It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fathers rights...or the lack of

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Yes, that makes perfect sense.....I need to police the all other fathers so I have the "right" to fair treatment within the system. Go on...... and mandatory relinquishing of my bodily tissues/fluids to the government for testing of any kind for any reason is not only ridiculas, it is unethical, and very NWOish. If my body produces/grows/secretes it, then it belongs to me and I don't have to give it to anyone unless I damn well want to. I don't buy any part of your sad stories about your so-called experinces involving this. You had nothing real to contribute to this discussion until you came under attack and now you are full of wisdom and stories...hmmmm. Men ARE the victims in almost any child support/custody/family court dealings.....yet everywhere I look there are "poor single moms" with their hands out looking for more. If you are one of these sheeple who are all for blanket policies and mandatory medical care/procedures why not let the government "force" WOMEN to take birth control under threat/duress from the government. You don't come in for your shot.....we take you license, tax returns, throw you in jail....it would be hard to prove with factual statistics, but I am quite sure the number of women lying and trapping men with "keep a man" babies far out weighs the number of men who so called "abandon" their children.




posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mushninja
 


The woman, using the laws will take your children and use them as ransome, the law will take whatever you joinlty aquired or aquired indiviually and give it to the woman.
The law will then take whatever women percive to be, any thing that the mother percievse an excess in your life which is aquired with money and hand it to the mother.


The mother will then, in order to get more and get away from being a full time mother to the children you're denied. Will go and get a job with longer hours etc, in order to do this she will leave the children without any consultation with you, with whoever she chooses. In order for her to be in a psition of employment the govenment will give her tax incentives, which are paid for by you.

Your ex could earn $15 per hour but her tax benefit would make it equal £20 per hour.
She pays a pothead $5 dollars perhour tax free to look after YOUR kids
You earn $15 per hour but pay for the pothead to look after YOUR kids against your wishes so are left with $10 per hour.Then you pay child maintanance to your ex wife which could leave you with $10 per hour.

The numbers are not accurate but thats how it works and gets worse, it sickens me to the core.

Granted not all situations end up like this, but most DO, yes there are men who run away from their responsibilities and responsible caring fathers are begining to se why.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
You helped make the kid, you got to help support the kid.

Simple as that.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Children are NOT extra paychecks.

It's as simple as that. Perhaps instead of Support (I.E. Pay Me) You could rephrase your little sentence to: You helped make the kid, you help RAISE the kid.

Then I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

But what you wrote was completely undermining the rights fathers have in RAISING their children.

Kids cost money, it's true, and someone who is able to be actively involved with their children's lives would be more likely to want to help support a child they had with a woman.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
If a father cannot be allowed to be a father, he should not bear the financial responsibilities of a father.

Why do some women destroy their child's family for their own distorted, selfish, greedy agendas?

"Where's daddy?"

Yes....men can be b@*t*rds, but women can be b*tch*s.

The children are the only true victims though.

I'm not a big fan of single parent mothers and feel contempt for most of them who have used any and every excuse to relieve themselves of an obsolete partner but keep them under financial obligation using children as the tool to do so.

Parasites pure and simple.

Unfortunately, as long as their are men who think with their penises and their wallets there will always be unhappy, broke ex-fathers, kids without a dad and well-off women with more than they need.

Wise up guys, get a REALLY solid pre-nuptual in writing with kids as the priority. And "if you really love me..." doesn't matter as much as "if you really love our kids....".

This isn't really about money but a child having a family, a father and parents who can at least remain friends "till death do they part"....really important imo.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


sorry, there's got to be a punishment for leaving kid

It's also an incentive not to F up in terms of having a kid.

If people didn't fear having to pay for mistakes, they would do it more.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

I am betting you are someones ex LMAO!. You are speaking out of turn, I was married, owned a house, worked two jobs, did all the daddy/husband stuff without being nagged about it. I was doing everything I was supposed to, she whored herself out. And now you try to come on here and talk to me about being responcible? GO THE F**K ON! You posted what, maybe three or four sentences on here? Yeah that's all I, or anyone else here needs to see that you are just a TYPICAL woman with no leg to stand on, yet you think you have something to say. Now that women are equil is it ok to smack them?



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I'm not a women.... yea.

Doesn't change the fact that in the west you are bound to what you have made in terms of mating.

So unless she is using money for non-kid things, you have to pay.

And if she is, video tape it, and send it to the judge.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I've been following this thread for a while now and have decided it's time to chime in. The most common arguments seem to follow just a few themes as follows:

1) I was a good dad and did everything I was supposed to do but my wife was a cheating whore and so I left her and it was her fault.

