Biological dads supporting their kid's new families
Didn't it used to be that when a family got divorced, and the wife met and married a new husband, the new husband assumed financial responsibility for the children, usually formally adopting them as well? I know of families where this happened. Why is society forcing biological fathers who don't wish to remain involved in their children's lives to be fake dads? I think maybe there should be a law that if the children go into another family-like situation that the biological father can be excused if he desires. After all, the new dad gets all of the aprental benefits and perks but pays none of the bills? How is that fair? How come we can't empower judges with real discretion... and allow them to determine when a biological father should be excused and the new Dad be responsible? |
|
|
| While it's wonderful to find a new guy who loves you and your kids, and he does generally take care of "his family" .........I would be furious if i also didn't get $$ from biological daddy. He should take on the responsibility he helped create regardless if he wants to bail afterwards. What a horrible thing guys would get away with if they knew they could get women pregnant then run. Both are responsible.
If they took this away then it would be harder for father's who DO want to be involved to gain FULL or partial custody. Because you're basically saying he's not as important as mommy or shouldn't have equal rights. Now, I definitely think mommy should automatically be given the children, but my husband would adamantly disagree ......which is why more and more men ARE winning custody of their children. |
| The problem is that new dads aren't stepping up and adopting kids. How do you think that makes the kids feel, that their new mommy's daddy doesn't love them enough, or as much as the other kids?
The REASON this happens is because biological scumbags who have nothing to do with the kids anyway are still forced to pay, and the new family has a financial disincentive to making it all "legal", legally, and emotionally as well. Maybe the dead-beat dad pendulum has swung too far in some ways? |
Quote: How do you think that makes the kids feel, that their new mommy's daddy doesn't love them enough, or as much as the other kids?
I have never known a new dad who didn't want their "new kids" to have/share his last name and be "theirs." From my experience, it was always the mom and/or the kid who decided they didn't want to or feel right. I mean, if the new mom gets divorced again, she now has to share her biological kid with a dad that hasn't always been there (up until the time he/she was adopted). I'm sure that's something many moms worry about. |
| If I'm not mistaken the biological father has to
give up parental rights in order for the stepfather to adopt the child. Of all the children of divorced parents I know, I only know of one father who has given up his rights to the stepfather. I think in some cases it's the right thing to do, but Mrs J has a point, it takes two. The biological fathers need to step up and take responsibility and not just financial. So either its a case of planning to fail or failing to plan. Shellie |
| WOW!!! Is this a pot "stirrer"?
Just because a women remarries doesn't mean a biological Father should lose his obligation to his child. THe woman chose a new husband, the child didn't chose a new Father!!!!! What a sad state of affairs that would be if a child lost it's Father just because the Mom changed husbands. AND, when a Man marries a woman with children WHY should he be obligated to assume responsibility for children that aren't his own? I think that is just a crazy idea. My children were pre teen/teen when I was divorced. They would have been devastated if I had "forced" a new Father on them. They continue in a great relationship with their Father (which does not mean he has always stepped up to the plate financially). They also have a relationship with Doug but he isn't their Father. THere are of course cases where the new Father voluntarily assumes responsibility for the child in the case of a dead beat Dad, but that is a whole 'nother story! |
| I always thought that the financial responsibility to the wife for child support ended when she remarried. Has that changed? I don't see why the dad should stop paying, though...I mean, he'd presumably be paying for the child if they were still married, so why should his obligation end? The marriage ended, not the parenthood.
I definitely do NOT think that the mom should be given automatic custody of the children. I have a case in my family where that would not be a good idea at all and I'm sure there are many others like it. Dads can be just as good of parents as mothers and shouldn't be denied custody because they are the dad and not the mom. |
barney1 wrote: I always thought that the financial responsibility to the wife for child support ended when she remarried. Has that changed? I don't see why the dad should stop paying, though...I mean, he'd presumably be paying for the child if they were still married, so why should his obligation end? The marriage ended, not the parenthood.
ABSOLUTELY NOT, ONLY alimony stops with remarriage. Child support continues til 18 OR 21 depending on what state you live in. In NYS child support continues til 21 REGARDLESS of what that child is doing. The only way to get out of it is if the child is married or joins the service. Believe me, I KNOW. The child does not even need to be residing in the home if it is his "legal" address. Currently Doug is paying child support on a 20 year old who has finished high school is not going to college, works part time and lives with his mother. In addition, child support does not stop automatically in NYS, you must go to court and have a court order. We also learned that the hard way. It can take MONTHS to get a court date in NYS in the meantime child support continues. |
| I really didn't mean "automatically" in cases where the woman is not a fit mom financially, mentally, or physically... but I do think if she can prove she can take care of them, she should be who is considered first. Having to carry and give birth to children is an emotional attachment men could never have or understand, and I don't know "many" cases where the woman wasn't the main caregiver. This is one reason why I believe courts DO normally favor in the woman taking the children. |
| Actually, I think I know of almost as many cases of unfit Moms as I do of deadbeat Dads. The biological parent has to give up their parental rights before a step-parent can adopt a child. And, in cases where the biological parent is actually a danger to the child, it is definitely a bonus if they can be convinced to give up their rights.
However, I do not think a biological parent should just automatically be excused from financial support because they've changed their minds about being a parent.  Even if they do not want to have contact with the child, they are still responsible for them until they're legal adults. As for the step-parent getting all the perks while the biological parent pays the bills, how many cases do you know of where the child support is actually sufficient to support the child? I'm sure there are some, but the ones I know of, the money received by the re-married parent is minimal at best. |
Ron wrote: Why is society forcing biological fathers who don't wish to remain involved in their children's lives to be fake dads?
They had real sex to make a real baby so they have a responsibility to the real situation that they helped to create. Parenthood is for life and if it isn't something that you can commit to, then you shouldn't be having sex in the first place. That being said, since so many morons have such a hard time not impregnating women (and it goes both ways in responsibility), and they don't know well enough to wear a condom, then there's no way that they're fit enough to make a decision as to whether or not that feel like being a dad. You're either the father or you're not-- there's no black or white to that. If you don't want another man raising your kids, step up and spend more time with them. It's not just about the money, it's about responsibility. It's NO other man's responsibility but the father's to support his children. Fatherhood isn't just something you should have the option to duck out of because you don't feel like it anymore. |
| How come so many unemployed people who seem to have no skills to hold a job are so good at getting women pregnant?
I'm also tired of poor people having babies. If you can't afford to feed yourself, what makes you think that those 4 or 5 kids you are popping out are my responsibility? Grrrrrrr |
Maxmm wrote: How come so many unemployed people who seem to have no skills to hold a job are so good at getting women pregnant?
I'm also tired of poor people having babies. If you can't afford to feed yourself, what makes you think that those 4 or 5 kids you are popping out are my responsibility? Grrrrrrr AMEN! These are the kind of societal changes that make my blood boil. Remember when people used to wait until they were married and had a house before they had children? What a concept - being financial secure before bringing a child into the world. Now the child often comes first, and the results are either child support, or a mom on welfare, or grandparents raising the child. Here in AZ we see several cases a year where the mom's new boyfriend kills the child because he or she takes up too much time. Too many people in this world produce children without really commiting to being parents. |
Bailey's Mom wrote: Maxmm wrote: How come so many unemployed people who seem to have no skills to hold a job are so good at getting women pregnant? I'm also tired of poor people having babies. If you can't afford to feed yourself, what makes you think that those 4 or 5 kids you are popping out are my responsibility? Grrrrrrr AMEN! These are the kind of societal changes that make my blood boil. Remember when people used to wait until they were married and had a house before they had children? What a concept - being financial secure before bringing a child into the world. Now the child often comes first, and the results are either child support, or a mom on welfare, or grandparents raising the child. Here in AZ we see several cases a year where the mom's new boyfriend kills the child because he or she takes up too much time. Too many people in this world produce children without really commiting to being parents. I agree! I also go on another website where babies are the subject quite often and there are TONS of people who post saying things like My boyfriend was just laid off and I am a stay at home mom and we don't have a car and I haven't been able to buy new clothes for 2 years but I've gained 80 pounds so I only have 2 t-shirts to wear and WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE A BABY and.... |
Bailey's Mom wrote: What a concept - being financial secure before bringing a child into the world. Now the child often comes first, and the results are either child support, or a mom on welfare, or grandparents raising the child. Here in AZ we see several cases a year where the mom's new boyfriend kills the child because he or she takes up too much time. Too many people in this world produce children without really commiting to being parents.
Wait, being financially secure first? Sue, you and your harebrained ideas. I feel, as a rule, the poorer and less responsible a person, the more fertile they are. I have no concrete statistics on this but give me some time. |
| I am not talking about punishing or banning biological dads who are interested in maintaining their parental role, I'm talking about dads who want nothing to do with their kids being forced to pay for them while a "new dad" is living with or married to their mom.
Please look at it from the other direction for a minute.. look at these "blended families" where "those are his kids, those are her kids". How is that good for society and/or getting back to a more traditional nuclear family model, encouraging people to not have children until they are in a stable, committed-for-life relationship? Please note that while I am not taking into account other less traditional relationships I am not saying anything is wrong with them. I am only suggesting that for achieving a goal of all people waiting to have children until they are in a stable committed relationship, the role model has to reflect this and I think the current model of fracturing nurturing families for the benefit of financial support is not furthering the goal. Just thinking. |
| I just don't feel the children always feel they are neglected just because he/she "belongs to their mom" because they still feel part of the "new family." Belonging doesn't have to be marked by adopting a child and forfeiting money from the bastard dad. The kids I know wanted their mom to get money from their b-dad.
