walshb wrote: » 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.
In no case were the views of any child heard directly by a judge, the views of the child were expressed through the primary carer or through court ordered expert reports where there were allegations of abuse. On several occasions counsel asked the court if a child could speak with a judge, in all instances this request was refused. In no case observed did a judge ask to meet with a child in any matter that affected them, despite such rights being stated in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989. A finding of this research is that no mechanism currently exists for the views of a child to be heard by the court, where that child wishes for their views to be considered.
Eighteen Section 47 reports were reviewed in court, and four were ordered by the court. It was clear that there were no guidelines available to the court or the practitioners, as to what a S 47 should entail or indeed the required qualifications of the ‘expert’ who would carry out such an investigation. There was no consistency in the format or content of these reports, and only one judge took the view that s 47 reports should always be questioned and the opinions of the expert rigorously examined. Six of the judges, in court, indicated that they did not have time, or they did not see the necessity, to read the full report
In 95% of the cases observed the primary carer was the mother, and in 100% of cases where access was unilaterally withdrawn, it was done by the mother. In no case was the primary carer sanctioned for persistent unilateral cessation of access in breach of court orders.
Jawgap wrote: » Sorry, but you're wrong if you think the best interests of the child were actually given due consideration here. That may have been the intention, but the reality on the ground is that the system is not geared up to achieve that objective. The system is dysfunctional and for that reason, the decision should be questioned. But don't take my word for it..... Have a look at recent research in the area....Judicial Separation and Divorce in the Circuit Court The stark reality is the system is broken and fathers get the rawest of raw deals..... But I'm sure the case in question was handled much better than the sample examined by the researcher.........given it was handled by a judge with no background in family law practice........5 (out of 6 interviewed) of whose colleagues said their training in family law practice was deficient.....working in a system that doesn't provide such training to judges.....and where nearly 40% of judges were found to be 'openly hostile' to lay litigants....... ......so yes, I'm sure the judge made a good decision, carefully and appropriately balancing the interests of the child....... BTW there's also this gem in the research..... It would be interesting to compare that figure to the treatment of fathers who breach court orders.......
Pro Hoc Vice wrote: » As a lawyer (who does no family law) I believe that the adversarial court system we have in ireland is the last place that family law problems should be sorted out.
sup_dude wrote: » Jawgap, have you, for any minute, sat down and logically thought about the child through any of this? Or is it all "the poor father and the justice system is crap" etc? Have you considered the strong possibility, given the information in the article, that maybe the father wasn't the best for the child at this time?
...... also had issues with her daughter’s partner because she believed he had entered a subsequent relationship prematurely after the death of her daughter.
Boskowski wrote: » No, unless you have all the facts, it's not. The child may have been all their life with the non bio father while the bio father could be a raving lunatic.
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.
Judge Murphy highlighted a psychiatrist’s report, prepared following the mother’s death, which recommended the child remain where he was. A move to his natural father’s home would create further significant loss, the report said, and could reduce the child’s resilience when older. 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.
Jawgap wrote: » ...... also had issues with her daughter’s partner because she believed he had entered a subsequent relationship prematurely after the death of her daughter. ......is a huge red flag, which the judge seems to have ignored or at least not given due weight to.
the_syco wrote: » How premature is premature? It could be 8 months, it could 8 days. Without knowing this, we don't know how short the premature time which the grandmother refers to is.
Jawgap wrote: » yes I have. ......is a huge red flag, which the judge seems to have ignored or at least not given due weight to.
Jawgap wrote: » Incidentally, Murial Walls, Chair of the Legal Aid Board, has described the Family Law system we have in this country as 'dysfunctional;' 'chaotic;' 'unremittingly, crushingly awful;' 'a form of torture' and lacking any 'coherence / consistency.' Perhaps she might be accepted as someone who would have a valid view on such matters?
walshb wrote: » I don't see how this is a huge red flag. If anything a "stable relationship" would probably benefit the man. The grandmother may have been a little upset that he moved on, but this upset may have little negative affects on the situation for the child. Nobody is second guessing the grandmother. From what I have read it appears to be the only issue that the grandmother has.
Jawgap wrote: » You're second guessing the grandmother......
walshb wrote: » Does this mean that the law (family law) gets it wrong every time?
