Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

Zombrex · 24-07-2011 11:17pm

K-9 wrote: »

Huh? Jaysus. Why would you expect it to? Seriously, why? The focus changes to taking rights and responsibilities away and punishing bad behaviour. You seem to have a problem with that concept. You aren't getting the concept at all.

I'm getting the concept fine, the concept goes against the interests of the children.

You seem to have changed position from No it doesn't, to it does but sure what's the harm.

K-9 wrote: »

In your opinion, there have been examples. You just are unwilling to see it or how change can be for the betterment of children.

The betterment of children seems far from most people's minds in this debate. Children are well served by the current system. It is argued that fathers are not because they have to act to gain guardianship.

K-9 wrote: »

Yep. They don't have the best interests of the child at heart then.

Correct. So why would the state, who is bound by law to act in the best interests of the children, defer responsibility for this to persons who may not do this?

K-9 wrote: »

Removing it is too.

No it isn't, currently it requires a hearing and a court order. It is very difficult to remove guardianship from someone.

K-9 wrote: »

Naturally. Taking Guardianship away needs decent reasons.

And while that is taking place guardianship is awarded to someone who should not have guardianship.

Again explain how this is in the best interests of the child?

K-9 wrote: »

How so? Seriously, you see nothing in this proposal in the best interest of the child.

You do not believe it is in the best interests of the child to only have guardianship awarded to those interested in raising the child?

K-9 wrote: »

Funnily enough you've being saying the opposite all day, you do see the advantages of guardianship and how it is in the best interest of the child. Now you are saying you see nothing in the best interest of the child with automatic guardianship.

If the father is a stranger to the child.

Automatic guardianship will, by definition, award guardianship to fathers not interested in raising their children.

Your only response to this is that you can't see the harm. That is just an argument from ignorance.

K-9 wrote: »

This shows you don't have a clue about Guardianship. All it gives is a parent the right to go to court to contest a decision. The court then decides. Again these are rare cases when this even happens.

No it doesn't, the parent does not have to go to court to contest a decision, the parent has to go to court to over turn a contested decision.

All a person with guardianship has to do is contest, and they can contest anything. To proceed the other parent has to go to court.

Never mind the number of things that cannot go ahead without the signature of both guardians, such as medical procedures. Again the single parent has to go to court to proceed.

How is this in the best interest of the child?

K-9 wrote: »

Nobody is saying that. Obviously when I say Guardianship can be removed I do see problems will happen, they happen now in extremely rare cases. If you are looking for some idyllic system where no problems arise well............................

And explain to me what the parent and child to while waiting for guardianship to be removed, and explain how this is in the best interests of the child?

K-9 wrote: »

I know you can Google the act and copy and paste it. I want to know what these problems that affect the rights of children are.

PS. The medical condition thing is an urban myth. If a hospital has to carry out emergency treatment they will. Guardianship is separate to custody, access and maintenance.

The medical condition is not an urban myth keeping a child from physically dying in the hospital bed is not the same as treating them for something like cancer.

Consent from both guardians is particular common in cases of mental or developmental health.

For example from the Lucena Clinic' web page

As the Law is currently interpreted, it is not possible for somebody under the age of 18 years old to consent on their own behalf to attendance here, and the consent of their guardians is necessary.
1. If the parents of the child are married, or if they have been married, then the consent of both is necessary. If one parent objects to the attendance of the child, the matter will need to be decided by the Courts. If it is not possible to contact a parent, then please let us know and we can discuss the matter further.
2. If the child's parents are not married, and if the father does not have parental responsibility, then while his consent is not legally essential, his involvement in the process is necessary, if at all possible.
3. If the child/young person is in the care of the HSE (either in foster care or in residential care) consent must also be obtained from the child's Social Worker, as, in this situation, the HSE has parental responsibility. If a child is in the voluntary care of the HSE, then consent is also required from the child's parents.

rolly1 · 24-07-2011 11:21pm

Wicknight wrote: »

As I explained to Rolly the State has a responsibility to all children, not just the majority of children.
You do not remove the role of the State to act in the best interests of children because something only happens in the minority of cases. The State acts in the best interests of ALL children.

So far no one has done that, they have come up with proposals that will act in the interests of MOST children and claimed that is ok because really the State should only concern itself with the majority of children, not all of them.

Sorry, that ain't good enough. Try again.

Let's just leave aside for a minute the fact that current guardianship law is categorically failing to act in the best interest of children, as tested & demonstrated through the UN Convention, and accept your ridiculous bigoted notion that current law is protecting ALL children.

Currently all children of unmarried parents can be permanently legally removed from the state without notice or consent of the other parent, where only one guardian exists. This is regardless of whether even the father had been the primary carer prior to removal.

Can you please answer how the removal of children without notice or consent from their primary carer is in the best interest of ALL children?

Fact is, even within your own nonsense terms, your claims do not stack up. Relieve yourself of the burden, get over the bigotry and see where the best interests of children really are.

wolfpawnat · 24-07-2011 11:50pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Let me say it again in case you didn't understand, the State must never do something that acts against the best interests of the child (ALL children, not the majority), even if such an action makes things easier for the parents.

Surely then, no parent should get guardianship, because there was a mother convicted of neglect the other day. So we should not base the laws on the 97% of good mothers.

rolly1 · 24-07-2011 11:51pm

Wicknight wrote: »

The articles and laws are there TO PROTECT CHILDREN.

It says so at the start.

It says nothing about encouraging parents to be better people. :rolleyes:

Better people is not what I said, what I said, once again, was

The articles and laws are there for encouragement and support of the majority of parents who behave responsibly, as they should be, because that is the best interests of the child.

The whole convention is a statement of the rights of children and protecting those rights. The family's role in protecting & upholding children's rights is a fundamental element

But please, by all means, show me the text in the Convention where you felt the need to shout your point across the internet: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

One of the lines at the start is the following:

Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,

It's a kind of bigots out type statement in fact.

K-9 · 24-07-2011 11:55pm

Listen Wicknight there's a lovely brick wall here, I'll concentrate on that.

I just don't think you are willing to open your mind to the possibilities. Maybe you are a glass half empty person generally.

Anything I suggest as advantages you'll come back with the Chicken Little scenario and fair enough.

If you've some idyllic solution I'd love to see it, the current one or the proposed one isn't either.

K-9 · 24-07-2011 11:58pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Never mind the number of things that cannot go ahead without the signature of both guardians, such as medical procedures. Again the single parent has to go to court to proceed.

How is this in the best interest of the child?

And explain to me what the parent and child to while waiting for guardianship to be removed, and explain how this is in the best interests of the child?

The medical condition is not an urban myth keeping a child from physically dying in the hospital bed is not the same as treating them for something like cancer.

Consent from both guardians is particular common in cases of mental or developmental health.

For example from the Lucena Clinic' web page

As the Law is currently interpreted, it is not possible for somebody under the age of 18 years old to consent on their own behalf to attendance here, and the consent of their guardians is necessary.
1. If the parents of the child are married, or if they have been married, then the consent of both is necessary. If one parent objects to the attendance of the child, the matter will need to be decided by the Courts. If it is not possible to contact a parent, then please let us know and we can discuss the matter further.
2. If the child's parents are not married, and if the father does not have parental responsibility, then while his consent is not legally essential, his involvement in the process is necessary, if at all possible.
3. If the child/young person is in the care of the HSE (either in foster care or in residential care) consent must also be obtained from the child's Social Worker, as, in this situation, the HSE has parental responsibility. If a child is in the voluntary care of the HSE, then consent is also required from the child's parents.

I'd love examples of cases where serious medical conditions where ignored and Guardianship took precedent. I'm sure Google and copying and pasting will come in handy.

You need examples of how detrimental this will be, you haven't provided them.

PS. Jaysus, married people going through a separation must pose huge problems.

Don't be a victim of internet scare mongering.

K-9 · 25-07-2011 12:38am

Don't want to be personal Wicknight but it's clear you don't have a clue what you are talking about i.e. Guardianship. You can easily Google Guardianship and what it means legally, cutting and pasting is a great tool, you don't have a clue what it means practically in court.

You don't have children, don't have Gaurdianship, haven't been through the court system, don't know what it means practically and can't provide bad case examples.

You'll still be along in the next debate spouting the same nonsense and learning nothing.

K-9 · 25-07-2011 12:57am

Guardianship does not supercede Custody. Think about it, why would it? It might say so when you Google it but in practical terms judges use common sense.

Only in extreme cases would Guardianship be taken to supercede it, where the court has to intervene. Only in extreme cases where it is clear that the interests of the child is not met by the custodian.

Guess what is needed in extreme cases like that? Court time. Applications to court. The very thing you are so against and don't see as in the best interest of the child.

Zombrex · 25-07-2011 2:10am

rolly1 wrote: »

Let's just leave aside for a minute the fact that current guardianship law is categorically failing to act in the best interest of children, as tested & demonstrated through the UN Convention, and accept your ridiculous bigoted notion that current law is protecting ALL children.

Currently all children of unmarried parents can be permanently legally removed from the state without notice or consent of the other parent, where only one guardian exists. This is regardless of whether even the father had been the primary carer prior to removal.

Can you please answer how the removal of children without notice or consent from their primary carer is in the best interest of ALL children?

Primary carer is not a legal term in Ireland. It is not in the interests of the child to be removed from the State without consent of his guardians which is why, as far as I'm aware, you need permission from both guardians.

If someone is acting as primary carer of a child it is in their interest and the child's to apply for guardianship of the child. Guardianship is the legally recognized position.

rolly1 wrote: »

Better people is not what I said, what I said, once again, was

The whole convention is a statement of the rights of children and protecting those rights. The family's role in protecting & upholding children's rights is a fundamental element

No one is denying the families role in the protecting of children's rights, which is why there is application process for guardianship. You still seem to be acting under the nonsense idea that no unmarried father can get guardianship of his children.

rolly1 wrote: »

But please, by all means, show me the text in the Convention where you felt the need to shout your point across the internet: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

Article 2.

1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.

The only thing higher than this is the definition of child :rolleyes:

rolly1 wrote: »

It's a kind of bigots out type statement in fact.

LOL, protecting the rights of children is bigioted now, is it.

Zombrex · 25-07-2011 2:17am

K-9 wrote: »

Don't want to be personal Wicknight but it's clear you don't have a clue what you are talking about i.e. Guardianship. You can easily Google Guardianship and what it means legally, cutting and pasting is a great tool, you don't have a clue what it means practically in court.

Sorry K-9 you are going to have to do better than that some what pathetic attempt at a position. Your gut feeling about stuff means zip on an Internet discussion forum that prizes references and facts.

You might as well tell me I'm wrong because your taxi driver said so. :rolleyes:

Zombrex · 25-07-2011 2:21am

K-9 wrote: »

Guardianship does not supercede Custody. Think about it, why would it? It might say so when you Google it but in practical terms judges use common sense.

LOL, now there is an example of what Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" if I ever saw one.

In case you don't know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Zombrex · 25-07-2011 2:28am

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Surely then, no parent should get guardianship, because there was a mother convicted of neglect the other day. So we should not base the laws on the 97% of good mothers.

Groan. As has already been stated fathers are not denied guardianship because some are absent.

Surely if guys have to lie about the current situation you must know your arguments dont stand up.

K-9 · 25-07-2011 8:18am

Wicknight wrote: »

LOL, now there is an example of what Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" if I ever saw one.

In case you don't know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

No examples Wicknight? You don't have a clue, just scare mongering. You don't have children, haven't been through the process and are bull****ting copying and pasting from Google.

rolly1 · 25-07-2011 8:27am

Wicknight wrote: »

Primary carer is not a legal term in Ireland. It is not in the interests of the child to be removed from the State without consent of his guardians which is why, as far as I'm aware, you need permission from both guardians.

If someone is acting as primary carer of a child it is in their interest and the child's to apply for guardianship of the child. Guardianship is the legally recognized position.

Of course every child that is born outside marriage comes with a big tattoo somewhere on them stating "If you don't want me potentially abducted by Mammy get guardianship Daddy!" Yep its right there so ALL children are protected against abduction under our wonderful guardianship laws.So children snatched from their homes, fathers, extended family & friends just don't need protection from this by the state; after all it's just too bad for them if the useless father didn't he read the tatooed instruction manual after all?:rolleyes:

No one is denying the families role in the protecting of children's rights, which is why there is application process for guardianship. You still seem to be acting under the nonsense idea that no unmarried father can get guardianship of his children.

Ah but seeing as how you are so well able to focus on the term "Primary carer" as a legal non-entity then you should also realise in your infinite wisdom that the state does not recognise children born outside marriage as being being part of a legal family. There is no such thing as "family" when it comes to unmarried parents under irish law, so how then does the state recognise the "families" role in the protecting of children's rights as per the UN Convention?

You see there's a whole raft of bigotry which applies to unmarried parents and their children under irish law which applies to father, mother and child. But you probably dig that anyway seeing as bigotry is your thing.

Article 2.

1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the

present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.

The only thing higher than this is the definition of child :rolleyes:

Yip and nowehere in any of it does it state the intention is

TO PROTECT CHILDREN.

LOL, protecting the rights of children is bigioted now, is it.

Ah so you finally get it that it's protecting the rights of children, not some vague shouted nonsense about protecting children. Protecting the rights of children is of course not bigoted, it's just your view about how that's done which is deeply bigoted. But more importantly your view, which coincides with the state's, does not actually protect children's rights.

Zombrex · 25-07-2011 8:26pm

K-9 wrote: »

No examples Wicknight? You don't have a clue, just scare mongering. You don't have children, haven't been through the process and are bull****ting copying and pasting from Google.

Ah but that is where you are wrong K-9. I'm actually a judge who has served 15 years in family court.

Now, yes you may be able to "copy and paste" stuff from Google that proves I'm not actually a judge, but that is just facts and figures, it has no bearing on what we all know in our gut, right.

Sure I might give you information that can clearly be shown to be wrong or misrepresentative of the act law in Ireland, but you will have to again copy and paste from Google to show that isn't the case, and who are you to say it is wrong just because you have the actual law in front of you clearly showing that it is wrong.

LOL, see what I did there ...

What I moronic thread. First time ever on Boards.ie have I seen someone claim that backing up your position with references to the law is the wrong thing to do. :rolleyes:

Zombrex · 25-07-2011 8:29pm

Let me get this straight, you don't think protecting the rights of children and protecting children are the same thing?

Can you just clarify that for me, because it is such an out there statement, even for your incredible standards, and I want to give you a chance to clarify.

K-9 · 25-07-2011 9:29pm

Always thought you lived abroad!

Okay, I'm surprised then that you think Guardianship practically affects custody here in Ireland. Think about it. The person with the main custody is going to be the Guardian anyway and custody for unmarried parents is a separate issue again, you can apply for joint or indeed full custody if the situation so merits, this would be separate from Guardianship, as indeed would be access and maintenance.

The problem I have is you keep going on about the consequences and it not being in the best interests of the child, fair enough, but you don't give examples, or ignore the remedies that are currently available that would just be extended to the new system, freeing up time to concentrate on actual cases of child neglect etc.

I've no reason to doubt your credentials but it explains a lot, the consistent and dogged defending of the current system and decisions you may have made. I think you need to step out of the box and think what cases would have been before you if this new system was in place.

Instead of vetting fathers you'd actually be dealing with genuine cases that need attention mostly. Some mothers would abuse it of course to bring meaningless objections but every law has it's drawbacks, no system is going to be idyllic.

PS. Applying for Guardianship doesn't affect custody unless there is a damn good reason for it.

K-9 · 25-07-2011 9:34pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Let me get this straight, you don't think protecting the rights of children and protecting children are the same thing?

Can you just clarify that for me, because it is such an out there statement, even for your incredible standards, and I want to give you a chance to clarify.

Don't know where you got that.

If you can explain where you got that reasoning from I'd be all ears.

rolly1 · 25-07-2011 10:50pm

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm actually a judge who has served 15 years in family court.

No wonder your conscience is at you. defending 15 years of most likely bigoted decisions regarding unmarried fathers must take it's toll eventually, especially when one considers the negative ramifications for their children.

Big holes were blown clean through your arguments all the way along, the most gaping one of course being the issue of child removal from the state.

In all honesty how anybody, with even the slightest bit of a conscience, could witness children being ripped from everything they know and have the decision justified as "well he's either a guardian or not". FFS thats absolutely nothing to do with protecting children and all to do with protecting the scurillous bigots running the state.

You, ex-judge, are an utter disgrace and demonstrate all thats utterly wrong with one of the last remaining supposed "pillars" of this rotten society.:mad:

But we are here, the EU/IMF are here and yer days of bigotry are ending soon my friend.

K-9 · 25-07-2011 11:30pm

I think you are being a bit unfair there but as somebody who has represented myself in family law cases, I always found them reasonable, if trying to think of the word, too deferential to current laws, often outdated and in need of changing.

A District Court Judge generally just serves the current law, bit like Guards, and I was a Guards son. They enact and follow legislation, they generally aren't leaders in creating precedents. Indeed good solicitors will challenge them.

I'd have respect for District Court judges as an instrument of the state in enacting legislation but they are far from above challenging, something they can have difficulty with.

rolly1 · 25-07-2011 11:56pm

The person staunchly defends a system which allows children be snatched out of the country to this very day and has in the past sent kids to be adopted rather than be with their loving Dad. G case anyone? Nicoloau?

And yet he/she shouts about protecting children?

Unfair? Give me a break..he/she is utterly deluded and is in complete denial of the bigotry of it all from start to finish.
It's damning stuff and just shows what bigots the unmarried fathers of Ireland must face in Irish family courts.
I shudder at the thought of trying to defend my child in front of all this.

Stark · 26-07-2011 12:15am

Wicknight was being sarcastic about being a judge (unless they appoint people judges at the age of 16).

K-9 · 26-07-2011 12:39am

Stark wrote: »

Wicknight was being sarcastic about being a judge (unless they appoint people judges at the age of 16).

Ah feck it, I thought that initially, though it does add to the point.

I appreciate the joke, after all it shows she/he has nothing else to offer, but I expect better in Humanities.

Not going to make a big deal as it is a sign of last resort. No doubt we'll meet again on the same topic and it's card I can play! :cool:

SheFiend · 26-07-2011 11:31am

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

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?

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?

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

Claims of violence made long after a relationship has ended should be viewed with enough suspicion that the defence should be entitled to question the accuser as to why she did not report such incidents at the time. As it stands, the accuser does not have to explain such things. If the father was actually beating the mother, she would be able to prove it by presenting herself to Gardai and making a statement so that the Gardai can investigate, and also observe any injuries, their own testimonial backing up her claims.

Zombrex · 26-07-2011 5:10pm

Jesus Christ guys, I'm not actually a judge. :eek:

I always suspected people weren't reading my posts properly, didn't think such an obvious example at sarcasm would be necessary to demonstrate this.

K-9 · 26-07-2011 5:28pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus Christ guys, I'm not actually a judge. :eek:

I always suspected people weren't reading my posts properly, didn't think such an obvious example at sarcasm would be necessary to demonstrate this.

The lack of smilies was a slight problem.

So then custody isn't an issue with Guardianship, any other scare mongering left?

SheFiend · 27-07-2011 9:19pm

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.

Eh, I decline your advice. I paid good money to prevent unwanted children being born to a single mother like myself, thanks. So tell me, if father is not entitled to equal rights concerning the child, why in God's name should he have to pay maintanence for it's upbringing???

SheFiend · 27-07-2011 11:34pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus Christ guys, I'm not actually a judge. :eek:

I always suspected people weren't reading my posts properly, didn't think such an obvious example at sarcasm would be necessary to demonstrate this.

Heehee! I'm afraid sarcasm doesn't translate through text. You would have to write "Only joking", or something similar, for people to know you didn't mean what you said

shadowsofwind · 28-07-2011 12:18am

guys everybody is talking about the rights of the mothers and the fathers how about the rights of the kids to have a relationship with both parents??? i am separeted i hated my ex husband but that was my opinion of him( and many others) but i never stopped my daughter from having her dad in her life.
ladies please remember most of us that chose to be with bad partners is because we never had a proper relationship with our dads
please ladies lets not repeat the cycle

Klingon Hamlet · 31-07-2011 8:30pm

If mums are always trusted to do the right thing by their child, then so should dads. Let the minority of wasters on both sides be judged. Tarring all with the same brush is simply wrong and children suffer because of it.

SheFiend · 02-08-2011 7:41pm

shadowsofwind wrote: »

guys everybody is talking about the rights of the mothers and the fathers how about the rights of the kids to have a relationship with both parents??? i am separeted i hated my ex husband but that was my opinion of him( and many others) but i never stopped my daughter from having her dad in her life.
ladies please remember most of us that chose to be with bad partners is because we never had a proper relationship with our dads
please ladies lets not repeat the cycle

Too true Shadows

03-08-2011 10:46am

shadowsofwind wrote: »

ladies please remember most of us that chose to be with bad partners is because we never had a proper relationship with our dads

What??

James Jones · 14-08-2011 3:23pm

Wicknight wrote: »

it is not in the interests of the children for the state to grant guardianship to fathers who are not interested in raising them, thus the state must be satisfied that they are interested in raising them.

Although I am generally in agreement with you, I think you might be confusing Guardianship with Custody.
Guardianship = The Legal relationship between a child and a parent whereas Custody = the living arrangements (i.e. raising).
A Guardian can be involved in all of the decisions regarding the child but have nothing to do with any other aspect of their lives. Or maybe I’m taking you up wrong?
By the way, there is no actual definition of “The best interests of the child” so everyone can say they are acting in the best interests of the child.

Regardless, this entire thread is based on the false presumption that Guardianship for fathers is actually worthwhile. Read the newspaper article HERE and HERE (full report HERE).
Then have a look at the six Equality Tribunal cases HERE. Remember, ALL of these incidents were where MARRIED fathers were ignored as Legal Guardians by state authorities. There is NO POINT in granting Guardianship (automatic or otherwise) to any father, married or not, until Guardianship of fathers to act JOINTLY is respected.

Fromthetrees · 06-09-2011 4:25pm

I've posted a thread for unmarried fathers (could also be for separated fathers) in the forum request section. If you support this idea or think you would contribute to a forum, sub forum or even a sticky then give it a +1. Thanks.

minidazzler · 10-09-2011 5:43pm

Chocholic7 wrote: »

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.

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

So the fact that you had a sh1t father and (possibly as a consequence) have sh1t taste in men, gives you the opinion that men should not have rights to the children they helped make? That's insane, you are not automatically a better parent for being female and while your kids dad might be terrible, that doesn't discount that MOST men are fantastic fathers when it comes down to it.

illumi · 04-11-2011 6:21pm

Unmarried Fathers should not automatically have equal rights in my opinion.
Here is why I believe so

I know for a fact that there are many unmarried fathers out there who are great fathers to their kids. And as such I believe that they should have rights to their children. No one should make it hard on them when they want those rights. And as far as I know ( i could be wrong) Guardianship and Access are granted through court in most cases. most mothers want the father to have an active part in the raising of their children. And as we all know, its best for the child to have both parents in their lives.

My partner and me are expecting our first child. he did get upset with me when i said i will sign the forms for guardianship only. I also said that he can have access to our child whenever he wants. Even if we break up, this will still be what I want for our child. I hope he comes around.

_________________________________________________________________

Now on the other side we have pregnancies resulting from one night stands, casual sexual relationships. Then we have fathers who turn their back on their kids and want nothing to do with them. As weird as it sounds.. sperm doners. And in rare cases we have rape victims.

Should unmarried mothers really have to share their rights equally with any the above? Chase them down for their signatures when they need to make an important decision regarding their child?
I think not

If unmarried fathers were given equal rights automatically and fall in to the bottom category, it would result in the mothers going to court, trying to get those rights taken away again, so they can make important decisions without hunting down unwilling fathers.

So I am really split, and because of that I don't think that unmarried fathers should have equal rights.

Klingon Hamlet · 05-11-2011 1:22pm

illumi wrote: »

Unmarried Fathers should not automatically have equal rights in my opinion.
Here is why I believe so

I know for a fact that there are many unmarried fathers out there who are great fathers to their kids. And as such I believe that they should have rights to their children. No one should make it hard on them when they want those rights. And as far as I know ( i could be wrong) Guardianship and Access are granted through court in most cases. most mothers want the father to have an active part in the raising of their children. And as we all know, its best for the child to have both parents in their lives.

My partner and me are expecting our first child. he did get upset with me when i said i will sign the forms for guardianship only. I also said that he can have access to our child whenever he wants. Even if we break up, this will still be what I want for our child. I hope he comes around.

_________________________________________________________________

Now on the other side we have pregnancies resulting from one night stands, casual sexual relationships. Then we have fathers who turn their back on their kids and want nothing to do with them. As weird as it sounds.. sperm doners. And in rare cases we have rape victims.

Should unmarried mothers really have to share their rights equally with any the above? Chase them down for their signatures when they need to make an important decision regarding their child?
I think not

If unmarried fathers were given equal rights automatically and fall in to the bottom category, it would result in the mothers going to court, trying to get those rights taken away again, so they can make important decisions without hunting down unwilling fathers.

So I am really split, and because of that I don't think that unmarried fathers should have equal rights.

What about mothers who don't take care of their child/ren? You write as if all mothers are inherently good whereas some dads are good and some are bad.

All are human and flawed. Most are decent loving parents. The few are used as an excuse to discriminate against one gender. This needs to stop.

Working in a post office opens your eyes to the real world. Poverty-stricken parents striving to take care of their kids. Welfare scroungers splashing out on drink and luxuries while their kids get skinnier and their clothes threadbare.

Mums get the crappy end of the deal: no matter what they have to carry the children around for nine months and then fight through a labour. But after that we are all equals.

Hopefully someday the law will look past ancient prejudices and assumptions and see the truth: dads are as loving and capable as mums, FULL STOP.

PS I do wonder if the welfare system wasn't as one-sided, would there be more mums walking out on their kids? Money and a cheap home can be an awfully persuasive reason to stick around.

05-11-2011 2:11pm

So because there are some possibly bad situations no unmarried fathers should ever have equal rights. That's lovely. And of course no married fathers would take off with mothers having to chase them down either.

wolfpawnat · 05-11-2011 2:18pm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

PS I do wonder if the welfare system wasn't as one-sided, would there be more mums walking out on their kids? Money and a cheap home can be an awfully persuasive reason to stick around.

There are women who have children and think only in terms in SW payments. Thankfully they are the minority, but they exist and to pretend otherwise is to be in severe denial.

The welfare system in Ireland is terrible. It promotes the single parent scenario. I could get OPFP and BTEA if I were a single mother, as well as Medical Cards, Full rent allowance and no doubt one or two other bits and pieces, but instead I get the bare minimum because the child's father is in his life. It would be one thing if he were able to contribute but he cannot at present, leaving me very badly off financially, but if I were to be a single mother my life would financially be more secure.

We need the OPFP to look after parents who are raising children alone and need the help, but the way it is working out, it is pushing the one parent household and that is really wrong!!!

efb · 05-11-2011 2:22pm

Of course they should have equal rights, neglectful and abusive parents should be met with the full rigours of the law- irrespective of gender.

Denying all fathers rights based on one's own experience is unfair.

illumi · 05-11-2011 5:02pm

My point is. If all unmarried fathers would get equal rights under our constitution, it will be mothers running to the courts(in larger numbers than unmarried fathers are now) to try and get rights taken off of unwilling fathers who don't bother, so they can move on and make important decisions in their kids lives. So what ever way you put it. there will always be someone less well off, someone will always have to run to court to fight for their kids rights.

And no, not all mothers are good. But from personal experience, and again i say "personal experience" there are more unwilling unmarried fathers than unwilling mothers, and i "guess" the reason being that most women are very emotionally attached to their kids through pregnancy and childbirth, I know I am. And with that I am not saying that fathers aren't attached to their kids. The reason i am talking about unmarried fathers is because this thread is about unmarried fathers rights. Many of my friends and family are single mothers who give their kids their all. They do not go out and spend their money on drink or cigarettes and leave their kids starve or dont buy them new clothes. Those who do that are a minority.

I gave birth to 2 wonderful kids whos father doesn't want anything to do with them and just walked out on us over 8 years back while I was pregnant with our 2nd child. Thank god we were not married and I had all the rights to our children. There would have been lots of trouble and stress in the lives of me and our kids if he had had them.
I tried to talk to him and tried to convince him in taking an active part in our kids lives for the sake of the kids. but to no avail. He just doesnt want to be part of their lives, like many fathers of the kids of close friends of mine. He doesn't help pay for his kids upbringing either. but i couldnt care less about that, and eventually he left the country. What would I have done if he had had the same rights then? I do not agree that we are equal as parents after pregnancy and childbirth. Women and Men are very different,so we can never be equal in that matter. I am definitely not the same person I was back then. But I am not hateful towards my kids father. He probably had his reasons. But I am not a bitter single parent after all of that. In fact, I am not a single parent at all in my opinion.

Now after 8 years I am pregnant and expecting my 3rd child with the most loving guy in the world. He is great to me and my children. He has stuck around the past few years and is a loving parent to my kids. I was a little scared of getting pregnant again. But we both agreed that it is time for us to have our own child.
He asked me for rights to our child and I said yes. He may have them. I guess he asked in case we ever break up, which I hope never happens, but i understand his need to feel "safe and secure" when it comes to our kid. Guardianship and access without having to run to the courts. We did have a little quarrel about the custody part. But its settled now and all is well. When our child is born, we will be going to a commissioner of oaths to sign those forms. And I believe that most mothers should not have a problem with doing this. It is in the best interest of the child after all.

Fathers should not be afraid to ask the mother of their kids for rights. And mothers should not deny a father those rights and make them go to court.
But even if unmarried fathers have to go to court, most of them do get their rights there. Maybe not equal rights. but in most cases guardianship and access to their kids. And that is the most important thing, being in their kids lives. regardless of equal rights or not.

Dont get me wrong. Its sad that unmarried fathers have to go through the unnecessary stress of court. But if they had equal rights under our constitution it would be the mothers running to court to battle it out with the unwilling fathers.
So what ever way you put it. there will always be someone less well off, someone will always have to run to court to fight for their kids rights, like I said earlier.

Yes I would love to live in a perfect utopia where everybody is equal and every person is good and we all have the same rights, there are no such things as bad mothers and fathers. But that will never happen. Equality will never happen because we are all different in our way of thinking, we all want different things. The search for equality between men and women is fuelling a never-ending war between men and women.

Zombrex · 05-11-2011 7:09pm

efb wrote: »

Of course they should have equal rights, neglectful and abusive parents should be met with the full rigours of the law- irrespective of gender.

Denying all fathers rights based on one's own experience is unfair.

Fathers are not denied the right to guardianship, they simply have to apply for it because the current system is set up to take the child's best interests a priority and it is in the child's bests interest that the State only recognize guardianship to fathers who are interested in having it.

If someone wants to argue that this isn't actually in the child's bests interests, or that the system shouldn't be centered around the child's bests interests, I'm all ears.

