Originally Posted by Omaha

Oh and what divine inspiration or psychological training do Judges have to know "the best interests of children" they have(mostly) never even met!
Its such a load of surreal codswallop to have these codgers making pronouncements on children.

One day this too will all come out just like the industrial school abuses of the past, and we will look back in disbelief at the barbarism inflicted by the family court system on children and fathers in this country.

currently in phoenix house we have: sarah berkley early 40s, carmel stewart late 40s/early 50s and mary faherty late 50s., none of whom i would consider codgers.

i was going to write a long paragraph explaining the system to you to try and give you some insight as to where the decisions come from (not thin air) but then again, i thought life's too short


aindriu, genuinely sorry to hear your story

Having read all 85 posts on this thread I think I can conclude the following 5 points
1: Divorce is Painful
2: The innocent Suffer
3: Men have Little rights
4: The more Pain the bigger the cash cow for the briefs and co
5: Life Goes On

Originally Posted by walrusgumble

The poster is referring to the situation when the family break up. Once the children reach 18 or 21 (college) there is always the possibility to sell then

In some cases, the mother will buy out the father's share of the home, even if it means remortgaging.

The poster has made no comment to what parents should do in other situations .But as usual, instead of leaving things as they are, we have posters like you who will either intentionally or accidentally get all hysterical and take the statement out of context

To answer the last point, first, there is no lofty concept. However, divorce will , inter alia, only be granted if and when proper provisions have been made for the children. The law takes the defence of the family unit seriously

A child is considered a dependent until the age of 23 If attending 3rd level studies

I always thought the purpose of the family home being retained where there are kids was to maintain some degree of stability in a very painful situation. I'm not sure what benefits there would be to having to sell a house and try to find an alternative when the emotions of all are very high.

Originally Posted by richie268

A child is considered a dependent until the age of 23 If attending 3rd level studies

Or if suffering from a mental or physical impairment

Originally Posted by Kevin Doyle

Until you've been through it, I don't think you should adopt the high moral ground. We are all human and being put through the mill by a vindictive ex using your own child against you is deeply traumatic. One of my best friends was utterly destroyed by the whole experience. Hes a shadow of the guy I knew.

By comparison I was extremely lucky.

Thats true, men need much mreo protection from the courts and nasty ex wifes. Not all exs are nasty but the laws are in their favour if they choose to be and it shouldn't come down to luck for the man to be treated fairly.

There are some awful stories of mens lives being destroyed after divorce. Its not fair at all. Yes the children should come first. But don't throw men on the scrap heep and leave them with debts, anxiety, financial penury and renting a one bed flat. Both parents should have a similar home life after. Where the children can come and stay. Even if its only weekends for men.

I like the Danish system. As ever the scandinavians have sense.

Take it out of the hands of greedy lawyers. Mediation is the way to go.

Originally Posted by artfoley56

Or if suffering from a mental or physical impairment

Agreed and keep in mind that maintenance payments are not on the tax radar, before the crash it was very prudent for greedy women to avail of judicial separations and after the crash something similar as men transferred assets by consent to avoid paying their dues.
The whole system is a joke and open to abuse by all bar the innocent honest loving father caught up in a domestic dispute as he will gain nothing.

I think that men are often greviously discriminated against in the event of divorce in this county.

I remember years ago reading that 53% of abuse against children in one particular year in the United States was perpetrated by women.

Many fathers, for all their failings, are better parents than their wives, yet apart from in the most serious of cases such as paedophilia, other forms of abuse, neglect and parental incompetence by mothers will be overlooked in the courts and usually Mammy will get custody.

Daddy can sink or swim - the fact that he's a male means he is frequently viewed as being the innately inferior parent.

A great many women will play the victim in the event of a break up and claim they have been abused by their husbands. Abused men are many, but you don't often hear them complaining about it.

Perhaps they should speak up more.

I'm a married female myself. A feminist. Which means I'd like EQUAL rights for both sexes. The current bias in the courts against fathers is a disgrace.

I'd start with removing that part of the consitution that "recognizes the importance of the woman in the family home" (or whatever the exact wording is).

Originally Posted by Aindriu

What about the stress on the husband? Torn away from daily contact with his children. Effectively made homeless and yet still has to pay for the family home! Most divorce petitions are served by women and it is mostly the men who suffer as a result.

I have to agree that on the whole husbands get a very raw deal in this country. It might be a good idea to introduce as standard practice that the family home be left to one spouse and the children for say 5 years after a marriage breakup in order to minimise the impact on the children. The home could then be sold and the proceeds split 50 / 50. Booting fathers (or mothers) out with basically no deposit for another home where he can bring his children to stay overnight or at week-ends is unjust on all sides IMO. I don't agree though that marriage breakup is necessarily a burden on the taxpayer. Most breakups don't impact on the public purse at all when there are sufficient jobs available to create a family income.

Originally Posted by artfoley56

Or if suffering from a mental or physical impairment

Or apparently until they are 26 if returning to education !!!