Father fails to be granted custody of his child after death of mother

sup_dude wrote: »

It's not a case of the parents separating here though. The child lost his mother, which is far far far more traumatising than a separation. When there is an option to stay in the family home, to minimise distress to the child, I would take that option. He still sees his father as before and he doesn't lose his mother partner who, depending on how long they were together, may be a primary role model in the child's life.

Which spins on the issue of access. If this was the other way around, where the father had custody, died, and it transferred to his partner, would you be accepting of that?

I'm putting words in their mouths, but I'd expect the professionals to say:
"No one can give a child the comfort they need when losing a parent, than their mother"

Ave Sodalis

Dravokivich wrote: »

Which spins on the issue of access. If this was the other way around, where the father had custody, died, and it transferred to his partner, would you be accepting of that?

I'm putting words in their mouths, but I'd expect the professionals to say:
"No one can give a child the comfort they need when losing a parent, than their mother"

Yes, why wouldn't I? If the reasons are just and valid, then yes, it would be the same if it was the other way around.

A child will go to the person they know and trust best when seeking comfort. I'm going to assume that it's the mother's partner in this case.

Dravokivich wrote: »

Who were bias and flaunted that opinion:

Context ffs. I don't know if you're being deliberately disingenuous or what. She obviously meant that things are fine where the kid is now and the only thing that would have her recommend removing the kid would be if that situation degenerated.

Deleted User wrote: »

Context ffs. I don't know if you're being deliberately disingenuous or what. She obviously meant that things are fine where the kid is now and the only thing that would have her recommend removing the kid would be if that situation degenerated.

I'm not. Fathers rights are already questionable and an issue as it is and this case has shown to disregard them even further, by granting a third party custody regardless of the father's position. And making a point of expressing that!

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not. Fathers rights are already questionable and an issue as it is and this case has shown to disregard them even further, by granting a third party custody regardless of the father's position. And making a point of expressing that!

If the kid is comfortable and happier in the stable household he's been in for the past few years if not more then why move him? You're really missing the point here.

Deleted User wrote: »

If the kid is comfortable and happier in the stable household he's been in for the past few years if not more then why move him? You're really missing the point here.

I'm not. This reason for the case in the first place is the father's continuing diminished rights to custody of his child. It has now passed from the mother, to her mother + the mother's partner.

Maguined

Deleted User wrote: »

If the kid is comfortable and happier in the stable household he's been in for the past few years if not more then why move him? You're really missing the point here.

How stable do you think this household is? The article does not give a lot of details but the few it does give does not pose a stable household.

Firstly the judge awarded guardianship to the late mothers partner. Guardianship is something that could of been looked into before the mother passed away however the family never did. It was only the dying mothers wish that the child remain with her partner that the judge decided to award guardianship to the partner.

Secondly the grandmother criticised how quickly the partner engaged in a new relationship after the mothers death. I cannot understand how awarding primary custody to the childs biological father is considered more unstable or unsettling than having his own mother replaced by a random women so soon after his mother has passed away.

Tigger

Dravokivich wrote: »

Who were bias and flaunted that opinion:

exactly

Thomas D

The stability thing is way over emphasised. How stable is her life with a brand new mother? And what is he is to have more partners over the years?

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not. This reason for the case in the first place is the father's continuing diminished rights to custody of his child. It has now passed from the mother, to her mother + the mother's partner.

A few facts, the Father was involved in the child's life and had access, when the mother passed the father either before or after was a guardian of the child with the grandparent and the mothers partner. So all treated fairly so far. That worked for some time but then the father decided that he wanted sole custody. It seems the main reason the judge would not grant same was her belief that the father would not keep to a promise for access to the other person.

It seems to me a fair decision to keep all the important people who have this child best interests in mind, involved with the child. It also amazes me that people who have only read a newspaper article seem to think they are better informed than all the people involved in this case.

