brilliant news, minister wants names of dads on all birth certs

WolfgangWeisen

This will have zero affect on anything.

More incentive for men to not give their names to girls they're just wanting to have sex with though, so bravo so Burton on that.

hairyprincess

LordSmeg wrote: »

dark crystal wrote: »

It's the fathers responsibility to pay for his child, just as much as it is the mothers. Why should the state pay out in place of an errant father..

They wouldn't be 'squeezing' money out of anyone, just making them contribute to the child they helped create.

Problem there is that the mothers responsibilities are taken care of by the state through allowances the fathers I assume are not and forcing him to pay doesnt reduce the cost to the state as far as I see. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, either pay the fathers child support through a state payment on his behalf or reduce the mothers allowances to compensate for the contribution of the father.

If there is extra money involved on top of already adequate state payments then you can bet there will be a lot of "squeezing" involved.

Social welfare allowances are reduced for the custodial parent if the non custodial parent is paying maintenance.

hairyprincess

DublinWriter wrote: »

hairyprincess wrote: »

It was extremely important for me to have his name there. I was not going to have it left blank our have it marked as unknown, he is her father. It's just too bad that he could never admit that to himself.

That's all fair enough, but surely it must be subject to a enforced process of DNA testing for it to work when a man denies being the father.

If a man denies he is a father then absolutely a DNA test should be carried out. Paid for by the father if it turns out he is the father, and if not, paid for by the mother

Scioch

hairyprincess wrote: »

Social welfare allowances are reduced for the custodial parent if the non custodial parent is paying maintenance.

Problem solved so.

goat2

looking through the posts,
joan burton has her work cut out,
if a mother says she does not know who the dad is, that would not look too good for her, who would be intimate with someone they dont know, how do they know if that person does not have one of those sexually transmitted diseases,
can you emagine when child grows into adult, and asks the question of who their father is, and if mom says she does not know,
how would the child deal with that, i wonder what would go through their mind

planetX

same could be said for adopted kids, or those of sperm donors.

branbee

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

branbee wrote: »

He still doesn't know what she had for dinner today, that she can now spell random words she hears during the day, or it would seem, that it actually costs money to rear her.

Does he not pay maintenance?

nope, as far as he is concerned if i can't afford to provide for her myself social welfare will give me the money i need because he can't afford it regardless of the fact he works full time.
Tbh i haven't really pursued it further than asking him because i don't like having to force him to provide for his daughter, shes better than that. If that makes me a mug so be it.

carfiosaoorl

It sounds like a total mickey mouse law to me so good luck with it Joan. If a girl really doesnt want to name the father all she has to say is I was pissed, I don't remember. How is Joan going to prove otherwise?

goat2

i know a fellow who was going out with a girl about two yrs ago, for a few months, he broke up with girl, she texted him to say she is pregnant with his child, he is denying this, the child is about a yr old now, he has not seen the little child, he is still not admitting that he is the father,

my guess is that now that this is happening, he will be called upon to prove it through dna,

carfiosaoorl

goat2 wrote: »

i know a fellow who was going out with a girl about two yrs ago, for a few months, he broke up with girl, she texted him to say she is pregnant with his child, he is denying this, the child is about a yr old now, he has not seen the little child, he is still not admitting that he is the father,

my guess is that now that this is happening, he will be called upon to prove it through dna,

But who will pay for the DNA test? If the government are going to bring in this law and insist on DNA tests then they will have to pay for them. Could get expensive for them.

criticalcritic

Just because a mans name happens to be under the fathers name on the birth cert, under Irish law it doesnt make that man the childs father legally.
He still holds no legal right to the child other then the mother consenting to him being named the father if both are not married.
If the fathers slot is left blank and she gets married then her new husband can be placed as father on the birth cert even though not biologically childs father.

If the father and mother are not on good terms and the mother is preventing access to the child the father still must go through the horrible process of the family courts even if his name is on birth cert.

