Indeed, we all do.
Your argument however is that this is not anecdotal evidence and it is; that's my point.
Wife refusing mediation for separation and divorce
- Thread starter Cruzer123
- Start date
Your argument however is that this is not anecdotal evidence and it is; that's my point.
We are now in 2026 and some want to allow the mistakes of the past to continue in 2026 if at all possible,
And this is relevant to a discussion on the difference between anecdotes and data driven research?
Also people who have studied it and been in court for it. Thankfully cases are allowed be reported now, but it’s very restricted and patchy.
McDonald’s dads is very much a real thing. You can’t have data on it. Obviously. But it doesn’t mean it’s not real.
I suspect the people looking for Data know well none exists as the family courts were held in private no Data exist,
Up to a few years ago it was not uncommon for the family home to be awarded to parent still living in fsamily home and no consideration given to the other parents welfare whatsoever,
looking for data that does not exist is just mudding the water and is not helpful,
With all due respect to contributor Galway there has been research done into custody awards and the time fathers get with children.
A doctoral thesis published in Ireland and covered by the Irish Times in 2013 found that Irish men continue to get a rough deal in the family courts.
The research, carried out by Róisín O’Shea (legal academic and qualified barrister, and was awarded a PhD in 2014 for her doctoral research on judicial separation and divorce in the Circuit Court in Ireland) examined joint custody cases and found that in 95% of them, the mother ended up as the effective sole carer of the children.
Despite being granted “joint custody” on paper, fathers were largely reduced to the standard access arrangement, every second weekend and one night a week, with their role as a parent severely restricted beyond that.
The researcher described “joint custody” in Ireland as little more than a legal fiction, masking a reality where day-to-day care was shared in just 1% of cases. The thesis was also highly critical of the family court system itself, describing it as opaque, costly, and producing poor outcomes for both children and fathers.
So while Irish courts technically award joint custody as the default, the reality for the vast majority of fathers is that they become visitors in their children’s lives.
Not much has changed. In a number of cases I’m aware of today fathers are continuing to pay the mortgage, while living in house shares or bedsits and getting access to their children every second weekend and one night a week.
Yes it’s still happening. The family courts are still “opaque, costly and producing poor outcomes for fathers”.
A doctoral thesis published in Ireland and covered by the Irish Times in 2013 found that Irish men continue to get a rough deal in the family courts.
The research, carried out by Róisín O’Shea (legal academic and qualified barrister, and was awarded a PhD in 2014 for her doctoral research on judicial separation and divorce in the Circuit Court in Ireland) examined joint custody cases and found that in 95% of them, the mother ended up as the effective sole carer of the children.
Despite being granted “joint custody” on paper, fathers were largely reduced to the standard access arrangement, every second weekend and one night a week, with their role as a parent severely restricted beyond that.
The researcher described “joint custody” in Ireland as little more than a legal fiction, masking a reality where day-to-day care was shared in just 1% of cases. The thesis was also highly critical of the family court system itself, describing it as opaque, costly, and producing poor outcomes for both children and fathers.
So while Irish courts technically award joint custody as the default, the reality for the vast majority of fathers is that they become visitors in their children’s lives.
Not much has changed. In a number of cases I’m aware of today fathers are continuing to pay the mortgage, while living in house shares or bedsits and getting access to their children every second weekend and one night a week.
Yes it’s still happening. The family courts are still “opaque, costly and producing poor outcomes for fathers”.
I always find it interesting to note where men are referenced by gender & women by their parental role.
In any event, you view fathers as getting a 'rough deal' yet mothers are the 'effective sole carer', but that's not a 'rough deal'?
I'd agree 100% that our Family Law system leaves a lot to be desired; but the one aspect I think is maintained, in spite of an often ineffective system, is that the children's needs and welfare come first.
Obviously you missed the part about access to the children if you’re making the point that “mothers being the sole carer” is not a rough deal.
On your point regarding “children's needs & welfare” coming first, a system that limits fathers access in 95% of cases to one weekend in two and one night a week cannot be considered as putting children first in this day and age.
On your point regarding “children's needs & welfare” coming first, a system that limits fathers access in 95% of cases to one weekend in two and one night a week cannot be considered as putting children first in this day and age.
Last edited:
@DannyBoyD
To add, on the topic of what’s fair on children and on your point of no research being done in this area.
O’Shea found that judges disliked the emotional complexity of custody disputes and wanted to resolve them quickly. Every second weekend and one night a week became a kind of off-the-shelf solution. It minimised conflict in the courtroom, even if it maximised it in the long run for the children and fathers involved.
It treats fathers as a risk rather than a resource. The logic is that the child needs stability with the primary carer, and the father’s time is rationed around that. It frames the father as a potential disruption rather than an equal parent.
Nobody was sanctioning breaches. O’Shea found that even when mothers withheld access in breach of court orders, no judge imposed any sanction. So the access arrangement wasn’t even reliably enforced, meaning in practice fathers could end up with even less than the already meagre entitlement.
There was no presumption of shared parenting. Many countries have moved toward a legal presumption of roughly equal parenting time as the starting point, unless there’s a specific reason to depart from it. Ireland never adopted that. The starting point was always tilted toward the mother, so every second weekend became the floor rather than the ceiling.
The cruelty of it is that a father who was present every single day of his child’s life, doing school runs, bedtimes, the lot, the moment a relationship breaks down, the law can reduce him to a visitor in about 48 hours.
In reality it’s probably closer to 20-25% of a child’s waking hours. That’s the ceiling, not the floor.
Because as O’Shea found, if the mother simply withholds access and no court sanctions her for it, it can drop to zero with no consequences.
So you have a situation where a man who was arguably an equal parent during the relationship can be legally reduced to spending roughly one day in five with his own child. He still pays full maintenance. He still holds the title of “joint custodian” on paper. But in practice he’s been demoted to a part-time visitor in his child’s life, and the system designed that outcome and defends it and as you say “the child’s interests come first”. No they don’t in Ireland.
To add, on the topic of what’s fair on children and on your point of no research being done in this area.
O’Shea found that judges disliked the emotional complexity of custody disputes and wanted to resolve them quickly. Every second weekend and one night a week became a kind of off-the-shelf solution. It minimised conflict in the courtroom, even if it maximised it in the long run for the children and fathers involved.
It treats fathers as a risk rather than a resource. The logic is that the child needs stability with the primary carer, and the father’s time is rationed around that. It frames the father as a potential disruption rather than an equal parent.
Nobody was sanctioning breaches. O’Shea found that even when mothers withheld access in breach of court orders, no judge imposed any sanction. So the access arrangement wasn’t even reliably enforced, meaning in practice fathers could end up with even less than the already meagre entitlement.
There was no presumption of shared parenting. Many countries have moved toward a legal presumption of roughly equal parenting time as the starting point, unless there’s a specific reason to depart from it. Ireland never adopted that. The starting point was always tilted toward the mother, so every second weekend became the floor rather than the ceiling.
The cruelty of it is that a father who was present every single day of his child’s life, doing school runs, bedtimes, the lot, the moment a relationship breaks down, the law can reduce him to a visitor in about 48 hours.
In reality it’s probably closer to 20-25% of a child’s waking hours. That’s the ceiling, not the floor.
Because as O’Shea found, if the mother simply withholds access and no court sanctions her for it, it can drop to zero with no consequences.
So you have a situation where a man who was arguably an equal parent during the relationship can be legally reduced to spending roughly one day in five with his own child. He still pays full maintenance. He still holds the title of “joint custodian” on paper. But in practice he’s been demoted to a part-time visitor in his child’s life, and the system designed that outcome and defends it and as you say “the child’s interests come first”. No they don’t in Ireland.
@DannyBoyD
You said there was no research on this, I’ve just shown there is. I think you will also find not much has changed since that report.
Your point about fathers not paying maintenance is a deflection. That’s not what we’re discussing. We’re talking about fathers’ access to their own children. Though since you raise it, from the papers I see a father was actually before the courts this week for exactly that, it’s not going unaddressed.
You also suggested that a mother being awarded sole carer status (in 95% of cases apparently) isn’t a rough deal for fathers. Maybe thats a bias you have about how you view your own children or your husbands relationship with his children.
I’d personally struggle to see how being reduced to roughly 20% of your child’s time, with no sanction if even that is withheld could be described as anything else but a rough deal
You can’t dismiss systemic failures of the Irish Family Courts against fathers and children as “No one wins when parents separate”.
I’ll leave others to draw their own conclusions about where the prejudice lies in this conversation.
You said there was no research on this, I’ve just shown there is. I think you will also find not much has changed since that report.
Your point about fathers not paying maintenance is a deflection. That’s not what we’re discussing. We’re talking about fathers’ access to their own children. Though since you raise it, from the papers I see a father was actually before the courts this week for exactly that, it’s not going unaddressed.
You also suggested that a mother being awarded sole carer status (in 95% of cases apparently) isn’t a rough deal for fathers. Maybe thats a bias you have about how you view your own children or your husbands relationship with his children.
I’d personally struggle to see how being reduced to roughly 20% of your child’s time, with no sanction if even that is withheld could be described as anything else but a rough deal
You can’t dismiss systemic failures of the Irish Family Courts against fathers and children as “No one wins when parents separate”.
I’ll leave others to draw their own conclusions about where the prejudice lies in this conversation.
Last edited:
It absolutely isn't. It is absolutely and unequivocally the case that the parent who sacrifices time with their children in order to provide the economic resources they require is the parent making the sacrifice.
There is something utterly perverse about the proposition that a parent "sacrifices" their career in order to spend more time with their children. What should be said is that a parent sacrifices time with their children in order to spend more time on their career.
Now that is nonsense and you know it.
People who have children are responsible for their support; be that financial or otherwise.
Rather reminds me of that quote
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts;
When the law is on your side, pound the law;
When neither are on your side pound the table.
So the parent at home for every first word, first step, every school run and bedtime, they’re the ones making the sacrifice?
Both parents are responsible for their children, financially and otherwise. One just gets to actually be there while the father pays and gets visiting rights, not even to the house he’s paying for.
Another deflection sorry to say. Facts are facts, in 95% of cases as she said!
I'm amused that I've apparently acquired a husband (go marriage equality! ) and children and/ or step children.
Would you rather spend more time at work or more time with your children?
Would you rather be in work or see your childs first step?
Would you rather be in work or hear their first word?
Would you rather be in work or eat dinner with them?
Would you rather be in work or read them their bedtime story and kiss them goodnight?
Would you rather be in work or drop them to school?
Would you rather be in work or collect them from school and hear about their day on the way home?
Would you rather be in work or be the one that they come to when they are sad or look to for comfort when they are upset?
Would you rather be in work or be the one to hug them when they fall, the one they laugh with them when they jump in a puddle, or the one who teaches them bake and to cook?
The proposition that the parent who gets to do those things is the one making the sacrifice; that is nonsense and you know it.
Nobody is suggesting otherwise.