Unmarried fathers rights, custody and visitation.

metrovelvet

^ That's not uncommon. I know of a few examples of fathers who go around saying they are being denied access when in fact they have deserted their children. I guess they do it to save face and to make the custodial look like the baddie.

I even know of one who is very active in father's rights and abandoned a family of four. And then had another couple of kids with someone else he then abandoned.

The tactic is to make yourself look like the victim first.

Sleepy

metro - you were given incorrect advice RE the passport. Where no fathers name appears on the birth cert you can simply sign an affidavit in any commissioner of oaths (generally a solicitor)'s office and bring that to the passport office. My partner had to do this to get a passport for my step-son who, although his dad is an active and major part of his life, didn't have his dad's name on his birth-cert.

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote: »

metro - you were given incorrect advice RE the passport. Where no fathers name appears on the birth cert you can simply sign an affidavit in any commissioner of oaths (generally a solicitor)'s office and bring that to the passport office. My partner had to do this to get a passport for my step-son who, although his dad is an active and major part of his life, didn't have his dad's name on his birth-cert.

I know that. But you have to do it even if the father's name does appear on the birth cert and he's no where around to sign it, that is if he has no guardianship. If he does then you have to apply to the courts.

Why is there no name on your step sons birthcert if he is involved?

I just think how unfair it is. If I had no fathers name on my birthcert, neither my son or myself would have dual nationalities, and future generations couldn't find out who they came from. It's not right.

Nevyn

This thread is about raising awareness of the lack of rights for unmarried fathers and securing them for fathers who do give a damn and want to be in thier children's life.
It is not for bashing/discussing dead beat dads.

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote: »

I know that. But you have to do it even if the father's name does appear on the birth cert and he's no where around to sign it, that is if he has no guardianship. If he does then you have to apply to the courts.

Why is there no name on your step sons birthcert if he is involved?

I just think how unfair it is. If I had no fathers name on my birthcert, neither my son or myself would have dual nationalities, and future generations couldn't find out who they came from. It's not right.

It's something from before my involvement so I'm not really able to comment on it metrovelvet. I agree it's not right and it's something which I believe will be rectified when the money to pay the rip-off merchants that are the Irish legal classes the necessary fees is available.

Why do the courts have to be involved where joint guardianship exists? Can't both parents simply sign the passport form? I thought I noticed a section for this...

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote: »

I

Why do the courts have to be involved where joint guardianship exists? Can't both parents simply sign the passport form? I thought I noticed a section for this...

I don't understand this either. I guess it ultimately gives the judge the power.

The Corinthian

shortstuff wrote: »

I do think that if the leglislation was introduced to Ireland as it stands it would cause more problems than it solvess, and for the single dads who are commenting on this please don't take this the wrong way, but there are those so called "daddys" out there who don't want anything to do with their child/ren and only want to cause as much trouble for the mum as they possibly can.

How so? Such changes would not change the laws revolving around maintenance and only affect those fathers who are seeking involvement - to those who are not, they would make little difference.

Of course, one could argue that these laws could be used to make life more difficult for the mother by a vindictive father, but ultimately these can be overruled as they are already in the case of vindictive mothers who use the law as a tool for revenge.

The question is whether it could well cause more problems than it solves for all involved not whether it could well cause more problems than it solves just for the mother, and in this regard it does not and is instead a move in the right, and more equitable, direction.

angelfire9

angelfire9 wrote: »

On the passport issue if the father's name is on the birth cert and the parents get on ok the father can sign an additional red form in the passport application and consent to the passport being issued without any referral to court this is the situation with my niece where my sister and her ex have split but have joint custody and both patents get on well but just couldn't live together the consent form has to be stamped and witnessed by the gardai by the way

Can someone explain why metro is saying they have to go to court to get a passport when ^^^ this could be done??

I'm confused

LINK: www.passport.ie for general info

http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Passport_documents/aps1e.pdf (APS1 Form which used to be red but is now included seemingly)

Klingon Hamlet

This here is an 18 page study of modern Irish dads and their status in society, I think it's sincere and comprehensive:

University College Cork study

metrovelvet

angelfire9 wrote: »

Can someone explain why metro is saying they have to go to court to get a passport when ^^^ this could be done??

I'm confused

LINK: www.passport.ie for general info

http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Passport_documents/aps1e.pdf (APS1 Form which used to be red but is now included seemingly)

You have to go to court for permission if the other parent is either of divorced status and absent, still married but absent, or has guardianship but absent. If they are around and willing to sign it, then obviously no problem. But if they arent, then you have to get the courts permission.

shortstuff

The Corinthian wrote: »

The question is whether it could well cause more problems than it solves for all involved not whether it could well cause more problems than it solves just for the mother, and in this regard it does not and is instead a move in the right, and more equitable, direction.

In response to your question Corinthian I was actually thinking it may (and i stress may) cause more problems, not for either of the parents but for the child/ren involved. For instance, if automatic full and equal rights are granted accross the board to all unmarried fathers, there are those men who dont' want to have anything to do with the child/ren but because of family pressure (because they want to see him/her as is their right) decides to use his right to see the child. Fair enough, this however only continues for a while and then he disappears again, randomly drops back in again when he finally subcums to pressure from the family again and then when he couldnt' be bothered once more he disappears out of the childs life again. This is not a good for childs mental and/or emotional health. It can be very confusing for children and often can and does lead to feelings of low self confidence and low self worth in children(i'm not hypothesing on this, i've worked with kids with these problems, among others and have seen the results).
I know that the "dads" who behave like this are a small minority compared to the amount of dads who would give an arm and a leg to see their children on a regular basis, and it kills me that you guys have been given such a bad reputation because of them. Please don't get me wrong I agree that dads should have full rights the same as the mother i just think that we would need to see the nitty gritty details and find a manner in which it will work as fairly as possible for all involved. That's the main possible problem i could forsee resulting from flat out accross the board equal rights leglislation in it's current form.
Dads on here please don't take anything i've said up wrong, I fully support ya'll in what you're doing, I also think it's a shame you have to do it in the first place, but then again our laws govering and concering families in Ireland arent' exactly the most modern are they?

The Corinthian

shortstuff wrote: »

In response to your question Corinthian I was actually thinking it may (and i stress may) cause more problems, not for either of the parents but for the child/ren involved. For instance, if automatic full and equal rights are granted accross the board to all unmarried fathers, there are those men who dont' want to have anything to do with the child/ren but because of family pressure (because they want to see him/her as is their right) decides to use his right to see the child. Fair enough, this however only continues for a while and then he disappears again, randomly drops back in again when he finally subcums to pressure from the family again and then when he couldnt' be bothered once more he disappears out of the childs life again. This is not a good for childs mental and/or emotional health. It can be very confusing for children and often can and does lead to feelings of low self confidence and low self worth in children(i'm not hypothesing on this, i've worked with kids with these problems, among others and have seen the results).

Yet you are confusing equal rights with unrestrained rights. Just because someone has rights does not mean that they have a blank cheque to exercise them and if a parent is deemed unfit, then those rights can and are curtailed.

If anything equal rights would create greater options for the benefit of the child, as in the present situation a mother is unlikely to be deemed unfit unless she practically walks into the court drunk or with a needle sticking out of her arm. It would create a far more equitable situation for which parent is most fit to have custody rather than the presumption that one of them is on the basis of not having a Y-chromosome.

Please don't get me wrong I agree that dads should have full rights the same as the mother i just think that we would need to see the nitty gritty details and find a manner in which it will work as fairly as possible for all involved. That's the main possible problem i could forsee resulting from flat out accross the board equal rights leglislation in it's current form.

No one is suggesting 'no strings attached' rights, with no checks and balances - only that both rights and 'strings attached' be applied equally.

As such, it would not cause more problems than solve for all concerned and while it could cause more problems than solve for the mother, this is only because of the present inequity and that is hardly a reasonable or rational argument to make in favour of the status quo.

metrovelvet

It's not done on who is the better parent. Judges are do not want to break the parent child bond unless its absolutely necessary. it has nothing to do with fitness.

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's not done on who is the better parent. Judges are do not want to break the parent child bond unless its absolutely necessary. it has nothing to do with fitness.

Given that there are children in the care of parents who are currently junkies
and the state does not intervene this is the case.

But I don't agree that just because some fathers have no intrest and some fathers are not fit that does not mean all fathers should not have default rights.

It's like saying some people use knives as weapons no one should be allowed knives.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Given that there are children in the care of parents who are currently junkies
and the state does not intervene this is the case.

But I don't agree that just because some fathers have no intrest and some fathers are not fit that does not mean all fathers should not have default rights.

It's like saying some people use knives as weapons no one should be allowed knives.

Maybe the problem is that the state doesn't intervene enough in the case of children who are in the care of junkies. I honestly don't know. I know kids in NY who were taking into care because the father was an alcoholic and came back from foster care will head lice and sick. So much for state intervention. But I think that is a separate issue - whether the state should be more stringent on mothers -from father's rights.

I have no problem with default rights, if there is a provision for desertion, and an acknowlegement that rights are not absolute. I do think the child's welfare has to be paramount to rights.

Not everyone hijacks planes and flies them through sky scrapers either but we still have to go through security checks.

The Corinthian

The child's rights should be considered principally, as long as it is the child's rights we're talking about and not the custodial parent's rights by proxy, which all to often happens.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Not everyone hijacks planes and flies them through sky scrapers either but we still have to go through security checks.

To be 100% clear, Saudi terorrists struck the Twin Towers. Not all Saudis. Not all humans. A select few, of an abhorrent mindset.

Now, the court system at the moment targets a section of society, namely males. Males go through security checks, to follow your analogy. Males are treated as "high risk passengers", and thoroughly assessed and given certain privileges on a case-by-case-basis. A few get first class seats. Some get standard. Some unfortunates are either clinging to the wheels, or refused entry until a later date.

Females do not. They are presumed innocent, until proven otherwise. They can never have their flight privileges revoked unless they volunteer to have them removed.They are seen as the perfect passenger, with natural instinct to obey moral and social codes.

Now imagine Saudis were put through one queue, and everyone else went through another. That would be racist, right? It would mean that in order to maintain a safe and pleasant journey, Saudis must b sectioned off, assessed individually (often at great expense), and then finally told whether they can fly, and whether they can do so in a humane fashion.

Society would not stand for it. There would be uproar. Sure there is widespread controversy regarding stereotyping in airports, so-called random checks being focused in on certain races/cultures. This is wrong.

So: dads want rights given to them, rather than having to fight for them. We do not like the old some-men-run-away excuse. We are not that small few.

We are not family-terrorists. We mean absolutely no harm. We just want to love our children without restricton or fear of losing them. And hopefully some day we won't have anything to be fearful for anymore. We won't be victims anymore. We'll just be dads.

Zulu

(of course they weren't Afgans, but Saudis... ...but your point is otherwise perfectly correct)

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

(of course they weren't Afgans, but Saudis... ...but your point is otherwise perfectly correct)

And of course they started profiling since April of this year. No uproar.

Klingon Hamlet

Martina Devlin has written an amazing article in the irish Independent regarding seperated dads/children/the laws protecting them.

Article here:

By Martina Devlin

Thursday August 26 2010

'IT'S a hamster wheel of misery -- a game of control over me. Why is she allowed to sabotage my attempts to be a loving dad? Why is she able to use my children as a weapon to beat me with?"

That's how one father portrays the war of attrition with his ex as he struggles to maintain a bond with his family.

Of all the subjects I have tackled, the topic that precipitated the most heartfelt emails -- an outpouring of cries in the dark -- was the way our society allows separated fathers to be isolated from their children.

When a man splits up from his partner, he rarely intends to detach himself from his children -- yet many feel pushed away. They flounder in a system predisposed to regard all of them as deadbeat dads.

In some cases, custody arrangements are not honoured by mothers and it's difficult and expensive to make women abide by what the courts stipulate.

To their cost -- and the children's -- they learn how easy it is for an uncooperative mother to make an ass of the law. Oops, she inadvertently scheduled an exciting event coinciding with the child's time with his dad; surely he wouldn't be mean enough to deprive little Jack of the chance to go canoeing with friends?

There's always a birthday party that can't be missed, a sleepover treat he'd hate to lose out on, an aquarium visit that would help with his school project. He can see daddy next week instead. Maybe.

Not all single mothers behave this way. Many bite back their frustrations at men who buy fancy trainers for their child but don't help with the electricity bill. Or who are persistently late with maintenance payments.

But women hold most of the cards when a family unit breaks down, and they don't always play fair. Some cooperate grudgingly with access, undermining their children's relationship with the father. Going back to court to protest about it is a costly, provocative measure.

The sister of a separated man describes how his wife persistently rings their three children on their mobile phones, saying: "It's a pity you're with daddy this week, I have a new puppy." Or: "John has come over to play with you."

Do these women understand the harm they cause? Do they care? They use their children as intimate friends, confiding more than is appropriate. Negative remarks can be made about dads and children become confused, asked to take sides.

A father wrote: "On many levels my ex is a great mother but, bizarrely, she seems to hate me more than she loves our daughter." So she has no compunction about hijacking important dates, such as birthdays and a first day at school.

Gender profiling presumes mothers are the best parents. This is not always the case. The law needs to join the 21st Century and recognise that gender is not an automatic basis for awarding custody.

The law also supposes that two people will behave as responsible adults and put a child first, rather than turn their offspring into ammunition.

But anyone with a brother, colleague or friend who is a separated dad can see how fathers continually are sold short. In the process, children are deprived of their dads.

The courts are not protecting children from mothers blinded by resentment against their ex and incapable of setting aside negative feelings.

"Give us a chance to be there for our children, to have a meaningful relationship with them, and take the emotion out of it," pleads another father.

"I know there are two sides to every story, but children deserve a relationship with both parents. It shouldn't be a win/lose situation -- there's too much at stake: for the children, parents and society in general."

Separated parents who manage to make it work say an agreed framework, sometimes using mediation, can help. Such documents, best put in writing, specify arrangements for holidays, fees, health issues and school decisions.

Unfortunately, problems surface when circumstances change -- and when feelings do. Here's an email that's all too typical: "My son was only three months old when our relationship broke down. It was a traumatic time, but we agreed we loved our son and would work towards the common goal of raising him.

"That soon soured. She texted me, then met me with the same message: 'Go away. Go to another country. Forget your son. You're no good as a father.' I pleaded with her. She would not change her mind.

"I went to court and was told my son was too young for me to be his guardian. There was a terrible sense of 'guilty until proven innocent'. I was offered two hours a week with my little boy. I fought long and hard to get four. Four hours is nothing, it's cruel."

We need to set up a system that ensures custody settlements are followed, without dads being driven to back off from hands-on fathering. Or feeling they have no choice but to appeal to the courts, with all the expense and hostility that entails.

Responsible parenting should be taught in school because it's too important to leave for people to pick up as they go along.

We throw up our hands in horror at the consequences of a fatherless society, but do nothing to help men to be co-parents if their relationship with their child's mother breaks down.

Bad enough that we are failing fathers -- but it's inexcusable to fail their children, too.

mdevlin@independent.ie

- Martina Devlin

Wow. Just wow. She's so perfectly described the problems faced every day. I don't know what to say except thank you Ms Devlin!

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

And of course they started profiling since April of this year. No uproar.

Earlier than that. Read this.

Note the response and the outcome.

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Earlier than that. Read this.

Note the response and the outcome.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8600564.stm

No. Its policy. And you have to take everything the ACLU does with a liberally sized grain of salt.

Anyhow, good luck with your campaign. But you should try to be clear in your own mind if its that you want to see more women prosecuted and also have their parentage revoked or you want more privilege for fathers where their rights are absolute and untouchable.

metrovelvet

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6734001.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Is this what you would like to see?

Cavehill Red

metrovelvet wrote: »

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6734001.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Is this what you would like to see?

Oddly enough, when a feminist journalist and academic examined IRISH family law courts, they found exactly what Martina Devlin has identified - a system skewed in favour of women's whims over the rights and needs of children and their fathers.
Speaking as a single father with full custody (one of very few and a long time fighting the system for it - I'm down as the legal precedent in a number of areas of law), we need a Scandinavian system - one which treats parents EQUALLY, takes consideration of grandparents and extended family and which prioritises the needs of CHILDREN first, not mothers.

metrovelvet

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Oddly enough, when a feminist journalist and academic examined IRISH family law courts, they found exactly what Martina Devlin has identified - a system skewed in favour of women's whims over the rights and needs of children and their fathers.
Speaking as a single father with full custody (one of very few and a long time fighting the system for it - I'm down as the legal precedent in a number of areas of law), we need a Scandinavian system - one which treats parents EQUALLY, takes consideration of grandparents and extended family and which prioritises the needs of CHILDREN first, not mothers.

Well then, your ex must have been a really bad woman if you got full custody. Or you have really good lawyers.

Aside from that, I think articles like this, while provide validation and sympathy for the plights that frustrated fathers might feel at the helm of the Irish matriarchy, ultimately all they do is get us to argue a lot more, increase fear and put up more resistance. They do not offer hope of change within the family system, or reassurance in the great unknown that is reconcilation and of letting go. What they do is strengthen the pivot of the power struggle so that journalists like Ms Devlin can continue her column. I do not believe all father's rights advocates do this. I do think there are far more subtle thinkers out there, who write with sensitivity, without malice, without an enemy in mind when they are writing, to try to open us up to at least being aware of possible injustices. This article does not do that. I mean really, what good solid wise advice does it offer a father? What good solid wise advice does it offer a mother? That's one of the most destructive articles I have read on family relations. She's as bad as the lawyers.

I could comment on the very blatant one sidedness of the article, but I know it will fall on deaf ears, or on those ears that are gratified by whatever validation they get from it.

Cavehill Red

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well then, your ex must have been a really bad woman if you got full custody. Or you have really good lawyers.

Neither. But the child was best off with me, and eventually all sides, including the judiciary and the mother, came to see that.
What irks me is that it took so long, damaging my child's development in the process. The facilitation of women's whims is endemic in the family law system in Ireland. It takes a very stubborn man with a very good case to get any sort of hearing. Thankfully, I had all of those.
It is interesting to note how you acknowledge this skewing of law in Ireland in favour of mothers above. Sadly, the rights and needs of children are NOT prioritised as they ought to be. As your post indicates, usually only a degenerate mother could possibly lose custody, no matter what's best for the child.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Aside from that, I think articles like this, while provide validation and sympathy for the plights that frustrated fathers might feel at the helm of the Irish matriarchy, ultimately all they do is get us to argue a lot more, increase fear and put up more resistance. They do not offer hope of change within the family system, or reassurance in the great unknown that is reconcilation and of letting go.

Letting go? What drugs are you on. We're talking about CHILDREN. Who lets go of their children except under extreme duress and the threat of legal sanction? I know of fathers who went to pick up their kids for access, only to find the mother had emigrated with them. Others who ensured the father did not even see their kids for a year at a time by maliciously and wrongly alleging child abuse. And many, oh so many, who used the children as a stick to beat the fathers for wrongs they perceived in their own former relationship with him, while entirely disregarding the needs of their own kids.

metrovelvet wrote: »

What they do is strengthen the pivot of the power struggle so that journalists like Ms Devlin can continue her column. I do not believe all father's rights advocates do this. I do think there are far more subtle thinkers out there, who write with sensitivity, without malice, without an enemy in mind when they are writing, to try to open us up to at least being aware of possible injustices. This article does not do that. I mean really, what good solid wise advice does it offer a father? What good solid wise advice does it offer a mother? That's one of the most destructive articles I have read on family relations. She's as bad as the lawyers.

Martina's role is hardly to correct society. That's society's job. She has highlighted this extremely valid and important issue because it has gone on for far too long without being addressed, thanks to a strong single mothers lobby and the incompetence of our politicians.
It is my hope that if Fine Gael enter power that Alan Shatter will redraft his epochal Status of Children Act to accommodate 21st century perspectives on the needs of children and parenting in general.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I could comment on the very blatant one sidedness of the article, but I know it will fall on deaf ears, or on those ears that are gratified by whatever validation they get from it.

As opposed to the utter nonsense spouted in the BRITISH article you cited? In England too, the rights of children and fathers are ritually and regularly sacrificed to the sacred altar of don't-upset-mums.
Martina at least has the balance of perspective to see beyond parochial gender interests to reality, and the reality she exposes is both true and shocking and ought to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

metrovelvet

Oh look. I really don't know. I don't appreciate my sanity being attacked with the "what drugs are you on?" comment. Is that what you used in court too?

I was offerring a different perspective which is clearly not wanted so I will bow out.

Cavehill Red

metrovelvet wrote: »

Oh look. I really don't know. I don't appreciate my sanity being attacked with the "what drugs are you on?" comment. Is that what you used in court too?

I was offerring a different perspective which is clearly not wanted so I will bow out.

Your suggestion that parents should engage in 'letting go' of their children is offensive. I responded in kind, because frankly any parent who cares for their children would find such a suggestion to be the baffling product of someone who understands nothing of the nature of the parent-child bond.
I'm intrigued by the 'different perspective' you offer, since you haven't clarified what that is. The status quo? Why? Explain the reasons justifying the de facto auto-placement of children with mothers without any coherent examination of the child's needs, as is the case in current Irish law. Explain why mothers ought not to be penalised, as they never are in Ireland, for failing to facilitate access and guardianship court rulings?
Or is your perspective merely that of the single mother agitant, as the citing of that very flawed article from Britain would suggest?
Let's hear your alternative to MY suggestion of what needs to be done, which is the immediate implementation of a Scandinavian regime of equal parenting in law.

metrovelvet

Letting go - was a reference to control. Sorry you didnt see that. You are obviously too entrenched in literal, legalistic lingo. Not all of us can afford Alan Shatter to fight our battles for us.

I just wanted to clarify what I meant. I really don't want to get into a discussion with you.

Cavehill Red

metrovelvet wrote: »

Letting go - was a reference to control. Sorry you didnt see that. You are obviously too entrenched in literal, legalistic lingo. Not all of us can afford Alan Shatter to fight our battles for us.

Decades of evidence indicates that the control auto-granted to mothers by Irish law has not led to any sort of retrenchment towards the needs of children by those mothers.
If your desire is truly to see the end of such control, then your desire coincides with my own.
As Deputy Shatter is in office, he does not represent anyone, and hence fights only the battles of his party.
My HOPE is that if he attains government, as seems likely, that he will revisit the flawed legislation he previously introduced, since he is the best qualified in the country to redraft our laws to properly reflect parental equity and 21st century mores, rather than the inherited perspectives of the 1950s.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I just wanted to clarify what I meant. I really don't want to get into a discussion with you.

So you're neither prepared to defend the status quo (smart) nor prepared to offer an alternative to it.
If you weren't interested in debating the topic, why post in the first place? Were you seriously expecting no one to query that nonsense citation from a foreign country?