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

limnam

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

Instead of having to jump through all these legal hoops to get guardianship.

It takes 5 minutes to print off the form,sign it.

post it.

2 minutes with the judge and your done.

If these are complicated hoops for anyone they should re-consider having kids.

Jawgap

Paddy Cow wrote: »

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.

There are a few observations I'd like to make here.

First, based on two 'facts' I'm not sure how any conclusion - good, bad or indifferent - can be arrived at in respect of the mother and her partner and their personalities. Nor can any conclusion be reached as to how fair or otherwise they were.

Second, the mother's partner is the child's guardian, at the moment. Whatever financial liability / responsibility he has for the child he can walk away from tomorrow. He is in no way bound or obliged in law to remain as the child's guardian for one second longer than he wants to - so he is only as liable for the child as much as he wants to.

Third, as anyone who has had to have a Section 47 Report made up will tell you the key decision is the choice of psychiatrist or psychologist. Psychiatrists and psychologists subscribe to various 'schools' or theoretical frameworks meaning they do not all interpret the same information consistently. In other words just because a psychiatrist or psychologist is independent of the parties doesn't mean they are objective.

Fourth, who knows how the child has been manipulated - and maybe it does want to remain with its mother's former partner, but the implication from this is that the father is blind, indifferent or reckless as to his child's feelings? In other words, the sytem assumes the Dad is being a twat.

Fifth - "bio-father" what's that??? The dysfunctional system we have in Ireland allows no other way for the father to act in what he thinks are the child's best interests other than by asserting his own rights. It's not his fault the system is broken and that he is afforded only one route to securing access yet he is being pilloried for it.

As for your final questions - why would someone's ability as a father be tied to their lifestyle, employment status, pecuniary position??? You seem to want, as the system here is wont to do, to measure the value of a father to their child in economic and financial terms.

Do you think any court in this country would remove a child from its mother because she followed a questionable lifestyle, was unemployed long term or surviving on a minimum income? Bet you a$$ they wouldn't yet these are criteria being applied to measure fatherhood?

Did he take an active role in his child's upbringing, such as attending parent teacher meetings etc.

Seriously?? Maybe he was denied the information that would allow him to attend such things - maybe he was allowed access but was not permitted to be involved in decisions. In short what opportunities, beyond simple access, were afforded to him to be genuinely active in the emotional and pastoral side of his child's development?

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.

Not really, the deciding factor here, imo, was the psychiatrists' reports - they were the judges 'get out of jail free' card. They absolved them from weighing anything up because they could simply point at the 'professionals' report and claim they were being guided by that.

Plus, if the wishes of the deceased mother carried any weight then the judges should pat themselves on the back because they just announced that the courts will collude in keeping fathers out of their children's lives even when the mothers are gone........another victory for justice :rolleyes:

Paddy Cow

Jawgap wrote: »

There are a few observations I'd like to make here.

First, based on two 'facts' I'm not sure how any conclusion - good, bad or indifferent - can be arrived at in respect of the mother and her partner and their personalities. Nor can any conclusion be reached as to how fair or otherwise they were.

It's a thread discussing a newspaper article. I draw my conclusions from the facts as I read them. I don't claim to be right, I'm simply putting forth my perspective on the matter.

Fifth - "bio-father" what's that???

You really couldn't work out that it's short for biological father? :rolleyes: (see I can use that emoticon too).

Do you think any court in this country would remove a child from its mother because she followed a questionable lifestyle, was unemployed long term or surviving on a minimum income? Bet you a$$ they wouldn't yet these are criteria being applied to measure fatherhood?

The problem with most of your post is that you are talking in generalisations, whereas I'm looking at this case only. This is a very unique case and trying to draw comparisons to unrelated "what if" scenarios is pointless.

Why do you think the biological father paid no maintenance? He knows all of his rights but where was his sense of responsibility towards his child?

Jawgap

Paddy Cow wrote: »

It's a thread discussing a newspaper article. I draw my conclusions from the facts as I read them. I don't claim to be right, I'm simply putting forth my perspective on the matter.

You really couldn't work out that it's short for biological father? :rolleyes: (see I can use that emoticon too).

The problem with most of your post is that you are talking in generalisations, whereas I'm looking at this case only. This is a very unique case and trying to draw comparisons to unrelated "what if" scenarios is pointless.

Why do you think the biological father paid no maintenance? He knows all of his rights but where was his sense of responsibility towards his child?

