Law Reform Commission Paper on unmarried fathers rights

Dr Galen

from RTE.ie

New recommendations on fathers' rights
watch listen Wednesday, 9 September 2009 14:09

Fathers of children born outside of marriage should be granted automatic guardianship, according to a recommendation from the Law Reform Commission.

Currently, mothers of children born outside of marriage are immediately registered as 'sole guardians'.

If a father wishes to be registered as a joint guardian he needs to either do it through agreement with the child's mother or through a court order.
Advertisement

The recommendation from the Commission is among several in a consultation paper due to be published today.

The paper looks at the rights and responsibilities of non-marital parents and grandparents when it comes to guardianship of children.

It will be launched by Mr Justice Liam McKechnie.

Interesting that no one has raised this yet. Heard this today, and above is the story from RTE.ie. I've attached the press release from the Law Reform Commission as well for anyone to have a look at if they want.

Obviously this effects only those fathers involved in non-marital births, but if carried through on would be very positive. It appears that for too long in this country the rights of the father of a child have been neglected, AFAIK this has it's origins in the original writing of the constitution, I'm open to correction on that though.

So what do other people think, good? bad? not enough? Bearing in mind that this is a consultation paper, will anyone be providing feedback to the LRC on this?

CDfm

I actually think any initiatives like this are fairly useless. The reason being that Irelands Family Law Courts do little in the line of enforcement of court orders when the person in breach of an order is the mother.

I know one guy who now has custody of his kids yet it cost him his career. His ex had made allegations against him which were false, he was arrested etc, he was exonerated but not until the damage was done.

There is a law allowing for the prosecution of those making false allegations but I have never heard of a prosecution.

So until you have enforcement of access orders prosections for breaching an order and application of the false allegation laws such new initiatives are useless.

In the USA if a child access order is not obeyed the sherrif will supervise the order , arrest and prosecute. We have a long way to go on fathers rights.

shellyboo

CDfm wrote: »

I actually think any initiatives like this are fairly useless. The reason being that Irelands Family Law Courts do little in the line of enforcement of court orders when the person in breach of an order is the mother.

Well, do we light a candle or curse the darkness? It's a step in the right direction surely. I think it's a good thing, but as CDfm says, it needs to be followed up with stricter and fairer application of the law.

Snowie

So let me get this straight.

Me and some lady bump hips.
A baby follow's.
its her child and if she decides I'm not responsible for it
then does that mean I don't have to pay maintenance?


Im just curious

ChewChew

I think you might be legally obliged to pay maintenace to the child regardless of your level of responsibility and if you communicate with the mother at all

Snowie

Isn't that a bit weird for a start, being that shes decided your not a legal gaurdain

yet I'm still expected to pay for maintenance when I have no say in my child's upbringing schooling or anything.

any responsible man would want to yet the government in some case's would favor the remarks of a Hot tongued xgf with anger issues its a bit one sided.


at time having said that I realize that its not always that simple...

ChewChew

Thats true. It's a tough one really. I suppose there are so many arguments out there and one being ''well it's not the kids fault'' but it's not the blokes fault either if he being denied all rights and the mother puts ''father unknown'' on the babies birth cert.

Men have it so hard when it comes to these issues and it really is beyond time the government ironed them out fairly.

Some woman are far too stupid when it comes to these issues too. The amount of them who get pregnant on purpose for various reasons and there is not consideration for the implications it has on the men.

Dublin_Gunner

Well its a step in the right direction, but nearly 30 years after it was initially proposed.

They have a long way to go before fathers get the right rights they (mostly) deserve, and need.

I've been through court to get guardianship etc and its a royal pain in the ar$e to go through just to get what you should have had in the first place.

But yes, as was said, orders are never enforced when its the mother who's in breach - yet you'd be damn sure the father would end up with a fine etc if it was he who was in breach.

There needs to be equal rights from the start, regardless of who has custody, and it needs to be enforced.

We're yet to move into the 20th century with regard to family law, never mind the 21st.

