this constant refrain is boring; can you do all of us a favour and please, please take this off to the Health and Social Affairs forum?
you will probably find more like-minded souls there to 'debate' this with so it's win-win all round
this constant refrain is boring; can you do all of us a favour and please, please take this off to the Health and Social Affairs forum?
you will probably find more like-minded souls there to 'debate' this with so it's win-win all round
“'retail deposit flight, I don't see that as a great danger. Ireland is an island” - Brian Lenihan - to hundreds of international investors
seriously though, why not take it off there? it's just white noise in the context of the Economy forum
as soon as I see one of these threads appear, I can pretty much guarantee what's going to be in it and who the main protagonists will be (hopi will have roughly 30% of the posts in it - a mixture of waffle, emotional incoherence, throwing insults, an attempt to seize the moral high ground and inevitably, some claptrap about how true socialism has never been properly implemented anywhere. Clanrickard will weigh in with something that makes him sound like Alf Garnett on acid)
take it away to where it belongs folks!
“'retail deposit flight, I don't see that as a great danger. Ireland is an island” - Brian Lenihan - to hundreds of international investors
I have read the Act Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 and you are correct it is very clear. It clearly supports what I and the Citizens Information have been saying all along.
In both instances Guardianship and Access an application must be made to the court. A mother has automatic custody and de-facto guardianship (legal and access). An unmarried father has no rights at all - neither Guardianship nor Access. He must apply to the courts for consideration.
Our debate has always been about Access. And the material you and I have quoted very clearly show that the father of child whose parents are not married has no immediate rights of access. As such he can only apply for such access through the courts.
Again the matter of denial of access is not in dispute either. If a court awards access to a father any person acting as an impediment to court orders is liable for prosecution. There is nothing groundbreaking there.
You might well ask yourself why the Citizens Information, the Irish Times, and various groups have published material on access rights for fathers if there are no such problems.
[COLOR=Blue]
[SIZE=2]If I show you to be wrong, then what have I really achieved? If I convince you that I am right, then what difference does that make? But if I discuss my views and obtain insight from yours & you from mine, then we both learn & our perspectives are more informed.[/SIZE][/COLOR][COLOR=DarkOrange]
[/COLOR]
Of course he must apply to the courts if the mother attempts to deny access and the court will issue an order ensuring that he has access. You can't possbile be as stupid as your posts suggest.
The fact is that a mother cannot deny a father access to his children, full stop.
Here is the obvious chink in the armour of your argument. The reason that unmarried fathers do not have automatic rights is that the child could have been conceived by non-consentual means (rape).
A paedophile or rapist would have automatic rights to their off-spring even if the child was brought about by rape. A court could weigh-in to protect the child but this would take time. This is the conundrum facing lawmakers. They would want to give fathers rights to their children regardless of their marital status but not if the child has been born as a result of rape and/or paedophilia.
That's why your argument is wrong.
[COLOR=Blue]
[SIZE=2]If I show you to be wrong, then what have I really achieved? If I convince you that I am right, then what difference does that make? But if I discuss my views and obtain insight from yours & you from mine, then we both learn & our perspectives are more informed.[/SIZE][/COLOR][COLOR=DarkOrange]
[/COLOR]