Signle Father and guardianship worries

Dali art

Thaedydal wrote: »

Many other country don't discriminate between fathers and mothers the married and the unmarried when it comes to guardianship rights, and there are parents and children suffering because Ireland does.



So unmarried fathers should have to be given some sort of test of how good a father they are to get guardianship rights were as married ones don't?



I honestly think the system and the way rights are awarded does more harm then other fathers. Yes there are less then well behaved parents on both sides of the guardianship/custody/visitations battles but, it's an unequal field to begin with.

Again did i say that? Talk about inflammotory statements. 2 sets of rules maybe?

metrovelvet

It takes two to tango but only one to be left holding the baby in heels and backwards.

Its true that I have never heard of another country that operates like this. In the US, once the father is identified legally and on the birth cert, thats it, he has the same rights.

At the same time the US has a much fairer legal system which is accessible to everyone. I'll be damned if I ever understand the system here.

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

And some parents don't want to be guardians. You'd have to ask them why not though.

I don't see why. In terms of this thread your comment is completly off topic.

The OP is clearly a father that wants to be a guardian.

...and in terms of what another poster has said (who doesn't warrant a response really), we should assume that he's not a rapist or tool. :rolleyes:

dahat

hshortt wrote: »

There is a form to complete on Treoir that will sort the guardianship if the mother agrees. Here is a link.

Good luck.

sorry to butt in here.........

this form when filled in,does it need to be sent to somewhere in particular?
Or is it to be kept as a reference in case of something happening........
also if your name is on the birth cert are you automatically a guardian or do i need this document?

Nevyn

Dali art wrote: »

Again did i say that?

Dali art wrote: »

I also agree though that if the father is a good man he should be as involved with the baby/child as much as possible. Thats a given. No exceptions.

Who decides what is a good man, how is it tested for and what standards are being used and why should it apply to only unmarried fathers?

Dali art wrote: »

Talk about inflammotory statements.

If you have an issue with a post report it.

Dali art wrote: »

2 sets of rules maybe?

I suggest you start arguing the points, one of the rules on the site is attack the post and not the poster, again if you have an issue with me as a mod make a complaint and stop referring to it in the thread. This is your last warning, I have tried to be understanding as you seem new to the site but enough is enough.

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

I don't see why. In terms of this thread your comment is completly off topic.

The OP is clearly a father that wants to be a guardian.

...and in terms of what another poster has said (who doesn't warrant a response really), we should assume that he's not a rapist or tool. :rolleyes:

Because you asked 'what parent doesn't want to be a guardian?' Some of them dont.

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

Because you asked 'what parent doesn't want to be a guardian?' Some of them dont.

Then let them opt out.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Then let them opt out.

Or court ordered discharge?

Do you think if they change their minds they can opt in again? and out again? and in again?

padma

Dali art wrote: »

I do feel some of the advice given to the OP here is very extreme and not helping things. Sometimes someone has to be the bigger person and insist they sit down and knock their heads together for the sake of the child.
Writing letters to the passport office might flare the situation IMO.
I'd say the mother would be irate to hear such a thing and might put thoughts in her head that were never there before.
OP do what you can to be the best DAD you can and you won't go far wrong.

The Op said in his original post that he is afraid of adoption and his child been taken out of the country. The mother has even refused to put his name on the birthcert. The mother in this instance is very unreasonable. I was in the exact same position as him and this is what my solicitor advised me to do. In the courts it looked very good, simply because there was a fear the mother could leave anytime. Putting a hold on the passport is the ONLY way he can prevent his child been taken out of the country while he is applying for guardianship rights, as at the moment she is the sole guardian and can get a passport for her child without his knowledge, thus giving her the freedom to leave.

The mother should recognise this as a genuine Love that the father has for his own child. If she doesn't and gets angry she is only defending her unreasonable actions.

Many father's have been in this situation and it is unreasonable of me not to advise this particular plan of action. In his case I genuinely believe the mother's plan is to get maintenance from him on the quiet and leave him with no rights whatsoever. He has every right to go to the courts and fight for the little rights that are there for him

Judges nowadays are more than accomodating to fathers than they were in the past and if he does everything to the book he will have no problems in the future. Relying on a verbal agreement with the Mother and having no rights leaves him very comnpromised and if he doesn't fight for his rights soon he could end up losing out in his child's upbringing.