CDfm

shellyboo wrote: »

Well, do we light a candle or curse the darkness? It's a step in the right direction surely. I think it's a good thing, but as CDfm says, it needs to be followed up with stricter and fairer application of the law.

Of course,Shellyboo but just paying lip service to it is wrong and deceitful.

A stricter and fairer application of the law would be "Hey you, you have breached the order so for the next few months its off to the Joy with you to share a cell with a Scissors Sister".

Can I count on your support?

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

I actually think any initiatives like this are fairly useless. The reason being that Irelands Family Law Courts do little in the line of enforcement of court orders when the person in breach of an order is the mother.

I know one guy who now has custody of his kids yet it cost him his career. His ex had made allegations against him which were false, he was arrested etc, he was exonerated but not until the damage was done.

There is a law allowing for the prosecution of those making false allegations but I have never heard of a prosecution.

So until you have enforcement of access orders prosections for breaching an order and application of the false allegation laws such new initiatives are useless.

In the USA if a child access order is not obeyed the sherrif will supervise the order , arrest and prosecute. We have a long way to go on fathers rights.

Oh yeah that was great fun in the US. Seeing the divorce and custody agreement in the top drawer in the kitchen to have it handy in case the police called round, oh and even more fun when they did call round. Oh and yeah every one loves visiting mommy and or daddy in prison. That's just great law!

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Oh and yeah every one loves visiting mommy and or daddy in prison.

So how are you going to enforce the law then.

The alternative is to deny access to one or other of the parents.

We dont excuse mothers who are drunk drivers so why excuse this.

And your proposal is???

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

So how are you going to enforce the law then.

The alternative is to deny access to one or other of the parents.

We dont excuse mothers who are drunk drivers so why excuse this.

And your proposal is???

Fines that go into a college fund for the child.

Oh and community service - babysit TWO toddlers with ONE toy for three days per each hour access is breached.

I cant think of a better hell.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Fines that go into a college fund for the child.

Oh and community service - babysit TWO toddlers with ONE toy for three days per each hour access is breached.

I cant think of a better hell.

You are retaining benefit with the college fund -so thats out the window- as its not a punishment.Who would voluntarily hand over their children to someone who wont obey the law? Not I.



More importantly you are putting breach of access and custody orders at a level of enforcement less than that of drink driving.

You have people breaking the law because they get away with it.

How would you feel if persistant offenders lost custody and only got supervised access? Would you approve?

metrovelvet

drunk driving ends lives. breach of access does not.

I cant answer your last question because it would have to be case by case.

Dublin_Gunner

CDfm wrote: »

You are retaining benefit with the college fund -so thats out the window- as its not a punishment.Who would voluntarily hand over their children to someone who wont obey the law? Not I.



More importantly you are putting breach of access and custody orders at a level of enforcement less than that of drink driving.

You have people breaking the law because they get away with it.

How would you feel if persistant offenders lost custody and only got supervised access? Would you approve?

The problem is, the solution cannot be as simple as you make out. Custody decides who cares for the child. in 90% of cases where the parents are not married / not together etc the child resides with the mother who has custody. If the mother was sent to prison, the state would be obliged to take care of the child(ren). The father in this instance would then have to apply to the court for custody, in order to take the child into his care.

Guardianship is NOT the same as custody.

As our laws (rightly) are meant to have the childs interest first, how is it beneficial to lock up its mother for breaching an access order? Or the father for that matter?

And in the majority of cases, the mother is either working part time, full time with child care expenses, or not working and claiming benefits, how does one fine her?

Seriously, youhave to think about your answers before you post un-enforceable tripe. As much as I, and others I'm sure would love some mothers to feel the full wrath of the law thats already in place, its not practical.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

drunk driving ends lives. breach of access does not.

So what you are saying then is that the ending of the relationship between a child and their non resident parent is of little consequence and therefore is not as deserving of enforcement as drink driving?

I wonder if anyone has any statistics about the longer terms problems experienced by kids in this situation. I wonder if breach of access etc is as victimless as you claim it to be?

metrovelvet

Death is the end of possibility. You cannot equate losing a life, a limb, paralysis, etc with showing up an hour late for the drop off.

Come on. Are you for real?

CDfm

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

The problem is, the solution cannot be as simple as you make out. Custody decides who cares for the child. in 90% of cases where the parents are not married / not together etc the child resides with the mother who has custody. If the mother was sent to prison, the state would be obliged to take care of the child(ren). The father in this instance would then have to apply to the court for custody, in order to take the child into his care.

Guardianship is NOT the same as custody.

As our laws (rightly) are meant to have the childs interest first, how is it beneficial to lock up its mother for breaching an access order? Or the father for that matter?

And in the majority of cases, the mother is either working part time, full time with child care expenses, or not working and claiming benefits, how does one fine her?

Seriously, youhave to think about your answers before you post un-enforceable tripe. As much as I, and others I'm sure would love some mothers to feel the full wrath of the law thats already in place, its not practical.

The trends are changing and in the UK increasingly men are being awarded custody of children.

The latest Child Support Agency figures show that women are registered as the nonresident parent in 66,900 maintenance cases.

If you start from a position of sole custody and guardianship for mothers which is the norm in Ireland and move to joint custody(especially if the primary carer is unable to care for the children) then you are playing on a more level playing field with none of the problems. It should be automatic.

Let guys who are not capable parents fess up to the courts and hand over their rights and responsibilities. Capable Dads should be left to get on with it.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Death is the end of possibility. You cannot equate losing a life, a limb, paralysis, etc with showing up an hour late for the drop off.

Come on. Are you for real?

Come of it Metro - you know better than that.

I am not talking about loosing a few hours etc - I am talking about parents(usually fathers) loosing total contact with their children because the custodial parent wont obey the court order or deliberately fraustrates it. If a person can be in time for work, have a child in time for school etc why is the same person incompetant in obeying court orders. It makes no sense.

What you are saying that any court order or punishment should not be enforced.

I am asking though if children in this situation experience problems either currently or in later life which may in fact make them victims in the same way as victims of drunk drivers?

shellyboo

CDfm wrote: »

Of course,Shellyboo but just paying lip service to it is wrong and deceitful.

A stricter and fairer application of the law would be "Hey you, you have breached the order so for the next few months its off to the Joy with you to share a cell with a Scissors Sister".

Can I count on your support?

I don't see it as paying lip service to it at all, I see it as a necessary step on the way to getting the equality you're talking about. It's not going to change overnight into an equitable system that works just as fairly for fathers as it does for mothers, just the same as women didn't hold equal status with men in the workplace all of a sudden with one piece of legislation.

What we're talking about is changing attitude, not changing law. When society's attitude to fathers' right changes, then we will see the change in enforcement of law. That may not happen til the old judiciary actually die out and a new, more liberal breed come in.

And I agree with meta - sending a child's parent (either parent) off to prison because they've breached an order is not in the best interests of any child. I don't know what will work, but I don't think that's the solution.

Dublin_Gunner

CDfm wrote: »

The trends are changing and in the UK increasingly men are being awarded custody of children.

With all due respect, I couldn't give a rats what they are doing in the UK.

CDfm wrote: »

If you start from a position of sole custody and guardianship for mothers which is the norm in Ireland and move to joint custody(especially if the primary carer is unable to care for the children) then you are playing on a more level playing field with none of the problems. It should be automatic.

Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't. Joint custody for a young child between parents that live apart, does not provide the most stable lifestyle for a child IMO. Living half its life in one place, then the other half in another, cannot be beneficial. This can and does certainly work when the child gets that bit older, but for a young child, I'm afraid I'd be of the opinion, that it is in the childs best interest to live in 1 home, not two.

CDfm wrote: »

Let guys who are not capable parents fess up to the courts and hand over their rights and responsibilities. Capable Dads should be left to get on with it.

