Quote:

---

Originally Posted by this8384

Obviously, I realize that things have changed in the past 16 years. However, I applied for medical assistance when I learned I was pregnant; the state was going to order my husband to pay child support to me because we weren't married when our daughter was born. I called the child support office and said I didn't want it, we were in a relationship and he was already supporting her. Child support actually said to me, "Well you're going to get it anyway; you're not living together." Keep in mind, I was receiving absolutely NOTHING other than medical assistance.

Same scenario when he went to file his taxes and claimed our daughter; they asked where I was in the picture. He said we were together which allowed him to claim head of household and list me as a dependent.

So like I said, maybe things have changed in sixteen years. I know as of today, the only way she'd get away with that is by lying.

---

Update from the defendant. Around the due date I called the mother on the phone, to find out whether the child had been born YETand was originally given the information by the mother, that the child had been born "deceased". Yes, that WAS a very evil and cruel thing to do. 15 to 20 minutes later the mother called back and told me that she indeed had "lied" to me. The child was born alive and well, but she stated that the child was of no concern to me BECAUSE I was NOT the father because a dna test had been performed and another man was the father. These were evil lies to tell anyone, and obviously were meant to hurt me, without regard for the child's future. The mother robbed a father and daughter, pending dna test, of a 16 year relationship.(I really hope she is my daughter). Then she lied on the application by saying that I admitted verbally to being the father (this is on paper), then almost a year later sent me an email,after no communicatiom for 16 years, stating that I did have a daughter and that she was sooo sorry for lying to me 16 years ago. Strange but true. HELP!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by this8384

So like I said, maybe things have changed in sixteen years. I know as of today, the only way she'd get away with that is by lying.

---

What I was referring to was a scenario where she couldn't find the OP. He did state that she told him she had been looking for him. Or she could have listed a few potential fathers (she may have truly believed it wasn't his) and none were a match and again, they couldn't locate the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

What I was referring to was a scenario where she couldn't find the OP. He did state that she told him she had been looking for him. Or she could have listed a few potential fathers (she may have truly believed it wasn't his) and none were a match and again, they couldn't locate the OP.

---

But that all comes back to my original question: why are women allowed to play these games and not have to suffer the consequences? The OP was making reasonable efforts to learn about the child out of concern that it may very well be his child; the mother lied to him and he relocated - who is at fault? If a man deprived a woman of a relationship with her child, I can't even tell you the amount of people who would be lobbying senators and state representatives trying to get the law changed. But because it happens to a man, we're all just supposed to sit back and smile?

Like I said, the law is not fair and balanced by any means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by this8384

why are women allowed to play these games and not have to suffer the consequences?

---

Because it is "Public Policy";)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by this8384

The OP was making reasonable efforts to learn about the child out of concern that it may very well be his child; the mother lied to him and he relocated - who is at fault? If a man deprived a woman of a relationship with her child, I can't even tell you the amount of people who would be lobbying senators and state representatives trying to get the law changed. But because it happens to a man, we're all just supposed to sit back and smile?

Like I said, the law is not fair and balanced by any means.

---

Gotcha!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by this8384

If a man deprived a woman of a relationship with her child, I can't even tell you the amount of people who would be lobbying senators and state representatives trying to get the law changed.

---

I have met two different women whose wealthy husbands took their young sons from them through aggressive custody cases and international travel. Both women seemed perfectly nice and sane, though very sad in both cases. These things DO happen and nobody is doing anything about it.

If lying were illegal, half the population would be in jail. It's wrong, but weirdly not illegal unless you lie under oath.

Men are at a distinct disadvantage in that if they want a relationship with their children, they often have to maintain a cooperative bond with the mother at least through the pregnancy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Men are at a distinct disadvantage in that if they want a relationship with their children, they often have to maintain a cooperative bond with the mother at least through the pregnancy.

---

I have a minor issue with this. What's wrong with keeping a civil relationship with the mother for the sake of the child? Granted it's a two way street. But both of these people made a choice to have intercourse and risk a pregnancy. They should both be adult about for the sake of that child. And yes I know that is usually too much to hope for, but if the father is put at a distinct disadvantage its because of choices he made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I have met two different women whose wealthy husbands took their young sons from them through aggressive custody cases and international travel. Both women seemed perfectly nice and sane, though very sad in both cases. These things DO happen and nobody is doing anything about it.

If lying were illegal, half the population would be in jail. It's wrong, but weirdly not illegal unless you lie under oath.

Men are at a distinct disadvantage in that if they want a relationship with their children, they often have to maintain a cooperative bond with the mother at least through the pregnancy.

---

Got to disagree here - sorry.

I'm not saying that money doesn't talk because we all know that it does. What I AM saying is that two cases out of I don't know how many isn't a pattern.

