Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

Chocholic7 · 19-07-2011 8:08pm #1

It's now 2011 and unmarried fathers still don't have equal rights. As my kids father was a greedy,abusive, immature, selfish man and sponged off me until I left him, I was glad it applied to him. If it wasn't for this system in place I would be unable to take my daughter abroad on hols or anything like this without his consent (which he never gave when I asked him to sign passport until I discovered there was a sole guardianship form for it). I am just wondering what everyone else's views are on this topic.

SheFiend · 19-07-2011 8:17pm

Unmarried fathers should have just as much right to their children as unmarried mothers. I don't understand why mothers automatically get full rights to the child.
I have seen an awful situation develop with three friends where honest, decent men lose their rights to see their own child, have to go through court time and time again to no avail, are made victims of blatant lies told by bitter ex-girlfriends, and finally, if they are very lucky, get to see their child once a week with supervision, as if they are a criminals!
I know this isn't always the case, (there are lots of amicable break-ups and sensible people too,) but these are examples of how bitter, vengeful women can take advantage of this glaring fault in the legal system, at the expense of their own children and the fathers of those children.
Takes two to make a child; why should one automatically have the right to see their child and the other has to fight in court for access??

wolfpawnat · 19-07-2011 8:27pm

It is wrong that fathers do not have automatic rights, it cost us €550 to go to court to get him what he deserved after all, he contributed half of the chromosomes. If a man is good enough to go into bed with, they should be good enough to get half rights.

The only cases where I would see extenuating circumstances is with rape cases and when the father has numerous convictions, after all, the child needs good role models in life!

I know there are deadbeat fathers (my own being one), but why should all dads has to suffer for them?

Stark · 19-07-2011 8:28pm

Chocholic7 wrote: »

It's now 2011 and unmarried fathers still don't have equal rights. In my case, I am delighted, as my daughters father was a greedy,immature, selfish man and sponged off me until I left him. If it wasn't for this system in place I would be unable to take my daughter abroad on hols or anything like this without his consent (which he never gave when I asked him to sign passport until I discovered there was a sole guardianship form for it). I am just wondering what everyone else's views are on this topic.

My view is it's disgusting how you've allowed your bitterness with one man to cause you to take pleasure from every man's suffering. I bet you wouldn't be so delighted if the actions of a minority of unfit mothers meant all women such as yourself lost access to their children.

Chocholic7 · 19-07-2011 8:32pm

I do agree with you SheFiend as I have seem mothers torture their ex partners not allowing them to see their child also. That of course is not fair on the fathers. However I think the majority of the time, the child is always better off in the care of the mother. My parents were married and seperated when I was 5. But whenever I went into my fathers place for the weekend, he would normally leave me unsupervised in the house while he went down to the local pub and he was in his mid 30's. Now my childs father is the same as our kid went to stay with him for a weekend but I got a call from his mother that night saying he went out with the lads and she had look after our kid, so it makes me think if most fathers are entitled to the responsibility of equal rights to childeren?? Given that of course some mothers are irresponsible too, but I think a lot of single fathers are just "not arsed" spending a full weekend with their kids as they would be rather be out on the piss. But as I said this is not all fathers, as one of my single male frds is an amazing dad to his kid so I do admire the fathers that do make an effort to their kids

ElleEm · 19-07-2011 8:32pm

FATHERS should have equal rights to their children.
It is absurd that in this day and age, men have to FIGHT for their children. It makes no sense to me.

Chocholic7 · 19-07-2011 8:38pm

I am not anti-men Stark it's only a discussion I just wondering peoples views. I didn't say it should never come in to play that father's should not have equal rights, I was saying in my case I am glad my ex doesnt coz he is a dead beat dad, as was my own father and a few of my uncles so it's not based on one man and I do know some unmarried fathers are amazing to their kids and I do admire them and am glad that they are out their so I am not judgemental at all in the matter, just most single mums have trouble with their ex's with maintanance, seeing their kids etc. Apologies if I have offened you in any way as this was not my intention

Halo Kitty · 19-07-2011 8:39pm

I feel that father should play a part in their childrens lives....and that the majority of men now adays are well capable and willing to do so....First and foremost the welfare of the child is what is important, and not the blinkered emotions of adults who refuse to look at the bigger pictures....

