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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

Options
12467…13

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    JamJamJamJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭JamJamJamJam


    I'm trying to imagine what the situation would be like if we lived in an Ireland where both unmarried parents were given automatic and equal rights from the word go, without basically having to ask for permission to have access to their own child. I can't imagine that many people at all would be suggesting that fathers should have to start applying for guardianship rights, and those who did would get a roasting from those who recognise the injustice of it.

    I think jemser's response to the thread title was the best.
    jemser wrote: »
    yes

    Nuff said.


  • Options
    #93
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    K-9 wrote: »
    The main reason I see is a married father gets it automatically and it doesn't seem to cause major problems. It can be removed by a court application.

    A married father has, theoretically at least, expressed an interest in raising the children produced by the marriage. That is the primary purpose of the State recognizing marriage.
    K-9 wrote: »
    Seeing as it's good enough for married parents and looking around at some marriages, it doesn't take much to earn it, why not extend it?

    Is that in the best interests of the children involved?


  • Options
    #94
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    rolly1 wrote: »
    I have asked you twice already to prove how parents having unequal legal rights can possibly be in the best interests of children as you claim.

    I already have. It is not in the best interests of a child to have a stranger with no interest in being his/her parent with guardianship rights.

    I've put that to everyone here and no one seems to have a counter to it. They just say it is unfair on the father who has to demonstrate to the State they do have an interest by applying for guardianship, and I've pointed out that how fair or unfair it is on the father is not the primary concern, the best interests of the children are.
    rolly1 wrote: »
    I have quoted article 7.1 of the UN Covention on the Rights of the Child which also sees it as every child's right, as far as possible, to know and be cared for by both of its parents.

    Which automatic guardianship does nothing for, so it is irrelevant. Again people seem to think the current law is that the father cannot ever see their children unless they are married. That is not the current law. What is required is an application for guardianship.
    rolly1 wrote: »
    It's the same with European Convention on Human Rights and the right to family life. All the conventions, all the research, both legal and social, point to the fact that parents having an equal legal position is of importance to ensure the rights of the child are properly protected and upheld.
    And no one is objecting to both parents having equal legal position, but what is required is that both parents are interested in this. The father will end up with equal guardianship, if he demonstrates interest in this by apply and if the courts can see no reason why the children's interests are put at risk by granting such guardianship.

    Again the laws does not state that unmarried fathers will not be able to get guardianship of their children unless they marry.
    rolly1 wrote: »
    The best thing any state can do is to provide a platform of equality amongst parents to ensure the better functioning of every family in the state.
    Automatic guardianship will not produce family units that would not have also forced without automatic guardianship. What it will do is grant guardianship rights to men who have no interest in being part of the family unit, which again is not in the best interests of the children.


  • Options
    #95
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Dudess wrote: »
    Wicknight, would you agree your take on this is not a subjective one, rather it is informed by your own personal experience?

    Sorry I'm not following the question, subjective and informed by your own person experience, are they not the same thing?


  • Options
    #96
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,215 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    I meant objective, sorry.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    SheFiend wrote: »
    How dare you!!! I am inscensed by stories like these which involve people I know personally, and that is why I am on this thread! I would be here all day if I related every second hand story, but I can only relate what i know to be fact!!!

    What you stated as "facts" is inconsistent with the current laws of Ireland. You can be incensed all you like, I don't really care about that.
    SheFiend wrote: »
    I didn't say the mother "OBJECTS" i said she lied!!!! She accused the boyfriend of beating her etc.! Now her child is staying with a mother who does drugs, while her father pays maintanence to a liar and a cheater of the states system for a child he never gets to see!!!!!

    So let me get this straight. You do not believe that the State should assess the guardianship of a man who has been accused of domestic violence by the mother of the children he is trying to get guardianship of.

    You do not believe it is in the best interests of the children to assess if there is any merit to a claim of violence by the father?
    SheFiend wrote: »
    Yopu think the State is right to do this because that is the law?

    I think the State is right to do this because there has been an accustation of domestic violence made against the person seeking guardianship. If you have evidence that in this case the claim is false I suggest you go to the police, but the idea that the State should ignore such claims because the woman might be lying is frankly ridiculous.

    Imagine the father was actually beating the mother. You think the State shouldn't care about that because sure she might be lying?
    SheFiend wrote: »
    If everyone thought the way you did, there would be ZERO progress in the world.

    You seem to have a funny definition of progress if you think putting children in harms way is progress, or in their best interest.


  • Options
    #98
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Dudess wrote: »
    I meant objective, sorry.

    No I think it is objectively not in the best interests of the child to have a father who has not expressed interest in raising him granted guardianship rights automatically.

    Can anyone explain how that is actually in the best interests of the child? Not the father, the child.


  • Options
    #99
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    strobe wrote: »
    If a father contests a mothers guardianship do you believe the child should be removed from her guardianship and given to the father until the mother can prove the contention unwarranted?

    That is a difficult question. The initial answer would be yes, the State must satisfy itself that children are not at harm. There is an issue though with the disruption such a move could cause on the children themselves, particularly if a false accusation if made. Ultimately I think the social workers involved must made a judgement as quickly as possible about the merit of such an accusation on a case by case basis.

    I would point out that this response is based solely on the disruption cause to the children, not the mother.
    strobe wrote: »
    Best to rule out the accusations before believing the mother right?
    Ideally yes.
    strobe wrote: »
    Or is it only the safer option to do things that way when a father is accused of something?

    Since the father will not already have guardianship the disruption to the children from such an assessment will be limited compared to the disruption to the children from assessment of the mother (assuming the children are with the mother).
    strobe wrote: »
    Mothers abuse and neglect children too, so you would support such in the case of a father issuing a contention yes?
    Yes, of course. It wouldn't even have to be the father, it could be the grand parents or other relatives, or even other concerned adults, such as teachers.
    strobe wrote: »
    In this system if both parents make a contention is it whoever made the first contention that gets the child cause they got there first or do we roll out a massive multi-billion euro expansion of our foster care system?

    More money to social workers is badly needed in this country, though I'm not sure what the multi-billion euro refers to?


  • Options
    #100
    rolly1
    Registered Users Posts: 204 ✭✭rolly1


    Wicknight wrote: »
    A married father has, theoretically at least, expressed an interest in raising the children produced by the marriage. That is the primary purpose of the State recognizing marriage.

    As has the mother,yet, she gets guardianship automatically even when she is unmarried.

    Expansion of equality to all parents can only be in the best interests of the children.


  • Options
    #101
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    rolly1 wrote: »
    As has the mother,yet, she gets guardianship automatically even when she is unmarried.

    Expansion of equality to all parents can only be in the best interests of the children.

    That doesn't make any sense. Why would equality between men and women automatically be in the best interests of the children involved?

    Something is in the best interests of a child if it is in their best interests, it being in someone else's best interests has no effect on this.

    A good example of such a principle if adoption. It is in the best interests of the adoptive parents getting a child as quickly as possible. This of course is not in the best interests of the children involved, their best interests are served by a rigorous assessment process. You could make a nonsense argument and say what is in the best interests of the parents must be in the best interest of the children, but this clearly isn't the case.

    Equally with guardianship. It is clearly in the best interests of the father to not have the expense and time required to apply for guardianship. But that is not an argument for it then being in the best interests of the children involved.

    It is in the best interests of children to have only parents with interest in raising them and being part of their lives having guardianship over them recognized by the State.

    Does anyone want to actually argue that this is not true, that this is not in the best interests of the children involved.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Wicknight wrote: »
    A married father has, theoretically at least, expressed an interest in raising the children produced by the marriage. That is the primary purpose of the State recognizing marriage.

    Putting a ring on the finger is expressing an interest in children?

    I agree it's very theoretical, Catholic theological I'd say.

    Is that in the best interests of the children involved?


    Campaign away for the removal of parental rights for married couples over illegitimate children.
    Start a new thread if you'd like.

    I'm all for all parents being treated equally and keeping personal bias out of it.

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



  • Options
    #103
    rolly1
    Registered Users Posts: 204 ✭✭rolly1


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I already have. It is not in the best interests of a child to have a stranger with no interest in being his/her parent with guardianship rights.

    I've put that to everyone here and no one seems to have a counter to it. They just say it is unfair on the father who has to demonstrate to the State they do have an interest by applying for guardianship, and I've pointed out that how fair or unfair it is on the father is not the primary concern, the best interests of the children are.



    Which automatic guardianship does nothing for, so it is irrelevant. Again people seem to think the current law is that the father cannot ever see their children unless they are married. That is not the current law. What is required is an application for guardianship.


    And no one is objecting to both parents having equal legal position, but what is required is that both parents are interested in this. The father will end up with equal guardianship, if he demonstrates interest in this by apply and if the courts can see no reason why the children's interests are put at risk by granting such guardianship.

    Again the laws does not state that unmarried fathers will not be able to get guardianship of their children unless they marry.


    Automatic guardianship will not produce family units that would not have also forced without automatic guardianship. What it will do is grant guardianship rights to men who have no interest in being part of the family unit, which again is not in the best interests of the children.

    You have not answered the question. You have simply trotted out a line based on a bigoted assumption.

    Once again, in case you are very hard of comprehension: How is it in the best interests of all children born of unmarried parents to have their parents on an unequal legal footing?

    You are objecting to both parents having an equal legal position.

    There is a vast legal difference between automatic guardianhip and court/statute granted guardianhip, the former cannot be taken away from the person while the latter can for example.I have already pointed this out way back, but will you listen?

    What you are saying is no different to "all black people are rapists because some are rapists, they are all guilty till proven innocent."

    And it's rotten bigotry, pure and simple, permitted and supported by people like yourself using the sick argument that it's the child's best interests to keep the bigotry in place.


  • Options
    #104
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    K-9 wrote: »
    Putting a ring on the finger is expressing an interest in children?

    Yes, which is why there are a number of assumptions made by the State with regard to this. Its why issues such as homosexual marriage and homosexuals adopting children cause such contention. Marriage is seen primarily as a child producing unit.
    K-9 wrote: »
    I'm all for all parents being treated equally and keeping personal bias out of it.

    You said why not extend it, and I asked do you believe that extending it is in the best interest of the child? Can I assume from this answer that you do?


  • Options
    #105
    KindOfIrish
    Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭KindOfIrish


    SheFiend wrote: »
    I don't understand why mothers automatically get full rights to the child.
    I would advise you to get pregnant, then live with a huge belly for the next 9 months after that give birht and after that feed, wash etc. child for the next 14 (at list) years. And you will understand.


  • Options
    #106
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    rolly1 wrote: »
    You have not answered the question. You have simply trotted out a line based on a bigoted assumption.

    Once again, in case you are very hard of comprehension: How is it in the best interests of all children born of unmarried parents to have their parents on an unequal legal footing?

    I already answered that. It is in the best interests of the child to have the father apply for guardianship rather than automatically grant guardianship since such an application demonstrates to the State an interest in guardianship, an interest that cannot be assumed to exist.

    Now can you answer my question?
    rolly1 wrote: »
    You are objecting to both parents having an equal legal position.
    I'm objecting to automatic guardianship being granted to unmarried fathers.

    I've no objection to an unmarried father being on equal legal footing as the mother so long as he seeks this.
    rolly1 wrote: »
    There is a vast legal difference between automatic guardianhip and court/statute granted guardianhip, the former cannot be taken away from the person while the latter can for example.I have already pointed this out way back, but will you listen?

    If the former cannot be taken away (since it doesn't exist I'm not quite sure how you know this) then if guardianship is granted to an absent father how does the State remove guardianship once that father has had no involvement in raising of the children? Or does the father simply keep guardianship forever?

    If so how is that in the best interests of the children?
    rolly1 wrote: »
    What you are saying is no different to "all black people are rapists because some are rapists, they are all guilty till proven innocent."

    That is not what I'm saying, as you are fully aware. If all you can do is introduce silly straw men to try and debate then really what is the point?

    Can you answer my question?


  • Options
    #107
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,146 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Yes.

    Anyone arguing otherwise is either incapable of logical thinking or is a misandrist.


  • Options
    #108
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes, which is why there are a number of assumptions made by the State with regard to this. Its why issues such as homosexual marriage and homosexuals adopting children cause such contention. Marriage is seen primarily as a child producing unit.

    Well you've a strongly held belief and I respect that.

    Makes no sense to me and the majority on this thread, but there you go.

    Thank God your father wasn't married. Imagine being born in a married familly?

    Imagine that in this country?

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



  • Options
    #109
    Tayla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    I don't agree that all men should automatically have guardianship.

    First of all nobody knows who will or won't be a good parent and I agree with the posters who said that maybe some mothers don't deserve it either, they could be a complete waste of space, however all we have to go on is the fact that we know for sure that the mother wanted the baby or else she could have aborted the baby.
    The dad, well the state doesn't know whether he wants the baby or not, the mother gives birth to the baby, surely that's a signal that she wants the baby and is fully prepared to be a proper guardian to the baby and if she does that then surely a man can go to the tiny bit of effort to get himself registered as a guardian.

    I think there should be an option (while pregnant) where unmarried couples could automatically state their intention for the man to become a guardian, this could be maybe done through the hospital and that would ensure that those particular men would be instant guardians once the child was born.

    I think the fact that some mothers object to men who want to be guardians and are good fathers is absolutely disgraceful and I hope that the judges see through lies etc that these women may tell but automatic guardianship for someone who might not even want a child?? that is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #110
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    K-9 wrote: »
    Well you've a strongly held belief and I respect that.

    Makes no sense to me and the majority on this thread, but there you go.

    Fair enough. I'm genuinely struggling to see how any one actually objects to my point. I've asked a number of people the direct question of how it is in the best interests of the child and this question seems ignored, with people preferring to return to the issue of equality between the sexes.

    But like you said, there you go.
    K-9 wrote: »
    Thank God your father wasn't married. Imagine being born in a married familly?

    Imagine that in this country?
    I'm not sure what this refers to, but if it is a genuine point of sympathy with my childhood, thank you.


  • Options
    #111
    rolly1
    Registered Users Posts: 204 ✭✭rolly1


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I already answered that. It is in the best interests of the child to have the father apply for guardianship rather than automatically grant guardianship since such an application demonstrates to the State an interest in guardianship, an interest that cannot be assumed to exist.

    So it can be assumed to exist with the mother in all cases but not with the father in all cases.
    Now can you answer my question?
    I'm objecting to automatic guardianship being granted to unmarried fathers.
    I've no objection to an unmarried father being on equal legal footing as the mother so long as he seeks this.
    By the very fact that he has to seek it and she doesn't, means they can never be on an equal legal footing. Is that too hard to grasp?


    If the former cannot be taken away (since it doesn't exist I'm not quite sure how you know this) then if guardianship is granted to an absent father how does the State remove guardianship once that father has had no involvement in raising of the children? Or does the father simply keep guardianship forever?
    Garbled nonsense.
    If so how is that in the best interests of the children?
    I'll presume you are trying to talk about guardianship removal. At present it can't be removed from the mother, married or unmarried but can be removed from the unmarried father. Equality should of course be that it can be removed from the unmarried mother as well if she is not a fit parent.
    That is not what I'm saying, as you are fully aware. If all you can do is introduce silly straw men to try and debate then really what is the point?

    Oh yes are.Your non-stop tarring of all unmarried fathers as uninterested in their children is exactly analogous to the laws whereby whole sections of a society, whether by race,gender or marital status are discrimnated against for nothing more than than ticking one of those boxes. It's the heart of the matter, as a blind bigot I knew you wouldn't see it though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    rolly1
    Registered Users Posts: 204 ✭✭rolly1


    Tayla wrote: »
    I don't agree that all men should automatically have guardianship.


    The dad, well the state doesn't know whether he wants the baby or not, the mother gives birth to the baby, surely that's a signal that she wants the baby and is fully prepared to be a proper guardian to the baby and if she does that then surely a man can go to the tiny bit of effort to get himself registered as a guardian.

    I think there should be an option (while pregnant) where unmarried couples could automatically state their intention for the man to become a guardian, this could be maybe done through the hospital and that would ensure that those particular men would be instant guardians once the child was born.
    .

    Wow so because a mother is a mother and doesn't abort her child she gets to have superior legal rights over the child to the father; regardless of her fitness as a parent. Class argument.

    Must be magical this motherhood thing, whereby actually giving birth to the baby automatically proves to the world that you are a fit parent and as such deserve superior legal rights to the parent without the uterus.


  • Options
    #113
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,891 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    KindOfIrish wrote: »
    I would advise you to get pregnant, then live with a huge belly for the next 9 months after that give birht and after that feed, wash etc. child for the next 14 (at list) years. And you will understand.

    And you're saying men play no part in feeding and washing children?


  • Options
    #114
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    rolly1 wrote: »
    So it can be assumed to exist with the mother in all cases but not with the father in all cases.

    If anyone wants to make an argument for removal of automatic guardianship for the mother I would be interested, as I've said, to listen to such an argument. Tayla though did make a good point, which I hadn't considered, that the mother is seen to express interest in guardianship by leaving the hospital with the baby, rather than putting the baby up for adoption (abortion is not available in Ireland). How good an argument that is for automatic guardianship being granted to the mother I'm more than happy to debate.
    rolly1 wrote: »
    By the very fact that he has to seek it and she doesn't, means they can never be on an equal legal footing. Is that too hard to grasp?

    No one is debating otherwise. The question you are not answering, perhaps on purpose, is how is it in the best interests of the child to have the father be granted automatic guardianship.

    If you want to argue for or against the mother having automatic guardianship I'm more than happy to hear such arguments, but can you answer the first question?
    rolly1 wrote: »
    Garbled nonsense.

    It was a pretty straight forward point. You stated that automatic guardianship cannot be removed by the courts. Do you stand by that statement, or did I misunderstand you.

    If you stand by it then how do you propose the State remove guardianship for absent fathers who have no interest in raising their children but who have been given guardianship rights automatically under your proposed system?

