Father fails to be granted custody of his child after death of mother

DeepBlue

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/natural-father-fails-in-bid-for-sole-custody-1.1884254

Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances involved but it seems bizarre to me that such a child would be left in the custody of the mother's partner rather than the child's own natural father.

If every child in the country had a psychiatrist come in and do a report I'd guess there would be lots of cases where they would recommend that the child (or children) be moved away from their natural parents - but there would be outrage if that was allowed but in this case it's ok?

Ave Sodalis

In fairness, in this case, the child isn't being moved away from his natural parent.
It really depends on the age of the child and how long the parents have been separated. I mean, if the child spent most of his life growing up with the mother's partner, then it would make sense for the child to stay with the partner, so as not to disrupt the child's life any more than necessary, especially after such a shock as losing his mother.

same ol sh1te

It was the dying request of the mother, must be a reason

fits

Maybe, just maybe it was in best interest of child that he stay where he is.

Pro Hoc Vice

DeepBlue wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/natural-father-fails-in-bid-for-sole-custody-1.1884254

Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances involved but it seems bizarre to me that such a child would be left in the custody of the mother's partner rather than the child's own natural father.

If every child in the country had a psychiatrist come in and do a report I'd guess there would be lots of cases where they would recommend that the child (or children) be moved away from their natural parents - but there would be outrage if that was allowed but in this case it's ok?

The judge made the decision based on what she believed is in the child's best interests. A childs life should never be decided solely on the rights of interested adults.

In relation to children being moved from parents based on the evidence of professionals, this happens every day up and down the country with care orders removing children from parents for varied reasons.

uck51js9zml2yt

That's a mad judgement. That the partner(not even husband) who has no biological link to the child gets custody over the natural father is mind boggling.

Boskowski

Mauricio Round Threat wrote: »

That's a mad judgement. That the partner(not even husband) who has no biological link to the child gets custody over the natural father is mind boggling.

No, unless you have all the facts, it's not.

The child may have been all their life with the non bio father while the bio father could be a raving lunatic.

Pro Hoc Vice

Mauricio Round Threat wrote: »

That's a mad judgement. That the partner(not even husband) who has no biological link to the child gets custody over the natural father is mind boggling.

So you believe that a child's best interests are less important than an adults rights.

Chattastrophe!

It just demonstrates how a child's father is a legal stranger to him (unless the parents are married, and unless he is made the legal guardian.)

Ireland really needs to update its laws in this regard. My child's father and I have no intention of marrying, but it would make sense if he had the same rights as I do because he's named on the birth cert as the child's father. Instead of having to jump through all these legal hoops to get guardianship.

miamee

Mauricio Round Threat wrote: »

That's a mad judgement. That the partner(not even husband) who has no biological link to the child gets custody over the natural father is mind boggling.

It's hard to say without any further details such as the age of the child, how long the mothers partner was part of his family and fulfilling a father figure role in his life. For all we know, he calls the non-bio father Daddy. Reading between the lines of the article, it seems that had the natural father been granted custody the judge was of the opinion that the child's current guardian would get little or no access to the boy which would be another huge loss for the little fella.

I also think this from the final paragraph is pertinent:

The judge said the natural father had argued in court about his rights under the Constitution and the absence of rights of the mother’s partner. He had taken “a proprietary approach”, she said, and was more focused on his rights and entitlements than on what was in the best interests of the child.

Manach

However in the majority of cases, ignoring the edge cases as being raised for their rareness, the proper place for a child is with their natural parent (Father in this case). The mantra of in the best interests of the child seems to assume that a state expert can clearly distinguish this and as well ignores the wider familial bonds that are present. That the state rather cavalierly imposes this based on their perceived best practice under the auspices of prior judicial rulings is more a case of how browbeaten people are prepared to accept these rules than any inherent normative correctness.

eviltwin

There is not enough detail to make a call either way, maybe its the best thing for this child in this instance.

swht

Manach wrote: »

However in the majority of cases, ignoring the edge cases as being raised for their rareness, the proper place for a child is with their natural parent (Father in this case). The mantra of in the best interests of the child seems to assume that a state expert can clearly distinguish this and as well ignores the wider familial bonds that are present. That the state rather cavalierly imposes this based on their perceived best practice under the auspices of prior judicial rulings is more a case of how browbeaten people are prepared to accept these rules than any inherent normative correctness.

Well there was 2 psychiatrist reports and the judge used these to inform the decision. Both these professionals seemed to agree the child would be best left with the mothers partner.

I actually thought this might've been a case I'm familiar with but it's not the one I was thinking of. I don't see an issue with the verdict given the information provided. The interests of the child are what matters, if the kid is used to one home then it's probably best to leave him/her there.

Dravokivich

Boskowski wrote: »

No, unless you have all the facts, it's not.

The child may have been all their life with the non bio father while the bio father could be a raving lunatic.

Or someone who only had access on alternating weekends and occasional holidays.

I see no reason for why this child is not with their father. The only things that suggest anything to be of issue with the father, is that's he's been rather put off by his kid living with someone else!

Far from the scenario you tried to bring in.

miamee

Dravokivich wrote: »

Or someone who only had access on alternating weekends and occasional holidays.

I see no reason for why this child is not with their father. The only things that suggest anything to be of issue with the father, is that's he's been rather put off by his kid living with someone else!

Far from the scenario you tried to bring in.

The experts involved in the case disagree based on the information they have - a lot more information that any of us are going to have about it.

Dravokivich

miamee wrote: »

The experts involved in the case disagree based on the information they have - a lot more information that any of us are going to have about it.

Who were bias and flaunted that opinion:

In evidence, the psychiatrist said no matter how perfect the family of the unmarried father was, she would not recommend the child be moved.

Ash.J.Williams

Dravokivich wrote: »

Or someone who only had access on alternating weekends and occasional holidays.

I see no reason for why this child is not with their father. The only things that suggest anything to be of issue with the father, is that's he's been rather put off by his kid living with someone else!

Far from the scenario you tried to bring in.

having access at weekends is not the fathers fault usually...if you have access to your kid and you don't mess around then you are an active parent and the child should not be staying with the partner.

Thomas D

The real father got absolutely shafted here.

Through absolutely no fault of his own he has become the secondary father to another man. Heartbreaking.

miamee

Dravokivich wrote: »

Who were bias and flaunted that opinion:

Why would she recommend to move a bereaved child from potentially the only home he has ever known? Maybe to a new area, a new school, have to make new friends, maybe have to leave his sports clubs/team, etc.? On top of dealing with the loss of his mother?

I really feel for the bio father here but my primary concern (and that of most adults) would be for the child's best interests first before everyone else's.

A2LUE42

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

having access at weekends is not the fathers fault usually...if you have access to your kid and you don't mess around then you are an active parent and the child should not be staying with the partner.

Or what is called 'joint custody'

The father may have had the maximum amount of time he was 'allowed' to have by the mother, so by default her partner would have spent more time with the child.

It seems outrageous, but without the full facts it is impossible to tell.

A2LUE42

miamee wrote: »

Why would she recommend to move a bereaved child from potentially the only home he has ever known? Maybe to a new area, a new school, have to make new friends, maybe have to leave his sports clubs/team, etc.? On top of dealing with the loss of his mother?

I really feel for the bio father here but my primary concern (and that of most adults) would be for the child's best interests first before everyone else's.

This argument really annoys me. I hear it a lot, Where it is used as a reason for mothers to retain homes and assets.

If a married couple move house, it is just something that happens. If one of them dies and the other moves house, it is just something that happens. It is not nice, but everyone gets on with life and they move on.

Why is it suddenly such a massive ordeal and so different when the parents are separated.

I have seen cases where couples moved almost yearly when together with their kids, but as soon as there is a breakup, the Mother(usually) develops a love and want for the family 'home' something akin to the Bull McCabe and any change or move is unthinkable for the sake of the children.

Ash.J.Williams

miamee wrote: »

Why would she recommend to move a bereaved child from potentially the only home he has ever known? Maybe to a new area, a new school, have to make new friends, maybe have to leave his sports clubs/team, etc.? On top of dealing with the loss of his mother?

I really feel for the bio father here but my primary concern (and that of most adults) would be for the child's best interests first before everyone else's.

I'm guessing (hoping) the real father wasn't involved in the childs life

Dravokivich

miamee wrote: »

Why would she recommend to move a bereaved child from potentially the only home he has ever known? Maybe to a new area, a new school, have to make new friends, maybe have to leave his sports clubs/team, etc.? On top of dealing with the loss of his mother?

I really feel for the bio father here but my primary concern (and that of most adults) would be for the child's best interests first before everyone else's.

Her bias should discredit her opinion in court as it would a jury no matter what her motives are behind it.

A child has 2 parents. If for what ever reason they spilt up, one obtains primary custody, but the other should not have to forfeit custody as a parent to a third party as a result of their death.

It is grossly unfair to the father and sets a dangerous precedent to the rest of us.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'm guessing (hoping) the real father wasn't involved in the childs life

Article states that he had regular access and seemed to gain more after the death of the mother. It's just seems the primary residence was with the mother.

Thomas D

Life is going to be even more awkward for this kid spending a third of their time in a different place.

Dravokivich

Thomas D wrote: »

Life is going to be even more awkward for this kid spending a third of their time in a different place.

3 Gaurdians doesn't mean the kid lives between 3 households.

The kids granny merely took the mother's place.

Turtwig

Regardless of how grossly "unfair" it is perceived to be. The child has rights too, IF he spent his entire life with the non biological parent then for all intents and purposes that's who the child's father is. Biology isn't property, the child may be have a parents blood but that doesn't mean the child is automatically anything other than the biological son.

As others have noted information is sorely lacking so we can only speculate with "ifs". Unrealistic to make to an objective assessment or accusation of bias when we've information (and context) is so limited.

Dravokivich

Turtwig wrote: »

Regardless of how grossly "unfair" it is perceived to be. The child has rights too, IF he spent his entire life with the non biological parent then for all intents and purposes that's who the child's father is. Biology isn't property, the child may be have a parents blood but that doesn't mean the child is automatically anything other than the biological son.

As others have noted information is sorely lacking so we can only speculate with "ifs". Unrealistic to make to an objective assessment or accusation of bias when we've information (and context) is so limited.

That should not be how it's perceived and acted on. The father was limited by access rights, which is typical for fathers in general as custody usually goes to the mother. What this says now, is custody extends to whoever the mother's subsequent long term partner is.

A2LUE42

Turtwig wrote: »

Regardless of how grossly "unfair" it is perceived to be. The child has rights too, IF he spent his entire life with the non biological parent then for all intents and purposes that's who the child's father is. Biology isn't property, the child may be have a parents blood but that doesn't mean the child is automatically anything other than the biological son.

Would you have the same argument for children taken from their parents in the Mother and Child homes scenario?

Does the child not have a right to grow up and live with their only remaining biological parent, just because they were prevented from doing so, until the death of the custodial parent?

Ash.J.Williams

i that was me i would launch the mother of all appeals

Ave Sodalis

A2LUE42 wrote: »

This argument really annoys me. I hear it a lot, Where it is used as a reason for mothers to retain homes and assets.

If a married couple move house, it is just something that happens. If one of them dies and the other moves house, it is just something that happens. It is not nice, but everyone gets on with life and they move on.

Why is it suddenly such a massive ordeal and so different when the parents are separated.

I have seen cases where couples moved almost yearly when together with their kids, but as soon as there is a breakup, the Mother(usually) develops a love and want for the family 'home' something akin to the Bull McCabe and any change or move is unthinkable for the sake of the children.

It's not a case of the parents separating here though. The child lost his mother, which is far far far more traumatising than a separation. When there is an option to stay in the family home, to minimise distress to the child, I would take that option. He still sees his father as before and he doesn't lose his mother partner who, depending on how long they were together, may be a primary role model in the child's life.