Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

How does it risk that?

In the same way that the automatic granting of guardianship risks having uninterested fathers awarded undeserved rights (as per your post which to which it was a reply)

The justification has been explained, it is not in the interests of the children for the state to grant guardianship to fathers who are not interested in raising them

No, the 'justification' has been repeated

thus the state must be satifisied that they are interested in raising them. Otherwise they risk granting guardianship to those fathers not interested.

The State is not justified in assuming any such disinterest without evidence

This has been explained many many many times, I'm at a loss how you can say you have read all the posts but have no seen this explanation.

Frankly, I've seen the repeated assertion, nothing more

The State does not assume the father is not interested. The State is neutral about the fathers interest until the father expresses such an interest. When the father acts in the affirmative guardianship rights will be granted. Until then the State does not assume anything.

While the State remains neutral about the father's interest, rights are withheld. That is an implicit assumption and is simply, and you will have guessed my next phrase, not justified

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

I've no idea what part of my post this is referencing. Where did I ever state anything remotely like that?

You said the act of the mother leaving the hospital with the baby is proof that she has an interest in her child, yet at the same the reality is that most fathers are in at birth too, so by the same token should they not also be granted automatic guardianship?

How would it incentivise people to marry?

Greater legal autonomy from the state.

Even if the father has not been involved in raising the children and is a stranger to them? He is still the best person in the world to know what their best interest are?

Go ahead keep referring to the minority to base laws on for the majority.In case you haven't heard thats not how a democracy is supposed to work.

I can readily turn around and say what about heroin addicted babies, the mother gave birth, she didn't abort, she didn't adopt but bang she gets all the legal rights and is a patently unfit mother. But I wouldn't dare to disrespect the majority of fine mothers out there by judging from the few unfit ones.

You do not recognize the term? Are you having a laugh? It is a pretty simple term, absent fathers. It means fathers who are absent from their families.

Why are they absent? It's an absolutely loaded term.

I know what it means, it means putting the interests of the parents above the interests of the children.

You seem to have a fundamental block on common sense. Who should determine the best interest of children? Who should protect and uphold children's rights first and foremost? Are parents the best entity to do this or Is it the state?
If parents are the best entity to uphold their childs rights then does having legally unequal parents help to uphold a child's rights?

If one parent can snatch a child out of the country to live permanently abroad against the wishes of the other active and fit parent, due to default laws, does this uphold the child's right to know and be cared for by both parents? Is this the best interests of that child?

Actually if you had been following you will notice I have, hence the support for the application for guardianship. If I genuinely believe that no unmarried fathers were interested in raising their children what purpose would an application for guardianship serve?

Support for applying for guardianship is support for a regime of bigotry. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the best interests of children and everything to do with blind bigotry.

Do I have the right? or, do I have permission? there's a whole world of difference.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

I hope you are not pointing that out to me since I've never mentioned anything about fathers having to prove their fitness. That is not what the guardianship application does.

If that post was meant for someone else, apologies.

The post was indeed meant for you- I apologise if it was unclear, but I'll rephrase.

You are not in any way debating the question of equal rights, which was the original question- rather you consistently return to the issue of whether a certain section of a certain gender (unmarried fathers) should have to prove interest in guardianship *irrespective of whether other sections of both genders should also have to do so or not*- surely the crux of the matter in determining inequality?

IMO, that's a pretty deliberate framing of the argument that completely shuts out the original question.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

In the same way that the automatic granting of guardianship risks having uninterested fathers awarded undeserved rights (as per your post which to which it was a reply)

I'm not following. If only interested fathers can be awarded guardianship, how does that risk uninterested fathers being awarded guardianship?

Deleted User wrote: »

No, the 'justification' has been repeated

You are going to have to explain then what further you would consider as an explanation.

Deleted User wrote: »

The State is not justified in assuming any such disinterest without evidence

The State is not assuming disinterest. The State is not assuming anything, that is the point. They are leaving it up to the father to express to the State his interest.

Deleted User wrote: »

Frankly, I've seen the repeated assertion, nothing more

Again you wil have to explain what more you require.

Deleted User wrote: »

While the State remains neutral about the father's interest, rights are withheld.

Correct, for the reasons already outlined. The State puts the interests of the child above the interests of the father. So while the State recognizes that the father has a right to guardianship over his child this right does not supersede the right of the child to only have guardianship of him/her awarded to parties interested in them.

Interests of the children first, above the interests of the parents. Just like everything else.

Deleted User wrote: »

That is an implicit assumption and is simply, and you will have guessed my next phrase, not justified

What is the implicit assumption? That the interests of the child come before the father? How is that not justified?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

The post was indeed meant for you- I apologise if it was unclear, but I'll rephrase.

You are not in any way debating the question of equal rights, which was the original question

I am debating the granting of automatic guardianship to unmarried fathers, which seemed to be the most common method proposed to equal the rights.

Others have suggested removing automatic guardianship for mothers, which I find an interesting proposal but one I'm more interested in observing the debate than leading it.

Deleted User wrote: »

- rather you consistently return to the issue of whether a certain section of a certain gender (unmarried fathers) should have to prove interest in guardianship *irrespective of whether other sections of both genders should also have to do so or not*- surely the crux of the matter in determining inequality?

Correct. Firstly this is not an issue of fitness, but interest. Secondly I "consistently return to the issue" because it is consistently the most popular proposal for equalizing the rights between mother and father.

Deleted User wrote: »

IMO, that's a pretty deliberate framing of the argument that completely shuts out the original question.

That is perhaps due to a lack of understand of the thread as a whole?

Zombrex

I'm off to bed, I will reply to further posts tomorrow. Night everyone.

The State is not assuming disinterest. The State is not assuming anything, that is the point. They are leaving it up to the father to express to the State his interest.

Again, if the right automatically accrues to others, but not to a certain subset, that is a pretty clear assumption on the part of the State- I mean I really do think that this is very obvious.

The State puts the interests of the child above the interests of the father. So while the State recognizes that the father has a right to guardianship over his child this right does not supersede the right of the child to only have guardianship of him/her awarded to parties interested in them.

I refer to my point above- an assumption of disinterest is the default position. I fail to see how this is, in the absence of any further information, in the interest of the child. You cannot merely throw in a hypothetical disinterested party and then legislate.

What is the implicit assumption? That the interests of the child come before the father? How is that not justified?

for about the 12th time, the implicit assumption of disinterest from the unmarried father as opposed to the implicit assumption of interest from all other parent groups.

Nothing in your last reply (or any of your replies) justifies the singling out of unmarried fathers as a potentially disinterested group.

I think that may well be my boiled-down point. Night!

strobe

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't have one since I'm not justifying that not being the case. I can see the merits in such a proposal, though I've considered it in a lot less detail.

That is fair enough...I think.

It does, but the alternative, where genuine reports of abuse go un-checked, seems worse.

Perhaps.

What do you propose as an alternative?

Presume parents will not torture their children for the craic and deploy the Gardai, the facets of the state and community initiatives to try and ensure that.
=========

What is your preferred system Wick? Nothing is perfect. What do you propose? Anything? The way it is? Something different? Anything at all? Do you really think the way it is is best for children? Throw something out there, anything, it doesn't have to be perfect. Anything?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

I refer to my point above- an assumption of disinterest is the default position.

Again that is not true, I'm not sure how much more clear this point can be made. An absence of assumption of interest is not the same as an assumption of disintrest.

Deleted User wrote: »

I fail to see how this is, in the absence of any further information, in the interest of the child. You cannot merely throw in a hypothetical disinterested party and then legislate.

You seem to be debating something that is not the case in Ireland, and is thus irrelevant to this thread.

Deleted User wrote: »

for about the 12th time, the implicit assumption of disinterest from the unmarried father as opposed to the implicit assumption of interest from all other parent groups.

I've already explained how no such assumption exists. You seem content to ignore this and just pretend there is such an assumption in order to attack the current system.

Like I said to others, if one can only attack the current system with straw men then that is a poor argument for changing the current system.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing in your last reply (or any of your replies) justifies the singling out of unmarried fathers as a potentially disinterested group.

The interests of the child justifies considering men a potentially disinterested group, as I've explained.

You seem to have counter argument to than other than to say it is not justified while not explaining why nor explaining what sort of thing you would consider a justification.

You don't seem to have a position other than that you don't agree with me. Which is fair enough, you can disagree with me, but it makes a debate rather difficult.

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

Presume parents will not torture their children for the craic and deploy the Gardai, the facets of the state and community initiatives to try and ensure that.

I'm not following. Are you saying the State should ignore claims of abuse based on the idea that parents will not abuse their children?

strobe wrote: »

What is your preferred system Wick? Nothing is perfect. What do you propose? Anything? The way it is? Something different? Anything at all? Do you really think the way it is is best for children? Throw something out there, anything, it doesn't have to be perfect. Anything?

The current system is better than any system anyone has so far proposed.

As you say no system is perfect, some fathers in the current system will have a difficult time gaining guardianship of their children.

This though is preferable to some children having a difficult time with disinterested fathers having guardianship over them.

When in doubt consider the interests of the child above the interests of the parents.

Dilbert75

IMO there can only be one fair system to both parents and child. It includes both parents, once named on the birth cert, being granted equal guardianship and equal responsibility for the care and upbringing of the child. Childcare and financial support of the child should be shared equally. And if the responsibilities of either party are being neglected, they can have their rights limited or removed, depending on the extent of their neglect.
Therefore parents become equal, children have the right to be equally parented by both mother and father, and there is a mechanism for the child to be protected if either parent fails in their responsibility.
And nobody is treated unfairly.

Zombrex

Dilbert75 wrote: »

IMO there can only be one fair system to both parents and child. It includes both parents, once named on the birth cert, being granted equal guardianship and equal responsibility for the care and upbringing of the child. Childcare and financial support of the child should be shared equally.

Saying it should be done is different to ensuring it is. Automatic guardianship will not guarantee that a child has both parents involved in his up-brining.

As such saying that automatic guardianship is required to be fair to the child's right to both parents is disintengous since it has no more effect on this than the current law does.

Dilbert75 wrote: »

And if the responsibilities of either party are being neglected, they can have their rights limited or removed, depending on the extent of their neglect.

Can you describe that mechanism, and how the interests of the child, which take precedence over the interest of the parents, are protected by such a mechanism if guardianship is granted to a father who does not participate in the raising of his child?

Dilbert75 wrote: »

Therefore parents become equal, children have the right to be equally parented by both mother and father, and there is a mechanism for the child to be protected if either parent fails in their responsibility.

That is the current system. If the father is not interested in guardianship (neglects their responsibility as you put it) they are not awarded guardianship.

Automatic guardianship would do the exact opposite of what you claim is important, it would forsakes protection of the child.

wolfpawnat

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

As I stated already, my son's father and I went to court, so when our day in court was finished, I received my half of the bill, as did he, so we were both charged €275 each for services rendered by the solicitor.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

As previously stated, I know how much it costs because I paid the money out of my own pocket! I think first hand experience is more factual than the "my friend who I didn't question" approach.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

And if she is spiteful the father at least has enough of a say in the childs life to at least keep the cow half way in check!

KindOfIrish wrote: »

I would advise you to get pregnant, then live with a huge belly for the next 9 months after that give birht and after that feed, wash etc. child for the next 14 (at list) years. And you will understand.

It is not the hardest thing you will ever do on this planet. And my son's father did feeds, washed him, did his nappies too. It is a bit of a stupid argument, there are families all over Ireland where the mother is working and the father is not so he is the primary care giver.

Tayla wrote: »

First of all nobody knows who will or won't be a good parent and I agree with the posters who said that maybe some mothers don't deserve it either, they could be a complete waste of space, however all we have to go on is the fact that we know for sure that the mother wanted the baby or else she could have aborted the baby.

My mother didn't want me, yet here I am, many women do not give a damn about their children, they have them for the benefits (financial) or because they want to hold on to a relationship where the fella is thinking of fécking off!

Tayla wrote: »

The dad, well the state doesn't know whether he wants the baby or not, the mother gives birth to the baby, surely that's a signal that she wants the baby and is fully prepared to be a proper guardian to the baby and if she does that then surely a man can go to the tiny bit of effort to get himself registered as a guardian.

Again no it is not clear that she does want the baby, only that perhaps she could not afford to go to England,etc.

And as for the "tiny bit of effort" perhaps none of us should get guardianship until we go for to "the tiny bit if effort" to get it.

Tayla wrote: »

I think there should be an option (while pregnant) where unmarried couples could automatically state their intention for the man to become a guardian, this could be maybe done through the hospital and that would ensure that those particular men would be instant guardians once the child was born.

This at least would be a step forward!

Tayla wrote: »

I think the fact that some mothers object to men who want to be guardians and are good fathers is absolutely disgraceful and I hope that the judges see through lies etc that these women may tell but automatic guardianship for someone who might not even want a child?? that is ridiculous.

Again the case can be made, if he doesn't want guardianship he could state that before it is born or the mother can go to the "tiny bit of effort" to have him removed from guardianship.

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Saying it should be done is different to ensuring it is. Automatic guardianship will not guarantee that a child has both parents involved in his up-brining.

Automatic guardianship ensures, as of right automatically, that both parents have a legal basis for being involved in the up-bringing of their child. The laws job is not to ensure parent's parent but to provide legal protection and a basis for parenting, which is the best interests of the child.

As such saying that automatic guardianship is required to be fair to the child's right to both parents is disintengous since it has no more effect on this than the current law does.

I think this is my fourth time explaining that legal rights granted automatically are much more powerful than those granted by court or statute, yet you studiously ignore this point. You seem to have a real problem with the simple concept that in the majority of cases parents are the best people to know the best interests of their child, therefore they should be supported in every possible way by the state to do their job.

Can you describe that mechanism, and how the interests of the child, which take precedence over the interest of the parents, are protected by such a mechanism if guardianship is granted to a father who does not participate in the raising of his child?

Your flaw is always pitching the rights of parents against the rights of children, fundamentally you have no grasp of the reality which is that children's rights are best protected, against all others, by their parents. A child's right is interdependent on their parent being there to represent it.Children by the very fact that they are children cannot have similar rights to adults, that is why the parents represent, uphold and protect their rights. Only where the parent fails in their duty to represent the child's right properly should the state or anyone else intervene. Failing in their duty should have a high threshold, that debate is for another thread.

Up until that point the states job is to ensure legal equality between parents ,as it has no evidence to support any other view, so that they both can do their job to the best of their ability with regard to their children.

Tayla

wolfpawnat wrote: »

My mother didn't want me, yet here I am, many women do not give a damn about their children, they have them for the benefits (financial) or because they want to hold on to a relationship where the fella is thinking of fécking off!

My own didn't particularly want me either, however all i'm saying is that short of interviewing and investigating all parents to be, then that is all that there really is to go on.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

And as for the "tiny bit of effort" perhaps none of us should get guardianship until we go for to "the tiny bit if effort" to get it.

Yes I agree but the law will not be changed to say that all women will have to apply so that point can be brought up time and time again but it doesn't change anything.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Again the case can be made, if he doesn't want guardianship he could state that before it is born or the mother can go to the "tiny bit of effort" to have him removed from guardianship.

The state already makes automatic guardians out of mothers whether they're fit to be parents or not, that to me puts children at risk, if they were to also make automatic guardians out of all men then there are more children at risk. IMO it's wrong in both cases and two wrongs don't make a right.

By the way it is only a 'tiny bit of effort', it's a child we're talking about so what most men have to do to actually become a legal guardian is minimal, I don't remember my OH kicking up a big fuss when he became guardian of our children, it wasn't too much effort for him.

K-9

Over 90% of applications before the judge get granted so it's a pretty pointless exercise and waste of court time at this stage. It's only a matter of time before it comes in anyway, its the next issue in family law for the law reform commission to tackle.

The current system isn't working. If the time wasted on 90% of the cases was used to take away Guardianship from Dads not interested it would be a better use of resources. Might wake up a few Dads to their responsibilities as well as losing rights tends to hit home more with people. The current system does nothing in that regard.

K-9

Tayla wrote: »

The state already makes automatic guardians out of mothers whether they're fit to be parents or not, that to me puts children at risk, if they were to also make automatic guardians out of all men then there are more children at risk. IMO it's wrong in both cases and two wrongs don't make a right.

By the way it is only a 'tiny bit of effort', it's a child we're talking about so what most men have to do to actually become a legal guardian is minimal, I don't remember my OH kicking up a big fuss when he became guardian of our children, it wasn't too much effort for him.

You just apply to get Guardianship removed if he isn't capable, can't see the problem there at all, it actually highlights the issue.

If the case is amicable parents just sign a declaration at the minute, if it isn't it goes to court and that can take time with adjournments etc. Other cases get higher priority.

strobe

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following. Are you saying the State should ignore claims of abuse based on the idea that parents will not abuse their children?

Do you honestly think that's what I am saying or are you being deliberately obtuse?

The state should investigate any claim of abuse made by anybody, anywhere, against anyone, at any time. But they should not declare de facto guilt on the person accused and place their children, on zero independent evidence, in an orphanage or foster care until the claim is proven false (if it is){which is what leads directly from your suggestion}. Not only is it unethical, it is pixie dust, fairyland, magic pie in the sky unfeasible. Why not just suggest we assign an individual government employee with 5 years training to oversee the well being of every individual child in the country instead? Has about the same chance of ever happening. I don't think you have kids but if you did would you be ok with me being able to have them removed from your guardianship (even temporarily) on zero independent evidence? Would you as a child have been ok with that?
{Guardianship is not custody btw, you appear to be equating the two in some of your posts}

Zombrex

K-9 wrote: »

Over 90% of applications before the judge get granted so it's a pretty pointless exercise and waste of court time at this stage.

How does that make it a waste of time?

Would you say that since most people pass their driving test having a driving test in the first place is a waste of time?

K-9 wrote: »

The current system isn't working.

Clearly it is working since the vast majority of interested fathers get guardianship. These statistics would contradict the idea that the current system is some how causing a large percentage of fathers with genuine interest in guardianship to be denied it.

So most fathers get guardianship and the state ensures that only interested fathers get guardianship. Seems like win win.

K-9 wrote: »

If the time wasted on 90% of the cases was used to take away Guardianship from Dads not interested it would be a better use of resources.

There is no time wasted on 90% of the cases since the State has to satisfy itself that the father is interested in guardianship. A "yes they are" is not wasted time.

You seem to still be viewing it solely from the point of view of the father, not of the child. It is no more a waste of time to assess a genuine father than it is to say assess a genuine adoption couple.

K-9 wrote: »

Might wake up a few Dads to their responsibilities as well as losing rights tends to hit home more with people. The current system does nothing in that regard.

What? The current system requires Dads to proactively seek guardianship. How would removing this requirement 'wake them up'?

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

Do you honestly think that's what I am saying or are you being deliberately obtuse?

That seems to be what you are suggesting, based on the following exchange

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
Fair enough but opens up a huge realm for potential (and extremely callous) abuse of the system.
It does, but the alternative, where genuine reports of abuse go un-checked, seems worse.
Perhaps.
What do you propose as an alternative?
Presume parents will not torture their children for the craic and deploy the Gardai, the facets of the state and community initiatives to try and ensure that.

You appear to be suggesting in the last paragraph that we do not investigate claims of abuse as we should presume parents will not torture their children.

strobe wrote: »

The state should investigate any claim of abuse made by anybody, anywhere, against anyone, at any time. But they should not presume guilt on the person accused and place their children on zero initial evidence in an orphanage or foster care until the claim is proven false (if it is).

Who said anything about placing children in orphanages based on zero initial evidence? I already stated that it is the job of the social worker to assess the evidence of abuse an act accordingly. Nothing is done based on zero intial evidence, guardianship is not denied to fathers in the current system based on zero initial evidence.

You asked me should the State investigate claims by the father against the mother and I said yes, not only claims by the father but claims by anyone else. All claims of abuse against a parent should be investigated. You seem to object to that costing mulit-billions of dollars, though now you seem to agree that all claims should be investigated.

strobe wrote: »

I don't think you have kids but if you did would you be ok with me being able to have them removed from your guardianship (even temporarily) on zero evidence?

No, but again you just now introduced this "zero evidence" notion. So you have changed the goal posts quite dramatically.

K-9

Wicknight wrote: »

How does that make it a waste of time?

Would you say that since most people pass their driving test having a driving test in the first place is a waste of time?



Clearly it is working since the vast majority of interested fathers get guardianship. These statistics would contradict the idea that the current system is some how causing a large percentage of fathers with genuine interest in guardianship to be denied it.

So most fathers get guardianship and the state ensures that only interested fathers get guardianship. Seems like win win.



There is no time wasted on 90% of the cases since the State has to satisfy itself that the father is interested in guardianship. A "yes they are" is not wasted time.

You seem to still be viewing it solely from the point of view of the father, not of the child. It is no more a waste of time to assess a genuine father than it is to say assess a genuine adoption couple.



What? The current system requires Dads to proactively seek guardianship. How would removing this requirement 'wake them up'?

I think you are just being obtuse now for the sake of it.

I never mentioned a driving test.

90% suggests it's a rather stupid process to weed out the 10%.

People take rights being taken away far more seriously. If the genuine cases of concern are highlighted by applications to get it taken away, it will send a message to irresponsible Dads and they are a parent of you know, children, the ones you are so concerned about. It removes their involvement in rights over children. You seen to see that as a bad thing.

Not being smart, I think your agenda is a way to get back at your Dad and you'll defend the current system regardless of a better solution being offered that actually highlights them and might buck them up. It's a very selfish attitude to me. Concentrating on the 10% makes far more sense for children.

Zombrex

rolly1 wrote: »

Automatic guardianship ensures, as of right automatically, that both parents have a legal basis for being involved in the up-bringing of their child.

Which does not ensure that they will be involved in the up-bringing of their child. So saying that it is a child's right is irrelevant. Neither law will enforce this right.

rolly1 wrote: »

The laws job is not to ensure parent's parent but to provide legal protection and a basis for parenting, which is the best interests of the child.

So why do you keep mentioning a child's right to be raised by both parents? A change to the law to bring in automatic guardianship will not enforce this right?

You seem to be hijacking notions of children's rights to push your own agenda, by making it seem like such a change will enforce the rights of children. It won't.

rolly1 wrote: »

I think this is my fourth time explaining that legal rights granted automatically are much more powerful than those granted by court or statute, yet you studiously ignore this point.

They are not powerful in enforcing parenthood, so again you are being disingenuous by appealing to the rights of children.

rolly1 wrote: »

You seem to have a real problem with the simple concept that in the majority of cases parents are the best people to know the best interests of their child, therefore they should be supported in every possible way by the state to do their job.

The key phrase of course being "majority of cases". Not all cases. The State must be satisfied that the father is interested in acting as a guardian of the child. In the majority of cases this will be the case, but since it won't be the case in all cases the State must assess each case individually.

The alternative is to assume interest where none might exist, which is not in the best interest of the child.

rolly1 wrote: »

Your flaw is always pitching the rights of parents against the rights of children, fundamentally you have no grasp of the reality which is that children's rights are best protected, against all others, by their parents.

The legal rights of children are protected by the State and the bodies acting on behalf of the state such as the judiciary and the police service.

You may not like this idea by children are citizens of this country, and as such the State has a responsibility to protect their rights. Parents cannot do what ever they want with their kids.

rolly1 wrote: »

A child's right is interdependent on their parent being there to represent it.

No it isn't. A child's rights exists independently to the parents, they do not require the parents approval to exist. Which is why a parent cannot beat their child to death.

rolly1 wrote: »

Children by the very fact that they are children cannot have similar rights to adults, that is why the parents represent, uphold and protect their rights.

The State protects the rights of children, sometimes from the parents themselves. Children are not considered property, they have not been considered that for centuries.

The State's responsibility is to act in the best interest of the child involved even if that action is contrary to the wishes or rights of the parent. You do not forsake the rights of children to appease the parents. The State's responsibility is to the child above all else.

rolly1 wrote: »

Only where the parent fails in their duty to represent the child's right properly should the state or anyone else intervene. Failing in their duty should have a high threshold, that debate is for another thread.

Nonsense, a child does not gain rights when a parent fails in their responsibility. They have rights independently to the performance of the parents.

rolly1 wrote: »

Up until that point the states job is to ensure legal equality between parents

The State's responsibility is to the child.

strobe

Wicknight wrote: »

No, but again you just now introduced this "zero evidence" notion. So you have changed the goal posts quite dramatically.

I haven't shifted any goal post you lunatic (:pac:).

You said you think the current system is the best one. Under the current system if a mother objects to a fathers guardianship it is not granted. It is not rejected once a social worker has established it is a valid objection. It is rejected first on just the mothers accusation (an accusation is not evidence). Therefore the term zero evidence is applicable.

You appear to be suggesting in the last paragraph that we do not investigate claims of abuse as we should presume parents will not torture their children.

It is suggesting the exact opposite, as I already said in the last post.

Zombrex

K-9 wrote: »

I think you are just being obtuse now for the sake of it.

I never mentioned a driving test.

No, you said the State assessing something where most people pass anyway is a waste of time. That is, frankly, nonsense. The driving test was an example of why such an idea is nonsense.

The requirement is that all fathers awarded guardianship have an interest in guardianship. To ensure that it must be assessed, even if it turns out that the vast majority who apply do.

Same with driving. The requirement is that all people who wish to drive can, even if it turns out that the vast majority who apply can.

Assessments to ensure a particular standard do not become a waste of time simply because most people who apply for the assessment pass.

K-9 wrote: »

90% suggests it's a rather stupid process to weed out the 10%.

That idea is, frankly, stupid, for the reasons given above.

K-9 wrote: »

People take rights being taken away far more seriously. If the genuine cases of concern are highlighted by applications to get it taken away, it will send a message to irresponsible Dads and they are a parent of you know, children, the ones you are so concerned about. It removes their involvement in rights over children. You seen to see that as a bad thing.

Sorry, what message exactly does it send? An absent father who has no interest in raising his kids is informed that his guardianship is being revoked. Assuming his first response isn't simply "What? I had guardianship of that kid? Are these people stupid?" what message do you think they will take from that?

K-9 wrote: »

Not being smart, I think your agenda is a way to get back at your Dad and you'll defend the current system regardless of a better solution being offered that actually highlights them and might buck them up.

I'm not quite sure how you think the current law "gets back" at my biological father. Perhaps you think all absent fathers secretly long to raise their children.

But anyways, my agenda is to protect children who were in my situation. My father was a reasonably nice man, he was not malicious or violent or anything like that. But he was not interested in raising me. So why would he be given guardianship rights.

For all the blust and back and forth about equality, this seems to be a question no one can answer. How would it have been in my best interest that a stranger to me who has not participated in my upbringing be given guardianship rights?

If someone can explain to my why that is actually in my best interests I'm all ears. So far no one I can see has even attempted to answer that question.

K-9 wrote: »

Concentrating on the 10% makes far more sense for children.

You seem to be confusing the statistics. 10% is the number of fathers who apply, not the number of fathers. You would not be granting guardianship to this 10%, it would be this 10% plus all the fathers who didn't apply. I don't have the statistics for this number, I would be interested if anyone does.

But again this is some what beside the point. Even if it was 99.9 percent, it is in the child's best interests to only have parents interested in guardianship awarded guardianship, not strangers with no interest.

The current system insures, as much as possible, this is the case. The proposed automatic guardianship sysetm doesn't.

So again how is it in the best interest of the child? So far no one has an answer for that.

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

You said you think the current system is the best one. Under the current system if a mother objects to a fathers guardianship it is not granted.

That isn't true. If the mother objects to a fathers guardianship then the objection is investigated. As I mentioned earlier a mother cannot simply veto a father's guardianship.

Your posts make more sense given that assumption, but that isn't the current state of the law in Ireland, so don't assume I was making the same assumption.

strobe wrote: »

It is not rejected once a social worker has established it is a valid objection.

Yes actually that is exactly when it is rejected. All objections to guardianship are investigated, and they only count against the fathers application if they are found to have merit.

From citzeninformation.ie

While the mother's views are taken into account, the fact that she does not consent to the guardianship application does not automatically mean that the court will refuse the order sought by the father. Instead, the court will decide what is in the best interest of the child.

Zombrex

wolfpawnat wrote: »

As I stated already, my son's father and I went to court, so when our day in court was finished, I received my half of the bill, as did he, so we were both charged €275 each for services rendered by the solicitor.

You do not need a solicitor. In fact if you both agree to the father getting guardianship you don't even need to go to court, so I'm assuming you were contesting his guardianship.

It may have been prudent to retain the services of a solicitor in your case, I don't know, but it is not a requirement, thus not relevant to the law.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

As previously stated, I know how much it costs because I paid the money out of my own pocket! I think first hand experience is more factual than the "my friend who I didn't question" approach.

The cost you mention is the cost of legal representation, which is not required. You choose this. I'm making no comment on the correctness of that action, but it is not required.

If both parents agree to guardianship (which seems to be the majority of cases) the minium they have to do is sign a declaration in front of a peace commissioner.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

And if she is spiteful the father at least has enough of a say in the childs life to at least keep the cow half way in check!

People should not be using their kids to keep their partners in check, that is a disgraceful suggestion. :mad:

K-9

Let's run with your stupid driving licence analogy. What happens if you drink drive or get too many points? The analogy doesn't work. If you aren't a responsible driver it gets taken away.

The idea isn't stupid, your analogy is and in fact proves my point, not yours. Courts should be used for punishments, it's their primary purpose.

The Dad would have to go to court to try and keep his guardianship. You are really aren't even open to considering the other side at all, don't even want to think this through.

The system would and indeed currently does deal with revoking Guardianship so that argument doesn't hold up either.

Your question has been answered in this and several other threads as you have an interest in these threads.

PS. There is no Guardianship register so it's very hard to know how many unmarried Dads have Guardianship. It doesn't actually give that many rights and it's rare issues arise. I think you are getting worried about not a whole lot in particular.

Zombrex

K-9 wrote: »

Let's run with your stupid driving licence analogy. What happens if you drink drive or get too many points? The analogy doesn't work. If you aren't a responsible driver it gets taken away.

Do we grant everyone in Ireland a driving license automatically because everyone will probably end up getting one anyway? No, no we don't. Cause that would be stupid.

An assessment is not invalid or a waste of time even if everyone, or nearly everyone, passes it anyway.

K-9 wrote: »

Courts should be used for punishments, it's their primary purpose.

Punishment happens after the fact, the damage is already done.

It is not in the best interest of children to assume everything is going to be ok and then punish people when it is not. The damage is already done.

K-9 wrote: »

The Dad would have to go to court to try and keep his guardianship.

And why would he do that if he doesn't care about his guardianship?

K-9 wrote: »

You are really aren't even open to considering the other side at all, don't even want to think this through.

I'm happy to accept the other side if you can show how it is in the interests of the children, rather than the father. So far no one has done that, few have even attempted to answer that question.

People keep telling me either that equality is what matters, or in your case that the current system is a waste of time and money.

You will notice that neither of those arguments is an argument for the interest of the children involve.

Franky I don't really think many people here actually care that much about the children, the focus seems entirely on the father and the inconvenience the current system poses to them.

K-9 wrote: »

PS. There is no Guardianship register so it's very hard to know how many unmarried Dads have Guardianship. It doesn't actually give that many rights and it's rare issues arise. I think you are getting worried about not a whole lot in particular.

You guys are the ones suggesting the law needs to be changed.

K-9

Driving tests apply to everybody, another big difference.

What damage Wicknight? Do you actually realise what Guardianship is? I don't think you've a clue tbh or else you are making it into a much bigger thing than it is.

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Which does not ensure that they will be involved in the up-bringing of their child. So saying that it is a child's right is irrelevant. Neither law will enforce this right.

As already stated it is the states job to provide legal protection to the parenting role; nobody and nothing can obligate a parent to be involved in children's upbringing. And nor should it because it's a job done out of parental love which is either there or not.Legislation should be there to encourage parents to take up and support their parental responsibility, not force them to jump through a legal hoop to get the legal right to be a parent. Its the childs right to know and be cared for both parents, making laws which encourage this is what it's all about.

So why do you keep mentioning a child's right to be raised by both parents? A change to the law to bring in automatic guardianship will not enforce this right?

see above

You seem to be hijacking notions of children's rights to push your own agenda, by making it seem like such a change will enforce the rights of children. It won't.

I am hijacking nothing. Everything I say is underpinned by articles of the UN Convention on the rights of the child, which are very clear about the role of parents and the role of your beloved state. Everything you say is underpinned on nothing but predjudice.

They are not powerful in enforcing parenthood, so again you are being disingenuous by appealing to the rights of children.

see above

The key phrase of course being "majority of cases". Not all cases. The State must be satisfied that the father is interested in acting as a guardian of the child. In the majority of cases this will be the case, but since it won't be the case in all cases the State must assess each case individually.

Absolute balderdash. Laws are based on the behaviour of the many not on the behaviour of the few, hard cases make bad law.

The alternative is to assume interest where none might exist, which is not in the best interest of the child.

The states duty is to find out the generality of the situation and build appropriate laws around them. Giving all legal rights to one parent as of automatic birth right is not in the best interests of children as multiple child abduction cases by the mother testifies to this very day.

The legal rights of children are protected by the State and the bodies acting on behalf of the state such as the judiciary and the police service.

So a child's family has no role in this, charming, and about right for communist China.

You may not like this idea by children are citizens of this country, and as such the State has a responsibility to protect their rights. Parents cannot do what ever they want with their kids.

I acknowledged the state's important role in protecting the child when the parent/s fail in their duty. But it is the state that is failing in it's duty to the child by not giving equal parenting rights to unmarried parents as per abduction examples clearly show. You see just like your mother may not have been aware that she should have made a will in which she named a n other person to be a testamentary guardian, most unmarried fathers are unaware that they are automatically a legal stranger to their own flesh and blood, as it smacks of a barbaric and medieval law and all sense of justice in a civilsed society.

No it isn't. A child's rights exists independently to the parents, they do not require the parents approval to exist. Which is why a parent cannot beat their child to death.

I never stated children required their parents approval to exist. Honestly the stuff you pull out of this is quite bizzarre and I would say deliberately provocative in misconstruing what is said.

The State protects the rights of children, sometimes from the parents themselves. Children are not considered property, they have not been considered that for centuries.

Once again you bring in rubbish which was never said nor even inimated.

The State's responsibility is to act in the best interest of the child involved even if that action is contrary to the wishes or rights of the parent. You do not forsake the rights of children to appease the parents. The State's responsibility is to the child above all else.

