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

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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?

The constant barrage of strawmen is dizzying. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this seriously.

So if a man loses custody he has no right to see his children?

Another strawman. Shocked, I am.

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.

While you are equating child support as the paying of the wife for the "privilege" to see the child, I don't see that as the truth.

I think a man should have the right (not privilege) to see his children. I also think a man should have a right to cease "child support" payments made to his ex-wife when that wife re-marries and obtains another source of income for the family. If he wants to help his child, perhaps he should set up a college fund with the money instead of giving it to a wife, who now has potentially 3 incomes to go to the child. Which is ridiculous.

One thing you keep forgetting is when the wife re-married, a new family unit is established. Continuing to suck funds from the ex-husband when she has a new husband providing for her family isn't very nice, IMO. If the ex-husband is to contribute in this situation, the money should be going in the form of investing in the child's college fund, etc. and not to the ex-wife.

While you keep harping on how awful deadbeat dads are, I'm sure you're not going to discuss how awful serial-divorcee, alimony-collecting, child support-demanding women can be...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So the old father wouldn't be able to see his kids if his ex remarries? That's not very fair.

What planet did you import your logic from?

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

If you think a father's relationship with his children is unchanged by a divorce, you're very mistaken. Who is the legal guardian of the children? Who is the person who can comfort the child after a bad dream?

While they are usually allowed "visitation", in a very real sense they have lost their child.

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.

Another strawman, this time with a pretty vicious undertone. Ming?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Asher
I think a man should have the right (not privilege) to see his children. I also think a man should have a right to cease "child support" payments made to his ex-wife when that wife re-marries and obtains another source of income for the family. If he wants to help his child, perhaps he should set up a college fund with the money instead of giving it to a wife, who now has potentially 3 incomes to go to the child. Which is ridiculous.

Why should I support someone elses kid? They aren't my children, I didn't have the fun of creating them. I am not their father. I am not called father by them.

Seeing the children is a right of the non-custodial parent, regardless of whether or not they pay child support

Having the non-custodial parent help pay for the care of his children is a right of the mother.

ACK!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Why should I support someone elses kid?

If you married the mother, you get the kids too. At least that's how a real man should treat the situation, IMO.

You seriously live in a house with a mother and her children and perform zero fatherly duties? You don't buy them ice cream, take them to the movies, etc?

[Patroklos]

Is he trying to be a dick, or just wants to know?

I have to pay taxes, have no say on where they go, but I still like to know. Some would say its responsible to know where that money goes.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Asher


If you married the mother, you get the kids too. At least that's how a real man should treat the situation, IMO.

You seriously live in a house with a mother and her children and perform zero fatherly duties? You don't buy them ice cream, take them to the movies, etc?

It's funny hearing these arguments from someone with no kids.

I mean, what do I know, i'm only a noncustodial father and a step father.

I pay my child support without thinking twice about what my ex wife does with it, and yes she's married again.

She could spend that money on clothes for her, for all I care. The money I give her that she spends on herself, at the very least, frees up her money that can then be spent on my daughter.

ACK!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tuberski
It's funny hearing these arguments from someone with no kids.

Why is that? If anything it makes me more objective.

I don't plan on having kids in a relationship that's not going to last. I'm confident mine will, it's been over four years now, but we'll see. We don't plan on having kids til we're in our 30s.

The fact that you had kids in a relationship that could not support them doesn't mean your opinion is more valid than mine. Quite the opposite, actually...

[Arrian]

And if it doesn't work out, Asher?

-Arrian

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Asher

Why is that? If anything it makes me more objective.

I don't plan on having kids in a relationship that's not going to last. I'm confident mine will, it's been over four years now, but we'll see. We don't plan on having kids til we're in our 30s.

The fact that you had kids in a relationship that could not support them doesn't mean your opinion is more valid than mine. Quite the opposite, actually...

So all the non-gay people against gay marriage have a point, since, being hetero, it makes them more objective?

My relationship with my ex-wife does support them, it's called child support.

Besides which, I'm in a realtionship that does support kids, so I've been on both sides of the equation, while you have been on neither.

Stick with thing you know something about.

ACK!

