Originally Posted by Smithie
Just in case this information may be useful to anybody out there, I am going to present it in a completely non-bashing manner:
This is 2010. When a custodial parent makes repeated attempts to deny access to a non-custodial parent without a very good and legally demonstrable reason, the custodial parent may tick off the court to such an extent that they ultimately decide to switch custody over to noncustodial parent. It has happened to families who post here. It is nothing to mess around with.
Somebody out there may also like to know that I, a stranger on the Internet, am 100% in her corner on the custody front, provided that she's not an abusive or neglectful mother. I don't happen to think that children born to unmarried women should legally belong to anybody but their mom. I don't support enforced child support and I don't support enforced visitation for children conceived outside of a marriage or a formal legal co-parenting agreement. But that's not how the law works. Somebody out there who has pointed the finger at a guy she used to be with and named him as the Dad is stuck with the consequences of that action. It is what it is.
Originally Posted by SquishyKitty
Because it only takes one person to make a baby, right?
I don't personally agree with Smithie's general philosophy about this either, but her argument is very reasoned and fair:
If a man risks baby-making activities with a woman he doesn't know well/isn't committed to, he risks
that she may get pregnant, go away and he may never know
there's a child in the world bearing his genetic stamp. The responsibility is not all the woman's.
And if the relationship doesn't even last long enough for it to be obvious the mother's pregnant, naturally
she may prefer to keep to herself this person that came out of her body
; and detest the thought of bringing a guy she broke up with back into her life - not because they've rekindled their feelings for each other
, but because he wants to share "her" precious baby. You and I may think it's wrong for her to go ahead and actually deny father and child a relationship with each other, but the feelings of such a mother are still understandable
So, reality gives that mother the option to have what she wants! But the price of independence is truly being independent
. If she decides having the father's financial support is more important than having the baby be hers alone
, she has no right to resent the Dad's desire for a relationship with his child, once she
announces it's his!
Everyone knows I'm all about fathers' rights
, but it's hard for me to find fault with Smithie's very balanced take on personal responsibility.