Is this common now or has it been going on for years?

[Asmodean]

Of course you should. My comments were not directed at Mrs. Tuberski, not her case.

I was speaking in more general terms, where the application of the family laws has been known to favor the mother over the father, in terms of who get's custody etc.

That is what I would like to see changed.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Of course you should. My comments were not directed at Mrs. Tuberski, not her case.

I was speaking in more general terms, where the application of the family laws has been known to favor the mother over the father, in terms of who get's custody etc.

That is what I would like to see changed.

Asher didn't mention how it was unfair, so why quote him?

ACK!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
child support is there because the man is still the father, as such he needs to support his kids

The father of the kid is the one who is there for him and raises them. I don't care whose sperm fertilized the egg.

The father is responsible for supporting the child, whether it's biologically his or not. You know what you're getting into when you marry a woman with kids.

[Jon Miller]

Actions have responsibility. If you go and have kids, then you are responsible for them.

You are basically just rewarding deadbeat dads.

JM

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Actions have responsibility. If you go and have kids, then you are responsible for them.

You are basically just rewarding deadbeat dads.

JM

"Buyer beware".

Deadbeat dads surely should've had glaring character flaws one should notice before reciting the vows or having unprotected sex with them...

I don't think it's rewarding deadbeat dads, but it would surely make more women think before marrying someone who is capable of being a deadbeat dad.

[Jon Miller]

(whispers) unfortunately in many ways women aren't very rational

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

The father of the kid is the one who is there for him and raises them. I don't care whose sperm fertilized the egg.

So if you manage to father a child you have no responsibility once the child is born? I'm sorry Asher, it does matter whether you are the father or not, and yes if you get a gal pregnant you should be responsible for the care and welfare of that child.

The father is responsible for supporting the child, whether it's biologically his or not. You know what you're getting into when you marry a woman with kids.

He ain't their dad, they have a dad already. It's his responsibility to care for his children. It shouldn't even be an issue Asher, it should be automatically assumed by the dad that hey, I should be looking after my kids.

Why should he expect another man to take on this burden? That's the difference between being supportive and a deadbeat. The supportive father won't need to be told that he ought to support his kids no question.

[Ben Kenobi]

Deadbeat dads surely should've had glaring character flaws one should notice before reciting the vows or having unprotected sex with them...

I don't think it's rewarding deadbeat dads, but it would surely make more women think before marrying someone who is capable of being a deadbeat dad.

So the solution is to let the deadbeat dads off the hook and punish the women who chose to have kids with them?

Gee, yes you are rewarding the deadbeat dads for choosing to abandon the kids that they had to make. It works both ways. If the moms are going to be responsible for their children, then the dads should be responsible for their kids too. Bottom line.

Like slowwhand said, no 'do-overs'.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So if you manage to father a child you have no responsibility once the child is born?

You certainly do. If the mother gets the kid in a custody battle (as they always do), then you have to pay child support so the child has the benefits of both incomes. If the mother remarries, your custodial and financial responsibilities for raising the child should be terminated -- he has a new "father" to provide.

Why should he expect another man to take on this burden?

Why shouldn't he? The mother took the child from him, why should that happen? Why shouldn't he keep the kid and raise him?

It's not about being fair, it's about being reasonable.

Go back to what I said about the purpose of child support. I don't buy into this bull**** about if it's "your kid" you take care of it. If it was his kid, the kid would be living at home with him. Clearly it's not his kid anymore, only biologically.

If he legally ain't going to be the protective guardian, he legally shouldn't be forced to pay child support in the presence of another father.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So the solution is to let the deadbeat dads off the hook and punish the women who chose to have kids with them?

Who is letting them off the hook? If the mother has no other source of income from another man, they must pay for the sake of the child. If she remarries, and she has custody of the children, the father is the new man of the house and takes over fatherly responsibilities.

It's only just. If you're taking the man's child away from him, the least you can do is stop taking his money once you remarry and take the money of another man...

The problem with your argument is simple: you're painting all divorcees as deadbeat dads. The vast majority of fathers would love to raise their kids, but they don't get that privilege.

Gee, yes you are rewarding the deadbeat dads for choosing to abandon the kids that they had to make. It works both ways. If the moms are going to be responsible for their children, then the dads should be responsible for their kids too. Bottom line.

Like slowwhand said, no 'do-overs'.

The dad is the father in the house the child lives in, not who fathered the kid many years before.

You cling too much to biological basis rather than practical reality.

[Arrian]

You certainly do. If the mother gets the kid in a custody battle (as they always do), then you have to pay child support so the child has the benefits of both incomes. If the mother remarries, your custodial and financial responsibilities for raising the child should be terminated -- he has a new "father" to provide.

Except that's not how it happens. As Tuber pointed out, if that's the way it's to be, then the kids should become his kids and the biological father should be excommunicated or somesuch. Which makes sense if you're looking at this as if it's a spreadsheet, instead of real life...

-Arrian

[Asher]

Originally posted by Arrian
Except that's not how it happens. As Tuber pointed out, if that's the way it's to be, then the kids should become his kids and the biological father should be excommunicated or somesuch.

That's exactly what's happened, he's been excommunicated from the familial unit. Where is the father when the kid gets home from school? Where is the father when the child has a nightmare?

He's been excommunicated...

The legal guardian in almost all these cases will be the new man in the woman's life, not the biological father. Excommunication is a great word...

[Ben Kenobi]

You certainly do. If the mother gets the kid in a custody battle (as they always do), then you have to pay child support so the child has the benefits of both incomes. If the mother remarries, your custodial and financial responsibilities for raising the child should be terminated -- he has a new "father" to provide.

So the best way to reinforce the privileges of being a father is to strip the father of all rights to see his kids should the mother get remarried?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that's how it should work. The father should retain the rights to see his kids regardless of whether the mother chooses to remarry or not. The father should be able to say that he remains the father, whether or not a new man comes into his former wife's life.

I know if I were a dad that is how I would want it, my responsibility to my own children has no bearing on whether my ex would be married or not.

Why shouldn't he? The mother took the child from him, why should that happen? Why shouldn't he keep the kid and raise him?

How did she take the children from him? He can still see them whenever he wishes, and he has visitation rights, so that he can do so.

Go back to what I said about the purpose of child support. I don't buy into this bull**** about if it's "your kid" you take care of it. If it was his kid, the kid would be living at home with him. Clearly it's not his kid anymore, only biologically.

As Tuber said already, he has the privilege of visitation rights and can come and say that he wants the kids to go with him for awhile. I don't see why he should lose those rights just because his ex remarried.

If he legally ain't going to be the protective guardian, he legally shouldn't be forced to pay child support in the presence of another father.

So if a man loses custody he has no right to see his children? With child support comes privileges with respect to his children, and he has responsibilities too. I don't see how any real man would fight paying child support since that money is for his children.

[Arrian]

Heh. Agreeing with Ben against Asher and (unless I've misread him) Imran.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Who is letting them off the hook? If the mother has no other source of income from another man, they must pay for the sake of the child. If she remarries, and she has custody of the children, the father is the new man of the house and takes over fatherly responsibilities.

So the old father wouldn't be able to see his kids if his ex remarries? That's not very fair. I think he remains the father regardless of what his ex does.

It's only just. If you're taking the man's child away from him, the least you can do is stop taking his money once you remarry and take the money of another man...

Again, loss of custody = losing your children? That's not the way it works, and thank goodness.

The problem with your argument is simple: you're painting all divorcees as deadbeat dads. The vast majority of fathers would love to raise their kids, but they don't get that privilege.

As I see it, there are plenty of divorced fathers who do support their children willingly. In fact if you read what I said about alimony, I am surprised you think I would paint them all with the same brush. I think the ones who are deadbeats make things worse for everyone.

You cling too much to biological basis rather than practical reality.

Ah, now I get it why this bugs you so much. Look asher, as much as you would prefer biological parents to have no rights to their kids, they do and they ought to be treated with more consideration. This goes for mothers as well as fathers.