The legal single father

voz es

Two sanarios if you agree with these you must agree that the law is wrong on the fathers role as a parent in Ireland :

1. A man and a woman have sex and the woman becomes pregnant as a result. She dont want the father to have anything to do with the child, but he is desperate to stay in his childs live. she is not interested in having him around, they dont get on she away. Go fish father.....

2. A man and a woman have sex and the woman becomes pregnant as a result. Man is not at all interested in haveing a child as far as he is concerned it was a terrible mistake like one of the treads going here at the moment. The law says he should be paying child support for that child. Go pay father....

Dravokivich

3. keep the topic in other threads on the same subject?

seamus

Access rights to a child should always be 50:50 unless either side can show good reason why the other shouldn't have equal access.

Seachmall

The law is wrong about many things.

It's sometimes even wrong about the things it's right about.

Go figure.

voz es

Dravokivich wrote: »

3. keep the topic in other threads on the same subject?

Disagree, this tread is dealing with how two different topics are tied by there inequality.

Cavehill Red

If a woman can force a man to be a father against his will, the opposite should also apply in law out of fairness.

Of course, neither life nor law nor feminism is fair in matters relating to parenthood.

I'm a single father. I wouldn't wish the legal hell I went through on anyone.

WindSock

Where's the 'stupid fat manwhore should have kept his dick in his pants and be castrated' option?

eviltwin

We get so hung up on parents rights we forget about the rights of the child. What about them?

starbelgrade

WindSock wrote: »

Where's the 'stupid fat manwhore should have kept his dick in his pants and be castrated' option?

Just under the 'dirty bitch should have kept her legs closed' option.

voz es

eviltwin wrote: »

We get so hung up on parents rights we forget about the rights of the child. What about them?

I agree with you it should be first about the child. Both parents should have an obligation to be in thier childs life and secondly not stop the other being in the childs life. It is not fair on the child that a mother chould choose to effectivally cut a loving parent out of their life.

In my opinion if a parent is a danger to the child female of male, then the law needs to decide if it is in the best interests of the child for that why we have that infastructure in place already.

K-9

I voted the snip.

stimpson

Children should have rights.

Parents should have responsibilities.

Fromthetrees

Equality works both ways in theory but not in reality.

starbelgrade

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Equality works both ways in theory but not in reality.

Women expect equality, except when it comes to sinking ships where they expect first preference.

Max Power1

Id be interested to know who the *cough* germaine greer *cough* was who voted yes

minotour

what does "go-fish" mean? Does the man in scenario 1 pay any money or go on a nice fishing holiday?

ash23

There should be more rights for fathers but there should also be more obligations for them too.
At the moment the only obligation a father has to his child is a direct debit.

WindSock

starbelgrade wrote: »

Just under the 'dirty bitch should have kept her legs closed' option.

That was covered with the Limerick woman sewing up her flaps.

Heh, habergashery :pac:

Ash.J.Williams

eviltwin wrote: »

We get so hung up on parents rights we forget about the rights of the child. What about them?

won't be long now...

Gurgle

Cavehill Red wrote: »

If a woman can force a man to be a father against his will...

Please elaborate.
(I'm assuming you don't mean rape or stealing semen)

strobe

ash23 wrote: »

There should be more rights for fathers but there should also be more obligations for them too.
At the moment the only obligation a father non-custodial parent has to his their child is a direct debit.

FYP.
There is no difference between the obligations of mothers and fathers due to them being mothers or fathers. The only discrepancy that exists is in relation to how the rights are bestowed upon them respectively due to their gender.

Morag

Better question may be do children have enough rights?

IvySlayer

Poll should be made public, like to see who thinks men shouldn't have more rights.

It should be equal rights for the mother and the father.

Yes there are some deadbeat dads, just like there is women who treat some men like sperm donors.

Cavehill Red

Gurgle wrote: »

Please elaborate.
(I'm assuming you don't mean rape or stealing semen)

By taking a pregnancy he does not desire to term, and then billing him for it for the following 20 or more years.

Ash.J.Williams

it's all very f**ed up....I'm going to court very soon over this crap and I will be fighting very hard for very little....and i hope I will be able to come back here afterwards share and possibly help any man here in the same boat...

Your rights are there men but you have to fight for them.

Borat_Sagdiyev

Gurgle wrote: »

Please elaborate.
(I'm assuming you don't mean rape or stealing semen)

Cavehill Red wrote: »

By taking a pregnancy he does not desire to term, and then billing him for it for the following 20 or more years.

Or a woman in a new relationship intentionally gets pregnant without informing her partner of her intention ie "forgets" to take her pill, or tells the partner that she is on the pill when she is not.

ash23

strobe wrote: »

FYP.
There is no difference between the obligations of mothers and fathers due to them being mothers or fathers. The only discrepancy that exists is in relation to how the rights are bestowed upon them respectively due to their gender.

There is actually. A mother is automatically the childs guardian at birth. The father isn't. Unless they are married.
So she has to actively renounce her obligations to her child if she wishes to do so. Whereas a father has to actively pursue them.
In the case of a couple where the parents are unmarried, from the moment a child is born (unless legal proceedings take place) the only obligation the father has is financial. The mother is sole guardian and is therefore responsible for more than that.

citizens info wrote:

If you are a guardian of a child in Ireland, you have a duty to maintain and properly care for the child and you have a right to make decisions about the child's religious and secular education, health requirements and general welfare.

Married parents of a child are "joint-guardians" and have equal rights in relation to the child. The rights of parents to guardianship are set down in Section 6 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964.

For children born outside of marriage in Ireland, only the mother has automatic rights to guardianship. (Even though a father's name may be registered on the child's birth certificate, this does not give him any guardianship rights in respect of his child).

...........................The only way a mother can give up her guardianship rights in Ireland, is if the child is placed for adoption.

strobe

ash23 wrote: »

There is actually. A mother is automatically the childs guardian at birth. The father isn't. Unless they are married.
So she has to actively renounce her obligations to her child if she wishes to do so. Whereas a father has to actively pursue him.
In the case of a couple where the parents are unmarried, from the moment a child is born (unless legal proceedings take place) the only obligation the father has is financial. The mother is sole guardian and is therefore responsible for more than that.

Ah yeah, that sounds right actually. I stand corrected.

A2LUE42

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

it's all very f**ed up....I'm going to court very soon over this crap and I will be fighting very hard for very little....and i hope I will be able to come back here afterwards share and possibly help any man here in the same boat...

Your rights are there men but you have to fight for them.

Best of luck with that. Getting whatever you are trying to get in court is one thing, actually getting what is agreed in court to be enforced is another battle, unfortunately..

Nothingbetter2d

regardless of wether the father wants nothing to do with his child he has to BY LAW pay for the child's upbringing.

the social welfare are supposed to deduct it from from an unemployed father's allowance and pay it to the mother in the form of single mother's allowance from what i understand.

if the father is employed then it can be taken two ways 1. the father can set a standing order to pay it weekly/monthly or they tax it from him and pay it to the mother via single mother's allowance.

if the father chooses to pay via standing order then the single mother's allowance is deducted by the amount the father pays.

ash23

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

regardless of wether the father wants nothing to do with his child he has to BY LAW pay for the child's upbringing.

the social welfare are supposed to deduct it from from an unemployed father's allowance and pay it to the mother in the form of single mother's allowance from what i understand.

if the father is employed then it can be taken two ways 1. the father can set a standing order to pay it weekly/monthly or they tax it from him and pay it to the mother via single mother's allowance.

if the father chooses to pay via standing order then the single mother's allowance is deducted by the amount the father pays.

Or option 4 where nothing is deducted from the single mothers allowance because she works and earns a living.
Presumptions!!

Nothingbetter2d

ash23 wrote: »

Or option 4 where nothing is deducted from the single mothers allowance because she works and earns a living.
Presumptions!!

true but if she works and earns a living the father is still required by law to pay his share.


my sister has a beautiful little girl and the father wants nothing to do with her... but he still pays his share via standing order. My sister works full time too and doesnt get single mum's allowance. that said she'd be lost without my mother & the creche to take care of her daughter while she is at work.

ash23

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

true but if she works and earns a living the father is still required by law to pay his share.

Yup, absolutely. Am just fighting the single mother = welfare recipient stereotype

Gurgle

Cavehill Red wrote: »

By taking a pregnancy he does not desire to term

Borat_Sagdiyev wrote:

Or a woman in a new relationship intentionally gets pregnant without informing her partner of her intention

Predictable misuse of the word 'forced'.
The first is a moral and ethical issue, and in Ireland a legal issue too. Why should any woman have an abortion because the father doesn't want the responsibility?

The second is lying and deceit. Has paternal responsibility in these circumstances ever been tested in court?

In either case, there is no 'forced'. They are both cases of 'chose to take a risk because I wanted to get me hole'.

Cavehill Red

Gurgle wrote: »

Predictable misuse of the word 'forced'.
The first is a moral and ethical issue, and in Ireland a legal issue too. Why should any woman have an abortion because the father doesn't want the responsibility?

In Ireland she cannot have an abortion. They are legally proscribed.
You have misunderstood what I wrote. Women force men to become fathers against their will every day, by failing to consult with them about pregnancy, or lying about contraception, or simply by taking a pregnancy unwanted by the father to term because they wish to have a child. Fine. Have the child but pay for it yourself in that case.

Gurgle wrote: »

The second is lying and deceit. Has paternal responsibility in these circumstances ever been tested in court?

I'm not getting into that in AH.

Gurgle wrote: »

In either case, there is no 'forced'. They are both cases of 'chose to take a risk because I wanted to get me hole'.

This is unfair risk, often contracted under false pretences. The moral hazard for having sex should not be enforced parenthood and its concomitant responsibilities and costs, especially when there are pre- and post-sex contraceptive options.
If a pregnancy arises from sex (two people responsible for that), then it should be two people who decide what happens next. It is not legitimate or moral or ethical for one of those people to make a unilateral decision to enforce the responsibility and cost upon the other.

upandcumming

Sharrow wrote: »

Better question may be do children have enough rights?

What more rights do they need?

upandcumming

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

regardless of wether the father wants nothing to do with his child he has to BY LAW pay for the child's upbringing.

Only if he has access to the children.

Cavehill Red

upandcumming wrote: »

Only if he has access to the children.

No. Maintenance and access are not connected. A father can be faced with maintenance payments without any access under Irish law.

Gurgle

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The moral hazard for having sex should not be enforced parenthood ...

er... you do know how babies are made, right?

Cavehill Red

Gurgle wrote: »

er... you do know how babies are made, right?

Do you know how to read to the end of a sentence?

CavehillRed wrote:

The moral hazard for having sex should not be enforced parenthood and its concomitant responsibilities and costs, especially when there are pre- and post-sex contraceptive options.

Nothingbetter2d

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Do you know how to read to the end of a sentence?

actually contraception both pre and post is not 100% effective.

Is the PCP effective? (the morning after pill)

Neither type of morning-after pill is 100 per cent effective, but the failure rate is quite low. It's probably well under 10 per cent, and rather better than that if you take it as early as possible.

Gurgle

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Do you know how to read to the end of a sentence?

I'm not going to agree with you but good comeback

Cavehill Red

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

actually contraception both pre and post is not 100% effective.

The rival moral hazards are, in the event of a contraceptive failure at the time of sex (eg broken condom, both parties too drunk to care, etc) is either the man be penalised with enforced parenthood and financial responsibility for two decades, OR the woman is penalised with having to take a pill to make it go away. This one seems fairly clear cut in terms of what's reasonable.

The rival hazards when it's too late to take the morning after pill, or it fails, are more significant for the woman. For the man it's the same 20 year stretch of responsiblity and cost. For the woman, it's whether to travel for an abortion or not. This brings into the issue things like her inconvenience, the physical and psychological ramifications of abortion, and perhaps religious considerations too.
Less clear cut, but since parenthood is for life, and the cost is 20 years minimum, I think that still outweighs the woman's moral hazard, even though the psychological effects of abortion could also be for life, since the physical effects are not, and the costs associated are much lower.
In short, I still don't see how it is legitimate for a woman to take a pregnancy to term against a man's wishes and then present him with a bill for two decades following despite his objection. You get pregnant, you should inform the father and discuss mutually and together what should happen next. If there is a dispute, and that dispute is that the father does not want a child but the mother does, then if she proceeds, she should not be entitled to bill him for something he never desired. Obviously, cases where the mother just turns up on the doorstep to announce she's already had a child and wants paying should be laughed out of the place.

Sonics2k

upandcumming wrote: »

Only if he has access to the children.

Sadly this is not true at all.

An unmarried Father in Ireland can still be forced to pay maintenance for a child, but has absolutely no right to see them what-so-ever.

bedrock#1

True Story -

Was being blackmailed by my ex for more money or she would stop me seeing my son - went to the court office in Dun Laoghaire to set a date to have the maintenance regulated by the court - was told only the mother could apply for maintenance!

Cavehill Red

bedrock#1 wrote: »

True Story -

Was being blackmailed by my ex for more money or she would stop me seeing my son - went to the court office in Dun Laoghaire to set a date to have the maintenance regulated by the court - was told only the mother could apply for maintenance!

Sounds like there is no current maintenance order in place, otherwise that's what applies and your ex can go swing.
Given that there is none in place, stop paying her anything at all the minute she seeks to interfere with access.
Also, do you have a current court ordered access agreement? It's not worth the paper it's written on, but you should get one if you don't have one nonetheless.

bedrock#1

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Sounds like there is no current maintenance order in place, otherwise that's what applies and your ex can go swing.
Given that there is none in place, stop paying her anything at all the minute she seeks to interfere with access.
Also, do you have a current court ordered access agreement? It's not worth the paper it's written on, but you should get one if you don't have one nonetheless.

I applied for guardianship and access there and then, when she got my summons she applied for maintenance. This was about 5 years ago. The girl in the court office was really nice and gave me sound advice. The judge on the other hand ....

bedrock#1

Bababa wrote: »

Was in court yesterday myself..(mother lookin to take kid to Canada). I Was seeking guardianship/joint custody/access. The judge spent the day dealing with the cases where consent was sorted out..the remainder of us were called in about 6oc to be told he's finishing for the day..mother got up and raised the Canada issue..he responds by saying..of course ur kid can go.. This man has no legal standing. Mad stuff considering that's what I was there for. Obviously the fact that he has my surname..and my name is on the birth cert is meaningless.

That is shameful sh1t man, sorry you're going through that. Probably no consolation but your kid might never forgive her for taking them away from you. That's low.

K-9

Bababa wrote: »

Was in court yesterday myself..(mother lookin to take kid to Canada). I Was seeking guardianship/joint custody/access. The judge spent the day dealing with the cases where consent was sorted out..the remainder of us were called in about 6oc to be told he's finishing for the day..mother got up and raised the Canada issue..he responds by saying..of course ur kid can go.. This man has no legal standing. Mad stuff considering that's what I was there for. Obviously the fact that he has my surname..and my name is on the birth cert is meaningless.

The legal system is a joke..I only have to think back to the judge Brian Curtain case..kiddy porn on the hard drive...no charges brought..crock of sh1t.
Also solicitors..€200 cash or €400 through the books...says it all

Ask the court clerk if you can appeal. I know maintenance orders can be appealed but you need to do it quickly.