Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

jemser

yes

roy rodgers

The law is a load of bullsh1t, I'm fighting to see my kids for the past 3 years because my ex was a greedy,abusive, immature, selfish, and sponged off him till I was a broken man.

Now the only control she has on me is the children and she will do anything to try and upset me. But I have to be clam and positive and hope that a judge will we see this and give me my rights to enjoy seeing my kids grow up, but still I will never be able to bring back the 3 years that I have already missed because of someone been spiteful.

If as man had the equal rights well I wouldn't of beeen in this posistion.

Zombrex

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Yet you see fathers who are not married and they are great parents, who love, support and provide for their child, but are not deemed fit by the state for the role that they have!

What are you talking about? No one is refusing fathers guardianship, they simply have to apply for it. A interested father would do that.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Men can opt out, it is called walking away, women can opt out via abortion/adoption. Many times men do not get a say when their child is aborted. And so what about giving birth to a child, it is no great feat. Woman have been doing it since the beginning of our species. At this very moment millions of women around the world are giving birth. It is not the hardest cross to bear in this life. Literally billions of women know the feeling!

I literally have no idea what point you think you are making here. You seem to be just ranting about women.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

What if he is busy providing an income for his family when his partner goes into labour?

Then he applies for guardianship.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

What if she is a spiteful cow and won't let him attend the birth because they are no longer together but he wants to be a part of his childs life?

Then he applies for guardianship.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

What if he is too busy minding their other child because there is no family member available to look after it?

Then he applies for guardianship.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

A lot of these women who argue the "fathers should have no rights" corner are often the first to have a man into court for maintenance. And though I believe that a father should financially contribute to the care of his child, he should also be expecting some bit of say in the child's life too.

Which is why he should apply for guardianship.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

A good example of why it is important for fathers to have half guardianship is that when a father is out with their child and if the child needs to have medical treatment, and the mother is far away, should the child be allowed to miss out on the necessary treatment because their father has no legal right to sign for it!

Which is why he should apply for guardianship.

You seem to think a father cannot apply for guardianship of their children. This is incorrect. You need to educate yourself to the law, until then this discussion is just pointless ranting on your part about non-existent restrictions on fathers.

Zombrex

roy rodgers wrote: »

The law is a load of bullsh1t, I'm fighting to see my kids for the past 3 years because my ex was a greedy,abusive, immature, selfish, and sponged off him till I was a broken man.

Now the only control she has on me is the children and she will do anything to try and upset me. But I have to be clam and positive and hope that a judge will we see this and give me my rights to enjoy seeing my kids grow up, but still I will never be able to bring back the 3 years that I have already missed because of someone been spiteful.

If as man had the equal rights well I wouldn't of beeen in this posistion.

Yes you would, she would have simply applied to have your guardianship removed.

Why did the judge refuse your initial application for guardianship?

silly

Some fathers just ruin it for others. My ex being one of them. Now I did hive him guardianship when he asked for it. But regretted it afterwards, he made it so difficult for me to get a passport for my daughter, eventually he signed it with time running out and enjoyed every bit of me begging.

He is such a bad bad father, and I wish when I had left him that I cut him out completely. It's too late now as my daughter is 10 and he is constantly hurting her feelings by being a sh1t dad. He has forgot her birthday for the last 3 years, no phone call... And I'm the one making excuses for him. I go out of my way to let him and his family see her, I drop her to him which is 1.5 hours from me and he promises to drive the same distance to drop her back but he never does, I end up driving down to get her again without even getting one cent from him.
So I'm done with him now, he is so nasty that when I organised for us to meet a mediator he never turned up, despite the meeting being arranged closer to his home than mine. I had to pay the €95 fee to the mediator. He said his grand mother was dying and that's why he didn't turn up but when I spoke to his father the following day he said he hadn't a clue why he wouldn't turn up...

He's just nasty nasty nasty and I will protect my daughter from him by keeping her well away from him from now on.
He doesn't deserve guardianship and he should rot in hell.

wolfpawnat

Wicknight wrote: »

What are you talking about? No one is refusing fathers guardianship, they simply have to apply for it. A interested father would do that.

Why should they have to apply, a father is there at the conception, he is good enough to do the deed with, he is good enough to accept as the childs other parent, and in turn he is good enough to be guardianship, until otherwise proven.

Wicknight wrote: »

I literally have no idea what point you think you are making here. You seem to be just ranting about women.

You make the argument that the mother should automatically have the rights to the childs guardianship because she carried it for 9 months. I am merely saying that so what if she carried it, it does not signify that she loves it or took care of herself or the child for those few months. You would not have cocaine and heroine addicted babies if their mothers were responsible and good human beings, why should they get guardianship?

Wicknight wrote: »

Then he applies for guardianship.



Then he applies for guardianship.



Then he applies for guardianship.




Which is why he should apply for guardianship.



Which is why he should apply for guardianship.

You seem to think a father cannot apply for guardianship of their children. This is incorrect. You need to educate yourself to the law, until then this discussion is just pointless ranting on your part about non-existent restrictions on fathers.

It costs money and a day in court for a father to get legal guardianship of their child. Both parents have to pay a solicitor, go to court, wait for several hours to be seen, go in for 10 min, both parents agree to it, and you get a fine €550 bill off a solicitor for your troubles. Why should there be a financial cost to getting guardianship for your child.

