Mums 4 Justice

cbyrd

If you are a guardian of a child in Ireland, you have a duty to maintain and properly care for the child and you have a right to make decisions about the child's religious and secular education, health requirements and general welfare

In situations where the father has been appointed joint guardian of a child, then his consent is required for certain things relating to the child's general welfare and other items. (For example, for passport applications for the child). Read more about passports for children of unmarried parents here (pdf). The father's consent is also required for the adoption of the child by another couple (or by the mother and her husband).

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/unmarried-couples/legal_guardianship_and_unmarried_couples

I did not say every defaulter was a man i did not mention gender at all

In the United States, paternity fraud is not uncommon, although its precise incidence is unknown. Office of Child Support Enforcement studies have shown that mothers often simply refuse to name a father. My own research in 1999 showed that 15% of birth certificates have no father named. And when a father is named, he is not always the actual father as many men have learned to their regret. In family court cases where paternity is contested, the American Association of Blood Banks, which licenses DNA testing labs, has found a 29.9% incidence of false paternity.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4201

It is easy to prove who the mother is .. it's a tad more difficult to prove paternity unless DNA testing is undertaken. Before this technology was in place how was paternity proven?? you're dealing with out of date laws, you have to take into consideration out of date technology at the time too.

And to be fair i never said don't sleep around...if you want me to be graphic just avoid penetration :D

the laws put in place in a time that was different, as i said in my earlier post they are archaic. but they are all we have for now. there are lots of different families now single, gay couples, step parents none of which were the norm even 20 years ago. the law has to catch up

blaming all unmarried mothers for the laws that are there is unfair. the law is an ass blame the law makers. that some choose to abuse the system is reprehensible.
you pick certain quotes and while your argument is valid i think your anger towards fellow posters is colouring your view that when single parent is mentioned you think mother and defaulter means man this is not the case in my posts and i would prefer if you would read them through and not mis-quote me

goodmum

Right.
Just putting dinner on the table for 'it' at the moment.
You can argue the toss with your opinion for an eternity..and you do

The FACTS are (going back to the original topic in this thread) that women don't scale buildings or dress up in batman suits to state their cause, because they are too busy feeding and clothing their 'choice'. 'It'
Lovely.
And men - not all men - but some men, use pathetic excuses and continually revert to the past to justify the fact that they do not, and will not, take 50% of the responsibility for the children that they 50% made.

They conveniently forget the fact that the 'choices' their ex-partner makes are human beings, who because of THEIR choices not to be a parent, grow up without one parent. These children will become adults who (in the majority of cases) carry with them a feeling of rejection by a parent - thereby leading to low self-esteem etc etc. And the cycle continues.

So with respect, you're talking ****e.
These children that we bang on about will eventually be posting on boards.ie about their issues. Look at PI. Look at Relationships.

The cycle continues.

The Corinthian

cbyrd wrote: »

If you are a guardian of a child in Ireland, you have a duty to maintain and properly care for the child and you have a right to make decisions about the child's religious and secular education, health requirements and general welfare

Unfortunately this right is not actually properly defined and so is almost never enforced where there is a disagreement, with the custodial parents generally wining out. Pretty much all of the areas you cited are overruled on almost all occasions.

With the proposed reform of the role of guardian, these rights are further diluted in favour of the choices of the custodial parent.

The father's consent is also required for the adoption of the child by another couple (or by the mother and her husband).

Not if unmarried. Then he is not a guardian automatically and there is no obligation that he be informed, let alone give consent.

In the United States, paternity fraud is not uncommon, although its precise incidence is unknown.

Paternity fraud is really another area which also affects men and for which there appears to be little consequence for women who commit it, but I had not bothered to raise.

And to be fair i never said don't sleep around...if you want me to be graphic just avoid penetration :D

It still amounts to the same hypocritical advice.

blaming all unmarried mothers for the laws that are there is unfair.

I am not blaming unmarried mothers, married mothers or childless women for anything. I am blaming some people who due to gender alone feel entailed to a grotesque advantage in rights and then complain that they cannot abdicate responsibility to others when they unilaterally exercise them.

The Corinthian

goodmum wrote: »

The FACTS are (going back to the original topic in this thread) that women don't scale buildings or dress up in batman suits to state their cause, because they are too busy feeding and clothing their 'choice'. 'It'
Lovely.

