Stop Talking About Fathers Rights – Start Talking About Children’s Rights.

 

I’ve been keeping an eye on a “Fathers Rights” facebook page (Fathers Rights Ireland) for about six months now, and reading some of the posts of the person who appears to be “in charge” of this page I have come to the conclusion that this person is not only ill-informed, but is definitely NOT someone to whom a father in the distressing situation of being alienated from his child(ren) should be listening to, taking “advice” from or supporting. At all. This person if I may use the vernacular is a lunatic – an ill-informed, hysterical, ranting lunatic.

Having said that – he (I presume the person of charge of this facebook page is a he) does post links to relevant newspaper articles etc. – his problem is simple though – he reacts emotionally and subjectively to practically every item and lacks the ability or the will to analyse OBJECTIVELY and calmly the CONTENTS of these “links” with a view to furthering, in any meaningful way, the recognition and APPLICATION of the CURRENT law in any case, or use any “judgement” as supportive of an application in ANOTHER case – i.e. YOUR case.

Therein lies the problem with these kinds of groups – they are so blinded by their rage and self-referential “hurt” that they have a tendency to just fling accusations of “conspiracy” and “fraud” and malfeasance against…..well everybody and anybody – most especially judges, solicitors, state agencies – in particular – TUSLA. (What I am saying here is that these are unproven, unsubstantiated allegations and that they are counter-productive and irrelevant and will not HELP you in any meaningful way when YOU are the one standing in Court in front of a judge pleading YOUR case, unless you have actual EVIDENCE to support these allegations specific to YOUR case)

I might add, if you do go into Court ranting and raving about “conspiracies” or “fraud” in a random and unhinged manner (and yes, I have seen this) you will come across as unhinged. Let me be blunt – if the object in “going to Court” is to do with access/custody of your children – first familiarise yourself with the law regarding children, second INVOKE your Children’s Rights – third – make a rational, intelligent, INFORMED argument – supported by case law – and make it all about YOUR CHILDREN. What actually pisses me off about a lot of these so-called Fathers Rights Groups is this – there is always a “leader” a loud-mouthed arrogant egotistical arsehole who is so enraged at what he perceives as how hard done by he is that EVERYTHING is about his ego-driven agenda – and yes I know – I’ve heard all the bullshit that “it’s all about the kids” – it isn’t – that he then manages to gather a group around him and they follow like sheep – sometimes, genuinely distressed fathers – genuine fathers who are floundering as to what to do about the awful situation they find themselves in, and end up listening to and reading the utter tripe these idiots spout out.

Guys – just because YOU don’t know what to do, just because you’ve found this loud mouthed arsehole pontificating about “Fathers Rights” just because, in a million years you never thought you’d find yourself in this position – it doesn’t mean that first loud-mouthed arsehole you come across, on the internet or at a “Fathers Rights” meeting has all the answers or ANY of the answers.

The clue is this – if you have to go to Court to try and get access/custody of your children – then what you need to inform and arm yourself with IS THE BLOODY LAW. From the source – not from some idiot on the internet, or some loudmouth running “Fathers Rights” meetings.

If you actually believe that some loud-mouthed arsehole on the internet ranting and raving about “conspiracies” or “fraud” to a bunch of sheep-like “followers” on a facebook page is going to have ANY impact at all when YOU are the one standing in front of a Judge in a Court then you are sadly mis-informed.

To put it bluntly – you don’t get to choose the battleground (The Court) you don’t get to dictate how the Court operates – its been operating for several hundred years – what YOU get to do is choose which weapons you bring onto the battleground – those weapons are THE LAW – both legislation and case law – both of which you are free to use in your presentation – and present the Court with an interpretation of either or both (preferably both) that supports YOUR APPLICATION.  You have an array of legislation, of Human Rights Instruments and CASE LAW to choose from – it is up to you to ARGUE your case and persuade the Court that your argument is SOUND.

Now – before I go any further with this – let me make my position clear.

I am absolutely totally and adamantly NOT a feminist – I loathe feminism, in all its putrid, toxic manifestations with a passion – I absolutely endorse without equivocation the presumption IN LAW that parents are jointly endowed with EQUAL responsibilities to their child (ren)

I absolutely and unequivocally endorse the presumption IN LAW that children are entitled to maintain without interference, conditionality or “ranking” a parent/child relationship (with all that this entails) with BOTH parents.

I absolutely and unequivocally endorse that it is CHILDREN who are endowed with RIGHTS and parents who are endowed with RESPONSIBILITIES – to the children.*

*I will post the skeleton argument that “Joint Legal Custody” of Children is already presumed in Law – in a day or two – with supporting case law.

The legal nuance here is this – the parental “Rights” that are being violated are the “Rights” of parents to be allowed to fulfill THEIR obligations and duties AS A PARENT to their child.

Ergo – to speak of “Fathers Rights” or for that matter “Mothers Rights” is to ignore a fundamental basic fact – you CANNOT “be” a parent unless you have a child – your “Rights” as a “parent” are absolutely and solely dependent on the existence OF A LIVING CHILD.

Ergo your “Rights” are secondary and subservient to the innate and inherent “Rights” of the child as a vulnerable person entitled to the full and absolute protection of THEIR human rights – one of which is to have the protection, guidance and benefit of A PARENT taking full responsibility for the health, welfare, safety and well-being of that child.

Your “Rights” as “a parent” or “Legal Guardian” are that YOU be allowed to fulfil and exercise YOUR obligations and duties in ensuring the health, welfare, safety and well-being of THAT CHILD.

If – you are prevented from fulfilling your obligations and duties to your child – it is NOT “Your Rights” as an individual human being that are being violated – IT IS YOUR CHILDS HUMAN RIGHTS THAT ARE BEING VIOLATED.

So please – shut up about “your rights” shut up about “Fathers Rights” SHUT UP about how hard done by you are, SHUT UP ranting and raving about “conspiracies” and “fraud” and whatever other ridiculous nonsensical and IRRELEVANT matter that appears to ignite and trigger innumerable badly written, ill-informed and hysterical “posts” on various different facebook page and blogs.

It might sound obvious, though I sincerely doubt it – but the area of LAW all you so-called “Fathers Rights” groups and coalitions are enmeshed in is FAMILY LAW, and while for these purposes The Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 primarily addresses the LEGAL issue of dissolving a lawfully constituted MARRIAGE in Ireland – one can be married without having children. The Judicial Separation and Family Law (Reform) Act, 1989 addresses issues when two legally married people wish to dissolve and divest themselves of any legal obligations to the other spouse.

The canon of “Family Law” that addresses issues with regard to CHILDREN only, are primarily contained in other legislation, (Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964) in effect the only substantive legal issue directly impacting upon ADULTS in the context of “Family Law” is simple – dissolving a marriage/ending a marriage BETWEEN ADULTS. And yes, children and issues around children are contained in these two pieces of legislation – the point I am making here is this – draw a distinct line between issues that ONLY effect ADULTS and issues that affect CHILDREN.

No longer being married to the other parent of a child should only impact ON THE ADULTS – not the children – no longer living with the other parent of a child should only impact on the ADULTS – not the children – in other words – your “living arrangements” should absolutely NOT impact on the parental relationship between a child and BOTH his/her parents – at all. Ever. Any person who uses a change in their living arrangements with the other parent as an excuse to interfere with the child’s relationship with that other parent is violating THE CHILDS RIGHTS.

And no – I’m not getting into a discussion about spousal support, division of assets, etc. – again – WITHOUT children IN the mix – those are legal issues BETWEEN ADULTS, and yes involve a separate but connected area of the toxic culture engendered by an endorsement of the “feminist” perspective on how “strong and independent” and “you go girl” wimmin are. Sigh.

Though I have often thought that “wimmin” of a certain type (which is most of them) should really be treated as having the same lack of mental/legal capacity as children – and dealt with accordingly – a discussion for another time.

Moving on.

What triggered this response? First, though I rarely respond or comment on other people’s blogs, or posts on facebook (never) in particular blogs or posts by Fathers Rights activists I have, to be blunt, a low opinion of most of the content – in particular content that bangs on and on about “the law” or erroneous “judgements” yet do not link or reference the law or judgement they are – banging on about with one notable exception – ExInjuria https://exinjuria.wordpress.com/about/ Nick Langford writes and analyses with clarity and precision any issue of law he addresses. I highly recommend a visit to his site.

So, the first “post” that irritated me was posted on the 25th December 2018 and contained a link to this article Abducted by a parent: Heartbreaking cases of the Hague Convention Mon, Dec 24, 2018, 02:00

Colm Keena

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/abducted-by-a-parent-heartbreaking-cases-of-the-hague-convention-1.3740959?fbclid=IwAR3FgzFr6u-IL07kQSG-aSnp2W1x3_05uCaPaZfnR6uFKj0MI6BfrQbAozw

Before I get into dissecting this article – this is what irritates me – if you are purporting to “advise” people about a specific topic, or equally are purporting to be “helping” other people – in particular with regard to a legal issue, and ever more particularly with regard to a family law issue – and you actually want to help the people you are purporting to help – here’s a bit of useful ADVICE.

Reference the goddam Law – post a link to the bloody JUDGEMENT(S) – so that people can read for themselves – so that people can download the judgement or the piece of legislation and DO THEIR OWN BLOODY ANALYSES.

But to pontificate and spew out ill-informed rubbish about what you think it means or even worse simply regurgitate what another ill-informed idiot on the internet has concluded this or that ruling/judgement/determination means is beyond arrogant, beyond vanity, beyond egotistical bullshit – it is venal and self-aggrandizing in the extreme.

