Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

Options
1…789101113»

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    The only possible way I can think of is that the mother dies, guardianship falls to her next of kin, in which case they simply assume her rights. How else could it happen?

    Off the top of my head a doctor states that the father is not mentally fit to be guardian.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    No, I have been pointing out that the mother can potentially block the father from getting guardianship, by refusing to sign the declaration and then objecting in court.

    No what you did was use that fact to try and make it out that the mother controls the granting of guardianship.

    See the analogy with planning permission for why that is stupid and misinformed.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    You've gone so far as to suggest that a father could simply apply to the courts regardless, which makes no sense - it's like suing someone for bad debts when they're offering you a cheque.

    Only if you view the guardianship process as a way to get at the mother :rolleyes:

    In reality there may be any number of reasons why the father does not want to approach the mother to sign a declaration.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I never said "the mother controls whether you get guardianship or not", I've said that she can attempt to block it, and to date, as sole guardian she is the only one who could in reality block it. Doesn't mean she'll succeed, but she could. So please do not misrepresent what I've written.

    I'm not, you are merely back tracking. You stated that the courts ability to grant or not grant guardianship comes from the mother.

    It doesn't, a fact that you are now probably well aware of.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    So relatives and social workers would spontaneously appear in court, while the mother has no opinion either way? How often does that happen out of interest? You're scraping the bottom of the barrel at this stage.

    The court investigates the fathers application. Part of that would be reviewing things like social worker assessments of the father, if there are any, as well as any criminal record the father may or may not have, along with any mental health issues the father may or may not have.

    In the vast majority of cases none of that will be relevant to the case. But then again in the vast majority of cases the father is granted guardianship with little fuss.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I actually would direct the same accusation at you. You've been using semantics to detract from the fact that a father will be refused guardianship only if the child's sole guardian (the mother) refuses to consent to this and makes this opposition known to the judge. It's reached the point that you are creating unlikely, indeed impossible, scenarios where a father goes to court (even if the mother would not object / is willing to sign) and social workers would then catch wind of this and arrive with a case file in hand.

    These are very unlikely. But then it is very unlikely that the father won't get guardianship.

    You have attempted to make out that the mother controls whether the father gets guardianship or not, not the courts. You are now back tracking because that is, frankly, not true.

    It is not my fault TC that you once again made an ill-informed comment that you now regret.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    It's a gross and blatant attempt to manipulate the facts in a desperate attempt to hide the elephant in the middle of the room.

    That elephant would be what exactly, that mothers control the whole thing?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    If you actually read what I said, it was that we do live in a society that presumes that biological parents are in "the best interests of the child" last time I checked, so the law needs to be consistent on this. I've emboldened the key word there for you.

    Still not answering the question, unsurprisingly.


  • Options
    #363
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Frankly for all of your theory - you have not been through this 'streamlined' system nor I suspect have you have to support someone going through it.

    I've been through this system as the child, which frankly puts me in a much better position to judge what is or isn't in the best interests of the child than most.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Ad nausea on this forum men have written on joint-guardianships being ignored, of access arrangements being broken repeatedly with no actions being taken by the courts. One can complain all one likes - the reality is the Family Court rarely if ever enforces its own rulings. Theory is all very well and good but it does not bare up under the reality of the situation thousands of men and their children are needlessly facing every day - for no good reason.

    Which is a wholly separate issue to changing the law. If the law is not enforced in the first place (and while that seems to be the common group think of the fathers movement in actuality very little evidence is ever put forward that this is the case) then changing the law would have very little effect on this.

    The vast majority of fathers who apply for guardianship get guardianship. If this is ignored by the various state agencies making it automatic will have little effect on this.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The uncertainty of the legal relationship between unmarried fathers and their children could be dealt with easily. You seem determined to argue against this basic right for a child/father relationship to be at the mercy of the court system for your own personal reasons.

    Yes, those reasons being it is not in the interests of the children.

