Time for Biological father to pay the bill

[hopi watcher]

yawn, maybe you'd want to read accounts or simply go back over the already numerous pages posted here. There's an awful smell of desperation coming from your argument at this stage

Why not simply answer the question, if a mother had the powor to deny a father access to his children, where does a judge get the authority/power to hand down a custodial sentence on a mother for breach of an access order. That should pose not difficulty for you.

[hopi watcher]

Can you just try to read even one post? I did answer - one can face comtempt of court for not complying with a court order, but this is hardly of concern if it isn't enforced! No jail time has been served and only one prosecution brought in the past half century.

So now you are reduced to claiming that the court does not enforce the law, our courts are a sham!!!! That is pathetic. You are now challenged again to phone the Department of Justcie and to ask how many access orders are in breach and in how many such cases has the court refused to issue an enforcement order and why if such a case exists. Inform the opposition if there are any because the Minister would be in breach if his sworn duty to uphold the law. They will have a field day with this one. You never know, you might even cause the fall of a government!!!

[Foghorn]

So now you are reduced to claiming that the court does not enforce the law, our courts are a sham!!!! That is pathetic. You are now challenged again to phone the Department of Justcie and to ask how many access orders are in breach and in how many such cases has the court refused to issue an enforcement order and why if such a case exists. Inform the opposition if there are any because the Minister would be in breach if his sworn duty to uphold the law. They will have a field day with this one. You never know, you might even cause the fall of a government!!!

Are you criticising me for using a source you have provided - your source (thank you for it) says that only one person has been brought to court in the past half century and no time was served. Are you repudiating your own sources?

Why would I phone anyone? You are challenged to do your own donkeywork.

Inform the opposition if there are any because the Minister would be in breach if his sworn duty to uphold the law. They will have a field day with this one. You never know, you might even cause the fall of a government!!!

You been sniffing the bath salts down at the Head Shop again?

[hopi watcher]

Are you criticising me for using a source you have provided - your source (thank you for it) says that only one person has been brought to court in the past half century and no time was served. Are you repudiating your own sources?

Why would I phone anyone? You are challenged to do your own donkeywork.



You been sniffing the bath salts down at the Head Shop again?

Here's the reason you can't answer the question, it's the law. The courts have jurisdiction in the matter of access, not the mother, not the father, not santa claus, not foggie, the law. And note the specific reference to the 'natural father' that you seem to think the constitution does not recognise.



Applications to court. 11.—(1) Any person being a guardian of an infant may apply to the court for its direction on any question affecting the welfare of the infant and the court may make such order as it thinks proper.

(2) The court may by an order under this section—

( a ) give such directions as it thinks proper regarding the custody of the infant and the right of access to the infant of his father or mother;

( b ) order the father or mother to pay towards the maintenance of the infant such weekly or other periodical sum as, having regard to the means of the father or mother, the court considers reasonable.

(3) An order under this section may be made on the application of either parent notwithstanding that the parents are then residing together but an order made under subsection (2) shall not be enforceable and no liability thereunder shall accrue while they reside together, and the order shall cease to have effect if for a period of three months after it is made they continue to reside together.

(4) In the case of an illegitimate infant the right to make an application under this section regarding the custody of the infant and the RIGHT OF ACCESS thereto of his father or mother SHALL EXTEND TO THE NATURAL FATHER OF THE INFANT and for this purpose references in this section to the father or parent of an infant shall be construed as including him; but no order shall, on such application, be made under paragraph (b) of subsection (2).

[hammer]

Well done Oddie on the thread. 14,274 views

[Foghorn]

(4) In the case of an illegitimate infant the right to make an application under this section regarding the custody of the infant and the RIGHT OF ACCESS thereto of his father or mother SHALL EXTEND TO THE NATURAL FATHER OF THE INFANT and for this purpose references in this section to the father or parent of an infant shall be construed as including him; but no order shall, on such application, be made under paragraph (b) of subsection (2).

Nothing special here. What it says is that upon a successful application (your source shows that 1 in 4 don't succeed) the rights that were "thereto of his father" (but remember under the definition of this law - the Guardianship Act and under the Constition Articles 41 & 42 a "father" does not mean an unmarried father) can be provided, if the Court sees fit, to the unmarried father. Nothing controversial there, I have posted this same quote to you many times several weeks ago.

Thanks too for highlighting the part on ACCESS, because you'd previously argued at great length that I was mixing up "Custody and Access". This clearly shows that access is an issue and that an unmarried father must apply for ACCESS. In the intervening period he has none, if the mother sees fit to deny it.

[hopi watcher]

Nothing special here. What it says is that upon a successful application (your source shows that 1 in 4 don't succeed) the rights that were "thereto of his father" (but remember under the definition of this law - the Guardianship Act and under the Constition Articles 41 & 42 a "father" does not mean an unmarried father) can be provided, if the Court sees fit, to the unmarried father. Nothing controversial there, I have posted this same quote to you many times several weeks ago.

Thanks too for highlighting the part on ACCESS, because you'd previously argued at great length that I was mixing up "Custody and Access". This clearly shows that access is an issue and that an unmarried father must apply for ACCESS. In the intervening period he has none, if the mother sees fit to deny it.

