Unmarried fathers rights, custody and visitation.

metrovelvet

I have to agree with K-9 there. The government cannot solve every single parenting dispute and at some point families have to start taking responsibility for their kids and stop expecting the nanny state to step in and do it for them. Its bad enough the state interferes in breast feeding.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

I have to agree with K-9 there. The government cannot solve every single parenting dispute and at some point families have to start taking responsibility for their kids and stop expecting the nanny state to step in and do it for them. Its bad enough the state interferes in breast feeding.

The problem I have is there is no requirement to inform the other parent over say, the choice of school or, more worryingly, I don't see any mention of informing the other parent if the child is being removed from the jurisdiction, which is there under the current legislation. I'd hope that would be addressed in any Government green paper on the issue.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

The problem I have is there is no requirement to inform the other parent over say, the choice of school or, more worryingly, I don't see any mention of informing the other parent if the child is being removed from the jurisdiction, which is there under the current legislation. I'd hope that would be addressed in any Government green paper on the issue.

They cant legislate or enforce over 'being informed'. I think they are doing that so schools cant get sued for not sending report cards to fathers.

Its the same in the US. There is no legislation over 'being informed'. There are just some things that the two of you should be dealing with yourself. It seems like as a lobbist group, the unmarried dads are expecting the courts do to the job of mediators and parenting counsellors. This is not what courts do. Courts have to have these two people walk out of there with an answer, which may or may not solve the problem. You cant want to have a law for every little tiny thing over your kids.

If a parent doesnt inform of the child being taken on holiday for two weeks out of the country, and its doesnt cross into the other parents visiting/custodial time, then what? A fine? Prison?

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

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.

Given that one in three children in Ireland are born outside of marraige and than many of those are to parents who are not together, I suspect your estimate of 1% is a gross underestimate.

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.

However, consultation - for lack of a better term - need only amount to no more than inform and the recommendation specifically recommends that this is not required in all but the most extreme of cases.

This would result in a situation where decisions on behalf of the child are taken without the knowledge of the father, meaning that if he does get a court application to challenge the decision of the parent who has day to day care, it will be after the fact and thus be at a significant disadvantage.

For example, a child is enrolled into a school, father discovers a month or two after the fact and brings the mother to court. Several months pass and the judge is faced with taking the child out of a school in which they have already settled.

Another example; the mother has the child baptized or otherwise induced into a religion that the father objects to. He hears of this after the fact. A court case can no longer reverse this.

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.

What is being suggested is that either parent should be able to over ride the others decision if it is deemed in the best interests of the child or otherwise deemed unjust - not that either has a power of veto (outside of the most extreme cases, such as irreversible non-essential medical procedures).

Otherwise you are suggesting that one parent (the custodial one) is always right, always knows best and may ultimately choose how a child is raised and does not need to even inform, let alone agree with, the other on this.

It is completely insane to suggest, as this document does, that both parents have 'equal' rights, while one needs not even be informed of what is done to their child.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

They cant legislate or enforce over 'being informed'. I think they are doing that so schools cant get sued for not sending report cards to fathers.

Its the same in the US. There is no legislation over 'being informed'. There are just some things that the two of you should be dealing with yourself. It seems like as a lobbist group, the unmarried dads are expecting the courts do to the job of mediators and parenting counsellors. This is not what courts do. Courts have to have these two people walk out of there with an answer, which may or may not solve the problem. You cant want to have a law for every little tiny thing over your kids.

If a parent doesnt inform of the child being taken on holiday for two weeks out of the country, and its doesnt cross into the other parents visiting/custodial time, then what? A fine? Prison?

I'd have more in mind cases were the mother doesn't inform the father about schooling, or absconds from the country, that type of thing. Pretty basic stuff now.

Both parents have rights, that applies to both parents, so it isn't just a fathers thing.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

If a parent doesnt inform of the child being taken on holiday for two weeks out of the country, and its doesnt cross into the other parents visiting/custodial time, then what? A fine? Prison?

What would you give the father (usually) in a case like that?

The other parent should always be informed when their son or daughter are out of the country. Common decency and goes for both parents. A fine for the basic lack of respect for the other parent wouldn't go amiss at all.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given that one in three children in Ireland are born outside of marraige and than many of those are to parents who are not together, I suspect your estimate of 1% is a gross underestimate.

Well, it rarely seems to be an issue from my experience and from reading parenting websites. Plenty of issues regarding access and maintenance but rarely guardianship. Given nearly 2 in 3 children would automatically have 2 guardians and how rare it is an issue in the other cases, I'd say 99% isn't far out. The vast, vast majority of cases might be a better term.

As regards informing etc. completely agreed.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

I'd have more in mind cases were the mother doesn't inform the father about schooling, or absconds from the country, that type of thing. Pretty basic stuff now.

Both parents have rights, that applies to both parents, so it isn't just a fathers thing.

From what I remember in school, things required One parent's signature. it could be either parent. As a child of divorce this worked distinctly to my advantage. For report cards, Id give it to the parent who was least likely to have a nervous breakdown in front of me or permission slips, the one least likely to withhold permission. And both parents just assumed i would tell the other one, sometimes I would, sometimes I wouldnt, sometimes Id just forget. What you want to fine them? You want the cops to ring the door bell and inssue a ticket or a summons to court. Get real. FFS. Cops and judges have better things to do.

The other parent had to suck it up. That is what divorce and seperation is. If you want the same dynamic of an intact family then stay in tact. Do not expect the legislators and the tax payers to jump through hoops to accommodate people who have broken their commitments to the family, whether the mom, dad or mutual. You cant have your cake and eat it. Children of seperated households will NEVER have it the same as kids of intact families no matter how much the pc brigade want to dress it up.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

What would you give the father (usually) in a case like that?

The other parent should always be informed when their son or daughter are out of the country. Common decency and goes for both parents. A fine for the basic lack of respect for the other parent wouldn't go amiss at all.

You cant legislate for common decency. Yes they should be told, but that is a parenting issue, not a legal issue.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

The other parent had to suck it up. That is what divorce and seperation is. If you want the same dynamic of an intact family then stay in tact.

In other words, if you're a man and you want any rights to your child(ren), you have to stay in a relationship with the mother, and hope she does not elect to leave you and take your child(ren).

metrovelvet wrote: »

You cant legislate for common decency. Yes they should be told, but that is a parenting issue, not a legal issue.

So are custody and maintenance - perhaps we should abandon state interference in those too?

rolly1

What some people here don't seem to understand is the fundamental legal shift that is proposed in this horrendous report/draft bill.

Consultation is the very backbone of how a family works (or doesn't work), whether it is an intact family or a separated family. The fundamental legal principle of joint guardianship is to ensure the better functioning of the family through joint agreement on major welfare decisions pertaining to the child through consultation & consent. Each parent knows in the consultative process that they have equal say and equal legal status as a joint guardian, so the need to reach agreement is paramount as both realise that court can be the final arbitrator if they fail to do so. Court can effectively take the decision out of both of their hands in some cases. These legal principles are enshrined in the constitution, EU regulation and have case precedence down the decades in Irish courts.

This bill seeks to overturn this principle entirely, to replace it with one parent being all powerful in practically all decisions regarding their child's welfare including religion, schooling and residence.

It effectively reduces the fathers role to something like a friendly uncle.

As per the previous example I gave on school enrollment, the person with day to day care i.e. mother (majority) does not need to even tell the other parent which school they are sending their child to, not to mind seek his consent for doing so.

It completely cuts out the principal of equal legal status of joint guardians parenting jointly as far as possible. It's probably the most regressive piece of Family Law legislation ever proposed in the history of this state.

As I have already stated under both the Irish constitution and the EU regulation consultation is enshrined in both; therefore this proposed bill, if it goes through in it's current format, will in time be repealed as being being repugnant to one or both.

If this comes in,the next step is into the courts for legal challenge.

metrovelvet

oh yawn. @TC

I said dynamics, not rights. You cant break up a family and then expect things to work as a family and especially demand legislation for this. Pretty ridiculous, spoiled and just plain pie in the sky thinking.

Custody and maintenance can be legislated for and you can get the legal public services involved but to call the cops and enforce prosecution because you weren't told about a shopping trip to belfast or because the school principal gave your 14 year old an aspirin with the mothers consent, is plain old hoo ha.

Im sick of the belly aching of these pc groups that want the government to do every goddamed thing for them. If you want a situation where there is an even flow of communication between the households it is your responsibility to work on that, not the governments. Government is already far too involved in family life as it is.

The irony is they have now actually made it harder for themselves to get on the birthcert. They have made everything harder for themselves now.

metrovelvet

rolly1 wrote: »

What some people here don't seem to understand is the fundamental legal shift that is proposed in this horrendous report/draft bill.

Consultation is the very backbone of how a family works (or doesn't work), whether it is an intact family or a separated family. The fundamental legal principle of joint guardianship is to ensure the better functioning of the family through joint agreement on major welfare decisions pertaining to the child through consultation & consent. Each parent knows in the consultative process that they have equal say and equal legal status as a joint guardian, so the need to reach agreement is paramount as both realise that court can be the final arbitrator if they fail to do so. Court can effectively take the decision out of both of their hands in some cases. These legal principles are enshrined in the constitution, EU regulation and have case precedence down the decades in Irish courts.

This bill seeks to overturn this principle entirely, to replace it with one parent being all powerful in practically all decisions regarding their child's welfare including religion, schooling and residence.

It effectively reduces the fathers role to something like a friendly uncle.

As per the previous example I gave on school enrollment, the person with day to day care i.e. mother (majority) does not need to even tell the other parent which school they are sending their child to, not to mind seek his consent for doing so.

It completely cuts out the principal of equal legal status of joint guardians parenting jointly as far as possible. It's probably the most regressive piece of Family Law legislation ever proposed in the history of this state.

As I have already stated under both the Irish constitution and the EU regulation consultation is enshrined in both; therefore this proposed bill, if it goes through in it's current format, will in time be repealed as being being repugnant to one or both.

If this comes in,the next step is into the courts for legal challenge.

Yes but Rolly, you are in principal absolutely correct in everything you say, but it is beyond legislation.

It still looks bad in a custody case though if a parent was doing this. They probably also did this, for cases of foster kids, etc where it is not possible or appropriate to consult the parents.

In practical terms though Rolly, if two sigs are required for health decisions, school decisions, enrollment like you pointed out before the CONSENT requirement is still intact, isnt it? That, yes, can be legislated for.

rolly1

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes but Rolly, you are in principal absolutely correct in everything you say, but it is beyond legislation.

It still looks bad in a custody case though if a parent was doing this. They probably also did this, for cases of foster kids, etc where it is not possible or appropriate to consult the parents.

In practical terms though Rolly, if two sigs are required for health decisions, school decisions, enrollment like you pointed out before the CONSENT requirement is still intact, isnt it? That, yes, can be legislated for.

Consultation is a long established legal principle enshrined in our current laws. It's not something abstract, it's very real and established day in and day out in the family courts.

Foster kids etc. are a completely separate issue, in that there is the issue of whether the parents have willingly or otherwise abdicated their responsibility as parents. I am talking about two active involved parents who are carrying out their duty as parents, who are also joint legal guardians.These latter group of parents will now be in an entirely unequal legal playing pitch under this new report/draft bill.

In my understanding of the draft bill the current situation of two signatures for school, medical decsison's will no longer be a legal requirement on those bodies, apart from in the latter case where "irreversible, non-essential medical procedures" will require both parents consent.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I said dynamics, not rights. You cant break up a family and then expect things to work as a family and especially demand legislation for this. Pretty ridiculous, spoiled and just plain pie in the sky thinking.

No one has suggested that the dynamics are the same, nor are we even discussing that. We're discussing rights.

Custody and maintenance can be legislated for and you can get the legal public services involved but to call the cops and enforce prosecution because you weren't told about a shopping trip to belfast or because the school principal gave your 14 year old an aspirin with the mothers consent, is plain old hoo ha.

Perhaps, but you've changed the goalposts on your earlier example of a holiday - there, even if there is no knock-on effect on the other parent's access, there are still well-being, health and even security considerations. What if that holiday is in Egypt for example?

Even beyond the holiday example, there are numerous other cases that could be cited - of which I suggested two earlier. Do you not think the wishes of both parents should be equally protected or is it a case of possession is nine tenths of the law?

Im sick of the belly aching of these pc groups that want the government to do every goddamed thing for them.

No, what is being sought is that the government step to protect the rights of both parents and the child, where the parents may not be in agreement. Sometimes the "flow of communication between the households" won't solve this and you need a third party.

Where parents disagree on custody and maintenance, the state already does so really it is not anything more than an extension of this. Or are you simply looking to pick which and whose rights are protected and dismissing the others because they don't suit?

metrovelvet

Being consulted is no longer a 'right' in this new thing, but as a right in the current legislation, how is it enforceable anyway?

Fathers rights/privaleges make no difference to my life so its not about picking to suit.

Has anyone taken anyone to court over 'not being consulted?" Does anyone have a case they can cite? Or outside of the examination of the law reform report is that more propeganda to add to the rather cumbersome amount of propeganda both tolerated and encouraged on this thread.

It has always been the case that you only need one parent's signature for things. I dont see whats so new about this.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

From what I remember in school, things required One parent's signature. it could be either parent. As a child of divorce this worked distinctly to my advantage. For report cards, Id give it to the parent who was least likely to have a nervous breakdown in front of me or permission slips, the one least likely to withhold permission. And both parents just assumed i would tell the other one, sometimes I would, sometimes I wouldnt, sometimes Id just forget. What you want to fine them? You want the cops to ring the door bell and inssue a ticket or a summons to court. Get real. FFS. Cops and judges have better things to do.

The other parent had to suck it up. That is what divorce and seperation is. If you want the same dynamic of an intact family then stay in tact. Do not expect the legislators and the tax payers to jump through hoops to accommodate people who have broken their commitments to the family, whether the mom, dad or mutual. You cant have your cake and eat it. Children of seperated households will NEVER have it the same as kids of intact families no matter how much the pc brigade want to dress it up.

I don't see how that relates to what I posted at all. I'm not talking about the day to day minutia of schools, I'm talking about basic stuff like a mother picking an unsuitable school or taking the child out of the jurisdiction permanently.

If a parent is using Guardianship/parental responsibility just to be a dick, the provisions are there to remove it, including the current draft proposal. I don't like scare mongering on these issues.

metrovelvet wrote: »

You cant legislate for common decency. Yes they should be told, but that is a parenting issue, not a legal issue.

That isn't the issue. Under the current legislation it is illegal to take a child outside the country without the other Guardians consent. It's there for a damn good reason too, not to stop trips to Belfast or a sun holiday!

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

Being consulted is no longer a 'right' in this new thing, but as a right in the current legislation, how is it enforceable anyway?

I do see your point on that. The problem with this is, the rights mean nothing if there is no duty to inform the other parent on schools, health or leaving the country. As rolly1 points out, by the time the father finds out the child is in unsuitable school or left the country, he has at an instant disadvantage. It may take months to get a case heard and judges tend not to disrupt routines without good cause. If the Dad has to be informed of the decision first, he can take a case before any big change.

This legislation seems to be big on rights in theory, but less practically than the current system. To me, that isn't worth automatic Guardianship.

metrovelvet wrote:

Fathers rights/privaleges make no difference to my life so its not about picking to suit.

Has anyone taken anyone to court over 'not being consulted?" Does anyone have a case they can cite? Or outside of the examination of the law reform report is that more propeganda to add to the rather cumbersome amount of propeganda both tolerated and encouraged on this thread.

It has always been the case that you only need one parent's signature for things. I dont see whats so new about this.

Well I was open minded on the legislation so looking at it from a child's point of view, giving equal rights to a Dad but not much in the way of consultation, is kind of pointless.

There have been cases relating to no consultation. Mr.G is the famous one but it happens regarding schools, religions etc. too and rightly so. It isn't necessarily the father being awkward, just he feels his opinion is equally as valid as the mothers. The judge decides anyway, an independent third party.

Again, it isn't about signatures, it is about major decisions in the child's life.

metrovelvet

I was the first on this thread to point out that these proposals are a crock if **** in terms of father's rights because I think I was one of the few who actually read the law reform report and not the just the press releases.

I totally agree with you about consultation, etc. It is at the heart of it. But how do you legislate that? There is an implied legality in it, in the places in the US, where you cant get fined or imprisoned, but if you keep the other parent in the dark about things, it certainly would help a case in reduced custody and the parent who was better able to sustain transparency and trust would likely gain more custody. I would hope [imagine] that is what they are thinking here, but they should make that very bloody clear if it is.

But, Ireland has to stop expecting government to do EVERYTHING for them. Including raise their kids.

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:

Hope you got your flight OK, did you remember the sun block???

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

I was the first on this thread to point out that these proposals are a crock if **** in terms of father's rights because I think I was one of the few who actually read the law reform report and not the just the press releases.

I totally agree with you about consultation, etc. It is at the heart of it. But how do you legislate that? There is an implied legality in it, in the places in the US, where you cant get fined or imprisoned, but if you keep the other parent in the dark about things, it certainly would help a case in reduced custody and the parent who was better able to sustain transparency and trust would likely gain more custody. I would hope [imagine] that is what they are thinking here, but they should make that very bloody clear if it is.

But, Ireland has to stop expecting government to do EVERYTHING for them. Including raise their kids.

I don't think it is completely crap. As far as I can see, inserting consultation which practically means informing, would make a big difference. The stuff about the birth cert seems good, fair and reasonable. I can see the abuse provision being abused by some mothers to prevent the name going on the cert but, I can see it is there for a good reason.

I don't see myself the big deal regarding Grandparents etc. there seems to be provisions there that don't make it that simple to get, from my reading of it anyway.

As for ignoring consultation looking bad, well yeah, but as far I can see, parental responsibilty cannot be removed from the mother but can from the father. That is sexist to me.

There's also a provision in there for a Guardian to compensate the HSE financially for care they have to provide. Find that a bit strange.

Nobody is expecting this bill to help raise their kids. If you think just wanting to be informed on schools, health and leaving the country is wanting the Government to look after their kids? well.............

Its a perfectly reasonable request that again, is immaterial in the vast majority of cases, but very important when it's needed. I've seen threads were a Dad wanted to put their child through private education. Nothing wrong with that, take a case and let the impartial judge decide. Under the proposed legislation the mother would have no duty to inform him what school the child would be going to.

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think it is completely crap. As far as I can see, inserting consultation which practically means informing, would make a big difference. The stuff about the birth cert seems good, fair and reasonable. I can see the abuse provision being abused by some mothers to prevent the name going on the cert but, I can see it is there for a good reason.

I don't see myself the big deal regarding Grandparents etc. there seems to be provisions there that don't make it that simple to get, from my reading of it anyway.

As for ignoring consultation looking bad, well yeah, but as far I can see, parental responsibilty cannot be removed from the mother but can from the father. That is sexist to me.

There's also a provision in there for a Guardian to compensate the HSE financially for care they have to provide. Find that a bit strange.

Nobody is expecting this bill to help raise their kids. If you think just wanting to be informed on schools, health and leaving the country is wanting the Government to look after their kids? well.............

Its a perfectly reasonable request that again, is immaterial in the vast majority of cases, but very important when it's needed. I've seen threads were a Dad wanted to put their child through private education. Nothing wrong with that, take a case and let the impartial judge decide. Under the proposed legislation the mother would have no duty to inform him what school the child would be going to.

The BC- all they [unwed fathers] needed before hand as far as I knew, was a maintenance, access order or guardianship papers to take to the registrar. Now, with these new plans, if the mother contests it they will have to go to the district court for a court ordered dna test. That is what it looks like to me, maybe I am wrong there.

I can see the reasonings in grandparents, step parents etc to give them authority in cases like mine for example where I am sole custodian. If I am incapacitated, then someone needs to be able to make decisions for the child. It's a practical necessity. At the same time, there were already legla provisions in place for this. I could just get a few pieces of paper notarised. But the paper doesn't say anything about exlusivity to sole custodians in this regard and there is a potential minefield there, particularly with step parents as second marriages have twice the chance of divorce, so Im unsure if their guardianship would then be removed?

YEs it does look like parental responsibility can be removed from the father but not from the mother, but that was always the case, and the fathers have more mobility too, they can come and go, the mothers cant come and go in a child's life as readily, so maybe something has to be in place for the cheshire cat father?

Ok, so the mother has no legal duty to inform the father of the school the child is in but she does now? Under current conditions, what happens if she doesnt? Nada. What are they going to do? Again, I think this is about protecting institutions from litigation. [I think a hospital and a school were sued last year by dads who were not informed?]

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

The BC- all they [unwed fathers] needed before hand as far as I knew, was a maintenance, access order or guardianship papers to take to the registrar. Now, with these new plans, if the mother contests it they will have to go to the district court for a court ordered dna test. That is what it looks like to me, maybe I am wrong there.

That is possible but it requires a court order, as in a maintenance or Guardianship order, so court proceedings anyway. If a mother is going to those lengths to deny paternity, not much you can do. Again, it isn't a perfect law and there always will be difficulties, those cases will always happen.

metrovelvet wrote:

I can see the reasonings in grandparents, step parents etc to give them authority in cases like mine for example where I am sole custodian. If I am incapacitated, then someone needs to be able to make decisions for the child. It's a practical necessity. At the same time, there were already legla provisions in place for this. I could just get a few pieces of paper notarised. But the paper doesn't say anything about exlusivity to sole custodians in this regard and there is a potential minefield there, particularly with step parents as second marriages have twice the chance of divorce, so Im unsure if their guardianship would then be removed?

There are pretty wide ranging preclusions which I quoted earlier. There are provisions to remove a Guardian, same as the current system there, no change.

metrovelvet wrote:

YEs it does look like parental responsibility can be removed from the father but not from the mother, but that was always the case, and the fathers have more mobility too, they can come and go, the mothers cant come and go in a child's life as readily, so maybe something has to be in place for the cheshire cat father?

Mothers do walk away. Why treat a mother differently? Sure it could be reinstated later if circumstances change.

metrovelvet wrote:

Ok, so the mother has no legal duty to inform the father of the school the child is in but she does now? Under current conditions, what happens if she doesnt? Nada. What are they going to do? Again, I think this is about protecting institutions from litigation. [I think a hospital and a school were sued last year by dads who were not informed?]

Well he can take a case putting forward his reasons for wanting another school. There probably isn't much he can do, but its the principle. Why supposedly give equal rights when one guardian can ignore the other? Basically they've given the equal right to ignore each other!


Anyway, in general this was supposed to be a step forward for unmarried Dads. In some respects it is, but I don't think anybody envisaged it would take existing rights, the little that there is, away!

rolly1

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok, so the mother has no legal duty to inform the father of the school the child is in but she does now? Under current conditions, what happens if she doesnt? Nada. What are they going to do? Again, I think this is about protecting institutions from litigation. [I think a hospital and a school were sued last year by dads who were not informed?]

The enrollment form must signed both parents/guardians before a child can be legally enrolled in a school. If a school is made aware that there is a second guardian for the child, prior to enrollment, but still admits the child without the second signature then the school can be sued.

If the school is not informed of the second guardian and the mother enrolls the child without consulting or seeking consent of the second guardian then she can be taken to court on this issue if the father is not in agreement on school choice. Indeed until and unless the second signature is on the enrollment form then the school is acting illegally by having the child on its premises. This can be dealt with through the courts or through a case with the equality tribunal. There are many ways of upholding rights under current law, it's just that they are not widely heard of because the impression constatnly given out is that the mother has superior rights under guardianship, which is nonsense. It's only when we see the headline cases such as the G-case which are documented judgements, or equality tribunal rulings such as this one do we in fact see the real legal strength of guardianship for all fathers and their children.

Nevyn

Certain posts have been soft deleted while there is an on going discussion of them by the parenting mods. Please note that is considered ill mannered and bad form to publish publicly information which was been sent via pms on this site with out permission of the sender.

metrovelvet

rolly1 wrote: »

The enrollment form must signed both parents/guardians before a child can be legally enrolled in a school. If a school is made aware that there is a second guardian for the child, prior to enrollment, but still admits the child without the second signature then the school can be sued.

If the school is not informed of the second guardian and the mother enrolls the child without consulting or seeking consent of the second guardian then she can be taken to court on this issue if the father is not in agreement on school choice. Indeed until and unless the second signature is on the enrollment form then the school is acting illegally by having the child on its premises. This can be dealt with through the courts or through a case with the equality tribunal. There are many ways of upholding rights under current law, it's just that they are not widely heard of because the impression constatnly given out is that the mother has superior rights under guardianship, which is nonsense. It's only when we see the headline cases such as the G-case which are documented judgements, or equality tribunal rulings such as this one do we in fact see the real legal strength of guardianship for all fathers and their children.

Ok I dont know. I find the whole area bizarre and I feel like I am in 1970s America where all this crap has since been worked through and Im living in a frustrating time warp where people think they are being progressive but in fact the progressive nations have since moved on or reverted to older forms.

I cant see what the big deal is about the school sending one set of information to the child's primary residence. This is always how it was for us growing up in any divorced household. I think its ridiculous that a school can get sued for not sending records to two households. I don't think there are any laws in place in the US where it says the non residential parent is entitled to copies of things, but the copies go to the main home of the child.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I cant see what the big deal is about the school sending one set of information to the child's primary residence.

There's no big deal unless the custodial parent is actively withholding or otherwise censoring that one set of information from the other parent.

Then it's a big deal.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's no big deal unless the custodial parent is actively withholding or otherwise censoring that one set of information from the other parent.

Then it's a big deal.

But a school should not be open to litigation for that. You want to call the cops because you didnt get a copy of the report card? How do you legislate for 'consulation'.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

You want to call the cops because you didnt get a copy of the report card?

That isn't what it's about as I and others have repeatedly pointed out.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

But a school should not be open to litigation for that. You want to call the cops because you didnt get a copy of the report card? How do you legislate for 'consulation'.

Why shouldn't a school not be open to litigation because it won't, when it knows that the parents are apart, keep both parents informed? Perhaps it should not be open to litigation if it sends no information out either?

Or how about if the school is fee paying that they only send out information to the person paying the bills, who could well be the non-custodial one? Still fine with it?

This is part of legislating for 'consultation', that all parties are fully informed and if objections arise they can be either agreed upon privately or taken to court as a last measure.