Alimony is unfair!!!

[Rerun]

The kids that have it the toughest are usually the ones who have a mother who was never married to the father. I know a number of single moms who never married the kid(s) father(s) and they have a real hard time paying the bills and raising children. Usually if the dad wasn't married to the mother, he just walks away from her and the kid(s) and rarely helps out with the raising of them (financially or otherwise).

Lots of deadbeat dads out there like that..... we've probably even got a few of them on CP. ..... responsibility to your children seems to be a dieing character trait.

[mykalberta]

You can still get child support from them.

Remember, it takes 2 to tango - not defending anyone, just sayin.

Shawn Kemp is a prime example

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

You can still get child support from them.

Remember, it takes 2 to tango - not defending anyone, just sayin.

Shawn Kemp is a prime example

Yes... it does take two to tango... but its usually the mother left holding the bag.

... and yes you can apply for child support.... getting it out of the deadbeat bum of a father is usually a whole other story.

[Regorium]

It's absolute fact that dads get destroyed by the courts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/ma...agewanted=1&hp

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't dead beat dads out there. However, this article strikes true because this is the legal system that is handing out these rulings. This isn't just a case of some dude not owning up to someone he knocked up.

You can argue case by case to see who got screwed and who got the better end of the deal, but an article like that shows that all else equal, the courts will side with the woman every time.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Regorium

It's absolute fact that dads get destroyed by the courts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/ma...agewanted=1&hp

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't dead beat dads out there. However, this article strikes true because this is the legal system that is handing out these rulings. This isn't just a case of some dude not owning up to someone he knocked up.

You can argue case by case to see who got screwed and who got the better end of the deal, but an article like that shows that all else equal, the courts will side with the woman every time.

The legal system, when it comes to Family Law, is f***ed!!

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Regorium

It's absolute fact that dads get destroyed by the courts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/ma...agewanted=1&hp

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't dead beat dads out there. However, this article strikes true because this is the legal system that is handing out these rulings. This isn't just a case of some dude not owning up to someone he knocked up.

You can argue case by case to see who got screwed and who got the better end of the deal, but an article like that shows that all else equal, the courts will side with the woman every time.

I'm not sure how that article backs up your first statement. It has to do with dads who unwittingly parent children that they are genetically not related to and how the use of DNA testing has started to be accepted by the courts to terminate those parental obligations.

I can't begin to imagine how I would feel if I found out that either of my kids were fathered by someone else. I'm not sure I would be able to just get up and walk away from the relationship I've had with them for their entire lives and seek a court order terminating all of my parental responsibilities. On the other hand, the idea of having limited access to them while their biological father may or may not have anything to do with them and may or may not be contributing financially is difficult as well.

I do not have a great deal of experience in this area of law in Canada and I have even less to say about American law but I do know that of paramount concern in Canada is the "best interests of the child". The article does not do a good job of considering these issues from the point of view of the child. There needs to be some reconciliation between the rights and obligations of the parents on one hand and the rights of the children on the other. In any case where the children are otherwise going to come up short, I have no problem with the courts finding against the parents.

[Jetsfan]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Yes... it does take two to tango... but its usually the mother left holding the bag.

... and yes you can apply for child support.... getting it out of the deadbeat bum of a father is usually a whole other story.

We are told...a woman's body...a woman's choice.

The mother is the one who chose to have unprotected sex with the father.

If the father is a bad boy or thug and leaves her it was her choice.

As a male, if I impregnate a women, I have no say in whether or not she should abort.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Jetsfan

We are told...a woman's body...a woman's choice.

The mother is the one who chose to have unprotected sex with the father.

If the father is a bad boy or thug and leaves her it was her choice.

As a male, if I impregnate a women, I have no say in whether or not she should abort.

What did the child choose?

[amorak]

Originally Posted by Jetsfan

We are told...a woman's body...a woman's choice.

The mother is the one who chose to have unprotected sex with the father.

If the father is a bad boy or thug and leaves her it was her choice.

As a male, if I impregnate a women, I have no say in whether or not she should abort.

Left field

Jetsfan comes from it

[Jetsfan]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I'm not sure how that article backs up your first statement. It has to do with dads who unwittingly parent children that they are genetically not related to and how the use of DNA testing has started to be accepted by the courts to terminate those parental obligations.

I can't begin to imagine how I would feel if I found out that either of my kids were fathered by someone else. I'm not sure I would be able to just get up and walk away from the relationship I've had with them for their entire lives and seek a court order terminating all of my parental responsibilities. On the other hand, the idea of having limited access to them while their biological father may or may not have anything to do with them and may or may not be contributing financially is difficult as well.

I do not have a great deal of experience in this area of law in Canada and I have even less to say about American law but I do know that of paramount concern in Canada is the "best interests of the child". The article does not do a good job of considering these issues from the point of view of the child. There needs to be some reconciliation between the rights and obligations of the parents on one hand and the rights of the children on the other. In any case where the children are otherwise going to come up short, I have no problem with the courts finding against the parents.

This is why I support mandatory paternity testing at birth.

They're trying to pass a law in Tennessee.


"Well, at some point society has to weigh the rights of the parents against the rights of the child," he said. "And I think this is one of the basic inherent rights that should go with the child."

Funny enough, the strongest opponents of the Bill are women!

Gee....I wonder why!?!

"I do not support a paternity bill," said state Rep. Sherry Jones, a Nashville Democrat. "I think it's a real affront to women to say that every baby born has to have a paternity test."


http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=7977690

[Jetsfan]

Originally Posted by amorak

Left field

Jetsfan comes from it

Actually, I played 1st base!

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Jetsfan

This is why I support mandatory paternity testing at birth.

They're trying to pass a law in Tennessee.


"Well, at some point society has to weigh the rights of the parents against the rights of the child," he said. "And I think this is one of the basic inherent rights that should go with the child."

Funny enough, the strongest opponents of the Bill are women!

Gee....I wonder why!?!

"I do not support a paternity bill," said state Rep. Sherry Jones, a Nashville Democrat. "I think it's a real affront to women to say that every baby born has to have a paternity test."


http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=7977690

The article is from 2008 and the Bill still has not been passed: http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Bill...=HB0025&GA=106

In fact, it doesn't look like anything has happened since February 2009 although it seems Rep. Hardaway planned to reintroduce the Bill again sometime this year.

The quote you have provided from Hardaway refers to the right of the child to know their true biological parents. Awesome. Except the proposed Bill has nothing to do with that and everything to do with fathers not being obligated to support children who are not biologically their own.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by fredr123

The article is from 2008 and the Bill still has not been passed: http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Bill...=HB0025&GA=106

In fact, it doesn't look like anything has happened since February 2009 although it seems Rep. Hardaway planned to reintroduce the Bill again sometime this year.

The quote you have provided from Hardaway refers to the right of the child to know their true biological parents. Awesome. Except the proposed Bill has nothing to do with that and everything to do with fathers not being obligated to support children who are not biologically their own.

The bill was actually a thinly veiled attempt to get Maury Povich off the air

[Jetsfan]

[QUOTE=fredr123;2419951]The article is from 2008 and the Bill still has not been passed: http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Bill...=HB0025&GA=106

In fact, it doesn't look like anything has happened since February 2009 although it seems Rep. Hardaway planned to reintroduce the Bill again sometime this year.

The quote you have provided from Hardaway refers to the right of the child to know their true biological parents. Awesome. Except the proposed Bill has nothing to do with that and everything to do with fathers not being obligated to support children who are not biologically their own.[/QUOTE]


Correct! Thank you for pointing this out!

Men have a right to spread their genes as much as the mother.

To ask a man to be used to raise another man's spawn without his knowledge is abhorrent.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I'm not sure how that article backs up your first statement. It has to do with dads who unwittingly parent children that they are genetically not related to and how the use of DNA testing has started to be accepted by the courts to terminate those parental obligations.

I understand that this is a small portion of divorce law and what happens in those cases. However, I was using it as an example of the fact that there is legislated injustice against men, however specific it may be.

On the other hand, I think you will be hard pressed to find laws that basically screw women over in the divorce court and perpetuate an injustice. Especially one that has been brought to surface with hard evidence detailing the exact happenings of the situation. (ie. no examples of dead beat dads that have tons of money in someone else's name and hid money or whatnot)

Also, I will preface by saying that I am not a parent at the moment, and I don't know whether or not my thoughts will change when I am. I feel that thinking about this from the child's perspective is not justice. The father is the one that has been screwed for 10-18 years, and it is the mother's fault for being a whore. The mother should shoulder the responsibility (financial and otherwise) for her actions, but the law courts have decided that the duped man should be the one responsible for the mother's actions. This is regardless of how the child feels. Should the child feel like the dad abandoned them, maybe they should point the blame where it correctly belongs: the mother.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Regorium

...Also, I will preface by saying that I am not a parent at the moment, and I don't know whether or not my thoughts will change when I am. I feel that thinking about this from the child's perspective is not justice. The father is the one that has been screwed for 10-18 years, and it is the mother's fault for being a whore. The mother should shoulder the responsibility (financial and otherwise) for her actions, but the law courts have decided that the duped man should be the one responsible for the mother's actions. This is regardless of how the child feels. Should the child feel like the dad abandoned them, maybe they should point the blame where it correctly belongs: the mother.

So the duped father never had sex with the mother? How is it relevant whose sperm made the final contact. He was acting as a partner and father and was present and acted as a parent and then all of a sudden he finds out the kid is genetically not his so he can walk away? Be mad at the wife, that is fair. It is not the kids fault. You ARE the dad as far as the kid knows. You were the father for 10-18 years and you could just walk away from that kid? The relationship between the dad and the kid is the important one. I could not comprehend walking away from my kid after 1 month even if it was not my actual seed. After 10 years? Unfathomable.

It would be nice if the bio-dad kicked in a few bucks but again it is irrelevant. It is the relationship with the father that matters.

Justice is irrelevant and very rarely achieved in most situations once the courts are involved. It is a matter of finding the least fata upped option. At the end of the day it is what is best for the kid. Period. More parents should look at it this way and the incidents of messy divorce would go way down. Not holding my breath.

[Locke]

The percentage of deadbeat fathers shouldnt factor into other people's alimony and child support agreements.

Case by case people.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Locke

The percentage of deadbeat fathers shouldnt factor into other people's alimony and child support agreements.

Case by case people.

Well put.

TBQH, until the physical requirements of pregnancy change, I think divorce courts will continue to favor the side of women. In most cases, during the pregnancy and after, the woman is physically unable to work and consequently pursue a career. There's a great deal of opportunity cost here. The man is "free" (at least, more free) to pursue a career and develop employable skills during this time. Not only that, but employers will favor giving important positions to men because they are not likely to up and "have kids".

This is the injustice that alimony is supposed to correct. Whether or not it does, and whether or not it does it well, are open to debate, but I'd like to see a better suggestion put forth.

[Jetsfan]

Originally Posted by Titan

So the duped father never had sex with the mother? How is it relevant whose sperm made the final contact. He was acting as a partner and father and was present and acted as a parent and then all of a sudden he finds out the kid is genetically not his so he can walk away? Be mad at the wife, that is fair. It is not the kids fault. You ARE the dad as far as the kid knows. You were the father for 10-18 years and you could just walk away from that kid? The relationship between the dad and the kid is the important one. I could not comprehend walking away from my kid after 1 month even if it was not my actual seed. After 10 years? Unfathomable.

It would be nice if the bio-dad kicked in a few bucks but again it is irrelevant. It is the relationship with the father that matters.

Justice is irrelevant and very rarely achieved in most situations once the courts are involved. It is a matter of finding the least fata upped option. At the end of the day it is what is best for the kid. Period. More parents should look at it this way and the incidents of messy divorce would go way down. Not holding my breath.

I agree that every child needs a relationship with a "father."

That is why I am in favour of mandatory paternity tests for every baby at birth.

That way there are no secrets the "father" knows whether he is the biological dad or not before he and the child can form a bond.

Some men will choose to raise a child that is not biologically theirs.

The duped male should not be forced to raise a child that is not his.

The mom would need to figure out who the biological father is so that he can take responsibility for the child he fathered.

[Table 5]

Besides the monetary consideration and perhaps getting feelings hurt, there really is no viable logical argument against paternity tests at birth. If it's your child, your legal obligations are set from the start.....and if it isn't, it allows everyone to proceed as they wish, with a clear conscience, and no drawn-out bonding process with the child has happen unless you want it to.

Some people might consider it cold, but it probably doesnt hurt for every new father to do one of these DNA tests on the sly after birth anyway. Nobody has to know but you, and at least you will never have to question it.