As far as lying under oath, this Board has discussed this before. Courtroom testimony is pretty much sheltered. I've seen people make outrageous statements in the Courtroom, obviously under oath, and walk away.

I don't see men being at a disadvantage unless/until they maintain a "cooperative" posture with the mother - the Court should decide visitation (I am not in favor of side "deals") and that is based on what is in the best interest of the child, not whether the parents cooperate.

Also - I get weary of the "poor father" thinking. He helped create this child; he didn't carry the child; he doesn't birth the child. Maybe "he" should have thought about it before he took his pants off (as should "she") but the father's life goes on, pretty much the same as before. Meanwhile in the majority of cases the female's life changes drastically and forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Got to disagree here - sorry.

I'm not saying that money doesn't talk because we all know that it does. What I AM saying is that two cases out of I don't know how many isn't a pattern.

As far as lying under oath, this Board has discussed this before. Courtroom testimony is pretty much sheltered. I've seen people make outrageous statements in the Courtroom, obviously under oath, and walk away.

I don't see men being at a disadvantage unless/until they maintain a "cooperative" posture with the mother - the Court should decide visitation (I am not in favor of side "deals") and that is based on what is in the best interest of the child, not whether or not the parents cooperate.

Also - I get weary of the "poor father" thinking. He helped create this child; he didn't carry the child; he doesn't birth the child. Maybe "he" should have thought about it before he took his pants off (as should "she") but the father's life goes on, pretty much the same as before. Meanwhile in the majority of cases the female's life changes drastically and forever.

---

My thoughts exactly - kind of. Does money talk? Absolutely. But money doesn't decide what's in the child(ren)'s best interests. If in the rare instance a woman loses custody of her children, there is a reason for it. I have seen very few fathers win custody and the ones that have were not wealthy by any means - they were just the better parent.

I agree and disagree with the poor father - I do not feel bad for men who drop their pants and create children with more women than they can keep track of, and then complain about having to pay child support. I DO feel bad for fathers who want to be a part of their children's lives and are shoved out by the mother.

Perfect example: I know a couple who shared two children; one was biologically his and the other was not, but he raised both as his own and was on both birth certificates. Years later, she started sleeping with the "other" father and kicked her husband out. She took everything about him from the past five years - things she was okay with when they were to her benefit - walked into court and won sole custody and supervised visitation. Her ex-husband never laid a hand on her, never laid a hand on their children - but because of who his family and friends associated with, she won. And to this day, she brags about how she works so hard and is a single mother "doing it all on her own." I have no respect for women who intentionally chase off the fathers and then complain about their struggles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I have a minor issue with this. What's wrong with keeping a civil relationship with the mother for the sake of the child? Granted its a two way street. But both of these people made a choice to have intercourse and risk a pregnancy. They should both be adult about for the sake of that child. And yes I know that is usually too much to hope for, but if the father is put at a distinct disadvantage its because of choices he made.

---

Some of this we are just going to disagree on. If the courts clearly give advantage to the mothers then that isn't the fathers fault. Too many courts see the fathers as walking wallets. Too many laws don't consider time with the child and reducing child support in the same light. Many states still have straight percentages or have laws on the books that are so messed up. Again its not the fathers fault. The courts need to stop the "standard" and truly look at every situation as unique. This crap with 80/20 splitting of the children as a cut and dry format is ruining this country. Lets look at an example. The courts award the mother the children in a 80/20 custody split. Then order $2,000 per month as child support. There by taking 50% of the mans gross income. With changes in the law the man can not deduct the child support nor can it be claimed anywhere. He might also be in a 15 - 25% tax bracket. Leaving him less. Now for visitation both parties are going to need a 3 bedroom home of some kind. But its clear that one home is going to be poor and the other can keep affording all the lawyer they need. How is that the mans fault?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Got to disagree here - sorry.

I'm not saying that money doesn't talk because we all know that it does. What I AM saying is that two cases out of I don't know how many isn't a pattern.

As far as lying under oath, this Board has discussed this before. Courtroom testimony is pretty much sheltered. I've seen people make outrageous statements in the Courtroom, obviously under oath, and walk away.

I don't see men being at a disadvantage unless/until they maintain a "cooperative" posture with the mother - the Court should decide visitation (I am not in favor of side "deals") and that is based on what is in the best interest of the child, not whether or not the parents cooperate.

Also - I get weary of the "poor father" thinking. He helped create this child; he didn't carry the child; he doesn't birth the child. Maybe "he" should have thought about it before he took his pants off (as should "she") but the father's life goes on, pretty much the same as before. Meanwhile in the majority of cases the female's life changes drastically and forever.

---

Hi Judy,
I don't think we disagree that much. I certainly agree with your last point.

And as for the disadvantage, I just meant that if a guy can't get along with a woman long enough to find out she's pregnant and wait for the baby is born, he stands a decent chance of not ever knowing he had a kid. When a woman has a kid, she always knows.