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 9

post #161 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love View Post

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.



Totally right sugar!  I personally know of a case with the awesome dad and bad mom who now wants the kids back because he got a girlfriend and they had a baby.  :(

post #162 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. 

See, i think this is where we are seeing a VERY different world view.  You mean my children COULD, legally speaking, be separated if i passed away.  The state does not arrive at your funeral with their copies of the certificates and forcibly divide the kids up you know!  DP and XP have been friends for THIRTY years, since the first week of high school.  They socialise together both with and without the kids and I.  My death is not going to suddenly turn them into terrible enemies who will rip the family to pieces for no reason.  DD's school is closest to my current home, and XP actively helped us select that school as the best in the areas where she lives (his and ours), i don't see him pulling her from that excellent school which we moved house to get into the catchment of because i died.  I guess it's hard to get a picture of our life without actually meeting us, but we don't need bits of paper or courts to make us behave like decent human beings, and i am very confident (hey, it's my KIDS we're talking about here after all) that would continue to be the case in my absence.

 

I see you say things are working out for me "right now", i assume because you see the risk that things might change and not work out for me...?  I understand the possibilities.  I understand the *mights* in my situation.  I *might* die.  They *might* turn out to be horrible men who would peacefully wreck a motherless child's life to get at one another.  They *might* have total personality transplants some time in the future and turn out to be vicious enemies.  But cannot live my life in fear of *mights*.  Imagine i DID die, imagine i was always going to die when DD was 6.  Is it really much better for her to be without mother and father, without DP (who *might* have turned out to be a bad person, thus not worth risking a relationship with), without her sister (who wouldn't have been born), with whoever is left (my disabled sister, my abusive alcoholic brother, or my elderly father or XP's toxic family or her dad the total stranger, or in the UK "care" system)?  Perhaps you have a family littered with reliable healthy loving people who could care for your children if you died.  I really do not.  And XP actually lost HIS father when he was 13 to cancer, so he is excellently placed to help a child who has lost a parent work through their grief.

 

It seems such a sad and fearful way to live life, to be constantly thinking of the worst "might" and acting accordingly. 

 

My only dealings with the legal system have been terrible.  The agencies i had to deal with dehumanised DD (to the extent of referring to "the baby" and "it"), acted like i was an irresponsible slut who should rightly suffer for her laxity, and XP was an uncaring deadbeat who must be FORCED to pay anything (ironically he WAS lying about how much he paid me, because if he told them the true amount they would have cut my benefits by MORE than the extra he was giving me and he knew the "required" amount was never going to be enough to actually keep his child clothed and fed and warm).  It was terrible.  Neither of us felt "safer" with these written agreements.  Talking "through" the agencies, who were worse than useless - often getting things so wrong both of us were made out, to the other, to be liars, just made us both suspicious, unhappy and distant.  Talking to ONE ANOTHER makes us feel on the same team, able to trust, and happy with the way our family looks.  And i never "knew we weren't ever going to be a family" - we ARE a family.  Whether it's easy or not, whether we like it or not.  We had a baby together.  We are a family.  We might not live together or sleep together, but we have a common relative and that means we're family.

post #163 of 190

i dont think the man has the right to just walk away at all, just pointing out the complexity of the situation. Theres gotta be a better way.

Letting the guy off the hook in all situations is definitely not it. Maybe giving some cases extra consideration because of certain circumstances might be the answer. However, i dont think the law is capable of this kind of subtlety. Also, its hard to get away from the he said/she said scenario. What about a contract to be signed before engaging in sexual intercourse, if one partner is absolutely set against pregnancy? At least that would give the courts something to consider. Im thinking of situations where a woman absolutely swears she us on birth control and guy is absolutely adament that  he doesnt want to be a dad.  Accidents happen however, i agree. Just  putting ideas out there based on the premise that all people deserve respect and consideration, even if they have sex. :shrug

 

ps. signing a contract before sex sounds  crazy i know, but its sort of the premise behind marriage....

post #164 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by contactmaya View Post

i dont think the man has the right to just walk away at all, just pointing out the complexity of the situation. Theres gotta be a better way.

