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

[Asher]

Originally posted by MRT144
asher, you would be screaming bloody murder if this rationale was applied towards funding research for an AIDS cure or inhibitors.

or condom subsidization.

or anything that you actually care about.

"if you didnt want AIDS you should have thought about having unprotected sex with that asymptomatic HIV positive man. No recourse for you!"

That opinion isn't far off from mine, actually...

Though I'm all for funding an AIDS cure due to:
1) Developing regions where they don't have access to condoms
2) Children born with AIDS

I think if you get AIDS from unprotected sex this day and age, in North America, quite frankly...sucks to be you. Exact same rationale I have for smokers who get cancer. You know the risks, idiots.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

oh yeah asher i didnt win by default, it was decided by my ex husband that i would be the coustodial parent. he remains a large part of thier lives when he has time from work and school. I think ur arguing that moms get the kids 99 % of the time it might just be because there is no custodial disagreement. Some fathers are pushing to be the non coustiodal for whatever their reasons.
I think their has been a large change in the system where moms dont always get the kids i see it more and more everyday.

[Ben Kenobi]

@ MRT.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
oh yeah asher i didnt win by default,...

Quite frankly, I don't know your situation, and nor do I care to try to parse your sentences to know it.

I'm sure you're a fair lady or whatever, it's just irrelevant to my discussion.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I must ask this question first of all.... What is a glaring quality of a deadbeat? I for one didnt fill out an application when my ex and i got married. he did things different when we dated then he did after we got married. The idea of getting married was to have children so sex cant be considered unprotected since your intentions were to have children to begin with. agree that the money is to support the kids. But in most of ur opinions some women hook up and marry another deadbeat so know the ex is still supporting the kid and new deadbeat i dotn agree with that. My intentions all along was to save this money for their clothes and college. I do not however want to be told how to save it or spend it on them how he wants

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Asher

That opinion isn't far off from mine, actually...

Though I'm all for funding an AIDS cure due to:
1) Developing regions where they don't have access to condoms
2) Children born with AIDS

I think if you get AIDS from unprotected sex this day and age, in North America, quite frankly...sucks to be you. Exact same rationale I have for smokers who get cancer. You know the risks, idiots.

the problem is that in many cases you dont know the risks.

for instance, how did you know someone would be a bad father post divorce, if when you had children with them they were spectacular and the marriage was happy?

i agree with you that if the mother or father remarries, they shed or adopt the responsibilities of the previous relationship, kids included. if a father marries a woman with children he should be aware (and one should hope) that he might be the sole source of support. if a woman remarrries, she shouldn't expect (but one would hope) the bio pops to support the children beyond what he wants to do.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher, just a question,

If you and your partner were to split up, is one parent responsible to support the kid both of you adopted?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Asher, just a question,

If you and your partner were to split up, is one parent responsible to support the kid both of you adopted?

Who said anything about adoption? Test tube babies FTW. Contain both of our DNA.

I've already addressed this above. One person would get custody, the other would provide financial support until the other remarries.

[-Jrabbit]

The base question is asked and ansered: The ex has no legal right to tell Mrs. T how to spend the support money he provides.

As to the secondary discussion -- the contention that the step-parent should assume full financial responsibility for any children his/her new spouse has is fundamentally flawed.

In my mind, the purpose of child support payments is to continue to provide for a child when one parent leaves a relationship. That is, the child will not be disadvantaged by the lack of income from two parents.

That's true as far as it goes. But the idea is based on the responsibility owing to biology, not on availability of a money source.

The condition of necessary child support effectively ends when a woman re-married and has a legal parent other than the biological father for the child. The purpose of this new man is to support the child.

This is The Big Lie. The purpose of the new spouse is be a life partner in marriage. The 2nd husband is most definitely NOT a legal parent. You seem to be saying that the new couple shouldn't be permitted to be married unless the new husband accepts full responsibility for the kids. That's crazy talk. Does the first husband lose all custody? (Of course not.)

Or, in this special new world of yours, does the 2nd husband have to accept the 1st husband (now contributing nothing financially) taking his kids away for custodial visits? Trust me, the Father's Rights people would have your ass in court in a second -- and they'd win.

As long as the mother is single, she deserves child support. But not when she's re-married. The keyword here isn't "responsibility", it's "integrity". Why take money from someone when their role in the family has been replaced? You've cut him out of your family, so why should he pay when your child has a new father to provide.

The assumption that the woman "cut him out" is misogynist. So is the later statement (not quoted here; sorry) that the woman is "double dipping" -- as if the man who serially marries, sires more kids and leaves, is not.

All these arguments are based around the money trail. Do you contend that the Mom should only be allowed to remarry if the prospective husband makes enough money to support her and her family? Sounds just like a Junior International Financial Analyst talking.

The assumption -- that the proximity of an additional income stream is an adequate substitution for the emotional bond that both biological parents and their children want, need, and have a right to -- is kind of sad. And as poorly thought out as your idea that your own adoptees' needs would be adequately met by a policy of "money from one, live with the other" after divorce. It's a shallow and emotionally bankrupt poiint of view. IMHO.

It's really about the emotional welfare of all concerned -- custodial parent, separated parent, and children. The father has visitation rights through age 18. Why should he not have financial commitments over that same period?

It's the parents who divorce. Not the children. Those who procreate are responsible for their progeny. That includes both their emotional and financial well-being.

[Asher]

It's the parents who divorce. Not the children. Those who procreate are responsible for their progeny. That includes both their emotional and financial well-being.

If that was true, they wouldn't get divorced.

I'm not sure why many people get divorced. In my extended family, there's only one person who has ever been divorced -- and he's on his third marriage now...he's also crazy (he's been institutionalized at one point...).

The whole biological thing is a load of crap. The father is the man who is there for the child, period. The father provides.

The thug who seeded the child is nothing.

[-Jrabbit]

Ah, if only it were that simple.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

yes asher i agree the thug who donated the seed is nothing but what happens when u have both? A father that does all the things a father does and a step father that does the same things? I assume u feel that the responsibilty should fall to the father that is married to the mother that has custody of the kid, rather then the father that seeded the child. I want to know, and where is it indicated he stops supporting his kids even if a person willing and doing the same things steps in

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Asher
The whole biological thing is a load of crap. The father is the man who is there for the child, period. The father provides.

Again, overly simplistic. You're still hung up on defining which one is the "real" father. We're talking about responsibility here. The sire is literally responsible for the welfare of his kids. In your world, he walks away if someone picks up the reins. While that creates a lovely balance of dollars, it completely ignores the kids' need (and right) to visit their biofather, and his need (and right) to maintain a bond with his kids.

In the real world, that stuff matters. In yours, the concept of what's best for the kids has yet to be mentioned, except in terms of cash.

The fact is that divorces happen, and sometimes it's actually better for the kids. Watching and listening to the parents fighting all the time isn't healthy. But it doesn't mean those same parents don't each have a lot of love for their kids, and vice versa.

And just as physical separation doesn't stop the need for emotional bonds, neither does it end financial responsibility.

[Ben Kenobi]

The whole biological thing is a load of crap. The father is the man who is there for the child, period. The father provides.

The father should provide. But you don't get to be a father unless you first conceive the child. Holding the fathers of their children responsible is how you get them to be there for their children later on.

To you it might be insignificant, but if everyone believed as you did, I have a hard time seeing any men choosing to take responsibility. If the biological father has no responsibility, then why should the men who come along later pick up the slack?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The father should provide. But you don't get to be a father unless you first conceive the child. Holding the fathers of their children responsible is how you get them to be there for their children later on.

To you it might be insignificant, but if everyone believed as you did, I have a hard time seeing any men choosing to take responsibility. If the biological father has no responsibility, then why should the men who come along later pick up the slack?

The biological father has the responsibility to make sure the child is cared for and raised properly. If he's not living with the kid and raising them, he should still provide funding or another man should be raising and doing that.

I've never said he has no responsibility. Simply that if the child lives with the mother and the mother remarried, the practical and financial "father' role in the family has been replaced.

If you think it's inconceivable to man-up and be a father to your new-wife's children, then that's more an indictment of you and your family values than anything else, isn't it? Most step-fathers I've known were proud to call themselves fathers of their stepchildren.

Perhaps this is a Canadian thing, where we care about others that we don't sleep with and aren't biologically ours...I'm seriously quite shocked that some step-fathers here don't consider themselves fathers or father figures to children living in their households while they are in a longterm relationship with the mother...