U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 07-08-2013, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Lower east side of Toronto
10,568 posts, read 12,198,714 times
Reputation: 9384

Advertisements

The father is the father and he has all the rights that the mother has when it comes to the child...having access to the child is not like buying a ticket for the privilege...A father should not have to PAY to see or be involved with his OWN offspring...that is the product of his body. It is better to have a father that does not contribute materially for what ever reason than for the child to have no father at all. People should butt out when it comes to fatherhood and let nature take it's course...Should a father be emotionally and socially PUNISHED for not living up to the expectations of society? The child is not about to punish the father..so why do others with a less vested interest want to punish the dad?
Rate this post positively

 
Old 07-08-2013, 10:41 PM
 
2,222 posts, read 1,673,686 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach View Post
The father is the father and he has all the rights that the mother has when it comes to the child...having access to the child is not like buying a ticket for the privilege...A father should not have to PAY to see or be involved with his OWN offspring...that is the product of his body. It is better to have a father that does not contribute materially for what ever reason than for the child to have no father at all. People should butt out when it comes to fatherhood and let nature take it's course...Should a father be emotionally and socially PUNISHED for not living up to the expectations of society? The child is not about to punish the father..so why do others with a less vested interest want to punish the dad?
It's all about money. Just as in any other corporation , money rules. Men traditionally earn more money than women, so that is one main reason behind the biases in the Family court system. You see, many people do not know this but states get federal money based on the percentage of child support they collect... Add that to the amount of money they save on not having to provide social services, and you'll start to understand why they over charge and go above and beyond to collect... We're talking about millions and millions of dollars per state and billions throughout the country... Now you understand why they are so aliment about men not giving money to the mothers directly as well. This is why even if men have hard proof that they paid, they still will not count it unless it goes through them first...

Mothers do it because they are bitter and/or they're mimicking the behavior of their parents, and the system does it for monetary purposes. Fathers and children get caught in the middle of it all.

Last edited by DoniDanko; 07-08-2013 at 11:15 PM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-08-2013, 01:28 AM
 
305 posts, read 350,242 times
Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizita View Post
In light of a recent Supreme Court decision I'm curious what people think about what rights unmarried fathers should have to be in their child's life and/or raise their child. Please consider the following two scenarios:

1. Anne and Bob are a couple when Anne becomes pregnant. A few months into the pregnancy they break up and Bob lets it be known that he has no intention of paying child support or being involved with the child. The two move away from each other and have no further contact during the pregnancy. Bob is basically MIA emotionally, physically and financially and is therefore failing to do anything to benefit his unborn child. He is taking no parental responsibility during the pregnancy or birth. But a few weeks into the baby's life Bob has a change of heart. He now wants to take care of his child and be an active part in his child's life in every way. Should he be allowed to be in his child's life at this point with this history?

2. The second scenario is identical to the first until the point where Bob changes his mind and wants to be a father. In this scenario Bob contacts Anne to let her know that he wants to step up to the plate and wants to see his baby. But to his surprise he finds out that Anne doesn't have the baby. The baby has been placed with another couple to be adopted. Bob is vehemently against the adoption and wants his baby to raise her on his own. Should he have the right to do so or has his history of lack of action during the pregnancy negated his right to father his child? Should men in Bob's situation, who are not married to the mother and has not provided support during the pregnancy, have the right to their child or have any say at all?

I'm curious what people think about both scenarios.

Note that I'm not talking about what the law says in these situations. I'm only wondering what your opinions are, not how things currently work legally.

So, what do you think?

Scenario 1, yes, it's not up to the mother to decide whether or not the baby should have a father. He is still responsible for the child until the age of 18.

Scenario 2, yes, as long as he wants to raise the kid and is a good dad, then, I don't see a problem. Regardless of what happened between the mom and dad's relationship, he should still be responsible for the baby. After the kid turns 18 then, he or she can decide whether or not to continue seeing the dad.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-08-2013, 03:16 AM
 
Location: mainland but born oahu
6,657 posts, read 7,283,018 times
Reputation: 3135
Aloha,

Hard topic because its full of emotions. In my opinion, the problem with most peoples thinking and the systems actions is often it leaves a message that the only thing that we are interestted in is someone being responsible. Thou i agree that being responsible is very important when bringing a life into the world. I and i would suspect alot of guys have this problem and the following , if your only interestted in someone being responsible then don't bother me. But if your looking for a man to be responsible and then be a parent then im interestted.

Personally i find the attitude that a guy has to prove anything to anyone before he can be a parent insulting and sexist. The right to love, raise and be part of a childs life is a most basic human right. This should be automatic, then if a guy proves hes irresponsible after then ok. I think we create the deadbeat dad in most cases.

