(UPDATED: 2ND HALF ADDED)Article in the Sunday World: Single Dad

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

It's simple biology, really.
A woman gives birth. The child comes from her uterus. There is no question of paternity. Not the case with the father.

Maternity.

Therefore the woman gets automatic rights unless she and the father agree on joint custody, paternity is established etc.
It's unlikely to change.

Actually it is likely to change and slowly but surley is changing. Automatic guardianship for unmarried fathers being one of the things that is already being recommended.

If it did we'd hear the cries from the men about being duped into being fathers, having duties and responsibilities enforced on them etc etc. You can't please everyone.

That doesn't make sense. Fathers already have duties and responsibilities enforced on them. Giving them rights will not change this.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

A man can't be duped, he knows how to put on protection, wit the utmost respect I don't think your answer justifies the current predicament.

Of course he can. He can be told by the woman that she is on the pill or even incapable of having children. He can be assured by the woman that she has no interest in becoming a mother and would take steps to prevent it if she did get pregnant. Best of all, he can be duped in that any ejaculation, if kept, can be used by someone who is actively seeking to get pregnant (even a blowjob is not safe, as Boris Becker seems to have found out). And of course, a man can be duped by being told he is the father of another man's child.

metrovelvet

Fathers have no responsibilities forced on them. They dont have to pay maintenance even with a court order. And plenty dont.

ash23

But again, how do we enforce this "giving unmarried fathers automatic rights". Is it when they put their names on the birth cert? And what if they don't (as in my case) and disappear(as in my case) and never see the child or pay maintenance (as in my case)? My daughter is almost 7 and I have raised her. Should he be able to stroll in now and demand his "rights"? (if unmarried fathers had automatic rights).

metrovelvet

ash23 wrote: »

But again, how do we enforce this "giving unmarried fathers automatic rights". Is it when they put their names on the birth cert? And what if they don't (as in my case) and disappear(as in my case) and never see the child or pay maintenance (as in my case)? My daughter is almost 7 and I have raised her. Should he be able to stroll in now and demand his "rights"? (if unmarried fathers had automatic rights).

In the US as in most countries its once paternity is established and the name is on the birthcert, they have their rights and the responsibility of paying maintenance [note ONE responsibility, in the singular - they do not have responsibilieS enforced on them.]

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Fathers have no responsibilities forced on them. They dont have to pay maintenance even with a court order. And plenty dont.

I think both you and ash23 are confusing responsibilities with the enforcement of those responsibilities. Both parents have responsibilities forced upon them (that is; whether they want them or not), however where the problem arises is when law cannot enforce such responsibilities.

In this mothers also shirk their responsibilities, such as when they are ordered to give access to the father and fail to do so; and this responsibility is also seldom enforced.

metrovelvet wrote: »

In the US as in most countries its once paternity is established and the name is on the birthcert, they have their rights and the responsibility of paying maintenance [note ONE responsibility, in the singular - they do not have responsibilieS enforced on them.]

Maintenance, or child support, is not the only financial responsibility that fathers have to bare. In Ireland they are also liable for a share of maternity and, God forbid, funeral expenses and also have a responsibility to adequately provide for the child in their will.

If the US system limits financial obligations to child support, then you are correct and they only have the one responsibility, otherwise it's not as simple as that.

Overall, whether you are the mother, father or child, family law with regards to this is a bit of a mess in Ireland and I suspect will not improve (although it will change) for a long time.

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

My daughter is almost 7 and I have raised her. Should he be able to stroll in now and demand his "rights"? (if unmarried fathers had automatic rights).

There's a reason that paternal rights and obligations are separated. On one side if a father fails to live up to his parental obligation of maintenance, then should he be denied his rights of access, etc?

If so, another father who is denied his rights of access, etc, by the mother could equally argue that he should not have to pay.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think both you and ash23 are confusing responsibilities with the enforcement of those responsibilities. Both parents have responsibilities forced upon them (that is; whether they want them or not), however where the problem arises is when law cannot enforce such responsibilities.