I recognise that it is YOUR opinion that writing a letter to the passport office could irate the mother. It is my understanding that this IS the only way to prevent the mother leaving the country with his daughter. Irate or not, he would be taken the action that will protect his child and his own interest.

Zulu

Wonderful selective quoting there metrovelvet :rolleyes:
Unfortunately it doesn't reflect the sentiment of my post, and does little to address the OP's issue.

The Corinthian

Dali art wrote: »

I agree of course it takes 2 to tango but unfortunately its the mother who's left to bare the fruits of this tango so whether we like it or not she gets special dispensation.

The old "she must be a good mother because she didn't take a flight to England" argument.

Unfortunately this does not bare out because simply wanting to keep a child does not make you a fit parent. It also presumes that it was done for the child, as opposed to selfish reasons by the parent. And unfortunately the reality is that there are more than enough examples where this is not the case.

I'm sorry, but if you want to hold up a standard to parents, you need to hold it up to both. Otherwise you are basing your argument on sexist prejudice and tradition rather that reason.

Dali art wrote: »

I do feel some of the advice given to the OP here is very extreme and not helping things. Sometimes someone has to be the bigger person and insist they sit down and knock their heads together for the sake of the child.

Tell that to the man who was the bigger person only to find that his child has vanished, adopted by someone else, never to be seen again. Being the best dad possible will not get you very far in that sort of scenario.

Personally I am against inflaming what is often a tense relationship between the parents. However, sometimes the alternative is much worse.

As I said, it comes down to the OP's relationship with the mother. If belligerent to the point that such fears such as those I have suggested are real possibilities, then chances are relations are not really going to be affected by court as they could already be rock bottom.

The OP has only given us a limited amount of information about his relationship with the mother, so either going to court or "leave well alone" could be the better course of action. Devil's in the detail.

Another option, if relations are generally good, are that he can ask her to sign a will stating that she wants him to have custody in the event that she can no longer care for the child, thus avoiding guardianship, but at least covering that eventuality.

But what happens in situations where even that compromise is rejected? What happens when a mother has no need to give an inch? Sometimes banging your heads together can really mean banging your head against a brick wall.

Dali art

Thaedydal wrote: »

Who decides what is a good man, how is it tested for and what standards are being used and why should it apply to only unmarried fathers?




If you have an issue with a post report it.



I suggest you start arguing the points, one of the rules on the site is attack the post and not the poster, again if you have an issue with me as a mod make a complaint and stop referring to it in the thread. This is your last warning, I have tried to be understanding as you seem new to the site but enough is enough.

As you wish master

Dali art

The Corinthian wrote: »

The old "she must be a good mother because she didn't take a flight to England" argument.

Unfortunately this does not bare out because simply wanting to keep a child does not make you a fit parent. It also presumes that it was done for the child, as opposed to selfish reasons by the parent. And unfortunately the reality is that there are more than enough examples where this is not the case.

I'm sorry, but if you want to hold up a standard to parents, you need to hold it up to both. Otherwise you are basing your argument on sexist prejudice and tradition rather that reason.

Tell that to the man who was the bigger person only to find that his child has vanished, adopted by someone else, never to be seen again. Being the best dad possible will not get you very far in that sort of scenario.

Personally I am against inflaming what is often a tense relationship between the parents. However, sometimes the alternative is much worse.

As I said, it comes down to the OP's relationship with the mother. If belligerent to the point that such fears such as those I have suggested are real possibilities, then chances are relations are not really going to be affected by court as they could already be rock bottom.

The OP has only given us a limited amount of information about his relationship with the mother, so either going to court or "leave well alone" could be the better course of action. Devil's in the detail.

Another option, if relations are generally good, are that he can ask her to sign a will stating that she wants him to have custody in the event that she can no longer care for the child, thus avoiding guardianship, but at least covering that eventuality.

But what happens in situations where even that compromise is rejected? What happens when a mother has no need to give an inch? Sometimes banging your heads together can really mean banging your head against a brick wall.

Honestly people please stop twisting my words.

metrovelvet

padma wrote: »

The Op said in his original post that he is afraid of adoption and his child been taken out of the country. The mother has even refused to put his name on the birthcert. The mother in this instance is very unreasonable. I was in the exact same position as him and this is what my solicitor advised me to do. In the courts it looked very good, simply because there was a fear the mother could leave anytime. Putting a hold on the passport is the ONLY way he can prevent his child been taken out of the country while he is applying for guardianship rights, as at the moment she is the sole guardian and can get a passport for her child without his knowledge, thus giving her the freedom to leave.

The mother should recognise this as a genuine Love that the father has for his own child. If she doesn't and gets angry she is only defending her unreasonable actions.

Many father's have been in this situation and it is unreasonable of me not to advise this particular plan of action. In his case I genuinely believe the mother's plan is to get maintenance from him on the quiet and leave him with no rights whatsoever. He has every right to go to the courts and fight for the little rights that are there for him

Judges nowadays are more than accomodating to fathers than they were in the past and if he does everything to the book he will have no problems in the future. Relying on a verbal agreement with the Mother and having no rights leaves him very comnpromised and if he doesn't fight for his rights soon he could end up losing out in his child's upbringing.

I recognise that it is YOUR opinion that writing a letter to the passport office could irate the mother. It is my understanding that this IS the only way to prevent the mother leaving the country with his daughter. Irate or not, he would be taken the action that will protect his child and his own interest.

I find this suggestion somewhat outrageous. My son was born in the US. If someone claiming to be his father wrote to the passport office of the US from a DIFFERENT country, asking that my son not be issued a passport so that we can't leave the US, it would have gone straight into the bin.

The Corinthian

Dali art wrote: »

Honestly people please stop twisting my words.

No one is twisting your words. People are quoting what you are actually saying, to which your only defense is that you didn't, despite it being there in black and white. You've not even attempted to defend or clarify your position.

You're entitled to your opinion and to express it in fora such as these. But if you do, you are not entitled to it being respected or accepted. It is for you to defend your opinion, and not hide behind a generic claim that everyone is misinterpreting you.

Khannie

Dali Art, can you stop reporting posts please. You're filling up my inbox. I'll get to this thread at lunch.

padma

metrovelvet wrote: »

I find this suggestion somewhat outrageous. My son was born in the US. If someone claiming to be his father wrote to the passport office of the US from a DIFFERENT country, asking that my son not be issued a passport so that we can't leave the US, it would have gone straight into the bin.

No it wouldn't have gone in to the bin, it would be recorded by the passport authorities.

Your situation is out of context. The solictor simply writes to the passport office informing them that their client is taking legal proceedings against the mother and looking for guardianship and joint custody. So the status of the mother as being the sole guardian is currently on hold. So when the father does become joint guardian he and the mother will both need to sign the application for a passport not one parent, but two.

metrovelvet

padma wrote: »

No it wouldn't have gone in to the bin, it would be recorded by the passport authorities.

Your situation is out of context. The solictor simply writes to the passport office informing them that their client is taking legal proceedings against the mother and looking for guardianship and joint custody. So the status of the mother as being the sole guardian is currently on hold. So when the father does become joint guardian he and the mother will both need to sign the application for a passport not one parent, but two.

Unless paternity was established, which it is not, it would have gone in the bin. They would take a subpoena seriously, not a letter from a lawyer. I cant see how the IRish passport office would take a letter seriously if paternity hasnt even been established.

If you want to stop someone leaving, apply for an access order. You don't even need to be a dad to do that. Theres a thread on here about someone's ex boyfriend doing this and she wanted to move to England.

*Sorry I just noticed paternity has been established. Ok. That might be different.

Zulu

...in the OP's case, he's identified as the father. So this wouldn't apply to him, or his issue.

Dali art

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one is twisting your words. People are quoting what you are actually saying, to which your only defense is that you didn't, despite it being there in black and white. You've not even attempted to defend or clarify your position.