Maguined

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

A few facts, the Father was involved in the child's life and had access, when the mother passed the father either before or after was a guardian of the child with the grandparent and the mothers partner. So all treated fairly so far. That worked for some time but then the father decided that he wanted sole custody. It seems the main reason the judge would not grant same was her belief that the father would not keep to a promise for access to the other person.

It seems to me a fair decision to keep all the important people who have this child best interests in mind, involved with the child. It also amazes me that people who have only read a newspaper article seem to think they are better informed than all the people involved in this case.

Do you believe it is fair to make a decision based upon an assumption and no evidence? Surely in a court of law they are supposed to make decisions based on proof not a guess on the future?

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

A few facts, the Father was involved in the child's life and had access, when the mother passed the father either before or after was a guardian of the child with the grandparent and the mothers partner. So all treated fairly so far. That worked for some time but then the father decided that he wanted sole custody. It seems the main reason the judge would not grant same was her belief that the father would not keep to a promise for access to the other person.

It seems to me a fair decision to keep all the important people who have this child best interests in mind, involved with the child. It also amazes me that people who have only read a newspaper article seem to think they are better informed than all the people involved in this case.

The issues highlighted in the article, were around the father's frustration that he did not have custody and had to go through this to attempt to obtain it and ultimately fail with the deck stacked against him.

I'm worried it sets a precedent now against fathers with the court ruling.

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not. This reason for the case in the first place is the father's continuing diminished rights to custody of his child. It has now passed from the mother, to her mother + the mother's partner.

How far would you go with the father's rights?

Maguined wrote: »

How stable do you think this household is? The article does not give a lot of details but the few it does give does not pose a stable household.

Firstly the judge awarded guardianship to the late mothers partner. Guardianship is something that could of been looked into before the mother passed away however the family never did. It was only the dying mothers wish that the child remain with her partner that the judge decided to award guardianship to the partner.

Secondly the grandmother criticised how quickly the partner engaged in a new relationship after the mothers death. I cannot understand how awarding primary custody to the childs biological father is considered more unstable or unsettling than having his own mother replaced by a random women so soon after his mother has passed away.

I wasn't in court so I don't know the specifics and I'm not going to pretend to.

quad_red

sup_dude wrote: »

It's not a case of the parents separating here though. The child lost his mother, which is far far far more traumatising than a separation. When there is an option to stay in the family home, to minimise distress to the child, I would take that option. He still sees his father as before and he doesn't lose his mother partner who, depending on how long they were together, may be a primary role model in the child's life.

Exactly!

The article doesn't give the childs age. But say there are 12. And they've spent the last 10 years living in a household with their mother and her partner.

Even after the mothers passing, this is still 'home'. Ripping the child out of that could destroy their lives.

The fact that the judge openly stated that he disbelieved the biological father would give access as directed to the mother's partner could say allot.

The interests of the child are paramount.

Dravokivich wrote: »

The issues highlighted in the article, were around the father's frustration that he did not have custody and had to go through this to attempt to obtain it and ultimately fail with the deck stacked against him.

The father applied for sole custody, "A natural father who applied for sole custody of his child following the death of the child’s mother has lost his application"

The father had before the mothers death regular access "The natural father had regular access to the child prior to the mother’s death" and afterwards "After her death, his access was increased, but the child remained living with the mother’s partner."

The evidence presented to the Court was the child wanted to remain with the partner, "A more recent psychiatrist’s report ordered by the court made the same recommendation. It described the child as bright and sociable and its author also said she believed the child wished to remain with the mother’s partner."

In relation to the father the Judge said "She noted he had said if he was given sole custody of the child, he would be “generous” about access, but she did not believe that would be the case."

This is an issue that would tax Solomon, but all the Court can do is weigh up the evidence and try and do what is in the best interest of the Child.

Deleted User wrote: »

How far would you go with the father's rights?

What do you mean?

