Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

That I simply can't agree with. Sex and the responsibility for another human being are very different things.

If you reject wolfpawnat's argument with that logic you would have to reject the idea that if you have sex with a woman you need to take responsibility for any child created.

paddyandy wrote: »

Don't people have Duties any more or is it only rights?

With respect, the point of this discussion is that unmarried fathers only have duties and no rights - is it wrong to seek to redress such an inequity?

wolfpawnat

illumi wrote: »

That I simply can't agree with. Sex and the responsibility for another human being are very different things.

The whole point of sex is procreation. Maybe if people took more care with who they go to bed with, then children would not have to grow up in a society where their fathers are all deemed second class parents solely based on gender!

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

If that is the case and there is ultimately no difference, as someone will always be running to the court, is it not better to adopt the model whereby both parents are equal? Otherwise, you appear to be suggesting that it is all right for fathers to have to run to the court, but not mothers.

Equality does not exist between people and never will. People need to get real on this one. People don't really want equality. No one would be willing to settle for less than they have now for the sake of equality. They want whats in their best interest. Thats a fact.
And maybe because equality would not always be in the best interest of the child. Would it really be in the best interest of the child living with its single mother to have to put up with the stress the mother would be going through (because kids do pick up on how their parents feel and it affects them) trying to get sole rights to her child because the unwilling father automatically has equal rights, but couldn't care less, or doesn't want anything to do with the child, and important decisions need to made.
Or in case of 50/50 custody where parents don't get along but both want the child to live with them an equal amount of time. Would it really be in the best interest of most children to be torn between 2 homes all the time for the sake of equality? I think not. I personally believe that one satble home is in the best interest of any child.

As a mother I will always think what's in the best interest of my child. And of course its in the best interest of the child to have both parents in their lives.
And yes, I would find it easier on the child if the mothers the kids are living with and unmarried willing fathers could get together and go to a solicitor or commissioner of oaths to sign those forms and share the costs, instead of the child who is living with the mother to have to put up with and feel the stress the mother is going through fighting the rights of an unwilling father through court.
Court should always be the last option. And only if you can not get the mother to do these things through talking about what's in the best interest of your child.

Its about the childs best interests and not the equality of parents.
I have a right to my opinion as everyone else has to theirs. And it still is that unmarried parents should not have equal rights under our constitution, because it may not always be in the best interest of the child.

Stark

"Woman good. Man bad".

No mention whatsoever in your argument about what happens when it's the mother who's the disinterested one.

illumi wrote:

Or in case of 50/50 custody where parents don't get along but both want the child to live with them an equal amount of time.

Just because the father doesn't get along with the mother doesn't mean the father and child aren't going to get along.

illumi

Stark wrote: »

"Woman good. Man bad".

No mention whatsoever in your argument about what happens when it's the mother who's the disinterested one.

I can only speak from personal experience. And I have yet to meet a mother who is not interested in her child. They surely exist, but I know none personally.
I guess if the mother doesn't want the child or is disinterested she would ask the father to take the child and give him sole rights. Give it up for adoption or if she has an unwanted pregnancy she could go and get an abortion in the uk.

I wrote

illumi wrote: »

Or in case of 50/50 custody where parents don't get along but both want the child to live with them an equal amount of time. Would it really be in the best interest of most children to be torn between 2 homes all the time for the sake of equality? I think not. I personally believe that one satble home is in the best interest of any child.

This has nothing to do with fathers and kids not getting along. Its about my belief that children should have 1 stable home.
Its so easy to cut out tiny pieces of posts and twist their meanings isnt it. This part was not about mothers or fathers best interests, but the childs. And the child should always come first.
I am not an unmarried father hater lol. I strongly believe that fathers already do have rights. They just need to pursue them. Even if it does mean going to court. Anything that causes the least amount of stress on the childs well-being

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

Equality does not exist between people and never will. People need to get real on this one. People don't really want equality. No one would be willing to settle for less than they have now for the sake of equality. They want whats in their best interest. Thats a fact.

Were the suffragettes to have followed such advice women would still not have the vote.

And maybe because equality would not always be in the best interest of the child. Would it really be in the best interest of the child living with its single mother to have to put up with the stress the mother would be going through (because kids do pick up on how their parents feel and it affects them) trying to get sole rights to her child because the unwilling father automatically has equal rights, but couldn't care less, or doesn't want anything to do with the child, and important decisions need to made.

It could well be in the best interest of the child, on balance, even if it is not in the best interest of the mother.

Or in case of 50/50 custody where parents don't get along but both want the child to live with them an equal amount of time. Would it really be in the best interest of most children to be torn between 2 homes all the time for the sake of equality? I think not. I personally believe that one satble home is in the best interest of any child.

As long as it's yours, give you're a mother. Which sounds suspiciously like a convenient rationalization of what is in your best interests. Indeed, one minute you argue that people "want whats in their best interest. Thats a fact." Then you claim that "as a mother [you] will always think what's in the best interest of my child."

So which one is it? Or when you said people pursue their own interests, you meant only fathers/men? Out of curiosity, how often would you argue that the child's interests go against the mother's interests or vice versa? If not terribly often, if ever, I'd have to question the validity of your reasoning.

I have a right to my opinion as everyone else has to theirs. And it still is that unmarried parents should not have equal rights under our constitution, because it may not always be in the best interest of the child.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not to have your opinion untested and unquestioned. Because, by the sounds of things, you appear to be using the best interests of the child as a justification to pursue the best interests of the mother - just an opinion and observation

illumi

I don't see it happening that our constitution will give unmarried parents equal rights anytime soon. And rightfully so.
I will always believe that a child should have both parents in their lives. And if anyone has read all of my posts on this thread, they would know that I have always tried to see things from all 3 sides. Child, Mother and Fathers.
I also have personal experience with both an unwilling and willing father.
I don't see the issue of fathers having no rights whatsoever or their rights being denied. But should unmarried fathers have equal rights.
My answer would still be no.


My partner with whom i am having a child agrees with me that unmarried fathers shouldnt automatically have equal rights.
We will be going to sign those forms together when our child is born. Its best for our child.

I feel very lucky that our constitution protected my first 2 children from their more than unwilling, selfish father with whom i tried to reason in the interest of our kids. But no.. he didn't want to know anything about them and left the country to pursue his career. The kids nor I heard from him since.
I also feel very lucky that the man in my life at present and for the last 6 years is a great parent to my kids from the previous relationship.
We are really looking forward to our first child due early next year.

I have given my opinion and don't need to justify it in any way anymore.

efb

Fine- you like an unequal world that suits you- love the 'I'm alright jack' mentality

Bullseye1

If we are talking about good men who want to have a part in a child's upbringing then absolutely yes they should have equal rights and access to their children.

StudentDad

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If we are talking about good men who want to have a part in a child's upbringing then absolutely yes they should have equal rights and access to their children.

Yes unmarried fathers should have the same rights as a married father.

I know of a couple of friends of mine who pay a decent amount of cash each month for the upbringing of their children but have little or no access to the child or what happens in it's life.

Unfortunately, too many men get swept away by the lust or romance etc and do not consider the legal ramifications of their actions. Until man has a legally binding agreement in place he's better off 'keeping his trowsers firmly zipped up'

As the system currently treats men as little more than sperm donors

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

I don't see it happening that our constitution will give unmarried parents equal rights anytime soon. And rightfully so.

So having failed to actually argue your opinion, you default to the old "that's just the way it is" cop-out.

I'm sorry, but your entire argument has had little to do with the best interests of the child, and more to do with the best interests of the mother (justified as the former). From an ethical viewpoint, it's actually bordering on sociopathic, TBH.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

So having failed to actually argue your opinion, you default to the old "that's just the way it is" cop-out.

I'm sorry, but your entire argument has had little to do with the best interests of the child, and more to do with the best interests of the mother (justified as the former). From an ethical viewpoint, it's actually bordering on sociopathic, TBH.

The reason I am not willing to argue my opinion is because the debate will go on and on and on. which proves the "The search for 'equality' between 'men' and 'women' is fuelling a never-ending war between 'men' and 'women'" theory. Its not because I have nothing to say or don't want to argue my opinion.
Truth is we would be running in circles and I know when I am being attacked or insulted.

There are many reasons why there should be equal rights between unmarried parents but there are also many reasons why there shouldn't be. Let everyone have their opinion. I already gave mine and am not going to change it.

wolfpawnat

illumi wrote: »

The reason I am not willing to argue my opinion is because the debate will go on and on and on. which proves the "The search for 'equality' between 'men' and 'women' is fuelling a never-ending war between 'men' and 'women'" theory. Its not because I have nothing to say or don't want to argue my opinion.
Truth is we would be running in circles and I know when I am being attacked or insulted.

There are many reasons why there should be equal rights between unmarried parents but there are also many reasons why there shouldn't be. Let everyone have their opinion. I already gave mine and am not going to change it.

This is a discussions forum, surely that is what this is about debating different sides to an argument

I think it is interesting. 40 years ago the women who are having children that are now holding all the cards are the same women who were thrown into laundries, their children forcibly taken from them and the men going on with their lives. Odd really we can go from one extreme to the other!

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

Truth is we would be running in circles and I know when I am being attacked or insulted.

I've no doubt that we would end up running around in circles, largely because you have your opinion and are "not going to change it" - no argument or reason will do that, by your own admission. And that's really disturbing.

illumi

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If we are talking about good men who want to have a part in a child's upbringing then absolutely yes they should have equal rights and access to their children.

Yes but equal would mean all.. good and bad, those who care and who don't. those who pay towards the upbringing of their children and who don't. those who run off and those who don't. Now if the constitution could be changed to exclude the bad parents.. be it mother or father. I would say yes great, go ahead. But there is no easy way around that.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've no doubt that we would end up running around in circles, largely because you have your opinion and are "not going to change it" - no argument or reason will do that, by your own admission. And that's really disturbing.

Under the current circumstances I would not change my mind.
When I think about my first 2 kids father I would not change my mind.
And when I think of the man in my life at present who has taken on the responsibilities of being a parent for the last 6 years to 2 children who are not his own, I would not change my mind.
If for example the biological father of our children, who he doesn't care about, contact (no contact for over 7 years) or support financially had equal rights to them, he could come back at anytime and destroy the stable home my partner and I have made for our kids. There is no doubt that this could be damaging to our kids and my partner as the true parent. That thought makes me shudder.
What about my partners rights as a parent to those kids. There was always more to being a parent than the biological part.

wolfpawnat

illumi wrote: »

Yes but equal would mean all.. good and bad, those who care and who don't. those who pay towards the upbringing of their children and who don't. those who run off and those who don't. Now if the constitution could be changed to exclude the bad parents.. be it mother or father. I would say yes great, go ahead. But there is no easy way around that.

My mother had full guardianship of myself and my sister, she claimed my father was abusing her and then us. Lies of course. From my memory I cannot remember anything other than the occasional smack for being bold and loads of yelling, nothing out of the ordinary for 1980's Ireland with young kids getting into mischief!

She was a terrible mother, abusive, narcissistic, and only interested in what she could get off my father and the SW for us, never cared about us. My father wasn't much better but he was a bit better than that! The system needs an overhaul, we went from one extreme to the other and it is wrong!

Bullseye1

illumi wrote: »

Yes but equal would mean all.. good and bad, those who care and who don't. those who pay towards the upbringing of their children and who don't. those who run off and those who don't. Now if the constitution could be changed to exclude the bad parents.. be it mother or father. I would say yes great, go ahead. But there is no easy way around that.

There are many bad mothers too. You know the ones who let their children wander the streets not knowing where they are but they seem to get a free pass.

Eliot Rosewater

illumi wrote: »

I have given my opinion and don't need to justify it in any way anymore.

If that's your attitude then you'd be better off not posting here. Humanities is for debate and discussion, not for soapboxing. You're expected to defend your views and engage with those who critique them. If you're only interested in beaming out your opinion, get a blog. They're free.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sorry, but your entire argument has had little to do with the best interests of the child, and more to do with the best interests of the mother (justified as the former). From an ethical viewpoint, it's actually bordering on sociopathic, TBH.

Please don't personalize the debate.

/mod.

illumi

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The system needs an overhaul, we went from one extreme to the other and it is wrong!

But giving both Parents equal rights under the constitution could probably make things worse when it comes down to it. Equality isn't the solution here as that would mean both good and bad parents having equal rights. That could end up being disastrous. The solution is about being fair.
Yes the system needs an overhaul. I never thought it didn't. This subject is no doubt an important one.
Maybe start off with giving fathers who put their names on the birth-cert of the child automatic guardianship and access to give them security. Them being there putting down their name must mean that its important to them and they are willing. It could save them a lot of hassle.
But I am still very split on the custody part. And its because I believe a child needs 1 stable home. It can't be fair for the child to be torn between 2 homes. And this could be possible if equal rights were given.
I was raised in a single parent household by my father with 4 of my siblings. It was the best home I could have hoped for. Our mother called us and we went to stay at her place every other weekend.
She wasnt a bad mother. she was just ill and done what was best for us.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

If that's your attitude then you'd be better off not posting here. Humanities is for debate and discussion, not for soapboxing. You're expected to defend your views and engage with those who critique them. If you're only interested in beaming out your opinion, get a blog. They're free.

I didnt realise I was soapboxing here.
I change my mind about things all the time. It depends on the circumstances.
If the circumstances change, my opinion changes
And yes I would love them to change.
But if I was soapboxing I do apologize.
I just don't like being personally attacked for my opinion. I see no sense in debating anything with anyone who personally attacks me.
I wouldn't do that to anyone either. And it happened a few times.

Bullseye1 wrote: »

There are many bad mothers too. You know the ones who let their children wander the streets not knowing where they are but they seem to get a free pass.

I see young kids on the streets all the time and also find it wrong. But there are also an equal amount homes with both parents I know about who let them out on the streets till all hours of the night. A few times I have seen kids no older than 6 running on the street after 10. It shocks me every time.

Should fathers who are willing to be there for their kids have equal rights. Yes
But should unmarried fathers who are not willing or don't care about the kids or don't pay maintenance have equal rights. no
The question is about unmarried fathers having equal rights under the constitution. as in 50/50 guardianship and 50/50 custody
The unmarried mother already has them.
But if it would start off with automatic guardianship and access for unmarried fathers who put there name on the birth-cert. Maybe it could start to improve things for unmarried fathers

Hector Mildew

illumi wrote: »

But giving both Parents equal rights under the constitution could probably make things worse when it comes down to it. Equality isn't the solution here as that would mean both good and bad parents having equal rights. That could end up being disastrous. The solution is about being fair.

An easy way to ensure that would be to define equal responsibilities. Then if a parent fails to meet their responsibilities they lose their rights in favour of the other parent or another more suitable guardian.

illumi

Hector Mildew wrote: »

An easy way to ensure that would be to define equal responsibilities. Then if a parent fails to meet their responsibilities they lose their rights in favour of the other parent or another more suitable guardian.

I can't argue with that. It makes very much sense.

StudentDad

illumi wrote: »

Hector Mildew wrote: »

An easy way to ensure that would be to define equal responsibilities. Then if a parent fails to meet their responsibilities they lose their rights in favour of the other parent or another more suitable guardian.

I can't argue with that. It makes very much sense.

Can't agree there. Who decides what a 'good' parent is?

As it stands the bias in the current system is wholly in favour of the mother, irrespective of how competent she is.

It is far too simplistic an idea to deal with the complexities of modern family life.

What we need is a system that automatically confers equal guardianship rights on both parties, irrespective of marital status.

If the mother feels that the father of the child is unfit to be a parent it is for her to show this and vice versa.

If there is a query as to paternity a simple DNA analysis will solve that question.

There are too many cases where a father pays for the upbringing of his child and still has mo access. I know of cases where fathers gain a court order and the mother simply ignores it and the court then refuses to gaol the mother for contempt.

With the rise in what can be termed a 'loose' society regarding sexual relationships, the law has to respond in kind. It is unfair in the extreme to allow women enter a sexual relationship with a man and expect that she should retain all the legal benefits and the man is left in a position where he is left at the mercy of the mothers whims.

SD

The Corinthian

StudentDad wrote: »

Can't agree there. Who decides what a 'good' parent is?

Ideally the parents themselves. When they cannot agree, then a court decides (in conjunction with mediation, etc) - that's how disagreements are resolved in law. Unfortunately the present system presumes that the mother is the better parent, often making no attempt at an objective assessment.

What we need is a system that automatically confers equal guardianship rights on both parties, irrespective of marital status.

You need to consider what automatic actually means first. There will never be 'automatic' guardianship simply because paternity is not certain. It's actually one of the problems with automatic guardianship with married fathers as it can mean that they become guardians to children that are not their own.

Any 'automatic' guardianship would still have to be registered (not via a birth cert, as there are many cases where this may be impossible to do - e.g. a child born outside the state) legally and could be contested, but unlike the present system it could only be contested on the basis of paternity. This is actually what 'automatic' guardianship means in practical terms.

If the mother feels that the father of the child is unfit to be a parent it is for her to show this and vice versa.

If a mother or father are unfit, they are still parents. However, if unfit this naturally should affect their rights to determine the child's best interests and custody.

There are too many cases where a father pays for the upbringing of his child and still has mo access. I know of cases where fathers gain a court order and the mother simply ignores it and the court then refuses to gaol the mother for contempt.

This is the problem I raised earlier with guardianship or access - we can give fathers all the rights in the World, but if they're unenforceable, then they're essentially worthless. I would not advocate custodial sentences for either, but the deterrent of losing rights and custody should be put in place for those who repeatedly flaunt such agreements. Even the disruption of loss of custody to the other parent is better in the long run than a child remaining with the parent who denies access and thus practices parental alienation.

Worse than this, the present proposed reforms to the system essentially admit this and redefine guardianship in such a way that it no longer has any rights to decide the best interests of the child - they are put in the hands of the person with custody.

StudentDad

In cases where it is bloody obvious who the father of the child should be, that father should not be left in a position where he has to jump through hoops to gain equal guardianship of his child/children.

This to my mind is fundamental. If the mother chooses to contest paternity. That question is easily solved. I would go on to argue that where a man has been falsely led to believe that the child he has been supporting is his, he should be entitled to reparation of funds spent on foot of that.

A child is entitled to a strong relationship with his father regardless of the relationship between the parents.

SD

illumi

StudentDad wrote: »

In cases where it is bloody obvious who the father of the child should be, that father should not be left in a position where he has to jump through hoops to gain equal guardianship of his child/children.

Its never really obvious who the biological father is until a paternity test is done.
But where couples are married the law assumes that the husband is the father.
And married fathers have equal rights under the law.

StudentDad wrote: »

I would go on to argue that where a man has been falsely led to believe that the child he has been supporting is his, he should be entitled to reparation of funds spent on foot of that.

Any unmarried father these days should have a dna test done to prevent Paternity Fraud. It can be very damaging for the father and the child if the truth is found out later.
Its in any unmarried fathers own best interest to have that test done as soon as possible.
Why should anyone naturally assume that the mother is truthful about the paternity of her child?

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

And married fathers have equal rights under the law.

Not to custody.

Its in any unmarried fathers own best interest to have that test done as soon as possible.

While I agree, this can be very difficult/costly.

Consent of the mother is required for any informal test. If the matter becomes formal, then a court ordered test is significantly more expensive and the man will have to carry the cost of this. If the results turn out to show the man is not the father then he may get awarded costs, but typically he won't and even if he does he's got a snowball's chance in Hell to get them from a mother who will never be sanctioned if she fails to pay.

To date, there has never been any prosecution in relation to paternity fraud in either Ireland or the UK (that I'm aware of). Plenty of cases have been proven in court, but the perpetrator has never been forced to pay damages or received any kind of criminal sentence (despite it clearly being fraud).

StudentDad

Well we're not arguing about married fathers.

As regards assuming one man is the father, if the woman conducts herself in such manner as to create this belief. Naturally such a conclusion will be drawn.

If said woman chooses to refute this, the ball should land squarely in her court to do so.

SD

Bannasidhe

A simple solution would be that if the father is named on the child's birth certificate he should automatically have the same rights and responsibilities as the mother. If the child's biological parents are not married the father must give his consent (and I know in the UK must be physically present, am not sure if that is the case in Ireland) to have his name on the birth cert.

Men who have no interest wouldn't bother. Men who are interested in their children will be there.

illumi

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A simple solution would be that if the father is named on the child's birth certificate he should automatically have the same rights and responsibilities as the mother. If the child's biological parents are not married the father must give his consent (and I know in the UK must be physically present, am not sure if that is the case in Ireland) to have his name on the birth cert.

Men who have no interest wouldn't bother. Men who are interested in their children will be there.

I also suggested something like this in an earlier post. There is no doubt that fathers who are willing will be there to put their names on the birth cert.

The Corinthian

StudentDad wrote: »

Well we're not arguing about married fathers.

No, but I was simply pointing out that 'automatic' guardianship are not a magic solution for most of the problems often associated with not having guardianship. The principle problem in reality is enforcement - I'd rather that than 'automatic' anything.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A simple solution would be that if the father is named on the child's birth certificate he should automatically have the same rights and responsibilities as the mother.

What if the child was born outside the state? Or the father was outside the state when the child was born? What if there is a question of paternity at the time of birth and by the time it's resolved the birth cert can no longer be signed? What if the father does not even know that he has a child at the time of birth (and potentially for years after)?

These are all cases that would need to be catered for and as such simply tying it to a birth cert is an inadequate solution. A separate registrar would be required.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

tying it to a birth cert is an inadequate solution. A separate registrar would be required.

But it would be a start. And a registrar for
guardianship and custody agreements is well overdue in Ireland.
A birth may be registered in the office of any registrar of births, regardless of where it took place

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

But it would be a start.

Not a good one. For example, imagine a child is born in Russia. The father does not know about it, but eventually learns about it when the mother moves back to Ireland and he is brought to court for maintenance. He cannot change the birth cert at this stage (other than the cost and difficulty of doing so, it may not be legally possible after a certain period has elapsed).

The absence of his name on the birth cert could well be held against him, given that his rights and his name there are legally linked (what you're proposing), when in reality it was through no fault of his own that it's not.

And a registrar for guardianship and custody agreements is well overdue in Ireland.

Agreed. But not as overdue as real enforcement of them.

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

A birth may be registered in the office of any registrar of births, regardless of where it took place

Maybe we're arguing at cross purposes. I agree that the father should do so as part of claiming his guardianship rights, but not that it should be dependant upon it (for the reasons mentioned above) and thus ultimately a separate registrar should be the defining document.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not a good one. For example, imagine a child is born in Russia. The father does not know about it, but eventually learns about it when the mother moves back to Ireland and he is brought to court for maintenance. He cannot change the birth cert at this stage (other than the cost and difficulty of doing so, it may not be legally possible after a certain period has elapsed).

There is no fee charged for the registration of a birth, or for re-registration to include a parent's details. There is a fee of €5 for insertion or alteration of a forename. Fees are charged for Birth Certificates.
A birth may be registered in the office of any Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths, regardless of where it took place

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/after_your_baby_is_born/registering_birth_your_baby.html

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

There is no fee charged for the registration of a birth, or for re-registration to include a parent's details. There is a fee of €5 for insertion or alteration of a forename. Fees are charged for Birth Certificates.
A birth may be registered in the office of any Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths, regardless of where it took place

Outside Ireland? Many countries don't allow you to change the details of a birth cert after a certain period or require prohibitive legal action to do so.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

Outside Ireland? Many countries don't allow you to change the details of a birth cert after a certain period or require prohibitive legal action to do so.

Im trying to debate these things based on kids born in Ireland.I thought we are talking about changes to unmarried fathers rights in the Irish constitution. I don't think that many mothers would fly off on a holiday a few weeks before they give birth. I have no Idea about the laws and constitutional rights of unmarried parents in other countries.
I know that changes were made to the way births are registered in Ireland around 2005. And its a good thing that a parent can have their details included at any time in Ireland and there is no deadline.

So maybe the birth cert would be a good start to getting unmarried fathers their rights to guardianship, custody or access.
I don't think there will ever be a perfect solution. But it would have to start somewhere.

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

Im trying to debate these things based on kids born in Ireland.I thought we are talking about changes to unmarried fathers rights in the Irish constitution. I don't think that many mothers would fly off on a holiday a few weeks before they give birth. I have no Idea about the laws and constitutional rights of unmarried parents in other countries.

With respects, even if a minority, you cannot ignore such cases either.

And I'm pretty sure that it would not simply apply to mothers who fly off on a holiday a few weeks before they give birth. For example, an unmarried couple could have the child abroad, while living there, then move to Ireland and split. Or a mother could intentionally choose to have the child abroad if it means that the father will not get rights as a result.

I understand what you're saying; a father should be on the birth cert. But only if it is reasonably possible. Otherwise you are simply going to punish fathers who are not through no fault of their own

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

With respects, even if a minority, you cannot ignore such cases either.

No I don't think they should be, but we live in a democracy. And a democracy is about satisfying the majority, not the minority.

I don't think that the constitution can be changed to help unmarried fathers whos kids were born abroad without some sort of agreement between all countries.

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

No I don't think they should be, but we live in a democracy. And a democracy is about satisfying the majority, not the minority.

I think you're confusing democracy with legislating stupidly.

Everyone is in a minority at some stage in life. Everyone ends up as an 'exception to the rule' at some point or other. That's why legislation seeks to cover all it's bases and deal with such eventualities. Even in democracies, as oddly enough the majority do want to legislate for these exceptions too.

Otherwise you end up with poorly written laws that cause more problems than they solve.

I don't think that the constitution can be changed to help unmarried fathers whos kids were born abroad without some sort of agreement between all countries.

Where does the constitution imply this?

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you're confusing democracy with legislating stupidly.

I did think I brought that across the wrong way lol

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where does the constitution imply this?

No where that I know of. But if a child was born outside Ireland to deny the father his rights, I don't think that the irish law could fix this without the consent of the country in question. It could be interfering with their laws. Thats why I said "without an agreement between those countries"

Bannasidhe

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, but I was simply pointing out that 'automatic' guardianship are not a magic solution for most of the problems often associated with not having guardianship. The principle problem in reality is enforcement - I'd rather that than 'automatic' anything.

What if the child was born outside the state? Or the father was outside the state when the child was born? What if there is a question of paternity at the time of birth and by the time it's resolved the birth cert can no longer be signed? What if the father does not even know that he has a child at the time of birth (and potentially for years after)?

These are all cases that would need to be catered for and as such simply tying it to a birth cert is an inadequate solution. A separate registrar would be required.

Pardon me for saying so but you seem to be looking to place 'what if' scenarios to the fore. There will always be variables regardless of the legislation but that is no excuse for failing to legislate to stop this basic injustice continuing. The State has to recognise that there is a significant number of children born in Ireland every year outside marriage and legislation is required to deal with the reality of these changes which have already occurred in Irish society.

Thursday, April 28, 2011
ABOUT one third of all births between July and September last year were outside marriage.

Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/one-third-of-births-outside-marriage-152794.html#ixzz1d2C5mH6O

Currently, the father's of these children have to rely on the goodwill of the child's mother and her agreement to sign a Statutory Declaration or go to court to gain even basic joint- guardianship - never mind access, joint custody etc. This places a huge burden on the family court system as well as emotional strain on the father/child relationship.

Much of these issues could be sorted if my suggestions that if the father is named on the child's birth certificate (with his express consent) he is automatically granted equal status under the law with the child's mother.

The 'what if' scenarios could still be dealt with through the court system.

I do agree completely that there needs to be greater enforcement of court orders. But would say that that is a separate issue.

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

No where that I know of. But if a child was born outside Ireland to deny the father his rights, I don't think that the irish law could fix this without the consent of the country in question. It could be interfering with their laws. Thats why I said "without an agreement between those countries"

I see what you're saying, but the constitution really has nothing to do with it.

Irish law applies within the state the Republic of Ireland (or Irish Republic as the BBC like to call us). As such, it really does not matter where you're born as it is the law of where you (or in this case the child) is resident that applies (bilateral agreements notwithstanding).

As such, it really doesn't matter where the child is born, but where it lives. After all, we don't apply Sharia law in Ireland when the child was born in Saudi Arabia.

However, because we cannot do anything about what has occurred prior to the child being in Ireland, we do have to take into account that issues such as birth certs may be out of our control and legislate accordingly.

The Corinthian

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Pardon me for saying so but you seem to be looking to place 'what if' scenarios to the fore. There will always be variables regardless of the legislation but that is no excuse for failing to recognise that there is a significant number of children born in Ireland every year outside marriage.

I never suggested that there is not a significant number of children born in Ireland every year outside marriage.

The 'what if' scenarios could still be dealt with through the court system.

Not that easy. I was born outside Ireland and there's quite a few things I would need to use the court system to achieve because no one bothered to consider the 'what if' scenarios back when they were drawing up the laws.

illumi

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Much of these issues could be sorted if my suggestions that if the father is named on the child's birth certificate (with his express consent) he is automatically granted equal status under the law with the child's mother.

The 'what if' scenarios could still be dealt with through the court system.

I do agree completely that there needs to be greater enforcement of court orders. But would say that that is a separate issue.

totally agree. The birth cert is where it needs to start at. Fathers who don't care or don't want the responsibility of being a parent usually don't put their names down. I know the father of my first 2 kids didn't. It would fix the majority of issues regarding unmarried fathers rights in Ireland.

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

totally agree. The birth cert is where it needs to start at. Fathers who don't care or don't want the responsibility of being a parent usually don't put their names down. I know the father of my first 2 kids didn't. It would fix the majority of issues regarding unmarried fathers rights in Ireland.

Great. So all a woman has to do to circumvent a father's rights is have the child abroad. You've started a new industry.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not that easy. I was born outside Ireland and there's quite a few things I would need to use the court system to achieve because no one bothered to consider the 'what if' scenarios back when they were drawing up the laws.

But Ireland doesn't have the right to write the laws for other countries. The irish people have the right to change the irish constitution through referenda, not the constitution of other countries.

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

But Ireland doesn't have the right to write the laws for other countries. The irish people have the right to change the irish constitution through referenda, not the constitution of other countries.

I don't think you understand. Ireland does not need to write the laws for other countries, only herself. Irish law applies to Ireland alone, but it does need to take into account cases where being abroad will effect the execution of Irish law in Ireland.

It ultimately has nothing to do with the law in other countries and absolutely nothing to do with the Irish constitution. I don't think the constitution would even need to be changed to give fathers equal rights.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

Great. So all a woman has to do to circumvent a father's rights is have the child abroad. You've started a new industry.

I don't think its new that women run and leave the country to deny fathers their kids. Its something I wouldnt do, nor promote but Ireland simply doesn't have the power to lay down their law in other countries. What about the father of my kids who left the country for a career and to avoid paying maintenance. Nothing can be done because its not in Irelands jurisdiction.