No, the FACTS are that women do not scale buildings or dress up in batman suits to state their cause because they are not in the same desperate situation where they have absolutely no rights to their own children. They don't need to take things to such extremes because they do not suffer the same injustice.

And men - not all men - but some men, use pathetic excuses and continually revert to the past to justify the fact that they do not, and will not, take 50% of the responsibility for the children that they 50% made.

Yet it makes sense to you that a woman who has 100% of the choice only need shoulder 50% of the responsibility?

They conveniently forget the fact that the 'choices' their ex-partner makes are human beings, who because of THEIR choices not to be a parent, grow up without one parent. These children will become adults who (in the majority of cases) carry with them a feeling of rejection by a parent - thereby leading to low self-esteem etc etc. And the cycle continues.

And what of those mothers who choose to raise children knowing that they will do so fatherless? Where a child might grow up with two adoptive parents rather than one? There appears to be an complete abdication of responsibility here.

So with respect, you're talking ****e.
These children that we bang on about will eventually be posting on boards.ie about their issues. Look at PI. Look at Relationships.

Which of course are all down to the man - the woman's choices are blameless. I'm afraid you're talking a lot of self-serving shìte yourself.

goodmum

So my ****e gets starred out...but you can write all of yours.

I have to ask if you are a parent. Your reply will most likely be that it's not relevant. But it is.

The Corinthian

goodmum wrote: »

So my ****e gets starred out...but you can write all of yours.

Look carefully at how I wrote it.

I have to ask if you are a parent. Your reply will most likely be that it's not relevant. But it is.

Give me a logical and convincing argument as to why it is and I'll tell you. Otherwise it simply sounds like you want to dismiss me based on me not being a father, a deadbeat father, a batman clad father or whatever.

Nevyn

goodmum civil posting is expected on this forum and personal abuse is not tolerated.
there is also the site policy of attack the post and the points in them rather then attacking the poster personally.

While mothers have limited recourse under the law re tracking down an errant father
they have more rights then father's who are refused access to thier children and want to be in thier lives.

Frankly as much of a struggle as it is to raise a child on your own there is some comfort and consolation as you have the child and get to see thier smiles and get hugs.

Father's who are frozen out of thier children's lifes have no consolation and know that they can't contrbute to thier child's upbringing and bethere for thier struggles and smiles and will always suffer a specail type of guilt and worry as they do not have contact with the child.

goodmum

With a (french) grave. How posh.

Because being a parent is emotive. Your arguments here have no emotion. They are based on fact and law and statistics.
Being a parent is emotive.
You don't display any emotion here so my educated guess is that you are either a parent who doesn't see their child, in which case you are biased against parents like me.
Or you aren't a parent and so can't display the emotion that goes with what being a parent actually is in the context of THIS thread of course.

Another educated guess of mine is that you will reply saying none of this is relevant because I haven't displayed a logical or convincing argument.
But hey, 'it' is calling me for 'it's tea...so what do I know...:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

goodmum wrote: »

Because being a parent is emotive. Your arguments here have no emotion. They are based on fact and law and statistics.

Sorry for basing my arguments on fact and law...

Another educated guess of mine is that you will reply saying none of this is relevant because I haven't displayed a logical or convincing argument.
But hey, 'it' is calling me for 'it's tea...so what do I know...:rolleyes:

It's logical, in so far as you only intend to dismiss me on the basis I suggested in my previous post.

Maybe we should just base all our arguments on emotion instead. That would make for some fun anarchy.

goodmum

Apologies, wasn't my intention to personnally abuse. The points the poster is making are almost critiques of issues that they have stated time and time again. Gotcha tho, won't get personal again.

goodmum

Hands up:D

I've done exactly what I said I wouldn't do, which is waste my energy.

Interesting that for all of my emotive arguments, you have a logical reply.
You also interestingly haven't answered the question as to whether you yourself are a parent.
My opinion is that only parents would be interested in this debate.
I know nothing about timing belts on ferraris for example. So I would never feel the need to involve myself in an argument about them.
Not that I'm comparing children - or my child - to a timing belt on a ferrari....time for tea here...:)

The Corinthian

goodmum wrote: »

Interesting that for all of my emotive arguments, you have a logical reply.
You also interestingly haven't answered the question as to whether you yourself are a parent.

