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 12-15-2013, 11:09 PM
 
Location: California
16 posts, read 19,216 times
Reputation: 27

Advertisements

Any father who is caring enough to want to see his offspring and is not considered dangerous or abusive should have the right to do so regardless of the relationship he has with the child's mother.Many fathers are paying child support, which in the case of babies, probably goes mostly towards the mother's personal expenditures and vices; men who want to be a part of their children's lives don't have only obligations, they also have rights! I have seen too many women play around with men's sentiments; I know it also happens the other way around, but many women are experts ast using innocent children as their weapon...
Rate this post positively

 
Old 12-16-2013, 07:52 AM
 
577 posts, read 415,024 times
Reputation: 391
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?
Interesting.

Well, going to the second scenario first, law dictates that the father has to sign away parental rights, so the mother would have to approach the father that didn't want to be in the baby's life and then either sign it away or, at that point, step up. If the father has the means and the support of family, then by all means that mother should then turn the baby over to the father. I know mothers don't really have to go through a litmus test to prove capable of parenting or taking care of a child, but in this case I think a man should have to , especially if at first they didn't want anything to do with the child.

As for the first scenario, I suppose it depends. IF I were the mother in that scenario, I would set up visitation with the father, establish child support with the father . If he proves reliable and shows up , as scheduled, to see his child and pays his support, then he's probably solid. If he flakes, he probably wouldn't be reliable with the potential to hurt the child emotionally later in life. In that case I would push for the father to sign over all parental rights to the child -which would also relieve him of child support obligations.

Personally, I couldn't imagine EVER giving up a child. If you're uncapable of taking care of them, giving them up has to be one of the most selfless (and difficult) things someone would ever have to do.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-16-2013, 08:02 AM
 
577 posts, read 415,024 times
Reputation: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko View Post
Men in today's world have very little rights to their children and it's sad. I do not have a criminal record and I'm not addicted to drugs. I work 12 shifts over night only 3 nights a week at a high paying job. I pay for my childrens medical and I pay child support. I've gone to court a few times, but the judges REFUSE to let me see my kids more than ever other weekend (4 days a month). My ex wife would drop off my 3 year old at 8am, pick him up at 6pm, and have him in bed around 7:30-8pm 5 days a week while I'm sitting at home. The judge acted like my son would somehow be scarred for life if he ever stayed overnight at my home.

Unmarried fathers only have to right to over pay for their children... When money is involved is the one and only time when we're treated like the child is ours...



It should not matter what previous involvement a father has had in the childs life... It should not matter if he was aware or not of the child's existence. None of that changes the fact that he's the child's father and not only should he have the right to be in this child's life, but the child should have the right to have their father in their life as well.

If the man's does not pose a threat to his child and he has decided that he wants to be there, he should have a right to be in his life point blank no questions asked... When it comes to child support, we believe that a man, regardless of his involvement, has a duty to provide support, so why is it that people want to impose so many roadblocks when it comes to a father wanting to be with his child? Why doesn't it go both ways?



What the hell does the fact that a woman carries the baby for 9 months have to do with anything? What do fathers who skips town have to do with the many more fathers who are being denied the right to be a part of their childs life? It does not matter what the statutes are and statistics support that. I, like many other good men out there, have abided by the law and still ge denied a fair amount of time with our children.

Yes there are men who are deadbeats, but there are women who have abortions to get out of handling their responsibilities. There are men paying a ridiculous amount of support while the mother sit at home with their 5 kids by 5 different men living on welfare and the fathers money... So what was the point of bringing that up?



If it was about the well being of the child, then married or not, the child should have the right to have a father in his or her life and bitter women or biases judges should not be getting in the way of that.

I'm tired of better women and white knights using the small amount of deadbeat men or men that hurt them as excuses to justify a broken system that is fueled by bitterness and money leaving fatherless children to suffer for their selfishness...