Despite his name being on the birth cert or not, a man who wishes nothing to do with a child whose mother who claims its his and seeks matinence, the man can simply deny paternity and walk away, as the process involved is so complex its not worth pursuing, as for one, paternity tests are not carried out by the state and must be done through private firm.in Britain the cost of which the mother most incur, which runs about 2 grand including court fees.

And how does the state intend to tackle issue of women putting whoevers names they choose on birth certs or bogus names?

This statement from the minister is aload of auld bull, it will do nothing for fathers rights, single mothers abusing system or deadbeat dads.

goat2

carfiosaoorl wrote: »

But who will pay for the DNA test? If the government are going to bring in this law and insist on DNA tests then they will have to pay for them. Could get expensive for them.

my guess is,
if he is proved to be the dad, he pays,
if he is not, she pays.

carfiosaoorl

goat2 wrote: »

my guess is,
if he is proved to be the dad, he pays,
if he is not, she pays.

But if both man and woman deny that he is the father then what happens? My point is there are plenty of cases where both parties want nothing to do with each other and in those cases there will be nothing the government can do about it.

I also wanted to point out that you can't just put a guys name on a birthcert in this country with out his permission. The father has to go to register the birth with the mother and sign the register.

dpe

This is completely unenforceable nonsense. How are you going to make mothers put down the name of the father? What's the penalty for non-compliance? What's the audit process to verify the name is true? (and the cost) What's to stop a mother simply making a name up? (insert random Polish name here).

This is populist crap that Joan Burton knows full well wouldn't stand up to any serious legislative scrutiny (both at local level and also ultimately ECHR level)

kowloon

I wonder how many will put 'Joan Burton' on the cert.

K-9

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I know a family with four kids, 2 girls, 2 boys, none of the children have their fathers name on their birth certificate despite the fact they have the same father and he has lived with them their entire lives. This was done so that the mother could collect lone parent.

I have seen the birth certificates and i think it is so sad that they couldn't have their fathers name on it or take their fathers name simply because their parents wanted more money. Im delighted at this news.

They can still get LPA if the father is named, common fear that these types have though, they don't know it makes no difference.

K-9

westendgirlie wrote: »

Option 2 - Due to a difficult relationship where mother denies the Father his rights of Option 1, Father completes a registration form confirming paternity.

A mother getting a maintenance order is basically her admitting who the father is and can be used to amend birth certs, not well known.

http://www.groireland.ie/registering_a_birth.htm#Section 4: Registration of births to parents who are not married to each other:

Problem is if the mother is seeking no maintenance the father can't take a case so back to the DNA thing.

Senna

This is nothing more than a minister doing "busy work". The 4000 mothers who do not put the fathers name on the birth cert do so for a reason, some because they don't know who it is and other so they can claim more money. After this legislation any mother can claim not to know who the father is and leave the fathers name blank, no legislation can force someone to name a name that may genuinely not be know.

Electric Sheep

branbee wrote: »

nope, as far as he is concerned if i can't afford to provide for her myself social welfare will give me the money i need because he can't afford it regardless of the fact he works full time.
Tbh i haven't really pursued it further than asking him because i don't like having to force him to provide for his daughter, shes better than that. If that makes me a mug so be it.

It doesn't make you a mug, it makes the taxpayer a mug for your pride.

lazygal

Biggins wrote: »

There has to be exceptions.
As in the case of rapes, etc where the female is abused and does not want to attached for life legally on paper to the name of her abuser.

That is very important I feel.

