Averil Power (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move recommendation No. 6:

In page 20, line 19, to delete "100 days" and substitute "75 days".

This was tabled in error. We oppose the 100-day rule. I will refer more broadly to the single parent tax credit when we discuss our later recommendations and why we feel it is unbelievably regressive and will have a huge impact on parents' ability to co-parent and to have as much contact with their children as possible, particularly where relationships break down or where parents are separated or divorced. The 100-day rule is unwarranted and unworkable, particularly in cases where a child is young, as Treoir has pointed out. The organisation argues that it is unreasonable and shocking to expect the mother of a young baby to share parenting of a newborn child for 100 days, which is at least two days every week, when for the first few months he or she needs to spend as much time as possible with his or her mother, especially if the mother is breast feeding. The provision does not make sense.

It will also be problematic when a child is ill and perhaps in hospital for a long period. He or she will be unable to stay with the "non-primary carer". I take issue with the emphasis put on this description because we are trying to move away from the old language used in family law which refers to primary carers and so on. It is contradictory in many ways that just as the Minister for Justice and Equality is about to introduce the family relationships and children Bill to reflect modern family and relationship breakdowns, changed guardianship arrangements and so on, a measure is being introduced in this legislation which is from the Dark Ages in terms of its impact on separated and divorced parents and their children.

Its impact on separated and divorced parents, as well as their children, means it is really something from the Dark Ages. The 100 days provision may also be unworkable where parents live a considerable distance from each other and one of the parents is unable to take the child or children every weekend.

As we proposed, we would prefer to see the tax credit applied to the family where there is a written parenting agreement for maintenance between parents. With most cases arising under the Bill, the fathers will be disproportionately affected by the changes in the tax credit. As I noted yesterday, Trinity College research indicates that even when courts grant equal access to both parents, in 97% of cases the mother is deemed to be the primary carer. There is no doubt that the changes discriminate against fathers in particular and will make it very difficult for them to have a positive and sustainable relationship with children. Where there is a proper written agreement in place, it should be respected. This would occur where a father, for example, provides maintenance for children and may be spending substantial time with them. The issue must be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account individual family circumstances, rather than just having a crude 100-day rule. For that reason, we oppose the measure.