Event: Family Relationships in Ireland--Exciting Times

Klingon Hamlet

What is it?:

Please join us to launch our National Fathers Week celebrations at Buswells Hotel for our annual conference. This year sees a number of exciting changes for unmarried families in Ireland.

We have confirmed Deputy Kathleen Lynch from the Labour Party who has launched the Guardianship of Childrens Bill which gives all unmarried fathers automatic guardianship.

The Law Reform Commission's Right Honourable Ms. Justice Catherine Lynch has launched a white paper on the Legal Aspects of Family Relationships in Ireland and will speak at the conference.

And of course we have the Civil Partnership Bill which will be discussed by Deputy Brian Hayes (FG).

Never in the history of this organisation has so much been on the table in 1 year and we need you all to come together to discuss ways of pushing all of this through government. Show your solidarity. A light meal will be provided.

Quoted from USFI's Facebook Page

When?:
Thursday 17th June, from 10am to 1pm (incorrectly input as 3pm on site)

Where?:
Buswells Hotel, Molesworth St, Dublin 2

How much?:
€25 for conference ticket, €10 for Ballad Session ticket that night
or
€30 for BOTH.

I thought I'd highlight this because these three people would have a lot of interesting viewpoints on families in today's Ireland. The legal framework looks like it's on the verge of a transformation to allow for the growing number of unmarried families in Ireland today. Attending will re-inforce this trio's will to modernise the laws for our children and their children.

rolly1

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I thought I'd highlight this because these three people would have a lot of interesting viewpoints on families in today's Ireland. The legal framework looks like it's on the verge of a transformation to allow for the growing number of unmarried families in Ireland today. Attending will re-inforce this trio's will to modernise the laws for our children and their children.

I won't be able to attend as I'll be out of the country, but for this famous trio could the following points be raised directly with them?

1.Guardianship of Children Bill, 2010:

Section 5 (a) of the bill effectively allows anyone under the sun to become a legal Guardian to a child i.e. anyone with "a legitimate interest in the child". So anybody can now play pappy and the consent of both guardians to do so is not needed, only a courts approval. This is absolutely insane as it will completely undermine the delicate balance between two guardians/parents acting jointly to bring up their child. Contrast this approach with that of New Zealand's Care of children Act 2004 where the consent of both guardians/parents is required before a third guardian can be appointed. Section 21(20 and (3) states the following:

(2)If both parents of the child are guardians of the child, the appointment must be made by both of them.(3) If the mother of the child is the sole guardian of the child just because of section 17(2) or (3), the appointment must be made by the mother and the father of the child.

A father is a father is a father, same as is a mother is a mother is a mother. This proposed section 5 of the new guardianship bill is a recipe for untold damage into the future and carves into stone unequal legal power balance scenarios. It's an out and out DISASTROUS provision. Could somebody please ask Kathleen what the hell she is at by inserting it?

2. Legal Aspects of Family Relationships in Ireland is another game changing recipe for disaster have a look at this discussion ; It's easy to hand out guardianship/parental responsibility like snuff at a wake, when it will mean shag all legally.

3.The Cohabitation Bill is what the Civil Partnership Bill should really be called; as it will potentially effect about 20 times the number of people cohabiting, primarily heterosexual couples, than same sex couples. It's another one of the great lies of our time to be calling it a civil partnership bill. Its also one huge legal gravy train extending the legal net to now cover up to 240,000 more people potentially.
Can somebody ask Deputy Brian Hayes what the **** FG are at by supporting this bill and its dictatorial "Opt Out" for cohabitants and why the hell Ireland must be different once again in its approach to this bill compared to practically all other european countries that have an "Opt in" approach?
See discussion here

USFI would seriously need to wake up to the con thats going on here; because its the unmarried and separated fathers of Ireland that are about to be annihilated by these legal trainwrecks coming down the tracks..primarily for the lining of solicitor's pockets. Wake up guys ye are allowing the enemy to take over yer podium, all the while they are actually stabbing ye in the back!

Klingon Hamlet

rolly1 wrote: »

USFI would seriously need to wake up to the con thats going on here; because its the unmarried and separated fathers of Ireland that are about to be annihilated by these legal trainwrecks coming down the tracks..primarily for the lining of solicitor's pockets. Wake up guys ye are allowing the enemy to take over yer podium, all the while they are actually stabbing ye in the back!

USFI are against the Bill. Surely inviting one of the supporters of the Bill for a civil debate opens up the possibility for important modifications to be made?

rolly1

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

USFI are against the Bill. Surely inviting one of the supporters of the Bill for a civil debate opens up the possibility for important modifications to be made?

Which Bill are USFI against? Labour's Guardianship of Children Bill, 2010 or the cohabitation provisions of the Civil Partnership Bill?

I hope USFI see the same problem with the Guardianship bill as I outlined earlier; the new zealand act also shows a sensible alternative model to to the method of appointing guardians other than the parents of a child.

I also hope USFI can see the major con associated with the Law Reform Commision's consultative paper in the form of making guardianship meaningless.

The similarity of the two is that they both use the carrot of automatic guardianship for unmarrried fathers with which to actually undermine both married and unmarried fathers!

As for the cohabitation provisions of the Civil Partnership Bill we must now recognise that Ireland has become a full blown dictatorship with this bill due to become law any day now. With this bill the state is now taking over the old role of the catholic church, poking its nose into people's private lives; all aimed at providing solicitors with their latest legal gravy train.

I think something just a tad stronger is needed than 'civil debate' with people who are about to annihilate forevermore every single father's legal role!

Deliverance

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

USFI are against the Bill. Surely inviting one of the supporters of the Bill for a civil debate opens up the possibility for important modifications to be made?

Excellent work Klingon. It is about time that someone is doing so much work on this issue. I admire your dedication to this issue. Lots of fathers do feel the same way.

The law needs updating for the sake of the health of a large section of our growing society ie: Decent Fathers who are denied access by the bitterness than can occur in the breakdown of a relationship. This emotional breakdown only causes more damage when it is furthered by the potential often unintentional manipulation of the law by design to hurt the father by being able to deny access.

The law as it stands does in my opinion blatently ignore the pain of a good Father simply because the Father is traditionally viewed as the 'leaver' when in fact these days the Father is far from that.

The tradition of fathers being selfish people who leave their kids and spouses really, really should be discussed heavily to bring the law up to date in these changing times. The law by design should be modified in this respect otherwise it will stagnate and become archaic.

It is already archaic when you think about it. Much discussion needs to be done and some changes no matter how small should be made.

I know of at least two dads who were driven to the point of suicide, one guy who was a friend of mine succeeded.

I can imagine lots more hurt and uneccesary happenings via my own experience if the law stays the same really. Again Klingon, well done you have provided hope I think on this issue. Keep up the good work.

MojoMaker

Can we clarify, Klingon as an unmarried father I assume you're 100% against this guardianship bill?

Trainwreck is probably too soft a word for it.

Klingon Hamlet

MojoMaker wrote: »

Can we clarify, Klingon as an unmarried father I assume you're 100% against this guardianship bill?

Trainwreck is probably too soft a word for it.

I don't know, is the simple answer.

rolly1

MojoMaker wrote: »

Can we clarify, Klingon as an unmarried father I assume you're 100% against this guardianship bill?

Trainwreck is probably too soft a word for it.

Mojomaker Im interested to hear what aspects of the Guardianship Bill you are against?
I think the principle of automatic guardianship for fathers is a very good part of the bill but some elements; particularly as i said earlier the court appointment of guardians other than a child's parents, is a dire one.

Deliverance

Isn't this what the upcoming public debate is about?

rolly1

Deliverance wrote: »

Isn't this what the upcoming public debate is about?

Its when the terms of the debate are set around crazy provisions in the bill like the one above, then I have little faith in debate.

It's like debating should all fathers be shot?..and if you lose the debate/the powers that be don't take the necessary changes on board then fathers end up being shot..

The problem is the very existence of the crazy provision in the first place.

Deliverance

rolly1 wrote: »

Its when the terms of the debate are set around crazy provisions in the bill like the one above, then I have little faith in debate.

It's like debating should all fathers be shot?..and if you lose the debate/the powers that be don't take the necessary changes on board then fathers end up being shot..

The problem is the very existence of the crazy provision in the first place.

Just read the section 5(a) that you posted above 'rolly'. Yes that is amazingly bad foresight in this bill. It sounds like it could cause even more problems for single dads, moms and more importantly the kids caught in the middle of emotional battles caused by seperation.

It sounds like it has been written by bearucrats with no experience of real life situations. Correct me if I am wrong on this point: would this bill as I understand it provide bitter people with a means to hurt single seperated dads even more? It sounds like it will if used in a manipulative way by bitter people.

rolly1

Deliverance wrote: »

Just read the section 5(a) that you posted above 'rolly'. Yes that is amazingly bad foresight in this bill. It sounds like it could cause even more problems for single dads, moms and more importantly the kids caught in the middle of emotional battles caused by seperation.

