Gender

By Daire Courtney. As far as my family are concerned, my two mothers are married. They tied the knot in New York  just under a year ago. The Irish state does not recognise their marriage, but with luck it will soon. With two weeks to go, the posters are up, the debate is in full swing and every nay-sayer wants to know: should gay couples be raising children? The Children and Family Relationships Act may have decided that issue legally, but the No campaign aren’t trying to debate marriage. They are looking to scare up No votes. They are asking people to prevent same-sex couples from bringing up children, despite the fact that they already are bringing them up. I am twenty years old. My mother came out as gay when I was two and she met her partner when I was eight. People often want to know what my childhood was like, but mostly they want to know what was wrong with it. This is the kind of subtle homophobia that comes from assumptions that you weren’t parented properly. Did you have the right kind of role models? Were you bullied? Did you feel like something was missing? Ultimately it all comes down to asking you if you regret that your parents are your parents. This is and always has been hurtful to me not only because it is homophobic, but also because it’s deeply offensive to every day I’ve lived with my parents. My parents are wonderful people. I won’t hear a word against them. Or I wouldn’t if I had the option to choose. The referendum has given space to many more hurtful opinions than usual. It’s frustrating to listen to people on TV saying your family is “not ideal”. It’s insulting to have to answer probing questions and educate people. I never had doubts about my family’s legitimacy. I don’t need the state to tell me that my parents are my parents. But the lack of legal recognition causes problems. When I was five years old, my mum’s first female partner was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer. She was given six months to live but she lived three years. I considered her as a parent. I started thinking about what would happen if my other mum died. When my new mum came into our lives, I felt more secure. But I realised at some point that my new mum had no legal claim to me. If something happened to my birth mum, where could my sister and I go? Both of our parents could be taken away. Not many ten-year-olds have to worry about things like that. It is also about having watched my parents campaign for years for marriage equality. Even without the problems for me growing up, my parents want their marriage recognised. That’s a good enough reason or me to campaign for a Yes vote. The easiest way for the No side to win seems to be to wax lyrical about the child’s ‘right to a mother and a father’, as if those concepts mean anything specific. Every parent is different. There are no characteristics that are unique to mothers or fathers, unless you believe in gendered stereotypes of Daddy breadwinners and Mammy bakers. The No side are using children to play on the fears of people. Not everyone knows a queer person and fewer people know a queer family. We have the statistics and the reports to counteract fears, but people need to see our families and connect with how the referendum affects us to understand. Canvassing for marriage equality has always been more successful when queer people go door to door and tell the story of how happy they and their partner are. For us children, this debate means opening up childhood memories and showing them off. Being a poster child is tough, but it is the only way to show voters who queer families are. This referendum is about LGBTQ children having equality in their future. It is about LGBTQ couples who have been waiting years, or even decades, for a real wedding. And yes, it’s about the children who have been told their whole lives that their families are not equal. •

By Michael Smith. The Children and Family Relationships Bill is the most important piece of legislation affecting parents and children for a generation. There is much that is good in the bill but this article focuses on one surprising defect: the provisions on unmarried fathers and guardianship. While the extension of automatic guardianship under the Bill to fathers who can demonstrate that they have cohabited with the mother for one year (with three of the months after the birth of the child is an   advance of a sort, concerned agencies like Treoir, which provides advice to unmarried parents, believe that the Bill does not go far enough to reflect the rights and responsibilities of unmarried fathers for their children. Unmarried fathers should be the automatic guardians of their children – as married fathers are. The father’s relationship with the mother should not be determinant. The Law Reform Commission (LRC) recommended this in 2010 (and indeed in its 1982 Report on Illegitimacy). It stated unequivocally: “equality should be the guiding principle in reforming the law in this area”. Equality is a big principle with clear-cut edges and the Bill simply does not enshrine it. That is a fundamental problem. The LRC’s recommendation that “legislation be enacted to provide for automatic joint parental responsibility (guardianship) for both mother and father of any child” has been flouted in the Bill. Unmarried fathers are the automatic guardians of their children in Northern Ireland, Britain, Australia and many European countries. In these jurisdictions, automatic guardianship for unmarried fathers can be challenged by the mother if it is not in the best interest of the child. In other words the presumption that the father should have guardianship over his children can be rebutted (the same position as applies to the mother’s rights). The proposal in the current Irish bill seems to be based on the view that the father derives his guardianship rights as “family” rights from co-habitation. But the rights accrue to the child on the basis that it is better the child should have fully engaged parents, mother and father alike – and should not derive from any interpretation of family. It is possible that the Children and Family Relationships Bill when enacted will be infirm either constitutionally or under the European Convention on Human Rights. Currently where a child is born to parents who are married to each other, the child’s mother and father automatically acquire joint guardianship in respect of the child. By contrast, where a child is born outside marriage, only the mother will acquire automatic guardianship. An unmarried father is not automatically deemed to be a guardian, though he may become a guardian either by means of a statutory declaration made jointly by both parents, or by court order. This means that a child born to married parents automatically enjoys the guardianship of two persons. A child born outside marriage, on the other hand, has no automatic right to this second guardian. The child’s right to a second guardian is, in such cases, contingent on the father’s willingness to seek and accept guardianship, and then on either the mother’s willingness to accept him as a joint guardian or, in the alternative, on the assent of a court. The Commission’s suggestion of a strong presumption in favour of the father, while an incremental step, would nonetheless maintain the current situation whereby responsibility will be conferred only on unmarried fathers who seek to exercise such responsibility, (through the courts if the mother’s consent is not forthcoming) while mothers and marital fathers will continue automatically to assume such responsibilities on the birth of a child. The LRC thinking is reflected in that of the Equality Authority which has specifically committed itself to supporting initiatives “…[p]romoting the status of men as carers, in particular the equal sharing of caring rights and responsibilities between women and men and continuing dialogue with men’s organisations on issues of equality for men…”. In 2010 the Equality Authority recommended that steps be taken to promote equal sharing of parental responsibilities by those in a parenting role in respect of the child, where this is appropriate in the particular circumstances.  In this regard, as a matter of principle, the fact that a child is born inside of or outside of the context of marriage should have no bearing on the child’s right to be cared for and supported by both of his or her parents. If guardianship is viewed as a vehicle primarily for conferring responsibility in respect of a child, the case for conferring parental responsibility on both father and mother automatically on the birth of a non-marital child, has much to recommend itself: • It would remove the distinction between marital and non-marital fathers, emphasising that parental responsibility is predicated on the relationship between the parent and child and should not depend on the relationship between the parents of the child; • It would emphasise that mothers and fathers alike each have equal responsibilities towards their child. Certainly there may be exceptional cases in which it will not be either in the child’s best interests, or in the interests of the wellbeing of the mother, for the father (or indeed other guardians) to retain parental responsibility. Some disgracefully argue, for example, that rapists should potentially benefit from paternal rights including guardianship. These exceptional situations will necessitate a mechanism whereby a person may be removed as a guardian. Such situations should include, in particular, where that person has consistently failed to meet his responsibilities towards the relevant child or where that person has raped the mother or been convicted of a serious criminal offence or has committed a serious civil wrong against the person of the child or other guardian. This removal must be subject to periodic review and subject to appeal. Exceptional circumstances should not shape general policy and principles of the law as it applies to the majority of cases of childbirth. The Bill reveals an extraordinary deficit in egalitarianism – denigrating the father and