Family welfare groups have called for a change in the law relating to the status of unmarried fathers following yesterday's Mr G judgment.
The case was supported by the Unmarried Fathers of Ireland, who were present in court yesterday for Mr Justice Liam McKechnie's judgment and who have supported Mr G throughout his attempts to have his children returned to Ireland. The group hailed the judgment as a potentially landmark case for unmarried fathers, but said only an amendment to Article 41 of the Constitution, which recognises the primacy of the family unit based on marriage, would ensure that unmarried fathers have the same rights as married ones.
Founder Ray Kelly said: "There should be a referendum to amend Article 41 of the Constitution which bases the family on marriage. It shouldn't be based on marriage. It should be based on the relationship between a child and its father."
Irish Council for Civil Liberties director Mark Kelly also called for a change to the Constitution and said that unmarried fathers have "virtually no rights" under current Irish law. "The Mr G judgment highlights once again the pressing need for reform of the definition of the family in the Constitution in order to grant equality to all families in Ireland," he explained.
Also present in court was Treoir, the national federation of services for unmarried parents and their children.
Its assistant chief executive, Margot Doherty, said the judgment should act as a "wake-up call" for other unmarried fathers as Mr G would have acquired custody to the child had he applied for guardianship during the relationship with the mother of his children.
"Unmarried fathers should not wait until things go wrong. They should put their rights in place when things are going well and these situations will not arise in the future," she said.
The children's charity Barnardos said there was now an opportunity for the legislature to recognise both the rights of unmarried fathers and those of their children.
Its director of advocacy, Norah Gibbons, said the McKechnie judgment added further impetus to the debate on constitutional rights for children and, in particular, ensuring the voice of the child is heard. "Whatever the unique circumstances involved in this case, and each family law case is unique, the fact is, there are two little boys who were removed from everything and everyone they know without their father's consent or knowledge," she said.
