Unmarried fathers rights, custody and visitation.

metrovelvet

I have no desire either way. I am not from this country and none of this is pertinant to me or my life so I have no investment either way.

You want a scandinavian model and equal custody and yet you sued for full custody.

Cavehill Red

metrovelvet wrote: »

I have no desire either way. I am not from this country and none of this is pertinant to me or my life so I have no investment either way.

You want a scandinavian model and equal custody and yet you sued for full custody.

You're not from this country so perhaps are unaware of the enforced adversarial nature of family law in Ireland.
Unmarried fathers, for example, are required to sue the mothers simply to be acknowledged as fathers and obtain guardianship rights, which in themselves are meaningless since they are negligible and unenforced.
The Scandinavian model is predicated on the benchmark of equal parenting, not equal custody. It is rarely suitable for children to spend 3.5 days per week in each of two homes.
Despite possessing more authority than I believe to be fair (which was effectively foisted upon me because there was no interim point I could legally pursue under Irish law), I facilitate equal parenting to the utmost degree for my child's benefit.
My child just spent a week with their mum. We get on fine. We parent as equally as circumstances permit. I just happen to be the custodial parent.

metrovelvet

I have been made aware of the technicalities behind the laws, although I do find it very confusing as I am used to a different terminology where the same legal words mean different things. I still don't really understand what guardianship means. Having read the Guardianship bill of 64 I still don't know exactly what rights is bestows except in a fuzzy kind of on principal way.

I still don't understand how that differs from married mens rights.

I grew up in the 1970s in the US when we went through our Kramer vs Kramer phase and dads were abducting their kids [my dad had two friends who did this] before mediation was around, etc and I feel like Im in a time warp and right back there again living in this country and it really makes me want to leave. I know what enforcement means. It means you keep the custody agreement in the kitchen drawer in case the cops call around because you are an hour late dropping your kid off back at moms or an hour late getting him or her ready for the weekend visit to dad. This was not unheard of. My parents divorced but this carry on didn't happen, but I know plenty of households where it did. So thats what you get when you get enforcement.

Im also wondering if guardianship becomes automatic does that mean your affadavit of sole guardianship becomes null and void?

Does it also mean in the case of a custodial parents death a dead beat dad could just swoop in and claim the child and take him or her?

DanGlee

Can I just say that this has been the hardest and most upsetting thing I have read in a long time. I just split up with my fiancee last week and we have a 16 month son, we were in the UK and she upped and went back to Ireland. At present we are in agreement on my getting guardianship and 50/50 time with him, obviously have to move back to Ireland. I just hope she can keep her promise and not take my son away from me, he's my whole life and not seeing his beautiful face everyday is killing me slowly, piece by piece

Cavehill Red

metrovelvet wrote: »

Does it also mean in the case of a custodial parents death a dead beat dad could just swoop in and claim the child and take him or her?

Not for the first time, I find your use of language offensive.

metrovelvet

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not for the first time, I find your use of language offensive.

So. Report the post.

Zulu

You don't have to be so abrasive.

Khannie

Zulu wrote: »

You don't have to be so abrasive.

Amen to that.

Klingon Hamlet

I think it's so sad that when we seem on the verge of equal parenting, all we hear is how mothers are better-suited parents than fathers. I thought gender equality went both ways. And I thought children deserved both parents.:( I still think that, and I'll never give up thinking that. I love my child with my heart and soul. I'm a great dad. I'll keep being great, even if it means spending the next decade in court.:)

But really...I'd rather avoid courts. I'd rather be assumed by society to be a loving dad. Does anyone here think society will change its tune?

To metrovelvet: Why are mums assumed to be suitable guardians and custodians, and dads are not?

Zulu

I know you asked Metrovelvet, but I'm gonna answer also.

Men are murders & rapists. Men abuse.

Unfortunatly, men have no-one protecting them from their on going character assination in the media. Unfortunatly our "equal" society has little or no time to protect men or mens interests.

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

Men are murders & rapists. Men abuse.

It's a historical prejudice based upon pseudo-biology on the same basis as the old "women should not vote as they are too emotional to make informed decisions" arguments of a century ago. In short, it's a handy justification for maintaining the status quo.

