question about custody

metrovelvet

I also find it incredibly offensive. If she married she could legally work here.

ALso how many single parents are prohibited from working because they cant share the childcare or cover the costs of childcare and the lack of marriage actually forces them into unemployment.

Morag

niallith wrote: »

well ex was seperated from her mother at the age of 3 i think(she just got up and left) so she was raised by her grandparents, and never really showed to be scarred by it all tho they did get in contact over the phone and are building a friendship again.. and yes m yex does love her child and treats her right, but am i to continue going to work supporting her even do shes takin the piss and chatting with other guys, its happened twice beforre and i forgave for those times and just tried to forget but then i find out once again shes off with some other guy , really why would i want her herer any longer, its not a big issue for me but still somthing to think about how ill ever move on and find another girl:? saying ""oh i still live with my ex" conversation over... anyways ill havto give it alot of thought and maybe it might be best to just bite the bullet and allow her to stay and continue to be unhappy for ever but for the sake of my daughters happyness.

Niallith there are people who stay in the same household rearing thier kids as a family while they are not a couple and they do manage to have relationships with other people while doing it and to be happy.

Having a partner being in a couple does not mean you are happy, happiness is found in yourself, you can't expect other's to make you happy.

Why don't you go and see about mediation, to start a process of separation?
Why not go and find out what supports she will be entitled to in order for her to live close by with the child so you can have your space and your child at the weekend and during the week when you are not in work?

Also give what your earnings are why hadn't you applied for Family Income Supplement?

January

metrovelvet and The Corinthian please take your debate to PM and stop dragging threads off topic with your bickering.

The Corinthian

common sense brigade wrote: »

What i think thats wholly insulting. i meant if they married she could work and get her own place not sponge off him. that is all i meant. ur extremely offensive . for the record i have never claimed welfare have full time career and am a mother and married. and have supported my husband in times of his umeployment. happily as i love him very much.

I presume though that you got married on a stronger basis than he knocked you up though?

The reason I say this is that to make such a commitment based upon getting someone pregnant, is not a very good basis for a lifelong union. And if it ends, invariably it will be the guy who ends up losing out and the gal who'll make a profit from the share of assets, pension and spousal maintenance. Additionally, you presume that she would work. If they married she could simply refuse to do so.

So I stand by the opinion that it would be a stupid thing to do on that basis.

i have always supported fathers rights on here. i myself was raised by men with no mother. and my mother was no good. but i get the feeling the OP partner is a good mother and am trying to suggest alternatives than seperating mother child and father.

As I said, I didn't get that feeling from what you wrote. Anyhow, I've given him my advise, based on the little we know.

common sense brigade

I presume though that you got married on a stronger basis than he knocked you up though?

how is this relevant?. in answer we didnt have a stereotypical basis for marriage as we got married after 6 mths of knowing each other in las vegas. we did it for love. but the OP would be better off legally married as his partner could get work then. and he wouldnt have to support her. the OP doesnt seem to have much money pension or assets and also they could sign a pre nup couldnt they?
if OP partner has to go back to USA with her daughter no one wins. So why not a simple legal marriage in order for father and mother to both get access to their little girl. and get the mother working and out of his life once she is sorted?

In all my posts i have said that shared custody is the best option. and making someone homeless is wrong. and i stand by that. if it was a woman on here harping on about kicking her ex out onto the street for petty arguments even though he is a good dad i would be right on at her too about the child needing his father. even infedelity does not warrant making a person homeless.

The Corinthian

common sense brigade wrote: »

how is this relevant?.

Because not every reason for getting married is a good one and you do not appear to be differentiating between them. Marrying someone because you knocked them up is a really bad one.

but the OP would be better off legally married as his partner could get work then. and he wouldnt have to support her.

IF she chooses to get work - she may well decide that she is better off not doing so, given the cost of child care and the present economy. We don't even know what level of qualification she has, and thus salary she could command. We don't even know if she was not terminally workshy long before she moved to Ireland. We don't even know how long, and well, they knew each other before she got pregnant.

What you can say though is he would be financially liable to support her and she would have a claim over all his assets.

