nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

DeepBlue

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/natural-father-fails-in-bid-for-sole-custody-1.1884254

Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances involved but it seems bizarre to me that such a child would be left in the custody of the mother's partner rather than the child's own natural father.

If every child in the country had a psychiatrist come in and do a report I'd guess there would be lots of cases where they would recommend that the child (or children) be moved away from their natural parents - but there would be outrage if that was allowed but in this case it's ok?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Pro Hoc Vice

Dravokivich wrote: »

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

You are incorrect, the order can set days or dates, the order can set out the times and how the hand over is to be done, the order can set out how days can be rearranged. The usually is not to say 10 days a month but to set out what 10 days exactly, i.e. the first 10 nights or every Saturday and Sunday plus every second Monday for example.

Jawgap

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.

the interesting thing, in my experience, is that its irrelevant whether and which nights are agreed because the court will not enforce against anything except the most egregious breach......

.....so if the guardian with custody decides a weekend is unsuitable, changes his mind at the last minute, tells the father at short notice he has to take the child tonight etc, the court will not interfere.

Oh, you make get a judge telling him he's being a bit of a naughty boy but there will be no sanction.

On the other hand, if you want to experience swift justice try miss a maintenance payment - it's astonishing how quickly the courts can move then....

Dravokivich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We've established that genetics isn't everything so then where is the line for you?

And what he has got isn't inconsequential.

We are talking about a scenario where a man had shared custody of his child, lost out on custody of his child to the mothers partner.

You are just bringing in alternatives to try and rip at it and add in needless unrelated points to consider. Im not going to keep it up becuase it distracts from the issue.

Dravokivich

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You are incorrect, the order can set days or dates, the order can set out the times and how the hand over is to be done, the order can set out how days can be rearranged. The usually is not to say 10 days a month but to set out what 10 days exactly, i.e. the first 10 nights or every Saturday and Sunday plus every second Monday for example.

Yes and then nothing when the person with custody doesnt keep up with it. He is very much at their whims.

eviltwin

Dravokivich wrote: »

We are talking about a scenario where a man had shared custody of his child, lost out on custody of his child to the mothers partner.

You are just bringing in alternatives to try and rip at it and add in needless unrelated points to consider. Im not going to keep it up becuase it distracts from the issue.

He didn't have custody in the first place to lose. You don't know anymore about this case than was printed in the paper which was vague enough, you can't say without knowing the full facts if the judge made the right choice. This is clearly a very sad private tragedy and shouldn't be used as part of some agenda.

miamee

Jawgap wrote: »

the interesting thing, in my experience, is that its irrelevant whether and which nights are agreed because the court will not enforce against anything except the most egregious breach......

.....so if the guardian with custody decides a weekend is unsuitable, changes his mind at the last minute, tells the father at short notice he has to take the child tonight etc, the court will not interfere.

Oh, you make get a judge telling him he's being a bit of a naughty boy but there will be no sanction.

On the other hand, if you want to experience swift justice try miss a maintenance payment - it's astonishing how quickly the courts can move then....

From what I understood from the article this is exactly the kind of behaviour that the judge has NOT seen from the non-bio father and expects based on her experience of the bio father in court. Unfortunately that is all she has to make her judgement on and if it was a misrepresentation of him then I am sure he can appeal the decision.

fits

Jawgap wrote: »

On the other hand, if you want to experience swift justice try miss a maintenance payment - it's astonishing how quickly the courts can move then....

interesting you bring that up as article also mentions that the father never paid maintenance.

I don't know how anyone can draw such certain conclusions as in this thread based on the article.

Ave Sodalis

Dravokivich wrote: »

We are talking about a scenario where a man had shared custody of his child, lost out on custody of his child to the mothers partner.

You are just bringing in alternatives to try and rip at it and add in needless unrelated points to consider. Im not going to keep it up becuase it distracts from the issue.

That isn't what's happening in the article. It never said in the article that he had joint custody. Just because he's the father, doesn't mean he has joint custody. My father didn't have it over me as a child. He has increased visitation because of this.

This isn't about the rights of the father, nor the wishes of the father. This is entirely about the rights and wishes of the child and if the child wishes to stay with the mother's partner, then the child can do so. It's all well and good saying that this is terrible because of the father wants this and that... but in this case, it's nothing to do with him. If anything, the father should be respecting the child's wishes in this regard, despite his own desires. A parent should always act in the best interest of their young children, and if the father needs to be told by two separate professionals what the child's best interests are, and still not agree, then it just furthers the case for the guardianship going to the mother's partner.

eviltwin

The article also says the child requested to stay with the stepdad or does the wishes of the child not count for anything?

