Time for Biological father to pay the bill

[greengoose2]

Nobody is forcing you to read it.

Quite!

[Boggle]

Nobody is forcing you to read it.

I don't know why you bother arguing with Hopi - she has no credibility at this stage.

How could she have when she contends that mothers do not blackmail dad's over custody while providing the evidence herself that every man knows that, if he is forced to take her to court for custody, that he has a 1 in 4 chance of never seeing his kids again.

Its so simple but cue hopi's twisting of words and hiding behind spin.

[greengoose2]

I don't know why you bother arguing with Hopi - she has no credibility at this stage.

How could she have when she contends that mothers do not blackmail dad's over custody while providing the evidence herself that every man knows that, if he is forced to take her to court for custody, that he has a 1 in 4 chance of never seeing his kids again.

Its so simple but cue hopi's twisting of words and hiding behind spin.

Maybe Foghorn is Mr Hopi...

... just a thought!

[Foghorn]

Maybe Foghorn is Mr Hopi...

... just a thought!

You can lay aside any concerns you have in that regard. Anyway, she if she's my wife them she's doing a John Terry / Tiger Woods on it over on another thread asking Maurice Colgan for a date -

http://www.politics.ie/culture-commu...ml#post2437122

Your generous concern for my well-being is heartily appreciated. You can be assured that I have escaped the clutches of Ms. Hopi unscathed!

[hopi watcher]

Do your own donkey-work you lazy ass. I have provided enough evidence.

The only evidence that you have provided is that you struggle with basic english. Undderline the words here that you do not understand,


"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."

So much for a mothers power to deny access?????

[hopi watcher]

I don't know why you bother arguing with Hopi - she has no credibility at this stage.

How could she have when she contends that mothers do not blackmail dad's over custody while providing the evidence herself that every man knows that, if he is forced to take her to court for custody, that he has a 1 in 4 chance of never seeing his kids again.

Its so simple but cue hopi's twisting of words and hiding behind spin.

Again you are confusing the issues. This conversation, such as it is, is not about 'custody' it is about foggies incorrect contention that a mother can deny a father 'ACCESS' to his children. She cannot, that is a function only of the courts. And it really is that simple.

[hopi watcher]

The Punch and Judy show goes on and on and on...

No will power? Sad

[hopi watcher]

The embolded implies that any "non-custodial" parent hasn't rights relating to the childrens upbringing. Not even if said parent is paying for the childrens upbringing.

Hopi, I know too many seperated men who are blocked from access to their children. With no help from the law.

If you have to ask for your rights, they are not rights. Rights are automatic and do not need granting.

Now, which do you think should have custody of children? The parent who is an active alcoholic or the parent who is depressed but undergoing treatment?

Again you are confusing 'custody' with 'access'. The non-custodial parent cannot interfer in the upbringing of the child but that has nothing to do with access. The court will issue an access order where the custodial parent is attempting to thwart access.
Every day of the week citizens are in court to have the court protect their 'rights', that is what courts do.

Regarding the question, that is a matter for the courts and can only be determined in light of all the facts. It may well be that the court will deny both parents 'custody' and issue an order to 'take in care'

[Foghorn]

I don't know I can make this any simpler. You are quite right that "once an access has has been obtained". But that presupposes quite a lot.

First of all, there is no problem blocking access BEFORE it is obtained. And if it is not obtained (as your own figures show happens to 1 in 4 men) then once again a mother can block access.

I have already shown, numerous times that I am not confusing anything. Previous statements by Mr. McKeown a policy consultant quite clearly showed that. In addition the LRC also made simiilar statements, which you duly sought to ignore.

[COLOR=Red]And moreover you continue to ignore the question I put to you regarding your own request - that I do your donkeywork for you - and that I ring the people whose details you provided - the question being whether you will accept what they say if I do ring them and report it here?[/COLOR]

[richie268]

After 700 posts I for one do not think this thread is purposeful, you boys have lost the plot!
And it is quite simple: "Women Gains Man Looses" ! and it aint never gonna change !
And we refer to it as Family Law!