While I sympathize with the “think of the kids” argument. No one is considering this guys feeling and situation. This guy now has his life ruined, he can’t afford to raise a new family, he’s definately gonna experience some repercussions in his credit ratings (or at least in Californian he would, since an order for support is sent to credit agencies). so no new house either. His ex defrauded him. He has no contact with his kid. And on top of all that he gets to write a check every month to be reminded of his own stupidity in trusting his wife. Yeah now I see, that’s totally fair.
No, it’s not totally fair by any stretch of the imagination. There is no conceivable scenario I can imagine that I would consider “totally fair.” The amount of the support, the lack of accountability for said support, and the visitation issue may all be justly argued as unfair. I have no knowledge of the inner workings of the court case itself. However, when the gavel knocks, the laws of the land have stated that in such cases where the unfairness cannot be banished entirely, the persons that deserve the greatest amount of protection are the children.
I do have sympathy for the guy with regards to his marriage. I do not sympathize with his wish to stop supporting the children. In fact, I think it’s morally bankrupt of him to attempt to do so. Were he merely arguing that the support was excessive, or has been used in ways other than in the interests of the kids, that would be another matter.
Thank you for an nice, eloquent, and non-hysterical rebuttal and counter Ptahlis.
It did made me re-consider my position. As much as I want to make it a black and white issue, it is a complex issue that is not solely dependent on DNA. It is not a matter that can be easily settled, but I still side with Mr. Morgan.
With your reversal you are again depriving him of his ‘rights’ but in reverse. I put his wife (as it has been described in the OP) wholly in the wrong with Mr. Morgan and the 3 boys as victims. In my opinion no matter which scenario (the OP or yours) Mr. Morgan is to decide what he wishes to do.
I still think my solutions apply (to the OP).
Several good points lindsay,
The courts have already ruled (numerous times) that the offending penis has jurisdiction. Witness the adopted children that are returned to the biological mother and/or father simply because they change their mind.
It would seem to me that this ties closely with this case. Despite the wishes of the adoptive (or acting) father/dad, fatherhood and its associated responsibilites and rewards are the exclusive domain of the biological father. It seems to fly in the face of earlier rulings that Morgan continue this unreasonable financial burden sans any involvement in the kid’s lives.
[hijack]
I’m reminded of the Kimberly May case of several years ago. My dad was a business associate of Bob May, Kimberly’s presumed father in the switched baby case. Dad and Bob would occasionally drink coffee together at one of the local restaurants. While I never met Mr. May, I can still clearly recall my dad’s relaying Bob’s dismay at the entire set of events. All he wanted was to continue raising the daughter that he’d loved and raised since birth, but the biological parents and court system seemed determined to not let it happen. The final outcome was a terribly screwed up girl that to this day seems to not have her life together.
[/hijack]
Welcome to the party, tdn. New voices and thoughts coupled with a level head are always welcome.
You know, I think we’re missing the big picture here.
How do we know that the children are Mrs. Morgans? Did they ever do a Maternity Test? Hmmm? 
oh-oh. I smell a blonde joke coming on.
Huh huh, huh huh, you said “coming on”, huh huh, huh huh. 
I do think now that we’re back to values again. Whose rights do we value most, and which rights are to lose out if we must choose between competing ones? My values lead me to the conclusion that the children’s right to support based on their relationship are more important than his right to discontinue support based on the lack of biological paternity. I also feel it’s more important to secure the rights of a man to continue a fatherly relationship, regardless of biology, over the right of a man to discontinue such a relationship.
My values, like everyone else’s, have been shaped by my life. I am a stepfather to two wonderful kids. If something were to happen to my wife, you can be damned sure I’d be fighting tooth and nail to keep them in my life, even if I had to fork over half my salary. I realize that I don’t have the inside track on Morgan’s life, but I cannot imagine ever withdrawing support from my girls, no matter how many evil things my wife might do to me.
Qoute:
My values, like everyone else’s, have been shaped by my life. I am a stepfather to two wonderful kids. If something were to happen to my wife, you can be damned sure I’d be fighting tooth and nail to keep them in my life, even if I had to fork over half my salary. I realize that I don’t have the inside track on Morgan’s life, but I cannot imagine ever withdrawing support from my girls, no matter how many evil things my wife might do to me.
I like you am in a similar situation. Im raising a “step” (and yes like in the OP, I was initially led to believe he was mine) son in addition to my own 2. But the difference is we both made that decision for ourselves. This guy is being forced into his position by both the ex (who cheated & lied)and the courts. I was watching The People Court one day, and the judge made the point that the court can’t enforce a fraudulent contract. IMHO, that this is the same situation. My opinion is that if he wants to voluntarily do this he should but in no way should a court of law hold him to this obligation.
It is true that the decisions of various courts are not uniform, and that the rights of a biological parent have trumped the rights of adoptive/acting parents in the past. A week or so ago though, a Pennsylvania court awarded custody to a stepfather after his wife passed away, despite the fact that the biological father sued for custody. The court found that even though it had every reason to believe that the natural father would be a good parent, the interests of the children were best served by their remaining with the stepfather. (I read the article online, but cannot find it now. Anyone else back me up here?) So the issue is still hotly contested in the courts.
The cases you brought up regarding adoption (Remember Baby Jessica?) are in my mind examples of the courts gone wrong, just as Morgan’s case is an example of that to you. Either way, they are of a fundamentally different character. In those cases, affirmation of parental rights were being sought by the parties involved. They are people who want the rights and responsibilities associated with parenthood. In Morgan’s case, he is attempting to abdicate the same relationship. I think that makes a big difference in such a case, although the yardstick I think should be used, that of the child’s best interest, remains the same.
(I was surprised to see you bring up the Kimberly May case, as it seems to me to be evidence of the importance of a father/child relationship over simple DNA in light of what she went through.)
From http://www.extratv.com/cmp/spotlight/1999/12_17a.htm
[Moderator Note: Edited down due to copyright concerns. When referencing a copyrighted article, please post only links or a link and minor excerpts. Thanks. --Gaudere]
And from: http://www.dallasnews.com/metro/1031met1dnadads.htm
[Moderator Note: Edited down due to copyright concerns. When referencing a copyrighted article, please post only links or a link and minor excerpts. Thanks. --Gaudere]
One of the key factors (as I see it) is that a court cannot force someone to fill ‘a parental role’.
Those who argue that the children’s best interests are to be served at all costs, and that Mr. Wise (not Morgan - woops) needs to continue to fill the role of Father, seem to forget that point.
You can lead a man by the wallet, but you can’t make him play.
Once again I ask how one can justify taking money from Mr. Wise and giving to the woman who defrauded him? She has no requirement to account for the funds she is given.
Money will not give those boys a father.
It’s undeniable that Mr. Wise has been shamefully used, but his backpedaling on the whole fatherhood deal really is sort of alarming. He acted as their father for years, he “fought for and won primary custody” of them (which it seems he’s now relinquished) after the divorce—and now that he’s found out they’re not biologically his, he didn’t even get his “son” a birthday card?! He “feels like a babysitter” when he’s with them? Is the biology issue really that important or, as the article suggests, is he just letting his (quite justifiable) rage and resentment at his ex-wife completely overwhelm his feelings for the kids?
It’s true that a court can’t really make somebody be a father, but it seems a shame that a guy should basically choose to stop being a father on account of something that’s not the kids’ fault. Wouldn’t you think that instead he’d be all the more determined to be close to the kids because he’s obviously the one decent “parent” they have?
Suppose the gender situation were reversed. (“How?” I hear you exclaim. Well, suppose a cheating husband’s wife and mistress gave birth at the same time, and the wife’s baby died and he managed to substitute the mistress’ baby for it without the wife’s knowing what was going on. Spare me the logistical objections, okay?) Would we be as sympathetic to a woman who wanted to stop being “Mom” to a formerly beloved child when she found out the truth?
Do you think DNA doesn’t matter? What about this woman in Virginia, there was a car crash and several people died. In the aftermath, she discovered the child who biologically is hers, and who she never gave up for adoption, is with other parents.
Miss Johnson went to court to try to get her girl back. Didn’t happen. She might be allowed visitation, but not custody.
In her case I’d say since she didn’t give up her daughter voluntarily, she ought to get her child back.
Blood does make a difference.
As to Morgan and that mess in Texas, he deserves to be repaid for whatever he is forking over for another man’s and his ex-wife’s actions.
Morgan was defrauded, and making him pay is legal extortion.
No matter what the courts say, this is wrong.
You don’t reward someone for screwing around, and breaking marriage vows.
Um, tdn, you might not want to quote the ENTIRE newspaper article here in the SDMB. There are Copyright issues involved, y’know.
[hijack]
This could be a whole other thread. Whenever someone says this, I always think of that old saw, “you can pick your friends, but not your relatives.”
Blood makes a difference how? Sharing blood/biological kinship means nothing if the emotional bonds are missing.
[end hijack]
Good discussion, by the way. Lots to think about. Having the newspaper articles was helpful. I’m surprised dad hasn’t appeared on any talk shows. Or has he?
One article says dad’s child support obligation is $1,200 a month, another says $500.
The precise amount is neither here nor there, but I wondered if the dollar amount (which somehow became inflated to $52,000 a year earlier in the thread) makes a difference in anyone’s opinion.
I said blood makes a difference. Just my guess, but I think one reason people have kids is so they have a connection to the future, immortality of sorts. Haven’t you heard people say they want someone to carry on their name?
That is what I mean by blood matters. It seems to matter to people who don’t wish to adopt, but state they want their own kids.
What I find alarming for men is this National Commission on Unform State Laws. They want to make it tougher to challenge paternity.
For women so inclined I read that as follows: You marry the richest man you can attract, doesn’t matter if you love him. You pay no attention to the vows to have sex only with your husband, but take a lover as it pleases you.
If children are born that are the result of the cheating woman’s and lover’s actions, the courts are going to make the husband pay, no matter what.
The woman is never obligated to spend the child support funds only on the kids, and she is never required to give an itemized list showing how the money was used.
By forcing men to reward women for having lover’s kids, we re punishing the husbands, and this will be done in the name of what is best for the kids.
Some years ago I wanted to have sex with a fellow, and he got paranoid as hell, or so I thought. He said that all I wanted to do was to trap him by becoming pregnant. I thought he was nutty for believing that, now I realize that Robert just had a finely tuned instinct for survival.
Did anyone notice that this ex-wife’s kids with her lover have inherited the gene for Cystic Fibrosis? How is that for a legacy, mommy’s screwing around gave her youngest child an early death.
I don’t know if the other two boys will get ill.
The kids are victims in so many ways, Morgan is pissed at being deceived and the ex-wife passed on the CS gene.
Does anyone else find this pathetic?