Jawgap

miamee wrote: »

From what I understood from the article this is exactly the kind of behaviour that the judge has NOT seen from the non-bio father and expects based on her experience of the bio father in court. Unfortunately that is all she has to make her judgement on and if it was a misrepresentation of him then I am sure he can appeal the decision.

Only because the mother was alive - who knows how things will change now she's gone....

The grandmother also had issues with her daughter’s partner because she believed he had entered a subsequent relationship prematurely after the death of her daughter.

Also an appeal from the Circuit Court must go to the High Court - that costs about €15 to €20k.

He can come back and ask for the order to be varied if there is any messing, but a quick look through Family Law Matters (the Courts Service Publication) will quickly tell you that sanctions are rarely, if ever handed down for disrupting or failing to adhere to access orders.

fits wrote: »

interesting you bring that up as article also mentions that the father never paid maintenance.

I don't know how anyone can draw such certain conclusions as in this thread based on the article.

The oft repeated mantra is that maintenance and access are wholly separate - one does not (and should not) depend on the other.

However, if you compare what happens to someone who fails to stick to a maintenance order with someone who fails to stick to an access order you'll see they are worlds apart.

No one goes to prison for screwing around with access.........

fits

eviltwin wrote: »

The article also says the child requested to stay with the stepdad or does the wishes of the child not count for anything?

the Childs wishes and interests are irrelevant apparently.

[Deleted User]

Dravokivich wrote: »

We are talking about a scenario where a man had shared custody of his child, lost out on custody of his child to the mothers partner.

You are just bringing in alternatives to try and rip at it and add in needless unrelated points to consider. Im not going to keep it up becuase it distracts from the issue.

You're just making stuff up now.

miamee

Jawgap wrote: »

Only because the mother was alive - who knows how things will change now she's gone....

From the article:

The natural father had regular access to the child prior to the mother’s death, though he did not pay maintenance and maintenance was not sought. After her death, his access was increased, but the child remained living with the mother’s partner.

So that is how things have changed since the mother died. Bio father sees child more than before, not less.

Jawgap

eviltwin wrote: »

The article also says the child requested to stay with the stepdad or does the wishes of the child not count for anything?

Without knowing the age of the child it's impossible to assess the request.....

.....also isn't it possible that the child is simply doing what it thinks its mother would want?

As for the stepfather, no his wishes should not count - he can repudiate his guardianship any time he sees fit, whereas the father cannot.

Jawgap

miamee wrote: »

From the article:

So that is how things have changed since the mother died. Bio father sees child more than before, not less.

You shouldn't confuse a variation to an access order with an actual increase in access in the real world.

eviltwin

Jawgap wrote: »

Without knowing the age of the child it's impossible to assess the request.....

.....also isn't it possible that the child is simply doing what it thinks its mother would want?

As for the stepfather, no his wishes should not count - he can repudiate his guardianship any time he sees fit, whereas the father cannot.

Let's deal with the facts here, nowhere does it imply the child was coached to say he/she wants to stay with the stepdad, going on the article it seems clear enough to me, the child stays in the home he/she knows and the dad gets to see the child on a regular basis. Now if anyone has any further info to share that makes the dad the victim here then I'd love to see it but based on the few details we do have the child has been placed at the very heart of this decision which is as it should be.

jackofalltrades

sup_dude wrote: »

I mean, if the child spent most of his life growing up with the mother's partner, then it would make sense for the child to stay with the partner...

Speaking generally, the problem with this is that usually the biological father only gets to see the child at the weekend.
The stepfather can quickly turn into the person the child spend most of their life growing up with.

This would be my biggest fear around having a child and the relationship with the mother breaking down.
That another man could come in and try and take over my role as a father.
And there wouldn't be much I could do to stop it.

Speaking about the specific case I don't think this would have happened if the genders were reversed.
I don't think a court would ever give sole custody to the partner of a father, unless in extreme circumstances.

Jawgap

My earlier point still stands.....swap the genders around and you get a completely different outcome.

It's just another example of the impossible task fathers face in overcoming the institutionalised presumptions in the Family Court about their role and value as parents.

[Deleted User]

Jawgap wrote: »

My earlier point still stands.....swap the genders around and you get a completely different outcome.

It's just another example of the impossible task fathers face in overcoming the institutionalised presumptions in the Family Court about their role and value as parents.

Swap the genders and the issue wouldn't have arisen.

However from what's in the article I don't see any issue with the decision. There's plenty wrong with how custody rights are decided and it disgusts me but I don't think this is such a case.

Lemming

It all depends on the age of the child and how long the mother's partner has been involved. Otherwise it's all second guessing.

If the child was quite young, I'd be very interested in seeing how the question was put them regarding what they wanted, i.e. was it a loaded question designed to get a manipulative answer?

