I know, I really need to stop listening to talk radio, but I was bored in traffic, so…
This was the call today: Guy and girl break up, but the girl never tells the guy she’s pregnant with his child. She marries someone else while he goes off and doesn’t have any further contact with her. Three years later, she and her husband contact the guy and inform him that he has a two-year-old son. The husband is being a good father to the child, no problems, and ostensibly they say they were informing him to get his family’s medical history. The guy steps up to the plate and starts spending time with the child, but not specifically as his father (i.e., they don’t try to explain to him that this is his “other daddy”). Evidently everyone is fine with this arrangement - the girl and husband obviously allow him to spend time with the child, he’s happy spending time and getting to know the child, he seems to approve of the husband being a good father to his child, etc. All is well.
His question to “Dr.” Laura was when would be the appropriate time to tell the child he’s his biological father.
Her answer?
“Bug out.”
That’s right. Her advice is to walk away and never see that child again. Why? Paraphrasing, “It’s too confusing for him to have two fathers. He already has one in the husband in every way, so you’re just making things complicated. Bug out.”
I cannot find the words to express what a fucking bitch this woman is. She touts “RESPONSIBILITY” as her magic word, and here’s a guy, denied the opportunity to be a father to his child, who steps up and accepts that responsibility (with the blessing of the child’s mother and step-father), and what can this rat’s asshole regurgitate from the depths of her bowels? All he is to the child is a “sperm donor.”
Publicize that among the folks that see gays as anti-family, Esprix – it’s rare that you can find an issue where the “family values” folks and the gay activists have a common cause, like this one, so clearly defined!
Yeah, she’s a condescending kunt, but without fine americans like herself, Rush & G. Gordon Liddy telling us how to act, think and feel, where would this country be? We might have free-thinkers, or socializd medicine. The Horror
I thought for a second that the woman was going to all of a sudden spring this kid on the guy and demand child support. But I guess that’s more “Jerry Springer”. The father wanting to do right by his kid and having that be called a “bad” thing is much more her style.
So, you’ve got a not-so-good situation here, all set to just completely blow up, right? Dishonest girlfriend hides son from father for 2 years, then springs it on him after toddler has bonded with man he knows as “Daddy”. Have I got this all straight? Cause I’d hate to disagree with y’all if I’m missing something pertinent.
Now, c’mon guys. Tell me you see how badly this can turn out, right? Bio-dad starts getting attached to his son, couple years from now wants custody, or even just legal visitation. Nasty court battles ensue. Or, he decides that neo-dad isn’t raising Jr. the right way, and nasty court battles ensue. Or, mom starts putting limits on bio-dad contact, and nasty court battles ensue. And even more horrendous possibilities are out there, if you have any family or friends who’ve experienced ugly child custody battles. The mere fact that bio-dad is seeking info on when to spring THE TRUTH on the boy is a bad sign, in my estimation. I have to agree with Dr. Laura. This is a situation not of the bio-dad’s making, sure. Problem is, the one who stands to lose the most is the little boy.
Now, maybe all will stay sweetness and light, and the three grownups will always act like grownups. Personally, I’m way too skeptical. When you take this situation, as described, down to it’s most basic level, the ever-famous ‘best for the child’ standard, it seems Dr. Laura chose the least of the worst options. Sometimes, that’s all you can do.
jack@ss - “kunt” is spelled with a c and Dr. Laura deserves to be called a cunt just as much as she deserves to be smacked upside the head with the supersized clue stick.
I hate that woman with an unbridled passion… what a condescending clueless bitch.
I’m going to have to defend, at least partially, Dr. Laura on this one. Good lord that makes feel queasy, just saying it.
Doc Laura makes no secret that the child is her focus. In her world, you do what is best for the child, period. In her mind, the biological father should take responsibility…for leaving. The child has a stable family environment. Don’t screw it up.
She doesn’t give advice based on the situation, she gives it based on a ideal model that no one but she can live up to. So her advice in this matter is perfectly consistent with her mission statement.
Let’s just hope they don’t take her advice. Even if they did wait too long to inform bio-dad, they did. So far everything’s cool, and given half a chance, it could work out okay. Not everyone is eager for a court battle. If they’re smart they’ll do everything they can to keep the courts out of it.
The first thing that came to my mind was: If they do take her advice, years down the road, kid finds out Mom & Dad threw bio-dad out of his life. The truth has a way of coming out, even if it takes years.
I agree with Triss. Lies this big just don’t stay hidden, and when the truth comes out the kid might be hurt more than he would have been if people just started being honest now.
Well… beyond the fact that many people think she’s a royal PITA (and she often is), let’s look at the practicalities of the situation.
The child is now presented with a potentially confusing and divisive scenario of having an involved bio-dad and a full time custodial dad. While this may work nicely if every one behaves themselves over time, it introduces in very real terms the potential complication of an additional authority figure and presence in the child’s life that could cause a ruckus if he and the bio-mom + custodial dad team have a falling out over some aspect of Jr’s upbringing.
An involved bio-dad is potentially a very powerful presence in the child’s life, and if his bonds with the child grow stronger he may well feel he has some say in how to raise the child. The complex familial authority dynamic of blended and extended families is not always a positive thing if a child is looking for reasons or rationales to do something other than what the custodial parents desire and is supported in this by a non-custodial bio-parent. In this Dr. Laura is not necessarily incorrect in her concerns about how these situations can pan out over time.
I’m sure there are much more magnanimous people and less possessive in the world than myself, but I have to admit that if I was the position of the custodial dad in this scenario I would have some degree of discomfort about "sharing " my sons upbringing with another male authority figure, and I would have concerns about how this persons involvement could potentially crimp the child’s ability to bond with me as dad and vice versa over time.
The “medical history” excuse to re-connect is not sufficient IMO to justify turning someone’s life upside down and is used by many people (especially women) because they want to re-connect in some fashion beyond what they currently have. I think the wife in this scenario was determined that the bio-dad was going to be brought back into the mix one way or another and she accomplished this. As to whether this is the wisest course of action over time for the child remains to be seen, but Dr. Laura’s tepidation about the long term effects of this somewhat complicated situation are not entirely without merit.
In “Dr” Laura’s defense, she constantly is bombarded with the worst of the worst. People who call her up usually have terribly complex situations that have devolved in horrendous messes, usually caused by amazing irresponsibility and immaturity in the caller and his/her friends, family, and relations. And all too often, there’s a child in the midst of this getting screwed for something he/she had no fault in. All of the possibilities that NaSultainne mentions, and more, are not only possible but have been told and retold endlessly as accounts of actual problems on “Dr” Laura’s show. Considering the frequency with which adults in relationships act like spoiled little brats and get into petty sqaubbles that screw over thier kids, it might indeed be a solid rule of thumb to limit the number of interested parties in raising a child.
There are always exceptions to the rule, but “Dr” Laura is supposedly a call-in advisor, not a radio psychic. She can’t see the future of any specific person nor can she judge enough from him in 3 minutes to tell if he’s the exception to the rule. So it might be prudent to develop a general rule about such situations, one that is most likely to conform to her “best interests of the child” standard, that she can dispense consistently. And she’d probably also remark that these oft-disastrous situations arise in no small part (there are always just bad unavoidable situations, and she does address those) due to casual attitudes about premarital sex and frivolous irresponsible marriages/divorces. (And she’d be right about that )
When 90% of your job is dealing with the terrible consequences of relationships gone disastrously wrong, it’s only natural to advise the course of action that has the best chance of minimizing the possibility of adverse consequences. It might be unfair to those who are the true exceptions, and she certainly could be more polite and less harsh when she delivers her advice, but it probably is good advice in many situations.
Nope, the kid has two dads, making one of them go away is not only dishonest, but likely to come back and bite everyone on the butt. It’s not a ‘traditional’ family, but one that can still work out quite nicely. If it doesn’t, well, since when were we promised perfect, trouble-free lives? At least give the situation a cautious chance.
And what is it about Dr. Laura? Every time I listen to her I swear I’ll never do it again. Then I’m stuck in traffic (probably behind Esprix), come across her show and get sucked in again. Damn her, damn her to hell for the pain she needlessly causes people.
Hmm… well to each his own, but as a parent of a 12 year boy and a 16 year old girl, I am of the opinion that the rationale of throwing things into a young child’s life, regardless of the potential for complication and strife, for the sake of “honesty” is (IMO) a debatable concept at best.
There are many “honest” facts about the real world that a child has no need to process or deal with in their formative years and many times these things can wait and be dealt with more productively when the child is older. Anything that can potentially interfere with, or complicate the bond between a young child and his father (especially a non-bio father) needs to be handled with extreme caution regardless of a mother’s desire to “connect” the child with his bio-dad.
I don’t think so. I could be wrong, but I don’t think bio-dad has standing to sue. The chld was born in wedlock. In the eyes of the law, the married man IS the father, with all the rights and responsibilities.
Actually, that varies depending on the state. Some states presume the married male to be the father, some states presume the person whose name is on the birth certificate to be the father. In some states, AFAIK from my albeit limited study of family law, there may be no rebuttable presumption at all it might just be an issue to establish entirely at trial from a preponderance of the evidence standard. And in a few states, as I’ve been informed, it is impermissible to argue that you aren’t the father if you were married at the time or appear on the birth certificate, you would be estopped from disclaiming parentage. So anyways, the biodad’s rights are not really set in stone.
I am assumng that the married man’s name is on the birth certificate. I don’t think mom would have told him till after the child was born. An assumption, of course, but a fairly safe one.
The right decision obviously depends on the people involved. If they can all handle the dad being involved then it is probably a good idea, because the kid might be very angry if he later finds out his dad was shut out of his life unwillingly. Saying that it should be put off until the kid is a teenager is a dubious strategy. After all, we all know teenagers are in the most stable stage of their life, right?
However, if all parties involved are at each other’s throats over this, and the current parents are doing a good job, then it is probably best for the dad not to get involved. Since I don’t know the people involved, I guess I don’t know what the right choice is.
)