Father's rights. Mr G and the high court.

From yesterday's RTE.

"Campaigners have welcomed the outcome of a landmark High Court case on the rights of unmarried fathers.

Today the court ruled that the rights of an unmarried father were breached after his former partner removed his children from Ireland without his consent.
The ruling has significant implications for unmarried parents in the future and has already sparked a call for a constitutional referendum.
The High Court has ruled that the removal of twin boys from Ireland to England was wrongful and in breach of the rights of their father.

A man known as Mr G, who was the unmarried father of two-year-old twin boys, took the action after his former partner took them to England without prior warning or consent.

In a lengthy judgment, Mr Justice Liam McKechnie ruled that the action by the mother breached the rights of the father even though the couple were not married.

Under the Constitution, unmarried fathers have no immediate right to the custody of their children.

However Judge McKechnie concluded that the boys had been resident in Ireland and the couple had lived their lives in a fashion similar to a married couple.

The court heard that the father dropped and collected his children from school and was the only contact that a local crèche had when dealing with the boys.

A District Court case in which judgment was reserved last March involved Mr G applying for custody and guardianship, Judge McKechnie said today that as of 9 March there were rights of custody as a result of the District Court application.

In line with this he said the mother's refusal to return the children was unlawful.

Mr G was represented by Michael McDowell SC who said that the issue of costs was yet to be decided. Mr G has also taken action in the English courts, a stay on proceedings had been issued to await the outcome of the High Court case in Ireland.

Some legal experts say that while the judgment does provide a framework for new legislation to safeguard the rights of unmarried parents, this particular case may not set a precedent."

The rights of unmarried fathers in Ireland has long been a bitter battle to many. Custody of children is usually granted to the mothers and fathers are frequently denied access to their children as the parents war and hostilities over the split colours judgement. Fathers who were active in their children's lives struggle when reduced to weekend fathers, seeking to build a relationship with their children over a limited time.
Now, it's not all one sided. There is more than one man who has been granted access and abuse that by not turning up and by refusing to pay maintenance for his child or children. There are mothers who get their kids up for school every day, put them to bed every night and are doing their level best to hold their family together as best they can without a second parent's help or interest and resent then the court's decision.
It's a quagmire.
But what of the children? What about their rights?
In an ideal world children should have access to their parents. They should have a right to live a child's life, to love both parents without guilt, to see both parents. They should grow up with a loving family, they should be shielded from arguments and vicious splits, hostilities.
They should never be made to choose between two parents.
If a family unit breaks apart, then it is incumbent upon parents to protect their children from a situation they had no part in and no control over. If the children have had a good relationship with their father and their father's family then I think it is down right cruel to prevent them from continuing that relationship. Parents should not run the other one down in front of the child. It's not that child's fault if the parents can't stand each other. It's not that child's fault that an adult union broke down. It is not that child's fault if Dad didn't pay that month, it is not that child's fault if Mum is to attend a wedding that weekend and wants to change the agreement.
It is never the child's fault, so why are they made to suffer?
I have never condoned automatic custody to either parent. I think cases need to be judged individually. I also think it would be in everyone's best interests if you could keep the courts completely out of it.
As adults, the parents must set aside their personal differences and decide what is the best they can do for the children. Sometimes that means sitting down with the 'enemy' and hashing out a way forward. Easier said than done I know. But if it can be done it should be.

The right to die.

I come out every now and again with some opposing notions. I realise that, but hey, no person is made up of black and white views.
I'm against legalising drugs, on the fence about abortion (when I was younger I was totally pro-choice, but as I got older my views have changed slightly, I still consider myself pro-choice, however I despair at the numbers and casual attitude to it)
But I am down right enthusiastic about the right to die.
I figure if an adult, mentally sound, but terminally ill person decides they don't want to live anymore then their decision should be respected.They should be allowed to end their life with as much dignity as possible.
My mother -on the other hand- thinks this is quite possibly the stupidest line of thought I have ever engaged in and thus far this morning we have rowed about it twice. (she's here, we're going into town to look for curtains)
It's not something I usually give a lot of thought to and doubtless we are going to bandy it about furiously this morning as we scope fabric, but I'd like to hear what you think.
From today's UK independent.

"A 30-year-old woman who is terminally ill has launched a campaign to overturn Britain's euthanasia laws by compelling her doctors to increase her dose of morphine and let her die.

Kelly Taylor lives in constant pain with a congenital heart defect and a spinal disorder. She says she has struggled with her condition all her life and wants release. She has been told she has a year to live but doctors have been unable to control her pain.

"Enough is enough," she said yesterday. "I don't want to suffer any more. I'm not depressed - I've never been depressed. I am a happy person. But my illness is now at the point where I don't want to deal with it any more."

Her case is believed to be unique in launching a double-pronged challenge to the law that forbids doctors from helping patients to end their lives. She wants the court to rule that doctors may sedate her and then withdraw tube feeding so that she dies.

The only treatment for Mrs Taylor's Eisenmenger's syndrome, which leaves her short of breath, is a heart and lung transplant, but she has become too frail for the operation. Her spinal condition, Klippel-Feil syndrome, restricts her mobility.

Last December, Mrs Taylor, who is looked after at home in Bristol by her husband, Richard, asked her doctors to increase her dose of morphine sharply. She had been receiving monthly prescriptions of the drug, to induce a deep, coma-like state of sedation, so that she no longer felt pain. She also made a living will asking doctors not to feed or hydrate her artificially.

Her doctors - a cardiologist, palliative care consultant and GP from Bristol Royal Infirmary and St Peter's Hospice - refused her request, saying that it amounted to euthanasia.

Mrs Taylor said: "My consultant has told me that he does not expect me to live for another year. In that time I will deteriorate and that deterioration will become quite undignified. I want to avoid that."

Last July, she attempted to starve herself to death but abandoned her effort after 19 days. She also considered going to the Swiss assisted suicide clinic, Dignitas, which has helped more than 60 British patients die. But she disliked the idea of relatives having to face police investigations.

"I don't want to die in a foreign country, I want to die at home. While I have respect for people who go over there, it shouldn't be necessary. We should have a law over here," she said.

Her lawyers, Leigh Day and Co, say her doctors have a duty to provide her with adequate pain control even where it shortens her life. The case is expected to focus on whether increasing the morphine dose can be justified in this way or whether it amounts to an assisted death.

A consultant in palliative care said "terminal sedation" was carried out but only when death was imminent - within a week or two. "This girl is up and about. She may have a terminal diagnosis in the sense that she is not expected to recover but she is not dying. I would find it very difficult to say this was about symptom control."

A judge yesterday ordered a full hearing into the case next month."

This woman is going to die, she is in constant pain, she has lived with this pain for a number of years. Doesn't she have the right to say stop. Does she have the right to demand an end her suffering?
We see it with cancer patients all the time. Anyone who has ever lost a relative to cancer knows that in the final days it is the morphine that finally takes them. This woman does not want to worsen. She wants to die now, while she still has some final quality of life.
So the question is, does she have the right to insist on her own death through medical means in her own country?