Well it says in the article that he was never asked to pay maintenance, so who knows why it wasn't paid. Maybe they preferred not to take money from him, but you seem to have extrapolated from that an idea that he either couldn't or perhaps wouldn't pay........some attempt perhaps to perpetuate the stereotype of the deadbeat Dad?

Bio-father is a nonsense term. The child has a father who is their Dad. The other person who has been appointed guardian (aside from the grandmother) is the mother's FORMER partner, as evidenced by the fact that he seems to have struck up a relationship with someone else.

My post is not based on generalisations, but on personal experience of the Family Court system here as a party to proceedings and as a volunteer with a support group.

Finally.....small point......but on a semantic note, something cannot be 'very' unique - it's either unique or it's not (unique means one of a kind). As in everyone's Dad is unique

Paddy Cow

Jawgap wrote: »

Well it says in the article that he was never asked to pay maintenance, so who knows why it wasn't paid. Maybe they preferred not to take money from him, but you seem to have extrapolated from that an idea that he either couldn't or perhaps wouldn't pay........some attempt perhaps to perpetuate the stereotype of the deadbeat Dad?

I never said he was a dead beat Dad, I asked why he didn't pay maintenance. It is a valid question, as if he didn't pay it because he couldn't afford it, then how is he going to look after a child full time?

Bio-father is a nonsense term.

It was shorter than typing biological father.

My post is not based on generalisations, but on personal experience of the Family Court system here as a party to proceedings and as a volunteer with a support group.

There were generalisations in your post that have no bearings on this case. I also have know the Family Court system and have seen both sides of the fence. Some fathers go to great lengths to provide for their children and get shafted on either maintenance or access and some fathers go to great lengths to avoid both. Neither your experiences nor mine shed any light on the father in question in this case. Surely you have to accept that being a biological parent does not always mean being a good parent.

Finally.....small point......but on a semantic note, something cannot be 'very' unique - it's either unique or it's not (unique means one of a kind). As in everyone's Dad is unique

That is petty and unnecessary.

Jawgap

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I never said he was a dead beat Dad, I asked why he didn't pay maintenance. It is a valid question, as if he didn't pay it because he couldn't afford it, then how is he going to look after a child full time?

It was shorter than typing biological father.

'Dad' is even shorter again.

Paddy Cow wrote: »

There were generalisations in your post that have no bearings on this case. I also have know the Family Court system and have seen both sides of the fence. Some fathers go to great lengths to provide for their children and get shafted on either maintenance or access and some fathers go to great lengths to avoid both. Neither your experiences nor mine shed any light on the father in question in this case. Surely you have to accept that being a biological parent does not always mean being a good parent.

..........

Yes, a biological connection does not always mean the person will make a good parent, but this case highlights a lot that is wrong about the Irish family courts when it comes to Dads. The assumption seems to be he doesn't have the best interests of the child at heart........that strangers (the judge and psychiatrists) are better placed to make decisions than parents.......and that in a society that espouses equality the wishes of the mother trump the wishes of the father.

As usual the Dad finds himself scrutinised and examined as to his motivations, and forced to defend himself........whereas the mother's wishes, expressed from beyond the grave, are simply accepted without question as being expressive of what's in the child's best interests.

Masked Man

Dravokivich wrote: »

Who were bias and flaunted that opinion:

"In evidence, the psychiatrist said no matter how perfect the family of the unmarried father was, she would not recommend the child be moved. "

I don't see how that proves bias. It seems much more likely that it's a conclusion she reached based on the evidence and her expertise and not a view she held before assessing the evidence.

It's not fair to attack her because she reached a conclusion that you disagree with, especially when she's an expert and had access to much more information than most people.

Paddy Cow

Jawgap wrote: »

'Dad' is even shorter again.

In the context of this case, biological father and step father make more sense.

Yes, a biological connection does not always mean the person will make a good parent, but this case highlights a lot that is wrong about the Irish family courts when it comes to Dads. The assumption seems to be he doesn't have the best interests of the child at heart........that strangers (the judge and psychiatrists) are better placed to make decisions than parents.......and that in a society that espouses equality the wishes of the mother trump the wishes of the father.

As usual the Dad finds himself scrutinised and examined as to his motivations, and forced to defend himself........whereas the mother's wishes, expressed from beyond the grave, are simply accepted without question as being expressive of what's in the child's best interests.

