Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There is no doubt this is a major piece of work and it has been welcomed by many groups and organisations that work with children. One aspect I want to acknowledge is the way in which this Bill acknowledges the changes and diversities in family life in Ireland. The traditional married mother and father in the family home with children has been added to by quite a range of family scenarios. The Central Statistics Office gives us very interesting figures on this. In the second quarter of 2014, some 36.1% of births were registered as being outside marriage. There are also figures on children living with lone mothers, with lone fathers, with unmarried cohabiting couples or with same-sex couples, families where a parent has divorced and remarried and families where children are being cared for by grandparents. That is the diversity in Irish life today.

That is not to undermine or denigrate in any way the traditional family but it is acknowledging the new reality. That reality needs legislation because children in these non-traditional families have to be provided for so they are not discriminated against. Irish law needs to reflect these social changes.

I very much welcome the point about grandparents. In the north inner city, for many children of parents in addiction, the grandparents have been the unsung heroes and heroines at times in their lives when their own children were adults and they should have been looking forward to some respite. However, because they did not want to see their grandchildren being taken into foster care, they became the parents. They had long battles with the authorities relating to children's allowance and so on, but most of those issues have been resolved.

Parents separate and, unfortunately, many separations are fraught. It is the grandparents who often provide stability and comfort. It has been heartbreaking for many grandparents when one of the parents, usually not their son or daughter, moves into a new relationship because the children's relationship with the grandparents can be a casualty. Grandparents do not want to lose contact with their grandchildren, regardless of the status of the parental relationship. They certainly did not need the onerous two-stage procedure they had under the previous legislation, so what is planned here is much more manageable.

I want to spend some time dealing with the issue of unmarried fathers. We were told that the Bill would enable a wider range of unmarried fathers to become guardians of their children automatically, but I have been meeting unmarried fathers who are very concerned. Provided he has lived with the child's mother for 12 consecutive months, including at least three with the mother and child following the child's birth, the father will automatically become a guardian. The difficulty is that a father is a father regardless of how many months or days he spends with the mother, and regardless of the type of relationship he has with the mother. It has been extremely difficult for many unmarried fathers to play a real fatherly role in the lives of their children because the mother is the ultimate authority. We know there are fathers who have long, bitter and expensive battles in order to be fathers.

Organisations that work with men in these situations will show that men today tend to be victims of a system that solely benefits the mother. How can it be in the best interest of the child to deprive it of its father? Our court system has been guilty of contributing further heartbreak to families. Fathers can and should play an equal role in raising their children. The part of the Bill dealing with fathers, especially unmarried fathers, does not go far enough on the issue of equality of parenting.

In Northern Ireland, once the father's name is on the birth certificate, he is then the automatic guardian of his child, but the Republic has denied unmarried fathers this right. In what is proposed here, the father does not have an automatic right but an earned right, depending on his relationship with the mother. With this legislation, the partner of the mother, after three years living with her, can become the guardian of the child, regardless of the father's position. Surely the support should be for the father of the child to be the child's guardian, unless, of course, there are circumstances like violence, abuse or addiction.

There are one-night stands were women become pregnant; they are most unfortunate, but they happen. That child has the same right to be cared for by both parents as a child born to a married or a cohabiting couple, whereas, with the one-night stand, the mother has automatic custody when she becomes pregnant and the father could face years of legal wrangling to have any say in the life of the child. Surely we want to see the father playing an active and responsible role in parenting, and I am not sure the Bill addresses this point. I believe it could worsen the situation of the unmarried father in that particular scenario. We need laws that ensure fathers act as fathers, rather than laws that prevent them from doing so.

The child has a right to be raised by both parents but often, unfortunately, when separation occurs, there is acrimony and the children can be used like pawns.

It is usually the father who is told he will never see his child again, which is a horrible sentence. If both parents had equal rights we could prevent that.

I was made aware of a very distressing situation in which the parents of a child were not married, but were separated. The mother had a new partner. She sadly died, but her partner has custody of the child despite the fact that the father also has a fatherly role in the child's life. He cannot make any decisions for his child. The guardian could find a new partner who could then have more of a say in the life of the child than the father would.

That brings me to passport issues for the father and others where another man is a guardian. The father may have to ask permission from the guardian to take his son or daughter on a holiday abroad. We know that a mother's new partner can refuse this and restrict access for the father. Equally, there are questions regarding education. The Bill seems to cover residence and religious and cultural upbringing where the existing guardian's permission is required. The Bill is extensive, but education is an important aspect in which the father should have a say.

There is also a fear factor for separating couples, who may stay together in an unhealthy and negative relationship so that the father does not lose contact or a role in the child's life. I am not saying all fathers are perfect and want to be involved in their children's lives, but the majority do, and separated fathers have been very badly treated in Irish society. A mother's new partner, who could be an almost total stranger to a child, could have more rights than a child's father. We need rigorous background checks on the suitability of partners to be guardians. A father can end up being a father to another man's son or daughter without being a father to his own son or daughter.

Continuity and stability are very important in children's lives. This has to be central to the aspects of the Bill relating to unmarried fathers. The length of the mother's relationship seems to be the deciding factor, and three years is the magic number. It takes almost four years to divorce but three years to be the guardian of a child.

There are issues with regard to the provisions of the Bill relating to lone parents. If a mother is in receipt of rent allowance, there are regulations covering overnight stays by a father or boyfriend. A married father acts jointly with his wife as a legal guardian, but if they divorce or separate he can be undermined by a third party who forms a relationship with his former wife. The third party can become a third legal guardian, and if decisions have to be made, the mother, together with the new partner, will always outnumber the father. It is another area where fathers' rights are being ignored. There are concerns for fathers who are unmarried and separated from the mothers of their children.

I note the point on the best interests of the child being paramount, and nobody would disagree with that. When it comes to deciding that, we need more information. I was a teacher and a guidance counsellor and the Minister was a social worker. Both of us were in situations in which we made decisions about the best interests of the child. I know I could disagree with my colleagues on what I felt were the best interests of a child in my school. The Minister may have been in that situation.

I do not know that one can legally define the best interests of the child, but it is a grey area. Where is the accountability for the person who makes the decision? Where is the follow-up on the outcomes of those decisions? The best interests of a child have to be based on fact rather than opinion. I would hate to see a child put in a situation in which he or she has to choose between parents, unless there is abuse or violence.

One of the other positive measures is that dealing with fractious and difficult situations in which parents who have separated obstruct or prevent contact between the child and the other parent. It is very good that this is being addressed. There are many positives in this Bill, and that has to be acknowledged. I again refer to the issues I raised relating to unmarried fathers.

See this speech in context