fathers rights

Mulready

over the past few years i have seen a few people i know have children with there girlfriends, respected partners or on one night stands. i have seen some couples who break up but stay strong together for the good of the child and i have seen others go through absolute hell. what puzzles me is that if the mother is not married to the father then he has absolutely no right to his child having to go through courts etc to get legal guardianship etc just to see his child and it all has to do with whatever the mother says. i have seen fathers fight for there children, other friends getting pregnant and having to fight in the courts and win for maintenance of the child even doh by law they are not that childs parent. i have seen a mother mentally disturbed and put into hospital many times and the baby put into foster care and not into the fathers care even doh he was fighting for guardianship of his child and spent alot of money even going as far as selling nearly everything he had just to get money. i cannot see how this is fair on any father who wants to be part of there child's life, how can the law turn around and say that no you have no rights over your child but then turn around and say that you have to pay maintenance for this child who we just said you have no rights over. should the rights of the child be 50/50 as it does take 2 to tango as the phrase goes and if a father does not want anything to do with there child then they can sign over full rights to the mother when the child is born? can anyone spread some light or insight into this?

edellc

OP most fathers who want to be fathers get guardianship over the child so they have rights, and most mothers who go looking through the courts for maintenance have already been to the courts with the father looking for guardianship or visitation rights.

The courts look for what is best for the child and that is that both parents have a right over the child, as for why its not automatic well that would be down to the amount of men that can father a child but not be an actual father and run off from their responsibility as soon as the reality of having a child hits them, not all do this but the amount that do seems to far outweigh those that don't.

You also seem to have a lot of friends having kids when they are not in stable relationships or having lots of one night stands, instead of trying to start running down mother who are 99% of the time the main carer for the child while that father has run for the hills, why not tell your mates to put something on the end of it, so they dont find themselves in the positions you outlined in your post

snor

what puzzles me is that if the mother is not married to the father then he has absolutely no right to his child having to go through courts etc to get legal guardianship etc just to see his child and it all has to do with whatever the mother says.

All fathers do not have to go through the courts to get access and/or gaurdianship and it is most certainly not all about what the mother says. It is what is right for the child in question with their parents' circumstances.

other friends getting pregnant and having to fight in the courts and win for maintenance of the child even doh by law they are not that childs parent.

How can someone be brought to court for maintenance if they are not the child's parent?

i have seen a mother mentally disturbed and put into hospital many times and the baby put into foster care and not into the fathers care even doh he was fighting for guardianship of his child and spent alot of money even going as far as selling nearly everything he had just to get money.

You do not know the circumstances of this case. It is unusual for gaurdianship not to be given to the father unless there are specific reasons and to spend that amount of money trying to get it seems very suspicious to me! The courts (rightfully) prioritise the welfare of the child.

should the rights of the child be 50/50 as it does take 2 to tango as the phrase goes and if a father does not want anything to do with there child then they can sign over full rights to the mother when the child is born?

Charming! It's the rights of the child that is important and that should mean that they have a relationship with both parents when that is possible. Legally they are still responsible to contribute to the child, even if they decide not to have a relationship with the child.

Your post is full of generalisations and no 2 cases are the same. The courts look at what is best for the child and in my experience by no means favour the mother but make every effort to allow relationship with the father if that is seen to be in the child's best interest. You may be talking about very complex cases when you do not no the full facts.

Mulready

edellc, i don't know whats with the hostility, i was told that boards was a place to discuss stuff, i'm not look for a fight. from your comment my friends should have put something on the end of it, there not all guys, your just presuming i'm sticking up for the guy. i'm not sticking up for either side, i was just looking for information on stuff i don't understand and am looking at examples i have seen around me. i also hate that when people say ya should have put something on the end of it, there is also contraception for women aswell so its not always the guys fault.

i'm not sure what happens with everyone but 2 people i know who used to go out with the mother of there children, one couple in cork, one couple in dublin, once they broke up the mother had all rights over the child. the father had to apply for guardianship in the example in cork and the person in dublin has been told by legal personal that unless you get on with the mother you will need thosands if not more to fight to get the right to see your child, and even then, he might not succeed. you guys say its for the rights of the child but this is in a perfect world. the person who i was referring to had been checked to a mental instatution on a number of occassions and after a long time the father got some guardianship while she was away but then the child was given back to the mother once she was released on the courts orders and then she relapsed again a month later.

these are not generalisation, there real life examples to which i do know the real facts.

my main point is that if a father wants to be part of there childs life they should be given 50% of the rights of the child. i'm not looking for an arguement with anyone, i'm just looking to dicuss the way the current system works etc

edellc

If a father wants to be involved they are given rights. Yes its not equal as in staying with the father half the week, but how unsettling would that be for the child just to make the father happy, however when it comes to anything legal then yes they do have equal rights and an equal say in the education, religion and upbringing of the child however whoever has custody during the week is the main one to implement this.

Yes men and women are both equal in contraception, but from your post it came across as if women are the root of all evil and the poor man is the one hard done by and this is not the majority of cases in fact it is the woman who is left holding the baby literally while the guy swans off doing his own thing and after months of not being there swans back in demanding this that and the other..obviously this leads to hostility, a break down in an already weak relationship and none of this benefits the child.


Lots of men do not want to be involved, more than there is that do. this is why they do not get equal rights...there is a thread on here from a girl who has a child and the father has legal guardianship he has now decided to feck off to Oz leaving his responsibility behind and the childs mother is left in legal limbo as any legal documents needing to be signed including a passport form for a holiday will need to be sent to Oz signed by the father and then posted back to the mother...a complete nightmare this is also the case with school forms, doctors etc, how is that fair that she is left with this mess, just one of the many reasons its not feasible to automatically give equal rights

there has obviously been a lot more to your friends case than they have told you as their are always reasons why custody of a child or legal guardianship is not given...

snor

my main point is that if a father wants to be part of there childs life they should be given 50% of the rights of the child.

What do you mean they should be given 50% rights to the child? Is it access you are talking about? if they are the father they can apply for access - they do not need a solicitor for this so no money involved. If they do want a solicitor they can be assessed for legal aid. It's not about having 50% of a right to their child - it's about being a guardian and having a say in the child's life - education, health etc - not a 'right to the child' - a child is a person. not a commodity.

I know of no father denied access (if he wants it) unless there is a very good reason. Even if there is a reason, there must be independent proof. As I said, it's in the child's best interest to have a relationship with both parents and this is what the courts trys to accomodate.

after a long time the father got some guardianship

from your real life case............... there is no such thing as some guardianship, he was either awarded guardianship or he was not.

the person who i was referring to had been checked to a mental instatution on a number of occassions and after a long time the father got some guardianship while she was away but then the child was given back to the mother once she was released on the courts orders and then she relapsed again a month later.

She has/had a mental illness - so does a third of the population. Does this mean she cannot look after her own child when she is released from hospital? Did the father expect the child to just move in with him forever because the mother was unwell and in hospital?

Mulready

i apoligize, i didn't mean some guardianship in that sense, i ment custody of the child. what i mean by 50% is half the rights over what is good for the child. also why is it automatically the mother who has the rights over the child, if a father wants to be part of his childs life and its in the best well being of the child should it not be the parent that can give the child the best upbringing, for example a parent who has a steady income etc. i'm not sure of this and maybe one of you guys can tell me but what rights does the father have if he is actually married to the mother of his child?

as for the father of the child who went off to oz, i don't know the story behind that, but maybe there is no work in the country and he has to go abroad to get work, i don't know and i'm not judging, but before he went, the state should have asked him about his child before he went and gave power to the mother while he is gone. as i said before, i'm only asking questions of stuff i don't know, your information is very en-lighting and informative.

edellc

Look if a couple are married and have a child then they both add their names to the birth cert and have equal say over what is best for the child, why is that even a query for you

If you are not married then a mother can not add a fathers name to a birth cert unless the father is there and consents to it

A father does not automatically give maintenance to the childs mother for the well being of the child if they are unmarried and no longer in a relationship, so why should they automatically get guardianship if they are not financially paying for the well being of their child....In America its taken from source ie out of their wage slip once maintenance is granted

Who cares if the parent is working or not, you can throw money till your blue in the face a child it doesnt make you the better parent, being there for a child costs nothing and stands to them a whole lot more...if the parent is working or not is irrelevant thats why child benefit is given to every child in the state.