Why? A birth cert is a statement of fact. You don't remove the name of a father from a birth cert if he is subsequently convicted of the rape of the mother of his child. Also, given the incredibly low rates of reporting and conviction of rape, how would it be possible to prove that a child is a product of rape if no investigation or conviction ever takes place? A child has a right to know who its parents are. I'm no fan of the way we treat or treated rape victims in Ireland, but equally knowing one's parentage IMO trumps the rights of the adults in the equation. For medical reasons alone both parents names should be on a long form birth cert, no exceptions or excuses, unless the man is completely unknown. A short form cert with a mothers' name only could be issued for those who don't want the name of the father generally known.

bodice ripper

carfiosaoorl wrote: »

But if both man and woman deny that he is the father then what happens? My point is there are plenty of cases where both parties want nothing to do with each other and in those cases there will be nothing the government can do about it.

good.

maninasia

dark crystal wrote: »

It's the fathers responsibility to pay for his child, just as much as it is the mothers. Why should the state pay out in place of an errant father..

They wouldn't be 'squeezing' money out of anyone, just making them contribute to the child they helped create.

If they cut the single parent's allowance there wouldn't be much complaining about it, the state should only be the provider of last resort.

maninasia

dpe wrote: »

This is completely unenforceable nonsense. How are you going to make mothers put down the name of the father? What's the penalty for non-compliance? What's the audit process to verify the name is true? (and the cost) What's to stop a mother simply making a name up? (insert random Polish name here).

This is populist crap that Joan Burton knows full well wouldn't stand up to any serious legislative scrutiny (both at local level and also ultimately ECHR level)

Obviously this is one part of a two side coin. Next is to start actively enforcing absent father's paying child allowance and for the state to reduce single parent allowance.

Atlantis50

planetX wrote: »

and people like that will still find a way to continue. I don't see how this will change anything, what can they do if you say you don't know who the father is - run DNA on every suspect?

Unless the child was conceived during the course of a gangbang, the mother should be able to narrow it down to one or two candidates. She should then be provided with State assistance in tracking them down and DNA testing them.

Atlantis50

maninasia wrote: »

Obviously this is one part of a two side coin. Next is to start actively enforcing absent father's paying child allowance and for the state to reduce single parent allowance.

Exactly. It is unbelievable in this day and age that the state is expected to pick up the tab for absent fathers.

Atlantis50

carfiosaoorl wrote: »

But who will pay for the DNA test? If the government are going to bring in this law and insist on DNA tests then they will have to pay for them. Could get expensive for them.

Cost of DNA test: €189 - 195.
Cost of paying 188 + 29.80 per child for 18 years = €203,860.80 for one child*.

*SW rates could obviously change (Maths: (188 + 29.80) x 52 weeks x 18 years).

It's an economics no-brainer even if the mother has to DNA test 50 men.

jill_valentine

This sounds like another completely impractical and effectively useless bright idea from Burton.

I really do despise this idiot.

branbee

Electric Sheep wrote: »

branbee wrote: »

nope, as far as he is concerned if i can't afford to provide for her myself social welfare will give me the money i need because he can't afford it regardless of the fact he works full time.
Tbh i haven't really pursued it further than asking him because i don't like having to force him to provide for his daughter, shes better than that. If that makes me a mug so be it.

It doesn't make you a mug, it makes the taxpayer a mug for your pride.

Who said anything about the tax payer?
Read my post- he assumes social welfare WILL give me money if i need it. Nice of you to just assume i actually avail of it.

efb

Surely few women carry a rapists baby? MAP and other methods- I can't imagine that they would want to.

Biggins

lazygal wrote: »

Why? A birth cert is a statement of fact. You don't remove the name of a father from a birth cert if he is subsequently convicted of the rape of the mother of his child. Also, given the incredibly low rates of reporting and conviction of rape, how would it be possible to prove that a child is a product of rape if no investigation or conviction ever takes place? A child has a right to know who its parents are. I'm no fan of the way we treat or treated rape victims in Ireland, but equally knowing one's parentage IMO trumps the rights of the adults in the equation. For medical reasons alone both parents names should be on a long form birth cert, no exceptions or excuses, unless the man is completely unknown. A short form cert with a mothers' name only could be issued for those who don't want the name of the father generally known.

There is a number of ways to look at the matter.

1.
(a) The law espouses that a criminal should not gain reward from their illegal actions. After a child is born because of a rapists actions, in retrospect, having the name of rapist upon a legal document confirming the maternity, awards the sick person possible right's to the child.

(b) THINK about it!!! Allowing a rapist to automatically have their name on a birth cert (and thus have possible right to the child gained thru a terrible act) means that the state (you!) would be telling every other possible rapist that, hey... ok so you want kids, rape away and if the victims gets pregnant, guess what? We will award you each time, the privilage of being attached to every one of those children irrespective of the feelings and rights too of all the victims! Stuff them! Just rape away and each time we will put your name in print, every time you lucky chap, you get them up the duff!
Hey... you can even see it as an official score card!

Then there is the victim....

2.
You held against your will, stripped of your clothes, your dignity and right to say "No",
To add insult to very injury, then you get pregnant by the sick scum - guess what, its not over even then!
Whats more, the state (if some folk got their way) then awards the sick scum their name in print on a state paper that will forever more be there, every time a mother/victim looks at their child birth cert and be reminded that they were abused terribly - and who actually did it each time.

A lot of bodies/departments/governments elsewhere also do NOT accept short versions of birth certs at times.
They only ask for the long version.
As hard as the poor victim might try to forget their rapists name, there it is in print on a cert (a cert handed over to strangers many times in life, for I.D. reasons, for a passport, school application, etc - yes, lets expose/hint that I was raped and left preggers! Never mind the emotional aspect of having to see THAT name every time one wishes to do something more normal in life and put the rape act behind a person in life!).

No matter how hard they might have tried to put it behind them (also having to hand over the name of my rapist to people every time) and try recover from the terrible act, there it is in print on their childs birth cert to dig up the terror of the act, the name of their rapist staring up at the victim, striking them again with the memory of the previous horror...

For medical reasons alone both parents names should be on a long form birth cert, no exceptions.

You don't understand the law then to begin with. Never mind not having a further expanded clue of the involved emotional aspect and why after the abuse a victim has gotten, the said victim should be at least gain back some dignity, chance of regaining mental stability and their rights take precedence AT ALL TIMES over the rights of the rapist!

I TOTALLY disagree with your above opinion.
VERY STRONGLY!

...And we haven't even gotten to the emotional aspects/effects upon yet the child later in life!

deisebibo

goat2 wrote: »

i know a fellow who was going out with a girl about two yrs ago, for a few months, he broke up with girl, she texted him to say she is pregnant with his child, he is denying this, the child is about a yr old now, he has not seen the little child, he is still not admitting that he is the father,

my guess is that now that this is happening, he will be called upon to prove it through dna,

Same thing happened a friend of mine, and her child is over two years old now, problem is once he found out she was pregnant, few weeks later he was gone like a shot, and she doesn't know where he is now, (new phone number etc).

dpe

maninasia wrote: »

Obviously this is one part of a two side coin. Next is to start actively enforcing absent father's paying child allowance and for the state to reduce single parent allowance.

Oh I understand the logic; but it won't work. First there's no way to compel a mother to put a name down, then there's the burden of proof if she does (and who's going to pay for that?)

The only practical way to get absent fathers to pay is to target the already known non-payers (which may not be fair, but ultimately this is about money not fairness) who are already on birth certificates, or where the mother demands the father is pursued for maintenance. The problem is, the road usually ends up with something like the Child Support Agency in the UK, which has turned out to be a Kafka-esque exercise in inhuman bureaucracy.

robp

efb wrote: »

Surely few women carry a rapists baby? MAP and other methods- I can't imagine that they would want to.

The numbers who become pregnant in this sad manner is low (75 in 2010). The majority choose to bring the child into the world and sizable amount choose not to give it up for adoption (about 40%). That figure might seem surprisingly high. There is a big shortage of children for adoption. Personally I suspect it says more about our misconceptions about what its like to be a victim of rape than anything else.

hairyprincess

maninasia wrote: »

dpe wrote: »

This is completely unenforceable nonsense. How are you going to make mothers put down the name of the father? What's the penalty for non-compliance? What's the audit process to verify the name is true? (and the cost) What's to stop a mother simply making a name up? (insert random Polish name here).

This is populist crap that Joan Burton knows full well wouldn't stand up to any serious legislative scrutiny (both at local level and also ultimately ECHR level)

Obviously this is one part of a two side coin. Next is to start actively enforcing absent father's paying child allowance and for the state to reduce single parent allowance.

As already started the DO reduce single parent allowance once the absent parent is paying maintenance.

MetalDog

Will that part of the form be multiple choice now?

pickarooney

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I know a family with four kids, 2 girls, 2 boys, none of the children have their fathers name on their birth certificate despite the fact they have the same father and he has lived with them their entire lives. This was done so that the mother could collect lone parent.

I have seen the birth certificates and i think it is so sad that they couldn't have their fathers name on it or take their fathers name simply because their parents wanted more money. Im delighted at this news.

"So, kids, a new X-Box or my name on a paper you might look at three times in your life...?"

LittleBook

Here's the Law Reform Commission's Report on Legal Aspects of Family Relationships in case anyone wants to actually read it.

The obligation to register the name of the father is just the beginning in a long overdue overhaul of legislation concerning the responsibilities and rights of fathers, particularly unmarried fathers, with primary consideration being given to the rights of the child.

The Commission is of the opinion that all parents should be treated equally in respect of their relationship with their children regardless of gender or marital status.

Mr. Presentable

ScienceNerd wrote: »

While great news for unmarried fathers who want to be involved, what happens if the mother doesn't know who the father is?

If she doesn't know, she gets no support. If she can't conduct herself in a responsible manner why should the State be responsible?

Ledger

If this new legislation is brought in and conducted well in a fair manner by government (which it probably won't) it would be a good step in the right direction.

As has been seen in some of the previous posts, the laws concerning this topic in our little country are so backwards they're meeting themselves coming back. I find it absolutely mind boggling that even if a father's name is on the birth cert (a legal document) it gives him f**k all rights towards the child, without the mother's consent. Who's to say she's the better person, just because she's a woman?

This government of ours constantly preach equality among the sexes, but yet a lot of our laws favour the female gender.

The mind f**king boggles.

dpe

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

If she doesn't know, she gets no support. If she can't conduct herself in a responsible manner why should the State be responsible?

Because you're penalising the child for the actions of the mother.

I Heart Internet

Like most here I support this in principle - long, long overdue. Its better for everyone if the father's name is always required.

The problems though, as many have mentioned already, that might arise if a mother either doesn't know hte father or won't say are gonna be tricky.

Wouldn't like to be the poor HSE bod who has to interogate some mothers on this. The system will just revert to the way it is now if the word gets out that if you say you just don't know they won't persue the matter.

Its extraordinarily important for all kinds of reasons for a child's father to be know (genetic diseases, child support, a kids sense of who he/she is).

For women who refuse to acknowledge that a father was responsible for the child too or for a man who trys to evade his responsibility this is, in principle, a dose of "cop yourself on".

Dravokivich

Biggins wrote: »

You don't understand the law then to begin with. Never mind not having a further expanded clue of the involved emotional aspect and why after the abuse a victim has gotten, the said victim should be at least gain back some dignity, chance of regaining mental stability and their rights take precedence AT ALL TIMES over the rights of the rapist!

I TOTALLY disagree with your above opinion.
VERY STRONGLY!

...And we haven't even gotten to the emotional aspects/effects upon yet the child later in life!

To be honest Biggins I think you are getting a bit caught up in emotions here with that. There is a valid reason for needing to know genetic medical history. Lazygals comment you responded to here referred to nothing other than that. Surely the health of the child born at least needs to be shown such respect regardless of the circumstances they were born under?