Legally he would have to support her if she chose not to support herself. Bottom line.

metrovelvet

common sense brigade wrote: »

how is this relevant?. in answer we didnt have a stereotypical basis for marriage as we got married after 6 mths of knowing each other in las vegas. we did it for love. but the OP would be better off legally married as his partner could get work then. and he wouldnt have to support her. the OP doesnt seem to have much money pension or assets and also they could sign a pre nup couldnt they?
if OP partner has to go back to USA with her daughter no one wins. So why not a simple legal marriage in order for father and mother to both get access to their little girl. and get the mother working and out of his life once she is sorted?

In all my posts i have said that shared custody is the best option. and making someone homeless is wrong. and i stand by that. if it was a woman on here harping on about kicking her ex out onto the street for petty arguments even though he is a good dad i would be right on at her too about the child needing his father. even infedelity does not warrant making a person homeless.

Otherwise she will have no choice but to return with the child to the US. No court is going to deny her the chance to seek work or means of support and she is the primary carer. So those are your options.

She is not entitled to anything here. There was a woman on the benefits boards who came back here from Canada with a child of an Irish man and resident and she cant get anything, she will have to return home. Its the age of austerity now. No wiggle room.

The Corinthian

common sense brigade wrote: »

In all my posts i have said that shared custody is the best option.

Where?

and making someone homeless is wrong. and i stand by that.

I disagree, you reap what you sow, not what others have sown.

if it was a woman on here harping on about kicking her ex out onto the street for petty arguments even though he is a good dad i would be right on at her too about the child needing his father. even infedelity does not warrant making a person homeless.

If she denied him any access or other rights to his child, I would certainly object, but I have not suggested that niallith should do that - quite the opposite.

However, if a guy were abusive, then I think she would be perfectly entitled to kick him to the curb, even if it meant his losing a roof over his head.

metrovelvet

ANd he will reap what he sows if he makes her homeless.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

What if she can't, because as a guardian, the father objects? Personally, I think they should look at this as a possible course of action.

It makes no difference, guardian or not. The court will not deprive her of a means to make a living. The only place she can do that is the US. She is will have to move back. She is the primary carer. The courts will let her go with the child. He as a guardian, will get a shared custody plan, yes.

common sense brigade

surely shared custody is the best option for your daughter

. this is a quote from my very first post Corinthian.

disagree, you reap what you sow, not what others have sown.

if making someone homeless over petty name calling and her chatting to other men is something you would advocate more power to you. However most sane people would have an emotion called empathy. and thank god for that otherwise we would have loads of homeless men and women in this country.

OP you stated earlier that you are bothered by your ex on the internet and flirting and or chatting to other guys. Does this still bother you now you are exes? i only ask cos if it does still upset you maybe you still have feelings for her? i by no means want to offend you or anything like that im just wondering if you do still have feelings and would deep down like a reconciliation or is there no way back for you ?

metrovelvet

^ I think this is the right spirit to take. Focusing on how to keep this family together.

Orion

metrovelvet wrote: »

ANd he will reap what he sows if he makes her homeless.

Enough. Next step is to start dishing out cards. Keep to the topic.

The Corinthian

common sense brigade wrote: »

. this is a quote from my very first post Corinthian.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

if making someone homeless over petty name calling and her chatting to other men is something you would advocate more power to you.

Actually, I think that would be an unreasonable overreaction and have already said as much.

However most sane people would have an emotion called empathy. and thank god for that otherwise we would have loads of homeless men and women in this country.

Actually we have loads of homeless men in Ireland. This is because men are excluded, by official policy, from getting emergency housing.

common sense brigade

Actually we have loads of homeless men in Ireland. This is because men are excluded, by official policy, from getting emergency housing

Yes we do have loads of homeless men in Ireland agreed (and women) and men have always been treated as second class when it comes to rights for their children - 100% agreed. and its completely wrong and the law needs to change to protect fathers rights here. All men on here should fight for the right to get their names on their childrens birth certs. i know from personal exp that a man can be a better father than a mother . but in the case of this post. the OP's ex is a good mother- he agrees with that. so kicking her onto the street is in every way a cold and morally wrong thing to do. His daughter will suffer. and the woman will suffer. and he will suffer too . I commend him for coming on and saying he wants his child - he is no doubt good in that respect but we must also teach our children compassion and love and making her mother homeless cannot be a sensible solution to his problem. His child will never understand why suddenly her mother was taken and in the end most likely deported. i only suggested marriage so that legally she could stay here and hopefully find work or at least benefits and a house. and that they can both raise the child together. i would not even suggest he be a weekend Dad. he should get shared access.

smelltheglove

You have mentioned about your ex speaking to other guys and you have already overlooked this.... She is entitled to speak to other guys, she is your ex and come on, in all honesty it would be better for you and your child if she did hook up with someone and get into a stable relationship, number 1, she would be in a better state of mind, number 2, she would have somebody else to rely on and not just you and number 3 you never know she could end up marrying someone or living with someone here and you no longer have to worry about her being homeless or supporting her.