Just because the mom went on with her life and took responsibility ...should not mean the b-dad gets off. Why should it? I just don't get that. That only encourages him to do it again. While I see what you are hoping for, by doing what you suggest (making the new dads the only responsible "father") ...you would be screwing over millions of other moms who need that money because they financially NEED the extra money. And as stated, you are also screwing over the mom if she chooses to leave the second marriage. ...let's say for legit reasons. Also, what if the first b-dad makes a heck of a lot more than daddy #2? Why not give the kid all you can from the party responsible in the first place? |
| Oh no, the "second father" is on the hook since he adopted the children.
And why not go after the deep pockets? Because it's not "all about the money," which is the whole point of my thinking. It's the money factor that is causing this problem... or rather that is exacerbating the problem caused by out-of-wedlock parenting (and divorce). I know it is sad for everyone involved. I was just thinking about my own situation where I didn't even know that one of my older siblings was my 1/2 sibling until I was in my 30's. I was just thinking that was a nice way for me to grow up. |
Maxmm wrote: How come so many unemployed people who seem to have no skills to hold a job are so good at getting women pregnant?
I'm also tired of poor people having babies. If you can't afford to feed yourself, what makes you think that those 4 or 5 kids you are popping out are my responsibility? Grrrrrrr yikes... I totally understand the frustration of people not being able to take care of their kids, but there are external factors. Typically the more impoverished you are the less education you have (which includes sex education!) Also, its easy for rich educated women to get on birth control, but there is a severe lack of opportunity for impoverished women to get to these clinics and continue to pay for these kinds of things. I don't want to take away individual responsibility, I understand that condoms are cheap and everyone knows what they are. But it would be really irresponsible for society not to recognize that poverty also means less options and less education. |
Ron wrote: Oh no, the "second father" is on the hook since he adopted the children.
And why not go after the deep pockets? Because it's not "all about the money," which is the whole point of my thinking. It's the money factor that is causing this problem... or rather that is exacerbating the problem caused by out-of-wedlock parenting (and divorce). I know it is sad for everyone involved. I was just thinking about my own situation where I didn't even know that one of my older siblings was my 1/2 sibling until I was in my 30's. I was just thinking that was a nice way for me to grow up. I disagree...... the "second father" is not on the hook simply because he married the mother. Legal adoption is one thing but simply marrying a woman with children does not constitute adoption. I agree that when a man marries a women with children there is a certain "moral" obligation to those children but if you say a Man is fiancially bound to care for step children you are adding yet another obstacle to single mother being able to remarry. I don't think the legalities of it necessarily must have an effect on the sibling relationship. My children have a very "odd" family tree. They have step siblings and half siblings and yet they consider themselves all "brothers and sisters" never once have I heard one refer to the others as a step brother or half brother. |
You know, when I married my husband, I had every reason to expect him to uphold his vows and be a faithful husband (I upheld mine, afterall). And he was for 8 years, until he decided to cheat, and ended our marriage. But during those 8 years we had 3 children together, all of which were PLANNED by BOTH of us. So when the marriage ended, naturally I had the desire to enter into a new relationship. Granted, that didn't work out so well for me (see "what does it mean" thread, lol), BUT if I do meet a wonderful guy in the future and marry him, even if he adores the kids, my ex-husband should NOT be allowed to decide he no longer wants to be the kids' dad. If he chooses not to live up to the expectations of a father as far as visits and contact go, he should STILL be held responsible for his financial obligations. Our wedding vows were a contract that he failed to honor. If I get a new car and decide I no longer want my old car, I still have to follow through with the remaining payments, even if the old car quits running 
Now, in the case of unplanned pregnancies where the father explicitly states they want nothing to do with the child, but the woman insists on having the child anyway, I guess maybe that could be a different story... but still, it does take two. |
Lil Walty wrote: I don't want to take away individual responsibility, I understand that condoms are cheap and everyone knows what they are. But it would be really irresponsible for society not to recognize that poverty also means less options and less education.
Okay, so we pay for the first kid and while we're paying for them to be in the hospital popping out the kid, they are told where babies come from and how to prevent it. There is their education and if they decide to go out and do it again, they are on their own!!! P.S. When I was in college, a bag of 2 dozen condoms could be bought from Planned Parenthood for a dollar. ONE DOLLAR!!!! If I need to go and spend 20 bucks then drive through the getto throwing condoms, like royalty tossing out alms to the poor, so that I don't have to pay for some chucklehead who can't control herself, then so be it!!! I was in the grocery store one day and overheard a large woman with 6 wild kids, who were running around like heathens, yell at them that they needed to settle down and learn how to do this because they would need to know for when they grew up. I, innocently, thought it might have been reading nutrition labels or talking about caloric intake. No, she was teaching them how to work their food stamps!!!!!!! Stepping stone my butt!!!!! |
$1??!?! your planned parenthood was ripping you off. they were free at ours.  |
The student health office at my school handed them out for free, you could pick a bag of 6 up once a week. I guess they figured you should spend at LEAST one night a week studying  |
| In a divorce....you divorce the spouse not the children. I wish there was a law that would force the non custodial parent to visit their children on a regular basis, whatever the guidlines are for visitation. Parents need to act like adults and do what is best for the child, not themselves. I do know there are exceptions but generally you should not be able to just abandon your child....financially or physically. |
Lil Walty wrote: Maxmm wrote: How come so many unemployed people who seem to have no skills to hold a job are so good at getting women pregnant? I'm also tired of poor people having babies. If you can't afford to feed yourself, what makes you think that those 4 or 5 kids you are popping out are my responsibility? Grrrrrrr Also, its easy for rich educated women to get on birth control, but there is a severe lack of opportunity for impoverished women to get to these clinics and continue to pay for these kinds of things. Planned Parenthood has birth control for really cheap. I know if you have documented proof that you can't pay, they'll give it to you for free and will ask for a 'donation' if you can do it... |
| I think that Ron has a point...in some ways...
Say two people have a child, and the dad is a deadbeat....Never paying, never sees the kids, doesn't want to be involved...Then the woman gets married, and the new man loves the child and wishes to adopt him. Let's say this new "family" would be financially the same as a family with a child with both original parents...except they get more...(or are supposed to).. It would seem that the only reason why the deadbeat dad would be in the picture, would be for the money. Otherwise the new dad could adopt the child as his own...and that would then cause the finances to go down to how a family with the orginal parents does. Just thinking about the whole situation... My brother married a woman who had his child. She already had an older child from a deadbeat who ran...and is nowhere to be found, so no money there. My brother adopted the older boy. The the woman left him with both kids....The kids would be better off without her, but she is legally allowed supervised visits, and is supposed to pay support...It is more trouble hounding her for money and dealing with her insanity than it ever would be if she would just be cut out..She doesn't care for her kids, yet because she pays a meager $300 a month, she feels entitled to descend on the new family once a year, often unannounced, and harrass them to no end. And then not see or contact the kids for months... If she could cut herself off completely I am sure she would...Except for the "control" issue she so enjoys....She gets none of the "perks" of being their mother, so really, why should she pay? If my brother's new wife wanted to adopt the boys, if would be so much easier for everyone..if she was NOT involved at all. They could care less about any support. Things can get very complicated.... |
barney1 wrote: Planned Parenthood has birth control for really cheap. I know if you have documented proof that you can't pay, they'll give it to you for free and will ask for a 'donation' if you can do it... There are not planned parenthoods in the neighborhoods that need it most in Chicago, most of them have closed down. Also, I am not sure many of the younger women having sex out there even know what planned parenthood is. I also think that a good general education is important for good decisionmaking skills, not just sex education. There are also issues of lack of hope, direction, or reason to make good decisions. But again I do want to stress that I don't want to take away autonomy and responsibility of one's own decisions, I just want to add in a possibility of society having responsibility for others. |
| I don't mind helping with people who genuinely need and deserve the help but people who are making conscious choices to use the system to be lazy and live off my hard earned dollar are bull!!!
Like I said before, if you are teaching your children how to use food stamps because they will REQUIRE that skill in the future is teaching them that they don't need to work and improve themselves because someone else will just take care of them. If we allow people to walk away from the lives that they CREATED then we are accepting responsibility for that life. I, for one, would like the choice to pay for people. Like those infomercials. The government should send you a packet and you get to pick who gets your contribution to the system! |
| If a biological Dad agrees to allow the "new" husband to adopt his child, he is giving up all parental rights, which includes visitation.
He does need to allow this too. It cannot happen without bio Dad giving consent. God, I would totally love for this to happen, but my ex-husband would never allow it. My life would be so much easier if the Ex-husband was not involved or his nutcase girlfriend. When my ex-husband had the opportunity to be a good father (when we were married) he wasn't.  That is one of the reasons we are divorced. He couldn't deal with the fact his son was not "normal".
In my divorce, even though the stipulation of settlement said we were to share expenses for medical issues and schooling, I have been the only one paying for it. When I was working I had medical insurance available though my job, which only I paid for. I also paid for Ryan to go to preschool with no help from Dad. I have been the only one paying for transporting my son back and forth to see his Dad. If it wasn't for me paying to send my son out there to visit with his Dad he would NEVER see him. As Dad has never come to see his son. I have also given up $1200 a year of support so dear ole deadbeat Dad could come and visit his son. Instead, he is using that money to live off of. 
The small amount of child support I do get does not even cover half of my expenses for my son. Also the state is going after my ex-husband for medical insurance reasons. He needs to pay half!!! No if's ands or butts about it. If my hubby was allowed to adopt my son then he would also be allowed to get insurance for him, which he cannot do now since he is not his son. |
Maxmm wrote: I don't mind helping with people who genuinely need and deserve the help but people who are making conscious choices to use the system to be lazy and live off my hard earned dollar are bull!!!
Like I said before, if you are teaching your children how to use food stamps because they will REQUIRE that skill in the future is teaching them that they don't need to work and improve themselves because someone else will just take care of them. If we allow people to walk away from the lives that they CREATED then we are accepting responsibility for that life. I, for one, would like the choice to pay for people. Like those infomercials. The government should send you a packet and you get to pick who gets your contribution to the system! Precisely. Having one kid teaches you really quick what happens when you have unprotected sex. I would think that that education is enough right there! It's so frustrating to me. The funny thing is, until I started working in an urban environment and meeting the people who live here, and driving through the neighborhoods, I used to think it was sad that they were poor and had nothing. I don't feel that way anymore. You make your own choices in life and, after awhile, you are where you are because you choose to be. I'm tired of paying for other people to live for decades on my dime, too. It's one thing to be hit with hard times and lose everything but it isn't a lifestyle, for crying out loud. I think it's actually takes work to be poor on a long term basis. There are so many programs available now for people to go to college, trade schools-- anything to get them jobs and out of poverty. But, and here's the kicker, you have to work for them or, even worse, get up and go apply for them. |
| My Brother in Law is now a deadbeat Dad. Not by choice.
He was seriously injured in a car accident about 4 years ago. He did not qualify for SSDI benefits as his wonderful employer was not submitting the payments for it, yet was deducting it from his pay for years.
He had 4 kids in 1 year. Yes it is possible! The first two were by different Mom's. A daughter and son born a month apart. The second two children were twins who were born 9 months after his daughter was born, same Mom.
Mom of the girls already had 3 kids she did not take care of. The Mom lived with her mother and off of welfare....yet still had the nerve to have more children. My Brother in Law did move in with the Mom of his daughters and lived with her for 9 years and paid expenses for all of her kids. They split up about 5 yrs ago. Now two of her older children have kids and they all live together off of welfare back with the Grandmother.
Mom of the son is also a loser. She had another child after the son, a daughter. She does not know who the father is. She is now in jail with both of her kids in foster care. My feelings on this if someone is on welfare they should NOT be allowed to have more children. If they are receiving welfare they are also getting medical insurance which would pay for birth control. But they don't care. The more kids they have the more money they get! To them it is in incentive! Luckily, thanks to my Brother In Law's accident I don't think he will be "breeding" again. |
| Responsibility. When we get married our vows are "til death due us part." If more people took this vow seriously, Ron wouldn't be asking his question.
There are very few 'good' reasons for people to divorce, and divorce is too easy. Just because someone cheated is not good enough. You work through it, if at all possible. I know there are some exceptions........ Women want their cake, and wanna eat it too. Where's the compassion for a man that works his buns off trying to support two families. It's fine for a women to remarry, gain financial assistance from another man, but God forbid her ex-husband the opportunity to start a new life. Most dead beat dads are that way because they can't handle the financial burden, so they stay away. Plus, many are "punished" and not allowed to visit their kids if they fall behind on their payments. There are so many divorces now days that when a man marries a woman with children, he may be providing for a dead beat dad's kids, but chances are that he has kids from his first marriage, and another dead beat is providing for his, but mom ain't happy till she drains both of them dry. Responsibility..........get married..........STAY married.......till death due us part........ If you want a divorce, get one after the kids you BOTH had are grown. |
Anonymous wrote: Responsibility. When we get married our vows are "til death due us part." If more people took this vow seriously, Ron wouldn't be asking his question.
There are very few 'good' reasons for people to divorce, and divorce is too easy. Just because someone cheated is not good enough. You work through it, if at all possible. I know there are some exceptions........ Women want their cake, and wanna eat it too. Where's the compassion for a man that works his buns off trying to support two families. It's fine for a women to remarry, gain financial assistance from another man, but God forbid her ex-husband the opportunity to start a new life. Most dead beat dads are that way because they can't handle the financial burden, so they stay away. Plus, many are "punished" and not allowed to visit their kids if they fall behind on their payments. There are so many divorces now days that when a man marries a woman with children, he may be providing for a dead beat dad's kids, but chances are that he has kids from his first marriage, and another dead beat is providing for his, but mom ain't happy till she drains both of them dry. Responsibility..........get married..........STAY married.......till death due us part........ If you want a divorce, get one after the kids you BOTH had are grown. Yeah, staying together for the kids is always a great idea. Kids never notice or are affected by parents that hate each other.  |
Anonymous wrote: Responsibility. When we get married our vows are "til death due us part." If more people took this vow seriously, Ron wouldn't be asking his question.
There are very few 'good' reasons for people to divorce, and divorce is too easy. Just because someone cheated is not good enough. You work through it, if at all possible. I know there are some exceptions........ Women want their cake, and wanna eat it too. Where's the compassion for a man that works his buns off trying to support two families. It's fine for a women to remarry, gain financial assistance from another man, but God forbid her ex-husband the opportunity to start a new life. Most dead beat dads are that way because they can't handle the financial burden, so they stay away. Plus, many are "punished" and not allowed to visit their kids if they fall behind on their payments. There are so many divorces now days that when a man marries a woman with children, he may be providing for a dead beat dad's kids, but chances are that he has kids from his first marriage, and another dead beat is providing for his, but mom ain't happy till she drains both of them dry. Responsibility..........get married..........STAY married.......till death due us part........ If you want a divorce, get one after the kids you BOTH had are grown. I love when guests post such strongly opinioned responses.
Yes, it would be ideal to have 2 people get married and have kids and love each other and stay married forever. But it just doesn't happen that way all the time. Yes, some people don't take the prospect of marriage as seriously as they should. But sometimes things happen. People change. Circumstances arise that you never would have imagined beforehand. I'm not advocating divorce--I got married with the intent of staying in it forever. I just think that there are valid reasons to get divorced and I think that staying married for the kids is NOT the best thing for people. Not having it happen to me, I can't vouch for what I'd do, but if my husband cheated on me, I'd find it very difficult to continue to be married to him. You are saying that with marriage you vow to stay together til the end, but you also vow to be faithful...and if a person cheats, then they have broken that vow. Living your life full of resentment or hatred isn't good for anyone, the husband, the wife, the kids, the dogs... You say where's the compassion for the man working his buns off to support 2 families--I think there IS compassion for that man. There is NO compassion for the man who shirks his responsibilities to the first family (or the 2nd). You say it's about responsibility. The man made choices in life (and I'm not blaming 'the man' in all this) and why should his responsibility to his child end after his marriage does? No one is saying that the man can't move on to a new life. But he shouldn't be allowed to just forget about his children from his old life. Hey, if he wants to get married and have more kids, great...just remember your previous duties. |
Quote: Most dead beat dads are that way because they can't handle the financial burden, so they stay away. Plus, many are "punished" and not allowed to visit their kids if they fall behind on their payments.
....as they should be. I had a reply for the rest, but feel what I wanted to say has been said better by pp's. |
I am so tired of hearing people say that divorce is the easy way out of a bad marriage. There is nothing EASY about getting a divorce. I just had to say that.  |
Anonymous wrote: Most dead beat dads are that way because they can't handle the financial burden, so they stay away.
Could you please provide the scientifically sound data you used to state this "fact"? If not then consider adding , "It is my OPINION..." prior such grand conclusions. |
violet wrote: I am so tired of hearing people say that divorce is the easy way out of a bad marriage. There is nothing EASY about getting a divorce. I just had to say that. Here's why people say that divorce is easy now. 40 years ago, it was unacceptable to have a child out of wedlock. It was a social humiliation to get divorced. A married couple had to think long and hard about the impact that a divorce would have on their standing in the community and their families, not to mention his job. Today it's perfectly OK to be divorced, an out-of-wedlock mother, or living together. In fact, it's almost expected. So I agree that it's not easy to go through the emotional devastation of a divorce, but from a legal and societal perspective its much easier than it used to be. Child support has been standardized. It's less likely that someone will turn down your job application or run you out of your neighborhood/church/social group. Lil Walty wrote: But again I do want to stress that I don't want to take away autonomy and responsibility of one's own decisions, I just want to add in a possibility of society having responsibility for others.
We do - Welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, public schools, federal and state aid for education... In my opinion I think we take too much responsibility for others as a society. The expectation should be that every individual must support themselves. Unemployment is at record lows in this country. Jobs are available. But, if you have children before you graduate from high school, then you perpetuate the cycle of poverty. You can't get a job because you don't have a high school degree and have a baby to take care of. Do you really think that those pregnant high school girls don't know about birth control? Come on. They have access to information. There are signs on the buses, public service announcements on TV. They know all about the latest rap artists, who have tons of illegitimate children, thereby making it "cool". They know all about the popular athletes, who cheat on their wives and have children out of wedlock. That's the example they have to look up to. |
Bailey's Mom wrote: Do you really think that those pregnant high school girls don't know about birth control? Come on. They have access to information.
In 6th grade at my public school we had sex ed and learned all about that stuff...which, at age 12, should hopefully be early enough to catch most of the kids before they become sexually active (I know that some start before then  ). Also, I think they might even start basic sex ed in 5th grade now... |
Maxmm wrote: I don't mind helping with people who genuinely need and deserve the help but people who are making conscious choices to use the system to be lazy and live off my hard earned dollar are bull!!! Like I said before, if you are teaching your children how to use food stamps because they will REQUIRE that skill in the future is teaching them that they don't need to work and improve themselves because someone else will just take care of them. If we allow people to walk away from the lives that they CREATED then we are accepting responsibility for that life. I, for one, would like the choice to pay for people. Like those infomercials. The government should send you a packet and you get to pick who gets your contribution to the system! AMEN! ButtersStotch wrote: Quote: It's one thing to be hit with hard times and lose everything but it isn't a lifestyle, for crying out loud.
AMEN! AMEN! Well said ladies! |
Bailey's Mom wrote: violet wrote: I am so tired of hearing people say that divorce is the easy way out of a bad marriage. There is nothing EASY about getting a divorce. I just had to say that. Here's why people say that divorce is easy now. My statement was not comparing divorce now to another time. I was stating that I am tired of people saying that they took the easy way out by getting a divorce...no comparison to when it was unacceptable. Please read my statement more carefully. |
violet wrote: .......My statement was not comparing divorce now to another time. I was stating that I am tired of people saying that they took the easy way out by getting a divorce...no comparison to when it was unacceptable. Please read my statement more carefully...
Divorce is divorce no matter what era it is obtained in. As you said, "...no comparison to when it was unacceptable." That's the problem, it's become acceptable, therefore, making it not only easy to get one, but also easier to make the decision to get one. Marriage is not easy. People make mistakes, but when you take those vows you promised to be with one another forever, throughout whatever circumstances..........to death us do part......but, I know there are some exceptions......... Sorry, I forgot to sign my last post. jmop mouthypf but to expect a man to be able to provide for two families in our economy is not only impossible, it's uncaring in some cases. |
Anonymous wrote: Sorry, I forgot to sign my last post. jmop
mouthypf but to expect a man to be able to provide for two families in our economy is not only impossible, it's uncaring in some cases. I've never had kids, or been divorced, so this is very much an "outside" opinion  ...but, if a man (or woman) cant provide for two families, they shouldn't have bred two families!
I DID wind up raising two of my nieces, when my sister and brother-in law would/could not....so I do have some experience..and strong feelings...on some aspects of this subject . |
| Pam,
In my past marriage I had every intention of spending the rest of my life with this man. The fact that he was mentally and verbally abusive to his son was enough of a reason for me to leave him. It was the best thing to do for my son. So I do not think you can group everyone together in that regards. There are certain situations that do come up and divorce IS the answer. My son, who is Autistic great improved once I threw his father out of the house. He was happier, he completely stopped his head banging and also started to walk and talk. Divorcing his father was he absolutely best decision I made for me and my son. I will never regret it!! |
 Elissa!! As you know, my 9 year old son has an Autism spectrum disorder (PDD-nos), and I agree... the stress of an emotionally and mentally abusive father (or father-figure) is extremely damaging to these very fragile children. I do think there are many people who are far too quick to seek divorce, but there are many who don't and probably should. Any time the kids are suffering any kind of abuse, I think getting out is the best thing to do.
As far as cheating not being a good enough reason to get a divorce, I think that is purely dependent on the person. Some women are able to work through that type of pain and betrayal, while others are never able to get through it, and it ends up straining the relationship permanently to the point where it's probably better just to move on. |
Anonymous wrote: violet wrote: .......My statement was not comparing divorce now to another time. I was stating that I am tired of people saying that they took the easy way out by getting a divorce...no comparison to when it was unacceptable. Please read my statement more carefully... Divorce is divorce no matter what era it is obtained in. As you said, "...no comparison to when it was unacceptable." That's the problem, it's become acceptable, therefore, making it not only easy to get one, but also easier to make the decision to get one. Marriage is not easy. People make mistakes, but when you take those vows you promised to be with one another forever, throughout whatever circumstances..........to death us do part......but, I know there are some exceptions......... Sorry, I forgot to sign my last post. jmop mouthypf but to expect a man to be able to provide for two families in our economy is not only impossible, it's uncaring in some cases. I disagree....Divorce is not the easy way..period. |
Anonymous wrote: Responsibility. When we get married our vows are "til death due us part." If more people took this vow seriously, Ron wouldn't be asking his question.
There are very few 'good' reasons for people to divorce, and divorce is too easy. Just because someone cheated is not good enough. You work through it, if at all possible. I know there are some exceptions........ Women want their cake, and wanna eat it too. Where's the compassion for a man that works his buns off trying to support two families. It's fine for a women to remarry, gain financial assistance from another man, but God forbid her ex-husband the opportunity to start a new life. Most dead beat dads are that way because they can't handle the financial burden, so they stay away. Plus, many are "punished" and not allowed to visit their kids if they fall behind on their payments. There are so many divorces now days that when a man marries a woman with children, he may be providing for a dead beat dad's kids, but chances are that he has kids from his first marriage, and another dead beat is providing for his, but mom ain't happy till she drains both of them dry. Responsibility..........get married..........STAY married.......till death due us part........ If you want a divorce, get one after the kids you BOTH had are grown. No wonder you posted annonymously, this is certainly a CROCK!!!!!!!!!!! Divorce is NOT easy and I TOTALLY resent your sanctamonious attitude. |
Tasker's Mom wrote: ......No wonder you posted annonymously, this is certainly a CROCK!!!!!!!!!!! Divorce is NOT easy and I TOTALLY resent your sanctamonious attitude.
What makes my opinion 'sanctamonious'? Why is it that everyone seems to have overlooked the word 'exceptions' in my posts? I don't know anyone's personal history here, so you shouldn't take it personaly. But, I'm sorry that I offened you, and others!!! I agree with Elissa, there are exceptions for divorce, but my overall opinion about divorce remains the same. There ARE EXCEPTIONS, and abuse is definitely a cause for divorce. I've made enough bad decisions in my life that I can't judge someone else for any of the decisions they make. But, when you've worked in a bridal shop and listened to alot of the 'about to become brides' views on marriage..........divorce is easy. Their attitude is, "Oh well, if it don't work, we'll get a divorce." Bad attitude to begin a marriage with, but they are very serious. That's why I say divorce is easy. It has nothing to do with any of you, and the pain you suffered individualy! mouthypf |
| Pam,
Ginny was referring to the other guest's post. |
violet wrote: Bailey's Mom wrote: violet wrote: I am so tired of hearing people say that divorce is the easy way out of a bad marriage. There is nothing EASY about getting a divorce. I just had to say that. Here's why people say that divorce is easy now. My statement was not comparing divorce now to another time. I was stating that I am tired of people saying that they took the easy way out by getting a divorce...no comparison to when it was unacceptable. Please read my statement more carefully. Sorry, I guess I didn't see where you were coming from.  I've been divorced and it definitely wasn't easy. |
Anonymous wrote: Responsibility..........get married..........STAY married.......till death due us part........
If you want a divorce, get one after the kids you BOTH had are grown. This is the statement I was referring to, and since the author did not attach a signature I don't know who I am addressing. Obviously written by someone who does not understand the pain and difficulty of a divorce OR the damage done to children when unhealthy or abusive relationshops stay together "for the sake of the children". |
Anonymous wrote: I've made enough bad decisions in my life that I can't judge someone else for any of the decisions they make.
mouthypf Since you never actually log on to the forum it makes it very difficult to PM you to address issues best done privately. But I do need to say, with the utmost respect for your right to your opinion, that "judging" people is frequently what you do whether the issue is religion, gun control or divorce. And I am trying to write this, as Ron would say, "as if we were sitting across the table sharing coffee" It is one thing to state an opinion and an entirely different matter to tell everyone else how wrong they are. Typing "jmo" doesn't make it "nonjudgemental" |
| I understand the pain and consequences of divorce. I've never experienced it, but I've seen what it does, just as I've seen, and experienced what an unhealthy, and healthy marriage does.
Hence, the word "EXCEPTIONS" in my posts. That one word says a lot, but if YOU choose to ignore it when you read my posts, then I guess you'll read things differently than what I said. I AM NOT judging anyone, and I'm sorry that some of you feel that I have, now and in the past. My opinions may be different than yours, but thats ok, because I know we won't always agree. But, I don't accuse others of judging me just because our opinions are different. My post was an "in general" comment, not directed at any of you personally in any way! I'm sorry if you choose to disregard that. |
| I think in Canada when they remarry to first does not pay, lots do common law because of this? I think. But if second family married and break up the second had to pay child support for the guys other kids, I knew someone that had happened to. Do not know all the details. |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|