Gillo

Lemming wrote: »

If the child was quite young, I'd be very interested in seeing how the question was put them regarding what they wanted, i.e. was it a loaded question designed to get a manipulative answer?

The question (you would hope was put forward by an independent psychiatrist and I'd be very surprised if it's as simple as "where do you want to live?". While it's an impossibly hard decision for the natural father without knowing the facts it's impossible for anyone here to say if it's the right or wrong decision. And this is coming from a single father who constantly hears about how great his ex's boyfriend is.

At this stage, the best thing is for both the genetic and "step" fathers to work together in the best interests of the child.

(I say step father as it's the best way I can think of putting it even though it's not the right phrase).

Thomas D

The message is clear to other men.

If you break up with your partner and they have are given main custody, then their new partner will over time assume the father role in a legal sense relegating you to biological parent status.

That is ****ed up.

homerjay2005

DeepBlue wrote: »

it seems bizarre to me that such a child would be left in the custody of the mother's partner rather than the child's own natural father.

whats bizzare about it? theres more to being a father than getting a woman pregnant, maybe the stepdad has been the childs real father until now and deserves to keep the child in his life?

Ave Sodalis

Thomas D wrote: »

The message is clear to other men.

If you break up with your partner and they have are given main custody, then their new partner will over time assume the father role in a legal sense relegating you to biological parent status.

That is ****ed up.

Actually, the message is more that it's not okay to have your needs and wants as a biological father put ahead of what is deemed best for the child.

I think the fact that people are justifying further potential tearing apart of the child's life by bringing up the rights of the father argument, is what's ****ed up. Yes, there is a problem with father's rights in this country. No, it does not put them ahead of the rights of the child and no, I don't believe this is the case here.

Gillo

Thomas D wrote: »

The message is clear to other men.

If you break up with your partner and they have are given main custody, then their new partner will over time assume the father role in a legal sense relegating you to biological parent status.

That is ****ed up.

The message is just because you are not physically there 24/7 you are still the father and should be acting the role. I take my daughter at least one evening a week but she gets a text or a call over day, there's a lot a single fathers I know who play a basic role in their childs life and thats it.

Gillo

Ultimately in this case we don't now either fathers situations so it's very hard to speculate and say if it was the right or wrong decision. At best all we can hope is that the court made the right (and I imagine very hard) decision.

Thomas D

I don't think we need to speculate because of the statement that it didn't matter if he was the perfect father they still would have kept custody with the exs partner.

Jawgap

The running assumption seems to be that the father (the child's real father) in being forced to engage with an adversarial system to have his view of what's in his child's best interest is not actually promoting his own child's best interests!!

It's just another example of how the inertial, ossified and dysfunctional family law system in this country relegates fathers to a minor role - placing as many negative assumptions in their way as possible.......each one of which has to be defeated to get even close to being recognised as having a valuable parental role.

The value of a mother is assumed by the courts ( hence the weight attached to her dying wish)..........the uselessness of the father is simply accepted as fact.

Family Courts are the only courts where one party (the mother) can throw every kind of disgusting allegation around without it bring challenged by a judge or if challenged by the father then label 'bully' is quickly applied.

[Deleted User]

homerjay2005 wrote: »

whats bizzare about it? theres more to being a father than getting a woman pregnant, maybe the stepdad has been the childs real father until now and deserves to keep the child in his life?

I also wonder about the rest of the family situation. If there's half-siblings involved then that would be another reason to leave the kid.

Paddy Cow

There isn't a lot to go on from the article but here's what I make of it:

Before the mother's death

Fact: the bio-father had regular access
Fact: the bio-father never paid maintenance and was never brought to court for it

Conclusion: the mother and step-father were not the type of couple to try and keep the father out of his child's life or make life difficult for him. They were very fair, much fairer than many separation stories where maintenance is requested but access is denied.

After the mother's death

Fact: access was increased
Fact: the step-parent went to court to secure access for his non-biological child, for which he will be financially responsible for until the child has reached adulthood
Fact: two independent psychiatrists recommended the child remain where it is
Fact: the child is believed to want to stay with the step-parent
Fact: the judge believes the bio-father is more concerned with his own rights, rather than what is right for the child

Conclusion: the child is living in a more stable environment with the step-parent than what the bio-father can provide.

To make a proper judgment in this case, we would need to know more about the bio-father's lifestyle. Is he in secure employment with a long term home? Was he not paying maintenance because he couldn't afford it and if so, how would he support a child full time? Did he take an active role in his child's upbringing, such as attending parent teacher meetings etc. There would be a lot more that the court would take into consideration. It's not common for courts to give custody to a non-biological parent and I seriously doubt they did it solely on the wishes of the deceased mother.