    Or do you not propose that the courts can remove such guardianship even in the case of absent fathers?
    rolly1 wrote: »
    I'll presume you are trying to talk about guardianship removal. At present it can't be removed from the mother, married or unmarried but can be removed from the unmarried father. Equality should of course be that it can be removed from the unmarried mother as well if she is not a fit parent.

    You seem to have no position on these topics other than they should, what ever they are, be equal between the father and the mother. Would that be a correct assessment?
    rolly1 wrote: »
    Oh yes are.Your non-stop tarring of all unmarried fathers as uninterested in their children is exactly analogous to the laws whereby whole sections of a society

    I've never in this entire thread, or any thread on Boards.ie, stated that all unmarried fathers are uninterested in their children.

    Again if you have to make up a straw man position for me in order to argue against it then this does little but show that you have no real argument here.

    And you still haven't answered my question.


  • Options
    #115
    Dilbert75
    Registered Users Posts: 4,724 ✭✭✭Dilbert75


    I, for one, am no more or less interested in the lives of my kids since I married their mother. I am no more or less likely to do my best for them because I got married. I am no more or less likely to try to ensure they are fully supported, financially and emotionally, because I got married.

    So why should I have had no automatic right to their guardianship before I got married? Why should I be assumed to be unworthy of that, until I prove otherwise?


  • Options
    #116
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    rolly1 wrote: »
    Wow so because a mother is a mother and doesn't abort her child she gets to have superior legal rights over the child to the father; regardless of her fitness as a parent. Class argument.

    More straw man nonsense.

    Tayla's point was that this demonstrates an interest in guardianship of the child. If you want to argue it doesn't, go ahead.

    The father demonstrates interest through the application for guardianship. They end up with the same guardianship.

    Since this has been explained so many times I can only assume that at this stage you are simply ignoring this point because you have to response to it.


  • Options
    #117
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Dilbert75 wrote: »
    I, for one, am no more or less interested in the lives of my kids since I married their mother. I am no more or less likely to do my best for them because I got married. I am no more or less likely to try to ensure they are fully supported, financially and emotionally, because I got married.

    So why should I have had no automatic right to their guardianship before I got married? Why should I be assumed to be unworthy of that, until I prove otherwise?

    Because it is in the child's best interest for the State to grant guardianship to fathers who have demonstrated an interest in raising them, rather than to fathers who have not demonstrate this.

    Do you disagree with that? Do you think all fathers, irrespective on the interest the have for being part of their children's lives, should be granted automatic guardianship and that this is in the best interests of the children involved?


  • Options
    #118
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,891 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Abortion is illegal in Ireland (and abortion on demand is technically illegal in the UK too, but there's legal trickery to get around it). Not having a child aborted proves nothing.

    And the issue isn't that the father has to apply for guardianship, it's that guardianship can easily be refused if the mother doesn't wish to share guardianship. The OP for example indicated that she was able to take her child out of the country without the father's permission. Now the father in her case may well have been a waste of space but this doesn't apply to all fathers.


  • Options
    #119
    Dilbert75
    Registered Users Posts: 4,724 ✭✭✭Dilbert75


    Tayla wrote: »
    all we have to go on is the fact that we know for sure that the mother wanted the baby or else she could have aborted the baby....the mother gives birth to the baby, surely that's a signal that she wants the baby and is fully prepared to be a proper guardian to the baby

    I'm struggling to remember when I read a statement of such wild assumption or one which was so bizarrely deluded. Its pointless anyone debating with someone who could think this to be rational.


  • Options
    #120
    Dilbert75
    Registered Users Posts: 4,724 ✭✭✭Dilbert75


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Do you think all fathers, irrespective on the interest the have for being part of their children's lives, should be granted automatic guardianship and that this is in the best interests of the children involved?

    I think it is in the children's best interests that their parents be given equal and joint responsibilities and rights for their proper upbringing. Your entire argument seems to be based on legislating for the whole population based on the failings of a fraction of it. Its nonsensical and biased to the point of being self-defeating. Nobody with an unprejudiced mind could come up with the arguments you're posting and nobody with such a prejudiced mind should be allowed decide the future of any child, never mind 1/3 of the children born in this state.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Stark wrote: »
    And the issue isn't that the father has to apply for guardianship, it's that guardianship can easily be refused if the mother doesn't wish to share guardianship.

    That is not true, the mother does not control whether the father gets guardianship. She can object to this, but that does not mean automatic refusal. This is a myth that only seems to exist on internet forums.

    And given that what people are calling for is automatic guardianship for unmarried fathers, that does seem to be the issue.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement