Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fathers of Illegitimate Children Would Lose Rights to Adoption
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/04/10/fathers-of-illegitimate-children-would-lose-rights-to-adoption/ ^ | Josie Butler

Posted on 04/10/2012 1:26:36 PM PDT by DNA.2012

A bill presented in the House would allow the adoption of a child to take place without the consent of the father, if he has not previously developed a consistent and substantial relationship with the child.

The definition of “consistent and substantial relationship,” has not been specifically defined in Missouri law. The bill seeks to express clearly the actions a father must take to develop a consistent and substantial relationship.

Unless actively thwarted from doing so by the mother, the father must provide:

Consistent prenatal financial support

Payment of prenatal and natal medical care for the mother and baby

Child support payments proportional with his ability to pay

Consistent contact and visitation with the child

Assistance with educational and medical care of the child

Professor Mary Beck at the University of Missouri School of Law wrote the bill. She said this bill was written in response to the Lentz case. She said one of the goals was to clear up confusion on who could intervene in an adoption.

“It (the bill) spells out what a father needs to do to protect his constitutional parental rights,” Beck said.

She said the bill also specifies to judicial circuits when the father has not protected his parental rights, and when the child can be adopted and gain permanency with a family and home.

Rep. Rory Ellinger, D-University City, said he is strongly against the bill. He said in the case of a woman getting pregnant and deciding not to tell the father, that this bill would not only deprive the man of the right to be a father, but would also get him out of his duty to pay child support.

Beck, along with at least 10 other attorneys in the Missouri who are members of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys united to create the bill. The chair of the Family Law section of the Missouri Bar and the chair of the special committee on adoption, developed by the Missouri Bar were both involved in writing the bill.

Beck said the opinion in the Lentz case has led to different interpretations by different judicial circuits in the state. She said the bill attempts to clarify the position of the legislature on the issue.

Arnold said the bill was an attempt to fix the law, because of the confusion in the Lentz case. He said many legislators wanted to strengthen the adoption laws and make it clear to the judiciary what the legislative intent was in such cases. However, he said he believes the bill restricts the constitutional rights of father-child relationships, and they did not get the language right.

“This is a terrible law,” Arnold said.

He said he would suggest changing “actively thwarted by the mother or the child,” to include other entities, such as the court or prospective adoptive parents. Arnold said in the Lentz case, the court and the prospective adoptive parents thwarted Lentz from consistent contact and visitation with the child by limiting his visitation.

In close cases, such as the Lentz case, the laws in Missouri make it difficult for judges and attorneys to know how to proceed. Beck said the bill spells out what the law is.

“We won’t have close cases anymore, it will either be this way or it won’t be this way,” Beck said.

With this bill, Arnold said Lentz would not have been able to fight for custody of his son, because he would not have met the five criteria spelled out in the bill.If a father’s name is not listed on the birth certificate, the father must take certain actions in order to gain custody of the child, such as:

Filing with the state’s punitive father’s registry an intent to claim responsibility for the child.

Filing a paternity action to have himself declared a custodian of the child.

Assuming consistent financial and custodial responsibility.

The bill means to define consistent financial and custodial responsibility as developing a relationship with the child and providing financial support.

Other states have passed similar legislation. In Illinois, consent is not required when a parent has deserted, failed to communicate or provide support for the child. In Iowa, consent is not needed if a parent has signed a release of custody or abandoned and failed to support the child. The same is true in Arkansas, but the parent must fail to assume parental responsibilities for two years.”I think it’s fair to say that the state wants to protect the rights of men who assume financial and custodial responsibility for their children,” Beck said. “But we don’t want to prevent children from going to adoption where fathers object, but don’t step up to the plate and don’t assume legal, custodial and financial responsibility.”

Ellinger said the majority of the time lower class mothers put their children up for adoption, while middle and upper class couples are generally the ones to adopt. He said the bill was legislative class bias at its worst.

Rep. Brandon Ellington, D-Kansas City, also said he believes this bill is biased against men. He said the bill does not take into account the social factors of the mother and father, and the father may not be able to meet the criteria, because the relationship is strained. In such cases he said, the mother may not have the child’s best interest in mind and abuses the father’s support payments.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: adoption; custody; divorce; families; family; familycourts; familylaw; father; fatherhood; fathers; fathersrights; feminism; feminist; feminists; illegitimate; marriage; men; mensrights; moralabsolutes; sourcetitlenoturl; unwed; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
A father who wants to raise his own child and is willing to have full custody should be allowed to prevent the adoption of his child - regardless of his marital status - unless he is proven unfit to parent.

