How State usurps role of fathers

by bluecurlygirl Tue Aug 22, 2006 17:18

I'm sure they do and I have to say that I'm sitting here crying at what you've gone through. Unfortunately my now "other half" is going through the same crap. I agree whole heartedly with you. I have a few male friends who are going through or just gone through rough separations. The law certainly is totally on the woman's side and whereby I do think a mother is important in the home (well I would say that wouldn't I) she's not always the best person for the job. Just like not everyone can be a daddy, not everyone can be a mammy either and the type of people that can get up and lie in court and accuse their former loves of the most horrendous deeds, and scar their children with these accusations, are not the type of people to be left poisoning those children's minds for the remainder of their childhood. Why can't they see what they're doing to the children? I have always been honest with my son about his father and when he gets to the age of sixteen, seventeen or whatever age he is ready I will do my utmost to track him down so that my son may meet him. I think you should start an on-line petition to get the law changed to a much fairer/less sexist system. I for one will sign it. Best of luck to you.

by Bluecurlygirl Tue Aug 22, 2006 16:51

Just to reply to the article, I am a single mother and I raised my son for 12 years on my own. I provided the state with the details of my son's father but he fled the country and fathered other children abroad. I do realise that not all estranged/separated fathers are like this but it's not fair to paint all single mothers with the same brush either. If he were to return to this country, he WOULD owe me a huge amount of maintenance but I wouldn't look for it from him because that may entitle him to visitation rights and as he is now also a drug addict it's not the sort of person I want around my teenage son. I work as a civil servant and have done since my son was 14 months old. I'm proud to say I've supported myself mostly over the years with the need of assistance from time to time. We're not all leeches and I think that both parents should have a responsibilty towards the childs upbringing and support (financial and emotional) where that intervention on both parts is beneficial to the child. Let's be honest here, that's what it all boils down to is the childs welfare.

by ciarán hackett Sat Jan 07, 2006 19:13 cjhackett at eircom dot net

This is an open letter to the minister for justice and all who should be concerned from a father of four who is silenced by the barbaric family courts or more appropriately anti family courts.
I have no where else to turn except to highlight this publicly
I would like to point out that any one who claims to have any knowledge on this subject must first be asked the question have they ever been in secret family court.


My name and present address for the record is,
Ciarán Hackett
05/01/2006



What are the criteria the state uses to decide the level a parent becomes a non parent?

Consider this before you continue….

(Think Walt Disney like, imagine the perfect parents a father, mother, some kids, maybe a dog named spot, the smell of fresh baked bread, a little cottage with sweet smelling roses, a white picket fence. While still continuing to think like Walt Disney might, imagine one of the parents left the lid off the tooth paste, so hi ho hi ho off to their solicitors they did go, and the big bad judge said custody to the parent who doesn’t forget to put the lid on the toothpaste.
Now think of the film Train Spotting, imaging the worst parents a father, mother some kids, maybe a dog named ecstasy, the smell of mouldy bread, a little flat with stale smelling carpet, a white line of coke, while still continuing to think of the film train spotting, imagine one of the parents left the lid off the tooth paste, so hi ho hi ho of to their solicitors they did go, and the big bad judge said custody to the parent who doesn’t forget to put the lid on the toothpaste.)

While I was waiting to meet someone, I was standing next to a chain link fence on a building site, I ask the labourer next to me, who was about 60 years of age, was the pre fabricated building, on the other side of the fence a dole office, he said no, it was a drop in centre, a methadone clinic, he also told me while he was working next to the fence, a young woman, with two young children came up to the fence and said to him, that if he gave her 20 euro, he could have sex with her, he told me he declined.

Here are the first words I heard from a judge in dolphin house when I first applied for access (contact) to my four children this is before she had any facts “No pay No see”. I wonder does she use the reverse, no see no pay, or is this what they mean when they say, the welfare of the children paramount, what if I had no money, or if I paid more, would I see them for longer? It was at this point I was accused by my estranged wife of being a paedophile to my own children; this from a woman who told me for 15 years that she loved me.
They use the word access to your children, as if you are applying for a right of way to your septic tank, which maybe on some ones else’s land.

If the state uses a justice system to interfere with a parent’s right to be a parent then must set down a level at which a parent becomes a non parent. It can’t continue to use the system that puts a child in the middle with each parent calling out here kids, come to me, like kids would, with a pet dog.
If a judge decides to award custody to one parent on the bases of accusations made, such as, paedophilia, depression, alcoholism, autism, unemployment moodiness, verbal abuse, or he just not the man I married, then the state is in serious trouble, as at any one time, in this country, there are 300,000.00 people suffering from depression, if the welfare of children is paramount, is this not irresponsible and reckless of the state. Maybe the state could employ a private car clamping company, they could be equipped with special scanners, to weed out the baddy parents and when they come across a parent with any faults they could clamp them, although I don’t believe, even a private company, could be as ruthless as our Irish law lords, maybe if they failed to pay the fine they could take them away to a gas chamber. I am sure some men would find some solace in this, as a gas chamber, would release them from the pain of waking up every day, to the loss of their children, which is cruel and beyond human, when somebody dies you morn only once.

I wonder would a parent have a case against the state which has forced them to become a non parent, or children in the future, who have been prevented from having a father as a parent. The answer is most likely no as the courts are only applying our sexist constitution.

In my country, children are taken from their fathers and fathers from their children and no one knows why not even the fathers. Why?

In My Country, like thieves in the night, the secret law lords remove fathers from their homes; fathers, then, after working to build a home for their families are left homeless.

In My Country, Fathers are accused of sexual abuse of their own children and of violent abuse of their own children, with no proof, even if these allegations are not true the perpetrator is not sanctioned and continues to have full custody of his Children.

In My Country, fathers if they are lucky, may be allowed see their own children for two hours every two weeks in a supermarket or greasy spoon restaurant and while trying to be a parent in a supermarket, fathers will feel guilt and pressure from their children to buy junk; in return his own children start to disrespect him.
His own Children may stop calling him Daddy and start to call him by his first name, which may be encouraged to do by his estranged wife.
His own children may not see any of their relations on his side.

In my country, should the mother pass away, the abusive brut of a father, will most likely, move back into his own home to care for his children, or, to abuse them, in any way he sees fit, on top of this, he is able to reverse any decisions his x wife made, such as preventing the children from seeing her relations.

The law, in my country, states, that the welfare of the children is paramount.
Should my country, not protect its children, from the abusive brutes of men, by putting the children in care after the mothers have passed away, after all, the secret court which made the order, preventing the children and father, from having contact with each other, must have had good reason? I think maybe its time to I start a campaign to have children put in care after their mother’s passed away, maybe we should start with a high profile case, I can see the head lines in the English papers, Children of Irish Knight Taken into Care. Don’t worry; our state could disown him, as there is no such a thing as an Irish Night.

Shut them up once and for all,
Is it not time to show up these fathers rights groups for what they really are and make public all details of family courts without using names?

They say in my country, they have the courts in secret, to protect the identity of the families, but this cannot be true, as in so many others courts, in my country, the media are allowed to report on cases without mentioning the names those involved, such as rape cases, the most highlighted of these, is the so called X case.

Recently, a woman drowned her two young toddlers, and then herself, her name, her address, and the name, and work place address, of the children’s father, where all over the national media, and worst of all, the identity of a remaining child, who is now a motherless child. The media described this, as a tragedy.

A couple of months after this, a man pleaded guilty but insane, to the killing of his 12 year old son, his name was all over the media, he had three other children and a wife. This is what one of the headlines stated, in the Irish Independent news paper, Hammer-killer father is found guilty but insane. What effect, will this headline have on the children, of this family, or, any child, for that matter?
Will this mans children grow up thinking that they are insane after all they have his genes?
Was the welfare of the above children paramount?
Some will say this is exactly why family courts are held in secret, if they are right, then all courts should be held in secret, except of course in the case of someone who has no relations?

When in my country you ask, why they have secret courts, they repeat the mantra, to protect the identity of the family, and that the welfare of the children is paramount. This is wonderful, the government, in my country care.
How do they know what is best? They have no way of knowing, there are no reports, and there are no records kept, in my country secret courts, so you must conclude, that the government of my country are clairvoyant, There is no other possible explanation. This contradiction has been proved recently because the so called justice minister made a weak effort to change the secret courts, and this change was voted in by our government, how can you vote for, or, against, when you are, ignorant of the facts after all the courts are held in secret.




You cannot force mediation even the two words contradict each other?

Someone recently suggested, 50/50 (I think it was that knight guy) on the break up of a marriage, the reaction to this was shock, horror, King Solomon was even quoted, Children in two homes. Well not exactly because the father is usually made homeless and may even be asked by a judge has he anywhere to take the children, yes, he may reply, I spent years paying for a home?
In my case my estranged wife said that I could not take them to my mother’s house, “that woman”. This was strange considering that my mother looked after my kids for weeks on end was she suddenly now a paedophile and a child abuser too.