Once again you revert to dishonesty. A mother cannot deny a father access to his children. that is a function of the courts and the courts alone. And once again for the slow learner, where access is denied IT IS THE COURT THAT DENIES IT NOT THE MOTHER Read again slowly,

(4) In the case of an illegitimate infant the right to make an application under this section regarding the custody of the infant and the RIGHT OF ACCESS thereto of his father or mother SHALL EXTEND TO THE NATURAL FATHER OF THE INFANT and for this purpose references in this section to the father or parent of an infant shall be construed as including him; but no order shall, on such application, be made under paragraph (b) of subsection.

And you continue to fail to answer the obvious question, from where did the judge derive the power and authority to hand down a custodial sentence to a mother who was attempting to thwart access if the mother has the power to do that? AND NOTE THAT THE FATHER IN THIS CASE IS NOT MARRIED TO THE MOTHER.

[Foghorn]

Once again you revert to dishonesty. A mother cannot deny a father access to his children. that is a function of the courts and the courts alone. And once again for the slow learner, where access is denied IT IS THE COURT THAT DENIES IT NOT THE MOTHER Read again slowly,

(4) In the case of an illegitimate infant the right to make an application under this section regarding the custody of the infant and the RIGHT OF ACCESS thereto of his father or mother SHALL EXTEND TO THE NATURAL FATHER OF THE INFANT and for this purpose references in this section to the father or parent of an infant shall be construed as including him; but no order shall, on such application, be made under paragraph (b) of subsection.

And you continue to fail to answer the obvious question, from where did the judge derive the power and authority to hand down a custodial sentence to a mother who was attempting to thwart access if the mother has the power to do that? AND NOTE THAT THE FATHER IN THIS CASE IS NOT MARRIED TO THE MOTHER.

#

You ignorant ass. I have made no recourse to dishonesty of any kind. Another obsession of yours - like "ambushes", "making a fool" of oneself and "embarrassment". Life has taught me that those to accuse others of lying only do so because they are liars themselves.

The power is the same as if the Judge was dealing with an application for a dog license - failure to comply can end one up in court. I'm not disputing that at all. That's the funny thing about it - that you think I'm lying, when I have taken no position at all.

Your figures (your source) shows that the law with regard to enforcement is not implemented. ZERO JAIL TIME in 50 years and only ONE prosecution. Chances are that when it comes to denying access to unmarried fathers there have been more prosections for not having a dog license! I'm just quoting you back to you! Your sources mate!

[hopi watcher]

#

You ignorant ass. I have made no recourse to dishonesty of any kind. Another obsession of yours - like "ambushes", "making a fool" of oneself and "embarrassment". Life has taught me that those to accuse others of lying only do so because they are liars themselves.

The power is the same as if the Judge was dealing with an application for a dog license - failure to comply can end one up in court. I'm not disputing that at all. That's the funny thing about it - that you think I'm lying, when I have taken no position at all.

Your figures (your source) shows that the law with regard to enforcement is not implemented. ZERO JAIL TIME in 50 years and only ONE prosecution. Chances are that when it comes to denying access to unmarried fathers there have been more prosections for not having a dog license! I'm just quoting you back to you! Your sources mate!

More lies or stupidity. The figures quoted are for all access order applications. it Is a very rare event when a father is denied access BY THE COURT, I CANNOT CONFIRM WHEN THAT LAST HAPPENED IN IRELAND -CAN YOU?

If, having been shown the law, you persist that a mother can deny a father access to his children, whether he is married or not, then you are either stupid or a liar.

If you are now saying that the courts do not implement the law and allow breaches of orders issued, you are either, ill-informed stupid or a liar.

And here it is again, this law gives the courts and not either parent the last say on the matter. If you can't see that you are either stupid or a liar.

Applications to court. 11.—(1) Any person being a guardian of an infant may apply to the court for its direction on any question affecting the welfare of the infant and the court may make such order as it thinks proper.

(2) The court may by an order under this section—

( a ) give such directions as it thinks proper regarding the custody of the infant and the right of access to the infant of his father or mother;

( b ) order the father or mother to pay towards the maintenance of the infant such weekly or other periodical sum as, having regard to the means of the father or mother, the court considers reasonable.

(3) An order under this section may be made on the application of either parent notwithstanding that the parents are then residing together but an order made under subsection (2) shall not be enforceable and no liability thereunder shall accrue while they reside together, and the order shall cease to have effect if for a period of three months after it is made they continue to reside together.

(4) In the case of an illegitimate infant the right to make an application under this section regarding the custody of the infant and the RIGHT OF ACCESS thereto of his father or mother SHALL EXTEND TO THE NATURAL FATHER OF THE INFANT and for this purpose references in this section to the father or parent of an infant shall be construed as including him; but no order shall, on such application, be made under paragraph

[Foghorn]

More lies or stupidity.

This next part is beautiful considering what you said above.

it Is a very rare event when a father is denied access BY THE COURT, I CANNOT CONFIRM WHEN THAT LAST HAPPENED IN IRELAND

If you can't confirm when it last happened.....then how can you make the claim that "it is a rare event"? And you accuse me of lies!

If, having been shown the law, you persist that a mother can deny a father access to his children, whether he is married or not, then you are either stupid or a liar.

Says everything about your inner city mentality.....don't tell me Tallaght or Ballymun..... that someone who doesn't agree with you is "either, ill-informed stupid or a liar".

Do you even understand the law you post? Don't you understand English?

Stop contradicting yourself. You are embarrassing yourself and making yourself look terribly stupid.