or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › voluntary termination of parental rights
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

voluntary termination of parental rights - Page 8

post #141 of 190

 

"You really don't think your kids should shoulder the responsibility that comes with sex?"

 

There are lots of responsibilities that come with sex. Forced birth is not, thank God, one of them. Nobody can force my daughters to parent an unwanted baby. I'm very, very grateful that of ALL the possible bad outcomes inherent in having sex, becoming a parent is not one that they have to accept (even if they didn't want to terminate, they could place a baby for adoption). I wish that my sons had the same right to choose their path if an unplanned pregnancy happened. 

 

So, no, I do not think my kids or your kids or anybody else should have to "shoulder" your idea of the responsibilities that come with sex. Forcing people into parenthood is bad ethics, bad public policy and a massive disservice to the children raised in such a situation. 

 

(I'm not very good at walking away from threads smile.gif)

post #142 of 190

The more I read this thread and really think about it, the more I find myself agreeing with Smithie's position. In theory.

 

In practice, I don't think it would work any better than the current system. Someone will always be getting the shaft.

 

post #143 of 190

No one is forcing anyone into parenting. Don't have sex. End of story.

No one is forcing people to have sex. Sex makes babies, that is what it is supposed to do. Unfortunately men are stuck with whatever the woman chooses and I agree Smithie that is unfair. It isn't going to change and I don't think it should. Life is unfair. I don't think a woman's choices are exactly peachy. Keeping the baby, abortion, adoption. Those aren't great either but it is life. Don't have sex end of story. I am not a pro abstinence only person because we all know it doesn't really work like that but seriously. Boohoo to boys if they get a girl pregnant. It happens and if she wants to keep said baby thats too bad. I guess I don't find myself very sympathetic to the argument you are trying to make, although I do see the reasoning behind it and the lack of fairness. If only life was fair.

I don't even know if what I said makes sense. I guess I just don't care that a man feels like he has no control over what happens when he gets a girl pregnant. It happened. Deal with it like a grownup whether they like it or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

 

"You really don't think your kids should shoulder the responsibility that comes with sex?"

 

There are lots of responsibilities that come with sex. Forced birth is not, thank God, one of them. Nobody can force my daughters to parent an unwanted baby. I'm very, very grateful that of ALL the possible bad outcomes inherent in having sex, becoming a parent is not one that they have to accept (even if they didn't want to terminate, they could place a baby for adoption). I wish that my sons had the same right to choose their path if an unplanned pregnancy happened. 

 

So, no, I do not think my kids or your kids or anybody else should have to "shoulder" your idea of the responsibilities that come with sex. Forcing people into parenthood is bad ethics, bad public policy and a massive disservice to the children raised in such a situation. 

 

(I'm not very good at walking away from threads smile.gif)

post #144 of 190

Well i read this whole thread (and i have to say, i KNEW when i read the OP it must have gone pretty off topic to be such a big thread! =o).

 

I am surprised to read that by Smithie's standards i don't have a family (i am personally opposed to marriage).  I really thought i did!  :lol

 

I have 2 kids, one with XP, one with DP.

 

You know what?  The DAY XP ejaculated he really might have fit the "deadbeat" label.  He was a neglectful partner, he was very unhelpful and not at all supportive in many ways through the pregnancy, birth and early days.  I left him when DD was 4months old (having split from him and slept in a different room while hunting for a new place since she was 8 weeks).

 

When i left him he was: smoking pot often, not earning, not helping with caring for the baby unless forced, not assisting me at night, not interested in supporting me emotionally.  He was on the birth certificate.  To me (and him as it happens) the Birth Certificate is a record of the facts surrounding the child's context in the world.  It is for the child and for the state.  it is not for mummy and daddy to use as a weapon, get out of, abuse or misuse.  It doesn't matter to me if a perfectly nice A. N. Other wants to raise the baby.  The child deserves to be able to see the documented truth of their existence.  Thus XP, her biological father, was listed as her father.