You may have been trying to be a good and dutiful husband, but you didn't make the cut. Your wife was unhappy and you didn't fix it. As for being a good father - well good fathers do not leave their children....ever.....for any reason. If you left you are by definition not a good father and that's all there is to it.

2) They're taking too much money and I can barely live on what they leave me, while my ex is driving around in fancy cars and eating steak every night.

Stop whining. If you don't make enough money try harder or be smarter. Work that second job cause the long hours don't matter anymore. It's not like you have a family waiting for you at home. Or...if you do have a "new" family now then you were an idiot for having more kids when you couldn't afford the ones you already had.

3.) The system is biased against men and the mothers have all the power and everything goes their way.

Agree with Nixie here - the "system" is way bigger than what the courts cover. The system is society as a whole, which is clearly stacked against women, who are expected to raise the kids AND bring home an income, but that income is only about 80% of what a man gets for the same job. If the courts are taking large chunks of your income - well that's what kids cost.

When it comes right down to it, the moment you decided to have kids you agreed to the notion that your life no longer belongs to you - that the kids were YOUR responsibility, 100%. Your wife also agreed to that. It isn't 50/50 - each of you is 100% responsible for the well-being of those children. So many of the posts calling for father's rights miss the point. Rights do not come without responsibilities. You think you have a "right" to see your children, but want to whine and complain about the responsibility for taking care of them that comes with it.

Just suck it up and deal with it and stop being whiney babies.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   


Stop whining. If you don't make enough money try harder or be smarter. Work that second job cause the long hours don't matter anymore. It's not like you have a family waiting for you at home.
reply to post by total_slacker
 


That's the second most ignorant remark I've ever read on ATS.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


Do I get first place?



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman


That's the second most ignorant remark I've ever read on ATS.


You failed to respond to even the bit of my post you quoted. In what way was it ignorant? If you have objections to what I said you should at least spell them out and not reply with a meaningless one-line post.

If what I said is anywhere in the top ten most ignorant postings you've read on ATS, then you must not read much. I've personally seen so many irrational, ignorant, and yes even just plain stupid postings on ATS that it makes me weep for the future of the human species.

If I'm only in second place then do me a favor and show me the grand prize winner.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by total_slacker
 





You think you have a "right" to see your children, but want to whine and complain about the responsibility for taking care of them that comes with it.


Yes a father does have the right to see his children, more so he has the right to partake in the raising of his children. Unless of course he is in anyway abusive to his children, ditto the mother.

I myself am lone parent of 2 children and have done the rounds of family courts etc. It is not true to say that when a father leaves his wife he abandons his children, however I would agree that there are many cases of this happening.


Yes there is a big picture a very big picture, and one doesn't see the whole of it unless one has been right in the middle. The very systems that are in place to protect and provide for children when parents split are causing a great deal of the problems.

The assumptions of these systems are that, the mother is the better parent an as the parents are split, the children should reside with the mother regardless of the childrens' needs which include a continuing relationship with the father.

It is fair to say that both men and women tar each other with the same brush, this not only complicates discussion but detracts it away from the real issue, which are the rights of the children.

Society contradicts itself, it claims that both men and women of equal parenting skill are equally able to raise a child, yet the systems designed to protect the child favor the female, this is borne out by the fact that in most separations the children are handed over to the mother, which is not necessarily in the best interest of the child.

Unfortunately, there is money involved in the systems, which inevitable tempt some to act in a way which is not in the best interest of the child and does not put the needs of the child above all else.

It is as equally wrong to say that all mothers abuse the power of their position, as it is to say all fathers want to see their children now and again but would hand them back when playtime is over, and cry like babies for that privilege.
However when it comes to the systems that are in place, which include monetary matters, the systems definitely favor the mother and create a temptation for a mother to act in away not in the best interest of the child and in these cases absolute power almost always corrupts absolutely.

Many countries have adopted a position of "equal parental responsibility", although this is step in the right direction, it has a long way to go to protect our children from systems and people focused on money and position.

The problems are compounded by the fact that, it is not in the interest of the systems, lawyers, court welfare officers social worker and their ilk. To have the problems resolved, after all they are making money out of the misery of our children.


A presumption of equal shared parenting is the only option that, puts the child's' needs first then that of the parents "equally".

With shared parenting both parents are placed in a position where they have to make a decision on how much they choose to be involved with the upbringing of their children without having to concern themselves with finances, which are a separate issue to the care of the children.

If the father chooses to have a relationship with the children 50% of their time then so be it, if his job doesn't allow him that time then he should find one that does, ditto the mother. Both parties are placed in a position where they have to put the needs of the children first, if they are afraid of losing money then clearly they don't have their child's best interest at heart.

In a situation like this, there is a far greater likelihood of two people who previously couldn't communicate, actually cooperating, again the children benefit by seeing this.



Like I said, I'm the father of two kids and like every parent I think their the coolest in the world. I don't have any money and life can be a bit of a struggle sometimes, but my children and I continue the relationship we've always had which is fantastic for them. There's a bit of a way to go and some creases to be ironed out, as I can be just as much of a twat as any other bloke, but it's getting there.


I've yet to experience anything more painful, than driving away from what used to be my home. Watching my son with his face squashed against his window crying pitifully "Daddy why don't you want me anymore" and an arm reaching for him to drag my boy away, I cannot imagine how painful or destructive that was for him.

This has to stop and the only way forward is for people to start thinking, especially before they decide to have children.

Sorry for the long post some things need to be said.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mushninja
reply to post by moocowman
 


Do I get first place?

most defiantly not lol



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
the company that I work for has cut just about everyone's hours down to just about part time. But, well, there are a few who still are able to rake in some good overtime. Of course they are all guys, and well.....I"ve got to say, this isn't the first time I've gotten the impression that the guys are getting special perks because well, the are guys, they have families to support....we women , well, we are women, we have men supporting us, or at least we danged well should have....

this cuts both ways, and well, one injustices just leads to the next.....and yes, men are getting a very short end of the stick when it comes to family courts, divorces, child custody, and child support, ect.
a women, gets custody of the child, well, there's a good possiblity that her child care will at least be partially subsidized, but if a man does, well, he's the man, he has a child to support, we'll give him more money, and well, he doesn't qualify for the subsidy but, then, he doesn't make enough to actually pay for it either....

the courts aren't doing what is in the best interest of the child anymore, they are doing what is the most convenient for society, the men usually can earn more money than the women, so they should be the ones devouting their lives to working and living in proverty, the women, well, they don't earn that much, and they make better mommies, so, well, give the women the kid, who cares that she hasn't come down from her drug induced high once in the last 5 years.
if the baseball field is filled with gopher holes, it's not gonna do much good to clean up third base, they whole danged field needs to be leveled out! same here.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



sorry, there's got to be a punishment for leaving kid


Actually, my wife left me, left my child, and went to live with her new boyfriend. So I guess just because I am a male I should be punished? Really? She was the one that decided to end the marriage in my case, but according to you that must mean that I should be punished for it. I see how you stand.

Child support is not meant to be a punishment, It is meant to support the child. However sexist women think this way, as it is an act of revenge for some horror they have endured in their lifetime. They feel that every man should have to suffer not only loss in wages, but more importantly and more painfully, time with their children. Time can't be given back, once lost it's gone forever.


It's also an incentive not to F up in terms of having a kid.


I see, so I [snip] up because? My son certainly isn't an accident. So what's the incentive here?


If people didn't fear having to pay for mistakes, they would do it more.


My ex wife certanly didnt have to fear for making mistakes. I want you to read a blog my ex once wrote...


So last night from 12:00 am to 2:30 am I spent some time discussing my "situation" with the husband. I told him that somehow I've lost control of this thing, how it feels like it's taken me over... I said he shouldn't love me, shouldn't want to help me because realistically I don't expect to ever get better. Stop obsessing, eat normally, stop purging, stop cutting... I just don't see it ever happening that way. He felt like the only thing that COULD save me from myself is the love he has for me. Something like, if you can't be better for yourself then be better for Lucas and I because we need and want you to be. I can see his thinking, where he's coming from... But, it's not something I can just turn off. It's impossible to say.. "Well, I love my husband and son, so I'm not going to do this anymore." God, I wish it were that simple.

There's a wall in my head and I can't hear over the voices that come from within. If it upsets him, the way I am, my first thought is: "Well, then I should leave you, because I don't want to hurt you and drag you down into this with me." And that's [snip], but to me, it seems logical. It's guilt I feel when he says he loves me. Guilt for being this obsessive, depressive, self absorbed, self-destructive mess. I'm not who I was when he married me, every day I'm less and less that person. He didn't sign on for what I'm putting him through, if he had known that this is what I would become, who knows wether we would ever have gotten together... Probably not. So how can I expect him to live this life with me when it isn't right or fair? He says he loves me and that will never change and no matter how bad it gets or for how long, he'd never leave because he's in it to the death. How [snip] sad. Makes me feel like [snip].

I was actually able to increase my intake a tad bit last night. Hopefully soon I can get it back up to 500/day which is where I should be... But, look at what happens! I have a couple hundred extra cals and I put on a pound... Although, I did only sleep for 3 hours, so maybe that has something to do with it too... Today I have no choice but to eat. I have a lunch date with a friend and coworker... Normally I wouldn't go, but I'm intrigued and I think it will be fun. Hopefully I can get away with something TINY and no-one will cause a big dramatic scene.