The courts made their decision based on what they believe to be in the best interest of the child, not the father/s seeking custody. It is not the norm that primary custody is given to a step parent when there is a biological parent in the picture, so yes, in this case I would be questioning the lifestyle of the biological parent.

Jawgap

Paddy Cow wrote: »

In the context of this case, biological father and step father make more sense.

The courts made their decision based on what they believe to be in the best interest of the child, not the father/s seeking custody. It is not the norm that primary custody is given to a step parent when there is a biological parent in the picture, so yes, in this case I would be questioning the lifestyle of the biological parent.

........primary custody - what is that? I've never heard used in tend context of a court settlement.

The mother's former partner has been awarded what is known as third party custody. He has physical custody, with joint custody awarded to the three guardians. I think if you are going to meaningfully discuss this case you should get a better grip on the important underlying concepts applying.

You have no basis whatsoever for questioning the lifestyle of the Dad.......in fact if anyone has questions to answer about their lifestyle it's the mother's former partner, given the reservation expressed by the grandmother about his entering into a new relationship. If the grandmother is concerned this happened too soon what message must the child be getting about his feelings towards the mother????

Gael23

Theres more to that than meets the eye. In any other case the biological father would automatically become the childs sole guardian

Pawwed Rig

ryanf1 wrote: »

Theres more to that than meets the eye. In any other case the biological father would automatically become the childs sole guardian

I doubt there is anything more going on tbh otherwise the Dad would not have gotten 10 days access per month (assuming unsupervised). Best thing for bith men would be to do their best to get along with each other and look after the kid.
I think the maintenance argument is a red herring. There could be any number of reasons that maintenance was not sought/given.
Also I think the judge was unfair in the assessment of the angle the Dad took. In a legal situation you use the best tactics you can where you see the greatest chance of sicess. This is common in law. To criticise the Dad for doing this is a bit of a cheapshot and seems to be used as a reason to further justify her ruling.

Lemming

Paddy Cow wrote: »

In the context of this case, biological father and step father make more sense.

Pedantic point, but it's an important one because the of the connotations the phrase "step-father" bring with it. The other guy is not, nor ever was a step-father. He was the mother's partner, but never married given the fact that the article phrases him as such. In short, simply her long-term boyfriend.

Whilst the needs of the child overrule everything else ultimately, I find it absurd that the courts have chosen - in the absence of serious issues - to give what is essentially a third party such power over a child's future whilst pushing the child's remaining parent (be they male/female) away, and I would consider it to have been prudent to question both psychiatrists on that particular point before arriving at a decision deemed to be in the best interests of the child. Doubly so given that we now have a third party who is invovled with another unknown [woman] who will over time extert some level of influence, for good or ill nobody can tell and the courts seem to be willing to gamble where the grandmother has raised a flag.

Paddy Cow

Lemming wrote: »

Pedantic point, but it's an important one because the of the connotations the phrase "step-father" bring with it. The other guy is not, nor ever was a step-father. He was the mother's partner, but never married given the fact that the article phrases him as such. In short, simply her long-term boyfriend.

I agree but when I was typing my post it was easier to type bio-father and step father than biological father and long term boyfriend. If I was typing a legal document, I would use the correct phrases.

the needs of the child overrule everything else ultimately, I find it absurd that the courts have chosen - in the absence of serious issues - to give what is essentially a third party such power over a child's future whilst pushing the child's remaining parent (be they male/female) away, and I would consider it to have been prudent to question both psychiatrists on that particular point before arriving at a decision deemed to be in the best interests of the child. Doubly so given that we now have a third party who is invovled with another unknown [woman] who will over time extert some level of influence, for good or ill nobody can tell and the courts seem to be willing to gamble where the grandmother has raised a flag.

I also find it very strange that custody didn't go to the biological father.

Paddy Cow

Jawgap wrote: »

........primary custody - what is that? I've never heard used in tend context of a court settlement.

The mother's former partner has been awarded what is known as third party custody. He has physical custody, with joint custody awarded to the three guardians. I think if you are going to meaningfully discuss this case you should get a better grip on the important underlying concepts applying.

I am typing a post, not a legal document. The meaning is clear.

have no basis whatsoever for questioning the lifestyle of the Dad.......in fact if anyone has questions to answer about their lifestyle it's the mother's former partner, given the reservation expressed by the grandmother about his entering into a new relationship. If the grandmother is concerned this happened too soon what message must the child be getting about his feelings towards the mother????

