if it wasn't legally binding? That is what a statutory declaration is, it is a legal document.

I have been through the system, I have checked, the declaration is easily contested in court as it is not signed by a judge!

Wicknight wrote: »

So, what that makes it ok for the fathers to do it?

Again a father should not be using his children to get back at their mother. Saying well the women do that also is irrelevant to this.

Again there is an underlying tone through out this whole discussion that the reason people want this change is to get back at mothers. The interests of the children involved seem a distant second. I find this frankly disgusting.

My statement is that to stop mothers being cows and using the children against the fathers. Ever hear of men keeping the children from their mother, hardly ever. Yet with mothers, I could name 5 without thinking!

When men are being played around by mothers, they do start to resent the mother and the children, that is natural! This has to be stopped. The healthiest rearing for a child is both parents, acting as adults, amiable and caring. The best way to achieve that is to have both parents on as even a playing field as possible.

You are reading an tone in my posts that is not there. There is a clear statement that mothers are not Gods and men are not demons! Equal rights, until something proved they are undeserved! That's it.

I used to see my mother as you see yours. Until I took a step back and realised she was nothing but a vindictive cúnt! Though my father was no better!

rolly1 · 24-07-2011 04:29PM

Wicknight wrote: »

It is the child's right to be parented by those interested in parenting them, and to not have the State grant guardianship to strangers (to the child) who do not have interest in parenting them.

show me where this is backed up by any Convention where is states this as being the child's right. All conventions to do with the rights of children respect the child's right to have a family and two parents to know and care for them. Your statist agenda respects nothing but the state's rights over the child.

You highjacked the notion of children's right to be parented, ignoring that the child's right to be parented is only by people interested in being their parent.

I was actually quoting a summary document by UNICEF about Article 5 of the UN convention on the rights of the child when talking about the governments role with reagard to the child and the family. Here it is again:

Governments should respect the rights and responsibilities of families to direct and guide their children so that, as they grow, they learn to use their rights properly. Helping children to understand their rights does not mean pushing them to make choices with consequences that they are too young to handle. Article 5 encourages parents to deal with rights issues "in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child". The Convention does not take responsibility for children away from their parents and give more authority to governments. It does place on governments the responsibility to protect and assist families in fulfilling their essential role as nurturers of children.

You appear to have big problems with the convention. It's a good thing for children they are not written by people like you.

Children have a right not to have guardianship awarded to people who to them are strangers.

You deem the majority strangers when it's absolutely not the case.

You ignore this cause it doesn't suit your agenda.

I have never ignored it, I have simply stated that the current inequality between parents is actually damaging the welfare of children, abduction being a case in point, which you have studiously ignored.

Utter nonsense. The States role is to protect all children, not just the majority of children. Laws are made by the majority to apply to the entire population. That is the bases of modern Western democracy, since We the people 300 years ago. The idea that something is only worthy of a law if it effects the majority of children is an idea that hasn't existed for hundreds of years.

Laws are made by the majority to reflect the behaviour of the majority, not the behaviour of the few. Innocent till proven guilty is also another maxim of the law which civilised democracies use but seems not to be in your vocabulary.

Your distain for child's rights, while disintengously trying to manipulate the notions of children's rights to push your agenda, is truly distasteful.

Whats distasteful is a blind bigot pushing a law coming from a time of absolute bigotry in the state against all unmarried parents and their children, which should have been changed decades ago.

No it is not, such an idea is disgusting. The States duty is to protect all its citizens, not just the majority. If it wasn't we wouldn't have laws against murder or rape since the generally of the situation is that most people won't murder or rape so clearly we do not need laws dealing with murder and rape them :rolleyes:

Once again coming up with the scurrilous misrepresentation of what Im saying only shows the blind bigotry you are stuck in. The state protecting citizens against criminal acts has nothing whatsoever to do with this conversation as you well know. It's about the state creating laws which uphold the best interest of the child, of which family harmony is of central importance. The behaviour of the majority of single dads is responsible with regard to their children. As a result the state should honour and respect this responsibility by giving the concurrent rights that naturally go with that responsibility. The minority who do not behave responsibly should have their rights taken away by the other responsible parent. The child isn't at the mercy of one single irresponsible Dad, you conveniently ignore the fact that their will always be another guardian in the situation to look after and uphold the rights of the child. As already stated where both parents fail in their duty, then and only then does the state step in.

I've tried to be calm in the majority of this thread despite some pretty horrible ideas being put forward but frankly I'm done with you, your ideas are disgusting and go against all principles of modern society. It is not a question of explaining my position with relation to a specific law in Ireland, you need a history lesson about modern Western democracy. :mad:

The real horrible ideas are your ones of blind bigotry towards unmarried fathers. I'm not done with you, or any other blind bigots who masquerade their bigotry as concern for children.

rolly1 · 24-07-2011 05:50PM

I apologise for the long post but I think it is worthwhile to reproduce here the UNICEF summary explanation of some of articles of the UN Convention on the rights of the child to demonstrate the point that Wicknights position in backing up the state legal apartheid aginst unmarried fathers is completely at odds with the rights and best interests of children.

