Unmarried fathers rights, custody and visitation.

Klingon Hamlet

I came across this article last week. It's a huge step forward for German families. Wonder if this will ever happen here??

Fathers who are not married to the mothers of their children could soon automatically have equal rights over their children, with Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger preparing to change the law in their favour.

• Love before the law: child custody set for overhaul - Society (2 Jul 10)

The idea is to introduce a presumption of joint custody over children, rather than the current presumption of a mother’s right to sole custody, according to a report in the Passauer Neue Presse newspaper.

Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger has told officials to draw up a draft to make the change, and intends to start it on the way to becoming law this autumn.

“Children should have the right that their fathers taken on responsibility and make joint-decisions over important things in their lives,” Stephan Thomae, family rights expert from Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger’s Free Democratic Party.

He said unmarried parents would share custody unless the mother – or presumably, the father - convinces a court to grant her sole custody over the child.

The Christian Democratic Union would seem to be in favour of the proposal, according to Ute Granold, who speaks on family matters for the parliamentary CDU.

“Living together should not be a prerequisite for joint custody,” she said.

This is really great news. It's a complete turnaround of the current system: instead of hoping for the mother's permission or fighting in court for rights, instead the court is only really there to remove those rights from those unable to be a loving parent. Which thankfully should be at the lower end of the scale, thereby freeing up courtrooms, reducing the number of adversarial parents, and overall vindicating the daddies campaigning for years for equal rights.

Most of all children in Germany now face a far more optimistic future because the usual tug-of-war is far less likely to occur. Bravo to Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. Let's hope Ireland and the rest of Europe take note, and follow Germany's lead.

metrovelvet

I can see the abortion rates sky rocket.

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

I can see the abortion rates sky rocket.

Or people being a lot more careful with contraception which can only be a good thing.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

I can see the abortion rates sky rocket.

Why? :eek:

metrovelvet

Two reasons.

1. If already ambivalent fathers are now forced by law to take the child 50 percent of the time, you can bet on one of two things. Either they will apply more pressure to the mother to be to get an abortion (thus increasing her likelyhood if getting ine), or they will do a total runner, also increasing her likelyhood of getting one.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Two reasons.

1. If already ambivalent fathers are now forced by law to take the child 50 percent of the time, you can bet on one of two things. Either they will apply more pressure to the mother to be to get an abortion (thus increasing her likelyhood if getting ine), or they will do a total runner, also increasing her likelyhood of getting one.

I think you're choosing to see this very negatively.

Klingon Hamlet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Or people being a lot more careful with contraception which can only be a good thing.

How would dads getting automatic custody rights encourage sexual partners to practice safe sex?

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I think you're choosing to see this very negatively.

There is a downside to it. And it will affect plenty.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Two reasons.

1. If already ambivalent fathers are now forced by law to take the child 50 percent of the time, you can bet on one of two things. Either they will apply more pressure to the mother to be to get an abortion (thus increasing her likelyhood if getting ine), or they will do a total runner, also increasing her likelyhood of getting one.

Also you don't understand what joint custody means. Explained here:

Custody

Custody in Ireland refers to the day-to-day care, residency and upbringing of children who are regarded as dependant children. Dependant children in custody matters are children who are under the age of eighteen. In cases of judicial separation or divorce, one parent is usually granted custody. The children reside permanently with the parent who has custody and the other parent is granted access to the children at agreed times, which can include overnight access. It is possible for parents to continue to have joint custody of their children after separation/divorce and for the children to spend an equal amount of time with each parent if the parents can agree and arrange this.

Nowhere in the world is a parent forced to take 50/50 care. Come on.

c montgomery

I have 2 friends who had kids out of marrage and while one of them got joint custody no problem as the mother was reasonable and gererally a nice person the other had to spend over 10grand on soliciters and barrasters just to get access to his kid. She didnt put his name on the birth cert, didnt tell him about the christening and in general didnt want him to have anything to do with the kid.
Now he has access 3 days a week and his mother looks after the kid a number of days also when they are working.