It is a discussion forum and I can question whatever I want. The courts saw fit to give physical custody to the long term boyfriend so yes, I would question why the biological father didn't get it. There simply isn't enough information in the article to know if the decision was the right one or not.

Jawgap

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I am typing a post, not a legal document. The meaning is clear.

Perhaps not to everyone - if there are clearly appropriate principles at play then it is only right to use the correct words to describe them, if you know them.

Paddy Cow wrote: »

It is a discussion forum and I can question whatever I want. The courts saw fit to give physical custody to the long term boyfriend so yes, I would question why the biological father didn't get it. There simply isn't enough information in the article to know if the decision was the right one or not.

It is and you can.

But your questioning as to why the Dad didn't get physical custody of his own daughter seems to relate more with issues around his lifestyle rather than his potential to provide a loving, nurturing environment for his daughter.....

Paddy Cow wrote: »

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.

You also, on the one hand, suggest that....

There simply isn't enough information in the article to know if the decision was the right one or not.

but on the other you are quite quick to conclude

Paddy Cow wrote: »

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

So, there's not enough information in the article to know if the decision is the right one, but there is just enough for you to conclude that the child is better off with the mother's former partner?

Again, you'd have to wonder if stability on its own is the correct measure here? It seems the mother's former partner has already embarked upon another relationship, you'd have to wonder how much time, in those circumstances, it is possible to devote to bringing up a child?

walshb

Mauricio Round Threat wrote: »

That's a mad judgement. That the partner(not even husband) who has no biological link to the child gets custody over the natural father is mind boggling.

Mind boggling that you seem to be implying that biology should be the main factor for the judge in his/her decision.

Paddy Cow

Jawgap wrote: »

Your post

I have no more information than you have in regards this case. My original post was my thoughts which I put forth in the facts and conclusions as I saw them.

This ruling doesn't make sense to me and it is something which I have given a lot of thought to (even if the semantic mistakes which you keep on pointing out suggest otherwise).

I just can't wrap my head around two psychiatrists recommending that the child remain with the long term boyfriend, rather than the biological father. It has been suggested that the child is happy with the current set-up and wishes to remain living where s/he is. It would be helpful if we knew the child's age.

We are missing huge amounts of information. If the child is a teen and settled with their "step dad" and doesn't want to leave, then it would be cruel to say that they have to leave to facilitate the wishes of the biological father.

One thing I will concede, is that we also need to know more about the long term boyfriend. Was he in the child's life for 6 months or 6 years? I honestly think for the courts to consider giving him guardianship, never mind custody that this man must've played a big part in this child's life. Going on my own personal experiences (and having never encountered this professionally), a lot of men will not date a woman with children, never mind fight through the courts for custody of a child that is "not their's".

Being honest, how many times have you seen someone fight the court system to get custody of a child which is not their biological child? You made an assumption that because I was questioning the lifestyle of the biological father that I might have stereotypical views on "dead beat dads". Nothing could be further from the truth.

What I see is two fathers vying for custody. In this case the biological father lost out and given that this is highly unusual, I would question why. As I have said numerous times before, we don't have enough background information to decide if that was the right decision or not. I only hope it works out for the child.

Jawgap

......if you have the experience you claim of the Family Courts you'll be quite aware of just how often judges take the line of least resistance and demur from upsetting the status quo.

That's what I think happened here. A judge with no background in family law (Judge Murphy's background is in property, commercial law, insolvency and employment) took the line offered by the psychiatrists without question as means of readily disposing of the case.

It happens all the time.

People seem to think that judges are full of wisdom and they carefully weigh the facts of each case, dissecting and probing with great insight.......they don't. A lot of the time they do no more than skim the papers.

In fact there's more than a grain of truth in the idea that the weaker judges are allocated to the Family Courts because the reporting restrictions mean that even their most egregious cock-ups go unreported.

y0ssar1an22

This is a question to the people advocating the judgment because it is 'in the best interest of the child'....how far does your belief go? Would you support the mass confiscation (cant think of a better word) of children from parents if it was deemed to be in the child's best interest?
Its kind of an interesting one, however IMO the parents right to be a parent also needs to be considered.

Pro Hoc Vice

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

This is a question to the people advocating the judgment because it is 'in the best interest of the child'....how far does your belief go? Would you support the mass confiscation (cant think of a better word) of children from parents if it was deemed to be in the child's best interest?
Its kind of an interesting one, however IMO the parents right to be a parent also needs to be considered.

