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,
National Men's Council of Ireland, 
Knockvicar, Boyle, 
Co Roscommon
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/10/05 6:08:48 AM