Where Was His Right To Choose?
Wild and horrible case of a woman giving a man oral sex, holding his sperm in her mouth, and using it to impregnate herself without his consent. The man sued the woman, his ex-girlfriend (who turned out to be still married to somebody else at the time of the sperm-robbing), for fraud and emotional distress...after she got a court order demanding that he pay child support for the 2-year-old daughter created from that sperm! Wildly, the child support claim was not contested. The story is at Legal As She Spoke blog. Sarah Berendt writes:
How could a father be forced to pay child support if the conception of the child was beyond (way, way beyond) a reasonable person's expectation? The court itself stated that the mother's actions were "extreme and outrageous", after all.The answer? Public policy. In a note for the Drake University Law Review, A Man's Right to Choose: Searching for Remedies in the Face of Unplanned Fatherhood, author Adrienne D. Gross explained the general policy in law of looking out for a child's best interest in both child support and paternity statutes. Undisputedly, a child's best interest is to have the financial support of both biological parents, regardless of their marital status, and according to Ms. Gross, "the child should not suffer from a parent's indiscretion concerning the events leading to conception."
Basically, if you father a child and the paternity is established, you are on the hook for child support payments. (A father can sue for IIED, if the mother's actions in the conception meet the requisite level of crazy, but there is no guarantee he will win.)
Crazy. It's like robbing a bank. Because somebody should pay doesn't mean they should throw you in prison because, well, somebody should pay and you were at the ATM when the robbers struck.
Paternity fraud goes on all the time, and men are made to pay -- for decades -- for children that aren't theirs, simply because they didn't contest a claim in time, or for some other spurious reason. Even when there's DNA proving they aren't the father.
Poster mj at the link added:
Male children are even liable for child support to their female molesters if they should become pregnant as a result of their assault and then go on welfare as a result of their crime.Welcome to American family court - a prison for men and boys.
via ifeminists
Test. Humptyadvicegoddess.comdumpty had a great fall, but thanks to Gregg, it's all fixed again! Thanks, thanks, thanks to Gregg, who just worked for hours and hours to pull it all back together. We've moved servers, and Gregg upgraded my software...here's hoping it's all smooth sailing from here.
Seems to be working better - blog posts going up much faster. Hope you all weren't chased away by the troubles!
Amy Alkon at February 28, 2011 12:53 AM
Such men would definitely prefer the islamic system where they at least do not have to fear their wives or the girl next door or the woman at the shopping mall.
Redrajesh at February 28, 2011 1:52 AM
Not what I wanted to read just before breakfast. I hope that kid never finds out where he came from.
Patrick at February 28, 2011 3:08 AM
I've always thought the driving force behind this sort of thing is simplicity for the family courts. If a crime, fraud or otherwise, has been committed that's some other court's problem. But they have to find someone to hang responsibility for the child on, and it's a lot easier to determine paternity/maternity via scientific means and follow that blindly than make a moral judgement. Which is how the progeny of an assault ends up being the victim's problem - the child's needs trump his, they need a provider, and, well, in your case we can prove you were involved somehow.
This is why I will never donate sperm. Once upon a time in Australia (70s I think) they ensured anonymity for donors in the only way that is guaranteed - by shredding the records after the impregnation. Since then, they keep them but supposedly they are confidential. Of course, every now and then you see sob stories from children - raised by loving parents in good families - wanting to find their biological father. And slowly those records are opening up.
I think the system they run now is they will pass on a message to the father if they can, who can respond or not as they choose. But I can see that being a traumatic decision too. There's been a couple of cases of lesbian couples getting a male friend to supply sperm, breaking up, then the custodial mother going after the father for child support too. Again, technically he is the father - it's a lot easier for the courts to name him responsible than to go after the 'other mother'.
Ltw at February 28, 2011 4:36 AM
"Such men would definitely prefer the islamic system where they at least do not have to fear their wives or the girl next door or the woman at the shopping mall."
Yeah, because to argue against the current system is to argue for Sharia Law.
There is no more moderate position, right?
Bu hey, you keep hammering away at that strawman.
/eyeroll
Spartee at February 28, 2011 4:42 AM
Um... it said he didn't contest the paternity suit. In that case, I don't feel terribly sorry for him.
NicoleK at February 28, 2011 5:13 AM
"Um... it said he didn't contest the paternity suit."
There likely was no legal grounds to contest it under state law in that jurisdiction. If the kid has his DNA, my guess is the case is over, and the circumstances of conception, absent sperm donation protection statutes, do not matter.
Had he contested paternity and lost, he may have faced attorney fees and court costs for filing an action he was certainly going to lose.
Spartee at February 28, 2011 5:23 AM
> Um... it said he didn't contest the paternity
> suit. In that case, I don't feel terribly sorry
> for him.
He probably received legal advice that he would lose the case. As the article says:
> Basically, if you father a child and the
> paternity is established, you are on the hook for
> child support payments.
Snoopy at February 28, 2011 5:26 AM
"Such men would definitely prefer the islamic system where they at least do not have to fear their wives or the girl next door or the woman at the shopping mall."
This Femi Nazi drivel makes me ill. All men are evil, two wrongs make it right mentality completes the picture of a inferiority complex and a hatred for men. This woman in the story is a liar, cheats on her husband, saves seamen in her mouth (disgusting) to later put it in her vagina (insanity) in the hopes of being pregnant and this is related to the indefensible way Islamic woman are treated. Arguing with this kind of fucktard mentally is a waste of time.
The first time we apply logic to this clearly one-sided legislation that permeates all states, will be the first time.....
Ed at February 28, 2011 5:46 AM
@Spartee - "There is no more moderate position, right?" - tell that to those guys in the mainstream media who rail against the islamic system and say the best thing to do to prevent female abuse in the islamic system is to emulate the american/european system
Redrajesh at February 28, 2011 5:48 AM
@Ed: "Te first time we apply logic to this clearly one-sided legislation that permeates all states, will be the first time" - when was logic ever applied in politics or bureaucracy? The day that happens, the sun will rise in the west and life as all of us know will completely change. As Thomas Sowell says "Politicians have only two goals - to get elected and to get relected. Anything else comes a distant third". The fact of life is this: you can take the human out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the human
Redrajesh at February 28, 2011 5:52 AM
"when was logic ever applied in politics or bureaucracy?"
The constitution of the United States is a pretty good example. Just because Sowell is correct in his analysis of our current politicians doesn't mean we should just lay down and take it. Changing the current mentality of the bureaucracy in government is of paramount importance.
Doesn’t it occur to anyone involved in this case that this woman’s mental stability is clearly in question. What person ever comes to the conclusion that this is normal behavior. I pity the poor child that this disturbed woman spawned. I’m sure that when she/he grows up that there will be no adverse effects in the discovery that they were the result of a blow job from an infidelity on their mothers part. This is an indefensible position, yet here we are, how truly sad what we have become and sadder yet that anyone would defend her…..