    If you want to argue that the court system should not be centered around what is best for children but should instead be centered around equality between parents, go ahead but I suspect you won't get very far.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I will ignore the implication of your comment re 'If that actually happens, and I suspect it doesn't' that I am lying. That is what the Clerk told me and my son. Several people heard her. Perhaps she was lying to 2 complete strangers or perhaps she was trying to give a concerned young man a reality check not to get his hopes up as she see the system in action every day! As for 'complaining' to my TD - are you for real? How does one 'prove' what happens in judicial proceeding held in camera?

    You don't need to prove it, in camera ruling are not beyond the scope of judicial review. If the judges in Cork are essentially telling anyone who applies for guardianship to piss off this is a serious legal matter and should be investigated.

    As to the question of whether you are lying or not, I've no idea. I do know that this forum is a wash with misinformation and hear say so to the process of family law in this country, often following a particular narrative and agenda, and I think that is disgraceful frankly.


  • Options
    #364
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Off the top of my head a doctor states that the father is not mentally fit to be guardian.
    How do they even know about the court date? Happen often? Ever?
    No what you did was use that fact to try and make it out that the mother controls the granting of guardianship.
    No I did not and you are misrepresenting what I wrote. What I have said, and is true, is that she has it in her power to grant it outside the courts and in her power to attempt to block it - and that she is the only one who can (clairvoyant doctors aside).
    In reality there may be any number of reasons why the father does not want to approach the mother to sign a declaration.
    Like? I can think of no rational reason - perhaps because they're spoiling for a fight, but that's against their own interests, TBH.
    I'm not, you are merely back tracking. You stated that the courts ability to grant or not grant guardianship comes from the mother.
    No, I did not. A courts decision not grant guardianship does ultimately come from the mother - as she will be the only one who may object (clairvoyant doctors aside).
    The court investigates the fathers application. Part of that would be reviewing things like social worker assessments of the father, if there are any, as well as any criminal record the father may or may not have, along with any mental health issues the father may or may not have.
    Actually, the court makes little or no effort at doing this. They're actually not organized enough to do something like this.
    These are very unlikely. But then it is very unlikely that the father won't get guardianship.
    They're not unlikely scenarios, they're fantasies.
    It is not my fault TC that you once again made an ill-informed comment that you now regret.
    You'll forgive me if I don't take that seriously. In reality you made an ill-informed comment, then when it was pointed out to you that it was false, you began to scramble to invent fantasy scenarios that would back up your position.
    That elephant would be what exactly, that mothers control the whole thing?
    Why are you still trying to put words in my mouth?
    Still not answering the question, unsurprisingly.
    What part of the answer do you fail to comprehend?


  • Options
    #365
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I've been through this system as the child, which frankly puts me in a much better position to judge what is or isn't in the best interests of the child than most.


    .

    You obviously had a traumatic experience as a child and i am sorry for that. But that was your experience and you simply cannot project that on every child. Were I to do so, I , and the many others in this country who grew up with an alcoholic parent, would favour Prohibition.

    I do not know, or want to know, what occurred between you are your parents. Whatever it was - it does not mean it is the same for all children and their fathers.

    Many, many unmarried father's simply want their legal relationship with their children recognised - yes for their own sake but also for the sake of their child. Some men - married or not - want feck all to so with their children.

    Why should those men who want a genuine involvement with their children, have made this clear from the moment of registration of birth by being present to affirm they are the child's father be made to jump through legalistic and bureaucratic hoops? Why should this be justifiable because some men are ****s who abandon their children?


  • Options
    #366
    illumi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭illumi


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    A courts decision not grant guardianship does ultimately come from the mother - as she will be the only one who may object (clairvoyant doctors aside).

    This is simply not true.
    Forgive me, but I have read the whole debate going on here since I've last posted. There a very valid reasons on both sides.

    But the brother of a friend of mine went to court to get guardianship and access to his son. They pulled up his Garda record and denied him guardianship based on his tendency to violence. He was in court many times because of this. They granted him supervised access only as guardianship was not in the best interest of the child. The mother had no play in this whatsoever, as he simply didn't ask her to sign the forms with him and wanted to scare her with the court. It totally back-fired on him.
    Forgot to add that he wasn't even paying a penny maintenance.

    Another case I know of in my own family is my brothers. He split up with his partner because things just didnt work out anymore. He asked her to sign the declaration with him, but she refused. He had started a new relationship with a woman he is now married to and his ex was furious and jealous. My brother went to court with his case wanting guardianship to his kids. the mother lied to the court about many things to try and deny him access to his 2 kids, including he was abusing her and could abuse the kids, which she had no proof of. But my brother, as calm as he is, stated his case and was granted guardianship of his kids.
    The mothers lies didnt get her anywhere.

    The court does act in the childs best interests


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Ad nausea on this forum men have written on joint-guardianships being ignored, of access arrangements being broken repeatedly with no actions being taken by the courts. One can complain all one likes - the reality is the Family Court rarely if ever enforces its own rulings. Theory is all very well and good but it does not bare up under the reality of the situation thousands of men and their children are needlessly facing every day - for no good reason.

    I was through this with Zombrex before, I'd just leave that point as you'll up being called you lot, and peddling propaganda.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #368
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You obviously had a traumatic experience as a child and i am sorry for that. But that was your experience and you simply cannot project that on every child.

    I'm not, I'm "projecting" it on some children.

    The idea of granting automatic guardianship to unmarried fathers will act against the best interests of some children, children the State has a moral and legal obligation to act in the interests of. By virtue of not being involved the State won't know which children those children are.

    Thus it should not happen. It is really that simple.

    People can scream from the roof tops all they like about how sexist this is on men, how biased it towards women etc. But unless they point out an argument detailing how it is not in fact against the interests of the children involved then this is just a lot of hot air.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I do not know, or want to know, what occurred between you are your parents. Whatever it was - it does not mean it is the same for all children and their fathers.

    I'm not assuming it is. It doesn't have to be the case for all children it simply has to be the case for some.

    The spectacularly obvious point that you are all happily ignoring is that the State does not deny guardianship to fathers. They assess guardianship to fathers to separate out the cases where this does happen and where it doesn't happen.

    The State wants fathers involved in the upbringing of their children, but they are not going to assume that is always the case. Thus they assess if it is or not.

    We are 25 pages into this thread and people are still ignoring this rather simple point, preferring the hysteria of cries of sexism or denying of rights.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Many, many unmarried father's simply want their legal relationship with their children recognised - yes for their own sake but also for the sake of their child. Some men - married or not - want feck all to so with their children.

    And there is a relatively simple and painless process to get that, a process that the vast majority of men who avail of it end up with guardianship rights.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Why should those men who want a genuine involvement with their children, have made this clear from the moment of registration of birth by being present to affirm they are the child's father be made to jump through legalistic and bureaucratic hoops?

    How many times do I have to explain to you that having your name on the birth certificate is not a statement on intent.

    I mean seriously I keep repeating this and you keep ignoring it as if this point has never been made before.

    If a father can go through the "legalistic and bureaucratic hoops" of a birth certificate they can go through the hoops of a guardianship application.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Why should this be justifiable because some men are ****s who abandon their children?

    Because the State needs to know which are which.

    You don't agree, you don't think the State does need to know, they can just safely assume none of them ever abandon their children?


  • Options
    #369
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    How do they even know about the court date? Happen often? Ever?

    The court contacts them as far of the assessment of the father if it is relevant.

    I'm sorry Corinthian but do you even know what the heck you are talking about? Read illumi's post if you want a real world example of this.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    No I did not and you are misrepresenting what I wrote. What I have said, and is true, is that she has it in her power to grant it outside the courts and in her power to attempt to block it - and that she is the only one who can (clairvoyant doctors aside).

    Neither of those statements are true.

    Firstly if both parents sign the declaration then the court grants guardianship without assessment. The mother does not grant guardianship, any more than your neighbours grant you planning permission.