 

DD is 4.5 now.  and XP is: no longer smoking pot, not earning (hey, recession!  but WAS earning and still now pays 300% of his ordered support given his income), excited about his twice weekly overnight/full days and the other day when we meet up for him to have additional access (he sees her 5x week minimum), a loving caring involved father, a very supportive co-parent and very loving and beloved influence in both her life and the life of her sister, DP's DD.

 

DP has taken on the financial, emotional, mental and parental responsibility of DD1 too.  They both act and regard one another as her fathers.  In december they took her, together and without me, to the pantomime together.  It makes me really really sad to think that i could have looked at the snapshot of how XP acted when he was still in the shock of becoming a parent (DD1 was an NFP mishap) and decided from that moment on he was worthless to her and us and ditched him.  CERTAINLY he was not the right partner FOR ME.  But to extend that to mean he was so worthless he shouldn't be allowed to be a father to his child is, just, horrible.  Being a parent has been the making of me, the best thing that ever happened.  Some of the hardest and most rewarding work of my life.  It is the same for him.  Was he excited about it?  Did he make the "right noises" about it at the start?  No.  Did he have to be forced to spend time with her initially?  Yes.  But you know, when DD was 4 days old i shouted i was going to chuck her out the window at her during the 5th hour of screaming (she is HN!).  It saddens me to think one could have taken that tiny glimpse of someone struggling desperately to cope with parenthood when it was all new and a massive challenge and just me unfit to love and raise my DD.

 

People grow and change.  People develop skills and find enthusiasms within themselves they never knew existed.  People who might have only "ejaculated" end up being fantastic fathers.  I know because i have witnessed it myself.

 

To me conception can never be "fair".  Men can't give birth and women can't walk away from a pregnancy.  Men cannot submit to an abortion, they should not be allowed to force another person to do so.  Of course it's not fair - how can it be?  Spending time and energy trying to make it fair for the parents seems so pointless when we could be making sure it's fair for the CHILD.  Do children ALWAYS benefit when a father is judged to be worthless and expelled from their life?  No.  Nor would they if we did the same with mothers.

 

Parenting and parenthood are messy messy things.  We do not own our children, our children own US.

post #145 of 190

 

"In practice, I don't think it would work any better than the current system. Someone will always be getting the shaft."

 

I really hear you on this one. Anytime we're talking about a baby on the way and two adults who can't get their act together and come up with an arrangement they can both live with, somebody is getting the shaft for sure. Mom, Dad, baby, Grandma who ends up raising baby, taxpayers who end up paying for baby, etc.

 

As a taxpayer, I feel like sharing out the job with all the other taxpayers makes the burden on me, individually, very light, and that I'm getting something out of the deal if baby is given the kind of childhood that tends to produce good citizens. But all of the money in the world (and I sure do wish more of our government's money was spent on kids in need!) isn't worth much if the quality parenting isn't there. Over THAT aspect, we've just got no control.

post #146 of 190

 

Bec, I'm glad things are good for you right now, but those were not choices I would have made for my child. Your choices weren't wrong - but I don't think mine would have been wrong either. 

 

And of course you have a "family" - you have two kids! But you don't have the legal rights or responsibilities of a spouse, and that's fine with me as long as you are cognizant of that and are choosing not to have them. Since you've named two different guys on two different birth certificates, your children are going to be separated if you pass away. That, above all else, is the thing that would have kept me from naming Boyfriend #1 if I knew that were were not ever going to be a family. 

post #147 of 190


This exactly.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

I understand your position, but I disagree. "Once the decision is made to carry the baby to term..."  ... who is making that choice? Jesus? Santa? Fidel Castro? Nope, it's the mother. She has the choice, and with choice comes responsibility. 

 

 

I also disagree that children need two parents. I think a child's need for a stable and supportive family can be met in many ways - mom and dad, mom  and mom, dad and dad, mom and grandparents, dad and grandparents, etc. etc. 

 

 

And while I think that gay couples who've birthed or adopted children together are families in the ethical sense no matter what the state says, they are sure as heck not families in the full legal sense if they are denied the right to marry. Gay people, by and large, seem to agree with me on this one. 

post #148 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View PostSince you've named two different guys on two different birth certificates, your children are going to be separated if you pass away. That, above all else, is the thing that would have kept me from naming Boyfriend #1 if I knew that were were not ever going to be a family. 


This isn't necessarily true. I have 2 children, both have the same biological father. He is no longer part of their lives, aside from retaining guardianship and sending (belated) birthday and christmas gifts. He doesn't respond to them when they email him. earlier this year, I received an application to court in the mail, where he is requesting to be excused from paying child support for the next 4 years. SO and I spoke to a lawyer about it, and it wasn't required that I respond, because XH hadn't filed it in court or served it to me (he is now several thousand in arrears)

 

During our appointment with the lawyer, SO asked about adoption. The lawyers response was that if we get XH's consent it can be done, but without it, it's unlikely at this point (he said a few more years will change the latter) The lawyer asked why SO wants to adopt, and one of the reasons is he'd want to keep the kids in the event of my death. The lawyer said that if XH (or his parents, who are quite meddlesome) tried to take the kids, court would likely rule in SO's favour to keep them, because it would be in their best interest to continue to be raised by a parent who has been involved in their daily lives and to stay in the same home/neighbourhood.

 

We've asked XH to consider allowing SO to adopt the kids, and his response was: "I have no comment at this time. I need to consult legal advice when I am able." I think he wants to confirm that he'd be free and clear of all financial obligations (actually, he'd probably ask if it could be made retro-active, so he could get some CS back!) Yet since he has guardianship, he can refuse to sign passports, and I have to run health/schooling/etc decisions past him. He hasn't seen the kids in 2 years, and spent a grand total of about an hour and a half with them in nearly two years before that!

 

post #149 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

 

"You really don't think your kids should shoulder the responsibility that comes with sex?"

 

There are lots of responsibilities that come with sex. Forced birth is not, thank God, one of them. Nobody can force my daughters to parent an unwanted baby. I'm very, very grateful that of ALL the possible bad outcomes inherent in having sex, becoming a parent is not one that they have to accept (even if they didn't want to terminate, they could place a baby for adoption). I wish that my sons had the same right to choose their path if an unplanned pregnancy happened. 

 

You do realize, that if one of your dd's decided to place a baby for adoption, the father would also be required to consent?  And if they didn't they would have the right to petition for custody, and get child support from your dd?  Of course then that would holding your dd accountable for having given birth to a child, and that would be unacceptable eyesroll.gif

 

And, as for forced birth not being a requirement, I don't know where you live, but there are states that have through regulations on abortion clinics, made it very very difficult to seek abortion services.  Are you aware of that?  That means that only affluent women are able to seek them (b/c they, or their parents, can afford to cross state lines to seek them).  So, abortion is NOT always an option for EVERY woman.  And, the father has to consent to adoption for it to be a viable option as well, and depending on state laws, if the father doesn't consent, the mother can be forced to parent.

 

Life isn't fair.  For ANYONE - not just men who are "coerced" into fatherhood.  I'm sure there are aspects of your life that aren't fair, I'm sure that your children will face one challenge or another that isn't fair.  Thats just the way life is, and there is NO way that making it so that men can just "opt out" of parenting, is going to make life any more fair.

 

Oh, and back in the 60's and 70's men COULD walk away, even if they were married when they had kids.  It was nearly impossible to enforce child support awards.  Men DID walk away, and states got sick and tired of it.  The burden on taxpayers was more than fair, b/c men were walking away from families and women were unable to support them.  So the states got sick of it and started going after men to enforce child support.  I certainly don't want to go back in time and have that become a possibility again.
 

post #150 of 190

 

I don't want men to be able to walk away from families, either. It's just that I don't think a woman they had sex with and a baby she may decide to have should meet the criteria for "family" in the legal sense of the term. 

 

Access to reproductive healthcare is an important right, and an important feminist (humanist!) issue. But it's a separate question. We should fix that. And we should fix this. 

 

"You do realize, that if one of your dd's decided to place a baby for adoption, the father (sic) would also be required to consent?  And if they didn't they would have the right to petition for custody, and get child support from your dd?"

 

Yes, I realize this, and it makes me want to vomit. I understand the current rules. I just think that they're wrongheaded and intrude inappropriately into the private lives of American citizens, all for the sake of saving a very small amount of money - or perhaps no money at all, once you add in all the costs of tracking down and enforcing and yada yada yada. 

post #151 of 190

 

I cant comment on the legal situation in detail, but i can certainly see a double standard from an ethical viewpoint when it comes to sex and reproduction.
 
Once given the right to make reproductive choices like abortion or birth control, women can choose to have sex  without being forced into parenthood. Men dont have that same power, and herein lies the double  standard as Smithie has so well argued. 
 
I dont know why its so difficult for people to admit that there is a double standard here, and why they find it so difficult to understand where in some situations men are angry about it.
 
Saying that sex leads to pregnancy and abstention is the only way to aovid pregnancy  stems from a very sex negative view. If that is your world view, then so be it. But not everyone has that view. There is a reason contraception exists: to give  people power over their reproductive lives, so that they can separate parenthood from sex.
 
Ultimately, the childs welfare is paramount. So yeah, its a complicated situation, and the law does not reflect the ethical double standard very well. Its hard to see how the law could do that,  but maybe some more  creative thinking could lead to solutions, instead of just naming every man who dared to have sex, as the bad guy because he panics when forced into fatherhood. 
 
Just  my 2cents
post #152 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by contactmaya View Post


 
Once given the right to make reproductive choices like abortion or birth control, women can choose to have sex  without being forced into parenthood. Men dont have that same power, and herein lies the double  standard as Smithie has so well argued. 
 
I dont know why its so difficult for people to admit that there is a double standard here, and why they find it so difficult to understand where in some situations men are angry about it.
 
There is a double standard, however the alternative (letting men just walk away) ALSO creates a double standard in which men are allowed to engage in pre-marital sex without ANY responsibility - and women are NOT, b/c women are not allowed to simply walk away - they must actively seek abortion, or actively seek adoption, or actively seek plan B or some such alternative BC after having sex.  Men on the other hand, would be able to just walk away.  Sperm ejaculated, end of story.  Women are responsible for sex, men are not - hugely sexist double standard.
 
Saying that sex leads to pregnancy and abstention is the only way to aovid pregnancy  stems from a very sex negative view. If that is your world view, then so be it. But not everyone has that view. There is a reason contraception exists: to give  people power over their reproductive lives, so that they can separate parenthood from sex.
 
Abstaining from sex is the ONLY 100% fool proof way of preventing pregnancy.  ALL other forms of birth control (aside from hysterectomy) ARE NOT 100% fool proof.  Period.  Yes, contraception exists to give people power over their reproductive lives, but when engaging in sexual intercourse, you assume the risk that your contraception might FAIL.  There is no way to make certain that your contraceptive will work 100% of the time.  And if the contraception DOES fail, BOTH parties should be responsible.  Yes, its unfair that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy and men don't, but really, giving men that kind of power over a woman's body doesn't sit right with me - just like the legislature dictating when abortion isn't available doesn't sit right with me.
 
Ultimately, the childs welfare is paramount. So yeah, its a complicated situation, and the law does not reflect the ethical double standard very well. Its hard to see how the law could do that,  but maybe some more  creative thinking could lead to solutions, instead of just naming every man who dared to have sex, as the bad guy because he panics when forced into fatherhood. 
 