Letting the guy off the hook in all situations is definitely not it. Maybe giving some cases extra consideration because of certain circumstances might be the answer. However, i dont think the law is capable of this kind of subtlety. Also, its hard to get away from the he said/she said scenario. What about a contract to be signed before engaging in sexual intercourse, if one partner is absolutely set against pregnancy? At least that would give the courts something to consider. Im thinking of situations where a woman absolutely swears she us on birth control and guy is absolutely adament that  he doesnt want to be a dad.  Accidents happen however, i agree. Just  putting ideas out there based on the premise that all people deserve respect and consideration, even if they have sex. :shrug

 

ps. signing a contract before sex sounds  crazy i know, but its sort of the premise behind marriage....

LOL - it is isn't it?  Funny :)

 

Yeah, the he said/she said is really hard to get away from.  The situation is tricky - but basically, if a guy really truly doesn't want to be a dad, he can take control of that and not have sex.  BC fails sometimes, even when used exactly the way it should (which its often not, but thats another problem entirely)

 

I do agree that the law can't really deal with subtlety, especially in situations where there are consequences to more than just the parties who had sex - once theres a child to consider, its harder.  Especially since they didn't ask to be here and they still deserve the best. 
 

I mostly have a problem with the whole, "women should realize that when she has sex she's going to be wholly responsible, and doing that might cut down on casual sex" which entirely leaves out one of the parties who engaged in the activity!  Both parties should be responsible for their actions - no, its not always fair, but thats life.  It's one reason people really need to understand their rights and responsibilities so that they can make educated decisions about sex.  Which applies to BOTH the man and the woman.  (I know that wasn't you that said that contactmaya - its just the part of this thread that is bothering me the most)

post #165 of 190
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love View Post

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'm not talking to any person specifically, just quoting this to give my response a point-of-reference in the conversation.

 

I guess I just want to remind people that there are two sides to every story, and just because the two stories don't seem to be able to exist simultaneously doesn't mean there isn't truth to each one, and that it is not true for the person whose perspective it is.

 

When I got divorced, I told my friends about MY experience in my marriage, MY reasons for getting divorced, and MY divorce process. MY friends absolutely accepted that as the truth because they are my friends and they were there to support me. Obviously my version of the whole thing showed me in a pretty positive light because it was my perspective.

 

My ex told his friends HIS experience in marriage and HIS perspective on why and how I ended the relationship. I have heard all sorts of things that he told him that were not true from my perspective or that were missing information that I thought changed the picture quite a bit. It made me look pretty bad and him look like an innocent victim, and his friends accepted it without question because they are HIS friends and that is their role. I don't fault him for having the perspective he had and sharing it with the people who love and support him, nor do I blame them for believing him without question.

 

Just because our experiences were different doesn't mean one of us is lying or is a bad person or doesn't have a hold on reality. It means we were two very disconnected people who were very disillusioned or angry or upset, going through something very emotional we were not prepared for, trying to find our way to the other side in one piece. We experienced the trauma of divorce in our own way, with our own backgrounds and baggage, supported by different people, and choosing different paths of recovery. MY friends certainly didn't bother to hear his perspective, and if they did they would believe my version of events and would hear his version as lying or making excuses or being unhinged or whatever. His friends would feel the same if they heard my perspective.

 

So it is with anyone who goes through a traumatic breakup, who has to share a child with someone they dislike, who has to negotiate the world with someone they might fundamentally disagree with. They probably talk to their friends when they are angriest and most frustrated because that is when we need someone to talk to... that's when I would.

 

Likewise, my husband and his ex have very different memories of their relationship, very different perspectives on the way it ended, very different beliefs about what was best for their child at that time. Her friends think he is the devil and his friends think she is mentally unstable. It doesn't really matter how much he does to prove otherwise, some of them will always think he is the devil. It doesn't matter how much she acts sane and mentally healthy, some of his friends will always think she is mentally ill.

 

I have a totally different view of my children than their teachers do, than their grandparents do, than their aunts and uncles do. My mother has a very different view of me than my husband or my brother, and certainly than my ex. Our experiences with the same people can be very different. Very few of us are all good all the time or all bad all the time. Some really great people make awful decisions and some awful people can make loving decisions. I have regrets about decisions I've made or the way I've handled situations, but I am not a bad person deserving of everyone's hate. I am a basically good person who, when in a difficult situation, makes the best decision I can with the information and resources I have at the time. And there are going to be people who disagree with my decision, and who might disagree with a lot of my decisions and not understand why I make the decisions I make. But none of that makes me a bad person any more than your decisions, bad and good, define you as a person.

post #166 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post

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.

 


smile.gif

        This gave me a chuckle.  But, yes, I think given the way biology works, someone is always going to feel like they are getting the shaft.



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

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 think men still walk away. There are plenty who aren't paying child support.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stTimeMama4-4-10 View Post

Quote:


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.


Yes, this is how I see it.  I think we have a very long history of single women having to do the brunt of child rearing with little or no financial help from the father.  It seems like the state started getting involved in this situation when they had to figure out benefits--they want to make sure both parents are paying support before they give financial aid.  Or maybe it just seems like that because that is how it worked in my family.  It used to be that a woman could say that she didn't know who the father was, I don't know how that works today. In any event, it sounds like the government is saying that for the good of society, we should be able to make parents financially support any children they might have begotten. 

 

I don't agree with Smithie that parents need be married, but I think I actually agree with her third point.  As soon as forced child support enters the picture, honestly, it can be a total mess.  Heck, even before that, probably, but I guess there is something about having to pay this money that can turn people into complete and utter jerks.  

 

Quote:  Love said:

 

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

 

Yes, this sort of sums up situations I've seen and the complicated issues involved.  I think the basic problem I have is that I really do believe that in the first few years of life, a child really needs to be with his mother, in most cases, those cases being that the mother is alive, loving to the child, and has been the main caretaker with whom the child has bonded.  I've read a lot of negative stories of children having an awful time separating, but being forced into overnight visitation, mothers being told to wean their toddlers by the courts, women staying in abusive situations letting their children go into abusive situations all because of what the courts say and not wanting to be accused of alienating of affection or some such thing.  OK, maybe these are rare cases, but in the situations in my family where the fathers didn't just walk away and not pay support, he started using the support money to control and manipulate.  And one of my niece's basically lost her child to his father because he took her.  She was trying to let him have visitation, but as soon as he was able to get the child on his own, he took her.  He rarely lets my niece see her, and the court situation just drags on and on, or doesn't drag on because my niece has no money for a lawyer, but in any event, I just pray he loves his child, even though he's an abusive UAV who went to jail for macing his wife in the face because she tried to leave him because he was having an affair with my niece. He didn't get in trouble for punching my 14 year old nephew in the face, however. Oh well, the court has barely been involved at all, but the one legal parent thing might have been useful, so that the police might have done something when he didn't bring the child back.  But it's all second hand information to me, so who knows.

post #167 of 190



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stTimeMama4-4-10 View Post

Quote:


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 or does not want his help at all, causing him to have to fight for what little he may be granted, . 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. 

 


I like this alot....(and added my own in italics)

the "consequences" for both parties are dif... and thats just the way it is. And it couldnt be different. babies are born to be breastfed and ex wouldnt want to be up every night with her even if she took a bottle.

For example I have the pleasure of nursing/sleeping with DD every night since her birth, then getting up & working a partime job & putting the extra cash in her college fund..

Ex does not have some of my pleasures, but neither has he EVER changed her diaper, he stays out til 4 am partying & spends his money on extras for himself...

B/c I made a bad choice about who to have sex with I didn't feel like I should make a WORSE choice by making my DD/myself live in the same house with him as a family.

I do not believe she "needs" him. my current partner has been her "father" for 4 years.

BUT b/c EX has decided to persue his rights & responsiblites, if he is going to be a positive part of her life....... as a mother then I should be happy about that. And legally unless I can PROVE that visitation is harmful for her, he will continue to be granted it. That kinda makes sense to me.

But I do have some issues about how late is too late for fathers to "claim" their rights.. as this point DD is little so she won't remember, but it would be much harder to adjust if she were bigger.

I think the current legislation is as good as it can be. A single mother who does not name the father on the BC is persumed to have full custody.

If this is not for the best, the unhappy party can petition the courts.
 

post #168 of 190

a man has a choice to use a condom... doesn't he? Furthermore, if he decides not to use protection to prevent a pregnancy, he should be held accountable!

post #169 of 190

hey thread from february! 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alicewonderland View Post

a man has a choice to use a condom... doesn't he? Furthermore, if he decides not to use protection to prevent a pregnancy, he should be held accountable!



he should probably be held accountable if he makes a baby no matter if he was trying or not trying to prevent shrug.gif

post #170 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by kawa kamuri View Post

hey thread from february! 
 



he should probably be held accountable if he makes a baby no matter if he was trying or not trying to prevent shrug.gif


Absolutely. There is only one real way to prevent pregnancy. If he is having sex at all, hes not trying 100% to prevent having a baby, so why shouldnt he be held 100% accountable for his own child?
post #171 of 190

If he cant even support hismelf right now then he shoudlnt be having sex. Its not like we dont know how babies are made. Its not by twittering.

 

HE choose to have sex. He needs to choose the consequences. And if he cant feed himself, then it wasnt the right time to engage in an activity KNOWN to create babies.

 

post #172 of 190

Okay, so I'm probably a little bit late on this, but I recall seeing someone say "even if the woman says she had a hystorectamy the man is responsible for the baby" No! I'm sorry but 1st of that girl is just trying to trick someone into having a baby with them. 2nd, I know 1st hand how this goes. My husband and I are dealing with this. Even though he fully agrees that he should take care of this child (whom he's had custody of since the day she was born 7 years ago) a few lawyers and even a judge have told us that in this case because she blaintly tricked him into this pregnancy that he could have filed to terminate his rights as soon as the DNA test came back. I am a mother of 2 children myself and I would never think to lie to someone one about my method of contraception. And in fact, even if I was on the pill or and IUD or any other form of it, I'd have the man wear a condom. The other big reason the courts agree with us, is because we save every email, every text between us. She has admitted more than once that she lied to him and only wanted to get pregnant because she knew that he has a good job (he's in the marines and has been for 12 years now, since he was 18) and that she could get enough child support out of him to support herself and the baby and never have to work again. So I'm sorry if I offended any of you mothers, but little girls like this are the reason men do this crap. They give women like us who actually raise our own kids (and more often than not some one elses too) a bad rep. As for my husbands incubator as we like to call her, she has 2 other children and one on the way, all to different men. The other 2 are in state care because she's a low-life and would rather choose drugs and partying than her kids, and this last one is being taken the day it is born. And same goes for these 3 kids, she lied to the guys and told them she couldn't have babies because she had no reproductive organs. Yet even so, all 4 of these guys are fighting for custody. But even so if I were a guy and some chick lied to me like that (if she said she was on the pill but not I'd be mad but not so mad) and said SHE COULD NOT HAVE KIDS EVER I'd feel the same way and not want anything to do with it either. I'd get over it and do whats right but even so you can't be mad at guys for feeling that way. Put yourself in his shoes. Also, this is going to offend a lot of you and I honestly don't care, but most of you women who cry about your BD being a pos, are just money hungry. Oh, he doesn't see the baby boohoo his loss not yours not the childs, oh he doesn't pay "ME" no he's not paying you, he doesn't have to, he's paying your child, but guess what... GET A JOB! If you need to rely on a man to support you, you aren't a woman. Instead of worrying about what he is or isn't doing, worry about what you're doing and worry about taking care of your child/ren! Karma has a funny way of working, and as long as you're doing what you need to do, he'll get his in the end anyway. And just remember, when the kids get older, and they know your side of the story they'll want to find him to get his, so let him explain that part. They'll be old enough to decided on their own how they want to handle it.

post #173 of 190

rolleyes.giflol.gif and puke.gifto alla that.

 

 

post #174 of 190
Listen here, all you money hungry bitches, you best be getting a job instead of expecting your BD to help you pay your bills. winky.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaHof5 View Post



Okay, so I'm probably a little bit late on this, but I recall seeing someone say "even if the woman says she had a hystorectamy the man is responsible for the baby" No! I'm sorry but 1st of that girl is just trying to trick someone into having a baby with them. 2nd, I know 1st hand how this goes. My husband and I are dealing with this. Even though he fully agrees that he should take care of this child (whom he's had custody of since the day she was born 7 years ago) a few lawyers and even a judge have told us that in this case because she blaintly tricked him into this pregnancy that he could have filed to terminate his rights as soon as the DNA test came back.

I am a mother of 2 children myself and I would never think to lie to someone one about my method of contraception. And in fact, even if I was on the pill or and IUD or any other form of it, I'd have the man wear a condom.

The other big reason the courts agree with us, is because we save every email, every text between us. She has admitted more than once that she lied to him and only wanted to get pregnant because she knew that he has a good job (he's in the marines and has been for 12 years now, since he was 18) and that she could get enough child support out of him to support herself and the baby and never have to work again.

So I'm sorry if I offended any of you mothers, but little girls like this are the reason men do this crap. They give women like us who actually raise our own kids (and more often than not some one elses too) a bad rep. As for my husbands incubator as we like to call her, she has 2 other children and one on the way, all to different men. The other 2 are in state care because she's a low-life and would rather choose drugs and partying than her kids, and this last one is being taken the day it is born. And same goes for these 3 kids, she lied to the guys and told them she couldn't have babies because she had no reproductive organs. Yet even so, all 4 of these guys are fighting for custody.

But even so if I were a guy and some chick lied to me like that (if she said she was on the pill but not I'd be mad but not so mad) and said SHE COULD NOT HAVE KIDS EVER I'd feel the same way and not want anything to do with it either. I'd get over it and do whats right but even so you can't be mad at guys for feeling that way. Put yourself in his shoes. Also, this is going to offend a lot of you and I honestly don't care, but most of you women who cry about your BD being a pos, are just money hungry. Oh, he doesn't see the baby boohoo his loss not yours not the childs, oh he doesn't pay "ME" no he's not paying you, he doesn't have to, he's paying your child, but guess what... GET A JOB! If you need to rely on a man to support you, you aren't a woman. Instead of worrying about what he is or isn't doing, worry about what you're doing and worry about taking care of your child/ren! Karma has a funny way of working, and as long as you're doing what you need to do, he'll get his in the end anyway. And just remember, when the kids get older, and they know your side of the story they'll want to find him to get his, so let him explain that part. They'll be old enough to decided on their own how they want to handle it.



I tried to break this wall of text up into paragraphs so that someone might actually be able to read it. It seriously took me about 4 minutes to figure out what BD stood for. Im assuming its "baby daddy"? I have NEVER heard that phrase on this site, or seen an abbreviation for it.

You are crazy. Why was YOUR husband sleeping with someone else and getting her pregnant in the first place? Maybe he hasnt been your husband for very long?

My DH supports me and I can tell you I am every bit woman. Go troll somewhere else with your drama and your opinions about other people's baby daddy's.
post #175 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

Listen here, all you money hungry bitches, you best be getting a job instead of expecting your BD to help you pay your bills. winky.gif

You CRACK ME UP!

OP, if I recall, you're very young and so are your kids.  I, too, was a product of public schools, post-"Women's Lib", and once believed it was some grand insult to womanhood, if I didn't work full time and completely support myself, financially.

 

Then I had kids.

 

If a woman wants to work full-time, even while she has young kids at home to raise, she should have every opportunity to do so, just as men do.  Or, if a woman is staying home with her kids and her husband loses his job and can't find a new one, she should by all means take any opportunity to earn money to help feed her family.  But if a woman has babies with a man and they agree that she will stay home and raise them full-time, while he goes out and earns all the money, she is by all means still a woman.  She is, in fact, a woman in tune with some of the most ancient, time-honored instincts associated with the double-X chromosomal allotment.  If a woman makes babies with a man who leaves her and she decides to press the laws that say he must contribute to the financial needs of the child he helped conceive - so that she doesn't have to work two jobs to support said child and can spend some time with him/her - she is also still a woman.

 

If you don't understand my perspective now, you probably will by the time you're 40.  In the meantime, I wish you the best of luck in your blended family endeavors and I hope other people are patient with the ignorant-sounding venting in your last post.

post #176 of 190

I agree with so many of you about this... It's really sad that anyone who had an extensive (even not so extensive) relationship with the mother, would want to never see the child.. It's not the baby's fault.  So the relationship didn't work out, there was cheating or mistrust or the child wasn't planned. (most babies aren't)  But the fact is there is another life, a person who will always wonder, "why didn't my dad want me?" or "I know he is he alive and breathing and still chooses not to see me, why?"...  That's the really sad part here..  Any man who can't love their child regardless of their previous relationship issues is a piece of Sh**.  Child support is nothing compared to how much it takes to raise a baby alone. Child support is based on their income...just think how much he'd being paying if he was raising it alone. Like the mother is now. Regardless of child support, which he'll have to pay anyway, does it cost anything to love or want your own child?  This just annoys me.. women who buy into this "Poor me" crap from guys.. yes its hard, but its harder being a single parent than a dad that forks out some cash once in a while...Be smart and think it over!

post #177 of 190

I've read through these posts, and some of it is good info and some of it makes me laugh out loud.

 

First, for those who have been saying there is NO double-standard, you should understand first what a double-standard means:

 

: a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another

 

In this case, what is being described is, without a doubt, a double standard.  Someone stated that each person has a chance to back out (man at intercourse and woman at developed fetus).  Well, that is a different standard, and I think we can all agree that one provides a substantially different set of options than the other.

 

 

For those comments about 2 sides to every story...I agree.  I'll try to stick to an open perspective here, but I'm sure my daughter's mother would see some things differently.  However, facts are still facts.

 

 

I'd also like to explain my own situation, and possibly get a few comments that could help.  My daughter was born 7.5 years ago.  I was first informed about 3 months into the pregnancy via email...which stated she wanted nothing to do with me and "nothing from me".  I tried contacting her after that but she moved.  The next time I heard from the mother was when I was served papers for child support enforcement.  The mother was on state assistance, and the state wanted money.  The mother had a choice whether to list me or not, and she chose to list me (so much for not wanting me involved I guess).  I took the paternity test and she is my daughter.  I made the necessary arrangements for child support and was able to get 2 visits with my daughter when she was around 6 months old (which doesn't really offer much since they don't really interact much).  The 2 visits were a total of 2 hours.

 

I continued making payments, but because the state of Missouri does not handle visitation through Family Services, I was at the whim of the mother.  If she wanted me to see my daughter, I could...if she didn't, I couldn't.  My only fix for this was to file with the court to have a visitation order put in place.  While this seems to be logical, it's also very expensive...even more so because I no longer lived in Missouri, and local attorneys wanted outrageous retainers to ensure payment of their fees (since I was out of state).  I tried filing myself 11 different times.  They were all rejected or ignored by the court for numerous and ridiculous reasons.

 

I was able to see my daughter 3 times during the summer she turned 3.  I saw her in May for her birthday, then June when I paid for her and her mother to come to the grand opening of my first business (I had to pay all expenses including food, hotel, gas, etc. or the mother said she wouldn't come), and then in July for an Independence Day festival.  Since that time, the mother has not allowed me to see her, and refuses to set up a visitation schedule for us to submit to the court.

 

The mother has, on numerous occasions, requested my child support be changed (increased).  When I closed my first business and had limited income, I requested it be reduced...and to my shock, they raised it by just over 50%!  They took 2 separate "potential" incomes that were completely mutually exclusive (I couldn't possibly earn them both...it had to be one or the other), and my support rose dramatically.

 

I wanted something very basic...visitation with my daughter.  My request was visitation every other weekend and extended time in the summers (we are 3 states apart and 1 evening a week doesn't make sense...but I wanted that time compiled for more time in the summer).  I agreed to meet her half way for pick up and drop off as well.  She, on the other hand, refused.  Originally, she said she would only do it if I paid all her expenses to get to the pickup/dropoff point.  I originally refused.  Later, I agreed to this, and she decided at that point to remove herself from the discussion.

 

At that point I decided not to pay child support.  I had been paying for years, thousands of dollars (mostly based on inaccurate calculations), and yet I still had only seen my daughter a total of 5 different times.  I wasn't a deadbeat.  I wasn't ignoring my daughter.  I wanted to see her, tried numerous ways to see her...and I had been paying.

 

Fast-forward to today (which is why I'm on here in the first place).  I'm $18,000 in arrears.  I'm currently unemployed, looking for work, and heading back to school for a joint Masters/PhD.  I still haven't seen my daughter, and her mother won't discuss anything.

 

At this point, I'd like to give up my parental "rights" (as if I really have any other than to pay her support) and end the child support payments.  I know in Missouri that a custodial parent can eliminate arrears owed to them (a simple form does that), but I'm at a point in my life that I just don't see anything getting better with regard to this.  I've never had a connection with my daughter.  I don't think I ever will be allowed to (until she is 18 or at least old enough to understand what is going on).  The financial burden is extraordinary...and for what exactly?  I still don't get to see my daughter.

 

My question for this forum is the following:

 

Can 2 consenting parents terminate the father's rights and remove the child support obligation in the state of Missouri?

 

 

I'd like to say that while there are many deadbeat fathers out there (and some deadbeat mothers...some with custody of children even), not all fathers who don't pay support are deadbeats.  Some have tremendous financial obligations and the courts do not work in the non-custodial parents favor.  Others have tried playing by the rules and keep getting screwed...so they give up (me).  I absolutely could make a child support payment tomorrow (from my savings), but to what end?

 

The idea that Family Support Divisions ONLY deal with support issues is ridiculous to me.  If you have a divorce, the visitation is structured generally at that time.  However, in cases where the parents were never married there needs to be something set up to establish visitation.  In Missouri, there isn't.

 

 

Finally, with regard to the overall concept of having kids, abortion, support, etc.  When 2 adults consent to have sex, they are making a choice together.  It's not 1 adult making a choice for them both (or as some have put it the man impregnating the woman)...it's both adults consenting.  They are both able to make THAT choice.

 

Once the child has been conceived, you have a whole new set of choices to be made, and this is where the double-standard really is emphasized.  The father can be completely left out of the choices.  A mother can abort the child...even if the father wants the child.  The mother can keep the child...even if the father wants to abort the child.  The father has no rights at all at this point.

 

I'm not saying the father should be able to walk-away from the situation.  I do think child support should be addressed, but so should visitation, and other issues (and it's always funny to hear Family Services talk about "best interest of the child" when a father isn't even  allowed to see the child).  Child support should not be based on incomes.  Child support should be a set amount based on where a person lives and the cost of living in that location.  It's the only fair way to do it.

 

Example (while exaggerated, similar situations happen regularly):

 

A father lives in New York City, and has a decent job making $100,000 a year, but living in NYC, he also has substantial expenses.  If he had the same job in Missouri (for instance), he would only make about $30,000 a year, and his expenses would be less.  The mother, living in BFE Missouri, has a basic job making $27,000, but her expenses are very low because of where she lives.  When calculating support based on incomes, there is $127,000 of income total, and the father would have to pay a substantial amount in support.  The support would likely be enough to pay all the rent, utilities, and possibly a car payment for the mother (and if the mother decided to quit her job, she would get a bit more, and likely not have to work at all...and still be fine).

 

If child support were based on location rather than income, a simple basic amount would be determined, and parents would simply split the amount based on the amount of time the child is with each parent.  For instance, you could take the cost of living in BFE Missouri (very minimal) and create a calculation and then a set amount for support.  Regardless of how much the father makes, the support is set to PROVIDE for the child.

 

I'd love to get some feedback on my post...and I'm sorry it got to be so long. :)

post #178 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stTimeMama4-4-10 View Post


Uh no.  As it is, there's a TON of women having babies with convicted felons, sex offenders, physically abusive men, men who refuse to work, and worse.  Knowing that that man could walk out and not be responsible would not deter any of these women because their self esteem is so low that they don't believe they deserve to be supported to begin with. That, and no one believes that the man they love, for better or worse, would ever do that. 



I just wanted to point out an obvious fact here.  These women are CHOOSING to be with those types of guys.

 

Yes, sometimes men and women have sex without being married (I actually think marriage sanctioned by the government is ridiculous...but that's another thread).  Yes, sometimes a child is conceived.

 

BOTH man and woman CHOSE to have sex...they both made a choice that could have consequences.  However, the CHOICES for women continue, while the CHOICES for men do not.

 

You cannot compare CHOICES available to each party at different times as being equal (in other words, saying a man chooses to have sex is equal to a woman choosing to have the baby is not a fair comparison).

post #179 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctflener View Post

 

 

  Child support should not be based on incomes.  Child support should be a set amount based on where a person lives and the cost of living in that location.  It's the only fair way to do it.

 



Are you SHITTING me???  Do you have ANY idea how much it costs to raise a child?  There are expenses that you wouldn't even be able to fathom, because you don't raise your child and you simply want to lower your support payments.  Medical expenses, prescription meds, childcare can be OUTRAGEOUS (and I don't give a damn where anyone lives - $27,000/year income does not pay for rent, daycare, electric, heat, AC, internet, cable, medical insurance, car insurance, gas, parking, groceries for 2, etc.  It's just not possible). Children are expensive.  You want a relationship?  Go to court and get visitation.  Hire a lawyer - yes they are expensive I would know (I am one, plus i had to pay one for the most ridiculous STUPID custody battle ever b/c my kids dad is an asshole), but you have a right to a relationship with your child.  And all the excuses as to why you can't get one are stupid - they are merely excuses and show that its really not THAT important to you.

post #180 of 190

Why did this make me laugh?  Look, when a child is brought into the picture no matter how he or she got there both parties need to be responsible.  Some women are jerks and so are some men.  If it takes a court decision to make two people act like grown ups then they really aren't.  My mother got pregnant twice to get married.  Worked both times.  Then instead of child support both adults split the kids.  I went one way the other went with dad.  Bullshittery!  Yup that's a word!  Maybe not.  Could be.  My point being, neither wanted to be responsible for child support so they chose to raise one kid each.  And we never saw each other.  And it sucked.  So adults just suck in general!  If DH and I divorce, I would do anything to keep them together.  If that meant I payed it all and he got them I'd do it.  It would suck and my heart would hurt but I don't want them to feel the hurt I felt.  I lost my other half because of money.  And laziness really because neither one cared to make the 4 hour drive once a month per the courts.  Douches!

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