Single father wins order overturning adoption

metrovelvet

eviltwin wrote: »

Yeah I can understand it must be hard not knowing your dad and I think contact is important but thats not the same as rights.

Rights in my opinion have to be earned. Yes its important all parents have suitable access to their children but I think its a bit rich that I could walk out on my child and then walk back in at some stage down the road and start expecting that I can have some say in her upbringing.

Its a terrible insult to the parent who has stuck to their responsibilities

I dont know about rights having to be earned. But some rights are not "inalienable", they are not absolute. In other words, once you have repeatedly violated the rights of the child, by not being there for him or her then you can say goodbye to your "rights."

ash23

I think that access and legal rights over the child need to be separate issues, much the same as maintenance and access are separate issues.
I think a lot more parents who have absconded would have access to their children if it was accepted that they would have no legal rights over things like education etc.

If it is widely accepted that a parent can not pay maintenance but still have access. Imo, it should be as acceptable that a parent can have limited access as judged by the courts, even if the other parent holds all legal rights. Even if the child has been adopted by a step parent.

Nevyn

Unfortunatly it tends to be up to the custodial parent to chase mataince, that may be changing with the letters which have started to go out but the whole system needs an over haul.

eviltwin

I presume these guys dont pay maintanance

If they can't be arsed contributing to their child in any way either financial or personally why the hell should they have any say

ash23

eviltwin wrote: »

I presume these guys dont pay maintanance

If they can't be arsed contributing to their child in any way either financial or personally why the hell should they have any say

It depends. I would rather a man be actively involved than pay maintanance and have no interest in the child.

If a man is very hands on and involved then he should have rights.

Again, I believe that access, maintenance and legal rights should all be separate issues and taken on their own merit.

For eg, if my daughters dad came back then I think that he should not be allowed to have legal rights over my child due to to his absence.
I think I should be able to take legal action about maintenance and then he should also be able to take legal action about access if we couldn't come to an agreement through mediation.

metrovelvet

eviltwin wrote: »

I presume these guys dont pay maintanance

If they can't be arsed contributing to their child in any way either financial or personally why the hell should they have any say

What about guys who have paid maintenance for many years but have never met their child?

eviltwin

metrovelvet wrote: »

What about guys who have paid maintenance for many years but have never met their child?

Dont agree with it unless there is a very good reason why he shouldnt be allowed near the child ie he's violent or has a drug problem or whatever.

I dont know why this is becoming a mother's vs father's issue...it should be about the child. No parent would want their child to have anything other than a great relationship with BOTH parents.

Usually that is the case and even in situations where a parent absconds something can be sorted out. My point is though that you'd want to be pretty thick to think you can do a runner and then start making demands about the raising of a child you dont even know.

metrovelvet

^ But you can anyway. Anyone can get their guardianship and then do a runner.

And men who got married and did a runner still have their rights.

Hotblack Desiato

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm hearing a lot about the rights of the parents here but what about the rights of the child?

Many children in Ireland are denied their right to have their father involved in their lives. Sometimes through his choice, but sometimes not. In practice if a mother does not want the father involved in his child's life, there is little enough he can do about it, and she does not need any reason whatsoever.

Ash is 100% right in what she says. You can't possibly allow a parent to walk in and out of a childs life when its suits them, what kind of messed up kid would you have then?

He has a right to a hearing - which is what was denied in this case. Without a hearing you cannot just assume that the absent parent is absent by their choice.

Funnily enough the men in here are ignoring a point I've made twice now. If your unmarried and have any concerns about your rights why not be made legal guardian?

Even married fathers don't have much in the way of enforceable legal rights when it comes down to it, especially if they're not wealthy enough to afford court fees on top of maintenance. Our whole system of family law is adversarial, out-dated and too often does not act in the interests of children.

Splendour

eviltwin wrote: »

No parent would want their child to have anything other than a great relationship with BOTH parents.

Sadly this is not always the case...

Splendour

ninja900 wrote: »

Even married fathers don't have much in the way of enforceable legal rights when it comes down to it, especially if they're not wealthy enough to afford court fees on top of maintenance. Our whole system of family law is adversarial, out-dated and too often does not act in the interests of children.

Married fathers have the same legal rights as mothers have. Although courts don't always act in the best interest of children... I think our judges are way out of touch with reality to be able to make any decisions on family law.

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

I think I should be able to take legal action about maintenance and then he should also be able to take legal action about access if we couldn't come to an agreement through mediation.

I do think this is at the core of the present debate. Like it or not, if you ascribe responsibilities in Society to someone, you will get the double edged sword of rights - however tenuous or limited they may be.

Remember, the reality is that it is not simply "all about the child" - there are at least two other parties involved, and you cannot use this as a convenient moral justification to nullify the rights of one of them, while maintaining their responsibilities - especially if the custodial parent conveniently has a monopoly on the "child's best interests".

Splendour wrote: »

Married fathers have the same legal rights as mothers have.

Sorry, they don't - both de jure and de facto.

De jure, that is in law, married fathers may get automatic guardianship upon birth, like mothers, but unlike them they can lose it through court action. Mothers can only lose guardianship if the child is adopted - she could abscond when the child is young, never to be seen again, but she can never lose her guardianship rights. Reverse the genders and he can.

De facto, in practice, custody rights are not awarded equally between married parents. Full custody to fathers is a rarity, while it is commonplace with mothers, even when a father may seek it in court.

SerafinaP

I realise this is a change of direction but what are your opinions on the proposal by the LRC to widen the category of persons who are permitted to apply for custody, access and guardianship to bona fide 3rd parties with an interest, i.e. grandparents, stepparents, uncles, aunts.. etc?

hacked

ash23 wrote: »

No. But I can't do anything about it. He disappeared, doesn't want to be found. I find it galling that I could have met a man, married him, raised my daughter with him and then have to go looking for permission from a man who has never wanted to know.

I truly believe all fathers should have automatic rights from birth but if they abscond for any lengthy period of time (say, more than 24 months) without contact, then they lose those rights. Including the right to be informed about the adoption of their biological child.
Easier said than done, I know.

Victor, I actually find your statment kind of offensive. Why are you asking ash if it's fair? As if it were her descision.

The Father chose to leave, doesn't want to be found....honestly, I think she did the responsible thing by leaving him off the birth cert.

What the majority of people making statments like this don't seem to realise IS that a fathers name can be added to the cert at any time....it can not be taken off. (Providing it is the biological father). I know a few people in giant messes because they decided to put the father's name on the cert.

And seriously...what the hell child takes regular peeks at their birth cert?? Just because there is no name DOES NOT MEAN that the mother is not going to tell the child about his or her father.

Ultimately, it's not fair...but who's fault is it? The name on the birth cert is only a minor detail.

banie01

SerafinaP wrote: »

I realise this is a change of direction but what are your opinions on the proposal by the LRC to widen the category of persons who are permitted to apply for custody, access and guardianship to bona fide 3rd parties with an interest, i.e. grandparents, stepparents, uncles, aunts.. etc?

We live in a country where at the moment unmarried fathers have no statutory parental rights apart from being financially responsible to their progeny with regards to maintanence and inheritance rights. I feel Paternal and Parental rights HAVE to be normalised before the Law Reform Comission start to reform any the custody rights of anciallary/secondary caregivers.


In my own situation, After my partner passed away I had to obtain a grant of guardianship for our Son as thanks to way the archaic legal system in this country works..... My Mother in Law(In spirit Not law) was our son's next of kin!
Despite me and my partner being together 12 years....
Despite our son's only home being our home....
And despite being named on his birth cert...
Luckily I never encountered a situation in the interim where this may have presented a problem and in any event at the time neither my MIL or I were even aware of it.

Even more worrying for me in this situation was that despite dealing with various Govt Departments with regard to transferring his CB into my name, Getting his 1st passport issued and various other ancilliary things it was not until I was sorting out my will that my solicitor queried guardianship!!
(And before its pointed out that by making wills my partner could have avoided all these issues, My partner died at 26 and at that age don't we all think we are invincible!)

I know that the commission for Law Reform are currently addressing this area, Yet to my ear currently all the rhetoric seems to be surrounding Civil Partnerships and the rights of children in that situation....
But surely it would make more sense to normalise the relationships, responsibilities and rights of biological parents and bring these into line with international norms as parental rights! Not maternal or paternal rights!

eviltwin

I'm all for parental rights but it shouldnt be retrospective...its unfair to a mum ( or a dad ) who has done the lions share of the work to have someone come in on the basis of biology and start throwing their weight around.

The Corinthian

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm all for parental rights but it shouldnt be retrospective...its unfair to a mum ( or a dad ) who has done the lions share of the work to have someone come in on the basis of biology and start throwing their weight around.

That's all very well, but if you want to negate or diminish the importance of biology in terms of rights, then you will have to also to negate or diminish the importance of biology in terms of responsibility.

Otherwise you're just trying to have your cake and eat it.

banie01

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's all very well, but if you want to negate or diminish the importance of biology in terms of rights, then you will have to also to negate or diminish the importance of biology in terms of responsibility.

Otherwise you're just trying to have your cake and eat it.

I agree 100%.... Good post!

metrovelvet

If they have walked they have already negated their biology in terms of responsibility.

And before anyone jumps in about maintenance, that is a very very small piece of the responsibility pie.

Eoineo

metrovelvet wrote: »

If they have walked they have already negated their biology in terms of responsibility.

And before anyone jumps in about maintenance, that is a very very small piece of the responsibility pie.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying?

Is your point that if someone walks then their opportunity to be responsible is also diminished? It doesn't leave the door open for them to stand up their responsibilities at a later date then. Actually it means that it's a disincentive for any parent to come back to a parenting role after a break. Not great for the child or the absent parent who has a change of heart.

metrovelvet

^ They have abdicated responsibility. They have negated the importance of biology themselves.

To then come back in and then reinstate the importance of biology when it suits them, or is covenient for them, or when the feel like it, would for me,be worthy of skepticism.

Payton

metrovelvet wrote: »

What about guys who have paid maintenance for many years but have never met their child?

Some "fathers" are not afforded the right to see their children because of the crazy laws in this country, and all they are are just a money pit.
Every Father should be present in their childrens lives and futures, but nobody knows what is said in court. I know of 2 guys 100% genuine who want to play a part in their kids lives but the mothers of the children have court orders just for maintance, is that right? I know there is two side to every story.

metrovelvet

^ No it is not right.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

And before anyone jumps in about maintenance, that is a very very small piece of the responsibility pie.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Even if it is a very very small piece of the responsibility pie (which considering the cumulative cost during the 18 - 23 years of a child's dependence, not to mention inheritance issues and potential legal costs/harassment, is debatable), it is still an infinitely bigger than the piece of the rights pie afforded to men (i.e. zero).

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Even if it is a very very small piece of the responsibility pie (which considering the cumulative cost during the 18 - 23 years of a child's dependence, not to mention inheritance issues and potential legal costs/harassment, is debatable), it is still an infinitely bigger than the piece of the rights pie afforded to men (i.e. zero).

Nope. They can swan in and out of a childs life. A mother cant do that. The children would be taken into foster care.

But you're right, that it not a right, that is a blatant privaledge afforded to fathers.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Nope. They can swan in and out of a childs life. A mother cant do that. The children would be taken into foster care.

But you're right, that it not a right, that is a blatant privaledge afforded to fathers.

Your response completely ignored what I posted.

Nevyn

Can we keep on topic please.

ash23

hacked wrote: »

Victor, I actually find your statment kind of offensive. Why are you asking ash if it's fair? As if it were her descision.

The Father chose to leave, doesn't want to be found....honestly, I think she did the responsible thing by leaving him off the birth cert.
What the majority of people making statments like this don't seem to realise IS that a fathers name can be added to the cert at any time....it can not be taken off. (Providing it is the biological father). I know a few people in giant messes because they decided to put the father's name on the cert.

And seriously...what the hell child takes regular peeks at their birth cert?? Just because there is no name DOES NOT MEAN that the mother is not going to tell the child about his or her father.

Ultimately, it's not fair...but who's fault is it? The name on the birth cert is only a minor detail.

I wouldn't have left his name off the birth cert on purpose. We weren't married. He had disappeared. I couldn't put his name on the birth cert without him being present. Had he wanted to I would have. I hate that there is a blank space where his name should be.
If he reappeared and we sorted out maintenance and access then I would be willing to put his name on the birth cert for her sake not his.

As it stands, unless he wants, his name will never be associated with our daughter. His choice, not mine.

metrovelvet

ash23 wrote: »

I wouldn't have left his name off the birth cert on purpose. We weren't married. He had disappeared. I couldn't put his name on the birth cert without him being present. Had he wanted to I would have. I hate that there is a blank space where his name should be.
If he reappeared and we sorted out maintenance and access then I would be willing to put his name on the birth cert for her sake not his.

As it stands, unless he wants, his name will never be associated with our daughter. His choice, not mine.

I think that the fathers refusing to name themselves on the cert is one of the most vicious, sadistic things a parent can do, to not even publically and legally acknowledge their children. Unforgiveable imo.

Nevyn

I think it's pretty low but then again I think that mother's who won't remove any doubt with a paternity test to be pretty low too.

Isn't there a way to have a birthcert amended if there has been a paternity test through the courts?