Because I have no interest in you simply using that as a means to dismiss me out of hand, which was your intention.

My opinion is that only parents would be interested in this debate.

Not really, because I think this is something that all men should be interested in regardless of whether it affects them or not - after all, there are many women's rights issues that will interest women that do not affect them either.

Not that I'm comparing children - or my child - to a timing belt on a ferrari....time for tea here...:)

Buon appetito.

cbyrd

As i have already stated, the single women are not responsible for the laws

if they take advantage of it thats a moral decision they have to live with.

the law makers are at fault

if a man does not seek guardianship why is the woman automatically at fault??

If you argue that some people of a gender can abuse the law to that genders grotesque advantage, does it not work the other way too?? can another gender not refuse to sign a register as a childs parent:rolleyes: in doing so escape responsibility.. there are two sides to every law that can be used to every genders grotesque advantage

sometimes the child is used for leverage to hurt and humilliate in custody cases. this i am very familiar with even in the case of marriage breakdown where guardianship is not questioned.

i have a nephew whose mother divorced his father he has not seen his father for 14 years not for the want of trying on the mothers part nor has she recieved maintainence...

i have a brother fighting for guardianship of his son

i have a brother in law who gets to see his 2 children for 4 hours on a saturday and regularly has to go back to court to get his ex to adhere to the rules.. he pays for all the things the kids need way over the agreed amount to keep her sweet so she won't start missing saturdays

both sides of the same argument

The Corinthian

cbyrd wrote: »

if they take advantage of it thats a moral decision they have to live with.

Which is why there appears to be a lot of moral cherry picking going on.

if a man does not seek guardianship why is the woman automatically at fault??

Did I suggest that? No, I only suggested that he is not one automatically and that even if he were it will afford him very little.

If you argue that some people of a gender can abuse the law to that genders grotesque advantage, does it not work the other way too?? can another gender not refuse to sign a register as a childs parent:rolleyes: in doing so escape responsibility.. there are two sides to every law that can be used to every genders grotesque advantage

Except refusing to sign is at best a delay tactic - for a father there is no escaping the legal consequences only avoiding them. The grotesque advantages that women have, on the other hand, are permanent and overwhelming.

That is why the comparison is offensive.

cbyrd

The Corinthian wrote: »

I only suggested that he is not one automatically and that even if he were it will afford him very little.

guardianship affords a parent a say in their childs life, otherwise what would the point of having it in law??
again if a parent decides to abuse it by making access difficult or not turning up that is not the fault of all single parents...

its the fault of the law

and one then would have to question why the law was made in this way..
why is the bias to female? (genuinely curious)
and that is what needs to be addressed
not who did what to whom...

Klingon Hamlet

The single greatest error being made is this: the debate is whether dads are at fault, or mams are at fault. In individual cases, sometimes the finger can be pointed at one over the other---not that that's very productive.

My point is that the reason behin the laws is simple: society was very different when those laws were written. Society has changed, and the laws could be changed to better suit the new, "modern" family. But some would say this takes away the "advantages" of the orthodox, married family unit---that to put unmarried families on an even keel with married families, would negate the very necessity of marriage in the first place, and therefore bring chaos where lawmakers would prefer order.

my argument against that widely-held belief is that marital laws cover many things: property and money being the primaries. These I believe should still get preferential treatment over the same items in a co-habiting unmarried relationship.

Children are not bank accounts or residences. They deserve 2 parents. Therefore I believe the same laws that govern married family law should also govern unmarried law: vis-a-vis both parents are equal custodians and guardians, and access should be 50/50. Where these rights are violated, intervention by court---but otherwise keep families out of court and therefore hopefully out of a long-winded battle.

Regarding errant fathers: if the mother knows the father's identity, then they can be very easily traced. For the sake of children, privacy laws could and should be loosened to facilitate a trace. Children deserve loving parents, and co-parents deserve support both from their counterpart and from the State.

Now can we quit this mums vs dads thing? That was the whole reason I posted the OP. To show when the Lowest Common Denominator (crass media and their low-IQ readership) exploit the fears of the vulnerable, and turn that fear into blind hatred and resentment. Groups are there to support, guide, advise and bolster the strength of those that need it in a positive manner: i.e. getting results and satisfaction, rather than b1tching and demeaning the opposite sex.

We're all in this together. We're equal. Let the laws agree on that, and let the silly backward gender war end, and let children get the love and attention they rightly deserve, from State and family, once and for all.:)

goodmum

'Because I have no interest in you simply using that as a means to dismiss me out of hand, which was your intention'


And you bought your crystal ball when exactly?
Had I wanted to dismiss you out of hand, I would have replied once. End of.

Why do you refuse to entertain personal stories of women who are experiencing the outcome of the very argument you debate?
Would you equally dismiss a guy who posted, asking for rights to his child and telling his story?
Interestingly again, there aren't any here. Which would (perhaps) hazard the guess that statistically, we are in the majority? Seventy odd posts...Surely we ARE the argument.
How can you dismiss life stories based on the fact that you don't want to get personal.
The personal stories are what make this debate exactly what it is.

goodmum

Couldn't have put it better myself Klingon.

'Regarding errant fathers: if the mother knows the father's identity, then they can be very easily traced. For the sake of children, privacy laws could and should be loosened to facilitate a trace. Children deserve loving parents, and co-parents deserve support both from their counterpart and from the State'

Completely agree. However, you can't force a man to be a father. The law won't enforce it, nor should it. So what of the children who's fathers just decide they don't want to be fathers? They grow up fatherless, perhaps full of low self esteem, self worth etc. There is no law that can 'fix' that.

Excellent post though.

The Corinthian

cbyrd wrote: »

guardianship affords a parent a say in their childs life, otherwise what would the point of having it in law??

The point of the law was that it was designed to assign 'parent-like' rights to a guardian who was not necessarily a blood relative or even adoptive parent. It was never designed with the idea that a guardian would not be a custodial one too in mind.

The problem now is that it will likely be reformed in such a way that, while automatic, there will be no guardianship rights, only responsibilities - thus giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

The single greatest error being made is this: the debate is whether dads are at fault, or mams are at fault.

I've never suggested that mothers are at fault. All I have suggested is that mothers have a grotesque advantage in terms of legal rights over fathers and so a comparison that does not recognize this is insulting.

Where this has been disputed, I have pointed out where and that often the posters doing so (not mothers in general) ware cherry picking their moral positions so as to justify this advantage.

This does not mean that women do not suffer inequities too in family law, but frankly I resent that the implication that they suffer the same level of inequities as men. They don't. Nowhere near.

The Corinthian

goodmum wrote: »

And you bought your crystal ball when exactly?
Had I wanted to dismiss you out of hand, I would have replied once. End of.

But you didn't and seek an excuse to do so and have subsequently admitted this. So I was correct.

Why do you refuse to entertain personal stories of women who are experiencing the outcome of the very argument you debate?

I said so before. Because there is always going to be three sides to the story; his, hers and the truth and a biased (to outright false) account is not going to help this discussion at all.

Would you equally dismiss a guy who posted, asking for rights to his child and telling his story?

Yes and if you look back I said I would.

The Corinthian

goodmum wrote: »

Completely agree. However, you can't force a man to be a father. The law won't enforce it, nor should it. So what of the children who's fathers just decide they don't want to be fathers? They grow up fatherless, perhaps full of low self esteem, self worth etc. There is no law that can 'fix' that.

What if there was a law that forced a woman to be a mother? Or if instead of abortion a fetus could simply be transferred to somewhere where it could develop and then given to the father when mature? Would the mother, who had not wanted to become a mother, be forced into it? Should she grow up instead of getting an abortion or putting the child up for adoption?

But that's different...

Nevyn

goodmum wrote: »

The personal stories are what make this debate exactly what it is.

Emotive and possible flame fests and hard to moderate :P

There is also a difference in the style of posts in this thread.
There are two types of 'discussion going on, one is more sharing and emotive and the other is more the cut and thrust of debate.

This isn't the humanities forum so that type of 'arguement' will never be the dominant style for here.

goodmum

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

'Or if instead of abortion a fetus could simply be transferred to somewhere where it could develop and then given to the father when mature?'...And if my aunty had b*lls, she'd be my uncle.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

goodmum

Im exhausted anyway Thaed, so I'm outta here.

The Corinthian

goodmum wrote: »

And if my aunty had b*lls, she'd be my uncle.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well, if you can't think out of the box, there's not a lot of point talking is there?