January · 19-07-2011 8:40pm

Moved to Humanties, the Parenting forum is for advice on parenting, not debates on what rights parents should/shouldn't have.

saa · 19-07-2011 8:41pm

I'm glad you're delighted because children I know like many others were left alone with a abusive mother because the father could not get custody, spent five years trying to get to court was rejected for a lack of evidence.

Those children are still there today living with their abusive mother because the father didn't have to right to do anything about it.

Yes glad you're happy anyway..

SheFiend · 19-07-2011 8:45pm

Chocholic7 wrote: »

However I think the majority of the time, the child is always better off in the care of the mother.

I disagree. Without ststistics, which can be flawed anyway, we have no way of knowing if the majority of women are better parents than men.
Since we can't know this, it would be best to favour neither party and grant equal rights / access to the child automatically.
Then if a woman or man wants to dispute a parent having access, by all means go to court. I've seen some nasty women who are truly unfit mothers, raising their kids in houses with drug-taking, violence, etc. and father's heartbroken that they cannot even see the child, nevermind take them away from that enviroment.

Chocholic7 · 19-07-2011 8:47pm

Of course I dont agree with that Saa I think that is sick and the mother in that case should let the father take the childeren as it's obviously not a safe environment they are in. The childeren should always come first.

Justask · 19-07-2011 8:52pm

What about the mothers who have to fight for their kids to see the fathers when the fathers dont want to know.:mad:

Not all father deserve equal rights.

gargleblaster · 19-07-2011 8:53pm

Chocholic7 wrote: »

It's now 2011 and unmarried fathers still don't have equal rights. In my case, I am delighted,

That's just incredibly insensitive. Whatever your particular case is, to be delighted that all fathers don't have equal rights is undeniably unfair and sexist.

These laws end up hurting kids first and foremost, my heart breaks for them and for their fathers who are denied the chance to be there for them when it's so important, while they're young. It's nothing short of a tragedy.

Stark · 19-07-2011 8:53pm

Chocaholic14 wrote:

Of course I dont agree with that Saa I think that is sick and the mother in that case should let the father take the childeren as it's obviously not a safe environment they are in. The childeren should always come first.

But without fathers having rights (a situation which you've clearly stated you're delighted with), the father can't take the children away and so the abuse goes on.

saa · 19-07-2011 8:54pm

Chocholic7 wrote: »

Of course I dont agree with that Saa I think that is sick and the mother in that case should let the father take the childeren as it's obviously not a safe environment they are in. The childeren should always come first.

The mother needs treatments obviously because she is an abusive person, but that would mean she would have to give consent for that and her children.. she won't so this is where the rights of the father and the courts come in
oh wait they don't

I know who would, but to say you're really glad in your case and that mothers are better people to care for the children is all based on your experience,

the way the system is set up is based on the idea that well most of the time the mother seems to be less problematic, the issue is what happens when the mother is not the best person

This is why the rights of the father should be there, if he's a no good father the chances are he won't go through the courts to fight to see the child.

goose2005 · 19-07-2011 8:56pm

Chocholic7 wrote: »

I do agree with you SheFiend as I have seem mothers torture their ex partners not allowing them to see their child also. That of course is not fair on the fathers. However I think the majority of the time, the child is always better off in the care of the mother. My parents were married and seperated when I was 5. But whenever I went into my fathers place for the weekend, he would normally leave me unsupervised in the house while he went down to the local pub and he was in his mid 30's. Now my childs father is the same as our kid went to stay with him for a weekend but I got a call from his mother that night saying he went out with the lads and she had look after our kid, so it makes me think if most fathers are entitled to the responsibility of equal rights to childeren?? Given that of course some mothers are irresponsible too, but I think a lot of single fathers are just "not arsed" spending a full weekend with their kids as they would be rather be out on the piss. But as I said this is not all fathers, as one of my single male frds is an amazing dad to his kid so I do admire the fathers that do make an effort to their kids

Yes, I can understand. I personally was once mugged by a black man, and it got me thinking, should blacks be automatically allowed out at night if they're going to rob people? Maybe they should have to petition the court for permission to break curfew.