In this mothers also shirk their responsibilities, such as when they are ordered to give access to the father and fail to do so; and this responsibility is also seldom enforced.

Maintenance, or child support, is not the only financial responsibility that fathers have to bare. In Ireland they are also liable for a share of maternity and, God forbid, funeral expenses and also have a responsibility to adequately provide for the child in their will.

If the US system limits financial obligations to child support, then you are correct and they only have the one responsibility, otherwise it's not as simple as that.

Overall, whether you are the mother, father or child, family law with regards to this is a bit of a mess in Ireland and I suspect will not improve (although it will change) for a long time.

No they do not. The mother obviously has the responsibiities forced upon her the father does not in anyway, except if you consider peer pressure to be force.

Neither access or maintenance is enforced at this stage.

They are not obliged to cover a child in the will. Not at all. I think only in France that happens where you have to give at least half of your property to your children.

I have no idea about obligations to cover the child's funeral expenses.

As for the US, yes I am correct. But the US is much stronger about enforcement, both for access and child support.

metrovelvet

ash23 wrote: »

But again, how do we enforce this "giving unmarried fathers automatic rights". Is it when they put their names on the birth cert? And what if they don't (as in my case) and disappear(as in my case) and never see the child or pay maintenance (as in my case)? My daughter is almost 7 and I have raised her. Should he be able to stroll in now and demand his "rights"? (if unmarried fathers had automatic rights).

No he should not. However, a judge would see it as a chance for the child to know his or her father and would not want to stop that from happenning so he probaby would not deny access but he would also apply a maintenance order.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

No they do not. The mother obviously has the responsibiities forced upon her the father does not in anyway, except if you consider peer pressure to be force.

I don't follow.

Neither access or maintenance is enforced at this stage.

As I said, Irish family law is a bit of a mess at present. It proboably requires rather drastic reform, which I doubt will be carried out.

They are not obliged to cover a child in the will. Not at all. I think only in France that happens where you have to give at least half of your property to your children.

I phrased that badly; if a parent dies intestate, the child automatically becomes an heir. Otherwise, while a parent need not specifically include a child in their will, or even exclude them, the will may be challenged on the basis that the parent has a legal obligation to adequately provide for the child.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't follow.

You were saying that the father is forced to take on other responsibiities besides maintenance, but not legally forced.

Im saying, no he is not.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I phrased that badly; if a parent dies intestate, the child automatically becomes an heir. Otherwise, while a parent need not specifically include a child in their will, or even exclude them, the will may be challenged on the basis that the parent has a legal obligation to adequately provide for the child.

No. It automatically goes to a spouse first. If no spouse, then the child. And with changes in the law around partership, it will go to a partner, not the chid.

The will maybe challenged but unlikey would it be successful.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

You were saying that the father is forced to take on other responsibiities besides maintenance, but not legally forced.

Im saying, no he is not.

I cannot speak for the US, but as I said (in Ireland), a share of maternity/funeral costs are a responsibility of both parents and the child gets statutory rights with regards to inheritance, just like any other child and is considered to have a right to be "adequately provided for".

No. It automatically goes to a spouse first. If no spouse, then the child. And with changes in the law around partership, it will go to a partner, not the chid.

The will maybe challenged but unlikey would it be successful.

Depends on what you consider successful; if challenged a will that omits a child will likely result in that child receiving something from the estate. How much that is, is another matter.

Nevyn

Mother's can walk away from their responsibilities,either by giving custody to the father or putting the child up for adoption.

ash23

metrovelvet wrote: »

No he should not. However, a judge would see it as a chance for the child to know his or her father and would not want to stop that from happenning so he probaby would not deny access but he would also apply a maintenance order.

I would not have an issue with access. He wouldn't need to take me to court for access (unless he wanted it handled in a way I deemed inappropriate such as overnights right away etc). I would hope I wouldn't need to go to court for maintenance.

My main concern would be other "rights" the unmarried fathers would be granted (aside from access). Such as the right to prevent me moving somewhere or interfering in her education or medical treatment.
Basically him wanting to come back, not even knowing the child, and start throwing his weight around in terms of how she is being raised.

A father who is there from the start deserves that right. A father who has not been involved for long periods does not.

It would be my only concern about automatic rights for fathers.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Mother's can walk away from their responsibilities,either by giving custody to the father or putting the child up for adoption.

They have to give birth first. No way around that. And they have to wait for a certain period. The chid isnt just ripped away at birth.

Yeah sure, but then the father is off too, and the child doesnt have to be put up for adoption there.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I cannot speak for the US, but as I said (in Ireland), a share of maternity/funeral costs are a responsibility of both parents and the child gets statutory rights with regards to inheritance, just like any other child and is considered to have a right to be "adequately provided for".

Depends on what you consider successful; if challenged a will that omits a child will likely result in that child receiving something from the estate. How much that is, is another matter.

Wrong again, Irish children do not have statatory rights to inheritance. I was talking about Irish children. Spouses do, and partners will. Not children.

Wantobe

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. It automatically goes to a spouse first. If no spouse, then the child. And with changes in the law around partership, it will go to a partner, not the chid.

Actually that's not true. On on the death intestate of a married man his spouse will be entitled to 2/3, the remaining 1/3 to his children.

On the death intestate of a single man, his children will take all between them.

Where a man makes a will and does not give anything to his children, or disinherits one child, that disinherited child ( or children) have the right to take an action against the estate under s.117 of the Succession Act if they can prove they have not been adequately provided for. This type of action is generally only successfull where obvious discrimination in treatment can be shown ( for eg giving children of a subsequent relationship a college education, deposits for houses, cars etc but not providing at all for a child of a previous relationship either by maintenance or otherwise, or where a child is disabled and should morally have been provided for) and are seldom successful.

metrovelvet

Wantobe wrote: »

Actually that's not true. On on the death intestate of a married man his spouse will be entitled to 2/3, the remaining 1/3 to his children.

On the death intestate of a single man, his children will take all between them.

Where a man makes a will and does not give anything to his children, or disinherits one child, that disinherited child ( or children) have the right to take an action against the estate under s.117 of the Succession Act if they can prove they have not been adequately provided for. This type of action is generally only successfull where obvious discrimination in treatment can be shown ( for eg giving children of a subsequent relationship a college education, deposits for houses, cars etc but not providing at all for a child of a previous relationship either by maintenance or otherwise, or where a child is disabled and should morally have been provided for) and are seldom successful.

Isnt that what I said? Spouse first. No spouse then kids. But if a will is made out where someone other than the child receives the inheritance they can fight it but most likely will not win.

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

They have to give birth first.

They don't have to depending on thier stance on abortion.

metrovelvet wrote: »

No way around that. And they have to wait for a certain period. The chid isnt just ripped away at birth.

You can refuse to see the child after it is born if you are determined to give it up for adoption, I know of someone who did that and was but in the GYN ward after giving birth rather then in with all the other mothers and babies and the child was put in the nursery.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yeah sure, but then the father is off too, and the child doesnt have to be put up for adoption there.

There are mother's who give over custody of the child to the father to rear,
it's not that unheard of.

Wantobe

metrovelvet wrote: »

Isnt that what I said? Spouse first. No spouse then kids. But if a will is made out where someone other than the child receives the inheritance they can fight it but most likely will not win.

No, it's not what you said. You said it automatically goes to a spouse first, if no spouse then kids. But it automatically goes to spouse and kids first. If no spouse, then all to the kids. Rather different.

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

(unless he wanted it handled in a way I deemed inappropriate such as overnights right away etc)

That's the kicker though, innit? What you deem inappropriate may well be reasonable, but then again it may not be. Some mothers are not and use access as a weapon to get more money from fathers, others simply as a form control/revenge.

My main concern would be other "rights" the unmarried fathers would be granted (aside from access). Such as the right to prevent me moving somewhere or interfering in her education or medical treatment.

Well, TBH, I'm not sure if I have a lot of sympathy for you there. If the father is involved, I think that your wish to move somewhere else really is no longer yours alone (it does affect the lives of at least two others, after all). If not, he's still the child's father - that's why he legally has to pay maintenance - not simply a 'resource'.

A father who is there from the start deserves that right. A father who has not been involved for long periods does not.

If we were talking about a level playing field, I'd agree, but we're not. There are many reasons why a father may not be there at the start. Circumstances beyond his control, conflict with the mother making involvement difficult or impossible or he simply was not ready to be a father - remember, men don't get the same choice as women in this - if a woman is not ready she can choose not to keep the child and if she is ready, it is a bit silly to imagine that the man will magically be of like mind to her.

So unless you want to eliminate this imbalance, you really have to redress it in other ways.

ash23

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's the kicker though, innit? What you deem inappropriate may well be reasonable, but then again it may not be. Some mothers are not and use access as a weapon to get more money from fathers, others simply as a form control/revenge.

Maybe they do but in my situation, him wanted overnight/unsupervised access right away would be a no-go area. It would be no different to me handing my child to a man on the street and saying "there you go". save for biology which means jot to a six year old

Well, TBH, I'm not sure if I have a lot of sympathy for you there. If the father is involved, I think that your wish to move somewhere else really is no longer yours alone (it does affect the lives of at least two others, after all). If not, he's still the child's father - that's why he legally has to pay maintenance - not simply a 'resource'.

In some instances I agree, where a relationship has been established. However, lets say for arguments sake, he appeared next week. And saw her once a week for 5 weeks. And then I lost my job and was offered one in another county, a little bit furthur away. And he decided I wasn't to tke it, even if the alternative was me bringing up my daughter on social welfare, losing our home etc.....this from a man who had no interest since I told him I was pregnant over 7 years ago? I don't THINK so!!!

If we were talking about a level playing field, I'd agree, but we're not. There are many reasons why a father may not be there at the start. Circumstances beyond his control, conflict with the mother making involvement difficult or impossible or he simply was not ready to be a father - remember, men don't get the same choice as women in this - if a woman is not ready she can choose not to keep the child and if she is ready, it is a bit silly to imagine that the man will magically be of like mind to her.
So unless you want to eliminate this imbalance, you really have to redress it in other ways.

I'm sorry but that is total BS!!!! Short of illness or some sort of amnesia then there is very little outside of a mans control to keep him from being a father to his child other than immaturity and panic.
I wasn't ready to be a parent. I was terrified and too young and all the things I'm sure he felt too. But I stepped up to the plate and have done every day since that day in May 02 when I found out.
It is now Dec 09 and still no sign of him being ready. I would have thought 7 and a half years would have given him enough time to wrap his head around the fact that he has a child, but no....he is still choosing to live in cloud cukoo land where he kids himself it was all a bad dream and there isn't a child out there somewhere with his DNA. Maybe after he puts in the hard slog for 7 years he will redeem himself in my eyes, but to be honest I don't anticipate ever seeing him as anything more than a sperm donor at this stage. He'd want to pull out some serious stops to ever make me think of him as equal in terms of parenting. As unPC and all as that is, that is the honest way that I feel. My ex is more of a parent to her than her biological dad, and even though he has no legal rights, he has regular access to her because I want that for her, I feel it's in her best interests. And I do feel knowing her biological father would also be in her best interests and would facilitate access. But if him paying maintenance etc was going to mean a change to the way things are now (me raising her), I'd forsake the maintenance and keep things the way they are.

My daughter has one parent. Me. She also has a father figure (ex) and she has a bio dad. But ONE parent.

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

Maybe they do but in my situation, him wanted overnight/unsupervised access right away would be a no-go area. It would be no different to me handing my child to a man on the street and saying "there you go". save for biology which means jot to a six year old

I think you missed my point. Of course you feel you can be reasonable and objective when "deeming something appropriate", but you're not suggesting something simply for your case, but for every one.

In some instances I agree, where a relationship has been established. However, lets say for arguments sake, he appeared next week. And saw her once a week for 5 weeks. And then I lost my job and was offered one in another county, a little bit furthur away. And he decided I wasn't to tke it, even if the alternative was me bringing up my daughter on social welfare, losing our home etc.....this from a man who had no interest since I told him I was pregnant over 7 years ago? I don't THINK so!!!

What then, what if he saw her once a week for five months? Or twice a week for a year? Or three years? Are you going to leave your options open then?

And if you do set a time limit, what are you saying? If he, for example, is involved for three years, then you will afford him 'some' respect. Until then you can up sticks and go and whatever bond he's built is discarded.

This is the issue facing a lot of single fathers; the mother is sole arbitrator on his relationship with his child and on top of that she can make up the rules as she goes along. She can pull the rug from under him whenever she likes - regardless of whether he was there from day one or 1,000.

I'm sorry but that is total BS!!!! Short of illness or some sort of amnesia then there is very little outside of a mans control to keep him from being a father to his child other than immaturity and panic.

Is every woman who has an abortion or puts their child up for adoption simply panicked or immature then?

I don't think people consider, let alone care, what really is going through a man's mind during a crisis pregnancy. If you go to a councillor during that period, you'll either get a pro-choice one (who will emphasize the mother) or a pro-Life one (who will emphasize the child) - either way, the father is bottom of the list, relegated to the role of support, even though this is something that will effect the rest of his life too.

He may not want to be a father. Or he may not be happy with simply being a 'resource', as so many single fathers are treated (it's not difficult to see this with so many active fathers being denied guardianship to their own children because the mother does not want to "answer to anyone"). Or the relationship between the parents could be so poisoned as to make any attempt at parenting a living Hell for him; faced with twenty years of emotional and legal conflict with a belligerent mother, many men who would 'step up' to being a father will not. And of course he may simply be immature or a nasty piece of work. You get all sorts.

This is not to suggest that any of these scenarios were the case with you, only that glib answers that boil everything down to amnesia, immaturity or panic are simplistic and indicative of not really caring what the man feels or thinks, only what use he is to the mother and child.

I wasn't ready to be a parent. I was terrified and too young and all the things I'm sure he felt too. But I stepped up to the plate and have done every day since that day in May 02 when I found out.

No, you were ready. Perhaps the circumstances may have been less than ideal, perhaps you had grave doubts, but ultimately you judged that you could do it. If you couldn't have you wouldn't have.

It is now Dec 09 and still no sign of him being ready. I would have thought 7 and a half years would have given him enough time to wrap his head around the fact that he has a child, but no....

In your case it is more than likely he just isn't interested. Assuming he has not explicitly said so, if he has made no attempt at some form of accommodation with you in seven years, then chances are he never will.

Additionally, if he is not even paying maintenance, then the question of his asserting his 'rights' is completely moot. No way he's going to rock that boat.

However, as I already pointed out, all cases are not like yours. Not all fathers are ready at the start, not all mothers are reasonable where it comes to what they "deem acceptable", but and a blanket 'one answer fits all' where it came to the rights of fathers is simply wrong.

ash23

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, as I already pointed out, all cases are not like yours. Not all fathers are ready at the start, not all mothers are reasonable where it comes to what they "deem acceptable", but and a blanket 'one answer fits all' where it came to the rights of fathers is simply wrong.

But that's what you want, no? A blanket, "one fits all" situation where all father, feckless or not, have rights. Leaving the likes of me, with the uninterested father (until he gets an attack of the guilts when the kid is waaaay older), to fight through the courts to ensure we keep all our rights over the child we raised alone from birth? So to add insult to injury, I would have to spend a small fortune, ensuring my daughters bio dad didn't come along to mess in her life......how is that any fairer??

