Equality For Fathers In Ireland

Equality For Fathers

North Western Health Board v. H.W. (PKU test)

Hardiman J refered to "a presumption that where the constitutional family exists and is discharging its functions as such and the parents have not for physical or moral reasons failed in their duty towards their children, their decisions should not be overridden by the State or in particular by the courts in the absence of a jurisdiction conferred by statute". Read full judgement HERE.

T. C. O’D AND P. J. O’D MINORS

According to Judge Abbott-"The respondent (the father) should not have the option to look after the children when the applicant (the mother) is out of the jurisdiction for more than one day, or when she is away from the family home (wherever it is currently situated) for more than one day, as this would give rise to undesirable and unpredictable negotiations leading to differences on an irregular but frequent basis. The caring of the children by the applicant herself or by her nanny has been a very stable feature of this case, and no doubt has added to ensuring a positive outcome for the development of the children". 

He qualified this by claiming "This is very much in the children’s interests".

He went on to claim the equality of parenting was not a mater of having equal time with each parent:
"I have considered the husband’s submission that he is not getting equality of treatment by reason of the fact that the applicant wife has day to day care of the children for an effective eleven out of fourteen days on average, equality of parenting in this context should be assessed in terms of quality rather than quantity, and the respondent husband’s parenting is just as important when he is supporting this arrangement when not in actual control of the children, as it is when he has them in his control for access".
 
Read full judgement HERE

    ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTODY ORDERS ACT, 1991 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 15 OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION 

    C. (R.) v. S. (I.) [2003] IEHC 86 (11 November 2003)

This is an application pursuant to s.15 of the Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act, 1991 for a declaration pursuant to Article 15 of the Hague Convention that the removal of the child, the subject matter of the proceedings ("the Child") from the State and his retention outside the State was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. A further declaration was sought that this State was the place of habitual residence of the Child at the date of his removal from the State. At the hearing before me it was conceded on behalf of the respondent that the Child was habitually resident in the State prior to his removal from the State.

Read Judgement HERE 

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Supreme Court (Ireland),made by decision of 30 July 2010,  in the proceedings J. McB. v L. E.

"It is apparent from the order for reference that, under Irish law, the natural father of children does not, by operation of law, have rights of custody. Moreover, the fact that unmarried parents have cohabited and that the father has been actively engaged in the upbringing of the child does not, by itself, give such rights to the father".

Read Judgement HERE