And don't say for a second the courts need not be involved. If you want an agreement with ANY legal standing it must be signed by the District Court. It took my ex and I months to get this issue sorted and we were both willing and happy to get both of us joint guardianship.

It is plain and simple, 2 parents = 2 guardians until one/both parents should they are not fit to be in charge of a child. It is the only thing that is RIGHT for the child, not a vindictive mother who enjoys using her child as a weapon against its father as my mother did to my father and as other mothers (who I am ashamed to say I know) are doing to their childrens fathers!

Zombrex

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Why should they have to apply

Because the state needs to be satisfied that the father has an interest in guardianship.

Remember guardianship is a recognition by the State. The State isn't saying the person is or isn't the father, they are saying that they are happy that the father is interested in guardianship, a recognition by the State.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

You make the argument that the mother should automatically have the rights to the childs guardianship because she carried it for 9 months.

I've made no such argument.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It costs money and a day in court for a father to get legal guardianship of their child.

Children cost money and time. If a father doesn't want to spend the money or the time in order to gain guardianship of his child I would seriously question his interest in looking after the child.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Both parents have to pay a solicitor, go to court, wait for several hours to be seen, go in for 10 min, both parents agree to it, and you get a fine €550 bill off a solicitor for your troubles. Why should there be a financial cost to getting guardianship for your child.

You do not need a solicitor to apply for guardianship. But again anyone who thinks it is too much trouble I would seriously question their dedication.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It is plain and simple, 2 parents = 2 guardians until one/both parents should they are not fit to be in charge of a child. It is the only thing that is RIGHT for the child, not a vindictive mother who enjoys using her child as a weapon against its father as my mother did to my father and as other mothers (who I am ashamed to say I know) are doing to their childrens fathers!

You have moved into nonsense ranting territory again, 'vindictive mothers' have nothing to do with the principle at play here.

replica

Justask wrote: »

What about the mothers who have to fight for their kids to see the fathers when the fathers dont want to know.:mad:

Not all father deserve equal rights.

Not all parents deserve equal rights. What really needs to be done in this country is a system where every woman who files for OPFP, is obliged to give the details of the father and he should be forced by law to pay child support whether he wants a role in the childs life or not. To many young bucks out there sowing seeds left right and centre and no accountability. I pay €120 per week in child maintenance for my son whom I haven't seen in 3 years because his mother and I divorced and she moved back to NY where she is from. because she is a US citizen I have no rights in the US. But every week I pay €120. And yes I want to see my son...he is the only child I will ever have.

wolfpawnat

Wicknight wrote: »

Because the state needs to be satisfied that the father has an interest in guardianship.

Remember guardianship is a recognition by the State. The State isn't saying the person is or isn't the father, they are saying that they are happy that the father is interested in guardianship, a recognition by the State.

A mother should then, if we are to go on a level playing field, have to provide the same proof. Carrying a child alone should not be proof of this, as I said already, too many mothers do things throughout their pregnancy that prove they are not thinking of the best interests of the child, Drugs, excessive drinking, etc.

Wicknight wrote: »

Children cost money and time. If a father doesn't want to spend the money or the time in order to gain guardianship of his child I would seriously question his interest in looking after the child.

My sons father spends as much time as he can with him, but he is in college trying to get a career so he can provide for himself and the little fella. I do not think wanting something to be easier and inexpensive rather than a fee of €275 each of of himself and myself when we are very low on disposable income is not too much to ask.

He is a good father. My own father was a useless sh!t who didn't deserve the time of day. He did not pay for myself and my sister and he did not want to spend time with us, but I do not blame all men for the shortcomings of a few!

Wicknight wrote: »

You do not need a solicitor to apply for guardianship. But again anyone who thinks it is too much trouble I would seriously question their dedication.

If you are serious about getting legal joint guardianship through the courts system and ensuring both sides are equally represented you do. Again it is not reluctance to do this was our problem, but merely the pain of having to get the courthouse an hour away with no car as transport, paying for transport and a babysitter, not to mention food when your income is bare minimal!

Wicknight wrote: »

You have moved into nonsense ranting territory again, 'vindictive mothers' have nothing to do with the principle at play here.

To go through getting joint guardianship as quickly as possible, both parents have to be in agreement, so if you have a spiteful mother (and I know a few) you hinder the process for the fathers who wish to have a large role to play in their childs life!

There are b!tches as mothers. I have one. She should have been sterilized! And there are many more like her too, men aren't all evil and mothers aren't all Godlike

Zombrex

wolfpawnat wrote: »

A mother should then, if we are to go on a level playing field, have to provide the same proof.

Ok. Like I said to other posters I'm more than interested if someone wants to make that argument.

Doesn't change the requirement on the father though does it.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

My sons father spends as much time as he can with him, but he is in college trying to get a career so he can provide for himself and the little fella. I do not think wanting something to be easier and inexpensive rather than a fee of €275 each of of himself and myself when we are very low on disposable income is not too much to ask.

