Tell that to my ex wife, who moved on to boyfriend #3, got the house, kids and my paycheck.
I’m not the exception, either.
Nice to know you see divorce as a one sided, male dominated event.
There are people who will also argue that if you’ve been paying child support for a child that you later learn, through DNA testing, is not really yours (and that you have no legal reason to expect any continued relationship with that child), you should STILL be financially obligated to that child because you “became” dad.
I don’t mind holding the men to their obligation. I think it is SICK that N.O.W. calls it “freedom” to be able to kill a child that is inconvenient for “one” of the two parents. That child has rights. Abortion is child abuse.
I love it when I suggest to folks that the men should be allowed to sever ties to the child at birth (remember, no murder happening here), how reprehensible that “choice” would be, but yet they can kill the child without even battign an eyelash and that is acceptable in the eyes of liberal law.
I don’t advocate either... but the responses one gets are most interesting.
One can divorce their spouse, but not their children and moving on to the second or third wife does not in any way reduce the obligations towards the children by previous spouses or paramours....
I see where you specifically identify “moving on to second or third wife.”
I’m not letting you off the hook on that one. You see it from an evil male standpoint, period.
You are also denying that perhaps, just perhaps, people change. We were married 10 years, and she went off the deep end, for whatever reason.
So, from your point of view, I’m supposed to recognize who a person is going to be in 10 years.
That’s a ridiculous idea, at best.
And, I might also point out that women have all the control when it comes to pregnancy. If a guy wants the kid and the gal doesn’t, she is free to have an abortion. He can do nothing about it.
If he wants nothing to do with the gal or the kid, she’s entitled to his paycheck.
you are being distracted,
the real purpose of these manuvers is FEDERAL MATCHING DOLLARS.
The state agencies only pursue fathers OR mothers because they recieve federal matching dollars for every case under the state files.
This is about money, period. NOT children, not fathers, and not mothers. The desk jockeys want money.
The one beneath contempt is the jackass spouting cliches and platitudes that haven’t meant anything substantive for thirty years.
Your screed is as heroic as a college professor denouncing racism.