Unmarried father loses guardian case

20goto10

axer wrote: »

You mean because he did not seek guardianship? Did the mother have to seek guardianship?

She doesn't have to seek guardianship. What I mean is that it got to a point where the mother felt she had to keep him away from the children. Do you think she just did it for the laugh? Or as a dig? Or was it in the childrens best interests?

axer

20goto10 wrote: »

She doesn't have to seek guardianship.

He shouldn't have to either.

20goto10 wrote: »

What I mean is that it got to a point where the mother felt she had to keep him away from the children.

How do you know that she didnt just do it to get at him?

20goto10 wrote: »

Do you think she just did it for the laugh? Or as a dig? Or was it in the childrens best interests?

I don't know but I don't assume that either side is automatically wrong. I just think the law is on the mother's side unfairly.

20goto10

cbyrd wrote: »

all i'm pointing out is the judge in this case saw fit not to grant guardianship.. all i'm asking is why??

Exactly. And I think he should be applauded for using the law to protect the children. I'd say the same if it was a mother getting her children taken away.

20goto10

I'm not making any assumptions. It's the courts that have made the decision.

ani_mal

one thing that strikes me all the time...
who said and who can prove that a mother is a better parent than a father?

because I know what women can do and how they use system and children.

Every time I got to court with my husband and listen to these women who are blinded with revenge (it's for child's sake of course) it makes me cry, and feel sick.

Nevyn

20goto10 you post was reported before you edited it and the mods of this forum can see all edits to posts, ever pull a stunt like that again and you will be getting a ban.

cbyrd

It very easy to prove paternity if the man doesn't do a runner..

he lost his case.

Ignorance is not a defence.

As i stated in an earlier post he waited how many months before he started any proceedings?

And you are right nobody can prove he was drunk in charge of the kids
Just like nobody can prove he wasn't

This sole case was lost for lots of reasons, a lot of which i'm sure never made it into the media.

I'm not talking about every case or every father i'm talking about this particular case as i've said before for which i have never been quoted

I agree that the paternity laws in this country are out dated and should be changed and as i have also said i have first hand seen what it can do to a good father who is not married to the mother of his child and she is a b!tch that will drag him through the courts for fun!

rolly1

Originally Posted by cbyrd
all i'm pointing out is the judge in this case saw fit not to grant guardianship.. all i'm asking is why??

It was because he hadn't applied for guardianship he lost his case( although from the judgement he allegedly attempted to serve notice of application to apply for guardianship on the mother before she left but didn't succeed for some unspecified reason), not because he was refused an application for guardianship.

Originally Posted by cbyrd
he lost his case.

Ignorance is not a defence.

Tell that to the kids, im sure they'll understand.

Originally Posted by cbyrd
As i stated in an earlier post he waited how many months before he started any proceedings?

3 months,which would seem a reasonably quick turn around for the High Court of England.. officially probably had been doing the rounds buiding up a case prior to this with legal team..FRom the judgement:

On 25th July, 2009, without notice to the applicant, the mother removed the children from this jurisdiction and brought them to England where they are now living. On 2nd November, 2009, an originating summons was issued in proceedings between the same parties in the High Court of England and Wales; on the same date a number of orders were made in aid of the proceedings. On 20th November, 2009, the High Court of England and Wales made a further order permitting the father to bring an application to this Court for a declaration pursuant to Article 15 of the Hague Convention as to whether the mother’s removal of the three McB. children was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of that Convention.

In summary the Judge said of him:

In this case the applicant father never applied to be appointed a guardian of the children. Nonetheless he had a significant and long term relationship with them. It was never denied that he had been a good father to them although clearly there were real issues between the applicant and the respondent.

Judges words, not uninformed gossip, not speculation. Despite the black tar and feather job being attempted on him here.

Superdaddy

I spoke to a person who dealt with this case along the line. This man had instructed a solicitor to get guardianship for him but the solicitor did not act quickly enough and the chilren were abducted before the application was made, this is really why he lost his children.
From the time they were abducted, he was working day and night on the case, it takes alot of work to get to court and the legal aid board aren't too quick about moning either.
My sympathies go to this man and his poor children who were used as weapons and who are the real losers in this case as the judge said at the end of his judgement.

Voltex

I have actually read the text of the infants guardian act. Its weird that it actually acknowledges the place of the Father of a child, yet discriminates against him by virtue of the act in terms of ability to act as an equal parent.
The laws are archaic and in absolute need for change.
I am sooooo sick of listening to single mothers waffeling on like they have some God given right of infalibility, whereas the truth is that in a few circumstances I am aware of they are the inferior of the two parents, yet retain automatic custody of the Children.

Klingon Hamlet

• Equal rights for both parents.
• Both automatic guardians.
• Have social workers approach both father and mother in hospital (not just the mother).
• Allow both parents to sign birth cert individually or together (currently, a father may only sign a birth cert with the mother present, or with a court order; however a mother can give a father's name without him being present).
• Pay Child Benefit to both parents half-and-half.
• Only provide One Parent Family Payment to deserted wives/husbands/partners.
• Change/remove/enhance any of the above only after a qualified family therapist meets both parents and child(ren) and provides the court with their impartial assessment.

Klingon Hamlet

Superdaddy wrote: »

I spoke to a person who dealt with this case along the line. This man had instructed a solicitor to get guardianship for him but the solicitor did not act quickly enough and the children were abducted before the application was made...

How can this happen? It takes two minutes with a District Court Clerk to apply for guardianship. Either the story is skewed, or the solicitor has screwed up completely.