If you want to argue the process should be cheaper go ahead (out of interest where are you getting your figures from?). That doesn't require the scrapping of the system all together.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

If you are serious about getting legal joint guardianship through the courts system and ensuring both sides are equally represented you do.

No you don't, friends of mine did it only a few months ago and didn't require a solicitor nor did they complain about it costing that much. It would be rude to ask them how much it cost them but it is hard to imagine it cost them half a grand given how little fuss they said it involved.

This is of course when both parents are happy for the father to become a guardian. I'm sure it is more complicated when one is contesting the issue, but then that is exactly when you want a court to be examining the case.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

To go through getting joint guardianship as quickly as possible, both parents have to be in agreement, so if you have a spiteful mother (and I know a few) you hinder the process for the fathers who wish to have a large role to play in their childs life!

Yes, but then giving automatic guardianship doesn't make the mother any less spiteful does it. In fact that is exactly the sort of situation you want the courts involved in.

If people don't like that don't have children with spiteful people.

SheFiend

Wicknight wrote: »

And what about during the years you are waiting for the clock to tick down demonstrating that the father has no interest?

He is considered a legal guardian of the children, children he might have never even met?

And what about fathers who have been involved in their kids lives but who face malicious claims from partners than they haven't? They have to retro-actively demonstrate participation in their children's lives.

What about innocent, loving fathers? Why should they be punished by expensive, continuous court-cases and not being allowed see their child in the interim? Just because SOME father's don't care? Sick.:eek:

SheFiend

roy rodgers wrote: »

The law is a load of bullsh1t, I'm fighting to see my kids for the past 3 years because my ex was a greedy,abusive, immature, selfish, and sponged off him till I was a broken man.

Now the only control she has on me is the children and she will do anything to try and upset me. But I have to be clam and positive and hope that a judge will we see this and give me my rights to enjoy seeing my kids grow up, but still I will never be able to bring back the 3 years that I have already missed because of someone been spiteful.

If as man had the equal rights well I wouldn't of beeen in this posistion.

I feel really sorry for you being in this situation. It's incredible that this continues to be the case for so many genuine fathers. Hope it works out for you.

SheFiend

Wicknight wrote: »

You seem to think a father cannot apply for guardianship of their children. This is incorrect. You need to educate yourself to the law, until then this discussion is just pointless ranting on your part about non-existent restrictions on fathers.

I'm amazed that some people seem not to realise that some women resent relationship breakdown so much that they will sacrifice their kids having a father figure just to spite the father for leaving them. That's when applying for guardianship FAILS! I've seen it happen a few times! It couldn't happen to nicer lads. Unfortunatley nice lads will bend over backwards to try to please such malicious women. Even worse was one occasion a mother told me she just wanted a child off someone because her eldest was getting to the cut-off age for child benefit! She told me she just wanted the child to get the maintanence and government benefits for the child. I didn't believe her untill it happened! She picked a guy, got pregnant, then treated the father badly so he would leave her, told the court stories about him, so not only was he heartbroken that she broke up, and that he couldn't see his kid because she was painted him to be the bad guy in a court of law by telling malicious lies! This woman was supported by the law because she is the mammy and that's that. This is just one example of how some women use this system. Surely this needs revising. Oh, if you cannot accept the examples of mother's abusing the system as way of evidence that this system is wrong, then you cannot expect us to accept examples of fathers as evidence that this system is right! I agree some fathers don't care, but that's not good enough reason to allow good fathers be used.

strobe

I'm unfamiliar with how the process works exactly so the following is based in a few presumptions:

The problem as I see it seems to be that if a mother contests guardianship the father is considered guilty until proven innocent. It should clearly be the other way around. Until a contention of guardianship has been ruled upon guardianship should be granted. The mother should also have to apply for guardianship which can be contested by the father but similarly until the contention is ruled upon she is granted interim joint guardianship.

I also think a paternity test should be required in all cases of fathers applying for guardianship. (just to address an obvious potential abuse of things). Mothers get a pass on this one, for obvious reasons.

Anyone see any problems with this?

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Because the state needs to be satisfied that the father has an interest in guardianship.

All hail Wicknight and the State..

This state satisfaction you constantly refer to comes from a 1964 act; nearly fifty years ago.

In 1964 how many births outside marriage occured? How many couples do you think sat down and decided to have children outside marriage?

This law comes from a time when single mothers were thrown in magdelene laundries, their babies adopted out and the father was scorned and ostracised by the entire community.

For over the last decade one third of all children born each year are born outside marriage, circa 20,000+ For many it is a planned decision made by loving parents. Where we are today is literally a different planet to 1964.

The state has not bothered it's arce to change the law on guardiasnhip despite a recommendation to do so since 1982 from the Law Reform Commision.

The state has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by the likes of the Keegan case in 1994 and the G Case of 2007

The way the state is acting is contrary to the best interests of children, the state knows that it is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights in this regard. Hence the clamour to give unmarried fathers automatic guardianship in the last number of years.

Do you really think the same crowd who oversaw the Roscommon Incest case, the recent appalling galway case and in who's care hundreds of children have died have the best interests of children in mind?

This state upholds this despicable apartheid against fathers and children; but not in my name I can tell you.

