Unmarried fathers rights, custody and visitation.

rolly1

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Read between the lines. It's simply to facilitate wives/husbands of single parents where the other bio parent deserted the child. yes there are circumstances where the bio parent is incapable, this happens, but really it's for the single mum/dad where the other parent did a runner. No adoption required, the husband/wife/partner can help with the parenting.

Maybe you should try reading the actual lines instead of reading between them:

Appointment of step-parent to exercise parental responsibility

Section 14

(3) (a) The court may, on the application of the step-parent, appoint a step-parent to exercise parental responsibility for a child.
(b) In deciding whether to grant an order under paragraph (a) the court shall have regard to all the circumstances, including in particular—
(i) the applicant‟s connection with the child,
(ii) the risk, if any, of the application disrupting the child‟s life to the extent that the child would be harmed by it,
(iii) the wishes and best interests of the child,
(iv) the views of any other persons already exercising parental responsibility for the child.

Absolutely nothing about desertion of the bio parent as a precondition for a step parent to make court application for parental responsibility.

rolly1

I've a song for Mary White and the LRC:

F*ck your Parental Responsibility, I have Guardianship outside!

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

Isnt that, in itself unequal though? That some kids, some fathers, some step fathers, will have this legislation applied but not others.

It will be a three ring circus. What a joke.

It isn't perfect. If you are looking for perfect legislation go to..................errr, I don't know where!

Guardianship is still open to older cases.

thebullkf

Heartbreaking stuff on this thread, in relation to recent talk of reform-i'm all for it.Dad's should have equal rights,that doesn't mean whenever the mother see's fit ,which is currently the case but rather whatever's best for the child.Unfortunately whatevr's best for the child is usually dictated by the mother,so if she's a wagon (pardon the parlance) its a lose-lose situation for the dad, and child.
I personally know of one friend who killed himself over his ex playing vicious mind games,no visitation despite substantial Maintenance and a genuine desire to raise his kid,she numerous times failed to show citing illness (after the fact,no notice-won't go into it here).
i also am in constant daily interaction with numerous Foster and SN children in foster care-the amount of times bio parents,both sexes don't turn up is heart rending-yet the law is 100% behind the mother (it depends on the case-but i think its wrong) .
I also know a co-habiting couple who are in love,have a child but the father wanted it official (in case anything happened accident/Medical wise )that he was the childs legal guardian-he asked herself to accompany him to a brief to get the documents sorted.......she refused ! .. saying when they were married it wouldn't matter.. now i dunno if she's afraid he'll leave,or whatever on the face of it they seem in love,are together years and have plenty of mutual friends,both work etc..

my point is this that poor guy has no recourse to legally,have his own child ,
be declared his legal guardian......

If anything were to happen god forbid, the mother,his child and half his house go to his Girlfriends next of kin....

that is wrong .Surely every reasonable person can see that?

this is why i believe the automatic rights situation is a positive thing.
I know its an emotive matter,and have on occasion crossed swords with Metrovelvet but i do agree with the majority of what she says,i also believe its from the heart,and should be treated as such,i also have noticed some disgraceful posts regarding her posts,from ordinary posters and Mods alike,also some of the mutual 'thanks' backslapping (in this context) is reflecting negatively on some threads here ...


Ultimately the sooner fathers have equal rights the better.

Sorry for the long post:o

rolly1

K-9 wrote: »

It isn't perfect. If you are looking for perfect legislation go to..................errr, I don't know where!

Guardianship is still open to older cases.

Isn't perfect...errrr that would be the understatement of the century.... have you actually read the report and accompanying legislation? Despite all the crowing about this proposed legislation the only person who appears to have read and understood it here is Metrovelvet.

Here's another gemstone for you guys:

C Consultation in the exercise of parental responsibility

1.17 In the Consultation Paper the Commission provisionally recommended that a broad statutory definition of parental responsibility be adopted in Ireland. The Commission also invited submissions on whether any such definition should include a requirement to consult with any other parties who have parental responsibility for the child. The Commission stated in the Consultation Paper that it was “of the opinion that a consultation requirement is appropriate. However, this should not operate to stifle the exercise of guardianship/parental responsibility by either parent.The Commission also noted the opinion of the English Law Commission on this issue in its 1988 Report on Family Law, Review of Child Law, Guardianship and Custody14 that it was important to recognise the equal status of both parents and the power to act independently unless a court ordered otherwise. The English Law Commission was not of the opinion that a statutory duty to consult would increase co-operation between parents.15 The Commission also noted that in England and Wales there is a requirement to obtain the consent of all parties in circumstances where the child is being adopted16 and in Scotland consent of the other party with parental responsibility is necessary to remove the child from the jurisdiction,17 although there is no general requirement to consult. By way of comparison the statutory framework in New Zealand includes a specific requirement for consultation between parties with guardianship where it is practical to do so.....Having considered the matter in preparing this Report, the Commission does not consider that a general statutory requirement to consult should be included in the proposed legislation dealing with parental responsibility.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/r101Family%281%29.pdf

There you go, full and irreversible legal castration for all fathers; no more consultation on major welfare decisions required.

Unilateral decisions by the mother will now be legally enshrined as her right.

Wooo! don't you just love these wonderful rights they are about to bestow on the fathers & children of Ireland!

rolly1

thebullkf wrote: »

I personally know of one friend who killed himself over his ex playing vicious mind games,no visitation despite substantial Maintenance and a genuine desire to raise his kid,she numerous times failed to show citing illness (after the fact,no notice-won't go into it here).
i also am in constant daily interaction with numerous Foster and SN children in foster care-the amount of times bio parents,both sexes don't turn up is heart rending-yet the law is 100% behind the mother (it depends on the case-but i think its wrong) .
I also know a co-habiting couple who are in love,have a child but the father wanted it official (in case anything happened accident/Medical wise )that he was the childs legal guardian-he asked herself to accompany him to a brief to get the documents sorted.......she refused ! .. saying when they were married it wouldn't matter.. now i dunno if she's afraid he'll leave,or whatever on the face of it they seem in love,are together years and have plenty of mutual friends,both work etc..

my point is this that poor guy has no recourse to legally,have his own child ,
be declared his legal guardian......

If anything were to happen god forbid, the mother,his child and half his house go to his Girlfriends next of kin....

that is wrong .Surely every reasonable person can see that?

this is why i believe the automatic rights situation is a positive thing.
I know its an emotive matter,and have on occasion crossed swords with Metrovelvet but i do agree with the majority of what she says,i also believe its from the heart,and should be treated as such,i also have noticed some disgraceful posts regarding her posts,from ordinary posters and Mods alike,also some of the mutual 'thanks' backslapping (in this context) is reflecting negatively on some threads here ...


Ultimately the sooner fathers have equal rights the better.

Sorry for the long post:o

Unfortunately thebulkf if this report and draft bill become eshrined in law a lot more fathers out there will be killing themselves. Under this proposed bill the law will be 200% behind the person with day to day care of the child i.e. the mother in the vast vast majority of cases. The only positive thing I can see in the whole document so far is the setting up of a central register for guardians, the rest is utter anti-father legalese to screw him over.

Your cohabiting friend does have legal recourse to be declared a guardian to his child. If his partner is refusing to consent by signing the statutory declaration form then he should apply to the court for guardianship. He has an extremely high chance of getting it there as there's somethinmg like a 3% refusal rate.

Blackmail is not a very good basis for marriage.

Further to obtaining guardianship I would also recommend that he goes seeking legal advice on opting out of the default cohabitation provisions of the cohabitation legislation which I think come into effect on January 1st, 2011.

K-9

rolly1 wrote: »

Isn't perfect...errrr that would be the understatement of the century.... have you actually read the report and accompanying legislation? Despite all the crowing about this proposed legislation the only person who appears to have read and understood it here is Metrovelvet.

Here's another gemstone for you guys:

C Consultation in the exercise of parental responsibility


http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/r101Family%281%29.pdf

There you go, full and irreversible legal castration for all fathers; no more consultation on major welfare decisions required.

Unilateral decisions by the mother will now be legally enshrined as her right.

Wooo! don't you just love these wonderful rights they are about to bestow on the fathers & children of Ireland!

That's trying to deal with Solomon's dilemma.

What would you want?

K-9

The Commission stated in the Consultation Paper that it was “of the opinion that a consultation requirement is appropriate. However, this should not operate to stifle the exercise of guardianship/parental responsibility by either parent.

The Commission also noted the opinion of the English Law Commission on this issue in its 1988 Report on Family Law, Review of Child Law, Guardianship and Custody14 that it was important to recognise the equal status of both parents and the power to act independently unless a court ordered otherwise. The English Law Commission was not of the opinion that a statutory duty to consult would increase co-operation between parents.

Tbh, I'd say they recommended it at first but seen how it is very difficult practically to enforce, as the English Law Commission also seen.

metrovelvet

rolly1 wrote: »

Isn't perfect...errrr that would be the understatement of the century.... have you actually read the report and accompanying legislation? Despite all the crowing about this proposed legislation the only person who appears to have read and understood it here is Metrovelvet.

Here's another gemstone for you guys:

C Consultation in the exercise of parental responsibility


http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/r101Family%281%29.pdf

There you go, full and irreversible legal castration for all fathers; no more consultation on major welfare decisions required.

Unilateral decisions by the mother will now be legally enshrined as her right.

Wooo! don't you just love these wonderful rights they are about to bestow on the fathers & children of Ireland!

It's not only that, but grandparents, 'extended family', step parents, hey why not throw in the post man too, can apply for it to get a vote in and also contest the mother or custodial parent too.

Why are they tagging all this onto father's rights? Why didnt they just attach rights to the name on the birth cert and leave it at that?

No longer required to decide things consultatively, this will lead to more bickering and fighting and all these chefs in the kitchen. Worst legislation for families I ever came across.

It seems to me they are very slowly eating away at the blood guarantee and moving towards a behavoiral assessment. Far too much state control over the family imo. Shame on them.

Fiona44

The less rights unmarried fathers have the better as far as I'm concerned! I plan on moving to Australia with my new boyfriend. Won't be telling my ex until we actually leave in case he tries to stop us... men :rolleyes:

metrovelvet

Fiona44 wrote: »

The less rights unmarried fathers have the better as far as I'm concerned! I plan on moving to Australia with my new boyfriend. Won't be telling my ex until we actually leave in case he tries to stop us... men :rolleyes:

Well congratulations because this new legislation means your bf can be a guardian too.

Fiona44

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well congratulations because this new legislation means your bf can be a guardian too.

yay

rolly1

Fiona44 wrote: »

The less rights unmarried fathers have the better as far as I'm concerned! I plan on moving to Australia with my new boyfriend. Won't be telling my ex until we actually leave in case he tries to stop us... men :rolleyes:

Is your ex a guardian?

Blarneykite

Fiona44 wrote: »

The less rights unmarried fathers have the better as far as I'm concerned! I plan on moving to Australia with my new boyfriend. Won't be telling my ex until we actually leave in case he tries to stop us... men :rolleyes:

Well time will tell Fiona44, Kilmessan....... or may be you'll be arrested first under the hauge convention for attempted/intended child abduction.........

mohawk

Maybe they should tackle some of these issues in the children’s rights referendum that is allegedly being worked on. After all as much as parents love their children, the needs of the children should come first and they deserve to know both their parents.

I firmly believe that unmarried men should have equal rights. They shouldn't have to get a piece of paper or go to court to get guardianship of their own children. Just because you have a womb doesn't make you a better parent.
If me and my boyfriend ever broke up I would be hurting my son by preventing him from seeing his dad.

I don't see why they are bringing grandparents and step-parents into the equation, but if the parents are capable why would a judge award someone else with guardianship rights?

boAds_user

Fiona44 wrote: »

The less rights unmarried fathers have the better as far as I'm concerned! I plan on moving to Australia with my new boyfriend. Won't be telling my ex until we actually leave in case he tries to stop us... men :rolleyes:

Hi Fiona,

It seems strange that you support "less rights".

Are you not in favor of "equal rights"?
I am curious to know why you deny your child it's basic human right to "know and be cared for by his or her parents. "?

Have you genuine concern or are you just acting out of spite and (ab-)using the child to get at your ex?

Respect your child, respect ex and respect yourself by going and signing the statutory declaration appointing him as a Guardian.
I'm sure it would be the best Christmas present you could give to him and your child.


Thanks

P.S.

You never know,
He might even offer to pay for your tickets to Australia...

thebullkf

rolly1 wrote: »

Unfortunately thebulkf if this report and draft bill become eshrined in law a lot more fathers out there will be killing themselves. Under this proposed bill the law will be 200% behind the person with day to day care of the child i.e. the mother in the vast vast majority of cases. The only positive thing I can see in the whole document so far is the setting up of a central register for guardians, the rest is utter anti-father legalese to screw him over.

Your cohabiting friend does have legal recourse to be declared a guardian to his child. If his partner is refusing to consent by signing the statutory declaration form then he should apply to the court for guardianship. He has an extremely high chance of getting it there as there's somethinmg like a 3% refusal rate.

Blackmail is not a very good basis for marriage.

Further to obtaining guardianship I would also recommend that he goes seeking legal advice on opting out of the default cohabitation provisions of the cohabitation legislation which I think come into effect on January 1st, 2011.

Cheers for the reply,when you put it that way...it seems i was reading it wrong:o

thebullkf

Fiona44 wrote: »

The less rights unmarried fathers have the better as far as I'm concerned! I plan on moving to Australia with my new boyfriend. Won't be telling my ex until we actually leave in case he tries to stop us... men :rolleyes:

does that include your new 'Man' ??:rolleyes:

Jeez, how old's your kid(s)? ....

goat2

i am delighted, the grandparents on the fathers side will be able to have access automatically also, there are alot more than the mother father and child going to benefit, the child benefetting most of all. no one person can call the shots, and think they have more rites, after all biologically the child has both genes equally, which should mean both parents having equal responsibility.

The Corinthian

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

And the auto guardianship means that it's far more difficult for dds to shirk responsibility, and for mums to deny fathers' rights.

Having read the report, the latter claim is regrettably false, as it actually becomes easier to deny a non-custodial parent their rights. The majority of rights recommended by this document are not even consultative - while it defines them as:

04.01 "the right to apply for a passport for the child and the right to make decisions about where a child will live, a child’s religious and secular education, health requirements and general welfare."

Yet, when we look to what exactly this means in practice, the document goes on to admit:

04.05 "a general statutory requirement to consult should not be included in legislation concerning parental responsibility."

So, on one hand this new Parental Responsibility confers 'rights', and on the other hand does not even require that the other person with Parental Responsibility be consulted, let alone consent.

Consent, which is specifically mentioned, is instead limited to a small number of cases, such as irreversible non-essential medical procedures.

This returns us to the something like existing system for adoption (where the father is not a guardian) whereby consultation is only required where "it was practical to do so" (01.18); something which is remarkably easy to circumvent. Even at that, it is simply consultation, nothing more and thus a custodial parent is not bound to accept the objections of the non-custodial parent. That is, where the non-custodial parent is even consulted, which is specifically not recommended for the exercise of the majority of these 'rights'.

In short, while both parents will have "the right to apply for a passport for the child and the right to make decisions about where a child will live, a child’s religious and secular education, health requirements and general welfare.", the custodial parent will have the power to exercise them, unilaterally without need to even consult the non-custodial parent.

As was mooted long before the publication of this report, the recommendations actually castrate the rights of the non-custodial parent - they exist in principle, but there is absolutely no provision for protecting, let alone enforcing them, which is actually a step back from the existing legislation. The big losers are non-custodial parents already with guardianship - unmarried fathers will now gain it automatically, but find that it affords practically no legal rights or protection.

I also see serious problems with how automatic registration is handled, especially in light of the slipshod manner in which legal correspondence in Ireland is done, but that is another issue. Additionally, while the documents goes to pains to discuss the best interests of the child it does not touch on the present automatic custody of the child by the mother, which is not automatically in the best interests of the child.

Kinda tired of the negativity so I'm gonna just keep posting updates and ignore the static:)

I would prefer if you would respond to these criticisms at this stage rather than avoid them, as they are quite valid concerns. Simply telling us to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" is not going to make them go away and is if anything making us more suspicious.

I also think, and with all due respect, at this stage and given your almost blind support for minister White, that you should disclose if you are a member, supporter or affiliated to the Green Party, or otherwise have any other conflict of interests.

rolly1

The Corinthian wrote: »

Having read the report, the latter claim is regrettably false, as it actually becomes easier to deny a non-custodial parent their rights. The majority of rights recommended by this document are not even consultative - while it defines them as:

04.01 "the right to apply for a passport for the child and the right to make decisions about where a child will live, a child’s religious and secular education, health requirements and general welfare."

Yet, when we look to what exactly this means in practice, the document goes on to admit:

04.05 "a general statutory requirement to consult should not be included in legislation concerning parental responsibility."

So, on one hand this new Parental Responsibility confers 'rights', and on the other hand does not even require that the other person with Parental Responsibility be consulted, let alone consent.

Consent, which is specifically mentioned, is instead limited to a small number of cases, such as irreversible non-essential medical procedures.

This returns us to the something like existing system for adoption (where the father is not a guardian) whereby consultation is only required where "it was practical to do so" (01.18); something which is remarkably easy to circumvent. Even at that, it is simply consultation, nothing more and thus a custodial parent is not bound to accept the objections of the non-custodial parent. That is, where the non-custodial parent is even consulted, which is specifically not recommended for the exercise of the majority of these 'rights'.

In short, while both parents will have "the right to apply for a passport for the child and the right to make decisions about where a child will live, a child’s religious and secular education, health requirements and general welfare.", the custodial parent will have the power to exercise them, unilaterally without need to even consult the non-custodial parent.

As was mooted long before the publication of this report, the recommendations actually castrate the rights of the non-custodial parent - they exist in principle, but there is absolutely no provision for protecting, let alone enforcing them, which is actually a step back from the existing legislation. The big losers are non-custodial parents already with guardianship - unmarried fathers will now gain it automatically, but find that it affords practically no legal rights or protection.

I also see serious problems with how automatic registration is handled, especially in light of the slipshod manner in which legal correspondence in Ireland is done, but that is another issue. Additionally, while the documents goes to pains to discuss the best interests of the child it does not touch on the present automatic custody of the child by the mother, which is not automatically in the best interests of the child.

I would prefer if you would respond to these criticisms at this stage rather than avoid them, as they are quite valid concerns. Simply telling us to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" is not going to make them go away and is if anything making us more suspicious.

I also think, and with all due respect, at this stage and given your almost blind support for minister White, that you should disclose if you are a member, supporter or affiliated to the Green Party, or otherwise have any other conflict of interests.

Excellent dissection.

I would second that question to Klingon Hamlet regarding political affiliations and/or conflict of interests.

Further to the above on consultation, the Law Reform Commission recommendations in this regard are repugnant to articles 41.1.1, 41.1.2 and 42.1 of Bunreacht Na hÉireann for married men's rights. The elimination of the consultation requirement is also repugnant to the Parental Responsibility provisions of EU Regulation 2201/2003 (“the new Brussels II Regulation”).

It is also extremely sinister that the Law Reform Commision have failed to highlight this particular recommendation on consultation in their Press Release.

metrovelvet

The removal of consultation was one of the most surprising of the whole proposal. At the same time, how do you legislate over 'consulting' - it may have been stupid to be there in the first place. How do you prove you weren't consulted'? It doesnt really make sense practically in terms of law.

rolly1

metrovelvet wrote: »

How do you prove you weren't consulted'? It doesnt really make sense practically in terms of law.

Multiple ways e.g. if two guardians exist and only one of them enrolls the child in a school, without consultation or consent of the other parent, this lack of consultation & consent can be proven by production of the school enrollment form. All schools are legally obliged to have the signatures of both guardians on their enrollment forms as a prerequisite for the child entering the school, or, in legally disputed cases, a court order directing that the child can be sent to that school disregarding the consent of the parent/guardian in opposition.

metrovelvet

rolly1 wrote: »

Multiple ways e.g. if two guardians exist and only one of them enrolls the child in a school, without consultation or consent of the other parent, this lack of consultation & consent can be proven by production of the school enrollment form. All schools are legally obliged to have the signatures of both guardians on their enrollment forms as a prerequisite for the child entering the school, or, in legally disputed cases, a court order directing that the child can be sent to that school disregarding the consent of the parent/guardian in opposition.

Did they get rid of consent too?

I think their motives for dropping the consultation bit is to protect schools and hospitals from litigation. Not saying its right but I think that is what its about.

rolly1

Consent is only referred to under section 16 of the draft bill as follows:

Irreversible non-essential medical procedures

16. — The consent of all persons exercising parental responsibility is required for the purpose of consenting to irreversible non-essential medical procedures on behalf of a child.

So if you don't agree for example that your son's ears need to be pinned back by a medical proceedure, then the other person would need to take you to court to try and 'overide' the need for your consent.

Absolutely insane.

metrovelvet

rolly1 wrote: »

Consent is only referred to under section 16 of the draft bill as follows:



So if you don't agree for example that your son's ears need to be pinned back by a medical proceedure, then the other person would need to take you to court to try and 'overide' the need for your consent.

Absolutely insane.

Gosh this all terribly confusing, must be designed so the lawyers can make more money.

So basically consent is required for cosmetic plastic surgery.

rolly1

metrovelvet wrote: »

So basically consent is required for cosmetic plastic surgery.

I was just thinking of one example of some medical proceedure that was irreversible and could be deemed non-essential.

But if anybody else can offer a referenced alternative explanation of section 16 and the whole consultation area of the report/bill I'm all ears!

Gosh this all terribly confusing, must be designed so the lawyers can make more money

Yup can't see any other real beneficiaries, apart from the minority of vindictive mothers out there. Of course the big time losers in all of this will be the children and, as a result, society.

Nice one Mary!

rolly1

...and it's not as if you didn't know about this Mary now is it?

Worthwhile posting your response again.

K-9

rolly1 wrote: »

Isn't perfect...errrr that would be the understatement of the century.... have you actually read the report and accompanying legislation? Despite all the crowing about this proposed legislation the only person who appears to have read and understood it here is Metrovelvet.

Here's another gemstone for you guys:

C Consultation in the exercise of parental responsibility


http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/r101Family%281%29.pdf

There you go, full and irreversible legal castration for all fathers; no more consultation on major welfare decisions required.

Unilateral decisions by the mother will now be legally enshrined as her right.

Wooo! don't you just love these wonderful rights they are about to bestow on the fathers & children of Ireland!

I've read the recommendations, just going through the draft bill.

I presume the same ability to challenge a decision by the mother through court will still be there.

My reasoning for their decision would be, that Guardianship/parental responsibility isn't an issue in 99% of cases.

As for consultation, it isn't an issue in 99% cases so the issue is, what happens the 1%. The right to make decisions re health, education etc. is still there and recognised in the law.

Now this is where the practical problems come in. If the 2 parents differ, the father (usually) will have to get a court application to challenge the decision of the parent who has day to day care.

What posters here seem to be suggesting is that both parents should have the right to make a decision and if that differs, the father should be able to over ride the mothers decision. I can't see how that can be legislated for, barring putting the wisdom of Solomon into law.

Again, in a situation like that, an application to court has to be made, because both parents are in deadlock, there is no solution barring a judge deciding.

K-9

Applications to court

18.—(1) Any person exercising parental responsibility for a child may apply to
the court for its direction on any question affecting the welfare of the child and
the court may make such order as it thinks proper.

(2) The court may by an order under this section—

(a) give such directions as it thinks proper regarding the day-to-day care
of the child and contact between the child and his father or mother;

As regards other Guardians, this would be grandparents, step parents etc.:

Other persons who may apply for day-to-day care of child

20.—(1) Any person to whom section 18 does not apply but who—

(a) is a relative of a child, or

(b) acts in loco parentis to a child, or

(c) has a bona fide interest in the welfare of the child,

may apply to the court for an order granting that person day-to-day care of the
child on such terms and conditions as the court may order.
68


(2) Before granting an order under this section, the court shall be satisfied
that the parents of the child are unwilling or unable to exercise parental
responsibility.

(3) In deciding whether to grant an application under this section the
court shall have regard to all the circumstances, including in particular—

(a) the applicant‟s connection with the child,

(b) the risk, if any, of the application disrupting the child‟s life to the
extent that the child would be harmed by it,

(c) the wishes of the parents of the child,

(d) the wishes of the child.