Just like allowing every man to just simply walk away is also NOT a good solution.
 
Just  my 2cents
post #153 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

 

"You really don't think your kids should shoulder the responsibility that comes with sex?"

 

There are lots of responsibilities that come with sex. Forced birth is not, thank God, one of them. Nobody can force my daughters to parent an unwanted baby. I'm very, very grateful that of ALL the possible bad outcomes inherent in having sex, becoming a parent is not one that they have to accept (even if they didn't want to terminate, they could place a baby for adoption). I wish that my sons had the same right to choose their path if an unplanned pregnancy happened. 

 

You do realize, that if one of your dd's decided to place a baby for adoption, the father would also be required to consent?  And if they didn't they would have the right to petition for custody, and get child support from your dd?  Of course then that would holding your dd accountable for having given birth to a child, and that would be unacceptable eyesroll.gif

 

And, as for forced birth not being a requirement, I don't know where you live, but there are states that have through regulations on abortion clinics, made it very very difficult to seek abortion services.  Are you aware of that?  That means that only affluent women are able to seek them (b/c they, or their parents, can afford to cross state lines to seek them).  So, abortion is NOT always an option for EVERY woman.  And, the father has to consent to adoption for it to be a viable option as well, and depending on state laws, if the father doesn't consent, the mother can be forced to parent.

 

Life isn't fair.  For ANYONE - not just men who are "coerced" into fatherhood.  I'm sure there are aspects of your life that aren't fair, I'm sure that your children will face one challenge or another that isn't fair.  Thats just the way life is, and there is NO way that making it so that men can just "opt out" of parenting, is going to make life any more fair.

 

Oh, and back in the 60's and 70's men COULD walk away, even if they were married when they had kids.  It was nearly impossible to enforce child support awards.  Men DID walk away, and states got sick and tired of it.  The burden on taxpayers was more than fair, b/c men were walking away from families and women were unable to support them.  So the states got sick of it and started going after men to enforce child support.  I certainly don't want to go back in time and have that become a possibility again.
 

I agree. To the post right above, too. My father walked out when my mom got pg. They were not married. She did not put him on the birth cert. or get child support. Ever. I met him when I was 24. My grandfather left my mother's family after the 7th kid when he met another woman. He never paid child support and only had the kids grudgingly when they needed housekeepers and nannys. My ex (not married) decided after our unexpected 2nd kid he didn't want anything to do with us after I refused to have an abortion. He stuck around long enough to mooch off of me and neglect the kids to get high when I worked. Finally after 8 years, he stopped running from the child support order mandated by the state for us having medicaid (dh's work doesn't offer affordable insurance) and instead of quitting another job as soon as child support kicked in, has been working for over a year. We've talked about step-parent adoption. He doesn't want the kids, but my dh has raised them as his own since ds was a few months old and was around as my friend before that. When we have money, we'll likely do the step-parent adoption.
post #154 of 190


Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeannine View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeannine View Post


 

How, exactly, do you determine that THE reason a man is fighting for custody is to get back at the mother?  Please.  There is so much useless generalizing and subjectivity in psychological statistics.


Eh, can't prove it in OP's case, however, the fact that her fiance wants to voluntarily terminate his rights so that he doesn't  have to pay child support (which also means he wouldn't even have the ability to go to court for custody), but in the same breath is thinking about someday, in the future, trying to get full custody....well, those 2 sentiments REALLY don't add up quite right.  And I'm not really sure if there would be any reason other than to get back at the mom, b/c a parent who is concerned about their childs well being enough to seek custody isn't going to want to cut legal paternity ties right?

 Actually, your response supports my point.

 

At the risk of being repetitive, if you go back and read what she wrote, the OP tried to explain that her fiance DOES care about the best interests of his child and NOT just getting out of child support:

 

1- Thanks to the mother's choices (moving across the country; concealing her contact info.; giving the dad no notice when she and the child are going to be in town, such that he could meet the child...), so far there is no relationship with the OP's fiance that the child would be traumatized to lose.

 

2- The mother's behavior and hostility; the dad's lack of funds for attorneys (or trips to WA); and the distance would all make it extremely difficult for the OP's fiance to form a relationship with the child.

 

3- However, there IS a father-figure in the picture for this child:  the mother's fiance.

 

4- If the mother's fiance would adopt the child, and no one ever told the child about the OP, it could save the child a lot of heartache throughout her life.  She could have a married, loving Mommy and Daddy, instead of having to figure out how to deal with a far-away Dad telling her he loves her and wishes he could see her more and do more for her, but he can't afford to; while the Mom and Step-Dad she lives with are telling her Dad never wanted her, doesn't care about seeing her and is a deadbeat.

 

5- When the OP talked about how financially strapped her fiance is, everyone jumped on the idea that he doesn't want to share what money he has with this child.  Well of course it's scary if you can barely figure out how to keep the roof over your head, to contemplate a new financial obligation.  But the other significant point that seems to have been glossed over is, if he has no money, he can't be made to pay very much in C/S, so his help is not going to make a big dent, to a child whose mother is already on public assistance and living with her parents.  

 

I.e., the little bit of C/S he'll wind up paying arguably does not warrant the heartache the child will suffer, knowing about the OP's fiance, if she could instead be adopted by the mom's fiance.

 

When mothers admit they're not ready to raise a child and give it up for adoption to someone who IS, it's selfless.  Well, from what she wrote, the OP's fiance is looking at his situation the exact same way.  He believes it would be better for his child if his ex's fiance were allowed to be Dad and he (admittedly, foolishly) hopes giving up his parental rights would facilitate that.  But because he's the father, you and other members assume it's selfish and only about the money.

 

When the OP posted again, trying to defend herself/her fiance, she mentioned that the two of them had talked about seeking custody.  She said this to show that he DOES care about the child and WOULD like to be part of her life.  But in her 1st post, she made it clear her fiance had decided to give up his parental rights, if he could; making room for the stepfather to adopt his child.  So, seeking custody was something he thought about and rejected.  Besides, you have kids, right?  Do you think RAISING them is CHEAPER than paying child support???  I sure don't.

 

But again, he's the father.  So, he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.  You don't think, "He learned he had a child, wanted a relationship with her, talked to his fiancee about seeking custody, but decided that wouldn't be best FOR THE CHILD."  You're certain that he wanted to take on all the expenses of raising her FULL TIME (with no financial help from the mother, who's on public assistance), S-O-L-E-L-Y to save himself the expense of C/S."

 

Well, if THAT is an adequate way to conclude that this father is among the alleged 70% of custody-seekers who DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN and ONLY want to get out of C/S and hurt the mother, then it IS INDEED right to be skeptical about the accuracy of those statistics!


Actually, what everyone got riled up about is that the father and OP were considering trying to take the child away from the mother and at the same time considering giving up all parental obligations and responsibilities.  The two things are not consistent.  If I had a child someone else was raising, the two options are NOT: either I get the child 100% or the other parent gets the child 100%.  If the OP's boyfriend actually gave a damn about his child AND believed the child should not be with the mother, he, AS THE FATHER, should have taken steps to protect the child.  That is not what he did. He isn't interested in taking the child until he is financially sound - who knows how many years that will be.  In the meantime, if indeed the child is with an abusive mother, he has done nothing while his child was abused.  What he is doing is trying to find a way to avoid all responsibility for the child.  That is not a parent who is looking out for the best interests of the child. 

post #155 of 190

Quote:

Originally Posted by contactmaya View Post

 

I cant comment on the legal situation in detail, but i can certainly see a double standard from an ethical viewpoint when it comes to sex and reproduction.
 
Once given the right to make reproductive choices like abortion or birth control, women can choose to have sex  without being forced into parenthood. Men dont have that same power, and herein lies the double  standard as Smithie has so well argued. 
 
I dont know why its so difficult for people to admit that there is a double standard here, and why they find it so difficult to understand where in some situations men are angry about it.
 
Saying that sex leads to pregnancy and abstention is the only way to aovid pregnancy  stems from a very sex negative view. If that is your world view, then so be it. But not everyone has that view. There is a reason contraception exists: to give  people power over their reproductive lives, so that they can separate parenthood from sex.
 
Ultimately, the childs welfare is paramount. So yeah, its a complicated situation, and the law does not reflect the ethical double standard very well. Its hard to see how the law could do that,  but maybe some more  creative thinking could lead to solutions, instead of just naming every man who dared to have sex, as the bad guy because he panics when forced into fatherhood. 
 
Just  my 2cents


There is no double standard.  A man's choice ends when his DNA leaves his body. A woman's choice ends when she has a viable fetus that can no longer be aborted.  I don't see this as a double standard, just the facts of life. If no one wants to risk pregnancy, don't have sex.  I don't see this as sex negative, just the truth. Most people don't make that choice, so for those who want to have sex, there are inherent risks. The risk for a man is that he might impregnate a woman who carries a baby to term and asks him for help. The risk for a woman is that she might become pregnant with a child by a man who does not want to help her (among other things of course).  Both people have a window of opportunity to back out of child bearing, the woman's is just a little longer.  I do not see that as a problem. 

post #156 of 190


Quote:

Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

 

Bec, I'm glad things are good for you right now, but those were not choices I would have made for my child. Your choices weren't wrong - but I don't think mine would have been wrong either. 

 

And of course you have a "family" - you have two kids! But you don't have the legal rights or responsibilities of a spouse, and that's fine with me as long as you are cognizant of that and are choosing not to have them. Since you've named two different guys on two different birth certificates, your children are going to be separated if you pass away. That, above all else, is the thing that would have kept me from naming Boyfriend #1 if I knew that were were not ever going to be a family. 


The children don't necessarily have to be separated, and even if they did, the value of having a biological father who wants to raise his child is certainly worth at least CONSIDERING.  Do you really value father's so little?

post #157 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stTimeMama4-4-10 View Post


Quote:

Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

 

Bec, I'm glad things are good for you right now, but those were not choices I would have made for my child. Your choices weren't wrong - but I don't think mine would have been wrong either. 

 

And of course you have a "family" - you have two kids! But you don't have the legal rights or responsibilities of a spouse, and that's fine with me as long as you are cognizant of that and are choosing not to have them. Since you've named two different guys on two different birth certificates, your children are going to be separated if you pass away. That, above all else, is the thing that would have kept me from naming Boyfriend #1 if I knew that were were not ever going to be a family. 


The children don't necessarily have to be separated, and even if they did, the value of having a biological father who wants to raise his child is certainly worth at least CONSIDERING.  Do you really value father's so little?


 

It would be more important in such a situation FOR THE CHILD to have their continuity continue - living in their same home, with the same father figure (biological or no), and staying with their sibling.  It kills me that if something happened to me that my daughter would not stay with her "father" who has been there since 9 weeks 24/7 but would probably end up going to my ex who at this point in her life has had a grand total of about a week's worth of visitation with her by his choice and still doesn't know how to properly care for her health.

post #158 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stTimeMama4-4-10 View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by contactmaya View Post

 

I cant comment on the legal situation in detail, but i can certainly see a double standard from an ethical viewpoint when it comes to sex and reproduction.
 
Once given the right to make reproductive choices like abortion or birth control, women can choose to have sex  without being forced into parenthood. Men dont have that same power, and herein lies the double  standard as Smithie has so well argued. 
 
I dont know why its so difficult for people to admit that there is a double standard here, and why they find it so difficult to understand where in some situations men are angry about it.
 
Saying that sex leads to pregnancy and abstention is the only way to aovid pregnancy  stems from a very sex negative view. If that is your world view, then so be it. But not everyone has that view. There is a reason contraception exists: to give  people power over their reproductive lives, so that they can separate parenthood from sex.
 
Ultimately, the childs welfare is paramount. So yeah, its a complicated situation, and the law does not reflect the ethical double standard very well. Its hard to see how the law could do that,  but maybe some more  creative thinking could lead to solutions, instead of just naming every man who dared to have sex, as the bad guy because he panics when forced into fatherhood. 
 
Just  my 2cents


There is no double standard.  A man's choice ends when his DNA leaves his body. A woman's choice ends when she has a viable fetus that can no longer be aborted.  I don't see this as a double standard, just the facts of life. If no one wants to risk pregnancy, don't have sex.  I don't see this as sex negative, just the truth. Most people don't make that choice, so for those who want to have sex, there are inherent risks. The risk for a man is that he might impregnate a woman who carries a baby to term and asks him for help. The risk for a woman is that she might become pregnant with a child by a man who does not want to help her (among other things of course).  Both people have a window of opportunity to back out of child bearing, the woman's is just a little longer.  I do not see that as a problem. 


Very good point.  :)

post #159 of 190


Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSlingMama View Post

It would be more important in such a situation FOR THE CHILD to have their continuity continue - living in their same home, with the same father figure (biological or no), and staying with their sibling.  It kills me that if something happened to me that my daughter would not stay with her "father" who has been there since 9 weeks 24/7 but would probably end up going to my ex who at this point in her life has had a grand total of about a week's worth of visitation with her by his choice and still doesn't know how to properly care for her health.


I definitely hear you on that.  In your situation, I agree it would not be in the best interest of your child to go a parent they don't know. But they wouldn't necessarily have to - there are other options.  Your current partner could certainly fight for custody as the "psychological parent." Courts DO recognize that.  What I was saying in that post was that precluding any relationship from occurring with a child's parent simply because he was not married to the mother is just devastatingly selfish to me and really contrary to the child's interest.  Fathers ARE important, and every child deserves the opportunity to know their father. Mothers do not have the right to cut off a father from his child - she gave that choice up when she decided to carry the baby to term. The only exception is if he is abusive, and in that case, the courts can take action. 

post #160 of 190

I am almost afraid to pop my head in here. 

 

But I have just seen too many times a mom give birth to a baby, love it and care for it alone, because the dad frankly doesn't care one bit.  Then the state sues for child support, and *wham* suddenly the dad wants whatever he can get, sometimes up to full custody of a DC he has never even tried to see, just to avoid paying support.  Or he sues for the DC because he gets a girlfriend who wants to see the baby, when he never wanted anything to do with the baby before, and forgets about the baby when they break up.... until he gets another girlfriend who either also has DC, or just thinks babies are sooooo cute...

 

I think it is heartbreaking for the mom, and heartbreaking for the baby to be jerked around like that.  I would die if I had to give my baby over to a virtual stranger, to be taken into a bad environment, the way I have it happen to some poor moms/babies.  I don't think a father should have 'rights' unless he is actually acting like a father in the first place, doing what he can in the situation. 

 

Anyone can have a night that they regret, but years later when the mom is trying to do right, and the dad is still a selfish immature person, even possibly a really bad guy (but it can't be proven in court)... it's just not right.

 

I don't know what the answer is.  =(

 

I think it is almost a baby/child rights issue-- not to have to go off with a stranger who didn't want anything to do with you until last week when he got sued by the state, who is going to smoke around you and take you around extremely questionable people and situations, who has no idea how to install a car seat, etc, etc... away from your mommy, when you are going to need her the most due to being so stressed. 

 

It's just so sad.  I know there are some awesome dads (and bad moms) out there too, but that's just not what I have seen in these cases.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › voluntary termination of parental rights