You are aware that children are and can be taken from the care of their parents if it is in the best interests of the child.

You can even now read reports of some of the cases. http://www.childlawproject.ie/archive/

Jawgap

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You are aware that children are and can be taken from the care of their parents if it is in the best interests of the child.

You can even now read reports of some of the cases. http://www.childlawproject.ie/archive/

There's a difference between children being removed to a place of safety and being removed because it's in their best interest - they are rarely, if ever removed from a parent if it's in their best interest, they are sometimes removed for reasons of safety and welfare - although given the number of children who've died while in the care of the State, you'd have to wonder if the State taking the child into its care is, automatically, the best option?

Pro Hoc Vice

Jawgap wrote: »

There's a difference between children being removed to a place of safety and being removed because it's in their best interest - they are rarely, if ever removed from a parent if it's in their best interest, they are sometimes removed for reasons of safety and welfare - although given the number of children who've died while in the care of the State, you'd have to wonder if the State taking the child into its care is, automatically, the best option?

I would have assumed that being removed for health or safety reasons is in the best interest of the child.

Lemming

Jawgap wrote: »

although given the number of children who've died while in the care of the State, you'd have to wonder if the State taking the child into its care is, automatically, the best option?

I could tell you incidents that I've heard of (from credible & trustworthy sources) regards the handling of serious cases by the HSE that were beyond appalling and simply inept & incompetent cases of ass-covering. And you would probably not bat an eyelid at the breath-taking stupidity displayed by HSE civil servants presiding over these cases (not front-line care staff just to clarify that).

From my own professional experiences of dealing with the HSE (IT related, so nothing so dramatic), it as an entity is diabolical and I wouldn't put it in charge of keeping a brown paper bag dry in the rain, never mind a child.

Jawgap

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I would have assumed that being removed for health or safety reasons is in the best interest of the child.

It is, but there are myriad other circumstances where the best interests of child could probably be served by removing it from a parent or parents, but it never happens.......

.....likewise there are plenty of cases where children are removed from their parents for reasons of safety when it turns out they were never even close to being in danger in the first place.

The system here is messed up beyond belief - when was the last time, for instance, you saw any of the so called professionals properly held to account for their actions or lack thereof?

I think the system we have in Ireland is so dysfunctional it's incapable of determining in all but the most clear cut circumstances, what is in the best interests of a child.

walshb

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I would have assumed that being removed for health or safety reasons is in the best interest of the child.

For health and safety it is the most serious case, and it takes a lot (in Ireland) for a child to be removed from its parents for this. The child would be likely in immediate physical danger. In the best interest of the child is subjective and is open to interpretation. A child's health and safety don't need to be compromised when discussing in the best interest of said child.

Pro Hoc Vice

walshb wrote: »

For health and safety it is the most serious case, and it takes a lot (in Ireland) for a child to be removed from its parents for this. The child would be likely in immediate physical danger. In the best interest of the child is subjective and is open to interpretation. A child's health and safety don't need to be compromised when discussing in the best interest of said child.

Did I say otherwise.

walshb

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Did I say otherwise.

Doh! No, you didn't say otherwise.

Gael23

I see this case as a backward step for Fathers Rights in Ireland. It effectively shows that the Mothers new partner has more rights than the bio father

Ken.

I have a 15 year old daughter. Almost 3 years ago her mother(my ex) died from cancer. She has another child from another relationship after we split. She knew she was dying and before hand she made a will and asked me not to contest the part about her wanting the kids remain with her mother. Bar an 8 month gap they've lived their whole lives at the grandmothers house. I agreed to her request for 2 reasons. 1. It would have been more devastating to them to separate them and 2 it would have been hard to refuse a dying persons last wish.

The amount of people that have commented to me(that know nothing of the back story) that i'm terrible for not taking my daughter in is unreal. On the other hand my daughter has thanked me for not making things difficult after her ma passed.

My point is you never know another persons full story.

walshb

ryanf1 wrote: »

I see this case as a backward step for Fathers Rights in Ireland. It effectively shows that the Mothers new partner has more rights than the bio father

It does not show that at all. It shows that the best interests of the child should be paramount. Without knowing all the details, which I am sure the judge knows, I think the decision should be respected. Biology is only one factor.