Written answers
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Department of Justice, Equality and Defence
Human Rights Issues
9:00 pm
Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Question 376: To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if, with regard to the statement in the stakeholder summary report prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights that, contrary to section 6 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 which confers joint guardianship to the mother and the father of a child, fathers are generally discriminated against, notably following separation or divorce, and the stakeholder recommendation that whenever consent is deemed necessary it should be sought from both legal guardians, there are any developments in this area; and if there are any plans to address this discrimination. [29642/11]
Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In the Stakeholder Summary Report, reference is made to a submission by Equality for Fathers Ireland (EFI) which stated that, contrary to section 6 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 conferring joint guardianship to the mother and the father of a child, fathers were generally discriminated against, notably following separation or divorce. EFI recommended that wherever consent was deemed necessary, it should be sought from both legal guardians.
As the Deputy knows, section 6 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 as amended confers guardianship of the child of married parents on both parents jointly. Separation or divorce of the parents does not affect the status of either parent as a guardian of their child or children. In cases where both parents maintain an ongoing interest and involvement in their children's lives, they should jointly make important decisions concerning the children's health, education and upbringing. However, given the many different family dynamics resulting from marriage break-up, it may not always be practical for both parents to consent to each and every decision made about the child's upbringing
Present law is comprehensive. Under section 11 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 as amended, a guardian of a child may apply to the court for direction on any question affecting the welfare of the child. As with all orders under the Act, the court is required to regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration. Section 11D of the Act, inserted by the Children Act 1997, provides that the court must also have regard to whether the child's best interests would be served by maintaining personal relations and direct contact with both his father and mother on a regular basis. It is also important to recall that in all proceedings under the Act, where appropriate and practicable the court must take into account the child's wishes in the matter, having regard to the age and understanding of the child. In practical terms, the older the child, the greater the importance the court attaches to the wishes expressed by the child.
I do not foresee any departure from these important principles in the law. However, I would at this stage indicate that, in line with commitments in the Programme for Government, the operation of family law is under active review in my Department. The commitments in the Programme for Government are to reform and modernise certain aspects of family law, and to promote mediation as a means of resolving disputes. Already, in that context, the Legal Aid Board will shortly take on responsibility for the Family Mediation Service following provisions I made for that in the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011. My Department is also finalising proposals for a Mediation and Conciliation Bill which will promote a more structured approach to mediation in the legal system.
Comments
John Don
Posted on 22 Oct 2011 12:30 pm (This comment has been reported to moderators)
Minister Shatter's interpretation of the law in this area is disturbing. For example he states: "In cases where both parents maintain an ongoing interest and involvement in their children's lives, they should jointly make important decisions concerning the children's health, education and upbringing." It is every guardian's duty and responsibility to make important decision's jointly with the other guardian with regards to their child's welfare. To be qualifying this principle with value-laden terms such as "ongoing interest and involvment" the state is questioning the parenting bona fides of all guardians.The default position of the state should firstly be acknowledgement that the vast, vast majority of guardians carry out their duties responsibly. Under section 11 of the guardianship act guardians simply ask the court's direction on matter's they cannot resolve themselves. This seeking of the court's direction is not and never should be, as put forward by Shatter here, a trial for establishing the parenting bona fides of each guardian.The court's function in these matters should not only ensure the best interest's of the child is looked after but also to try and ensure the better functioning of the family and family harmony; both of these elements go hand to be the best interest of every child. Making court applications all about a trial for vetting parenting credentials demonstrates all that is wrong with how family law is approached in this country. This approach can only encourage adversity and entrenched court battles, which are NEVER in the best interests of children.This is truly appalling stuff coming from our Minister for Justice.
Another worrying and sinister aspect of the above disregard for the role of guardians would be situations where fathers are constantly blocked contact with their children by mothers who constantly breach access orders and get away with it by courts going soft on them. These fathers can no longer claim to have a meaningful "involvement" with their children as a result. Under Shatter's above interpretation they could also be disqualified from major decisions affecting their children's welfare.
Further to this Minister Shatter's own words contradict themselves. On the one hand he states what the role of a guardian is i.e."they should jointly make important decisions concerning the children's health, education and upbringing." While in the next breath he stretches the role of guardian "to consent to each and every decision made about the child's upbringing." He ignores his own definition of the role of guardian's as jointly taking "important" decisions and suddenly changes it to guardians jointly taking "each and every decision".
Badly constructed anti-father, anti-law propaganda as per usual from our Minister for Justice. Shatter is clearly playing his own political agenda with family law. In doing so he shows the world his contempt for every child's right to know and be cared for by both parent's.
Cathal Garvey
Posted on 21 Oct 2011 2:39 pm (Report this comment)
The Minister points out that "Section 6 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 as amended confers guardianship of the child of married parents on both parents jointly" but goes on to claim that "it may not always be practical for both parents to consent to each and every decision made about the child's upbringing"!However, the Minister is well aware of recent
Equality Tribunal cases http://equalityforfathersinireland.webs.com/equalitytribunal... which indicate the widespread failure of State authorities to respect the right of children to have both Guardians act on their behalf jointly, even when it IS practical.