|
Married fathers are debt-bonded
slaves Letter to Sunday Independent (Ireland) Sunday, Jan 09 05 Sir - Surely no one is so stupid as to think the noises made by Minister Brennan will actually help men to secure a family life and help them to better protect their children. As we have recounted many times the actual rights of a Married Father are considerable. Under the Constitution he has full custody of his children so he can provide for them and protect them and the State cannot interfere with this unless the father disentitles himself by abandonment of this duty. Unfortunately this has not prevented the State from gross violations of these rights to the extent that Married Fathers are being treated as debt-bonded slaves and no remedy in the practice of law is being allowed them to protect their children even in a situation where a wife is encouraged to desert them and take their children from the family home without his consent. So why does anyone think that even if the State was to grant some - obviously lesser - rights to unmarried fathers that the State would honour them any better and not just use this as a further opportunity to make them liable for financially supporting the mother of their children. The reality is that a large number of unmarried couples have never lived together and so the father cannot be held legally liable for paying maintenance because he cannot be deemed to have "failed" to maintain his children if he never had the opportunity. Also it must be pointed out that there is no method by which a single man can be legally classified as the father of a child if the mother refuses to comply with DNA or blood tests, unless the State intends to forcibly test her and the baby. So, how will a single man claim these new so-called rights? Sadly, this must be seen as yet another ploy by the State designed purely, if you read the text of the Minister's speech carefully, to encourage unsuspecting and trusting unmarried men to support the State's desire to remove the existing rights that Married Fathers currently have in the Constitution that the State are violating. The Constitution exists specifically to protect the rights of the people from interference by the State. It is a very questionable exercise, therefore, when the State itself, without prompting from the people, initiates changes to the Constitution which will reduce the ability of families to protect themselves from the state! It is not right for the Minister to raise false hopes amongst single men like this merely as a cover to promote the State's own agenda to undermine marriage. Men and women who are truly concerned for the welfare of children must rebut this subterfuge and insist on retaining and vindicating family rights currently recognised in the Constitution as, in reality, it can only be possible for fathers who are married to be in a position to protect their children from interference by the State. Roger Eldridge, Chairman,
|
