Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, lines 8 to 10, to delete all words from and including "a" in line 8 down to and including "time" in line 10 and substitute "the parents of the child".

On Second Stage I raised the issue of how we define parents in this legislation. The legislation, as it stands, refers to the consent of the parent having custody of the child at the relevant time.

The Minister of State refers to equality in other legislation, but this provision is discriminatory. It starts from the premise that the person with custody of the child is the mother. It does not specifically state that but it is obvious from the text. Our system discriminates against fathers. The housing and social welfare systems act to keep unmarried couples apart and often the people involved are vulnerable. There could be many reasons for a father not having custody at the time, such as housing, the mother living with her parents because the whole family cannot be accommodated or other reasons. Why should that father not be consulted? This legislation makes a judgment on fathers' roles with the wording "a parent having custody of the child".

The wording of the Bill is also a problem if the mother does not have custody. If she does not have custody but is guardian by law, she should be consulted. If we presume the parent without custody might be awkward or missing and it is not possible to get his or her consent, that is addressed in section 2(3)(a) and (b) because there the court can be satisfied that a non-custodial parent or custodial parent is missing and cannot be found and can make the decision anyway having regard to the child's welfare. There is no reason not to include both parents in the section. The same point can be made for amendment No. 5.

Amendment No. 10 is slightly different because it deals with going back to court and bearing or discharging an order. Under this legislation the people who can apply include a parent having custody of the child concerned at the relevant time. What about the father? What if he can go back to court to say he has accommodation and a job? If he can become active in the child's life, why should he not be able to say that equally with the mother? Perhaps the father has the custody of the child and is the person allowed under the legislation as it stands. What about the mother who is not custodian but is a guardian of the child by law? Why can she not go to the court to ask for the discharge of an order?

This legislation is discriminatory. As there are many safety nets to ensure a child's welfare is looked after, why should a parent be excluded because he or she does not have custody of the child? If a father is excluded it is bias and if a mother is excluded it is a breach of her legal rights as a guardian. I ask the Minister of State to consider the three amendments.