Time for Biological father to pay the bill

[hopi watcher]

No. it is very logical. So logical I thought anyone at all could understand it.

Under Civil law a court must be petitioned.

Under Criminal law there is awareness of a crime, a complaint to the Gardai or an observation by the Gardai, which is investigated and passed on to the DPP.

How are you proposing that the courts intervene in the protection of children under your ridiculous proposition? Do the Gardai investigate every birth as a potential crime?

What are you babbling about? Next you'll attempt to divert the thread down a blind alley and we will all end up talking about the skills of the horsemen of Outrer Mongolia. Have you really nothing better to be doing? I was wrong about the age, clearly

[Foghorn]

Glad to , no more silly ambushes now, Get someone else to hold your hand.

What's this obsession with "ambushes"? What are you talking about. Is this some form of paranoia?

Hopi, you haven't been "holding my hand". Is this some form of sexual fantasy?

You really ought to seek help.

[Foghorn]

What are you babbling about? Next you'll attempt to divert the thread down a blind alley and we will all end up talking about the skills of the horsemen of Outrer Mongolia. Have you really nothing better to be doing? I was wrong about the age, clearly

I was correct about yours!

[hopi watcher]

What's this obsession with "ambushes"? What are you talking about. Is this some form of paranoia?

Hopi, you haven't been "holding my hand". Is this some form of sexual fantasy?

You really ought to seek help.

At least I'll be able to explain my complaint clearly to the doctors, in your case you might end up getting open heart surgery when all you have is an ingrown toenail!!! (I was going to say 'brain surgery' but thought better of it!!!) At this stage you are now abusing not only me, but the site.

[Foghorn]

At least I'll be able to explain my complaint clearly to the doctors, in your case you might end up getting open heart surgery when all you have is an ingrown toenail!!! (I was going to say 'brain surgery' but thought better of it!!!) At this stage you are now abusing not only me, but the site.

I consider my point proven.

[hopi watcher]

I consider my point proven.

If you desire to live in error, that's your choice.You are welcome to it.

[myksav]

Hopi watcher and Foghorn, do us all a favour and take a walk outside for an hour. Carefully, don't want ye injured.

[Boggle]

If you have something constructive to add, then perhaps you might first read the thread. I did not suggest that fathers do not get the 'short end of the stick' I have stated what the the law is with regard to ACCESS. Others have made the fundemental error of confusing that with CUSTODY and/or GUARDIANSHIP. A mother cannot deny a father access to his child. That is the law. It is compounded by the fact that the child has a right to ACCESS both parents. The difficulty arises when both parents cannot agree on how that is to be done. The court will then issue a direction on the matter.

Aren't you the poster who famously stated "Its illegal so it cannot happen"??? (According to some posters tagline)

The fact is that its one thing to write a law, its another thing to apply it. A mother cannot stop a dad from seeing his kids?? Yeah right. Its a bit like saying you cannot smoke cannabis because its illegal.
An unenforced law is no law at all.

[hopi watcher]

Aren't you the poster who famously stated "Its illegal so it cannot happen"??? (According to some posters tagline)

The fact is that its one thing to write a law, its another thing to apply it. A mother cannot stop a dad from seeing his kids?? Yeah right. Its a bit like saying you cannot smoke cannabis because its illegal.
An unenforced law is no law at all.

Why this tendency to post untruths and nonsense?
The fact is that the law in very clear, a mother cannot deny a father access to his child and visa versa. You are now agreeing with that ( at long last) but saying that the law is not enforced. All that can be said here is , that like the guy smoking cannabis, anyone frustrating an order of the court is guilty of contempt which is a very serious offence. And again just to remind you, in the vast, vast majority of cases, the parents agree on all of these things in the best interests of the child. In the small number of cases that are brought before the courts, it is usually one of the parents ( although other relaitves, such as grandparents also apply for a court order to protect their right of access) seeking an order to regulate the right to access. Such orders cinbtain the days and times of access and any instructions or directions that the court deems appropriate.
Anyone, not familiar with the process and the type of cases that do appear, can get a flavour of some of the childish antics that the court has to deal with, by reading some of the posts here.

[pd_phoenix]

Why this tendency to post untruths and nonsense?
The fact is that the law in very clear, a mother cannot deny a father access to his child and visa versa. You are now agreeing with that ( at long last) but saying that the law is not enforced. All that can be said here is , that like the guy smoking cannabis, anyone frustrating an order of the court is guilty of contempt which is a very serious offence. And again just to remind you, in the vast, vast majority of cases, the parents agree on all of these things in the best interests of the child. In the small number of cases that are brought before the courts, it is usually one of the parents ( although other relaitves, such as grandparents also apply for a court order to protect their right of access) seeking an order to regulate the right to access. Such orders cinbtain the days and times of access and any instructions or directions that the court deems appropriate.
Anyone, not familiar with the process and the type of cases that do appear, can get a flavour of some of the childish antics that the court has to deal with, by reading some of the posts here.

complete rubbish talk to some fathers and they'll tell you. If the father of the child is not married to the mother he has very little rights indeed and if she refuses to name him on the birth cert then good luck with him seeing his children