You are just as entitled to see other girls, I know of 2 marriages that ended and the parents, due to recessionary times had to stay living together but still built sperate relationships. Maturity has a lot to do with it, you need to face facts your relationship is over and you should not be worrying about her seeing someone else or vica versa.

Op you obviously love your child and I am sure this is a dreadul situation to be in, you need to work out your options, you need to sort out your guardianship, see a solicitor about her obtaining a more permanent residency, even a student visa so she could do a course or something and maybe get a more permanent one after wards. If she were to obtain a student visa she would be entitled to work part time as far as I know which can only better your circumstances. Both parents happiness affects their children and any fall out could damage the future relationship between you and your ex and hinder your childs upbringing.

By all means, do not stay in this situation, but both of you need to work together to better this situation and do so as amicably as possible.

Pwpane

OP, as far as I can gather from your posts, what's making you angry right now is her chatting to men on the internet.

But she's your ex, isn't she? Isn't the relationship over?

If the relationship is over, it makes sense for her to chat online - otherwise how is she to meet someone else? In fairness, you can't insist she 'stay faithful' to a relationship that's over. You need to move on too, by the sound of it.

If you talked to her about that, about letting go, it might take a lot of anger out of both of you.

Then, after a while, you could talk about the future and how you can or can't live in the same house and what you both can do. She needs somewhere to live and there are lots of suggestions in the other posts as to what you both can do to look for help.

You do need legal advice. If you want legal aid you'll need to apply as soon as possible as there are a lot of people on the list. But you can also go to a family law solicitor for one or two consultations to get the basic info sorted. That would be very worthwhile and help sort your head.

Do go to Family Mediation if you can, it's free and very good. They look at the situation from everybody's side and you all come up with a solution that best fits. The only thing is, you both need to apply for it separately to show you both want to do it and there's a queue for that too, so apply early.

You don't have to continue to live with someone you can't stand. There are ways and means, it just takes a lot of time and effort to find them.

On a basic level, is there enough room in the house to allow you and her to have separate living areas so you don't have to come in contact so much, make bedrooms into bedsits, keeping the common kitchen and make the living room into a playroom for the child? Maybe I'm talking nonsense here as I don't know your situation. But I know it would help if you weren't always tripping over each other.

Good luck with it all, OP.

bulmersgal

Has she any girl friends over here, maybe she's bored because she can't work here and guys are easy to talk too. Mediation would probably be great for the 2 of you. You can't separate a woman from her child because she talked to people online. You need to work it out, maybe not as a relationship but as a friendship where you can get on and discuss your daughters needs.

Really she could go back to Usa and how often would you see your daughter then. Your daughter should be entitled to free preschool in sept so that should bring childcare cost down for you. Maybe you could suggest your ex gets a student visa and goes to college or tries find some work in the mornings.

niallith

Pwpane wrote: »

OP, as far as I can gather from your posts, what's making you angry right now is her chatting to men on the internet.

But she's your ex, isn't she? Isn't the relationship over?

If the relationship is over, it makes sense for her to chat online - otherwise how is she to meet someone else? In fairness, you can't insist she 'stay faithful' to a relationship that's over. You need to move on too, by the sound of it.

If you talked to her about that, about letting go, it might take a lot of anger out of both of you.

Then, after a while, you could talk about the future and how you can or can't live in the same house and what you both can do. She needs somewhere to live and there are lots of suggestions in the other posts as to what you both can do to look for help.

You do need legal advice. If you want legal aid you'll need to apply as soon as possible as there are a lot of people on the list. But you can also go to a family law solicitor for one or two consultations to get the basic info sorted. That would be very worthwhile and help sort your head.

Do go to Family Mediation if you can, it's free and very good. They look at the situation from everybody's side and you all come up with a solution that best fits. The only thing is, you both need to apply for it separately to show you both want to do it and there's a queue for that too, so apply early.

You don't have to continue to live with someone you can't stand. There are ways and means, it just takes a lot of time and effort to find them.

On a basic level, is there enough room in the house to allow you and her to have separate living areas so you don't have to come in contact so much, make bedrooms into bedsits, keeping the common kitchen and make the living room into a playroom for the child? Maybe I'm talking nonsense here as I don't know your situation. But I know it would help if you weren't always tripping over each other.

Good luck with it all, OP.

the relationship has NOW ended because once again i find her talking to some guy, and its more than just chatting, its i love i want to hold you blah blah etc as if they are in a relationship, obviously now bcause of that the relationship i have ended, cant expect me to be happy with her saying those kind of things to another guy when were supposed to be together? two occasions in the past i found her talking to other guys online " i love you , i cant wait to hold you" etc typical beginning of relationship stuff, but with my own problems i was going through at the time (cancer) i just tried forget about it all and deal with her so my daughter so could both parents around her as she grows up which she deserves, but this most recent online chatting was the end of the line for me,
ive ben feeding her and supporting her and while im slaving away at work each day, shes at home talking to other guys, barely caring to clean the house at all or anything..its a super tough situation im in, i want to rid myself of my ex but upto now i havnt ben able to do it because she has nowhere to go, which means my daughter has nowhere to go and she deserves better than that, anyways apparently my ex has an appointment too seek some housing or something next week so will see how that goes i guess,

metrovelvet

niallith wrote: »

the relationship has NOW ended because once again i find her talking to some guy, and its more than just chatting, its i love i want to hold you blah blah etc as if they are in a relationship, obviously now bcause of that the relationship i have ended, cant expect me to be happy with her saying those kind of things to another guy when were supposed to be together? two occasions in the past i found her talking to other guys online " i love you , i cant wait to hold you" etc typical beginning of relationship stuff, but with my own problems i was going through at the time (cancer) i just tried forget about it all and deal with her so my daughter so could both parents around her as she grows up which she deserves, but this most recent online chatting was the end of the line for me,
ive ben feeding her and supporting her and while im slaving away at work each day, shes at home talking to other guys, barely caring to clean the house at all or anything..its a super tough situation im in, i want to rid myself of my ex but upto now i havnt ben able to do it because she has nowhere to go, which means my daughter has nowhere to go and she deserves better than that, anyways apparently my ex has an appointment too seek some housing or something next week so will see how that goes i guess,

Well, that is some hope on the horizon.

Did she actually meet up with these guys? Sounds like escapism and load of balls to be honest, though I can see how it would be hurtful.

If you are ex's than really, she is allowed to talk to other people and so are you and the reason she cant support herself is because she is not allowed to as she is illegal and try to remember if she wasn't looking after the child you would be paying 800 a month in childcare.

You both need to remember that you are a team and a family and should work together on how to be able to make this all work, because if you dont it could get very very bad, a lot worse than it is now, and just be mindful that the solutions you come up with [so far the one you did come up with was make her homeless] can create a wholes slew of problems that could be a lot harder to fix and possibly irreperable.

James Jones

The Corinthian wrote: »

why had you never considered marrying her when she got pregnant in order for her able to have got residancy here and then she could also work?

What kind of idiot marries someone because they get them pregnant? Great basis for a lifelong commitment...

Getting married to the mother of his child is the only way a father can ensure his right to Guardianship. The mother or a court may grant him Guardianship but this can be revoked whereas “there is nothing in any provision of the Act which purports to confer on the court or any other body the power to displace either one or both of the parents from the position of guardian or guardians”. B. vs. B (page 61) Judge J. Walsh. I am not saying that any man should get married if he gets a girl pregnant but he is certainly not an idiot for doing so. I know a man who got married and left shortly after the birth of his child for this particular reason. Cynical? Yeah. Practical? Definitely.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ultimately, my gut feeling is that if he gets guardianship he will have a legal right to block the mother returning to the US if she has custody. .

He only has to apply for Guardianship, which he should do on Monday morning. Unmarried father loses guardian case

metrovelvet wrote: »

It makes no difference, guardian or not. The court will not deprive her of a means to make a living. The only place she can do that is the US. She is will have to move back. She is the primary carer. The courts will let her go with the child. He as a guardian, will get a shared custody plan, yes.

This is simply not true, metro. You really don’t seem to understand the powerful position of a Guardian.




Niallith, I have so much sympathy for you in the situation you find yourself and can give you no advice in the long term but I know that you must apply for Guardianship IMMEDIATELY. Go to your local District Court office on Monday morning and ask the clerk to help you. You do not need a solicitor to do this for you and you can arrange to meet one later on but making the application will prevent your ex from leaving the country or give you the right to have the child returned if she does. Once the application is made, the Courts are in charge.
Sorting out the other stuff comes after but if you don't make the application and your ex heads off, there is nothing you can do.

The Corinthian

James Jones wrote: »

I am not saying that any man should get married if he gets a girl pregnant but he is certainly not an idiot for doing so. I know a man who got married and left shortly after the birth of his child for this particular reason. Cynical? Yeah. Practical? Definitely.

Realistically I don't think it is terribly practical.

To begin with if a woman is willing to marry the father, she's also more than likely going to be willing to agree to his becoming a guardian. Conversely, if she objects to his becoming a guardian, then she's unlikely to want to marry him.

Once attained, guardianship can be lost, but to do so you would have to show that the father really is no longer in the picture, as judges are loathed to remove it. If involved, the father will not lose it.

Conversely, marriage would make the man financially liable for the mother. To both financially support her and she would also gain the right to a claim of his assets, including pension rights.

To put it into context; at District court level, child maintenance is capped at €150 p.w. per child. Spousal maintenance, on the other hand, is capped at €500 p.w. in the same court. This should give one an idea of the cost of marriage as a 'tactic' and how it really is insane to think that it makes sense to follow such a path.

metrovelvet

@JJ

They cant stop her from going to the US. She most likely may have no choice but to.

He has a shot at, albeit slight, at the child staying here with him. But she can counter sue once she gets back to the US and that's a whole different ball game.

In the case you cited, there was NO CUSTODY agreement. That is why it did not break the Hague convention. Read it carefully. The judges have to uphold the law, regardless of their opinions.

And dont worry when guardianship becomes automatic with the new legislation, it will all be about the custody agreement.

James Jones

The Corinthian wrote: »

Realistically I don't think it is terribly practical.

I agree

The Corinthian wrote: »

If a woman is willing to marry the father, she's also more than likely going to be willing to agree to his becoming a guardian. Conversely, if she objects to his becoming a guardian, then she's unlikely to want to marry him

"she's more than likely going to be willing to agree to his becoming a guardian"?That has nowhere near the strength of Guardianship granted automatically by a marriage cert.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Once attained, guardianship can be lost,

Not by a married father, it can't!

The Corinthian wrote: »

to do so you would have to show that the father really is no longer in the picture, as judges are loathed to remove it. If involved, the father will not lose it.

Have you any references to back this up?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Conversely, marriage would make the man financially liable for the mother. To both financially support her and she would also gain the right to a claim of his assets, including pension rights.

To put it into context; at District court level, child maintenance is capped at €150 p.w. per child. Spousal maintenance, on the other hand, is capped at €500 p.w. in the same court. This should give one an idea of the cost of marriage as a 'tactic' and how it really is insane to think that it makes sense to follow such a path.

That is the only thing going against marriage when it come to fathers being guardians. Each dad would have to weigh the pros and cons in his own case.

James Jones

metrovelvet wrote: »

@JJ

They cant stop her from going to the US.

You seem to be pretty definite about this. Have you any references?

metrovelvet wrote: »

He has a shot at, albeit slight, at the child staying here with him. But she can counter sue once she gets back to the US and that's a whole different ball game.

If she goes to the states after he has applied for Guardianship, the Hague Convention will kick in and the first application (for Guardianship) will most likely take precedence.

metrovelvet wrote: »

In the case you cited, there was NO CUSTODY agreement. That is why it did not break the Hague convention. Read it carefully. The judges have to uphold the law, regardless of their opinions.

Read it carefully yourself-

the father did not have any 'rights of custody' of the children under the Hague Convention as he never applied to a court to be made a guardian of the children

The father gains custody rights (ie he can apply for custody) on application for Guardianship.

metrovelvet wrote: »

And dont worry when guardianship becomes automatic with the new legislation, it will all be about the custody agreement.

Have you read the draft legislation? Let me know where it says this.

The Corinthian

James Jones wrote: »

That has nowhere near the strength of Guardianship granted automatically by a marriage cert.

Actually, once attained the only difference is that guardianship gained through the courts can be lost, but it is incredibly difficult to do so and effectively impossible to do so if the father is actually making an effort to be involved.

Have you any references to back this up?

Do I really need one? Ask yourself why would a court remove a guardianship? It's not something that would be done lightly and only if in the "in the child's best interest" - the only cases I have heard of involved abandonment, and even then it took years to do.

Indeed, on the topic of references, do you have any that point to this being commonplace, abused or otherwise a real danger?

That is the only thing going against marriage when it come to fathers being guardians. Each dad would have to weigh the pros and cons in his own case.

Certainly, and if he is more likely to receive spousal maintenance than pay it, then happy days. However, it really does appear for most to be a ridiculous length to take for a very limited advantage.

metrovelvet

JJ

She is an immigrant. Do you know how hard it is to get working Visas and Citizenship in Ireland? Its nigh impossible. They cant keep her here. Nor do they want to. She cant get benefits either, so what is supposed to happen? Put her in prison? Arrest her at the airport?

They cant stop a citizen of another country returning home. They may even deport her!

They potentially can stop the child from going, that is true. But either way there will be a custody agreement, even if the courts make a court order for him to have custody he will also get court orders to visit the US with the child, at whose expense, I couldnt say.

My point about all of this to the OP, is to think very very carefully about the long term ramifications of all of this. Because if this family splits apart you are looking at an international custody/child support arrangement which you will both eventually tire of.

Yes, guardianship gives you the right to secure a court order for custody/access, but without the custody order in place, there is no violation of the Hague convention, especially if she ends up in the US. No custody order, no child support order, no obligations. END OF.

So what I am saying is that OP and his ex should stop focusing on what they disagree on and start focusing on what they DO agree on, which most likely is to find a way to have both of them in the child's life where the child does not have to have his or her heart broken by this and not to make this child's mother homeless.

James Jones

metrovelvet wrote: »

She is an immigrant. Do you know how hard it is to get working Visas and Citizenship in Ireland? Its nigh impossible. They cant keep her here. Nor do they want to. She cant get benefits either, so what is supposed to happen? Put her in prison? Arrest her at the airport?

They cant stop a citizen of another country returning home. They may even deport her!

I agree.

metrovelvet wrote: »

They potentially can stop the child from going, that is true. But either way there will be a custody agreement, even if the courts make a court order for him to have custody he will also get court orders to visit the US with the child, at whose expense, I couldnt say.

I agree (but I wouldn't give it the misnomer of an agreement!)

metrovelvet wrote: »

My point about all of this to the OP, is to think very very carefully about the long term ramifications of all of this. Because if this family splits apart you are looking at an international custody/child support arrangement which you will both eventually tire of.

I agree

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes, guardianship gives you the right to secure a court order for custody/access, but without the custody order in place, there is no violation of the Hague convention, especially if she ends up in the US. No custody order, no child support order, no obligations. END OF.

What a pity, we were doing so well!!! Sorry, metro but you're wrong on the need for a custody order. All that has to be done to give the Irish Courts jurisdiction over the case is for an application to be made. Read THE LINK.

The reason for this was because the father did not have custody rights as he had never applied to a court for guardianship.

January

Ok, I am loathe to give out infractions on this thread because some of the information on this thread is informative to the OP. But you've been given plenty of warnings before.

Take the debates to PM about rights/guardianship etc, DO NOT argue about it on thread here. It'll be a ban of one week for the next person to debate about it.

metrovelvet

James Jones wrote: »

What a pity, we were doing so well!!! Sorry, metro but you're wrong on the need for a custody order. All that has to be done to give the Irish Courts jurisdiction over the case is for an application to be made. Read THE LINK.

Hmnnn....ok you may have a point. And you may not. The case you cite here was dealing with two EU countries, two EU countries that have a very particular relationship and particular proximity with each other and one country who for historical reasons doesnt want to step on the toes of another country it 'oppressed for 800 years.' It has gone through the English courts first before they passed the buck to Ireland. [Were those kids also dual citizens or did it not even matter since it was two EU countries?]

This would end up US and Ireland, with both parties not being citizens of either nation, and the child being a dual citizen, although its primary citizenship [which I think is Irish] would most likely bear more weight.

And it would be very hard to say then what would happen. Time would be an element in this too.

But we agreed on everything else. Three out of four...thats pretty good JJ.