fathers4justice protest

Tasden

smash wrote: »

An unmarried mother is automatically the sole guardian and custodian of the child or children. An unmarried father must apply for access, as he is not automatically granted access.

I'm well aware. I awarded guardianship to my child's father as we were unmarried. Has no bearing on access to the family mediation service.

smash

foggy_lad wrote: »

Yet again you are looking to link maintenance directly to access which can never happen, many of the mostly men involved are not interested in access but will get on any bandwagon that promises them a chance of getting rid of or at least reducing their maintenance payments.

I'm not looking to link them here, what I said is what happens in court. When the parents can't agree, a maintenance and access hearing happen at the same time, with the judge delivering the verdict at the same time.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

I'm not looking to link them, what I said is what happens in court. When the parents can't agree, a maintenance and access hearing happen at the same time, with the judge delivering the verdict at the same time.

You're saying these idiots are right to be telling people to withhold maintenance in retaliation to someone withholding access! You were rude to a woman who was telling you that one should not depend on the other. Have a read over your comments and see why people would think you want to link them.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

I'm well aware. I awarded guardianship to my child's father as we were unmarried. Has no bearing on access to the family mediation service.

I didn't say it had any bearing, I said it didn't have bearing. You said "No gender has more or less access" which isn't true. A mother automatically has all the access where the father has to apply for it.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

I didn't say it had any bearing, I said it didn't have bearing. You said "No gender has more or less access" which isn't true. A mother automatically has all the access where the father has to apply for it.

More or less access to mediation.

foggy_lad

smash wrote: »

I'm not looking to link them here, what I said is what happens in court. When the parents can't agree, a maintenance and access hearing happen at the same time, with the judge delivering the verdict at the same time.

They are separate for good reason and should remain separate. Fathers for justice really come across as a group of jokers who want to lay down the law to their ex wives/partners, like they want to have control of the purse strings like many did during their failed relationships, many are now single again because of this money meanness!

If a relationship breaks up and there are children the man should do the right thing and pay the court ordered amount plus a lot more or be committed to jail as a miserable bastard!

smash

Tasden wrote: »

More or less access to mediation.

I never suggested that one gender had more access to mediation than an other. I said unmarried fathers don't have access to mediation as a service, as in the same way that married fathers do. Like, when going through a separation the solicitors will mediate as a first port of call to try and come to an agreement so it's not left in the hands of a judge.

smash

foggy_lad wrote: »

They are separate for good reason and should remain separate. Fathers for justice really come across as a group of jokers who want to lay down the law to their ex wives/partners, like they want to have control of the purse strings like many did during their failed relationships, many are now single again because of this money meanness!

Having never had dealings with them I can't disagree but I would hope they have better morals than to solely focus on these kind of people.

foggy_lad wrote: »

If a relationship breaks up and there are children the man should do the right thing and pay the court ordered amount plus a lot more or be committed to jail as a miserable bastard!

he should pay his half, whatever that may be. Or come to an agreement which benefits the child.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

I never suggested that one gender had more access to mediation than an other. I said unmarried fathers don't have access to mediation as a service, as in the same way that married fathers do. Like, when going through a separation the solicitors will mediate as a first port of call to try and come to an agreement so it's not left in the hands of a judge.

Nope, the family mediation service offers a mediation service free of charge to all families regardless of gender, income or marital status. The only condition is that both parents agree to attending. The agreement they come to in the mediation sessions can then be signed off by a judge. No need for court unless they are unable to agree.
Mediation for all parents, no gender having more access than another, regardless of marital status.
As per my post.

foggy_lad

smash wrote: »

he should pay his half, whatever that may be. Or come to an agreement which benefits the child.

The problem is that most of these men don't have a clue about the cost of raising children or the cost of keeping a house! They are usually not he ones who paid the bills or did shopping for food or clothing or shoes coats etc when they were in the relationship.

When it comes to paying his half he will usually dispute what half is even though he has no idea of the costs involved in raising children.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

Nope, the family mediation service offers a mediation service free of charge to all families regardless of gender, income or marital status. The only condition is that both parents agree to attending. The agreement they come to in the mediation sessions can then be signed off by a judge. No need for court unless they are unable to agree.
Mediation for all parents, no gender having more access than another, regardless of marital status.
As per my post.

And as I've stated, I never said one gender had more access to mediation services than the other. Also as I stated, I was talking about mediation through solicitors for legal separation as opposed to the family mediation service which I already know is only available when both parties agree to attend.

smash

foggy_lad wrote: »

The problem is that most of these men don't have a clue about the cost of raising children or the cost of keeping a house! They are usually not he ones who paid the bills or did shopping for food or clothing or shoes coats etc when they were in the relationship.

When it comes to paying his half he will usually dispute what half is even though he has no idea of the costs involved in raising children.

Why are you consistently portraying single fathers in these circumstances as being thick and inept?

Tasden

smash wrote: »

And as I've stated, I never said one gender had more access to mediation services than the other. Also as I stated, I was talking about mediation through solicitors for legal separation as opposed to the family mediation service which I already know is only available when both parties agree to attend.

You said "single fathers" didnt have the same access to mediation, without any further context as to which aspect of being a "single father" reduced their access to mediation services. I pointed out that gender and marital status weren't relevant when accessing the family mediation service- covering all bases.They don't need access to legal separation mediation because they are not legally separating!

Tasden

smash wrote: »

Why are you consistently portraying single fathers in these circumstances as being thick and inept?

Why are people consistently portraying mothers with sole custody and receiving maintenance as money grabbing and...what was the other option you gave that poster earlier? Greedy? And "Knocked up by a scumbag"?

foggy_lad

What do you call some scumbag that dresses up as a priest to gain entry to the dome in Tralee and then invades the stage as a participant in the rose of Tralee is being interviewed?

the best night of that young woman's life has been tainted by this greedy selfish no good bastard!

smash

Tasden wrote: »

You said "single fathers" didnt have the same access to mediation, without any further context as to which aspect of being a "single father" reduced their access to mediation services.

I pointed out that gender and marital status weren't relevant when accessing the family mediation service- covering all bases.They don't need access to legal separation mediation because they are not legally separating!

Actually I said "Unfortunately unmarried fathers in particular don't have this service at hand". Which they don't, unless the mother agrees to it. With legal separation, the mediation process is the first port of call and solicitors will engage in this process on behalf of their clients. The solicitors will often advise their client disregarding whether the client initially wanted a mediation process. This is what unmarried fathers don't have access to... Someone to fight their corner in an situation where the mother has to actually listen.

I was under the impression that fathers4juatice are fighting for these kind of rights. Obviously I was wrong.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

Actually I said "Unfortunately unmarried fathers in particular don't have this service at hand". Which they don't, unless the mother agrees to it. With legal separation, the mediation process is the first port of call and solicitors will engage in this process on behalf of their clients. The solicitors will often advise their client disregarding whether the client initially wanted a mediation process. This is what unmarried fathers don't have access to... Someone to fight their corner in an situation where the mother has to actually listen.

I was under the impression that fathers4juatice are fighting for these kind of rights. Obviously I was wrong.

Same thing, different words. And unmarried mothers can't avail of mediation unless the father agrees.
But they are not legally separating so they don't go through that process. It's not comparable. Unmarried people without kids don't go through the same process as married people without kids.

davidlimerick

It would give more negative publicity than positive I would think.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

Why are people consistently portraying mothers with sole custody and receiving maintenance as money grabbing and...what was the other option you gave that poster earlier? Greedy? And "Knocked up by a scumbag"?

They're not, I was talking about single mothers of a type who are looking for maintenance because they're either greedy or because the father is a scumbag who won't pay and doesn't care about his kids. Or those who want maintenance and don't offer access.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

Same thing, different words. And unmarried mothers can't avail of mediation unless the father agrees.

They don't need to mediate their access agreement. They automatically have the access.

foggy_lad

smash wrote: »

They don't need to mediate their access agreement. They automatically have the access.

And this is because the mother is seen in the constitution as more nurturing and far more important in a child's life than the father and nothing will change that.

smash

foggy_lad wrote: »

And this is because the mother is seen in the constitution as more nurturing and far more important in a child's life than the father and nothing will change that.

Actually there are upcoming laws that will be changing that which will grant the likes of automatic guardianship rights to unmarried fathers among other things.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

They're not, I was talking about single mothers of a type who are looking for maintenance because they're either greedy or because the father is a scumbag who won't pay and doesn't care about his kids. Or those who want maintenance and don't offer access.

And I'm sure that poster was referring to "fathers of a type", of which there are many too.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

They don't need to mediate their access agreement. They automatically have the access.

That does not mean they don't need to mediate access arrangements.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

And I'm sure that poster was referring to "fathers of a type", of which there are many too.

Well no. He said "most of these men".

Tasden wrote: »

That does not mean they don't need to mediate access arrangements.

It means the don't have to if they don't want to.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

Well no. He said "most of these men".



It means the don't have to if they don't want to.

OK he made a sweeping generalisation. You assumed a specific poster was those things. Both incorrect.

Yeah and men dont have to if they don't want to either.
And if women want to and the father refuses then they can't.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

OK he made a sweeping generalisation. You assumed a specific poster was those things. Both incorrect.

I didn't assume. I asked were they one of those type of people because their style of posting was indicating they were that way inclined. All of their posts basically said "men must pay no matter what". Disregarding circumstance.

Tasden wrote: »

Yeah and men dont have to if they don't want to either.
And if women want to and the father refuses then they can't.

Then the father is an asshole and shows how he has no interest in his child. Simple. But that's not the kind of father this thread is about. It's about fathers who want to but are denied the opportunity by the mother.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

I didn't assume. I asked were they one of those type of people because their style of posting was indicating they were that way inclined. All of their posts basically said "men must pay no matter what" disregarding circumstance.


Then the father is an asshole and shows how he has no interest in his child. Simple. But that's not the kind of father this thread is about. It's about fathers who want to but are denied the opportunity by the mother.

You knew nothing about her and assumed they would apply but whatever.

The point was the service is available to anybody. Both parents have to agree. Either is free to decline if they don't want to engage, and this means the other party cannot do it. A female can need the service and not get it. A male can need the service and not get it. The parent that refuses to engage may have valid reasons or they may just be an asshole.
All people can be assholes. There are people refusing access, there are people refusing to be a part of their kid's life. There are people paying ridiculous maintenance there are people paying none. There are people who need it and not getting it there are people getting it who don't need it. There are all sorts of problems parents are facing, sometimes the parent causing the hassle is just an asshole, sometimes there is more to it than that.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

You knew nothing about her and assumed they would apply but whatever.

The point was the service is available to anybody. Both parents have to agree. Either is free to decline if they don't want to engage, and this means the other party cannot do it. A female can need the service and not get it. A male can need the service and not get it. The parent that refuses to engage may have valid reasons or they may just be an asshole.
All people can be assholes. There are people refusing access, there are people refusing to be a part of their kid's life. There are people paying ridiculous maintenance there are people paying none. There are people who need it and not getting it there are people getting it who don't need it. There are all sorts of problems parents are facing, sometimes the parent causing the hassle is just an asshole, sometimes there is more to it than that.

And that's all well and good, but the thread was focusing on a particular set of parents. The set where the mother refuses to obey a court ordered access for the father, and the father in return refuses to pay the court ordered maintenance. I'm of the opinion that under these set of circumstances, providing the father is a good father, the mother shouldn't have her cake and eat it just because she feels like it.

flanum

so a fairly big outcry in cavan obviously seeing as it was the cavan rose, but fair play to lisa, she took it in her stride!

davidlimerick

davidlimerick wrote: »

It would give more negative publicity than positive I would think.

Destroying artwork, disrupting events, bizarre plots to kidnap Leo Blair, hunger strikes, refusing to obey Court Orders, pursuing nonsense claims, campaigns against individuals...they are just nuts. They seem far more concerned with the oxygen of publicity than with actually providing any support, lobbying constructively for change, coherently presenting their concerns, researching the problems they allege exist etc. etc. etc.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

And that's all well and good, but the thread was focusing on a particular set of parents. The set where the mother refuses to obey a court ordered access for the father, and the father in return refuses to pay the court ordered maintenance. I'm of the opinion that under these set of circumstances, providing the father is a good father, the mother shouldn't have her cake and eat it just because she feels like it.

Well no the thread is about withholding maintenance if access is being withheld. Nobody here believes she should be allowed do as she pleases. And nobody here agrees with those particular set of parents despite what you may think. We are all in agreement with you about certain types of parents being an asshole. But that still doesn't mean these guys are right.

Tasden

Tasden wrote: »

Well no the thread is about withholding maintenance if access is being withheld...

Withholding maintenance should be met with the threat of jail. Obviously the Court has determined the level of payment, the party has the right to appeal or apply to vary downwards, they don't have the right to ignore.

Withholding access is, obviously, a trickier issue. Placing the parent with custody in jail may naturally have catastrophic consequences for the children.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

Well no the thread is about withholding maintenance if access is being withheld. Nobody here believes she should be allowed do as she pleases. And nobody here agrees with those particular set of parents despite what you may think. We are all in agreement with you about certain types of parents being an asshole. But that still doesn't mean these guys are right.

Which guys are you talking about now? The fathers withholding maintenance or f4j?

Tasden

smash wrote: »

Which guys are you talking about now? The fathers withholding maintenance or f4j?

F4J and, imo those also taking it upon themselves to withhold maintenance in retaliation to someone with holding access. Two wrongs do not make a right and it does nothing to help their cause in relation to access. If they want to highlight a very flawed system I absolutely support people making a statement of some sort, but withholding court ordered maintenance to your CHILD (because it is for the child regarmless of how the mother actually spends it) is not the way to do it. It helps nobody involved. It's not me saying " these poor single mothers need that money and withholding it means their kids go hungry. How dare these men not empty their pockets". I myself dont need it so didn't go to court to get it. There were times when I did need it and didn't get it and still didn't go to court either mind you. But that is a different issue, whether or not someone is entitled to it or in need of it is irrelevant in this situation if it is court ordered. The exact same way access orders should be respected. Which they should, nobody is denying that. We can disagree with f4j while actively supporting fathers rights and thinking SOME women abuse a flawed system.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

F4J and, imo those also taking it upon themselves to withhold maintenance in retaliation to someone with holding access. Two wrongs do not make a right and it does nothing to help their cause in relation to access. If they want to highlight a very flawed system I absolutely support people making a statement of some sort, but withholding court ordered maintenance to your CHILD (because it is for the child regarmless of how the mother actually spends it) is not the way to do it. It helps nobody involved. It's not me saying " these poor single mothers need that money and withholding it means their kids go hungry. How dare these men not empty their pockets". I myself dont need it so didn't go to court to get it. There were times when I did need it and didn't get it and still didn't go to court either mind you. But that is a different issue, whether or not someone is entitled to it or in need of it is irrelevant in this situation if it is court ordered. The exact same way access orders should be respected. Which they should, nobody is denying that. We can disagree with f4j while actively supporting fathers rights and thinking SOME women abuse a flawed system.

And in the same regard it's only SOME men who take it upon themselves to withhold maintenance when access is being restricted beyond a court order. Like I said, I have no dealings with F4J, although the more I read the more disgusted I am and they shouldn't condone it.

Tasden

smash wrote: »

And in the same regard it's only SOME men who take it upon themselves to withhold maintenance when access is being restricted beyond a court order. Like I said, I have no dealings with F4J, although the more I read the more disgusted I am and they shouldn't condone it.

I know it is. I never claimed otherwise. Doesn't mean they are right to do so.
I'm glad you can see the point that posters were trying to make and didn't continue to support them based purely on the fact the the issues behind their ridiculous "campaigns" are valid. It's a cause worth supporting but these guys are doing nothing to help the situation.

JRant

foggy_lad wrote: »

And this is because the mother is seen in the constitution as more nurturing and far more important in a child's life than the father and nothing will change that.

Lovely attitude to have towards fathers and people wonder why groups like F4J act the way they do. Just so we're crystal clear I believe access and maintenance should be kept seperate issues and where at all possible both parents should pay towards their child. However if you've been through the courts for years trying to gain regular access to your child and being shot down at every turn then I can see why some might get completely frustrated and stop paying as a form of protest.

The sooner this prehistoric mindset is gone the better. Children need as much support as they can get, be that from the mother, father, grandparents etc.
This attitude that only the mother can give a child what they need is endemic in our society and needs to be stamped out.

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

Withholding maintenance should be met with the threat of jail. Obviously the Court has determined the level of payment, the party has the right to appeal or apply to vary downwards, they don't have the right to ignore.

Withholding access is, obviously, a trickier issue. Placing the parent with custody in jail may naturally have catastrophic consequences for the children.

One could argue that if someone is petty and childish enough to be withholding access (or maintenance), then the courts should be re-assessing whether they are the suitable parent to actually grant custody to.


Instead of the Irish Courts' default position of the mother is best - end of.

smash

Tasden wrote: »

I know it is. I never claimed otherwise. Doesn't mean they are right to do so.
I'm glad you can see the point that posters were trying to make and didn't continue to support them based purely on the fact the the issues behind their ridiculous "campaigns" are valid. It's a cause worth supporting but these guys are doing nothing to help the situation.

From what I've read on their site, they're a UK based organisation with great values at a top level but then when you get in to it you'll see things on their twitter feed like:

"Divorcee who has spent four years in house sets fire to car in protest -keep going Peter @asks4justice @F4JOfficial"

WTF like...

tritium

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Withholding maintenance should be met with the threat of jail. Obviously the Court has determined the level of payment, the party has the right to appeal or apply to vary downwards, they don't have the right to ignore.

Withholding access is, obviously, a trickier issue. Placing the parent with custody in jail may naturally have catastrophic consequences for the children.

If the father is looking to have a relationship withe the child and the maintenance issue is linked to access, then jailing the father may be equally detrimental

Tasden

smash wrote: »

From what I've read on their site, they're a UK based organisation with great values at a top level but then when you get in to it you'll see things on their twitter feed like:

"Divorcee who has spent four years in house sets fire to car in protest -keep going Peter @asks4justice @F4JOfficial"

WTF like...

They actively encourage behaviour that isn't going to help anybody.

I do not have the law on my side when it comes to enforcing access. I would be happy if my childs father even took her for an hour a week and all they did is walk in the park, it would mean the absolute world to her. But the family courts can't and won't help me in that regard. It's not fair on my child. Do I set fire to cars? Nope. Do I stop being responsible for other aspects of her life as a form of protest? No. Does it still piss me off every single day that the other parent can't see that they are only hurting the child with their immature and selfish actions, and legally I am helpess? Absolutely. So I do get their frustration.

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

One could argue that if someone is petty and childish enough to be withholding access (or maintenance), then the courts should be re-assessing whether they are the suitable parent to actually grant custody to.

Instead of the Irish Courts' default position of the mother is best - end of.

That may be if the other parent was suitable. In my experience, when you get down to the withholding both access and maintenance type wars, a lot of the couples involved are very young, very childish and very immature and utterly clueless about the responsibility involved on all sides in bringing up a child.

tritium wrote: »

If the father is looking to have a relationship withe the child and the maintenance issue is linked to access, then jailing the father may be equally detrimental

Not equally detrimental. In that for obvious reasons jailing the parent with custody is likelier to have more serious consequences. But the Courts are acutely aware of the fact that jail is a last resort, for the simple reason that if anything it may affect the father's ability to pay any maintenance at all.

Tasden

Tasden wrote: »

But the family courts can't and won't help me in that regard. It's not fair on my child. Do I set fire to cars?

For very obvious and sound reason. Compelling someone who wants nothing to do with a child to look after that child could lead to serious consequences.

smash

Deleted User wrote: »

Not equally detrimental. In that for obvious reasons jailing the parent with custody is likelier to have more serious consequences. But the Courts are acutely aware of the fact that jail is a last resort, for the simple reason that if anything it may affect the father's ability to pay any maintenance at all.

If either parent ends up in jail over maintenance or access then it's going to be mentally damaging to the child. But if for example a mother is constantly withholding access from a father who is perfectly capable of caring for the child then it's no more damaging to temporarily jail the mother while the father is granted his access, than it is to jail a father for not paying maintenance.

Snugglebunnies

smash wrote:

If either parent ends up in jail over maintenance or access then it's going to be mentally damaging to the child. But if for example a mother is constantly withholding access from a father who is perfectly capable of caring for the child then it's no more damaging to temporarily jail the mother while the father is granted his access, than it is to jail a father for not paying maintenance.

Juggling children from home to home while each parent takes a turn in jail = damaging for kids

homerjay2005

roy rodgers wrote: »

These out dated laws need to be changed asap and give fathers equal rights to their kids as that of the mother.

and what about the lack of laws to ensure that those who dont give two f*cks about their children and leave it all to the mothers, are equally culpible for the child's upbringing?

for every father out there being harshely treated, theres another one who doesnt give a damn and contributes nothing to their childrens lives.

smash

Snugglebunnies wrote: »

Juggling children from home to home while each parent takes a turn in jail = damaging for kids

Nobody's suggesting taking turns in jail. And going from home to home is what access is all about.

Tasden

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For very obvious and sound reason. Compelling someone who wants nothing to do with a child to look after that child could lead to serious consequences.

I know WHY they don't. And parents not wanting enforced regulated access is not automatically them wanting "nothing" to do with their child btw. They may still want it on their terms yet refuse to abide by access orders that are more than accommodating and in the best interest of the child. Happens alot.

Anyway my point was i am still helpless in helping my child and legally the other parent can continue to treat the child unfairly, hence me having an understanding of how people feel when they feel without help from the legal system to remedy the situation. I wasn't actually complaining that the courts should help me, just explaining my position in relation to feeling their helplessness when their child is being unfairly treated and they can't legally do anything.

Grandeeod

homerjay2005 wrote: »

and what about the lack of laws to ensure that those who dont give two f*cks about their children and leave it all to the mothers, are equally culpible for the child's upbringing?

for every father out there being harshely treated, theres another one who doesnt give a damn and contributes nothing to their childrens lives.

In terms of the scenario outside of marriage.

I've been through all this over 20 years ago, but I get your point. While you cannot force a father to take an emotional interest in their child, the updated legislation requires that a father who wants to be a legal guardian must "prove" himself first by a cohabitation period of 12 months to include at least 3 months after the baby is born. That is a disgraceful discrimination to a lot of men who may not be in a situation to do that and still want to be an important part of the childs life.