The first and foremost persons to protect the rights of children are the parents of those children. Only where it is proven that the parents fail in their duty to do so should the state ever be involved.This underpins best practice both nationally and internationally.

Nonsense, a child does not gain rights when a parent fails in their responsibility. They have rights independently to the performance of the parents.

Once again thats not what I said and looks like a deliberate falsehood of what I did say.

The State's responsibility is to the child.

The first entity with responsibility to a child are it's the parents, the second is the state. Its very clear. You really should be looking at the UN Convention, the accepted inetrnationally agreed convention for all children's rights globally. The Convention does not take responsibility for children away from their parents and give more authority to governments. It does place on governments the responsibility to protect and assist families in fulfilling their essential role as nurturers of children.

But you seem to have a really big problem with children's families being nurturers.You seem to have a statist agenda for all children regardless of their parents; particularly if their parents are male and unmarried.

wolfpawnat

Wicknight wrote: »

You do not need a solicitor. In fact if you both agree to the father getting guardianship you don't even need to go to court, so I'm assuming you were contesting his guardianship.

No, there was no contesting, but to have a legally standing one, it MUST be through the courts. The one signed by the Commissioner for the Oaths does not have legal standing.

Wicknight wrote: »

The cost you mention is the cost of legal representation, which is not required. You choose this. I'm making no comment on the correctness of that action, but it is not required.

As above

Wicknight wrote: »

If both parents agree to guardianship (which seems to be the majority of cases) the minium they have to do is sign a declaration in front of a peace commissioner.

Not legally binding.

Wicknight wrote: »

People should not be using their kids to keep their partners in check, that is a disgraceful suggestion. :mad:

That is what women are doing. That is why many are treating men like shíte. Not giving them reasonable access, asking for more than their fair share of raising the child.

If a father has his half guardianship, he can have a say in his childs life. Not be bossed around and therefore, not resent the child or its mother if she is a cow!

kate.m

Stark wrote: »

My view is it's disgusting how you've allowed your bitterness with one man to cause you to take pleasure from every man's suffering. I bet you wouldn't be so delighted if the actions of a minority of unfit mothers meant all women such as yourself lost access to their children.

She said in her case. As in not every father.

Stark

She edited the original sentiment out of her post.

Zombrex

K-9 wrote: »

Driving tests apply to everybody, another big difference.

The only point of the driving test analogy was to point out how silly your idea that if most people eventually pass the assessment then the assessment is pointless and a waste of time.

K-9 wrote: »

What damage Wicknight?

The damage is that such a change risks awarding guardianship to strangers, ie fathers who are not involved in the raising of the children and who the children have had no contact with. This is not in the best intests fo the children involved.

Does anyone actually have a counter to that idea?

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think you've a clue tbh or else you are making it into a much bigger thing than it is.

It is funny how everyone just ends up resorting nonsense rhetoric and insults while my question continues to be unanswered.

It is not my fault you guys jumped on the band wagon of righteous fury about inequality and men's rights without properly considering how changes to the law will effect the children involved.

Zombrex

rolly1 wrote: »

As already stated it is the states job to provide legal protection to the parenting role; nobody and nothing can obligate a parent to be involved in children's upbringing. And nor should it because it's a job done out of parental love which is either there or not.Legislation should be there to encourage parents to take up and support their parental responsibility, not force them to jump through a legal hoop to get the legal right to be a parent. Its the childs right to know and be cared for both parents, making laws which encourage this is what it's all about.

It is the child's right to be parented by those interested in parenting them, and to not have the State grant guardianship to strangers (to the child) who do not have interest in parenting them.

rolly1 wrote: »

I am hijacking nothing.

You highjacked the notion of children's right to be parented, ignoring that the child's right to be parented is only by people interested in being their parent.

Children have a right not to have guardianship awarded to people who to them are strangers.

You ignore this cause it doesn't suit your agenda.

rolly1 wrote: »

Absolute balderdash. Laws are based on the behaviour of the many not on the behaviour of the few, hard cases make bad law.

Utter nonsense. The States role is to protect all children, not just the majority of children. Laws are made by the majority to apply to the entire population. That is the bases of modern Western democracy, since We the people 300 years ago. The idea that something is only worthy of a law if it effects the majority of children is an idea that hasn't existed for hundreds of years.

Your distain for child's rights, while disintengously trying to manipulate the notions of children's rights to push your agenda, is truly distasteful.

rolly1 wrote: »

The states duty is to find out the generality of the situation and build appropriate laws around them.

No it is not, such an idea is disgusting. The States duty is to protect all its citizens, not just the majority. If it wasn't we wouldn't have laws against murder or rape since the generally of the situation is that most people won't murder or rape so clearly we do not need laws dealing with murder and rape them :rolleyes:

I've tried to be calm in the majority of this thread despite some pretty horrible ideas being put forward but frankly I'm done with you, your ideas are disgusting and go against all principles of modern society. It is not a question of explaining my position with relation to a specific law in Ireland, you need a history lesson about modern Western democracy. :mad:

looksee

Two people in a casual relationship thoughtlessly make a child. It happens far too often for it to be an issue of failed contraception, and it has to be a casual relationship or there would not be so many single parents.

Then two irresponsible people have to decide who is the least irresponsible, and competent to look after that child. If they were seriously interested of the 'rights of the child' they would not have produced it in the first place. The time for commitment is before sex, call it marriage or come up with a different arrangement, but it's a bit pathetic to be so uptight about the 'rights' of two people who engaged in casual, unprotected sex.

Zombrex

wolfpawnat wrote: »

No, there was no contesting, but to have a legally standing one, it MUST be through the courts. The one signed by the Commissioner for the Oaths does not have legal standing.

Again that is not true. You can read the law dealing with the statutory declaration here.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0005.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0040/sec0004.html#sec4

A statutory declaration signed by both parents and witnessed by a peace commissioner will grant guardianship to the father. It is a legal document, which is why it has to be witnessed.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Not legally binding.

What would be the purpose of it if it wasn't legally binding? That is what a statutory declaration is, it is a legal document.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

That is what women are doing.

So, what that makes it ok for the fathers to do it?

wolfpawnat wrote: »

If a father has his half guardianship, he can have a say in his childs life. Not be bossed around and therefore, not resent the child or its mother if she is a cow!

Again a father should not be using his children to get back at their mother. Saying well the women do that also is irrelevant to this.

Again there is an underlying tone through out this whole discussion that the reason people want this change is to get back at mothers. The interests of the children involved seem a distant second. I find this frankly disgusting.

wolfpawnat

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that is not true. You can read the law dealing with the statutory declaration here.

A statutory declaration signed by both parents and witnessed by a peace commissioner will grant guardianship to the father. It is a legal document, which is why it has to be witnessed.



What would be the purpose of it if it wasn't legally binding? That is what a statutory declaration is, it is a legal document.

I have been through the system, I have checked, the declaration is easily contested in court as it is not signed by a judge!

Wicknight wrote: »

So, what that makes it ok for the fathers to do it?



Again a father should not be using his children to get back at their mother. Saying well the women do that also is irrelevant to this.

Again there is an underlying tone through out this whole discussion that the reason people want this change is to get back at mothers. The interests of the children involved seem a distant second. I find this frankly disgusting.

My statement is that to stop mothers being cows and using the children against the fathers. Ever hear of men keeping the children from their mother, hardly ever. Yet with mothers, I could name 5 without thinking!

When men are being played around by mothers, they do start to resent the mother and the children, that is natural! This has to be stopped. The healthiest rearing for a child is both parents, acting as adults, amiable and caring. The best way to achieve that is to have both parents on as even a playing field as possible.

You are reading an tone in my posts that is not there. There is a clear statement that mothers are not Gods and men are not demons! Equal rights, until something proved they are undeserved! That's it.

I used to see my mother as you see yours. Until I took a step back and realised she was nothing but a vindictive cúnt! Though my father was no better!

rolly1

Wicknight wrote: »

It is the child's right to be parented by those interested in parenting them, and to not have the State grant guardianship to strangers (to the child) who do not have interest in parenting them.

show me where this is backed up by any Convention where is states this as being the child's right. All conventions to do with the rights of children respect the child's right to have a family and two parents to know and care for them. Your statist agenda respects nothing but the state's rights over the child.

You highjacked the notion of children's right to be parented, ignoring that the child's right to be parented is only by people interested in being their parent.

I was actually quoting a summary document by UNICEF about Article 5 of the UN convention on the rights of the child when talking about the governments role with reagard to the child and the family. Here it is again:

Governments should respect the rights and responsibilities of families to direct and guide their children so that, as they grow, they learn to use their rights properly. Helping children to understand their rights does not mean pushing them to make choices with consequences that they are too young to handle. Article 5 encourages parents to deal with rights issues "in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child". The Convention does not take responsibility for children away from their parents and give more authority to governments. It does place on governments the responsibility to protect and assist families in fulfilling their essential role as nurturers of children.

You appear to have big problems with the convention. It's a good thing for children they are not written by people like you.

Children have a right not to have guardianship awarded to people who to them are strangers.

You deem the majority strangers when it's absolutely not the case.

You ignore this cause it doesn't suit your agenda.

I have never ignored it, I have simply stated that the current inequality between parents is actually damaging the welfare of children, abduction being a case in point, which you have studiously ignored.

Utter nonsense. The States role is to protect all children, not just the majority of children. Laws are made by the majority to apply to the entire population. That is the bases of modern Western democracy, since We the people 300 years ago. The idea that something is only worthy of a law if it effects the majority of children is an idea that hasn't existed for hundreds of years.

Laws are made by the majority to reflect the behaviour of the majority, not the behaviour of the few. Innocent till proven guilty is also another maxim of the law which civilised democracies use but seems not to be in your vocabulary.

Your distain for child's rights, while disintengously trying to manipulate the notions of children's rights to push your agenda, is truly distasteful.

Whats distasteful is a blind bigot pushing a law coming from a time of absolute bigotry in the state against all unmarried parents and their children, which should have been changed decades ago.

No it is not, such an idea is disgusting. The States duty is to protect all its citizens, not just the majority. If it wasn't we wouldn't have laws against murder or rape since the generally of the situation is that most people won't murder or rape so clearly we do not need laws dealing with murder and rape them :rolleyes:

Once again coming up with the scurrilous misrepresentation of what Im saying only shows the blind bigotry you are stuck in. The state protecting citizens against criminal acts has nothing whatsoever to do with this conversation as you well know. It's about the state creating laws which uphold the best interest of the child, of which family harmony is of central importance. The behaviour of the majority of single dads is responsible with regard to their children. As a result the state should honour and respect this responsibility by giving the concurrent rights that naturally go with that responsibility. The minority who do not behave responsibly should have their rights taken away by the other responsible parent. The child isn't at the mercy of one single irresponsible Dad, you conveniently ignore the fact that their will always be another guardian in the situation to look after and uphold the rights of the child. As already stated where both parents fail in their duty, then and only then does the state step in.

I've tried to be calm in the majority of this thread despite some pretty horrible ideas being put forward but frankly I'm done with you, your ideas are disgusting and go against all principles of modern society. It is not a question of explaining my position with relation to a specific law in Ireland, you need a history lesson about modern Western democracy. :mad:

The real horrible ideas are your ones of blind bigotry towards unmarried fathers. I'm not done with you, or any other blind bigots who masquerade their bigotry as concern for children.

rolly1

I apologise for the long post but I think it is worthwhile to reproduce here the UNICEF summary explanation of some of articles of the UN Convention on the rights of the child to demonstrate the point that Wicknights position in backing up the state legal apartheid aginst unmarried fathers is completely at odds with the rights and best interests of children.

The convention is the internationally accepted benchmark from which to judge any countries response to the rights of children; the full summary document is here

Article 3 (Best interests of the child): The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly applies to budget, policy and law makers.

Fair enough nobody can deny that the best interests of children should be central to all actions and thinking by the adults of the world.

Article 4 (Protection of rights): Governments have a responsibility to take all available measures to make sure children’s rights are respected, protected and fulfilled. When countries ratify the Convention, they agree to review their laws relating to children. This involves assessing their social services, legal, health and educational systems, as well as levels of funding for these services. Governments are then obliged to take all necessary steps to ensure that the minimum standards set by the Convention in these areas are being met. They must help families protect children’s rights and create an environment where they can grow and reach their potential. In some instances, this may involve changing existing laws or creating new ones. Such legislative changes are not imposed, but come about through the same process by which any law is created or reformed within a country. Article 41 of the Convention points out the when a country already has higher legal standards than those seen in the Convention, the higher standards always prevail.

It should be noted that minimum standards to ensure children's rights are respected include helping families protect children's rights. It should also be noted that the convention does not differentiate between married and unmarried families.

Article 5 (Parental guidance): Governments should respect the rights and responsibilities of families to direct and guide their children so that, as they grow, they learn to use their rights properly. Helping children to understand their rights does not mean pushing them to make choices with consequences that they are too young to handle. Article 5 encourages parents to deal with rights issues "in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child". The Convention does not take responsibility for children away from their parents and give more authority to governments. It does place on governments the responsibility to protect and assist families in fulfilling their essential role as nurturers of children.

The above article summary I have already quoted, it clearly sets out the state's role and the parents role with regard to children.The emphasis once again is on assisting families, not just one parent, to fulfill their roles.

Article 6 (Survival and development): Children have the right to live. Governments should ensure that children survive and develop healthily.

A child's right to live is of course of fundamental importance, naturally the state should have this responsibility. Parents are not mentioned here as it is of course assumed that parents will protect their own child's right to life.

Article 7 (Registration, name, nationality, care): All children have the right to a legally registered name, officially recognised by the government. Children have the right to a nationality (to belong to a country). Children also have the right to know and, as far as possible, to be cared for by their parents.

Again one of the main articles underlining the child's right to be cared for, as far as possible, by both parents. Note their is no differentiation between the parents on gender grounds, which our guardianship law does.

Article 8 (Preservation of identity): Children have the right to an identity – an official record of who they are. Governments should respect children’s right to a name, a nationality and family ties.

Once again note the clear emphasis and importance of family ties.

Article 9 (Separation from parents): Children have the right to live with their parent(s), unless it is bad for them. Children whose parents do not live together have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might hurt the child.

Once again no gender or marital discrimination between the parents on this issue. This right is not expressed as "Children have a right not to live with their separated parents if it is bad for them, children have a right to live with their parents if it is good for them"! Once again the generality of the situation is underpinning the right, the convention accepts the majority position, while putting in caveats for the minority position, just as all good and just laws should do.

There's plenty more of them there which clearly spotlights the appallingly discriminatory nature of our guardianship legislation. Regardless of father's; Irish guardianship law is an outright attack on the rights of children born outside of marriage. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply a bigot.

Zombrex

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I have been through the system, I have checked, the declaration is easily contested in court as it is not signed by a judge!

Contested by whom and under what pretext?

Anyway, I'm telling you what the law says, and you can check it yourself. The declaration is witnessed and signed by a peace commissioner, it doesn't need to be signed by a judge to be a legal document.

If you were told otherwise you have been given faulty legal advice and I suggest you get your money back.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

My statement is that to stop mothers being cows and using the children against the fathers. Ever hear of men keeping the children from their mother, hardly ever. Yet with mothers, I could name 5 without thinking!

So what, fathers should have the power to play similar games with the mother in the name of equality?

Again just because a mother abuses her guardianship to get at the father doesn't mean that we should give the father the power to do the same thing. You guys have some funny notions of equality.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

When men are being played around by mothers, they do start to resent the mother and the children, that is natural! This has to be stopped. The healthiest rearing for a child is both parents, acting as adults, amiable and caring. The best way to achieve that is to have both parents on as even a playing field as possible.

I agree which is why I would recommend any father interested in guardianship of his children to apply as soon as possible for said guardianship.

Automatic guardianship will not solve any of the issues you just stated.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

You are reading an tone in my posts that is not there. There is a clear statement that mothers are not Gods and men are not demons! Equal rights, until something proved they are undeserved! That's it.

It is nothing to do with being deserving, it is to do with being interested. Demonstrating a father is uninterested in raising their children would be long complicated and difficult to show process. Demonstrating that a father is interested in raising their children is as simply as filling out a form in front of a peace commissioner.

Now tell me, which is in the best interest of the children (not the father).

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I used to see my mother as you see yours. Until I took a step back and realised she was nothing but a vindictive cúnt! Though my father was no better!

You view this issue in terms of punishing or rewarding of the parents, when you should be viewing this issue in terms of the best interests of the children involved.

Zombrex

rolly1 wrote: »

show me where this is backed up by any Convention where is states this as being the child's right. All conventions to do with the rights of children respect the child's right to have a family and two parents to know and care for them.

You just answered your own question, a father who is a stranger to his children will not know or care for them. So why grant him guardianship of his children, how is that in their best interest?

rolly1 wrote: »

Your statist agenda respects nothing but the state's rights over the child.

The State does not have rights over the child, the State acts for the child's rights. It is the right of a child to be protected and for the State to act in the child's best interests. The State recognizing guardianship to fathers who are strangers to the children fails this right.

rolly1 wrote: »

I was actually quoting a summary document by UNICEF about Article 5 of the UN convention on the rights of the child when talking about the governments role with reagard to the child and the family. Here it is again:You appear to have big problems with the convention. It's a good thing for children they are not written by people like you.

The convention is fine. Your misrepresentation of it to try and push your agenda is where my issue lies.

Read Article 9.

Children have the right to live with their parent(s), unless it is bad
for them. Children whose parents do not live together have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might hurt the child.

It is the governments responsibility to assess whether parental interaction may hurt the child. Parents do not have a right to carte blanche access to their children.

A father who is a stranger to his children does not have the right to guardianship over them. This is not in the best interest of the child.

rolly1 wrote: »

You deem the majority strangers when it's absolutely not the case.

You are the only person who ever brings up the issue of the majority, I've never stated anything about the majority, nor do I think the majority of fathers abandon their children.

Some unfortunately do and the State does not have the luxary of ignoring this fact as you so clearly want them to. It is the governments responsibility to the child to protect the children interests in cases where this happens. This includes not recognizing these fathers with guardianship.

You can waffle on all you like about how the government should only deal with what is the case for the majority but back here in the real world that is utter nonsense, the State deals with all situations and in some situations fathers abandon their children, and thus become strangers to them. It is not in the children's interests to have these people recognized as guardians.

rolly1 wrote: »

I have never ignored it, I have simply stated that the current inequality between parents is actually damaging the welfare of children, abduction being a case in point, which you have studiously ignored.

You ignore the fact that some fathers are not interested in being part of their children's lives because this fact does not fit your agenda. In Rolly happy land every father wants to raising their children and are only stopped by evil vindictive mothers.

rolly1 wrote: »

Laws are made by the majority to reflect the behaviour of the majority, not the behaviour of the few.

That is one of the stupidest things said so far on this thread, which is itself a collection of stupid things.

Most people never break the law, they never steal, assault, murder, rape etc. The majority of laws deal with the behavior of the few because this behavior is often the most damaging.

Most fathers are interested in guardianship of their children and raising their children. The law is there to protect the minority of children from the minority of fathers because they are the ones where the interests of the children can be most damaged.

Again you don't need an update in the current Irish law for guardianship, you need a lesson in principles of Western democracy.

rolly1 wrote: »

Innocent till proven guilty is also another maxim of the law which civilised democracies use but seems not to be in your vocabulary.

The State does not say that any father is guilty of any criminal offense. The State is neutral to the fathers intentions until the father signifies to the State his intentions.

They do this because they need to be satisfied of the fathers intentions because they are guarding the interest of the child.

rolly1 wrote: »

Once again coming up with the scurrilous misrepresentation of what Im saying only shows the blind bigotry you are stuck in. The state protecting citizens against criminal acts has nothing whatsoever to do with this conversation as you well know.

The purpose of those examples is to highlight how shocking inaccurate your notion of the role of the State is, particularly with this frankly ridiculous notion that the State should only regulate for the behavior of the majority of people.

Don't get snotty with me that this is irrelevant when you are the one who brought it up by stating, inaccurately, that this is the role of the State. It isn't as I've clearly pointed out.

rolly1 wrote: »

It's about the state creating laws which uphold the best interest of the child, of which family harmony is of central importance. The behaviour of the majority of single dads is responsible with regard to their children. As a result the state should honour and respect this responsibility by giving the concurrent rights that naturally go with that responsibility.

They already do. 90% of fathers who apply for guardianship are awarded it with no objections.

rolly1 wrote: »

The minority who do not behave responsibly should have their rights taken away by the other responsible parent.

That is not in the best interests of the children. The State cannot wait for the parent to act responsibly. For a start they might never do this, either out of ignorance or malice.

A point that quite shockingly has to be repeatable stated to you is that the State acts in the best interest of the child. The State waiting for the parents to act responsibly is failing that responsibilty.

If you don't believe me you can check it in the UNICEF Declaration

Governments have a responsibility to take all available measures to
make sure children’s rights are respected, protected and fulfilled.


That includes actions that might make life more trouble for the parents.

Saying we will just wait for the parent to do it is not taking "all available measures to make sure the children's rights are respected, protected and fulfilled".

The State must at all times act in the best interests of the child. And yes that means ALL children, not just the majority of children. This may mean extra hassle for the parents. It may mean extra cost for the parents. It may mean a trip to the court house for the the parents. That is irrelevant. The State cannot sacrifice its responsibility to children in order to make the lives of parents easier.

rolly1 wrote: »

The child isn't at the mercy of one single irresponsible Dad, you conveniently ignore the fact that their will always be another guardian in the situation to look after and uphold the rights of the child.

Read the UNICEF declaration again. The State's responsibility is not to defer responsibility to someone else and hope for the best.

Let me say it again in case you didn't understand, the State must never do something that acts against the best interests of the child (ALL children, not the majority), even if such an action makes things easier for the parents.

rolly1 wrote: »

As already stated where both parents fail in their duty, then and only then does the state step in.

That contradicts the UNICEF Declaration. Why did you even bring that up if you don't actually subscribe to all of it, just the bits you think support your agenda?

K-9

Wicknight wrote: »

The only point of the driving test analogy was to point out how silly your idea that if most people eventually pass the assessment then the assessment is pointless and a waste of time.

I said because 90% of applications before the court get granted, wtf that has to do with a driving test I don't know. I feel it would be better for the court to focus on the 10% of cases that don't get granted by punishing them with removing it in a new system. The analogy doesn't stand up.

The damage is that such a change risks awarding guardianship to strangers, ie fathers who are not involved in the raising of the children and who the children have had no contact with. This is not in the best intests fo the children involved.

Does anyone actually have a counter to that idea?

Yep, the counter point currently exists, the parent applies to get it removed if the other one isn't fulfilling their responsibilities. There is no problem, you're just making one.

It is funny how everyone just ends up resorting nonsense rhetoric and insults while my question continues to be unanswered.

It is not my fault you guys jumped on the band wagon of righteous fury about inequality and men's rights without properly considering how changes to the law will effect the children involved.

Still really don't think you have a clue on what it practically means and how very rarely there are any bothers over it. You seem to be reading a lot into it. You haven't established what these negative effects are at all or that they can't be dealt with.

Zombrex

K-9 wrote: »

I said because 90% of applications before the court get granted, wtf that has to do with a driving test I don't know.

You said that because 90% of applications get granted the assessment itself was a waste of time and money. That, as I think you realize now, was a silly argument to make.

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, the counter point currently exists, the parent applies to get it removed if the other one isn't fulfilling their responsibilities. There is no problem, you're just making one.

And if the parent doesn't apply to get it removed?

As I pointed out to Rolly the States responsibility is to act in the interests of the child, not defer this to the parent and wait for the parent to act responsibly.

Even if the parent does move to get guardianship remove this is a long difficult process that requires a court order. While that is taking place the State officially recognizes guardianship of someone where it is not in the child's interests to be a guardian of them.

You seem to only care about making life a tiny bit easier for the father while completely forsaking the interests of the child.

K-9 wrote: »

Still really don't think you have a clue on what it practically means and how very rarely there are any bothers over it.

As I explained to Rolly the State has a responsibility to all children, not just the majority of children.

You do not remove the role of the State to act in the best interests of children because something only happens in the minority of cases. The State acts in the best interests of ALL children.

K-9 wrote: »

You seem to be reading a lot into it. You haven't established what these negative effects are at all or that they can't be dealt with.

It is not my role to come up with ways for these negative effects to be dealt with, you are the one supposing a change in the law. At the moment the law acts in the best interests of all children, even if that causes extra work and expense for the fathers.

If you can come up with a way to make things easier for the fathers while still ensuring that the State acts in the interests of ALL children I'm all ears.

So far no one has done that, they have come up with proposals that will act in the interests of MOST children and claimed that is ok because really the State should only concern itself with the majority of children, not all of them.

Sorry, that ain't good enough. Try again.

K-9

Wicknight wrote: »

You said that because 90% of applications get granted the assessment itself was a waste of time and money. That, as I think you realize now, was a silly argument to make.

No, I said it's preferable to concentrate on bad cases, cases that need attention.

And if the parent doesn't apply to get it removed?

They should if it's in the best interests of the child. It's a relatively easy process, court clerks currently help out with cases. If somebody is being that awkward or useless the parent will look at ways of getting rid of their guardianship, they currently do. I'm sure there probably is another what if question to this

As I pointed out to Rolly the States responsibility is to act in the interests of the child, not defer this to the parent and wait for the parent to act responsibly.

No the state doesn't currently do this.

Even if the parent does move to get guardianship remove this is a long difficult process that requires a court order. While that is taking place the State officially recognizes guardianship of someone where it is not in the child's interests to be a guardian of them.

It isn't that long, extreme cases can be heard as emergency cases and put top priority.

You seem to only care about making life a tiny bit easier for the father while completely forsaking the interests of the child.

Completely forsaking? How do you make that out?

As I explained to Rolly the State has a responsibility to all children, not just the majority of children.

Yep. You haven't shown how this goes against it.

