[quote]Edevus wrote:
At risk of making Beans angry, I wouldn’t date a single mom (again).
I’d not like having a kid and not having a “say” in his/her education, to say so.
[/quote]
I’m not mad about it. It is not something every man could handle.
There is no shame there either, that isn’t the way I mean that statement to come across. But it isn’t easy to be a step-parent, particularly the younger the child. Not everyone has the ability to function in that capacity.
[/quote]
It may not be as simple as someone not having the capacity.
I have dated a woman who had an 8 year old son. I now consider that too old to be jumping into a new relationship with a woman BECAUSE of that experience. He was basically a “young man” by then. We actually didn’t hate each other, but he did not like me being with “mom”. I also understand where the kid is coming from…which is why I now hold that stance.
Younger than that, and you are still dealing with a child. Something happens with us guys though around the age when puberty starts and we quit being little kids. If that kid has been the only “man” in the house, he can also be pretty protective of mommy.
I am not “against” women with kids. I just know that I would likely avoid it unless the kid were VERY young or already in high school or something.
[quote]Christine wrote:
The law considers what is in the best interest of the child.
I think it basically varies between jurisdictions, but yes, there are cases where a non-biological ‘father’ has been required to pay child support.[/quote]
Which is massively fucked up.[/quote]
So… You meet a girl and fall in love. She has a 3 year old from a dead beat that has vanished.
You marry the woman, and live with her and raise the 3 year old together for 7 years and then split from the mother.
Would it be “massively fucked up” for you to provide for the child that, unless you suck as a person, sees you as their father?[/quote]
Which is not the same, as that time spent raising a child who you know isn’t yours and knew from the get go makes you a de facto father.
What bothers me is that men have been forced to pay child support solely on the basis that the mother has lied and put his name on the birth certificate.[/quote]
Agreed. While MARRIAGE may make things more complicated, no one yet has given a good reason why a man who is not the father should legally be forced to pay child support for a child that isn’t his just because he was 2 years deep before finding out the kid wasn’t his.
That should be a DECISION of the father. He got lied to. Why force him to pay for a mistake the woman made?
In the best interest of the child…she can get another job because of the lie she told.
My guess is, 5 years of that and we get way less false fathers.[/quote]
How many false fathers do we have now though? I’m not asking to belittle it, but as a question of do we have enough to warrant mandatory government testing?
The system isn’t perfect, but I pretty damn sure I don’t want the government more involved than it is, in my life. Like I said before, the father should be required to sign a waiver in order for his name to be on the certificate.
Now if you trust your chick, and she lies, and you don’t find out until you’ve been dad for 10 years… Should you be required to pay for that child? Well, you damn well better choose to if you aren’t required. As devastating as that would be to the whole family, the best thing for the child, is you pay or get custody. (X you will have to be concerned with alimony here too, unless you marry a similar wage earner who continues to work after having the kids.)
Maybe it is just me. I would give up anything and everything I had to make sure my children were provided for. I’d live in a card board box and eat cat food if I had to in order to make sure my kids had food in their mouth and a roof over their head.
I’m not backpedaling out of anything. I stand by every word I have said.
“all you care about is you you you!” you keep shrieking hysterically. What you haven’t addressed is my position, and the opinion of most of the men in this thread that no man should be FORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT to pay to raise a child that is NOT HIS.
“well you can get a lawyer and fight it” Yes, I can pay large amounts of money to some asshole to avoid paying large amounts of money to some whore who decieved me. What a wonderful system. All I care about is justice, and having large amounts of money taken from me is not justice.
“I never said the system is perfect!” But again and again you dismiss all complaints as horror stories, while declaring that “hundreds of thousands” of divorces work out great for everybody. Sure, if you say so.
“You know nothing about raising children so shutup!!!” And I don’t give a fuck either. What I KNOW is that it is injust and immoral for anyone to steal someone else’s money to raise their own genetic offspring. You haven’t defended that and you can’t, even though you appear to be trying.
The only point you keep trying to make in your massive posts is that I’m a horrible selfish asshole because I don’t want my money to be taken from me to help raise someone else’s children. Bravo!
