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

walshb

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Are you claiming that women have a biological advantage when it comes to being parents?

First give me your view and opinions on men and women and parenting. Not just hear to answer your specific questions. Debates and topics are a lot more interesting when both parties are contributing.

Jawgap

walshb wrote: »

Yes, times have certainly changed, but biology and nature are very similar. That maternal instinct and bond that is created from nature/biology is still very powerful and impacting on the relationship between a mother and child. Fathers did not get that years ago, do not get it today, and will likely never ever get it.

As to welcoming dads more into the children's lives, I am strictly speaking about family units with stability. Mother and father in the home and both rearing the children. Most of the time it's the mother who rears or watches or cares for the children.

So a single man can't successfully parent?

lifeandtimes

im a father seperated from my child mother so id like to weigh in

I believe a big factor for me in this is regarding the fact the father did not apply for sole custody directly after the mothers death but only did so after hostility around the mothers partner flared up,also the judge mentioned the father was more concerned with his rights being impeded rather than welfare of the child,im not sure if he had made a strong case as to why the child would benefit going with him rather than the case of"just because he is the bio father",the article is to vague to say. I currently have legal guardianship and weekly access to my child and have a very strong bond with them and if my child mother was to die it would be the first thing i would apply for and i would make an air tight case as to why it would be in their best interest

It may be the child wishes to stay with partner but as people has said there is also a chance in the future the mothers partner will negate on his guardianship leaving the child high and dry so to speak,were as a father cannot which is in my opinion a bit of a safer net. And this scenario can certainly arise if the mother partner who has now began a relationship with some else chooses to have children and the child is not related to any of them which could make life and growing up difficult in a family that arent technically is own

walshb

Jawgap wrote: »

So a single man can't successfully parent?

No!

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Yes, times have certainly changed, but biology and nature are very similar. That maternal instinct and bond that is created from nature/biology is still very powerful and impacting on the relationship between a mother and child. Fathers did not get that years ago, do not get it today, and will likely never ever get it.

As to welcoming dads more into the children's lives, I am strictly speaking about family units with stability. Mother and father in the home and both rearing the children. Most of the time it's the mother who rears or watches or cares for the children.

What do you mean by maternal instinct exactly? Most parents have an instinct where their own children are concerned, its not a biological thing, its just as a result of knowing your child. I would be a lot more in tune with my own kids than someone else's because I know them well, I know the nuances of their personalities, all that comes with time and isn't biological. Because I spend more time with my kids than my husband I would probably be better at picking up the subtle changes with them than he would be but that isn't proof that I'm a better parent, far from it, he is a lot better at the practical stuff than me.

If you are talking about the actual biological impact of birth ie the release of oxytocin which is a bonding hormone, that is just during the newborn phase, its not an ongoing thing. By the time the child is a year old both parents are pretty much on an equal footing.

walshb

eviltwin wrote: »

By the time the child is a year old both parents are pretty much on an equal footing.

Equal in all ways? Can't be equal if one parent is spending a lot more time with the child, can it? If both are spending equal (quality) time with the child I could see it being close to equal, but even at the beginning when the child is breastfeeding, if that is the case, then it's the mother who has that intimate and special connection.

By maternal instinct I meant that connection that only a mother can get from her natural experience with carrying and delivering and nourishing (breastfeeding in many cases)) her child. Maybe I used an incorrect term, but you know what I am trying to convey?

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Equal in all ways? Can't be equal if one parent is spending a lot more time with the child, can it. If both are spending equal time with the child I could see it being close to equal, but even at the beginning when the child is breastfeeding, if that is the case, then it's the mother who has that intimate and special connection.

By maternal instinct I meant that connection that only a mother can get from her natural experience with carrying and delivering and nourishing (breastfeeding in many cases)) her child.

That has nothing to do with biology though. There are two different issues here. Are women more likely to be the primary caregivers, yes. Does that mean they are best suited to that role above dads, no. Does that mean they are born with a natural parenting gene, no. That has happened by design, not by science. Its all down to the fact women for so long were second class, had no rights, had limited education, they couldn't work if they wanted to so they became the caregivers, the world has moved on but our family policies still retain some of that old fashioned view and that just makes the public think women are naturally better suited to parenting than men.

Your definition of maternal instinct excludes women who adopt or don't carry their babies. They would argue they have as much of an instinct as one who does.

walshb

eviltwin wrote: »

Your definition of maternal instinct excludes women who adopt or don't carry their babies. They would argue they have as much of an instinct as one who does.

Yes, that is why I explained what I meant by maternal instinct.

I am well aware that many women cannot have children, cannot carry children/ breastfeed children, or even want children.

And even those women who have not got children or can't have children, yes they would have an instinct to procreate and to mother and to have children. Brooding is something that any woman can have.

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Yes, that is why I explained what I meant by maternal instinct.

I am well aware that many women cannot have children, cannot carry children/ breastfeed children, or even want children.

And even those women who have not got children or can't have children, yes they would have an instinct to procreate and to mother and to have children. Brooding is something that any woman can have.

I don't get the bit in bold, plenty of women don't want kids, how do you explain abortion, contraception, sterilisation etc. Some women do feel broody but many a would be father has those feelings too. I prefer to use parental instincts, its the love you have for your child, the feeling that you would do anything to protect them, its not exclusive to women though.

jackofalltrades

walshb wrote: »

First give me your view and opinions on men and women and parenting. Not just hear to answer your specific questions. Debates and topics are a lot more interesting when both parties are contributing.

I've already given my opinion on this case earlier on.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91537907&postcount=78

I believe that apart from breastfeeding both parents are equally equipped when it comes to parenting and that neither has any biological advantage.
If this advantage did exist then surely it would have been discovered during studies on same sex couples parenting.

walshb

lifeandtimes wrote: »

i
It may be the child wishes to stay with partner but as people has said there is also a chance in the future the mothers partner will negate on his guardianship leaving the child high and dry so to speak,were as a father cannot which is in my opinion a bit of a safer net.

Why can a biological father not renege on his guardianship, but a non biological 'father' can renege on his guardianship? I haven't read up on the laws on this.

walshb

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I've already given my opinion on this case earlier on.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91537907&postcount=78

I believe that apart from breastfeeding both parents are equally equipped when it comes to parenting and that neither has any biological advantage.
If this advantage did exist then surely it would have been discovered during studies on same sex couples parenting.

I see. The point I was making is that mothers get more practice and time as regards rearing the children. They spend the majority of the time with the children. Does this automatically make them better parents than fathers? No. But it can help them that bit more. Fathers don't get that extra time to interact and bond and develop their relationship as much.

endacl

eviltwin wrote: »

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

Yes there is. It's just not available to you and me.

Jawgap

walshb wrote: »

Why can a biological father not renege on his guardianship, but a non biological 'father' can renege on his guardianship? I haven't read up on the laws on this.

Because you can't deny fatherhood.......you 'assume' guardianship and like any assumed position it can be repudiated.

As I stated earlier, the mother's former partner can repudiate guardianship tomorrow, but the kids father will always be their father.

eviltwin

endacl wrote: »

Yes there is. It's just not available to you and me.

hence I said maybe

Dodd

Lucky these days the court is on the kids side and will judge what is best for the child.
They don't come to that with out getting processional people to check the child and parents and anyone else concerned.

Hollister11

So basically Get divorced dad gets f****d over. Mother dies dad gets f****d over.
Dad probaly had 2 mortgages and maintainence to pay ?
Equal rights my arse.

terryduff12

Will the biological Father still if he ever did have to pay maintenance to the mothers boyfriend to look after his son?

Pawwed Rig

terryduff12 wrote: »

Will the biological Father still if he ever did have to pay maintenance to the mothers boyfriend to look after his son?

The father was not paying maintenance in this case. If there had been a maintenance order then part would be for the wife and part would be for the child. I would assume that the childs maintenance would continue to be paid to the mothers boyfriend in this situation although may be adjusted to allow for the increased access that the father now enjoys.

Jawgap

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The father was not paying maintenance in this case. If there had been a maintenance order then part would be for the wife and part would be for the child. I would assume that the childs maintenance would continue to be paid to the mothers boyfriend in this situation although may be adjusted to allow for the increased access that the father now enjoys.

It doesn't seem like the Dad was paying maintenance or even is paying maintenance because it wasn't sought.

There is nothing, however, stopping the child's guardian applying to the court for a maintenance order. In which case he will get maintenance - perhaps not the full amount applied for but the courts are always anxious to ensure that fathers honour their obligation to financially support their kids even if it means reducing their income to below subsistence level.

diveout

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The father was not paying maintenance in this case. If there had been a maintenance order then part would be for the wife and part would be for the child. I would assume that the childs maintenance would continue to be paid to the mothers boyfriend in this situation although may be adjusted to allow for the increased access that the father now enjoys.

This was his first mistake. Always pay something.

I have to say, I have often been very circumspect about the whole Father's rights issue, probably due to the acidity of the voices who shout about it, but this really is a stunner of a case.

It's a stunner because apparantly he had his rights and they don't really matter and that is what is dangerous not just for dads, but for all of us. That judges can just **** all over them with no accountibility on the basis of the opinion of whatever expert is in the room, is outrageous.

Its also very dangeorous for single mothers because what.... you live with a man and you break up a couple of years later and suddenly that ex boyfriend has rights to your child?

This is getting insane.

Jawgap

diveout wrote: »

This was his first mistake. Always pay something.


.

It seems maintenance was never sought - plus the mantra around the courts has always been that maintenance and access are wholly separate and not conditional on each other.......

.......paying maintenance doesn't 'entitle' you to access, in the same way withdrawing access doesn't mean you forego maintenance.

diveout

Jawgap wrote: »

It seems maintenance was never sought - plus the mantra around the courts has always been that maintenance and access are wholly separate and not conditional on each other.......

.......paying maintenance doesn't 'entitle' you to access, in the same way withdrawing access doesn't mean you forego maintenance.

Maintenance and access are seperate theoretically. Maintenance and legal rights and respect of those rights are a totally different story. Make no mistake. You don't pay maintenance, no judge will take you seriously.

Pro Hoc Vice

diveout wrote: »

Maintenance and access are seperate theoretically. Maintenance and legal rights and respect of those rights are a totally different story. Make no mistake. You don't pay maintenance, no judge will take you seriously.

What about a situation both parents are in good jobs each earning 100k plus each say the father has over night access 1/3 of the month and takes the child on a 1 month holiday abroad each year for summer and both parents agree no need for father to pay maintance, should a judge not take that father seriously.

Jawgap

diveout wrote: »

Maintenance and access are seperate theoretically. Maintenance and legal rights and respect of those rights are a totally different story. Make no mistake. You don't pay maintenance, no judge will take you seriously.

So are you suggesting that a parent volunteers to pay maintenance in the absence of being asked, even informally, to do so?

I'm all for keeping things out of court and using ADR, but unless someone asks for maintenance I don't think it should be volunteered unilaterally. There are also tax implications for voluntary maintenance payments. The more tax efficient way to deal with maintenance is to agree outside court what the payments should be - then draft a maintenance order and get the judge to authorise it. They won't have a problem doing that if both sides are in agreement.

Bearing in mind that most Dads will spend money on their kids anyway when they are with them.

jackofalltrades

Dodd wrote: »

Lucky these days the court is on the kids side and will judge what is best for the child.

You'd think, but children don't seem to get that much respect from the court.
The judges won't even listen to them. From here

In no case were the views of any child heard directly by a judge, the views of the
child were expressed through the primary carer or through court ordered expert
reports where there were allegations of abuse. On several occasions counsel asked
the court if a child could speak with a judge, in all instances this request was refused.
• In no case observed did a judge ask to meet with a child in any matter that affected
them, despite such rights being stated in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the
Child, 1989.
• A finding of this research is that no mechanism currently exists for the views of a
child to be heard by the court, where that child wishes for their views to be
considered.

Jawgap

Posted the link to that research earlier.....

the full document is available here

lifeandtimes

Jawgap wrote: »

So are you suggesting that a parent volunteers to pay maintenance in the absence of being asked, even informally, to do so?

I'm all for keeping things out of court and using ADR, but unless someone asks for maintenance I don't think it should be volunteered unilaterally. There are also tax implications for voluntary maintenance payments. The more tax efficient way to deal with maintenance is to agree outside court what the payments should be - then draft a maintenance order and get the judge to authorise it. They won't have a problem doing that if both sides are in agreement.

Bearing in mind that most Dads will spend money on their kids anyway when they are with them.

This is not true...i went to mediation and had an agreement made between me and my ex which we were both happy about and included maintenance,went to judge who signed it in in like 5 seconds,no bother......months later social welfare where onto me to pay more maintenance as they got details of my income and such and suggested i could afford it...i sent them the agreement and they said no dice,this wasnt investigated by a judge,as in it wasnt his plan to make me pay that amount and it wont stand and if i dont fork up they'll bring me to court....i wasnt the only one this happened to as it was shake down of single dad and there is a thred on this site about it....needless to say i didnt play ball and nothing came of it...but im sure there was dads who freaked out and paid up even if the amount they were originally given was"generous" in the sense it was ample to support their child

diveout

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

What about a situation both parents are in good jobs each earning 100k plus each say the father has over night access 1/3 of the month and takes the child on a 1 month holiday abroad each year for summer and both parents agree no need for father to pay maintance, should a judge not take that father seriously.

I'm not saying what judges should or should not do, I am not living in an ideal utopia, only the reality of your vulnerability of you do not pay maintenance, even if it is nominal.

Pro Hoc Vice

diveout wrote: »

I'm not saying what judges should or should not do, I am not living in an ideal utopia, only the reality of your vulnerability of you do not pay maintenance, even if it is nominal.

But why pay maintenance if its agreed between the parties not to for very valid reasons and reduced to a settlement in those terms. In this case the father had guardianship and over night access and the report clearly said maintenance was not requested or paid. It simply true for a variety of reason that maintenance may not be requested or ordered. It not all about LSD.

diveout

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

But why pay maintenance if its agreed between the parties not to for very valid reasons and reduced to a settlement in those terms. In this case the father had guardianship and over night access and the report clearly said maintenance was not requested or paid. It simply true for a variety of reason that maintenance may not be requested or ordered. It not all about LSD.

Because even if it is agreed, a custodial parent and step parent can use it as an argument against you later as to why your rights might not be enforced, which is exactly what happened in this case. Pay it anyway or you look like someone who has not made a cent of a contribution towards your child's upbringing and then later are claiming to want full responsibility.

Pro Hoc Vice

diveout wrote: »

Because even if it is agreed, a custodial parent and step parent can use it as an argument against you later as to why your rights might not be enforced, which is exactly what happened in this case. Pay it anyway or you look like someone who has not made a cent of a contribution towards your child's upbringing and then later are claiming to want full responsibility.

But he was paying for the childs upkeep on upto 1/3 of the time we do not know what else he was paying.

There is no evidence this was used against the father.

diveout

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

But he was paying for the childs upkeep on upto 1/3 of the time we do not know what else he was paying.

There is no evidence this was used against the father.

Look, I don't agree with this judgement. And I think it is a dangerous one.

But the maintenance issue is always there when it comes to rights enforcement, it is stitched into the very identity of fatherhood. Pay maintenance, end of.

This idea of 'moving the child from its home' is insane, when clearly the child, as the vast majority of children of divorce, had TWO homes. The mother was not even married to her partner, he was not even a step father legally, just a cohabitee. And that psychiatrists can determine this, is frankly insane given the dubious history and practises of psychiatry.

Pro Hoc Vice

diveout wrote: »

Look, I don't agree with this judgement. And I think it is a dangerous one.

But the maintenance issue is always there when it comes to rights enforcement, it is stitched into the very identity of fatherhood. Pay maintenance, end of.

This idea of 'moving the child from its home' is insane, when clearly the child, as the vast majority of children of divorce, had TWO homes. The mother was not even married to her partner, he was not even a step father legally, just a cohabitee. And that psychiatrists can determine this, is frankly insane given the dubious history and practises of psychiatry.

And for all of the above we have the appeal process. And if you looked at an earlier post you would see my own view as a lawyer of the use of the legal system in family law. I don't agree on the other hand that the decision is right or wrong as its impossible to tell from a newspaper article, there is no precedent value here as the facts would be fairly unique. But when dealing with human emotions the clinical law is rarely the right place to go.

diveout

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

And for all of the above we have the appeal process. And if you looked at an earlier post you would see my own view as a lawyer of the use of the legal system in family law. I don't agree on the other hand that the decision is right or wrong as its impossible to tell from a newspaper article, there is no precedent value here as the facts would be fairly unique. But when dealing with human emotions the clinical law is rarely the right place to go.

Appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal. Whoever runs out of money first loses.

Pro Hoc Vice

diveout wrote: »

Appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal. Whoever runs out of money first loses.

Hence why in one of my first posts I said the legal system should not deal with family law. It even becomes more unfair when one partner gets legal aid and the other does not. But this is not really a thread about the total FU that is family law in total.

diveout

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Hence why in one of my first posts I said the legal system should not deal with family law. It even becomes more unfair when one partner gets legal aid and the other does not. But this is not really a thread about the total FU that is family law in total.

Well it illustrates much of its flaws, starting with this best interest of the child facade. All that means is whatever the adult projects that it means. And whatever expert [psychiatrist] in the room paid E3000 to back you up.

The natural father had a relationship with the child. The child already had a second home with his natural father.

The judge basically didn't like his attitude so refused his bid. This is not a valid reason to deny sole custody to the only surviving natural parent who has been consistent in the child's life.

The not even a step dad but a cohabitee, has a new woman in his life already and the child will have to negotiate that change as well. This should make single and divorced fathers very nervous. There are millions of men raising other people's children and it's only a matter of time before the legal weights get entirely shifted.

Jawgap

lifeandtimes wrote: »

This is not true...i went to mediation and had an agreement made between me and my ex which we were both happy about and included maintenance,went to judge who signed it in in like 5 seconds,no bother......months later social welfare where onto me to pay more maintenance as they got details of my income and such and suggested i could afford it...i sent them the agreement and they said no dice,this wasnt investigated by a judge,as in it wasnt his plan to make me pay that amount and it wont stand and if i dont fork up they'll bring me to court....i wasnt the only one this happened to as it was shake down of single dad and there is a thred on this site about it....needless to say i didnt play ball and nothing came of it...but im sure there was dads who freaked out and paid up even if the amount they were originally given was"generous" in the sense it was ample to support their child

I think you are confusing tax relief and benefits - court mandated maintenance payments to a former spouse are tax deductible and can be offset against your income tax liabilities.

You seem to be referring to an issue with social welfare. I've never heard of SW getting involved in assessing, enforcing or varying maintenance payments unless the parent receiving the benefit was applying for a benefit or supplement of some kind - I'm not saying it doesn't happen, only I've no experience of it.

Henry9

diveout wrote: »

Well it illustrates much of its flaws, starting with this best interest of the child facade. All that means is whatever the adult projects that it means. And whatever expert [psychiatrist] in the room paid E3000 to back you up.

The natural father had a relationship with the child. The child already had a second home with his natural father.

The judge basically didn't like his attitude so refused his bid. This is not a valid reason to deny sole custody to the only surviving natural parent who has been consistent in the child's life.

The not even a step dad but a cohabitee, has a new woman in his life already and the child will have to negotiate that change as well. This should make single and divorced fathers very nervous. There are millions of men raising other people's children and it's only a matter of time before the legal weights get entirely shifted.

Quite, it's also interesting the utmost faith that is put in the legal system when it suits. It's populated by 'experts' who 'put the child first'.

I saw similar in a thread recently about a woman escaping prison for stabbing a child. There too, the 'experts' were in possession of all the 'facts' and were best placed to come to the correct conclusion.

Funnily enough though, it's different when the outcome of a case shows that women are 'second class citizens'. Then the legal system is populated by 'misogynists' and 'dinosaurs'.

Maybe they should distribute these very wise judges and experts more widely from the family courts to the system as a whole.

DeepBlue

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/man-loses-contest-to-father-his-own-child-30495474.html
A little more detail on the case here albeit not much.
Something interesting was the fact that the mother's boyfriend had a full legal team while the "bio-father" represented himself for most of the case.

Jawgap

DeepBlue wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/man-loses-contest-to-father-his-own-child-30495474.html
A little more detail on the case here albeit not much.
Something interesting was the fact that the mother's boyfriend had a full legal team while the "bio-father" represented himself for most of the case.

I think one of the clear messages from O'Shea's research is that representing yourself is a mistake - at best the judge will not accord your representations the same weight, at worst they will be openly hostile to you..

One of her conclusions was that

It is a finding of this research that the poorest outcomes were for men who were lay litigants or self-representing, followed by non-national lay litigants

and this quote from one of the judges she interviewed provides some significant insight into how judges think.....

“I would be very much against people representing themselves, you get people involved who don’t have proper training. Trust is also a huge issue, when a practitioner or officer of the court says something you can take that it is so, counsel have a high duty to the court. Lay litigants take a much greater amount of court time, instructing them in matters of law is hugely time consuming”.

diveout

Jawgap wrote: »

I think one of the clear messages from O'Shea's research is that representing yourself is a mistake - at best the judge will not accord your representations the same weight, at worst they will be openly hostile to you..

One of her conclusions was that



and this quote from one of the judges she interviewed provides some significant insight into how judges think.....

And that is why family court is stitched up to keep the legal profession flush.

This judgement is so outrageous I don't know where to start. I am surprised at the lack of response from the Irish public.

Pro Hoc Vice

DeepBlue wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/man-loses-contest-to-father-his-own-child-30495474.html
A little more detail on the case here albeit not much.
Something interesting was the fact that the mother's boyfriend had a full legal team while the "bio-father" represented himself for most of the case.

Good report, if the case is as reported I would be very surprised if the Appeal does not change the order some what.

Jawgap

diveout wrote: »

And that is why family court is stitched up to keep the legal profession flush.

This judgement is so outrageous I don't know where to start. I am surprised at the lack of response from the Irish public.

I think that's just the court system in general - it really doesn't facilitate the lay litigant at any level except the Small Claims Court.

TBH, I'm not at all surprised at the lack of response.

terryduff12

Wow good write up by john not much in the previous article nothing about him seeing his son nearly every night training him. Some joke

walshb

The fact that the stepfather engaged a legal team to help him instills a seriousness about him and his intentions. This does not go unnoticed in court. The bio father didn't bother to get assistance. This likely would have counted against him in the same way that the stepfather's seriousness counted for him.

DeepBlue

walshb wrote: »

The fact that the stepfather engaged a legal team to help him instills a seriousness about him and his intentions. This does not go unnoticed in court. The bio father didn't bother to get assistance. This likely would have counted against him in the same way that the stepfather's seriousness counted for him.

Strange conclusion. I would have thought it obvious that one party could afford a legal team and the other could not. Or are only wealthy people serious?

Jawgap

walshb wrote: »

The fact that the stepfather engaged a legal team to help him instills a seriousness about him and his intentions. This does not go unnoticed in court. The bio father didn't bother to get assassinate. This likely would have counted against him in the same way that the stepfather's seriousness counted for him.

How does the availability of money to spend on legal representation in any way correlate to seriousness of his intentions???

Going to the circuit court to get even a maintenance order varied costs €2000 minimum - I can only imagine what a contested custody hearing must cost in legal fees alone.

A Section 47 Report costs about €2,000 to €2,500 to prepare and just because the court ordered the second one, doesn't mean the parties don't pay - they do. So given there were 2 such reports, and given they were prepared by psychiatrists I'm going to assume they were at the pricier end of the scale.

All told, I'd estimate that to go before the court and be legally represented in this case would cost close on €10k.......which is probably a lot easier to fund if, as the report states (and you conveniently left out)

The boyfriend comes from a wealthy family and was represented throughout the proceedings by a full legal team. The father represented himself for most of the proceedings, employing lawyers only for the final hearing.

The guy's 'problem' is that he was trying to do right by his kid - after the mother died and before her partner got guardianship, he opted not to interfere with settled arrangements and left the child in the house where he was living while he set out to do things properly with the courts.

I wonder if he thinks that was a mistake? He could've simply taken his son to live with him straight after his mother's demise - and it would have been better for all concerned.

If anything this case demonstrates something I learned a long time ago - in the Family Court it is better not to be a claimant - it's tactically much better to be the respondent.

He'd have been better of taking his son to live with him (before the other guy was given guardianship rights) and let him initiate the court action.

Also, I note from the report that the mother's dying wish seems to have been communicated through the former partner! I wonder if there was any evidence (such as a will, letter etc) offered up to show that's precisely what she wanted.

And, going back to the grandmother....

The maternal grandmother is supportive of the father and, it emerged, believes her daughter's boyfriend entered prematurely into a new relationship after her daughter's death.

jackofalltrades

walshb wrote: »

The fact that the stepfather engaged a legal team to help him instills a seriousness about him and his intentions. This does not go unnoticed in court. The bio father didn't bother to get assistance. This likely would have counted against him in the same way that the stepfather's seriousness counted for him.

So only people who can afford legal representation are serious then?
According to The independents article he did have legal representation for the final hearing.

Legally representing yourself in court means that you have to go and try and understand the law and then try and make legal arguments.
This is what the father tried to do in this scenario and failed.
To claim that someone who goes to all this trouble and has to go up against professionals isn't taking it serious is farcical.

Maguined

Well this new article gives some more details into how involved the father was in his childs life and the reason he was not paying maintenence.

Now we have more details I would be interested to hear from anyone who originally believed the result was fine as it was in the best interests of the child exactly how could the biological father have acted to ensure he would be the best interests of his child?

The mother and father got involved, had a child and were both directly involved raising the child which is all fine. The relationship disolved as many do, without being married the mother is automatically guardian and custodian to the child. The father did nothing wrong, Irish law is sexist as it does not enforce shared custody. From this point on the father has no control. He offered to pay maintenence but the mother refused (maintenence is for the child so her refusing to accept maintenence is actually the mother not acting in the best interests of her own child). His access was restricted to a level defined by the mother. After the mother passed away the boyfriend decided to move the child and his new girlfriend to a new home further away from the father.

What could the father have legally done more so that he would be considered the best interest of the child? His involvement in his own childs life was restricted my the mother and the new boyfriend. By restricting access it is only natural the child will form a stronger bond with the boyfriend over the father. So do the posters that feel this was the result that was in the bests interests of the child think it is perfectly moral and fine that the father had his access restricted so his bond with his own child was articifically lessened?