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.
It would be the best recourse, but it's likely not a real option either. Again, people like that are usually too selfish to care what would be best for their child.
Again, how is one caring parent just up and being cast out of a child's life "the best recourse" for the child? It may be the "best recourse" for the other parent, but it is clearly at the expense of the child, not done in the child's best interest.
Ridiculous. I do know one father who did relocate to be closer to his children only to have his ex wife move out of state AGAIN!
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
For example -- a woman's family is 2000 miles away but the couple is not making it on his insufficient income, they are having problems, maybe he's got a new girlfriend, the mother cannot afford day care to work and he's not going to adjust his schedule to make it possible for her to work, his family is dysfunctional and are not capable of helping with the children enough for her to earn an income.
She could work if she has the support of her own family -- they are in a better financial position and better position to care for the kids --- why should the mother be forever stuck in a bad situation?
No parent should be able to rip a parent out of a child's life because they don't like their personal situation. When you have a child you forfeit the right to be the sole person who determines your personal situation. Your child's welfare has to be the thing that determines the course of your life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
And I agree with markg91359, if the couple was never married, never committed to each other, there is less reason for the mother to have to deal with him and his issues or give up all chances for herself to have a life. A one-night-stand certainly should not be able to tell her she can never move out of the state to a better job.
It's complicated.
I agree that it's complicated however, when there is a child involved a parent has to deal with the other parent whether he/she wants to or not. When a person has a child, regardless of how that child was conceived, that child is ENTITLED to have a relationship with both of his/her parents. It is up to both of the parents to make sure those relationships happen. One night stand goes from being one night stand to parent of a child and things change. Including where a person can live.
I am a woman, but even I have thought of it as quite unfair that if a woman gets pregnant and she doesn't want the responsibility she can go have an abortion or give it up for adoption regardless of what the father says, yet if a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep it and he doesn't he's hooked for child support for 18 years. Sure you can say "Well, a woman goes through pregnancy/labor etc. for 9 months and a man doesn't" but a man being forced to pay for a child he doesn't want for 18 years kind of equalizes that methinks.
Women constantly say they should be allowed to have sex as much as they want without being looked down on, which I agree, but isn't it unfair if men can't just go have sex as much as they want if even with BC he gets a woman pregnant? Seems silly to go the other way and basically tell men they can't just enjoy sex because they might get a woman pregnant.
I am a woman, but even I have thought of it as quite unfair that if a woman gets pregnant and she doesn't want the responsibility she can go have an abortion or give it up for adoption regardless of what the father says, yet if a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep it and he doesn't he's hooked for child support for 18 years. Sure you can say "Well, a woman goes through pregnancy/labor etc. for 9 months and a man doesn't" but a man being forced to pay for a child he doesn't want for 18 years kind of equalizes that methinks.
Women constantly say they should be allowed to have sex as much as they want without being looked down on, which I agree, but isn't it unfair if men can't just go have sex as much as they want if even with BC he gets a woman pregnant? Seems silly to go the other way and basically tell men they can't just enjoy sex because they might get a woman pregnant.
I am a woman, but even I have thought of it as quite unfair that if a woman gets pregnant and she doesn't want the responsibility she can go have an abortion or give it up for adoption regardless of what the father says, yet if a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep it and he doesn't he's hooked for child support for 18 years. Sure you can say "Well, a woman goes through pregnancy/labor etc. for 9 months and a man doesn't" but a man being forced to pay for a child he doesn't want for 18 years kind of equalizes that methinks.
Women constantly say they should be allowed to have sex as much as they want without being looked down on, which I agree, but isn't it unfair if men can't just go have sex as much as they want if even with BC he gets a woman pregnant? Seems silly to go the other way and basically tell men they can't just enjoy sex because they might get a woman pregnant.
When parents share joint legal custody and 50/50 joint physical custody in the United States, there isn't a primary caregiver here. Both parents are equal caregivers. There isn't just one address. From the perspective of the school districts, children can go to school wherever either parent lives since both parents are paying school taxes in their respective district. However, the mother usually gets preference from a court perspective when it comes to reducing the time of one parent for the children to attend school.
Ah ok, quite different then. Still I guess the courts go for the primary caregiver and that still is usually the mother.
Again, how is one caring parent just up and being cast out of a child's life "the best recourse" for the child? It may be the "best recourse" for the other parent, but it is clearly at the expense of the child, not done in the child's best interest.
I mean if you think 2 parents verbally abusing each other to their child and trying to turn them against the other is actually healthier than only having one parent in their life, then I don't know what to tell you.
I mean if you think 2 parents verbally abusing each other to their child and trying to turn them against the other is actually healthier than only having one parent in their life, then I don't know what to tell you.
How did you come to that conclusion from what Macie said? Parents don't have to live together to remain involved parents, and sometimes, the best outcome for all involved is a divorce. But, if it comes to that, both parents need to keep the animosity away from the children.
We saw this play out with friends of ours. The mother did not disparage her ex to the kids, he did nothing but. It backfired on him, and his kids want nothing to do with him.
I mean if you think 2 parents verbally abusing each other to their child and trying to turn them against the other is actually healthier than only having one parent in their life, then I don't know what to tell you.
Why are you escalating this to an extreme that hasn't been brought up before?
Ah ok, quite different then. Still I guess the courts go for the primary caregiver and that still is usually the mother.
There is no primary caregiver if the parents have joint legal custody and joint physical custody.
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.
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.
