Single Dads and Guardianship...or not...

Fittle

thebullkf wrote: »

whats with the rolleyes

the courts will grant the mothers next of kin the jkids.

nothing you or your rocking horse can do about it:rolleyes:

I didn't mention the rocking horse, that was another poster.

And I was rolling my eyes, because as I was typing I was actually looking up to heaven at your naievity in trying to state that if a mother dies, and is in a stable relationship with the father of her children, the 'courts' will knock on his door and take the children away.

thebullkf

Fittle wrote: »

Eh, seriously. It DOES work like that!

He can bring her to court to get guardianship of his own children. And unless he is deemed as a threat to the children, he will get it.

i never disputed he could go to court, are you reading my posts?

i said automatic guardianship does not apply to the father. it does to the mother.

the fact you as a father have to apply for rights to YOUR kids is my problem here.

Fittle

thebullkf wrote: »

i never disputed he could go to court, are you reading my posts?

i said automatic guardianship does not apply to the father. it does to the mother.

the fact you as a father have to apply for rights to YOUR kids is my problem here.

With respect, are you reading MY posts?

I'm a mother.

amiable

I don't care what hand experience any poster or person has in this situation.
If the mentioned scenario happened nobody would take my kids from a stable good home thta they are already living in.
And anyone who says different is imo deluded, stupid or very very confused.
Why would any court remove kids from what is a happy healthy home?

amiable

For the record i have never mentioned guardianship to my partner about my kids nad never will.
Absolutely no need and never will be no matter what happens

thebullkf

Fittle wrote: »

I didn't mention the rocking horse, that was another poster.

And I was rolling my eyes, because as I was typing I was actually looking up to heaven at your naievity in trying to state that if a mother dies, and is in a stable relationship with the father of her children, the 'courts' will knock on his door and take the children away.

apologies about the horse bit, getting my posters mixed up.

i'm not naive nor did i say the courst would knock on your door, mayber i wasn't clear enough, if your missus dies,and you're not married you do not

have automatic rights to your children.
they pass under guardianship of the mothers next of kin until you apply successfully for guardianship.

do you have experience of this type of situation?

i do .

i'd appreciate less of the assumptions about my naivetey (?) please.

January

thebullkf wrote: »

i never disputed he could go to court, are you reading my posts?

i said automatic guardianship does not apply to the father. it does to the mother.

the fact you as a father have to apply for rights to YOUR kids is my problem here.

But what the other posters are trying to say is, that if any father goes to court looking for guardianship, the courts are not going to refuse it unless there is a very good reason for it.

amiable

And i'm telling you bulkf i couldn't give a rats arse what the law says.
Nobody or no court would come to my family home and take my kids.
Its as simple as that.
No way no how

Fittle

thebullkf wrote: »

apologies about the horse bit, getting my posters mixed up.

i'm not naive nor did i say the courst would knock on your door, mayber i wasn't clear enough, if your missus dies,and you're not married you do not

have automatic rights to your children.
they pass under guardianship of the mothers next of kin until you apply successfully for guardianship.

do you have experience of this type of situation?

i do .

i'd appreciate less of the assumptions about my naivetey (?) please.

You are being naieve (or just looking for an argument) because everybody here already knows that fathers don't have automatic guardianship rights to their children if they are not married to the mother.

But your scenario stating that a mother dies and the courts come and take the children away from the father and give rights to the mothers next of kin could not happen, UNLESS there was a very good reason for the children to be put into the care of someone other than the father.

thebullkf

Fittle wrote: »

With respect, are you reading MY posts?

I'm a mother.

i am reading your posts, we seem to be crossing wires here.

if you die and are not married, your partner does not have automatic rights to his kids.

Do we agree on this?

thebullkf

amiable wrote: »

I don't care what hand experience any poster or person has in this situation.
If the mentioned scenario happened nobody would take my kids from a stable good home thta they are already living in.
And anyone who says different is imo deluded, stupid or very very confused.
Why would any court remove kids from what is a happy healthy home?

unfortunately legally, thats the way it stands.

i'm not delyded stupoid or naive or confused. if your missus dies you do not get automatic guardianship.
The next of kin can frustrate the courts, in the meantime your kids live with them.
i have seen it happen.

Fittle

thebullkf wrote: »

i am reading your posts, we seem to be crossing wires here.

if you die and are not married, your partner does not have automatic rights to his kids.

Do we agree on this?

I am not in a relationship with my sons father. We had a 3yr relationship but he jumped ship when I was pregnant. So no, he doesn't have any rights to his son - and rightly so - as I stated in my initial post - in MY situation.

Cavehill Red

Fittle wrote: »

I am the parent of a young boy who's father has never been involved.
...

Whilst dealing with appointing my child's guardian (in the event of my demise) the solicitor commented that while he's very supportive of single men having joint guardianship at birth, and thinks they should have it, in 99% of cases, my own case was one where he believes it's right that unmarried men don't get automatic guardianship at birth.

If they did, in my situation, my sons dad could move into my home (on the premise of raising our child) and basically get his hands on anything I have, all in the name of raising his (our child) child as his legal guardian. He told me he had seen it happen in two clients of his in the past 18 months - both women were married, neither father had shown any interest in the children for years, the mother died and both men now live in the family home, 'raising' the children that neither of them had even seen in years.

A load of nonsense. You should employ a new solicitor who isn't so man-hating.

Fittle wrote: »

I am all for fathers rights but I thought this was worth a mention here, for those of you who might be in a similar situation (parenting alone).

You're all for fathers' rights, except when it comes to actually giving them equality with the mother. You're not alone in that regard - it seems to be a common position among women who otherwise clamour for equality in all things.

Fittle wrote: »

This isn't really a problem or a query - more something I feel other single parents should be aware of.

Congratulations on managing to open another preposterous scaremongering front in the war against fathers.

Fittle

thebullkf wrote: »

unfortunately legally, thats the way it stands.

i'm not delyded stupoid or naive or confused. if your missus dies you do not get automatic guardianship.
The next of kin can frustrate the courts, in the meantime your kids live with them.
i have seen it happen.

Had the father been living with the children prior to this situation - and had he been a responsible father?

thebullkf

ok folks wew seem to be cominbg from different sides, for the record i'm not loking for a row,or stirring.

my problerm is with automatic guardianship, i never said the father would never get guardianshipo,i feel the current system is unjust in these terms.
that is all.

I hope we can all move on:)

Fittle

Cavehill Red wrote: »

A load of nonsense. You should employ a new solicitor who isn't so man-hating.



You're all for fathers' rights, except when it comes to actually giving them equality with the mother. You're not alone in that regard - it seems to be a common position among women who otherwise clamour for equality in all things.



Congratulations on managing to open another preposterous scaremongering front in the war against fathers.

I stated on MORE than one occassion that I was referring to MY situation. And my solicitor no more hates men than you do - I assume you don't hate men?

Fittle

'A load of nonsense. You should employ a new solicitor who isn't so man-hating'

Which bit is nonsense, specifically?.

thebullkf

Fittle wrote: »

Had the father been living with the children prior to this situation - and had he been a responsible father?

yes to all accounts, i understand all situations different.

thebullkf

Fittle wrote: »

I am not in a relationship with my sons father. We had a 3yr relationship but he jumped ship when I was pregnant. So no, he doesn't have any rights to his son - and rightly so - as I stated in my initial post - in MY situation.

your situation while not uncommon, is different to mu scenario, does the father have any contact since,pay maintenance?

{i understand its a personal question, feel free to tell me to feck off}

January

I'm closing this thread, it's just become one big argument over fathers rights.