In my country no one has made any attempt to change these secret courts in any meaningful way, to allow justice to be seen to be done, so that it may be improved on. why?

The 50/50 suggestion would mean that on the break up of a marriage, a husband and wife would be left in a dilemma, as it is obvious, that 50/50 is not practicable so agreement or arbitration would have to follow.
If they did not come to suitable arrangements, a judge, would enforce, a 50/50 rule this would force mediation, (arbitration), like a spit of a hot shovel, and the kids would gain instantly. If either party made false allegation they would loose all.

The results of mediation, (arbitration), should be available to the courts, this should be done on a no fault bases, with regard to the children, after all, the relationship between the spouses, is separate to that, of the relationship between the spouses, and their children, and should not be interfered with by anyone, even if there was violence between the spouses.

If the spouses have been violent in any way towards children, or each other, this should be taken separate in a criminal court, and not a family court, as these are extremely serious crimes, the same should apply to barring, protection, and safety orders, and the full court hearing should be made available to the arbitrator. Should any one make false accusations, penalties should follow, as this is as much a crime, as the crime itself.
The Following quote is from the women’s aid web site: “Domestic violence is a social problem, not a private affair. The abuse of any human being by another is everyone's business”.

If someone has been violent to their children or spouse, they should be treated as criminals, in open courts, as only then can society make judgments, before attempting to improve life for all.



A reasonable breakdown, why do men leave and women don’t? Male female stereo typing, and, or, some of the above?

Some men foolishly, leave the family home, with the assumed understanding, they will see their kids, and will pay maintenance, the stupid soft gits.

They act as King Solomon would have expected, leaving his Children in a more peaceful home.

No squabbling, and sure wont we come to some agreeable arrangements, in the near future, what a clown.

Was it her who said, I want a separation? Was his answer, yep? Maybe she was hoping he would answer no? Or was it him? It doesn’t make a difference.

You have just told the whole world, that you trust this woman to look after your kids and you have also told the world that they are better off with her.

You have just told the world that you do not need to see you’re Children and that they do not need to see you.

Sadly for you, you soft git, you have sent the worst message you could send to your kids, you told them, not in words, but in deeds, that what you thought was rational, and King Solomon like , you left them. I am so sorry for them, you and myself; you/I can tell them you love them, until the cows come home, but you/I left them.

You may under certain circumstances have been right to leave, but sadly, and if, the mother enforces this even mildly, they will always think, that daddy left us, and mammy did not. You may later in court, be accused of deserting them.

If you where a judge, what would you think, when the mother starts to tell her story?

The most reasonable woman (or man in very few cases at present) will start looking for someone to blame.

If he stayed, would the mother leave? Would the kids be happier?
Psychologists believe throughout the world, as long as there is, no violent or sexual abuse, the kids’ do better having both parents, even in a troubled home.
They also believe they do better with contact out side the home if the father has moved out. This is most likely to do with how our children see society at present, mammy, daddy, kids, home.
If you point a finger at anyone who does not fit in, even if the person pointing the finger feels no animosity towards them, they will feel isolated and affected for life. Our state does this, in our constitution, under the heading, THE FAMILY Article 41.
Ask any child to draw a picture of a family.



Something topical on deadbeat and irresponsible dads.
In my country five men where sent to jail for 94 days for defending their homes, and their health concerns of their children and wives, from an invading oil company.
I wonder how these men would fare out, in a family court?
Why is it the men and not the women, who get sent to jail for trying to protect their families, maybe these men should have got in touch with there feminine side and avoided jail and I am sure that if any of these men ended up in a family court this could be used against then.

In my country we take holidays, when citizens of a rich and powerful friendly country are killed, we then help them invade a whole country, to kill tens of thousands of men women and children to catch one man, and some of the justification for this, is because, the women in that country wear Burkas.

I wonder what the people in this burka wearing country would say about our secret courts, maybe they might invade us, and install a new regime, as it seems to me, a much more legitimate reason for murdering tens of thousands of people, and if I told them that, men are burning themselves to death, after hearing barbaric secret court orders, preventing them from ever seeing their children again, they might even gather up a coalition of the willing with the support of the UN.

Some people in my country are in favour of laws which make parents responsible for their children’s crimes.
If this law ever comes in, they will have to change it, to mothers being responsible for their Children’s crimes, the mothers may then say, in court, it’s very difficult on my own, since there is no father figure.