The arguments that it is unequal on the father is largely a red herring, the system is not set up with equality between parents as its primary priority, it is set up with the child's best interests as its primary priority. If something makes things more equal but is not in the child's best interests then it will not be done. It can easily be argued that this is unfair on fathers but again it is not the priority of the courts to be fair on fathers at the expense of the children.

efb · 06-11-2011 12:49pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Fathers are not denied the right to guardianship, they simply have to apply for it because the current system is set up to take the child's best interests a priority and it is in the child's bests interest that the State only recognize guardianship to fathers who are interested in having it.

If someone wants to argue that this isn't actually in the child's bests interests, or that the system shouldn't be centered around the child's bests interests, I'm all ears.

The arguments that it is unequal on the father is largely a red herring, the system is not set up with equality between parents as its primary priority, it is set up with the child's best interests as its primary priority. If something makes things more equal but is not in the child's best interests then it will not be done. It can easily be argued that this is unfair on fathers but again it is not the priority of the courts to be fair on fathers at the expense of the children.

Thats so unbelievable sexist- who determines mothers are better- it should start at 50/50!

How is the childs best interest not served by having access to both parents in most cases?

illumi · 06-11-2011 2:13pm

efb wrote: »

How is the childs best interest not served by having access to both parents in most cases?

Most Fathers who apply for Guardianship and access through court will get it granted.

wolfpawnat · 06-11-2011 2:15pm

illumi wrote: »

Most Fathers who apply for Guardianship and access through court will get it granted.

But it costs money and it is not air that they/or the mother should have to pay that.

illumi · 06-11-2011 2:24pm

wolfpawnat wrote: »

But it costs money and it is not air that they/or the mother should have to pay that.

If I were an unmarried father and the mother would not be willing to sign the guardianship forms with me, I would gladly pay the money for it. My kids would be worth every penny I have.
Unmarried Fathers do have rights. they just need to apply for them.

Just finished reading this. Very interesting and sad read. Id rather pay money than have this happen to me. A must read for all unmarried fathers.

http://www.mccarthy.ie/guardianship-unmarried-fathers/

paddyandy · 06-11-2011 2:34pm

Don't people have Duties any more or is it only rights?

wolfpawnat · 06-11-2011 3:03pm

illumi wrote: »

If I were an unmarried father and the mother would not be willing to sign the guardianship forms with me, I would gladly pay the money for it. My kids would be worth every penny I have.
Unmarried Fathers do have rights. they just need to apply for them.

Just finished reading this. Very interesting and sad read. Id rather pay money than have this happen to me. A must read for all unmarried fathers.

My son's father and I forked out €275 each to give him what he deserved from day 1! I am currently unemployed and he is in college so we could have thought of a lot nicer things to do with €550 than to get him what he deserves.

If you are willing to have sex with a man, then you are willing to share a child with him! Simple

paddyandy wrote: »

Don't people have Duties any more or is it only rights?

Duties do not hold up well in a court these days and no matter how much you try to prevent it, the most of situations end up in court!

illumi · 06-11-2011 3:10pm

wolfpawnat wrote: »

If you are willing to have sex with a man, then you are willing to share a child with him! Simple

That I simply can't agree with. Sex and the responsibility for another human being are very different things.

The Corinthian · 06-11-2011 3:21pm

illumi wrote: »

So what ever way you put it. there will always be someone less well off, someone will always have to run to court to fight for their kids rights.

If that is the case and there is ultimately no difference, as someone will always be running to the court, is it not better to adopt the model whereby both parents are equal? Otherwise, you appear to be suggesting that it is all right for fathers to have to run to the court, but not mothers.

illumi wrote: »

Unmarried Fathers do have rights. they just need to apply for them.

De jure, yes. De facto, no.

A father, married or not, essentially may have guardianship and access rights, however the problem is in the enforcement of these rights and this does not occur. Access times, the right to choose the religious and educational upbringing of the child or even medical procedures may be easily ignored by a custodial parent without any consequence.

Why do I say without any consequence? Because there is none. The Gardai will not get involved and if brought to court for a breach of a court order, the custodial parent will at best get a stern talking to. A fine maybe imposed, granted, but it too can be ignored and not paid. How many bench warrants for mothers have had issued? None. How many bench warrants for fathers have had issued? Quite a few.

The only rights that guardianship affords and are in any way enforced are that the child cannot be taken out of the state without the express consent of all guardians, but this can be overturned. As can the right to get custody of the child in the event that the custodian can no longer keep custody. About the only immutable right is the choice of adoption, from what I can see.

My view is that 'rights', automatic or not, are only as good as their enforcement. And while I do not advocate jail time for either parent, the loss of custody as a result of repeated breaking of court orders and disregard for guardianship rights realistically needs to be explored as an option.

Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

Comments