LittleBook

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The problems though, as many have mentioned already, that might arise if a mother either doesn't know hte father or won't say are gonna be tricky.

Law Reform Commission Report wrote:

The mother may not have to provide this information relating to the father if she “makes in the presence of the registrar a declaration in the prescribed form stating that one or more of the following conditions is met.”

The conditions are:

(a) that by virtue of section 41 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 the child has no father,

(b) that the father has died,

(c) that the mother does not know the father’s identity,

(d) that the mother does not know the father’s whereabouts,

(e) that the father lacks capacity (within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) in relation to decisions under this Part,

(f) that the mother has reason to fear for her safety or that of the child if the father is contacted in relation to the registration of the birth, and

(g) any other conditions prescribed by regulations made by the Minister

The Commission is of the opinion that it is appropriate to require the mother to swear a statutory declaration to the effect that she does not know the identity or the whereabouts of the father of the child, or that the safety or welfare of her or the child are at risk. The swearing of a statutory declaration is provided for in the Statutory Declarations Act 1938.

.

maninasia

hairyprincess wrote: »

As already started the DO reduce single parent allowance once the absent parent is paying maintenance.

Yes but it should be the other way around i.e. the father and mother pay for THEIR kids upkeep and if all else fails then they can claim the allowance, that's it!

Biggins

Dravokivich wrote: »

To be honest Biggins I think you are getting a bit caught up in emotions here with that. There is a valid reason for needing to know genetic medical history. Lazygals comment you responded to here referred to nothing other than that. Surely the health of the child born at least needs to be shown such respect regardless of the circumstances they were born under?

IF something crops up concerning the health of the child that the genetic DNA data is needed of the father, other records could exist to point to the father - besides the then statement of the victim saying who doctors could refer to - IF he gives permission to have his records even invaded (rights of privacy issues here too).

She doesn't need to be instead, slapped in the face every time she does something normal (a lot more occurring act) when she takes out her childs birth cert - versus the far lesser chance of something being that rarely bad, that a rapists medic history has to be fought for and brought up.

In trying to cover that on the RARE chance, medical history might later be needed (has anyone ever heard of one case in the history of the state?) as regards a rapist, it can be inbuilt into law that should a rapist get a victim pregnant, he automatically loses his rights to preservation of privacy in regard to his medical history, pertaining to a later child.
This can be enshrined in law without having to further give the rapist the state stamp on a birth cert.

In order to see that a very rare situation might occur (and allow for it), there should be no need to over-react either and just put every rapists name on every birth cert in the country for ever more, against every victims wishes (and probably to their horror!).

SEPT 23 1989

Its great to see the State repeatedly going after single mothers since the economic crash:rolleyes:

Great news , but Copper Face Jacks is going to take a hit !

maninasia

jill_valentine wrote: »

This sounds like another completely impractical and effectively useless bright idea from Burton.

I really do despise this idiot.

Burton is one of the only ministers actively willing to change things and reduce costs to the taxpayer. She gets my respect.

SEPT 23 1989

maninasia wrote: »

Burton is one of the only ministers actively willing to change things and reduce costs to the taxpayer. She gets my respect.

They are picking on easy targets

maninasia

dpe wrote: »

Oh I understand the logic; but it won't work. First there's no way to compel a mother to put a name down, then there's the burden of proof if she does (and who's going to pay for that?)

The only practical way to get absent fathers to pay is to target the already known non-payers (which may not be fair, but ultimately this is about money not fairness) who are already on birth certificates, or where the mother demands the father is pursued for maintenance. The problem is, the road usually ends up with something like the Child Support Agency in the UK, which has turned out to be a Kafka-esque exercise in inhuman bureaucracy.

I don't care how they do it, just because the kid's father is absent doesn't mean he can't pay. The state has the records and ability to enforce it if they want, DNA testing is a piece of piss and extremely cheap compared to the state shouldering the burden. If the female or male parent left with a child need support then they should look to the child's other parent first, not the rest of society.