The responsibility of fathers is not defined in our constitution, nor is the word even mentioned, so how can a judge make orders for or against non existent persons, and in particular, after separation/divorce, when there is no family, as family is mentioned, but not defined, do they mean mother and children.

The word parents, is used but it is difficult to be a parent if you never see your Children.

Article 41. 2. 1. Of the constitution:
In particular, the state recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

What is our constitution saying about fathers and our sons who may become fathers?

Article 41. 2. 2. Of the constitution:
The state shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

So why are the women’s equal rights campaigners not complaining?
Is that man of yours tying you down?
It is no wonder that over 80% of judicial separations are initiated by women, why is it, that, women are more likely to initiate judicial separations. If the man has left the house it is most likely revenge, and also the fact that, the women will have more to gain. Men are less likely because they will gain nothing, 99% of judicial separations results in the women gaining full custody of the children and the 1% men that have full custody have to fight to get the children’s and lone parents allowances a result of our constitution. This also make our divorce legislation sexiest.

The state defines the role of mother as having duties in the home; therefore she exists and has rights.
By default the state recognises the other sex? as, that is, I assume, the opposite of a mother is a father, cant use the word father, it is not in the constitution, a male, cant use male, all males are not fathers, a male parent, no cant use that, cant be a parent when you have nothing to parent, wait a minute, holy condoms batman, I’ve got it, it’s a sperm and money dispensing slave, not me robin you wont catch me out that way, I use a Batdom.

The role model that the state is creating for males will destroy the society of this country. The mothers, who use the constitution and the secret courts, should remember the effect this will have on their sons and daughters.
I blame the parent SHE raised HIM/HER.

The constitution states that men are not responsible and are just slave’s, mothers what effect is this going to have on your little boys as you are responsible for and have full custody of them.

On becoming pregnant, a women decides to have a child or to have an abortion to involve the father or not, to name the father or not, to name any man as the father as has been proved in England where three thousand men where forced to pay maintenance by the courts for years and only after DNA tests were proved not to be the fathers of the children what sort of mothers are these.
Women seem able to take any man into their children’s home to act as a father but prevent the natural father from having any contact and the courts support this statistically children are less likely to be killed by their natural fathers than mothers or step fathers it seems any man will do as a father as long as the mother gets on with him.

A father works, bathes, washes, takes to school, cooks, reads to his Children and after years is told he is redundant. Why?
There used to be saying used by mothers, wait till your father gets home.
Remember that film poltergeist, where the exorcist asked who disciplines the children and of course everyone looks at the father, after the break up of a marriage fathers are being accused of being abusive,
Men are victims of their size if you watch an average man and woman in heated discussion facing each other and ask their toddler who they are afraid of, the answer will be Daddy. I have gone from being a big cuddle soft bear before separation, to a violent child abusing paedophile. I am 6’2” in my experience the most vicious people I have ever met where smaller than me.

On retiring from the Supreme Court, Justice Ronan Keane stated that, fatherless homes are responsible for juvenile crime. If this is true why does the minister for justice not care?

By far psychologists and statistics, say that contact with both parents is in the best interests of the Child. If this is true then the secret courts are not applying the law as the law states the welfare of the Child is paramount, in particular, when access orders are violated no sanction is taken.

With 457 suicides in 2004, 356 of these were male, 11,500.00 reported attempted suicides and it is estimated that there is as much as 60,000.00 unreported attempted suicides. The loss to families by injury and death and the effect this has them for life does not concern our health services. It is believed that a lot of road deaths are suicides but suicide does not give you a headline like this carnage on our roads continues unabated.

Male role models are disappearing, a repeated advertisements on TV show male only drunk drivers killing people, what happen to political correctness does this not apply to men, after all 60% of admissions to the Rutland centre are female, this is even stranger, when you consider that one of the reasons we are told that women apply for separations, is that the husband is an alcoholic.?

Separated men after working all their lives to help build homes for themselves and their families, suddenly they find themselves homeless, with no role in the upbringing of their Children; they begin suffering from reactive depression which may be used against them.
Mothers should realise the lesson they are teaching their Children.

And the states responsibility to preserve the wellbeing of all of its, citizen’s, is a humanitarian disaster.

NATURAL JUSTICE, demands the rights of children, fathers and mothers be equally defined and preserved in the constitution. It also demands judicious laws on the break up of a marriage.

Certain groups of Women consistently complain about women’s equal rights.
Equal rights mean equality for all.
Personally I believe you can not have equal rights between men and women but you may aspire to mutual and equal respect of there abilities.
If equal rights are needed by men and women then our government should change employment law so that in the building trade 50% of the workers are men and 50% women and the same for teachers oh and don’t for get the custody of children or is it just pick and choose equal rights that these women groups want because the last time I looked at dangerous freezing swamp of a building site where men are killed and maimed for life on a regular basis there where no women.

The creation of a new role model for the sons of Ireland:
How about this for an amendment to the constitution?

From the time of conception, in all aspects, with regards to their abilities, a father and mother are both equally responsible for the care of their children, regardless of there relationship to each other. The state will endeavour to facilitate the father and mother equally in their duties. The state in facilitating the father and mother with regard to common sense and within any prescribed laws will respect the decisions of the father and mother?

Or maybe it would be simpler to remove the offending sexist articles in the constitution?
We laugh when women are depicted in comedies throwing plates, plant pots, and pictures at men, but it is horrific when men do this.
years before we separated, my estrange wife, in an attempt to hit me with something smashed some pictures hanging on the wall the glass shattered all over the room, the children where in the room at the time.
After we separated, she has waved knifes at me and threatened to kick me in the bollix and then cut my bollix off, this in ear shot of the kids and then has the gall to call the police to my home.
I believe men are not any more or less violent than women but maybe more successful.

Originally I was seeing my children every weekend but Moniker had started to make this more difficult because of this I asked for a time table she then must have realised that the separation was permanent from that time on I have had little or no contact with my children revenge and anger must have set in.
After my own decision not to see the kids for sometime, in the hope she would cool down.

I offered to sign over the home to her for reasonable amount contact, within three days I received two letters from two separate solicitors, one from mayo Moniker’s family’s home and one from Wexford where my children’s home is.
I started to see the kids as had been arranged, but was verbally attacked on every occasion, if I had signed over house even with a time table, I was not going to see my kids.

“The welfare of the children is paramount” What sort of a person would sell there children for the price of a house to a violent child abusing paedophile, unless of course they where lying.

This is what the clergy used to say –“Give me the child when its young and I will control it for life”

“You must have done something on Moniker”.
This is what most people say to me, strangers I meet in a bar, will say this almost instantly there first sentence, or will think this.
“I must have, after all I am a man”.
No one has ever said you must have done something on your children.

Will we be looking back on this sudden change in society like we have looked back on the state sponsored religious institutions?

Every morning I wake up to the death of my four Children and it makes me sicker to listen to silence from legal profession on this there is only one reason for there silence gluttony for cash.

How will the present Minster for justice be remembered for his contribution to society by my children as they become adults. He has done nothing to improve society to date.
It appears the only group that our minister is not afraid to offend is heterosexual males the mules of society we don’t complain.

I was raised to be a man to be strong and not show emotion my parents where successful but they never taught me how to deal with the every day loss of my children to wake with tears and pain every day for over three years now. My youngest and only son started school over two years ago and I have not seeing his handwriting or even had the opportunity to take him to school.
Shame on my country for treating me and my Children this way your silence is deafening Minster.

I hope that this man will soon be gone from his position as Minster for justice.

by SEAN KELLY - POSITIVE PARENTING IRELAND Fri Oct 28, 2005 17:29 familylawconsultant at hotmail dot com DUNDALK CO.LOUTH 0872292142

John Waters is right when he eludes to the double standard men are confronted by in Ireland and I have hands on experience of it.

These Double standards do not just apply to the Dept of Social Community and Family Affairs, - THEY ARE EVERYWHERE! The danger of making a sweeping statement like this, is that one will be viewed as either a conspiracy theorist or a crackpot. To Counter these assumptions I will only offer information from cases that I have been involved in or that I know to be true. Perhaps the biggest lie that emanates from the Dept of Social Community & Family Affairs (‘Dept’) is that they want to encourage paternal involvement in the lives of children whose parents have separated.

Under the old system of Deserted Wives Allowance (pre 1997), a woman could claim the benefit from the State from the time of separation to the grave. The then Minister Pronsias de Rossa did away with new applications for Deserted Wives Allowance and brought in “One Parent Family Payment” in its place. This was a ‘smart’ move as it impressed various highly vocal interest groups by including single unmarried mothers for eligibility. With the euphoria generated by his publicity machine, De Rossa was able to conceal the fact that this payment would be limited to claimants with children under 18 years of age only and would end thereafter! It was estimated that this would save the Exchequer £270,000 for an average woman over her lifetime.

I know of cases where women who left their family home to enter second relationships, who claimed and were subsequently granted “Deserted Wives Allowance” even though it was they who did the ‘deserting’. The State has through the Dept in these cases therefore wrongly damaged, abused and labelled the husbands of such women by officially branding them ‘deserters’.

A man called Tony Lowth took a case to the Supreme Court as someone who had been deserted and left with two small children. He claimed that as a deserted husband under an ethos of equality, having been forced to give up his job to be a stay-at-home-parent; that he should be entitled to the same social benefits as would accrue to a woman in identical circumstances. Mr Lowth fought this case for 17 years before the Supreme Court ruled against him. Not only did it rule against him, but it awarded costs against him, which if the State decides to enforce could mean that he and his children will be made homeless. To encapsulate what I take out of the Supreme Court judgement in this case was (and I am open to contradiction), is that the Court implied that because a man can manage money better than a woman, that Mr Lowth should not have been entitled to apply for any such ‘Deserted Husbands Allowance’. The silence from the same “highly vocal interest groups” was deafening.

With regard to One Parent Family Payment, lets suppose a progressive couple wish to separate amicably and they have two children. They both decide to work part-time and parent part-time so that they can each have Joint Custody of the children and give their children the best start possible under the circumstances. - They plan to supplement their income with One Parent Family Payment. Which, on the face of it, this does not seem unreasonable. However, the Dept in its infinite wisdom has decided that only the “Primary Parent” shall be awarded this benefit, thus excluding any couple who believe in shared parenting. By doing this the Dept shows that it has no interest in promoting Joint Custody as a remedy for fractured families.

Not only that but I believe that One Parent Family payment, far from being an aid to families, is actually a vehicle of destruction as it necessitates, by its very nature, the complete disposal of the father and his removal from family life. In one case I have worked on recently for a man who is effectively cut off from his children, for no other reason other than his ex-wife’s implacable hostility, I advised him to write to the Dept and show evidence that he was paying his wife €200 per week maintenance for the children, pointing out to him as I did, that in the event that the Dept at some stage decided to recoup the money paid to his wife, that they would come looking for it from him and not from her, nor her live-in boyfriend. I explained that he needed to do this to protect himself.

There seems to be a tolerance of this type of Social Welfare fraud by the Courts and members of the legal profession also, because having made an application under the Freedom of Information Act from the Dept, we found that there was a letter from her solicitor advancing her claim for One Parent Family payment on the grounds that she was destitute and penniless, despite the fact that this same solicitor had knowledge that this woman was in receipt of €200 per week, awarded to her by the District Court where he appeared on her behalf.

Subsequent to the letter being written to the Dept, the man’s wife was called in to the local office whereupon she was presented with a copy of the man’s letter, despite assurance from the Dept that his dealings with them would be confidential. This led to a spiral of outlandish and vindictive behaviour by this woman. Ultimately, the children suffered. No action was taken by the Dept against her, and the official concerned now denies that he showed her the letter following a complaint made by the father.

When Dermot Ahearne was Minister for Community Family Affairs, I was part of a delegation who went to meet him at his clinic in Dundalk. We urged him to make good on the strategy of pursuing so-called ‘deadbeat dads’, or men who did not support their children. He was bemused by this idea. We explained that only when enforcement was thorough would the level of “scam” and the myth of the dead-beat-dad be exposed. We showed him evidence of cases where men could only see their children if they paid under the counter and kept their mouths shut. We showed him evidence that claimants were co-habiting not only with the original partners but with second and even third partners and his Dept was turning a blind eye, and we urged him to separate out the issue of the payment of maintenance from the parenting of children. We argued that only when this was done, and be seen to be done, that the Dept could truly claim to be representing children’s best interest. We proposed that the Dept could help promote Shared Parenting by giving both parents the Allowance where Joint Custody was verifiably in place.

His attitude was: “There are thousands of possible cases to investigate- but we can only investigate a couple of hundred cases a year”….. “Ah well there it is, what can you do”?

He then tried to get us on side via the old carrot / chestnut of ‘funding: “You boys are great lads altogether”, - “Yiz are doing a great job”……“Shure you fellas should be getting the same funding as Women’s Aid” Straight away Liam O’Gogain said: “Can I quote you on that Dermot?” “Ah Jasus yiz better not!” came the reply. Dermot started shuffling his papers then we knew we had worn out our welcome. During his tenure as Minister nothing changed for fathers and it is still the same today.

Saying that there are 70,000 men who don’t pay maintenance for their children when the Dept can only investigate 200-500 cases per year (which could take between 140 to 350 years to complete), is a bit like saying that “ No one in Fianna Faill ever took a brown envelope”.


SEAN KELLY

by John O'Driscoll Wed Oct 19, 2005 15:12

"Yes I know there are violent women out there too, but as a rule men a stronger than women, they can defend themselves. " -

When a woman abuses a man a strange thing happens. Your fight or flight mechanism jams up. You can't hit her back and you can't run away.

And so you stay, paralysed with self-hatred and anxiety and fear and disbelief, that someone you believe loves you yet can treat you in such a horrific way.

You can't defend yourself from a breadknife thrown at your retreating back. You can't defend yourself from a heavy frying pan wielded at the back of your head.
You can't defend your self from a TV remote control or a spike heeled shoe fired at your eye. You can't defend yourself from a pan of scalding water thrown on top of you as you lie sleeping. You can't defend yourself from your wife's car driven at you suddenly and at speed. You can't defend yourself from a shrieking banshee who daily attacks your self-esteem and sense of self-worth. You can't defend yourself from a tin of brake fluid punctured with a nail file and left on your car's roof overnight. You can't defend yourself from an ex parte barring order. You can't defend yourself from a woman who has it well and truly in her mind to hurt you, to torment you, to drive you out of your mind.

Any more than a woman can defend herself from such attacks from a man.

Regardless of your gender, if you experience physical abuse you must get away from it as fast as you can. Get out of the house, get out of the car, get out of the relationship. It's dead. When abuse begins the relationship is dead.

The only thing you can do is leave, with whatever you can carry and go wherever you can. If you are a man and living in Ireland you will automatically lose your home to your wife, so you are not putting yourself at any especial disadvantage by leaving.

On the other hand, if you persist in staying in a violent, abusive relationship, you may well be killed or seriously injured.

Just because you think you know someone, and you believe in your heart and soul that under it all they love you, does not mean that person cannot severely injure you or even worse. Abusers by definition suffer from personality disorders, which are almost impossible to treat or cure.

Get away as fast as you can with safety and caution and do not tell your abuser where you have gone to when you get there. No matter how tempted you are. No matter how you believe you love them, or believe (falsely) that they love you.

And speak to a lawyer as soon as you can.

by Get Facts Right Wed Oct 19, 2005 14:31 Donegal

The comments above about putting children on mother or father's passport are completely out of date - for some time now, it has not been possible for children (even babies) to travel on their parents' passport. It is necessary to have an individual passport for each child.

While in total support of fathers having equal rights in relation to children, I have heard far more instances of men using children to try to blackmail women than the other way around. It is not only women scorned who have fury such as hell hath not - many's the man who has threatened to kill his kids, along with their mother, before 'allowing' them to leave.

by Ms Doubtful Tue Oct 18, 2005 16:51

The National Mens Council is confusing human beings with swans: swans are monogamous, humans are not. Swans mate for life, humans do not
.
Certainly, in the U..S , for example, the two-person, monogamous, life-long family is no longer the basis of society, if it ever was. The plurality of households in the U.S. is now composed of single people. The proportion of all households composed of married couples with children is steadily declning.

Waters paints with a very broad brush. Such generalizations are necessarily false. Justice requires each case to be dealt with on its merits. If social policy does not reflect this then it needs to be changed.

by Joe Public Tue Oct 18, 2005 16:45

Theres an area that is not being mentioned here and it is vital in understanding how one sided the law is concerning unmarried fathers.

In order to have a legally binding (and recorded) maintainance agreement the courts must approve the payments.

In order to do this the lone parent (IE 90% mother) must request a maintanance hearing in the family court. The father cannot, I repeat cannot do this.

Therefore it is in the mothers best interests to keep the payments purely cash based between the 2 therefore continuing to obtain full single parents allowance.

I probable count as a deadbeat dad as my payments have never been approved in court however once I spoke with a solicitor I started paying by bank transfer so there was a record that I was paying.

Not once was I contacted by social welfare and its not as if Im hard to find, they have both my home and work address plus contact numbers.

In addition when I had to start court proceedings to obtain the most basic parental rights my request for a maintanance hearing was rejected as I did not have custody. My solicitor told me its so rare for a father to actually try and have a maintanace hearing that she had never done it before. They usually presume its recorded because its the MOTHER that makes the social welfare declaration concerning fathers payments.

To top it all off heres a test. Apply for a passport and put the child on the mothers passport. The mother doesnt even need to prove sole custody just get the fathers signature. Now try to put the child on the fathers passport. It will be sent back. You will need the mothers signature, a letter from the mother confirming she consents and that you have access to the child and then to top it all off you will have to send an original (not a copy) of a court order granting you custody or guardianship.

Not a problem for me as I had these things but what if the couple are still together?

by Michael Tue Oct 18, 2005 15:26

From the National Men's Council's "About us" page:


The National Men's Council of Ireland, in keeping with the Irish Constitution, extols the virtue and value of the two-parent, Marriage-based family as the foundation of society. We hold that Marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman and is intended to be life-long.

We decry unlicensed procreation and believe that the state and community should at all times promote and encourage the philosophy that sexual relations should be confined to lawful Marriage.

We trust in God, in rationality, in Bunreacht Na hÉireann and the Rule of Law.

by redbhoy Tue Oct 18, 2005 14:44

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and all that shit. If any woman makes a decision for her ex not to see his kids - its her who will suffer in the end.
What would the child think if after you not seeing your child/children for years you then meet and tell them that your mother wouldnt let me see you. The childs anger will no doubt be focused on the mother from then on.
Also her child may suffer from not having a positive male influence in his/her life.
See Boyz N the Hood and how Laurence Fishbourne had an affect on Cuba Gooding Junior. I know its only a film but its close to reality.

by catty Tue Oct 18, 2005 14:18

Every week we see articles from the same group put on the website, this is the first which made no reference to either Christian morality or the bible. The group if they are acting as a collective are to be congratulated on responding to criticism and thus improving how they pitch their message at our readership.
A readership which if it reflects indymedia readerships worldwide, is :- Left, Pacifist, Below Average income, and well informed on social and political issues. Also one which is made up of many minority groups, and other closer to majority sections of the community.
Our readers, include those with children, those without, those who were married, those who were not, those who have been divorced, those who have no right to marriage due to their sexuality, those who have aborted, those who could not or would not. Our contributors often but not always include our readership, there are always others who seek to use our space to promote agenda, campaigns, political change, which predated the very existance of this website and its affiliate groups.

Its great to see improvement.
Now following the guidelines that have evolved to ensure that all the sides of our readership continue to work together is just as much a challenge.
If this is a C&P it goes in Other Press with a short description and a link. One could fill the newswire in less than 15 minutes with articles of great interest previously published elsewhere by established journalists on every one of our themes, and particularly this section
"rights and freedoms" -
"international" -
"opinon" -

by Donna Tue Oct 18, 2005 13:53

Your article on Fathers Rights, not many people believe that there is fathers out there doing anything possible to have access to their own children. What gives any woman the right to stop the father of their children from having a normal and loving life with the children?
From past experience with my own brother, the mother of his children would not allow my brother to see the children because, and only because he refused to have an intimate relationship with her.That is so selfish, and women like this only use the children as an excuse to hurt the men. How dare any woman decide wether or not her children should have a father in their life? Especially when the father is a decent, loving hard working man.
Im not going against the fact that there is men out there that do not deserve the right to children, but this country is forgetting the fact that not all men are like that.
I am definetly one to support the Fathers Rights Campaign.

by Kevin Mannerings Tue Oct 18, 2005 13:27 kevin.mannerings at vr-web dot de

It is true that there are fathers who are cut off from their children by the mother. That is a horrible thing, and John Waters is right to raise the issue.

I saw a close friend of mine go through it, and it was dreadful to hear how the child he had loved and doted on was not able to recognise him a year after he had been put out with the rubbish. He was an unmarried father living in Germany, and he had no rights at all. The motivation for it was spite, meanness, and it was coming from a background of severely dysfunctional attitudes: the mother's family fought serious feuds with one another through the courts for years. He was just getting a dose of the same.

But that is only half the story. There are plenty of men out there who do a Boris Becker or a Bishop Casey on the job: five minutes sex and to blazes with the consequences.

Then there are the violent alcoholics, who beat their spouses black and blue. Yes I know there are violent women out there too, but as a rule men a stronger than women, they can defend themselves. It is gents like this who are much to blame for the current lack of rights for fathers. And it doesn't do the campaign for father's rights any good to deny that this happens.

Nor can I understand the attitude to childcare which John waters takes. Marital breakdown is the problem, the more support young couples get, the fewer estranged fathers there will be. Childcare doesn't replace the parents, it supports them and replaces the extended family, which got the boat and the plane ages ago.

So let's support the campaign for father's rights, but let's not pretend that all men are persecuted saints.

by Anti Misogynist Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:50

Its just a C&P

by dot Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:17

this should go in the other press section