Zombrex

rolly1 wrote: »

The way the state is acting is contrary to the best interests of children, the state knows that it is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights in this regard. Hence the clamour to give unmarried fathers automatic guardianship in the last number of years.

The history lesson was interesting but you haven't actually put forward an argument for why the State is acting contrary to the best interests of children.

rolly1 wrote: »

Do you really think the same crowd who oversaw the Roscommon Incest case, the recent appalling galway case and in who's care hundreds of children have died have the best interests of children in mind?

Ad hominem attack are not an argument either.

You apparently think that requiring fathers to apply for guardianship is not in the best interests of the children involved. Can you explain why?

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

I'm unfamiliar with how the process works exactly so the following is based in a few presumptions:

The problem as I see it seems to be that if a mother contests guardianship the father is considered guilty until proven innocent. It should clearly be the other way around. Until a contention of guardianship has been ruled upon guardianship should be granted. The mother should also have to apply for guardianship which can be contested by the father but similarly until the contention is ruled upon she is granted interim joint guardianship.

I also think a paternity test should be required in all cases of fathers applying for guardianship. (just to address an obvious potential abuse of things). Mothers get a pass on this one, for obvious reasons.

Anyone see any problems with this?

It only works if the mother's accusations against the father are false. If they aren't then you are potentially putting children in harms way by automatically granting guardianship until it is demonstrated that it should be taken away.

I appreciate that some women lie about their partners, and that this can be very frustrating for the men involved who feel they have to prove to the State that they are not as their partner describes.

But remember the State's primary interest is not fairness to fathers. It is the well being of the children. No matter how frustrating it is for the father it is justified if it is in the best interests of the children, and assessing accusations of this type to rule them out is in the best interests of the children because the alternative is not acceptable.

Zombrex

SheFiend wrote: »

I'm amazed that some people seem not to realise that some women resent relationship breakdown so much that they will sacrifice their kids having a father figure just to spite the father for leaving them. That's when applying for guardianship FAILS!

No it isn't, guardianship is not denied to the father simply because the mother objects, she does not have that authorization. Again you need to educate yourself to the law.

SheFiend wrote: »

This woman was supported by the law because she is the mammy and that's that.

That is not the law in Ireland. I can't help think these stories are just contrived to help support your position.

Dilbert75

Both parents should have equal rights and equal responsibilities.

One father I know quite well, fortunately married to the mother of his kids, had several days in court to try and get access to the kids he already has guardianship for (by marriage). He had to fight and prove his fitness to be a father to those kids and get a couple of daytime visits for them both and overnights for the older one.

His ex-wife uses them as weapons to get at him - for no reason at all - and treats him like dirt. Actually she seems to treat the kids like dirt too - they normally come to him in filthy clothes, rarely get any sort of treats from her and one day she was seen on the main street in town slapping the backside off the little fella and screaming at him.

Yet she's a teacher and a mother and therefore, by default, the better parent. She's been given probably 70% or more of custody and demands significant maintenance from him, despite him being unemployed and her having a good salary.

This is the way the law and society has deemed it should be and in many cases its wrong.

It comes down to this:
Mothers are presumed innocent of being an unfit parent until proven guilty.
Fathers are presumed guilty of being an unfit parent until proven innocent.

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

The history lesson was interesting but you haven't actually put forward an argument for why the State is acting contrary to the best interests of children.


Ad hominem attack are not an argument either.

You apparently think that requiring fathers to apply for guardianship is not in the best interests of the children involved. Can you explain why?

You see I reject the premise of your question. Whether you are aware of it or not your question is inherently bigoted, coming from an assumption that a man having to jump through a legal hoop that a woman doesn't have to is both right and necessary.

This magical formula of words "best interests of the child" is thrust about as if it was something only the state and mothers know what it actually is. But here's a little known fact for you: The people who know the best interests of a child are in the vast, vast majority of cases the parents of that child, not the state. It is absolutely absurd to think anything otherwise.

Therefore the question should be why are we requiring one parent to jump through a legal hoop that the other parent doesn't have to, when we know that this cannot be in the best interest of the child?

rolly1

Dilbert75 wrote: »

Mothers are presumed innocent of being an unfit parent until proven guilty.
Fathers are presumed guilty of being an unfit parent until proven innocent.

And this is an unjust position, it is untenable and the Irish state knows this.

UN Convention on the rights of the child, Art 7.1 states Every child has the right, as far as possible, to know and be cared for by both of it's parents.

It's quite obvious that anyone who opposes parental equality before the law in Ireland does not have children's rights as the cornerstone of their thinking.

Zombrex

rolly1 wrote: »

You see I reject the premise of your question. Whether you are aware of it or not your question is inherently bigoted, coming from an assumption that a man having to jump through a legal hoop that a woman doesn't have to is both right and necessary.

Do you reject that it is right and necessary because you believe it is not right and necessary or do you reject it because the woman does not have to do it.

If it is the former then can you explain why?

If it is the latter then I'm sorry but I've no time for you since you seem to just want to turn this into an excuse to complain about gender equality, which is irrelevant to the interests of the children. This position is one of not caring what the father has to actually do or not do so long as the it is the same as the mother, which has nothing to do with protecting the interests of children.

rolly1 wrote: »

Therefore the question should be why are we requiring one parent to jump through a legal hoop that the other parent doesn't have to, when we know that this cannot be in the best interest of the child?