The courts are buckling under the pressure of business. Long family law lists, delays, brief hearings, inadequate facilities and over-hasty settlements are too often the order of the day. At the same time, too many cases are coming before the courts which are unripe for hearing, or in which earlier non-legal intervention might have led to agreement and the avoidance of courtroom conflict. Judges dealing with family disputes do not always have the necessary experience or aptitude. There is no proper system of case management. Cases are heard behind closed doors, protecting the privacy of family members but offering little opportunity for external appreciation, criticism, or even realisation, of what is happening within the system. The courts lack adequate support services, in particular the independent diagnostic services so important in resolving child-related issues.
seamus wrote: » I don't actually see this as an attack on fathers' rights at all in Ireland. It's a weird case, but the positive to take out of this is that a male primary carer has been given majority custody of the child for whom they've been providing primary care. It is not long ago at all that this man would have had zero input in the process and the child immediately removed from him and handed to a female relative, never mind the child's natural father.It's also important that a court has recognised that biology does not make one a suitable parent and biology should not automatically override all guardianship/custody claims.
walshb wrote: » Anyone know the age of the child? It did mention that the child chose the step parent.
Pawwed Rig wrote: » It didn't actually say that. What is said was the psychiatrist 'believes' the child wants to stay with the step parent which I thought was a peculiar statement leading me to think that the child is fairly young.
seamus wrote: » It is not long ago at all that this man would have had zero input in the process and the child immediately removed from him and handed to a female relative, never mind the child's natural father.
irishcentral wrote: A new study has found that 99 percent of Irish husbands lose their homes during divorces In seven out of ten cases the judge ordered a transfer of the property into the wife’s name. During 160 contested cases when an order was made to sell the home the wife received more than half of the proceeds in 25 percent of the cases. During the other 75 percent the proceeds were split. The graduate student has observed 493 judicial separation and divorce cases in Dublin, Cork and the southeast since October 2008. She observed that 73 percent of judicial separation and 54 percent of divorce application were filed by the wives.
seamus wrote: » It's also important that a court has recognised that biology does not make one a suitable parent and biology should not automatically override all guardianship/custody claims.
seamus wrote: » I don't actually see this as an attack on fathers' rights at all in Ireland.
It's also important that a court has recognised that biology does not make one a suitable parent and biology should not automatically override all guardianship/custody claims.
jackofalltrades wrote: » The court ruling hasn't really said anything of substance against the father. It has said though that the father figure that spends most of the time with the child is at a distinct advantage in custody cases.
walshb wrote: » And rightly so.
They just aren't cut out to parent as effectively as mothers. It's a nature thing. Maternal instincts and all that.
jackofalltrades wrote: » Which sentence does this apply to? Would love to see your source for this.
jackofalltrades wrote: » Which sentence does this apply to? .
Seriously? wrote: » Perhaps those statistics are due to the fact that fathers are obliged by society to be out working to support the mother and offspring.
walshb wrote: » Source? There probably isn't a source. It's just a natural occurrence. Mothers do the majority of the rearing, and seem to bond that bit easier. Maybe it's due to them carrying the child, feeding with the child etc. Fathers parent, and bond, just a bit differently than mothers. Ok, they can parent as effectively. Just that they don't tend to be the dominant parent. Children always stay with the mother, unless she is incapable of looking after them. It's the way it is and always has been.http://www.cfr.nichd.nih.gov/report1.html "Mothers participate in childrearing activities at significantly higher rates than do fathers (or other infant caregivers), and mothers generally have more opportunities to acquire and practice skills that are central to infant caregiving than do fathers. On average, mothers spend between 65 and 80 percent more time than fathers do in direct one-to-one interaction with their babies. This is not to deny or minimize the considerable contributions to infant care made by fathers and other caregivers in and outside of the family." Practice makes "perfect" and all that.....I don't see how it would be odd to think that mothers are probably better suited and equipped to parent that little bit better than fathers, in general. They have had so much more practice and interaction with their young.
Jawgap wrote: » "Study into maternal behaviour observes maternal behaviour" shocker - That's a longitudinal observational study (and an old one by the looks if it) - not a comparative one. reading it, they set out to observe maternal behaviour (in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya and the United States) not compare or discuss the respective roles of fathers and mothers. Or even discuss the value, role or significance (or otherwise) of the father as a parent. Surprisingly having set out to observe maternal behaviour, they manged to observe maternal behaviour.......