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I think it's so sad that when we seem on the verge of equal parenting, all we hear is how mothers are better-suited parents than fathers. I thought gender equality went both ways. And I thought children deserved both parents.:( I still think that, and I'll never give up thinking that. I love my child with my heart and soul. I'm a great dad. I'll keep being great, even if it means spending the next decade in court.:)

But really...I'd rather avoid courts. I'd rather be assumed by society to be a loving dad. Does anyone here think society will change its tune?

To metrovelvet: Why are mums assumed to be suitable guardians and custodians, and dads are not?

You'd rather avoid the courts? Didnt you go to court umpteen times before your son was even a year old?

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

You'd rather avoid the courts? Didnt you go to court umpteen times before your son was even a year old?

Yeah

metrovelvet

How many times did you go to court before your son turned one?

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

How many times did you go to court before your son turned one?

I don't think going into specifics is wise, but "a lot" would be accurate.

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I don't think going into specifics is wise, but "a lot" would be accurate.

Well then it looks to me like you love going to court. If you were dragging your ex into court before the child was even a year old, a woman you publically claimed on the links in your now disappeared signature to have mental problems [which would appear to me to breach doctor patient confidentiality, but however], it looks like you love going to court. And where did it get you in the end? She ran away. I would have too if I were her.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well then it looks to me like you love going to court. If you were dragging your ex into court before the child was even a year old, a woman you publically claimed on the links in your now disappeared signature to have mental problems [which would appear to me to breach doctor patient confidentiality, but however], it looks like you love going to court. And where did it get you in the end? She ran away. I would have too if I were her.

Hang your head in shame, metro. You have no idea what you're talking about:rolleyes: You seem to get very personal with posters when they don't subscribe to your personal opinions. I created this thread purely to have some positive ideas and experiences shared, some meeting of minds, and everyone has except you.

You throw mindless sexist barbs out for people to stumble over, and when people question your thought processes you back off and claim you have no interest in the Irish family system. You throw rocks and shrug indifference.

You are the quintessential nay-sayer, kudos to you;)

moldypeach

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well then it looks to me like you love going to court. If you were dragging your ex into court before the child was even a year old, a woman you publically claimed on the links in your now disappeared signature to have mental problems [which would appear to me to breach doctor patient confidentiality, but however], it looks like you love going to court. And where did it get you in the end? She ran away. I would have too if I were her.

I believe from your posts you have a child?
Let's say someone took that child from you and stopped all contact, would you not also go to court or even the ends of the earth to regain that contact with your OWN child.

No one should have the right to take a child from a parent unless in exceptional circumstances. Court is something that no parent would like to resort to, if the law was changed fathers would not have to go to court and could enjoy being a father instead!

metrovelvet

moldypeach wrote: »

I believe from your posts you have a child?
Let's say someone took that child from you and stopped all contact, would you not also go to court or even the ends of the earth to regain that contact with your OWN child.

No one should have the right to take a child from a parent unless in exceptional circumstances. Court is something that no parent would like to resort to, if the law was changed fathers would not have to go to court and could enjoy being a father instead!

I would not drag someone into court who has a newborn and is trying to raise that infant alone, sleep deprived, recovering from childbirth, hormonal readjustments etc etc. I would have at least waited a year before petitioning for court orders etc and tried to be as supportive and non threatening as I can be.

Everyone with half a brain knows how tough the first year is and to start court proceeding is just down right mean.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

I would not drag someone into court who has a newborn and is trying to raise that infant alone, sleep deprived, recovering from childbirth, hormonal readjustments etc etc. I would have at least waited a year before petitioning for court orders etc and tried to be as supportive and non threatening as I can be.

Everyone with half a brain knows how tough the first year is and to start court proceeding is just down right mean.

That's where automatic rights would help smooth things out.

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Hang your head in shame, metro. You have no idea what you're talking about:rolleyes: You seem to get very personal with posters when they don't subscribe to your personal opinions. I created this thread purely to have some positive ideas and experiences shared, some meeting of minds, and everyone has except you.

You throw mindless sexist barbs out for people to stumble over, and when people question your thought processes you back off and claim you have no interest in the Irish family system. You throw rocks and shrug indifference.

