Law Reform Commission Paper on unmarried fathers rights

metrovelvet

ChewChew wrote: »

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.

You want to give rights to fathers who haven't met their kids [by their own chocie]?

sharky86

yes give rights to all fathers from birth or even before hand.. for so called "bad fathers" (I personally have not ment any but am certain they are out there) take the rights away.. also take the rights away from bad mothers (which I have ment quite a few I must admit) any court in the country can remove rights from fathers now in a few hours sure

tallaght01

Metrovelvet, you sound like you're letting a very specific event, or sets of events, that you've experienced, form your opinion on what should be policy in these cases.

But the reality is we have to do the right thing on a large scale. So, you need to put any personal grievances aside and be rational and see the bigger picture if you want people to take your argument seriously. Whatever happened to you can't be the driver of policy.

metrovelvet

tallaght01 wrote: »

Metrovelvet, you sound like you're letting a very specific event, or sets of events, that you've experienced, form your opinion on what should be policy in these cases.

But the reality is we have to do the right thing on a large scale. So, you need to put any personal grievances aside and be rational and see the bigger picture if you want people to take your argument seriously. Whatever happened to you can't be the driver of policy.

Yes I realise that I argue in self interest, that I dont want to be chasing a ghost to get medical forms signed.

But I did also say that one idea might be to grant automatic rights upon confirmation of paternity with the option of the mother to pursue sole guardianship. I think that is a fair compromise between the two extremes.

Anyhow, I take your point, I'll take it down. I do think men are better at distancing themselves, not one of my strengths. Thanks for pointing it out.

sharky86

But I did also say that one idea might be to grant automatic rights upon confirmation of paternity with the option of the mother to pursue sole guardianship. I think that is a fair compromise between the two extremes not get.

But then would you not get some women just dening any sort of confirmation of paternity??

metrovelvet

sharky86 wrote: »

But I did also say that one idea might be to grant automatic rights upon confirmation of paternity with the option of the mother to pursue sole guardianship. I think that is a fair compromise between the two extremes not get.

But then would you not get some women just dening any sort of confirmation of paternity??

You would, [oddly and ironically moreso from married women who have had affairs] but a court would just order a dna test and that would be that. It would of course have to correlate with paternity fraud laws.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

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.

Oh yes there's defo a difference. Another reason I wouldn't get hitched.

There are plenty of single dad's paying minimal, comical maintenance.

Agreed.

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

Well their jobs, their family and their kids may beg to differ.

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

To a silly degree sometimes, even when the environment is toxic. The problem I have is the automatic assumption that the mother is the best parent.

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.

I would agree if the ex is abusive, but if they have to deal with the father, then deal with him. Otherwise scrape him off and have the legal option to do so, if it can be proven he is abusive.

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.

There's certainly no doubt in my mind that there are a lot of ambulance chasers that gravitate towards this end of the legal profession.

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.

Good solution if workable. Though again the power would lay with the mother. She could decide that the father is lukewarm and accuse him of same. It would be hard enough to prove otherwise. The sole guardianship if it included the man not having any financial responsibilities would help there though. If she got sole guardianship and he still had to pay out then that would be very easy to abuse I reckon.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

Good solution if workable. Though again the power would lay with the mother. She could decide that the father is lukewarm and accuse him of same. It would be hard enough to prove otherwise. The sole guardianship if it included the man not having any financial responsibilities would help there though. If she got sole guardianship and he still had to pay out then that would be very easy to abuse I reckon.

The burden of proof would lay with the mother. And yes it would be hard to prove, but still possible, if the father is not around or barely around or inconsistent in breaking his access orders, maintenance payments, whatever.

How would maintenance plus sole guardianship be easy to abuse? I dont get you.

Wibbs

From the angle of if the mother got sole guardianship why should the man pay? If she(and the courts) decided that he was an unfit father who couldn't be bothered. I can see the angle of "well it's partly his responsibility" alright, but personally I wouldn't be paying for something I'm seeing no return on. Especially if I couldn't be bothered. I can also see how this could be a get out clause for some men too. It's a really hard one to legislate for I grant you. Improvements really appear to be needed on the current model anyway.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

From the angle of if the mother got sole guardianship why should the man pay? If she(and the courts) decided that he was an unfit father who couldn't be bothered. I can see the angle of "well it's partly his responsibility" alright, but personally I wouldn't be paying for something I'm seeing no return on. Especially if I couldn't be bothered. I can also see how this could be a get out clause for some men too. It's a really hard one to legislate for I grant you. Improvements really appear to be needed on the current model anyway.

What do you mean by "return"? From whom? The child?

Maintenance is not about buying rights. It's about feeding and clothing a child.

What about the other side of that... no maintenance no access or rights?

The two are seperate.

sharky86

have to admit I'm very interested in this tread... What about the good fathers is there anything a good father can apply for as well as gaurdainship?

CDfm

tallaght01 wrote: »

Metrovelvet, you sound like you're letting a very specific event, or sets of events, that you've experienced, form your opinion on what should be policy in these cases.

But the reality is we have to do the right thing on a large scale. So, you need to put any personal grievances aside and be rational and see the bigger picture if you want people to take your argument seriously. Whatever happened to you can't be the driver of policy.

And Tallaght01 that is the core of the problem.

The Family Law system is in camera ( not in open court) so either party can make an unfounded , untruthful and baseless allegation and use it in court.

So given that the system itself can be used to fraustrate access and contact in a way that makes it difficult to reestablish contact.

Its quite easy for contact and access to be fraustrated or denied. So in a roundabout way the system has become operated by the lowest common denominator policies. Its not rocket science.

While maintenance and access are not linked in law they are negotiated and heard in the same court by the same people.If you have a score to settle thats the venue. Its utter ****** for anyone to suggest its not common legal practice.

There has been a situation where when a Judge questioned the conduct of a Solicitor and found her in contempt and then the Southern Law Society boycotted his Court. Because of the in camera rules the details of the case could not be published -here is a link.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/solicitors-shun-judge-in-contempt-storm-382924.html

I would say that set quite a precedent to Family Law Judges in Ireland to behave.By all means reform the system but using the current system as its building blocks is a crock.

metrovelvet

^ I read that article. What has that got to do with the rights of unmarried fathers?

Stheno

metrovelvet wrote: »

How would maintenance plus sole guardianship be easy to abuse? I dont get you.

I've come across colleagues and friends who due to the mother having custody are then at the mercy of the court system for access rights, which are not enforced, despite them paying maintenance religiously. (I've cited mothers doing this, as I've not come across any cases of fathers being the custodial parent) Essentially imo what we have now is what you suggest as guardianship for a non custodial parent means jack **** when it comes to rights/enforcement.

The option to say "no I don't want to be a parent" and opt out completely works only for absentee parents, how would that work for parents who do want to foster a relationship with their children? Once the mother proves paternity and the father agrees, how is access/maintenance enforced?

I'd wonder if one could have "real" joint guardianship where if a parent were to deny access and was jailed/had custody revoked and the children automatically were given over to the fathers custody, would that work better? I.e. if the ability of an adult to use a childs access to their other parent as part of an ongoing adult dispute and thus damage that childs relationship with their other parent was negated by the potential threat of that child ending up in custody with the very person whom the custodial adult was in dispute with, would that potentially serve as a non prison alternative to better cooperation with access agreements?

Now I know that raises the whole can of worms where a non custodial parent may not have appropriate accomodation etc etc, but it does potentially stop the use of children as pawns.

Also sheer lack of information inhibits men in this circumstance imo, and in a sense the tendancy of men not to talk about what is bothering them, can cause them not to talk and therefore not benefit from their friends/colleagues experiences.

I'd one colleague who was not married but had split with a long term partner who owned the house they lived in, and demanded an exorbitant amount of maintenance for herself and the child, and refused to allow him access for weeks unless he paid up. He got some decent advice and one solicitors letter later, he was in a much better position and they managed to agree terms of maintenance and access that both were happy with.

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ I read that article. What has that got to do with the rights of unmarried fathers?

The case that caused the dispute was directly related to several points brought up here, I'm not posting them as I'm unsure if it's permissible.

On the legal side, imo the family law system here is somewhat biased towards women, even before one gets to a court situation.
A very good friend of mine seperated a few years ago but couldn't move out of her home which she and her husband shared. After several months it became untenable for them to share and she decided to move out and rent a room in a shared house. Upon telephoning her solicitor for advice to make sure that she retained equal rights to the home once she paid her share of the mortgage, the solicitors first response was "Why are you moving out?"

Friend: "It's very uncomfortable living here"
Solicitor: "Well if he's making you feel uncomfortable, you can make a complaint, and he should be moving out"

If that's the attitude even before reaching court, then how much worse is it potentially for guys in court?? This couple simply were not getting on, there was no violence, nothing, they just could not share a home, and the solicitors attitude automatically assumed the guy was at fault.

On the subject of Family Law courts being in camera, the UK are currently assessing reversing this, and I suspect should that happen we would eventually see the same here.

CDfm

Part of the report concerns the rights of unmarried fathers. However, the implementation is likely to involve a focus on responsibilities rather than rights.

The idea that you can harmonise the legal rights surrounding unmarried fathers to those of married fathers simply puts those men on an equally unequal footing.

The relevence is that a lawyer is bound by the law and has a duty as an officer of the court to obey the law. Thats the point.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0218/solicitor.html

So if you make unmarried fathers subject to a system where misbehaving solictors get to write their own rules you get a free for all - which you have now.

If you are going to change the law get the basics right and make sure the work.That should be part of the policy and a fundamental part of it I would say.

I mean - what purpose does it serve to extend access rights to unmarried fathers,extended family and grandparents if you are not going to enforce those rights.

metrovelvet

nouggatti wrote: »

I've come across colleagues and friends who due to the mother having custody are then at the mercy of the court system for access rights, which are not enforced, despite them paying maintenance religiously. (I've cited mothers doing this, as I've not come across any cases of fathers being the custodial parent)

Well yes I can see obviously how maintenance can become a point of abuse from either side where there is joint guardianship and shared custody, but I cant see it where there is sole guardianship and one custodian.

nouggatti wrote: »

I'd wonder if one could have "real" joint guardianship where if a parent were to deny access and was jailed/had custody revoked and the children automatically were given over to the fathers custody, would that work better? I.e. if the ability of an adult to use a childs access to their other parent as part of an ongoing adult dispute and thus damage that childs relationship with their other parent was negated by the potential threat of that child ending up in custody with the very person whom the custodial adult was in dispute with, would that potentially serve as a non prison alternative to better cooperation with access agreements?

Possibly. I think that could work where both parents dont live far from each other and there is no issue of having to change schools, friends, etc. And if all the children are from the same father. Where you have families where kids are half siblings, it gets trickier because no court,family therapist will want to split up siblings, and wisely so. It would be very hard to make a one size fits all policy on this as families vary so much.

nouggatti wrote: »

On the legal side, imo the family law system here is somewhat biased towards women, even before one gets to a court situation.
A very good friend of mine seperated a few years ago but couldn't move out of her home which she and her husband shared. After several months it became untenable for them to share and she decided to move out and rent a room in a shared house. Upon telephoning her solicitor for advice to make sure that she retained equal rights to the home once she paid her share of the mortgage, the solicitors first response was "Why are you moving out?"

Friend: "It's very uncomfortable living here"
Solicitor: "Well if he's making you feel uncomfortable, you can make a complaint, and he should be moving out"

If that's the attitude even before reaching court, then how much worse is it potentially for guys in court?? This couple simply were not getting on, there was no violence, nothing, they just could not share a home, and the solicitors attitude automatically assumed the guy was at fault.

Well, hmnnn I don't know about that. Could be, but any solicitor will tell you that the person who leaves the house, leaves the relationship and will be more vulnerable to losing a stake in the property. They will tell you to stay there, man or woman.

Your lawyer is always going to tell you the other person is at fault. That's how they get you to sign your chequebook over to them.

BTW no one has mentioned that this new paper is also talking about step parents rights and the possibility of having more than two guardians. Hey, it takes a village?

Stheno

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well yes I can see obviously how maintenance can become a point of abuse from either side where there is joint guardianship and shared custody, but I cant see it where there is sole guardianship and one custodian.

Well tbh then given that most of the guys I know who have had issues with the Family Courts and access here are not interested in being non active parents their problems would remain.

Possibly. I think that could work where both parents dont live far from each other and there is no issue of having to change schools, friends, etc. And if all the children are from the same father. Where you have families where kids are half siblings, it gets trickier because no court,family therapist will want to split up siblings, and wisely so. It would be very hard to make a one size fits all policy on this as families vary so much.

Fair point, I was primarily thinking of situations where the children had the same biological parents.

Well, hmnnn I don't know about that. Could be, but any solicitor will tell you that the person who leaves the house, leaves the relationship and will be more vulnerable to losing a stake in the property. They will tell you to stay there, man or woman.

Incorrect, in the instance of my friend, her rights to ownership in the property were in no way related to her residence there, where there is a difference is where there are children involved, the parent who moves out in the instance of a relationship breakdown with children involved is more at risk of losing their share of the family home given the children involved, in the instance of two people with no children it comes down to joint ownership and paying one's share of the mortgage, I've seen it as a legal agreement Family law here does tend to be pretty fair where there are no children, but once children are involved it's a whole other kettle of fish imo.

Your lawyer is always going to tell you the other person is at fault. That's how they get you to sign your chequebook over to them.

