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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-11-2013, 03:22 PM
 
198 posts, read 244,202 times
Reputation: 287

Advertisements

1. Yes. He helped make the child, he should have every right the mom does even if he did initially want nothing to do with it. People change their minds everyday.

2. Technically depending on the state you live in, the mother cannot give the baby away without consent from the father. If consent was given, and he changed his mind, oh well, too little too late. If consent was never given, the adoption is not really solid, and he can fight to take his child back.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 09-17-2013, 02:09 PM
 
13,518 posts, read 18,186,993 times
Reputation: 16540
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?
In case number 1) absolutely Bob should be allowed to be in the child's life...50% would be fair. There wasn't much Bob could do to "benefit" his unborn child..really, so once babies born he should definitely be encouraged to care for his child...as much as her.
In case number2)Bob's baby should NEVER have been adopted out with out him being notified. He should of had that right to know where his baby was going....so I think that would be unusual...YES, the men who aren't "married to the mother"..or.."has not provided support during the pregnancy" absolutely should have the right to step up for his child and raise them...especially when the mom doesn't want the child.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-18-2013, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 8,586,989 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko View Post
2mares It's a lot to read, but I think you should because it might help you out in the future..

My ex wife stopped letting me see our child likely because she knew I was moving on. I filed for visitation and it was granted. She appealed, lost, I showed up 4 days later to pick up our child, her home was complete empty... She and my son disappeared.

I called the cops, but they told me I couldn't do anything other than file with courts. I went to the courts, and the female clerks told me that without an address to serve the mother, I COULD NOT DO OR FILE ANYTHING even after pleading and asking her if there was anything else I could do. I ended up filing anyway using my ex's mother's address even though the clerk told me that I could not (I pretended it was my ex wife real address).

Had to wait another 4 months (8 months so far w/o seeing my son) for the hearing. Apparently my ex's mother notified her that I filed and she hired a lawyer at the last minute who asked for a continuance (which made it 1 year without seeing my son), and I found out that my ex moved 2400 away to Arizona.. My lawyer agreed, but ask the judge to order that I have the visitation in the mean time, but THE JUDGE REFUSED. I felt like I was treated by the judge as if I had to be some kind of abuser or something, and that was why mom/ex.wife/female violated the 4 day old court order. (There has never been any history or allegations of abuse ever, and I have no criminal record. Her lawyer also never played that card, so the Judge was unjustified in having me wait for almosr a year because he "wanted to talk to and ask the mom why she left" before doing anything.)

I then knew that I wasn't going to get a fair hearing because the Judge was bias. I knew if I had did what my ex did, I'd be locked up so fast me head would spin, so I started researching. (If you go here, you can see and search other cases (case law) in VA and see how they turned out.) The more I researched the more I saw that other fathers that had the same thing happen to them were F***ed over and the mothers weren't punished and were allowed to stay where they moved to even though they violated a court order. I had to do something, so I joined father's rights forums, police forums (forums.officer.com), and started to research even more.

That's when I found this and that the police and the clerks all lied...




Armed with this I went down to the police station to file, but once I mentioned (to the female officer who was taking the report) that the mother took my son, she immediately stop wanting to help and even became combative. I showed her the codes and what my ex should be charged with, but she refused to read it. Instead she called the magistrate's office who also sounded very annoyed with me and as if I was wasting his time. I left there and went to talk to the Commonwealth Attorney (D.A.) who was a man and was sympathetic, but told me the only one who could file felony charges were Magistrates and that the same Magistrate told him that he refused to file the charges.

I then found a case that match mine to a tee, and you should really read through it for future reference:

DUNN v. COMMONWEALTH
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinio...wp/1689021.pdf

The above case is not only helpful because it shows that the courts were offended by and convicted a mother who took her child, but it also pointed to rulings that set a new precedence that all other courts must go by. The first thing everyone told me was that only the noncustodial parent (usually the father) can be charged with parental abduction. That's kinda sorta true... In high courts ruling, it states that the second the traditional noncustodial parent's (father's) visitation begins, they become the custodial parent for the duration of their court ordered visitation. Get It? Even though my kid's mom has legal and physical custody, she relinquishes it to me (the new custodial parent) when my visitation starts until it ends, so in effect, when she took my son out of state during my visitation time, she did in fact take the child from the custodial parent even though technically, I wan't the "traditional" custodial parent.


A week later armed with copies of the case law from the DUNN v. COMMONWEALTH case, I went directly to the Magistrates' office. There I talked to 2 female clerks who also seemed offended by the fact that I was trying to take out abduction charges on my ex wife and even told me that my ex had a right to do so. I corrected her, and promptly shoved the printouts of the laws my ex violated in her face. she took them to her boss (Police Sargent) (who I didn't get to talk to), came back, and told me that her boss stated that they couldn't file the charges.

I left again and came back later that night armed with experience from my first encounter. A different clerk tried to tell me the same thing, but after I shut her down, she went to the Sargent on duty. I then told her that I wanted to talk to him personally. When he came out and told me the same B.S., I had to argue that law with him for 20mins, and even damn near forced him to read the DUNN v. COMMONWEALTH file. After making him feel stupid and shutting down every argument he attempted to make, he then took me to talk to the Magistrate.