    Secondly she does not block anything. Her views are listened to by the court and if she raises any issues that may mean that granting guardianship is not in the best interests of the child these issues are investigated by the court.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Like? I can think of no rational reason - perhaps because they're spoiling for a fight, but that's against their own interests, TBH.

    If the relationship has broken down there are any numbers why the father may not want to approach the mother.

    Haven't you ever ended a relationship with someone?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    No, I did not. A courts decision not grant guardianship does ultimately come from the mother - as she will be the only one who may object (clairvoyant doctors aside).

    Not true as has been explained. No powers comes from the mother. Even if the mother highlights an issue (for example the mother says the father is a hard core drug user) the decision not to grant guardianship will come from the courts assessment of what is in the best interests of the child.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    They're not unlikely scenarios, they're fantasies.
    So let me get this straight, you say something stupid and wrong, I point this out and you ask for examples, these are given and you say they are "fantasies"

    Do you now accept that the decision to not grant guardianship to the father is taken by the court based on the courts assessment of whether guardianship is in the best interests of the child, not it not a decision taken by the mother nor does the court act on direction from the mother?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Actually, the court makes little or no effort at doing this. They're actually not organized enough to do something like this.

    If you say so :rolleyes:
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Why are you still trying to put words in my mouth?

    Your words TC, your words.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    What part of the answer do you fail to comprehend?

    The part where you explain why it is in the best interests of the child that there should be no assessment of the fathers guardianship that it should be automatic.

    So far you have just said the child needs parents, something no one is disagreeing with.


  • Options
    #370
    thebullkf
    Registered Users Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭thebullkf


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It is nothing to do with mothers being better it has to do with mothers being there at the hospital when the baby is born, there is a implicate assumption that if the mother leaves hospital with the baby she is interested in at the very least guardianship.

    If you can figure out some way to ensure that all fathers go through the same process I'm all ears. As it stands marriage is the only process where a father signals to the State interest of rising children before they are born.

    I would also point out that while it isn't, even if that was "unbelievable sexist" that would be irrelevant, the position of the courts is not to ensure fairness and equality between the parents, it is to serve the best interests of the child.



    The child's interests are served by having access to both parents which is why the state does not deny access to fathers without cause. The vast majority of fathers who apply for guardianship obtain it, same with access though there was a discussion earlier in the thread about mothers simply refusing to honour guardianship, custody and access arrangements.



    can you back that up?

    and what happens then?....if the child is not speaking yet, all the mother has to say is she/baby are unwell....easily done, not readily enforced imo


  • Options
    #371
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    thebullkf wrote: »
    can you back that up?

    and what happens then?....if the child is not speaking yet, all the mother has to say is she/baby are unwell....easily done, not readily enforced imo

    The stats are over 90% of cases that actually get in front of a judge get granted.

    The baby being unwell isn't a reason to not grand Guardianship.

    About a 3rd of births are to unmarried mothers, the question is how many of those fathers are uninvolved, as that is the basic reason why there is no automatic Guardianship.

    If it's 40/50% well the status quo probably should remain. If it's something like 10/20%, the law needs to change.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    illumi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭illumi


    thebullkf wrote: »
    and what happens then?....if the child is not speaking yet, all the mother has to say is she/baby are unwell....easily done, not readily enforced imo

    I believe Mothers should not deny the father his guardianship and access rights when granted by a court, and it needs to be enforced properly when this happens. But, law enforcement and changing the constitution to grant unmarried parents equal rights are separate issues.


  • Options
    #373
    James Jones
    Registered Users Posts: 534 ✭✭✭James Jones


    Zombrex wrote: »
    An analogy used already on this thread is the one of planning permission. Do you neighbors grant you planning permission to build an extension on your house? No, of course not. They can though express their opinions to the planning board if they object, opinions that may or may not be entertained.