Ed at February 28, 2011 6:14 AM
Someone does have to pay-and it shouldn't be the kid. If it's not going to be the man, it will be the rest of us. As such, the child should be removed from the mom and her parental rights terminated immediately. Also, in my fantasyland, the mom should be sterilized.
The kid is the real loser here, and is the one with my sympathy. I hope he at least got visitation with his child support, and can counteract the crazymom a little.
Honestly, were I in this situation, I think I'd sue for full custody. If one's going to pay for a child, one should get to raise it into a decent human being. PLus, a few of these whacko cases ending up with the mom losing custody, might make other whackos think twice. Maybe.
momof4 at February 28, 2011 6:20 AM
Tennis star Boris becker found himself in this same exact situation....
br4 at February 28, 2011 6:32 AM
Undisputedly, a child's best interest is to have the financial support of both biological parents, regardless of their marital status
But this isn't the sole standard, because it's been demonstrated that men are similarly obliged to support children whom they had mistakenly believed were theirs, and also children from other men acquired by marriage. So it's actually closer to an 'arms reach' standard - any suitable man in arms reach of the 'best interests' standard is dragooned into paying.
kiki at February 28, 2011 6:45 AM
Someone does have to pay-and it shouldn't be the kid. If it's not going to be the man, it will be the rest of us. As such, the child should be removed from the mom and her parental rights terminated immediately. Also, in my fantasyland, the mom should be sterilized.
momof4
__________________________
Well said. Made me smile, too.
____________________________
Amy said:
Paternity fraud goes on all the time, and men are made to pay -- for decades -- for children that aren't theirs, simply because they didn't contest a claim in time, or for some other spurious reason. Even when there's DNA proving they aren't the father.
________________________
Um, Amy, there's a BIG difference between paternity fraud and what some call "contraceptive fraud." The above whacko case falls into the latter category.
Paternity fraud victims, as a rule, deserve a lot more sympathy. (However, I agree that male victims of statutory rape should not have to pay child support - but first, let's get that law in place that says that it's not statutory rape if the two are both in high school and are barely two years apart! Regardless of who's the older one.)
While it's awful what happened in the above case, let's not forget the saying "hard cases make bad law."
That is, if we start letting ADULT "victims" like this off the hook, ANY father who didn't want a kid could simply say "she lied" or "she did THAT trick." Even if she didn't. (BTW, the real-life failure rate of the Pill is 6%, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. So don't complain about having to use condoms too.)
Let's also remember that no politician with half a brain is going to support any bill that would likely make the abortion rate skyrocket.
lenona at February 28, 2011 6:47 AM
BTW, at the blog, it refers to a 1983 case involving "Frank S." That's the famous Frank Serpico, the honest police officer whose life became the 1970s movie "Serpico."
The late Ellen Willis talks about this case in her book "No More Nice Girls" under "Looking for Mr Good Dad."
lenona at February 28, 2011 7:01 AM
@momof4: I agree.
She is so unhinged no child should be in her care.
I think that the notion that you cannot create a child via oral sex is a reasonable assumption for any person to make. He didn't have sex with and knock her up - which I think it a different type of argument. In this case he by no means participated in an act that results in a child...SHE knocked herself up. SHE did it. She should not only have the child taken away and be sterilized, she should have to do 100 hours community service to give back to the tax payers the money she stole whilst the man had to bring this to court.
This woman is what the word cunt is reserved for in my vocabulary.
Gretchen at February 28, 2011 7:06 AM
I understand why the man did not contest child support - he had absolutely no chance of winning. And the law is even more of an ass than that. There was a case where someone was made the legal father because the state accidentally assigned him this role because he had the same name as the actual bio dad. They had sent him notice to his former address and since he didn't object (as he didn't receive the notice) he WAS the legal father. During a routine traffic stop a couple of years later, he was arrested and jailed for felony child support non-payment, which was his first clue that there was anything amiss.
And here is where the federal law trumps reason: no legal ruling can be retroactive when it comes to child support. He filed to have the paternity judgement reversed, and won, but was still liable for the arrearage! He had to pay 1/2 of his earnings until the "debt" was paid.
Gary G at February 28, 2011 7:47 AM
“That is, if we start letting ADULT "victims" like this off the hook, ANY father who didn't want a kid could simply say "she lied" or "she did THAT trick." Even if she didn't.”
If they are in fact a “victim” they should be exclude from responsibility, adult or not. If a woman purposefully and fraudulently deceives a man to become pregnant against his will why should he be held responsible? Why should he have zero recourse? Why should his money be absconded from him through deception? If you defraud anyone under any other circumstances you go to jail, pay restitution along with court costs and fines (just ask Bernie Madoff) . It can’t be a blanket, one size fits all, mentality. Because some men would try to subvert the system should not mean innocent men get screwed over and have their lives forever altered because of the willful deception of another.
The cases where men have been made to be responsible for children that are NOT biologically his are numerous, this is abhorrent. The law is clear, a man’s responsibility starts when his names put on the birth certificate, even if it’s not his. You don’t even need to inform him that his name is on there, therefore he can’t contest. Wait out the statute of limitations and he has no recourse (and 5 to 7yrs of arrearages he‘s also responsible for).
What if a man used a condom, saved it, and when his sex partner was sleeping he inserted the semen into her without her knowledge. Should she be forced to have the child, turn it over to him and pay him child support? Why is this scenario any more absurd than the discussion at hand? You simply shouldn’t be able to have it both ways. Wrong is wrong, your gender notwithstanding. No law should be so unbalanced that all laws being broken in the process are abated.
I will agree on one point, men you are responsible during a consensual act to protect yourself. Not wearing a condom because she claims she‘s (or is) on birth control should not be an argument against your own responsibility if indeed your partner becomes pregnant.
Ed at February 28, 2011 8:44 AM
Frankly, he shouldn't have to sue for custody, the woman is clearly insane and should not have custody as the kid.
NicoleK at February 28, 2011 8:56 AM
Interesting. If she were actually married at the time, then her husband is the presumptive father.
The proper defense is the kid may have my DNA, but she's a married woman, so the kid is her husband's responsibility.
But since he didn't do that, he needs to a) ask for custody, and b) ask that the mother's rights be terminated due to her fraud.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 28, 2011 9:30 AM
Here is the latest case on paternity fraud in Arkansas. The Arkansas Supreme Court has no problem making a man pay for another man’s child. They do not care if the evidence that she provides is perjured. All they care is that they can use her testimony to make their ruling. They say that it is bared by res judicada. The funny thing is that I am still paying for fraud, so I do not see how this can apply until after you it is barred by a time limit after you finish paying for the fraud.
Here is the link. Maybe the next paternity fraud victim can use this information to have better success than I did. I am not surprised that I lost although I was hopeful. This was all done on principal and standing up for what I believe is right and in hopes that myself and others that continue to fight will eventually get these primitive laws changed for others in the future and do not have to endure this horrible crime.
http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/0/doc/55699/Electronic.aspx
Jeff at February 28, 2011 9:42 AM
It is a very minor quibble, but that which was freely donated was not technically robbed. I like "misappropriated" better.