So, lets take this article and see is there anything in it that could possibly be useful for a person in that situation to know?  Is there anything there that could direct or guide a person in that situation in the preparation of their case?

Several things.

First the name of the Judge tasked with dealing with “Hague Convention” cases is Ms. Justice Ni Raifeartaigh – at this juncture I would point out that at various times different judges are assigned different areas of law. In this instance – to repeat – Ms. Justice Ni Raifeartaigh was assigned “Hague Convention” cases – abduction cases – that is children abducted FROM this jurisdiction to another jurisdiction by one parent.

The next thing I would point out is this – the vast majority of Family Law hearings are in camera – i.e. the public is excluded from the court with a few exceptions – which we will get into another time.

But – the JUDGEMENTS- in particular those that may have a public interest element – are PUBLISHED with all identifying information anonymized. On the court’s website – www.courts.ie

So, this constant bleating about “secret courts” is nonsense – it is the IDENTITY of the parties that is “hidden” NOT either the nature and facts of a particular case or the issues of LAW being determined.

Are all judgements published? Nope – not all – but most.

Try this – google www.courts.ie

On the right-hand side underneath “online” the third option down is “Judgements and Determinations” click on it.

Across the top on the first menu line you will find three options:

1. Judgements by Year, 2. Judgements by Court and 3. Judgements by Judge.

Underneath you will find three more menu options – the first is “Determinations” these are rulings of the Supreme Court – the next two are “Judgements Help” and “Disclaimer and Copyright”

Click on “Judgements by Judge” and scroll down and search for Ni Raifeartaigh J.

What you should notice is that EVERY judge of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court is listed – all you have to do is click on the little blue triangle beside each judge’s name and a FULL list of their published judgements comes up.

Try it – click on any judge’s name – and then scroll through the list of judgements – on the right-hand side of this list you will see WHICH Court any particular judgement was given in – High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court – what you should also notice is that ALL judgements to do with ANY aspect of Family Law or to do with children is listed with INITIALS ONLY.

E.g.:  if you right click on the DATE 11/21/2018 R.B. -v- D.K OF THIS LISTING and click “open in a new tab”. (the reason for doing this is to keep the list OPEN.

What comes up is this: the judgement is the case of R.B – v – D.K neutral citation [2018] IEHC 728:

The “Title” with ALL identifiers anonymized is:

“THE HIGH COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL

ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF COUNCIL REGULATION 2201/2003

AND

IN THE MATTER OF N. B., A CHILD

BETWEEN:

R.B.

Applicant

-AND-

D.K.

Respondent

Judgment of Ms. Justice Ní Raifeartaigh delivered on the 21st day of November 2018

Nature of case

  1. This is a case in which the applicant (the father of a child) seeks the return of the child to England and Wales pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter “the Hague Convention”) and EU Council Regulation 2201/2003. The child, N, who is three years old, is currently living in Ireland with his mother, the respondent in these proceedings. The date upon which they came to live in Ireland is the core matter in dispute in the case. Counsel on both sides of the case agreed that there was a single net issue in the case, namely as to where the child had its habitual residence at the relevant time, and that the Court was required to resolve a conflict of fact in this regard.”

What follows is the judgement – in full – in detail. Study it.

I will confine myself to just posting the Conclusion here paras 34 – 36

“34.     In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the child N has been the subject of a wrongful retention in Ireland because the applicant has satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the child’s habitual residence had not changed as of the end of April/beginning of May 2018 when his mother refused to return him to England. For completeness, I also find that, insofar as the respondent relies upon the defence of consent, she has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the father gave his consent either to a permanent removal or retention of the child in Ireland. I will therefore make an order for the return of the child to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

  1. In order to allow for an appeal, I will place a stay upon the execution of this order pending the expiry of the time limit for an appeal, with time of course running from the date of the perfection of the relevant order for the child’s return.

 

  1. I would like to refer this judgment to the Irish immigration authorities for further investigation, having regard to some of the evidence in the case. However, as this is an in camera matter, such a move needs to be approached with caution and I will not take any step in that direction without alerting the parties in the first instance and giving them an opportunity to address me on any relevant law. This should not prevent the perfection of the order and the progress of any appeal with regard to the Hague Convention issues.”

(emphasis added)

As you can see Her Honour Judge Ni Raifeartaigh ordered the child abducted from the UK by his mother, who re-located in Ireland RETURNED to the UK.

I strongly suggest to study this judgement and some of Ni Raifeartaighs other judgements in detail to get a clear grasp of the legal principles that are applied in these kinds of cases.

Moving on. If you look up to the top of the page – the one with the judgement on it – you will see another menu bar: above the dark blue line that says Judgements and Determinations: Homepage – just above that you will see a button that says “Printable Version

So, whatever judgement you have decided to look at – you then think to yourself – “I’d like to have a printed copy of that”

Ok so – click on “Printable Version” and voila – a small print box opens and all you have to do is decide, for example, how many copies of this judgement do I want? Do I want it in black or white or in colour – then click print.

One thing to watch out for – if you click on “Printable Version” and the print preview just shows blank pages – this means the judgement hasn’t downloaded properly – close the print box and click the “Printable Version” button again until you see the message “loading preview” what happens – as far as I know – I have a tendency to leave all the little “print boxes” open and the thing seems to get stuck – as soon as I close those open boxes it seems to “unstick it”

I would suggest that you take your time and explore the courts service website – EVERYTHING you need to know about how the courts function in this jurisdiction is literally there at your fingertips – Rules of the Court – Court Forms – Practice Directions* – EVERYTHING.

*HC051 – This is Practice Direction 051 – the HC stands for High Court – click on the blue link on this page and a word version of this Practice Direction – FOR FAMILY LAW IN THE HIGH COURT – will download for you.

http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/16c93c36d3635d5180256e3f003a4580/bec9deb0b6dae2a980258121003f3720?OpenDocument

If you click on “Home” on the left-hand side of the Courts website, you will see a list – the list is headed in bold “For Court Users” click on the links and they bring you to different areas. Court Rules, Court Forms, etc. THAT’S where you can find everything you need to know about how the Courts works, what the rules are, and what “Forms” you need to use for different kinds of Applications/Motions – not from some twat on the internet or on facebook.

You really don’t need some idiot on the internet pontificating and blustering and talking shoite about “how the courts work” or giving you his “version” of how to go about doing something in court – it’s all there – and yes I appreciate that for a lay litigant it can be very difficult to get your head around some of the “Rules” or figure out how to use the various “Templates” for different kinds of applications – but – if you just take your time – any reasonably intelligent person can – with a little hard work figure it out, least anyone opines that I am just another idiot pontificating – you might note that I am directing you to independent OFFICIAL sources where you can find out for yourself what the law is, what the Rules of the Court are and where they can be found, and where to find judgements.

For EVERYTHING to do with “going to Court” there is a Law or a provision of Law, there is a “Rule” and there is a Form, on top of all that, there are ways of doing something, and that is contained in the Practice Directions – they all function together.

Let me give you some unsolicited “advice” advice I was given in law school – every judgement has some discussion about how this or that rule or law works or is applied – EVERY judgement – it is in effect a practical demonstration of how the law operates or in some instances doesn’t operate – read them – read them thoroughly and LEARN how the inert words of the written law come to life in a practical way by studying how those “words” are brought to life and applied in real life situations.

READ the judgements – and read them again – until – hopefully a light bulb goes off in your head and you have a “eureka” moment.

Whatever you do – do not base your case on the ill-informed rantings of some idiot on the internet or most definitely not on the idiots “interpretation” of a “judgment” or commentary on an article about a “judgement” find and read the judgement YOURSELF – make up your own mind – apply the facts of the case (in the judgement you are reading) to your situation and see if there is something in there that is applicable IN YOUR CASE. And no, the facts in the case do not have to be exactly the same as in your case – you are looking for areas of general commonality – not an exact replica – similar NOT the same.

THAT’S how you ‘Do law”

Because here a fundamental basic fact.

If you are embroiled in a Family Law case in this jurisdiction – Ireland – you will end up in an IRISH Court – and you can bitch and moan and rant and rave all you like but – it is the Law as it stands NOW – it will be the Rules of the Court as they stand NOW that will be applied – NOT what some idiot on the internet “thinks” the law should be, or believes it to be or claims is ought to be – it is the law as contained in Acts of the Oireachtas, Statutory Instruments, ALL available to you at www.irishstatutebook.ie at the click of a mouse.

Your “argument” or your “pleadings” should be grounded on how the current law is being applied – and if it is being applied or “enforced” arbitrarily, prejudicially or unfairly then MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

Finally – if you want to “talk about rights” then I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself thoroughly with the text of these documents – and again, not on some idiot on the internet rantings about “rights”

European Convention on Human Rights*

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

*Transposed into Irish Domestic Law with; The European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003 – found at www.irishstatutebook.ie

Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the European Union

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

UN Convention on The Rights of The Child

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf

To start with.

Then do some study on these:

Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, Children and Family Relationships Act, 2015, Family Law Act, 1995, Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996, Judicial Separation and Family Law (Reform) Act, 1989.

I’m not giving you a link to these – you can easily find them and ALL amendments to any provision of these Acts at www.irishstatutebook.ie it will be good practice – if you are serious about addressing YOUR legal ISSUES in a clear, INFORMED and intelligent way.

If you do decide to “look up the law” then read the whole Act – yes – all of it – no piece of legislation exists in a vacuum – you might read in section 6 (a) (i) something that applies directly to your case – BUT – if you see the phrase “subject to the provisions of section 14, then there is a proviso – i.e. this section ONLY applies if the provisions of the other section are fulfilled AS WELL.

Having said all that – I am perfectly aware that in provincial circuits – in particular the Midland Circuit – which is the one I am most familiar with – the law is NOT applied either with fairness or without prejudice – to fathers in particular.

I am also perfectly aware that most if not all Family Law proceedings begin in either the District Court or the Circuit Court – and the Orders made in some instances are…………………. staggeringly bad law.

Again, I strongly suggest you familiarise yourselves with The Rules of The Court with regard to two distinct legal process’s – An Appeal from the Circuit Court to the High Court (bearing in mind if the Order in dispute was originally granted in the District Court you will have to Appeal to the Circuit first) and the Rules governing Judicial Review.

Please note: There are THREE sets of Rules of the Court – Rules of The Superior Court and Rules of The Circuit Court and Rules of The District Court

See here: http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/webpages/bb9a582b582f736880256d2b003f6633?OpenDocument&l=en&p=042

Before “moving” on any matter – in other words before making an application/motion etc. or launching an “Appeal” from the Circuit Court to the High Court – READ THIS.

ORDER 61

Rules of the Superior Courts Order: 61; Appeals from the Circuit Court

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/d5629e64d4c7cae680256d2b0046b3ae?OpenDocument

Pay particular attention to the emboldened parts:

  1. In this Order:

“the Act” means the Courts of Justice Act, 1936:

“County Registrar” includes any deputy County Registrar and any person appointed to act as such Registrar or deputy and also where the context permits, any person appointed to act as Registrar to the High Court on Circuit.

  1. Every appeal under Part IV of the Act shall be by notice of appeal which shall be served on every party directly affected by the appeal within ten days from the date on which the judgement or order appealed from was pronounced in open court. The notice shall state whether the whole or part only of such judgement or order is appealed from and in the latter case shall specify such part. The notice shall, in the case of appeals to the High Court sitting in Dublin, be for the first opportunity after the expiration of ten days from the date of service, and, in the case of appeals to the High Court on Circuit, be for the next sitting of the High Court on Circuit after the expiration of the said ten days. Such notice of appeal shall be either in the Form No. 1 or the Form No. 2 (as the case may be) in Appendix I.

 

  1. The appellant shall, within the said period of ten days from the date on which the judgement or order appealed from was pronounced,

(a)        in the case of appeals to the High Court sitting in Dublin lodge two copies of the notice of appeal,”

NOW – Print out (printable version – look up) and study Order 61 – including the links above the body of this Order – they contain amendments made to the Order.

Click on EVERY link in the body of the text of this Order and study ALL of it. The above is ONLY an EXTRACT from Order 61 – of – The Rules of The Superior Courts.

The second procedure I strongly suggest you familiarise yourselves with is Judicial Review.

Order 84 – Judicial review and orders affecting personal liberty

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/a53b0f76ffc6c5b780256d2b0046b3dc?OpenDocument

Last but not least – if you are claiming that the “other side” has failed to adhere to a provision of any Rule of The Court – this is how you might state it:

Example of how to phrase and cite a provision of an “Order of The Court – in this instance Order 61, Rule 2.

“Pursuant to the provisions of Order 61, Rule 2, The (Applicant/Respondent] delete whichever one is not applicable – i.e. if you’re “The Applicant” delete the brackets, the forward slash and the word “Applicant” ) Respondent failed to serve a Notice of Appeal within ten days of the pronouncement of the Order granted on the………day of……….20…..granting Joint Legal Custody of the two minor children [……] and […..] to me, their Father and Legal Guardian. Her attempt to now Appeal said Order is out of time, being 18 months since the Order of the……. day of……….20….. was granted.”

(This an example of how you could cite a Rule of the Court – do it your own way – as long as you correctly cite whichever “Rule” of whichever “Order” you are invoking/relying on)

Before you all go mad and rush out to lodge Appeals or Applications for Judicial Review of a lower courts decision that affects you – READ THE RULES FIRST then READ THE BLOODY CASE LAW.

You are NOT automatically “entitled” to succeed on an Appeal or an Application for Leave to file a Judicial Review just because you are aggrieved by a decision of a lower Court – YOU MUST HAVE STATEABLE GROUNDS.

You must have an “arguable case” and that “argument” MUST be grounded in law – supported by previous CASE LAW – so again – read the bloody case law – read the law – familiarise yourselves with The Rules of The Court.

The second time this group/person really pissed me off and irritated me, triggering this response was a post on the 26th January 2019 linking to this article.

Mum loses custody of three children after coaching them to badmouth her ex husband; Nic Brunetti; Thursday 24 Jan 2019 1:54 pm

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/24/mum-loses-custody-of-three-children-after-coaching-them-to-badmouth-her-ex-husband-8385971/?fbclid=IwAR2xxTV-1L70EtThWW61CZQsVAVbnb2x5qJMQKML2gBLqasGzQqUvW5KkZc

The “comments” to this posting of this “article” are inane in the extreme – what surprised was no-one asked for a link to the judgement itself! Nor I might add this the “leader” of this group Fathers Rights Ireland supply a link to the judgement!

Perhaps this idiot thought he or his sheep-like followers could just stroll into Court with a copy of the Metro article clutched in their hot sweaty hands and they could just wave it around in front of the judge and he/she would be overcome with the brilliance of their “presentations” hmmmmm.

At that point I knew this guy was a pure gobshoite, a self-serving egotistical arsehole with zero real interest in “helping fathers” a ridiculous fool ranting and raving from behind his keyboard to massage his own inflated ego.

Here is the link to the judgement https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2018/B83.html&query=(ZE17C00740)

Here is the printable PDF version  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2018/B83.pdf

It is Case No: ZE17C00740 in the Family Court at Croydon on Wednesday the 22nd August 2018.

It is an extraordinary judgement for its clarity, for the depth of analysis of the substantive issues by His Honour Judge Charles Atkins and for his grasp of the fundamental damage done to children by “Parental Alienation”

What this judgement also is – is something YOU can use in an Irish Court to lend weight and AUTHORITY to YOUR case.

Download this judgement – study it – and study it again. Now you have something of substance to get your teeth into – and stop listening to or reading bullshit from gobshoites.

With regard to ‘Hague Convention” cases – download this judgement – study it – and study it again.

G.T and K.A.O and The Attorney General [2007] IEHC 326

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/768d83be24938e1180256ef30048ca51/e77d90ebb1cd0ca88025739900341ef8?OpenDocument

When I get a bit more time, I will post a list of cases that address different issues in “Family Law” cases both Irish, UK and other common law jurisdictions.

DISCLAIMER: Just in case some petulant arsehole gets the hump and decides that I am “unlawfully” giving “legal advice” here’s my disclaimer.

  1. Bite me
  2. I am NOT purporting to give anyone legal advice – I am pointing you to legitimate and accredited SOURCES of information that if you chose to access, will assist you greatly in applying the law to whatever “Case” or legal difficulty you might have.
  3. You are perfectly free to chose to click on any link I have posted here – what you do with it after that is entirely up to you – if you then go ahead and use any of the information I have linked to here and it goes pear-shaped for you – your problem, not mine.

Now – if the person or persons I have “had a go at” decides to get all “internetty” and post shit about me or engages in the usual…what do feminists call it……. whatever it is that feminists are always whining about……amounts to saying mean things about them on the internet.

My response? Bite me.

But – if you do step over the bounds of normal rational or acceptable behavior and it impacts me personally and out here in the real world – I will come after you – I will drag your sorry arse into Court – and I WILL personally rip you a new one – in Court.

Just so you know – as far as I am concerned – you do NOT represent the vast majority of fathers who are being put through the ringer in Family Courts in this jurisdiction, you are NOT a spokesman for any of them – you are NOT evolved enough, competent enough, informed enough, intelligent enough or decent enough to speak for anyone – especially NOT fathers.

You are an ignorant ill-informed arsehole who just wants a platform who spew out his self-serving bullshit, bullshit and mis-information that will actively sabotage, de-rail and damage the case of a DECENT father struggling with the toxic effects of being alienated from his children. So.  SHUT UP you idiot.

Slainte

In The Best Interests of the Child: How The Courts Get it Wrong. Part 2.

 

There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.

Charles de Montesquieu January 18, 1689 – February 10, 1755 [1]

 

Ostensibly we have laws that purport to treat “…all persons equally before the law…” these laws are enshrined not just in the domestic legislation of common law jurisdictions [1] (Ireland, the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand to name but a few) but in international Human Rights Instruments [2] that are applicable in these individual States and Nations.

But, while it may appear that the protections of the law apply to all persons equally, the reality is different. Part of the underlying problem is, in my opinion, a reliance on assumptions, on myths, on what Dr. Linda Neilsen comprehensively rebutted in her study, (see Part 1). Further, that by default, International Rights Instruments explicitly state, to paraphrase, that children have the right to a meaningful PARENTAL relationship with both their parents, that both parents have “parental equality” by default, and Joint Physical and Legal Custody is the optimum way for parents to exercise those default equal parental rights  – yet,  sole physical custody continues to be granted to mothers, and even in cases where joint physical custody is granted, the parents are still categorized into “the primary carer” and the other or secondary parent with this secondary parents parental status characterised as “access” as “contact” as“visitation”

“My review of 54 studies on shared parenting finds that, independent of parental conflict and family income, children in shared physical custody families—with the exception of situations where children need protection from an abusive or negligent parent—have better outcomes across a variety of measures of well-being than do children in sole physical custody. Knowledge and understanding of these findings allow us to dismantle some of the myths surrounding shared parenting so we can better serve the interests of the millions of children whose parents are no longer living together.”

(emphasis added)

Presumptions, Assumptions and Cultural Language – v – Rights Language.

No doubt, as many fathers have found when participating in “legal proceedings” in particular Family Law proceedings there is a unique language and vernacular used – not only that, there is a distinct method by which decisions are reached – (Ratio Decidendi)[4] but, for many lay litigants (which is usually the case with fathers seeking “access” to their children) this “Ratio” is incomprehensible gobbledygook, legalese and goes completely over their heads.

Part of the reason for this is because (in my opinion) the judicial atmosphere is clouded by the use of presumptions, assumptions and cultural language skewed towards a distinctly female perspective and this dictates the parameters of the judicial decision making process – in other words – the language of Rights, both parental and children’s rights is obscured in favour of taking a cultural framework approach – and – without a doubt, that cultural framework, and its language is informed by a particular ideology that has no place in the decision making process that affects the long term wellbeing, safety, and welfare of children.

The rights of children get subsumed under an ideological toxic cloud of rhetoric and mythologies about “motherhood” that serves only the interests of the person manufacturing that toxic rhetorical cloud and usually her equally ill-informed and ideologically driven counsel. (say no more)

Children’s Rights

The most obvious question is of course – do children have rights?

It might seem and appear to be a ridiculous question, but, when it comes to Family Law proceedings in this jurisdiction in particular (Ireland) and in other common law jurisdictions the default paradigm through which judicial decisions are made is NOT that children have distinct rights as autonomous human beings, but that those rights are and can only be exercised with the consent of and co-operation of a litigious parent, whose very actions in making applications for sole custody and/or limited “access” to the other parent is a stance that quite clearly indicates that the child “in dispute” most certainly does not “have rights’ distinct and separate from that parent.

Giving sole custody to mothers who present as opposed to “access” who seek to limit the amount of real time “access” fathers get to spend with their children, who go to court demanding that the court endorse and sanction them with a “gate-keeping” role in the exercise of a full and meaningful parental relationship for fathers and their children should be immediately presumed as a violation of the fundamental principles of “equal parental rights” enshrined in CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Article 24 – The rights of the child

  1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.

  2. In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.

  3. Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests.

 

Article 7 – UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child)

The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or  her parents.

Article 9

1 States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.

2 In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.

3 States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to   maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.

(all emphasis added)

Mothers who persist in objecting to, obstructing, litigating against “access” should be immediately be viewed as suspect and in particular, being, not only in violation of the above mentioned provisions of law but if either “sole custody” is sought or a “gate-keeping” role in relation to “access” is sought, it should be presumed to be a deliberate intention to breach NOT JUST the parental rights of the other parent (the father) but the children’s rights under the provisions of the above mentioned Instruments.

Unfortunately, the Courts tend to only pay lip service to the concept of children’s rights, and while judges may make a passing reference to “the right of child to ………………., it gets lost under the blanket of toxic ideological fog generally created by the obstructionist, conflict generating, gate-keeping parent – in most cases – the mother.

The Illegitimacy of the Concepts of “Access to”, “Contact with” and “Visitation with” Your Children

Bearing in mind that it is the Right of the Child to “to know and be cared for by his or  her parents….” and the Right of the Child to have and “to  maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis,” I would argue that ANY application by any parent grounded on a curtailment of, reduction of, infringement of the full exercise of those rights BY THE CHILD, is ab initio unlawful, fundamentally flawed and in breach and violation of he provisions of Article 24.3 of CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, and is in breach and violation of Article 9.3 of the UNCRC.

I would also argue that any application to curtail, limit, disrupt and/or impose conditionality, or to award a “gate-keeping” parental authority to one parent over the other parent is also ab initio a fundamental breach and violation of, in this jurisdiction (Ireland) the provisions of:

Article 40

1 all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

Article 42a

1 the state recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

 4 1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings–

i brought by the state, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudically affected, or

ii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

The question is, what is the underlying cultural and societal fundamental hindrance to achieving a just outcome FOR CHILDREN, when their parents no longer live together?

Answer.

Myths about women – assumptions and presumptions presented as a de facto credible basis’ for skewing “custody” to women and “access’ to men.

Bit of an aside here. I took a little look see around the internet to see what the feminists were up to, what was pushing their buttons in the here and now.

Was like Deja vue all over again – same shoite different year.

Housework???? Still whining about housework. Wage gap???? Really? Notwithstanding that this particular myth has been comprehensively discredited. I Have no intention of addressing these issues – they have been more than adequately addressed by other writers and bloggers. Though the housework thing is beyond ridiculous.

I read a few studies – and nope, couldn’t be bothered giving a link – in a nutshell, the impression created was that wimmin were, to all intents and purposes working their fingers to the bone slaving over steaming tubs of water using washboards to do the laundry. Sigh.

Guess what. Two hours ago, I threw a wash into the machine, took me all of 30 seconds, 20 minutes ago, at grave physical risk and danger, I pulled the laundry out of the washing machine and fecked it into the dryer – can hear the dryer from where I’m sitting, at my laptop, writing this.  Though, the 30 seconds it also took to feck the laundry into the dryer has me only exhausted! I may need funding for a support group to be set up so I can “share my feelings” about how random men all over world “oppressed” me for a full minute!

Seriously though.

This language of “oppression” and martyred motherhood” needs to be unpicked, rebutted, discredited – in Court – and on a basic fundamental level.

Yep – I know it sounds nit-picky but think about it – “Primary Carer” being a case in point.

Childhood lasts approximately 18 years (legally speaking that is) – the first 4 – 6 years being what I suppose could be called labour intensive – that is before this putative child goes to school., with the first two years being the most labour intensive. By which stage most children are walking, eating grown up food, possibly starting to become toilet trained. By two years old, the vast majority of children are in a routine – i.e. they go to bed by 7ish pm and they sleep till 7ish am.

In other words, by the time they’re two their routines are predictable, manageable and equally able to be carried out by BOTH or either parent(s).

But, because of the promulgation of the myth of martyred motherhood, Courts continue to give credence to this discriminatory concept of “Primary Carer” based on the notion that there are some magical, extraordinary things that women can do that men are not only incapable of doing but are genetically handicapped (by being men) from ever being able to do.

The biological reality is this – there is only one thing, and one thing only that women can do and men can’t – breast-feed. And any reasonable person will tell you, that breast-feeding is unnecessary beyond maybe 8 – 10 months (babies have teeth at this point)

Conclusion

In order for States that are signatories to the ECFRF (European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) and on individual domestic “equality” legislation to be IN COMPLIANCE with the provisions of these documents there MUST be a presumption of Joint Legal and Physical Custody of children.

There MUST be a presumption that the child is entitled to a full, meaningful and EQUAL relationship with BOTH parents, with NO CONDITIONALITY other than practical and logistical matters to make co-parenting work with the minimum of stress FOR THE CHILD.

Any parent who creates conflict around implementing a co-parenting arrangement, causes difficulties, creates obstacles should be the one sanctioned – including a loss of parenting time, and in extreme cases – loss of Joint custody, until to be blunt SHE cops onto herself, puts the child’s needs before her own selfish need to be “in control” to “set the rules” to “dictate the parameters of the other parents role” and yes I did use the word “she” deliberately – because it is nearly always “she” who causes, creates and manufactures the conflict.

Family Law judges have allowed themselves to be bullied, to be manipulated, to be hood-winked – and to be blunt – when presented with what is referred to as a “high-conflict” custody case to be emotionally blackmailed by the perpetrator – the mother, invariably.

In effect – absent mitigating factors (real credible and evidence based) Sole Custody Orders are, in my opinion – Unconstitutional, (Ireland) and in breach of the provisions of the ECHR and ECFRF.

TPAC (Toxic Parental Alienation Conflict) perpetrated by one parent against the other parent, the visible manifestation of which ARE these applications for sole custody, ARE applications for restricted “access” for the other parent, constitute sufficient mitigating circumstances to reduce parenting time, and in extreme cases loss of Joint Custody for the parent making these applications.

I draw your attention to the provisions of Section 63 of The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, [6] at ;

(i) where applicable, proposals made for the child’s custody, care, development and upbringing and for access to and contact with the child, having regard to the desirability of the parents or guardians of the child agreeing to such proposals and co-operating with each other in relation to them;

(j) the willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent, and to maintain and foster relationships between the child and his or her relatives;

(k) the capacity of each person in respect of whom an application is made under this Act—

(i) to care for and meet the needs of the child,

(ii) to communicate and co-operate on issues relating to the child, and

(iii) to exercise the relevant powers, responsibilities and entitlements to which the application relates.

(emphasis added)

 

Part 3: In The Best Interests of the Child: Review of the Case Law.

 

References

[1] Charles de Montesquieu https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/Montesquieu/

[2] http://guides.law.sc.edu/c.php?g=315476&p=2108388

[3] European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

European Convention on Human Rights https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

UNCRC http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf

Ireland and the UNCRC https://www.ihrec.ie/download/pdf/ireland_and_the_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.pdf

[4] Ratio Decidendi http://lib.oup.com.au/he/Law/chew2e/chew2e_BLG2_chapter1.pdf

[5] Irish Constitution 1937 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/en.cons.pdf

[6] The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/9/section/63/enacted/en/html