The convention is the internationally accepted benchmark from which to judge any countries response to the rights of children; the full summary document is here

Article 3 (Best interests of the child): The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly applies to budget, policy and law makers.

Fair enough nobody can deny that the best interests of children should be central to all actions and thinking by the adults of the world.

Article 4 (Protection of rights): Governments have a responsibility to take all available measures to make sure children’s rights are respected, protected and fulfilled. When countries ratify the Convention, they agree to review their laws relating to children. This involves assessing their social services, legal, health and educational systems, as well as levels of funding for these services. Governments are then obliged to take all necessary steps to ensure that the minimum standards set by the Convention in these areas are being met. They must help families protect children’s rights and create an environment where they can grow and reach their potential. In some instances, this may involve changing existing laws or creating new ones. Such legislative changes are not imposed, but come about through the same process by which any law is created or reformed within a country. Article 41 of the Convention points out the when a country already has higher legal standards than those seen in the Convention, the higher standards always prevail.

It should be noted that minimum standards to ensure children's rights are respected include helping families protect children's rights. It should also be noted that the convention does not differentiate between married and unmarried families.

Article 5 (Parental guidance): Governments should respect the rights and responsibilities of families to direct and guide their children so that, as they grow, they learn to use their rights properly. Helping children to understand their rights does not mean pushing them to make choices with consequences that they are too young to handle. Article 5 encourages parents to deal with rights issues "in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child". The Convention does not take responsibility for children away from their parents and give more authority to governments. It does place on governments the responsibility to protect and assist families in fulfilling their essential role as nurturers of children.

The above article summary I have already quoted, it clearly sets out the state's role and the parents role with regard to children.The emphasis once again is on assisting families, not just one parent, to fulfill their roles.

Article 6 (Survival and development): Children have the right to live. Governments should ensure that children survive and develop healthily.

A child's right to live is of course of fundamental importance, naturally the state should have this responsibility. Parents are not mentioned here as it is of course assumed that parents will protect their own child's right to life.

Article 7 (Registration, name, nationality, care): All children have the right to a legally registered name, officially recognised by the government. Children have the right to a nationality (to belong to a country). Children also have the right to know and, as far as possible, to be cared for by their parents.

Again one of the main articles underlining the child's right to be cared for, as far as possible, by both parents. Note their is no differentiation between the parents on gender grounds, which our guardianship law does.

Article 8 (Preservation of identity): Children have the right to an identity – an official record of who they are. Governments should respect children’s right to a name, a nationality and family ties.

Once again note the clear emphasis and importance of family ties.

Article 9 (Separation from parents): Children have the right to live with their parent(s), unless it is bad for them. Children whose parents do not live together have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might hurt the child.

Once again no gender or marital discrimination between the parents on this issue. This right is not expressed as "Children have a right not to live with their separated parents if it is bad for them, children have a right to live with their parents if it is good for them"! Once again the generality of the situation is underpinning the right, the convention accepts the majority position, while putting in caveats for the minority position, just as all good and just laws should do.

There's plenty more of them there which clearly spotlights the appallingly discriminatory nature of our guardianship legislation. Regardless of father's; Irish guardianship law is an outright attack on the rights of children born outside of marriage. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply a bigot.

Zombrex · 24-07-2011 07:30PM

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I have been through the system, I have checked, the declaration is easily contested in court as it is not signed by a judge!

Contested by whom and under what pretext?

Anyway, I'm telling you what the law says, and you can check it yourself. The declaration is witnessed and signed by a peace commissioner, it doesn't need to be signed by a judge to be a legal document.

If you were told otherwise you have been given faulty legal advice and I suggest you get your money back.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

My statement is that to stop mothers being cows and using the children against the fathers. Ever hear of men keeping the children from their mother, hardly ever. Yet with mothers, I could name 5 without thinking!

So what, fathers should have the power to play similar games with the mother in the name of equality?

Again just because a mother abuses her guardianship to get at the father doesn't mean that we should give the father the power to do the same thing. You guys have some funny notions of equality.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

When men are being played around by mothers, they do start to resent the mother and the children, that is natural! This has to be stopped. The healthiest rearing for a child is both parents, acting as adults, amiable and caring. The best way to achieve that is to have both parents on as even a playing field as possible.

I agree which is why I would recommend any father interested in guardianship of his children to apply as soon as possible for said guardianship.

Automatic guardianship will not solve any of the issues you just stated.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

You are reading an tone in my posts that is not there. There is a clear statement that mothers are not Gods and men are not demons! Equal rights, until something proved they are undeserved! That's it.

It is nothing to do with being deserving, it is to do with being interested. Demonstrating a father is uninterested in raising their children would be long complicated and difficult to show process. Demonstrating that a father is interested in raising their children is as simply as filling out a form in front of a peace commissioner.

Now tell me, which is in the best interest of the children (not the father).

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I used to see my mother as you see yours. Until I took a step back and realised she was nothing but a vindictive cúnt! Though my father was no better!

You view this issue in terms of punishing or rewarding of the parents, when you should be viewing this issue in terms of the best interests of the children involved.

Zombrex · 24-07-2011 07:59PM

rolly1 wrote: »

show me where this is backed up by any Convention where is states this as being the child's right. All conventions to do with the rights of children respect the child's right to have a family and two parents to know and care for them.

You just answered your own question, a father who is a stranger to his children will not know or care for them. So why grant him guardianship of his children, how is that in their best interest?

rolly1 wrote: »

Your statist agenda respects nothing but the state's rights over the child.

The State does not have rights over the child, the State acts for the child's rights. It is the right of a child to be protected and for the State to act in the child's best interests. The State recognizing guardianship to fathers who are strangers to the children fails this right.

rolly1 wrote: »

I was actually quoting a summary document by UNICEF about Article 5 of the UN convention on the rights of the child when talking about the governments role with reagard to the child and the family. Here it is again:You appear to have big problems with the convention. It's a good thing for children they are not written by people like you.

The convention is fine. Your misrepresentation of it to try and push your agenda is where my issue lies.

Read Article 9.

Children have the right to live with their parent(s), unless it is bad
for them. Children whose parents do not live together have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might hurt the child.

It is the governments responsibility to assess whether parental interaction may hurt the child. Parents do not have a right to carte blanche access to their children.

A father who is a stranger to his children does not have the right to guardianship over them. This is not in the best interest of the child.

rolly1 wrote: »

You deem the majority strangers when it's absolutely not the case.

You are the only person who ever brings up the issue of the majority, I've never stated anything about the majority, nor do I think the majority of fathers abandon their children.

Some unfortunately do and the State does not have the luxary of ignoring this fact as you so clearly want them to. It is the governments responsibility to the child to protect the children interests in cases where this happens. This includes not recognizing these fathers with guardianship.

You can waffle on all you like about how the government should only deal with what is the case for the majority but back here in the real world that is utter nonsense, the State deals with all situations and in some situations fathers abandon their children, and thus become strangers to them. It is not in the children's interests to have these people recognized as guardians.

rolly1 wrote: »

I have never ignored it, I have simply stated that the current inequality between parents is actually damaging the welfare of children, abduction being a case in point, which you have studiously ignored.

You ignore the fact that some fathers are not interested in being part of their children's lives because this fact does not fit your agenda. In Rolly happy land every father wants to raising their children and are only stopped by evil vindictive mothers.

rolly1 wrote: »

Laws are made by the majority to reflect the behaviour of the majority, not the behaviour of the few.

That is one of the stupidest things said so far on this thread, which is itself a collection of stupid things.

Most people never break the law, they never steal, assault, murder, rape etc. The majority of laws deal with the behavior of the few because this behavior is often the most damaging.

Most fathers are interested in guardianship of their children and raising their children. The law is there to protect the minority of children from the minority of fathers because they are the ones where the interests of the children can be most damaged.

Again you don't need an update in the current Irish law for guardianship, you need a lesson in principles of Western democracy.

rolly1 wrote: »

Innocent till proven guilty is also another maxim of the law which civilised democracies use but seems not to be in your vocabulary.

The State does not say that any father is guilty of any criminal offense. The State is neutral to the fathers intentions until the father signifies to the State his intentions.

They do this because they need to be satisfied of the fathers intentions because they are guarding the interest of the child.

rolly1 wrote: »

Once again coming up with the scurrilous misrepresentation of what Im saying only shows the blind bigotry you are stuck in. The state protecting citizens against criminal acts has nothing whatsoever to do with this conversation as you well know.

The purpose of those examples is to highlight how shocking inaccurate your notion of the role of the State is, particularly with this frankly ridiculous notion that the State should only regulate for the behavior of the majority of people.

Don't get snotty with me that this is irrelevant when you are the one who brought it up by stating, inaccurately, that this is the role of the State. It isn't as I've clearly pointed out.

rolly1 wrote: »

It's about the state creating laws which uphold the best interest of the child, of which family harmony is of central importance. The behaviour of the majority of single dads is responsible with regard to their children. As a result the state should honour and respect this responsibility by giving the concurrent rights that naturally go with that responsibility.

They already do. 90% of fathers who apply for guardianship are awarded it with no objections.

rolly1 wrote: »

The minority who do not behave responsibly should have their rights taken away by the other responsible parent.

That is not in the best interests of the children. The State cannot wait for the parent to act responsibly. For a start they might never do this, either out of ignorance or malice.

A point that quite shockingly has to be repeatable stated to you is that the State acts in the best interest of the child. The State waiting for the parents to act responsibly is failing that responsibilty.

If you don't believe me you can check it in the UNICEF Declaration

Governments have a responsibility to take all available measures to
make sure children’s rights are respected, protected and fulfilled.

That includes actions that might make life more trouble for the parents.

Saying we will just wait for the parent to do it is not taking "all available measures to make sure the children's rights are respected, protected and fulfilled".

The State must at all times act in the best interests of the child. And yes that means ALL children, not just the majority of children. This may mean extra hassle for the parents. It may mean extra cost for the parents. It may mean a trip to the court house for the the parents. That is irrelevant. The State cannot sacrifice its responsibility to children in order to make the lives of parents easier.

rolly1 wrote: »

The child isn't at the mercy of one single irresponsible Dad, you conveniently ignore the fact that their will always be another guardian in the situation to look after and uphold the rights of the child.

Read the UNICEF declaration again. The State's responsibility is not to defer responsibility to someone else and hope for the best.

Let me say it again in case you didn't understand, the State must never do something that acts against the best interests of the child (ALL children, not the majority), even if such an action makes things easier for the parents.

rolly1 wrote: »

As already stated where both parents fail in their duty, then and only then does the state step in.

That contradicts the UNICEF Declaration. Why did you even bring that up if you don't actually subscribe to all of it, just the bits you think support your agenda?

K-9 · 24-07-2011 08:27PM

Wicknight wrote: »

The only point of the driving test analogy was to point out how silly your idea that if most people eventually pass the assessment then the assessment is pointless and a waste of time.

I said because 90% of applications before the court get granted, wtf that has to do with a driving test I don't know. I feel it would be better for the court to focus on the 10% of cases that don't get granted by punishing them with removing it in a new system. The analogy doesn't stand up.

The damage is that such a change risks awarding guardianship to strangers, ie fathers who are not involved in the raising of the children and who the children have had no contact with. This is not in the best intests fo the children involved.

Does anyone actually have a counter to that idea?

Yep, the counter point currently exists, the parent applies to get it removed if the other one isn't fulfilling their responsibilities. There is no problem, you're just making one.

It is funny how everyone just ends up resorting nonsense rhetoric and insults while my question continues to be unanswered.

It is not my fault you guys jumped on the band wagon of righteous fury about inequality and men's rights without properly considering how changes to the law will effect the children involved.

Still really don't think you have a clue on what it practically means and how very rarely there are any bothers over it. You seem to be reading a lot into it. You haven't established what these negative effects are at all or that they can't be dealt with.

Zombrex · 24-07-2011 08:37PM

K-9 wrote: »

I said because 90% of applications before the court get granted, wtf that has to do with a driving test I don't know.

You said that because 90% of applications get granted the assessment itself was a waste of time and money. That, as I think you realize now, was a silly argument to make.

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, the counter point currently exists, the parent applies to get it removed if the other one isn't fulfilling their responsibilities. There is no problem, you're just making one.

And if the parent doesn't apply to get it removed?

As I pointed out to Rolly the States responsibility is to act in the interests of the child, not defer this to the parent and wait for the parent to act responsibly.

Even if the parent does move to get guardianship remove this is a long difficult process that requires a court order. While that is taking place the State officially recognizes guardianship of someone where it is not in the child's interests to be a guardian of them.

You seem to only care about making life a tiny bit easier for the father while completely forsaking the interests of the child.

K-9 wrote: »

Still really don't think you have a clue on what it practically means and how very rarely there are any bothers over it.

As I explained to Rolly the State has a responsibility to all children, not just the majority of children.

You do not remove the role of the State to act in the best interests of children because something only happens in the minority of cases. The State acts in the best interests of ALL children.

K-9 wrote: »

You seem to be reading a lot into it. You haven't established what these negative effects are at all or that they can't be dealt with.

It is not my role to come up with ways for these negative effects to be dealt with, you are the one supposing a change in the law. At the moment the law acts in the best interests of all children, even if that causes extra work and expense for the fathers.

If you can come up with a way to make things easier for the fathers while still ensuring that the State acts in the interests of ALL children I'm all ears.

So far no one has done that, they have come up with proposals that will act in the interests of MOST children and claimed that is ok because really the State should only concern itself with the majority of children, not all of them.

Sorry, that ain't good enough. Try again.

K-9 · 24-07-2011 08:54PM

Wicknight wrote: »

You said that because 90% of applications get granted the assessment itself was a waste of time and money. That, as I think you realize now, was a silly argument to make.

No, I said it's preferable to concentrate on bad cases, cases that need attention.

And if the parent doesn't apply to get it removed?

They should if it's in the best interests of the child. It's a relatively easy process, court clerks currently help out with cases. If somebody is being that awkward or useless the parent will look at ways of getting rid of their guardianship, they currently do. I'm sure there probably is another what if question to this

As I pointed out to Rolly the States responsibility is to act in the interests of the child, not defer this to the parent and wait for the parent to act responsibly.

No the state doesn't currently do this.

Even if the parent does move to get guardianship remove this is a long difficult process that requires a court order. While that is taking place the State officially recognizes guardianship of someone where it is not in the child's interests to be a guardian of them.

It isn't that long, extreme cases can be heard as emergency cases and put top priority.

You seem to only care about making life a tiny bit easier for the father while completely forsaking the interests of the child.

Completely forsaking? How do you make that out?

As I explained to Rolly the State has a responsibility to all children, not just the majority of children.

Yep. You haven't shown how this goes against it.

You do not remove the role of the State to act in the best interests of children because something only happens in the minority of cases. The State acts in the best interests of ALL children.

Yep You haven't shown how this goes against that.

It is not my role to come up with ways for these negative effects to be dealt with, you are the one supposing a change in the law. At the moment the law acts in the best interests of all children, even if that causes extra work and expense for the fathers.

If you can come up with a way to make things easier for the fathers while still ensuring that the State acts in the interests of ALL children I'm all ears.

So far no one has done that, they have come up with proposals that will act in the interests of MOST children and claimed that is ok because really the State should only concern itself with the majority of children, not all of them.

Sorry, that ain't good enough. Try again.

Sorry, you've still to explain these negative effects we all are ignoring. We don't see them so we can't prove anything. You are the one so against it so you have to explain how the world will collapse.

Zombrex · 24-07-2011 09:23PM

K-9 wrote: »

No, I said it's preferable to concentrate on bad cases, cases that need attention.

That is great in theory, you haven't explained how that would work while still ensuring that the State does not award guardianship to fathers who are strangers to their children and not interested in raising them.

I've said from the very start if someone can figure out how to do this I'm all ears.

So far all anyone has come up with is ideas that sacrifice the interest of the child to make life easier for the parent.

K-9 wrote: »

They should if it's in the best interests of the child.

That doesn't mean they will.

The State does not have the luxury of assuming that every parent will do what is in the best interest of their children. If that was the case then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

K-9 wrote: »

It's a relatively easy process, court clerks currently help out with cases.

Applying for guardianship is a relatively easy process, a central argument on this thread is that despite this it is still often too much for someone people to do.

Again the State cannot assume that what the parent should do they will do. That is not in the best interest of the child.

K-9 wrote: »

It isn't that long, extreme cases can be heard as emergency cases and put top priority.

By definition it has to be long because there has to be a period of disinterest from the father, a period that the mother has to prove was a period of disinterest.

Otherwise mothers could say the father who has been away on a business trip for 2 weeks was disinterested in raising their children.

K-9 wrote: »

Completely forsaking? How do you make that out?

There is nothing in what you are proposing that is in the interest of the child. The entire reason you are proposing for this is to save the father time and expense and save the tax pay time an expense.

K-9 wrote: »

Yep. You haven't shown how this goes against it.

Of course I have, there will be periods, long periods in most cases, where the State has granted guardianship to fathers who are strangers to their children and have on interest in raising them. That will remain the case until the mother successful files for the guardianship to be removed.

How is that in the interest of the child involved in such cases? No one has an answer to that. The answers is that in cases where the father is interested in raising the children this process will be easier for him as he will no longer have to apply for guardianship. People just conveniently ignore the cases where this won't be the case.

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry, you've still to explain these negative effects we all are ignoring. We don't see them so we can't prove anything. You are the one so against it so you have to explain how the world will collapse.

Are you saying you can see no negative effects of someone who is in effect a stranger to the child, who has not been part of the child's upbringing, being guardian of the child.

Do you appreciate what guardianship means. This is a good summary from the government

. Guardianship is the collection of rights and duties which a parent has in respect of his or her child. It encompasses the duty to maintain and properly care for the child and the right to make decisions about a child's religious and secular education, health requirements and other matters affecting the welfare of the child. The exercise of guardianship rights may be agreed between parents. In the event of a dispute arising concerning the exercise of guardianship rights the court may determine the matter on the application of either parental guardian. The right to custody is one of the rights that arises under the guardianship relationship. Custody is the physical day to day care and control of a child. Even where one parental guardian has custody of a child the other parental guardian is generally entitled to be consulted in relation to matters affecting the welfare of the child.

A guardian must share responsibility for decisions taken in the child's interests. The time this normally causes headaches is when either the child or the parent requires medical attention, or in issues of custody.

K-9 · 24-07-2011 09:43PM

Wicknight wrote: »

That is great in theory, you haven't explained how that would work while still ensuring that the State does not award guardianship to fathers who are strangers to their children and not interested in raising them.

Huh? Jaysus. Why would you expect it to? Seriously, why? The focus changes to taking rights and responsibilities away and punishing bad behaviour. You seem to have a problem with that concept. You aren't getting the concept at all.

So far all anyone has come up with is ideas that sacrifice the interest of the child to make life easier for the parent.

In your opinion, there have been examples. You just are unwilling to see it or how change can be for the betterment of children.

That doesn't mean they will.

Yep. They don't have the best interests of the child at heart then.

The State does not have the luxury of assuming that every parent will do what is in the best interest of their children. If that was the case then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

It does. It just leaves unmarried fathers and illegitimate children out.

Applying for guardianship is a relatively easy process, a central argument on this thread is that despite this it is still often too much for someone people to do.

Removing it is too. If somebody is being irresponsible it makes an application to take it away becomes urgent.

Again the State cannot assume that what the parent should do they will do. That is not in the best interest of the child.

It does.

By definition it has to be long because there has to be a period of disinterest from the father, a period that the mother has to prove was a period of disinterest.

Otherwise mothers could say the father who has been away on a business trip for 2 weeks was disinterested in raising their children.

Naturally. Taking Guardianship away needs decent reasons.

There is nothing in what you are proposing that is in the interest of the child. The entire reason you are proposing for this is to save the father time and expense and save the tax pay time an expense.

How so? Seriously, you see nothing in this proposal in the best interest of the child.

Funnily enough you've being saying the opposite all day, you do see the advantages of guardianship and how it is in the best interest of the child. Now you are saying you see nothing in the best interest of the child with automatic guardianship.

Of course I have, there will be periods, long periods in most cases, where the State has granted guardianship to fathers who are strangers to their children and have on interest in raising them. That will remain the case until the mother successful files for the guardianship to be removed.

How is that in the interest of the child involved in such cases? No one has an answer to that. The answers is that in cases where the father is interested in raising the children this process will be easier for him as he will no longer have to apply for guardianship. People just conveniently ignore the cases where this won't be the case.

This shows you don't have a clue about Guardianship. All it gives is a parent the right to go to court to contest a decision. The court then decides. Again these are rare cases when this even happens.

Are you saying you can see no negative effects of someone who is in effect a stranger to the child, who has not been part of the child's upbringing, being guardian of the child.

Nobody is saying that. Obviously when I say Guardianship can be removed I do see problems will happen, they happen now in extremely rare cases. If you are looking for some idyllic system where no problems arise well............................

Do you appreciate what guardianship means. This is a good summary from the government

. Guardianship is the collection of rights and duties which a parent has in respect of his or her child. It encompasses the duty to maintain and properly care for the child and the right to make decisions about a child's religious and secular education, health requirements and other matters affecting the welfare of the child. The exercise of guardianship rights may be agreed between parents. In the event of a dispute arising concerning the exercise of guardianship rights the court may determine the matter on the application of either parental guardian. The right to custody is one of the rights that arises under the guardianship relationship. Custody is the physical day to day care and control of a child. Even where one parental guardian has custody of a child the other parental guardian is generally entitled to be consulted in relation to matters affecting the welfare of the child.

A guardian must share responsibility for decisions taken in the child's interests. The time this normally causes headaches is when either the child or the parent requires medical attention, or in issues of custody.

What practical difficulties arise?

I know you can Google the act and copy and paste it. I want to know what these problems that affect the rights of children are.

PS. The medical condition thing is an urban myth. If a hospital has to carry out emergency treatment they will. Guardianship is separate to custody, access and maintenance.

rolly1 · 24-07-2011 09:45PM

Here's the point you deliberately avoid:

The UN articles along with all good and just civil laws are based on the behaviour of the majority of the adults with regards to children. The convention sees the encouragement of parental responsibility as being in the best interest of children. Therefore it puts the positive nurturing role of parents as a very important right of the child, based once again on the majority behaviour of the parents. It, of course, puts in caveats for the minority who fail in their duty.

It does not differentiate between the sexes and does not differentiate based on marital status.

Therefore it does not come out with the bigoted codswallop you keep coming out with. It doesn't say "Children have a right not to live with their separated parents if it is bad for them, children have a right to live with their parents if it is good for them"!

Or your own take "Children have a right not to have a guardian who is not interested in them, they have a right to a guardian who is interested in them"

The articles and laws are there for encouragement and support of the majority of parents who behave responsibly, as they should be, because that is the best interests of the child. Thats the problem with guardianship law it's not about positive encouragement of parents to nurture their children, it's an entirely negative law which wrongly assumes that one parent, based on sex and marital status, is irresponsible as the default position until they prove themselves responsible by getting some ridiculous piece of paper.

In time civilised society usually overcomes the bigots and your time is fast approaching wicknight.

Zombrex · 24-07-2011 09:53PM

rolly1 wrote: »

The articles and laws are there for encouragement and support of the majority of parents who behave responsibly, as they should be, because that is the best interests of the child.

The articles and laws are there TO PROTECT CHILDREN.

It says so at the start.

It says nothing about encouraging parents to be better people. :rolleyes:

Zombrex · 24-07-2011 10:17PM

K-9 wrote: »

Huh? Jaysus. Why would you expect it to? Seriously, why? The focus changes to taking rights and responsibilities away and punishing bad behaviour. You seem to have a problem with that concept. You aren't getting the concept at all.

I'm getting the concept fine, the concept goes against the interests of the children.

You seem to have changed position from No it doesn't, to it does but sure what's the harm.

K-9 wrote: »

In your opinion, there have been examples. You just are unwilling to see it or how change can be for the betterment of children.

The betterment of children seems far from most people's minds in this debate. Children are well served by the current system. It is argued that fathers are not because they have to act to gain guardianship.

K-9 wrote: »

Yep. They don't have the best interests of the child at heart then.

Correct. So why would the state, who is bound by law to act in the best interests of the children, defer responsibility for this to persons who may not do this?

K-9 wrote: »

Removing it is too.

No it isn't, currently it requires a hearing and a court order. It is very difficult to remove guardianship from someone.

K-9 wrote: »

Naturally. Taking Guardianship away needs decent reasons.

And while that is taking place guardianship is awarded to someone who should not have guardianship.

Again explain how this is in the best interests of the child?

K-9 wrote: »

How so? Seriously, you see nothing in this proposal in the best interest of the child.

You do not believe it is in the best interests of the child to only have guardianship awarded to those interested in raising the child?

K-9 wrote: »

Funnily enough you've being saying the opposite all day, you do see the advantages of guardianship and how it is in the best interest of the child. Now you are saying you see nothing in the best interest of the child with automatic guardianship.

If the father is a stranger to the child.

Automatic guardianship will, by definition, award guardianship to fathers not interested in raising their children.

Your only response to this is that you can't see the harm. That is just an argument from ignorance.

K-9 wrote: »

This shows you don't have a clue about Guardianship. All it gives is a parent the right to go to court to contest a decision. The court then decides. Again these are rare cases when this even happens.

No it doesn't, the parent does not have to go to court to contest a decision, the parent has to go to court to over turn a contested decision.

All a person with guardianship has to do is contest, and they can contest anything. To proceed the other parent has to go to court.

Never mind the number of things that cannot go ahead without the signature of both guardians, such as medical procedures. Again the single parent has to go to court to proceed.

How is this in the best interest of the child?

K-9 wrote: »

Nobody is saying that. Obviously when I say Guardianship can be removed I do see problems will happen, they happen now in extremely rare cases. If you are looking for some idyllic system where no problems arise well............................

And explain to me what the parent and child to while waiting for guardianship to be removed, and explain how this is in the best interests of the child?

K-9 wrote: »

I know you can Google the act and copy and paste it. I want to know what these problems that affect the rights of children are.

PS. The medical condition thing is an urban myth. If a hospital has to carry out emergency treatment they will. Guardianship is separate to custody, access and maintenance.

The medical condition is not an urban myth keeping a child from physically dying in the hospital bed is not the same as treating them for something like cancer.

Consent from both guardians is particular common in cases of mental or developmental health.

For example from the Lucena Clinic' web page

As the Law is currently interpreted, it is not possible for somebody under the age of 18 years old to consent on their own behalf to attendance here, and the consent of their guardians is necessary.
1. If the parents of the child are married, or if they have been married, then the consent of both is necessary. If one parent objects to the attendance of the child, the matter will need to be decided by the Courts. If it is not possible to contact a parent, then please let us know and we can discuss the matter further.
2. If the child's parents are not married, and if the father does not have parental responsibility, then while his consent is not legally essential, his involvement in the process is necessary, if at all possible.
3. If the child/young person is in the care of the HSE (either in foster care or in residential care) consent must also be obtained from the child's Social Worker, as, in this situation, the HSE has parental responsibility. If a child is in the voluntary care of the HSE, then consent is also required from the child's parents.

rolly1 · 24-07-2011 10:21PM

Wicknight wrote: »

As I explained to Rolly the State has a responsibility to all children, not just the majority of children.
You do not remove the role of the State to act in the best interests of children because something only happens in the minority of cases. The State acts in the best interests of ALL children.

So far no one has done that, they have come up with proposals that will act in the interests of MOST children and claimed that is ok because really the State should only concern itself with the majority of children, not all of them.

Sorry, that ain't good enough. Try again.

Let's just leave aside for a minute the fact that current guardianship law is categorically failing to act in the best interest of children, as tested & demonstrated through the UN Convention, and accept your ridiculous bigoted notion that current law is protecting ALL children.

Currently all children of unmarried parents can be permanently legally removed from the state without notice or consent of the other parent, where only one guardian exists. This is regardless of whether even the father had been the primary carer prior to removal.

Can you please answer how the removal of children without notice or consent from their primary carer is in the best interest of ALL children?

Fact is, even within your own nonsense terms, your claims do not stack up. Relieve yourself of the burden, get over the bigotry and see where the best interests of children really are.

wolfpawnat · 24-07-2011 10:50PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Let me say it again in case you didn't understand, the State must never do something that acts against the best interests of the child (ALL children, not the majority), even if such an action makes things easier for the parents.

Surely then, no parent should get guardianship, because there was a mother convicted of neglect the other day. So we should not base the laws on the 97% of good mothers.

rolly1 · 24-07-2011 10:51PM

Wicknight wrote: »

The articles and laws are there TO PROTECT CHILDREN.

It says so at the start.

It says nothing about encouraging parents to be better people. :rolleyes:

Better people is not what I said, what I said, once again, was

The articles and laws are there for encouragement and support of the majority of parents who behave responsibly, as they should be, because that is the best interests of the child.

The whole convention is a statement of the rights of children and protecting those rights. The family's role in protecting & upholding children's rights is a fundamental element

But please, by all means, show me the text in the Convention where you felt the need to shout your point across the internet: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

One of the lines at the start is the following:

Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,

It's a kind of bigots out type statement in fact.

K-9 · 24-07-2011 10:55PM

Listen Wicknight there's a lovely brick wall here, I'll concentrate on that.

I just don't think you are willing to open your mind to the possibilities. Maybe you are a glass half empty person generally.

Anything I suggest as advantages you'll come back with the Chicken Little scenario and fair enough.

If you've some idyllic solution I'd love to see it, the current one or the proposed one isn't either.

K-9 · 24-07-2011 10:58PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Never mind the number of things that cannot go ahead without the signature of both guardians, such as medical procedures. Again the single parent has to go to court to proceed.

How is this in the best interest of the child?

And explain to me what the parent and child to while waiting for guardianship to be removed, and explain how this is in the best interests of the child?

The medical condition is not an urban myth keeping a child from physically dying in the hospital bed is not the same as treating them for something like cancer.

Consent from both guardians is particular common in cases of mental or developmental health.

For example from the Lucena Clinic' web page

As the Law is currently interpreted, it is not possible for somebody under the age of 18 years old to consent on their own behalf to attendance here, and the consent of their guardians is necessary.
1. If the parents of the child are married, or if they have been married, then the consent of both is necessary. If one parent objects to the attendance of the child, the matter will need to be decided by the Courts. If it is not possible to contact a parent, then please let us know and we can discuss the matter further.
2. If the child's parents are not married, and if the father does not have parental responsibility, then while his consent is not legally essential, his involvement in the process is necessary, if at all possible.
3. If the child/young person is in the care of the HSE (either in foster care or in residential care) consent must also be obtained from the child's Social Worker, as, in this situation, the HSE has parental responsibility. If a child is in the voluntary care of the HSE, then consent is also required from the child's parents.

I'd love examples of cases where serious medical conditions where ignored and Guardianship took precedent. I'm sure Google and copying and pasting will come in handy.

You need examples of how detrimental this will be, you haven't provided them.

PS. Jaysus, married people going through a separation must pose huge problems.

Don't be a victim of internet scare mongering.

K-9 · 24-07-2011 11:38PM

Don't want to be personal Wicknight but it's clear you don't have a clue what you are talking about i.e. Guardianship. You can easily Google Guardianship and what it means legally, cutting and pasting is a great tool, you don't have a clue what it means practically in court.

You don't have children, don't have Gaurdianship, haven't been through the court system, don't know what it means practically and can't provide bad case examples.

You'll still be along in the next debate spouting the same nonsense and learning nothing.

K-9 · 24-07-2011 11:57PM

Guardianship does not supercede Custody. Think about it, why would it? It might say so when you Google it but in practical terms judges use common sense.

Only in extreme cases would Guardianship be taken to supercede it, where the court has to intervene. Only in extreme cases where it is clear that the interests of the child is not met by the custodian.

Guess what is needed in extreme cases like that? Court time. Applications to court. The very thing you are so against and don't see as in the best interest of the child.

Zombrex · 25-07-2011 01:10AM

rolly1 wrote: »

Let's just leave aside for a minute the fact that current guardianship law is categorically failing to act in the best interest of children, as tested & demonstrated through the UN Convention, and accept your ridiculous bigoted notion that current law is protecting ALL children.

Currently all children of unmarried parents can be permanently legally removed from the state without notice or consent of the other parent, where only one guardian exists. This is regardless of whether even the father had been the primary carer prior to removal.

Can you please answer how the removal of children without notice or consent from their primary carer is in the best interest of ALL children?

Primary carer is not a legal term in Ireland. It is not in the interests of the child to be removed from the State without consent of his guardians which is why, as far as I'm aware, you need permission from both guardians.

If someone is acting as primary carer of a child it is in their interest and the child's to apply for guardianship of the child. Guardianship is the legally recognized position.

rolly1 wrote: »

Better people is not what I said, what I said, once again, was

The whole convention is a statement of the rights of children and protecting those rights. The family's role in protecting & upholding children's rights is a fundamental element

No one is denying the families role in the protecting of children's rights, which is why there is application process for guardianship. You still seem to be acting under the nonsense idea that no unmarried father can get guardianship of his children.

rolly1 wrote: »

But please, by all means, show me the text in the Convention where you felt the need to shout your point across the internet: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

Article 2.

1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.

The only thing higher than this is the definition of child :rolleyes:

rolly1 wrote: »

It's a kind of bigots out type statement in fact.

LOL, protecting the rights of children is bigioted now, is it.

Zombrex · 25-07-2011 01:17AM

K-9 wrote: »

Don't want to be personal Wicknight but it's clear you don't have a clue what you are talking about i.e. Guardianship. You can easily Google Guardianship and what it means legally, cutting and pasting is a great tool, you don't have a clue what it means practically in court.

Sorry K-9 you are going to have to do better than that some what pathetic attempt at a position. Your gut feeling about stuff means zip on an Internet discussion forum that prizes references and facts.

You might as well tell me I'm wrong because your taxi driver said so. :rolleyes:

Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

Comments