Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 10, line 3, after "child" to insert the following:

"and, if father of the child is not a guardian but is named on the birth certificate of the child, such father,".

Amendment No. 22 states:

In page 11, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:

"(10) It shall not be lawful for a parent who is a guardian of a child to remove the child from the State, or retain the child outside the State, without the consent of the other parent, in the absence of an order of a court, provided that the other parent was named on the birth certificate or was exercising any care, access or entitlement in respect of the child during the period of 12 months prior to the removal or retention.".

My contribution on the last amendment is connected as regards the details of how we can protect vulnerable people. We will probably disagree about what is just or unjust. I could name ten things I think are unjust, while I am sure the Minister of State could name ten things that are completely opposite to what I feel.

One of the things I feel strongly about is the way fathers are treated in respect of their children. Men and women come to me every week concerning relationship breakdown. There is more relationship breakdown now than the standard marriage breakdown. Men and women may not get on as partners but that does not necessarily mean that they are bad fathers or bad mothers. Just because they are not guardians does not mean they should be deprived of their children. Most partners in a relationship would give consent if the mother or father wanted to take their children on holiday, even a prolonged holiday, or take them away for educational reasons, or if the person got a job abroad and intended to stay abroad for three or six months. That would not be a difficulty in a good, trusting relationship.

A difficulty can arise, however, when, if a person assumes a relationship is solid, he or she does not have any say in whether their children can be taken out of the country or retained outside the country. Neither amendment says that this sole right should be given to all non-guardian parents. However, if the father's name is on the birth certificate there is a clear indication that he wants to be part of the child's life or the children's lives. Equally, if one partner decides that he or she wants to go abroad with the children, it is wrong that the non-guardian parent should have no rights in this respect. It should not happen. It should be with the consent of both parents. Although it is highly unusual the non-guardian parent might be the mother. It is wrong that one parent should be allowed to deprive another parent of the company of or access to their children, or an input into their upbringing. There may be very good reasons to deny that, but it is clearly a matter for the family law courts. When it comes to travel and the issuance of passports and taking children abroad it should be with the consent of both parents. If necessary, the courts may intervene and make an order to allow children to be taken abroad, even though a father does not give consent. Alternatively, the courts may prevent children from being taken abroad without the father's consent. It is probably the most unjust aspect of our law.

The Labour Party is preparing a Bill to deal with this matter but we are now dealing with the Bill before us. As someone who has spent years telling people how unjust the world is to women, in this aspect I feel the law is very unjust when it comes to dealing with fathers' rights.

See this speech in context