Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: A Childs Heart
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 6 (view)
 
A Childs Heart
Posted: 10/3/2011 11:55:00 AM
I'm not going to disagree about taking him to a counselor, but I disagree that you should remain emotionless. Share his feelings with him. Tell him that you are sad too, and that it's ok to be sad. I think the instinct is to want to fix it, but emotions are normal and healthy. Help him learn that he can be sad and he'll still be ok.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Success in growing in love over time
Posted: 2/28/2011 12:01:37 PM
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. I suspect what you mean refers to learning to be in love with someone that you are somehow forced to be in a relationship with, like an arranged marriage. I am sure that can happen, much as love growing in a non-forced relationship grows. All healthy relationships grow and evolve and love deepens. Initial attraction and what many call love is superficial. It's based on a feeling that occurs when you around that person. As love deepens, it becomes less about feeling and more about commitment and acceptance. I think to accomplish this, you have to look at your own character and be truthful about your strengths and weaknesses. You have to know what you want the future relationship to look like and make choices based on character traits that match that, not on how someone makes you feel in the moment. Then both parties have to be commited to the relationship and willing to withstand hardship and difficult times. You can't bail when you no longer get that euphoric feeling. It's a long term process.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 2041 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 6/3/2010 6:22:13 AM
The problem is that the government is already involved and they aren't doing it correctly. States receive federal funds for naming paternity, correct paternity or not doesn't matter, any paternity will do. Currently a birth certificate serves as a legal document used to prove a type of identification-maternity and paternity. Can you imagine if the government issued other types of identification without proof to whom it belonged? Should I just be allowed to walk into a bank and take out a loan saying my name is "ohwhynot" without any proof? You would then be held accountable for that loan. For me, that's the issue. If you are going to issue a legal and enforceable document, you'd better get it right!

Children suffer all types of atrocities that we don't have the power to prevent. We can prevent this one pretty easily. It doesn't have to be some big, bad enforceable issue that we force parents to show them their birth certificate at a specified age. The point is that a man won't be duped into ensuring a child that he is the parent, only for both to find out later that he isn't. If parents choose to lie to their children, unfortunately they have that choice. We, as a society, don't have to be complicit in that lie.

As a side note, it saddens me that men's rights aren't enough of an argument. We have to prove that it's good for children as well. Men don't need to be told to suck it up and deal with it any more than women do. They should receive the same protection and rights as women do. To argue any different is sexist!

(Note: I am a woman!)
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 192 (view)
 
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/28/2010 1:09:59 PM
In addition, there is a HUGE difference between joint "legal" custody and joint "physical" custody! Often joint legal custody is just lip service and in actuality it means dad has weekend visitation.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 190 (view)
 
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/28/2010 1:06:51 PM

I still don't see why the first stop for men seems to be a lawyer. As I have tried to explain repeatedly, we have a program that councils separating parents on the benefits to the children of sharing custody. It is a six hour course split into 2 - 3 hr evening sessions. It is free. They separate you so that you are not in the same sessions as your spouse. Following completion of the program, parents are encouraged to enter mediation, which is also FREE!
If attorneys are advising not to go for some custody, then they are not giving you good advice. How much are you willing to pay for bad advice?


Considering that close to half of the babies born are born out of wedlock, the second stop is probably the lawyers office, after being told no by the mother, who at that point has sole legal authority, to sharing custody. Remember, even the mother getting a child support order doesn't give the father any legal rights as father. Custody/visitation are completely separate issues.

Having been involved in a great deal of marriage counseling I can tell you that it usually isn't all that amicable, that wife knowing she will likely be awarded custody, will just agree to share custody even after mediation.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1948 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 5/28/2010 8:31:39 AM

Mandatory testing would find more fathers that would pay support removing some women off the states tab.




What, exactly, is the basis of that statement? Have you evidence that shows that men who deny paternity, who are then proven to be fathers, are less likely to default on cs? Are there any statistics at all regarding the establishment of paternity & cs collection?


Not exactly the numbers you asked for, but I wonder if the failure to pay child support is related to the high numbers of default judgments of paternity, which are entered primarily against low-income/minority men, and the fact that the Office of Child Support Enforcement states that 63% of the debtors, holding 70% of the $70 billion debt, had reported earnings of less than $10,000.



In Los Angeles County, eighty percent of paternity establishments are
entered by default judgment, whereas for the State of California as a whole,
the number is sixty-eight percent. California is not alone. The United
States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector
General (HHS/IG report) reported that “seven states’ child support agencies
report half or more of paternities established in their states occur
through defaults.” The inspector general further reported that “[t]wentyfour
percent of local offices in focus states report half or more of paternities
in their caseloads are established by default.”


Child support enforcement is a multi-billion dollar criminal enforcement endeavor, often aimed at men who have either no idea they owe child support and/or have no means in which to pay. But to set it up the correct way from the beginning wouldn’t make good fiscal sense?
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1869 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 5/20/2010 8:18:42 AM
ohwhynot, are you aware that the US government provides incentives to the states for establishing paternity? Those incentives are not dependent on whether or not the paternity is correct. Just that there is legal paternity established. The government is involved and may not "mandate" that a father be named on the birth certificate, but they do penalize state's budgets for not having a father named. A large number of paternal links are established through "default judgements" in which the named father isn't even present. Some estimates indicate that approximately half of all paternity establishments are done through default judgements.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1823 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 5/17/2010 8:26:11 AM

Whatever does identity fraud have to do with mandatory DNA testing? Mandates involving identity fraud, although they don't affect every citizen, have recently become popular because identity fraud is the most prevalent crime in the US !


No, it’s just the one most currently talked about. Current stats on identity fraud indicate that 4.8% of the US population have been victims of identity fraud, and the mean fraud amount per victim is $4841. I would say that’s a bit less than the estimated number of victims of paternity fraud, and considerably less money per victim than paternity fraud. I would also argue that mandates involving identity fraud involve a significantly larger number of citizens than paternity testing would. Mandatory paternity testing would only apply to those who choose to have children. Identity fraud prevention measures apply to any citizen who has a need for a legal identity.


Who would enforce the test, if a parent refused it?


No one. It doesn’t need to be enforced in that way. Much like proof of identity, if I don’t want to show my ID, I don’t get to cash a check. If the mother or the father wants the father named on the birth certificate, proof of paternity is provided. If it isn’t provided, no father is named.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1712 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 5/7/2010 8:30:36 AM
BFK, Let me ask you a question. You are a teacher, so I'm assuming that you had to have a background check and fingerprinting prior to starting your teaching position. Did you assume this was because you were being accused of something criminal, or did you assume it was because the school has this policy in place as a preventive measure to protect children?

While I, and I'm sure many others, recognize that you have worked hard to be a good parent, I think you underestimate the number of women who are not like you.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 654 (view)
 
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/4/2010 12:53:38 PM

If the other person refuses to admit there is a problem or doesn't want to fix it there is nothing else to do. Women generally overcommunicate and men undercommunicate. I can read all the books in the world about how men think or choose to communicate. To me it is all just poor excuses for the gender who doesn't seem to want committment, responsibility, or to express their emotions and feelings in a healthy fashion.


I completely disagree! While individuals have differing level of skill when it comes to communication, one gender doesn’t communicate better or worse than the other. They communicate differently! The problem is with either gender having this attitude. “You are wrong because you don’t communicate like I do.” This isn’t about understanding or healthy conflict resolution, which is what is required to maintain a healthy, happy relationship. It becomes about assigning blame and “winning” the argument.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 645 (view)
 
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/4/2010 7:25:39 AM
I'm kinda late in joining this discussion, but I completely agree with this:


I sometimes think people avoid exploring the real underlying problems because they are afraid of one very scary truth---that maybe the two people are fundamentally wrong for each other.


True, and let's not rule out the other big scary truth... *shhh* maybe it's me

Often what I see in marriage therapy is the couple has failed to negotiate and want me to decide who's right. I spend a lot of time teaching couples how to communicate with each other when what they want to focus on is a specific problem. The ability to successfully resolve problems is a skill and has more to do with the failure of relationships than the actual amount of conflict involved.

Regarding the stat being used as the basis for discussion: The actual stat is that 80% of women initiate the divorce filing. Initiating a divorce filing is not the same as ending the relationship. It's just the person who filled out the paperwork. In my own example, my now ex-husband, left me. He moved out and moved in with someone else. I wanted to attempt to work things out but he chose not to do that. Six months later, I filed for divorce. So even though I am part of that 80%, I didn't initate the end of the relationship.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 95 (view)
 
welfare suggestions for single parents - your ideas.
Posted: 5/4/2010 6:43:31 AM
Ohwhynot, I have to agree with you that the system is completely self-perpetuating. There is little incentive to “get out.” It’s entirely too easy to scam the system and become comfortable in a lifestyle. There is such a culture of blame and entitlement in poverty that it’s near impossible to encourage people to put in the work it would require to break the cycle. Having a work ethic comes from valuing an intrinsic sense of accomplishment, which is not cultivated in the welfare system. I believe that people will rise to the level that is expected of them, and this system puts little expectation on self-motivation.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1689 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 5/3/2010 6:59:04 AM

That was my statement and I was asking a legitimate question. I want to know why people get married if you do not trust your partner? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of getting married? Women cheat, men cheat for their own selfish reasons. But to be accused of a crime just for being an ethnic group or a gender doesn't make it a just law. But do people go into marriage thinking their partner is going to cheat on them? I'm just curious and asking a question.


I do understand what you are saying and I agree that people need to choose better. What I’m talking about though are the people who do exactly as you say. They go into their marriage with commitment and trust and believe that it will last forever. It seems as if the Mandatory DNA opposers are asking those men not to trust. You are somehow expecting those men to know when and if they are being lied to and request a DNA test, which will serve to ruin that marriage. In addition, if two people make bad choices and get into a tumultuous, infidelity ridden marriage/relationship, and a child results, why should that child suffer because those 2 people make bad choices. I keep hearing this personal responsibility rallying cry, but the reality is many people do not take personal responsibility for their choices. That’s why we have laws.

Many of you are viewing this as an accusation that you’ve done something wrong, but I think you are looking at it from the wrong angle. It’s about protecting children and positively identifying a biological relationship for a legal reason. There are millions of examples of times we are screened for things. It doesn’t mean we are being accused. It means there is a measure in place to prevent those who wouldn’t otherwise take personal responsibility from victimizing the innocent.


off topic myblueshadow even though there is a court order for child support in place my ex does not have his wages garnished. There is no automatic withdrawal from his bank account. No lean put on him. I haven't reported him for not paying. But then again I'm in Canada so I don't know about these automatic payments that presume the man is going to be a deadbeat in Canada I think you have to default first but I could be wrong...


I will state for the last time, in the US, there is a law that all child support payments are made through the Child Support Enforcement Office. I never said that wages were automatically garnished or that anything was deducted from a paycheck. When a divorce occurs where there is children involved, child support is automatically ordered and that payment has to be filtered through the CSE office. In addition when a couple who is not married has a child, and parentage is somehow established legally (i.e. a request for a DNA test or visitation, or a child support request) that child support payment is automatically filtered through CSE. This is done as a preventative measure in an attempt to prevent people from not paying. I even provided the link to the government website that states that this is standard procedure.


Who cares what "the link" says; it doesn't happen!


I guess you know more than the governments own website! Wow. You should run for office.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1633 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/30/2010 12:28:21 PM
I'm not going to continue to argue the point. If a divorce occurs, a child support order is automatically put into place, and that child support order is carried out through Child Support Enforcement. People used to be able to do it themselves, but those laws changed.

You can use as many individual case examples as you want for the identity thing. Legally, you are required to show identity. If your bank chooses not to abide by that law for you or anyone else, that is their choice, but it doesn't negate the law.

I can not figure out why people are unable to separate global issues on a macro level from their own individual cases. We are talking about law, not some local exception!

And we circle back around......
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1631 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/30/2010 12:14:33 PM

Never mind that those programs are necessary "after the fact".


We’ve covered this. Many of you are about punishment rather than prevention! I get it. I would rather prevent a child being put in this situation than wait until later and pay even more to help them deal with it. Not to mention the man and his family and what those consequences are. If there were a way to prevent domestic violence, I’m sure you all would be all over it!


I mean, it's not like CPS sends social workers to every parents' home once a week to ask if daddy touched them, or support enforcement starts garnishing cheques before the NCP turns out to be a deadbeat that cares more about his/her wallet then what their child is going to be eating, or family courts file divorce decrees before the parties involved even decide to separate.


We’ve already covered the support enforcement thing and I provided the link that says, yes they do start presume the dad will be a deadbeat and demand that all child support payments go through child support enforcement to “prevent” dads from not paying.


Hey, I have an idea everyone. Upwards of 50% of men cheat, so it's obviously a bigger problem than paternity fraud. I propose that all married men, and those who are in long term relationships, get random penis swabs to test for the presence of another woman's DNA and STI's. That'll learn 'em to be born with male genitalia!


