Time for Biological father to pay the bill

[hopi watcher]

Again you seek to twist my argument. Where exactly did I say "the Supreme Court extends to mothers that power"? And you have the balls to accuse me of mis-quoting and "bogus links"?

I refer again to my earlier post - how shall I convey this proof to you as you have quoted me of all sorts. Even the Supreme Court lacks credibility when I convey it's rulings to you.

From where does the court that issues an access order against the wishes of the mother get its authority?
Why would a father seek an order from the court if the mother has the power to deny access?
What are you saying? Do you know anymore?
How stupid are you?
A mother cannot deny a father access to his children

[Foghorn]

From where does the court that issues an access order against the wishes of the mother get its authority?
Why would a father seek an order from the court if the mother has the power to deny access?
What are you saying? Do you know anymore?
How stupid are you?
A mother cannot deny a father access to his children

I'll ask you the same question only the other way round -

why would a father need to apply if he had automatic access and how could his rights be so good in cparison to the mother when he must apply but she must not!

[hopi watcher]

I'll ask you the same question only the other way round -

why would a father need to apply if he had automatic access and how could his rights be so good in cparison to the mother when he must apply but she must not!

You are slipping into dishonesty again, no one claimed that the rights of both parents are equal. The custodial parent has sole responsibiltiy and say in the rearing of a child, the non-custodial parent has none. An 'access order' does not alter that in any way. Access is specifically described so as to prevent that. Your ignorance of the system and how it works and why it works the way it does is preventing you from understanding these things. And once again, least you get any further confused, a mother cannot deny a father access to his children. She can attempt to by refusing to answer the door etc. The father apllies for an order from the court which commands the custodial parent to conform to the instructions on the order to facilitate access. The custodial parent has no, repeat no, discretion in the matter. The court is the final arbitor, not the mother.

[Foghorn]

You are slipping into dishonesty again, no one claimed that the rights of both parents are equal. The custodial parent has sole responsibiltiy and say in the rearing of a child, the non-custodial parent has none. An 'access order' does not alter that in any way. Access is specifically described so as to prevent that. Your ignorance of the system and how it works and why it works the way it does is preventing you from understanding these things. And once again, least you get any further confused, a mother cannot deny a father access to his children. She can attempt to by refusing to answer the door etc. The father apllies for an order from the court which commands the custodial parent to conform to the instructions on the order to facilitate access. The custodial parent has no, repeat no, discretion in the matter. The court is the final arbitor, not the mother.

It's funny that you say I'm slipping into dishonesty - all I did was ask you a question!

[Foghorn]

Opps, bad timing Hopi. Looks like the wheels are coming off your wagon. This bunch have reported today - RTÉ News: Proposed article to protect children's rights - on some of the issues we have debated.

You previously claimed I was getting mixed up with Giardianship / Custody and Access. They are in fact all covered by the 1964 Act. Today's report clearly states -

6.6 Custody Disputes
Custody, Access and Guardianship are dealt with under the Guardianship of Infants
Act 1964

While section 3 does not specifically refer to access, it is well settled that the same rules apply in any access application.

[Foghorn]

As for your denial of the fact that the state discriminates (I prefer the word "chooses") between married and unmarried parents, the same report states -

The legal advice received by the Committee was as follows:

(i) Under the current constitutional provisions the inalienable and imprescriptible rights of the family give rise to a situation where, in particular, there can be a difference in treatment of children of married and unmarried parents;

If you have a problem with this take it up with the Chairman (don't like the terms Chairperson)................Auntie Mary (O'Rourke).

[hopi watcher]

Opps, bad timing Hopi. Looks like the wheels are coming off your wagon. This bunch have reported today - RTÉ News: Proposed article to protect children's rights - on some of the issues we have debated.

You previously claimed I was getting mixed up with Giardianship / Custody and Access. They are in fact all covered by the 1964 Act. Today's report clearly states -

It really is remarkable the depth of stupid that you display. Where the non-custodial parent is applying for an order for access, Guradianship etc are not in the equation at all.
Stop confusing yourself. The issue at debate here is simple. A mopther cannott deny a father access to his children. That is a function of the court alone and no one else. Can you seriously not undertand that simple fact?
And you still refuse to address the simple question that will even explain the position to yourself. Why would a non-custodial parent go to the court for an access order if the custodial perent has the power to deny access? Answer it and you might just see a flash of light.

[hopi watcher]

As for your denial of the fact that the state discriminates...

Stop telling lies.

[Foghorn]

It really is remarkable the depth of stupid that you display. Where the non-custodial parent is applying for an order for access, Guradianship etc are not in the equation at all.
Stop confusing yourself. The issue at debate here is simple. A mopther cannott deny a father access to his children. That is a function of the court alone and no one else. Can you seriously not undertand that simple fact?
And you still refuse to address the simple question that will even explain the position to yourself. Why would a non-custodial parent go to the court for an access order if the custodial perent has the power to deny access? Answer it and you might just see a flash of light.

.....the flash of light put me off!

[Foghorn]

Stop telling lies.

Ok, now I get it ..........everyone is out of step.....except you!