Does this seem fair to you?

Klingon Hamlet

An unmarried father of three children failed in his attempt to prevent the children’s mother moving to Britain with the children, when he appealed a decision of the Circuit Court to allow the move.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1026/1224257455611.html

The long and the short of it:

Judge said that if the mother is happy then this will have a knock-on effect on the children. The judge is afraid of changing the family's status quo. But surely approving the removal of the three children to another country is itself drastically changing the status quo? The judge also says it's very important that the dad has similar access as he currently has. But surely being in another country severely inhibits this?

I'm curious as to what people think.

Moonbeam

I dunno.
If he had provided for them and had regular maintenance I think it is awful and should not be allowed but if he didn't and she was raising them on her own then I think she is entitled to happiness and a new life in the uk.
No point him being the father of 3 kids and not looking after them and being able to control the mother by keeping her in the country.
I think fathers in this country should have equal rights to mothers but that does mean equal responsibility too.

metrovelvet

I dont know either. I think it doesnt seem that dramatic since it is only England. It doesnt seem like that much of another country.

The judge obviously has to consider the financial well being of the children also. If the financial burden falls on her then I can see how he made his decision.

seamus

I find it a bizarre judgement when the eldest child clearly and repeatedly stated that he didn't want to leave Ireland. Surely that will upset the happiness of the family unit?

I think it doesnt seem that dramatic since it is only England. It doesnt seem like that much of another country.

But it's dramatic for the father. Whereas previously he could no doubt drive in a matter of minutes and collect his children for whatever visitation he had, now each trip will cost him a few hundred euro and massive amounts of his time, in addition to whatever money he's providing.

It seems like she should be footing some of his travel costs (assuming that he already provides adequately for his children and has fairly regular access).

mickoneill30

"He had left in 2003, when she was pregnant with the third child, and was not prepared to support and maintain the boys properly, yet he wished to prevent them from being properly provided for by her and her partner."

If he's not supporting his kids then it's probably fair that he doesn't have much say in their upbringing.

The mother wants to marry a British resident. Maybe it's not possible for him to move over here, jobs aren't overly plentiful at the moment. Maybe their standard of living can improve by moving to the UK. Who knows? We don't have all the facts. Hopefully the judge did.

Nevyn

Full article

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1026/1224257455611.html

Unmarried father fails to prevent mother and children moving to Britain


B -v- O’R High Court Judgment was given by Mr Justice Roderick Murphy on May 15th, 2009
Judgment

An unmarried father of three children failed in his attempt to prevent the children’s mother moving to Britain with the children, when he appealed a decision of the Circuit Court to allow the move.

Background

The parties were never married to each other. Both are now in other relationships, the mother with a British resident whom she wished to marry. There had been a number of court appearances relating to guardianship and custody issues. A section 47 report was ordered and Dr Brian Houlihan was appointed in May 2008 to prepare it.

In October 2008, the case was heard in the Circuit Court by Judge Michael White over four days and a written judgment delivered. The father was appointed joint guardian of the children, with joint custody and primary care and control with the mother, with whom the children had been living. The judge also ordered that the children take up residence with their mother in Yorkshire and made other orders relating to education and maintenance of the children.

The father appealed the part of the order that related to the relocation of the children and the case was heard in February 2009. By agreement with the parties, the judge also met the eldest child.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Murphy considered the case law on the relocation of children.

“The court cannot proceed to determine the issue in a way which separates the issue of relocation from that of residence and the best interests of the child.” The interests of the child were paramount, he said.

He added that, when granting leave to relocate, the court must devise a regime which adequately fulfils the child’s right to regular contact with the parent no longer living nearby.

He then considered the evidence of Dr Houlihan, who had concluded his report in July 2008, before the Circuit Court hearing.

The father told him he believed that the eldest child did not want to move to England, but wanted to maintain his school, football and social activities in this jurisdiction. He said that if the child chose to live in England, he would cease legal proceedings.

The mother said she wanted to move to England with the children to be with her new partner, whom she intended to marry. She also intended to set up a business there, in addition to an existing business in Dublin. She knew her eldest child wished to remain because of his friends.

Dr Houlihan met the children and also visited the homes of both parents and the father’s new partner and spoke with the children’s paternal grandfather, who was an important figure in their lives. He reported that the eldest child related with excellent eye contact, honesty, sensitivity and freedom but was ill at ease around the move.

At home with the mother, all three children appeared relaxed, secure and happy and had a good relationship with each other.

In court he described the children as “delightful”, they loved both their parents and their parents loved them. The eldest child was the spokesman for all three. He repeatedly said he wanted to remain in Ireland.

Referring to the mothers partner, Dr Houlihan said the longest time he had spent with the children was one week.