It sounds like it has been written by bearucrats with no experience of real life situations. Correct me if I am wrong on this point: would this bill as I understand it provide bitter people with a means to hurt single seperated dads even more? It sounds like it will if used in a manipulative way by bitter people.

Yep it now sets up the mum's new partner (male or female) on an equal legal footing as the actual dad. By the way it can also open up the dad's new partner (male or female) to be on an equal legal footing as the mother. So you can have all sorts of power imbalances and craziness e.g.

2(mum + new partner) v 1(dad)
2(dad + new partner) v 1(mum)
2(mum + new partner) v 2(dad + new partner)


There's no limit set on the number of guardians the court can appoint so the potential for a child having multiple guardians is also there!

on the 2 to1 scenario above just think of how the legal power imbalance would effect something like choice of school/religion/residence outside of the country; if there was a disagreement between the mum and dad on this, effectively the third guardian would have the deciding vote in the courts eyes on the matter because he/she would have equal legal standing to both mum and dad.

It's like it legally it doesn't matter anymore the fact that it took an egg and sperm from two people to create the child!

Once again I'd draw your attention to the way a sane country such as New Zealand handles this issue i.e. if anyone other than a dad is to appointed guardian then the consent of both the mum and dad is required to do so.

I believe this provision is designed to cause maximum mischief to be honest; I'd be a bit more cynical than thinking ill informed bureaucrats were behind it. After all mischief means cash when its translated to court.

Deliverance

rolly1 wrote: »

Yep it now sets up the mum's new partner (male or female) on an equal legal footing as the actual dad. By the way it can also open up the dad's new partner (male or female) to be on an equal legal footing as the mother. So you can have all sorts of power imbalances and craziness e.g.

2(mum + new partner) v 1(dad)
2(dad + new partner) v 1(mum)
2(mum + new partner) v 2(dad + new partner)


There's no limit set on the number of guardians the court can appoint so the potential for a child having multiple guardians is also there!

on the 2 to1 scenario above just think of how the legal power imbalance would effect something like choice of school/religion/residence outside of the country; if there was a disagreement between the mum and dad on this, effectively the third guardian would have the deciding vote in the courts eyes on the matter because he/she would have equal legal standing to both mum and dad.

It's like it legally it doesn't matter anymore the fact that it took an egg and sperm from two people to create the child!

Once again I'd draw your attention to the way a sane country such as New Zealand handles this issue i.e. if anyone other than a dad is to appointed guardian then the consent of both the mum and dad is required to do so.

I believe this provision is designed to cause maximum mischief to be honest; I'd be a bit more cynical than thinking ill informed bureaucrats were behind it. After all mischief means cash when its translated to court.

that is a very interesting point. The dad and the mom should be the only equation in the issue of guardianship. I totally agree with this. Simply because they are the most important people with real concerns by shear nature. As Fathers and mothers this is an absolute.

As a cynical point of view the lawyers and solicitors stand to make a large amount of cash via conflict. It is a horrible view but at the same time these so called experts will earn a lot of cash if conflict continues.

The Irish gov in my opinion, as it stands is made up of the old boys club that share profits from human misery in this case i.e. an economy of idiots who potentially profit via legal advice from lawyers who are in the club.

The reality is sadly that fathers in these cases will have to learn to be experts in the law to gain basic access to their kids. Am I right in saying that?

rolly1

Deliverance wrote: »

.
The reality is sadly that fathers in these cases will have to learn to be experts in the law to gain basic access to their kids. Am I right in saying that?

No, if the law is skewed aginst them by the introduction of this provision of the Guradianship of Children 2010 bill it won't matter even if they are qualified barristers, because their legal worth in the eyes of the court equates to any other person whom the court appoints as legal guardian, nothing more and nothing less.

Fathers and indeed mothers who are fair minded need to attend the above conference on the 17th and demand from Katleen Lynch the removal of section 5(a) of the bill.

Let parents get on with being parents.

If an alternative is required in terms of appointing guardians other than the father, the new zealand approach is already in place since 2004 in that country; perfectly demonstrating a reasonable and working alternative.

As said earlier I won't be able to attend on the 17th but I do think people attending should have this loudly to the forefront of any discussion on the bill, because it will absolutely crucify fathers if it's left go ahead.

Deliverance

I think you are spot on 'rolly1'. The precedence of the new Zealand law makes total sense and should be brought up as a reasonable addition. The biological parents are the people who first and foremost are the most concerned parties in the childs life and therefore the best people to make any choices due to the welfare of the child.

This welfare choice should not be taken away from either parent. Both parents should be involved in all choices.

5(a) is a cue for a lot more trouble for sure. Both parents as you said and pointed out should be the appointees of any potential guardianship by any third party.