Unmarried father...

Ms. Pingui

xsiborg wrote: »

but im glad to see you have your priorities straight at least! :rolleyes:

in other news- every situation is different, and the case of the OP is only one, ONE, of many, many anecdotal cases.

i don't know the OP's situation and neither do any of us here, we can only form an opinion based on what they have posted, but i hope the OP is able to see from the point of view of many women who have left abusive relationships and taken their children with them for their own safety, and then the father decides he will try to gain access through legal means to see the children, and thereby continue to intimidate the mother.

its all fine a father with good intentions saying that they want access to their children, but OP you are in a very, very tiny minority, and i'd sooner the courts err on the side of caution than have the children pulled from pillar to post emotionally speaking at least.

imagine how hard it was for you OP to go through what you have been through, now imagine what it's like for your children, who are far less emotionally and intellectually developed to deal with the situation.

it is the courts job not to side with either adult party, but to do what it sees are in the best interests of the children, not the adults.

I agree with you. I'm a young single mother of a two year old. My childs father was abusive towards me. From the time our child was born he would spend evry weekend at my parents with us as I lived there. He spent his "visitation" time verbally abusing me, being really aggressive, trashing my stuff and showing little interest in his daughter.
As we were no longer together he spent all his time trying to get with me which made me really uncomfortable and I spent much of his visits in tears.
Because of this my parents banned him from the house and he saw his daughter in a public area once a week but nothing changed. He then tried to bring me to court but through mediation he ended up back visiting my home. There was no way I could prove what had been happening.
All this and more put me through hell for a long time and I'm glad he didn't get automatic rights. If the way things are are wrong, well personally i'm glad they aren't right!

Robdude

Millicent wrote: »

Who said that?

It best reflects the attitudes and actions of the majority of Men and Women I've interacted with.

Millicent

Robdude wrote: »

It best reflects the attitudes and actions of the majority of Men and Women I've interacted with.

Start mixing with better people; those people sound like eejits.

cloptrop

planetX wrote: »

and you're jumping to stupid and incorrect conclusions.
The thread is about courts being biased against fathers. I'm saying that this is not my experience.

No you were saying it was biased towards father because a father got access after being missing for 7 years.
To punish him would be punishing the child. This isnt biased or pro anything , its common sence give the boy his dad at 7 rather than 18.

token101

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Today, I was at the family law court to have my application for co-guardianship and joint custody heard.

Long story...

The mother of my daughter agreed to sign the forms ten minutes before we were about to go into the judge. I'm very happy with the outcome.

My question is, why did I have to go to court just to get some basic rights over my daughter?

What pissed me off although I accept it, is that my solicitor made it clear in the written document that we both signed is that the mother is the primary care giver, like I said, I accept this but the judge went on to add a few more paragraphs to give the mother more control, despite the fact that agreement had been reached between both parties before we entered the court room. I genuinely feel there is a strong bias against fathers in our laws and legal system.

I actually think I'm lucky, I get 50% access to my daughter and a say in what happens, up until today it was all literally at the discretion of the mother, that just seems sick to me.

I think there is something wrong with a de facto situation where every single father who has a child outside of marriage has as many rights over them as the bottle of beer beside me.

I think we need to adopt a system similar to the US, if a father has no interest in his child, fine, automatically garnish his income and that's that, but if he wants to be involved in the childs life than give him these rights and responsibilities without having to go through the court system to get some.

I know nothing about any of this, I've no idea of the laws or anything but I'm just curious. Why wouldn't you just say to the mother that you refuse to pay maintenance until you get access/joint custody? Maybe when she's stuck for money it might force her to relent? Or would that end up coming back to haunt you in court or something? Out of curiosity, how long did the process take if you don't mind my asking? Please don't say it took 7 years because that's unbelievably wrong on more than one level.

theg81der

God you picked well didn`t you! Your ex is a really decent human being and your very lucky. Of course I shouldn`t have to say that, it should be equal rights and I await the day when someone properly challenges this crap. Its the one change I would like to see come out of european human rights.

Robdude

Millicent wrote: »

Start mixing with better people; those people sound like eejits.

I'm not referring to my personal social-circle. I'm talking about the general opinions I see reflected everywhere, including the internet.

A male teacher sleeps with a female student - he's a criminal
A female teacher sleeps with a male student - it's all fun and games

Compare the attitudes and rulings of courts to see how equal we view the sexes.

Hell, you can't honestly tell me that 99% of the population has more of a problem with a guy hitting a girl in a pub than a guy hitting another guy in a pub. One is a horrible crime against humanity, the other is two guys settling things the old fashioned way. Neither is 'okay' but to say they are viewed equally is ridiculous.

Countries that have drafts typically only draft men. Countries with mandatory military service often only require men to serve. Countries that allow men and women in the military often have segregation of duties such that the most dangerous roles cannot be performed by women.

Women have significantly more legal rights pertaining to their children and are favoured in the courts in matters of custody.

Another example - I don't know how true this is in Ireland - but in the United States men historically outscored women in subjects like Math, while trailing in subjects like English.

The result was a national push for to help engage female students in Mathematics.

There was no equivalent program to emphasis helping male students to excel in English.

KittyeeTrix

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Any father who has a child outside of marriage has no rights over his child and the only way to get them is by consent of the mother or the consent of a judge, I find this absurd. Each individual case is obviously different, my point is that it's not right that an unmarried father should have to go and get basic rights.

I'm forever telling my almost 18 yr old son that he needs to be mindful of this if he were ever to get a "girl in trouble"........

I know it's often looked upon by parents that its their teenage daughters that they think about most with regards teenage pregnancy but I'm forever reminding my son that as an unmarried father in this country he has no rights at all and so tread carefully in that respect

It must be terrible to not automatically have access to your child. As a mother of 4 I don't know how I'd cope if myself and my husband were to split and he held all the cards so to speak in relation to our children..

Very unfair and unjust in my opinion.

KittyeeTrix

Robdude wrote: »

Another example - I don't know how true this is in Ireland - but in the United States men historically outscored women in subjects like Math, while trailing in subjects like English.

The result was a national push for to help engage female students in Mathematics.

There was no equivalent program to emphasis helping male students to excel in English.

I'd imagine this has more to do with the current global employment routes being dominated by the engineering, pharma, IT, computing areas for which Maths prowess more so than English would be a factor in a countries economic stability........May be wrong though:)

Robdude

Robdude wrote: »

Millicent wrote: »

Start mixing with better people; those people sound like eejits.

I'm not referring to my personal social-circle. I'm talking about the general opinions I see reflected everywhere, including the internet.

A male teacher sleeps with a female student - he's a criminal
A female teacher sleeps with a male student - it's all fun and

.

Patently untrue there are many well documented cases where female teachers have been tried and quite rightly been imprisioned for corrupting a minor .

token101

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

I'm forever telling my almost 18 yr old son that he needs to be mindful of this if he were ever to get a "girl in trouble"........

I know it's often looked upon by parents that its their teenage daughters that they think about most with regards teenage pregnancy but I'm forever reminding my son that as an unmarried father in this country he has no rights at all and so tread carefully in that respect

It must be terrible to not automatically have access to your child. As a mother of 4 I don't know how I'd cope if myself and my husband were to split and he held all the cards so to speak in relation to our children..

Very unfair and unjust in my opinion.

Eh surely condoms would be better advice than how to cope with a baby?

KittyeeTrix

token101 wrote: »

Eh surely condoms would be better advice than how to cope with a baby?

Eh, Well obviously but ye know how sh*t sometimes happens in life.:)

Robdude

Daniella Lazy Fatigues wrote: »

Patently untrue there are many well documented cases where female teachers have been tried and quite rightly been imprisioned for corrupting a minor .

I'm not saying that women are *never* punished for it.

I'm saying that the punishment (and the social outcry from it) is less severe than when the genders are reversed.

Same with female on male domestic abuse.

KeithAFC

This is just another story in our society of people starting up a family and then getting a divorce or just splitting up the family and causing strife. Long gone are the traditional values in which society was structured around. A real shame. Hopefully those days come back.

Thanks for telling us your story though OP.

Millicent

KeithAFC wrote: »

This is just another story in our society of people starting up a family and then getting a divorce or just splitting up the family and causing strife. Long gone are the traditional values in which society was structured around. A real shame. Hopefully those days come back.

Thanks for telling us your story though OP.

Yeah, let's all be miserable the rest of our lives and drag children into unhappy marriages so that we can maintain traditional values.

KittyeeTrix

KeithAFC wrote: »

This is just another story in our society of people starting up a family and then getting a divorce or just splitting up the family and causing strife. Long gone are the traditional values in which society was structured around. A real shame. Hopefully those days come back.

Thanks for telling us your story though OP.

Aw bless.................

token101

Millicent wrote: »

Yeah, let's all be miserable the rest of our lives and drag children into unhappy marriages so that we can maintain traditional values.

That's not what was said. But don't let that get in the way of mindlessly bashing people who don't agree with what you think.

KittyeeTrix

token101 wrote: »

That's not what was said. But don't let that get in the way of mindlessly bashing people who don't agree with what you think.

It's what I saw in the post too.......a bit of a "dig"

What do you think was said then??

Fromthetrees

token101 wrote: »

I know nothing about any of this, I've no idea of the laws or anything but I'm just curious. Why wouldn't you just say to the mother that you refuse to pay maintenance until you get access/joint custody? Maybe when she's stuck for money it might force her to relent? Or would that end up coming back to haunt you in court or something? Out of curiosity, how long did the process take if you don't mind my asking? Please don't say it took 7 years because that's unbelievably wrong on more than one level.

I'm going to come across badly now to some people. I don't pay maintenance. I did pay it up until the kid was about 1, I stopped because the mother started having a higher income than me at that stage, also, like I said I do half of everything regarding our child, time/food/clothes/toys/books/swimming ect. If I had stopped paying maintenance on principle I would say the court would take a very dim view of me. To be honest, my experience of going through the process couldn't have been any easier I would think, as in, nothing really went wrong, there was no arguments, no hassle really, we didn't even have to talk to the judge and the judge just said that it was refreshing and she wished every case was like ours. The only reason I wanted to do it was to guarantee that the mother of my child couldn't take her abroad forever without me even knowing, and as far as I know now she can't. I never had any issue at all relating to access or decision making, it's been 50/50 with everything from day one, so I guess I've been pretty lucky (so far, touch wood).
The whole process actually took long enough, it was 7 months from the day I applied for it in the district court office to the day the case was heard, the length of time didn't bother me in the slightest as it made no real difference to me once I got what I wanted eventually, and I did. I can only imagine what waiting for 7 months would be like to a father denied access to his child, they develop so much in 7 months and time is one thing you can never get back, it must be so hard if you went that long without seeing your kid. I had also done a whole pile of research before I applied to the courts, called into CAB, rang Treoir about 7 times, asked plenty of questions here on boards and got some great information from people on here, read up online a lot about it, so the whole thing actually took about a year, but again, I don't see how it could have went any easier for me.

Biggins

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Today, I was at the family law court to have my application for co-guardianship and joint custody heard.

Long story...

The mother of my daughter agreed to sign the forms ten minutes before we were about to go into the judge. I'm very happy with the outcome.

My question is, why did I have to go to court just to get some basic rights over my daughter?

What pissed me off although I accept it, is that my solicitor made it clear in the written document that we both signed is that the mother is the primary care giver, like I said, I accept this but the judge went on to add a few more paragraphs to give the mother more control, despite the fact that agreement had been reached between both parties before we entered the court room. I genuinely feel there is a strong bias against fathers in our laws and legal system.

I actually think I'm lucky, I get 50% access to my daughter and a say in what happens, up until today it was all literally at the discretion of the mother, that just seems sick to me.

I think there is something wrong with a de facto situation where every single father who has a child outside of marriage has as many rights over them as the bottle of beer beside me.

I think we need to adopt a system similar to the US, if a father has no interest in his child, fine, automatically garnish his income and that's that, but if he wants to be involved in the childs life than give him these rights and responsibilities without having to go through the court system to get some.

OP, 16+ years ago a report was submitted to the then Irish government telling them that even THEN that the Irish constitution was out of date and in-violation of European law as regards fathers rights.
Since then every consecutive government has been informed of the still current wrongness that lies within the Irish constitution - and every consecutive government has done absolutely nothing.
They were and are afraid to tackle the constitution on this and other legal matters including the once again recent abortion issue (see recent private members bill which was rejected by FG this week with excuses of "we will tackle it later!").

Its a disgusting, long, drawn out farce!
Our laws on father rights are far, far an unfunny joke.
They are still so backwards - its unreal ...but they can find the time to rush laws through concerning the internet, etc...!

If you need help try the following to begin with:

www.fathers.ie
www.solo.ie

Good luck - you will need it to be honest with the two faced lazy arsed fcuks that are still willing to do nothing currently residing in the Dail.

For the record:

In 1966, the Supreme Court clarified the following aspects of the Irish Constitution:

(i) a natural or biological father is not a member of a family within Article 41;
(ii) a natural or biological father is not a parent within Article 42; and
(iii) a natural or biological father has no personal right in relation to his child which the State is bound to protect under Article 40.3 (The State (Nicolaou) v an Bord Uchtála).

In 1996, the Constitution Review Group acknowledged that “there has been much criticism of the continued constitutional ostracism of natural fathers” and proposed the following solution: “The Review Group considers that the solution [to giving constitutional rights to natural fathers] appears to lie in following the approach of Article 8 of the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] in guaranteeing to every person respect for ‘family life’ which has been interpreted to include non-marital family life but yet requiring the existence of family ties between the mother and the father.

This may be a way of granting constitutional rights to those fathers who have, or had, a stable relationship with the mother prior to birth, or subsequent to birth with the child, while excluding persons from having such rights who are only biological fathers without any such relationship. In the context of the Irish constitution it would have to be made clear that the reference to family life included family life not based on marriage”.

Source: http://www.fathers.ie/Mens-Issues/The-Ten-Commandments-of-Family-Law-

cloptrop

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

It's what I saw in the post too.......a bit of a "dig"

What do you think was said then??

What was said was although Jesus had a few holes in his story and a few peados joined his priesthood to hide the fact they didnt wanna marry . Jesus was a decent person and his teachings meant well.
This atheism thing may very well be true but lets be honest , whatll stop crazy people stabbing bystanders. It wont be hell. Whatll stop men running off , women kicking the babies father out once another fella gives her the time of day?
Nothing .
We need Jesus to fix the family crisis in Ireland and to get me beer for supporting him .
Go team Jesus.

planetX

cloptrop wrote: »

No you were saying it was biased towards father because a father got access after being missing for 7 years.
To punish him would be punishing the child. This isnt biased or pro anything , its common sence give the boy his dad at 7 rather than 18.

the father was never denied access. It was the amount to start with that was in dispute, and the courts judgement resulted in a lot of unnecessary trauma for the child. It was a case of father wants, father gets, right now. Hasn't done anyone any favours as forcing long access periods really didn't help their new relationship.
Give the boy his dad eh?

xsiborg

i honestly hadnt meant for you to take my post so personally, but you put the information out there with the expectation surely that people would comment on your post, thereby opening a discussion on not just unmarried father's rights (or lack thereof), but also the rights of parents in general, inviting views from other posters who may have held a different opinion to your own.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Your post is just a complete headfuck.

how... insightful!

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Having a beer when I don't have my kid over is having my priorities fucked up?

had you read MY post, you would have seen where i clarified that given that this was after hours, it was a tongue in cheek comment.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

My case isn't anecdotal

with all due respect, i disagree.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

if you actually read my first post, which I doubt

you may also doubt that i read your OP three times so i could fully understand where you were coming from.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I said that it is the default situation. Any father who has a child outside of marriage has no rights over his child and the only way to get them is by consent of the mother or the consent of a judge, I find this absurd.

you agreed yourself though that the mother is the primary caregiver, therefore you must understand why the court too would see this as the default position, unless other evidence be presented to the contrary.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Each individual case is obviously different, my point is that it's not right that an unmarried father should have to go and get basic rights.

of course it isnt right, but as i said in my earlier post, the court has to favour the rights and welfare of the child over those of either adult, no matter what in your opinion are the rights and wrongs of the situation.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

What has being an unmarried father and being abusive towards women or children got in common?

i think you are misconstruing what i posted here.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Your saying that unmarried fathers with 'good intentions are in a very, very tiny minority', that's just insane. I won't even ask for any statistics to back that claim up because it's just demented.

i dont consider it to be insane, there are far more unmarried fathers who do not want anything to do with their children compared to the amount that do, and even less that are willing to go as far as going to court to formalise access and guardianship rights.

im glad you didnt ask for statistics though, because there will be none forthcoming. if you yet again, had read my posts, you would have seen where i put forward my abhorrence of statistics, because they can be used to further either side of an argument, and i would sooner engage with someone whose opinion is based on personal experience rather than pulling figures from the first link on google.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

On the other hand, are you saying that about all fathers or just unmarried fathers? To me, marriage is just a piece of paper.

i opened up the discussion to include all fathers, and not just all fathers, but all mothers too. you had posted based on your own experience, but you must understand that this being the internet, your post has invited others to share their experiences, you should at least be mindful of this before you dismiss others opinions as a headfúck. you really aren't doing yourself any favors in furtherance of your cause.

as for your assertion that "marriage is just a piece of paper", well if today has taught you anything, it should be that in the eyes of the irish judiciary, marriage is far from, as you put it- just a piece of paper. it gives you rights that you do not have as an unmarried father.

there is a lot more to marriage, but that is beyond the scope of this thread, and, given your flyaway and dismissive comment regarding the idea, i do not think you would be open to a discussion on what constitutes a marriage.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I honestly don't even know what you're trying to say.

we'll just leave it there then shall we, and let the discussion move forward so that other posters can get a chance to offer their opinions and let the discussion further develop. i dont think we are going to see eye to eye on this one, but i at least respect where you are coming from.

maiden

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

I'm forever telling my almost 18 yr old son that he needs to be mindful of this if he were ever to get a "girl in trouble"........

I know it's often looked upon by parents that its their teenage daughters that they think about most with regards teenage pregnancy but I'm forever reminding my son that as an unmarried father in this country he has no rights at all and so tread carefully in that respect


Very unfair and unjust in my opinion.

I totally get this!! I have 2 sons say this to them also, I am terrified of becoming a granny and not being able to see my grandchild because of the father having no rights!!

I am also a single parent, I have a daughter whose father wants no part in her life, he knows I would never have an issue if he finally knocked on the door but unfortunately he cant be arsed. He never paid his 30 euro a week maint, but such is life, his loss!

Fromthetrees

xsiborg wrote: »

i honestly hadnt meant for you to take my post so personally, but you put the information out there with the expectation surely that people would comment on your post, thereby opening a discussion on not just unmarried father's rights (or lack thereof), but also the rights of parents in general, inviting views from other posters who may have held a different opinion to your own.



how... insightful!



had you read MY post, you would have seen where i clarified that given that this was after hours, it was a tongue in cheek comment.



with all due respect, i disagree.



you may also doubt that i read your OP three times so i could fully understand where you were coming from.




you agreed yourself though that the mother is the primary caregiver, therefore you must understand why the court too would see this as the default position, unless other evidence be presented to the contrary.



of course it isnt right, but as i said in my earlier post, the court has to favour the rights and welfare of the child over those of either adult, no matter what in your opinion are the rights and wrongs of the situation.



i think you are misconstruing what i posted here.





i dont consider it to be insane, there are far more unmarried fathers who do not want anything to do with their children compared to the amount that do, and even less that are willing to go as far as going to court to formalise access and guardianship rights.

im glad you didnt ask for statistics though, because there will be none forthcoming. if you yet again, had read my posts, you would have seen where i put forward my abhorrence of statistics, because they can be used to further either side of an argument, and i would sooner engage with someone whose opinion is based on personal experience rather than pulling figures from the first link on google.



i opened up the discussion to include all fathers, and not just all fathers, but all mothers too. you had posted based on your own experience, but you must understand that this being the internet, your post has invited others to share their experiences, you should at least be mindful of this before you dismiss others opinions as a headfúck. you really aren't doing yourself any favors in furtherance of your cause.

as for your assertion that "marriage is just a piece of paper", well if today has taught you anything, it should be that in the eyes of the irish judiciary, marriage is far from, as you put it- just a piece of paper. it gives you rights that you do not have as an unmarried father.

there is a lot more to marriage, but that is beyond the scope of this thread, and, given your flyaway and dismissive comment regarding the idea, i do not think you would be open to a discussion on what constitutes a marriage.



we'll just leave it there then shall we, and let the discussion move forward so that other posters can get a chance to offer their opinions and let the discussion further develop. i dont think we are going to see eye to eye on this one, but i at least respect where you are coming from.

I'm not going to go through everything you've said, just a few things. I agreed that the mother is the primary caregiver because I simply wouldn't have got it, she's a good mother. I strongly disagree that opinions and experiences are the only foundation of making a point, statistics and studies are very important. To go by your logic, if I know of one Romanian who is a pedophile than my experience would tell me that Romanians are pedophiles but we know for a fact that all Romanians are not pedophiles because of statistics, however strong your opinion is on your experience doesn't make it true and the only way to prove you wrong in this instance is through using statistics.
To me the laws around unmarried fathers are obsolete and are the remnants of the tyrannical grip the catholic church had/has over Ireland. The law will change sooner or later.
I strongly believe that giving a father rights over his child is in the best interest of the child, outside of any kind of abuse and the same goes for mothers but fathers/mothers who abuse their kids or themselves through substances are actually in a tiny, tiny minority, I know this because of experience and statistics to help cement my opinion.

Millicent

KeithAFC wrote: »

This is just another story in our society of people starting up a family and then getting a divorce or just splitting up the family and causing strife. Long gone are the traditional values in which society was structured around. A real shame. Hopefully those days come back.

Thanks for telling us your story though OP.

token101 wrote: »

That's not what was said. But don't let that get in the way of mindlessly bashing people who don't agree with what you think.

Can you point out what I missed there? Be sure to be specific now.

xsiborg

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I'm not going to go through everything you've said, just a few things. I agreed that the mother is the primary caregiver because I simply wouldn't have got it.

effectively what you did was resigned yourself to the fact that the mother had all rights before you even began to explore the idea of questioning what were your rights.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I strongly disagree that opinions and experiences are the only foundation of making a point, statistics and studies are very important.

i never said that opinions and experiences were the only foundation of making a point, just that statistics can be found to support or refute an argument either way, that is why for me personally, statistics and figures and obscure references to some american survey done in 1928 that i just found on google, only serve to cloud and confuse an issue. i prefer to put forward my own opinion and therefore be able to stand behind it. i can quote you freud and kinsey til it comes out your ears, but they are opinions based on those persons experiences, based on their interpretations of the data they gathered. i prefer to use my own brain to form an independent thought.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

To go by your logic, if I know of one Romanian who is a pedophile than my experience would tell me that Romanians are pedophiles

that is nowhere near even close to my logic, where you got that from i have no idea, as all along i have said that i base my opinion on the invididual, therefore my logic would be that the fact the person is a romanian is irrelevant.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

but we know for a fact

i read it on the internet so it must be a fact? we, dont KNOW anything, we can only assume and surmise based on the evidence put before us, a typical example being that you did not state in your OP that you had not paid maintenance for your child for a number of years, a fact that only came to light later in the thread.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

however strong your opinion is on your experience doesn't make it true

if i experience it, then it is true, and anything i have posted in this thread has been based on my experience, because it happened, i've seen it happen, and at least i am willing to accept that my experience is anecdotal, as opposed to purporting it to be a fact, based on statistics that i can pull from as many sources as you can to refute them.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

To me the laws around unmarried fathers are obsolete and are the remnants of the tyrannical grip the catholic church had/has over Ireland.


The law will change sooner or later.

the state has only been formed since 1922, that'd be 90 years give or take, and we were as a society under british rule long before then, and long before the introduction of catholicism to ireland, we were a pagan country for many centuries. you really expect that change will happen overnight? but blame the catholic church all you want for the laws of the state, seems the trendy thing to do nowadays anyway.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I strongly believe that giving a father rights over his child is in the best interest of the child, outside of any kind of abuse and the same goes for mothers but fathers/mothers who abuse their kids or themselves through substances are actually in a tiny, tiny minority, I know this because of experience and statistics to help cement my opinion.

ok, outside of any other extenuating circumstances then, yes, i wholeheartedly agree with you, but there is never any such thing as a situation that does not have individual and extenuating circumstances, and statistics can only give us a general overview of society as a whole, certainly not on an induvidual basis.

as to your assertion that fathers/mothers who abuse themselves or their kids being in a tiny tiny minority, i agree with you here too, but i'd sooner base my opinion on experience, otherwise i'd have believed everything that's shoved down my throat by the media about the evil done within the catholic hierarchy, at least if the statistics are anything to go by! that again though is a topic for another thread.

Dudess

cloptrop wrote: »

So because the child had no father for 7 years he cant be allowed have one for another 11 is your point of view?
You arnt pro child your anti father.

Depends on the father (or mother if it's the case that she's the estranged parent) I'd have thought.
My friend's son is 10 and a half and his father hasn't wanted to know since he found out about the pregnancy. If he were able to just swoop into the boy's life now and get custody, it would be a travesty IMO - in terms of how it would affect his son moreso than anyone else.
If he was genuinely interested in being a part of his boy's life and made a big effort to demonstrate this, then I would definitely think he deserves a second chance - people change and mature a hell of a lot in 11 years. But it would need to be a gradual process, with great care and sensitivity to his child.

Re not paying maintenance: whatever about the mother, but would this not be just hurting the child? I'm not saying that to be judgemental, I'm just wondering what good it would ultimately do where the child is concerned.

As for sexism against men, I doubt very much that the majority of people think it's ok, but there doesn't seem to be much attempts to challenge it. I feel it's allowed to thrive because of complacency rather than outright support.

xsiborg

Dudess wrote: »

Depends on the father (or mother if it's the case that she's the estranged parent) I'd have thought.
My friend's son is 10 and a half and his father hasn't wanted to know since he found out about the pregnancy. If he were able to just swoop into the boy's life now and get custody, it would be a travesty IMO - in terms of how it would affect his son moreso than anyone else.
If he was genuinely interested in being a part of his boy's life and made a big effort to demonstrate this, then I would definitely think he deserves a second chance - people change and mature a hell of a lot in 11 years. But it would need to be a gradual process, with great care and sensitivity to his child.

Re not paying maintenance: whatever about the mother, but would this not be just hurting the child? I'm not saying that to be judgemental, I'm just wondering what good it would ultimately do where the child is concerned.

As for sexism against men, I doubt very much that the majority of people think it's ok, but there doesn't seem to be much attempts to challenge it. I feel it's allowed to thrive because of complacency rather than outright support.

quality post dudess, too much nowadays seems to be focussed more on rights and actually less about responsibilities, and THAT is exactly where i was coming from in a very unfortunately long winded way, you just happened to word it much better than i ever could have!

Dudess

Millicent wrote: »

KeithAFC wrote: »

This is just another story in our society of people starting up a family and then getting a divorce or just splitting up the family and causing strife. Long gone are the traditional values in which society was structured around. A real shame. Hopefully those days come back.

Thanks for telling us your story though OP.

token101 wrote: »

That's not what was said. But don't let that get in the way of mindlessly bashing people who don't agree with what you think.

Can you point out what I missed there? Be sure to be specific now.

It doesn't seem an appropriate thread to bring up the pitfalls of divorce/separation, nothing to do with whether I think Keith is right or wrong - the OP wanted to speak about the lack of parental rights for unmarried fathers (and he's right, they're sh1t in Ireland) and the last thing he needs is pontificating (lol, Keith, pontiff :pac;) re the breakdown of the traditional family unit, kicking him while he's down. Fairly insensitive IMO and just using the OP as an example to push an agenda. It's kinda off-topic too.
The traditional family unit IS the ideal, but sometimes things just don't work out that way and it's not easy.

Foghladh

For starters I'd say congratulations to the OP on getting his access to his child. From firsthand experience I know what it's like to deal with the issues of fathers rights here in Ireland.

I became a dad back in the early 90's when I was just 20 years old. The relationship had ended and I moved away to college not even knowing my ex was pregnant. Being the days before email and mobiles the first notification I received was a letter through the door informing me that I was to be a dad. Oh and by the way the due date was 3 weeks away.

After I regained consciousness I found that the rest of the letter stated that my ex felt she couldn't raise a child and had decided to put the baby up for adoption after delivery. The letter I was receiving was a suggestion from the social worker who wondered if I might take the time to fill out a form giving my physical and personality details. These would be given to the child later if he/she came looking for information. No names or addresses but literally hair colour, eyes, fav football team etc etc.

My first instinct was to just go with the decision, fill out the form and walk away but then as I did I literally burst into tears. I figured I wouldn't want to know of my dad from an A4 sheet so I decided I'd look after the child. That's when I found out exactly how up the creek I was. In that I had no rights.

I contacted the social worker who informed me, in a kind way, that my chances of getting custody were non-existent. I was a 20 year old penniless student with no assets, no home, no money. I pointed out that my ex was a 19 year old penniless student with the same financial status as myself and yet if she decided not to proceed with the adoption she'd get to have full custody. Yes, was the reply but she is the mother. Basically what it came down to was that if I wanted to have custody of the child I was literally going through an adoption process.

I was pretty floored by this so in the end I bit the bullet and told my parents my predicament. I was extremely lucky to have them in that they contacted social services and asked to become guardians to the baby in my stead. They entered the adoption process and were awarded custody of my son.

I'll be eternally grateful to them for doing this for me. He knows of them as his grandparents and calls me dad. I managed to bypass the archaic system that we have in place but I'm well and truly bitter about that system.

To this day I'm not entirely sure if I could have gotten custody off my own bat. If my parents had been less inclined to help me my son would have gone somewhere and tht would have been that. The whole thing made me feel like a non-entity even though I wanted to partake in the process. Meetings were held between social workers and my ex, social workers and my parents. I was never consulted on anything because, of course, I had no rights in that regard. Now of course the end result was achieved from my perspective but there's something drastically wrong with a system such as we have in this regard

Millicent

Foghladh wrote: »

For starters I'd say congratulations to the OP on getting his access to his child. From firsthand experience I know what it's like to deal with the issues of fathers rights here in Ireland.

I became a dad back in the early 90's when I was just 20 years old. The relationship had ended and I moved away to college not even knowing my ex was pregnant. Being the days before email and mobiles the first notification I received was a letter through the door informing me that I was to be a dad. Oh and by the way the due date was 3 weeks away.

After I regained consciousness I found that the rest of the letter stated that my ex felt she couldn't raise a child and had decided to put the baby up for adoption after delivery. The letter I was receiving was a suggestion from the social worker who wondered if I might take the time to fill out a form giving my physical and personality details. These would be given to the child later if he/she came looking for information. No names or addresses but literally hair colour, eyes, fav football team etc etc.

My first instinct was to just go with the decision, fill out the form and walk away but then as I did I literally burst into tears. I figured I wouldn't want to know of my dad from an A4 sheet so I decided I'd look after the child. That's when I found out exactly how up the creek I was. In that I had no rights.

I contacted the social worker who informed me, in a kind way, that my chances of getting custody were non-existent. I was a 20 year old penniless student with no assets, no home, no money. I pointed out that my ex was a 19 year old penniless student with the same financial status as myself and yet if she decided not to proceed with the adoption she'd get to have full custody. Yes, was the reply but she is the mother. Basically what it came down to was that if I wanted to have custody of the child I was literally going through an adoption process.

I was pretty floored by this so in the end I bit the bullet and told my parents my predicament. I was extremely lucky to have them in that they contacted social services and asked to become guardians to the baby in my stead. They entered the adoption process and were awarded custody of my son.

I'll be eternally grateful to them for doing this for me. He knows of them as his grandparents and calls me dad. I managed to bypass the archaic system that we have in place but I'm well and truly bitter about that system.

To this day I'm not entirely sure if I could have gotten custody off my own bat. If my parents had been less inclined to help me my son would have gone somewhere and tht would have been that. The whole thing made me feel like a non-entity even though I wanted to partake in the process. Meetings were held between social workers and my ex, social workers and my parents. I was never consulted on anything because, of course, I had no rights in that regard. Now of course the end result was achieved from my perspective but there's something drastically wrong with a system such as we have in this regard

Oh God, I'm so sorry to hear that and am reminded how backwards a system is when grandparents have more of a right to adopt a child than his own father.

Thanks for sharing and I hope you and he are doing well now.

Fogahladh Your child is very lucky to have you as their dad and your parents they sound amazing .

Got a little teary eyed there have to admit .

daatc

Icepick wrote: »

It's because males eat their cubs if need be.

if there were more dads like him the system wouldnt be in this mess

Fromthetrees

xsiborg

effectively what you did was resigned yourself to the fact that the mother had all rights before you even began to explore the idea of questioning what were your rights.

No. Fathers are effectively never made primary carers. I got everything I could get. Do you want statistics to back up what I'm claiming?

i never said that opinions and experiences were the only foundation of making a point, just that statistics can be found to support or refute an argument either way, that is why for me personally, statistics and figures and obscure references to some american survey done in 1928 that i just found on google, only serve to cloud and confuse an issue. i prefer to put forward my own opinion and therefore be able to stand behind it. i can quote you freud and kinsey til it comes out your ears, but they are opinions based on those persons experiences, based on their interpretations of the data they gathered. i prefer to use my own brain to form an independent thought.

I haven't quoted any statistics in this whole thread, do you realise that?
I'm saying if you make a ridiculous claim that someone doesn't believe than you should be able to back it up other than just saying it's true because that's my opinion because that's my experience.

that is nowhere near even close to my logic, where you got that from i have no idea, as all along i have said that i base my opinion on the invididual, therefore my logic would be that the fact the person is a romanian is irrelevant.

Most people base their opinion on the individual. My point is that an unmarried father has no rights whereas a married father does, it doesn't make sense.

i read it on the internet so it must be a fact? we, dont KNOW anything, we can only assume and surmise based on the evidence put before us, a typical example being that you did not state in your OP that you had not paid maintenance for your child for a number of years, a fact that only came to light later in the thread.

I read it on the internet from a credible source so I believe it and add it to my understanding of a particular situation, what's wrong with that? I don't even understand what or why you're saying this? What have I posted that has made you say this? How is it in anyway relevant?
I do pay maintenance in reality, I just don't physically hand the mother cash every week, which I did right up until she started earning more than me, what is wrong with that? Like I said, I contribute half towards what my daughter needs, what is wrong with that? In fact, since July of last year I have had my daughter staying with me more than the mother, last night was the first time in three weeks that she didn't spend the night in my house, should she be paying me maintenance?

if i experience it, then it is true, and anything i have posted in this thread has been based on my experience, because it happened, i've seen it happen, and at least i am willing to accept that my experience is anecdotal, as opposed to purporting it to be a fact, based on statistics that i can pull from as many sources as you can to refute them.

Where have I quoted statistics and sources?

the state has only been formed since 1922, that'd be 90 years give or take, and we were as a society under british rule long before then, and long before the introduction of catholicism to ireland, we were a pagan country for many centuries. you really expect that change will happen overnight? but blame the catholic church all you want for the laws of the state, seems the trendy thing to do nowadays anyway.

1922? Under British rule? Pagans?

Do you want me to start quoting Brehan law?

Quite simply the laws that are in place to do with children are their because a child born outside of marriage was/is seen as illegitimate because of the Catholic church. Divorce was illegal until the 1990s, why, because of the Catholic church, meaning effectively that the issue to do with unmarried fathers was a fringe/taboo subject up until very very recently.

ok, outside of any other extenuating circumstances then, yes, i wholeheartedly agree with you, but there is never any such thing as a situation that does not have individual and extenuating circumstances, and statistics can only give us a general overview of society as a whole, certainly not on an induvidual basis.

I don't think so, I think most people/individuals/parents don't have lives with extenuating circumstances. I believe most people are just pretty normal and that's why I think that the de facto situation regarding unmarried fathers is wrong and unfair.

as to your assertion that fathers/mothers who abuse themselves or their kids being in a tiny tiny minority, i agree with you here too, but i'd sooner base my opinion on experience, otherwise i'd have believed everything that's shoved down my throat by the media about the evil done within the catholic hierarchy, at least if the statistics are anything to go by! that again though is a topic for another thread.

[/QUOTE]

I have read here on boards that if a father is denied access to his children despite the fact that he has been awarded access in court that there are no real repercussions for the mother, meaning that mothers call the shots no matter what and the father is at the mercy of the mother. From my understanding the only real tangible thing a father can gain control over is guardianship that can stop a mother from taking the child out of the country permanently, that's what I've got, that's why I'm happy, this isn't a woe is me story, like I said, there is nothing I haven't gotten that I wanted with regard to my daughter.

I have deliberately not used statistics and sources, everything I have said is my own experience and understanding.

Dudess

Wow Foghladh, that's one hell of an eye opener into just how bad things can be. Sorry to read you had to go through such a nightmare. Heartbreaking story. I'd be raging at the system too. Delighted it worked out somewhat though, but as you say, it could have been different if your parents weren't willing to do what they did. Amazing people...

Foghladh

Dudess wrote: »

Wow Foghladh, that's one hell of an eye opener into just how bad things can be. Sorry to read you had to go through such a nightmare. Heartbreaking story. I'd be raging at the system too. Delighted it worked out somewhat though, but as you say, it could have different if your parents weren't willing to do what they did. Amazing people...

Well it was nearly 18 years ago. Maybe in todays climate a submission for custody of my type would be viewed more favourably, I don't know. It was a first for the social workers I had dealings with and the general concensus was to go with the grandparents option. Nobody seemed to know what would happen if I attempted custody alone. I was also petrified that my ex would reappear after a few years and that in a straight father/mother battle in the courts I might lose him again, even if I did secure custody alone.
My parents got custody, not on the basis of being grandparents but, on the fact that they were a middle aged couple of means. The fact that they happened to be grandparents really just copper fastened the decision in the courts view.
I'll admit that I did find it quite emasculating for quite a few years. Everything from school reports to school trip permission slips were addressed to my parents and it grated on me. I had to keep reminding myself that it was the result that mattered.

On the plus side I used to de-stress by rocking up to the local Mothers and Toddlers group in the parish hall. I'd plonk him down with the other kids and sit back with the rest of the mums and watch the conversation dry up Ireland in the 90's was a cool place!

Lola92

Dudess wrote: »

Re not paying maintenance: whatever about the mother, but would this not be just hurting the child? I'm not saying that to be judgemental, I'm just wondering what good it would ultimately do where the child is concerned.

With this I think it very much depends on access and costs borne by the parent. In a situation where the custody is split 50-50 both parents contribute to major expenses - clothes, extra curriculars, medical bills, uniforms and school stuff etc. then there should be no need for maintenance at all.

The whole premise behind maintenance is that the cost of raising the child be split between the two parents. If each parent provides a home, heat, food, clothing, entertainment and the rest in their own home for an equal amount of time then why should they pay the other parent to do this too?

If a parent has custody of a child for 2 nights out of 7 then surely they should only pay maintenance to the other parent for the 1 and a half remaining days that would be their share were custody split equally.

Dudess

Foghladh wrote: »

On the plus side I used to de-stress by rocking up to the local Mothers and Toddlers group in the parish hall. I'd plonk him down with the other kids and sit back with the rest of the mums and watch the conversation dry up Ireland in the 90's was a cool place!

Man with a baby - girl magnet.

Dudess

Lola92 wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Re not paying maintenance: whatever about the mother, but would this not be just hurting the child? I'm not saying that to be judgemental, I'm just wondering what good it would ultimately do where the child is concerned.

With this I think it very much depends on access and costs borne by the parent. In a situation where the custody is split 50-50 both parents contribute to major expenses - clothes, extra curriculars, medical bills, uniforms and school stuff etc. then there should be no need for maintenance at all.

The whole premise behind maintenance is that the cost of raising the child be split between the two parents. If each parent provides a home, heat, food, clothing, entertainment and the rest in their own home for an equal amount of time then why should they pay the other parent to do this too?

If a parent has custody of a child for 2 nights out of 7 then surely they should only pay maintenance to the other parent for the 1 and a half remaining days that would be their share were custody split equally.

Very true Lola. But not paying anything at all though - seems counter-productive IMO.

Lola92

Dudess wrote: »

Very true Lola. But not paying anything at all though - seems counter-productive IMO.

I think this depends on the circumstances. If both parents are equally maintaining their child/children then I don't understand why any money should have to pass hands. There may be some exceptions to this - splitting the cost of uniforms as an example I used in my earlier post.

I am honestly gobsmacked by the way some women treat the fathers of their children - in most cases that I know of they are unmarried fathers. My partners ex being one. She lost her job and so was looking for further contributions from my OH at the start of the school year. He paid up no questions asked and later found out she used the money to go on a hens weekend abroad rather than spend the money on her son. This same woman often decides on a whim that he shouldn't see his son, or if he doesn't bring him to a certain play centre/(insert other expensive day out here) then she will just take him instead and he needn't bother seeing him. She refuses to sign joint guardianship papers and if he takes her to court for it she will make his life hell, she is a vindictive woman and has done it before.

We have a child together and are not married. I have always been of the opinion that should we ever split up in the future that my OH is my daughters dad and nothing would change that. They have a wonderful relationship - I can not understand why a parent would deny their own child another loving adult, and in a lot of cases the whole family, grandparents etc.

It makes me so angry knowing that for every mother that behaves in that way there are probably a dozen more who wish their child could have their father in their life as a positive role model.

Caraville

Millicent wrote: »

Oh God, I'm so sorry to hear that and am reminded how backwards a system is when grandparents have more of a right to adopt a child than his own father.

And even at that it was probably only allowed because Foghladh's mother was still in the picture/alive meaning there was a grandmother at the very least.

I love Ireland, but God is it backwards at times.

Fiona

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

if only you could see the metaphorical hoops i have to jump through to see my daughter....

Funny thing is (not funny at all)...I'm being treated like a woman abuser and I never behaved out of line with a woman in my life, it's simply inconvenient for my ex that I am alive!

I think you and my husband must share the same ex :mad:

maiden wrote: »

He never paid his 30 euro a week maint, but such is life, his loss!

€30 is quite low, my husband pays €80 a week. No complaints about it either, if your not going to see the chidl you would think they would at least contribute finacially.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I have read here on boards that if a father is denied access to his children despite the fact that he has been awarded access in court that there are no real repercussions for the mother, meaning that mothers call the shots no matter what and the father is at the mercy of the mother.

Not true. My husbands ex was threatened with imprisonment as she was not encouraging the relationship between father and daughter.

We took daughter on her first foreign holiday with us, on day 2 she started acting like little madam.

Father / daughter arguement ensued and mother flew over to 'take daughter home'. They stayed the rest of the week in the same resort as us, we found that out later on as we were spied on for the week and acused of having fun without her :rolleyes:


(one has to wonder was the whole thing orchastrated by the mother)

I might add the argument was about her having a nap before we went to a show that night after she had been at the pool all day.

Daughter decided that she didn't want to see her Dad for a while, this developed into 6 months. No phone calls returned, husband rang daily nothing all the while he was still financially maintaining child.

Went back to court and the judge basically saw red with the mother and threatened to jail her if access was not restored within a week. He saw right through her and the pathetic excuses that she came up with.

She also told bare faced lies in the box and he caught her out. Glad he threw the book at her and told her to cop on learn how to be a proper parent.

Everything all good now, this was 2 years ago. I would hate to be a single father in this country, every man who does the right thing for his child and fights his case is a hero in my book.

Dudess wrote: »

Man with a baby - girl magnet.

Eh no it's hard work, if I had to do it all again I would run a mile.

Ash.J.Williams

My baby has a condition that affects her mothers ability to arrange visits. The condition is she cries, drools and gets wind.....

Yeah i was tempted to set up an account for the kid and pay maintanance into it until things improve but decided not to as that would affect my kids welfare. thing is....
I know my money is vanishing into my ex's massive financial celtic tiger mess of a mortgage.....

200yrolecrank

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Today, I was at the family law court to have my application for co-guardianship and joint custody heard.

Long story...

The mother of my daughter agreed to sign the forms ten minutes before we were about to go into the judge. I'm very happy with the outcome.

My question is, why did I have to go to court just to get some basic rights over my daughter?

What pissed me off although I accept it, is that my solicitor made it clear in the written document that we both signed is that the mother is the primary care giver, like I said, I accept this but the judge went on to add a few more paragraphs to give the mother more control, despite the fact that agreement had been reached between both parties before we entered the court room. I genuinely feel there is a strong bias against fathers in our laws and legal system.

I actually think I'm lucky, I get 50% access to my daughter and a say in what happens, up until today it was all literally at the discretion of the mother, that just seems sick to me.

I think there is something wrong with a de facto situation where every single father who has a child outside of marriage has as many rights over them as the bottle of beer beside me.

I think we need to adopt a system similar to the US, if a father has no interest in his child, fine, automatically garnish his income and that's that, but if he wants to be involved in the childs life than give him these rights and responsibilities without having to go through the court system to get some.

I've a mate in a similar situation I never knew it was this bad here until he told me.
The mother truest to blackmail him by threatening to take the son away if he doesn't play by her rules.

Foghladh

mrs crilly wrote: »

I think you and my husband must share the same ex :mad:

Or maybe you both share the same husband! Now that would make for an interesting thread!

Liam Byrne

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given that the relevant legislation was written in 1964 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/act/pub/0007/sec0006.html#zza7y1964s6) its stretching it a bit to blame this on the feminist movement :rolleyes:

Ah yes, but the "equality" brigade have gotten all of the "relevant legislation" changed. You don't see it still in the statute book that a woman must quit her job if she gets married or pregnant.

No - only the pro-women changes have been carried through; and beyond, considering the Dáil is proposing so-called "positive discrimination", ignoring the fact that the second word in that phrase is what we are supposed to be stamping out.

Ash.J.Williams

200yrolecrank wrote: »

I've a mate in a similar situation I never knew it was this bad here until he told me.
The mother truest to blackmail him by threatening to take the son away if he doesn't play by her rules.

Yeah i'm in same boat.

dollyk

Long story, six kids most grown, and split up from my ex, Our then 14 year old daughter decided after a year that she would prefer to live with dad mostly as we had to move and she had settled in school. So after a discussion , she lived with him mon to fri, and came to me fri evening to sunday evening. And guess what , my mother and family would not talk to me for ages, you would think i had given her to the wolves..Result shes 20 now, well adjusted, and happy..

py2006

xsiborg wrote: »

i dont consider it to be insane, there are far more unmarried fathers who do not want anything to do with their children compared to the amount that do, and even less that are willing to go as far as going to court to formalise access and guardianship rights.

I find that very hard to believe.