Should unmarried fathers have equal rights??

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

I don't think its new that women run and leave the country to deny fathers their kids.

They don't need to at present, but if that's what it took, I've no doubt they would. After all, there's no shortage of women who are happy to deny fathers their kids and go to great lengths to do so.

Indeed, to do so would not even require that they want to deny fathers their kids, but deny fathers rights to their kids. Mother goes abroad, gives birth and sees to it that the father cannot sign. Returns to Ireland and she is now legally sole guardian.

Its something I wouldnt do, nor promote but Ireland simply doesn't have the power to lay down their law in other countries.

I've already pointed out repeatedly that it has nothing to do with laying down Irish law in other countries. Seriously, it's not that complicated!

the_syco

illumi wrote: »

My partner and me are expecting our first child. he did get upset with me when i said i will sign the forms for guardianship only. I also said that he can have access to our child whenever he wants. Even if we break up, this will still be what I want for our child. I hope he comes around.

I'd say your partner is upset about the fact that you're already planning the breakup before it has happened.

Bannasidhe

The Corinthian wrote: »

They don't need to at present, but if that's what it took, I've no doubt they would. After all, there's no shortage of women who are happy to deny fathers their kids and go to great lengths to do so.

Indeed, to do so would not even require that they want to deny fathers their kids, but deny fathers rights to their kids. Mother goes abroad, gives birth and sees to it that the father cannot sign. Returns to Ireland and she is now legally sole guardian.

I've already pointed out repeatedly that it has nothing to do with laying down Irish law in other countries. Seriously, it's not that complicated!

That is still a separate issue and no excuse for failing to legislate to allow unmarried father's of children born in Ireland equal status with the child's mother.

Agreed, at the moment the law enables some women to 'deny fathers their kids' and the onus is on the man to seek legal action.
However - the fact that the law currently forces men to take legal action just to gain legal recognition even when the child's mother is in agreement is ridiculous. Dealing with this basic issue should be addressed as a matter of priority.

The Corinthian

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is still a separate issue and no excuse for failing to legislate to allow unmarried father's of children born in Ireland equal status with the child's mother.

I never suggested it should. I am simply pointing out that if one makes guardianship dependant on signing the birth cert, this is what will happen. As such it should be a registrar, separate to the birth cert to avoid such abuses and cases. But by all means stipulating that the birth cert should also be signed if the child is born in the state.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

They don't need to at present, but if that's what it took, I've no doubt they would.

They already do at present though, so its really nothing new.

http://www.mccarthy.ie/guardianship-unmarried-fathers/ <---- mother leaves ireland to deny good father his kids.

which could have been simply avoided by giving automatic guardianship after filling in the fathers details on the birth-cert.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've already pointed out repeatedly that it has nothing to do with laying down Irish law in other countries. Seriously, it's not that complicated!

And I've already pointed out that I'm debating about changes to the constitutional rights of unmarried fathers in Ireland.
Which can simply be fixed for the majority of unmarried fathers by giving them automatic Guardianship after their details are on the birth certificate. I am sure it would pass after been put to a referendum.

the_syco wrote: »

I'd say your partner is upset about the fact that you're already planning the breakup before it has happened.

LOL No need to get too personal. After a 6 year relationship I don't see that happening.

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

which could have been simply avoided by giving automatic guardianship after filling in the fathers details on the birth-cert.

She can still leave before the birth if she wants to ensure she wants sole rights and return at her pleasure. So it avoids nothing.

And I've already pointed out that I'm debating about changes to the constitutional rights of unmarried fathers in Ireland.

Do you actually know what the constitutional rights of unmarried fathers in Ireland are? If they're even mentioned or any legislation would require a change in the constitution to be legal?

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

She can still leave before the birth if she wants to ensure she wants sole rights and return at her pleasure. So it avoids nothing.

She left way after the birth.
And yes if both unmarried parents get equal rights under the constitution, the mothers could run before giving birth, deny ever having slept with the father, or claiming they had so many strangers in their bed they dont know the father. A one night stand while on holiday. seriously.
you seem to paint everything so black.

There will always be loopholes in laws. Not everyone can be protected.
The cases you talk of are minorities. And Im not saying they are not important.
But what about the majority of unmarried fathers "now" in Ireland who could be protected through a simple little change in our constitution.

What is your solution to unmarried fathers rights in Ireland as they don't really have any at the moment.
Ive read through so many of your posts and you never seem to give a solution after battering someone else solutions with scenarios that would rarely happen, but no solutions.

Bannasidhe

The Corinthian wrote: »

She can still leave before the birth if she wants to ensure she wants sole rights and return at her pleasure. So it avoids nothing.

Yes. She could - but short of banning pregnant women from leaving the country there is nothing any piece of legislation can do to prevent this. In the same way a father cannot be prevented from leaving the country to avoid paying maintenance.

If a woman was to do this and return - the father of the child would still have the option of going to court, establishing paternity and seek joint guardianship/access/ joint custody. Exactly as they have the option of doing now.

The Corinthian

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes. She could - but short of banning pregnant women from leaving the country there is nothing any piece of legislation can do to prevent this. In the same way a father cannot be prevented from leaving the country to avoid paying maintenance.

No. Please read again what I've written. This type of loophole can only exist if you tie guardianship into the birth cert, as then it can be circumvented in another jurisdiction. If you tie guardianship into a separate registry, then the loophole is closed off.

If a woman was to do this and return - the father of the child would still have the option of going to court, establishing paternity and seek joint guardianship/access/ joint custody. Exactly as they have the option of doing now.