This law would have saved him years of worry and 10grand.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

There is a downside to it. And it will affect plenty.

With respect, look at the upside. Dads get their rights, courts are freed up to take on more important matters, and co-parents face less hassle and strife raising their children seperately. Your downside is a stretch. Face it, guys who run are running from child support more often than not. And that has nothing to do with custody.

Superwhy

I dont think women are having sex willy nilly now with anybody and thinking "Oh its ok if I have a child because I get sole custody anyway?!", I don't see how at all this ruling will automatically lead to more abortions or even more contraception.

I think it will lead to fathers taking their responsibilities more seriously when it comes to having children. And if they don't the mothers can still go to court to have them removed from joint custody and I imagine it will be easy to prove when a parent should not have joint custody.

This will not happen anytime soon in Ireland IMO, purely based on the fact that the fathers of Ireland are not fighting for their rights. The cases where fathers have gone to court to get equal rights are rare in Ireland in comparison to the mothers taking fathers to court for maintenance etc.

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Also you don't understand what joint custody means. Explained here:


Nowhere in the world is a parent forced to take 50/50 care. Come on.

Split 50/50 custody refers to split 50/50 residency, confirmed by your definition.

The men who run are running from maintenance as well as fatherhood.

An automatic split custody assumes they will have the child in residence for half the time. That costs money and time.

Klingon Hamlet

Superwhy wrote: »

I dont think women are having sex willy nilly now with anybody and thinking "Oh its ok if I have a child because I get sole custody anyway?!", I don't see how at all this ruling will automatically lead to more abortions or even more contraception.

I think it will lead to fathers taking their responsibilities more seriously when it comes to having children. And if they don't the mothers can still go to court to have them removed from joint custody and I imagine it will be easy to prove when a parent should not have joint custody.

This will not happen anytime soon in Ireland IMO, purely based on the fact that the fathers of Ireland are not fighting for their rights. The cases where fathers have gone to court to get equal rights are rare in Ireland in comparison to the mothers taking fathers to court for maintenance etc.

This is one of several groups fighting for fathers' rights: USFI

TV3 devoted fifteen seconds of a weekend report to a two hour march from the Four Courts to O'Connell St. (SEE ATTACHMENTS)

I know several dads fighting ten years or more for equal rights, but their cases are "in camera", and therefore you and the rest of Joe Public don't know what they're going through.

Again, these custody rights do not affect the types of parents who run away. Thankfully, they're few and far between. These rights are purely for the dads who want equal rights, but are not entitled to them thanks to the Constitution.

Having automatic custody rights helps dads who love their kids have an equal say.

They don't force unloving dads to take an interest. And shouldn't. That breed of parent disgusts me.

So my point is, for the thousands of dads who fight in court every year for rights, this is a little ray of hope...that eventually, they will not have to ask permission of the mother or the court to be in the child's life.

Superwhy

I completely agree that fathers should have automatic rights, I think it's disgraceful in this day and age that they don't and I would totally welcome it in Ireland, unfortunately I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I'm sorry to be ignorant about the fathers who are fighting for their equal rights, I hadn't heard of any groups doing it but it is something I would support, definitely.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Split 50/50 custody refers to split 50/50 residency, confirmed by your definition.

The men who run are running from maintenance as well as fatherhood.

An automatic split custody assumes they will have the child in residence for half the time. That costs money and time.

No you're confusing it with joint physical custody. That rarely happens.

Men running from fatherhood will not be affected one way or another. Custody cannot be forced on anyone.

What I'm saying is, your "downside" is simply a baseless criticism of a fantastic step forward in modern family law. I wish you could see that.

Klingon Hamlet

Superwhy wrote: »

I completely agree that fathers should have automatic rights, I think it's disgraceful in this day and age that they don't and I would totally welcome it in Ireland, unfortunately I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I'm sorry to be ignorant about the fathers who are fighting for their equal rights, I hadn't heard of any groups doing it but it is something I would support, definitely.