Honestly, this ridiculous argument is laughable. Upwards of 50% of men AND WOMEN cheat, so sure let’s start testing them all! I have no problem with this. The difference here is that if a man cheats on his wife/significant other, she doesn’t have to pay him for 18 years and there isn’t a child that is devasted years later when they find out who the believed is mom, isn't.

Eraser, as long as it happens to men, seems it's ok. If women were being defrauded at that rate, or even less, the responses would be completely different!
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1629 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/30/2010 11:37:23 AM

Name one reason why the general public should be responsible for your marriage.


Then I guess we should do away with any and all domestic violence funding, the Child Support Enforcement Agencies, Family Court, the Department of Children and Families, etc.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1627 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/30/2010 9:47:45 AM

Now come on mbs... I understand you're trying to make a point, but attributing statements to me that I haven't made is kind of a manipulative way to do so, isn't it? A no win situation for men, you say? Right, because why should they be expected to get to know a person on a deep level before impregnating her. Fvck em all, let the government sort em out... yes, that's for sure in the best interests of our children....


You have made those statements, so no it’s not manipulative. So by your logic, if you’ve ever been lied to, it’s your fault! I guess we should tell my grandma she is out her retirement money because she trusted the wrong person. Do you understand the definition of fraud? It means one person tricked another person while in a trusted position. I really wish I had this amazing talent for perception that you seem to think we should all have.


I won't argue that it can be very damaging to a child to learn they have been decieved their whole life, and that some humans have an innate desire to know where they came from. However, the reason for the trend towards more information in regard to birth parents being made available to adoptees has much more to do with potential medical concerns, than fulfilling this desire. Additionally, there are many adoptees who never have any desire or inclination to meet or know the people that chose not to be part of their lives, choosing instead to be content in the knowledge that the people who chose to bring them into their family to love and raise them, are indeed their parents.

Mandatory dna testing doesn't necessarily tell them who their parents ARE, if that person is unknown, or denies paternity and never presents their dna for testing.... it simply tells them who their parents AREN'T, if paternity fraud is attempted.


I’m not going to argue psychology with you. Way too deep a conversation for this forum, but you are wrong.

{quote]FYI, My divorce took place in 2006. To be quite honest, my youngest is 19, and although the obligation to provide support ended when he graduated high school, his father continues to make those deposits, in the same amount, voluntarily, and has stated that he will continue to do so until our son finishes with tech school. Hard to believe, I know, that there still exist such men of integrity, like the elusive unicorn from ancient mythology. I like to think that my situation is the way it is because I used excellent judgement in deciding who would father my children, but who knows? Maybe I just got lucky. Perhaps if more fathers demonstrated such integrity, and followed through on their obligations to the child, even when they didn't feel like it anymore, there wouldn't be so many women finding it necessary to request intervention on their behalf? The amount is a number that he and I came up with, all by ourselves, four years ago. I've never asked for more, he's never demanded he pay less, although I'm certain he could find other things to do with those funds if he thought really hard... He loves our children wholeheartedly, he's genuinely committed to providing for them, regardless of where the relationship between he and I stands, and without the need for government intervention to force him to do so. He and I are living proof that your statement is false.

Here's an excerpt from: http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/family/childenf/enforce.htm
“Congress decided that immediate income withholding should be included in all child support orders. (States must also apply withholding to sources of income other than wages, such as commissions and bonuses; and to worker's compensation, disability, pension, or retirement benefits.) For child support orders issued or modified through state CSE Programs, immediate income withholding began on November 1, 1990. Immediate income withholding began January 1, 1994 for all initial orders that are not established through the CSE Program.”


Creating a life IS a personal thing, between the two parties involved, and not even comparable to showing your id to a stranger to verify your identity.


I think most people’s identity and financial life are pretty personal. And again, if they man trusts this personal, special moment and gets lied to, how exactly would he know to ask for a DNA test.


When exactly did I state or imply that it was harmful to children?


Your words:
Speaking of the children, they are precisely the main reason I find the idea that mandatory testing become the 'norm' reprehensible.



I simply asserted that I don't think it's necessary for the vast majority of people, and that those who do feel it's necessary should take steps to do so, without involving the rest of us.


How exactly would someone who trusts their partner decide it was necessary if they were being lied to??? Again, definition of fraud seems to apply here.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1625 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/30/2010 7:57:26 AM
I agree erasersedge. I think it's just time to give up. I wish I lived in this idealic world where people never lie, cheat, or steal also.

I have worked in and around the social services field for 20 years, so unfortunately I am also faced with reality. In addition a very good family friend was the victim of paternity fraud. He, his son, and their entire family are devasted and still dealing with the aftermath of the disclosure 5 years later. The biological father has now also been informed and I can't imagine how he and his family are dealing with the fact they will never get those 12 years back.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1622 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/30/2010 6:42:06 AM
This is seriously getting ridiculous! So you are against mandatory testing because it implies that all women are whores, and you advocate instead that men should request a DNA test if they feel they need for one. Then you say things like, “Why would your husband be suspicious and request testing? So basically, this is a no win situation for men. If they want routine, standardized testing they are wrong because it implies all women are whores, but if they request one from their partner they are also wrong because they should trust their spouse.


I think I asked several posts ago exactly how mandatory testing protects kids, and nobody even attempted to answer to that question.


I answered that questions many, many pages ago. It’s devastating for a child to believe that someone is their parent and discover years later that they have been lied to and have no biological connection to this person they believed fathered them. It also happens with children who are adopted and don’t find out until they are adults. Adoptions used to be all closed, with no ongoing communication or information available regarding the biological parents. Many adoptions are now open, meaning some contact occurs between the child/adoptive parents, and all adoptions involve a great deal of information about the biological parents being given to the adoptive parents. This is because humans have an innate need to know where they can from. Mandatory DNA testing prevents a child from ever being placed in that situation.


No matter how many times you post this, it is still false. I know this for a fact, from my personal experience, and that of several other women I know. I believe ohwhynot has stated the same thing. When a divorce occurs, child support is NOT automatic.... Granted, TYPICALLY when a couple seperates or divorces, the trust and mutual goodwill has broken down to the point where most people will file for child support, and let domestic relations handle it on their behalf. Filing that motion for support constitutes a request for intervention. But no action is taken until that request is submitted.


And I know for a fact that your statement is false, no matter how many times you post it. A parent cannot waive the rights of a child, and child support is considered a right of the child. In addition, which is what I was actually referring to, is that child support is automatically collected by an enforcement agency. You don’t get to have the opportunity to pay it directly. The government PREVENTS (or attempts to prevent) anyone from not paying by automatically setting up a system in which they pay through the government. They are presumed guilty before they have done anything wrong. I don’t know when you got divorced, but the laws have changed in recent years because of this myth that most dads are deadbeats who won’t pay.