[Patroklos]

pay my child support without thinking twice about what my ex wife does with it, and yes she's married again.

Thats stupid and unresponsible.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Arrian
And if it doesn't work out, Asher?

-Arrian

If it doesn't work out?

Then you decide which of the couple the kid would be best off with primarily. Then in the absence of another partner, the ex would send child support. Once another man is in the house, he's the new guardian -- legally and financially.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tuberski
So all the non-gay people against gay marriage have a point, since, being hetero, it makes them more objective?

No, because they're religious. Seriously, don't even try this argument...it's embarrassing for you.

Besides which, I'm in a realtionship that does support kids, so I've been on both sides of the equation, while you have been on neither.

Stick with thing you know something about.

ACK!

While you clearly know more about failed relationships and traumatizing kids with the stress of a divorce, this does not make you an expert in the field nor a very reliable source of what is right...

Good on you for supporting your biological kids while not supporting the kids whose mother you're in a relationship with. If you think that's right -- well, that's your problem.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

wait Last i checked deadbeat dads didnt come with a tattoo on their forehead. So for a woman to distinguish thme out is impossible. Second the marriage fails because of the lack of being able to get along, in my case it was the lack of responsablity my ex took in keeping a job and helping suppor the kids while we were maried. Third, no the ex doesnt have the kids the same amount of time that we do, he gets them whenever he wants to see them i do not withold visitation from him unfortunatly for my kids that is usually saturday morning till sunday night mind you his choice. 4th, tuber has been paying for medical insurance and dental on my kids since we have met, and supports his own daugther with support and medical care. This isnt about excommunicating the father from the kids life, he has a choice to be there when they get off school when they have plays etc he choses what he wants and can do. This is about the obligation he has to support his children. I always said he has been a good father but a lousy husband. But now he wants to decide what i can and cant do with money that belongs to my kids.

[Patroklos]

wait Last i checked deadbeat dads didnt come with a tattoo on their forehead.

While airhead, money hording child custody manipulating ex wives do normally come with a tramp stamp. Yes I see why it is more difficult for women.

But serioulsy, he doesn't know what sort of ex you are going to be either, so I see no problem with him making sure his kids are getting what the the court mandates he provide for them. Just good parenting in a manor he can still do.

Unless he is being a dick about it, but I already said that.

[Ben Kenobi]

While you are equating child support as the paying of the wife for the "privilege" to see the child, I don't see that as the truth.

That's not what I said. Being a father, ie that 'sperm donor' which you don't seem to have any regard, gives you both privileges and responsibility. The privilege is the visitation rights, the responsibility is child support. They are two sides of the same coin.

I think a man should have the right (not privilege) to see his children. I also think a man should have a right to cease "child support" payments made to his ex-wife when that wife re-marries and obtains another source of income for the family.

So in other words, they should have the privilege without the responsibility of having to raise the child. I'm sorry Asher, it shouldn't work that way. With privileges come responsibility, you can't have one without the other.

If he wants to help his child, perhaps he should set up a college fund with the money instead of giving it to a wife, who now has potentially 3 incomes to go to the child. Which is ridiculous.

Is the money for the mother or for the child? Again, you are conflating child support with alimony. The child support is to support the child and not the mother.

One thing you keep forgetting is when the wife re-married, a new family unit is established. Continuing to suck funds from the ex-husband when she has a new husband providing for her family isn't very nice, IMO. If the ex-husband is to contribute in this situation, the money should be going in the form of investing in the child's college fund, etc. and not to the ex-wife.

If he has the right of visitation then he is still the father. How fair is it for the new husband to look after children that are not his own, not be called the father, not have any of the privileges of the father, and yet have the responsibility of raising them and making sure they are well looked after?

Again, responsibility comes with privilege. If the father retains the right of visitation he accepts the responsibility of child support. If he relinquishes his obligation then he is no longer the father and no longer has visitation rights to his own children that he has abandoned.

While you keep harping on how awful deadbeat dads are, I'm sure you're not going to discuss how awful serial-divorcee, alimony-collecting, child support-demanding women can be...

I already have. Read up Asher. I know you ignored my first post and I find that very curious.