Armed with the VA Magistrate Manual (guidelines) that's also provided and buried on the VA state courts website and before the Magistrate could even talk, I pointed out that not only have other custodial parents been charged and convicted in high VA courts, but that even in her own employee handbook (so to speak) in Chapter #3 page #69 which she was bound by states that my ex should be charged with abduction if:



After that she was charged... So yea it took me almost 2 months and they did not want to charge a woman for the same thing they'd go above and beyond to throw a man under the jail for. I had to argue on multiple forums, with cops, D.A.s, clerks, magistrates, etc. to damn near force them to do anything. At least I think I educated them and made it easier for the next father that has to deal with the same sexist B.S. There are laws on the books in many states that protect fathers, but family court and police only enforce them on men.... I wasn't letting them do me like they've done thousands of other men/fathers across the country.
Well, that's your side of the story, and personally, I think there's much more to this than you're telling us -- and what you're leaving out is probably critical. I suspect that your attitude towards women is at least a part of the problem, and perhaps the biggest part. VA is not a backwards state, so I don't think either law enforcement or the legal system needed your "instruction" in the law and/or their responsibilities.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-18-2013, 10:38 AM
 
2,222 posts, read 1,673,800 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
Well, that's your side of the story, and personally, I think there's much more to this than you're telling us -- and what you're leaving out is probably critical. I suspect that your attitude towards women is at least a part of the problem, and perhaps the biggest part. VA is not a backwards state, so I don't think either law enforcement or the legal system needed your "instruction" in the law and/or their responsibilities.
You're suggesting that I'm leaving something out based on what? You're a female who does not believe that another female/mother could be that selfish? You believe that a father must have done something wrong for a woman/mother to go out of her way to keep a child from their father? Do you live in VA? Have you gone through a child custody case in VA? Are you a father who has had to deal with parental abduction in VA? What about the father in DUNN v. COMMONWEALTH? He must have done something wrong too right?

I do not have a problem with all women, I have a problem with women who think like you. My ex disappeared with our son out of spite. I went to the police who told me it was a civil matter and to file in court. I went to court, and was told that without an address to serve mom at, I could not file contempt charges. Mom had to be personally served. I was left in limbo, and no one wanted to do anything because I was a noncustodial parent and even more so because I a man. I know in my heart that if I had been the one to disappear, they would had hunted me down ASAP. If I didn't give "instructions" to law enforcement or the legal system, then my son would still be gone two years after the fact.

I believe your biggest problem is that you're probably a sexist/feminist who's upset because a man didn't get the short end of the stick, and a selfish mother (I know you think that they do exist) was held accountable for her actions for once. Because of that, you found my story threatening. I find it interesting that you've accused me of having a bad "attitude towards women" because I attacked mothers and women who believe that it's not in the best interest of a child to have their father in their life. Do you tell women who criticise deadbeat father they aren't telling the whole story and that they have a bad attitude towards men which is probably the reason why the father is a deadbeat?

Last edited by DoniDanko; 09-18-2013 at 11:02 AM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-18-2013, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 8,586,989 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko View Post
You're suggesting that I'm leaving something out based on what? You're a female who does not believe that another female/mother could be that selfish? You believe that a father must have done something wrong for a woman/mother to go out of her way to keep a child from their father? Do you live in VA? Have you gone through a child custody case in VA? Are you a father who has had to deal with parental abduction in VA? What about the father in DUNN v. COMMONWEALTH? He must have done something wrong too right?

I do not have a problem with all women, I have a problem with women who think like you. My ex disappeared with our son out of spite. I went to the police who told me it was a civil matter and to file in court. I went to court, and was told that without an address to serve mom at, I could not file contempt charges. Mom had to be personally served. I was left in limbo, and no one wanted to do anything because I was a noncustodial parent and even more so because I a man. I know in my heart that if I had been the one to disappear, they would had hunted me down ASAP. If I didn't give "instructions" to law enforcement or the legal system, then my son would still be gone two years after the fact.

I believe your biggest problem is that you're probably a sexist/feminist who's upset because a man didn't get the short end of the stick, and a selfish mother (I know you think that they do exist) was held accountable for her actions for once. Because of that, you found my story threatening. I find it interesting that you've accused me of having a bad "attitude towards women" because I attacked mothers and women who believe that it's not in the best interest of a child to have their father in their life. Do you tell women who criticise deadbeat father they aren't telling the whole story and that they have a bad attitude towards men which is probably the reason why the father is a deadbeat?
Even though you know nothing about me, you assume a great deal because I, a woman, dared to question your version of "the truth". Well, sir, it takes two people to make a marriage, a kid, and a divorce, and there's undoubtedly two versions of "the truth". Of course, you're completely innocent, and of course, law enforcement wouldn't help you because they're all on the side of women, and of course your ex moved 2400 miles away because she couldn't stand that you were "moving on", which is exactly what a woman who couldn't stand that her ex was "moving on" would do. I'm sorry, but your tale of woe is very one-sided.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-18-2013, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Cumberland Co. TN
31,817 posts, read 27,108,597 times
Reputation: 28451
Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman View Post
In case number 1) absolutely Bob should be allowed to be in the child's life...50% would be fair. There wasn't much Bob could do to "benefit" his unborn child..really, so once babies born he should definitely be encouraged to care for his child...as much as her.
In case number2)Bob's baby should NEVER have been adopted out with out him being notified. He should of had that right to know where his baby was going....so I think that would be unusual...YES, the men who aren't "married to the mother"..or.."has not provided support during the pregnancy" absolutely should have the right to step up for his child and raise them...especially when the mom doesn't want the child.
What if Anna lets it be known from the get go that she does not want this child, does not want to support this child and makes no effort to care for the fetus, prenatal care, etc. She leaves the child at the hospital but comes back a couple weeks later and wants to be involved in the child's life. Should she get the child back or at least 50% custody/visitation? What if the child had already been adopted, should it be taken from the adoptive parents who wanted and cared for the child from day one and given back to the birth mother?

I know states vary on the amount of time a birth mother has to change her mind about her parental rights. Shouldn't the same apply to the biological father providing he was aware of the pregnancy?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-18-2013, 02:55 PM
 
2,222 posts, read 1,673,800 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
Even though you know nothing about me, you assume a great deal because I, a woman, dared to question your version of "the truth". Well, sir, it takes two people to make a marriage, a kid, and a divorce, and there's undoubtedly two versions of "the truth". Of course, you're completely innocent, and of course, law enforcement wouldn't help you because they're all on the side of women, and of course your ex moved 2400 miles away because she couldn't stand that you were "moving on", which is exactly what a woman who couldn't stand that her ex was "moving on" would do. I'm sorry, but your tale of woe is very one-sided.
On what bias do you question what I said? The fact that we went to court in May 2012 and I was granted a lot of visitation? Do you have a problem with she lost the appeal that we had on Monday July 2 2012? Or is it the fact that a few days later when I went to her home to, it was empty. That's the main part of the story. What part of those facts is one sided? Point it out to me, so I can clear things up for you. What do you think I made up or that I'm leaving out. Why do you assume that I have to had left something out, and it couldn't be that she decided to be vindictive?

Let me know what part you have problems with.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-26-2013, 10:02 PM
 
13,518 posts, read 18,186,993 times
Reputation: 16540
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
What if Anna lets it be known from the get go that she does not want this child, does not want to support this child and makes no effort to care for the fetus, prenatal care, etc. She leaves the child at the hospital but comes back a couple weeks later and wants to be involved in the child's life. Should she get the child back or at least 50% custody/visitation? What if the child had already been adopted, should it be taken from the adoptive parents who wanted and cared for the child from day one and given back to the birth mother?

I know states vary on the amount of time a birth mother has to change her mind about her parental rights. Shouldn't the same apply to the biological father providing he was aware of the pregnancy?
I think that if Anna had let it known that she didn't want the child, social workers would have already had her sign over all her rights to the child before it was even born, or shortly after (either that or the father would, if he really wanted the child, make it known to her that he would take the child)..I wasn't aware that a child could be adopted out without both parents signing a release (or whatever it's called) of their parental rights...I think that once those papers are signed, (by both parents) that should be IT, no turning back...no changing of minds...otherwise once the child's adopted it would be very unfair to take it from the only parents the child's ever known.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-29-2013, 07:02 AM
 
3,552 posts, read 5,074,270 times
Reputation: 3754
If the man pays child support I believe he should have equal custody if he would like.

If she wants to give it up for adoption I believe the father should have the choice to take full custody with no child support from the woman.

I would gladly take full custody and expect no child support if possible.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-29-2013, 10:36 AM
 
13,293 posts, read 12,479,666 times
Reputation: 42446
Quote:
Shameful post, I wish there was a negative rep option.
Perhaps, if you understood more about how laws work in this country, you might think otherwise.

Approximately one half of all states in this country have "putative father statutes". Under these laws, unmarried men do not automatically get parental rights to children that they father. Those people--and I grant there are plenty of them--who perceive these laws as being unfair because they treat men differently than women have missed the key point. An unmarried father is not the equal of an unmarried mother. Unmarried men do not carry a baby for nine months. They do not produce breast milk. They do not go through labor and delivery when a child is born. These are the very reasons that society has chosen to automatically confer parental rights on mothers, whether they are married or not.

Additionally, there is the experience that society has had trying to collect child support from unmarried fathers. A large percentage successfully avoid paying child support through a combination of (1) skipping town; (2) not working; (3) changing jobs; or (4) creating so much grief for the mother of the child that she is unwilling to pursue collecting support.

A study of Anthropology reveals that men and women have simply had a different history. Women have traditionally been "gatherers" who stay in one place and raise chlidren. Men typically have wandered greater distances from home to hunt and search for game.

The laws do make allowances for men who--while not married--act as though they were married. A father who continuously resides with the mother of his children and furnishes economic support must constitutionally be treated as though he were married.

My negative rep points would go to those mindlessly blather about how unmarried men must be treated "equally" to unmarried women when it ought to be apparent we are comparing apples and oranges.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
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