Eh, I'm gonna get at it... I love you girls. You're the only ones who understand me. My only source of comfort and normalcy. Great big kisses to you all.

Intake:
B: Coffee - 60 cals
L: 1/2 side salad w/ ranch - 124 cals, 1/5 of a dinner roll - 30 cals, 1/2 bowl soup - 186 cals, Coffee (2 cups) - 60 cals
D: Cottage Cheese - 90 cals
Total: 490 cals / day (Wow. That's exactly where I should be) Please God... No gain. Lunch was nice though, he refused to leave until I ate enough, but he was nice about it, so I appreciate that.


:::Edit 11:45am
You can not cut at work. You can not cut at work. You can not cut at work. You can not cut at work. So put the [snip] scissors down and put on a happy face. [snip].


I guess it was my fault eh?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


Now that is the post I've been wanting to see. The general theme of the thread had seemed to be centered around the fathers and their problems getting a fair shake from the system. Yours was the first post I can remember which focused on what's best for the children.

In general I agree with you that the system should not automatically assume that the mother is the best parent. There is no doubt that a proper consideration of what is best for the child should be decided on a case by case basis. However I suspect that even an unbiased system would not change the statistical results very much. As I understand it, available science on the subject (imperfect though it may be) indicates that in the majority of cases the mother is indeed the more nurturing parent.

This does not mean that the courts should assume so, but courts and systems are actually just collections of people, who make the best judgments they can based on the information available to them. The systems are not perfect, because the people who run them are not perfect. To imply that they are all corrupted by the money, though, seems a little insulting. If an attorney wants to make money, there are lots of better ways of doing it than in family law. I also guarantee that social workers aren't raking in the cash.

As for the issue of who is breaking up the family - it is the parent who chooses to leave. Sometimes the dynamics of a family are so poor that a breakup is the best available option for the children. Whenever a parent decides that things are so bad that a breakup is the best option then that parent becomes responsible for the breakup. This doesn't mean that it is the wrong thing to do, just that the parent making the decision is taking the responsibility for that choice.

Who leaves whom and for what reason is somewhat irrelevant though when it comes to choosing what is best for the child. Past history tends to get in the way of using good judgment when it comes to deciding the best course of action in the future. I do firmly believe that considerations of parents rights ought to be minimized in favor of the best interests of the children. The courts attempt to strike a balance and get it wrong in my opinion.

The primary thing that I'd like to see is fathers (and mothers for that matter) thinking about what's best for their children and less about what's good for them.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
This works both ways...

I got custody of my son at age 1.....and NEVER EVER got $1 in child support.

He's now 17, and great kid and only way he will get an education will be to join the army. Wish there was another way but seems it's the only way.

I did try to save for his education future but over time these education funds had fallen so much (just got another update last month) lost another 1000 credits over the last year (should have bought gold he would have had more options).

So woman get the child support but the men don't.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by total_slacker
 





The primary thing that I'd like to see is fathers (and mothers for that matter) thinking about what's best for their children and less about what's good for them.


And the way to achieve this is to have a presumption in law of equal shared parenting, the responsible parent realizes the best interest of the child is to be raised by both parents even though they are separated, and would rise to the occasion.

The complications like, oh I've got another family, or we lives miles apart etc will weed out the less responsible parent.

No one has to fight for anything, no one has to carry out studies to find out which sex is better at what part of parenting etc. The responsibly of children should left squarely in the lap of both the parents, how they choose to split the time up would be up to them and the children if they're old enough to decide.

No running away no thinking of me me me, if one of the parents feels they're not up to it then they can back off, because the other parent (being responsible ) would step in. Obviously if one backs off too much then he or she would rightly expect to financially support the other in lieu of not taking part of raising the children.

It's not rocket science this, not easy but certainly not rocket science, and I don't necessarily hold exactly the same view of new born infants, that is another can of worms that requires a slightly different tack.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by svenglezz
 





This works both ways... I got custody of my son at age 1.....and NEVER EVER got $1 in child support.


This is a very valid point, the presumption of shared parenting if implemented would still apply to you. But for whatever reason the mother is not involved would be brought to the on the initial separation, the judge the should have no choice but to seek financial support from the mother as she is the one (for whatever reason) denying her responsibility.

I take my hat off to you for raising your son from that age a lot of blokes would bottle out, you did what you could in the circumstances and I'm sure your son values that. But there again at that age he could be in slamming doors mode LOL



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join