Father's rights

It sounds like a strange decision alright, but there's lots of information we don't have here in order to understand the judge's decision.

The article doesn't say how old the child is and in what circumstances the natural father is living. Perhaps his home life is unstable or perhaps he is living with a partner with whom he has children and the judge felt the little boy wouldn't fit in or get the care and attention he needed.

Is the natural father's name on the birth certificate, has there been a DNA test to prove he's the father, did the natural father live for any amount of time with the mother and child as a family unit?

Studies have shown that the most serious threat to a child is the mother's boyfriend, but the judge must have had very good reasons for making this decision.
 
Studies have shown that the most serious threat to a child is the mother's boyfriend,
Can you post a link please?

It's not an easy case but I'm glad to see the partner of the mother being given some acknowledgement for his role in parenting the child. Too often men in these situations have been ignored and shut off from children they love as their own.
 
I have no problem with the child staying with the partner. It sounds like they have a good relationship and it apears the child is happy so that's fine.

I am simply curious that if a natural mother brought the same case, would the courts find in the same way? I still think that a Father's relationship with their child is still not regarded in the same way as the Mother's. If the court had to decide a custody battle between the natural mother or the new partner of her now deceased ex husband, who would win? I would like to think the child's interests would still be parmount but I would still put my money on the mother winning.
 
I agree Sunny. Unfortunately Family Law in Ireland is still very sexist and biased in favour of women in general and mothers in particular but it has improved slightly over the last few years.
While the mother is still assumed to be the best caregiver men are at least listened to, even if they are talking to a system that assumes they are the bad guy in any given situation. One would think that in law predisposed biases would be regarded as a bad thing but it seems that it’s acceptable in these situations.
 
The only reason Im staying married is so I dont become a McDonalds dad to my kids.
If I split from my wife she will get custody while I will get very limited access while paying for everything.

That is just the way it is with family law in Ireland.
 
The only reason Im staying married is so I dont become a McDonalds dad to my kids.
If I split from my wife she will get custody while I will get very limited access while paying for everything.

That is just the way it is with family law in Ireland.
It is changing, from a situation where it was 100% in favour of the mother to where it's 80% in her favour (my figures for illustrative purposes, obviously). But it's an uphill struggle for any father no matter how much of the parenting he did before the split.

If that's the only reason you are together then you should split. You will end up bitter and resentful of each other and it's a bad relationship model for your kids to see.
 
I am simply curious that if a natural mother brought the same case, would the courts find in the same way?
I honestly think they would or would actually be more likely to side with the dead father's partner - for the reason that for the child to be living with the natural father plus partner in the first place, then either (a) there was a compelling reason for the child NOT to live with the natural mother in the first place, or (b) the natural mother didn't fight for the child to live with her originally.

In this case, my reading is that the judge wasn't impressed with the natural father being more interested in pressing for HIS rights and entitlements rather than being interested in what was best for the child.
 
Can you post a link please?
It's unfortunately a very well known phenomenon.

This study is from the States:

The Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect

"According to the report, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents."

A 2005 Missouri study, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, reports that "children living with a stepparent or unrelated adult were 50 times more likely to die of inflicted injuries than children living with both of their parents".

[broken link removed], found that the incidence of abuse was an astounding 33 times higher in homes where the mother was cohabiting with an unrelated boyfriend than in stable nuclear families.

Leslie Margolin of the University of Iowa in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect. Prof. Margolin found that boyfriends were 27 times more likely than natural parents to abuse a child.

Here's some info on the Cinderella Effect.
 
If that's the only reason you are together then you should split. You will end up bitter and resentful of each other and it's a bad relationship model for your kids to see.
This isn't necessarily the best advice as the poster appears to value his relationship with his children above everything. My husband has a friend who split from his wife and the wife did everything in her power to sour the relationship he had with the kids - was never (literally never) home when he called to collect them for access and bad-mouthed him to the kids ('he doesn't want to see you') for years. He brought her to court numerous times and despite being ordered time and again to allow him access, she never did despite being threatened with jail (because she knew no judge was actually going to send her to jail). He has absolutely no relationship with his kids now (they're older now and don't want to see him as he is effectively a stranger who they have been told bad stories about) and it is heart-breaking to see how sad he is about it.

I'm not saying all break-ups would be as bad or all women as vindictive, but you can quickly find yourself very powerless in the most important aspect of your life.
 
I honestly think they would or would actually be more likely to side with the dead father's partner - for the reason that for the child to be living with the natural father plus partner in the first place, then either (a) there was a compelling reason for the child NOT to live with the natural mother in the first place, or (b) the natural mother didn't fight for the child to live with her originally.

In this case, my reading is that the judge wasn't impressed with the natural father being more interested in pressing for HIS rights and entitlements rather than being interested in what was best for the child.

Not sure to be honest. Courts have nearly always found on the part of the mother when it comes to custody disputes between mother and father unless there was a risk to the child. I can't see them not doing the same if it was a dispute between the childs mother and the ex husbands partner.

I actually found the judges comments in relation to the Father rather strange. He was been criticised for trying to exercise his rights in relation to his child because he wanted custody. What was he supposed to do? Just walk away? I don't know the details of the case but he probably thought that as the child's father, he was best placed to care for the child. That's nothing against the other man and like I said, I have no problem with the ruling if it is in the childs interests but I wouldn't criticise him for trying to exercise his rights. I would do the same while at the same time, hoping that I would only ever do what was in my childs best interests.
 
This isn't necessarily the best advice as the poster appears to value his relationship with his children above everything. My husband has a friend who split from his wife and the wife did everything in her power to sour the relationship he had with the kids - was never (literally never) home when he called to collect them for access and bad-mouthed him to the kids ('he doesn't want to see you') for years. He brought her to court numerous times and despite being ordered time and again to allow him access, she never did despite being threatened with jail (because she knew no judge was actually going to send her to jail). He has absolutely no relationship with his kids now (they're older now and don't want to see him as he is effectively a stranger who they have been told bad stories about) and it is heart-breaking to see how sad he is about it.

I'm not saying all break-ups would be as bad or all women as vindictive, but you can quickly find yourself very powerless in the most important aspect of your life.

Speaking from first hand experience I am well aware of the pro's and con's of these situations.
 
Not sure to be honest. Courts have nearly always found on the part of the mother when it comes to custody disputes between mother and father unless there was a risk to the child. I can't see them not doing the same if it was a dispute between the childs mother and the ex husbands partner.
But that's the whole point. In your scenario (child with natural dad + partner, natural dad dies), the natural mother has already been judged less suitable once - and as you say, that's unusual. So if she was judged unsuitable once (a big decision for a judge, presumably with good reasons), she probably would be again.

The alternative of course is that she didn't fight for custody in the first place which could have been for good or bad reasons - if she didn't want the child then, the child might be better off with step-mother. If she felt the child was better off with father because, e.g., she worked while he was the homemaker, then she should have a much better chance of custody.
 
It's unfortunately a very well known phenomenon.

This study is from the States:

The Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect

"According to the report, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents."

A 2005 Missouri study, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, reports that "children living with a stepparent or unrelated adult were 50 times more likely to die of inflicted injuries than children living with both of their parents".

[broken link removed], found that the incidence of abuse was an astounding 33 times higher in homes where the mother was cohabiting with an unrelated boyfriend than in stable nuclear families.

Leslie Margolin of the University of Iowa in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect. Prof. Margolin found that boyfriends were 27 times more likely than natural parents to abuse a child.

Here's some info on the Cinderella Effect.
That supports the view that children are better off with their biological father in a split as his partner or future partner is far less likely to hurt the children.
It would be interesting to see the link between addiction, criminal records and social condition of the mothers and partners in the incidents where Children were harmed and/or abused.
 
That supports the view that children are better off with their biological father in a split as his partner or future partner is far less likely to hurt the children.
It would be interesting to see the link between addiction, criminal records and social condition of the mothers and partners in the incidents where Cherenkov were harmed and/or abused.
Absolutely.

I'm very interested in and read a lot of studies and books on criminal psychology and would raise a cautionary red flag every time a woman with children decides to cohabit with a boyfriend who is not the children's father.

It would be interesting to have more information on why the judge made this decision and what the psychiatrists reported.
 
Back
Top