You're entitled to your opinion and to express it in fora such as these. But if you do, you are not entitled to it being respected or accepted. It is for you to defend your opinion, and not hide behind a generic claim that everyone is misinterpreting you.

And i don't respect your opinion. As is my right. Not and i repeat i'm not trolling but IMO there's more and i'd go so far as to say alot more bad fathers out there than bad mothers.

Zulu

Dali art wrote: »

And i don't respect your opinion. As is my right. Not and i repeat i'm not trolling but IMO there's more and i'd go so far as to say alot more bad fathers out there than bad mothers.

So take it to humanities & start a thread for dealing with that.
You are not helping the OP.

The Corinthian

Dali art wrote: »

And i don't respect your opinion. As is my right. Not and i repeat i'm not trolling but IMO there's more

I know you don't respect my opinion, but at least I have explained why I don't respect yours, instead of hiding behind generic claims of misrepresentation.

From what I can see where you have actually made specific accusations of misrepresentation, it's been pointed out that it's not because you actually said the things you are accusing others of putting into your mouth.

At this stage you seem to be simply playing an I'm right and you're wrong game, despite all evidence to the contrary. So rather than humanities, as Zulu suggested, perhaps After Hours might be a better home for you.

and i'd go so far as to say alot more bad fathers out there than bad mothers.

Quite likely. However, that's always going to be the case because the majority of bad fathers are bad fathers because they don't want to be fathers. Where a mother does not want to be a mother, she won't be and so the issue does not arise.

This is the problem with making such a sweeping statement as there are "a lot more bad fathers out there than bad mothers" because it is all too easy to then fall into the trap that such statistics arise because they're men and not because of other reasons.

None of the arguments you are engendering are helping the OP in the end, which is the point of this thread.

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

...in the OP's case, he's identified as the father. So this wouldn't apply to him, or his issue.

I still think that its a bad idea though at this stage. Apply for guardianship sure, but dont start getting controlling and paranoid with letters to the passport office, especially when he is out of the country himself and maybe they might have to visit him in France. Dumb idea.

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

... but dont start getting controlling and paranoid with letters to the passport office...

I don't think he's provided any evidence that he's being either "controlling" and/or "paranoid". On the basis of that, I think it's premature and incorrect to call it a "dumb idea".
The OP should do everything he can to protect his child - these are generally considered the actions of a good parent, NOT a controlling and paranoid one.

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

I don't think he's provided any evidence that he's being either "controlling" and/or "paranoid". On the basis of that, I think it's premature and incorrect to call it a "dumb idea".
The OP should do everything he can to protect his child - these are generally considered the actions of a good parent, NOT a controlling and paranoid one.

I think calling the passport office and preemptively refusing/contesting the child a passport when you yourself are abroad is outrageously controlling and paranoid and also prevents any possibility of your child seeing you.

The Corinthian

Where there is a real threat that the mother will abscond from the jurisdiction the moment guardianship proceedings are initiated, then such a measure may be warranted.

It should be noted that padma raised this issue in relation to the mother who was a South Korean national, where the Hague convention is not recognized, so this too is a valid concern.

I would agree that in most cases, however, such a move would probably be an overkill.

Zulu

And I think that using language like "outrageously controlling and paranoid" in terms of this thread does nothing to help the parent with their issue and is unnecessarily inflammatory.

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

And I think that using language like "outrageously controlling and paranoid" in terms of this thread does nothing to help the parent with their issue and is unnecessarily inflammatory.

As I suggested earlier, one reason that guardianship is opposed is that the mother wants to keep her options open. In that context anything that threatens that aim would be considered "outrageously controlling and paranoid", which is actually ironic.

However, I can also see many cases where it would be exactly that and she'd be correct. It depends upon the situation.

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

And I think that using language like "outrageously controlling and paranoid" in terms of this thread does nothing to help the parent with their issue and is unnecessarily inflammatory.

Look, he is a resident of France now. The woman and child are Irish living in Ireland.

Can't you see how controlling, not to mention self- sabotaging it would be to write to the Irish passport office from France even if no application has even been made?

I would certainly raise eyebrows at that.

Nevyn

metrovelvet we get that you think that do so would be unwise, you have made your point.
Please remember this is not about your situation.