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

[Mrs. Tuberski]

The whole point is, some step fathers do consider them selves that, but when the kids are older and the biological father is still involved the kids may or may not feel the same out of respect for thier dad. My kids respect and apperciate tuber but they do not call him dad. I still do not think that resovles my ex of his duty to support his children.

[Ben Kenobi]

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 agree with everything except the last statement.

It isn't another man's responsibility to pay for your child. It's great if someone does do that but it doesn't mean that you aren't shirking your duty.

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.

Fathers are much more then just financial. No one can replace their father, even if they are the best step-dad in the world. Each child deserves to have their father looking after them.

I've seen some great stepfathers out there, and I know it's a tough job. It has nothing to do with whether they are doing the right thing or not, but everything to do with the father living up to his responsibilities.

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.

Most that I know love the kids that they are looking after very much, but they never call themselves dad.

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...

I wouldn't if I were in that position. I'd be honoured to help the mother look after her kid, but I wouldn't be the dad.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I'm wading into this swamp late, but as a native informant, and one deeply shocked by certain positions here (like Ben's, above). Lemme tell you my story.

I've been in my daughter's life since she was three but, even after my wife and I married, I didn't have as many parental rights as my wife's ex -- who ran out on his family and moved from state to state, working under the table to avoid having to pay any of his court-ordered child support. By the time Lil Miss Firefly was 5, I was, in every behavioral and financial way, her father -- but the only way for me to get the legal rights that should have accompanied the responsibilities I took on would have been for me to adopt my then-stepdaughter.

That, however, required deadbeat dad voluntarily reliquishing all claims to paternity (or dying; since I have a cousin who married into a mob family, this was an option idly considered in darker moments). Of course, deadbeat was reluctant to relinquish paternity, since retaining it boosted his ego (which needed it; he sure didn't have anything else going for him) and allowed him to continue to jerk his ex around for "beating" him in the divorce (she hired the best divorce shark in Pittsburgh, he represented himself; guess what happened). So as long as deadbeat dad continued to get his jollies by calling himself a father and rattling his ex, I was legally relegated to second-class-parent status, however I actually felt and behaved.

So, in becoming a stepparent, I took on great responsibilities without getting the rights that go with them. So why should my wife marrying relieve her ex of his responsibilities, when it doesn't relieve him of his rights?

Now, we got lucky. Eventually, once the jackass' unpaid child support reached something like $30,000, other penalties stated kicking in -- Colorado wouldn't let him get a driver's license, the State Dept wouldn't issue him a passport, etc. That gave us the leverage to get him to relinquish claims of paternity in exchange for my wife supporting a voiding of the child support order. I finally was able to adopt my daughter in 2004, and become her father fully in the eyes of the law, only after already acting as her only father in every other way for 9 years -- and only because the deadbeat scum who did nothing for her but sire her finally gave me his permission. That's not right, but it's how it is.

[-Jrabbit]

Thank you for bringing some sanity and perspective to this thread, Rufus.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Glad to do my part.

[Pekka]

My opinion is that if the dad is a complete tosser, that is an abusive person who is violent and basically one absolutely has to get out of that situation and the kids can't be with the dad that much for that very reason, sure. He should still pay. Also, if it was a mutual agreement, that agreement should be respected.

If the decision is one sided, the dad is not abusive, I don't think anyone should be paying to anyone. Including a situation where a new economy is established via new marriage (excluding if the dad was an abusive person, or an agreement was made).

Anything less is simply not equality. Then again, the society does not consider dads to be equal and openly feels it should be a fact that children are better off with their mothers.

I think adults should be able to deal with these issues together like adults though. No need for court crap if both parties are adults, except perhaps make the agreement documents valid legally in case someone wants to bail out.

A situation where the dad was left for example, kids were taken away in the process and the mother has established a new economy with a new man, I just don't see the moral justification for leeching off from the man, if he even doesn't have the right to get the kids and it had to be settled in the court. And none of this "It's MY RIGHT" BS. It might be, but it's still not a very moral justification.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm wading into this swamp late, but as a native informant, and one deeply shocked by certain positions here (like Ben's, above). Lemme tell you my story.

I'm not sure why my position is so shocking. I have nothing against stepdads and I think they get a raw deal in accepting the responsibility and picking up the slack for the fathers.

I think they should be allowed to become the father, but only if the natural father voluntarily reliquishes his status. It's nothing against all the good works that the step-dad does, but as a way to guard for the father to retain his own rights with respect to the children.

I've been in my daughter's life since she was three but, even after my wife and I married, I didn't have as many parental rights as my wife's ex -- who ran out on his family and moved from state to state, working under the table to avoid having to pay any of his court-ordered child support. By the time Lil Miss Firefly was 5, I was, in every behavioral and financial way, her father -- but the only way for me to get the legal rights that should have accompanied the responsibilities I took on would have been for me to adopt my then-stepdaughter.

I don't doubt that you were a saint in caring for a daughter that was not your own. Please Rufus, don't get me wrong I have enormous respect for any man who voluntarily accepts this large burden, and cares for a child as a stepfather. I don't believe that it is your duty. It is a choice that you make, that you are not required to make, which is why you are such a blessing in the life of your wife and her daughter.

So as long as deadbeat dad continued to get his jollies by calling himself a father and rattling his ex, I was legally relegated to second-class-parent status, however I actually felt and behaved.

Why did you feel as though you were a second class parent? You should feel honoured that you are accepting a responsibility that not many people do.

So, in becoming a stepparent, I took on great responsibilities without getting the rights that go with them. So why should my wife marrying relieve her ex of his responsibilities, when it doesn't relieve him of his rights?

It shouldn't, but he can't have responsibilities without the rights. I am saying that he should be paying child support without complaint or argument, heck I don't even believe that it ought to be court mandated, in that anyone who truly cares for his wife and children will support their child voluntarily, to the amount that she needs and requests.

I'm sorry if I came off as hostile to stepdads, but I didn't mean to come off that way.

That's not right, but it's how it is.

No it isn't right, but not all fathers are deadbeats. Why should the remarriage strip the father of his rights as a father automatically? It's not fair to the dads who are involved and supportive, even as it is not fair to you when the father claims his rights without keeping his end of the bargain.

I agree with you that if the dad does not want to be the dad, then he should relinquish the title voluntarily, but a better answer would be to have him uphold his responsibility as a father.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm not sure why my position is so shocking. I have nothing against stepdads and I think they get a raw deal in accepting the responsibility and picking up the slack for the fathers.

The reason your position is so shocking is because you paint children as burdens. Most reasonable people find children to be one of the great joys of their lives. Even if it's not biologically theirs...

That's the difference between your opinion and mine. Yours is solely on the basis of "whose seed created this beast? HE HAS TO DEAL WITH THIS MESS!", and mine is more along the lines of who gets to be the loving father to raise a child into this world...

[Asher]

I agree with you that if the dad does not want to be the dad, then he should relinquish the title voluntarily, but a better answer would be to have him uphold his responsibility as a father.

This is another gem.

Your "better answer" to the situation where a father wants nothing to do with the kid and there's another man in the wife's life that does want the kid is to have the biological father "uphold his responsibility as a father"?

[Ben Kenobi]

The reason your position is so shocking is because you paint children as burdens. Most reasonable people find children to be one of the great joys of their lives. Even if it's not biologically theirs...

Quite true. I apologise if I have come off saying that children ought to be considered a bad thing and a burden, because it is a blessing to have children and to care for them.

This is why I have a hard time understanding why the men would kick up a fuss paying child support. They shouldn't have to be told to pay, they should do so voluntarily because they love their child.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your "better answer" to the situation where a father wants nothing to do with the kid and there's another man in the wife's life that does want the kid is to have the biological father "uphold his responsibility as a father"?

Yes. Upholding his responsibility as a father means looking after the kids and making them a part of their life. I would rather see him step up to the plate and provide for his children, then to abandon them.

You can call me a fool for hoping that a leopard changes his spots, but I think caring for children makes a better man.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This is why I have a hard time understanding why the men would kick up a fuss paying child support. They shouldn't have to be told to pay, they should do so voluntarily because they love their child.

Because people suck.

And also because for many people it's a hard pill to swallow when the wife gets custody of the child, marries a man who makes a significant amount of money, then be ordered to continue paying the couple to raise the child out of your own pocket.

As I was saying, it's harder to justify financially and you also know that the kid is going to get what he needs from a two-parent family as it is.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes. Upholding his responsibility as a father means looking after the kids and making them a part of their life. I would rather see him step up to the plate and provide for his children, then to abandon them.

You can call me a fool for hoping that a leopard changes his spots, but I think caring for children makes a better man.

If a man doesn't care about his child, you can't make him. All you're going to be doing is exposing the child to potential abuse.

Shame on you.

[Ben Kenobi]

And also because for many people it's a hard pill to swallow when the wife gets custody of the child, marries a man who makes a significant amount of money, then be ordered to continue paying the couple to raise the child out of your own pocket.

I thought children were a blessing Asher. Why should the dad complain about paying child support if it is a blessing to be supporting the child that he helped to create?

As I was saying, it's harder to justify financially and you also know that the kid is going to get what he needs from a two-parent family as it is.

Perhaps, but again this is treating the child as a financial burden, and not a blessing to the dad to care for his child. I do not see why it should matter if the wife has remarried, why the father should feel put upon for supporting his own child. After all children as a blessing and not a burden.

[Ben Kenobi]

If a man doesn't care about his child, you can't make him. All you're going to be doing is exposing the child to potential abuse.

By allowing a father who wants to make amends by playing a larger role into the life of their child? I agree with you that it cannot be forced, but I am thinking of the situation where the father has decided that he wants to change.