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.
You and I both know the family courts are sexist. Most PEOPLE know the family courts are sexist. I see where you are coming from. I'm responding from something I feel is wrong and an injustice against a gender. You're right that a man discovering that the child he raised for years isn't his and leaving it does hurt the child. But wasn't the man a child as some point in life? Some woman's son? How do you think she would feel knowing that her son was cuckolded? But can anyone tell me if the child was the 'man the woman was in a relationship with' how would the man react? Knowing the the woman that was impregnated was because of him. He knew it and the tests proved it. Women screamed that they aren't being treated fair and they got it. Why don't men do the same? I feel it's because most men are afraid of women. Not physically, but legally and psychologically.
I argued that the whole deal should be the thing of the past for new generations with paternity testing that stops applying the medieval methods. Too bad, this will never happen because being a male member of society signals that you're of nobody's concern, but rather an asset for society and other people to live off your servitude. A word for "male/husband" in Slavonic language literally means servant/serf, after all (muzh) and society refuses to let go of the practices that have no place in today's era.
That sounds highly insulting in this day and age.
The way you argued makes it petty talk and allows to stray on chit-chat instead of using direct points on the issue. You made up the "quoted" text to provoke the reaction (I reviewed previous posts and found it nowhere) and it gives a chance for people to disrupt the discussion when they are faced with issues that they don't want to acknowledge that they exist. Talking about these issues is the step forward, regardless what someone thinks of it. Things won't change overnight, but mainly because nobody relevant would dare to challenge those topics in the legislation. Media also ignores those topics even though it's obvious to anyone, including me as an immigrant, that those topics are discussed either through jokes or when people give advices to each other in male-only company during the small talks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cindersslipper
The Family Courts are not sexist.
The Family Courts hold the rights and the welfare of the child first and foremost.
It's true that in a lot of circumstances, the mom can take better care of the baby, for whatever reason.
It's true that in a lot of circumstances, the dad is more capable.
It's true that in a lot of circumstances, NEITHER are a good choice (Charlie Sheen).
The courts rule in favour of the child. If the father is a deadbeat or displays unreasonable hostility to the mother of his child, then the courts will award custody to the mother, and vice versa.
Statistically, children are far safer with their mothers than with any other adult. Don't blame us women for this, many of us would LOVE to be free of our child rearing responsibilities in exchange for paying a mere pittance for child support! Having the kids isn't all that you know!
This post is generally misplaced for this topic, but family courts don't hold the welfare of the child first and foremost. That is just an excuse to continue with the discriminatory practices of awarding the child to the mother on default and awarding the transfer of resources under any pretext. If the family courts cared for the child first and foremost, they'd do everything for the child to remain having both parents as long as they aren't unsuitable to be parent(s), and would ensure that they equally share custody/residence and obligations for the specific child, or as a specific, equal percentage or their income that is transferred to a child's special account. Instead, they literally acknowledge that one parent (father) is literally babysitter and can be treated as necessary in child's life until the other parent (mother) decides to eliminate that parent from the child's life and either reduce it to part-time parent or to an outright paycheck. Either the parent is unfit and thus removed, or the parent should not be denied to be the parent. It cannot be possible that the parent is fit to be a full-time parent until the other parent decides to remove the other spouse from the child's life and that is NOT in the interest of the child, but for the convenience of that parent.
Automatic awarding of custody to the mother is a reality and automatic removal or reduction of the other parent when the mother decides to divorce him or introduce another, complete stranger to become a step-father is literally insulting to any male member of society, but it's the common practice. Not that the father is treated as a sperm donor, because that'd relieve him of any responsibility to provide for the child and he could be able to go and start a completely new life.... he is held financially responsible and child support is generally estimated to be much higher than the expected half of child's monthly expenses.
That literally makes the father a sperm donor and a paycheck, as argued by many people. On top of that comes the fact that he doesn't even need to be a biological parent and he could be duped to take obligation over the child that isn't biologically his own, get kicked out of child's life and be in involuntary servitude for a complete stranger. This is the reality for lots of parents out there and this problem is never tackled. This literally confirms that the well-being of male members of this society is of nobody's concern, while the society introduces endless social programs that cater exclusively to the needs and issues of women.
One can thus easily argue thus that if the male members as a whole would ever really be less productive, the legislation would literally find it completely acceptable to remove them from society as a whole.
Bottom line about courts is that they should NEVER eliminate or reduce one of the parents and justify it under "child's best interest" because it's not child's interest to do that, it's in the interest of the parent who wants to keep the residential custody of the child and seek for potential new child or to move on with their life without having their daily routines affected with the fact that they'd have to make some compromises that would be in child's best interest. Unless the parent is deemed "unfit" to parent, that parent's role should not be either reduced to part-time parent/nanny or dropped to monthly payments.
I argued that the whole deal should be the thing of the past for new generations with paternity testing that stops applying the medieval methods. Too bad, this will never happen because being a male member of society signals that you're of nobody's concern, but rather an asset for society and other people to live off your servitude. A word for "male/husband" in Slavonic language literally means servant/serf, after all (muzh) and society refuses to let go of the practices that have no place in today's era.
That sounds highly insulting in this day and age.
The way you argued makes it petty talk and allows to stray on chit-chat instead of using direct points on the issue. You made up the "quoted" text to provoke the reaction (I reviewed previous posts and found it nowhere) and it gives a chance for people to disrupt the discussion when they are faced with issues that they don't want to acknowledge that they exist. Talking about these issues is the step forward, regardless what someone thinks of it. Things won't change overnight, but mainly because nobody relevant would dare to challenge those topics in the legislation. Media also ignores those topics even though it's obvious to anyone, including me as an immigrant, that those topics are discussed either through jokes or when people give advices to each other in male-only company during the small talks.
This post is generally misplaced for this topic, but family courts don't hold the welfare of the child first and foremost. That is just an excuse to continue with the discriminatory practices of awarding the child to the mother on default and awarding the transfer of resources under any pretext. If the family courts cared for the child first and foremost, they'd do everything for the child to remain having both parents as long as they aren't unsuitable to be parent(s), and would ensure that they equally share custody/residence and obligations for the specific child, or as a specific, equal percentage or their income that is transferred to a child's special account. Instead, they literally acknowledge that one parent (father) is literally babysitter and can be treated as necessary in child's life until the other parent (mother) decides to eliminate that parent from the child's life and either reduce it to part-time parent or to an outright paycheck. Either the parent is unfit and thus removed, or the parent should not be denied to be the parent. It cannot be possible that the parent is fit to be a full-time parent until the other parent decides to remove the other spouse from the child's life and that is NOT in the interest of the child, but for the convenience of that parent.
Automatic awarding of custody to the mother is a reality and automatic removal or reduction of the other parent when the mother decides to divorce him or introduce another, complete stranger to become a step-father is literally insulting to any male member of society, but it's the common practice. Not that the father is treated as a sperm donor, because that'd relieve him of any responsibility to provide for the child and he could be able to go and start a completely new life.... he is held financially responsible and child support is generally estimated to be much higher than the expected half of child's monthly expenses.
That literally makes the father a sperm donor and a paycheck, as argued by many people. On top of that comes the fact that he doesn't even need to be a biological parent and he could be duped to take obligation over the child that isn't biologically his own, get kicked out of child's life and be in involuntary servitude for a complete stranger. This is the reality for lots of parents out there and this problem is never tackled. This literally confirms that the well-being of male members of this society is of nobody's concern, while the society introduces endless social programs that cater exclusively to the needs and issues of women.
One can thus easily argue thus that if the male members as a whole would ever really be less productive, the legislation would literally find it completely acceptable to remove them from society as a whole.
Bottom line about courts is that they should NEVER eliminate or reduce one of the parents and justify it under "child's best interest" because it's not child's interest to do that, it's in the interest of the parent who wants to keep the residential custody of the child and seek for potential new child or to move on with their life without having their daily routines affected with the fact that they'd have to make some compromises that would be in child's best interest. Unless the parent is deemed "unfit" to parent, that parent's role should not be either reduced to part-time parent/nanny or dropped to monthly payments.
I did want to get a reaction and it worked. Perhaps I do make it seem petty since I do feel a way about this subject. Either way it's a public forum and this is how I feel about said subject. We agree on the basics about the family courts and it's sexism, I'm just more emotional than you are about it so I make more mistakes when I try to make a point. I can admit that. Maybe I need to calm down and be a lot more even handed about it.
Actually, I think if the child is very young it is fine to do. I'm not sure what age is a good cut off, I guess I'd talk to a child psychologist or something.
I am not claiming Ms Shriver would do anything. ??? Where did you get that from? I said I wouldn't let my husband's child starve in that scenario. That child thinks of the maid as his mom and my husband as his dad and I'm not trying to remove his mom or dad from his life. I am also not trying to prevent my kids from knowing their sibling. AND just like I don't necessarily recommend that the parents stay married in the original scenario, I would not say that the maid should automatically keep living there. Ideally she'd get her own place. But if the child is going to end up starving or the mom is unfit then I'd consider the child living with us (provided I'm staying with the husband, that is).
