Time for Biological father to pay the bill

[Foghorn]

The courts!!!! Are you now seriously suggesting that a court will refuse to issue an access order to a father because he is not married to the mother???? How many times a day do you make a fool of yourself? Do you set a target when you get up each morning????

I have made no such suggestion. What I have repeatedly said is that his rights are inferior..............in fact he has None. He isn't even recognised as a father.

The law says so [COLOR=#800080]http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/act/pub/0007/sec0002.html[/COLOR]

2.—In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires—
[COLOR=#0066cc][GA][/COLOR]"adoption order" means an adoption order made under the [COLOR=#0066cc]Adoption Act, 1952[/COLOR] , and for the time being in force;
[COLOR=#0066cc][GA][/COLOR]"father" includes a male adopter under an adoption order [COLOR=Red]but does not include the natural father of an illegitimate infant[/COLOR];
[COLOR=#0066cc][GA][/COLOR]"illegitimate infant" does not include any infant adopted under an adoption order;
[COLOR=#0066cc][GA][/COLOR]"infant" means a person under twenty-one years of age;
[COLOR=#0066cc][GA][/COLOR]"maintenance" includes education;
[COLOR=#0066cc][GA][/COLOR]"mother" includes a female adopter under an adoption order;
[COLOR=#0066cc][GA][/COLOR]"parent" means a father or mother as defined by this section;
[COLOR=#0066cc][GA][/COLOR]"testamentary guardian" means a guardian appointed by deed or will;
[COLOR=#0066cc][GA][/COLOR]"welfare", in relation to an infant, comprises the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social welfare of the infant.

As someone with no rights -

1. he has no immediate access, certainly not in advance of an approved application.
2. he must apply for any kind of rights
3. the right to apply is not the recognition of rights, legal documents I have already provided show this to be the case.
4. 25% of all applicants (your figures) do not get approved.
5. once he has crossed all these hurdles, if he is one of the 75% then he can see his kids.
6. if he is one of the 25% then he cannot
7. it is my understanding that divorce and separation have also legal consequences in this regard.


I'm the one with the facts!

You seem very conscious of the words "fool" and "ambush" and moreover you have an inability to accept what is staring you in the face. Does this point to some kind of personal inadequacy? I have no reason to feel foolish. I'm the one quoting Supreme Court Judges, Four Court Judges, LRC, Concerned Bodies, the Constitution and the Law.

You never answer questions - but you expect yours to be answered.

You change the subject whenever the flow of the thread doesn't suit.

You continuously offer insult.

You make allegation of lies and specifically of "mis-quoting" even though sources are provided.

You never provide much evidence and you are happy to dismiss whatever evidence others offer.

You make arbitrary intepretations of evidence it does not suit your case.

Best of all you expect others to do your research for you and you won't give any commitment to accept the outcome.

In the case of this debate you offer only material from third parties, which you would readily dismiss as "opinion pieces" if the same material was offered to you.

You seek to build false statements, or put words into the mouths of your opponents, so that you can dispute them.

.............and you expect to be taken seriously!

[hopi watcher]

I have made no such suggestion. What I have repeatedly said is that his rights are inferior..............in fact he has None. He isn't even recognised as a father.

The law says so [COLOR=#800080]http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/act/pub/0007/sec0002.html[/COLOR]



As someone with no rights -

1. he has no immediate access, certainly not in advance of an approved application.
2. he must apply for any kind of rights
3. the right to apply is not the recognition of rights, legal documents I have already provided show this to be the case.
4. 25% of all applicants (your figures) do not get approved.
5. once he has crossed all these hurdles, if he is one of the 75% then he can see his kids.
6. if he is one of the 25% then he cannot
7. it is my understanding that divorce and separation have also legal consequences in this regard.


I'm the one with the facts!

You seem very conscious of the words "fool" and "ambush" and moreover you have an inability to accept what is staring you in the face. Does this point to some kind of personal inadequacy? I have no reason to feel foolish. I'm the one quoting Supreme Court Judges, Four Court Judges, LRC, Concerned Bodies, the Constitution and the Law.

You never answer questions - but you expect yours to be answered.

You change the subject whenever the flow of the thread doesn't suit.

You continuously offer insult.

You make allegation of lies and specifically of "mis-quoting" even though sources are provided.

You never provide much evidence and you are happy to dismiss whatever evidence others offer.

You make arbitrary intepretations of evidence it does not suit your case.

Best of all you expect others to do your research for you and you won't give any commitment to accept the outcome.

In the case of this debate you offer only material from third parties, which you would readily dismiss as "opinion pieces" if the same material was offered to you.

You seek to build false statements, or put words into the mouths of your opponents, so that you can dispute them.

.............and you expect to be taken seriously!

Waffle and bull sh*te. I have consistantly stated here that a mother can not deny a father access to his child. I have never claimed that a father has equality with the mother. What you are constantly confusing is 'Parental rights', that has nothing to do with 'access'. And again a mother cannot deny a father access, repeat ACCESS to his children, if she attempts to thwart that, the court will issue an order, full stop.

[Foghorn]

Waffle and bull sh*te. I have consistantly stated here that a mother can not deny a father access to his child. I have never claimed that a father has equality with the mother. What you are constantly confusing is 'Parental rights', that has nothing to do with 'access'. And again a mother cannot deny a father access, repeat ACCESS to his children, if she attempts to thwart that, the court will issue an order, full stop.

I take then that my earlier points about your not coping with evidence to the contrary can be taken as proven? That's a rhetorical question by the way!

[Boggle]

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.

Confusing the issues? You are choosing to see this issue through hopi coloured glasses and wilfully ignoring any and all substantive points which I or anyone else has made.

The fact is that a mother is in the driving seat with custody and, prior to court approval can hold the father to ransom.

The reason she can do this is because a dad knows he has a 1 in 4 chance of being turned down by the courts. Its that simple.

Even if the father gets court approval (access), she can if she so chooses (and lets face it no-one goes to court if reason can prevail) then make life difficult for the father through a range of implicitly* legal methods (ergo she can impede access to the point of effectively blocking it).

* Implicitly legal means that unless the law is used to enforce a law then the law is worthless.

I'm not being unreasonable, and if you would like to comment on my point than great. If you are just going to ignore the point and spout the same caliber of responses which you have done to date then save yourself the time as I'm not interest in spin and deflection.

[Boggle]

The courts!!!! Are you now seriously suggesting that a court will refuse to issue an access order to a father because he is not married to the mother???? How many times a day do you make a fool of yourself? Do you set a target when you get up each morning????

Surely your source is the legislation and not the courts?? If you were citing the courts you would tell us how the various laws are implemented through the courts.

You have not done so.

[hopi watcher]

I take then that my earlier points about your not coping with evidence to the contrary can be taken as proven? That's a rhetorical question by the way!

More waffle. A mother cannot deny a father access to his children, cite one professional source which states that she can, just one.
If a mother holds such power, why do fathers seek an order from the court? And why must a mother obey it under pain of sanction?

[hopi watcher]

Confusing the issues? You are choosing to see this issue through hopi coloured glasses and wilfully ignoring any and all substantive points which I or anyone else has made.

The fact is that a mother is in the driving seat with custody and, prior to court approval can hold the father to ransom.

The reason she can do this is because a dad knows he has a 1 in 4 chance of being turned down by the courts. Its that simple.

Even if the father gets court approval (access), she can if she so chooses (and lets face it no-one goes to court if reason can prevail) then make life difficult for the father through a range of implicitly* legal methods (ergo she can impede access to the point of effectively blocking it).

* Implicitly legal means that unless the law is used to enforce a law then the law is worthless.

I'm not being unreasonable, and if you would like to comment on my point than great. If you are just going to ignore the point and spout the same caliber of responses which you have done to date then save yourself the time as I'm not interest in spin and deflection.

Yes a mother is in the driving seat regarding 'CUSTODY' but that is not the issue here, ACCESS is, Pay attention. Where did you get the 1 in 4 figure regarding fathers? It is extremely rare that the court would refuse to issue an access order, extremely rare, in the case of a parent. Like foggie, you are forgetting that others, apart from parents, can apply for access orders. But apart from this, where access is denied, it is the COURT that denies it,. not the MOTHER, the MOTHER has no such powers.

Regarding the 'implicity legal' nonsense, here's the facts,

"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."

Regaing your accusations of spin, is this spin? NOTE that you can contact the barrister concerned.

"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 -- FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centres) » Promoting access to justice in Ireland » Home Page Family Mediation Service -- fmsearlsfort@welfare.ie
Mary Kirwan is a barrister-at-law and can be contacted at mkirwan@independent.ie"

[Foghorn]

More waffle. A mother cannot deny a father access to his children, cite one professional source which states that she can, just one.
If a mother holds such power, why do fathers seek an order from the court? And why must a mother obey it under pain of sanction?

I have been quite clear about the circumstances about which I have been talking. I have also shown, several weeks ago, that the court order you refer to is not a court order in the usual sense - it is definitely NOT an injuction requiring her to cease & desist from interfering in his automatic rights (he has none) - it does NOT uphold his rights - only the mother has full rights to her child. You don't see her having to apply now do you.

As do your other request - why should I bother when you won't acknowledge earlier evidence provided, accuse me of mis-quoting my sources and you won't even give a commitment to accept information from your own sources. Are you really that brazen?

[Foghorn]

More waffle. A mother cannot deny a father access to his children, [COLOR=Red]cite one professional source which states that she can, just one[/COLOR].
If a mother holds such power, why do fathers seek an order from the court? And why must a mother obey it under pain of sanction?

................if I do find one will you accept it?

[hopi watcher]

................if I do find one will you accept it?

Not the point, you seem to suffer the delusion that you are engaged in a debate on the issue, you are not. The fact is that a mother cannot deny a father access to his chldren. If you find an expert who claims otherwise, I will engage with that expert on the subject.
If a mother hadn the power to deny access, why would a court issue an order? It really ain't rocket science. What's the target to day????