I know, it does indeed seem like it being a case of 'guilty until proven innocent', and giving automatic guardianship is definitely a step in the right direction.

I also believe that a mother who registers the birth with 'father unknown' on the birth cert should be have deemed to have commited an offence - regardless of whether the father is the best guy in the world, or serving life for rape & murder. He's still the father. I had this happen to me, I didn't even know my own daughters middle name (not the rapist or murderer part though!).

r3nu4l

I see where metrovelvet is coming from. However, I've known families where a part of the bitterness involves one or other parent deliberately frustrating court orders in an attempt to annoy the other party.

So with this in mind, yes, court orders need to be enforced more rigorously, especially where there is consistent breaching. Jail time may be a bit harsh but perhaps increasing the time that the other partner gets with the children would be a good move (circumstances permitting).

Also, false allegations are not uncommon in the family law courts and really, really needs to be stamped down on, hard.

Right now this thread has been kept civil so let's try to keep it that way

Dublin_Gunner

r3nu4l wrote: »

Right now this thread has been kept civil so let's try to keep it that way

You should have stated "pardon the pun"

I've been on the receiving end of false allegation myself (very serious ones too) and its not pretty. Especially considering there was basically nothing said about it :mad: (though I did raise the matter).

metrovelvet

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

With all due respect, I couldn't give a rats what they are doing in the UK.

I have to agree, and what is happenning in the UK is in the spirit of backlash. There was an interesting article in the Sunday Times some weeks ago about this.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't. Joint custody for a young child between parents that live apart, does not provide the most stable lifestyle for a child IMO. Living half its life in one place, then the other half in another, cannot be beneficial. This can and does certainly work when the child gets that bit older, but for a young child, I'm afraid I'd be of the opinion, that it is in the childs best interest to live in 1 home, not two.

I also agree with this. The automatic 50/50 custody is like the case put before Solomon. Split the child in the middle. It's alifetime of suitcases in the hallway and not knowing where your home it. Furthmore it will put more pressure on women to have abortions from unwilling fathers.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I know, it does indeed seem like it being a case of 'guilty until proven innocent', and giving automatic guardianship is definitely a step in the right direction.

All too often the father's participation is dependent on how the man "feels about the mother." It is proven time and time again. A marriage cert is the closest we can have of any proof - legally that is- that he feels strongly about her.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

I also believe that a mother who registers the birth with 'father unknown' on the birth cert should be have deemed to have commited an offence - regardless of whether the father is the best guy in the world, or serving life for rape & murder. He's still the father. I had this happen to me, I didn't even know my own daughters middle name (not the rapist or murderer part though!).

YEs I agree here too as silence is a lie too. I would also say that a father who refuses to name himself on the birthcert has also comitted an offence,a philosophical, moral and should be criminal [as in paternity fraud] and should be punished.

tallaght01

There's simply no justification in denying a father his rights to his child. You can't logically package it up in another box by saying that it unsettles the child. There's simply no evidence of this. Kids move house, parents get divorced, parents change partner, kids go to boarding school etc. There is simply no evidence that a child going to see daddy at weekends has more negative effect on a child than living in one place and not seeing daddy.

What you've got is human right. The fundamental right of a child to develop a relationship with their parents. The fundamental right of a father to care for their child.

You simply can't trivialise the above.

There's lots written on this. But to provide anecdote, which we all know is the cornerstone of good argument :P ....................

I used to run a behavioural clinic for kids. The worst developed kids (and I say this as a generalisation, as opposed to something that holds 100%) are from homes with one parent. Their behaviour and general development suffers, and they seem to do worse than their peers. Having the kid stay with dad for a couple of days every week gives mum the chance the have a life of her own, and gives the kid different experiences and different stimulation.

It's a total joke that dads have to sit on the sidelines at the mercy of mothers in this country, while our constitution claims to put the family at the centre of our legislative framework.