Chocholic7 · 19-07-2011 8:58pm

Im glad my childs father doesnt have any rights as he was abusive to both our kid and I. I don;t mean every father in Ireland as Of course there should be rights to fathers too, where if the mother was abusive to the child the father could take the kids. I am not trying to start an argument, I am just in two minds about it and just wondering what everyone else thinks thats all

saa · 19-07-2011 9:04pm

Everyone should have their rights until they cease to uphold their responsibilities, not by default.

The Internet Explorer · 19-07-2011 9:09pm

Fathers are humans too. Marriage is merely a signed piece of paper. It should not affect a fathers rights. You don't see other animals acting in this absurd manner. It is entirely natural for a father (animal) to be with his child (young). I mean seriously, WTF. No seriously. What the...........I don't even..

Dudess · 19-07-2011 9:45pm

Of course they should - apart from when they are unfit parents, but an unfit parent can be a woman OR a man, so it's their character that should be the decider in those cases, not their gender.

The way things stand for unmarried fathers in this regard is absolutely outrageous in Ireland.

Justask wrote: »

What about the mothers who have to fight for their kids to see the fathers when the fathers dont want to know.:mad:

Not all father deserve equal rights.

No, and not all mothers do either.

Chocholic7 wrote: »

However I think the majority of the time, the child is always better off in the care of the mother.

Why? The majority of the time, I think the child is better off being in the care of each parent an equal amount of time.

I think a lot of single fathers are just "not arsed" spending a full weekend with their kids as they would be rather be out on the piss.

You "think" it... that's about it.

Chocholic7 wrote: »

most single mums have trouble with their ex's with maintanance, seeing their kids etc.

Again, this is just something you're putting out there, but nothing solid to substantiate it.

gargleblaster wrote: »

These laws end up hurting kids first and foremost, my heart breaks for them and for their fathers who are denied the chance to be there for them when it's so important, while they're young. It's nothing short of a tragedy.

Exactly. What about the child who wants their father in their life?

SheFiend · 19-07-2011 11:44pm

saa wrote: »

Everyone should have their rights until they cease to uphold their responsibilities, not by default.[/QUOTE]
Exactly

susiebubbles · 20-07-2011 12:15am

It's demoralising for guys having to fight to see their kids when the advice most of them will get is that the mother will usually "win". Maintenance is a separate issue and while I can understand why a mother would be angry if she is not getting it as agreed it is still not a reason to block access. It takes two people to make a child and if a woman is having sex with a man totally unsuitable to be a father then she should accept some accountability for the repercussions of this. If someone is a d*ck when bumping uglies, a child is unlikely to change his behaviour.

I've seen how difficult woman can make access (my mother and brother's ex gf) and it's heartbreaking for the children, the father and the father's family.

So yes I do think unmarried fathers should have equal rights. It is unreasonable to judge the bad behaviour of one and universally apply it to all.

Offy · 20-07-2011 12:30am

We should have equal rights and equally women should be allowed vote! What a really silly post OP.

Jimmy Iovine · 20-07-2011 12:45am

This is one of those great threads where 99% of the respondents will be in opposition to the OP's view on the matter, and rightly so.

Undoubtedly a mother will have an obvious and legitimate emotional connection with her child because of the whole birth process. I don't think that this should have any baring on her claim that she should have sole custody of the child, though. Without the male there would be no child and as such that, in my mind, should mean that the father has the right to be with his child regardless of the protestations of the mother.

I think what another poster said before me sums it up perfectly, "everyone should have their rights until they cease to uphold their responsibilities, not by default."

All I can say is I hope that I never find myself in a situation like this. It's not one that is pretty at all.

titanium feather · 20-07-2011 12:58am

To go back to the thread title. Why on earth shouldn't unmarried fathers have equal rights?!

A marriage is essentially just a piece of paper. Creating a whole new life - that's a much bigger thing, much more important. In my opinion, in an ideal world, whether two people are single, in a relationship, married, divorced, whatever ... none of this should affect their relationship with their own child, their own flesh and blood.