A mother automatically has rights over the child?? why do you think...em carrying the child for 9 mths, pushing it out of your fanny for how many hours, breast feeding your child, waking at all hours of the night checking on your child, changing countless ****ty nappies and wiping numerous amounts of puke...so let me see why would a mother get automatic rights to the child that she gave birth too....mmmmmmmm thats a tough one

How old are you OP, as these seem quite adolescent questions and if it is relevant to yourself why not go to the citizens advice and they can give you all the information you need

Moonbeam

*Mod Note*

Folks can we keep this on topic and civil please?

Offy

edellc wrote: »

Look if a couple are married and have a child then they both add their names to the birth cert and have equal say over what is best for the child, why is that even a query for you

A lot of single men with no children might not know this.

edellc wrote: »

A father does not automatically give maintenance to the childs mother for the well being of the child if they are unmarried and no longer in a relationship, so why should they automatically get guardianship if they are not financially paying for the well being of their child....In America its taken from source ie out of their wage slip once maintenance is granted

This statement is untrue. A lot of unmarried men do automatically give maintenance.

edellc wrote: »

Who cares if the parent is working or not, you can throw money till your blue in the face a child it doesnt make you the better parent, being there for a child costs nothing and stands to them a whole lot more...if the parent is working or not is irrelevant thats why child benefit is given to every child in the state.

Im a man and Im a single parent. I work to provide for my children. If I didnt work I would have to depend on handouts from the state. If I didnt work my children would have nothing so you can be sure they care too. Being there for a child does cost something. Nappies cost money, food costs money, doctors/dentists costs money. Simply sitting in the same room as a child is not the same as being there for a child. Being there involves providing for the child in addition to spending time with the child. Child benifit isnt gives to every child in the state, its given to the mothers in most cases. Your information is not very accurate.

edellc wrote: »

A mother automatically has rights over the child?? why do you think...em carrying the child for 9 mths, pushing it out of your fanny for how many hours, breast feeding your child, waking at all hours of the night checking on your child, changing countless ****ty nappies and wiping numerous amounts of puke...so let me see why would a mother get automatic rights to the child that she gave birth too....mmmmmmmm thats a tough one

That statement is just silly. A mother automatically has rights over the child because Irish politicians couldnt be bithered in doing their jobs and updating the laws to give fathers equality with mothers.

pwurple

Mulready, there are loads of awful incidents out there where fathers lose their children this way. For some reason a lot of guys think they are getting off easy when their girlfriend or family doesn't press them into thinking about getting married if they get someone pregnant. They have no idea what rights they have given up until things go sour, and by then it is too late. It is absolutely weighted heavily in favour of women, I wish young men were more aware of how to protect their future access.

edellc

Offy the OP wants to know why a man doesnt get automatic rights and I agree every father should be treated 100% equal to the mother, both are hugely important to the well being and upbringing of a child....However a lot of men do not automatically give maintenance to the mother as they believe its going to line the mothers pocket rather than the childs and yes in some cases the mother does that, but most mothers do not do that. Everyone is too concerned about getting screwed out of something.

Of course it costs money to raise a child but should the parent who has the better job automatically get custody? this is what the OP is suggesting if you read the post and the answer to that is no, yes money makes the world go round and yes having a child is expensive no one said it isnt but I was brought up in a very poor house hold in the 70's/80's with no holidays, hand me down clothes and instead of central heating we worn an extra jumper, this was not unusual most Irish families lived like this, does it mean we are any way less adjusted or uncared for..no. Having a better job does not give anyone the right to automatic custody to the child. If a relationship has broken down and child comes into the world it is fair the mother gets automatic custody of the child to suggest that she doesnt is just wrong and a non started of a discussion to me, if you dont understand why, well Im not going to waste my breath explaining it as its as obvious as the nose on your face.

I understand that you are a single parent, your not doing anything that thousands of women in this country do but not thousands of men, you may say that its because the govt give automatic rights to the mother but ask single mothers, its because a lot of fathers have run for the hills, which isnt how it should be.

No one is right or wrong in this argument, there are women left holding the baby all the time, there are men who want to be part of their childs life all the time, there are women who use the baby as leverage to get what they want off the man, and there are men who couldnt care less about the child and use the situation to get one up on the women, I've seen all happen.

Its sad that people need a licence to have a dog yet can bring a human life into the world with no regard to the childs well being...if the law is changed to give men equal rights to their child when not in a relationship with the mother then it needs to accommodate child maintenance and automatically take it from source from whoever the child is not living with, just like America...my worry is the birth cert and allowing women to add names of "fathers" without fathers consent, at present this is not allowed this is why I feel the custody situation is what it is, yet if they can add a "father" there could be lots of men named on birth certs who are not actual fathers. Its a complicated situation and each case is different that is why it is what it is, if everyone behaved in a grown up manner when a child came into this world then we wouldnt have the situation we do but unfortunately we have a lot of immature so called men and women having kids, and the only people who suffer is the child, while each parent is claiming to be doing what is best for them, its a no win situation.

Zizigirl

edellc wrote: »

A father does not automatically give maintenance to the childs mother for the well being of the child if they are unmarried and no longer in a relationship, so why should they automatically get guardianship if they are not financially paying for the well being of their child...

Because quite rightly, guardianship and access are a right of the child, maintenance is a completely seperate issue between the two parents. I always find it amazing that as soon as a relationship breaks down some people think that questioning people's finances is now suddenly ok! In these situations we don't know what the parents contribute financially, both of them, but right now the system is flawed, and like or not it's plain to see that it's gender based inequality.

The system needs to change to keep up with reality. Children should have an automatic right to both parents from birth and both parents should have automatic parental responsibility towards the child. One parent should not be able to block another parent as is the case!

Z

edellc

The system needs to change to keep up with reality. Children should have an automatic right to both parents from birth and both parents should have automatic parental responsibility towards the child. One parent should not be able to block another parent as is the case!


Zigigirl I agree with you but my point would be the same if the tables where turned, both parents should have rights to their child, but both parents should also financially contribute to the upbringing of the child...it is not right that one parent has the financial burden while the other does not, if fathers want equal rights (which they should have) then they need to have the same financial burden as the mother (which they don't - not all mind you there are plenty that do pay but many many more that don't)

Zizigirl

The tables can't simply be turned in that manner because our constitution and the universal declaration on the rights of the child are there to protect the child.

Both parents don't take the financial burden of the child unless both parents work and pay 50-50 of costs. Our welfare system is in place to protect children, and rightly so, but in practise in this country, welfare is paid to the female parent and the male parent has to take the rest of the burden, even in joint custody cases.

Most of us as adults can say we have been through some sort of relationship break down and can admit that it's not easy or nice. Regardless of whether there are children involved or not there will be issues when a break up occurs, the system as it is allows the inequalities to exist between men and women in this country when these issues arise. Sadly whether a man is a decent father or a desperate father, he will be the only one questioned on his ability to parent and his ability to pay. If it occurs that he has, at any time throughout the child's life, an inability to pay then his rights to parent are usually affected. However if it occurs that a mother has an inability to pay then the state steps in to pay and allows her to continue to parent.

Hopefully, attitudes and the system will move forward in this country to stop this inequality as much as possible. No system can completely suit the needs and wants of 100% of the people 100% of the time but I believe there is a better way than the one we have now! There has to be.

Z