Wibbs

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

Isn't that a bit weird for a start, being that shes decided your not a legal gaurdain

yet I'm still expected to pay for maintenance when I have no say in my child's upbringing schooling or anything.

any responsible man would want to yet the government in some case's would favor the remarks of a Hot tongued xgf with anger issues its a bit one sided.


at time having said that I realize that its not always that simple...

No it's not, but I have known of cases like you describe. The man was seen as a maintenance supply and nothing else. I have to say in that position I would stop all maintenance dead. If I'm not on the birth cert, I'm not allowed any say, then I ain't paying for it on any level. If the mother contends I have responsibilities, well then she can't get out of hers. If she decides to do so I would have no trouble at all walking away. Yes it's half my kid, but if I've no input with him or her, well then, that's where it would end for me. They'd be just another child out there like any other I have no contact with. Then again I would be cold that way, a lot of men will and do put up with it.

Wibbs

tallaght01 wrote: »

There's simply no justification in denying a father his rights to his child. You can't logically package it up in another ox by saying that it unsettles the child. There's simply no evidence of this. Kids move house, parents get divorced, parents change partner, kids go to boarding school etc. There is simply no evidence that a child going to see daddy at weekends has more negative effect on a child than living in one place and not seeing daddy.

What you've got is human right. The fundamental right of a child to develop a relationship with their parents. The fundamental right of a father to care for their child.

You simply can't trivialise the above.

There's lots written on this. But to provide anecdote, which we all know is the cornerstone of good argument :P ....................

I used to run a behavioural clinic for kids. The worst developed kids (and I say this as a generalisation, as opposed to something that holds 100%) are from homes with one parent. Their behaviour and general development suffers, and they seem to do worse than their peers. Having the kid stay with dad for a couple of days every week gives mum the chance the have a life of her own, and gives the kid different experiences and different stimulation.

It's a total joke that dads have to sit on the sidelines at the mercy of mothers in this country, while our constitution claims to put the faily at the centre of our legislative framework.

+ 1000000. Well said. I too have seen the anecdotal fallout of such an arrangement.

Dublin_Gunner

tallaght01 wrote: »

There's simply no justification in denying a father his rights to his child. You can't logically package it up in another box by saying that it unsettles the child. There's simply no evidence of this. Kids move house, parents get divorced, parents change partner, kids go to boarding school etc. There is simply no evidence that a child going to see daddy at weekends has more negative effect on a child than living in one place and not seeing daddy.

What you've got is human right. The fundamental right of a child to develop a relationship with their parents. The fundamental right of a father to care for their child.

You simply can't trivialise the above.

There's lots written on this. But to provide anecdote, which we all know is the cornerstone of good argument :P ....................

I used to run a behavioural clinic for kids. The worst developed kids (and I say this as a generalisation, as opposed to something that holds 100%) are from homes with one parent. Their behaviour and general development suffers, and they seem to do worse than their peers. Having the kid stay with dad for a couple of days every week gives mum the chance the have a life of her own, and gives the kid different experiences and different stimulation.

It's a total joke that dads have to sit on the sidelines at the mercy of mothers in this country, while our constitution claims to put the family at the centre of our legislative framework.

While I do agree with most of what you're saying, I think you are confusing access with joint Custody.

Having a child visit daddy on the weekends is a far cry from having the child LIVE with daddy for 50% of the time.

tallaght01

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

While I do agree with most of what you're saying, I think you are confusing access with joint Custody.

Having a child visit daddy on the weekends is a far cry from having the child LIVE with daddy for 50% of the time.

I don't see how either are a negative thing for a child. Weighing up some disruption Vs the right to spend a big chunk of their childhood with daddy is a no brainer to me.

If the parents live at opposite ends of the country, then a common sense solution needs to be worked out. But not if both parents live a short drive from each other.

There are STACKS of kids out there who spend more than half their waking life with a child minder, so why not with their dad?

metrovelvet

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't see how either are a negative thing for a child. Weighing up some disruption Vs the right to spend a big chunk of their childhood with daddy is a no brainer to me.

If the parents live at opposite ends of the country, then a common sense solution needs to be worked out. But not if both parents live a short drive from each other.

There are STACKS of kids out there who spend more than half their waking life with a child minder, so why not with their dad?

Because the childminder comes to the child's house. The child isnt tooing anf fro ing and spending over nights, etc.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

No it's not, but I have known of cases like you describe. The man was seen as a maintenance supply and nothing else. I have to say in that position I would stop all maintenance dead. If I'm not on the birth cert, I'm not allowed any say, then I ain't paying for it on any level. If the mother contends I have responsibilities, well then she can't get out of hers. If she decides to do so I would have no trouble at all walking away. Yes it's half my kid, but if I've no input with him or her, well then, that's where it would end for me. They'd be just another child out there like any other I have no contact with. Then again I would be cold that way, a lot of men will and do put up with it.

Would you spend time with your child. There are those "fathers" who want the say, pay the maintenance and never ever see their child[ren] by their own choice.

Dublin_Gunner

metrovelvet wrote: »

Because the childminder comes to the child's house. The child isnt tooing anf fro ing and spending over nights, etc.

I'm pretty sure Tallaght was referring to children being lumped into creche type facilities, not live in nanny's. At least, that was my take on it.

tallaght01

metrovelvet wrote: »

Because the childminder comes to the child's house. The child isnt tooing anf fro ing and spending over nights, etc.

Lots and lots of childminders mind the kids on their own homes.

metrovelvet

tallaght01 wrote: »

Lots and lots of childminders mind the kids on their own homes.

Yes. That's what I was saying. The child isnt dragged from pillar to post.

I do think the dads should be involved but I dont believe in this automatic 50 50 nonsense.

As for troubled kids from single parent homes, that often has to to with the education level of the parent and not his/her marital status.

tallaght01

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes. That's what I was saying. The child isnt dragged from pillar to post.

no, i mean "their" home, as in the child minder's home.

metrovelvet wrote: »

i do think the dads should be involved but I dont believe in this automatic 50 50 nonsense.

As for troubled kids from single parent homes, that often has to to with the education level of the parent and not his/her marital status.

The kid's development may have a correlation with the parent's education level (well their socio-economic group, but that's related to education).

But to say that what we talked abut above is due to education level AS OPPOSED to not having a parent around is just not borne out by any kind of reality.

I dunno bout everyone else...but having a daddy was more important to me than the fact he left school at 13.

metrovelvet

tallaght01 wrote: »

no, i mean "their" home, as in the child minder's home.



The kid's development may have a correlation with the parent's education level (well their socio-economic group, but that's related to education).

But to say that what we talked abut above is due to education level AS OPPOSED to not having a parent around is just not borne out by any kind of reality.

I dunno bout everyone else...but having a daddy was more important to me than the fact he left school at 13.

I would tend to agree with you, though the statitics and research would say we are wrong. I truly hope we are wrong. Given that a considerable proportion of children are born into single parent family homes are we going to have a society full of delinquents?

I better start saving for bail.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

Would you spend time with your child. There are those "fathers" who want the say, pay the maintenance and never ever see their child[ren] by their own choice.

Oh yeh I would spend time with him or her and be a father to them, if the whole package was in play. Crudely put I would expect a return on my investment, emotional, temporal and fiscal. If however I got major static from the mother over her rights above the childs, I wouldn't. The child would be better off if the mother found some other guy and he raised them, rather than have to pick up on all the guff that comes from two people fighting a turf war.

tallaght01

metrovelvet wrote: »

I would tend to agree with you, though the statitics and research would say we are wrong. I truly hope we are wrong. Given that a considerable proportion of children are born into single parent family homes are we going to have a society full of delinquents?

I better start saving for bail.

Where are the stats that say that, in a single parent home, the developmental/behavioural outcomes are based only on the educational attainment of the parents, and not on the fact that they have no contact with the parent.

I've heard (weak but plausible) arguments that lack of a father is not a huge psychological issue for young children. But as they get older, the fact that their mother has kept their father at bay becomes BIG news. This is aside from the developmental issue.

Dublin_Gunner

Wibbs wrote: »

The child would be better off if the mother found some other guy and he raised them, rather than have to pick up on all the guff that comes from two people fighting a turf war.

Spoken like a true non-father

Your opinion would change when you hold your child in your arms, and you hear those words "I love you Daddy".

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

I would tend to agree with you, though the statitics and research would say we are wrong. I truly hope we are wrong. Given that a considerable proportion of children are born into single parent family homes are we going to have a society full of delinquents?

Luckily it's so dependent on so many things though. We can't really compare a single mother in the projects of Chicago say, to a D4 single mother with financial and familial backup whre other father figures are present.

From what I've read over the years it appears to effect boys/men though if there's a lack of a father figure. Though it seems even more subtle than that. I remember reading a study way back that found that boys of single mothers where the father was alive but not around or in and out of the picture fared worse than a situation where the mother was widowed. In both case the father figure was absent so it seems maybe parental conflict was involved and the kid was picking up on that conflict(or even the frustration of the mother(all men are bastards thing)). Funny one part of it seemed to show that there were many more very successful males in adulthood where the father died when they around 12. A very common one. It seems to make the boys grow up earlier and take over the father role or somesuch.

Wibbs

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Spoken like a true non-father

Your opinion would change when you hold your child in your arms, and you hear those words "I love you Daddy".

Maybe. I dunno, I know myself pretty well and family is great, but I've scraped close family members off before. I'm not very paternal either. Just the same way some women are not maternal and don't want kids. I don't think I would suddenly change when faced with that. I know that most men will think "ah but you'll change your tune". Maybe but it's an assumption and somewhat of a projection about how they felt.

I did have one pregnancy scare with an ex. Loved her to bits, but it wasn't so much fear about it when she told me, rather "oh bloody hell, I really don't like kids that much at all". I'm grand as a godfather, where I'm in and out, but I don't think I could sustain that to any degree. It's just how I am.

ChewChew

metrovelvet wrote: »

Would you spend time with your child. There are those "fathers" who want the say, pay the maintenance and never ever see their child[ren] by their own choice.

There are plenty of those ''mothers' too and alot of these mothers have full custody of their children but have zero interest. Buy their love. Bring them to pubs all day sunday. Give them all the psp's, iPods, xboxes only santas little elves could dream of. I see a no win situation here and it's all daddy's fault because mammy is being the out and out b*tch

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh yeh I would spend time with him or her and be a father to them, if the whole package was in play. Crudely put I would expect a return on my investment, emotional, temporal and fiscal. If however I got major static from the mother over her rights above the childs, I wouldn't. The child would be better off if the mother found some other guy and he raised them, rather than have to pick up on all the guff that comes from two people fighting a turf war.

Right and that makes sense. But you get a lot of guys who havent spend **** all time with their kids, and by **** all I mean 5-10 minutes, if that, or maybe an hour, and are stomping their feet about having says, so they turn the whole thing into a power play with the mother, without having shown any love for the child.

But still - that you are saying "expect a return on my investment" there certainly would wave a flag - because when you give to your child- it is a gift, and there are no expectations of returns. The love and loyalty you get from your child, will come to you, from the lack of expecting it, if you get me.

metrovelvet

ChewChew wrote: »

There are plenty of those ''mothers' too and alot of these mothers have full custody of their children but have zero interest. Buy their love. Bring them to pubs all day sunday. Give them all the psp's, iPods, xboxes only santas little elves could dream of. I see a no win situation here and it's all daddy's fault because mammy is being the out and out b*tch

At least they've met their kids.

Beruthiel

metrovelvet wrote: »

But still - that you are saying "expect a return on my investment" there certainly would wave a flag - because when you give to your child- it is a gift, and there are no expectations of returns. The love and loyalty you get from your child, will come to you, from the lack of expecting it, if you get me.

