No, but as you are such an arrogant ass, and you expect me to do your donkeywork for you and you so habitually ignore the evidence I produce, and sink to untold depths of accusing me of mis-quoting my sources (which I most certainly have not), it occured to me that even if I rang these folks and they did not back up your claim that you would still not accept the outcome...................even from your own sources!

So, the question arises as to whether I believe you capable of accepting impartial advice.....................and I have no reason to believe you will...........nor have you answered my question in this regard.

That explain it in sufficiently clear terms?

__________________
Doo-DAH! Doo-DAH! (Foghorn J. Leghorn)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Firstly, the position is actually clear, a mother cannot deny a father access to his children. She can attempt to thwart it but then the father has recourse to the courts to protect his right of access.
Your use of the term 'even if the court approves access' suggests that you think that the court often deny access, that is not the case at all. The court's default position is to order access, not only to the non-custodial parnet but also grandparents and other siblings. The court is bound to act at all times in the childs interests and no one elses and the courts accept that it is in the best interests of the child that he/she has access to both parents and other blood relatives. The only reason that a court will deny access to anyone is when the court, and no one else, is satisfied that such access would not be in the interests of the child. The court, in such circumstances, will deny access to a mother too.

Regarding the system, it is flawed, but not by design but rather by limited options. When parents of a child fail to agree, and this in the only circumstance in which these cases arrrive at the courts, what arises is serious conflict of interests. When these matters are brought before the court, the court, unlike Solomon, is bound to act in the best interests of the child. It is considered that when there is no other option, a child's best interests are served by the mother having custody, that is the position all over the world. Again these matters only arise where the parents are in conflict and the court's first endeavour is to establish as much security and certainty on behalf of the child. It would be silly and extremely dangerous if the child from birth was to be handed over and back to squabbling parents on a 50/50 basis.
One of the ways that both parents, regardless of whether they are on good terms or not, could share time with the child would be the provision of faciltiies, along the lines of a pre-school type facility where estranged parents could share time with a child under supervison. Such facilties would give the father the opportunity to 'bond' with the child soon after birth. This would address a very serious weakness that exists at present however the govenrment has steadfastly refused to even consider the setting up of such facilities.

Do you actually think that you are kidding anybody????

As I am not seeking to kid anyone why should I think I have succeeded?

It's awfully straightforward Hopi. Let me explain -

I have done loads of work to quote many sources to contradict your position - quoting eminent Judges, Lawyers, Family Groups and Concerned Citizens - you haven't quoted anything much and you have the audacity to claim that I have misquoted my sources. A barefaced lie!

Now, you want me to do your donkeywork for you. The cheek! But I am happy to do so, but I must give consideration to what has gone before. If I ring these folks and they back your position I am big enough to concede the point. If on the other hand they do not, I am confident that you are not and will accuse me of all sorts - based on past experience.

I am happy to do your donkeywork for you - even though you have afforded me no courtesy whatsoever.

So it goes back to the same question - will you accept the outcome?

And Hopi, it is not I that thinks they are kidding anyone, but rather you. Your persistent failure to answer this simple question over the past several threads is quite telling.

__________________
Doo-DAH! Doo-DAH! (Foghorn J. Leghorn)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ring the numbers you dolt, knowledge awaits. This is the question and here is the answer,


"Q8: What can happen if the custodial parent refuses to allow the non-custodial parent access to the child?
A8: Once an access order is obtained from the Court then any failure or refusal by the custodial parent to comply with such an order (i.e. allow access) is deemed to be in contempt of court and can result in a term of imprisonment and/or fine."

Do you deduce from this that a mother can deny a father access to his children????

Again you won't answer the question.

This pre-supposes a lot. It's akin to saying that once a person has been convicted of murder they go to jail - and then extrapolating that anyone who is charged with murder is convicted.

No reference at all to pre-hearing, no reference to those who do not get access (25% by your own figures) and no reference at all to the issues raised by others with regard to how refusal to grant access is dealt with (sources provided show that they are not!)

__________________
Doo-DAH! Doo-DAH! (Foghorn J. Leghorn)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What question????
No its not akin to saying anything other that a mother cannot deny a father access to his children. Those that are denied access are denied access by the COURT, not the MOTHER or custodial parent. Can you really not see that?????
And again,

"Q8: What can happen if the custodial parent refuses to allow the non-custodial parent access to the child?
A8: Once an access order is obtained from the Court then any failure or refusal by the custodial parent to comply with such an order (i.e. allow access) is deemed to be in contempt of court and can result in a term of imprisonment and/or fine."

Do you deduce from this that a mother can deny a father access to his children????

The following is Q&A on the subject. Note the words emphasised and also note that the reply is written by an expert on the subject. Even you should have little difficulty with this plain simple english outline of the position.

What are my rights? Can my ex-partner take my daughter away for the Christmas holidays?
My ex-partner and I had a baby girl in July. We broke up shortly before she was born but are still on good terms. We had an agreement that we would both have her over Christmas and I have made plans around this agreement. My ex-partner has changed her mind now and wants to take our daughter to visit relatives in Scotland. I am really upset by this, but what can I do?

Monday December 07 2009

Christmas can be a very difficult time for parents who do not have access to their children. It is understandably very upsetting for you that the plans you had made with your daughter have now been changed.

Under Irish law, BOTH parents have a RIGHT of ACCESS to their child. In law, the term 'access' is specifically defined -- it means spending time with your child during specified periods of time, having your child stay with you for a portion of the school holidays and having overnight stays.

It's in everyone's interests that there's broad agreement about access. Therefore, parents are first and foremost encouraged to work things out between themselves. In your own case, please talk to each other and see if there is any way of organising a schedule over the Christmas/New Year period whereby you both get equal access.

Unfortunately, disputes do arise when parents are estranged or separated so if they cannot agree on access there's also the option of using the free services of the Family Mediation Service.

During mediation, couples are seen together and a mediator ensures that NO PARTICULAR PARENT dominates proceedings. Some parents find mediation is helpful in dealing with difficult emotional issues that can prevent agreement being reached.

If mediation doesn't work then parents can apply to the courts seeking an access order if they are unable to come to a suitable arrangement. The COURTS VIEW a relationship with BOTH parents to be best for the welfare of the child and RARELY deny access to EITHER parent.

When seeking an access order papers are served on the other parent and the application is made in the local District Court. The court will listen to both sides and decide what is in the BEST interest of the CHILD

Useful contacts include:

Legal Aid Board -- http://www.legalaidboard.ie

Free Legal Advice Centres -- http://www.flac.ie Family Mediation Service -- fmsearlsfort@welfare.ie

Mary Kirwan is a BARRISTER-AT-LAW and can be CONTACTED at mkirwan@independent.ie

It's gone on so long you've forgotten? I was asking if there was any point in ringing the people whose details you provided if you couldn't give a commitment to accept what they say.

I can see that -

1. at pre-hearing there can be no problem in a mother denying access
2. after a hearing if the father has not got access and he turns up at the door the mother does not have to let him in and go to court to get him out. There is a big difference in this. The Gardai will often say when they visit an incident that "it is a civil matter" which means that it must go before the courts (again). There is a sublety to this point - a mother would have the right to bar physical access, although she is in effect acting in accordance with the rules of the court, but she does not have to petition the court again if he turns up at the door.



That's fine "once an access order is obtained" but for 25% of men (your figures) this never happens and they have no rights in advance of the fact. The LRC document I quoted in an earlier thread asserted that there is "no automatic right" for anything when it comes to an unmarried father and his children.
Furthermore, it a part I did not post, they also asserted that looking at the law as being sympathetic to the father is factually incorrect and they go to great pains to emphasise that it would be more useful when reviewing governing to legislation to interprete "access" as more a right of the child than the father. In other words the law is not sympathetic to access for unmarried fathers, it only considers such requests for access purely from the perspective of the child - whether it would benefit the child or not. If there is no compelling reason to believe that the child would not benefit (which is enormously different to upholding an automatic by a father) then there is no basis in law to grant access. In effect the Courts are neutral on the matter of access for the father- they don't care about what the father's interests are - only the child's. See the LRC document I posted several posts ago for more information.


I don't know why you feel compelled to offer insult after insult. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't respect you. Or at least I do less so with each barage of insults.

Sorry to hear your relationship broke up.

I don't know what happens once an agreement is made and then falls from grace. I would suggest that had you now had one that he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I can imagine that once an agreement is made (don't know this for a fact) that the courts would see this as both sides acquiescing as to the suitablilty of the other and probably less sympathetic to intervention if one side seeks to scupper the arrangement. But in truth, I don't know about this scenario.


What I read in the LRC document would dispute this on two fronts - Access is not well defined in the governing law and secondly that an unmarried father does not constitute (vis a vie the Constitution) a "father" and so cannot be a "parent".


That's fine. The guidance is for you to seek mediation. Courts like to see both sides getting along. But to infer from what he is saying that the rights of an unmarried mother are equal to those of an unmarried father would be wrong. There is no such basis in law.

I refer to the point I make earlier with regard to the earlier agreement that existed between you, which probably asserted the good nature of your relationship.
But had you not reached such an agreement his rights would be much more tenuous.

BTW, I do appreciate your sharing this!

I think we may be arguing cross-purposes. I concede that there is no basis for a mother to deny access when a father has been awarded access. But it's the "when" that concerns me - as it does unmarried fathers.
There are no automatic rights, no rights prior to or during application and none if the father is one of the 25% (1 in 4) that do not get access.

__________________
Doo-DAH! Doo-DAH! (Foghorn J. Leghorn)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No, we are not agruing at cross purposes, you are claiming women have a legal power which they do not have. A mother cannot, repeat cannot, deny a father access to his children, only a court can do that, full stop. The 'when' is no problem as the court will always issue an order unless the childs interests, not the mothers, would dictate otherwise.

Two relevent quotes from the barrister,

"Under Irish law, BOTH parents have a RIGHT of ACCESS to their child."

"The COURTS VIEW a relationship with BOTH parents to be best for the welfare of the child and RARELY deny access to EITHER parent."

These summarise the position clearly. Now if yoiu want to start a dialogue with the barrister, her contact details are as posted.

Yes, but one small problem with that............the Irish Constitution...........which does not recognise an unmarred father as a father! That's a small detail wouldn't you think?

You are quite right in your quote above, but not in the application. It simply does not apply to unmarried fathers. There is no automatic right to access or anything else for that matter.

__________________
Doo-DAH! Doo-DAH! (Foghorn J. Leghorn)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.