No need to apologise:)the fact is dads have little to no voice here at the moment, but that's changing. Judges are very understanding, and lying dads and lying mums are getting short shrift. The courts are bound by law though, so until laws are changed, the inequality will continue.

That's where the marches help. Showing Joe Public we love our kids and hate the hurdles set before us by an old constitution. When the people finally stand up and support us, those laws will change. Til then, kids will be prizes to be fought over in the closed-door arena of the courtroom.

Here's proof that custody laws are currently choking Ireland's families:

Supreme Court refers issue on custody rights of unmarried fathers to EU court for ruling

THE SUPREME Court has asked the European Court of Justice to decide an important issue concerning the custody rights of unmarried fathers in matters of child removal or abduction.

The issue arose in an appeal by a man against the High Court’s rejection of his challenge to his former partner’s removal a year ago of their three children to England to live.

The couple had had a 10-year relationship and the mother went to England last July with the children, all aged under 10, just weeks after she ended the relationship.

The Supreme Court yesterday said, while it agreed with the High Court that the removal was not unlawful because the man had not applied for custody rights here, it would refer a question to the European Court of Justice.

The EU court, which sits in Luxembourg, is expected to determine the issue within three months under a special urgent procedure. The issue relates to the interpretation of the notion of “rights of custody” within the meaning of a November 2003 EC regulation (the Brussels regulation) on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility.

The European court has to decide whether the Brussels regulation, as interpreted pursuant to Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) or otherwise, precludes a member state requiring an unmarried father to have a court order granting him custody before he can have custody rights rendering the children’s removal wrongful under the regulation.

The Supreme Court said it was its own view the answer to that question should be “No”.

Giving the Supreme Court decision, Mr Justice Nial Fennelly said, as a matter of Irish national law, the father, having failed to secure or even apply for a custody order at the time the children were removed, had no right of custody. On that basis, the children were not wrongfully removed from Ireland in July 2009.

In the interpretation of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction, the Irish courts, as the law stands, have declined to recognise as amounting to rights of custody the “inchoate” rights of those carrying out parental duties and enjoying parental privileges where those were not yet formally recognised by law, the judge added.

The Supreme Court did not believe there was anything in the Brussels regulation or Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to suggest a natural father who does not have a court order or legal agreement granting him custody rights should still be regarded as having custody rights when courts in the children’s country of habitual residence are deciding issues of wrongful removal in cases of child abduction.

The Supreme Court, however, recognised the definition of custody rights for the purpose of applications for the return of children under the Hague Convention was now contained in Article 2.9 of the Brussels regulation which provides the term “rights of custody” shall include rights “and duties” relating to the care of a child, particularly the right to determine the child’s place of residence.

That definition of “rights of custody” introduced the words “and duties” but otherwise did not differ from Article 5 of the Hague Convention.

The Brussels regulation also envisaged a right of custody shall have been “acquired by judgment

. . . under the law of the member state” and this wording closely followed Article 3 of the Hague Convention.

In his Supreme Court appeal, the man argued the rights of custody protected by the Hague Convention include those of an unmarried father living with and by agreement exercising day-to-day care of his children.

He argued he was in the process of asserting his right to apply to be appointed a guardian for the children when they were removed and the court should recognise the “inchoate” rights of a natural father who had not obtained recognition of his position via a court order if he was carrying out duties of a custodial character.

Mr Justice Fennelly said the Irish courts interpret the rights of parents and their children, whether married or not, in accordance with Irish law and the Constitution, which accords a special position to the family and particularly the family based on marriage.

The Irish courts are obliged to interpret and apply the law, insofar as possible, in a manner compatible with the State’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Irish courts would generally apply the ECHR’s interpretation of the convention unless that interpretation was inconsistent with the Constitution.

