Court rule on Mr G

Love2love

In a landmark case for unmarried fathers Judge Liam McKechnie has ruled that the removal of three-year-old twin boys from Ireland to their mother's parental home in the UK was contrary to the meaning of the Hauge Convention of 1980.

The boys father, referred to as Mr G in order to protect the identity of the children, is not married to

their mother and therefore does not qualify for custody of his sons under current Irish law.
He had, however begun guardianship proceedings by the time the twin's mother (referred to as Ms O) took them abroad last January.

Today's ruling means Mr G has won the first battle in his attempt to have his sons returned to Ireland.

Legal proceedings that were running in the UK were frozen while the Irish case was in process.

On Friday legal representatives for the applicant (Mr G) and the respondent (Ms O) will return to the Hight Court where the wording of an order to be served in the English jurisdiction will be formulated.

The scheduled hearing will take place in the UK next week.

Carrigart Exile

Love2love wrote:

In a landmark case for unmarried fathers Judge Liam McKechnie has ruled that the removal of three-year-old twin boys from Ireland to their mother's parental home in the UK was contrary to the meaning of the Hauge Convention of 1980.

The boys father, referred to as Mr G in order to protect the identity of the children, is not married to

their mother and therefore does not qualify for custody of his sons under current Irish law.
He had, however begun guardianship proceedings by the time the twin's mother (referred to as Ms O) took them abroad last January.

Today's ruling means Mr G has won the first battle in his attempt to have his sons returned to Ireland.

Legal proceedings that were running in the UK were frozen while the Irish case was in process.

On Friday legal representatives for the applicant (Mr G) and the respondent (Ms O) will return to the Hight Court where the wording of an order to be served in the English jurisdiction will be formulated.

The scheduled hearing will take place in the UK next week.

Hallelujah, the parental rights of men creep into the late 19th century

Nevyn

The judge but a lot of stock in the fact hat they had been livign together as 'husband and wife' and that he played a role in caring for the twins and was an active daily part of thier lives.

Anto McC

If the fathers are willing to be good fathers and play an active role then it's a great move but it can't be said of all fathers unfortunatly.

K-9

Thaedydal wrote:

The judge but a lot of stock in the fact hat they had been livign together as 'husband and wife' and that he played a role in caring for the twins and was an active daily part of thier lives.

Yeah, I think as a legal expert said on RTE, he was a responsible father. The judge used European Law and that part specifically relating to co-habitating couples. To all intents and purposes he acted like a married father.

The expert did point out too, unmarried fathers still have to apply for guardianship and that is the way to prevent a mother taking the kids out of Ireland. It's mad that it took a court case in 2007 to right this wrong.

Hotblack Desiato

Anto McC wrote:

If the fathers are willing to be good fathers and play an active role then it's a great move but it can't be said of all fathers unfortunatly.

Many good fathers who wish to play an active role are shut out of their child's lives by our legal system.

Agent Smith

Anto McC wrote:

If the fathers are willing to be good fathers and play an active role then it's a great move but it can't be said of all fathers unfortunatly.

neither can be said of all mothers either...

Love2love

I think what AntoMcC means is that it's great for those who are genuinely seeking to play a proper role in the child's life and not just in spite of the mother. I know of one who actively uses his time with his child to defy the wishes of the mother.Although the same can be said for mother's who do the same.

Anto McC

Love2love wrote:

I think what AntoMcC means is that it's great for those who are genuinely seeking to play a proper role in the child's life and not just in spite of the mother. I know of one who actively uses his time with his child to defy the wishes of the mother. Although the same can be said for mother's who do the same.

Exactly, i know of 2 prominent members of a unmarried fathers organisation who do just this. They have both, at time, told the mother of the child they thay only want access to get back at them.

Don't get me wrong i know there are some terrible mothers out there too and in such cases i don't think they should be left with the children either.

Nevyn

I don't think that father's rights or mother's right should be the issue.
I think it should be about the rights of the child and what is best for the child.
Children should have the right to know and have a relationship wth both thier parents.

Love2love

Thaedydal wrote:

I don't think that father's rights or mother's right should be the issue.
I think it should be about the rights of the child and what is best for the child.
Children should have the right to know and have a relationship wth both thier parents.

I agree, I don't think its in the child's best interest for the parent to act like this. Buying a child sweets purposely defying the wishes of the mother just because you have a right as a parent to do so.... just out of spite.

goldenbrown

each case is different but if you find yourself down there at inns quay or smithfield, be absolutely committed in the legal process if you want to remain a parent and not be marginalised in your child's life - the courts will test your resolve......:) and many legals will want you dangling on a string as a perrennial 'maintenance' cash crop...including your own legals...www.parentalequality.ie

The Corinthian

I don't think many people have considered some of the implications of this case.

At the center of this ruling is the redefinition of a family, in that the marital status is no longer a defining issue. That is that marital rights can be given regardless of the marital status of the two people involved.

Of the objections I've heard, the main two appear to be firstly a mistaken belief that a woman could be stopped from going for an abortion (given a married man cannot supersede his wife's right to travel, then this is a moot point). The second objection is that the child could then be used as a weapon by the father against the mother, to which all I can say is "welcome to single fatherhood".

However, it is the other implications of this ruling that are equally interesting. Other than essentially giving unmarried fathers guardianship (if they qualify), it opens the road to tax equality with married fathers.

However, it's not all good news for men as the other side of the coin of being seen as the same as a married family is spousal maintenance and division of 'family' assets. I expect this will become a new hot topic in the next few years (especially in light of the reforms being proposed in the UK).

Nevyn

Well it will open up the pensions isue again and the assement not only under tax but of prsi. A married spouse can claim against thier spouse prsi to advail of a range of things were a co habiting couple can not.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote:

Of the objections I've heard, the main two appear to be firstly a mistaken belief that a woman could be stopped from going for an abortion (given a married man cannot supersede his wife's right to travel, then this is a moot point). The second objection is that the child could then be used as a weapon by the father against the mother, to which all I can say is "welcome to single fatherhood".

The abortion objection isn't relevant as you say with the right to travel. In fairness on kids being used as weapons, well in the G case the mother did this, as plenty of others do too.

thecorinthian wrote:

However, it's not all good news for men as the other side of the coin of being seen as the same as a married family is spousal maintenance and division of 'family' assets. I expect this will become a new hot topic in the next few years (especially in light of the reforms being proposed in the UK).

Was there a case being taken here by a unmarried mother re property rights i.e. getting some share in the property that she had not financially contributed to, but a share due to her being a stay at home mum who cared for the children in the house? Remember seeing it somewhere.

Works both ways I suppose!

Hotblack Desiato

Thaedydal wrote:

Well it will open up the pensions isue again and the assement not only under tax but of prsi. A married spouse can claim against thier spouse prsi to advail of a range of things were a co habiting couple can not.

The flipside of that is that an unmarried couple can pretend to be not co-habiting if that enables one or both of them to get means tested benefits.

Nevyn

???

Hotblack Desiato

You mentioned something that married couples can do that unmarried ones can't, but it's possible for it to work the other way sometimes too.

K-9

ninja900 wrote:

You mentioned something that married couples can do that unmarried ones can't, but it's possible for it to work the other way sometimes too.

Seamus Brennan at the time, was chatting about reforming the Single Parent payment to allow for co-habitation. No details though! The Social Welfare knows it goes on and I suppose instead of using vast resources investigating it, I think they wanted to reform the payment

Carrigart Exile

The Corinthian wrote:

I don't think many people have considered some of the implications of this case.

At the center of this ruling is the redefinition of a family, in that the marital status is no longer a defining issue. That is that marital rights can be given regardless of the marital status of the two people involved.

Of the objections I've heard, the main two appear to be firstly a mistaken belief that a woman could be stopped from going for an abortion (given a married man cannot supersede his wife's right to travel, then this is a moot point). The second objection is that the child could then be used as a weapon by the father against the mother, to which all I can say is "welcome to single fatherhood".

However, it is the other implications of this ruling that are equally interesting. Other than essentially giving unmarried fathers guardianship (if they qualify), it opens the road to tax equality with married fathers.

However, it's not all good news for men as the other side of the coin of being seen as the same as a married family is spousal maintenance and division of 'family' assets. I expect this will become a new hot topic in the next few years (especially in light of the reforms being proposed in the UK).

spousal maintenance in the 21st century, what a joke

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

spousal maintenance in the 21st century, what a joke

It depends on the circumstances. Spousal maintenance seems mad where both parents are working and earning good money and in good careers. However, if the mother gave up her career to mind the children, or maybe went part-time and that was a joint decision, then there probably does have to be some form of spousal maintenace. Would be the same for fathers too if the situation was reversed.

Elessar

Does anyone know if this case has been heard again in the UK courts? It was meant to happen this week...

I know that the mother in question is going all the way to the supreme court to try to get the ruling overturned. Hopefully the judges there will still see the injustice that is inherent in the system for unmarried fathers.

K-9

Elessar wrote:

Does anyone know if this case has been heard again in the UK courts? It was meant to happen this week...

I thought she would have had even less sympathy from the English courts as they're are more advanced on unmarried fathers rights.

Elessar wrote:

I know that the mother in question is going all the way to the supreme court to try to get the ruling overturned. Hopefully the judges there will still see the injustice that is inherent in the system for unmarried fathers.

I think they will see the politicians have ignored the issue and see child abduction is child abduction, regardless of gender.

The Corinthian

Carrigart Exile wrote:

spousal maintenance in the 21st century, what a joke

In what sense?

Carrigart Exile

The Corinthian wrote:

In what sense?

why should one adult human being have to provide for another adult human being because they were once married. The most recent UK case I can remember is that of the footballer who had provided for his children (all of whom were now in secondary school) and his ex wife demanded one third of his future earnings to keep her in the style she had become accustomed to. Sorry, but get up off your well upholstered lazy ass and get a job

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

It depends on the circumstances. Spousal maintenance seems mad where both parents are working and earning good money and in good careers. However, if the mother gave up her career to mind the children, or maybe went part-time and that was a joint decision, then there probably does have to be some form of spousal maintenace. Would be the same for fathers too if the situation was reversed.

sorry that's an feckless charter, if the issue is childcare that's something that can be agreed between them, but maintenance for an adult, you are having a laugh.

The Corinthian

Carrigart Exile wrote:

why should one adult human being have to provide for another adult human being because they were once married. The most recent UK case I can remember is that of the footballer who had provided for his children (all of whom were now in secondary school) and his ex wife demanded one third of his future earnings to keep her in the style she had become accustomed to. Sorry, but get up off your well upholstered lazy ass and get a job

I half agree with you. Some spouses do make serious sacrifices for the other spouse that affect their future earning potential. It's not unusual for one spousal career to be given priority over another in a marriage or even for the other to be abandoned altogether, not to mention the additional assistance one spouse may give to another in their career.

My own view is that it comes down to opportunity cost - that is, if a spouse was never married, what would their income likely be? If they would be better off, vis-a-vi earning, if they had never met, then spousal support should be taken into account (on both sides). Spousal maintenance is certainly appropriate in such circumstances.

Certainly the idea that once married you are entitled to half of even the preexisting assets of your spouse or should be entitled to a standard of living you could never have achieved without the wealthier spouse, is ridiculous though, IMHO. It's based upon the traditional notion that a divorced woman could not support herself or work - another one of those aforementioned 'privileges' that oddly were not rolled back in the name of 'equality'.

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

why should one adult human being have to provide for another adult human being because they were once married. The most recent UK case I can remember is that of the footballer who had provided for his children (all of whom were now in secondary school) and his ex wife demanded one third of his future earnings to keep her in the style she had become accustomed to. Sorry, but get up off your well upholstered lazy ass and get a job

That's a typical example alright! :rolleyes: Pure madness. Then again how many children where involved, what age? Was she a stay at home Mum anyway?

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

sorry that's an feckless charter, if the issue is childcare that's something that can be agreed between them, but maintenance for an adult, you are having a laugh.

If both had agreed that one parent should stay at home with the kids before the split up, no. If it's affordable and makes sense it could still be the best option. With childcare costs etc. it may not be worthwhile for the mother to work yet with young children. Definitely as they get older and there's less need for childcare the ex wife should work then.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote:

I half agree with you. Some spouses do make serious sacrifices for the other spouse that affect their future earning potential. It's not unusual for one spousal career to be given priority over another in a marriage or even for the other to be abandoned altogether, not to mention the additional assistance one spouse may give to another in their career.

My own view is that it comes down to opportunity cost - that is, if a spouse was never married, what would their income likely be? If they would be better off, vis-a-vi earning, if they had never met, then spousal support should be taken into account (on both sides). Spousal maintenance is certainly appropriate in such circumstances.

Certainly the idea that once married you are entitled to half of even the preexisting assets of your spouse or should be entitled to a standard of living you could never have achieved without the wealthier spouse, is ridiculous though, IMHO. It's based upon the traditional notion that a divorced woman could not support herself or work - another one of those aforementioned 'privileges' that oddly were not rolled back in the name of 'equality'.

I think he said it better than me!

It's not a black & white issue with a black & white solution.

Carrigart Exile

Certainly the idea that once married you are entitled to half of even the preexisting assets of your spouse or should be entitled to a standard of living you could never have achieved without the wealthier spouse, is ridiculous though, IMHO. It's based upon the traditional notion that a divorced woman could not support herself or work - another one of those aforementioned 'privileges' that oddly were not rolled back in the name of 'equality'.[/QUOTE]

That I believe is the greatest inequality, the courts suddenly turn victorian when divorce is mentioned