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

[Ben Kenobi]

The question is, in cases where the father has abandoned his parental responsibilities, and a stepparent has taken up those responsibilities, should the father be compelled to relinquish his rights so that they could be transferred to the stepparent. In my situation, should I have been allowed to sue to be granted the status of father, with all the rights and responsibilities inherent in that designation? If not, why not?

Oh this is a good question. I was wondering if this is what you wanted to ask.

No. I don't believe that any parent be they a mother or a father should be compelled to give up their parenting rights permanently. They can lose it temporarily, as in the case where you have a drug addicted parent, and they can be taken into custody for crimes and they can lose their custody over their children for neglect or abuse.

In the case where the father is nowhere to be found, I would have to say no. It has to be voluntary. In your situation that wasn't the case as the father was compelled to pay child support. That should be the choice. They should be compelled to pay support, or relinquish their rights as the father. It's either or. If they choose to retain the rights, then they are compelled to pay child support.

I hope that makes my position clearer, I didn't mean to insult you at all Rufus and you have asked good questions. Thank you.

[Ben Kenobi]

But even if they are: why should two men, acting equally as fathers (your condition), not have equal rights as parents, just because one managed to schtupp the mother first?

That's another good question. Why is it we can compel the father to pay child support based on merely the fact that he managed to schtupp the mother first?

It's all tied together. If we are basing paternity on your biological contribution, then both the attendent rights and responsibilities are connected to paternity. If we are basing paternity on something else, then we have no right to compel the father to pay child support in any case. No father could be a deadbeat, unless we have the expectation that they pay child support and support the child they helped to conceive. It doesn't even make sense to call them a deadbeat at all. What responsibility are they shirking if paternity is not connected to schtupping the mother first?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's another good question. Why is it we can compel the father to pay child support based on merely the fact that he managed to schtupp the mother first?

Because he's the default supporter in the absence of a better one?

You try to ask a lot of questions such as they sound insightful. In reality, they're just stupid.

[Ben Kenobi]

You try to ask a lot of questions such as they sound insightful. In reality, they're just stupid.

Really Asher. You are slipping on the insults.

You can do better then this I know you can.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's another good question. Why is it we can compel the father to pay child support based on merely the fact that he managed to schtupp the mother first?

But this is the point: we can't, as my wife's ex showed. The court can order that child support be paid, but if payment could be compelled we wouldn't have the phrase "deadbeat dad" in our language.

If my wife's ex had actually been paying child support, I wouldn't have complained about not having full parental rights. But there was no way to actually compel him to live up to his responsibilities, and no way to compel him to give up his rights. That's a broken system.

[-Jrabbit]

I agree the system is imperfect. That's becasue there are so many different situations. No one size fits all. In the situation you describe, Rufus, I would consider withholding visitation privileges until he either gave up the rights or met his court-ordered financial responsibilities. I would document in advance that I was doing this, and why.

In other words, force him to go either give it up or to court, where he will likely be forced to pay up (and be subject to garnishment) in order to maintain contact with the kids.

I do have concern for the kids, though. How do they feel about biodad?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
I agree the system is imperfect. That's becasue there are so many different situations. No one size fits all. In the situation you describe, Rufus, I would consider withholding visitation privileges until he either gave up the rights or met his court-ordered financial responsibilities. I would document in advance that I was doing this, and why.

Though it wasn't an issue in our case, courts generally will not allow child support and visitation to be linked; mom withholding visitation because dad didn't pay supports leaves you with two parents violating court orders.

In other words, force him to go either give it up or to court, where he will likely be forced to pay up (and be subject to garnishment) in order to maintain contact with the kids.

Ideally, that's how it should work. In reality, (1) the courts won't void visitation rights because of lack of support payment; (2) it's nearly impossible for a state to garnish the wages of a worker living in another state; and (3) you can't garnish the wages of somebody working off the books.

There is no "forcing him." Even in our case, we didn't so much force him as bribe him; $30k in debt forgiveness in exchange to relinquishing paternity.

I do have concern for the kids, though. How do they feel about biodad?

Our daughter has seen her biodad maybe half a dozen times since her 5th birthday, and not at all since her 10th (she's now 17). She doesn't talk about him, but I get the sense that she's both angry at him and embarrassed by him. We've never done anything unreasonable to block her access to him (by "unreasonable," I mean, for example, that we refused to pay for her to fly from Turkey to the US to see him, but we wouldn't have said no to the trip if he had paid for it).

[Kidlicious]

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

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Ok im trying to figure this out, Its about court ordered child support. According to my ex husband he seems to think he has a right to tell me on what i can and cant spend this money on. My kids live with me and tuber, And the only thing i would spend this money on is savings for colege or clothes they would need. I would also use it for movie, theme park and entertainment tickets and stuff. Do most or all people paying child support think they can tell the person reciving it, what they can spend it on?

You have legal custody, so he has no say. That's what I think anyway.

edit: legal custody means you get to make decisions, right?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Rufus, I would consider withholding visitation privileges until he either gave up the rights or met his court-ordered financial responsibilities. I would document in advance that I was doing this, and why.

Not a very cool thing to do with the kid. Don't forget that it's about them.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
That is, if I get to see a kid every other weekend, if I pay money to support the kid, shouldn't I get to see the kid more, especially if the decisions was made by the wife only?

You aren't paying to see the child. It's not a like a zoo where you pay to see the animals. You pay to support the child. The more visitation you have the less you have to pay, because it's about support.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Stepfathers.

I had one. I say that because my he and my mother got divorced. After the divorce things change pretty quickly I think. The biodad is always the dad though.

I admire stepfathers that treat their stepchildren with love, but I think that they should generally not try to be the father. I never called my stepfather father and he never asked me to do so, even though my biodad wasn't around much.