Again you make a nonsense argument. Do you reject the principle that an unmarried father should have to apply for guardianship based on a flaw in that principle or simply because the mother doesn't have to.

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you reject that it is right and necessary because you believe it is not right and necessary or do you reject it because the woman does not have to do it.

If it is the former then can you explain why?

If it is the latter then I'm sorry but I've no time for you since you seem to just want to turn this into an excuse to complain about gender equality, which is irrelevant to the interests of the children. This position is one of not caring what the father has to actually do or not do so long as the it is the same as the mother, which has nothing to do with protecting the interests of children.



Again you make a nonsense argument. Do you reject the principle that an unmarried father should have to apply for guardianship based on a flaw in that principle or simply because the mother doesn't have to.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

You do not have the interests of children at heart, you have an interest only in keeping the parental apartheid in place.

There's no excuse for it, there's no need for it and it most certainly is not in the best interests of children to have legally unequal parents; show me the universal declaration, the UN convention the european convention etc. etc, which states it is so.

Otherwise your blathering on about the "child's best interests" is an utter nonsense and is just a convenient mask for a bigot.

Zombrex

rolly1 wrote: »

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

You do not have the interests of children at heart, you have an interest only in keeping the parental apartheid in place.

There's no excuse for it, there's no need for it and it most certainly is not in the best interests of children to have legally unequal parents; show me the universal declaration, the UN convention the european convention etc. etc, which states it is so.

Otherwise your blathering on about the "child's best interests" is an utter nonsense and is just a convenient mask for a bigot.

You will notice you still haven't actually given a reason to either abolish the requirement for unmarried fathers to apply for guardianship, or to extent this requirement to women.

You seem to just have a lot of some what irrelevant rhetoric, with very little substance.

smiles302

You will notice you still haven't actually given a reason to either abolish the requirement for unmarried fathers to apply for guardianship, or to extent this requirement to women.

You seem to just have a lot of some what irrelevant rhetoric, with very little substance.

If the father was granted automatic guardianship the child would automatically have the protection from two parents. If the father is allowed to and expected to have an equal role to play in the child's life, you will have somebody there to take unfit mothers to court to take away their guardianship.

What benefit does the child get from having it's father need to apply for guardianship?

yayaitsme

i'm in the situation where the dad has walked out. i have actively asked him numerous times to have involvement in the childs life, with no conditions attached, and yet he is not interested. i still believe that of course a dad should have the same rights as the mom. both parents should be there for the child but if they prove lacking then thats when problem needs to be dealt with.

silly

replica wrote: »

Justask wrote: »

What about the mothers who have to fight for their kids to see the fathers when the fathers dont want to know.:mad:

Not all father deserve equal rights.

Not all parents deserve equal rights. What really needs to be done in this country is a system where every woman who files for OPFP, is obliged to give the details of the father and he should be forced by law to pay child support whether he wants a role in the childs life or not. To many young bucks out there sowing seeds left right and centre and no accountability. I pay €120 per week in child maintenance for my son whom I haven't seen in 3 years because his mother and I divorced and she moved back to NY where she is from. because she is a US citizen I have no rights in the US. But every week I pay €120. And yes I want to see my son...he is the only child I will ever have.

Wow, €120 a week! I'd be lucky to get that in a year and my ex sees his daughter for about 4-5 weeks a year!

Zombrex

smiles302 wrote: »

If the father was granted automatic guardianship the child would automatically have the protection from two parents.

Only if the father has an interest in being part of the child's life. Otherwise the State has given guardianship to someone who is in effect a stranger to the child.

Do you genuinely believe this is in the best interests of the children?

smiles302 wrote: »

If the father is allowed to and expected to have an equal role to play in the child's life, you will have somebody there to take unfit mothers to court to take away their guardianship.

With the current law nothing says a father is not allowed to have an equal role to play in the child's life. They simply have to apply to the State to demonstrate they have this interest, the State does not assume they do.

smiles302 wrote: »

What benefit does the child get from having it's father need to apply for guardianship?

The child gets the benefit that a stranger who is not interested in being part of his life does not have guardianship rights over him.

For example in my own case if my mother had died when I was a toddler then my father, who I have never met, would have been my legal guardian. That might be the making of hilarious Hollywood comedies, but back in the real world it would be a disaster for myself.

Explain to me again why this was actually in my best interest?

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

You will notice you still haven't actually given a reason to either abolish the requirement for unmarried fathers to apply for guardianship, or to extent this requirement to women.

You seem to just have a lot of some what irrelevant rhetoric, with very little substance.

I have given multiple reasons for equality amongst parents, the primary one being that it is protecting children's rights by doing so.

Once again can you please show me any literature, document, convention, scientific paper, research in fact anything at all of standing which backs up your bigoted position which states that it is in a child's best interest to have parents with unequal rights.

Until you are able to do so then that 1964 bigoted stance you take remains.

Also for someone arrogantly claiming to know the law, and putting down others for supposedly not, then you should know that not having equal legal rights amongst parents is the actual issue; having to apply for guardianship is just the outward expression of that discrimination.

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if the father has an interest in being part of the child's life. Otherwise the State has given guardianship to someone who is in effect a stranger to the child.
Do you genuinely believe this is in the best interests of the children?
With the current law nothing says a father is not allowed to have an equal role to play in the child's life. They simply have to apply to the State to demonstrate they have this interest, the State does not assume they do.
The child gets the benefit that a stranger who is not interested in being part of his life does not have guardianship rights over him.
For example in my own case if my mother had died when I was a toddler then my father, who I have never met, would have been my legal guardian. That might be the making of hilarious Hollywood comedies, but back in the real world it would be a disaster for myself.
Explain to me again why this was actually in my best interest?

Your mother could have made a testamentary guardian to be someone other than your father in the event of her death.

Did she not know that? Did she not care enough for her children to find that out and carry it out? My goodness was she really interested in her children at all? Should she not have to have proven her interest to the state on this matter?

So here we get to the nub of it, because of your own experience then circa 200,000+ dads and their children should be discriminated against. What you are saying is that all 200,000+ unmarried fathers have no interest in their own children and that those that do must prove that they do.

That is discrimination based on a bigoted assumption i.e. every single single dad has no interest in their children.

The all knowing, all caring, all righteous mighty state decides that 200,000+ fathers are all guilty till proven innocent while the self-same state claims the reverse to be the case for the other gender.

I know you are an admirer of this 1960's discrimination law, but more than this your view is now looking closer to a 1960's Alabama.

Zombrex

rolly1 wrote: »

I have given multiple reasons for equality amongst parents, the primary one being that it is protecting children's rights by doing so.

You have to explained how it is in the best interests of the child. "Equality" is not an answer to that question. Equality is the answer to what is in the best interests of the father, which seems to be all you care about. Equal rights is not in the best interest of the child if the father has no interest in raising his child. Every time I've put this point to you you have simply ignored it.

It might be what you want, but then that is the whole point you are not thinking about this from the point of view of the children involved.

rolly1 wrote: »

Once again can you please show me any literature, document, convention, scientific paper, research in fact anything at all of standing which backs up your bigoted position which states that it is in a child's best interest to have parents with unequal rights.

The children's best interest is to have guardianship recognized in people who are interested in being their guardians.

Please explain to me how this isn't in the children's best interests? This seems to be the one thing you are unable to answer.

Zombrex

rolly1 wrote: »

Your mother could have made a testamentary guardian to be someone other than your father in the event of her death.

That person does not override the original guardian, they must act with the surviving guardian. Kinda difficult if no one knows where he is.

Again, how is this in my best interest as the child involved?

rolly1 wrote: »

So here we get to the nub of it, because of your own experience then circa 200,000+ dads and their children should be discriminated against. What you are saying is that all 200,000+ unmarried fathers have no interest in their own children and that those that do must prove that they do.

Once again you still have not explained how it is in the best interests of the child.

rolly1 wrote: »

The all knowing, all caring, all righteous mighty state decides that 200,000+ fathers are all guilty till proven innocent while the self-same state claims the reverse to be the case for the other gender.

I know you are an admirer of this 1960's discrimination law, but more than this your view is now looking closer to a 1960's Alabama.

More waffle and rhetoric, no substance.

K-9

Wicknight wrote: »

You will notice you still haven't actually given a reason to either abolish the requirement for unmarried fathers to apply for guardianship

The main reason I see is a married father gets it automatically and it doesn't seem to cause major problems. It can be removed by a court application.

Seeing as it's good enough for married parents and looking around at some marriages, it doesn't take much to earn it, why not extend it?

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

You have to explained how it is in the best interests of the child. "Equality" is not an answer to that question. Equality is the answer to what is in the best interests of the father, which seems to be all you care about. Equal rights is not in the best interest of the child if the father has no interest in raising his child. Every time I've put this point to you you have simply ignored it.

The children's best interest is to have guardianship recognized in people who are interested in being their guardians.
.

I have asked you twice already to prove how parents having unequal legal rights can possibly be in the best interests of children as you claim.

I have quoted article 7.1 of the UN Covention on the Rights of the Child which also sees it as every child's right, as far as possible, to know and be cared for by both of its parents. It doesn't state a need for parents to be unequal legally to do this, in fact it puts both parents in an equally important position with regard to their child.

It's the same with European Convention on Human Rights and the right to family life. All the conventions, all the research, both legal and social, point to the fact that parents having an equal legal position is of importance to ensure the rights of the child are properly protected and upheld. Every family, separated or not, is a system which needs to function in harmony. This delivers the best outcomes for children. This is the best interest of children. The best thing any state can do is to provide a platform of equality amongst parents to ensure the better functioning of every family in the state.

But again and again you come back with nothing, no basis for your claims about children's best interests, no refernces; nothing but your naked bigotry against unmarried fathers and their children.

rolly1

K-9 wrote: »

The main reason I see is a married father gets it automatically and it doesn't seem to cause major problems. It can be removed by a court application.

Seeing as it's good enough for married parents and looking around at some marriages, it doesn't take much to earn it, why not extend it?

Guardianship cannot be removed from a married man.

Most married fathers don't have a clue that they actually have it, they just assume that there is a legal protection for their fatherhood. Likewise most unmarried fathers assume that they also have, in a modern supposedly civilised society, protection for their fatherhood. And why would they assume anything otherwise?

It's only when the sh1t hits the fan they find out they don't.

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

That person does not override the original guardian, they must act with the surviving guardian. Kinda difficult if no one knows where he is.
Again, how is this in my best interest as the child involved?
Once again you still have not explained how it is in the best interests of the child.
More waffle and rhetoric, no substance.

By your logic of fathers having to apply to court etc. for guardianship then should your mother not apply to court to over ride the consent of the other guardian to appoint the testamentary guardian? Again by your logic, by her not doing so, would this not be showing the state that she doesn't have an interest in her children? How would not going to court be in your best interest as a child?

Fact is your experience is not the norm. The norm is most unmarried fathers are interested in their children. If they didn't have a genuine interest in their children then why are over 90% of guardianship applications granted by the court?

It's an absolute nonsense that all unmarried fathers have to apply for what they already are.

SheFiend

Wicknight wrote: »

No it isn't, guardianship is not denied to the father simply because the mother objects, she does not have that authorization. Again you need to educate yourself to the law.



That is not the law in Ireland. I can't help think these stories are just contrived to help support your position.

How dare you!!! I am inscensed by stories like these which involve people I know personally, and that is why I am on this thread! I would be here all day if I related every second hand story, but I can only relate what i know to be fact!!!

I didn't say the mother "OBJECTS" i said she lied!!!! She accused the boyfriend of beating her etc.! Now her child is staying with a mother who does drugs, while her father pays maintanence to a liar and a cheater of the states system for a child he never gets to see!!!!!

Yopu think the State is right to do this because that is the law? If everyone thought the way you did, there would be ZERO progress in the world. "Oh it must be right, because that's the law! We cant discuss other possibilities, let's just leave things the way they are" Are you kidding me???

SheFiend

yayaitsme wrote: »

i'm in the situation where the dad has walked out. i have actively asked him numerous times to have involvement in the childs life, with no conditions attached, and yet he is not interested. i still believe that of course a dad should have the same rights as the mom. both parents should be there for the child but if they prove lacking then thats when problem needs to be dealt with.

It's great to see how you can be so reasonable despite your own personal experience

Dudess

Wicknight, would you agree your take on this is not a subjective one, rather it is informed by your own personal experience?

strobe

Wicknight wrote: »

It only works if the mother's accusations against the father are false. If they aren't then you are potentially putting children in harms way by automatically granting guardianship until it is demonstrated that it should be taken away.

I appreciate that some women lie about their partners, and that this can be very frustrating for the men involved who feel they have to prove to the State that they are not as their partner describes.

But remember the State's primary interest is not fairness to fathers. It is the well being of the children. No matter how frustrating it is for the father it is justified if it is in the best interests of the children, and assessing accusations of this type to rule them out is in the best interests of the children because the alternative is not acceptable.

If a father contests a mothers guardianship do you believe the child should be removed from her guardianship and given to the father until the mother can prove the contention unwarranted? Best to rule out the accusations before believing the mother right? Or is it only the safer option to do things that way when a father is accused of something? Mothers abuse and neglect children too, so you would support such in the case of a father issuing a contention yes? In this system if both parents make a contention is it whoever made the first contention that gets the child cause they got there first or do we roll out a massive multi-billion euro expansion of our foster care system?

JamJamJamJam

I'm trying to imagine what the situation would be like if we lived in an Ireland where both unmarried parents were given automatic and equal rights from the word go, without basically having to ask for permission to have access to their own child. I can't imagine that many people at all would be suggesting that fathers should have to start applying for guardianship rights, and those who did would get a roasting from those who recognise the injustice of it.

I think jemser's response to the thread title was the best.

jemser wrote: »

yes

Nuff said.

Zombrex

K-9 wrote: »

The main reason I see is a married father gets it automatically and it doesn't seem to cause major problems. It can be removed by a court application.

A married father has, theoretically at least, expressed an interest in raising the children produced by the marriage. That is the primary purpose of the State recognizing marriage.

K-9 wrote: »

Seeing as it's good enough for married parents and looking around at some marriages, it doesn't take much to earn it, why not extend it?

Is that in the best interests of the children involved?

Zombrex

rolly1 wrote: »

I have asked you twice already to prove how parents having unequal legal rights can possibly be in the best interests of children as you claim.

I already have. It is not in the best interests of a child to have a stranger with no interest in being his/her parent with guardianship rights.

I've put that to everyone here and no one seems to have a counter to it. They just say it is unfair on the father who has to demonstrate to the State they do have an interest by applying for guardianship, and I've pointed out that how fair or unfair it is on the father is not the primary concern, the best interests of the children are.

rolly1 wrote: »

I have quoted article 7.1 of the UN Covention on the Rights of the Child which also sees it as every child's right, as far as possible, to know and be cared for by both of its parents.

Which automatic guardianship does nothing for, so it is irrelevant. Again people seem to think the current law is that the father cannot ever see their children unless they are married. That is not the current law. What is required is an application for guardianship.

rolly1 wrote: »

It's the same with European Convention on Human Rights and the right to family life. All the conventions, all the research, both legal and social, point to the fact that parents having an equal legal position is of importance to ensure the rights of the child are properly protected and upheld.

And no one is objecting to both parents having equal legal position, but what is required is that both parents are interested in this. The father will end up with equal guardianship, if he demonstrates interest in this by apply and if the courts can see no reason why the children's interests are put at risk by granting such guardianship.

Again the laws does not state that unmarried fathers will not be able to get guardianship of their children unless they marry.

rolly1 wrote: »

The best thing any state can do is to provide a platform of equality amongst parents to ensure the better functioning of every family in the state.

Automatic guardianship will not produce family units that would not have also forced without automatic guardianship. What it will do is grant guardianship rights to men who have no interest in being part of the family unit, which again is not in the best interests of the children.

Zombrex

Dudess wrote: »

Wicknight, would you agree your take on this is not a subjective one, rather it is informed by your own personal experience?

Sorry I'm not following the question, subjective and informed by your own person experience, are they not the same thing?

Dudess

I meant objective, sorry.

Zombrex

SheFiend wrote: »

How dare you!!! I am inscensed by stories like these which involve people I know personally, and that is why I am on this thread! I would be here all day if I related every second hand story, but I can only relate what i know to be fact!!!

What you stated as "facts" is inconsistent with the current laws of Ireland. You can be incensed all you like, I don't really care about that.

SheFiend wrote: »

I didn't say the mother "OBJECTS" i said she lied!!!! She accused the boyfriend of beating her etc.! Now her child is staying with a mother who does drugs, while her father pays maintanence to a liar and a cheater of the states system for a child he never gets to see!!!!!

So let me get this straight. You do not believe that the State should assess the guardianship of a man who has been accused of domestic violence by the mother of the children he is trying to get guardianship of.

You do not believe it is in the best interests of the children to assess if there is any merit to a claim of violence by the father?

SheFiend wrote: »

Yopu think the State is right to do this because that is the law?

I think the State is right to do this because there has been an accustation of domestic violence made against the person seeking guardianship. If you have evidence that in this case the claim is false I suggest you go to the police, but the idea that the State should ignore such claims because the woman might be lying is frankly ridiculous.

Imagine the father was actually beating the mother. You think the State shouldn't care about that because sure she might be lying?

SheFiend wrote: »

If everyone thought the way you did, there would be ZERO progress in the world.

You seem to have a funny definition of progress if you think putting children in harms way is progress, or in their best interest.

Zombrex

Dudess wrote: »

I meant objective, sorry.

No I think it is objectively not in the best interests of the child to have a father who has not expressed interest in raising him granted guardianship rights automatically.

Can anyone explain how that is actually in the best interests of the child? Not the father, the child.

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

If a father contests a mothers guardianship do you believe the child should be removed from her guardianship and given to the father until the mother can prove the contention unwarranted?

That is a difficult question. The initial answer would be yes, the State must satisfy itself that children are not at harm. There is an issue though with the disruption such a move could cause on the children themselves, particularly if a false accusation if made. Ultimately I think the social workers involved must made a judgement as quickly as possible about the merit of such an accusation on a case by case basis.

I would point out that this response is based solely on the disruption cause to the children, not the mother.

strobe wrote: »

Best to rule out the accusations before believing the mother right?

Ideally yes.

strobe wrote: »

Or is it only the safer option to do things that way when a father is accused of something?

Since the father will not already have guardianship the disruption to the children from such an assessment will be limited compared to the disruption to the children from assessment of the mother (assuming the children are with the mother).

strobe wrote: »

Mothers abuse and neglect children too, so you would support such in the case of a father issuing a contention yes?

Yes, of course. It wouldn't even have to be the father, it could be the grand parents or other relatives, or even other concerned adults, such as teachers.

strobe wrote: »

In this system if both parents make a contention is it whoever made the first contention that gets the child cause they got there first or do we roll out a massive multi-billion euro expansion of our foster care system?

More money to social workers is badly needed in this country, though I'm not sure what the multi-billion euro refers to?

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

A married father has, theoretically at least, expressed an interest in raising the children produced by the marriage. That is the primary purpose of the State recognizing marriage.

As has the mother,yet, she gets guardianship automatically even when she is unmarried.

Expansion of equality to all parents can only be in the best interests of the children.

Zombrex

rolly1 wrote: »

As has the mother,yet, she gets guardianship automatically even when she is unmarried.

Expansion of equality to all parents can only be in the best interests of the children.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would equality between men and women automatically be in the best interests of the children involved?

Something is in the best interests of a child if it is in their best interests, it being in someone else's best interests has no effect on this.

A good example of such a principle if adoption. It is in the best interests of the adoptive parents getting a child as quickly as possible. This of course is not in the best interests of the children involved, their best interests are served by a rigorous assessment process. You could make a nonsense argument and say what is in the best interests of the parents must be in the best interest of the children, but this clearly isn't the case.

Equally with guardianship. It is clearly in the best interests of the father to not have the expense and time required to apply for guardianship. But that is not an argument for it then being in the best interests of the children involved.

It is in the best interests of children to have only parents with interest in raising them and being part of their lives having guardianship over them recognized by the State.

Does anyone want to actually argue that this is not true, that this is not in the best interests of the children involved.