A natural father has the right under Irish law to apply to be appointed guardian of his child and an independent right to apply for custody and access orders, the judge said. The blood link between a natural father and his child was an important element but in itself did not, without more, confer any rights on the natural father.

A court must consider the father/child relationship in all the circumstances “but always subject to the overriding consideration of the best interests of the child”.

A natural father has no rights of custody in Irish law in the absence of a court order granting such rights and therefore no right to determine the place of residence of his child except as may be granted under a court order.

The Supreme Court believed nothing in the jurisprudence of the ECHR suggested the provisions of Irish law relating to the rights of custody of a natural father are incompatible with the convention.

Given the “infinite variation” of extra-marital relationships and consequent relationships with children, the Supreme Court believed the requirement for a court order to give legal effect to the right of custody of a natural father was necessary to the protection of the best interests of a child.

The couple lived here and in other countries before returning to Ireland in late 2008 where they remained until the woman and children left last year. The High Court found their relationship appeared “rather unstable” but noted the man denied he was violent to the woman.

The High Court found the children’s habitual residence when removed by their mother in July 2009 was Ireland. When the man brought his proceedings here in December 2009, the habitual residence was England, it ruled.

metrovelvet

No. Re read the info you posted. Custody is tied into residency.

MagicMarker

metrovelvet wrote: »

There is a downside to it. And it will affect plenty.

Are you insinuating fathers shouldn't have equal rights?

I'm not sure this can be described as anything but a good thing.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. Re read the info you posted. Custody is tied into residency.

But it's not 50/50 and please refer to the other term so far left out of this thread: primary carer, invariably the mum. Also I don't think a father could have joint custody in county X whilst livng in country Y.

But do you see my point? This can only help families. Wayward dads are not in any way forced to actively partake in custody. And custody rights can be removed in certain cases. So it can only be a good thing!

In this sentence of the article:

“Children should have the right that their fathers taken on responsibility and make joint-decisions over important things in their lives...” ...

I believe your zeroing in on "fathers take on responsibility", as if this is the swift kick up the bum that dads need, to step up and be a proper father. It's not. It's because "Children should have the right"... Simple as.

This is for dads and their kids. Don't ruin the great news. I posted this to encourage dads to keep fighting. All you're doing is dredging up some excuse to sully this amazing new development.

Naysaying the minority is one thing. Tarring us all with the same brush is unfair and mean.

lynski

i believe that irish fathers will never get equal custody rights until the abortion question in this country is fully sorted.
As it stands the right to life of the unborn is enshrined in the constitution, so when does the fathers rights to custody begin? at birth? or before? if it begins with life then a father could prevent an abortion and force a woman to carry to full term.
It has not been tested here, but i have heard of fathers trying to have ex-girlfriends arrested off the plane after abortions, before the right to travel was granted.

metrovelvet

I guess I dont understand what the new policy means exactly. Its unclear.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

I guess I dont understand what the new policy means exactly. Its unclear.

The new policy is simple: it automatically entitles the unmarried father to custody rights over their child, without having to either:

(a) ask the mother's permission

(b) apply to the courts.

The minister clearly sees it as a positive step for children; now all children in Germany will be entitled to both parents making decisions in their lives.

I cannot see it happening here for at least several decades. The recent Front Line programme clearly showed the Government's attitude: that marriage should have its advantages, one of them being that the father gets automatic rights to his child. To give those same rights to unmarried fathers would, in their eyes, "cheapen" marriage (not quoting, but paraphrasing). They basically think: what's the point of marriage, if unmarried fathers get the same rights?

In other words, you want equal rights? Here's three options: Marry the mum, agree, or go to court.

I'd say eventually we will see a mass equalisation of human rights across Europe. then children, rather than married couples, will take priority. And in that case then the discrimination will end. But as I say, decades to go.