You are the quintessential nay-sayer, kudos to you;)

You're right. I'm spoiling your party. I'm sorry. I wont say any more about it.

astra2000

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Hang your head in shame, metro. You have no idea what you're talking about:rolleyes: You seem to get very personal with posters when they don't subscribe to your personal opinions. I created this thread purely to have some positive ideas and experiences shared, some meeting of minds, and everyone has except you.

You throw mindless sexist barbs out for people to stumble over, and when people question your thought processes you back off and claim you have no interest in the Irish family system. You throw rocks and shrug indifference.

You are the quintessential nay-sayer, kudos to you;)

It is such a shame that you had to go to court on numerous occasions to see your child, and another shame that you get slated on here for doing so. Access should be an automatic right for any parent (who is not a danger to their child). Well done for persevering and fighting an unfair battle. Boards is a great forum but unfortunatly some posters spew bile I have came to the conclusion it is best to ignore them and their continuous misquoting!!!!

Cavehill Red

Sad that this productive thread keeps getting derailed.
I guess it's not only separated fathers who have 'daddy issues'.

Klingon Hamlet

astra2000 wrote: »

It is such a shame that you had to go to court on numerous occasions to see your child, and another shame that you get slated on here for doing so. Access should be an automatic right for any parent (who is not a danger to their child). Well done for persevering and fighting an unfair battle. Boards is a great forum but unfortunatly some posters spew bile I have came to the conclusion it is best to ignore them and their continuous misquoting!!!!

Thanks. I hated going to court. I hated going through it and I hated putting my child's mother through it, even when I knew it was the only course of action available to me. I'm not worried about people's opinions of me, cos I just have to look into my child's twinkling eyes and realise it was worth all the pain and fear.

Besides being a loving dad, I hope to spend the rest of my life helping broken families come to terms with their change in lifestyles and come to agreements---legally-binding, but minus the court-battles---that only help to protect the bonds between each loving member without compromising the importance of each and every individual, from grandparents to uncles and aunts to the parents themselves, and kids front and centre.

It's idealistic and probably naive but a worthy cause. And nay-sayers are static to me. They can winge from the sidelines all they like, because they have nothing positive or productive to bring to the table, bless them:)

Khannie

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Sad that this productive thread keeps getting derailed.
I guess it's not only separated fathers who have 'daddy issues'.

Ok, I'm getting tired of your little off topic swipes. Let me be 100% clear about this so that there is no further room for confusion:

If you have a problem with a post, report it.

Klingon Hamlet

* Mum flees country with son
* Dad on three-month cycle to find them
* Mother is suffering mental illness

AUSTRALIAN Ken Thompson has spent every day for three months cycling through Europe, looking for his son.

But there is no telling where, when, how or even if his remarkable journey will end.

He says, quite frankly, he doesn't care if it takes the rest of his life, just as long as he finds his little boy.

He has cycled through over half a dozen countries in his desperate search to find his missing son.

Mr Thompson's story is one of love, betrayal, physical determination and weight loss so drastic his jeans once fell down in the middle of a Luxembourg street.

But it also raises a more fundamental question: How far would any of us go to help a loved one?

It is a question the relatives of Australia's 1600 long-term missing persons ask themselves every day.

Some agonise over ways to shed new light on cases which the police have long ago failed to solve - some set up Facebook pages, distribute leaflets, travel vast distances to investigate possible sightings.

But few, if any, respond quite so comprehensively as Ken Thompson.

To understand his story fully, we must go back to 2006.

Mr Thompson had become deputy commissioner of the New South Wales Fire Brigades after a highly distinguished 37-year career as an officer.

He had a great house in the northern Sydney suburb of Hunters Hill, which he shared with his wife Melinda and their healthy, playful two-year-old son.

But it was all about to end as Ms Thompson began showing the first signs of mental illness.

The symptoms were subtle at first.

But they progressed, manifesting themselves in paranoia and false beliefs about various people, including Mr Thompson.

"I didn't realise it at the time, but it started slowly and just escalated, it was terrible," Mr Thompson said.

By December 2007, his wife had been diagnosed by one of Australia's leading psychiatrists as having a paranoia disorder, and left their family home on January 1.

She fled the country with three-year-old Andrew on April 24 after fearing she would lose access to him over the psychatrist's report.

The Australian Federal Police issued a warrant for her arrest and together with Interpol managed to trace her to Frankfurt, but there the trail quickly ran cold.

"I just didn't know what to do," Mr Thompson said.

"I had a job that carried with it a great amount of responsibility, but which I could no longer do properly. I couldn't concentrate.

"I felt like I couldn't do the job justice."

So he took early retirement and began to plot a way to find his son.

A close family friend, who does not want to be named, picks up the story.

"He was sitting in Australia as the police did as much as they could," she said.

"But it got to the point where he thought, "well what can I do?"

"And he knew he could cycle.

"I don't think he'll mind me saying this, but he wasn't the fittest person in the world at that point and he'd suffered a bout of pneumonia in 2008 that he'd had to fight back from.

"He had been under tremendous stress because of it all."

By that point the Family Court of Australia had granted an order lifting a ban on Andrew's name being published, to aid the search.

Mr Thompson got himself fit, organised a bike, set up a website, got a cycling shirt printed with Andrew's face on it and set off for Europe.

His plan was to cycle across the continent, searching everywhere he could for his wife and child.

He landed in London in early May this year, just in time for International Missing Children's Day on May 25.

Then Mr Thompson's real work began.

After cycling to northern England to spread the word about Andrew, Mr Thompson pedalled south, crossed into northern France, and cycled east through Belgium, Luxembourg and into Germany.

He visited Frankfurt and other German locations where Ms Thompson may have been hiding, before moving north again to the Netherlands.

There he handed a letter to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, signed by about 70 families of missing children, calling on the United Nations to update its 30-year-old conventions on child abduction.

Mr Thompson then pedalled back to Hamburg and Berlin, to Poland and then back to Germany. On Wednesday was in Zittau, on the Czech Republic-German border.

He now plans to cycle to Prague, then to Switzerland and south to Spain, Italy and beyond as the northern winter draws in.

All the time he'll be looking for Andrew, looking for his wife and highlighting the plight of missing persons everywhere.

When will he stop?

"I don't know. I'll keep going as long as I can," he said.

"I'll do whatever it takes. He's my son. I'm responsible for him. I miss him, I love him. I'll just keep going until I find him."

I've been following this story for months now and it's very sad. I don't know what started the mum's psychological problems but she should never have been allowed run off with the little fella. Now the big problem is she's probably too frightened to come back with him. How do you solve that? Maybe issue a vow by Australian government that she can return with Andrew without any legal consequences? Is that even possible now??

It's heartbreaking to know this happens every day worldwide. Ken deserves huge praise for his inner strength and conviction. Imagine cycling so far for so long, with only your fears and anguish to keep you company.

I haven't seen anyhting on the news yet about this. Will do a search online. Maybe if it gets more coverage, Melinda will return Andrew, or someone will recognise them and alert the authorities. Let's hope it's the former option. Maybe this could have a happy ending soon.

My thoughts are with Andrew, Ken and Melinda.

moldypeach

metrovelvet wrote: »

I would not drag someone into court who has a newborn and is trying to raise that infant alone, sleep deprived, recovering from childbirth, hormonal readjustments etc etc. I would have at least waited a year before petitioning for court orders etc and tried to be as supportive and non threatening as I can be.

Everyone with half a brain knows how tough the first year is and to start court proceeding is just down right mean.

And what happens after that first year of no contact???

I know exactly what, the judge says Mr....... why have you decided to come to my court room now for guardianship and access? you have not had any contact with your child in the first year of it's life and now you want me to grant you access.

This is when a father will be labelled as a dead beat dad. If the mother was in any way a decent human being there is no way they would do that to the father of a child, or the child itself regardless of how old/young it is.

metrovelvet

What would happen? They'd be granted access.

Klingon Hamlet

metrovelvet wrote: »

What would happen? They'd be granted limited access.

FYP

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

I would not drag someone into court who has a newborn...

It's not just a newborn; it's your child.

The very fact that you think it's an acceptable solution for a father not to see their own child for a year speaks volumes about your attitude towards men.

Let me be clear: it is unacceptable to prevent a parent from seeing their child for a year, because you are feeling "sleep deprived".