I do see where the dads who are intersted and want to be a part of their childs lives are suffering, but I think the flip side is mums like me paying.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

They don't have to depending on thier stance on abortion.



You can refuse to see the child after it is born if you are determined to give it up for adoption, I know of someone who did that and was but in the GYN ward after giving birth rather then in with all the other mothers and babies and the child was put in the nursery.



There are mother's who give over custody of the child to the father to rear,
it's not that unheard of.

We are not talking about women who choose not to be mothers. We are talking about fathers who choose, as best they can not to be fathers, either those who were made fathers against their will or because they changed their mind about it, and whether or not those fathers can then change their minds again and then get their rights.

Once a woman decides not to be a mother there is no going back.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

We are not talking about women who choose not to be mothers. We are talking about fathers who choose, as best they can not to be fathers, either those who were made fathers against their will or because they changed their mind about it, and whether or not those fathers can then change their minds again and then get their rights.

Once a woman decides not to be a mother there is no going back.

If there is automatic Guardianship a period should be set that if the Father is not involved actively in the childs life, they lose the rights. 2/3 Years might work.

I think that is preferable to the current system where the system is clogged up with application for Guardianship that, bye and large are granted.

A benefit of the new system would be it may shock a few Dads that aren't acting responsibly. Losing basic rights tends to spur people into action far more!

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

If there is automatic Guardianship a period should be set that if the Father is not involved actively in the childs life, they lose the rights. 2/3 Years might work.

I think that is preferable to the current system where the system is clogged up with application for Guardianship that, bye and large are granted.

A benefit of the new system would be it may shock a few Dads that aren't acting responsibly. Losing basic rights tends to spur people into action far more!

Or at least force them to **** or get off the pot. Nothing worse for a child then a floundering father.

In some ways you could argue that fathers have more rights then the mother as it stands, since they can keep changing their minds and pop in and out. The mother cant do that.

ash23

K-9 wrote: »

If there is automatic Guardianship a period should be set that if the Father is not involved actively in the childs life, they lose the rights. 2/3 Years might work.

I think that is preferable to the current system where the system is clogged up with application for Guardianship that, bye and large are granted.

A benefit of the new system would be it may shock a few Dads that aren't acting responsibly. Losing basic rights tends to spur people into action far more!

I totally agree but consitency is important too. Say its 3 year, this limit....and the guy shows up after 2.5 years and then disappears again for 2.5 years.

I think that after any period of absence over 6 months a guy should have to
prove he wants to build a decent relationship and be serious about being a father. Access, backpaying maintenance, a maintenance order etc ......

Even at €30 per week my childs father would owe her €10k. He should be at least making attempts to pay part of that into a savings account for her or something. I hate the idea of a dad flitting in and out of a childs life once a year, not paying maintenance and then expecting to be able to make decisions for that child.

metrovelvet

Not only that - but being able to stop you from leaving the country and he could leave the country himself!

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

But that's what you want, no? A blanket, "one fits all" situation where all father, feckless or not, have rights. Leaving the likes of me, with the uninterested father (until he gets an attack of the guilts when the kid is waaaay older), to fight through the courts to ensure we keep all our rights over the child we raised alone from birth? So to add insult to injury, I would have to spend a small fortune, ensuring my daughters bio dad didn't come along to mess in her life......how is that any fairer??

Depends on the situation. If the father genuinely is going to be involved from that point on, then that is good for the child, even if you don't like it - don't confuse messing up your life with messing up hers.

K-9 wrote: »

If there is automatic Guardianship a period should be set that if the Father is not involved actively in the childs life, they lose the rights. 2/3 Years might work.

Actually this is already the case, although it has to be applied for through the courts. Nonetheless, I assume you would extend this rule to mothers also; presently mothers can do a runner, dump the child on the father, and they cannot lose their guardianship status. I've actually personally known a few cases of this, including one famous one.

metrovelvet

^ Messing up her life does mess up the child's life also as the child is a dependent on her.