First of all, I would find it beyond offensive on a personal level, to know that my partner doubted my integrity in such a devastating way. There is another thread running right now in the relationships section, entitled "Being falsely accused of cheating...How did it make you feel?" There are five pages of testimony by men and women that verifies to me that I'm not the only person who would have that reaction. I don't know what could possibly be a more blatant accusation of cheating than questioning whether the child your S/O is carrying is yours. Is that an emotional reaction as opposed to a logical one? Hell yes, because emotion is exactly what makes the relationship with your significant other significant.... Without that investment, we're just two disconnected strangers, sharing space and killing time.


Which is why the idea of standardizing it. Your partner doesn't have to make that call. He won't offend you and will have the assurance that this child is his biological offspring without ever having to wonder. The test becomes a routine test done at birth and has absolutely nothing to do with you personally or with your individual relationship! But what you are advocating is that men have no options. They either trust or get duped, because in order to protect themselves and their children, they have to offend the person they are in a relationship with and risk losing that relationship. You are the one advocating that this remain a PERSONAL thing, rather than routine like showing ID.

How exactly is mandatory testing harmful to children???
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1612 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/29/2010 8:15:23 AM

So you are ok with the government shelling out millions to punish it, but not to prevent it?

I think we have a judicial system in place, to address crimes when they are committed. I do not see the logic in shelling out millions unnecessarily to 'prevent' a crime that the vast majority has not, and has no intention of ever committing in the first place.

A simple yes would suffice.


Actually, you don’t agree completely. You stated that you believe in punishment, but not prevention.

Wrong. I have stated that I believe in punishing the crime if it is committed, and taking the responsibility for prevention onto ourselves, as opposed to expecting the government to do so on our behalf. Barring rape/forcible sperm extraction, no woman can commit paternity fraud against a man who has not willingly participated in creating the child. There's been many comments throughout this thread indicating that most people don't have much sympathy for single mothers who have been duped by a man who told her he was sterile or wanted the child, only to change his mind later. It's been stated flat out that women need to take responsibility for having used the poor judgement to let a deadbeat impregnate them. Under that logic, does it not stand to reason that a man should take responsibility for having the poor judgement to impregnate a whore who would potentially commit paternity fraud against him?

This is the circular logic I reference, by the way. We are clearly talking about government spending money on punishment, but not prevention. Again, a simple yes, I believe the government should spend money on punishment, but not prevention would work here.

Well, how about if we require all people to take responsibility for their own actions. I really don’t buy that you believe in unilateral personal responsibility. Do you disagree with forced child support? Or how about social assistance programs? Using those isn’t really taking personal responsibility.


Ironically, that’s how child support is set up. They assume men will become deadbeats, and automatically deduct child support from his check. They don’t wait for him to not pay. Smells a bit like prevention to me.

This statement is unequivocally false. When a couple has a child, there is no government intervention in regard to the child unless action is initiated by either party to request such intervention. Many couples, living together or seperately, support and raise their children to adulthood without ever having the need or desire to involve the court system. If they do encounter a situation where they feel government intervention is necessary, they take the necessary steps to initiate action on their behalf by requesting an order of child support. Until and unless that happens, there is no garnishment ever placed upon one's paycheck.

Because at that point, no “child support” exists. They support the child as a unit. When a divorce occurs, child support is forced. There is no option to waive child support, and that child support is automatically collected by a government agency as a PREVENTION method. They don’t wait for the payer to not pay. The start collecting it that way automatically.


I’m fairly certain that an overwhelmingly large majority of the population would be against murder, however it still occurs by some deviants. Should we just tell the victims families “Sorry, but those people chose not to take personal responsibility for their actions! It’s not really the governments responsibility to deal with it.”?

Talk about circiular logic! No one's suggested that the victims be told they have no recourse, ONCE THE CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED. Under your logic, every human being on earth should have dna samples on file with the government, and be considered a murder suspect, since after all, SOME people commit murder... But wouldn't you agree that people DO need to take the responsibility to avoid putting themselves in situations where murder or violent crime has a higher likelihood of occurring? Why don't we allow our children to just go whereever they please, unsupervised? Could it be that it's because we consider it our personal responsibility to keep them safe from people or situations which could potentially cause them harm? Why should we have to do that? Why isn't it the government's responsibility to keep them safe? Perhaps it's because we each have the personal responsibility to manage the situations we create in our own lives, and the government's responsibility is nothing more than to offer us assistance, in the event that someone else infringes upon our rights?

Not even worth arguing because you took the statement out of context. I made the statement in response to your statement that government shouldn’t get involved with personal responsibility. Like I said, you are ok with the government allowing crimes to happen, as long as they deal with them later. So, you are ok with telling the families “Sorry, we couldn’t have prevented this, but we only deal in punishment.”


Would you really prefer that all men take on an attitude of doubt toward the woman who is giving birth?

No, that's why I have an issue with making the test mandatory, as that's exactly what this does.

Why do you keep avoiding the analogy of having to show ID? Does me having to show ID when I use my credit card or write a check mean that I am being accused of something? It’s the same concept! You aren’t being accused of anything. It’s a standard procedure applied to everyone. Has absolutely nothing to do with you as an individual!


Would it be fair to assume that the majority of cases where paternity is questionable occurs in situations where a child was conceived during recreational sex between two people who either don't consider themselves a couple, or are in a relatively loose (as in not fully committed) relationship? Personally, I believe that's the case, and it's exactly why I feel that holding ourselves to a higher standard of personal responsibility would serve to alleviate the problem without the need for further government intrusion into our lives.


No, I’m not sure that would be fair to assume. Maybe that’s the issue. You are operating under a belief that this occurs solely or primarily within the realm of recreational sex. I’m not sure that it does. I don’t have the stats, but if approximately half of all couples have some sort of infidelity, I think it’s pretty safe to assume that many of those could result in pregnancy outside of the couple relationship. Personally, the only cases I am aware of occurred within marriage.


The idea that we should be able to act as irresponsibly as we wish, and that the government should just follow behind to clean up the mess (and take vital tax dollars away from other, more necessary programs, in order to do so), is just ludicrous to me.


But that’s the idea of prevention. It doesn’t allow people to act irresponsibly and expect the government to clean up the mess. Instituting the test would set up a situation in which women wouldn know they will get caught, so they are less likely to attempt the fraud. The concept of punishment is exactly as you stated. Waiting for the crime to occur and punishing it afterword is expecting the government to clean up the mess.