You do not remove the role of the State to act in the best interests of children because something only happens in the minority of cases. The State acts in the best interests of ALL children.

Yep You haven't shown how this goes against that.

It is not my role to come up with ways for these negative effects to be dealt with, you are the one supposing a change in the law. At the moment the law acts in the best interests of all children, even if that causes extra work and expense for the fathers.

If you can come up with a way to make things easier for the fathers while still ensuring that the State acts in the interests of ALL children I'm all ears.

So far no one has done that, they have come up with proposals that will act in the interests of MOST children and claimed that is ok because really the State should only concern itself with the majority of children, not all of them.

Sorry, that ain't good enough. Try again.

Sorry, you've still to explain these negative effects we all are ignoring. We don't see them so we can't prove anything. You are the one so against it so you have to explain how the world will collapse.

Zombrex

K-9 wrote: »

No, I said it's preferable to concentrate on bad cases, cases that need attention.

That is great in theory, you haven't explained how that would work while still ensuring that the State does not award guardianship to fathers who are strangers to their children and not interested in raising them.

I've said from the very start if someone can figure out how to do this I'm all ears.

So far all anyone has come up with is ideas that sacrifice the interest of the child to make life easier for the parent.

K-9 wrote: »

They should if it's in the best interests of the child.

That doesn't mean they will.

The State does not have the luxury of assuming that every parent will do what is in the best interest of their children. If that was the case then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

K-9 wrote: »

It's a relatively easy process, court clerks currently help out with cases.

Applying for guardianship is a relatively easy process, a central argument on this thread is that despite this it is still often too much for someone people to do.

Again the State cannot assume that what the parent should do they will do. That is not in the best interest of the child.

K-9 wrote: »

It isn't that long, extreme cases can be heard as emergency cases and put top priority.

By definition it has to be long because there has to be a period of disinterest from the father, a period that the mother has to prove was a period of disinterest.

Otherwise mothers could say the father who has been away on a business trip for 2 weeks was disinterested in raising their children.

K-9 wrote: »

Completely forsaking? How do you make that out?

There is nothing in what you are proposing that is in the interest of the child. The entire reason you are proposing for this is to save the father time and expense and save the tax pay time an expense.

K-9 wrote: »

Yep. You haven't shown how this goes against it.

Of course I have, there will be periods, long periods in most cases, where the State has granted guardianship to fathers who are strangers to their children and have on interest in raising them. That will remain the case until the mother successful files for the guardianship to be removed.

How is that in the interest of the child involved in such cases? No one has an answer to that. The answers is that in cases where the father is interested in raising the children this process will be easier for him as he will no longer have to apply for guardianship. People just conveniently ignore the cases where this won't be the case.

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry, you've still to explain these negative effects we all are ignoring. We don't see them so we can't prove anything. You are the one so against it so you have to explain how the world will collapse.

Are you saying you can see no negative effects of someone who is in effect a stranger to the child, who has not been part of the child's upbringing, being guardian of the child.

Do you appreciate what guardianship means. This is a good summary from the government

. Guardianship is the collection of rights and duties which a parent has in respect of his or her child. It encompasses the duty to maintain and properly care for the child and the right to make decisions about a child's religious and secular education, health requirements and other matters affecting the welfare of the child. The exercise of guardianship rights may be agreed between parents. In the event of a dispute arising concerning the exercise of guardianship rights the court may determine the matter on the application of either parental guardian. The right to custody is one of the rights that arises under the guardianship relationship. Custody is the physical day to day care and control of a child. Even where one parental guardian has custody of a child the other parental guardian is generally entitled to be consulted in relation to matters affecting the welfare of the child.

A guardian must share responsibility for decisions taken in the child's interests. The time this normally causes headaches is when either the child or the parent requires medical attention, or in issues of custody.

K-9

Wicknight wrote: »

That is great in theory, you haven't explained how that would work while still ensuring that the State does not award guardianship to fathers who are strangers to their children and not interested in raising them.

Huh? Jaysus. Why would you expect it to? Seriously, why? The focus changes to taking rights and responsibilities away and punishing bad behaviour. You seem to have a problem with that concept. You aren't getting the concept at all.

So far all anyone has come up with is ideas that sacrifice the interest of the child to make life easier for the parent.

In your opinion, there have been examples. You just are unwilling to see it or how change can be for the betterment of children.

That doesn't mean they will.

Yep. They don't have the best interests of the child at heart then.

The State does not have the luxury of assuming that every parent will do what is in the best interest of their children. If that was the case then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

It does. It just leaves unmarried fathers and illegitimate children out.

Applying for guardianship is a relatively easy process, a central argument on this thread is that despite this it is still often too much for someone people to do.

Removing it is too. If somebody is being irresponsible it makes an application to take it away becomes urgent.

Again the State cannot assume that what the parent should do they will do. That is not in the best interest of the child.

It does.

By definition it has to be long because there has to be a period of disinterest from the father, a period that the mother has to prove was a period of disinterest.

Otherwise mothers could say the father who has been away on a business trip for 2 weeks was disinterested in raising their children.

Naturally. Taking Guardianship away needs decent reasons.

There is nothing in what you are proposing that is in the interest of the child. The entire reason you are proposing for this is to save the father time and expense and save the tax pay time an expense.

How so? Seriously, you see nothing in this proposal in the best interest of the child.

Funnily enough you've being saying the opposite all day, you do see the advantages of guardianship and how it is in the best interest of the child. Now you are saying you see nothing in the best interest of the child with automatic guardianship.

Of course I have, there will be periods, long periods in most cases, where the State has granted guardianship to fathers who are strangers to their children and have on interest in raising them. That will remain the case until the mother successful files for the guardianship to be removed.

How is that in the interest of the child involved in such cases? No one has an answer to that. The answers is that in cases where the father is interested in raising the children this process will be easier for him as he will no longer have to apply for guardianship. People just conveniently ignore the cases where this won't be the case.

This shows you don't have a clue about Guardianship. All it gives is a parent the right to go to court to contest a decision. The court then decides. Again these are rare cases when this even happens.

Are you saying you can see no negative effects of someone who is in effect a stranger to the child, who has not been part of the child's upbringing, being guardian of the child.

Nobody is saying that. Obviously when I say Guardianship can be removed I do see problems will happen, they happen now in extremely rare cases. If you are looking for some idyllic system where no problems arise well............................

Do you appreciate what guardianship means. This is a good summary from the government

. Guardianship is the collection of rights and duties which a parent has in respect of his or her child. It encompasses the duty to maintain and properly care for the child and the right to make decisions about a child's religious and secular education, health requirements and other matters affecting the welfare of the child. The exercise of guardianship rights may be agreed between parents. In the event of a dispute arising concerning the exercise of guardianship rights the court may determine the matter on the application of either parental guardian. The right to custody is one of the rights that arises under the guardianship relationship. Custody is the physical day to day care and control of a child. Even where one parental guardian has custody of a child the other parental guardian is generally entitled to be consulted in relation to matters affecting the welfare of the child.

A guardian must share responsibility for decisions taken in the child's interests. The time this normally causes headaches is when either the child or the parent requires medical attention, or in issues of custody.

What practical difficulties arise?

I know you can Google the act and copy and paste it. I want to know what these problems that affect the rights of children are.

PS. The medical condition thing is an urban myth. If a hospital has to carry out emergency treatment they will. Guardianship is separate to custody, access and maintenance.

rolly1

Here's the point you deliberately avoid:

The UN articles along with all good and just civil laws are based on the behaviour of the majority of the adults with regards to children. The convention sees the encouragement of parental responsibility as being in the best interest of children. Therefore it puts the positive nurturing role of parents as a very important right of the child, based once again on the majority behaviour of the parents. It, of course, puts in caveats for the minority who fail in their duty.

It does not differentiate between the sexes and does not differentiate based on marital status.

Therefore it does not come out with the bigoted codswallop you keep coming out with. It doesn't say "Children have a right not to live with their separated parents if it is bad for them, children have a right to live with their parents if it is good for them"!

Or your own take "Children have a right not to have a guardian who is not interested in them, they have a right to a guardian who is interested in them"

The articles and laws are there for encouragement and support of the majority of parents who behave responsibly, as they should be, because that is the best interests of the child. Thats the problem with guardianship law it's not about positive encouragement of parents to nurture their children, it's an entirely negative law which wrongly assumes that one parent, based on sex and marital status, is irresponsible as the default position until they prove themselves responsible by getting some ridiculous piece of paper.

In time civilised society usually overcomes the bigots and your time is fast approaching wicknight.

Zombrex

rolly1 wrote: »

The articles and laws are there for encouragement and support of the majority of parents who behave responsibly, as they should be, because that is the best interests of the child.

The articles and laws are there TO PROTECT CHILDREN.

It says so at the start.

It says nothing about encouraging parents to be better people. :rolleyes: