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

K-9

Society is changing too though and has changed a lot over the last 20 years. Men are more hands on than they used to be and men have suffered more from unemployment and doing the everyday stuff. Before they were just too busy at work.

The other side of that is that many mothers in relationship moan about all the stuff they have to so but if a man did do more, they then complain about not being about as much or not valued as much etc.;)

It has been a slow gradual change but I think the recession probably has made it more noticeable as plenty of men will do it if they have to.

Fittle

metrovelvet wrote: »

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.

I never said it was that simple metro. I never said that the judge made his decision based on who did what chores.

How many members has boards.ie got? Hundreds of thousands.

How many dads are here regularly, chatting about their children, their rights, their lack of rights? I could name about 10 of the top of my head.

I'm not saying all other fathers aren't interested. I'm saying that those that are interested enough to debate this issue, are here, and elsewhere on the internet.

K-9

Fittle wrote: »

I never said it was that simple metro. I never said that the judge made his decision based on who did what chores.

How many members has boards.ie got? Hundreds of thousands.

How many dads are here regularly, chatting about their children, their rights, their lack of rights? I could name about 10 of the top of my head.

I'm not saying all other fathers aren't interested. I'm saying that those that are interested enough to debate this issue, are here, and elsewhere on the internet.

And not many women post in politics? Doesn't mean women aren't that interested or involved, same could be said with Dads and parenting. You can't read that much into it.

pickarooney

Fittle wrote: »

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.

With respect, your post had nothing to do with this case, of which we still know very little. You appear to be just extrapolating your own life eperience for the sake of it.

Fittle

pickarooney wrote: »

With respect, your post had nothing to do with this case, of which we still know very little. You appear to be just extrapolating your own life eperience for the sake of it.

And your post has less to do with this case - I was merely trying to point out the possible reasons why the judge would have allowed the mother to travel with the children in the first place.

pickarooney

Fittle wrote: »

And your post has less to do with this case - I was merely trying to point out the possible reasons why the judge would have allowed the mother to travel with the children in the first place.

It was clear from the article that the father had very little interaction with his children; there was no need for the generalised conjecture.

Fittle

pickarooney wrote: »

It was clear from the article that the father had very little interaction with his children; there was no need for the generalised conjecture.

Well I did and I'm not sure why you're pointing it out to me

metrovelvet

It says that the dad was not so involved, that the relationship was embryonic.

However, it DOES NOT SAY that was the reasoning behind the judges decision.

In fact, it gives no reason but that it was in the childrens best interest, but nothing more than that.

Personally I think it has to do with two things, one the legalities of the mothers citizenship and the relunctancy of a judge to break up an established family. She had the status quo on her side and also foreign citizenship on her side.

Dad should have figured this was a no brainer tbh.

pickarooney

Not so much of a no-brainer that he didn't originally get the decision in his favour a year earlier. Hence the story trying to make it look like the only difference this time is that the judge has downloaded Skype.

metrovelvet

pickarooney wrote: »

Not so much of a no-brainer that he didn't originally get the decision in his favour a year earlier. Hence the story trying to make it look like the only difference this time is that the judge has downloaded Skype.

Isn't it shocking how ostensibly random these decisions are made?

rolly1

metrovelvet wrote: »

Isn't it shocking how ostensibly random these decisions are made?

Thats why its good to know that the same decisions cannot be made here if the proper legal argument is put forward in Court.
The matter of custody is absolutely secondary to guardianship in Irish circumstances. Once again see here

metrovelvet

rolly1 wrote: »

Thats why its good to know that the same decisions cannot be made here if the proper legal argument is put forward in Court.
The matter of custody is absolutely secondary to guardianship in Irish circumstances. Once again see here

Its illegal everywhere without court action.

In Ireland a judge can still grant permission to a custodial parent to leave with the children even if the father has guardianship whether by marriage or by the other way.

I dont really go for that agenda driven so called 'parental equality' which is not at all about equality[never advocates for mothers] but paternal privalege.

thebullkf

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its illegal everywhere without court action.

In Ireland a judge can still grant permission to a custodial parent to leave with the children even if the father has guardianship whether by marriage or by the other way.

I dont really go for that agenda driven so called 'parental equality' which is not at all about equality[never advocates for mothers] but paternal privalege.

can you expand on that please?

If you are indeed correct i assume its because the Matriarch has/had more rights than the Patriarch.

iguana

metrovelvet wrote: »

In fact, it gives no reason but that it was in the childrens best interest, but nothing more than that.

I think the judge also stated that the children both wanted to go to Australia and that was taken into account too.

Fittle wrote: »

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?

My dad did all of that. Maybe not as much as my mother but he had a fulltime job and my mother was a SAHM, he still did all of the above regularly.

barbiegirl

iguana wrote: »

My dad did all of that. Maybe not as much as my mother but he had a fulltime job and my mother was a SAHM, he still did all of the above regularly.

Mine too. Mums are important BUT so too are dads.

common sense brigade

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?

Raised by my uncles so they did all of this. and my husband does all of that too, we take turns turns. I would think thats the norm.

metrovelvet

^ Its only a total putz that doesnt.

James Jones

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its illegal everywhere without court action.

In Ireland a judge can still grant permission to a custodial parent to leave with the children even if the father has guardianship whether by marriage or by the other way.

This is not true. A married father cannot have his position as guardian undermined: “Section 6 of the Act states the equality of the parents and recognises them as the guardians of the infant; 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 1970

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont really go for that agenda driven so called 'parental equality' which is not at all about equality[never advocates for mothers] but paternal privalege.

Parental Equality will advocate for any parent who is seeking to share the parenting of the children but is rarely approached by women because women never need such advocacy as they always get custody.

di11on

Wow - to think that someone who believes Skype is a substitute for a relationship is actually making decisions affecting families. Only someone that's never been separated from anyone could believe something like that. Astonishing beyond belief.

Seriously - we bounce along to school together every other morning, smelling the roses as we go.. saying hi to the donkey that's on the way and picking wild flowers for mummy on the way home. To think that someone believes skype is a substitute for that!

Maybe he's running a different version of skype than I am!!!!

James Jones

di11on wrote: »

We run a business from our home - I'm a dad and get my kids up for school every other morning. If someone tried to take that privilege away from me, well, let's just say it's good that firearms are illegal

You should not use language like the above as. if you ever separate, it could be used in a secret court to remove you from your home and prevent you from seeing your kids-seriously!!!

rolly1

James Jones wrote: »

This is not true. A married father cannot have his position as guardian undermined: “Section 6 of the Act states the equality of the parents and recognises them as the guardians of the infant; 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 1970

This is also true of an unmarried father who is a fit guardian of his child. By any court proposing to send children out of the country they are effectively removing guardianship from the father, as it is not possible to exercise guardianship in any other jurisdiction apart from Ireland. The only way a court can remove guardianship from an unmarried father is by proving he is an unfit guardian.If he is removed as guardian then the wishes of the father are irrelevant.

Further to this all court orders are interlocutory in nature which means they are subject to change according to the changing circumstance of the child and family. Therefore a court does not have the power to grant an order for the permanent removal of a child from this country where two guardians disagree on the matter as this kind of order cannot be changed and is therefore not interlocutory in nature.

In addition the court also has to have a continuing power or jurisdiction while the child is a child and therefore cannot make a permanent order of removal from the country. This means the court cannot make an order which effectively abdicates itself from it's own legal duty towards the child.

Child removals from Ireland in contested legal cases are only happening because guardians are not using the correct legal argument.

metrovelvet

rolly1 wrote: »

This is also true of an unmarried father who is a fit guardian of his child. By any court proposing to send children out of the country they are effectively removing guardianship from the father, as it is not possible to exercise guardianship in any other jurisdiction apart from Ireland. The only way a court can remove guardianship from an unmarried father is by proving he is an unfit guardian.If he is removed as guardian then the wishes of the father are irrelevant.

Further to this all court orders are interlocutory in nature which means they are subject to change according to the changing circumstance of the child and family. Therefore a court does not have the power to grant an order for the permanent removal of a child from this country where two guardians disagree on the matter as this kind of order cannot be changed and is therefore not interlocutory in nature.

In addition the court also has to have a continuing power or jurisdiction while the child is a child and therefore cannot make a permanent order of removal from the country. This means the court cannot make an order which effectively abdicates itself from it's own legal duty towards the child.

Child removals from Ireland in contested legal cases are only happening because guardians are not using the correct legal argument.

In fairness now Rolly1, guardianship was invented before SKYPE and Ryanair. :rolleyes:

It was also written before Ireland was in the EU.

It was also written before Ireland changed its citizenship rules.

Can you show me where in the Guardianship act is says what you are claiming it says?

rolly1

metrovelvet wrote: »

In fairness now Rolly1, guardianship was invented before SKYPE and Ryanair. :rolleyes:

It was also written before Ireland was in the EU.

It was also written before Ireland changed its citizenship rules.

Can you show me where in the Guardianship act is says what you are claiming it says?

Yes and it is still the legislation in place regardless of everything else.

What I am saying is not in the legislation because it is a legal argument. A legal argument is constructed from legislation and case precedent. I have heard that it has been successfully used in a number of child removal cases.

metrovelvet

rolly1 wrote: »

Yes and it is still the legislation in place regardless of everything else.

What I am saying is not in the legislation because it is a legal argument. A legal argument is constructed from legislation and case precedent. I have heard that it has been successfully used in a number of child removal cases.

Can you please cite where in the Act itself it says this?

rolly1

metrovelvet wrote: »

Can you please cite where in the Act itself it says this?

What I am saying is not in the legislation because it is a legal argument. A legal argument is constructed from legislation and case precedent.

If you have a counter legal argument to rebut then fire away.

whydoibother?

I really think that when a person is awarded custody of children, freedom to move anywhere they want with the children should be curtailed. Suppose he is a completely devoted father, gives up a career and moves to Australia to be with the children. What's to stop her deciding after a month that she'd be happier in America. There should be a lot more split custody, not this situation where one person wins the competition and then gets complete control over the kids.

rolly1

Plenty of good international research here to show the hugely detrimental psychological effects of child removal (or should that be parent removal?)on children see here

Some of the summary findings:

• • A child is 40% more likely to suffer mental health problems;

• • Children are likely to achieve less academically;

• • Children are at increased risk of emotional and behavioural difficulties in adolescence and reduced academic motivation ;

• • There is a greater risk of teenage pregnancy, delinquency, bullying and substance abuse;

• • Girls are more likely to experience psychological distress in adulthood

Skype must be bloody amazing alright..

Fol20

cnocbui wrote: »

I side with the Judge on this.

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

Perhaps he should look at relocating to Australia himself. Obviously the mother qualified.

Sure why doesnt the father get full custody and the women can move off to australia.Sure she still has skype to keep in contact with the children.

I dont know the ages of the children but moving school and neighbourhood for a child could also have a negative impact

Why is it that judges always side with women on matters like these

K-9

It seems from the article the father wasn't that involved. If a father is involved there would need to be damn good reasons to countenance the mother emigrating.

The details are sketchy but if a father hasn't been that involved in a child life that has certain consequences, like his say not over ruling the childrens wishes in this case. I'd say the same for a mother.

Many fathers have to go to other countries to seek work now. For all we know, she just wanted to go back for economic reasons and sometimes they over ride other concerns.

rolly1

The father may not have been involved for a variety of reasons, including being restricted by the mother. Al we do know is that a relationship was in existence between the children and their father.

Part of a statement from UK group "Familiesneedfathers" on the case:

Craig Pickering, Chief Executive of Families Need Fathers said “despite much criticism by charities, MPs and leading members of the legal profession, the Lord Justice of Appeal refuse to recognise children's needs and rights in relocation cases, and expose children to known harm. A loving and full relationship cannot be maintained via Skype. No parent can carry out their parental responsibilities simply via this technology. ”


In an event at the House of Commons in November 2010, organised by Families Need Fathers, Ann Thomas, Managing Partner of the International Family Law Group, said "How can we, in the English legal profession, have gone so wrong, have failed so many children, have inadvertently engaged in gender discrimination for almost two generations....”



Families Need Fathers disputes Sir Nicholas’s assertion in this recent judgment that relocation cases are determined on facts. Michael Robinson who heads the Relocation Campaign said “The assumptions which underpin judicial reasoning in these cases have not once been supported by expert findings in over 40 years. The court decides the outcome in relocations based on a 1970’s view of family life which has no relevance two generations later. Most concerning is the court’s refusal to consider expert evidence which contradicts its flawed and out-of-date reasoning. If the courts accept the expert research findings, they must also accept they have subjected thousands of British children to harm”.

It would seem that the case is based on outdated legal case precedence (Payne v Payne) which considers the mothers needs over and above the welfare of the child.