He should not have to buy a right to parent via payments to his child's mother as listed in this anti-father legislation.

1 posted on 04/10/2012 1:26:45 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

>>He should not have to buy a right to parent via payments to his child’s mother as listed in this anti-father legislation.<<

Keep it zipped up until after you are married and a guy has no fear for this law.

But in general, it is yet another attack on men.


2 posted on 04/10/2012 1:30:31 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ('RETRO' Abortions = performed on 84th trimester individuals who think killing babies is a "right.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Women are not deprived of parental rights for not “keeping it zipped up”, regardless of their marital status.


3 posted on 04/10/2012 1:33:53 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

I don’t think it will be long before enraged fathers go to hunt down fully law-compliant women and/or Professor Beck with fire arms and/or chain saws.


4 posted on 04/10/2012 1:35:34 PM PDT by righttackle44 (I may not be much, but I raised a United States Marine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

A biological father who is not willing to make a child legitimate should have no rights whatsoever with respect to the child, unless the mother refuses to marry him. Whatever happened to taking responsibility? Whatever happened to shotguns?


5 posted on 04/10/2012 1:43:16 PM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Persae Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

Fathers have every right to raise their own children, regardless of their marital status.

A father’s right to raise his own child is not contingent upon his marital status.

And it is quite possible that:

A) the mother doesn’t want to be involved with raising the child

B) the mother doesn’t want to be married


6 posted on 04/10/2012 1:46:48 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

what about the mothers?


7 posted on 04/10/2012 1:48:12 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Look it may be an attack on men, irresponsible men. I do think that someone who takes no financial responsibility for a child should rightly have no say. In many cases single women live in poverty because they have no choice but to raise the child.

Is it fair? NO!!! Is it the way it is for the most part? YES!!

8 posted on 04/10/2012 1:48:22 PM PDT by w1andsodidwe (Barrak has nowuwon the contest. He is even worse than Jimmah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

Incidentally, a father who wants to raise his own child - without any involvement from the mother who doesn’t want to raise the child - IS being responsible as well as asserting his rights.

OBVIOUSLY.


9 posted on 04/10/2012 1:49:05 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: w1andsodidwe

i see lots of women who use their pups as cash machines. interesting you have no words for them.


10 posted on 04/10/2012 1:51:16 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: w1andsodidwe

Fathers who are willing to raise the child on their own are taking full responsibility.

Those willing to do so have every right to block the adoption of their child to some random stranger.


11 posted on 04/10/2012 1:51:29 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

If all the men in the legislature vote against this measure, that will be the end of it.


12 posted on 04/10/2012 1:53:07 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Quien vive? JESUS! Y a su nombre? GLORIA! Y a su pueblo? VICTORIA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

I doubt that the mothers of children by rich men attempt to adopt those children out.

Why would they, when those children become sources of cash for the mother?


13 posted on 04/10/2012 1:53:18 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

If your rights as a parent were dependent upon a vote of the members of the nearest sorority, would you be OK with that?


14 posted on 04/10/2012 1:55:35 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

ah, so you approve of pups as cash machines!? By all means, go pop a few more out, sow...and hell with the poor fool that gets suckered. If he can’t meet your cash requirements, adopt the pup out from under him. Serves him right. Right?


15 posted on 04/10/2012 2:01:10 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

I described the current state of things; I did not indicate approval of them.

Please read my previous comments on this article for context.


16 posted on 04/10/2012 2:03:30 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

That law is wrong and unjust.

There may come a day when the sperm donor and child reunite in an attempt to forge a relationship.

This law would place a wall to high to surmount and the child would be programmed with whatever narrative the mother supplied, which would be disastrous.

Who knows the vile and vindictive crap mother pull and their Holy Wars to exact satisfaction, despite the very real damage they doin to their child.

Oh and I’m adopted, knew my real father my entire life and all my relatives on his side. In fact, I was the #1 pallbearer at my grandmother’s funeral.

I don’t talk to him but that’s a personal choice and I don’t like nasty drunks. Funny, apparently my brothers and sister feel the same.

Still, he made the decision to relinquish my birth name and it all worked out.

I have a great dad, who I would never dishonor by using the term step dad.

He is a great man who I have always looked up to and reflect upon when I make important decisions.


17 posted on 04/10/2012 2:11:19 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

That law is wrong and unjust.

There may come a day when the sperm donor and child reunite in an attempt to forge a relationship.

This law would place a wall to high to surmount and the child would be programmed with whatever narrative the mother supplied, which would be disastrous.

Who knows the vile and vindictive crap mother pull and their Holy Wars to exact satisfaction, despite the very real damage they doin to their child.

Oh and I’m adopted, knew my real father my entire life and all my relatives on his side. In fact, I was the #1 pallbearer at my grandmother’s funeral.

I don’t talk to him but that’s a personal choice and I don’t like nasty drunks. Funny, apparently my brothers and sister feel the same.

Still, he made the decision to relinquish my birth name and it all worked out.

I have a great dad, who I would never dishonor by using the term step dad.

He is a great man who I have always looked up to and reflect upon when I make important decisions.


18 posted on 04/10/2012 2:11:52 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

A biological father is a father, not a “donor”, just as a biological mother is a mother, not an “incubator”.


19 posted on 04/10/2012 2:14:44 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

You are missing the part about a child having a relationship with their father.

They do desire to at least know the person from who their unique life came from.

Fathers who don’t provide for their children are pricks but the child doesn’t need to also suffer consequences.


20 posted on 04/10/2012 2:15:07 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

You are missing the part about a child having a relationship with their father.

They do desire to at least know the person from who their unique life came from.

Fathers who don’t provide for their children are pricks but the child doesn’t need to also suffer consequences.


21 posted on 04/10/2012 2:15:40 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

I am very much aware of that.

Hence I tell people” it takes 5 minutes to become a father but, it takes a lifetime to be a Dad”.


22 posted on 04/10/2012 2:19:40 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

I am very much aware of that.

Hence I tell people” it takes 5 minutes to become a father but, it takes a lifetime to be a Dad”.


23 posted on 04/10/2012 2:20:18 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012
And it is quite possible that: A) the mother doesn’t want to be involved with raising the child B) the mother doesn’t want to be married

Then don't knock her up, sinple.

24 posted on 04/10/2012 2:21:10 PM PDT by Tamar1973 ("Never care what the other guy has, it is not yours and someone always has more."--isthisnickcool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

Despite what the law allows, any adoptive parent who doesn’t want to have their heart ripped out at some point would be wise to get a release from both the legal and the biological father.


25 posted on 04/10/2012 2:27:08 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

My rights as a parent are significantly controlled by the state legislature of North Carolina and its employees of the education and child-welfare sort. I don’t think it’s ideal that they tell us how many beds we must have and make it nearly impossible for our teenagers to hold jobs, but that’s the way it is.

The current Missouri House of Representatives has 122 men and 41 women. If those 122 men are concerned about the parental rights of other men, there’s a great deal they can do.


26 posted on 04/10/2012 2:31:17 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Quien vive? JESUS! Y a su nombre? GLORIA! Y a su pueblo? VICTORIA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

On a scale of 0 to 0, what are the odds that the 41 women are concerned about the parental rights of men?


27 posted on 04/10/2012 2:56:22 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973

Simple is this: children are conceived. Some within marriages, some outside of marriages. No one is disputing that for children to be conceived within marriages is the preferable option.

However, when children are conceived outside of marriages, the natural fathers of those children have a right to raise their own children and thus to stop their adoption to random strangers.


28 posted on 04/10/2012 3:01:27 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012
He said in the case of a woman getting pregnant and deciding not to tell the father, that this bill would not only deprive the man of the right to be a father, but would also get him out of his duty to pay child support.

Works for me, Rory. No man should be ambushed. When she knows, he should know. Of course, if she's wrong or lies about who the father is, she should be penalized.

The Law should not demand husbands pay for boyfriends' babies in the face of established paternity. In some states it does.

Any progress made towards putting men, and fathers, on an equal playing field with women is a good thing. Modern women, like those whining about the cost of 90 days "birth control" for $10, need to learn personal responsibility.

29 posted on 04/10/2012 3:09:56 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Newt says, "A nominee that depresses turnout won't beat Barack Obama.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

Women are considered holy, men, evil. The whole stigma for illegitimate kids has shifted off the woman entirely, and totally onto the man.


30 posted on 04/10/2012 3:14:03 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

so the woman says “it is not yours” is that enough thwarting?

what about the man who finds out years and years later?

this seems more an adoption LAWYER law than a paternity rights law.


31 posted on 04/10/2012 3:28:42 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

this is about adoption lawyers being able to sell babies easier. For lawyers the process of selling a baby is hampered by fathers who suddenly appear.

make no mistake the adoption lawyers make good money doing adoptions.


32 posted on 04/10/2012 3:41:24 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

notice how this law essentially requires check book paternity. you have to give money to have visitation.

that is sick.


33 posted on 04/10/2012 3:44:52 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

If they are Republican women legislators, they are probably interested in the rights of married fathers of children. They might be less concerned about the rights of unmarried fathers, although that’s not really logical. But anyway, what difference does it make? Even if all the women were in favor of the bill, they’re overwhelmingly outnumbered by the men.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish with your posts. It’s clear that you are not happy with the current state of family law. You’d like married fathers to have better legal standing and unmarried fathers to have the legal protections of married fathers. What are you doing about it? Laws have to be changed to achieve this, and they have to be changed by the men who are the majority of lawmakers at every level of government. Even if all women in government were 100% behind you, there aren’t nearly enough of them to make a difference.

Several posters have suggested that, as a way of avoiding negative consequences, men might consider not casually impregnating women. You seem to consider this option for dealing with the current legal situation simply unthinkable. Laws are unjust sometimes, but if one can keep from falling afoul of them by a simple expedient, shouldn’t it be worth mentioning?


34 posted on 04/10/2012 3:49:37 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Quien vive? JESUS! Y a su nombre? GLORIA! Y a su pueblo? VICTORIA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Right. Besides, what’s one more law that beats up on men anyway? Just as long as the bimbos are never inconvenienced.


35 posted on 04/10/2012 4:50:42 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre; DNA.2012

Your post does not appear to address the question of what either you or the O.P. wants anyone to do about the situation. I think there’s general agreement among most FReepers that the current legal situation has serious problems.

Okay, now what? Suggest a constructive action in response.


36 posted on 04/10/2012 4:59:10 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Quien vive? JESUS! Y a su nombre? GLORIA! Y a su pueblo? VICTORIA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012
Let’s look at it another way. A woman gets pregnant (yea, it takes two and she made a bad choice) but she tells the father and he tells her simply to “get lost”. He takes no interest what so ever in her or their unborn child. He tells her that she’ll have to sue him to get child support and good luck with that because “I’m already supporting two other illegitimate children and am married and have four kids to support.”

Rather than having an abortion, she decides to have the child and have the child adopted by a loving family. She needs his consent but while he has no interest in the child or supporting the child, he’s a control freak, he gets some sort of twisted satisfaction in keeping her dependent on him, as minimal as his involvement and support may be and as much as his "support" is merely court mandated, he enjoys making life as difficult as possible for her.

Don’t think that this doesn’t happen. I’ve seen this happen. It happened to a member of my family.

Not saying the law is right or well written but just adding another POV.

37 posted on 04/10/2012 5:16:52 PM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Fathers must be notified and sign off on adoption of their own kids. Jeezuz what’s so hard about that?

Already a woman can abort or not abort a man’s baby without regard to the man’s opinion on the matter. Now they want to do the same with adoption? And the stupidity of child support payments is a whole nuther can of worms. If a man gets laid off or gets his hours shortened why is he still required to keep up child support payments? Why is he required to make up back payments if he makes no money for a few weeks? If the bitch was married to a man that got laid off or his hours reduced, SHE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE DO with the reduced income.

I’m sick of this. As an employer, I am fed up with women ENTIRELY and I am fed up with the stupid laws. I don’t see why I am forced to do my employees child support bullshit. As far as I’m concerned, unwed mothers should not be allowed to have any kids whatsoever. Force them to get married or take their kids away.

Most of these stupid broads are single because they just don’t feel like being married...and this stupid ass system we live under coddles these worthless bimbos and lets them get away with their spoiled attitudes AND THEN REWARDS THEM FOR IT.


38 posted on 04/10/2012 5:50:30 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Fathers must be notified and sign off on adoption of their own kids.

That appears to be the current state of the law, and it will remain the law, in Missouri, unless many male legislators vote for the proposed change.

Yes, the system is currently awash in perverse incentives. I didn't make the laws. What can one do about it?

39 posted on 04/10/2012 6:35:56 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Quien vive? JESUS! Y a su nombre? GLORIA! Y a su pueblo? VICTORIA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre; Tax-chick
Fathers must be notified and sign off on adoption of their own kids.

Exactly.

Already a woman can abort or not abort a man’s baby without regard to the man’s opinion on the matter. Now they want to do the same with adoption?

It's worth noting that a woman being able to abort a man's baby over his objections and a woman being able to adopt out a man's baby over his objections spring from the same view.

The view is that that women own the children and can do whatever they want with them:

Kill them by abortion.

Leave them at a fire station with no notice to the father.

Kill them as newborns and attribute it to SIDS or post-partum depression.

And now, adopt them out to strangers over the objections of the natural father.

So the constructive things to be done are:

1. Oppose laws and regulations which disenfranchise fathers.

2. Fight for laws which affirm fathers' natural rights to protect and raise their own children.

40 posted on 04/10/2012 6:40:51 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012; mamelukesabre

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I agree.

In all likelihood, there is more than sufficient opposition to the proposed Missouri law, but much more needs to be done.


41 posted on 04/10/2012 6:47:47 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Quien vive? JESUS! Y a su nombre? GLORIA! Y a su pueblo? VICTORIA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

First, I would definitely sign onto protecting the rights of all of the good fathers even if that meant that there would be an occasional legal wrangle with a few not-good ones in accordance with your scenario.

That said, fathers who did not want to raise the child would be unlikely to oppose adoption because they would wind up with 18 years of child support payments.

Also, a simple pre-condition can be built in: namely that for a father to veto an adoption, he has to be willing to accept full custody.


42 posted on 04/10/2012 6:47:58 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Seems as though you have never experienced Western divorce court as a white male. You would be in for a rude awakening. Google: “parental alienation”


43 posted on 04/11/2012 9:51:20 AM PDT by AbolishCSEU (Percentage of Income in CS is inversely proportionate to Mother's parenting of children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

On “18 years” A check of the most recent CS laws reveals that only THREE states have CS ending at age 18 without caveat. The trend now is for CS to go beyond age 21 regardless of circumstances. And beyond 21 if a child is “special needs” which most children of divorce are now classified.

Once the biomom exercises her court condoned and approved “parental sovereignty” and squeezes biodad out of the children’s lives, no real parenting takes place. The children are “friended” not parented and they instantly become “special needs” due to behavioral issues. It’s a catch 22 for white males who dare to marry and reproduce.


44 posted on 04/11/2012 9:57:04 AM PDT by AbolishCSEU (Percentage of Income in CS is inversely proportionate to Mother's parenting of children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

As a “second wife” to a man who has been alienated from his children purposely by his ex wife (all three children conceived after marriage) with the court winking in approval (his ex wife is practicallly the MAYOR of her small town and works as a CPS caseworker) AND is also being sodomized sideways by said ex-wife with a 12 foot pole as far as child support is concerned; so much so that he couldn’t possibly afford to live on his own and be self supporting, I’d advise any male (particularly caucasian) to avoid marrying and breeding with Western women until such time as the laws DO change.


45 posted on 04/11/2012 10:04:59 AM PDT by AbolishCSEU (Percentage of Income in CS is inversely proportionate to Mother's parenting of children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AbolishCSEU

People’s opinions are very much the product of their own personal experiences.


46 posted on 04/11/2012 10:19:15 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Quien vive? JESUS! Y a su nombre? GLORIA! Y a su pueblo? VICTORIA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: AbolishCSEU

And if you ever want to meet a 20-year-old spoiled brat, talk with one whose father is forced to send money for that 20-year-old regardless of that 20-year-old’s attitude.

I had a classmate who was just such a 20-year-old, and her disrespect towards her father was incredible.

Entitlements without corresponding obligations - even obligations of good conduct - breed disrespect and very bad personalities.


47 posted on 04/11/2012 11:57:34 AM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

It is basically handing the bio-mom a shopping list and telling the bio-dad that either he pays for everything on the bio-mom’s shopping list on a very short timetable or he will have failed to buy a right to be a parent for his own child.


48 posted on 04/11/2012 12:01:18 PM PDT by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AbolishCSEU

>>Seems as though you have never experienced Western divorce court as a white male. You would be in for a rude awakening. Google: “parental alienation”<<

1) This is about unmarried men who create kids out of wedlock

2) I am very specific about it being anti-male.

3) I know that married guys in general and dads in particular get the shaft in family court. I was barely able to get away with a huge 2 year alimony on a 3 year marriage (no kids) BECAUSE she was lazy and wouldn’t work — the very reason we got married.


49 posted on 04/11/2012 2:47:09 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ('RETRO' Abortions = performed on 84th trimester individuals who think killing babies is a "right.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Believe me, I have been on BOTH ends of this issue. Married in the late seventies and into the eighties, I had two children (within wedlock) where upon divorce I received NO child support (pre draconian CS laws), worked several jobs and was able to parent properly and traditionally without alienating both children from my ex. Both children are grown, independent, fully functioning and contributing members of society. Something I won’t be able to say for my current husband’s children of divorce.

Seems biomoms under the age of 45 are more narcissistic and juvenile than ever; their mothers probably bought into the phoney self esteem and no spank methods of non parenting. Thus raising self-centered, juvenile, egotistical diva children with adult spousal status (100% authority and 0% responsibility) primed to be the classic western 45 and under wife who dumps dad and takes his wallet.


50 posted on 04/11/2012 3:54:52 PM PDT by AbolishCSEU (Percentage of Income in CS is inversely proportionate to Mother's parenting of children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson