I want to be a part of my daughter's life

K-9

Quote Trinity 1 - So i have seen both sides of the story.

There is both sides definitely. Everything seems to get involved in a father v. mother thing though. Thats not what fathers rights is about.

Personally I think Guardianship should be automatic for unmarried fathers. If at birth there is no relationship there should be an agency to sort out maintenance and access or indeed paternity in OP's case. Fathers should have the rights and responsibilities automatically. I thought innocent til proven guilty was a legal concept.

The battlefield of the courts should be used for non compliance of fathers and indeed mothers. Unrepsonsible fathers and mothers would have to explain to the judge why. In cases of abuse or neglect access could be denied by the mother and the court could then withdraw the rights if necessary. The adversarial system of the courts just adds to the resentment bitterness and should be avoided if possible. Having to go to court to get access to your child is just ridiculous in this day and age.

Trinity

But thats just it Seanie32 - its the parents (or one of them) that make it personal. They put their own wants and needs before that of the children.

I've never tried to stop him seeing his son - i went to a solicitor to ask if i could take him to court to make him see him!! I was told no but if he took me to court he would be granted access. I thought things were fairly amicable, i thought i was reasonable but my biggest mistake was exactly that - being a pushover letting him come and go.

It is a pity though that parents cant be grown up and sort these things out amongst themselves. But some people are totally unreasonable. The only time i would have tried to stop his dad seeing him is if i thought he was being abusive/neglectful of him but certainly Not out of badness or bitterness. I love my son too much for that.

And yes your suggestions above, in an ideal world, would save a lot of heartache for all involved.

The Corinthian

Trinity1 wrote:

But thats just it Seanie32 - its the parents (or one of them) that make it personal. They put their own wants and needs before that of the children.

That's an interesting point of view because it begs the question of how far should you follow that principle. Parents have their own wants and needs too, but should these always be secondary for those of the child? Should, say, a father not enter another relationship and have other children because this acts against the interests of the child (which it does as it would have both social and financial implications)? Or should a single mother write off her life simply because she is a mother?

In short, the good of the child is a phrase that gets bandied around a lot in these discussions, but where is the line drawn between the good of the child and the good of the parents or are parents ultimately expected to be the primate equivalent of salmon, making the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of the next generation?

I've never tried to stop him seeing his son - i went to a solicitor to ask if i could take him to court to make him see him!!

Out of curiosity how often is often enough? Or is the regularity more important than the frequency?

Trinity

The Corinthian wrote:

That's an interesting point of view because it begs the question of how far should you follow that principle. Parents have their own wants and needs too, but should these always be secondary for those of the child? Should, say, a father not enter another relationship and have other children because this acts against the interests of the child (which it does as it would have both social and financial implications)? Or should a single mother write off her life simply because she is a mother?

In short, the good of the child is a phrase that gets bandied around a lot in these discussions, but where is the line drawn between the good of the child and the good of the parents or are parents ultimately expected to be the primate equivalent of salmon, making the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of the next generation?

Out of curiosity how often is often enough? Or is the regularity more important than the frequency?

Regularity tbh. Even if its once a year on a set date lets say birthday. That way there is no room for disappointment. Granted the child may miss the absent parent the rest of the year but thats to be expected and it soon becomes 'the norm'. They know what to expect and when to expect it.

I asked him (Dad) accompany me to a professional child psychologist when our son was very young. We asked her to tell us what was best for my son. SHe said anything at all once it was consistant. He promised once a fortnight visits. It never happened.

My son is on a waiting list for the mater child guidance clinic. Hes very deep and full of anger. He has difficulty mixing with other children and feels 'not as good as the other children' yet he is highly intelligent.

I cannot or would not contribute this all to his father but certainly some of it. I cant tell you the times that child sat looking out the window waiting on his dad to arrive having promised he would only not to show up for 6 months. Some of it is also down to me molly coddling him, we are together all the time.