Why would your husband doubt you? If you had a planned child with your husband why would he have any doubts about whether or not you were faithful? Does your husband have to take a polygraph to make sure he is keeping it in his pants or do you trust on blind faith that your husband is being faithful because he loves you. If u can't trust the one you promise to love forever who can you trust?


Exactly!!!! That’s why the need for the mandatory testing. You can’t have it both ways. You either want husbands to be suspicious and request the testing or it can be just another routine test that has nothing to do with your level of trust for one another.


Interestingly enough, I am an accountant with over 10 clients in Ottawa for whom I do payroll. I have yet to see a form or a notice from any branch of government, federal or provincial, asking for this information. Please provide your source if you are going to make such a claim. There is plenty enough disinformation on these threads.....


It’s US law. Here’s a link: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/newhire/employer/private/newhire.htm


The only problem is that that logic was applied by you alone. Many of us who argue against mandatory testing aren't against testing because of what it implies about them (although the premise must be there in order to support a mandate, and, if it were, I would), we argue against it because we don't the government in charge of our personal lives, nor we do we wish to be financially involved in the lives of others.


That’s such a convenient argument. I’m ok with what we are doing now, even if it’s not equal, because I don’t think the government should be involved. Well, they already are involved. Men are just asking for equal rights. Wasn’t this exactly what women asked for???? Just because it’s the status quo doesn’t make it right.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1588 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/28/2010 10:13:07 AM
That and the circular logic are killing me!
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1586 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/28/2010 9:58:33 AM
I haven't taken issue with it, but the desenters have. While I have issues with the way the child support system is structured, I don't have a problem with people being held accountable. I brought this up to show that there are those in this thread who seem to have a double standard. They have no problem with the government spending millions of wasted tax dollars going after dead beat dads, but don't want to spend a dime to prevent a child/man from being duped.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 25 (view)
 
full custody and how?
Posted: 4/28/2010 8:57:50 AM

It is also interesting to me that men haven't realized that alot of women would be their best allies and support of a changing system... if they didn't continue demonstrating the sins their father's made that was responsible for the legislation 30 yrs ago


First, I am a woman. Second, the issue is that the research was faulty. Men didn't commit these atrocities that were published. The author, a woman, admitted many years later that she had made a mistake in the math!
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1584 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/28/2010 8:32:30 AM

I agree, and have stated repeatedly that I would be in support of legislation providing stiff penalties for paternity fraud.


So you are ok with the government shelling out millions to punish it, but not to prevent it?

Maybe we should do that with disease too. Or other types of crime. Let’s not worry about prevention. The money is in punishment!!!



I believe our tax dollars should be spent on protecting the child from deadbeats and from whores.

I agree wholeheartedly.


Actually, you don’t agree completely. You stated that you believe in punishment, but not prevention.


But assuming that every woman is committing paternity fraud until they can prove otherwise seems akin to assuming every man will be a deadbeat, and automatically deducting the child support directly off his check at the birth of the child. As it stands now, action is taken only after a father fails to fulfill his obligation, and the mother can demonstrate such to the court.


Ironically, that’s how child support is set up. They assume men will become deadbeats, and automatically deduct child support from his check. They don’t wait for him to not pay. Smells a bit like prevention to me.


-myblueshadow, this IS the only type of testing that, were it to become mandatory, ASSUMES that every woman is the perpetrator of fraud. Government intervention as far as other types of fraud is only to the extent of those who are suspected of fraud.


This is just absolutely false! First, it assumes nothing. It’s purpose is to prove a legal relationship between a child and a father. Really has NOTHING to do with the mother. Secondly, the government sets up all kinds of laws to prevent fraud. Do I have to show my ID when I use my credit card or write a check because the store assumes I’m a criminal? No, it’s a prevention measure. When I borrowed the money from the bank to buy my house, they had to disclose all kinds of information to me. Is it because my bank is fraudulent, or is it a government measure to prevent fraud? My grandmother was the victim of investment fraud. She had no idea until the authorities contacted her! Should they not have done that??? And like I said above, the child support system is set up the way it is to PREVENT fraud. Men have to pay their child support through child support enforcement because, as was stated when that system was created, they want to PREVENT men from becoming deadbeat dads. So, does that mean that every man who pays child support is assumed to be a deadbeat?


Are you saying when a person truly understands the potential implications of bringing an unwanted child into the world, they might alter their behavior and act more responsibly in order to avoid doing so? Well, I'll be gosh darned, I think we've stumbled onto a concept that we actually agree on! Can you believe that? Whoda thunk it?


I’m fairly certain that an overwhelmingly large majority of the population would be against murder, however it still occurs by some deviants. Should we just tell the victims families “Sorry, but those people chose not to take personal responsibility for their actions! It’s not really the governments responsibility to deal with it.”?


Well I guess any man who is interested in fighting for men's right would be seen a a bitter man in this pond.


As a woman who is interested in fighting for men’s and children’s rights, I wonder what I am considered!


We already have legislation that allows a man to ask for a paternity test if he doubts the child is his. If you CHOOSE upon the birth of your child to take on the responsibility without that test, that's your prerogative, and you have every right to do so. If it means that much to you to KNOW definitively the child is yours, then GET THE DAMN TEST as you already have the right to do!


Here’s where I think the argument against testing contradicts itself. Women don’t want a standard test because they believe it implies something negative about them, but they would prefer that the men they are having children with actually doubt them and request a test. Wouldn’t that be more of an accusation that just having a routine test done at birth? Would you really prefer that all men take on an attitude of doubt toward the woman who is giving birth? Some men truly believe that the child is theirs, and find out years later they have been deceived. Isn’t that the definition of fraud?? How can we expect men to know they are being deceived? If they already know, it isn’t a deception! Seems like a bit of circular logic to me.


If we are going to go that far, I suggest that all of this information be made public so anyone can research who has how many children. This way we can kill 2 birds with one stone, all of the cheating whores, male & female, can no longer hide. Everyone will know that a woman has had a child that wasnt fathered by her partner and women can then identify all of the men with multiple children which are a lot easier to hide. Hell, lets even put current financials on there so we can tell who is a deadbeat parent and who isnt. Why not, its in the best interest of everyone then isnt it?


Interestingly enough, we have a law that requires employers to provide a list of all new hires to the government so that they can find the men who owe back child support. I’m guessing that your all ok with that breach of privacy/witch hunt though.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1526 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/26/2010 8:58:43 AM

myblueshadow, can you please explain to me how you feel that misrepresenting yourself as a person who has a legal right to be here, and taking advantage of social programs designed for citizens and legal immigrants when you are not either of those, is NOT fraud, in your opinion?


