Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
(UPDATED: 2ND HALF ADDED)Article in the Sunday World: Single Dad
Options
Comments
-
The Corinthian wrote: »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.
I think that depends on the age of the child. As a person who comes from such a situation I can tell you that a child who is old enough to realise that their parent has abandoned them for years, not wanted them, not paid for them or bothered with them, and the strolled back in and started interfering in what school they went to, what subjects they did, where they lived.....well, lets just say it took a good 12 years for me to stop hating my father. Even now I just tolerate him. Its difficult as an older child or young teen to have people telling you what to do, but when that person is one who is described as above, it leads to a whole lot of bitterness and anger for the child.
So maybe my daughters dad has a window of another year or two but after that she'll know her own mind and her wishes will be paramount to what goes on. If she wants to see him on a regular basis, then fine by me. If she doesn't then she wouldn't be forced by me.
Nothing to do with messing up my life. But I'm here to protect and defend my daughter until she is old enough to do so herself. And I'm the only person who has done this for her, her whole life, so yes, absolutely I do think that what I feel is best for her is paramount.
Biology is not the be all and end all. What sort of a person would I be if I let someone else make decisions for my child that I didn't feel were best? I can take on board peoples opinions, but ultimately I make the decisions. I've earned that right. A father who has been absent for the childs life hasn't.0 -
That principle does not always follow because ultimately it assumes that the child's interests always align with the mothers. They don't.metrovelvet wrote: »^ Messing up her life does mess up the child's life also as the child is a dependent on her.
I cannot comment on your situation. I know one woman who feels differently to you, in that her father was actively excluded by her mother and literally had to wait until she was old enough to approach her directly. And I know a guy who would agree with you, in that he has very little time for his father who, due to alcohol problems, was in and out of his life. Not every case is the same.I think that depends on the age of the child. As a person who comes from such a situation I can tell you that a child who is old enough to realise that their parent has abandoned them for years, not wanted them, not paid for them or bothered with them, and the strolled back in and started interfering in what school they went to, what subjects they did, where they lived.....well, lets just say it took a good 12 years for me to stop hating my father. Even now I just tolerate him. Its difficult as an older child or young teen to have people telling you what to do, but when that person is one who is described as above, it leads to a whole lot of bitterness and anger for the child.
What happens though when a custodial parent is not doing what is best for the child? That happens more often than you think.Nothing to do with messing up my life. But I'm here to protect and defend my daughter until she is old enough to do so herself. And I'm the only person who has done this for her, her whole life, so yes, absolutely I do think that what I feel is best for her is paramount.
You've earned it now, but not at the beginning. You were simply handed it. No one told you you needed to prove yourself as a parent when your child was born and then maybe you could win the right to decide her future, but that is exactly what happens to many fathers.Biology is not the be all and end all. What sort of a person would I be if I let someone else make decisions for my child that I didn't feel were best? I can take on board peoples opinions, but ultimately I make the decisions. I've earned that right. A father who has been absent for the childs life hasn't.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »That principle does not always follow because ultimately it assumes that the child's interests always align with the mothers. They don't.
.
No it doesnt. This is really basic stuff. I cant believe it needs explaining.
What happens when a custodial parent is not best for the child?
What happens when a non custodial parent has nothing to do with the child? I guess that is also best for the child?
The only way you can seem to defend the rights of absent fathers is by making blanket attacks on the custodial mothers. Weak last straw arguing. When you dont have a leg to stand on , stand on distraction I guess.0 -
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.
But really can he make big decisions about the child? Guardianship gives him the right to be consulted, if no agreement can be reached, the option of court is there and the judge decides.
Even on the going abroad point, again the Judge is the final arbitrator. I don't see why that is such a big deal for some mothers, barring a fear of losing control. If your decision is a good one, the judge will generally side with you.metrovelvet wrote:Not only that - but being able to stop you from leaving the country and he could leave the country himself!
Yep, that would need to be changed too.The Corinthian wrote: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.
Indeed, as in the point metrovelvet raised above, any changes should be as gender neutral as possible.
Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
The child suffers and depending upon how negative the influence of the custodial parent and their gender the system may step in or not.metrovelvet wrote: »No it doesnt. This is really basic stuff. I cant believe it needs explaining.
What happens when a custodial parent is not best for the child?
Actually we're talking about non custodial parents who are trying to have something to do with the child.What happens when a non custodial parent has nothing to do with the child? I guess that is also best for the child?
The point I am challenging is that a custodial parent can be the sole judge (and jury and executioner) for what they "deem (in)appropriate" - without appeal or, for that matter, any accountability.The only way you can seem to defend the rights of absent fathers is by making blanket attacks on the custodial mothers. Weak last straw arguing. When you dont have a leg to stand on , stand on distraction I guess.
To challenge this there is no other way than to point out that "mother knows best" is not some form of natural law beyond question. Mothers are human too and can err.
That is not a blanket attack because it does happen but not in all cases - it is simply a refutation of the blanket assumption that it never does.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't necessarily think it's a case of mother knows best. I think anyone, foster parent, adoptive, male, female etc who has raised a child, been solely responsible for that child and has been doing a good job, they are the ones who know and love that child.
You said I was handed my rights. Yes, I was. But those rights can be lost if I wasn't able to cope of did anything to the detriment of my child. And like I said, I do think fathers who are interested from birth should have automatic rights. But I will never agree that a man who turns his back on his child for an easier life should ever be able to have those rights handed to him on a silver platter upon his return.
Nor do I think a mother like myself whose whole world has been about doing what is right for her child since it was born, should ever have to go to court in order to do something that a "father" who has never been inolved, wants to stop her doing.
