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.
but now I definitely think all parents going through custody disagreements should stop thinking about their own rights and think about what the child(ren)'s rights are and what is best for them.
Very wise words.
I think children have a right to a better system to ensure both parents are treated more equally. While I know you and your ex share joint physical custody, most fathers get visitation every other weekend. How are the children's rights being taken into consideration if they have less time with their fathers?
Only married fathers or those in a relationship that is similar to being married should have the same rights a mother has. There are simply too many situations of 'disappearing fathers" and fathers who won't work and support their children. Women get stuck with parenting by virtue of their biology. The system should haven't to babysit unmarried fathers. If they want parental rights, its appropriate that they should have to affirmatively step forward, acknowledge their children and--at a minimum--pay regular monetary support. I would construe the failure to pay such support as abandonment of their child. The only exception would be a truly disabled father.
It shouldn't be thought of in terms of father's rights (or mother's rights) but the child's rights - children have a right to both parents, in terms of financial support and being raised by, and spending time with, both parents so unless there are safety issues (such as abuse) the child shouldn't be kept away from the non-custodial parent.
That is a thought that I took a long time to reach when I was going through the custody battle with my child. Her father didn't stick to the (verbal) visitation agreement so I "kidnapped" her back from him and refused him access until court. That was wrong of me and resulted in much more stress to our child (I was not the only one behaving badly, we both messed up badly and took a long time to learn that lesson) but now I definitely think all parents going through custody disagreements should stop thinking about their own rights and think about what the child(ren)'s rights are and what is best for them.
Exactly. Good for you, I can imagine that's very difficult to do and you are an exceptional person for having done it.
This is what it takes for both parents to do the right thing. It isn't about courts, or legislation, or ego, or pride, or finances, or your personal feelings about the other parent. Ultimately it's not about who forgot the pill or the condom. Often babies are conceived in love before the relationship goes south.
It's about actually putting the child's best interests before our wants. Parents need to realize that they are indeed stuck with the other person for the next 18 or so years and learn to deal with it. It's not good enough, IMO, to look your child in the eye when they're 17 and explain how you were justified in keeping them from their father because he didn't pay enough money or you couldn't cross each other's path without going for the jugular. I think more often than not it's the adversarial relationship between the two parents that cause this.
Only married fathers or those in a relationship that is similar to being married should have the same rights a mother has. There are simply too many situations of 'disappearing fathers" and fathers who won't work and support their children. Women get stuck with parenting by virtue of their biology. The system should haven't to babysit unmarried fathers. If they want parental rights, its appropriate that they should have to affirmatively step forward, acknowledge their children and--at a minimum--pay regular monetary support. I would construe the failure to pay such support as abandonment of their child. The only exception would be a truly disabled father.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Where I think it's complicated is if an unmarried father can become a major factor in a woman's life by keeping her from relocating to another state -- even returning to her own family. If he's providing at least half the financial support, then I think he may have equal rights, but if he's failing to provide support and the woman could relocate either to a higher paying job or back to her family where she will have more backup such as child care by relatives, then he shouldn't be able to block her from relocating.
And is the father spending time with the kids during his visitation time or turning them over to his newest girlfriend to watch over? There are so many variables, it really gets complicated.
Again, these posts completely discount the child's right to a relationship with their father.
We as a society reduce the dad's role, if they aren't married, to a human wallet. The child does not care about such things. There's more to the father child relationship than money. No wonder non custodial dads give up in droves. We don't place much importance on their role in the child's life except where it pertains to financial support. Nobody likes being used. What does it say about valuing the dad if access is purely dependent on funds?
Yes it's important to financially support your children. But there are many other intangible benefits to the father/child relationship that have nothing to do with buying diapers or school shoes.
Plenty of mothers are quite capable of supporting the child. Money should not be the absolute deciding factor in whether or not the father has access to the kid.
Where I think it's complicated is if an unmarried father can become a major factor in a woman's life by keeping her from relocating to another state -- even returning to her own family.
I agree that it can get complicated but it goes back to the child. 99% of the time children are better off if they are raised by both of their parents. That is true even if the parents are unmarried and do not live together. I don't think one parent should be able to relocate the child away from the other parent without consent. It is not usually in the best interest of a child to have a parent ripped from their life. It goes to priorities.
When a child comes into the picture the child should be the number one priority of both parents. Maintaining a healthy relationship between the child and each parent is quite simply more important than a better job or one parent being able to return to their parents home. My statements are not gender based.
I think children have a right to a better system to ensure both parents are treated more equally. While I know you and your ex share joint physical custody, most fathers get visitation every other weekend. How are the children's rights being taken into consideration if they have less time with their fathers?
Yes that isn't fair on the children to have so little time with their fathers, though of course sometimes that's the only way it can work if the parents live too far apart for the non-custodial parent to get the child to school (that will be the issue with me and my ex once our child starts school - it just won't be possible for him to have more than every other weekend but of course he'll get extra time in school holidays).
Although it's a complicated issue, I think the laws could be more equal when possible. Just like there is mandated mediation for child support, custody, and visitation, there should be mandated pregnancy mediation for unmarried parents. It would save the government a ton of money by cutting down on future court cases. It would eliminate much of the drama that babies are born into also.
Although the father can't and shouldn't force the mother to have an abortion or go through a pregnancy, he should be allowed to force her to put a child up for adoption if she insists on not having an abortion if the state is going to mandate he be financially responsible for a decision he had no say in. If the mother wants to keep the baby, she should show the court she can financially support the baby on her own income instead of the father being mandated to pay child support. Alternately, the father should be allowed to take the baby and raise it on his own if she doesn't want the child but is willing to go through the pregnancy as long as he proves he can financially provide for the child. Of course, there will be couples who both want the child and are eager to financially support the child, and they're welcome to make their agreement official during the mediation before the child is even born.
There are a lot of different ways to go about this if legislators thought outside of the box. It's a cop out to say a father had his chance when he had sex. That means that men don't have equal rights even in bed before conception. They were both irresponsible and made a mistake, it's not fair for the father to not have equal rights in the decision of what to do about the pregnancy. People who think it's fair for society to treat men with inequality, from before the child is conceived until after the baby is born, aren't thinking outside of existing laws and aren't even entertaining there is a possibility that there could be a better way.
i agree with this, but i think the state should go one step further and prevent both from conceiving again.
Yes that isn't fair on the children to have so little time with their fathers, though of course sometimes that's the only way it can work if the parents live too far apart for the non-custodial parent to get the child to school (that will be the issue with me and my ex once our child starts school - it just won't be possible for him to have more than every other weekend but of course he'll get extra time in school holidays).
In situations with 50/50 joint custody like yours, why is it automatically assumed children should attend school where the mother lives? Why is the father the one who gets the reduced time? I've seen this exact thing happen even when the father lives in a better, safer school district.
i agree with this, but i think the state should go one step further and prevent both from conceiving again.
You're out of control. Even though my overblown suggestions were extreme, they still allowed choices.
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.