If by my repeated reference to'em here, all the way. This occurred for no other reason than a lack of them in the first place.

A natural father who applied for sole custody of his child following the death of the child’s mother has lost his application at the Dublin Circuit Family Court. Judge Catherine Murphy ruled sole custody should instead be granted to the deceased mother’s partner, with access for the natural father of 10 nights a month.

This case came of his actions to gain custody of his child, because it wasn't obtained with the death of the mother. The result was a denial of custody of his child. This is a Fathers Rights issue.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The father applied for sole custody, "A natural father who applied for sole custody of his child following the death of the child’s mother has lost his application"

The father had before the mothers death regular access "The natural father had regular access to the child prior to the mother’s death" and afterwards "After her death, his access was increased, but the child remained living with the mother’s partner."

The evidence presented to the Court was the child wanted to remain with the partner, "A more recent psychiatrist’s report ordered by the court made the same recommendation. It described the child as bright and sociable and its author also said she believed the child wished to remain with the mother’s partner."

In relation to the father the Judge said "She noted he had said if he was given sole custody of the child, he would be “generous” about access, but she did not believe that would be the case."

This is an issue that would tax Solomon, but all the Court can do is weigh up the evidence and try and do what is in the best interest of the Child.

What you are arguing over is the difference between Shared / Sole custody. You don't need any amount of custody to have access. He had a lower amount of custody over his child shared with the mother of his child. With her death, he should obtain sole custody of the child. That doesn't result in a lack of access to the child for the mothers family. That woman was looking to discredit both men!

Maguined wrote: »

Do you believe it is fair to make a decision based upon an assumption and no evidence? Surely in a court of law they are supposed to make decisions based on proof not a guess on the future?

It is a very valid decision to make, based on the "Evidence" that is all the information before the Judge including the fathers verbal evidence, judges every day have to make such decisions based on a lot more than assumptions, but on the past actions of the person giving their evidence. In fact the article says "Judge Murphy said a disproportionate amount of hostility “appeared to emanate” from the natural father toward the mother’s partner and this posed “a serious and ongoing difficulty” for the child." So a fact based decision.

quad_red

Maguined wrote: »

Do you beliefe it is fair to make a decision based upon an assumption and no evidence? Surely in a court of law they are supposed to make decisions based on proof not a guess on the future?

? I would wager that the vast majority of judgements involve analysis of what the future actions of the parties involved are likely to be.

Dravokivich wrote: »

What do you mean?

If by my repeated reference to'em here, all the way. This occurred for no other reason than a lack of them in the first place.

This case came of his actions to gain custody of his child, because it wasn't obtained with the death of the mother. The result was a denial of custody of his child. This is a Fathers Rights issue.

So if the father lived in Australia and had never met the kid for 17 years they kid should be forcibly removed and sent over if the father wants it?

Dravokivich wrote: »

What do you mean?

If by my repeated reference to'em here, all the way. This occurred for no other reason than a lack of them in the first place.

This case came of his actions to gain custody of his child, because it wasn't obtained with the death of the mother. The result was a denial of custody of his child. This is a Fathers Rights issue.

He is guardian of the child he has access for 1/3 of the year, he is involved with all decisions of the rearing of the child and according to an independent person the child wishes to remain with the partner. It is a child's rights issue.

Turtwig

Not one independent person.

Two psychiatric reports recommended the child stay where he was.

Deleted User wrote: »

So if the father lived in Australia and had never met the kid for 17 years they kid should be forcibly removed and sent over if the father wants it?

That is not what this is about. This is about a father who was involved with thier child having their role as the father of their child being inconsequential by the courts.

You can't use the extremes to form the basis of normality.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

He is guardian of the child he has access for 1/3 of the year, he is involved with all decisions of the rearing of the child and according to an independent person the child wishes to remain with the partner. It is a child's rights issue.

Meaning second fiddle to a third party.

Doesn't state that. Again, its part of the bias report she provided and states "She believed."