Like I said, it would be like a stranger in the street trying to tell me how to raise my child and it would be absurd to have to go to court to fight a strangers opinion on what I am doing. Regardless of if he lost or not, I have never seen the inside of a courtroom and I don't intend on ever having to fight for my rights to my child.
If all boiled down to it, as much as I hate the idea, I think I would end up denying his paternity. Nothing he can do about it then.0 -
No. They are most likely to best know what is best for that child. It's not an absolute, not definite and not always true in all cases and this is what I am disagreeing with you because you are putting forward this premise in absolute terms.I don't necessarily think it's a case of mother knows best. I think anyone, foster parent, adoptive, male, female etc who has raised a child, been solely responsible for that child and has been doing a good job, they are the ones who know and love that child.
Yet you got them automatically, which was my point. Earning them came later, yet many mothers feel that fathers who may be there from day one still have to earn them even when they never did.You said I was handed my rights. Yes, I was. But those rights can be lost if I wasn't able to cope of did anything to the detriment of my child.
Depends. He may not have turned his back on the child. He may have not known of the child's existence or been actively excluded from contact with the child. As I've said before, not all cases are the same and your absolutist position may be apt for your situation but could all too easily be abused in many other cases.And like I said, I do think fathers who are interested from birth should have automatic rights. But I will never agree that a man who turns his back on his child for an easier life should ever be able to have those rights handed to him on a silver platter upon his return.
I see your point there, however this is the double edged sword of placing responsibilities on the basis of biology alone. You can't have it both ways.Nor do I think a mother like myself whose whole world has been about doing what is right for her child since it was born, should ever have to go to court in order to do something that a "father" who has never been inolved, wants to stop her doing.
Well, he could demand a court ordered DNA test and if it was found that you had lied in court you would at the very least have to pay for the test and possibly also be held in contempt of court. Note that you could refuse to allow such a test, but in such a case the court would assume you have something to hide and find in favour of his paternity.If all boiled down to it, as much as I hate the idea, I think I would end up denying his paternity. Nothing he can do about it then.
I think there is a lot wrong with the system as it stands. The monopoly of control that mothers have over children contributes to a gigantic amount of resentment in fathers. Added to this, many mothers get used to this monopoly and thus are very reluctant to ever cede any of it, resulting in committed fathers who then are refused guardianship and have to go to court to wrest it from the mother (which in turn creates more resentment).
Lack of enforcement is a major issue too. Access orders and most guardianship rights have never been enforced in any meaningful way and as of recently, neither are maintenance orders. And when enforced, the only deterrent seems to be jail, which other than being draconian ultimately harms the child (you're definitely not going to get maintenance from a father if he's in jail).
And added to all this we have a social welfare and maintenance system that actively discourages co-parenting and joint custody. All to often this is rejected not because of it being against the child's interests, but because it is against the mother's financial ones.0 -
She gets it automatically for choosing to have the child and bringing it to life.0
-
She gets an unjust monopoly over the child because of another unjust monopoly over choice? Or just as a reward for not having an abortion? Either way it's actually quite a sick reason to afford such a right.metrovelvet wrote: »She gets it automatically for choosing to have the child and bringing it to life.
Edit: And now that I think of it she didn't "bring it to life" - we don't reproduce asexually.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »She gets an unjust monopoly over the child because of another unjust monopoly over choice? Or just as a reward for not having an abortion? Either way it's actually quite a sick reason to afford such a right.
She has it because she automatically has all the responsibilities. The father or putative father does not.The Corinthian wrote: »Edit: And now that I think of it she didn't "bring it to life" - we don't reproduce asexually.
Well according to some fathers we do.
How many angels are on the head of a pin?0 -
Advertisement
-
At the moment the system is unfair on men. The changes proposed here make the system unfair on the mother imo.
It's catch 22.0 -
Only if she chooses them, so it is not automatic. Thaedydal already pointed this out to you.metrovelvet wrote: »She has it because she automatically has all the responsibilities.
Redressing the imbalance does not mean that it will make it unfair for mothers, just that it will be less advantageous. In reality, I agree with you that it is a bit of a catch 22 though, but only because even if we try to balance things out between the genders, it will still be an imperfect solution as both sides will not get all they want.At the moment the system is unfair on men. The changes proposed here make the system unfair on the mother imo.
It's catch 22.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Only if she chooses them, so it is not automatic. Thaedydal already pointed this out to you.
No she didnt. She was talking about women who choose not to be parents. She was not talking about mothers.
THese women do not get rights to the children they have aborted or given up for adoption.0 -
If all boiled down to it, as much as I hate the idea, I think I would end up denying his paternity. Nothing he can do about it then.
You would do that to your child? Lie about their father? Just to avoid a court room and a judge?At the moment the system is unfair on men. The changes proposed here make the system unfair on the mother imo.
It's catch 22.
The current system is also unfair on the child and discriminates between children born into marriage and outside.
Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
If all boiled down to it, as much as I hate the idea, I think I would end up denying his paternity. Nothing he can do about it then.
I have agreed with most if not all of what you said so far. But I do not agree with this.
Firstly, that is paternity fraud.
Secondly, yes there is something he can do about it. He can take you to court. You can deny paternity, the judge will order a dna test and it will be proven. And you will look either like and idiot or a liar both to the judge and to your child.0 -
That was actually the point I was making.metrovelvet wrote: »No she didnt. She was talking about women who choose not to be parents. She was not talking about mothers.
THese women do not get rights to the children they have aborted or given up for adoption.0
Advertisement