Does your own child's father want access to him, as a matter of interest? Because, if he does, and if you're allowing your own attitude towards him interfere with his relationship with his daughter ... well, I find that very sad that you're taking the outdated law in this country to your advantage, to be honest.

smiles302 · 20-07-2011 1:10am

Firstly

Everyone should have their rights until they cease to uphold their responsibilities, not by default.

< Completely agree with this statement.

But I do wonder on practical day to day terms. Assuming the mother and father are equally capable of caring for the child and they separate during the pregnancy, would/should the courts/society take the ability to breast-feed into account when choosing who is best to care for the child?
If it's decided that custody is exactly equal, do we offer preference to the mother immediately after child-birth? If for example the father gets every second week, is it reasonable to ask a mother to hand over a baby a week after giving birth?
Child birth is expected to be a very emotional potentially traumatic experience.

I am aware these are the more extreme end of complicated issues new parents could face but I can't imagine how to find a clear balance between the father's, mother's and child's rights that you could manage to write into law.

(In saying that I do agree it should be done, I just can't imagine how it would be done)

Zombrex · 20-07-2011 2:16pm

Fathers should have to apply, as they do now, for guardianship responsibility for their children. They should have a right to do this, but not automatic guardianship of their children by default without going through this process.

Speaking as a child born to unmarried parents, the idea that my biological father, who left to go to England before I was born, could have just turned up and had guardianship over me when I was born, or 6 months, a year, 2 years, is terrifying. He had zero interest in raising me, so why should the State consider him a guardian?

The interests of the child must come first, and it is in the interests of the child that the father demonstrate, through the application process, that they are interested in being a guardian of their children, that they are interested in participating in the raising of the child, that they are interested in being part of the child's life. This is not automatic and thus guardianship should not be automatic.

I find it disgusting how some people want to turn this issue into a male vs female war of the sexes type discussion, oh look how much better women have it.

In reality it has nothing to do with that, the issue if between the father, the State and the child. The mother is irrelevant to the question of the State ensuring the father is interested in raising their children.

The State has a responsibility to the child to ensure that those it recognizes as guardians of that child have an interest in the child. A father has a responsibility to demonstrate to the State that he has an interest in his child. How inconvenient this is for the father is irrelevant to the principle, though of course the State should ensure that any interested fathers can do this as quickly and easily as possible.

SheFiend · 20-07-2011 7:35pm

smiles302 wrote: »

Firstly < Completely agree with this statement.

But I do wonder on practical day to day terms. Assuming the mother and father are equally capable of caring for the child and they separate during the pregnancy, would/should the courts/society take the ability to breast-feed into account when choosing who is best to care for the child?
If it's decided that custody is exactly equal, do we offer preference to the mother immediately after child-birth? If for example the father gets every second week, is it reasonable to ask a mother to hand over a baby a week after giving birth?
Child birth is expected to be a very emotional potentially traumatic experience.

I am aware these are the more extreme end of complicated issues new parents could face but I can't imagine how to find a clear balance between the father's, mother's and child's rights that you could manage to write into law.

(In saying that I do agree it should be done, I just can't imagine how it would be done)

Good points here! I imagine it shouldn't be too difficult to determine a period of time after childbirth during which there will be joint custody but mother retains the child for the duration, with father visitation / access untill the end of that period?

SheFiend · 20-07-2011 7:43pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Speaking as a child born to unmarried parents, the idea that my biological father, who left to go to England before I was born, could have just turned up and had guardianship over me when I was born, or 6 months, a year, 2 years, is terrifying. He had zero interest in raising me, so why should the State consider him a guardian?

The interests of the child must come first, and it is in the interests of the child that the father demonstrate, through the application process, that they are interested in being a guardian of their children, that they are interested in participating in the raising of the child, that they are interested in being part of the child's life. This is not automatic and thus guardianship should not be automatic.

