No, as I pointed out earlier, there have been cases where the father wanted to maintain visitation rights, and had done nothing wrong, however since the mother had defied court orders and had generally been horrible, the father was denied all future visitation rights because the ongoing feud was not good for the children. When push comes to shove, men have few legal rights, but many legal responsibilities when it comes to child support and custody issues.
Hypothetical. Even I’m not cruel enough to bring a child into the world with me as his father.
I’m the kids ‘parent’ if I’m listed on a certificate. I’m bound, by the state, to provide for the child after the mother and I separate; eg child support, and so forth. I accept that legally. But if the wife betrayed me, the result of that betrayal is her problem, not mine. She’ll get my money as long as she legally entitled, but beyond that, nothing. The child gets the same treatment as the mother. Dismissal, divorce, and removal from my presence.
IMO this is the heart of the issue.
Software versus hardware; Head versus heart; Logical rationalization versus millions of years worth of evolution derived anti-cuckolding instinct.
My solution? Let the putative father decide. He can either keep paying and retain access, or stop and rescind his rights and obligations. The father in the OP made his choice and I think that the court’s decision is wrong (morally).
Also, I agree it’s not the children’s fault, but bad things happen to innocent people. Presumably the father would be permitted to be hit by a bus and killed or lose his job, both of which would affect the children. Mum deceiving dad is just another bad thing for which there are consequences. If the biological father cannot be held accountable we as a community must support the children.
WOW I actually think Australian politicians got something right. What next? Maybe the internet should be filtered after all.
Well…I think it depends.
If you tell your wife you have the certainty of her getting miffed. If you do not tell you have a chance at zero problems or a lot bigger problems. I do not think it is unusual for people to roll the dice on such things and hope the other person does not find out. Partly of course it would depend on the guy’s assessment of what “miffed” really means if he tells her and he may well guess wrong. If he assumes that “miffed” would really be a huge blow-up and major issue he’ll opt for not telling. Also, in my experience, people (men and women) will often say they’d just have been miffed had they been told when in reality they’d blow up. It is one thing to calmly think about it as a hypothetical and another when it happens.
I am not arguing for not telling your wife. Ideally in a good relationship such communication should exist but then it is not a perfect world.
And yet you insist on making it the child’s problem too. It’s not the child’s fault your hypothetical wife hypothetically cheated on you, yet you’re willing to throw the kid to the curb because of it. It’s very, very sad.
You shouldn’t have 100% trust in ANYONE. People are imperfect.
Because you aren’t allowed to wait. If your trust is mislaid and you find out later and didn’t have the test done, too bad.
Or a man who trusted his wife and was wrong.
Pretty much nothing beyond not letting the children starve to death as far as I can tell. She doesn’t even need to use the so-called “child support” money on the children.
As far as I can tell, what seems to be happening here is that every excuse possible is being made to take money from men, and give it to women. It doesn’t matter if the kids are your kids or not. It doesn’t matter if you have any contact with them ( like the man mentioned above who was cut off all contact with the children but still forced to pay ). It doesn’t matter if the woman in question spends the money on the children. It’s not about “providing for the kids”; the courts don’t care if they are or are not provided for beyond the barest necessities ( if that ). What matters is taking the money from the man and giving it to her.
What if, as Freudian Slit suggested earlier, there was a mix up at the hospital and your child was not biologically yours or your wife’s? I imagine you’d feel betrayed by the doctors and nurses and expect your wife to feel the same way, perhaps handing the changeling over to the state and sending money every month? Again, it’s not the child’s fault, but that is apparently besides the point.
I think there ought to be any amount of middle ground here. What I would LIKE to see happen is the court order nothing to the lying bitch, but that wouldn’t be fair to the children. SO… They ought to order the absolute minimum in support. If he chooses to pay more to care for the kids he cared for and raised as his own, that is admirable; and he ought to be able to use that incentive as leverage on her. Want more money? I want more time with the kids whom I love. Maybe I want an itemized expense account with receipts sent to me each month of the previous month’s extra funds. Don’t send it? I’m not obligated to pay you more than the minimum. Perhaps you’ll have to submit a proposal to me before each month for what you want to spend that cash on.
The children should never suffer, but suffering doesn’t mean that they can’t afford the same lifestyle they enjoyed while under the joint care of their parents. it means that they should have adequate food, medical care, and money for incidental expenses.
There are stories of women unable to face a child they had because of rape. It is not the child’s fault. Other women may be able to set the rape apart and care for the child.
Different strokes for different folks. For a raped woman I do not think there is a right or wrong in the above. An argument can be made for and against in both cases. Someone equated a man finding out a betrayal and the kids are not really his as comparable. Not so sure of that myself but again, some guys might. Not for me to decide for them how they feel.
It’s not the husband’s fault, either. In fact, the one person whose fault it really is faces no consequences whatsoever. Why is that?
Lol. If she opens an envelope addressed to her husband, she’s hardly in a position to complain about him not trusting her.
But anyway, I think it wouldn’t be too hard for a husband to get around the problems you describe, for example by buying the test kit in another town.
My wife sometimes checks up on me. I think it’s funny and I’m not offended at all. I guess it’s a matter of preference.
It’s hard to think of something analagous which is a reverse situation, but let’s suppose the maid had a baby and my wife secretly did a test to see if I am the father. If I found out, I would think it was pretty funny and I wouldn’t be offended.
My kids thought someone else was their father for the first 4 years of their life. I didn’t even know about them until then. At that point the supposed-father got lost and I got saddled with 4 years of back child support.
Fathers generally get the short end of the stick in these matters. My garnished paycheck is my cite.
If adultery should have consequences, it should be in the realm of the support obligations to the adulterer.
My guess is that you had the biggest wallet. From what I can gather, the “first” father could have legally been deemed to be financially responsible, since he acted as their father for the first 4 years of life (much like the guy in the OP). First rule of lawsuits; Sue the person who has the money.
I’m sorry, I’m having trouble unpacking what you mean by this.
What if she would have gotten pregnant by an unknown man without this unbiological father around? Then the mother would have to support the children by herself. I think the fact that he has supported these children for many years should be seen as charitable, but continued payments should not be required if he feels that way.
Sure, it’ll be worse for the children, but they are much better off than they would be if he was never there in the first place, which is reality for many other children. I’d rather put the responsibility on the mother, and if the children’s continued welfare is the highest priority, the government should pay the child support in his stead rather than putting the entire burden onto one person who doesn’t seem to have biological nor emotional bonds with these children. I think it’s wrong to penalize him for all the support he has already given, it seems very ungrateful.
You’d guess wrong. I was making about $11/hr at the time (we’re talking about 12 years ago here).
It’s actually a little more complicated than I spelled out. There was a matter of money that their mom was collecting from the state, that they ended up coming after me for.
Trust me, I don’t think I could spell out all the details in one post – not enough electrons.
Not that I think anyone is casting aspersions on me or anything, but I’m very happy to be a father. I love my kids (twins) and I’m fully in their lives, so it’s not a “why did this have to happen to me” thing. It was my dick, and all that. I take my share of the responsibility.
That’s sad too. Anytime a person rejects a child because of something beyond that child’s control, it’s sad.
I’m not deciding how they feel. I’m deciding the “rightness” of letting those feelings make you abandon (emotionally or physically) a child.
I agree that there seems to be an anti-man bias in all of this. A paternity fraud bill (i.e. a law which would give some relief to duped dads) was introduced in my jurisdiction and some feminist professor was quoted as talking about how fatherhood is really about who has a relationship with the children, as opposed to who provided the sperm.
But at the same time, if some guy unknowingly fathers a child as a result of a brief relationship, then he’s potentially on the hook for child support 10 or 15 years later, even though all he did was provide sperm.
Similarly, if a husband finds he’s been duped a few years after the fact, there’s this idea that it should be too late for him to get off the hook. But at the same time, if a man is a defendant in a paternity suit, 5, 10 or even 15 years after the fact, I doubt he will get anywhere by arguing that it’s too late.
Because child support isn’t about who’s ex-wife is the biggest bitch or how we can punish women who cheat on their husbands. It’s about making sure the child is taken care of.