Dravokivich wrote: »

That is not what this is about. This is about a father who was involved with thier child having their role as the father of their child being inconsequential by the courts.

You can't use the extremes to form the basis of normality.

Meaning second fiddle to a third party.

Doesn't state that. Again, its part of the bias report she provided and states "She believed."

How is access for 10 nights inconsequential in any measure. Everyone in this story is rightly second fiddle to the child. Yes the expert said "She believed" its called opinion evidence for a reason, the opinion word being the important one.

Jawgap

Read this, and as someone who's been through the Family Court system in Ireland I was not terribly surprised.

I wonder if the father had custody and died would the natural mother have had as much a problem getting sole custody over the wishes of the deceased father? I somehow doubt it.

It's just another example of the inherent and brutal bias in the Family Courts here towards fathers.

As for 'independent psychiatrist' reports - there only one word for that.....LOL!

There are no 'independent psychiatrists' or psychologists - everyone knows which ones you retain if you're a Dad and which ones you retain if you are a Mother.

The quote from the judge summed up the institutional bias towards separated fathers....

She noted he [the natural father] had said if he was given sole custody of the child, he would be “generous” about access, but she did not believe that would be the case.

I wonder what her basis for that disbelief was? And would the judge have been equally sceptical about a mother who behaved in a similar fashion?

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

How is access for 10 nights inconsequential in any measure. Everyone in this story is rightly second fiddle to the child. Yes the expert said "She believed" its called opinion evidence for a reason, the opinion word being the important one.

The third party you know I'm referring to is the mothers partner, not the child.

So he has 10 nights a month, they'll need to be suitable to the mothers partner. Anything extra has to go through the mothers partner, as a Father he is inconsequential.

Jawgap wrote: »

I wonder what her basis for that disbelief was? And would the judge have been equally sceptical about a mother who behaved in a similar fashion?

She was looking to discredit both men.

Jawgap

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

How is access for 10 nights inconsequential in any measure. Everyone in this story is rightly second fiddle to the child. Yes the expert said "She believed" its called opinion evidence for a reason, the opinion word being the important one.

You're right the central should be central to the consideration of the court.....but the father shouldn't be relegated to an 'also ran.'

the presumption should be the same for fathers as it is for mothers - that they have (and will always have) the best interests of the child at heart, and that the best place for the child is with the father.

What happens if the other guy meets someone who isn't too enamoured about taking on a child that is not hers and not his and he decides then to renounce his guardianship?

Dravokivich wrote: »

The third party you know I'm referring to is the mothers partner, not the child.

So he has 10 nights a month, they'll need to be suitable to the mothers partner. Anything extra has to go through the mothers partner, as a Father he is inconsequential.

She was looking to discredit both men.

I knew full well who you intended as you know full well I am saying this is not about the "property rights of fathers" but of children rights.

Have you seen the Court order unless you have how do you know that the 10 nights have to be suitable to the mothers partner, or how extra nights are to be agreed.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I knew full well who you intended as you know full well I am saying this is not about the "property rights of fathers" but of children rights.

Have you seen the Court order unless you have how do you know that the 10 nights have to be suitable to the mothers partner, or how extra nights are to be agreed.

Thats always how its done with the person who has custody.

Jawgap wrote: »

You're right the central should be central to the consideration of the court.....but the father shouldn't be relegated to an 'also ran.'

the presumption should be the same for fathers as it is for mothers - that they have (and will always have) the best interests of the child at heart, and that the best place for the child is with the father.

What happens if the other guy meets someone who isn't too enamoured about taking on a child that is not hers and not his and he decides then to renounce his guardianship?

All cases must start with the idea that the natural parents have the best interests of the child at heart, but what happens when a court is presented with independent opinions that goes against that idea. Also a parent may fully believe that they know best and have the best interests of the child but can be simply wrong, hence why a court must ask other people to help to make the decision.