If he'd known she was married, I'd have very little sympathy, but the poor guy seems to have been used and abused. First by her, then by the courts. The law is the law, but it isn't remotely justice.
MarkD at February 28, 2011 9:44 AM
Imagine the "talk"
Kid: "Mommy, where did I come from?"
Mom: "Well, sometimes, when your mommy is a slut..."
brian at February 28, 2011 10:21 AM
It's women like this who make my whole gender look bad. If I ran across her in a dark alley, I'd straighten her out.
Men, I hate to tell you this, but you really can't afford to be trusting. If you don't want kids, either keep it in your pants or get fixed. She's not the only crazy bitch out there, not by a long shot. And you only have to run across one nutjob like this to have your entire life ruined.
Daghain at February 28, 2011 10:35 AM
That poor kid. You know eventually he'll find out about all of this. How many hours at a shrink will THAT take??
And don't get me going on the stupidity of the system when it comes to sexual assault on boys. In every state, if you assault a 10 year old girl, you get charged with rape, and child abuse. Do the same thing to a 10 year old boy, and you're only looking at child abuse. Why? Because in most states, rape, by statute, can only occur to a woman. That's right...boys can't be raped according to the law in my state, and most others.
How THAT for equal protection under the law?
UW Girl at February 28, 2011 11:06 AM
Moral of the story? Make sure you shoot it in their rear end.
BOTU at February 28, 2011 12:12 PM
To UW Girl:
That's a bit confusing.
Are you referring to heterosexual intercourse only?
Also, what's the difference between statutory rape and child molestation? (I know that in the case of the former, the victim tends to be older than ten, but the point is, the violent rape of a young girl can be a lot more traumatic than molestation - depending.)
Because, unfortunately, while it's clearly child molestation when the boy is under a certain age, for physiological reasons, it's pretty hard to convince anyone that a woman's "seducing" a boy belongs in the same category as the case of a girl who is attacked (by a man OR a woman, I might add) in any way that causes physical damage.
Of course, nonviolent molesters should not get a slap on the wrist, female or not, but I would hope that those who are doubly violent towards children get punished more than those who are not doubly violent.
lenona at February 28, 2011 12:21 PM
This doesn't surprise me and is further proof that a man's "DNA" as it were is always his responsibility no matter where it ends up.
As for the "well someone has to pay for the kid" nonsense, that would be the child's mother who whelped him/her. I don't see how given current laws, children are not the presumptive property of the mother, the father is just considered a walking wallet with few rights, other than the right to pay even if he doesn't get any say (for no reason such as abuse etc.).
If you want to have society make sure these kids are supported financially, fine the taxpayers as a whole have to eat the cost since they voted that law in. Otherwise, leave it to the mother or someone who steps up to be the parent. The child and the father or not so bio-father are innocents. Stop robbing peter to pay paul.
And women continually wonder why men don't want to commit to the "holy" union of marriage.
Sio at February 28, 2011 1:02 PM
Monica Lewinsky is reading this story and probably kicking herself right now.
I guess the next time you have oral sex with someone, you need to take out a gun and say, "Swallow or I blow your brains out."
He should probably wait a couple of hours, too. This evil bitch would probably stick a finger down her throat after he left.
Patrick at February 28, 2011 1:31 PM
Source: Wikipedia
"Statutory female-on-male rape: Several widely publicized cases of female-on-male statutory rape in the United States involved school teachers raping their underage students. (See e.g. Mary Kay Letourneau)
Unlike male-on-female rape resulting in pregnancy, the victim of statutory rape can be legally bound to pay child support to his rapist."
This is the most egregious, mind-fucking-numbingly idiotic thing I have ever come across. A raped male child is responsible to the female rapist for child support. Equal treatment under the law my fucking ass. The more I educate myself on this subject the angrier I get. UUUGGGHHH!!!!!
Ed at February 28, 2011 1:40 PM
Because, unfortunately, while it's clearly child molestation when the boy is under a certain age, for physiological reasons, it's pretty hard to convince anyone that a woman's "seducing" a boy belongs in the same category as the case of a girl who is attacked (by a man OR a woman, I might add) in any way that causes physical damage.
By that logic any man who had sex with a girl child sould not be charged with rape if a) she was willing, b) there is no physical tramua, or c) she had an orgasm durring the attack
lujlp at February 28, 2011 1:48 PM
That woman is bat-shit crazy. How do people come up with these ideas?? I can't believe she won the suit. I'm so disappointed in our legal system.
ruby at February 28, 2011 2:07 PM
This woman was married at the time of conception, right? "Presumption of paternity" acts to block her husband's attempt to disown children produced by her adultery. Shouldn't it also block her from demanding child support from any man other than her husband?
Bob Smith at February 28, 2011 2:58 PM
I had the same thought as Bob Smith and a few others regarding presumptive paternity. What happens if her husband divorces her due to her infidelity (or whatever)? He's the presumptive dad, so he pays chid support? And DNA dad is paying child support since he is the dad? One child, two support checks? Head spins.
Just a Guy at February 28, 2011 3:14 PM
Did she concede doing this, or is this only the guy's claim? I just can't imagine how that could work. The odds of it working have to be extremely low. She had to quickly get it from her mouth to a turkey baster or something, and harvest enough viable material to inject.
And she was his "girlfriend" at the time but they only had oral sex? It says she was married to someone else, but does that mean she was technically married and wasn't divorced yet, or that she was living with another man?
I have a girlfriend who used a turkey baster to get pregnant. Her husband had a vasectomy, but they later decided they wanted another kid, so they used his gay brother's sperm. But it took several attempts. It wasn't that easy, and I imagine she had a pretty large sample to work with - much more than you could typical salvage out of your mouth. I just think it's amazing that she accomplished this. She must be a skilled catcher! :)
Plus, seems like it would've been so much easier just to find a guy who'd have intercourse with her. Why would she go to all this trouble? Was he very wealthy or something?
lovelysoul at February 28, 2011 3:20 PM
@lenona,
"it's pretty hard to convince anyone that a woman's "seducing" a boy belongs in the same category as the case of a girl who is attacked (by a man OR a woman, I might add)"
You just illustrated the whole problem with our legal system. Girl, 13, gets seduced by 25 year old guy, we cry rape. Boy, 13, gets seduced by 25 year old woman, well...he's a MAN. He can't possibly be a victim. Never mind that he's a child in the eyes of the law, he can't be raped.
So you think that a boy can't be brutalized in the same manner as a girl? Yes, quite obviously, there are physical differences. But boys can still be victims of violent sexual crimes just like girls can.
However, despite this fact, many states fail to recognize this. Most rape statutes were written several decades ago, and do not include male victims. Even the FBI's current reports fail to report rapes with male victims, both of adults and children.
Now, many states have laws which state that "child molestation," means sexual relations with a prepubescent child, and it is generically treated as a more serious crime than rape.