    It would be as ridiculous to suppose that neighbors control planning permission in this country (and thus applying for planning permission is pointless if you already know your neighbors object), as it is to suppose that mother control guardianship access to children.
    I can't find the original analogy so I'll have to use your own example. It is not a good example because, as you say, even if they have a right to object and their opinions may or may not be entertained, they don't grant planning permission. That is a matter for the local authority, following an application for planning permission and taking others views into consideration. With Guardianship, once both parents are willing to sign the Statutory Declaration, that is an end to the matter. It does not require the approval of the Court.


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Neither of those statements are true.

    Firstly if both parents sign the declaration then the court grants guardianship without assessment. The mother does not grant guardianship, any more than your neighbours grant you planning permission.

    This is incorrect. If both parents sign the S.I., it is a private family matter and the courts are not involved.


  • Options
    #374
    thebullkf
    Registered Users Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭thebullkf


    K-9 wrote: »
    The stats are over 90% of cases that actually get in front of a judge get granted.

    i believe you, but i asked can you back that up;)

    The baby being unwell isn't a reason to not grand Guardianship.

    i was talkng about access K9,
    About a 3rd of births are to unmarried mothers, the question is how many of those fathers are uninvolved, as that is the basic reason why there is no automatic Guardianship.

    unmarried maybe, but no father involved...would love to see a figure on that.

    If it's 40/50% well the status quo probably should remain. If it's something like 10/20%, the law needs to change.

    i don't agree, even if a father is 'uninvolved' he's still liable for financial assistance, which i think is pretty outrageous given that even if the father is involved with the child but not with the mother, he's still liable... don't hear women harping on about equal rights in these cases.


  • Options
    #375
    James Jones
    Registered Users Posts: 534 ✭✭✭James Jones


    thebullkf wrote: »
    K-9 wrote: »
    The stats are over 90% of cases that actually get in front of a judge get granted.
    i believe you, but i asked can you back that up;)
    In 2010, of the 2,783 applications for Guardianship, 643 were withdrawn or struck out. Of the 2140 that went before a Judge, 2072 were granted.
    See page 75 of Courts Service Annual Report 2010


  • Options
    #376
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    thebullkf wrote: »
    i believe you, but i asked can you back that up;)

    Thanks James Jones. I probably quoted them way back as well, they nearly always come up in these threads.
    i was talkng about access K9,

    Well yeah, that can be an awkward area, a sick child. Unless the child is bad and moving him/her would be detrimental, there shouldn't be any reason not to fulfill access.
    unmarried maybe, but no father involved...would love to see a figure on that.

    I can't seem to find anything on it.


    i don't agree, even if a father is 'uninvolved' he's still liable for financial assistance, which i think is pretty outrageous given that even if the father is involved with the child but not with the mother, he's still liable... don't hear women harping on about equal rights in these cases.

    Not sure what you mean there. The maintenance is for the benefit of the child.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #377
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    James Jones wrote: »
    I can't find the original analogy so I'll have to use your own example. It is not a good example because, as you say, even if they have a right to object and their opinions may or may not be entertained, they don't grant planning permission. That is a matter for the local authority, following an application for planning permission and taking others views into consideration. With Guardianship, once both parents are willing to sign the Statutory Declaration, that is an end to the matter. It does not require the approval of the Court.

    It is still granted by the court. It just happens automatically. The mother never grants guardianship.

    If you think about what guardianship is that makes sense, guardianship is who the State recognizes as guardian for the child. It is a relationship between the State and the child, not the child and the mother.
    James Jones wrote: »
    This is incorrect. If both parents sign the S.I., it is a private family matter and the courts are not involved.

    That isn't true, it is why you require the declaration to be witnessed by a peace commissioner.

    Again guardianship by definition cannot be a private matter as it is a statement of who the State recognizes as guardian of the child. A private guardianship would make zero sense, and it is unsurprising then that what you describe is not the case.


  • Options
    #378
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It is still granted by the court. It just happens automatically. The mother never grants guardianship.

    If you think about what guardianship is that makes sense, guardianship is who the State recognizes as guardian for the child. It is a relationship between the State and the child, not the child and the mother.

    It isn't granted by court, it's recognised by the law so that you don't have to go to court, it's the whole point of it.

    The mother is agreeing to share guardianship.

    That isn't true, it is why you require the declaration to be witnessed by a peace commissioner.

    Again guardianship by definition cannot be a private matter as it is a statement of who the State recognizes as guardian of the child. A private guardianship would make zero sense, and it is unsurprising then that what you describe is not the case.

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/civil_law/peace_commissioners.html

    They just witness the signatures as obviously somebody needs to. Again the whole point is to avoid court if at all possible. Unfortunately it's hard to know how many avail of this as there is no register.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #379
    James Jones
    Registered Users Posts: 534 ✭✭✭James Jones


    Zombrex wrote: »
    James Jones wrote: »
    With Guardianship, once both parents are willing to sign the Statutory Declaration, that is an end to the matter. It does not require the approval of the Court.
    It is still granted by the court.

    No its not. The Courts have nothing to do with Guardianship unless or until an application is made by either parent to the Court. According to S.I. No. 5/1998
    The exercise of guardianship rights may be agreed between parents. In the event of a dispute arising concerning the exercise of guardianship rights the court may determine the matter on the application of either parental guardian.
    The Court does not get involved unless an application is made.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    James Jones wrote: »
    This is incorrect. If both parents sign the S.I., it is a private family matter and the courts are not involved.
    That isn't true, it is why you require the declaration to be witnessed by a peace commissioner.
    A Peace Commissioner is just an official witness to prevent a false declaration.


  • Options
    #380
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    K-9 wrote: »
    It isn't granted by court, it's recognised by the law so that you don't have to go to court, it's the whole point of it.

    It is still recognized by the court, that is why there is peace commissioner required, they are an agent of the court. You just don't have to physically go to the court of have the application assessed by the court.
    K-9 wrote: »
    The mother is agreeing to share guardianship.

    The mother is agreeing to the appointment of the father as guardian by the State. The mother does not appoint the father, the State does. That is key in relation to some of the comments being made here about the role the mother has in relation to the father.
    K-9 wrote: »
    They just witness the signatures as obviously somebody needs to.

    No, witnesses are different

    The form itself is here

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0005.html

    A peace commissioner is more than simply a witness. He is receiving the declaration.
    K-9 wrote: »
    Again the whole point is to avoid court if at all possible.

    The whole point is to avoid having to go to court and take up the courts time. It still requires an agent of the court, which is why it still requires a peace commissioner. It is not, as some inaccurately state, a private arrangement between the father and the mother, guardianship is recognized by the State, it is not granted by one of the parents.

    Contrast this with something like making a will, which only requires witnesses not a peace commissioner because it is a private document.


  • Options
    #381
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    James Jones wrote: »
    No its not. The Courts have nothing to do with Guardianship unless or until an application is made by either parent to the Court. According to S.I. No. 5/1998 The Court does not get involved unless an application is made.

    Guardianship is granted by the State through the courts. That is true even if you are both signing a declaration in your kitchen in the presence of a peace commissioner. In that context the peace commissioner is the court. You don't have to physically to go the court house for the courts to be involved.
    James Jones wrote: »
    A Peace Commissioner is just an official witness to prevent a false declaration.

    The peace commissioner is more than simply a witness. You are making the declaration to him.

    The laws of statutory declarations are here

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1938/en/act/pub/0037/print.html

    By signing the declaration you are in essence making a declaration to the peace commissioner, who in tern is representing the State.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It is still recognized by the court, that is why there is peace commissioner required, they are an agent of the court. You just don't have to physically go to the court of have the application assessed by the court.



    The mother is agreeing to the appointment of the father as guardian by the State. The mother does not appoint the father, the State does. That is key in relation to some of the comments being made here about the role the mother has in relation to the father.



    No, witnesses are different

    The form itself is here

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0005.html

    A peace commissioner is more than simply a witness.



    The whole point is to avoid having to go to court and take up the courts time. It still requires an agent of the court, which is why it still requires a peace commissioner. It is not, as some inaccurately state, a private arrangement between the father and the mother, guardianship is recognized by the State, it is not granted by one of the parents.

    Contrast this with something like making a will, which only requires witnesses not a peace commissioner because it is a private document.

    We are getting into the usual semantics here again. A peace commissioner is an officer of the state basically, recognised by the Minister for Justice, he isn't an agent of the court. They can sign student grant applications and passports IIRC, this is the same idea. They basically are a witness of the state that both parties have signed the agreement because well, somebody needs to do it!

    A joint declaration will be recognised by the court if it ever comes in front of a judge. That is because it's the law and the court has to recognise the law, simple as that. The court isn't granting anything in this case, the Minister of Justice and the law is!

    Basically the mother has the authority to agree to a joint guardian. I'd agree that sometimes the wrong impression can be given about it. It probably is viewed incorrectly by most people, fathers maybe think the mother controls it and mothers thinking it is far more important than it actually is. Far too big a deal is made of it and the few hard luck cases while the vast, vast majority of Guardians get on with their everyday lives with it not being an issue whatsoever.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #383
    James Jones
    Registered Users Posts: 534 ✭✭✭James Jones


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Guardianship is granted by the State through the courts. That is true even if you are both signing a declaration in your kitchen in the presence of a peace commissioner. In that context the peace commissioner is the court. You don't have to physically to go the court house for the courts to be involved.

    You just made that up!!!!

    The Courts DO NOT interfere in the family unless an application is made.


  • Options
    #384
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    James Jones wrote: »
    You just made that up!!!!

    The Courts DO NOT interfere in the family unless an application is made.

    Do you understand what guardianship is? It is not "interfering with the family"

    Guardianship is who the State recognizes as guardian of the child.

    I swear to god this thread :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #385
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Do you understand what guardianship is? It is not "interfering with the family"

    Guardianship is who the State recognizes as guardian of the child.

    I swear to god this thread :rolleyes:

    Time to strop of now! :D

    The law recognises the joint declaration. The court is an instrument of the law, not the law itself. Its that simples!

    The law was an act of the Oireachtas.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #386
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    K-9 wrote: »
    Time to strop of now! :D

    The law recognises the joint declaration. The court is an instrument of the law, not the law itself. Its that simples!

    The law was an act of the Oireachtas.

    I'm happy with that, I referred to peace commissioners as agents of the court because they are defined in the laws that also define the courts and the people who act as the courts, but if "agents" is technically the wrong term I've no problem with that. The courts, the State, the law, they are all just different aspects of the same system, the courts don't have an entirely different set of laws to the State.

    So I've no problem with your post, and not much to add which is why I haven't got around to replying to it.

    My issue with James' post though is that he has this ridiculous notion, that keeps popping up again and again in this forum, that guardianship is a private arrangement between the mother and the father which the courts won't "interfere with" unless a need arrises. That the mother grants the father guardianship if she feels like it.

    That is completely nonsense. Guardianship is and arrangement between the the child and the State over who the State recognizes as guardian of the child. The idea of private guardianship is utterly nonsensical, you cannot have guardianship without the State involved because it is the State who care who the guardians of the child are.

    You are correct that it is a matter of law, and the courts are involved when this law needs to be assessed or enforced. The peace commissioner also is involved representing the State, whether you want to think of him as an agent of the State, or an agent of the court or what ever, that wasn't central to my point. The peace commissioner receives the declaration of agreement, and based on that declaration guardianship is automatically recognized but it requires the recept of the declaration of agreement, that declaration is not the awarding of guardianship itself.

    At no point EVER is guardianship a private agreement between the mother and the father granted by the mother. The declaration that the mother and father sign is not a declaration of guardianship, it is a declaration of agreement which automatically leads to guardianship. I can't stress that point enough.

    This misrepresentation of guardianship keeps being raised I can only guess in order to continue to have a go at the role the mother has in the system in order to further the agenda that the system is heavily biased towards the decisions of the mother.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement