Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Honestly - I think it's a bit worse to reject children you LOVE - how can anything break that love?
I have four children - two fathers - and nothing - NOTHING - would ever make me love them less or turn away from them. There's nothing they could ever say or do. They could hate me - hell - they could probably murder their father or turn into psychos and kill kids in school and somehow I know I'd still ****ing love them any damned way.
Because that love might get sidelined by crazy **** - but it can never break.
Did he ever love them? OR did they just have the ****tiest family ever and hang on for far too damn long - cheating over and over on her part sounds like they were all just living a sham and no one was vested in it emotionally . . . so why did they stay together?
Ugh! What a mind**** . . . and who gets it in the end? The children - which is just horrifically tragic.
To be fair, the man was a father to those children due to extreme coercion and fraud on behalf of the bio-mom. To dismiss the natural biological rights of the bio-dads based upon the mother's deception and lies is also a serious issue here. I completely reject the idea that the biological father of any child is without rights to those children on the basis of the bio-mother's whims.
That said, the acting father's rights were never fully exercised at an appropriate time because of the fraud perpetrated against him. As much as the bio-fathers' rights were infringed, so were those of the acting father. The only person in the initial scenario guilty of any offense is the whoreish bio-mom.
In terms of the present issue: If you were led to believe that a child was yours and found out years later than it wasn't, would you not have a lot of initial anger and hurt? And as a human, would you not be likely to say and do things immediately upon discovering that truth that might be hurtful or counterproductive? Likewise, if you're the bio-dad of one of these children and you don't find out until years later, would you not be likely to feel as if something were taken or withheld from you?
I don't really wanna burn the guy down. He's dealing with a lot of hurt right now. I think he'll eventually realize what's best for the children and rediscover the love he has for them. But the woman? **** her. She deserves to pay for what she did.
I don't know about everyplace but around here the law is pretty simple.
Who's name is on the Birth Certificate as Father, who represents themselves as the father in public and legal contracts, and that includes everything from insurance to school permission slips, and who claims the tax deduction.
IF the biological father can be found, tested and a court judgement obtained then the husband can get off the hook.
Until then the law is clear and we are a nation of laws and our local courts have to rule based on the law... (your courts may vary... :lol: )
Not where I live---once the court says you are to pay support, you pay support even if you later find the dad because of the "finality of court orders" preventing you from "re-litigating a judicially decided fact". Your only remedy is to sue the real dad(s) for reimbursement of the money you have to pay, but you are on the hook until the end.
Child support orders are re-litigated all the time. How can this be true?
Aside from the fact that we've had this argument before, you do realize that this news story is the courts acting according to my views and not yours, right?
He is not the biological father of three of his four children. The court is demanding, rightfully, that he pay child support for those three anyway because they are still his children.
In terms of the present issue: If you were led to believe that a child was yours and found out years later than it wasn't, would you not have a lot of initial anger and hurt? And as a human, would you not be likely to say and do things immediately upon discovering that truth that might be hurtful or counterproductive? Likewise, if you're the bio-dad of one of these children and you don't find out until years later, would you not be likely to feel as if something were taken or withheld from you?
Yes, I realize this, but like I told you last time acting in the role of a father is not the same thing as being the father of the kids. The court was wrong and its just that simple.
Raising kids has all that loving heartfelt crap that goes with it. And then there is carrying on your lineage. If the kids didnt come from his nuttsack they arent his. A court trying to make him pay goes to show you that attorneys are spiders and the common populace are flies. Marriage is a giant conspiracy we force upon kids. Either you will be together with someone forever or you wont.
Why do people assume that because he didn't want to pay child support for kids that are not his own that he doesn't love the kids? How is the one automatically the other? It seems to me all he is doing is saying those kids are not my kids and I do not want to financially support them. Perhaps its not the nicest thing to convey, but it doesn't mean he doesn't love them.
Why do people assume that because he didn't want to pay child support for kids that are not his own that he doesn't love the kids? How is the one automatically the other? It seems to me all he is doing is saying those kids are not my kids and I do not want to financially support them. Perhaps its not the nicest thing to convey, but it doesn't mean he doesn't love them.
If the baby doesn't look at all like all the other babies in your family in some way or the other, get the DNA test before you ever acknowledge the child as yours......
To be fair, the man was a father to those children due to extreme coercion and fraud on behalf of the bio-mom. To dismiss the natural biological rights of the bio-dads based upon the mother's deception and lies is also a serious issue here. I completely reject the idea that the biological father of any child is without rights to those children on the basis of the bio-mother's whims.
That said, the acting father's rights were never fully exercised at an appropriate time because of the fraud perpetrated against him. As much as the bio-fathers' rights were infringed, so were those of the acting father. The only person in the initial scenario guilty of any offense is the whoreish bio-mom.
In terms of the present issue: If you were led to believe that a child was yours and found out years later than it wasn't, would you not have a lot of initial anger and hurt? And as a human, would you not be likely to say and do things immediately upon discovering that truth that might be hurtful or counterproductive? Likewise, if you're the bio-dad of one of these children and you don't find out until years later, would you not be likely to feel as if something were taken or withheld from you?
I don't really wanna burn the guy down. He's dealing with a lot of hurt right now. I think he'll eventually realize what's best for the children and rediscover the love he has for them. But the woman? **** her. She deserves to pay for what she did.
You gonna tell me that if your father looked you in the eye and said "You are not my son" that you wouldn't be ****ing heartbroken?
You seriously going to tell me that a man who loves his children could do that to them?
I lean more toward Viktyr's view of family, but I know not everyone else does, nor do I think it should be enshrined in law. Once he's divorced, the kids not living with him, and he finds out the kids aren't his, there's no way taking child support from him is the right thing to do. The court should be goijng after the bio father(s). If he's the sort that believes as Viktyr does, then he is free to continue his love and financial support on top of what the bio fathers pay.
A rather backward ruling that opens up forcing child support on anyone remotely involved in the raising of any child. Thankfully its Canada.
From the emotional side of it, I get where you are coming from Viktyr, but legally he isn't monetarily responsible for their upbringing.
A rather backward ruling that opens up forcing child support on anyone remotely involved in the raising of any child. Thankfully its Canada.
From the emotional side of it, I get where you are coming from Viktyr, but legally he isn't monetarily responsible for their upbringing.
A rather backward ruling that opens up forcing child support on anyone remotely involved in the raising of any child. Thankfully its Canada.
From the emotional side of it, I get where you are coming from Viktyr, but legally he isn't monetarily responsible for their upbringing.
It is called paternity fraud and he should be eligible to get back all of the money he spent raising the children he believed to be his own. This court was 180 degrees from reality.
No, I wouldn't. I would however be interested to know who is.
Yes, actually. If he is not the father of the kids that is information they should know.
See, and the argument over the biodads aside, I just can't accept-- morally or legally-- that a father should be allowed to walk away from his obligations to his children. It's not like they're newborn infants, ready for adoption; these are his children, name and soul.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?