I think it depends on your definition of fraud. In the broad sense of the term, any crime could be considered fraud. However, not all illegal aliens receive social assistance due to an intentional misrepresentation to do so. Some do, I grant you that, which was why I said that it could include some fraudulent behaviors, but just entering a country illegally is not inherently fraudulent (unless, you use the broader definition of the term).

Without arguing definitions, however, how to deal with/limit illegal immigration is at least being debated. Paternity fraud is swept under the rug and deemed unimportant. I imagine that if banks or other financial institutions were committing fraud at the same rate as paternity fraud is happening, there would be a tremendous backlash and demand for increased protection under the law. The fact is it's profitable for the government to ignore this problem. As long as someone is paying (even if it's the victim) then the government doesn't have to.


All I'm suggesting is that, rather than expect the government to intercede and manage our personal relationship on our behalf, we take some personal responsibility and initiative to handle what we can for ourselves. Why are we so loathe to do so?


I don’t think anyone is opposed to personal responsibility. However, sometimes the expectation of personal responsibility isn’t enough. There will always exist the people who manage to skirt the law or find a way to victimize others. Should be just ignore that and tell their victims to take personal responsibility?
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1523 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/26/2010 7:59:51 AM
Illegal immigration in and of itself is not fraud. It may be a crime and fraud may be committed by an illegal immigrant, it is not itself fraud.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 21 (view)
 
full custody and how?
Posted: 4/26/2010 7:57:48 AM
It's interesting that people have an issue with a stufdy that was done 15 years ago, but fail to realize that our entire child support and custody structure is based on a book that was published in 1985, and was subsequently found to have terrible flaws in it's math.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 9 (view)
 
The incredibly childish other parent.
Posted: 4/26/2010 7:05:44 AM
I said this in another thread, and I will say it again here. I always wonder what the other side of the story is.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1521 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/26/2010 7:00:57 AM

This thread is actually about fraud, and no one has argued against making the criminals pay. That doesn't seem to be enough for those of you who insist that simply because some people attempt fraud, an entire country should foot the costs in order for the victim to prove it.


Except that this is the ONLY type of fraud that the government chooses not to concern itself with. We as taxpayers foot the bill for all types of fraud prevention.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1464 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/23/2010 9:21:58 AM

Legally, a CP cannot limit contact with the other parent for non-payment of support. If this is happening, then the NCP needs to take it up with the court.


That was my point. What if they don’t have the money to initiate another court action???


Furthermore, social assistance is available to ANYONE, regardless of gender, who meets the minimum requirements. It is not dependent on one's gender. One does not even have to be the CP to qualify for social assistance if your income meets their thresholds.


I didn’t say it was based on gender. It is only available to the custodial parent, which happens to typically be women. I don’t know how things work in Canada, but in the states a NCP would not qualify for a large majority of social assistance programs, and they wouldn’t qualify for any that would assist in paying child support or financially supporting their child.


The gov't is not going to revoke someone's license and throw them in jail if they haven't paid their CS for a couple of months. Maybe if you haven't paid in YEARS, but at what point does YOUR personal responsibility kick in for you to get yourself on your feet?


Well the government will revoke your license after only a few months. Try to maintain visitation without a driver's license! I absolutely believe in personal responsibility, when it’s applied equally. Couldn’t the same thing be said for the custodial parent? When does their personal responsibility kick in and they don’t get to ask for help anymore??


I chose to put myself through university to do just that. Guess what? Student loans are also available to those who apply and don't exceed the max income threshold...regardless of gender! You have to do what you have to do to get ahead. Just because you may be unwilling to sacrifice to get there doesn't mean the options aren't available to you. It does mean, however, that you obviously don't want it badly enough, otherwise you'd find a way to make it happen.


And I applaud you for that. But no one forced you to do that. Yes, the options are there, but there are no consequences for not doing that! Do you have any idea how many woman don’t make those choices, and instead choose to live off the government/child support they receive? They don’t want it badly enough because they know they don’t have to. NCP (mostly men) who pay child support don’t get that option.


I haven't seen ANYONE here suggest that it's best for children to cut the NCP out of their lives.


I also see a lot of CP’s who don’t make it easy for them to be in their lives. I’m not implying that is the case with you. I know nothing about your situation, but I know lots of cases where women have made it next to impossible for the men to be involved and then call those same men deadbeats.


I don't think ANY CP has the right to deny a child their other parent. What some of your arguments fail to understand is that there are MANY cases where the NCP has made an active CHOICE not to be involved in their child's life for whatever reason. It is NOT always the other way around. I think for every case you're arguing that the CP restricts contact, you have just as many where the CP does everything they can to encourage it, yet are met with nothing.


I have no doubt this is the case. I am fully aware that there are men that make this choice on their own. I also know many men who constantly battle to be involved, and I know a few who have been really close to giving up because it can be all consuming. They are unable to go on with anything else in their lives and they have to watch their children being torn apart by the battle. As much as you want people to acknowledge that some men just walk away, you also need to acknowledge that some women drive men away. And the system is set up to allow them to do it.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1460 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/23/2010 7:31:25 AM

Do you really think all that would have just happened to a woman?


That story is exactly why I think the social assistance should be applied equally! Custodial parents get assistance. They don’t lose their children. But men wind up losing contact and legal ground. Despite what any of you want to believe this is HORRIBLE for children. Men get behind in child support because they lose a job. Driver’s license gets taken away, so it makes it more difficult to find a job. They then get further behind and end up in jail. The mom now has grounds for why Dad shouldn’t be around the kids! Even with a less than horrendous circumstance, where Dad doesn’t do jail time, mom decides to start limiting visits because she’s mad about not getting child support. Dad can’t afford to go back to court and the police won’t get involved because it’s a domestic dispute. Eventually, dad is seeing his kids less and less or not at all!

If this is really about what’s best for children, then we should support BOTH parents so that they can be the best parents possible.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 8 (view)
 
full custody and how?
Posted: 4/23/2010 6:42:41 AM
Eraser, I'm not Canadian so I am not at all familiar with the laws there, but I can tell you that in the US it would be a battle. It's not easy for men to get custody. In fact, it's difficult to find an attorney who is willing to even fight for it, unless the mom is completely incompetent. From my experience with friends and working in the field, dad's have to prove that mom is unfit in order to gain primary custody. The norm is joint legal custody (which in my opinion is just lip service) with the mother being the residential parent and the father getting every other weekend visits and a mid-week visit on the off week.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
 
full custody and how?
Posted: 4/22/2010 1:20:43 PM
I'm not a dad, nor male for that matter, but my ex-husband had full-custody. He obtained full custody by paying her off. It cost less than it would have to go to court and that was all she really wanted anyway. She would pop-up every few months saying she wanted a visit but never followed through. She never paid any child support, despite a court order and as far as I know never suffered any consequences for not paying.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1429 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/21/2010 9:58:54 AM
anonymouslyme. I apologize if you think I am picking on you. This isn’t personal. It’s a debate about a topic. I just don’t happen to agree with your perceptions.