We all know that when defendants are charged, they can be charged with more than one felony. So in my state, a man rapes a 10 year old girl, and he'll probably be charged with:
child molestation
endangering the welfare of a minor
custodial interference
kidnapping
rape
Whereas, if the same man does this to a 10 year old boy, he gets charged with all BUT the rape because in my state, a boy cannot legally be raped as the law applies only to women.
You can argue that he's still getting charged with a number of crimes. But in many states, that crime of rape carries a harsh sentance. To have it apply only to one sex is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
UW Girl at February 28, 2011 3:38 PM
I found more about the case. She was a doctor. In fact, they both are, and they were engaged, though he had told her he didn't want children until after the marriage. They used condoms (isn't also possible the condom leaked?)
"But the courts don’t care about how the egg was actually fertilized: because at the end of the day, there’s a child now involved. And the concern, from a legal perspective, is whether or not the child will be adequately cared for, regardless of its conception."
As unfair as it seems, I can understand why it has to be this way, just as courts try to avoid getting into the "he/said-she/said" of marital conflicts. At the end of the day, a child was created...a house was bought...a piece of property sold or titled separately. The courts can't care all that much about WHY or who wanted what more or less, or who coerced whom.
Her actions may be criminal. I don't know. That is perhaps a different matter, but, as far as supporting the child, who exists, the family court views the circumstances of conception as inconsequential.
But also, this father may want to be a part of the child's life. He is a part of her regardless. There's the rub. If the courts remove all obligations, then they will likely also remove rights.
For instance, a boy who was seduced by an older woman may want to know his resulting child. The molestation doesn't remove that, and the courts take the stand that regardless of how it happened, there is still a biological connection and still parental rights/obligations.
We could start asking, "Do you want this child or not?" and we'll treat things accordingly, but, for the child, that is a terrible proposition.
lovelysoul at February 28, 2011 4:02 PM
At first glance, it's very easy to get outraged by the dastardly behavior of this woman and declare that a horrible injustice has been done.
However, imagine you are a judge and this case comes before you. How the heck would you come to a reasonable conclusion that his defense is a likely story? As LS points out, it's pretty far fetched. He would've really had to hose her down. LS also tells us that he was, after all, banging her while wearing condoms. It's far more believable that a condom was imperfect. I'm making reasonable assumptions that there weren't any witnesses and that she denies his side of the story.
It's not such an outrage. It's his kid.
whistleDick at February 28, 2011 4:43 PM
"One child, two support checks?"
Don't laugh, that's actually happened.
Bob Smith at February 28, 2011 5:31 PM
"But also, this father may want to be a part of the child's life. He is a part of her regardless. There's the rub. If the courts remove all obligations, then they will likely also remove rights."
They will likely remove the rights regardless. To me, that's what stinks the worst about this whole thing. This whole story about the legal system ensuring that the child is raised by two parents is absolute B.S. The legal system does no such thing. All it does is compel the father to write checks to the mother. It does not compel the mother to spend the money wisely. It does not compel the mother to allow the father to be a part of the child's life. It does not compel the mother to do a damn thing. If she wants to put the support checks up her nose, and neglect the child, the law does not care in the least. The whole thing is a sorry fiction.
Cousin Dave at February 28, 2011 5:57 PM
for physiological reasons, it's pretty hard to convince anyone that a woman's "seducing" a boy belongs in the same category as the case of a girl who is attacked
But statutory rape doesn't involve coercion, so the comparison to forcible rape doesn't apply. Coercion makes it 'rape rape'. Statutory rape is simply sex with someone below the statutorily defined age of consent. It's basically a social crime.
moe at February 28, 2011 6:23 PM
Monica Lewinsky is reading this story and probably kicking herself right now.
Patrick, that is a horrifying thought. You officially win this thread :)
Ltw at February 28, 2011 6:56 PM
"Her actions may be criminal. I don't know. That is perhaps a different matter, but, as far as supporting the child, who exists, the family court views the circumstances of conception as inconsequential."
Well that's the problem, isn't it. The circumstances are ALWAYS important. The child's needs come first? Well, how much does the child need?
If the child is born to two unemployed people in Appalachia, do we take the child away? If the Male was the VICTIM why does he have to pay? Should you make child support payments to the poorest family in your neighborhood?
The FEMALE had the child under deceitful purposes. If she's capable of raising the child on her own...then she should have to raise it on her own. Plenty of single mothers doing it all over. If a father dies leaving the child with just the mother, should the mother get Child support payments from whomever she chooses? You know, in the best interest of the child?
No. It's not about the best interest of the child. It's about holding the man RESPONSIBLE. Even when the man is clearly NOT responsible.
testcase at February 28, 2011 8:25 PM
"No. It's not about the best interest of the child. It's about holding the man RESPONSIBLE. Even when the man is clearly NOT responsible."
These people had sexual relations. They were engaged at the time, both adults, and in a consentual relationship, which included intercourse with condoms. They were both adults and chose to have a sexual relationship with each other, which always carries a certain risk of pregnancy.
As whistledick pointed out, a judge cannot make a determination whether it was a condom that failed or her deceitful actions that resulted in the conception. The only relevant point is that there was a conception, and now there is a child, who is biologically linked to both of them.
If the court opened this door, there would be an overwhelming number of "She told me she was on the pill!" fraud cases. Fathers who wanted to get out of paying child support would claim the mothers told them they was sterile. It would be a nightmare precedent to set.
The fact is that whenever a couple engages in sex, pregnancy is never "way beyond a reasonable person's expectation". At least that is how family court must view this.
He can sue her civilly, for pain and suffering, but that is a shaky case because of the fact they were having intercourse. It's much more likely that a condom failed than that she was actually successful in impregnating herself this way.
lovelysoul at March 1, 2011 2:14 AM
"But the courts don’t care about how the egg was actually fertilized: because at the end of the day, there’s a child now involved. And the concern, from a legal perspective, is whether or not the child will be adequately cared for, regardless of its conception."
"As whistledick pointed out, a judge cannot make a determination whether it was a condom that failed or her deceitful actions that resulted in the conception."
The LAW can certainly decide what should be done. Now you want to change from "adequate care" to "the guy's lying about what happened." Let's deal with the issue as presented, not the speculation. IF the events transpired as presented, you still wish to hold the man Responsible. This is NOT about the best interests of the child in terms of being "adequately cared" for. Because every child in every family has a different level of adequate care. And if we REALLY want to hold to an adequate care standard of this type, then a lot of single parents are losing their child...or maybe we should just have a lottery and pick anyone (male OR female) and say you're must now pay for this child who is not being adequately cared for.
People (male & female) who want to "get out" of their responsibilities will try all sorts of things....that's why it GOES to court. But now you don't want to "open the door" to having a judge decide who should pay....you just want to judge to decide "how much."
Please, this is not about "adequate care," its about holding a man responsible because sex is ALWAYS something a man does to a woman.
testcase at March 1, 2011 3:52 AM
This is a bizarre case, and it rarely makes good law to base precedent on anything as strange as this. As I said, the more likely fraud scenario will involve the pill or assurances of infertility, which the court will not want to get into.
Everyone wants to think their lives are so special and the intricacies of their romances so important that the court must take up every issue where they feel wronged. But the court does not. It cannot. At least not family court.
For instance, while married, my ex promised me a transfer of a certain peice of property. I never checked to see if he actually made the transfer (although he went to the courthouse and supposedly filed the papers). I had references to the transfer in writing, and I was even put on the mortgage, making me liable for the debt.
He lied, which I discovered in the divorce, but does that really matter to a judge? Of course, I wanted it to matter because it affected me so personally, and I felt so wronged and deceived, but the court's perspective is that, at the end of the day, the property was titled in his name and still belonged to him.
The fact I foolishly chose a deceitful person to entangle my life with, and entrusted him with certain issues like that, is mainly MY problem, not the court's. The court can't be asked to sort through all these intricate variables, lies, and hurt feelings, involved in a couple's love life.
A child is born, and if the father is known and can be proven, which is much easier than in the past, the court is going to ask that father for support of that child...else support often falls to the taxpayers, which is even more unfair to us, since we never had relations of any kind with the mother.
lovelysoul at March 1, 2011 5:51 AM
My entire opinion has changed on this now. I hadn't read that they were actually having sex, if not on this occasion. It's almost 100% certain that a condom was the issue, not that she managed to spit out the sperm before the acidity in her saliva killed them, got them into a method of transfer, happened to be ovulating, and got lucky. I have doubts she even did it at all.
http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/archives/2001-11-30/features05.htm
is one of the many places stating real-world condom failure is between 12% and 15%. People who rely on them are idiots (and not just because of pregnancy). Sure, you can lower that some by educating yourself on how to use them, but you can't control breakage or pore issues.
momof4 at March 1, 2011 6:01 AM
Women have the triple option, they can abort, adopt or legally abandon. Men have one option, pay.
Animal at March 1, 2011 7:25 AM
Or the fourth option: raising the child with very little help from the father, other than a monthly check, if she's fortunate enough to get even that.
Why is it that men tend to forget all about that "option"?
lovelysoul at March 1, 2011 7:29 AM
The "fourth" option is not an option but a freely made choice. The options are about an unwanted pregnancy/ child.
Why is it women want men to pay for their choices?
Animal at March 1, 2011 7:34 AM
Because it's your choice too. She didn't make the baby all by herself. Being forced to murder or give away a child within her is a bit cruel just because the guy doesn't want to be responsible for his actions.
Know who you sleep with. There's no such thing as safe sex.
lovelysoul at March 1, 2011 7:39 AM
Plus, a whole lot of women are rasing children with hardly any child support. I know quite a few who get only $150-$200 per month. Either the father doesn't make more than that, or it can't be proven that he does. Do you know what a pitance that is in raising a child? The guy gets off easy in those scenarios. The mother is doing basically all the child-rearing, keeping a roof over their heads, paying bills mainly with money she earns. The father is not "paying for her choice." He's contributing to the welfare of the child he made, but the overwhelming burden is on the mother.
lovelysoul at March 1, 2011 7:46 AM
Fuck off, Animal. I gave my ex the option of being actively involved in his children's lives, and he didn't want the responsibility. Now I get a check once a month, and he sees them once a week, when/if he's available. That's HIS choice, not mine, sweetheart.
Why is it men want to have all the fun, and none of the responsibility?
Flynne at March 1, 2011 7:52 AM
Having fallen victim to the inequity of Family Court, and having lived through the rise of liberal feminism, I can opine that men are missing a great opportunity for equality by not demanding laws that raise procreation to the level of strict contract law.
Simply if a women finds herself pregnant she goes to the sperm donor and negotiates a contract covering support and rearing of the child. If no agreement can be reached the woman has the option of taking the responsibility for the child on her own or terminating the pregnancy, in the case of the sperm donor wishing to raise the child despite the womans request for termination an agreement is reached which reimburses the mother for her time and inconvenience of taking the issue to full term, and releases her from further responsibility/control after the birth.
The advantages of reducing the problem of children and domestic partnerships to contract law should be clear to everyone except divorce attorneys and family court judges
William at March 1, 2011 8:24 AM
If women want to have equality to men then that also includes equal treatment in a court of law. Men are rarely granted primary custody of their children even with irrefutable proof that he’s the better parent and can offer their children a better life. Fatherphobia in family court is a fact that cannot be denied. Women have for decades received unbalanced treatment in the family courts. Comparing a property dispute to a child custody case shows a complete disconnect from reality.
Women who lose or give up custodial rights are far more likely to be a dead beat (per capita) then are men. Women are far more likely to make false allegations of physical, emotional or sexual abuse against men. When these allegations are made it is incumbent upon the man to prove them wrong. No “burden of proof” exists in family court as it does in any other court of law.
Men are often subjected to interrogations and evaluations by court-chosen child-custody evaluators. Men are forced to pay the high fees of these private practitioners whom they have not hired, whose services they do not want, and whose credentials and bias are suspect. The children are also subjected to these evaluators who attempt to turn the children against their parents in unrecorded interviews. Men are also required to attend re-education classes and psychotherapy sessions to induce them to admit fault and to indoctrinate them in government-approved parenting behavior.
The lawyers of these women use this to their advantage and maintain an unethical relationship with court-approved psychotherapists who recommend each other for this highly-paid work of making evaluations, counseling, and conducting re-education classes. These same men endure this type of character assassination BECAUSE they want to have normal custodial rights to their children. Otherwise what would be the point of going through this carnage to ones dignity.
All women are NOT the better parent. Any person that concludes this is a fair system requires you to either have blinders on or you just simply believe the Femi-Nazi rhetoric that all men are evil and unfit regardless of any facts to the contrary.….
Ed at March 1, 2011 8:44 AM
We all know that when defendants are charged, they can be charged with more than one felony. So in my state, a man rapes a 10 year old girl, and he'll probably be charged with:
child molestation
endangering the welfare of a minor
custodial interference
kidnapping
rape
Whereas, if the same man does this to a 10 year old boy, he gets charged with all BUT the rape because in my state, a boy cannot legally be raped as the law applies only to women.
UW Girl
_______________________
Just in how many states is THAT the case? I can't remember ever hearing of a man forcibly raping a boy but not being charged with child rape.
lenona at March 1, 2011 8:51 AM
or physiological reasons, it's pretty hard to convince anyone that a woman's "seducing" a boy belongs in the same category as the case of a girl who is attacked
But statutory rape doesn't involve coercion, so the comparison to forcible rape doesn't apply. Coercion makes it 'rape rape'. Statutory rape is simply sex with someone below the statutorily defined age of consent. It's basically a social crime.
Posted by: moe at February 28, 2011 6:23 PM
__________________
Would you please go back and read what I said?
Namely:
Because, unfortunately, while it's clearly child molestation when the boy is under a certain age, for physiological reasons, it's pretty hard to convince anyone that a woman's "seducing" a boy belongs in the same category as the case of a girl who is attacked (by a man OR a woman, I might add) in any way that causes physical damage.
Of course, nonviolent molesters should not get a slap on the wrist, female or not, but I would hope that those who are doubly violent towards children get punished more than those who are not doubly violent.
(In other words, yes, I'm acknowledging that actual violence makes it worse.)
lenona at March 1, 2011 8:57 AM
Ed, are you insane? Seriously, you rant like an idiot. NONE of what you described above took place with my family, or with any of the others I've known. Can you cite any examples of what you claim above? Do YOU have any children who have been taken away from you?
The children are also subjected to these evaluators who attempt to turn the children against their parents in unrecorded interviews.
This is blatant BULLSHIT. Children aren't allowed to participate in "unrecorded interviews". Where on earth are you getting your information??
Men are also required to attend re-education classes and psychotherapy sessions to induce them to admit fault and to indoctrinate them in government-approved parenting behavior.
Where?? When?? Examples, please.
The lawyers of these women use this to their advantage and maintain an unethical relationship with court-approved psychotherapists who recommend each other for this highly-paid work of making evaluations, counseling, and conducting re-education classes.
????????? This is beyond the pale. When and where has this ever taken place?? Examples! Proof! Please provide, otherwise you're making yourself look like an even bigger ass than you are.
My boyfriend treat MY children WAY better than their own biological father, and I am blessed to have him in my life, as are they. You sound like a very bitter, lonely, psychopathic person. Gods help you.
Flynne at March 1, 2011 8:57 AM
Re the essay I mentioned, "Looking for Mr. Good Dad" (1985) by Ellen Willis, in her book "No More Nice Girls":
It's about how the problem of fathers abandoning unwanted children (both in and out of wedlock) was a big problem long before Roe vs. Wade - or birth control, so it's unfair to blame either for the problem. (As she put it, contrary to what many young conservatives believe, in the old days, men were only obliged to marry pregnant girlfriends if they wanted to, their families wanted them to, and the woman was not of a different race, lower class or "bad reputation." Otherwise, forget it.)
lenona at March 1, 2011 9:00 AM
Ed?
*crickets chirping*
Yeah, I thought so. Chickendick bullshit artist.
Flynne at March 1, 2011 9:19 AM
Flynne you need to allow for more than 20 minutes for a reply - its not like we can see whether he is online or not.
And lenona, that is twice youve posted the same about a boys physiological response making it hard to 'prove' coersion.
So I'll ask you a second time do you men who make their rape/statutory rape victims orgasm should get a pass as well? After all such a physioligcal response makes it a 'differnt' crime than a rape where the womans body doesnt respond right?
lujlp at March 1, 2011 10:00 AM
Yeah I know, Loojy, but it's not like the guy wasn't foaming at the mouth with his rhetoric. I wanted to know if he could back it up!
Flynne at March 1, 2011 10:09 AM
Flynne, thanks for the kind of reaction I would expect from an uneducated femi-nazi who hates men. Who has it happened to, ME. My ex-wife had a history of alcohol problems, documented proof mind you, and was awarded custody. During this process I was forced into physiotherapy because she made the claim, sans any evidence, that I abused her.
Six months later she was in a drunk driving accident that almost took her life, had a BAC of 3.2 and was resigned to a wheel chair, then a walking aid and rehab for over 9 months ( During this time I was accorded temporary custody of my boys). She took a plea bargain with the DA got assigned to the ARD program and was put on probation. While on probation and her commitment to the court left unsatisfied she petitioned the court to have the temporary custody order revoked. I countered to have full custody and for her to enter an alcohol treatment program. Guess what happened, she was granted custody and was not ordered into any treatment program. Oh yeah, and I was ordered to pay for the 9 plus months of child support that I didn’t pay while I had custody.
One day, a couple years later, she dropped my boys off at my home and never returned. I finally got full custody because of abandonment (she never paid me a dime). My boys never saw her again. My youngest son served his country proudly and died last July in defense of it. She didn’t even come to his funeral.
Not that any of that is any of your business. You are a complete fucktard and it’s women like you who make this system so contemptuous towards men. I just hope you haven’t procreated.
Sorry I don’t sit by my computer all day waiting to be called names by some intellectually inferior asshat. Look for yourself if you’re inclined, frankly I just don’t give a shit what a narrow minded bitch like you thinks…..
http://www.mens-rights.net/law/custody.htm
http://www.loveisearned.com/assets/CCJ%20Mission%20Statement.pdf
Legal Information Access Centre
“The love of money is the root of all evil” By: Rachel Alexander
The Fatherphobia Of Family Courts By: Phyllis Schlafly
False Accusations of Child Abuse By: Aaron Larson
The Feminist View Of Domestic Violence vs Scientific Studies By: Bunny Sewell, Family Resources & Research
INTERFERENCE WITH PARENTAL RIGHTS OF NONCUSTODIAL PARENT AS GROUNDS FOR MODIFICATION OF CHILD CUSTODY By: Edward B. Borris, Assistant Editor, Divorce Litigation
Ed at March 1, 2011 11:13 AM
@Flynne and Ed -
A lot of what Ed says varies by state. Even in CT, absent a documented and proven case of abuse by the mother, she's almost always granted primary custody.
brian at March 1, 2011 1:19 PM
Brian is correct. In PA when there is a child custody case that goes through the court system 78.6% of the time women are awarded custody. this link provides the statistics for most states:
http://www.proactivechange.com/divorce/statistics/research-rates.htm
The attack on Ed seems unfounded as the statistics show a very unfair playing feild towards men. I also notice there is no comment from Flynne since she asked for proof and got it. Interesting.
Eric at March 1, 2011 1:38 PM
Flynne, who’s the chickendick now, or should I say chickenvagina. It never ceases to amaze me the vitriolic hysterics that come out of a Femi-Nazis pie hole. I had no idea that being correct made me (to quote you) “a very bitter, lonely, psychopathic person.” Bullies are always the same regardless of gender; they’re scared, self-loathing blowhards that are cowards when confronted.
Eric, thanks. It was unfounded. I wish I had come across that report. There isn’t a single state in that report that grants custody to men more then 12% of the time. Yeah sounds like I got it all wrong…..
Ed at March 1, 2011 3:07 PM
"...Oh yeah, and I was ordered to pay for the 9 plus months of child support that I didn’t pay while I had custody."
Man, if that doesn't speak to system that is brutally leveraged against men right there. As nonsensical as the court's behavior in every sentence of Ed's story is, this one takes the cake. Why the hell wasn't she paying child support during the nine months that Ed had his children in his care rather than the other way around? What costs was she incurring related to the children during that time? Sheeeeeeeesh!
Oh, and Ed -- my deepest sympathies for the loss of your son.
whistleDick at March 1, 2011 3:41 PM
Flynne,
"Now I get a check once a month, and he sees them once a week, when/if he's available. That's HIS choice, not mine, sweetheart"
Is there a particular day of the week that this *irresponsible bastard* is *allowed* to visit with his own children? Perhaps he's available on a random Tuesday that isn't on the *visitation schedule*. Is he *allowed* to see his children then?
Perhaps he's too brow beaten to call and even ask (as if he should have to ask). You've lashed out with vulgar attacks to two perfect strangers with very little provocation. I wonder what kind of treatment your ex-husband gets. Gee, I couldn't imagine that a lovely flower of a gentlelady like yourself might say terrible things about your children's father within earshot of them.
Thank God I have an awesome ex-wife.
Here's how the divorced with children picture can look with a little effort. Though it takes two to get this kind of situation worked out, it has to take one of you to first demonstrate a maturity and determination to guard the well being of your children. The other will most likely follow unless there is something seriously wrong with them.
While my kids were growing up, my ex-wife and I had a divorce decree that detailed visitation schedules and all that shit. I have no idea what that decree said and neither does she. We never followed it or referred to it. I was our girls' father and she was our son's mother and that was that (the girls lived with her and the boy with me in the same town.) A courtesy call to let her know I was picking them up for school, or whatever, was all it ever took -- just so she wouldn't worry where they might be. Same with her with regards to our son.
We always sat together as a family at any school orchestra functions and shit like that. Important holidays like Christmas and Thanksgiving were always spent together. Not one Thanksgiving at her house and another at mine, but all five of us together.
We always greet each other with a hug and a kiss and NEVER NEVER NEVER talk shit about each other to the kids or ANYONE.
She and I would talk on the phone almost weekly, and still do, to keep each other as informed as possible on what's going on with all of them.
The results? Guess what? Our children are more well adjusted and secure adults than anyone I know. Though we divorced, we never stopped being a family.
I don't know your ex-husband, but I would bet good money that you can also achieve this for the good of your children. As I say, it takes one of you to start the ball rolling. I don't mean that you should have one pleasant conversation with your ex and claim that you tried. I mean you have to make a sustained effort to make your ex feel comfortable with such an arrangement and make him understand that you truly are after an actual, real, tangible partnership with an equally important parent in your children's lives.
Meh, I'd hedge that bet with a much larger one that you won't even give it a shot.
WhistleDick at March 1, 2011 4:28 PM
Whistledick, I have the same sort of relaxed "take them whenever you want" custody arrangement as you do. I think it's best for kids. The only thing is that my ex doesn't take them. Not every man is keen to be a hands-on father. He is always traveling, and misses most major child-related events because he'd rather be doing something else. As I recall about Flynn, her ex is the same. Her kids are older teens, and it's not that her ex doesn't have access, but he has little interest. Based on many of her posts here over several years, I believe she has a done a wonderful job raising her kids virtually alone.
lovelysoul at March 1, 2011 4:55 PM
Ed, my sincerest apologies. I was at work when I first posted, only just now have sat down at my home computer after coming home and making dinner for everyone, and saw your post. Admittedly, @ was seriously angry that you saw fit to paint ALL women with the same brush, hence my nastiness. Mea culpa. I'm also very sorry to hear about the loss of one of your boys. The death of a child, in any circumstance, is devastating. Animal, I notice, didn't defend his remarks, but since you have elaborated on why you think all women are like your wife, allow me to tell you about my ex. A lot of people who post here have heard this before, so I apologize to them, because this is old news. Also, I can enlighten WhistleDick at the same time.
When Ex and I were dating, and I accidently got pregnant; he wanted me to abort. I said, no, I couldn't do that, but I did absolve him of all responsibility, and we broke up. I saw him ONCE during my entire pregnancy.. His choice. He dated some other girls, but as far as I know, none of them turned up pregnant.
I had Daughter #1. Three days later, I got a phone call from Ex. A mutual friend had told him about #1's birth. He came over with a little cash, asked to see her, and I said, sure. Couple months later, he says "I think we should get married, because you'd make a great mom." At the time, I didn't know he meant for him.
His parents are very wealthy, and his father thought I got pregnant on purpose. He bought us a trailer, where we lived for a couple of years, during which time I worked full time, while my parents drove the 1/2 hour each way trip from their house to our trailer so they could babysit while Ex slept until noon before he went to his part-time job. This went on for about a year. I was expected to (and did) work full time, maintain the house, take care of all the chores, except for mowing the small patch of grass around the trailer, and pay all the bills. When I discovered I was pregnant again, I asked him where he saw us in 5 years. His answer "Oh, we'll be here for the next 15 years, or until my parents die and we get the house in Pine Orchard (the ritzy part of his town)." And a BIG red flag went up, and I heard a gong in my head and I thought, "uh, NO". So I called my mother and told her I was taking #1 and going to a shelter, and she said, no way, you're coming home. Which I did. Ex didn't even try to stop me.
We proceeded to get divorced. In order for the divorce to be finalized, we had to take parenting classes in which we were told NOT to do things together as a family because it gives the kids false hope. I had taken the class maybe one month after I filed. He took it 7 months later. During which time he never once asked to try to work it out. I suggested counseling, which he declared was a "waste of time and money". Which said to me that was how he felt about me and (now) both daughters. I was awarded physical custody, and he was awarded joint custody with 2 days a week visitation, and a clause put in the divorce degree that said I couldn't leave the state with the girls without his permission, which sucked because my parents and I wanted to move to Florida. Oh and because at that time I was making more money that he was? I was awarded a whopping $69 a week for BOTH children. And that has NEVER changed, in the past 12 years, because when the younger one was about 3 years old, he STOPPED WORKING ALTOGETHER. Hasn't worked a day. His mommy and daddy bought him a condo and a car, but didn't put them in his name, in case I decided to go after him for more money, which I never did. The divorce degree also said that he was supposed to provide health insurance for them, but he never has. And he's got my kds convinced that he and his parents are broke. But yet they own a cabin on a lake in upstate New York, a condo in Florida, a 34-foot sail boat and a yacht club memebership. Daddy was a VP at Colt Firearms. They are NOT broke. But they're damn good at pretending to be.
For the record, I have NEVER EVER kept the girls from him, or his parents, and in fact, I have had to call him more than a few times to remind him that he was supposed to come and pick them up! Several times I had to call the police to go to his condo because he's a diabetic and would have "episodes" and not wake up to come and get them on his days. He has never once bought them any clothing of any kind (my boyfriend buys them shoes, boots, clothes, anything they need, and Ex seems to be content with that because HE doesn't HAVE to buy them ANYthing). He has never so much as even bought a PENCIL for school for them. Neither have his parents. Oh sure, they take them to the cabin on the lake every summer for a week, but have never invited them to the condo in Florida, except when we're already in Florida, visiting my brother. I have almost had to BEG them to spend time with the girls, and now that #1 is 18, it seems she's kind of lost interest in visiting with them, more's the pity. I have NEVER kept them from ANYONE in his family, and it's THEIR loss that they don't know my girls as well as they should.
Anyway, enough of that. He's never wanted the repsonsibility of having children. He fooled me the one time. But not anymore. I have tried my damnedest not to disparage him in front of the girls, but I know they've heard boyfriend say some pretty unkind things about him. Ex and I have managed to be civil to one another, but I can't wrap my head around why he doesn't do more for his own children. And I may not be a "lovely flower of a gentlelady" but having to work my ass off most of my life just to keep a roof over our heads with very little support from him kinda makes me resentful of men who lash out at all women just because they've had a bad experience with one.
Flynne at March 1, 2011 5:23 PM
Wow. Sorry that was so long. Oh and Ed, just so you know, those few times I called the police to go check on Ex? He called and THANKED me, because his sugar was low, and he almost ended up in the hospital a couple of times, and might have died had I not called. So of I really WAS a man-hating femi-Nazi, all I had to do was NOT call and let him die. And that would have been the end of all my problems. /sarcasm.
And thank you, lovelysoul, for posting that, you're so kind, and I greatly appreciate it.
Flynne at March 1, 2011 5:34 PM
Whistle, thank you for your kind words. Flynne, if that’s the worst mistake you made today, you’re not doing to bad. Apology accepted, and thank you as well for the kind words.
I would like to point out one thing, I did not lump all women together in any way shape or form, nor would I. I was pointing out the inequality that resides in the family court system and what many men are subjected to. The link Eric provided is a sad statement to how upside down it truly is. I have great respect for women and what mothers like you and Lovely have been subjected to. That doesn’t mean however that all men are like that anymore than all women are.
Ed at March 1, 2011 5:53 PM
LS,
Then, on your recommendation, I withdraw my nasty attitude toward Flynne. I obviously don't know her. I just had such a visceral reaction to her seemingly man-hating and vulgar attacks that I thought I recognized her.
My brother, who is a very involved and loving father, has to put up with so much nonsense from his hateful ex-wife who has the maternal instincts of a male lion.
As I said, it takes two in the long run and I applaud you for being a real woman and mother. I also extend my sympathies to your children that your children's father isn't keen to be a hands-on father.
I blame a society that gives a pass to men who don't give a shit about their children and families. I'm not talking about the larger society, I'm talking about male society. Around the water cooler, there is not nearly enough shame from other men for not caring for your children. Note that I said, "from other men".
In the more important subculture of my particular family, there is not one single deadbeat, uninvolved father, pretend-man, or douche bag. This has served me well as the sort of image that would never allow me to look in the mirror were I to abandon my family.
Men, if you want generations of sons who grow to be men, start it with you. Generations of those like you will follow.
My son is a man. If he ever has a son, I'll bet he will be a man as well, and on and on. If I achieve nothing else in life, that's not a bad thing to have on my tombstone.
whistleDick at March 1, 2011 5:56 PM
Flynne,
Sorry I jumped to such a conclusion. As I said to LS, I thought I recognized you.
Come on everybody, group hug! Oh yeah, that's it. Nice ass, LS. Oh, sorry -- I don't know how my hand wandered down there.
whistleDick at March 1, 2011 6:06 PM
Thank you both, Ed and Whistle. It's guys like you that give me hope that my daughters will be lucky enough to meet young men like yourselves and not have to struggle like I did. They're both really good girls, in spite of the assholery that their father and I may have subjected them to.
I'm all for the group hug. Easy, there, Whistle!
Flynne at March 1, 2011 6:14 PM
"Come on everybody, group hug! Oh yeah, that's it. Nice ass, LS. Oh, sorry -- I don't know how my hand wandered down there."
LOL. Thanks, Whistle.
Ed, I, too, wish to extend my sympathy on the loss of your son. One of my dear friends just lost her 17 yr old on New Year's Day, and my own brother died at the same age many years ago. The loss of a child is so very sad. So sorry for your loss.
lovelysoul at March 1, 2011 6:29 PM
Hee hee!
whistleDick at March 1, 2011 6:32 PM
Obviously, LS and I were posting at the same time. My "hee hee" was aimed at Flynne's response.
whistleDick at March 1, 2011 6:34 PM
Wow, glad I missed that food fight. Lesson learned: Never assume that what happens in one's own case is what happens in every case.
Flynne, I think the answer to the question that you started out trying to ask is: The American divorce system tends to reward the irresponsible party, whichever one it is. Men who are willing to live as scofflaws fly under the radar of the child support system, while responsible men get thrown in jail if they don't make as much money as some asshole judge thinks they ought to make. Women who neglect their children and keep the fathers at arm's length get away with putting their child support checks up their noses, while women who struggle to be responsible for their children do so without any help. Any of this sound familiar?
Cousin Dave at March 1, 2011 8:00 PM
Gee, it's almost like someone designed it that way.
But I'm not cynical or anything...
brian at March 1, 2011 9:16 PM
LS, thank you so much, whistle and Flynne thank you 2 as well.
You are all well educated and thoughtful people (sorry we got on the wrong foot Flynne)in the end it comes down to one thing. Can you live with yourself. I can and I'm good with that.....
Ed at March 1, 2011 9:51 PM
Flynne, I just wanted to say, I have never come across anyone on a blog site that apologized. It would have been much easier for you to just ignore the whole thing all together. It speaks volumes to your character and integrity that you would take your time to do so. I formally retract everything I said previously in regard to my observations of you. Thanks for renewing my faith in civility…..
Ed at March 1, 2011 10:36 PM
Just got to see this, and I want to thank you too Ed, for accepting my apology. I will always admit when I'm wrong and apologize for it, that's just the way I was brought up. You seem like a decent guy, and I absolutely hate what your ex did to you and your family. So thank you for stepping up and rightfully correcting my misconceptions, and being decent about accepting my apology. You've renewed my faith in civility as well!
Whistle, keep your hands where we can see 'em! LOL! You're too funny, and thanks for your kindness as well, it's appreciated.
Cousin Dave, I think you may be right. But it makes me sad that you are.
Brian, I still heart you big time, cynicism and all!
Flynne at March 2, 2011 6:42 AM
I'd love to be wrong someday and have to apologise for it, you have no idea how exausting being right all the time is
lujlp at March 2, 2011 7:02 AM
Great discussion!
Matt at March 2, 2011 9:02 AM
Also, spelling doesnt count twords my being wrong
lujlp at March 2, 2011 9:32 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/28/where_was_his_r.html#comment-1865435">comment from lujlpLuj has dyslexia and rather charming spelling because of it -- and rationality like a laser.
Amy Alkon at March 2, 2011 9:47 AM
Amy, I think Loojy might be Charlie Sheen in disguise - he IS magic, after all!
Love ya Luj!
Flynne at March 2, 2011 10:00 AM
I don't have time to read all the comments, but the story suggests a legal error was made. If the woman was married at the time of the conception, her husband is on the hook for the child support, not the blowee; blowee should appeal.
The law is clear that child support is meant for the child and the child is entitled to two parents (the biological mother and any old guy who happens to be convenient) even though there's no micromanaging what mom does with the funds once she gets them.
Dad's other option is to sue for custody; if he wins, he not only protects the child from the blower, he can collect child support from her as well.
Richard Bennett at March 4, 2011 7:47 PM
The appropriate remedy is for the man to sue the woman for damages exceeding any required child support payments by 200%.
Some Guy at March 4, 2011 7:53 PM
Leave a comment