I believe what Wibbs meant by that comment was with regards to the mother.
IE - if the mother is going to be a biatch about access and use the child as some kind of bargaining tool, then he would be having none of it.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right and that makes sense. But you get a lot of guys who havent spend **** all time with their kids, and by **** all I mean 5-10 minutes, if that, or maybe an hour, and are stomping their feet about having says, so they turn the whole thing into a power play with the mother, without having shown any love for the child.

Which is well unhealthy for all concerned.

But still - that you are saying "expect a return on my investment" there certainly would wave a flag - because when you give to your child- it is a gift, and there are no expectations of returns. The love and loyalty you get from your child, will come to you, from the lack of expecting it, if you get me.

As I say I'm quite cold that way. I would give it to the child freely and without expecting anything. There's only so much a child can give anyway and that's cool. but only in an environment I was happy with. If the mother was deliberately putting up obstacles I would walk and not look back.

IMHO deep down all parents expect a return, even if it's just blind love for the parent. A good vibe feedback loop that sustains the bond. Parents, good parents just see the long term as well as the short term "return" on their investment(to really strangle the financial comparison:D)

metrovelvet

I do get what you are saying. Fair enough. But when a mother does the same thing as you just described, with the same feelings, getting the same obstacles and bitchiness from the other parent, it's called "denying access" and a violation of men's rights.

IMHO deep down all parents expect a return, even if it's just blind love for the parent. A good vibe feedback loop that sustains the bond. Parents, good parents just see the long term as well as the short term "return" on their investment(to really strangle the financial comparison)

"I would walk and not look back. "

And that is the key. You would not seek custody in the case of the mother's death. You would not seek photographs. You would not seek addresses. You would not seek the child out later to pop in and out of his life.

Gees Wibbs, that works in practise but does it really work in theory?

994

Wibbs wrote: »

The child would be better off if the mother found some other guy and he raised them, rather than have to pick up on all the guff that comes from two people fighting a turf war.

By your logic, we should steal babies from poor mothers and give them to rich women.

tallaght01

994 wrote: »

By your logic, we should steal babies from poor mothers and give them to rich women.

I dunno out anyone else, but I didn't take anything like that logic from what he said!

CDfm

tallaght01 wrote: »

Where are the stats that say that, in a single parent home, the developmental/behavioural outcomes are based only on the educational attainment of the parents, and not on the fact that they have no contact with the parent.

My kids are almost raised. No more court for me .I have done the court system thank you very much. 10 times 1 year.

I have a great relationship with my two and can do everything from braiding to period pain and clothes shopping to boyfriend break-ups.

I have also tutored kids to junior cert Irish by mobile phone and leaving cert english aswell. We scored a B in hons english.I have a few letters after my name. Not boasting but scene setting.

Can also do a whole range of other stuff like collect mugging victims organise a birthday party and feed a hoarde of drunken teenagers.

I am not saying I am any better or worse than the kids mother but put me inside a family court and I am instantly stereotyped as Beelzebub on rollerskates- with less rights and support with access than a prisoner in Mountjoy.

Beruthiel wrote: »

IE - if the mother is going to be a biatch about access and use the child as some kind of bargaining tool, then he would be having none of it.

Ruthie subedits the whole thread and gets the issue in a sentence.

One guy I know despite a court order giving the child for the same weeks every year and notifying the ex and all spent 4,000 euro and 3 days in court to get his child for the holidays.

Does anybody else agree that this is fundamentally wrong. Should we expect a judge to be decisive.

Women who support this also have brothers,cousins and sons etc who will find themselves in the same boat.

CDfm

tallaght01 wrote: »

Where are the stats that say that, in a single parent home, the developmental/behavioural outcomes are based only on the educational attainment of the parents

I have heard that violence towards children is higher in single parent homes. Is this true?

I've heard (weak but plausible) arguments that lack of a father is not a huge psychological issue for young children. But as they get older, the fact that their mother has kept their father at bay becomes BIG news. This is aside from the developmental issue.

How does the children being kept from their father affect children. I do know I tended to spoil more and have less authority so my relationship changed with them.