brilliant news, minister wants names of dads on all birth certs

My child has her fathers surname, his name is also on the birth cert, he even has guardianship.
He still doesn't know what she had for dinner today, that she can now spell random words she hears during the day, or it would seem, that it actually costs money to rear her.
Some ink on a bit of paper won't change a thing.
Fathers who want to be in their child's life will still be screwed over and those who don't give a **** still won't take any responsibility.

secretambition wrote: »

I agree with it. I think that the childs right to know is paramount. There was a case in England a few years ago where two twins who had been adopted separately were actually engaged, obviously clueless that they were related. In a country like Ireland, with a smaller population, there is more of a need to know who a person is related to. A more likely issue is that of hereditary illnesses and the need to get information about them. Then of course, the most obvious thing of all, is that a person may want a relationship with their father and their extended family on his side.

I know you are trying to make a valid point but. . . two twins? :pac:

Biggins wrote: »

There has to be exceptions.
As in the case of rapes, etc where the female is abused and does not want to attached for life legally on paper to the name of her abuser.

That is very important I feel.

Mr. Obvious, nice to meet you!

What I found interesting was the stipulation that 'women will not have to put the father's name on the birth cert in cases where they don't know who he is or where they feel their life may be in danger from him'. I hope there is also a requirement for any woman who ticks that box to also provide said potential assailant's details to the Guards!

According to this Irish site to get a Court Approved DNA test done costs €700.

http://www.oqps.ie/court-approved-test-pricing.htm

Not exactly cheap, but you certainly wouldn't think twice about paying it if someone put your name on a birth cert and you didn't think it should be there. €700 a lot cheaper than 18 years of child support.

If insisting the Fathers name on the Birth Cert grants no rights to the Father then Joan Burton is "at it"

By that I mean, the Father on the Birth Cert is entitled to visitation rights that if denied the mother can be held accountable under the law for.

More importantly if there is a custody dispute the Judge MUST view the Father and Mother as equal, not as it is now where the Mother is granted custody almost all of the time regardless of the facts.

If that dosen't happen then Burton is engaging in simply money grabbing exercise rather than real and much needed reform

I hate this nonsense about mothers not putting the fathers name down do she can collect single parent allowance. It's absolute bull****. Putting a fathers name on a birth cert is NOT a barrier to social welfare payments.

My Childs father refused point blank to have his name put on her birth cert. But thankfully because the law states that if there is a court order than a fathers name can be automatically added without his permission. Only for this there would be no name on her cert because of the actions of a selfish man.

It was extremely important for me to have his name there. I was not going to have it left blank our have it marked as unknown, he is her father. It's just too bad that he could never admit that to himself.

westendgirlie wrote: »

In the UK, unless you are married a mother does not have the right to put the fathers name on a birth cert. The father has to be present at registration.

This will be the procedure in Ireland too I hope. Otherwise, you could become the father of a child that isn't yours.

I thought that was the case here too. For clarification purposes would this proposal mean a woman could put a man's name down who has never even had sex with her?

LordSmeg wrote: »

dark crystal wrote: »

It's the fathers responsibility to pay for his child, just as much as it is the mothers. Why should the state pay out in place of an errant father..

They wouldn't be 'squeezing' money out of anyone, just making them contribute to the child they helped create.

Problem there is that the mothers responsibilities are taken care of by the state through allowances the fathers I assume are not and forcing him to pay doesnt reduce the cost to the state as far as I see. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, either pay the fathers child support through a state payment on his behalf or reduce the mothers allowances to compensate for the contribution of the father.

If there is extra money involved on top of already adequate state payments then you can bet there will be a lot of "squeezing" involved.

Social welfare allowances are reduced for the custodial parent if the non custodial parent is paying maintenance.

It sounds like a total mickey mouse law to me so good luck with it Joan. If a girl really doesnt want to name the father all she has to say is I was pissed, I don't remember. How is Joan going to prove otherwise?

goat2 wrote: »

i know a fellow who was going out with a girl about two yrs ago, for a few months, he broke up with girl, she texted him to say she is pregnant with his child, he is denying this, the child is about a yr old now, he has not seen the little child, he is still not admitting that he is the father,

my guess is that now that this is happening, he will be called upon to prove it through dna,

But who will pay for the DNA test? If the government are going to bring in this law and insist on DNA tests then they will have to pay for them. Could get expensive for them.