The term “double standard” applies for a couple reasons. First, most custodial parents are women. I believe that if most custodial parents were men, the system would be set up much differently. Secondly, double standard also applies to non-gender groups. There is one group (parents) with two subgroups (custodial and non-custodial) that have two different set of standards. That is the double standard. Both groups have the benefit of one type of assistance (unemployment), but only one group has the benefit of the other social assistance programs. If it were truly about the children, the benefit would be applied equally so that the child is financially supported by both parents. The whole structure of our child support system is based on false information and greed. Why is it that when Mommy can’t pay for food, she’s a victim deserving of assistance and when Daddy can’t, he’s a criminal?


Additionally, I don't think it's usually a case of "I can't afford child support".


Research refutes this. An overwhelming majority of men who are in arrears are there because they can barely afford to live, not because they choose to get their nails done instead of feed their children.

In response to what all or most men would want, my post said “most” not “all.” And I wholeheartedly believe that a huge majority of men would love to be more involved in their child’s life. I also, as wholeheartedly, believe that women dictate how much time they get to spend with their child and the quality of time they get to spend with their child. What I see is that women want the men to be around, but they only want it on their terms. Women want to say when, for how much time, and what is an acceptable interaction. They want the men to make all the sacrifices because they see themselves as martyrs. (And for the record, I didn’t say ALL women!)

Erasersedge, I am so sorry about your situation. It makes me want to cry. Sadly, it isn’t the exception but the norm. So many men have these stories. It truly disgusts me!
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1426 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/21/2010 8:06:18 AM

Well of course social assistance programs designed to benefit children are only available to the custodial parent... why would they go to the non custodial parent? What benefit would they have to the children under those circumstances? That makes no sense whatsoever.


They would benefit the child by allowing the non-custodial parent to continue to pay child support. Let me break it down. Both parents are required to financially support their child. The custodial parent does this by paying the bills. The non-custodial parent does this by paying child support. When the custodial parent is unable or unwilling to meet this obligation the government steps in to assist them financially. When the non-custodial parent is unable or unwilling, the government steps in to punish them. You don’t see a double standard there???


Additionally, I honestly wonder how anyone can say that a custodial parent, or woman in most cases, is absolved of responsibility for the child. Even if she is collecting welfare, my understanding is that those payments are minimal, designed to SUPPLEMENT income that is inadequate to support a child, not be relied upon as a sole source of income. I don't think anyone's getting rich off welfare benefits.


They were originally designed to supplement income or act as a safety net, however in reality they are frequently used as a “career option.” While they may not be getting rich off of social assistance, they are many who use it to shirk responsibility.


Additionally, financial support is far from being the only responsibility that needs to be attended in regard to our children. Custodial parents take on the lions share of personal responsibility for the children in their care. Do you think non custodial parents are waking up in the middle of the night to feed and change the baby? Are they monitering the child's health and making the appropriate medical appointments when necessary? Do they make arrangements for someone else to care for their child every time they need to go do something that they can't take the child along for? Are they the ones who have to make sure that the child's physical and emotional needs are met on an ongoing basis? Making sure the homework gets done, the baths are taken care of, figuring out how to sneak some vegetebles into the diet of a kid who refuses to eat anything green? Why are these aspects of 'taking personal responsibility' being blatantly disregarded?


I think this is laughable! You don’t think most of the men who are relegated to ATM wouldn’t love to be doing all these things with their children? They don’t get that option very frequently! And when they do, they take on not only day to day responsibility but also the bulk of financial responsibility. Women make the choice to cut men out of the lives of their children and then b!tch about how they have to do it all.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1423 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/21/2010 6:58:19 AM

I've never asked the government to take any responsibility whatsopever for anything having to do with my vagina. If you're talking about social assistance programs that help support children whose guardians aren't fully able to do so, these benefits are for to provide for THE CHILD'S needs, and are available to any parent, regardless of gender, who can prove there is a need.


Not exactly. They are available only to a custodial parent. If a custodial parent loses their job or even chooses to work part time, they can receive government assistance. If the non-custodial parent loses their job or chooses to work part time, they can not receive any government assistance and will be punished if they cannot afford to pay child support. Seems like another double standard. All the money is supposed to go to supporting the child, so wouldn’t it make sense then that if a father is unable to pay the full amount of child support, he should be able to access assistance? Or, we could start sanctioning women who can’t afford to pay their share of the support and have to go on social assistance.

The problem I see with the “take responsibility” argument is that only men are asked to take the responsibility. Women have numerous choices, but little expectation for personal accountability, while men have few choices and extremely high expectation for personal accountability.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1400 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 4/20/2010 10:13:23 AM

I honestly think that there has to be a better way to spend tax money then chasing down people who don't pay their child support. I'd like to see those figures for how much it costs chasing down people who don't pay cs. I think if you take child support out of the equation most men wouldn't care about mandatory DNA testing. Might even reduce paternity fraud because there are no men to falsly accuse for child support.


Here's some info I found:

For example, the United States Department of Health and Human
Services recently reported that total child support arrearages in the United
States were approximately $70 billion in 2003, of which seventy percent
was owed by obligors with reported income of less than $10,000 per
year. The Urban Institute’s study in California reported similarly that
“over 60% of debtors have recent incomes below $10,000 [per year]. Only
1% have recent incomes in excess of $50,000.”

In 1998, Florida taxpayers paid $4.5 million
to Lockheed Martin IMS and Maximus, Inc. to collect
$162,000 in back child support.

I've been reading some really enlightening articles about this whole process. Child support collection is a profitable venture for both private collection agencies and states. The incentive is to name a father (correct father matters little) and to collect child support!
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 43 (view)
 
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/9/2010 12:06:32 PM
Ditto what rock said!!!
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Post Divorce Last Names
Posted: 4/9/2010 11:30:18 AM
What I find ironic are the men who adamantly insist that a woman will take his last name when they marry, but then insist just as adamantly that she change it back when they divorce. I don't see many men so willing to change their last names, but want women to do it several times.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
 
is it a sickness?
Posted: 4/9/2010 6:27:19 AM
Yes, those can be symptoms of a mental illness, however, mental illness is not an excuse for bad behavior. Even with an illness, everyone is still responsible for the choices they make. While a diagnosis can EXPLAIN a behavior, it can not EXCUSE a behavior.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Did I do the right and sensible thing?
Posted: 4/7/2010 10:06:30 AM
For me, it wouldn't be the lack of communication itself that was the problem, but the lack of explanation.