As for who comes first - in my house its my child. However, if he was being unreasonable about a new partner and taking a dislike to him just for the sake of it, i would intervene. If a new partner was cruel or mean to him i would of course kick him to the kerb. Its all about compromise. Most adults do not like change let alone children you have to ease them into it. I have broken up relationships over my child - i dont regret it. They wanted to take on the role of the role of disciplining him without any of the good stuff dads do. I am lucky enough to be with someone very nice now who makes a great deal of effort with my son and it does not go un-noticed. Its not easy taking on someone elses kid let alone a spoiled one!!

There is no reason whatsoever that both parents cannot move on with their own lives. you just have to be a little more sensitive and make them feel included. My son found out about his dad's new stepkids when he sent photos of his new home and he was there in the photos playing with the 2 kids. I had no idea either but my son was only 5 and had been messed around by his Dad since he was born. I thought that was a little insensitive. He coudl have had a chat with him. I had to explain to my son that just cos mammy and daddy do not live together it does not mean we love him any less. I dont think his dad ever told him he loved him but i told him his dad loved him all the time. TBH though i dont think he really does.

Anyway OT again apologies.

Dudess

OP, your girlfriend does indeed sound highly vindictive but, and no disrespect meant, you have only give us your side of the story. Did she really just decide to finish with you and behave obnoxiously from then on for no reason or next to no reason?
That said, no matter what's happened between you two, not allowing you to see your own child is disgusting and it's something that really angers me. I actually did my masters thesis on it. Look up www.treoir.ie and www.parentalequality.ie. There is a group, Unmarried and Separated Fathers of Ireland, but I don't think it has a website. But its contact details are on the Treoir website I mentioned. Contact those guys asap for advice.
From what I learned on the situation, tread very carefully but keep on fighting. Hope I'm not making you feel more miserable than you already are, but I'd feel I was doing you a disservice by not mentioning the fact that some mothers have been known to make up false allegations of sexual or physical abuse on the part of the father - either against her or the child(ren). These allegations are taken very seriously by the courts - plenty end up being thrown out of court, but nevertheless, any abuse allegations (especially of a child, since the welfare of the child is paramount) cannot be taken lightly. If you think your ex is capable of doing such an evil thing, then find out what the best measures to take are.
It's awfully tough for men in this regard. The bias is, sadly, with the mother, but as I learned, family law, which was once rooted in the notion of the nuclear family, is beginning to move with the times.
I've also heard of some very irresponsible solicitors, who say things like "you may as well give up. You won't have a leg to stand on" etc, while pocketing a nice fee, thank you very much. If you get this sort of crap from your legal representation (if it comes to that, mind), tell them their services are no longer required and move on to another.
I've heard some awful stories, but these are in the minority. I sincerely wish you the very best of luck.

Bartle

Dudess wrote:

OP, your girlfriend does indeed sound highly vindictive but, and no disrespect meant, you have only give us your side of the story. Did she really just decide to finish with you and behave obnoxiously from then on for no reason or next to no reason?

I'm sure it's not 'no reason', but it's certainly not a reason that I was the casue of. I'm sure it was simply because she was pregnant with my baby and maybe she started to realise that she didn't like me as much as she thought. I was in absolutely no way abusive towards her. She just simply wanted to be with her boyfriend and not me. Being the way she was to me made things like that easier for her. We lived miles apart, there was nothing i could do.

And to anyone still maintaining that it isn't mine because she got back with him so quick - she is like this. I do believe that because of her background, the girl has some deep seeded issues. Trust me, if you knew the girl, you wouldn't be a bit surprised by any of her actions.

K-9

Quote - Bartle - And to anyone still maintaining that it isn't mine because she got back with him so quick - she is like this. I do believe that because of her background, the girl has some deep seeded issues. Trust me, if you knew the girl, you wouldn't be a bit surprised by any of her actions.

There are women like this and of course men too. In a case like this u can't compromise or talk to someone like that. USFI as Dudess mentioned can be helpful. They have meetings in Dublin and it can be good to be able to talk or even ring somebody about it. Your the childs father and your entitled to be involved in their lives. Probably be uproar until u get things sorted but things will settle down eventually.

Dudess alot of these child abuse allegations are false. The problem is the file on these is open for years and there is bias against fathers in these cases. The things is in cases like these when they're proved false nothing seems to be done about the false allegations never mind the damage done to kids in these cases.

Quote The Corinthian - That's an interesting point of view because it begs the question of how far should you follow that principle. Parents have their own wants and needs too, but should these always be secondary for those of the child? Should, say, a father not enter another relationship and have other children because this acts against the interests of the child (which it does as it would have both social and financial implications)? Or should a single mother write off her life simply because she is a mother?

Parents of course have a right to move on. Kids can be adaptable and open minded, they put the parents to shame.
Childrens rights and how much they should have is probably for another thread. They definitely have a right to see there father and above all know who there father is. A father has a right to be involved in the childs life. These are quite basic rights. But as in Trinity1's case responsibilities come with the rights. Regularity is more important than frequency if one of the parents is abroad say. At least the child knows the father is involved in their lives. But if the father is just going to let down the child and not appear when they say, they are probably better off out of the childs life. With rights comes responsibilities.

Dudess

Seanies32 wrote:

Dudess alot of these child abuse allegations are false. The problem is the file on these is open for years and there is bias against fathers in these cases. The things is in cases like these when they're proved false nothing seems to be done about the false allegations never mind the damage done to kids in these cases.

Yeah, that's what I was saying - that women have been known to make up false allegations of abuse, either of them or of the children. It's a vicious thing to do to a man.
Bartle, apologies for the opening sentence in my last post. She does indeed sound extremely unreasonable.

Nevyn

It is a vicious thing to do to any person as even if the allegation is found to be unfounded the case file remains active for two years and even after it is closed it still exists as a record in the system about that person and can disbar them from working with children or certain jobs or college courses.

Father's have been known to do this too, it is not the perserve of either gender;
even misguided grandparents who are bewildered at the break up of a couple and who don't wish to personally interfer have made reports to get offical help.

The system does work but in my opinion those that are found to be abusing it for thier own ends should be fined.

C x

I would drop into Dolphin House and make application for legal access first. You dont need a solicitor for that. However there is a bit of a delay with this but the letter will go out to your ex and maybe that letter might be the kick inthe arse she might need.

Wait for the court hearing. I always advise to have a solicitor present.

As for Guardianship well that could possibly be refused firstly because you have no contact with the child and because of the mess that might be put off.

Personally I think Guardianship should be automatic for unmarried fathers

I dont agree with this at all. Mainly because there are a lot of of dads that walk as soon as baby comes along and have no interest. Why should they be given this right??

Its automatic alright by marriage but outisde of marriage it should not be recognised as a automatic right.

K-9

Cx - My opinion is different to yours. I think it should be given automatically. I'm not disputing that plenty of fathers walk away. But why punish all unmarried fathers for this. We should be innocent til proven guilty.

Then if the father is not fulfilling his access or paying his maintenance the right would be taken away. If he is not fulfilling his responsibilities then take it away. It might concentrate the fathers mind to. Rights taken away would hurt far more and maybe serve as a wake up call for these fathers.

There was arecent UK tax case taken to the European Courts of Human Rights. Basically they agreed that an unmarried father paying maintenance after the break up of a relationship was to all intents and purposes the same as a married after separation. He paid maintenance, had access and was responsible. They said the payments should be treated the same tax wise as if he was married. This wouldn't apply to the South as its a different tax system but the principle was interesting. It will take time but Irish Law will start reflecting changes in society like these.

The Corinthian

C x wrote:

I dont agree with this at all. Mainly because there are a lot of of dads that walk as soon as baby comes along and have no interest. Why should they be given this right??

Because the abuses against a willing father without guardianship outweigh the abuses by an unwilling father with guardianship.

We’ve already heard how without guardianship even a willing father can be denied any form of access to his child, regardless of his intentions. On the other side of the scale, with an unwilling father with guardianship, what can he realistically do? About the only thing is denying the mother the right to take the child out of the country, which while pretty nasty really does not compare to being shut out of a child’s life.