It could just as easily have been your mother who disappeared. If so, and if your father wasn't automatically guardian then you would be an orphan! :eek:

Why does the father have to prove this in a court of law, but the mother doesn't?
Why do you think men should be treated different to women? That IS sexism. It's sexist opinions like this that are making this a gender issue.

barry711 · 20-07-2011 8:32pm

I think it is an unfair and unjustified law. I wouldn't be surprised if this attributed as to why a lot of young males from poorer areas of this country who grow up without father figures in their lives go onto commit crimes and turn into criminals. With more families "breaking up" before they parents get married thanks to the stress on the partners from this recession it is going to create more kids getting born into single unmarried mothers and so the cycle continues. Just my thoughts

rolly1 · 20-07-2011 9:46pm

Should unmarried fathers have equal rights?

Anyone who truly believes in children's rights would be answering in the affirmative.

jam_mac_jam · 20-07-2011 9:51pm

Speaking as somebody (single mum) who has benefited from this law, I still think its hugely unfair. There is no reason why a man shouldnt have as much right to a child just because you are not married, this is 2011 there are a huge amount of family break downs or non married people and all should be protected. Why should children suffer because some men are bad that it gets used against all.

Dudess · 20-07-2011 9:58pm

Wicknight wrote: »

I find it disgusting how some people want to turn this issue into a male vs female war of the sexes type discussion, oh look how much better women have it.

Well I despair of that stuff too (too much of it on Boards - it's hostile as hell) but I don't think that's what people are saying here - the point is that any fathers who are not fit parents waive their parental rights, but on character grounds, not gender grounds. And fathers in general shouldn't have to pay for the shortcomings of a minority of men.

In reality it has nothing to do with that, the issue if between the father, the State and the child. The mother is irrelevant to the question of the State ensuring the father is interested in raising their children.

The State has a responsibility to the child to ensure that those it recognizes as guardians of that child have an interest in the child. A father has a responsibility to demonstrate to the State that he has an interest in his child. How inconvenient this is for the father is irrelevant to the principle, though of course the State should ensure that any interested fathers can do this as quickly and easily as possible.

My friend's son's dad cut her out of his life the moment she told him she was pregnant, and not a peep from him to this day - a few months shy of a decade later. Of course it would be a travesty if it were possible for him to just swoop into his kid's life now and take over guardianship of him, but only because of his behaviour, not because he is a man. And he's not all men. It would be a similar travesty if you reverse the genders, yet I assume it is possible for a mother who was on the missing list for years to just take over raising her kid?

I don't see why all unmarried fathers should have to apply for guardianship and all mothers should automatically have it and not have to demonstrate their interest in the child. There are negligent, indifferent mothers too.

Zombrex · 20-07-2011 10:48pm

SheFiend wrote: »

It could just as easily have been your mother who disappeared.

Correct.

SheFiend wrote: »

If so, and if your father wasn't automatically guardian then you would be an orphan! :eek:

That isn't what orphan means, but I assume you mean I would be in the care of the State.

SheFiend wrote: »

Why does the father have to prove this in a court of law, but the mother doesn't?

Because the State has to be satisfied the father has genuine interest in caring for the child.

The State assumes the mother does. It also assumes the father does if he is married to the mother. If you want to argue that the State shouldn't assume this and that the mother and/or married parents should apply for guardianship as well go ahead, that is an interesting discussion but doesn't change the argument about the father.

The argument that the father should get this simply because the mother has it is the worst pettiness in my book, completely ignoring the interests of the child and turning the whole debate into silly battle of the sexes style nonsense.

SheFiend wrote: »

Why do you think men should be treated different to women?

Because like it or not the woman gives birth to the child, the man doesn't. This puts the woman in an automatic opt-out situation. The man is always in an opt-in situation.

If you don't like that blame nature. Or figure out a way to ensure that every unmarried father will attend the birth of his child. If you can figure out how to do that I'm all for automatic guardianship.

SheFiend wrote: »

That IS sexism. It's sexist opinions like this that are making this a gender issue.

The only people making this a gender issue are those arguing that irrespective of what is best for the child the father should be given guardianship because if we don't that is sexism. What does sexism have to do with the best interests of the children involved?

Zombrex · 20-07-2011 11:02pm

Dudess wrote: »

Well I despair of that stuff too (too much of it on Boards - it's hostile as hell) but I don't think that's what people are saying here - the point is that any fathers who are not fit parents waive their parental rights, but on character grounds, not gender grounds. And fathers in general shouldn't have to pay for the shortcomings of a minority of men.