Not so long ago women did not have a right to abort and had precious little rights thereafter. Was that right? I'm sure your male counterpart back then would have agreed.

cbyrd

hmmm i thought you said gender there for a minute not women..:D i never disputed the fact that the laws give the advantage, only that the laws are at fault not the women or any single parent be they man or woman

if the laws are changed to give automatic rights to both parents, which in my opinion should have been done years ago, then you have to afford the right of the deserted parent, male or female, redress in the form of maintainence and support and harsh consequences if they default!!

a child has the right to both parents, but also both grandparents aunts uncles cousins etc.. and vice versa..and a full medical history.

it has to address both sides of the arguement to be a balanced and proper law

The Corinthian

cbyrd wrote: »

hmmm i thought you said gender there for a minute not women..:D i never disputed the fact that the laws give the advantage, only that the laws are at fault not the women or any single parent be they man or woman

Again, I have not pointed the finger at women or mothers, only at the laws and those who support their inequity.

cbyrd

The Corinthian wrote: »

With the proposed reform of the role of guardian, these rights are further diluted in favour of the choices of the custodial parent.

I am not blaming unmarried mothers, married mothers or childless women for anything. I am blaming some people who due to gender alone feel entailed to a grotesque advantage in rights and then complain that they cannot abdicate responsibility to others when they unilaterally exercise them.

gender would seem to indicate women ??

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, the FACTS are that women do not scale buildings or dress up in batman suits to state their cause because they are not in the same desperate situation where they have absolutely no rights to their own children. They don't need to take things to such extremes because they do not suffer the same injustice.

Yet it makes sense to you that a woman who has 100% of the choice only need shoulder 50% of the responsibility?

And what of those mothers who choose to raise children knowing that they will do so fatherless? Where a child might grow up with two adoptive parents rather than one? There appears to be an complete abdication of responsibility here.

Which of course are all down to the man - the woman's choices are blameless.

this looks like pointing the finger at women ??????

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except refusing to sign is at best a delay tactic - for a father there is no escaping the legal consequences only avoiding them. The grotesque advantages that women have, on the other hand, are permanent and overwhelming.

That is why the comparison is offensive.

again where is the womans fault ?? the laws are at fault

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've never suggested that mothers are at fault. All I have suggested is that mothers have a grotesque advantage in terms of legal rights over fathers and so a comparison that does not recognize this is insulting.

I resent that the implication that they suffer the same level of inequities as men. They don't. Nowhere near.

this does sound like you are talking about women more than single parents..men v's women...

The Corinthian

I think you are confusing an attack on an inequitable legal system with who are advantaged by that system.

You are further confusing that some women feel this inequity is correct - and indeed, you'll find some of the more traditional men out there would also think so - but that is by no means an attack against women in general.

That women have a grotesque legal advantage is not their fault. It is the fault of the legal system as it stands and those who support this status quo and that is certainly not all women or necessarily even based on gender lines.

Does this clarify things for you?

Klingon Hamlet

cbyrd wrote: »

this does sound like you are talking about women more than single parents..men v's women...

Correction: men's rights vs women's rights, and the prejudices behind each. Imagine the terms "mother" and "father" were abolished. Instead there was only "parent". Now split the parents down the middle. One gets all the rights. The other has to ask for them, or worse, fight for them...and because of their ill luck being on the "wrong side", they must also work against prejudices and assumptions in order to be respected and heard.

Or, even easier---imagine this were a patriarchal sociey, and women merely "spawned" the children, but men were seen as the provider of life, and therefore bestowed with rights whether married or no. Then you would see Wonder Women and Supergirls ascending the rooftops, crying out for justice. And rightly so.

The "superheroes" do not blame their opposite gender. The genders do not oppose one another. People oppose one another...the gender is merely coincidental in these cases (men break up with women and vice versa...the after-effects depend on their personalities, not their sex).

The campaign is regarding laws, not people. It is appealing to lawmakers, not parents. It is for families,not against co-parents. It is a good thing.

Anyone that perpetuates this needless vicious circle of "dads are better/ NO mums are better" obviously doesn't understand true parenting---the love and the discipline.They're merely spreading misogyny/misandry and hurting the children in the process.

There are good and bad mums and dads. That is obvious. Because there are good and bad people. You rarely hear the good stories because why would you? So quit the rivalry! Otherwise things will never improve.