[quote]Edevus wrote:
At risk of making Beans angry, I wouldn’t date a single mom (again).
I’d not like having a kid and not having a “say” in his/her education, to say so.
[/quote]
I’m not mad about it. It is not something every man could handle.
There is no shame there either, that isn’t the way I mean that statement to come across. But it isn’t easy to be a step-parent, particularly the younger the child. Not everyone has the ability to function in that capacity.
[/quote]
It may not be as simple as someone not having the capacity.
I have dated a woman who had an 8 year old son. I now consider that too old to be jumping into a new relationship with a woman BECAUSE of that experience. He was basically a “young man” by then. We actually didn’t hate each other, but he did not like me being with “mom”. I also understand where the kid is coming from…which is why I now hold that stance.
Younger than that, and you are still dealing with a child. Something happens with us guys though around the age when puberty starts and we quit being little kids. If that kid has been the only “man” in the house, he can also be pretty protective of mommy.
I am not “against” women with kids. I just know that I would likely avoid it unless the kid were VERY young or already in high school or something.[/quote]
It isn’t simple at all. Not one bit.
It stops the situation from being two people being compatible and turns it into 3 or more people having to be compatible. And dude dating mom will always come second or third behind the kids to mom.
There are issues at any age really. If the biological father is still involved… Just adds even more complication.
I will say dating a single mom that the dude better know, and be damn sure he wants that woman. Because the relationship is going to take work, patience and a lot of earning of trust. Some people will resent having to work that hard to be with someone.
No, you came back, I’m surprised by that to be honest.
Which makes it 10x more entertaining.
Do yourself a favor and look up “shrieking hysterically” and then look up “correctly point out a fact”. Then you will notice I’m not the one shrieking, you in fact are projecting your own actions on me.
You aren’t good at this whole “twist words and make the other poster to look bad” thing. So how about you stick to addressing my points, well you aren’t very good at that either, but lets pretend you have a chance.
I actually addressed it multiple times before you posted in this thread a single time. Read much?
BUT, I’ll say it again, just for you.
The man shoudl be required to sign a waiver to have his name put on the BC. If he refuses to sign, have the test.
If he signs and finds out after raising the child for an extended period of time, he should be given right to choose, sure. Or at the very least if forced to pay, be able to deduct it/get a refundable credit.
You proved me right that all you care about is yourself many a post ago, you don’t have to continue to do it. We get it by now.
I addressed this last time. Actually read my posts if you are going to respond please.
It is fairly obvious that you don’t give a fuck about pontificating about things you are ignorant on by now also. You don’t have to keep reminding us.
But god damn do you sound hardcore. Keep it up, whoooo raaaah.
Also, if you actually read my posts, you would have seen that I encouraged you to continue to speak on subjects you didn’t understand, I never told you to shut up. Please quote me accurately.
I never defended theft, and you refuse to actually read what I’m writing because you have again and again been more concerned with discrediting me rather than my points. You aren’t even reading my points. You don’t even understand my fucking point and I made and entire post outlining it.
um, no. Stop trying to twist my words, you aren’t that good at it.
You have done a damn fine job yourself of looking like an asshole, I haven’t had to “try” and do anything.
Sorry my posts are long and have words with more than one syllable in them, I can dumb this down for you if you need.
I’ve said it 100x, and I will say it again. You don’t have kids, so you don’t understand what it is like to not think about yourself, your rights, your justice, and your money first. (Notice the word that appears in each example.) There is nothing wrong with your stance, but you just fail to a) not get butthurt at me and try and discredit me rather than my points and b) understand that while you’ll be busy getting getting your justice, the life of a child will hang in the balance.
But hey, fuck the kid right? That is that whore’s problem, she is a thief.
How many false fathers do we have now though? [/quote]
Good question. My guess is, it is about the same number as the guys who get beat by their wives at home.
Check this…EVEN ASKING the question of most women would lead to all sorts of problems…which is a HUGE problem in itself. So logically, our own social issues mean less men will even ever ask because of the stigma already there with men and their children.
What happens if you ask and it IS yours but now you have a woman divorcing you for asking?
What if it isn’t yours but you never ask because of being afraid of the same issue happening?
I brought up Maury Pauvich before…and as much of a media whore as that show is, the truth is that stuff happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Without that paternity test, what is keeping the mom from adding that guy as the father?
How many false fathers do we have now though? [/quote]
Good question. My guess is, it is about the same number as the guys who get beat by their wives at home.
Check this…EVEN ASKING the question of most women would lead to all sorts of problems…which is a HUGE problem in itself. So logically, our own social issues mean less men will even ever ask because of the stigma already there with men and their children.
What happens if you ask and it IS yours but now you have a woman divorcing you for asking?
What if it isn’t yours but you never ask because of being afraid of the same issue happening?
I brought up Maury Pauvich before…and as much of a media whore as that show is, the truth is that stuff happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Without that paternity test, what is keeping the mom from adding that guy as the father?[/quote]
It is, by far, a huge can of worms. I doubt the number skew much between economic classes or racial divisions. I would venture to guess this happens to rich and poor, black, white, whatever.
And you are right. You can’t ask unless you are willing to risk the whole thing. But, I stand by my thought that if you don’t trust her, you shouldn’t be raising a child with her, so it is worth the risk, IMO. But you are right also in that once you ask, you become the “loser dead beat” father in societies eyes.
I don’t know, maybe I’m being too “anti-government” by feeling like mandatory testing is invasive. But I feel like there can be a better solution than mandatory testing.
The father is at teh disadvantage in this, as the mother will have a good idea who the father is. (Well maybe not, watching that show, lol)
The current system isn’t perfect, no. But I feel like there are better fixes than mandatory testing, maybe I’m wrong.
But I do know that the child suffers the most from all of this.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
At risk of making Beans angry, I wouldn’t date a single mom (again).
I’d not like having a kid and not having a “say” in his/her education, to say so.
[/quote]
I’m not mad about it. It is not something every man could handle.
There is no shame there either, that isn’t the way I mean that statement to come across. But it isn’t easy to be a step-parent, particularly the younger the child. Not everyone has the ability to function in that capacity.
[/quote]
Yep, I feel I can’t. Maybe when I’m older…but right now, I don’t see it possible.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The current system isn’t perfect, no. But I feel like there are better fixes than mandatory testing, maybe I’m wrong.
But I do know that the child suffers the most from all of this. [/quote]
Then find a better solution. To say there must be a better solution while there is some sort of solution and then do nothing at all is even worse than not doing anything. In the meantime, I think we should enact this type of law and stop families from being ripped apart 10 years down the line because some lying whore had a bad day and wanted to share too much.
Father leaves two hours in - not so bad for the child.
Father leaves at age 10 - not so good for the child.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Maybe it is just me. I would give up anything and everything I had to make sure my children were provided for. I’d live in a card board box and eat cat food if I had to in order to make sure my kids had food in their mouth and a roof over their head. [/quote]
I’m glad you’re so eager to play the martyr. If you think massive child support bills are the only way to make sure kids have rooves over their heads, you’ve clearly not thought about this. How much are those kids going to enjoy that card board box of yours when they spend their time with you? Or do you plan to abandon them and just write their mom a cheque every month if this ever happens to you? As someone who grew up without access to his father, I assure you it’s not the money that the kids really miss out on.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The current system isn’t perfect, no. But I feel like there are better fixes than mandatory testing, maybe I’m wrong.
But I do know that the child suffers the most from all of this. [/quote]
Then find a better solution. To say there must be a better solution while there is some sort of solution and then do nothing at all is even worse than not doing anything. In the meantime, I think we should enact this type of law and stop families from being ripped apart 10 years down the line because some lying whore had a bad day and wanted to share too much.
Father leaves two hours in - not so bad for the child.
Father leaves at age 10 - not so good for the child.[/quote]
I have proposed a solution, couple times now.
I will, at the risk of pissing people off, go out on a limb and say any man that abandons a child they raised as their own who loves them like a father after ten years because of what the mother did, isn’t a man at all.
[quote]Christine wrote:
The law considers what is in the best interest of the child.
I think it basically varies between jurisdictions, but yes, there are cases where a non-biological ‘father’ has been required to pay child support.[/quote]
Which is massively fucked up.[/quote]
So… You meet a girl and fall in love. She has a 3 year old from a dead beat that has vanished.
You marry the woman, and live with her and raise the 3 year old together for 7 years and then split from the mother.
Would it be “massively fucked up” for you to provide for the child that, unless you suck as a person, sees you as their father?[/quote]
It’s massively fucked up that you have to pay for the mother of that child if you wish to contribute to that child, and it’s massively fucked up the ease with which she can keep you from contributing TIME, and LESSONS to that child, and the legal battle you will have on your hands just to be a “visitor”.
Here is the problem: There are very very few men who aren’t anything less than eager to share their time, and knoledge with kids - wether they’re biologically theirs or not. And the more time they spend together, the more willing they generally are to share their resources. Kid needs new shoes? Buy them shoes. Kids hungry? Feed them. Kid needs a roof over their heads? THE DOORS ARE ALWAYS OPEN AT DAD’S HOUSE. If mom can’t provide an appropriate home, that’s too fucking bad. SHE should go live alone in a box. Not you. If you’re not still married to her (especially if that was her choice), that’s it’s not your problem. Do not let them use the sanction of the victim against you. Men don’t want to share their resources with ingrateful useless bitches, and there’s no reason they should have to. You pay for your kids and if they need anything you get it for them. You don’t hand their mother a fist full of dollars.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Just like everyone else in these conversations all you give a fuck about is:
Your money
Your crazy Ex gets what she deserves
Your rights are upheld
The child is always a second or third thought it seems.[/quote]
This is really the point I’m trying to make.
Yeah the system isn’t perfect.
Yeah some women are filthy whores.
Yeah some dudes are deadbeat fags.
Yeah some people are shit parents.
Yeah some people are vindictive assholes
yeah there are major stereotypes and bullshit beliefs about the subject
No one ever seems to care more about the child than themselves or their ex or the system or some other bullshit that will be irrelevant in a couple years…
[/quote]
It’s a far more complex issue than you seem to think. If dad lives in a box, and kids spend weekends with dad, than KIDS LIVE IN A BOX ON WEEKENDS. Laying down and playing the martyr does NOT do your kids a favour. It does them a great injustice. And it gives them a completely ass backwards view of the capitalist world where work hard = live in a box, and helpless = handouts = proffit. Meanwhile the true contributions of the father go neglected because all that the legal system truely cares about is the amount of money changing hands. They would rather have you PAY for a baby sitter, than CARE for the children yourself. How does THAT benefit the children?!
I’m glad you’re so eager to play the martyr. [/quote]
I would sacrifice my life for my child, any time, any day. That isn’t being a martyr, that is called being a dad.
How about you come talk to my 13 year old before you start trying to judge me and what I’ve thought about from one exaggerated post made to make a point.
The 13 year old that lives with me, that I provide for.
Do you honestly not see I was making a point not actually speaking literally? Or do you just disagree with my stance and need to find some part of what I’m saying to rally against?
My father is a runaway deadbeat also… Another reason I keep mentioning the CHILD should be the focus here, and not the fucking father and his rights.
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
It’s obvious that you had/are having a bad experience. It sucks if you are not able to see your kids enough, is there nothing you can do, legally that is?
I know more women than men so all I really have is the woman’s side in this. [/quote]
I see my kids 3 weekends a month, and having been blessed with the gift of self sufficiency I am able to live on the little bit of income I have been left with, as I am able to hunt, fish, lumberjack, carpenter, mechanic, plumber, etc… my way out of poverty. I have it better than most men. My kids are the ones that lose however, as despite “contributions” of 1500 dollars each month, they still live on welfare with their sandwhich artist mother, instead of living comfortably in the middle class with me with sizeable college funds waiting for them. But I wasn’t talking about me, or them specifically, and I’m not typing this shit mad.
This thread is about paternaty testing, and the point which I have been poorly articulating is that the paternaty tests address only a symptom of the problem. The CAUSE of that problem is that children are too proffitable for women. If there wasn’t a PAYCHEQUE attached to them for the mother 99% of custody disputes would be non existant, there would be very little reason for women to lie about paternaty, and very little reason for men to care.
Countingbeans: aside from your condescending tone, and my boorishness( yes I am good at making myself look like an asshole). Here is the entire basis of our argument. Your statements:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Now if you trust your chick, and she lies, and you don’t find out until you’ve been dad for 10 years… Should you be required to pay for that child? Well, you damn well better choose to if you aren’t required. As devastating as that would be to the whole family, the best thing for the child, is you pay or get custody. (X you will have to be concerned with alimony here too, unless you marry a similar wage earner who continues to work after having the kids.)
[/quote]
It is not my biological child, so why should I damn well better choose to pay for it, or get custody? What are the odds of a man getting sole custody of a child that is not his biological child? And, why are the needs of child that is not my biological offspring more important in the eyes of the law than mine?
Yes, I have read all of your posts, and it’s the inconsistency in your statements that leaves me confused. In one sentence you claim to agree that the system isn’t perfect, but in the next you tell me I damn well better choose to put the needs of a child that is not my biological offspring ahead of my own. It’s not 2 plus 2= potato. It’s you saying that 2 plus 2=4 and/or 5 that doesn’t make sense.
[quote]
I’ve said it 100x, and I will say it again. You don’t have kids, so you don’t understand what it is like to not think about yourself, your rights, your justice, and your money first. (Notice the word that appears in each example.) There is nothing wrong with your stance, but you just fail to a) not get butthurt at me and try and discredit me rather than my points and b) understand that while you’ll be busy getting getting your justice,[b] the life of a child will hang in the balance.
But hey, fuck the kid right? [/b]That is that whore’s problem, she is a thief.[/quote]
I’ve never said fuck the kid, but if it’s not my child why should I be trapped into paying for it?
If I was in this situation I have said I would continue to be a father to the child, but that I shouldn’t be forced to. That was a key point of mine, and you seemed to agree, and yet then came your statement that all I care about is me, me, me, and our argument snowballed from there. Then you say there is nothing wrong with my stance, but you continue to cast me as a selfish asshole for not making someone else’s offspring the first priority in my life.
You challenged me to read your posts and discredit your points instead of you personally. Well, those are your words, and I’m sorry that my internet-fu is weaker than yours, but it’s hard to maintain a coherent argument with someone who jumps the fence so often.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Laying down and playing the martyr does NOT do your kids a favour. It does them a great injustice. And it gives them a completely ass backwards view of the capitalist world where work hard = live in a box, and helpless = handouts = proffit.[/quote]
LOL, are you serious with this?
Actually I think it teaches them to fulfill the responsibility they created by having kids in the first place.
If you don’t want to give the mother $, fight for custody.
False, very very false. YOU may have gotten a bad deal, bad lawyer or whatever, but this is not true. If it was, my best friend’s daughter would still be with the mother.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
At risk of making Beans angry, I wouldn’t date a single mom (again).
I’d not like having a kid and not having a “say” in his/her education, to say so.
[/quote]
I’m not mad about it. It is not something every man could handle.
There is no shame there either, that isn’t the way I mean that statement to come across. But it isn’t easy to be a step-parent, particularly the younger the child. Not everyone has the ability to function in that capacity.
[/quote]
It may not be as simple as someone not having the capacity.
I have dated a woman who had an 8 year old son. I now consider that too old to be jumping into a new relationship with a woman BECAUSE of that experience. He was basically a “young man” by then. We actually didn’t hate each other, but he did not like me being with “mom”. I also understand where the kid is coming from…which is why I now hold that stance.
Younger than that, and you are still dealing with a child. Something happens with us guys though around the age when puberty starts and we quit being little kids. If that kid has been the only “man” in the house, he can also be pretty protective of mommy.
I am not “against” women with kids. I just know that I would likely avoid it unless the kid were VERY young or already in high school or something.[/quote]
I am also not against women with kids per-se. I have never had conflict with the child of any single mom I have dated. My problem was always that the mom wanted to introduce me to the kid way too soon. How many other men had she introduced to him or her before me? I know it can’t be good for the kid to see a constant parade of men through his or her mom’s life, and want no part of that in the future.