Klingon Hamlet

I've looked into this further. Currently in Germany, unmarried fathers can only gain joint custody by the mother's consent. Even a court can not give them that right. So basically they're going to leapfrog past our current standard---consent by mother, or grant by court---and going straight to automatic rights. Interesting!

Spinach

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Nowhere in the world is a parent forced to take 50/50 care. Come on.

This is unintentionally amusing. Where parent A cannot possibly be forced to take 50% care, then parent B is defacto forced to take 90 or 100%, with all the implications for their career and earning potential that go with that. And yet you seem to imply that the former scenario would be a ridiculous suggestion?

metrovelvet wrote: »

An automatic split custody assumes they will have the child in residence for half the time. That costs money and time.

Precisely.

Klingon Hamlet

Spinach wrote: »

This is unintentionally amusing. Where parent A cannot possibly be forced to take 50% care, then parent B is defacto forced to take 90 or 100%, with all the implications for their career and earning potential that go with that. And yet you seem to imply that the former scenario would be a ridiculous suggestion?

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying no court would ever force a 50/50 care of a child. There are cases where both parents are agreeable to it, but when I said no-one would be forced, it was in response to metrovelvet's opinion that dads will run away from the thoughts of being forced to take 50/50 care. I hope that clarifies things.

You may want to read up on the term "primary carer" as it tends to apply to the majority of cases in Ireland. It decides who out of both parents gets the majority of time with the child. It usually depends on who is working and who's staying at home, although there are many other variables to take into account.

I think it's a shame that the minute I put up an article showing that parental equality is on the horizon, posts about negligent dads apear near instantaneously. It always goes from child-orientated, to anti-dads. I resent that, and feel it is discriminatory and unquestionable sexist. It turns good news for all families into just another bash against dads.

Bad dads are in the minority, so why are they used against the rest of us?? And why ruin good news with bad feeling? My post wasn't trying to provoke any reaction besides relief/enthsiasm. It wasn't anything like Ha! Dads get their revenge! There's nothing misogynistic behind it. It's good for everyone!

The courts can be a scary and expensive place for a regular mum/dad. Surely the thought that laws could be introduced to bypass adversarial situations, and place the child at the centre of all decisions/choices made, can only be a good thing? Surely it can only make a child's future happier...:)

Let's grow beyond silly stereotypes. Put the kiddies first people:D

Klingon Hamlet

This is an excellent video about Shared Parenting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0tbOBWdyAM

Can't stand Geldof but he cuts right to the heart of the matter. The interviews at the beginning are very upsetting:(

metrovelvet

So basically they get 50 percent custody if they want it. Yeah. Big wow. That's not right. That's privalege.

What if the mother only wants her 50 and not 90?

With equal custody the term primary carer doesnt apply. Yippee. A country full of suitcases in the hallway and an abortion rate to beat the band.

The courts are going to swell, not deflate.

Custody IS residency klingon.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

So basically they get 50 percent custody if they want it. Yeah. Big wow. That's not right. That's privalege.

What if the mother only wants her 50 and not 90?

With equal custody the term primary carer doesnt apply. Yippee. A country full of suitcases in the hallway and an abortion rate to beat the band.

The courts are going to swell, not deflate.

Custody IS residency klingon.

I have joint custody and joint guardianship of my child, but the mother is primary carer. I have access 2 days a week. Explain how that equates to equal custody, please.

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I have joint custody and joint guardianship of my child, but the mother is primary carer. I have access 2 days a week. Explain how that equates to equal custody, please.

It's not. But you said german dads are going to get automatic equal custody.

Even if it is partial, its not going to clean up the courts.

It will be the same as the US system whereby once your paternity is established you automatically have some custody, but then it becomes a question of how much.

The courts are still clogged with disputes. But i guess that's justice for you.

If you have access two days a week, you do not have custody. None because the child is never a resident in your home.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's not. But you said german dads are going to get automatic equal custody.

No, I didn't. I did a word search of both pages. Nowhere in this did I say that "German dads are going to get automatic equal custody".:rolleyes: