Judge sends children to Australia with mother and tells father to talk to them via th

Fittle

Another attempt at a fathers rights debate when in fact, we know little, if anything about the facts of this case. The Daily Mail is bad enough for jumping on the 'skype' bandwagon on this one, but this thread is as bad imo - what's the point in even attempting to discuss this when we know little, if any of the facts?

+1 is mise astra, on the previous post.

pickarooney

thebullkf wrote: »

the article doesn't state that....

It does - it refers to an embryonic relationship with his pre-teen children.

metrovelvet

pickarooney wrote: »

It does - it refers to an embryonic relationship with his pre-teen children.

Good catch. Missed that!

rolly1

The country’s most senior family judge yesterday told a father fighting to stop his former partner taking their children to Australia that he could keep in touch with them via Skype.

April 1 right?

rolly1

Anyway luckily we have a thing called guardianship in Ireland and a legal remedy to this kind of madness.

Anybody experiencing the trauma of this ludicrous situation check this link out

amiable

rolly1 wrote: »

Anyway luckily we have a thing called guardianship in Ireland and a legal remedy to this kind of madness imo.

Anybody experiencing the trauma of this ludicrous situation check this link out

FYP;)

thebullkf

pickarooney wrote: »

It does - it refers to an embryonic relationship with his pre-teen children.

where'd you get 10 years from? whats your definition of embryonic?

I assumed it meant that them moving away would be detrimental to his undeveloped relationship with them...

metrovelvet

thebullkf wrote: »

where'd you get 10 years from? whats your definition of embryonic?

I assumed it meant that them moving away would be detrimental to his undeveloped relationship with them...

Well it says they are pre-teens, so that would leave them in the 10-12 age group.

By embryonic, I would take that to mean the relationship was in its very early stages [meaning he had not known the kids before hand].

It's interesting though that the first judge banned her from leaving and it was overturned on appeal.

rolly1

amiable wrote: »

FYP;)

Cheers, the website the link goes to is down at the moment, but I presume it will come back pretty soon.

Here's an interesting comment on this case from a person who's own family has gone through this:

Some of the comments on here are way out of touch with reality - as are the judges who sit and agree to the whims of women who's only desire is to destroy a fathers relationship with his children.

It is not right for children to be removed from either parent, regardless if is the mother or the father. Every parent has to make sacrifices and if that is the fact that they will need to stay in the UK for a few years - then thats how it should be.

One comment on here describes how the pre-teen children want to move!!! How can any child make that decision? Most children can be persuaded that it will be exciting and new.

I have personal experience of this very thing. My children were taken from the UK by their mother to live in NZ - when they were a similar age. Asking the children only makes them feel guilty in the years ahead.

I hold absolutely no grudge against my childrens mother - but I do against the discriminations of the legal system. A mother only needs to show she will be upset if not allowed to destroy her family - what a crock of sh&%!!! The result in my case was that my children were taken to the other side of the world where their mother continued to flout the contact orders made. This resulted in SIGNIFICANT emotional problems with both of my children who have had to undertake lengthy therapy.

Why is the law so blatantly discriminating against fathers? Why does the law not consider the long term damage that can be caused to the children? Why does the law completely ignore the statute that weighs the quality of the childs life - merely weighing up if a fully grown adult might be a little upset?

Maybe one of these very learned judges could speak with both myself and my children to understand the damage they do in the name of justice!!!!!

thebullkf

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well it says they are pre-teens, so that would leave them in the 10-12 age group.

By embryonic, I would take that to mean the relationship was in its very early stages [meaning he had not known the kids before hand].

It's interesting though that the first judge banned her from leaving and it was overturned on appeal.

jeez i never got that from it.pre-teen could be 8,9 y.o... see this is the problem . not enough info.



*I defo think the other poster got mixed up with the immediately preceding posts that mentioned 10 years and assumed it referred to this case*

metrovelvet

thebullkf wrote: »

jeez i never got that from it.pre-teen could be 8,9 y.o... see this is the problem . not enough info.



*I defo think the other poster got mixed up with the immediately preceding posts that mentioned 10 years and assumed it referred to this case*

If you want to get technical as in dictionary technical its 10-13.

But even if you push it back to 8, an eight year absence and you are stopping them from going?

I dunno. Im VERY on the fence about it.

On the one hand, it destroys any real chance of anything real developing.

On the other hand, he might just bunk off again or see them three times a year!

cnocbui

thebullkf wrote: »

If the roles were reversed would you feel the same way

Yes

I assume you'ree female?

You presume wrong - father with two children.

common sense brigade

Its a tough one, If she is Austrailian and her relationship has broken up obviously she will want to return home . But I think it would be better for the kids to live in same country as both parents. Its horrendous to think how heartbroken this man will be. At very least the kids should be allowed back 3 months of every year and christmas. Heartbreaking.

thebullkf

metrovelvet wrote: »

If you want to get technical as in dictionary technical its 10-13.

13 is not pre-teen. thirteen;)

But even if you push it back to 8, an eight year absence and you are stopping them from going?

you're assuming he's been missing all those years.... i'm not. there's no evidence to say he's not been around for that period.

I dunno. Im VERY on the fence about it.

On the one hand, it destroys any real chance of anything real developing.

On the other hand, he might just bunk off again or see them three times a year!

i agree.

thebullkf

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes

then you're being hypocritical, if the roles were reversed and the father wanted to take them you'd agree?.

Ultimately, what you're saying is if your ex-partner wanted to up sticks to Australia with your children .. you wouldn't contest it because

The lives of the Mother and children should not be hindered or dictated by the Father. I think he is being staggeringly selfish, personally.

You presume wrong - father with two children.

My mistake. I assumed, your post appeared to be from a mothers perspective.

cnocbui

thebullkf wrote: »

then you're being hypocritical,

That's an interesting assessment of my taking the same view irrespective of which parent was leaving with the kids.

I would have thought I would be being hypocritical if had held divergent views where the view was dependent on the the gender of the the parent.

Ultimately, what you're saying is if your ex-partner wanted to up sticks to Australia with your children .. you wouldn't contest it because

...I would just up sticks and move to Oz as well.

K-9

I assume they've taken account of the fact that the mother and father can facilitate access and particularly, afford it?

Skype while very good isn't access!

thebullkf

cnocbui wrote: »

That's an interesting assessment of my taking the same view irrespective of which parent was leaving with the kids.

I would have thought I would be being hypocritical if had held divergent views where the view was dependent on the the gender of the the parent.

you didn't answer my question,rather use subjective quoting to support your view. Doesn't matter-you'd move. fair play;)

...I would just up sticks and move to Oz as well.

In an ideal world, its an ideal solution.

metrovelvet

thebullkf wrote: »

13 is not pre-teen. thirteen;)


you're assuming he's been missing all those years.... i'm not. there's no evidence to say he's not been around for that period.



i agree.

"Embryonic' suggests his relationship with his kids its in its early development.

Fittle

So I am going to talk practicalities here - I know it's boring, but it's also real - with respect, never mind the embryonics and the rights that have been discussed here. I am a mother, and perhaps I am biased, because I am also single, so I do all of the 'jobs' that are involved with my child.

But who of you, amongst us knows fathers that get their kids up for school? Who of you know fathers who put the uniforms on and make the lunches? Who of you know fathers who drop the kids at the school gate and go home, to prepare the home for the return of the kids? Who of you know fathers who collect their kids from school? Who of you know fathers that do the homework, make the dinner, clean the house, prepare the tea, facilitate their after-school activities, make their tea, bath them, get them ready for bed, read them a book at bedtime, jump in during the night etc etc?

I might add, that I do most of the above, but as I work f/t, I arrange for someone else to look after the day-to-day minding. My friends, with husbands, also arrange the after-school activities.

I am NOT by any stretch of my imagination saying that all mothers do all of this - but in all honesty, most mothers do most of this - even amongst my friends, who have the most wonderful husbands and fathers as partners - the mother still does most of the above.

So perhaps the judge in this instance, saw all of this. Perhaps the just realised that it was the mother who carried out the day-to-day stuff in these childrens lives - regardless of fathers rights - there are huge and regular practicalities that children need and want, and without turning this into a gender issue, in the majority of cases, it is the mother who carries out these needs and wants in the majority of cases. And even if she's not carrying them out herself, she is arranging that someone else is carrying them out. It's biology, not gender, nor rights. It's just the way we're made.

metrovelvet

^ I dont understand how this has a bearing on the case at hand?

Also American dads are a lot more hands on than the Irish ones so I disagree that its biology and how we are made.

Fittle

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ I dont understand how this has a bearing on the case at hand?

Also American dads are a lot more hands on than the Irish ones so I disagree that its biology and how we are made.

Ok, well, being mindful that we still don't know any of the actual facts in this case, let me make it a bit clearer.
This judgment was made in a UK court, so my assumption would be that he is a UK dad. And not an American dad, who are more hands-on.

This might have a bearing on the case because the judge might have been looking at the childrens day-to-day activities...their actual lives, as they lived them, on a daily basis. And he may have decided that the mother was the most constant adult in their lives. He may have also decided that as she is the most constant person in their daily lives, she is the person they should live with on a daily basis.

He might also, one would hope, have been keeping the interests of the children at the forefront of this case and that is why he sent them to another continent, with the parent that he saw fit, was doing the best for their children.

K-9

I do and did those things, more than the mother at one stage. I don't think it matters that much in court especially if a Dad does those.

I don't know, it's a sad case and hopefully they can work out something to make it easy for him to see them. It's an eye opener to how dispensable a Dad is though.

Fittle

Well, you already know that you are in the minority of fathers who do this K9, on a daily basis.
I agree, it's very sad - but we don't know the facts - we don't know how involved this dad was/is - the media have jumped on the 'skype' part of the story, when I would imagine it was a small remark in a much larger case for the judge. Although I doubt anyone would have allowed the mother to go to another continent with the children, without considering the father and the childrens rights in the case.

metrovelvet

US dads would be hands on and in divorce or even out of wedlock would get a custody order regardless of what chores they did and didnt do. That is not how judges decide things. Judges have to uphold the law.

If this man had no custody order and this woman is an Australian citizen, the judge really cannot legally keep her here or give him full custody of the kids while she went to Australia.

I dont think this has anything to do with how dispensible a dad is, but the legalities around the case. If you breed with a foreign woman, this is the gamble you take.

thebullkf

metrovelvet wrote: »

"Embryonic' suggests his relationship with his kids its in its early development.

I know, i already alluded to that. Thirteen is not preteen though.

We don't know whats going on here so all of this is pretty pointless really, but if we take the info we do have : 1 months access a year = 1/12th=8.5% of a year...= less than one day a week access...
Is it any wonder his relationship with them is embryonic

Ultimately the childrens needs should be paramount,i doubt whether its just because the mothers homesick/lonely etc that full access was granted.

The Daily Fail as usual sensationalising without proof.

thebullkf

Fittle wrote: »

So I am going to talk practicalities here - I know it's boring, but it's also real - with respect, never mind the embryonics and the rights that have been discussed here. I am a mother, and perhaps I am biased, because I am also single, so I do all of the 'jobs' that are involved with my child.

But who of you, amongst us knows fathers that get their kids up for school? Who of you know fathers who put the uniforms on and make the lunches? Who of you know fathers who drop the kids at the school gate and go home, to prepare the home for the return of the kids? Who of you know fathers who collect their kids from school? Who of you know fathers that do the homework, make the dinner, clean the house, prepare the tea, facilitate their after-school activities, make their tea, bath them, get them ready for bed, read them a book at bedtime, jump in during the night etc etc?

I do (though not exclusively)

Single Dads.....Competent Dads,...Dads who aren't working...

I might add, that I do most of the above, but as I work f/t, I arrange for someone else to look after the day-to-day minding. My friends, with husbands, also arrange the after-school activities.

I am NOT by any stretch of my imagination saying that all mothers do all of this - but in all honesty, most mothers do most of this - even amongst my friends, who have the most wonderful husbands and fathers as partners - the mother still does most of the above.

So perhaps the judge in this instance, saw all of this. Perhaps the just realised that it was the mother who carried out the day-to-day stuff in these childrens lives - regardless of fathers rights - there are huge and regular practicalities that children need and want, and without turning this into a gender issue, in the majority of cases, it is the mother who carries out these needs and wants in the majority of cases. And even if she's not carrying them out herself, she is arranging that someone else is carrying them out. It's biology, not gender, nor rights. It's just the way we're made.

Not only is it biology,but expected,by the majority. Mainly ecause women were seen as homemakers, men as breadswinners.. Still is in a lot of countries.

thebullkf

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ I dont understand how this has a bearing on the case at hand?

Also American dads are a lot more hands on than the Irish ones so I disagree that its biology and how we are made.

FFS Metro....how do you make that out? .. generalise much:rolleyes:

If you breed with a foreign woman, this is the gamble you take.

......speechless.....

Fittle

thebullkf wrote: »

I do (though not exclusively)

Single Dads.....Competent Dads,...Dads who aren't working...

of course.

But you will find that it is always dads who are interested and take part in their childrens lives, who are on internet forums discussing parenting and fathers rights. Because those that aren't interested, are elsewhere. So statistically, on this, and other forums, the stats will be quite high when we are discussing these issues.

But in the more general population - general society - men who are full-time parents are in the minority.

'US dads would be hands on and in divorce or even out of wedlock would get a custody order regardless of what chores they did and didnt do. That is not how judges decide things'.

Once again metro, this isn't a US situation.

metrovelvet

Fittle wrote: »

of course.

But you will find that it is always dads who are interested and take part in their childrens lives, who are on internet forums discussing parenting and fathers rights. Because those that aren't interested, are elsewhere. So statistically, on this, and other forums, the stats will be quite high when we are discussing these issues.

But in the more general population - general society - men who are full-time parents are in the minority.

'US dads would be hands on and in divorce or even out of wedlock would get a custody order regardless of what chores they did and didnt do. That is not how judges decide things'.

Once again metro, this isn't a US situation.

Judges in the UK nor in Ireland or in the US make rulings based on who did what chores.

Fittle, I totally do not agree with you that those dads who are interested in their kids are on internet forums talking about rights and the ones who aren't are elsewhere. Dont necessarily assume that.