Again I'd disagree to an extent, over the past four years I've known eight different couples seperate, and without exception when different parties consulted a lawyer, all had an initial consultation to discuss the issues, and all were advised to try mediation to agree the terms of seperation (mediation is far cheaper than going through lawyers) In seven of the eight cases, mediation was successful, and the lawyers were only involved in drawing up the legal agreements.

metrovelvet

nouggatti wrote: »

Well tbh then given that most of the guys I know who have had issues with the Family Courts and access here are not interested in being non active parents their problems would remain.

Right. Well you are going to get guys who are active and guys who are inactive. The problem lies in the universal rights applying to both.

nouggatti wrote: »

Incorrect, in the instance of my friend, her rights to ownership in the property were in no way related to her residence there, where there is a difference is where there are children involved, the parent who moves out in the instance of a relationship breakdown with children involved is more at risk of losing their share of the family home given the children involved, in the instance of two people with no children it comes down to joint ownership and paying one's share of the mortgage, I've seen it as a legal agreement Family law here does tend to be pretty fair where there are no children, but once children are involved it's a whole other kettle of fish imo.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

nouggatti wrote: »

Again I'd disagree to an extent, over the past four years I've known eight different couples seperate, and without exception when different parties consulted a lawyer, all had an initial consultation to discuss the issues, and all were advised to try mediation to agree the terms of seperation (mediation is far cheaper than going through lawyers) In seven of the eight cases, mediation was successful, and the lawyers were only involved in drawing up the legal agreements.

Yes I know that to be true for the most part. But remember that mediation is limited in its availability. I believe it's Dublin, Cork, Galway and a handful of other places.

I also know of many many lawyers who did not and do not say anything about mediation and these things turn into 15 years of solicitors letters going back and forth. You know when you add it up... you may as well have paid the maintenance.... would come out cheaper than the lawyers bills.

Stheno

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right. Well you are going to get guys who are active and guys who are inactive. The problem lies in the universal rights applying to both.

The current problem imo lies in the inequality between the legal pressures applied in the non payment of maintenance whilst the same does not apply in the case of non cooperation with maintenance. I know of one guy who faced a week in jail for €40 non payment (he was broke) who was only bailed out by a mate.

I've read your proposal as seperating those universal rights, if a parent does not wish to be a parent then their parental/guardianship rights are removed and they cease de facto to be a parent. They lose all rights as a parent. It's the parents who wish to be joint parents and participate as parents that are imo in a bind either way, where the children are potentially there as "point winners" in an ongoing parental dispute.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

I read your point wrong then as saying that regardless of the circumstances of the relationship one would always be advised to stay put in the family home.

Yes I know that to be true for the most part. But remember that mediation is limited in its availability. I believe it's Dublin, Cork, Galway and a handful of other places.

Actually there are sixteen full/part time offices around the country, which given the size of Ireland is pretty good imo. The longest waiting time from when I last checked was 10 weeks for an initial appointment, shortest being four.

Family mediation locations

I also know of many many lawyers who did not and do not say anything about mediation and these things turn into 15 years of solicitors letters going back and forth. You know when you add it up... you may as well have paid the maintenance.... would come out cheaper than the lawyers bills.

Agreed, as I mentioned in a previous post, it's a lack of knowledge by men (in relation to my last post) and women too as to what their options are. Far too often imo people fail to inform themselves by means other than a legal opinion which potentially causes them to go down the route suggested by their lawyer. I'd tend to be a fan of informing oneself as much as possible, verifying that information with a professional (preferably in writing) and moving forward on that basis, rather than simply blindly following the professional (and potentially personally biased) opinion of someone without seeking validation of that opinion.

CDfm

Presumptive arrest for breaches of access orders anyone?

metrovelvet

nouggatti wrote: »

The current problem imo lies in the inequality between the legal pressures applied in the non payment of maintenance whilst the same does not apply in the case of non cooperation with maintenance. I know of one guy who faced a week in jail for €40 non payment (he was broke) who was only bailed out by a mate.

For one missed payment? Wow. That's nearly as bad as that old lady who got put in prison for no dog license.

nouggatti wrote: »

I've read your proposal as seperating those universal rights, if a parent does not wish to be a parent then their parental/guardianship rights are removed and they cease de facto to be a parent. They lose all rights as a parent. It's the parents who wish to be joint parents and participate as parents that are imo in a bind either way, where the children are potentially there as "point winners" in an ongoing parental dispute.

Or if a parent is not active and has made no declaration the custodian should be able to petition for a vacancy of rights. Whether or not this should be permanent or not is a whole other debate.

As to the joint parents. Yes that is true, they are in a bind eitherway, with or without rights. No amount of rights will change that because it's a relational issue.

Stheno

metrovelvet wrote: »

For one missed payment? Wow. That's nearly as bad as that old lady who got put in prison for no dog license.

Yep, now that was a very very very bitter dispute in fairness but it happened, six years ago, the guy was literally outside court trying to get €40 together.

Or if a parent is not active and has made no declaration the custodian should be able to petition for a vacancy of rights. Whether or not this should be permanent or not is a whole other debate.

That's pretty fair, I do however wonder about the financial burden then placed upon the sole parent

As to the joint parents. Yes that is true, they are in a bind eitherway, with or without rights. No amount of rights will change that because it's a relational issue.

And herein lies the issue. It's those who wish to be joint parents who imo get screwed by the system, hence my suggestion of equal custody with rights passing between parents in the event of an abuse of custody but adherence to maintenance, take what percieved power the custodial parent has in terms of the children away, and establish some sort of level playing field for non custodial parents. Imo the current system is damaging to non custodial parents not only in terms of their relationship with their children but also in terms of their professional lives, and their mental stability.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

For one missed payment? Wow. That's nearly as bad as that old lady who got put in prison for no dog license.

Thats really unfair. It is worse because the little old lady was a one off and got reported in the papers.

A man getting jailed for non payment off maintenence is a reasonably common occurance and its a statement of fact. This is a jail sentence imposed in private by a judge behind closed doors and the decision is not open to review in public and is not reported in the papers.

As to the joint parents. Yes that is true, they are in a bind eitherway, with or without rights. No amount of rights will change that because it's a relational issue.

The argument is circular. If a mother decides not to obey the order she is simply told she is naughty. What you have is rights without enforcement procedures.So non compliance with court orders will exist in sitations until there is enforcement.

The rule of law is basic in society and is being applied with a gender bias. The enforcement the law on dog licences is taken more seriously and with stiffer penalties than child access. Does that seem wrong to you?

metrovelvet

^ If a man misses a maintenance payment and gets a conviction does he then have a criminal record?

Quite frankly I would lump this in the pile of injustices that go with imprisonment for not paying your tv licence. Although a kid wont go without food if the tv license isnt paid.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ If a man misses a maintenance payment and gets a conviction does he then have a criminal record?

as i understand it , it is contempt of court so the civil action acquires criminal penalties. as not obeying the court is a crime.

Quite frankly I would lump this in the pile of injustices that go with imprisonment for not paying your tv licence. Although a kid wont go without food if the tv license isnt paid.

In Ireland the benefit system is such that the child will not go without food.

BTW dont you think ots a tad offensive to compare being a father with having a dog licence.

Now Im not having a pop but if this is how people view it says that the role of a father is not valued at all.

metrovelvet

No I was not equating being a father with having a dog license.

It was more of a comment on the screwed up priorities of the irish justice system.

Yes family law is screwed up but then again isnt the entire justice system full of inequalities and flaws?

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

No I was not equating being a father with having a dog license.

It was more of a comment on the screwed up priorities of the irish justice system.

But then metro its already been pointed out to you that all fathers are treated as if they are bad by the legal system. You are against equal treatment when it comes to enforcement of court orders or at least thats the impressiion you give.

My position is for joint custody across the board and that sole custody should be the exception and not the rule. Adopt an enforcement policy thats equal and jail women who breach orders if thats what it takes for compliance.

Being a woman does not automatically make someone the better parent so remove the policy of automatic custody for women. We are in the 21st century and women are equal so treat women equally.

metrovelvet

Alot of men dont want joint custody. Your plan is so unworkable.

Are you going to punish the parents who dont fulfill their 50 % obligation by throwing them in prison?

sharky86

CDfm wrote: »

But then metro its already been pointed out to you that all fathers are treated as if they are bad by the legal system. You are against equal treatment when it comes to enforcement of court orders or at least thats the impressiion you give.

My position is for joint custody across the board and that sole custody should be the exception and not the rule. Adopt an enforcement policy thats equal and jail women who breach orders if thats what it takes for compliance.

Being a woman does not automatically make someone the better parent so remove the policy of automatic custody for women. We are in the 21st century and women are equal so treat women equally.

+1

sharky86

metrovelvet wrote: »

Alot of men dont want joint custody. Your plan is so unworkable.

Are you going to punish the parents who dont fulfill their 50 % obligation by throwing them in prison?

A lot of women dont want men to have joint custody