Law Reform Commission Paper on unmarried fathers rights

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.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

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



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.

They don't know who they are.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

They don't know who they are.

Don't you find that incredibly sad and it must give some kids a sense of abandonment & insecurity in the way adopted kids search for their birth parents?

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

Don't you find that incredibly sad and it must give some kids a sense of abandonment & insecurity in the way adopted kids search for their birth parents?

You have no idea how sad I find it.

ChewChew

metrovelvet wrote: »

At least they've met their kids.

Thats a very poor argument. Just because the mother has 'met' their child does not mean that they love the child, show the child and kind of emotion. That is an extremely invalid argument and is a poor reaction to the child who is left living with a mother who shows no love or very little love when there is a father out there who would like to be actively part of the child's life but the mother denies that. That sounds really fair to the child, doesn't it?

metrovelvet

You want to base custody/rights on the amount of love demonstrated? Which would be what? How much time the parent spends with the child? Or how much emotion they express to the child?

metrovelvet

ChewChew wrote: »

Thats a very poor argument. Just because the mother has 'met' their child does not mean that they love the child, show the child and kind of emotion. That is an extremely invalid argument and is a poor reaction to the child who is left living with a mother who shows no love or very little love when there is a father out there who would like to be actively part of the child's life but the mother denies that. That sounds really fair to the child, doesn't it?

Not if the father is a prick.

CDfm

Family Law for Men is like the Death Row appeals process in the USA. Some guys just voluntarily give up and disengage froim the process.

Thats not how it should be- it should be speedy and decisive to help life to go on. Its not -its got a "noose or loose" philosophy based on the adversorial system.

Lots of modern guys are clued up and know what they face. My son for instance would not be niave and could take a view based on "our" experience. I wouldn't be up for going thru my situation again and if it was him would advise against it.

So when I see Wibbs who has a balanced view posting -you have to take it seriously because he is more informed than I was. Also, when you see a discussion document that does not include enforcement you instinctively think its been written by the makers of Fr Ted.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

"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?

I think it's only going to happen if the father is a cold fish like me. Most men that I've known wouldn't or couldn't walk away. Some are lazy gits and only want a part time child with none of the responsibilities of being a parent. I've no time for that type. You're either in or you're out IMHO. You're either a sperm donor or a father. I would be very black and white about that.

I've been so lucky in that I've never had to face this kind of issue, but I've known a few mates who have and it nearly killed them. In one case the mother was a complete loopjob. Dangerously self destructive and a very bad parent. Various mental health and social services professionals over the years upheld that view, yet each time it hit court she got custody and he had to fight and fight and fight for access as she constantly blocked that both officially and unofficially. Over the years I was constantly shocked by this. Shocked that the system couldn't see the obvious, when even those within the system could. What really shocked me though was that this was not considered that unusual by people who deal with this kinda thing professionally. Another guy, the mother of his two kids decided to romp off with another guy behind his back. When that looked solid she kicked him out, pointed various lawyers at him to pay more and more. Which he was happy to do as he loved his kids, but she was never satisfied wth the amounts. He ended up working 2 jobs to pay for her lifestyle, even her mortgage in a house she shacked up her lover in. I can think of a couple more examples like that, but not as close to home. I can also think of a few men who are in loveless relationships that they would have left years ago, but won't because they know what will happen to their lives and their kids if they do.

To be fair, I can also think of many many examples where the father was.. well a twat or just a nasty piece of work. Both genders are equal in this, it's just IMHO the law and mechanisms favour women more, so it looks like more women are the nasty pieces of work. I've no doubt if it was the other way around the story wouldn't change much, just the gender. Luckily I do know other examples where the mother and father were adults and navigated this issue very well which gave me some hope.

I would have to admit hand on heart, that the bad examples would just add another nail to the coffin of me not ever wanting kids. Too often they're used as bargaining tools between people who should know better. I would have to be very very sure of the woman I would want to go down that road with(and she of me too). Experience has taught me that romantic love and or lust can make people very bad at spotting gobshítes of either gender.

994 wrote:

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

Why yes, you're right. Well spotted.:rolleyes:

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

I think it's only going to happen if the father is a cold fish like me. Most men that I've known wouldn't or couldn't walk away. Some are lazy gits and only want a part time child with none of the responsibilities of being a parent. I've no time for that type. You're either in or you're out IMHO. You're either a sperm donor or a father. I would be very black and white about that.

I would agree with you there.“Because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” It is black and white, no doubt.

Wibbs wrote: »

I've been so lucky in that I've never had to face this kind of issue, but I've known a few mates who have and it nearly killed them. In one case the mother was a complete loopjob. Dangerously self destructive and a very bad parent. Various mental health and social services professionals over the years upheld that view, yet each time it hit court she got custody and he had to fight and fight and fight for access as she constantly blocked that both officially and unofficially. Over the years I was constantly shocked by this. Shocked that the system couldn't see the obvious, when even those within the system could. What really shocked me though was that this was not considered that unusual by people who deal with this kinda thing professionally. Another guy, the mother of his two kids decided to romp off with another guy behind his back. When that looked solid she kicked him out, pointed various lawyers at him to pay more and more. Which he was happy to do as he loved his kids, but she was never satisfied wth the amounts. He ended up working 2 jobs to pay for her lifestyle, even her mortgage in a house she shacked up her lover in. I can think of a couple more examples like that, but not as close to home. I can also think of a few men who are in loveless relationships that they would have left years ago, but won't because they know what will happen to their lives and their kids if they do..

You have to distinguish between the divorcee dads and the unmarried ones, the former often have alimony to pay ontop of maintenence, and that's where you get the two jobs and a bedsit scenario. There are plenty of single dad's paying minimal, comical maintenance.

Saying that, there's no one forcing them to live in Dublin where the rents are disporportionate.

Social services are very hesitant to take a child out of the environment s/he is used to.

As for as many men you know going through ****e with this garbage and beligerant mothers, there are as many mothers having to tolerate abusive crap ex's but they get accused of denying rights, etc etc, if they dont want to deal with the father.

As for who are the nasty pieces of work, I do put some blame on the legal profession here, who do their best to keep their salaries fat by inspiring fear in everyone. The whole system is designed to keep the lawyers rich.

Wibbs wrote: »

I would have to admit hand on heart, that the bad examples would just add another nail to the coffin of me not ever wanting kids. Too often they're used as bargaining tools between people who should know better. I would have to be very very sure of the woman I would want to go down that road with(and she of me too). Experience has taught me that romantic love and or lust can make people very bad at spotting gobshítes of either gender.

This problem lies on the other side too. You would be hesitant to want to give rights to someone who will use their signature on a passport or health procedure form as a bargaining tool.

The thing is... yes lust/love whatever you want to call it, can blind you, but stressful circumstances bring out the gob****e in everyone, regardless. It can be a case of everyman for himself when a ship is sinking.

My father used to say "you dont know someone until you live with them." I beg to differ. You dont know someone until you are both facing a crisis.

A solution to the whole unmarried father's rights issue would be to make them automatic once paternity is established and provide an option for mothers to apply for sole guardianship in the case of absent or lukewarm fathers.

ChewChew

metrovelvet wrote: »

Not if the father is a prick.

Seriously girl, your argument is either 1) immature 2) naive 3)a píss take. You appear to only feel for the mother who is left in these situations (sometimes being their own fault). Actually, your argument is cringe worthy.