It is nothing to do with paying for anything. Again people turn this into a notion that someone is having a go at men, or that this is about women having it so much better.

The State has to be satisfied that a father has a genuine interest in their child before recognizing them as a guardian.

Dudess wrote: »

My friend's son's dad cut her out of his life the moment she told him she was pregnant, and not a peep from him to this day - a few months shy of a decade later. Of course it would be a travesty if it were possible for him to just swoop into his kid's life now and take over guardianship of him, but only because of his behaviour, not because he is a man. And he's not all men. It would be a similar travesty if you reverse the genders, yet I assume it is possible for a mother who was on the missing list for years to just take over raising her kid?

Which you think is a bad idea, I assume. So why argue that we should make it just as bad in the case of the missing fathers in the interests of fairness?

It is like arguing against screening for adoptive parents under the idea that it is unfair because sure aren't some normal parents really bad, it would be unfair to stop really bad adoptive parents applying then.

Some mothers may be really bad mothers and abandon their children. That is not an argument to, in the interest of fairness, ignore the fact that some fathers may be really bad fathers and abandon their children and that the State must be satisfied that the father is actually interested in looking after the child.

Again people are solely focusing on the interests of the fathers, not the interests of the children.

Dudess wrote: »

I don't see why all unmarried fathers should have to apply for guardianship and all mothers should automatically have it and not have to demonstrate their interest in the child. There are negligent, indifferent mothers too.

There certainly are, so put forward an argument that all mothers should have to apply for guardianship then. I would listen to such an argument and consider what is in it.

What is nonsense though is to argue that we should make the situation worse in the interests of fairness, utterly ignoring the welfare of the children involved.

Zombrex · 20-07-2011 11:05pm

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Speaking as somebody (single mum) who has benefited from this law, I still think its hugely unfair. There is no reason why a man shouldnt have as much right to a child just because you are not married, this is 2011 there are a huge amount of family break downs or non married people and all should be protected. Why should children suffer because some men are bad that it gets used against all.

Even if the father has not participated in the child's life at all and is considered a stranger by the children?

Does anyone here seriously believe that in such a case the father should have guardianship rights over the children, with all that entails?

smiles302 · 20-07-2011 11:07pm

If you don't like that blame nature. Or figure out a way to ensure that every unmarried father will attend the birth of his child. If you can figure out how to do that I'm all for automatic guardianship.

Not necessarily, give both parents the choice of equal guardianship or child support payments if they are un-interested / un-able to raise the child.

The difficulty is only within the first two years of life, where a woman, being female is at an advantage as a parent simply by being female. It is level playing field after that.
(Assuming the woman is normal, sane etc)

I would personally give the woman preference over the child while she is on maternity leave with father's entitled to reasonable access to the child. Then once the child is two or so the parents should be ready to plan out equal guardianship or decide who is going to pay support.

SIMPLYTHE · 20-07-2011 11:13pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Correct.

That isn't what orphan means, but I assume you mean I would be in the care of the State.

Because the State has to be satisfied the father has genuine interest in caring for the child.

The State assumes the mother does. It also assumes the father does if he is married to the mother. If you want to argue that the State shouldn't assume this and that the mother and/or married parents should apply for guardianship as well go ahead, that is an interesting discussion but doesn't change the argument about the father.

The argument that the father should get this simply because the mother has it is the worst pettiness in my book, completely ignoring the interests of the child and turning the whole debate into silly battle of the sexes style nonsense.

Because like it or not the woman gives birth to the child, the man doesn't. This puts the woman in an automatic opt-out situation. The man is always in an opt-in situation.

If you don't like that blame nature. Or figure out a way to ensure that every unmarried father will attend the birth of his child. If you can figure out how to do that I'm all for automatic guardianship.

The only people making this a gender issue are those arguing that irrespective of what is best for the child the father should be given guardianship because if we don't that is sexism. What does sexism have to do with the best interests of the children involved?

You speak the truth. Stop getting on the gender equality fence here people and just think about the issue as people. Some fathers are unknown, some fathers are fathers and mothers rolled into one. It's just the way it is. I cannot see the major problem in an interested father, who wants to participate in his child/ren's life/lives, making a simple application to a district court for guardianship. Very simple procedure and (the Dublin court's especially, outside Dublin less so) grant guardianship almost as of right to father's nowadays. ...so it's not as though there is serious hardship involved in respect of the interested biological father. And on the other side of it, why would you want a father who has no interest in the child registered as a guardian? Be practical!

Burial · 20-07-2011 11:16pm

SIMPLYTHE wrote: »

You speak the truth. Stop getting on the gender equality fence here people and just think about the issue as people. Some fathers are unknown, some fathers are fathers and mothers rolled into one. It's just the way it is. I cannot see the major problem in an interested father, who wants to participate in his child/ren's life/lives, making a simple application to a district court for guardianship. Very simple procedure and (the Dublin court's especially, outside Dublin less so) grant guardianship almost as of right to father's nowadays. ...so it's not as though there is serious hardship involved in respect of the interested biological father. And on the other side of it, why would you want a father who has no interest in the child registered as a guardian? Be practical!

Did you even read the posts in this thread?!!

Dudess · 20-07-2011 11:16pm

But Wicknight, people are not suggesting a father who has demonstrated a lack of interest in being a parent to his child(ren) shouldn't be restricted if he suddenly expresses an interest, just that those fathers who are interested in parenting their child(ren) shouldn't have to fight for this. Putting up barriers to all fathers and none to all mothers is obviously unfair.

In terms of the children's interests: absolutely - children who want their fathers in their lives.

Zombrex · 20-07-2011 11:36pm

smiles302 wrote: »

I would personally give the woman preference over the child while she is on maternity leave with father's entitled to reasonable access to the child. Then once the child is two or so the parents should be ready to plan out equal guardianship or decide who is going to pay support.

So you wouldn't allow a father to become a guardian of the child until the child is 2 years old?

Zombrex · 20-07-2011 11:40pm

Dudess wrote: »

But Wicknight, people are not suggesting a father who has demonstrated a lack of interest in being a parent to his child(ren) shouldn't be restricted if he suddenly expresses an interest

Define 'demonstrated a lack of interest'

Isn't demonstrating a lack of interest simply not applying for guardianship.

Also what process are you envisioning to strip a parent of guardianship?

Dudess wrote: »

just that those fathers who are interested in parenting their child(ren) shouldn't have to fight for this.

They don't have to fight for this, they have to apply for it.

The only time there is anything like a 'fight' is when the mother contests the guardianship, which is even more reason for the State to take a look at the situation to determine if the mother's objection has any warrant to it.

Dudess wrote: »

Putting up barriers to all fathers and none to all mothers is obviously unfair.

Ok, argue that barriers should be put up for all mothers.

Dudess wrote: »

In terms of the children's interests: absolutely - children who want their fathers in their lives.

Can have their fathers in their lives if the father is willing.

Chuck Stone · 20-07-2011 11:46pm

With conditions.

What about children born to a woman through being raped?

SheFiend · 20-07-2011 11:54pm

Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? Wicknight?

Dudess · 20-07-2011 11:56pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Define 'demonstrated a lack of interest'

Isn't demonstrating a lack of interest simply not applying for guardianship.

Yes, for years not wanting any involvement - surely retrospective disinterest and indifference over a period of years is sufficient to cancel out a sudden demonstration of interest?

Zombrex · 20-07-2011 11:57pm

SheFiend wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? Wicknight?

The interests of the children first, always.

Zombrex · 20-07-2011 11:59pm

Dudess wrote: »

Yes, for years not wanting any involvement - surely retrospective disinterest and indifference over a period of years is sufficient to cancel out a sudden demonstration of interest?

And what about during the years you are waiting for the clock to tick down demonstrating that the father has no interest?

He is considered a legal guardian of the children, children he might have never even met?

And what about fathers who have been involved in their kids lives but who face malicious claims from partners than they haven't? They have to retro-actively demonstrate participation in their children's lives.

smiles302 · 21-07-2011 12:24am

So you wouldn't allow a father to become a guardian of the child until the child is 2 years old?