Guardianship is also limited in its scope: While in theory it covers a lot, the practical reality is that the custodian will have de facto final word on almost all matters – and if the father is uninvolved, this essentially translates to all matters.

Finally guardianship for unmarried fathers is not guaranteed, even when awarded or given. Fathers who absent themselves or act otherwise against the interests of the child do lose the status (few do as those who seek it are not likely to fall into those categories). All of which finally assumes that an unwilling father would even want such a status – which given that it would increase the amount of maintenance that he would be forced by a court to pay is unlikely.

Why else? Because he’s the father. It really is bizarre that people think it perfectly acceptable that fathers should be legally treated as fathers when it comes to responsibility but amnesia sets in the moment that rights come into question.

Its automatic alright by marriage but outisde of marriage it should not be recognised as a automatic right.

Why the difference? Does not being married make a man less of a father any more than it makes a woman less of a mother? It might make him less of a husband, but we’re talking about his relationship to his child, not his (former) partner.

Kildrought

If you marry and have a child then it is a clear statement of your intention to raise that child together.

There is also a legal presumption that a husband of a marriage is the father of all the children of that marriage. Hence the fact that both parents when married are automatically guardians of their children.

Bear in mind that many of these laws were enacted at a time when there was no remote possibility of testing parentage. Before DNA testing the only parent who could be confirmed 100% was the mother - since the birth (unlike the conception!) is witnessed by others.

Parents who have not married or are not co-habiting have not signalled their intent to raise the child together; automatically granting guardianship to an non-resident father may cause more issues than it resolves.

As it stands, if a father applies for guardianship (and assuming there is nothing seriously untoward in his background) it is generally granted.

K-9

Kildrought wrote:

If you marry and have a child then it is a clear statement of your intention to raise that child together.

Parents who have not married or are not co-habiting have not signalled their intent to raise the child together; automatically granting guardianship to an non-resident father may cause more issues than it resolves.

As it stands, if a father applies for guardianship (and assuming there is nothing seriously untoward in his background) it is generally granted.

Co-habitating fathers do not get this recognised. I was in a similar situation.
Both parents may want to raise the child together but may not be co-habitating. The father (as in this thread) may be very serious about being involved in the childs life. There is no recognition of this either.
It would be interesting to see if there was any figures on how many unmarried fathers have guardianship and if not the reasons why not. In my case even though we where cohabitating the mother would not give me guardianship. Obviously if you are in a relationship u are not going to go to a judge to get it without the mother's consent. Men in this situation would depress the figure gaining guardianship.

At the moment we basically have to earn the right. Fathers's should not have to earn this basic right. Dept. of Justice just couldn't be bothered updating the law. McDowell's reply on a register of Guardians, " I don't see the need for it".

The Corinthian

Kildrought wrote:

If you marry and have a child then it is a clear statement of your intention to raise that child together.

That is certainly the preferable scenario, but should we judge fathers, and to be fair mothers too, as valid parents on the basis that they fall into the optimal category?

Perhaps we should put a financial threshold on parental rights? Unless the combined family income is a minimum of €30,000 p.a. they should not be given guardianship, as it would be a sub optimal environment for the child.

There is also a legal presumption that a husband of a marriage is the father of all the children of that marriage.

Unless you're in Liverpool:

"The researchers in Liverpool found that rates of cases where a man was not the biological father of his child ranged from 1% in some studies to as much as 30%."

Parents who have not married or are not co-habiting have not signalled their intent to raise the child together; automatically granting guardianship to an non-resident father may cause more issues than it resolves.

Like what issues? I’ve already pointed out how the opposite is the case, so I’d be very interested in your rebuttal.

As it stands, if a father applies for guardianship (and assuming there is nothing seriously untoward in his background) it is generally granted.

Indeed, which begs the question that if there is something seriously untoward in his background, but he’s married he gets it automatically. Is this an acceptable part of your logic?

K-9

The Corinthian wrote:

Unless you're in Liverpool:

"The researchers in Liverpool found that rates of cases where a man was not the biological father of his child ranged from 1% in some studies to as much as 30%."

I think other surveys have suggested nationally in the UK it is somewhere between 10 and 20%. Most of these surveys concern married relationships.

Quote:
As it stands, if a father applies for guardianship (and assuming there is nothing seriously untoward in his background) it is generally granted.

Which begs the question, why waste the courts time? Why not use this time granting it? This time could be used to withdraw it if was thought that it was not in the best interest of the child.

Quote:Parents who have not married or are not co-habiting have not signalled their intent to raise the child together; automatically granting guardianship to an non-resident father may cause more issues than it resolves.

And maybe not. God Forbid we might actually change family law. The world would collapse! Could it be any worse than the mess there is in family law at the minute. I still think that if it was granted automatically and then applied to be withdrawn it might wake up alot of fathers to their responsibilities. A right taken away is just pschologically more important than not having a right u never had anyway. U don't miss what u never had!

Kildrought

As I previously stated it is a legal presumption that a husband of a marriage is the father of all the children of that marriage and that is the reason married parents are automatically granted guardianship; no such legal presumption exists in the case of parents who are not married.

Unless the combined family income is a minimum of €30,000 p.a. they should not be given guardianship, as it would be a sub optimal environment for the child.

Guardianship and child maintenance are not linked; I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

I wouldn't disagree that Family Law needs an overhaul - but tinkering round the edges isn't going to fix things.

K-9

Kildrought wrote:

As I previously stated it is a legal presumption that a husband of a marriage is the father of all the children of that marriage and that is the reason married parents are automatically granted guardianship; no such legal presumption exists in the case of parents who are not married.

I wouldn't disagree that Family Law needs an overhaul - but tinkering round the edges isn't going to fix things.

An example of the law being an ass then. If up to 20% of children are not the husbands that's abit of a presumption to make. We can be sure there's no figures on the unmarried fathers side but I would say there wouldn't be a substantial difference. With an unmarried father if there is a doubt with paternity he will usually get a test done. Many married fathers wouldn't be aware that they weren't the fathers. There is an interest on the part of the mother in these cases to keep it hidden.

In this day and age should the law be presuming the paternity or indeed guardianship rights for married fathers over unmarried.

Kildrought - Things never change radically, it's just the political reality. Guardianship would be a start. Maybe they could tye in maintenance at birth too if parents aren't cohabitating.

The Corinthian

Kildrought wrote:

Guardianship and child maintenance are not linked; I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

As you pointed out yourself "if you marry and have a child then it is a clear statement of your intention to raise that child together", I can only infer from this that you meant that a two parent household was an optimal position that thus merited automatic guardianship to the father. By the same logic other non-optimal family scenarios should not be given guardianship, of which poverty or earning below a certain threshold is one.

If you respond, please feel free to also expand to you so-far unsubstantiated claim that "automatically granting guardianship to an non-resident father may cause more issues than it resolves".

Kildrought

unsubstantiated claim that "automatically granting guardianship to an non-resident father may cause more issues than it resolves".

It was not a "claim", I was not declaring a fact, I do not need to "substantiate" an opinion; I am happy to expand on my opinion - given the current tone however, I don't see much point.

I can only infer from this that you meant that a two parent household was an optimal position that thus merited automatic guardianship to the father.

I have no idea how you managed to infer this - I did not state that a two-parent household was optimal - my statement was that as married couple having a baby, your intention to raise the child together is clear.

I have already explained the reasoning behind the automatic guardianship that occurs where a couple are married.

By the same logic other non-optimal family scenarios should not be given guardianship, of which poverty or earning below a certain threshold is one.

This is your logic - not mine - and I have to say I find it a peculiar statement; but if that's your opinion you are entitled to hold it.

The Corinthian

Kildrought wrote:

It was not a "claim", I was not declaring a fact, I do not need to "substantiate" an opinion; I am happy to expand on my opinion - given the current tone however, I don't see much point.

Then try to make it clear that it is simply your opinion, which you do not intend to back up with either argument or fact.

I have no idea how you managed to infer this - I did not state that a two-parent household was optimal - my statement was that as married couple having a baby, your intention to raise the child together is clear.

Then logically a single mother should not be given automatic guardianship either.

C x

Then logically a single mother should not be given automatic guardianship either"

But why not? Should a mother that carrys her unborn child for 9/10 months and then brings it into the world be denied that right? Just because fathers do not have automatic g'ship rights?

There is simply no comparrison. Its up to every father out of marriage to earn this right instead of just demanding it.

Many fathers just feck off after a child is born, its the mother that looks after the child and picks up the pieces. Why should someone have the same rights as a mother when they have reneged on the parental role.

What about children born as a result of of rape or one night stands. How on earth could you give fathers automatic rights then....

To have a mother go through the court to have g'ship removed when it should have been given in the first place.

Kildrought

...single mother should not be given automatic guardianship either

That would mean that you end up in a position where the child has no legal guardian? Hardly tenable.

As I've previously stated the inalterable fact is that the mother was and is the one parent who can be 100% identified as a true parent of the child at the time of birth; by the very simple expedient of witnessing the birth.

Identification of the father where he is not married to the child's mother is another matter.

The Corinthian

C x wrote:

But why not? Should a mother that carrys her unborn child for 9/10 months and then brings it into the world be denied that right? Just because fathers do not have automatic g'ship rights?

I’m simply applying the criteria that Kildrought used to what constitutes a right to automatic guardianship.

However you bring up an interesting point – the mother does indeed carry the child for nine months, but that’s simply a fraction of the life of that child. The proof that a parent has earned the right to be more than simply a biological contributor would appear to be what comes after birth, not before.

Many fathers just feck off after a child is born, its the mother that looks after the child and picks up the pieces. Why should someone have the same rights as a mother when they have reneged on the parental role.

No, they shouldn’t and they won’t. If a father wants to feck off after a child is born, how likely are they to seek guardianship? Or for that matter keep it?

What you’re suggesting is that fathers should not have this automatic right because their probably going to run off anyway – just like those poor bastards in Superman costumes outside the Four Courts.

What about children born as a result of of rape or one night stands. How on earth could you give fathers automatic rights then....

In the case of rape, the father would almost certainly not be regarded as fit to be one, either morally or legally any more than a married one who committed marital rape should be. Indeed, there are quite a few mothers out there who though alcoholism, violence or substance abuse should probably regarded as unfit too.

And why on Earth should a father of a one-night-stand have any fewer rights than a mother of a one-night-stand? It is still their child regardless of the circumstances of conception and may well be willing to do the decent thing and take up the duty of fatherhood.

Kildrought wrote:

That would mean that you end up in a position where the child has no legal guardian? Hardly tenable.

But that was the natural conclusion of your reasoning. Faced with the fact that this conclusion is unworkable you’re happy to stick in an arbitrary caveat - now that is untenable.

I’ve already given what I think are the worst case scenarios in both the scenario that an unwilling father has guardianship and a willing father has not and pointed out how the latter is far worse than the former. This is the ultimate reason why it is better to have automatic guardianship for fathers than not.

Would you care to rebut that seeing as you’ve already opinionated otherwise?

As I've previously stated the inalterable fact is that the mother was and is the one parent who can be 100% identified as a true parent of the child at the time of birth; by the very simple expedient of witnessing the birth.

Identification of the father where he is not married to the child's mother is another matter.

Then you would support automatic right of guardianship to fathers following positive paternity tests?

As things stand a willing father can get no guardianship, pay maintenance and if the mother finds a more suitable father in the future be no more than consulted before the child is adopted by that new father.

K-9

C x wrote:

But why not? Should a mother that carrys her unborn child for 9/10 months and then brings it into the world be denied that right? Just because fathers do not have automatic g'ship rights?

There is simply no comparison. Its up to every father out of marriage to earn this right instead of just demanding it.

Many fathers just feck off after a child is born, its the mother that looks after the child and picks up the pieces. Why should someone have the same rights as a mother when they have reneged on the parental role.

What about children born as a result of of rape or one night stands. How on earth could you give fathers automatic rights then....

To have a mother go through the court to have g'ship removed when it should have been given in the first place.

So in this thread the mother is more deserving of guardianship by ignoring who she says is the father, and not wanting her/his child not having contact with the father. She is more deserving of guardianship than the father who is making an effort to be involved? Every case is individual. But why presume all fathers aren't worthy of guardianship and that they are guilty until proven innocent?

Of course many fathers feck off, the courts should be used to educate and punish fathers who do this. If a father didn't fulfill access etc. he could be educated on the effects on both society and the individual (child & mother) that this has. Maybe more fathers would learn from this than just fecking off!

How on earth could u give guardianship to a rapist? I don't think anybody suggested otherwise. That's what the courts are for! Guardianship would be withdrawn obviously in a rape case. A mother would still have a right to deny access. The father and mother could then go to the court. In a one night stand scenario the father and the mother have been equally irresponsible, just goes to show it's not just fathers. Have been guilty there myself! Would like to think thats where my irresponsibility would end, if the women became pregnant.

The danger in a debate like this is that we get caught in the extreme views and not represent the normal or responsible attitude. Men can point to false accusations of abuse, domestic violence etc. Just because a mother is pregnant for 9 months doesn't mean that every mother is perfect. It doesn't mean we presume all women are like that and should be denied guardianship. The point fathers are trying to make is don't punish us for irresponsible fathers.

Also by just giving the mother guardianship the courts are showing how old fashioned they are. They are saying a mother is more deserving of it than a father. Jesus, I would like to think that we value both parents equally in this day and age. We both have our parts to play, even if they are different but complementary roles.

Quote The Corinthian - As things stand a willing father can get no guardianship, pay maintenance and if the mother finds a more suitable father in the future be no more than consulted before the child is adopted by that new father.

An extreme again but this has happened.Why should responsible fathers like in this thread be punished. I say punish the irresponsible fathers by taking away rights.IMOH!

Quote Kildrought - As I've previously stated the inalterable fact is that the mother was and is the one parent who can be 100% identified as a true parent of the child at the time of birth; by the very simple expedient of witnessing the birth.

Identification of the father where he is not married to the child's mother is another matter.

Yet it could be as much as 20% of married fathers aren't the paternal parent yet they are given 100% guardianship rights. If u need 100% proof of parenthood then married fathers should not get that right.

K-9

I think we are getting very emotional about guardianship. It does mean that a father has a say in the major decisions on a child's life e.g. schools etc. It doesn't really effect the normal day to day life of a child. If a father has a particular issue with issues pertaining to g'ship he still has to go to court to argue his case and of course the mother can defend that. Fathers are just trying to get some recognition of our importance in a child's life. Unmarried fathers have no recognition or rights as of now. A decision to in someway recognise this is not going to change the world or throw children's lives in turmoil!

Kildrought

criteria that Kildrought used to what constitutes a right to automatic guardianship.

This is not my criteria - I have stated the position with regards to the current law in this country.

Also by just giving the mother guardianship the courts are showing how old fashioned they are. They are saying a mother is more deserving of it than a father.

It's nothing to do with being old-fashioned! The fact remains that the only parent who can be confirmed as a true parent at the time of birth is the mother; guardianship is granted to a father who is married to that mother based on a legal presumption.

If u need 100% proof of parenthood then married fathers should not get that right

So if I understand you correctly you wish to remove the legal presumption that the husband in marriage is the father of the children of that marriage? What would you propose in its place?

But that was the natural conclusion of your reasoning. Faced with the fact that this conclusion is unworkable you’re happy to stick in an arbitrary caveat - now that is untenable.

I have not said anything of the sort.

The suggestion was that a woman who was not married should not automatically have guardianship of the child she has given birth to; I don't see how this could work in practice.

and this is where the suggestion came from

Kildrought: I have no idea how you managed to infer this - I did not state that a two-parent household was optimal - my statement was that as married couple having a baby, your intention to raise the child together is clear.

The Corinthian: Then logically a single mother should not be given automatic guardianship either.

So the suggestion made was not a "natural conclusion" of "my reasoning".

This is now my last post on the matter.

The Corinthian

Kildrought wrote:

This is not my criteria - I have stated the position with regards to the current law in this country.

Actually that’s not true, you very specifically gave the following reasoning:

If you marry and have a child then it is a clear statement of your intention to raise that child together.

The only reasoning that I can see in this statement is that because raising a child in a two-parent family is the preferable option - thus this should then be a metre of granting parental rights.

From this you are making a ruling that parental rights are related to a parent’s capacity (at least on a superficial level as there’s no guarantee that even married parents will stay together) to create a good environment for the child. With reasoning as flimsy as yours it’s really not terribly unreasonable to apply other criteria that would follow the same logic.

It's nothing to do with being old-fashioned!

Well, it is because you’re starting with a traditional premise – in places stating unsubstantiated opinions and nothing else - and then fumbling about to find justifications for it.

So if I understand you correctly you wish to remove the legal presumption that the husband in marriage is the father of the children of that marriage? What would you propose in its place?

No, he was pointing out that your argument does not hold water.

Paternity is generally not terribly difficult to work out in most cases, even when it is possible to definitively prove or disprove by tests. Yet you’re clinging to the idea that a married father should have such presumption because:

1. He’s made a legal commitment to stay with the mother and, presumably raise the child with her, and
2. He is most likely to be the father.

Neither of the above is unusual in cases of unmarried couples and indeed neither of the opposite of the above is that unusual to married ones. So with both of your arguments rendered effectively meaningless, you really have little ground left to stand on than seemingly the old “it’s the law, ergo it’s right” cop-out, which is not terribly convincing.

I have not said anything of the sort.

Well as you’ve pointed out, quoting you, you have.

The suggestion was that a woman who was not married should not automatically have guardianship of the child she has given birth to; I don't see how this could work in practice.

I never said it was practical, only that your reasoning was flawed because of it.

So the suggestion made was not a "natural conclusion" of "my reasoning".

Of course it was, if a couple is not married and their intention to bring up the child together is not clear, then that intention is not only the father’s but also the mother’s. Either or even both may be the reason for this, yet in your simplistic logic you assume it is always the father.

It’s not; the mother could just as easily be the reason for this as appears to be the case with this thread’s original poster. So if either have potentially failed by your criteria, then why should either have automatic guardianship? Of course this is not in the real World practical, but it does demonstrate that your reasoning is thus flawed.

All of which assumes that this is sufficient reason to deny guardianship in the first place, which frankly is dubious to say the least.

This is now my last post on the matter.

How convenient. So you don’t want to explain why you believe that giving automatic guardianship to fathers is worse than not? Or if you would support automatic right of guardianship to fathers following positive paternity tests seeing as their paternity would be proven as much as the mother’s?

From what I can see, your arguments are largely based on little more than prejudice. Feel free to prove me wrong.

K-9

Kildrought wrote:

It's nothing to do with being old-fashioned! The fact remains that the only parent who can be confirmed as a true parent at the time of birth is the mother; guardianship is granted to a father who is married to that mother based on a legal presumption.

So if I understand you correctly you wish to remove the legal presumption that the husband in marriage is the father of the children of that marriage? What would you propose in its place?

So as you say the only parent who can be confirmed as the parent is the mother. So that shows that the legal presumption that the married father is the paternal father is wrong and not 100% guaranteed. I wasn't suggesting an alternative or a change. If the legal presumption is not based on 100% fact why do unmarried fathers not get the same presumption as to guardianship?

luckat

Returning to Trinity1's sensible point, the person who's at risk from both of these quarrelling parents is the child.

I know that married people and cohabiting people can go to family counselling to help them to sort out discord. I wonder if it would be possible to access the family mediation services in this case?

Something about this whole emotional debate reminds me of a hare being torn to pieces between coursing greyhounds.