-DLC- Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I already know the "mandate of the law", I addressed it and pointed out my disagreement with it, so repeating it means nothing to me. And actually what I wish to see, in this case for example, is the dad freed from financial burden for something that isn't his fault. Essentially he's civilly guilty for not having kids and must pay for children not his own because he was lied to, merely because he took responsibility believing he was the dad. What this does is: 1) Not punish the person who was lying, encouraging more of this in the future. 2) Punish the person who was being honest and responsible, encouraging more child support skirting loser dads in the future. I'm sure glad people are so concerned about the children and nobody else in the equation, nor the ramifications of such naivety. The obvious thing to do here is free the dad of financial responsibility of children that are not his if he so chooses to be freed from it, and make it the mother's responsibility to find out who the real father(s) are, in turn making her financially liable for both portions until she can. That seems pretty fair to me and discourages women from lying on a birth certificate and trying to scam child support payment off a responsible guy. Unfortunately the system is set up to screw a responsible man here, no doubt about it. You've made a couple of comments like this. Children don't get a say - they have parents and must live according to that and this man did love these kids "as his own". So the love part comes first....you don't stop loving kids that you've cared for and abandon them for something that is no fault of theirs (or yours). A "responsible" man gets that and wouldn't consider leaving the kids out on a limb. Why do people sponsor children living in poverty that aren't "their own"? I'm glad not everyone has the horrible attitude some here do about the well being of children. How could any "parent" walk away after over a decade of caring for children based on money? Children bring more joy and happiness throughout a lifetime than any money can bring. How do you force a woman to find out? What if she's a tramp who slept around at the time and there were multiple men involved? So the kids starve throughout the process? What if the biological father is long gone and she doesn't even know where he is? I do agree that, ideally, it would be best to find out and transfer the responsibility to the man who donated sperm, but I think the measures in place try to take the route that's the least disruptive to the children. They've known this man as "Dad" their entire lives and to yank that rug would be wrong. It's a tough situation, but one of the children IS his, so do you simply "pay" for him? Then that money gets too thinly spread because, obviously, all children involved have to be cared for and then he suffers in the process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 You've made a couple of comments like this. Children don't get a say - they have parents and must live according to that and this man did love these kids "as his own". So the love part comes first....you don't stop loving kids that you've cared for and abandon them for something that is no fault of theirs (or yours). A "responsible" man gets that and wouldn't consider leaving the kids out on a limb. Why do people sponsor children living in poverty that aren't "their own"? I'm glad not everyone has the horrible attitude some here do about the well being of children. How could any "parent" walk away after over a decade of caring for children based on money? Children bring more joy and happiness throughout a lifetime than any money can bring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 You've made a couple of comments like this. Children don't get a say - they have parents and must live according to that and this man did love these kids "as his own". So the love part comes first....you don't stop loving kids that you've cared for and abandon them for something that is no fault of theirs (or yours). A "responsible" man gets that and wouldn't consider leaving the kids out on a limb. Why do people sponsor children living in poverty that aren't "their own"? I'm glad not everyone has the horrible attitude some here do about the well being of children. How could any "parent" walk away after over a decade of caring for children based on money? Children bring more joy and happiness throughout a lifetime than any money can bring. How do you force a woman to find out? What if she's a tramp who slept around at the time and there were multiple men involved? So the kids starve throughout the process? What if the biological father is long gone and she doesn't even know where he is? I do agree that, ideally, it would be best to find out and transfer the responsibility to the man who donated sperm, but I think the measures in place try to take the route that's the least disruptive to the children. They've known this man as "Dad" their entire lives and to yank that rug would be wrong. It's a tough situation, but one of the children IS his, so do you simply "pay" for him? Then that money gets too thinly spread because, obviously, all children involved have to be cared for and then he suffers in the process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 You've made a couple of comments like this. Children don't get a say - they have parents and must live according to that and this man did love these kids "as his own". So the love part comes first....you don't stop loving kids that you've cared for and abandon them for something that is no fault of theirs (or yours). A "responsible" man gets that and wouldn't consider leaving the kids out on a limb. Why do people sponsor children living in poverty that aren't "their own"? I'm glad not everyone has the horrible attitude some here do about the well being of children. How could any "parent" walk away after over a decade of caring for children based on money? Children bring more joy and happiness throughout a lifetime than any money can bring. How do you force a woman to find out? What if she's a tramp who slept around at the time and there were multiple men involved? So the kids starve throughout the process? What if the biological father is long gone and she doesn't even know where he is? I do agree that, ideally, it would be best to find out and transfer the responsibility to the man who donated sperm, but I think the measures in place try to take the route that's the least disruptive to the children. They've known this man as "Dad" their entire lives and to yank that rug would be wrong. It's a tough situation, but one of the children IS his, so do you simply "pay" for him? Then that money gets too thinly spread because, obviously, all children involved have to be cared for and then he suffers in the process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Where the sexism comes in is the fact that he needs to pay child support for his own son, this means that even though the mother cheated on him with three different people and lied to the husband for so many years, she still gets custody of their one legitimate child. Hands down the child should be with the father in this case, yet the mother gets an automatic buy from the courts that she's a better parent because she's a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 4 kids, 4 fathers. For crying out loud, what kind of idiot DNA is this woman passing along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 What am I, invisible? Have the government pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 The fact of the matter is, he can't PROVE that he had no idea until recently that the kids weren't his. Maybe they had an open marriage. Maybe they were swingers. Maybe she slept around, he forgave her, decided to love the kids as his own...but then later in life, changed his mind? There are a number of possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 The fact of the matter is, he can't PROVE that he had no idea until recently that the kids weren't his. Maybe they had an open marriage. Maybe they were swingers. Maybe she slept around, he forgave her, decided to love the kids as his own...but then later in life, changed his mind? There are a number of possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 The well being of children is already considered by government which is why women are afforded so many programs to assist them. Government could also attempt to find the real father, chances are they won't want to screw around either since they're so adamant about making someone pay. This is an issue of parenthood and financial responsibility, as well as the ramifications of such acts. Man is responsible and takes are of children he thinks are his, finds out wife lied and paternity test reveals he isn't the father, gets punished and cannot remove his responsibility as the father as he should be able to. This is not the man's fault, so punishing him gives a pass to the woman veiled as "the well being of children". Great for the children, great for the mom, pathetic deal for the guy here. As for how to force the woman to find out, who knows, that's her problem, and since society wants someone to pay, why not the person who acted out of dishonesty and infidelity? When she opens her legs to a bunch of different men and lie to her husband, that's another thing not his responsibility to figure out for her, and truthfully not government's either, make her responsible for both portions should the guy choose not to have anything to do with kids that aren't his. However, as it currently stands, mother gets a free pass for infidelity and dishonesty, all because some lawmakers arbitrarily decided the only actual "victim" in circumstances like this should be hit because the notion that the children's well being is harmed by father not being in the picture to fork over a chunk of his salary to kids that aren't his, all because he did the right thing and was responsible for children he believed was his. This kind of thing, especially now that it's becoming more prominently known, will prevent father in laws from wanting to help take legal responsibility for the children of a mother that he knows aren't his, because should the other dad disappear, the responsible guy again will be screwed.. it also will foster more loser dads who want to evade responsibility for their children due to not knowing if it's truly theirs, and knowing that should they be financially responsible they'll be forced into paying for children not theirs anyways. As it is men have very few choices and options in matters surrounding children. It's nice that everyone else has rights without consideration of the guy in the equation, but cases like this where the disparity leans so heavily against a man deserve the criticism it gets. Well said. Actually, it IS his responsibility to make sure he knows who he's hooking up with. Now, obviously, it's hard to do if deception is part of that but part of me asks where was he when she was sleeping with several different men? You'd think there'd be signs. To those suggesting kids should be part of the welfare system - really? And there aren't that many options for women/children except to live in poverty and struggle. The man is possibly (see D's post) a casualty in this as well, but the ultimate well being of children is always a priority. Common law spouses are entitled to portions of assets based on that relationship - why shouldn't married people be responsible for what happened during theirs (relationships)? Biological aspects to parenthood are only part of it...when you nurture, care for, feed, watch milestones happen, wipe tears, enjoy laughter that comes with raising kids, it also counts for something. Those kids are part of this man even if not through DNA. If the mother sought and was awarded custody, I wonder about why that is. She's obviously not really taking the best interests of her kids very seriously in her life decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
literaphile Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 This is not the man's fault, so punishing him gives a pass to the woman veiled as "the well being of children". Great for the children, great for the mom, pathetic deal for the guy here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 So very well said ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 The fact of the matter is, he can't PROVE that he had no idea until recently that the kids weren't his. Maybe they had an open marriage. Maybe they were swingers. Maybe she slept around, he forgave her, decided to love the kids as his own...but then later in life, changed his mind? There are a number of possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Actually, it IS his responsibility to make sure he knows who he's hooking up with. Now, obviously, it's hard to do if deception is part of that but part of me asks where was he when she was sleeping with several different men? You'd think there'd be signs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Yet another reminder to never get involved in a relationship with a women with non adult children. That is unless your willing to risk paying for those children until adulthood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Yet another reminder to never get involved in a relationship with a women with non adult children. That is unless your willing to risk paying for those children until adulthood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I'm sure they would have been brought up loud and clear in court if any of those points were true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Yet another reminder to never get involved in a relationship with a women with non adult children. That is unless your willing to risk paying for those children until adulthood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Yup I learned my lesson. Made a point NEVER to date women with kids after that fiasco. Must suck for the women with kids dating pool though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 And Single moms across the world are rejoicing. I for one am glad I didn't limit myself when I re-entered the dating scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.