I would allow it, I would simply give preference to the mother. Say for example they go to court during the pregnancy, I would give the mother principal guardianship for the first two years with the condition of having to give the father reasonable access to the child.

Zombrex · 21-07-2011 9:19am

smiles302 wrote: »

So you wouldn't allow a father to become a guardian of the child until the child is 2 years old?

I would allow it, I would simply give preference to the mother. Say for example they go to court during the pregnancy, I would give the mother principal guardianship for the first two years with the condition of having to give the father reasonable access to the child.

I'm still not following. What if the couple live together?

wolfpawnat · 21-07-2011 11:10am

Wicknight wrote: »

Because the State has to be satisfied the father has genuine interest in caring for the child.

What about the hundreds, perhaps even thousands of mothers who do not have a genuine interest in their child and are given full guardianship, just because you have a child does not mean you actually love/want them. They may feel forced into having the child by family pressure.

My mother only saw myself and my sister as a hindrance and as a duty, not as her children, there was no love. She is not alone, even today I see mothers who genuinely do not give a toss about their children. and they are not all in the one social class either!

Wicknight wrote: »

The State assumes the mother does. It also assumes the father does if he is married to the mother. If you want to argue that the State shouldn't assume this and that the mother and/or married parents should apply for guardianship as well go ahead, that is an interesting discussion but doesn't change the argument about the father.

A ring on a finger does not signify the ability of a man to be a good parent. My parents were married and they were not fit to raise a smile let alone children. Yet you see fathers who are not married and they are great parents, who love, support and provide for their child, but are not deemed fit by the state for the role that they have!

Wicknight wrote: »

The argument that the father should get this simply because the mother has it is the worst pettiness in my book, completely ignoring the interests of the child and turning the whole debate into silly battle of the sexes style nonsense.

Giving it to one parent solely because of their gender is sexism. Bias towards a gender is THE definition of sexism. And why not give it, if a woman is willing to open her legs to a man, and he is willing to do the dirty with her, then both should have to suffer the consequences.

Wicknight wrote: »

Because like it or not the woman gives birth to the child, the man doesn't. This puts the woman in an automatic opt-out situation. The man is always in an opt-in situation.

Men can opt out, it is called walking away, women can opt out via abortion/adoption. Many times men do not get a say when their child is aborted. And so what about giving birth to a child, it is no great feat. Woman have been doing it since the beginning of our species. At this very moment millions of women around the world are giving birth. It is not the hardest cross to bear in this life. Literally billions of women know the feeling!

Wicknight wrote: »

If you don't like that blame nature. Or figure out a way to ensure that every unmarried father will attend the birth of his child. If you can figure out how to do that I'm all for automatic guardianship.

What if he is busy providing an income for his family when his partner goes into labour?

What if she is a spiteful cow and won't let him attend the birth because they are no longer together but he wants to be a part of his childs life?

What if he is too busy minding their other child because there is no family member available to look after it?

Being there for a few hours when until recently most men had nothing to do with is not the defining moment of whether a man will be a good father or not. That argument makes no sense!

Wicknight wrote: »

The only people making this a gender issue are those arguing that irrespective of what is best for the child the father should be given guardianship because if we don't that is sexism. What does sexism have to do with the best interests of the children involved?

The best thing for the child is two willing/caring parents. This should be pushed at all costs. Then if that fails, remove the guardianship of the unfit parent, be they male or female. THAT is what is best for the child!

A lot of these women who argue the "fathers should have no rights" corner are often the first to have a man into court for maintenance. And though I believe that a father should financially contribute to the care of his child, he should also be expecting some bit of say in the child's life too.

A good example of why it is important for fathers to have half guardianship is that when a father is out with their child and if the child needs to have medical treatment, and the mother is far away, should the child be allowed to miss out on the necessary treatment because their father has no legal right to sign for it!

And what about the case not too long ago where an Irish father's child was brought back to Poland/Lithuania because she was going back. He loved his child, he had been there at it's birth(something that seems to matter to Wicknight) and had contributed to its life in both financial and other ways, but due fault of gender was forced to fight for the right to be near his child!

Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

Comments