The point is I'm trying to preserve as much stability as reasonable for the child. It is not the child's fault. I would not be focused on getting back at the mistress at the expense of the child.
And how is any of that other stuff remotely close to the actual scenario of continuing to care for a child you have been parenting as your own? How is a woman paying for a mistresses' child the same thing? Although women HAVE done that in the past. Isn't Denise Richards in a similar situation as we speak? That does happen if a child is in dire straights. I know a woman who took in her ex husband's daughter, because the mom was a crackhead and the child had no one else.
Sorry, I thought of that example with Schwarzenegger's wife being obviously in contradiction. I digress, you never mentioned her.
But I commented so because, from your post(s), I got a feeling that you claim that women would actually let the affair-child reside in their home instead of using their power to make sure those children are removed from the house that they reside in.
I decided to point out that numerous examples of a general attitude in 19th century proves that maids would have to leave the house in such circumstances. Another thing is that institution of bastardy is introduced exactly because of married women and their own children, to protect them from claims of the other children when it comes to inheriting the assets of the deceased husband. They and their parents are what was quoted as the reason that stops the man to acknowledge the "bastard" children to claim any assets. At that time a man could literally refuse to provide for the unmarried woman and her children in most countries, so they had no reason to "secure themselves" from child support from those women. It was obviously done to stop them from actually providing for them.
Institution of bastardy was thus obviously brought because of the wives, so the numerous husbands tried to secure those children via illegal means by giving gifts of some sort for their mother's disposal.
Legitimate wives generally NEVER left such opportunity to deny those children the right to inherit the property of their alleged father, because their step-mothers were in such legal position to stop them from doing so. This is so true that many literary works depict bastard children not even bothering to contest inheritance. There are numerous historical facts that will attest that mothers used their legal position for th benefits of their biological children even when it comes to inheritance of titles, even when they needed to break the law to obtain it.
You may argue the otherwise, but I'd really like to see the mother that would do "what's best in child's interest" and allow the step-child, which is the result of the husband's affair, the right to inherit the house.... or to share the ownership of it with her own biological child. If she can deny it, she will, let's not fool around.
I know that many forum members, mothers no less, will ignore this, but this is how they would feel as well. History has proven that it is a general rule, not an exception, that biology matters to the parents.
Just about any mother that had the legal option to bar those "maid children" from inheriting property and obtaining the better position for her biological children - used such opportunity. So much about child's best interest. They worked in their own child's best interest.
Look at the Arabic and practices of various Sultans and you'll see the similar patterns even in polygyny that the mothers and their biological children generally lived separately of each family unit. The polygyny literally functioned in a way where one guy has multiple SEPARATE families, even if the wives were sometimes inside of the same complex/palace. So much about the story that biology doesn't matter.
By the way - Denise Richards is NOWHERE near the situation I elaborated. She simply adopted a child in a similar way that the Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt did. Very few parents will adopt a child anyways. That's something to be commended but even that doesn't apply for the general audience. Still, very few parents can literally make it work that the CHILDREN don't feel the difference. That's hard to be seen to a naked eye of the outsider, but grown up children can attest that it's very rare to have an occurrence where step-parent treated a child equally to his own biological children. One literally needs to be very child-loving and genuinely nice person to even adopt a child of their other spouse, and arguing that someone is going to do so with the children that are results of affairs behind your back... that's really some piece of work.
I think that there is really no other explanation why would a couple switch the 2 year-old baby who will potentially go through much severe trauma of being switched which is bigger than the switch for the 15 year-old person... other than to acknowledge that biology matters. I think there's no reason why a 15 year-old stranger child would suddenly be treated on par or even better than the child that they raised for 15 years, just because they learned that there was a mistake... unless biology matters A LOT. Which is why parents try to re-compensate what they can and they establish the connection with their biological child. They realize that their legal obligations are permanent, they realize that they are basically the adoptive parents and they can't go out of obligations even if they wanted to, and they deliberately introduce their biological child and try to raise them mutually with the other couple because each couple wants to raise their own biological child deep down inside.
I think that it's a no-brainer to point out that it's really silly to give me the tone that somehow biology doesn't matter for women. If that were the truth, you wouldn't have 95% of research focused on fertility issues of women and you wouldn't have 95% of fertility expenses being related to treatment of female infertility. Just a thought - a 40 y/o mother will keep spending dozens of thousand of dollars in multiple failed IVF treatments because she wants her own biological child. Chances are very slim, yet a 21 y/o egg donor has the chance of conceiving of ~70% for each egg implanted. There are countless couples where woman refuses to allow an egg donor, while even remotely slim chances for the man will result with the woman pressuring for a sperm donor "because biology doesn't matter". This is proven with the fact that there are more couples taking a sperm donor than an egg donor, although ICSI solves almost any issue on behalf of the man, while decreased chances to conceive and exponential increase in total costs is a standard thing for any woman over 40 y/o. This means that the number of egg donors was expected to be greater for couples, but it's not, because the mothers will rather decide to break up with their spouse and teh spouse will pursue their biological child with another woman as a general rule... just a food of thought.
Bottom line - please don't tell me that biology doesn't matter. Please don't.
You do realize that paternity regulations, revised restrictions on DNA testing, introduction of common law marriage initiatives, violence against women act, opposition to mandatory paternity, chld custody, no-fault divorce, etc.... those were the laws demanded by WOMEN ORGANIZATIONS inside of "non-government" organizations (quite silly to claim they're non-governmnet but are funded by the taxpayers!), inside of legislation, political parties, judicial system, etc. Any guy who would oppose it would be crucified by the media and those same organizations, even if they pin-point obvious flaws and discriminatory practices. This is because feminist organizations transformed into man-hating movement, they are literally taken over by such profiles ever since the 60s and onward by a loud group of post ww2 man-haters. You can see the clear difference not only in attitudes but also in a general profile of a feminist in i.e. 1920s and 1960s.
I.e. It was the same groups who oppose obligatory paternity testing an the same groups who demand ban on father's right to even know, those same groups tried to impose their view on stopping the legislation's act on allowing the DNA samples to be taken even from the petty crime offenders. They did so because they know it's another step towards future and global DNA database on national level that will be used in the same way like fingerprinting is today, but with much more widespread use.
The regulation still passed on Supreme Court: Routine DNA Testing After Arrest Upheld by Top U.S. Court - Bloomberg
We are thus one step closer to establishing national database of DNA samples that will be used to identify and pursue criminals faster and easier, as an identification factor in legal documents, but also it could mean that the children will have their DNA samples taken anyways, which means taking samples at birth may not be useless either, but rather beneficial.
Sorry, I thought of that example with Schwarzenegger's wife being obviously in contradiction. I digress, you never mentioned her.
But I commented so because, from your post(s), I got a feeling that you claim that women would actually let the affair-child reside in their home instead of using their power to make sure those children are removed from the house that they reside in.
I decided to point out that numerous examples of a general attitude in 19th century proves that maids would have to leave the house in such circumstances. Another thing is that institution of bastardy is introduced exactly because of married women and their own children, to protect them from claims of the other children when it comes to inheriting the assets of the deceased husband. They and their parents are what was quoted as the reason that stops the man to acknowledge the "bastard" children to claim any assets. At that time a man could literally refuse to provide for the unmarried woman and her children in most countries, so they had no reason to "secure themselves" from child support from those women. It was obviously done to stop them from actually providing for them.
Institution of bastardy was thus obviously brought because of the wives, so the numerous husbands tried to secure those children via illegal means by giving gifts of some sort for their mother's disposal.
Legitimate wives generally NEVER left such opportunity to deny those children the right to inherit the property of their alleged father, because their step-mothers were in such legal position to stop them from doing so. This is so true that many literary works depict bastard children not even bothering to contest inheritance. There are numerous historical facts that will attest that mothers used their legal position for th benefits of their biological children even when it comes to inheritance of titles, even when they needed to break the law to obtain it.
You may argue the otherwise, but I'd really like to see the mother that would do "what's best in child's interest" and allow the step-child, which is the result of the husband's affair, the right to inherit the house.... or to share the ownership of it with her own biological child. If she can deny it, she will, let's not fool around.
I know that many forum members, mothers no less, will ignore this, but this is how they would feel as well. History has proven that it is a general rule, not an exception, that biology matters to the parents.
Just about any mother that had the legal option to bar those "maid children" from inheriting property and obtaining the better position for her biological children - used such opportunity. So much about child's best interest. They worked in their own child's best interest.
Look at the Arabic and practices of various Sultans and you'll see the similar patterns even in polygyny that the mothers and their biological children generally lived separately of each family unit. The polygyny literally functioned in a way where one guy has multiple SEPARATE families, even if the wives were sometimes inside of the same complex/palace. So much about the story that biology doesn't matter.
By the way - Denise Richards is NOWHERE near the situation I elaborated. She simply adopted a child in a similar way that the Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt did. Very few parents will adopt a child anyways. That's something to be commended but even that doesn't apply for the general audience. Still, very few parents can literally make it work that the CHILDREN don't feel the difference. That's hard to be seen to a naked eye of the outsider, but grown up children can attest that it's very rare to have an occurrence where step-parent treated a child equally to his own biological children. One literally needs to be very child-loving and genuinely nice person to even adopt a child of their other spouse, and arguing that someone is going to do so with the children that are results of affairs behind your back... that's really some piece of work.
I think that there is really no other explanation why would a couple switch the 2 year-old baby who will potentially go through much severe trauma of being switched which is bigger than the switch for the 15 year-old person... other than to acknowledge that biology matters. I think there's no reason why a 15 year-old stranger child would suddenly be treated on par or even better than the child that they raised for 15 years, just because they learned that there was a mistake... unless biology matters A LOT. Which is why parents try to re-compensate what they can and they establish the connection with their biological child. They realize that their legal obligations are permanent, they realize that they are basically the adoptive parents and they can't go out of obligations even if they wanted to, and they deliberately introduce their biological child and try to raise them mutually with the other couple because each couple wants to raise their own biological child deep down inside.
I think that it's a no-brainer to point out that it's really silly to give me the tone that somehow biology doesn't matter for women. If that were the truth, you wouldn't have 95% of research focused on fertility issues of women and you wouldn't have 95% of fertility expenses being related to treatment of female infertility. Just a thought - a 40 y/o mother will keep spending dozens of thousand of dollars in multiple failed IVF treatments because she wants her own biological child. Chances are very slim, yet a 21 y/o egg donor has the chance of conceiving of ~70% for each egg implanted. There are countless couples where woman refuses to allow an egg donor, while even remotely slim chances for the man will result with the woman pressuring for a sperm donor "because biology doesn't matter". This is proven with the fact that there are more couples taking a sperm donor than an egg donor, although ICSI solves almost any issue on behalf of the man, while decreased chances to conceive and exponential increase in total costs is a standard thing for any woman over 40 y/o. This means that the number of egg donors was expected to be greater for couples, but it's not, because the mothers will rather decide to break up with their spouse and teh spouse will pursue their biological child with another woman as a general rule... just a food of thought.
Bottom line - please don't tell me that biology doesn't matter. Please don't.
What the bloody hell? LOL
I was asked what I would do in the situation. Me. Not the world. I answered what I thought the right thing to do was, as in how I would handle it or like to see it handled.
You are typing dissertations as if I argued women as a whole historically have done X more than Y. I never said that. At the most I said in the past that there have been women who dealt with a child created outside the marriage. That is true.
And who said biological kids aren't important? PEOPLE CAN LOVE BOTH A CHILD THEY ARE TECHNICALLY RELATED TO AND A CHILD THEY ARE NOT BIOLOGICALLY RELATED TO. It is not a zero sum game.
You are flying off on tangents you have created yourself.
Let's just see how illogical the whole deal is around ban on taking your child's samples. You are allegedly the child's father. You want to know if you are cuckolded or not but you aren't allowed to do it without the consent of the mother. Law specifically says so that you can't.
Here's the excuse why you aren't allowed to know - because, apparently, insurance companies might (ab)use the DNA sample that they out of you and thus calculate your predisposition to develop certain illnesses due to your genetics... thus they'll charge you more if you want to be insured. This kind of discrimination is impossible because other laws specifically barred such option and this is the case in a number of states that still imposed such laws that stop the men who are named as fathers on the child's birth certificate from taking samples of their own child (they need the mother's approval).
The law is literally having the "insurance companies" as an excuse because it never got applied in any case against insurance companies anyways and in most countries there are other laws covering and effectively banning such possibility.
Some people pretend being stupid but the fact is that it's generally the fathers who do the anonymous paternity testing that got affected.
A guy in Australia discovered the fraud but he got sued by his wife because the fool admitted that he took DNA samples before starting the legal court process to establish that he isn't the father. This is really ridiculous to even read, yet I guess numerous posters who oppose mandatory paternity testing will think the law is just for sending the guy in jail because he was just honest - there are probably dozens of thousands of men who discovered the fraud each year by taking the paternity test illegally before demanding the court procedure.
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.