Yes we create the deadbeat dad sometimes,

We create them with sexual politics, i believe the only reproductive rights a male has is wear a condom, be responsible or have no sex. While at anytime a woman can choose not to have the responsiblity of parenthood by getting an abortion, leaving a child at a hospital, adoption. So if a male decides he doesn't want to be responsible its "hes a deadbeat".

Dont get me wrong yes there are deadbeat irresponsible guys out there, but we also create them, and shame on you to think 4-8hrs a week with no say in how your child is raised is ok for a responsible parent or called parenting!

Last edited by TheViking85; 09-08-2013 at 06:47 PM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-08-2013, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 23,349,472 times
Reputation: 8661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizita View Post
In light of a recent Supreme Court decision I'm curious what people think about what rights unmarried fathers should have to be in their child's life and/or raise their child. Please consider the following two scenarios:

1. Anne and Bob are a couple when Anne becomes pregnant. A few months into the pregnancy they break up and Bob lets it be known that he has no intention of paying child support or being involved with the child. The two move away from each other and have no further contact during the pregnancy. Bob is basically MIA emotionally, physically and financially and is therefore failing to do anything to benefit his unborn child. He is taking no parental responsibility during the pregnancy or birth. But a few weeks into the baby's life Bob has a change of heart. He now wants to take care of his child and be an active part in his child's life in every way. Should he be allowed to be in his child's life at this point with this history?

2. The second scenario is identical to the first until the point where Bob changes his mind and wants to be a father. In this scenario Bob contacts Anne to let her know that he wants to step up to the plate and wants to see his baby. But to his surprise he finds out that Anne doesn't have the baby. The baby has been placed with another couple to be adopted. Bob is vehemently against the adoption and wants his baby to raise her on his own. Should he have the right to do so or has his history of lack of action during the pregnancy negated his right to father his child? Should men in Bob's situation, who are not married to the mother and has not provided support during the pregnancy, have the right to their child or have any say at all?

I'm curious what people think about both scenarios.

Note that I'm not talking about what the law says in these situations. I'm only wondering what your opinions are, not how things currently work legally.

So, what do you think?
Well I'm not sure about Bob and Anne, but let me tell you about me.

About 11 years ago now (11 years in February) I started dating a the 18 year old girl. She became pregnant shortly after that, she was on birth control and I used a condom, but sometimes nothing works. At any rate we became first time parents in december of 2003.

We still live together. We have another child together, she is now 2, our son will be 10 this year.

We aren't married, I have no desire to be legally married. I call her my wife, because before whatever God there is, I feel like she is.

Should I not have any rights to my kids, simply because I frown on the public institution of marriage?

I say no.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-10-2013, 06:41 AM
 
13,293 posts, read 12,479,666 times
Reputation: 42446
Quote:
Well I'm not sure about Bob and Anne, but let me tell you about me.

About 11 years ago now (11 years in February) I started dating a the 18 year old girl. She became pregnant shortly after that, she was on birth control and I used a condom, but sometimes nothing works. At any rate we became first time parents in december of 2003.

We still live together. We have another child together, she is now 2, our son will be 10 this year.

We aren't married, I have no desire to be legally married. I call her my wife, because before whatever God there is, I feel like she is.

Should I not have any rights to my kids, simply because I frown on the public institution of marriage?

I say no.
This really misses the point. You can say you aren't married in this situation, but its pretty irrelevant. You live with your wife. You have always done so. You raise your children with your wife. You have been together for a long period. You support your children. The truth is that a court might decide you have a common law marriage with your wife whether you want to have a ceremony performed or not. Also, a couple of simple questions for you: 1. Do the children have your last name? 2. Are you listed on their birth certificates as their father? I'm pretty sure the answer to both questions is yes.

Even states with harsh putative father statutes make exceptions for men like you and they should.

Its another class of unmarried fathers that I believe shouldn't have automatic parental rights. If you don't get on the birth certificate, if you don't live with the mother of your children, if you don't have paperwork on file with the state acknowledging paternity, than you shouldn't have parental rights. In short, the only difference between you and a married father is the absence of a marriage ceremony. I can handle that.

What I can't handle are thousands or irresponsible men who go around making women pregnant and than deliberately make themselves scarce or absent when they learn (or suspect) she might be pregnant. I don't believe society should indulge such men. I think they should be treated differently than someone like you who has shown a great deal of responsibility.

You are actually quite admirable and I think its wrong for you to compare yourself to men who have not done the things you have done.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-10-2013, 08:56 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
32,718 posts, read 76,621,787 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
If you don't get on the birth certificate, if you don't live with the mother of your children, if you don't
have paperwork on file with the state acknowledging paternity, than you shouldn't have parental rights.
The issue here is when this class of men then have parental responsibilities imposed upon them.

Quote:
What I can't handle are thousands or irresponsible men who go around making women
pregnant (do you mean rape?) and than deliberately make themselves scarce or absent...
What about the women in these scenarios?
If they aren't the victim of rape then they have at least as much responsibility for the outcome to
go along with their right to make all manner of other choices in how/who that outcome will impact.

The nature of the relationship (if any) between the woman and the man PRIOR to conception
is all that should be at play in determining who has a role in what happens afterward.
Whatever the role... there needs to be a balance between rights and responsibilities.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-10-2013, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Niflheim
1,331 posts, read 1,892,179 times
Reputation: 1132
First I'd like to ask why so many people think it is to use a child as a pawn in a game. You are not hurting the mother/father by denying a child contact or a relationship with one or the other....as long as there is no abuse involved. I think most average intelligent people understand what I am getting at.

Married or not, they are both still the biological parents and one does not have any more rights to it than the other.

If the father is abusive then the court should appoint all custody to her and he has no say in the what happens in the child's life until he demonstrates change....but then how do you really prove that you have changed and it is not just a facade.

For scenario 1:
It doesn't matter when the father has a change of heart. That child needs to know his/her father and, again, as long as the parent is loving, caring and no abuse is involved one parent should not have the right to deny the other parent.

For scenario 2: The one parent has no right to put the child up for adoption without the other parents consent. Even if he is an abusive a**hole. If he's an a**hole, just inform him that the child is being put up for adoption.
If (again, if there is no abuse, loving, caring bla bla) he has just not been a part of the child's life he still has to be given a chance to either take the child or agree to the adoption.


My 2 cents.
You may agree or disagree, but no need for insults!
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-10-2013, 10:21 AM
 
24,459 posts, read 19,191,362 times
Reputation: 9544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizita View Post
In light of a recent Supreme Court decision I'm curious what people think about what rights unmarried fathers should have to be in their child's life and/or raise their child. Please consider the following two scenarios:

1. Anne and Bob are a couple when Anne becomes pregnant. A few months into the pregnancy they break up and Bob lets it be known that he has no intention of paying child support or being involved with the child. The two move away from each other and have no further contact during the pregnancy. Bob is basically MIA emotionally, physically and financially and is therefore failing to do anything to benefit his unborn child. He is taking no parental responsibility during the pregnancy or birth. But a few weeks into the baby's life Bob has a change of heart. He now wants to take care of his child and be an active part in his child's life in every way. Should he be allowed to be in his child's life at this point with this history?
Basically it's called the betrayal, that might ( or might not) cause a lot of damage to a woman. The question is - will that women ever trust that man again, or is she better off scratching such man out of her life and moving on, finding more suitable partner and father for a baby, or putting a baby for adoption?
After all, is there any guarantee that the one who betrays once, won't do it again, and this time around he'll hurt the child's feeling as well?
Unless, of course, we are not talking about emotionally charged relations ( is there such thing?) but purely mathematical/financial calculations.

Last edited by erasure; 09-10-2013 at 11:21 AM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-10-2013, 06:00 PM
 
Location: mainland but born oahu
6,657 posts, read 7,283,018 times
Reputation: 3135
@markg91359

Hmm pretty radical thinking. Well mark don't worry about it, after awhile there won't be anymore need for men or fathers, except to be a sperm donor and pay. But you have some interesting arguments, and i won't argue that there are men who are not responsible or try to duck out, so we don't need to argue that ok? What we will debate is this victimization role you put these ladies in. My experience in this day and age is, its to easy to do the easier softer thing, then do the right thing. Its to easy for men to walk away at first and its too easy for ladies to just create the deadbeat dad. Sometimes mark its easier to get a lawyer, fight for sole custody when you know your going to get it 85% of the time, make involvement in ones childs life difficult and go get another guy to play dad, then realise hey maybe i made some mistakes and need too work to change, its easier to say you can't see tommy today because i have a date or want to go on a trip. Then stopping and saying wait its not about what

I want, but whats best for the children. Mark its to easy to hookup with another man, then say hes a better dad because hes there daily, when we wantted full custody to begin with etc etc. No Mark its to easy to create the deadbeat dad and its to easy to blame all the ills on them, then to look at a system that creates this. Think im wrong about doing the easy thing? We have the highest divorce rate in the world because its easier to divorce then honor vows. Enough said!

Last edited by TheViking85; 09-11-2013 at 08:03 PM..
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top