------

Have you seen the statistics comparing fatherless children to those who grow up with fathers? After seeing that, how can you claim you're doing what's best for children while denying them God given right and giving them the best chance at life?

How many times have you seen stories about adopted children who, even though they had a very loving adoptive parents and upbringing, had a burning in their guts to know where they came from?

Fathers matter... Maybe not to women and mothers, maybe not to some ignorant men, maybe not to some children who do not know what they're missing, and maybe not tho the legal system... but we matter...
It largely depends on the father. My ex-husband has dinner once a week and every other weekend he has my son from Friday night at 6pm to Sunday at 6pm. He also gets two weeks every year, although not consecutively (I couldn't be without him for that long). My son was 4 when we split, he is 8 now. For me, it's important that my son have stability .. ONE home, regular schedule. This keeps him happy and focused.

My ex husband pays his support, shows up for every meal and every weekend (barring unusual circumstance in which we swithc or make arrangements). I don't doubt that he loves his son. In this sense, he is a good father. However, my ex didn't fight me on primary custody because I think he knows, as well as I know, that he would never be able to provide the right kind of environment - full time parenting - that a child needs. Hell, when we got divorced, I knew he'd be a better father because he'd actually spend more time with his son than ever before (the longest stretch prior to our seperation that he ever spent with his son was maybe 5 or 6 hours).

It depends on the man. My fiance would make an amazing full time, in charge dad if need be (he won't need to be.. I'll be there, but this time I'll work a little more than I could when I had my son with my ex husband).
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-21-2013, 03:38 AM
 
2,222 posts, read 1,675,793 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom View Post
It largely depends on the father. My ex-husband has dinner once a week and every other weekend he has my son from Friday night at 6pm to Sunday at 6pm. He also gets two weeks every year, although not consecutively (I couldn't be without him for that long). My son was 4 when we split, he is 8 now. For me, it's important that my son have stability .. ONE home, regular schedule. This keeps him happy and focused.

My ex husband pays his support, shows up for every meal and every weekend (barring unusual circumstance in which we swithc or make arrangements). I don't doubt that he loves his son. In this sense, he is a good father. However, my ex didn't fight me on primary custody because I think he knows, as well as I know, that he would never be able to provide the right kind of environment - full time parenting - that a child needs. Hell, when we got divorced, I knew he'd be a better father because he'd actually spend more time with his son than ever before (the longest stretch prior to our seperation that he ever spent with his son was maybe 5 or 6 hours).

It depends on the man. My fiance would make an amazing full time, in charge dad if need be (he won't need to be.. I'll be there, but this time I'll work a little more than I could when I had my son with my ex husband).
I'm sure he's make a great fulltime father, and if god forbid something happened to you, I'm sure he would step up and would be just as a wonderful father as you claim to be a mother. Glad you're not like some other women and you all are doing what's best for the child, but I'm sure dad and son would love to spend a short consecutively period of time together. My ex was the same why in that respect, but you would only have to go a week or two... How long does dad have to go without seeing his child and how much less time does dad get to spend with his child compared to you? I hope that when/if dad ever wants to keep your son a little longer that you wont stand in the way for selfish reasons...
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-21-2013, 03:54 AM
 
2,222 posts, read 1,675,793 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
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.
Each case should be decided on it's own merit. I do not care about how things were done a century ago when women weren't even allowed to vote. We have evolved since then and men are just as capable of raising their children as women are capable of voting and holding a corporate job or government position. I should not be deigned ANY rights to my child as punishment for what another man has/hasn't done or because I wasn't able to give birth... Who carried the child and gave birth to it does not matter anymore after the child is on this earth... It may understandably matter to women, but it's completely irreverent the child who deserves to have both parents. Not just one parents time and the other parents financial support....

Second, you are just repeating 1950s style bigotry with current day stereotypes. The facts are that, according to the United States Census Bureau, 42% of custodial mothers received all child support that they were owed and 70.5% received some. Additionally, 34.1% of custodial fathers received all child support that they were owed and 72.9% received some.

You're stereotypical, sexist, and bigoted lies about how "large percentage successfully avoid paying child support" is a lie. In fact, a higher percentage of paying men pay ALL of there support in FULL compared to women who have to pay even though men usually and unfairly are ordered to pay more than women.

Last edited by DoniDanko; 12-21-2013 at 04:21 AM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-21-2013, 08:31 AM
 
47,527 posts, read 66,689,531 times
Reputation: 22408
The father should definitely be paying half of the support of his child. If he won't support the child financially, then he should lose all rights.

I also believe that custody should go to the parent who is most willing to work and provide support for the child, there shouldn't be the sexist preference there is now.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-21-2013, 06:01 PM
 
577 posts, read 415,024 times
Reputation: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoniDanko View Post
I'm sure he's make a great fulltime father, and if god forbid something happened to you, I'm sure he would step up and would be just as a wonderful father as you claim to be a mother. Glad you're not like some other women and you all are doing what's best for the child, but I'm sure dad and son would love to spend a short consecutively period of time together. My ex was the same why in that respect, but you would only have to go a week or two... How long does dad have to go without seeing his child and how much less time does dad get to spend with his child compared to you? I hope that when/if dad ever wants to keep your son a little longer that you wont stand in the way for selfish reasons...
My ex asked to have him for a few more days after Xmas. Xmas was non-negotiable for me.. and I wasnt' going to "swithc off" or trade that holiday.. too improtant for me to have him o Xmas eve into Xmas day for family dinners. He has no family to spend them with that live here.. to me, that is depressing and I want my son to have amazing memories of Xmas. If he had a family and did stuff like that, I would have been willing to share. As it was, we share Thanskgiving and the year before last my son missed out on a big family Thanksgiving dinner with all the trimmings because it was his dad's turn - and they had Turkey sandwhiches like deli turkey sandwhich meat).

Since Xmas fell on a Wed and it was his weekend anyway, I said sure - and he'd just bring him back on Sunday night like he normally would giving him a couple extra days. He then asked if he could have him on New Years Eve, since he had no one to spend it with and nothing to do. I had no problem with that (New Years is not one of my most favorite or do something holiday). So, in essence my ex is getting a full week extra than his 2 weeks a year. Since our divorce has been final , things have been a little more friendly between us. My current fiance even said maybe next year we'd be ready to invite him to join us for Thansgiving dinners, etc since he has no family. Oh, he won't say yes, this I know, but we would extend it for my son.

As for being a great full time dad.. I still don't know about that. He doesnt' really have much structure. Probably, he would bring his mother from Europe to be with him and my son should something happen to me, but I'd worry about the upbrining my son would have in his home. My ex doesn't have a great sense of "family" and what being one means. I had an amazingly wonderful childhood and want the same for my kid. Already, having divorced parents, he's getting the short end of the stick, but part of the reason the marriage didn't work is that I discovered that he has vastly differnet priorities and didn't understand that being a good husband goes beyond "well I don't go out to bars or cheat on you!".

He also has a different moral compass, which I discovered while being married. He has no issues lying and I've witnessed behaviors and things/decisions done that goes against my grain of ethics/morality. He's not as honest as I am.

Overall, my son is well adjusted and happy and he loves spending time with his dad. I would never begrudge him that. As such, I'm the "bad cop" in almost every scenario as my ex isn't really good on discipline too much and his step dad , well he needs to be the good guy. But I know that someday when my child is an adult he'll appreciate what I'm doing now, as I do for my parents. I like that he doesn't want to "dissappoint me" (I'm not that easy to dissappoing mind you).

I will say that since our divorce my ex husband has learned some lessons. Small stuff, but telling: he has life insurance now, health insurance and he FINALLY has taken care of getting his citizenship (despite being married to me for 7 years, he couldn't be bothered to do the paperwork). I'm not a materialistic person in the least.. I care more about security, family than anything else. He didn't understand that and constantly wanted to live taking chances I wasn't willing to make at our age and with a child..


It's important to note that him loosing our family was ultimatley his choice. I worked hard at the relationship.. he couldn't be bothered. I didn't want to end up divorced.. I would have been willing to work through issues.. he wasn't. I finally had to give up .. becuase he isnt commuicative and unless he woudl be willing to go to counseling to work through it, it never would be worked through.. and he simply wasn't willing. So, the less time he gets to spend with his son is completely on him... and he knew that .. he didnt' even fight me to try to get 50/50 or even full custodial. And there was NO WAY I was giving him full custodial or 50/50. Too imprtant for my son to feel planted in one home rather than split between two.

We all learn something in every relationship or break up..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-22-2013, 08:29 AM
 
2,222 posts, read 1,675,793 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
The father should definitely be paying half of the support of his child. If he won't support the child financially, then he should lose all rights.

I also believe that custody should go to the parent who is most willing to work and provide support for the child, there shouldn't be the sexist preference there is now.
Ideally, a child needs financial and emotional support from both parents. You believe that if if a child would be better of having all or nothing?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 12-29-2013, 06:54 AM
 
13 posts, read 15,081 times
Reputation: 11
Lizita
Which Supreme Court decision are you referring to?

Thanks kindly!

"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:"
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-01-2014, 10:56 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,902 posts, read 5,415,300 times
Reputation: 1930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizita View Post
1. 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?
Pardon my ignorance on this, but which U.S. Supreme Court decision exactly?

First of all, since this is relevant to this topic, I want to point out that while abortion remains/is legal, I support giving males and females the option of signing a legal contract in front of a lawyer and/or notary before they have legally consensual sex which would give these males a full/complete opt-out from paying child support in exchange for having no parental rights whatsoever to these children in the event that this woman gets pregnant afterwards and decides to give birth. Why? This video explains it rather well, in my honest opinion:


Hold Men Responsible for the Decisions of Women? - YouTube

In regards to your first scenario, if Bob and Anne signed such a legal contract, then I suppose that it might be a morally gray area in regards to whether or not Bob should be allowed to get into this child's life. To elaborate--I don't think that Bob should be able to unilaterally get into this child's life, but if Anne is willing to change this part of their legal contract, then maybe Anne should be able to allow Bob to get into this child's life if she wants to on the condition that Bob will pay all 18 years of child support and on the condition that Bob will not be able to avoid paying any child support if he changes his mind on this again later on.

If Bob and Anne do not sign such a legal contract in your scenario, then Bob probably should be able to unilaterally return to this child's life. Why? Because in such a scenario, Bob should already be paying child support even since this child is born (regardless of whether or not Bob previously wanted to pay child support). If Bob never signed such a legal contract (such as the one that I am proposing) and if Bob is already paying all of his child support, then unless he has some extremely bad and horrible skeletons in his life or something like that, then Bob probably should be able to reclaim his parental rights if he wants them.

In regards to your second scenario, if Bob and Anne signed such a legal contract, then I would think that Bob would need to now have the permission of this child's adoptive parents in order to get into this child's life. Even this is a morally gray area, though--as with scenario #1 with such a legal contract, Bob should not unilaterally get into this child's life, but if this child's adoptive parents want to let Bob into this child's life (provided that he always pays child support from now on, regardless of whether or not he changes his mind again later on), then maybe they should be able to do this.

In regards to your second scenario without a legal contract, Bob should be able to demand his child back if he did not officially consent to this child being adopted in the first place. Of course, if Bob demands this, then he should have full custody of this child and Anne should be the one paying child support.

As for a male/father having legal (as opposed to moral) obligations during a pregnancy, regardless of whatever, I am not sure that this is such a good idea for the time being, considering that while abortion remains/is legal, this male/father could theoretically fulfill all of these obligations only for this woman to have an abortion later on.
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. The time now is 11:24 PM.

© 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