Unmarried fathers rights, custody and visitation.

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote: »

I honestly can't fathom why people would move their child to another part of the country when the child's other parent lives where you currently do.

I could literally double my salary by moving our family to the UK but my step-son's dad lives in Dublin so it's not an option for us at all.

They do it so they can pay for their kids educations, their kids upkeep, etc. Its great that you have a job here that enables you to do that, but if you didn't Im sure you would strongly consider moving to the UK where you could.

Count your blessings that you have a choice in the matter. But if it meant your child could go to Harvard rather than community college Im sure you would move.

Irish people are spoiled by the scale of their nation. Its so small I dont think anyone has the right to complain about this, although it is an inconvenience.

In the US, we are used to parents moving, and sometimes it takes you across the continent where you have a five hour plane difference.

The UK is 40 minutes away and more affordable than ever to get there. The Ireland is so tiny its a 20 minute plane journey or a few hours in the car.

But with the current state of play you now have people moving to Canada and Australia, and that is what will break up families.

Sleepy

It's a values thing for me metrovelvet, I'd consider regular access to both parents to be more important to a child's development than access to the best schools or a better lifestyle due to higher earning potential of one of the parents in a different geographical location.

Being from Galway myself, it's where I'd rather be raising my daughter but until my step-son is old enough to get on a train by himself at a weekend, I wouldn't consider moving us down there unless his father was also prepared to move.

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote: »

It's a values thing for me metrovelvet, I'd consider regular access to both parents to be more important to a child's development than access to the best schools or a better lifestyle due to higher earning potential of one of the parents in a different geographical location.

Being from Galway myself, it's where I'd rather be raising my daughter but until my step-son is old enough to get on a train by himself at a weekend, I wouldn't consider moving us down there unless his father was also prepared to move.

Ok. Fair enough. But travelling does not mean access has to stop.

There is a lot to be said for putting bread on the table.

My heart goes to people who have to make these choices.

I have a friend who is a qualified nurse in the US. She moved over here due to an engagment which fell apart. She found herself pregnant and is not qualified to practise nursing in Ireland.

What is she supposed to do? Stay here unemployed forever,on social welfare, head into old age with no pension so her child can see his father once a week? Or move back to the US where she can work and provide for her child and re arrange access?

No easy choice.

Nevyn

She could have looked at taking the board exams to work here if she really but her mind to it.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

She could have looked at taking the board exams to work here if she really but her mind to it.

No. They told her she had to retrain from start.

I should add the child has no extended family here. Only living grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins are in the US.

Sleepy

If the father litterally has no family here metrovelvet, tbh, I'd expect him to try and move to the States as it'd be in the child's best interest to have access to their extended family. I'd add that I'd expect the mother to everything in her power to assist the father in this if he was ammenable.

Find it very strange that US Nurses can't take a conversion course to practice here, is the standard much lower or something? I'm aware the Irish nurses are held in high regard internationally but would have assumed American nurses to be at a comparable standard.

Sleepy

Obviously, money does play a part too. If the father had no earning potential in the states and his earnings here were able to provide a substantially higher standard of living for the child than the mother's would be over there it wouldn't make much sense for both parents to live there.

Perhaps an arrangement whereby instead of the lesser earning partner being on the dole, the working parent could up maintenance payments to the level at which they'd otherwise be paying for childcare etc.

Or, if your friend was determined to move home to work and the child's father could provide a better life for the child on his salary, he could be looked at as the primary carer with her travelling over and back to see the child.

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote: »

Obviously, money does play a part too. If the father had no earning potential in the states and his earnings here were able to provide a substantially higher standard of living for the child than the mother's would be over there it wouldn't make much sense for both parents to live there.

Perhaps an arrangement whereby instead of the lesser earning partner being on the dole, the working parent could up maintenance payments to the level at which they'd otherwise be paying for childcare etc.

Or, if your friend was determined to move home to work and the child's father could provide a better life for the child on his salary, he could be looked at as the primary carer with her travelling over and back to see the child.

ITs not possible due to his livelyhood. Ive pmd you so I dont drag this off topic. He would not want to or be able to care for the child fulltime. It's hard enough getting him to see the child once a week.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

Obviously, money does play a part too. If the father had no earning potential in the states and his earnings here were able to provide a substantially higher standard of living for the child than the mother's would be over there it wouldn't make much sense for both parents to live there.

In a perfect World, sure. However, people have lives and have to earn a living. Sometimes it is not possible for both parents to be in the same town or even country because of various circumstances - in the past, and even today, many jobs mean that one parent will be away for long periods of the child's life even in a happily married family set-up, let alone where the parents are not together.

One needs to look at the wider picture too for the child. Imagine that the mother must remain must choose to stay on social welfare in the same country just to stay close to the father - will the child end up paying for that choice upon adulthood? After all, with LPA gone, who's going to pay for her then? The same goes for the father - no one is going to pay for his pension, after all.

All of this appears to be detracting from the topic though, because even if living in different counties, parents can find a way to minimize the distance as long as they can work together to do so. And this thread is largely about when parents cannot.

Sleepy

I guess my problem comes from the fact that, at present, the mother is automatically at an advantage in making any such arrangements as, unless she's a crack addict of no fixed abod, the Irish Family Law system will consider her to be the primary carer and the decision is entirely hers as to where the child is going to live.

While, in metrovelvet's friends case, the mother being the primary carer and neither being in a position to work nearby the father nor, indeed, in a position where one might expect her to sacrifice her own career to suit someone who wouldn't appear to be too bothered to make an effort where his own child is concerned, I object to her having this right by default.

If the parents can't come to an arrangement between themselves regarding which parent is the primary care-giver and where the child will live, it should, imho, be within the remit of the courts to decide this on a case-by-case basis based on such factors as the quality of life the child could expect living with each parent or in each location based on earning power of the parent in that area, level of extended family in each area, access to education, social standing etc.

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote: »

I guess my problem comes from the fact that, at present, the mother is automatically at an advantage in making any such arrangements as, unless she's a crack addict of no fixed abod, the Irish Family Law system will consider her to be the primary carer and the decision is entirely hers as to where the child is going to live.

While, in metrovelvet's friends case, the mother being the primary carer and neither being in a position to work nearby the father nor, indeed, in a position where one might expect her to sacrifice her own career to suit someone who wouldn't appear to be too bothered to make an effort where his own child is concerned, I object to her having this right by default.

If the parents can't come to an arrangement between themselves regarding which parent is the primary care-giver and where the child will live, it should, imho, be within the remit of the courts to decide this on a case-by-case basis based on such factors as the quality of life the child could expect living with each parent or in each location based on earning power of the parent in that area, level of extended family in each area, access to education, social standing etc.

Which court should decide this? Should my friend do this through the US courts or the IRish courts?

See the problem with multi national families?

Nevyn

Thankfully due to tech and the interweb it is possible for parents who are seperated to keep in contact with thier kids. Be it the non custodial parent or the parent traveling for work or working out of the country, ringing every evening to talk to thier child on the phone or to thier child on skype/webcam or playing a game and chatting to thier kids over xbox, or emailing with pictures or even sending vid clips there are so many ways to be present in a child's life then was previously possible.

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote: »

Which court should decide this? Should my friend do this through the US courts or the IRish courts?

See the problem with multi national families?

I'd venture the state which was the normal place of residence of both parents at the time or failing alignment on this, whichever of the two countries could be domonstrated to have been the country where the parents intended raising the child or in whichever the child was issued with a birth cert.

It could be argued that even this would leave the woman with an advantage as she could conceivably pick the system most suited to her case but, withstanding great advances in medicine or a great unifying of world legal systems it would seem to at least attempt to address the current imbalance.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Thankfully due to tech and the interweb it is possible for parents who are seperated to keep in contact with thier kids. Be it the non custodial parent or the parent traveling for work or working out of the country, ringing every evening to talk to thier child on the phone or to thier child on skype/webcam or playing a game and chatting to thier kids over xbox, or emailing with pictures or even sending vid clips there are so many ways to be present in a child's life then was previously possible.

You know on PI when people start out 'I met them on the web..." "we had an internet relationship..' Im in an LDR... and they do this to somehow subtextually indicate it was not to be taken all that seriously because it was carried through refracted media....or through major distances...

isnt it the same thing with a parent child relationship?

Nevyn

Emotional attachments do form over long distance relationships and with communiction with people over the internet and they can be quiet serious. It's part of the joy of being human that we can come to are about people in such a manner.

Nothing in the world can replace an actual hug but I have friends I may only see twice a year in person but I know they are there for me and I for them and the relationship is not any less cos they don't live down the road and I dont' see them once a week or once a month.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Emotional attachments do form over long distance relationships and with communiction with people over the internet and they can be quiet serious. It's part of the joy of being human that we can come to are about people in such a manner.

Nothing in the world can replace an actual hug but I have friends I may only see twice a year in person but I know they are there for me and I for them and the relationship is not any less cos they don't live down the road and I dont' see them once a week or once a month.

Yes they can be. But often they are not. I could get into a talk about representation and ce n'est pas un pipe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images] but let's not take the complexity further.

Many claim they do not make genuine attachments through the refraction of media but that something might be sustained, something which was formed not through refraction but real time three dimensional interaction and then later fed into by other media. And then some also claim that the other media could not nourish or sustain the attachment.

Nevyn

The url in that post is malformed.
Honestly that looks like to me to be a heap of excuses.
People have had penpals for over a 100 years and it's the same thing,
to say that there is no realtionship there is frankly bollix imho.

wolfpawnat

You can have a relationship with loved ones over the web. I had 2 amazing friends growing up, but they are in Cork and I am in Dublin, if it wasn't for texing and facebook we wouldn't be so close still! I love them so much and being able to send them a facebook or text or send pics to them online of my son, it makes it easier. I can only imagine it is good for other people too.

A memberof my in-laws family had to take a 6 month contract in Oz, as he had no work here, and he a mortgage and a young child to look after. I can imaine the skyping!

My SIL's fiancée is a Red Cross worker and goes away for a month at a time, they use skype and MSN, I can imagine kids with far flung parents are the same!

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

The url in that post is malformed.
Honestly that looks like to me to be a heap of excuses.
People have had penpals for over a 100 years and it's the same thing,
to say that there is no realtionship there is frankly bollix imho.

Well that is your opinion. And if you really believed that you wouldnt have a problem with custodial parents taking kids out of the country.

Nevyn

I think ideally co parenting should be done with the parents living in as close a proximity as possible, not everyone can co parent and not be a couple while living under the same roof but the same city makes sense.

But where it is unavoidable and a parent is separated from a child for what ever reason
and can not see them daily or weekly, keeping in contact is paramount to building and maintaining a relationship and there are thankfully so many ways for parents and children to do that using the interweb.

Life is about compromises and when you have children you find yourself compromising in ways you never thought possible to what is the best for them and other then extremely abusive and toxic relationships
all kids should have contact if possible with their parents.

wolfpawnat

Thaedydal wrote: »

I think ideally co parenting should be done with the parents living in as close a proximity as possible, not everyone can co parent and not be a couple while living under the same roof but the same city makes sense.

If the parents get on well enough to be amiable, even outside of a relationship, it is the best scenario for the children! That said, if parents are in the same house and roaring and screaming at each other all day every day, it is not ideal.

Every single family is different, and every case is different. My ex and I refuse to separate ourselves from our sons daily life, so we live together, have dinner together, have family days out and he sees his dad and myself tackling each other messingly!

Internet can make it easier, but no way is it ideal! It does make a horrible situation far easier though! Though some kids probably mightn't like it either, I think it is a to each their own thing!

Klingon Hamlet

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I truly do believe the government wants a society where there are no families that are together or are talking. All social welfare payments are for One Parent Situation and with recent economic situations people are forced to choose between being a family or financial security!

Also, this emmigration thing doesn't help. Men having to leave to get work, or women, children in different hemispheres to one of their parents. It is very hard for them!

There was an article in one of the papers hinting at possible payments for cohabiting couples. It still leaves non-custodial parents with nothing bar the One Parent Family Tax credit though.

wolfpawnat

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

There was an article in one of the papers hinting at possible payments for cohabiting couples. It still leaves non-custodial parents with nothing bar the One Parent Family Tax credit though.

Yes a friend sent it to me, Irish Times. I do think it is the right thing to do though. I mean people in a SW situation get reduced payments if they are both on it.

It is a very unfair society. One parent families seem to encouraged! There is nothing wrong with them, but you ahould not make it easier for one family situation over the other!

Klingon Hamlet

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Yes a friend sent it to me, Irish Times. I do think it is the right thing to do though. I mean people in a SW situation get reduced payments if they are both on it.

It is a very unfair society. One parent families seem to encouraged! There is nothing wrong with them, but you ahould not make it easier for one family situation over the other!

Article here.

MINISTER FOR Social Protection Éamon Ó Cuív has said he will “carefully” study a new report which encourages reform in the social welfare system to encourage unmarried parents to live together.

The unpublished report by the Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection recommends the existing lone parents’ and “qualified adult” social welfare payments should be replaced by a single parental allowance payable to all low-income parents. This is aimed at removing disincentives to cohabitation and marriage.

“I think it is an issue that needs to be looked at and my department is looking at this issue and I do think there is an issue worth debating here,” Mr Ó Cuív said.

He said there would be a “considerable cost involved” but he described the issue as one which was “worth looking at in the longterm”. “I will look at the report very carefully but there is obviously very significant cost involved,” he continued.

He also pointed to the fact that there would be some savings arising out of the new Civil Partnership legislation.

“At present people of the same sex living together whether they are a couple or not they were treated as two singles. Under the Civil Partnership legislation two people of the same sex living together will now have to be treated as a couple and that will reduce their payment,” he explained.

He made his comments in Limerick last night where he was invited to participate in a debate at the University of Limerick.

Organised by the UL Debating Union the motion of last night’s debate was “This House has no confidence in the Government”.

Speaking against the motion Mr Ó Cuív outlined the decisions the Government has taken to tackle the current economic crisis, which he said were the “only rational decisions”.

“I am not saying every decision was right but I think all the major decisions were right . . . We’ve had to be very courageous in what we’ve done,” he argued.

He admitted the past two years have been “incredibly difficult” for people but insisted the Government was focused on creating employment and rebuilding the country.

He said the Government had to introduce the bank guarantee scheme to save the depositors. “I believe when history comes to be written in 20 years time Brian Cowen and his Government will be seen as a courageous Government who took the right decisions,” he said.

Arguing the case for the proposition, UL student Darragh Roche accepted the present Government had a mandate from the people but argued that: “We live in a different society and people want change . . . We have no confidence in the Government because they give us no reason to believe in them.”

Frankly the term "one parent family" offends me. My child has two parents.

metrovelvet

I dont understand the system enough to know what either of you are talking about but it seems to me that parents who live together should be encouraged rather than take financial penance for it.

However, when you live alone, you dont have someone to share oil bills, electricity, phone and other household bills with so it is a lot more expensive.

Sleepy

It's to do with the fact that married couples can share tax credits but co-habiting couples can't.

So whilst my girlfriend is a stay at home mum and a "dependent" for purposes of welfare (she can't claim Single Parents Allowance or Dole) because we co-habit (as is the case for married couples), I'm not entitled to a tax credit for her as my dependent which I would be if we were married.

Basically it's discrimination against those who either don't believe in marriage or can't afford to get married (whilst the legal ceremony itself isn't expensive, the trappings our society demands goes with it are obscenely expensive, and regardless of the rights or wrongs of it, many people aren't prepared to disappoint their parents or shatter their partners dreams in this respect).

So, I'd heavily welcome a move which would go towards addressing this imbalance. Especially as it'd result in a lowering of my yearly tax payments of about €750 or so...

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote: »

It's to do with the fact that married couples can share tax credits but co-habiting couples can't.

So whilst my girlfriend is a stay at home mum and a "dependent" for purposes of welfare (she can't claim Single Parents Allowance or Dole) because we co-habit (as is the case for married couples), I'm not entitled to a tax credit for her as my dependent which I would be if we were married.

Basically it's discrimination against those who either don't believe in marriage or can't afford to get married (whilst the legal ceremony itself isn't expensive, the trappings our society demands goes with it are obscenely expensive, and regardless of the rights or wrongs of it, many people aren't prepared to disappoint their parents or shatter their partners dreams in this respect).

So, I'd heavily welcome a move which would go towards addressing this imbalance. Especially as it'd result in a lowering of my yearly tax payments of about €750 or so...

Ok.... but does the lack of tax credits actually stop people from moving in together? Its still probably worth it when you can split bills and also are on board for your child. It saves transport and time costs too on the child being split between two households.

As an aside if the cohabitation bill will bring things up to par to the extent that you might have to pay alimony the least they can do is be flexible with the tax credits.

wolfpawnat

Yes One Prent Family is an offensive term in that it negates one parent from the equation.

My situation is a very odd one. My ex is in college, so he has 0 income. It is his second degree so he gets no grants and had to pay registration and college fees (approx €10,000) He is in college all day and cannot get a job.

I cannot get OPFP as I am not, in the eyes of the SW, an One Parent Family situation as he is here in the house with us, but he has no finacial input as he does not have an income. I pay rent, bills and food costs for 3! That's not fair! I live week by week and have to ask family for hand outs when the big bills come and it is humiliating!

If they sorted it out, I may be able to get a small bit more help with finances!

Sleepy

It's not enough to stop two working people from moving in together however, it stops people from moving in together *legally* if one parent is in receipt of OPFP and rent allowance, whilst the other has a job, there's a potential hit to their joint income of up to €22901.6 per year (based on Dublin rent allowances) for being honest and declaring themselves as a co-habiting couple (or indeed co-parenting under the same roof) as wolfpawnat is.

Given that, it's hardly surprising that so many people claim to be single parents whilst their partner lives in their council house illegally with them...

Nevyn

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