Valencia, I'm assuming you would have told the gf's upfront that there would be little or no communication. When I was much younger, I dated someone in the navy. I knew when he would be deployed and that he wouldn't be able to call. He didn't just say, I'll explain later and then not call for 6 months.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Did I do the right and sensible thing?
Posted: 4/7/2010 7:40:12 AM
He has chosen to give you absolutely no information. I always tell people to base decisions on the facts that are before them, and not to speculate what things might mean. The facts are that he is away and has not contacted you for 3 months. That's all you have to base a decision on. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but not to the point of burrying my head in the sand. Ask yourself this: What explanation could he give that would make this behavior ok? If he's hurt, why wouldn't he have just told you that? If his ability/access to phone was limited, why wouldn't he just tell you that? My guess is that the explanation will not be "innocent" and he'd rather do it when he's in a position to influence your reaction.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 33 (view)
 
their last relationship was with someone who was married...deal breaker?
Posted: 4/6/2010 11:36:29 AM
Very well stated, sweetest. Completely agree.

For me, the deal breaker would be the attitude about the behavior. If they justify it or condone it in some way, that would be a problem. But if they learned from the poor choice, and are striving to be a better person, not a deal breaker. People sometimes make bad choices. We've all done things we aren't proud of, but we learn from that and move on.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 18 (view)
 
41 and he has false teeth?
Posted: 4/6/2010 6:57:21 AM
My dad has has dentures, well an upper, since he was 18. He got all of his teeth broken off at the gum during a football game in high school. He had to have all the teeth removed and just never liked the lower denture. Obviously, he's had this issue my entire life, and quite honestly, most of the time I don't even remember. I don't think it's changed his life much at all.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 36 (view)
 
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/6/2010 6:49:07 AM

That is a prerequisite too… the part about the child accepting that person as a parent.


From my understanding this is not a prerequisite. I read about a case (can't find the link at the moment) where a step-father was paying child support to the biological dad!

I have a problem with victims being the ones responsible for finding the solution. It's akin to telling a rape victim that they shouldn't have put themselves in that situation. While it may have been bad judgement, it doesn't negate that they have been victimized.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 390 (view)
 
When should the woman offer to pay?
Posted: 4/6/2010 6:28:21 AM

"Would you go on another date with a guy who didn't pay?"


Yes I would and I have. When I was dating, I had no trouble paying. What I had a problem with was men who had an attitude about it. If you go into a situation expecting a negative outcome, you will guarantee that you get one!.


"Would you slap a guy and/or kick him in the nuts if he cheated?"


Absolutely not! Violence is NEVER ok. My ex-husband cheated and there was never any violence involved.


Women only see it as violence if the man hits the woman, whether she has bruises or not, or when a woman hitsetc a man that RESULTS IN VISIBLE INJURY.


That may be true for a small group of women, but I certainly don’t believe it’s acceptable and I don’t know any women who believe it’s acceptable to hit men or anyone else.

I’m sure that we can find all sorts of atrocities and gender biases if we look hard enough. It doesn’t mean it applies to an entire gender. Many men do things against women also. Is it then fair to assume that all men are capable of those things? Haven’t you ever heard the jokes made about domestic violence toward women? Does that mean that because those jokes exist, men believe it’s ok to beat women up?


People should not do anything they resent doing or can't afford.
I find the men always want to go have a fine dinner or attend a concert, when the park or a walk downtown would be my preference.


Exactly. Many of these men who are constantly complaining about gold-diggers want to use expensive dates to impress women, but when it doesn’t work, use that to **** about how she just wanted a free meal. Stop going all out on a first meet/date. You can weed out the gold-diggers before ever going on the date that way!
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Fish recipes
Posted: 4/5/2010 9:45:15 AM
If you are concerned about sustainability, Monterey Bay Aquariam has a printable list by reqion that you can print out and fit in your wallet.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Frustration with my sons mom
Posted: 4/5/2010 8:57:53 AM
My SO has this exact same problem, except for the step-dad. His son's mother complains constantly about the time he spends with his dad, but when she doesn't feel like dealing with him, she calls his father to "handle" it. Often without even telling him what the issue is. In fact, on more than one occassion, she has sent his son over on a non-designated visitation day because she couldn't stand to be around him, and then ended up calling the police because she changed her mind and wanted him to come home. It's a game about being in control. Don't play the game. Parent your son the way you would, without her "input." If she wants you to handle it, you decide how to handle it.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Canada child support law for non-bio parents: different points of view
Posted: 4/5/2010 8:15:21 AM

If the step-parent breaks up with the primary caregiver, and he/she has to pay child support, this also means that he/she is entitled to see the child legally, and act as a legal parent (like an adoption). It means the primary caregiver cannot prevent the step-parent from continuing to be present in the child's life (absent of abuse of course).


Logically, that would make sense, however I don’t think legally that is the case. Child support and visitation are 2 completely separate issues. Paying child support, even for a biological child doesn’t automatically entitle someone to visitation. Someone can be ordered to pay child support and still have to initiate a court action, in a different court, to fight for visitation. Child support is automatic. Visitation battles can take years.

Like Capitano said, it’s purely a money grab.


I am still highly surprised (and, if true, quite dismayed) at the idea that a law could force step-parents towards obligations to the child (that part is okay for me) without also granting that step parent with rights (that part is very wrong to me).


Like I said above, this is also the case with biological parents who were not married when the child was conceived. It’s very one-sided!


Just so it's not forgotten - This only applies to social service recipients. So rather than being paranoid about all single mothers.... well I guess we still come back to our own relationship choices, eh?


Just because the law has only been applied in that situation ( social services recipients) doesn’t mean it can’t be applied in other situations.
 myblueshadow
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Coming in Second (or Worse)
Posted: 4/1/2010 9:04:20 AM
I totally agree with Taken! This really isn't about his daughter or you vs the daughter. This is really a matter of respectful communication. It doesn't matter what the subject matter is, what matters is how he is addressing it with you. I would broach the subject with him in that manner. Tell him that, to you, his tone feels accusatory. If you focus the conversation on the way in which things are conveyed/asked for and how it makes you feel, it will be a much more pleasant conversation. If you approach it with your own accusatory tone, he will automatically get defensive. Remember that you are both on the same team, trying to make adjustments to living together. It's just a negotiation to find out what will work for both of you.
 
Show ALL Forums