So what you're suggesting is not really a reform of the system then? I'm all right Jack?

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

There will always be loopholes in laws. Not everyone can be protected.

Sure, but you don't intentionally leave loopholes when you spot them.

What is your solution to unmarried fathers rights in Ireland as they don't really have any at the moment.

I've repeatedly given my opinion on this in previous posts. Rights, automatic or not, are in reality not as important as the enforcement of them. I even pointed to what I think needs to be done to rectify it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

laoch na mona

yes they should

illumi

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I've tried that. But not knowing where he lives they told me it was a hopeless case. But that's so long ago it doesn't matter now. I've moved on, the kids have moved on.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure, but you don't intentionally leave loopholes when you spot them.

I've repeatedly given my opinion on this in previous posts. Rights, automatic or not, are in reality not as important as the enforcement of them. I even pointed to what I think needs to be done to rectify it.

But some loopholes cannot be avoided, even if spotted.
Changes are made with tiny steps. The best here the birth cert entry. Big changes don't happen worldwide over-night.
If one country gives fathers automatic guardianship many countries would follow. Even if it takes time. And this would help the majority of unmarried fathers cases.

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

But some loopholes cannot be avoided, even if spotted.

I told you how it can be easily avoided, FFS!

It sounds almost as if you don't want this loophole closed.

Bannasidhe

The Corinthian wrote: »

No. Please read again what I've written. This type of loophole can only exist if you tie guardianship into the birth cert, as then it can be circumvented in another jurisdiction. If you tie guardianship into a separate registry, then the loophole is closed off.

So what you're suggesting is not really a reform of the system then? I'm all right Jack?

I did read it. I did not say guardianship should be contingent on the birth registration only. I said that inclusion of father's name on birth certificate should grant equal status for the approx 1/3 of children who are born in Ireland outside of marriage.

Children born outside the State do not come under Irish jurisdiction so no legislation can be put in place to deal with this. However, legislation does exist which allows the father to establish his rights should the children return to Ireland.

As for Jack (Harkness? Sparrow? Kennedy?) being all right - I have no idea. But as my son is a grown man and has already taken the legal route to establish his rights I have no particular stake in this apart from thinking it was ridiculous that he had to do so in the first place simply because he and the children's mother never said 'I do' and signed the marriage register.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

I told you how it can be easily avoided, FFS!

It sounds almost as if you don't want this loophole closed.

you are unbelievably rude.

How could you for example close the loophole if the pregnant woman says when asked about the father.

"I had a one night stand with a guy when I was on holidays, I don't know his surname, or where he comes from because he was also on holidays"

but she really knows the father and he lives in Ireland. she found out she was pregnant, didn't like him or had a grudge against him and didn't want him to know, so she moved to the other end of the country to prevent equal rights.

My point being then. some loopholes can't be closed, even if spotted. But the majority of unmarried fathers could be really helped with that tiny little change. A case like the above would probably be rare.

The Corinthian

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I did read it. I did not say guardianship should be contingent on the birth registration only. I said that inclusion of father's name on birth certificate should grant equal status for the approx 1/3 of children who are born in Ireland outside of marriage.

I'm sorry, but any kind of system would have to apply equally to all children resident in Ireland, regardless of the country of birth, which is why I have repeatedly suggested a registrar (and birth cert in the case of children born in Ireland).

Otherwise, you're really discriminating against those children and their fathers, for reasons of blind bureaucracy and nothing else.

Unless you wish to suggest that the fathers of children resident in Ireland, but born outside, don't deserve the same protection under law.

Children born outside the State do not come under Irish jurisdiction so no legislation can be put in place to deal with this.

That's actually untrue. Children born outside the State come under Irish jurisdiction when they enter Ireland.

We also legislate for things that occur abroad all the time - for example, under the civil partnership bill, time spent cohabitation abroad counts once you're resident in Ireland for one year.

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

How could you for example close the loophole if the pregnant woman says when asked about the father.

"I had a one night stand with a guy when I was on holidays, I don't know his surname, or where he comes from because he was also on holidays"

But that's not the loophole we were discussing, so please don't change the goalposts.

The loophole I put forward was that a pregnant woman can have the child abroad (where the birth cert is harder/impossible to change), claim not to know who the father is (lie) and then return to Ireland. The father could know that he's about to become a father by her, but he's actually powerless to stop her from doing this and without his name on the birth cert, would be denied any rights.

This is only because you insist that the birth cert is the deciding document. If an Irish paternity registrar is instead the deciding document, then this loophole is closed off.

Naturally there will always be loopholes that cannot be closed, but this one can be and easily. Why are you so opposed to doing so?

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

Rude? How is that rude? Seriously, you're intentionally protecting a loophole that can easily be closed off - what reason is there for that? I'm genuinely open to hear any alternative explanation.

your cursing is rude.
there is no need for it. Which loophole am i protecting that can be easily fixed? I simply pointed a few out that could occur if equal rights were given and mothers didn't want equal rights to happen. If everything is so easily fixable then our laws would be perfect and would have no loopholes whatsoever.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is only because you insist that the birth cert is the deciding document. If an Irish paternity registrar is instead the deciding document, then this loophole is closed off.

I don't insist. I think it would be a good start. I can't think of anything better at the moment to help the majority of unmarried fathers rights as simple as this. If someone brings something better up, I will indeed say.. yes thats way better.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Naturally there will always be loopholes that cannot be closed, but this one can be and easily. Why are you so opposed to doing so?

That was my point. some loopholes can't be closed, even if they are spotted.
I am not opposed to closing any loopholes. Where did I ever say such a thing. Pointing ones out that can't be closed doesn't mean I want them. My firm belief will always be that a child should have both parents in their lives.

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

I don't insist. I think it would be a good start. I can't think of anything better at the moment to help the majority of unmarried fathers rights as simple as this. If someone brings something better up, I will indeed say.. yes thats way better.

I suggested a better alternative. What is your objection to it?

That was my point. some loopholes can't be closed, even if they are spotted.
I am not opposed to closing any loopholes. Where did I ever say such a thing. Pointing ones out that can't be closed doesn't mean I want them. My firm belief will always be that a child should have both parents in their lives.

But I've pointed out one that can be closed, and how. Why do you oppose closing it?

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

I suggested a better alternative. What is your objection to it?

But I've pointed out one that can be closed, and how. Why do you oppose closing it?

I must have missed that better alternative. :rolleyes:

Where did I oppose that loophole being closed. Because I didn't.
I don't like words being put in my mouth.

The Corinthian

illumi wrote: »

I must have missed that better alternative. :rolleyes:

Let me repeat myself then:

Problem: The loophole I put forward was that a pregnant woman can have the child abroad (where the birth cert is harder/impossible to change), claim not to know who the father is (lie) and then return to Ireland. The father could know that he's about to become a father by her, but he's actually powerless to stop her from doing this and without his name on the birth cert, would be denied any rights.

Solution: I have repeatedly suggested a registrar in Ireland that would be act as the defining document, rather than the birth cert. This way where the child is born does not matter and the loophole is closed.

Where did I oppose that loophole being closed. Because I didn't.
I don't like words being put in my mouth.

Either that or you didn't read what I wrote, because I've been pretty clear.

illumi

The Corinthian wrote: »

Solution: I have repeatedly suggested a registrar in Ireland that would be act as the defining document, rather than the birth cert. This way where the child is born does not matter and the loophole is closed.

Yes I agree on this too. Both are good ideas. Both are ideas that are easily implemented.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Either that or you didn't read what I wrote, because I've been pretty clear.

I don't oppose loopholes being closed at all. I can say it over and over again that I firmly believe that a child should have both parents in their lives. And everything should be done to stop parents and children being separated. Be it father from child, or mother from child.

Bannasidhe

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sorry, but any kind of system would have to apply equally to all children resident in Ireland, regardless of the country of birth, which is why I have repeatedly suggested a registrar (and birth cert in the case of children born in Ireland).

Otherwise, you're really discriminating against those children and their fathers, for reasons of blind bureaucracy and nothing else.

Unless you wish to suggest that the fathers of children resident in Ireland, but born outside

That's actually untrue. Children born outside the State come under Irish jurisdiction when they enter Ireland. We legislate for things that occur abroad all the time - for example, under the civil partnership bill, time spent cohabitation abroad counts once you're resident in Ireland for one year.

Rude? How is that rude? Seriously, you're intentionally protecting a loophole that can easily be closed off - what reason is there for that? I'm genuinely open to hear any alternative explanation.

I did not suggest it is an either/or situation. To introduce legislation which states that inclusion on a child's Irish birth certificate grants an unmarried father automatic equal status with the mother takes care of one important area which need reform and would be relatively simple.

Legislation could also be introduced that when a man has established paternity of a child resident in the State - he can apply to be registered as the child's father and given the same status under law as unmarried father's would be granted by inclusion on the Birth cert in the case of those children born in the State.


To create an international register which grants a man father's rights over a child not resident in the State would require other jurisdictions to agree - while I am not against this idea, it would be complicated and time consuming . There is no reason, however, that while this is being negotiated the situation for those children and their fathers already in the State cannot be regularised.

I am not discriminating against anyone - I am stating a basic fact that the Irish government can only legislate for those resident in the 26 counties.

illumi

Bannasidhe wrote: »

however, that while this is being negotiated the situation for those children and their fathers already in the State cannot be regularised.

I am not discriminating against anyone - I am stating a basic fact that the Irish government can only legislate for those resident in the 26 counties.

And because this process could take long the cert would be the simplest solution for most fathers and their children in Ireland already until this process is complete, is that what you're saying?
I'm a little tired now. Sorry. lol

Bannasidhe

illumi wrote: »

And because this process could take long the cert would be the simplest solution for most fathers and their children in Ireland already until this process is complete, is that what you're saying?
I'm a little tired now. Sorry. lol

Yup.

Callan57

I really find this term 'rights to their child' objectionable .... IMO when you bring a child into the world what you have are responsibilities ... for about 20 years. This obsession with rights is putting the unfortunate child in the same category as the car or the house or the dog for that matter!

laoch na mona

Callan57 wrote: »

I really find this term 'rights to their child' objectionable .... IMO when you bring a child into the world what you have are responsibilities ... for about 20 years. This obsession with rights is putting the unfortunate child in the same category as the car or the house or the dog for that matter!

responsibility even if you are not aloud see your child
you shouldn't be expected to support a child you are not aloud see

Bannasidhe

Callan57 wrote: »

I really find this term 'rights to their child' objectionable .... IMO when you bring a child into the world what you have are responsibilities ... for about 20 years. This obsession with rights is putting the unfortunate child in the same category as the car or the house or the dog for that matter!

It is more properly rights to their child and a child's rights to their parent.

However, as a child cannot take legal action on their own behalf it is not possible for them to seek under law to have their right to their father legally recognised. Only their mother can do this - and she may be unwilling/opposed to this.

As an unmarried father is legally a stranger to their child - he cannot act legally for the child either. The only recourse left to an unmarried father is to seek his own rights in regard to his legal relationship with his child. Under Irish law an unmarried father already has responsibilities - e.g. payment of maintenance - without having any rights under law.

I doubt anyone here views the relationship between a father and his child as similar as that between a man and his car. We are not discussing 'ownership', we are discussing involvement, access, custody and a legally recognised relationship - equal to that automatically granted to all mothers and married fathers.

illumi

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I doubt anyone here views the relationship between a father and his child as similar as that between a man and his car. We are not discussing 'ownership', we are discussing involvement, access, custody and a legally recognised relationship - equal to that automatically granted to all mothers and married fathers.

exactly. its about parental rights of unmarried fathers and the childs right to their father, and the quick and easy fix in the irish state would be automatic rights to guardianship and custody through the birth-cert like you suggested. It is the simplest and easiest suggestion to implement from all suggestions on this thread, when it comes to the children born outside marriage in Ireland. The unwilling fathers would weed themselves out, as they more than likely wouldn't want to be on the cert. So there would also be no hassle for willing mothers of children of unwilling fathers when they need to make important decisions which requires both guardians signatures etc.

Zombrex

efb wrote: »

Thats so unbelievable sexist- who determines mothers are better- it should start at 50/50!

It is nothing to do with mothers being better it has to do with mothers being there at the hospital when the baby is born, there is a implicate assumption that if the mother leaves hospital with the baby she is interested in at the very least guardianship.

If you can figure out some way to ensure that all fathers go through the same process I'm all ears. As it stands marriage is the only process where a father signals to the State interest of rising children before they are born.

I would also point out that while it isn't, even if that was "unbelievable sexist" that would be irrelevant, the position of the courts is not to ensure fairness and equality between the parents, it is to serve the best interests of the child.

efb wrote: »

How is the childs best interest not served by having access to both parents in most cases?

The child's interests are served by having access to both parents which is why the state does not deny access to fathers without cause. The vast majority of fathers who apply for guardianship obtain it, same with access though there was a discussion earlier in the thread about mothers simply refusing to honour guardianship, custody and access arrangements.

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

It is nothing to do with mothers being better it has to do with mothers being there at the hospital when the baby is born, there is a implicate assumption that if the mother leaves hospital with the baby she is interested in at the very least guardianship.

If you can figure out some way to ensure that all fathers go through the same process I'm all ears. As it stands marriage is the only process where a father signals to the State interest of rising children before they are born.

I say this as a woman and a Feminist but all that ' mothers being there at the hospital when the baby is born' demonstrates is that the mother is able to conceive and carry a baby to full term. It certainly does not prove she is an able mother - or indeed interested in at the very least guardianship! In today's paper was evidence that gender does not define who and who is not an able parent

A 33-year-old mother has pleaded guilty to failing to provide adequate food and clothing for five children.

The woman, who cannot be named to protect the children’s identity, pleaded guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to 10 counts of neglecting the children between May 2005 and September 2007.

...The court heard there are outstanding issues in the District Court concerning this sixth child.

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/mother-pleads-guilty-to-neglecting-five-children-527427.html#ixzz1d3bV5a16

Neither does marriage ensure that a man will be an able parent. We all know of men who after a divorce remarry, start a 'new' family and never bother with their 'old' family again.

I would also point out that while it isn't, even if that was "unbelievable sexist" that would be irrelevant, the position of the courts is not to ensure fairness and equality between the parents, it is to serve the best interests of the child.



The child's interests are served by having access to both parents which is why the state does not deny access to fathers without cause. The vast majority of fathers who apply for guardianship obtain it, same with access though there was a discussion earlier in the thread about mothers simply refusing to honour guardianship, custody and access arrangements.

Why should a man have to jump through legal hoops to gain access to his children? A neglectful mother cannot have her rights removed - no matter what she does -but an unmarried father has to go to court just to be able to see his children - and you really think that is ok?

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I say this as a woman and a Feminist but all that ' mothers being there at the hospital when the baby is born' demonstrates is that the mother is able to conceive and carry a baby to full term. It certainly does not prove she is an able mother - or indeed interested in at the very least guardianship! In today's paper was evidence that gender does not define who and who is not an able parent http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/mother-pleads-guilty-to-neglecting-five-children-527427.html#ixzz1d3bV5a16

It has nothing to do with being an able parent. The father doesn't have to demonstrate he is an able parent either, he just has to demonstrate that he is interested in guardianship.

The mother by leaving the hospital with the baby is signally to the State that she is interested in caring for the child. Whether she still will be in a year, a month, by the time she gets home, is a separate issue for social workers.

How perfect that system is is up for debate, I would be all in favour of the mother having to sign a piece of paper in the hospital acknowledging this and I'm all in favour of the father being allowed to dispute the awarding of guardianship if he has grounds. Neither of those are in the current set up.

But some times I get the impression that people are more interested in things be equal even if they just end up being equally bad.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Neither does marriage ensure that a man will be an able parent.

I've no idea where you go the notion this is about how able a parent is.

It is about how interested the parent is.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why should a man have to jump through legal hoops to gain access to his children?

Because the State needs to be satisfied that they are not awarding guardianship to a father who has no interest in his kids.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A neglectful mother cannot have her rights removed - no matter what she does -but an unmarried father has to go to court just to be able to see his children - and you really think that is ok?

Which bit? I'm all in favour of neglectful mothers having their rights removed. I'm also all in favour of unmarried fathers having to demonstrate interest in their children to the State by applying for guardianship.

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

It has nothing to do with being an able parent. The father doesn't have to demonstrate he is an able parent either, he just has to demonstrate that he is interested in guardianship.

The mother by leaving the hospital with the baby is signally to the State that she is interested in caring for the child. Whether she still will be in a year, a month, by the time she gets home, is a separate issue for social workers.

How perfect that system is is up for debate, I would be all in favour of the mother having to sign a piece of paper in the hospital acknowledging this and I'm all in favour of the father being allowed to dispute the awarding of guardianship if he has grounds. Neither of those are in the current set up.

But some times I get the impression that people are more interested in things be equal even if they just end up being equally bad.


I've no idea where you go the notion this is about how able a parent is.

It is about how interested the parent is.



Because the State needs to be satisfied that they are not awarding guardianship to a father who has no interest in his kids.



Which bit? I'm all in favour of neglectful mothers having their rights removed. I'm also all in favour of unmarried fathers having to demonstrate interest in their children to the State by applying for guardianship.

My point is that women do not have to demonstrate anything bar ability to conceive and carry to full term and they automatically have full rights to their children which can never be removed (unless they disavow them by putting the child up for adoption) regardless of how abusive or neglectful they may be but an unmarried man has to claim rights to his child, may have them curtailed should the mother argue for that (e.g. supervised visits),and may have his rights withdrawn. That patiently privileges women over men when it comes to parental rights, it denies children full and easy access to one of their parents. Manages to be sexist against both genders based as it is on gender assumptions of the parenting abilities of women and men.

It is all very well and good to say social workers should be involved in assessing the parental abilities of mothers - it is also completely impractical, unworkable and would be nothing but an extension of the Nanny State to ridiculous levels. Social workers are already over stretched, have in the past failed to recognise genuine abuses and how exactly do you expect them to determine if a woman is an able mother? A questionnaire perhaps?


There is absolutely no reason an unmarried father should be treated any differently from a married father when it comes to his children. It is blatant discrimination which denies both the unmarried father and his children equal status with a married one- furthermore it smacks of the old stigma about illegitimacy.

Whether or not a man has stood in front of an alter or in a registry office and entered a contract of marriage should have no baring on his legal relationship with his children.

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My point is that women do not have to demonstrate anything bar ability to conceive and carry to full term and they automatically have full rights to their children which can never be removed (unless they disavow them by putting the child up for adoption) regardless of how abusive or neglectful they may be but an unmarried man has to claim rights to his child, may have them curtailed should the mother argue for that (e.g. supervised visits),and may have his rights withdrawn. That patiently privileges women over men when it comes to parental rights, it denies children full and easy access to one of their parents. Manages to be sexist against both genders based as it is on gender assumptions of the parenting abilities of women and men.

That is all a bit muddled.

Firstly you are correct that the mother can only lose guardianship rights if the child is put up for adoption, where as the father can have his guardianship rights removed by the court.

If you want to argue that the court should be able to remove the mothers guardianship rights as well go ahead, I've no strong feelings on that either way.

It doesn't have anything to do with the State requiring that the father apply for guardianship.

The worst reason in the world to grant anything to either a mother or father without consideration for the child, is that well its sexist not to. The question isn't should the father have automatic rights because the mother has them. The question is should the father have automatic rights as part of this being in the interests of the child.

I'm more than happy for people to argue that there are rights the mother has that are not in the best interests of the child (for example not being able to remove guardianship), but ignore the child and saying the father should have such and such right just because the mother has it is stupid and dangerous in my opinion.

Again, as I keep saying, the priority of the courts with regards to child welfare is not equality between the parents.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is all very well and good to say social workers should be involved in assessing the parental abilities of mothers - it is also completely impractical, unworkable and would be nothing but an extension of the Nanny State to ridiculous levels. Social workers are already over stretched, have in the past failed to recognise genuine abuses and how exactly do you expect them to determine if a woman is an able mother? A questionnaire perhaps?

I don't expect them to determine if a woman is an able mother, again I don't know where you got the idea that the State determines whether someone is an able parent or not before they get guardianship.

This doesn't happen to the mother nor does it happen to the father.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There is absolutely no reason an unmarried father should be treated any differently from a married father when it comes to his children.

Of course there is. An unmarried father might not even know he has kids, let alone have an interest in rising them.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is blatant discrimination which denies both the unmarried father and his children equal status with a married one

It does do that, and for very good reason. The State has a responsibility to the child, a responsibility that is not served by automatically granting guardianship to fathers that may or may not have an interest in raising their children, or even knowledge they exist.

Once the State is satisfied that both those criteria are met (the father is aware of the existence of his children, and is interested in guardianship of them) then the State in the vast majority of cases is more than happy to recognize the father as a guardian.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Whether or not a man has stood in front of an alter or in a registry office and entered a contract of marriage should have no baring on his legal relationship with his children.

Of course it does, the central purpose of the marriage contract in the first place is an acknowledgement to the State that children produced by the couple are done so as part of a family.

Sonics2k

Zombrex wrote: »

Because the State needs to be satisfied that they are not awarding guardianship to a father who has no interest in his kids.

I'm an unmarried father of two children.

My ex-partner and I had been together for 6 years when we separated, we'd planned on getting married and I had (like a fool I can admit) put it of asking her to sign the Statutory declaration to grant me full legal rights.

However, when we broke up I found myself without any legal rights to my children, despite having been with them every day since their birth, from paying bills, feeding them, teaching them, putting them to sleep and so on.

I went through months of seeing a lawyer, court dates and arguments with my ex about getting equal rights to my children, despite the fact I am biologically their father and have always paid my way for them, and continued to do so after we broke up.

So now tell me, how is fair on a father of a child to have their right to see their own kids taken away because they are not married to the mother?

Zombrex

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm an unmarried father of two children.

My ex-partner and I had been together for 6 years when we separated, we'd planned on getting married and I had (like a fool I can admit) put it of asking her to sign the Statutory declaration to grant me full legal rights.

However, when we broke up I found myself without any legal rights to my children, despite having been with them every day since their birth, from paying bills, feeding them, teaching them, putting them to sleep and so on.

I went through months of seeing a lawyer, court dates and arguments with my ex about getting equal rights to my children, despite the fact I am biologically their father and have always paid my way for them, and continued to do so after we broke up.

So now tell me, how is fair on a father of a child to have their right to see their own kids taken away because they are not married to the mother?

Saying you were with them for 6 years is irrelevant if the State doesn't know you were with them for those 6 years. In those 6 years you never applied for guardianship of your kids, so how is the State to know all that time that you are interested in guardianship of them if you don't tell the State of this fact?

You should have started the guardianship application the day your kids where born. The sooner the State knows you are interested in guardianship of your children the sooner they will recognize you are as guardian. If you simply never tell the State of this there is little they can do.

Sonics2k

Zombrex wrote: »

Saying you were with them for 6 years is irrelevant if the State doesn't know you were with them for those 6 years. In those 6 years you never applied for guardianship of your kids, so how is the State to know all that time that you are interested in guardianship of them if you don't tell the State of this fact?

You should have started the guardianship application the day your kids where born. The sooner the State knows you are interested in guardianship of your children the sooner they will recognize you are as guardian. If you simply never tell the State of this there is little they can do.

Right.

So by your logic, I need to have a piece of paper signed by an office clerk to prove I am a father, and in the mean time everything else I've done with them means absolutely nothing in your eyes.

I'm gonna assume you work in some form of bureaucratic office and are not actually a father.
Because no father would be willing to accept that as a reason to have their right to see their children taken away from them.

Zombrex

Sonics2k wrote: »

Right.

So by your logic, I need to have a piece of paper signed by an office clerk to prove I am a father, and in the mean time everything else I've done with them means absolutely nothing in your eyes.

You need to have a "piece of paper" to be recognized by the State as the guardian of a child. Proving you are the father is a wholly separate matter.

Guardianship is not reliant on you proving that you are the father or not, people who are not parents can be appointed guardians and people who are parents can be refused guardianship.

It is the people that the State recognize as being responsible for the larger issues in the child's life. Clearly the State are not going to simply award this to anyone, neither are they going to award it to fathers who have not expressed any interest to the State that they want this role.

You had 6 years to apply for guardianship. I'm sorry that you are having hassle now because you didn't, but the mechanism was in place from the moment your kids were born. This is not something the State is doing to you, this is something you failed to do.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Because no father would be willing to accept that as a reason to have their right to see their children taken away from them.

I have no idea if you actually have or haven't had your right to see your children taken away from you but if you have it is not because you didn't apply for guardianship, it would be because you pose a physical or emotional threat to your children, or because such accusations have been made against you and the courts are evaluating them.

Since that is unlikely I suspect what you mean is you have to apply to see your children, which is a wholly different matter and again comes down to who the State recognize as being responsible for the care, both long term and short term, of Irish children.

Since you asked no I'm not a father, I was in fact a child in a situation similar to the situation your children find themselves in, and I can tell you for sure that is not in the best interest of the child to have guardianship and other recognitions automatically given to fathers before they have notified the State of interest in such matters.

You seem sincere in your desire to be in your children's lives, but for everyone father like you there is a father with zero interest. The State acts for the children, not the fathers, and it must be satisfied that each father is the former not the latter before it awards guardianship to them.

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

You need to have a "piece of paper" to be recognized by the State as the guardian of a child. Proving you are the father is a wholly separate matter.

Guardianship is not reliant on you proving that you are the father or not, people who are not parents can be appointed guardians and people who are parents can be refused guardianship.

It is the people that the State recognize as being responsible for the larger issues in the child's life. Clearly the State are not going to simply award this to anyone, neither are they going to award it to fathers who have not expressed any interest to the State that they want this role.

You had 6 years to apply for guardianship. I'm sorry that you are having hassle now because you didn't, but the mechanism was in place from the moment your kids were born. This is not something the State is doing to you, this is something you failed to do.



I have no idea if you actually have or haven't had your right to see your children taken away from you but if you have it is not because you didn't apply for guardianship, it would be because you pose a physical or emotional threat to your children, or because such accusations have been made against you and the courts are evaluating them.

Since that is unlikely I suspect what you mean is you have to apply to see your children, which is a wholly different matter and again comes down to who the State recognize as being responsible for the care, both long term and short term, of Irish children.

Since you asked no I'm not a father, I was in fact a child in a situation similar to the situation your children find themselves in, and I can tell you for sure that is not in the best interest of the child to have guardianship and other recognitions automatically given to fathers before they have notified the State of interest in such matters.

You seem sincere in your desire to be in your children's lives, but for everyone father like you there is a father with zero interest. The State acts for the children, not the fathers, and it must be satisfied that each father is the former not the latter before it awards guardianship to them.

Just to recap what I said earlier (post #280)

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 think that would qualify as a piece of paper, recognised by the State, in which the father indicates his intentions to be part of his children's lives.
At no point did I ever state all unmarried father's should have automatic rights. I clearly stated that when a child's birth is registered in Ireland and the father is named on the birth certificate (which in the case of unmarried parents can only be done with the father's express consent) that should confer equal status as parents on both mother and father. The willingness of the father to have his name on his child's birth certificate is, in my opinion, a perfectly legitimate way of signalling his intention to the State.

Sonics2k

Zombrex wrote: »

You need to have a "piece of paper" to be recognized by the State as the guardian of a child. Proving you are the father is a wholly separate matter.

Guardianship is not reliant on you proving that you are the father or not, people who are not parents can be appointed guardians and people who are parents can be refused guardianship.

It is the people that the State recognize as being responsible for the larger issues in the child's life. Clearly the State are not going to simply award this to anyone, neither are they going to award it to fathers who have not expressed any interest to the State that they want this role.

You had 6 years to apply for guardianship. I'm sorry that you are having hassle now because you didn't, but the mechanism was in place from the moment your kids were born. This is not something the State is doing to you, this is something you failed to do.



I have no idea if you actually have or haven't had your right to see your children taken away from you but if you have it is not because you didn't apply for guardianship, it would be because you pose a physical or emotional threat to your children, or because such accusations have been made against you and the courts are evaluating them.

Since that is unlikely I suspect what you mean is you have to apply to see your children, which is a wholly different matter and again comes down to who the State recognize as being responsible for the care, both long term and short term, of Irish children.

Since you asked no I'm not a father, I was in fact a child in a situation similar to the situation your children find themselves in, and I can tell you for sure that is not in the best interest of the child to have guardianship and other recognitions automatically given to fathers before they have notified the State of interest in such matters.

You seem sincere in your desire to be in your children's lives, but for everyone father like you there is a father with zero interest. The State acts for the children, not the fathers, and it must be satisfied that each father is the former not the latter before it awards guardianship to them.

I'm named on the Birth Certificate as the father, this can only be done with the father's consent.
Surely this is proof of my interest of being their legal guardian as well as it is in virtually every other country.

But as for your second point.
Under current Irish legislation a Mother can remove all access rights from a Father when they separate for any reason, in fact she doesn't even need to provide a reason.

I do sympathise that you were in an unfortunate position, but that is no reason for those of us who truly want to be part of our childrens lives be forced to fight through the courts to prove it.

As it currently stands, a Mother can force a Father to pay maintenance because of a biological child, however the Father is not entitled to visitation rights without permission from the courts or if the Statutory Declaration is signed and an agreement is arranged in court.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

The worst reason in the world to grant anything to either a mother or father without consideration for the child, is that well its sexist not to.

Actually the state, even if the interests of the child are the priority, should not ignore the interests of either of the parents either - after all, they're people too, and it is overly simplistic to play the "won't someone think of the children" card, as if it is a all or nothing affair. To prioritize something does not mean the exclusion of everything else.

Additionally, 'rights' to a child involve rights to determine the best interests of the child and we still live in a culture that (in theory) presumes that a biological parent is most likely to fit the bill in this regard. Otherwise any decision by a parent would likely require government sanction to see that it is 'in the best interest of the child'.

If we are to accept this, then either parent, regardless of gender should be empowered to act in their child's best interest. At the same time, both parents also have personal rights too, and this too should not be ignored (which is what the "won't someone think of the children" card tends to do).

The question isn't should the father have automatic rights because the mother has them. The question is should the father have automatic rights as part of this being in the interests of the child.

I think there is some misunderstanding as to what 'automatic' rights would be. In reality, fathers would still need to actively register; all that would change is that a mother could only object on the basis of paternity.

In reality even a mother has to do this - unless she too registers as the mother, she's legally a stranger to the child too. There's been a lot of discussion on 'automatic' rights, but it strikes me that few actually understand what this would really mean.

I'm more than happy for people to argue that there are rights the mother has that are not in the best interests of the child (for example not being able to remove guardianship), but ignore the child and saying the father should have such and such right just because the mother has it is stupid and dangerous in my opinion.

If we are to genuinely follow a policy of what is in the best interests of the child, then neither parent should have automatic guardianship. This is not a "if I can't have it neither can she" argument, but basic logic; there is no reason to say that a biological mother as guardian is in the best interests of the child - truth be told, it is actually in the interest of many children to be adopted by a stable, two-parent family with the economic resources to take care of them.

So why do we let biological mothers keep children when it is objectively not in the child's interest? Because it's a compromise between the rights of the parent and the rights of the child and because of the cultural presumption that biological parent is overall in the best interests of the child (or at least the ideal situation).

It does do that, and for very good reason. The State has a responsibility to the child, a responsibility that is not served by automatically granting guardianship to fathers that may or may not have an interest in raising their children, or even knowledge they exist.

Except this is not what would happen and you're operating from a mistaken understanding of what 'automatic' means. Fathers with no interest would simply not register.

Once the State is satisfied that both those criteria are met (the father is aware of the existence of his children, and is interested in guardianship of them) then the State in the vast majority of cases is more than happy to recognize the father as a guardian.

You say the "vast majority of cases" which gives away the difference. Under the present system the mother can object - even if the father is both aware of the existence of his children, and is interested in guardianship of them. This makes little sense given it comes from someone who did not even have to even show interest in guardianship to get it.

Automatic guardianship still requires that the father is aware of the existence of his children, and is interested in guardianship of them - the only difference is that it removes the mother's capacity to block it.

Zombrex

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm named on the Birth Certificate as the father, this can only be done with the father's consent.
Surely this is proof of my interest of being their legal guardian as well as it is in virtually every other country.

Why would that be proof of intent? A birth certificate is a factual document, you are the father whether you have intent or not to be part of the raising of the child.

Sonics2k wrote: »

But as for your second point.
Under current Irish legislation a Mother can remove all access rights from a Father when they separate for any reason, in fact she doesn't even need to provide a reason.

That isn't true. The mother does not grant the father access rights, neither can she remove access rights. The courts grant access rights. While the court will listen to the opinion of the mother with regard to whether the father should or shouldn't have access the court does not simply do as the mother stays.

By the sounds of it you never had access rights to your children in the first place but this was never an issue because you and your partner were co-habitting. It is now an issue because you never had access rights in the first place and thus have to apply to the courts for them. That is not the same as the mother removing access rights.

Sonics2k wrote: »

I do sympathise that you were in an unfortunate position, but that is no reason for those of us who truly want to be part of our childrens lives be forced to fight through the courts to prove it.

Of course there is. Consider the alternative, the State doesn't bother to involve itself in guardianship, custody or access and any it becomes a free for all over who is recognized as being responsible for the child.

Sonics2k wrote: »

As it currently stands, a Mother can force a Father to pay maintenance because of a biological child, however the Father is not entitled to visitation rights without permission from the courts or if the Statutory Declaration is signed and an agreement is arranged in court.

Correct, that is because the child needs financial support irrespective of how involve the father is or isn't in the child's life.

Child maintenance is not a punishment on the father, nor is it a way for the father to buy access. The father is not rewarded for paying maintenance, it is considered a duty and for the child, he shouldn't expect something in return.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Automatic guardianship still requires that the father is aware of the existence of his children, and is interested in guardianship of them - the only difference is that it removes the mother's capacity to block it.

Then fathers already have "automatic" guardianship rights, since the mother is not able to block guardianship for the father.

I think you mean remove the court's ability to not grant it.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

Then fathers already have "automatic" guardianship rights, since the mother is not able to block guardianship for the father.

I think you mean remove the court's ability to not grant it.

And where do you think that the court's ability to not grant it comes from? A mother can object to a father getting guardianship rights; I know of no other instance where a court can refuse to grant it. Additionally, that's if it even goes to court and it only does so if the mother refuses to sign the father's statutory declaration of guardianship - which is a clear attempt to block it. So please don't play with semantics.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

And where do you think that the court's ability to not grant it comes from? A mother can object to a father getting guardianship rights; I know of no other instance where a court can refuse to grant it. So please don't play with semantics.

The court can refuse to grant guardianship for any reason where guardianship is not in the interests of the children involve. Evidence for this can come from any number of sources, including the mother.

Do you believe that there should be no assessment of applications of guardianship? If so can you explain how that is in the best interests of the child?

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

The court can refuse to grant guardianship for any reason where guardianship is not in the interests of the children involve. Evidence for this can come from any number of sources, including the mother.

All of which stem from the mother's original refusal to sign the father's statutory declaration of guardianship - those 'number of sources' all stem from the mother, they cannot act without her express wish. It doesn't even get to court unless she attempts to block it. So again, I'd ask you not to play with semantics.

Do you believe that there should be no assessment of applications of guardianship? If so can you explain how that is in the best interests of the child?

If you had addressed my first response to you, I have already said that you are adopting a simplistic definition of "the best interests of the child". First of all, it does not mean that the parents thus have no rights as a result. Secondly, we do live in a society that presumes that biological parents are in "the best interests of the child" last time I checked, so the law needs to be consistent on this.

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

Why would that be proof of intent? A birth certificate is a factual document, you are the father whether you have intent or not to be part of the raising of the child.



That isn't true. The mother does not grant the father access rights, neither can she remove access rights. The courts grant access rights. While the court will listen to the opinion of the mother with regard to whether the father should or shouldn't have access the court does not simply do as the mother stays.

By the sounds of it you never had access rights to your children in the first place but this was never an issue because you and your partner were co-habitting. It is now an issue because you never had access rights in the first place and thus have to apply to the courts for them. That is not the same as the mother removing access rights.



Of course there is. Consider the alternative, the State doesn't bother to involve itself in guardianship, custody or access and any it becomes a free for all over who is recognized as being responsible for the child.



Correct, that is because the child needs financial support irrespective of how involve the father is or isn't in the child's life.

Child maintenance is not a punishment on the father, nor is it a way for the father to buy access. The father is not rewarded for paying maintenance, it is considered a duty and for the child, he shouldn't expect something in return.

You do not seem to understand is what I and others here are advocating is a means of giving the children of unmarried fathers the same legal status with their father's as currently enjoyed by married fathers. I cannot understand why the fact of being married/unmarried should in anyway impact legally on a parent/child relationship.
You advocate the importance of unmarried father's signalling their intentions to the State - but ignored my suggestion re: inclusion on Birth Certificate. Which, as The Corinthian has pointed out is exactly how a mother's legal relationship with her child is registered. If the women is married - her husbands name can be placed on the register in his absence - even if he is not the biological father of the child (and yes, this does happen). In the case of an unmarried couple the father must actively participate in the birth registration process.
Why is it, in your opinion, just that it is acceptable for the process of registering a birth can confirm the legal relationship between a mother and child/ husband of mother and her child but not unmarried biological father of child?

How is it in the interests of a child to have their legal relationship with their father be that of strangers simply because their biological parents didn't or couldn't marry?

IMHO - it is nothing but left over residue from the old stigma of illegitimacy - a legal concept which may have been abandoned but still de facto exists when the children of married couples automatically enjoy a full legal relationship with their parents which is denied to the children of unmarried parents unless court permission is obtained to recognise it.