Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

Zombrex · 25-07-2011 01:21AM

K-9 wrote: »

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.

LOL, now there is an example of what Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" if I ever saw one.

In case you don't know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Zombrex · 25-07-2011 01:28AM

wolfpawnat wrote: »

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.

Groan. As has already been stated fathers are not denied guardianship because some are absent.

Surely if guys have to lie about the current situation you must know your arguments dont stand up.

K-9 · 25-07-2011 07:18AM

Wicknight wrote: »

LOL, now there is an example of what Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" if I ever saw one.

In case you don't know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

No examples Wicknight? You don't have a clue, just scare mongering. You don't have children, haven't been through the process and are bull****ting copying and pasting from Google.

rolly1 · 25-07-2011 07:27AM

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Of course every child that is born outside marriage comes with a big tattoo somewhere on them stating "If you don't want me potentially abducted by Mammy get guardianship Daddy!" Yep its right there so ALL children are protected against abduction under our wonderful guardianship laws.So children snatched from their homes, fathers, extended family & friends just don't need protection from this by the state; after all it's just too bad for them if the useless father didn't he read the tatooed instruction manual after all?:rolleyes:

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.

Ah but seeing as how you are so well able to focus on the term "Primary carer" as a legal non-entity then you should also realise in your infinite wisdom that the state does not recognise children born outside marriage as being being part of a legal family. There is no such thing as "family" when it comes to unmarried parents under irish law, so how then does the state recognise the "families" role in the protecting of children's rights as per the UN Convention?

You see there's a whole raft of bigotry which applies to unmarried parents and their children under irish law which applies to father, mother and child. But you probably dig that anyway seeing as bigotry is your thing.

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:

Yip and nowehere in any of it does it state the intention is

TO PROTECT CHILDREN.

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

Ah so you finally get it that it's protecting the rights of children, not some vague shouted nonsense about protecting children. Protecting the rights of children is of course not bigoted, it's just your view about how that's done which is deeply bigoted. But more importantly your view, which coincides with the state's, does not actually protect children's rights.

Zombrex · 25-07-2011 07:26PM

K-9 wrote: »

No examples Wicknight? You don't have a clue, just scare mongering. You don't have children, haven't been through the process and are bull****ting copying and pasting from Google.

Ah but that is where you are wrong K-9. I'm actually a judge who has served 15 years in family court.

Now, yes you may be able to "copy and paste" stuff from Google that proves I'm not actually a judge, but that is just facts and figures, it has no bearing on what we all know in our gut, right.

Sure I might give you information that can clearly be shown to be wrong or misrepresentative of the act law in Ireland, but you will have to again copy and paste from Google to show that isn't the case, and who are you to say it is wrong just because you have the actual law in front of you clearly showing that it is wrong.

LOL, see what I did there ...

What I moronic thread. First time ever on Boards.ie have I seen someone claim that backing up your position with references to the law is the wrong thing to do. :rolleyes:

Zombrex · 25-07-2011 07:29PM

Let me get this straight, you don't think protecting the rights of children and protecting children are the same thing?

Can you just clarify that for me, because it is such an out there statement, even for your incredible standards, and I want to give you a chance to clarify.

K-9 · 25-07-2011 08:29PM

Always thought you lived abroad!

Okay, I'm surprised then that you think Guardianship practically affects custody here in Ireland. Think about it. The person with the main custody is going to be the Guardian anyway and custody for unmarried parents is a separate issue again, you can apply for joint or indeed full custody if the situation so merits, this would be separate from Guardianship, as indeed would be access and maintenance.

The problem I have is you keep going on about the consequences and it not being in the best interests of the child, fair enough, but you don't give examples, or ignore the remedies that are currently available that would just be extended to the new system, freeing up time to concentrate on actual cases of child neglect etc.

I've no reason to doubt your credentials but it explains a lot, the consistent and dogged defending of the current system and decisions you may have made. I think you need to step out of the box and think what cases would have been before you if this new system was in place.

Instead of vetting fathers you'd actually be dealing with genuine cases that need attention mostly. Some mothers would abuse it of course to bring meaningless objections but every law has it's drawbacks, no system is going to be idyllic.

PS. Applying for Guardianship doesn't affect custody unless there is a damn good reason for it.

K-9 · 25-07-2011 08:34PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Let me get this straight, you don't think protecting the rights of children and protecting children are the same thing?

Can you just clarify that for me, because it is such an out there statement, even for your incredible standards, and I want to give you a chance to clarify.

Don't know where you got that.

If you can explain where you got that reasoning from I'd be all ears.

rolly1 · 25-07-2011 09:50PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm actually a judge who has served 15 years in family court.

No wonder your conscience is at you. defending 15 years of most likely bigoted decisions regarding unmarried fathers must take it's toll eventually, especially when one considers the negative ramifications for their children.

Big holes were blown clean through your arguments all the way along, the most gaping one of course being the issue of child removal from the state.

In all honesty how anybody, with even the slightest bit of a conscience, could witness children being ripped from everything they know and have the decision justified as "well he's either a guardian or not". FFS thats absolutely nothing to do with protecting children and all to do with protecting the scurillous bigots running the state.

You, ex-judge, are an utter disgrace and demonstrate all thats utterly wrong with one of the last remaining supposed "pillars" of this rotten society.:mad:

But we are here, the EU/IMF are here and yer days of bigotry are ending soon my friend.

K-9 · 25-07-2011 10:30PM

I think you are being a bit unfair there but as somebody who has represented myself in family law cases, I always found them reasonable, if trying to think of the word, too deferential to current laws, often outdated and in need of changing.

A District Court Judge generally just serves the current law, bit like Guards, and I was a Guards son. They enact and follow legislation, they generally aren't leaders in creating precedents. Indeed good solicitors will challenge them.

I'd have respect for District Court judges as an instrument of the state in enacting legislation but they are far from above challenging, something they can have difficulty with.

rolly1 · 25-07-2011 10:56PM

The person staunchly defends a system which allows children be snatched out of the country to this very day and has in the past sent kids to be adopted rather than be with their loving Dad. G case anyone? Nicoloau?

And yet he/she shouts about protecting children?

Unfair? Give me a break..he/she is utterly deluded and is in complete denial of the bigotry of it all from start to finish.
It's damning stuff and just shows what bigots the unmarried fathers of Ireland must face in Irish family courts.
I shudder at the thought of trying to defend my child in front of all this.

Stark · 25-07-2011 11:15PM

Wicknight was being sarcastic about being a judge (unless they appoint people judges at the age of 16).

K-9 · 25-07-2011 11:39PM

Stark wrote: »

Wicknight was being sarcastic about being a judge (unless they appoint people judges at the age of 16).

Ah feck it, I thought that initially, though it does add to the point.

I appreciate the joke, after all it shows she/he has nothing else to offer, but I expect better in Humanities.

Not going to make a big deal as it is a sign of last resort. No doubt we'll meet again on the same topic and it's card I can play! :cool:

SheFiend · 26-07-2011 10:31AM

Wicknight wrote: »

What you stated as "facts" is inconsistent with the current laws of Ireland. You can be incensed all you like, I don't really care about that.

So let me get this straight. You do not believe that the State should assess the guardianship of a man who has been accused of domestic violence by the mother of the children he is trying to get guardianship of.

You do not believe it is in the best interests of the children to assess if there is any merit to a claim of violence by the father?

I think the State is right to do this because there has been an accustation of domestic violence made against the person seeking guardianship. If you have evidence that in this case the claim is false I suggest you go to the police, but the idea that the State should ignore such claims because the woman might be lying is frankly ridiculous.

Imagine the father was actually beating the mother. You think the State shouldn't care about that because sure she might be lying?

You seem to have a funny definition of progress if you think putting children in harms way is progress, or in their best interest.

Claims of violence made long after a relationship has ended should be viewed with enough suspicion that the defence should be entitled to question the accuser as to why she did not report such incidents at the time. As it stands, the accuser does not have to explain such things. If the father was actually beating the mother, she would be able to prove it by presenting herself to Gardai and making a statement so that the Gardai can investigate, and also observe any injuries, their own testimonial backing up her claims.

Zombrex · 26-07-2011 04:10PM

Jesus Christ guys, I'm not actually a judge. :eek:

I always suspected people weren't reading my posts properly, didn't think such an obvious example at sarcasm would be necessary to demonstrate this.

K-9 · 26-07-2011 04:28PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus Christ guys, I'm not actually a judge. :eek:

I always suspected people weren't reading my posts properly, didn't think such an obvious example at sarcasm would be necessary to demonstrate this.

The lack of smilies was a slight problem.

So then custody isn't an issue with Guardianship, any other scare mongering left?

SheFiend · 27-07-2011 08:19PM

KindOfIrish wrote: »

I would advise you to get pregnant, then live with a huge belly for the next 9 months after that give birht and after that feed, wash etc. child for the next 14 (at list) years. And you will understand.

Eh, I decline your advice. I paid good money to prevent unwanted children being born to a single mother like myself, thanks. So tell me, if father is not entitled to equal rights concerning the child, why in God's name should he have to pay maintanence for it's upbringing???

SheFiend · 27-07-2011 10:34PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus Christ guys, I'm not actually a judge. :eek:

I always suspected people weren't reading my posts properly, didn't think such an obvious example at sarcasm would be necessary to demonstrate this.

Heehee! I'm afraid sarcasm doesn't translate through text. You would have to write "Only joking", or something similar, for people to know you didn't mean what you said

shadowsofwind · 27-07-2011 11:18PM

guys everybody is talking about the rights of the mothers and the fathers how about the rights of the kids to have a relationship with both parents??? i am separeted i hated my ex husband but that was my opinion of him( and many others) but i never stopped my daughter from having her dad in her life.
ladies please remember most of us that chose to be with bad partners is because we never had a proper relationship with our dads
please ladies lets not repeat the cycle

Klingon Hamlet · 31-07-2011 07:30PM

If mums are always trusted to do the right thing by their child, then so should dads. Let the minority of wasters on both sides be judged. Tarring all with the same brush is simply wrong and children suffer because of it.

SheFiend · 02-08-2011 06:41PM

shadowsofwind wrote: »

guys everybody is talking about the rights of the mothers and the fathers how about the rights of the kids to have a relationship with both parents??? i am separeted i hated my ex husband but that was my opinion of him( and many others) but i never stopped my daughter from having her dad in her life.
ladies please remember most of us that chose to be with bad partners is because we never had a proper relationship with our dads
please ladies lets not repeat the cycle

Too true Shadows

03-08-2011 09:46AM

shadowsofwind wrote: »

ladies please remember most of us that chose to be with bad partners is because we never had a proper relationship with our dads

What??

James Jones · 14-08-2011 02:23PM

Wicknight wrote: »

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 satisfied that they are interested in raising them.

Although I am generally in agreement with you, I think you might be confusing Guardianship with Custody.
Guardianship = The Legal relationship between a child and a parent whereas Custody = the living arrangements (i.e. raising).
A Guardian can be involved in all of the decisions regarding the child but have nothing to do with any other aspect of their lives. Or maybe I’m taking you up wrong?
By the way, there is no actual definition of “The best interests of the child” so everyone can say they are acting in the best interests of the child.

Regardless, this entire thread is based on the false presumption that Guardianship for fathers is actually worthwhile. Read the newspaper article HERE and HERE (full report HERE).
Then have a look at the six Equality Tribunal cases HERE. Remember, ALL of these incidents were where MARRIED fathers were ignored as Legal Guardians by state authorities. There is NO POINT in granting Guardianship (automatic or otherwise) to any father, married or not, until Guardianship of fathers to act JOINTLY is respected.

Fromthetrees · 06-09-2011 03:25PM

I've posted a thread for unmarried fathers (could also be for separated fathers) in the forum request section. If you support this idea or think you would contribute to a forum, sub forum or even a sticky then give it a +1. Thanks.

minidazzler · 10-09-2011 04:43PM

Chocholic7 wrote: »

It's now 2011 and unmarried fathers still don't have equal rights. As my kids father was a greedy,abusive, immature, selfish man and sponged off me until I left him, I was glad it applied to him. If it wasn't for this system in place I would be unable to take my daughter abroad on hols or anything like this without his consent (which he never gave when I asked him to sign passport until I discovered there was a sole guardianship form for it). I am just wondering what everyone else's views are on this topic.

Chocholic7 wrote: »

I do agree with you SheFiend as I have seem mothers torture their ex partners not allowing them to see their child also. That of course is not fair on the fathers. However I think the majority of the time, the child is always better off in the care of the mother. My parents were married and seperated when I was 5. But whenever I went into my fathers place for the weekend, he would normally leave me unsupervised in the house while he went down to the local pub and he was in his mid 30's. Now my childs father is the same as our kid went to stay with him for a weekend but I got a call from his mother that night saying he went out with the lads and she had look after our kid, so it makes me think if most fathers are entitled to the responsibility of equal rights to childeren?? Given that of course some mothers are irresponsible too, but I think a lot of single fathers are just "not arsed" spending a full weekend with their kids as they would be rather be out on the piss. But as I said this is not all fathers, as one of my single male frds is an amazing dad to his kid so I do admire the fathers that do make an effort to their kids

So the fact that you had a sh1t father and (possibly as a consequence) have sh1t taste in men, gives you the opinion that men should not have rights to the children they helped make? That's insane, you are not automatically a better parent for being female and while your kids dad might be terrible, that doesn't discount that MOST men are fantastic fathers when it comes down to it.

illumi · 04-11-2011 05:21PM

Unmarried Fathers should not automatically have equal rights in my opinion.
Here is why I believe so

I know for a fact that there are many unmarried fathers out there who are great fathers to their kids. And as such I believe that they should have rights to their children. No one should make it hard on them when they want those rights. And as far as I know ( i could be wrong) Guardianship and Access are granted through court in most cases. most mothers want the father to have an active part in the raising of their children. And as we all know, its best for the child to have both parents in their lives.

My partner and me are expecting our first child. he did get upset with me when i said i will sign the forms for guardianship only. I also said that he can have access to our child whenever he wants. Even if we break up, this will still be what I want for our child. I hope he comes around.

_________________________________________________________________

Now on the other side we have pregnancies resulting from one night stands, casual sexual relationships. Then we have fathers who turn their back on their kids and want nothing to do with them. As weird as it sounds.. sperm doners. And in rare cases we have rape victims.

Should unmarried mothers really have to share their rights equally with any the above? Chase them down for their signatures when they need to make an important decision regarding their child?
I think not

If unmarried fathers were given equal rights automatically and fall in to the bottom category, it would result in the mothers going to court, trying to get those rights taken away again, so they can make important decisions without hunting down unwilling fathers.

So I am really split, and because of that I don't think that unmarried fathers should have equal rights.

Klingon Hamlet · 05-11-2011 12:22PM

illumi wrote: »

Unmarried Fathers should not automatically have equal rights in my opinion.
Here is why I believe so

I know for a fact that there are many unmarried fathers out there who are great fathers to their kids. And as such I believe that they should have rights to their children. No one should make it hard on them when they want those rights. And as far as I know ( i could be wrong) Guardianship and Access are granted through court in most cases. most mothers want the father to have an active part in the raising of their children. And as we all know, its best for the child to have both parents in their lives.

My partner and me are expecting our first child. he did get upset with me when i said i will sign the forms for guardianship only. I also said that he can have access to our child whenever he wants. Even if we break up, this will still be what I want for our child. I hope he comes around.

_________________________________________________________________

Now on the other side we have pregnancies resulting from one night stands, casual sexual relationships. Then we have fathers who turn their back on their kids and want nothing to do with them. As weird as it sounds.. sperm doners. And in rare cases we have rape victims.

Should unmarried mothers really have to share their rights equally with any the above? Chase them down for their signatures when they need to make an important decision regarding their child?
I think not

If unmarried fathers were given equal rights automatically and fall in to the bottom category, it would result in the mothers going to court, trying to get those rights taken away again, so they can make important decisions without hunting down unwilling fathers.

So I am really split, and because of that I don't think that unmarried fathers should have equal rights.

What about mothers who don't take care of their child/ren? You write as if all mothers are inherently good whereas some dads are good and some are bad.

All are human and flawed. Most are decent loving parents. The few are used as an excuse to discriminate against one gender. This needs to stop.

Working in a post office opens your eyes to the real world. Poverty-stricken parents striving to take care of their kids. Welfare scroungers splashing out on drink and luxuries while their kids get skinnier and their clothes threadbare.

Mums get the crappy end of the deal: no matter what they have to carry the children around for nine months and then fight through a labour. But after that we are all equals.

Hopefully someday the law will look past ancient prejudices and assumptions and see the truth: dads are as loving and capable as mums, FULL STOP.

PS I do wonder if the welfare system wasn't as one-sided, would there be more mums walking out on their kids? Money and a cheap home can be an awfully persuasive reason to stick around.

05-11-2011 01:11PM

So because there are some possibly bad situations no unmarried fathers should ever have equal rights. That's lovely. And of course no married fathers would take off with mothers having to chase them down either.

wolfpawnat · 05-11-2011 01:18PM

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

PS I do wonder if the welfare system wasn't as one-sided, would there be more mums walking out on their kids? Money and a cheap home can be an awfully persuasive reason to stick around.

There are women who have children and think only in terms in SW payments. Thankfully they are the minority, but they exist and to pretend otherwise is to be in severe denial.

The welfare system in Ireland is terrible. It promotes the single parent scenario. I could get OPFP and BTEA if I were a single mother, as well as Medical Cards, Full rent allowance and no doubt one or two other bits and pieces, but instead I get the bare minimum because the child's father is in his life. It would be one thing if he were able to contribute but he cannot at present, leaving me very badly off financially, but if I were to be a single mother my life would financially be more secure.

We need the OPFP to look after parents who are raising children alone and need the help, but the way it is working out, it is pushing the one parent household and that is really wrong!!!

efb · 05-11-2011 01:22PM

Of course they should have equal rights, neglectful and abusive parents should be met with the full rigours of the law- irrespective of gender.

Denying all fathers rights based on one's own experience is unfair.

Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

Comments