He thought he should have established more of a relationship with the children’s father in order to better understand the elder boy’s position. Such a life change event as the proposed move should have been better thought out. He said that the planned marriage to this man would be another stressful “life event” for the children.

If children were to move, then access should be as frequent and as close to the present arrangement as possible.

Where a mother was emotionally secure and was supported, it had a knock-on effect on the children, he said. He noted that she had intended keeping a house here in case things did not work out. It was critical that more preparation and consideration be given to the move.

He also said that if the primary custodian was so unhappy as to compromise her emotional welfare that would, in turn, compromise the welfare of the children.

The father argued that the emotional well-being of the mother should not be given a priori benefit at the expense of a continuing relationship between the children and both parents.

The mother said that apart from brief periods of limited support by the father, she had solely reared the three boys and had willingly borne the financial responsibility for their upbringing.

He had left in 2003, when she was pregnant with the third child, and was not prepared to support and maintain the boys properly, yet he wished to prevent them from being properly provided for by her and her partner.

Decision

Mr Justice Murphy said: “The court is of a view that the welfare of the children and of their mother, who have constituted a unit since 2003, is of paramount importance.”

The custody was working well and the court should not lightly interfere with a reasonable way of life as selected by the mother.

He said he believed that the welfare of the children was best served by all three remaining with the mother and he affirmed the Circuit Court order permitting the move.

However, he added that the mother and her partner should have regard to the concerns of Dr Houlihan about preparing the children for the move.

The rights of the father were best regulated by reasonable access and he also affirmed the orders of the Circuit Court relating to contact with their father.

The full judgment is on www.courts.ie

The Corinthian

seamus wrote: »

It seems like she should be footing some of his travel costs (assuming that he already provides adequately for his children and has fairly regular access).

The costs involved - to the airport, flight, from the airport, accommodation, subsistence and the return journey - would quickly make regular access impossible in terms of both finance and time, de facto acting as a barrier to access.

Given this I can also understand the mother's position - she is, after all, entitled to her own life too, but if so I do think (as you suggested Seamus) there is a price to pay.

mickoneill30 wrote: »

"He had left in 2003, when she was pregnant with the third child, and was not prepared to support and maintain the boys properly, yet he wished to prevent them from being properly provided for by her and her partner."

If he's not supporting his kids then it's probably fair that he doesn't have much say in their upbringing.

My reading of the article is that this was the mother's account of his support and involvement, not the court's, so I would take it with a pinch of salt.

Klingon Hamlet

I think this raises very serious questions about children's well-being in break-ups and subsequent move-aways. The judge didn't want to affect the children by making their mom unhappy by preventing her moving. But the doctor said the eldest was very unhappy about:

the move

and

the new wedding.

The main problem is that the mom deserves to be happy---but the court is not about whether she should move in with her new husband---it's whether the children should be moved away from their father. And that, there, is a whole new can of worms.

metrovelvet

I think this would be fair if certain conditions were placed. Given that the children already have a bond with the father. No one wants that broken.

If the stipulations were very regular and consistent visits, either direction,so that the bond was not compromised.

A dublin-london move is not that much different than a dublin galway move, in fact it might be cheaper and easier.

Klingon Hamlet

"If children were to move, then access should be as frequent and as close to the present arrangement as possible."

The judge hasn't really set any stipulations; just an if and a should. Original access arrangements weren't mentioned in the article. I hope things work out ok for everyone.

I wonder how this was published? In Camera Rule is an archaic restriction on any public discussion on family law. Publishing this surely breached that?

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

"If children were to move, then access should be as frequent and as close to the present arrangement as possible."

The judge hasn't really set any stipulations; just an if and a should. Original access arrangements weren't mentioned in the article. I hope things work out ok for everyone.

I wonder how this was published? In Camera Rule is an archaic restriction on any public discussion on family law. Publishing this surely breached that?

I was wondering the same.

Eoineo

Because it was a High Court judgement on a point of law I'd assume. It didn't break the in camera rule because the names of the individuals weren't published and nor was their location.

HTH

eviltwin

Yet again cases like this make me wonder why on earth unmarried fathers leave themselves wide open to have their status abused by not becoming the legal guardians of their offspring.

If you want to be a dad then its a no brainer. Why don't they do it??

I know its not a iron clad guarantee that they will have their say but it helps. Its certainly better than going crying to a court when things dont go their way a few years down the line

nesf

eviltwin wrote: »

Yet again cases like this make me wonder why on earth unmarried fathers leave themselves wide open to have their status abused by not becoming the legal guardians of their offspring.

If you want to be a dad then its a no brainer. Why don't they do it??

I know its not a iron clad guarantee that they will have their say but it helps. Its certainly better than going crying to a court when things dont go their way a few years down the line

The father in this case was the joint guardian.