Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Family Law (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=120)
-   -   One more custody law proposed amendment; for now. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=113860)

  • Jul 26, 2007, 05:23 PM
    XenoSapien
    One more custody law proposed amendment; for now.
    --The putative father should have the right to submit to the judge that they have or may have gotten a woman pregnant, and wish to prevent an abortion attempt by the mother. Pending DNA after the putative fathers request is accepted, should have the right to put a stop on any abortion attempt by the mother.

    Right or wrong?

    XenoSapien
  • Jul 27, 2007, 03:26 AM
    GV70
    As a christian I believe in that abortion / with or without putative father's consent / is murder.
  • Jul 27, 2007, 05:09 AM
    Synnen
    As a woman who had a teen pregnancy where the father didn't stick around... I think it should be the woman's choice entirely.

    HOWEVER: When medical technology catches up to the point where men are able to carry babies in some sort of surrogate womb (in other words, go through pregnancy), I think they then should have the right to have that egg transferred to their own bodies. Until then, I think that it should remain the mother's choice.

    By the way... since I don't think that DNA testing can't be done on a fetus that young in utero (please... corrections if I'm wrong would be great), I think there is NO WAY that a man should be able to prevent an abortion just by saying the kid is his. Do you realize how many idiots would be stepping forward JUST to prevent an abortion--possibly for a woman he doesn't even know? Until men can take on the pregnancy and everything that goes with it, they'll have to wait to have a say in that choice.
  • Jul 27, 2007, 05:27 AM
    NeedKarma
    How many threads have you read here where people's lives are ruined by a child that was not wanted? Perhaps it's a good thing that the woman would want to abort.
  • Jul 27, 2007, 05:30 AM
    J_9
    The only testing that can be done in utero is an amneocentesis, since that is a very dangerous procedure that can possibly result in miscarriage, I do not think it will ever be done for paternity testing, many women, the men you speak of, and the doctors involved will not submit to that form of DNA test. The test itself can be brutal (especially if afraid of needles).

    So, since the woman carries the baby, goes through the hormonal mood swings, and has to endure labor and delivery, it will remain her choice until we see the day that Synn speaks of. I don't see that happening in the near future.

    Sorry Xeno, your theory has too many holes to hold water.
  • Jul 27, 2007, 08:24 PM
    froggy7
    I agree with Synnen. The baby is growing inside the woman's body, which puts her at certain physical risks. You are aware that women still die in childbirth, right? When men have the ability to continue the pregnancy outside a woman's body, then they will be able to ask that the fetus be awarded to them.

    Of course, a medical advance like that is sure to have many ripples, and will probably cause a huge culture shift in how family is defined and what rights and obligations are attendant upon parents.
  • Jul 28, 2007, 04:29 AM
    XenoSapien
    I understand it's a woman's body, but nine months compared to the next 50 years or so? A child is NOT just about the first nine months. To say that just because the woman carries the child entitles them to most or total power is a total cop-out. It takes two, doesn't it?

    XenoSapien
  • Jul 28, 2007, 08:09 AM
    Synnen
    Xeno... if a guy doesn't want a child (and really, this applies to women too, but that's beside the point) he should KEEP IT IN HIS PANTS. Period.

    You have no idea how hard that nine months is. You have no idea the changes it makes to your body, you emotions, your decision making process... NONE of that.

    When you (or any man) can carry baby weight the rest of his life, or FEEL a baby move inside you, or have morning sickness or really and truly understand what those 9 months are like... THEN you can make decisions regarding that fetus.

    Until then... your ideas are really pretty insane.
  • Jul 28, 2007, 08:20 AM
    Nosnosna
    Asinine on its face.

    For this to be even considered, we'll have to add a few things:

    Father accepts 100% responsibility for the child, financial and otherwise, from birth on.
    Father immediately pays all medical costs in the pregnancy and delivery, up front. Father immediately disclaims any right to public assistance for the life of the child. Violate any of this, and he loses all rights to the child permanently, but is required to pay child support. Should anything happen to the mother during or as a result of the pregnancy, the father is 100% liable for it, criminally and financially. This means that if the mother dies in childbirth, we have first degree murder.

    Amazingly, all of this is still more reasonable than the original suggestion.
  • Jul 28, 2007, 11:18 AM
    XenoSapien
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Synnen
    Xeno...if a guy doesn't want a child (and really, this applies to women too, but that's beside the point) he should KEEP IT IN HIS PANTS. Period.

    You have no idea how hard that nine months is. You have no idea the changes it makes to your body, you emotions, your decision making process...NONE of that.

    When you (or any man) can carry baby weight the rest of his life, or FEEL a baby move inside you, or have morning sickness or really and truly understand what those 9 months are like...THEN you can make decisions regarding that fetus.

    Until then....your ideas are really pretty insane.

    Again, nine months compared to the horrors that child will be exposed to for the next fifty years does not compare. That pain was God's idea, not MEN. So to punish them is insane.

    XenoSapien
  • Jul 28, 2007, 11:20 AM
    XenoSapien
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Nosnosna
    Asinine on its face.

    For this to be even considered, we'll have to add in a few things:

    Father accepts 100% responsibility for the child, financial and otherwise, from birth on.
    Father immediately pays all medical costs in the pregnancy and delivery, up front. Father immediately disclaims any right to public assistance for the life of the child. Violate any of this, and he loses all rights to the child permanently, but is required to pay child support. Should anything happen to the mother during or as a result of the pregnancy, the father is 100% liable for it, criminally and financially. This means that if the mother dies in childbirth, we have first degree murder.

    Amazingly, all of this is still more reasonable than the original suggestion.

    Ok. That's fair :).

    XenoSapien
  • Jul 28, 2007, 11:24 AM
    Synnen
    I don't believe in your god.

    The discomforts of pregnancy and childbirth are part of biology, not part of some god's plan.

    And again... if you don't want 50 years of a child, keep your pants on. Simplest solution.
  • Jul 28, 2007, 11:33 AM
    XenoSapien
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Synnen
    I don't believe in your god.

    The discomforts of pregnancy and childbirth are part of biology, not part of some god's plan.

    And again...if you don't want 50 years of a child, keep your pants on. Simplest solution.

    Ok, well your lack of belief in God says it all to me. So from a secular point of view, hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to say what you're saying; kind of like telling a blind person, "Ha! You're blind".

    One can whine and moan forever about what someone should have done, but that is the easy way out of a discussion. Dealing with what is is far more productive. Interesting how you don't believe in God, yet you list the seven deadly sins on your footnote...

    XenoSapien
  • Jul 28, 2007, 11:40 AM
    Synnen
    You know... whether religious or secular, the things you are suggesting set back women's rights by a few centuries.

    Right now, let's set men's rights aside. It's taken CENTURIES to allow women the choice of who is in their own bed, rather than who a man chooses for her. Women can now raise a child by themselves, rather than having to marry the man who got her pregnant or raped her. Women can choose whether to burden their lives with a child, or to accept the joys of a child, depending on the point of view.

    Sorry, but I can't feel too sorry for men who have to pay child support. Or women, for that matter!

    If you want to have rights to your child, FIGHT for them. We have a court system that is increasingly awarding custody to fathers. If your ex is that psycho, DOCUMENT it, get a good lawyer, and get custody of the child yourself.

    Again... when men can go through pregnancy and childbirth, that's when I'll put the rights to decide back into their hands.

    And just for your information, I've faced that choice. It's not an easy one, regardless of circumstances.

    I'm betting that if we got your ex's side of things, we'd hear a drastically different story.
  • Jul 28, 2007, 11:59 AM
    XenoSapien
    "You know...whether religious or secular, the things you are suggesting set back women's rights by a few centuries."

    Yet as it stands now, it's like that only the sexes have been switched. It is the men who are profoundly persecuted, and I am only looking to encourage a once and for all balance.

    See the other post I did as to what I've already done to fight.

    As for the "X's side of things", here is who you will be attempting to be fair to:

    ---10/29/97

    Count 01: Domestic Battery/Physical Contact; Class A Misdemeanor

    This particular offense is one that says a lot to me. It wasn't just battery, it was battery on her OWN MOTHER. According to the docket information, "Defendant to have NO CONTACT WHATSOEVER with ******** *********."

    We are talking here about a woman who already has two girls. Granted, at this current time and the last that I've heard, the oven is making plans to have these two girls move in the home along with her new boyfriend. These girls have been raised, for at least the past three years at the least by grandma, and now their mother will finally raise them like she should have all along.
    But will these girls have a developed, life-long profound level of animosity, that they will end up doing the same thing to their mother? And will the child we have, should mom have custody, end up doing the same thing?

    In March of 1999, the docket ends with saying that the "Court finds that the People have not proven their case".

    ---09/11/98

    Count 01: Resist/Obstruct peace officer
    Count 02: False report of offense

    This docket talks about how "The Court notes Defendant is currently on 12 mos. Conditional Discharge in 97 ** **** for domestic battery."

    In October of 1998, the oven tenders a plea of 'guilty' to disorderly conduct as set forth in Count 02. This plea was accepted by the court, and the oven spent two days in jail with no time served. Apparently, "On People's motion, Count 01 is dismissed."

    ---07/02/99
    Count 01: Forcible Entry & Detainer

    This charge is evidently submitted by the Housing Authority. I had no idea about this one, but apparently it talks about her being evicted from a residence.

    ---08/27/99

    Count 01: Resisting/ Obstructing Police Officer

    It looks like a warrant was issued in March of 2000 for her arrest. But, as is the pattern, all charges were dismissed by July of 2001.

    XenoSapien
  • Jul 28, 2007, 12:00 PM
    XenoSapien
    ---09/08/99
    Count 01: Driver's License Expired 6 Months or Less

    I was never told about this one. But if I remember correctly, she has never had a license. And if I'm still correct, she still doesn't have one. She pled guilty, and was found responsible for fines and costs.

    ---09/08/99

    Count 01: Operate Uninsured Motor Vehicle

    And yes, charges dismissed. Pretty girl fools the system yet again.

    ---03/17/00

    Count 01: Domestic battery/ contact/ prior
    Count 02: Battery/ makes physical contact

    Now, if I remember what she told me about this one, this is an attack on her first borns' father, who she abandoned at the alter. I'm not sure exactly, but I think this was her revenge for him breaking her jaw (of which I now know likely why he did it, and have a hard time personally blaming him for it); so she retaliated and got him back. I don't know his last name, so I'm not able to pull up his information, but I assume he had charges pressed on him too. But this is her second domestic battery charge.

    In May of 2000, there is an appearance of the States Attorney on her behalf. By July, "Motion by the State to dismiss. No objection by the defendant. Motion is allowed. The indictment and each count thereof is dismissed and nolle pross'ed"; which means dismissed. I compared the file date and the offense date, and it seems that she spent three days in jail for this one.

    ---05/10/02 Count 01: Criminal Trespass to Land

    A warrant was issued on 06/20/02. And apparently, this warrant was never served. Hence, the oven seems to still be wanted by the law. Granted it was almost five years ago, but this made me jump for joy. Regardless of whether the city cares to issue this warrant or not, the judge is GUARANTEED to learn of this one. There's another ace in my pocket.

    --- 09/17/02

    Count 01: Possession Amount of Controlled Substance (Except A/D) Class 4 felony

    In October of 2002, a warrant for her arrest was issued with a bail set in the amount of $25,000. In November, she pleas not guilty and requests a trial by jury. Exactly thirty days later, she changes her plea to guilty of "unlawful possession of a controlled substance, a class 4 felony".

    If I remember what she told me of this one, it was that she was hanging out with a dealer (no sex involved), and he got busted with her in the house. So basically, to some degree, she "ratted" him out, and escaped jail time. According to the docket, she was sentenced to 48 days in the county correctional facility, but was given credit for 48 days and given 24 months worth of probation.

    On this same docket, in October of 2004, a probation violation report was placed on file. In April of 2005, another violation of probation was placed on file and the next day a warrant was issued for her arrest. 23 days later, she appears in custody to the court. By early November, an order of discharge from probation is entered.

    I really wish that I could understand these dockets/legal data much better, because I think I'm probably leaving out a lot. But I am trying to learn, and by all means when she and I stand before the judge on this custody issue, the judge will be thoroughly briefed by my lawyer on these past offenses.

    --- 11/06/02

    Count 01: Driver's License Expired 6 Months or Less

    Fines: $75.

    --- 11/06/02

    Count 01: Operate Uninsured Motor Vehicle

    No suprise; just as I've found her to be: a repeat offender. And her state judiciary system is a joke. Fines and cost and that's it. Pretty girls with a cute body and do not deserve to be held accountable for their criminal behavior. Have a nice day!

    --- 10/09/04

    Count 1: Domestic Battery/ Contact/ Prior

    In December of 2004, a warrant was issued for her arrest for this matter with a bond set at $5,000. This also had an appearance by the State's Attorney. In September of 2005, "On motion of the state this cause is ordered dismissed and stricken."

    This domestic battery was her attack on the only man she ever married. A good guy who I actually met, but the details of this case for some reason, is quite hazy. I'm not exactly sure how it all went down, but I think that he ended up dropping the charges.

    --- 04/07/05

    Count 01: Knowingly damage property<$300
    Count 02: Knowingly damage property<$300

    It appears that she was in jail for this one for a period of 13 days. But again, "On motion by the People, with no objection by defendant, this cause is dismissed and nolle pross'ed. Bond, if any, is discharged."

    I had no idea about this incident. If she did tell me, I definitely don't remember it.

    Now these above are the only charges that I could find. But I'm positive that there is at least one more: Unknown. It is unknown because she refused to tell me what it was about, and that she just wanted me to bail her out; this also occurred just this past year. I know that she was in jail for at least a week, and was desperate to get out. She hates jail, but it's amazing how I have concluded that she belongs there.

    This is who the oven is. This is someone who I made a poor choice to interact with, and now that she is carrying my child, I'm sick with myself that I ever got involved with her at all. ANY WOMAN ON EARTH THAT TELLS ME THEY WILL "SNAIL-MAIL" ME AN ABORTED FETUS WILL SUFFER THIS SAME FATE.

    I am shocked by the surplus of dismissals issued by this state's judiciary system. This woman is not an explosion waiting to detonate? This woman is a "fit" mother to already two girls? This woman deserves to be totally admonished of consequences in respects to her multiple disregard of legal authority, commits multiple counts of battery, and has by her own mother's words, medical documents that support my assessment of the mother's psychological behavoir? What kind of judge will allow her full custody?

    And just so you know, my last run-in with breaking the law was disobeying a traffic sign, and a seat-belt violation about three years ago.

    XenoSapien
  • Jul 28, 2007, 12:26 PM
    NeedKarma
    What are those and what relevance does it bring to the discussion?
  • Jul 28, 2007, 12:38 PM
    XenoSapien
    Momma's criminal record and the concept of 'credibility'. Momma would make the girl who went after the Duke University lacrosse players look like a 'choir-girl'. I'm entreating Synnen's curiousity about who the mother is when she stated:

    " I'm betting that if we got your ex's side of things, we'd hear a drastically different story."

    Funny thing is, Synnen is right. We WOULD hear a drastically different story.

    XenoSapien
  • Jul 28, 2007, 12:55 PM
    NeedKarma
    So you're bitter because you chose to have sex with a less than stable person and now you're paying for that decision. Got it.
  • Jul 28, 2007, 12:57 PM
    XenoSapien
    Wrong. Read my other post. I'm not going to repeat myself because someone doesn't have the full story.

    XenoSapien
  • Jul 28, 2007, 03:17 PM
    Seek and You Shall Find
    [QUOTE=Originally Posted by Nosnosna
    Asinine on its face.

    For this to be even considered, we'll have to add in a few things:

    Father accepts 100% responsibility for the child, financial and otherwise, from birth on.
    Father immediately pays all medical costs in the pregnancy and delivery, up front. Father immediately disclaims any right to public assistance for the life of the child. Violate any of this, and he loses all rights to the child permanently, but is required to pay child support. Should anything happen to the mother during or as a result of the pregnancy, the father is 100% liable for it, criminally and financially. This means that if the mother dies in childbirth, we have first degree murder.

    Amazingly, all of this is still more reasonable than the original suggestion.[/QUOTE]
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by XenoSapien
    Ok. That's fair :).

    XenoSapien

    So what happens when the baby is born and DNA proves you aren't the father? You just say oops sorry for making you have a child you don't want and sorry to the child for forcing it to be born and live the next "torturous 50 years" to parents who don't want it?
  • Jul 28, 2007, 03:23 PM
    XenoSapien
    You're really after shooting me down, aren't you? I respect that. Kudos.

    Then a life has been saved from a mother who wanted to MURDER it. I have done a great thing. Besides, this will stop women who like to mess with a man, and tell them that they are pregnant by him; or women that will tell them that they will abort, and send them the aborted fetus as evidence.

    "Forcing" a child to be born? You're new. I'll give you a pass on that.

    XenoSapien
  • Jul 28, 2007, 03:28 PM
    Seek and You Shall Find
    No, not really after shooting you down. You asked for others opinions on the amendments you would like to see become law. So you would need to be willing to accept the pro's and con's of your suggestion. I personally believe abortion is wrong. But the fact is you can't go around dictating what someone else can do with a baby that may not be yours. In theory if there weren't holes in your proposal I like the idea of both mother and father having the right to keep that baby alive and raise it. But these are the arguments that you would come up against that will keep it from ever becoming law.
  • Jul 28, 2007, 03:39 PM
    GV70
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Seek and You Shall Find
    So what happens when the baby is born and DNA proves you aren't the father? You just say oops sorry for making you have a child you don't want and sorry to the child for forcing it to be born and live the next "torturous 50 years" to parents who don't want it?

    I am amazing-what kind of mother should be... if she does not have any ideas who the father is :D :D :eek: :eek:
  • Jul 28, 2007, 03:44 PM
    Seek and You Shall Find
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GV70
    I am amazing-what kind of mother should be...if she does not have any ideas who the father is :D :D :eek: :eek:

    The same kind of father who doesn't know if he has fathered children by this woman or that because he is also sleeping around. And the same kind of a father who sleeps with this kind of a woman.
  • Jul 28, 2007, 03:47 PM
    XenoSapien
    Point well taken. You are correct, I do need the criticism to push these amendments, so by all means keep it coming. But like I said, "besides, this will stop women who like to mess with a man, and tell them that they are pregnant by him; or women that will tell them that they will abort, and send them the aborted fetus as evidence."

    XenoSapien
  • Jul 28, 2007, 03:49 PM
    GV70
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Seek and You Shall Find
    The same kind of father who doesn't know if he has fathered children by this woman or that because he is also sleeping around. And the same kind of a father who sleeps with this kind of a woman.

    Sounds stupidly... The man CANNOT control women fertilization;)
  • Jul 28, 2007, 04:18 PM
    tawnynkids
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GV70
    Sounds stupidly...The man CANNOT control women fertilization;)

    What?
  • Jul 28, 2007, 09:11 PM
    froggy7
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GV70
    Sounds stupidly...The man CANNOT control women fertilization;)

    A woman who is sleeping around with multiple men and gets pregnant will not know which man is the father until the child is born and DNA tests are done. Similarly, a man who is sleeping around with multiple women doesn't know how many kids he has until all the DNA tests are done.
  • Jul 28, 2007, 09:35 PM
    GV70
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by froggy7
    A woman who is sleeping around with multiple men and gets pregnant will not know which man is the father until the child is born and DNA tests are done. Similarly, a man who is sleeping around with multiple women doesn't know how many kids he has until all the DNA tests are done.

    Prenatal DNA Testing-$445 ONLY!:D :D :D

    Prenatal Paternity Tests from Certified DNA Paternity Testing Laboratory and Prenatal Paternity Test Information
  • Jul 28, 2007, 10:11 PM
    J_9
    Quote:
    You have got to be kidding. The only prenatal testing I know of thus far is amniocentesis or CVS and they are totally risky as they have a high risk of miscarriage. I don't know of any doctor who I work or have worked with that will be willing to do this.
  • Jul 28, 2007, 10:23 PM
    tawnynkids
    Spread the love, spread the love... blah, blah, blah. :) Dead on again J-9! Amnio can result in causing things like club foot to miscarriage. Uh noooo not just $445 because then you have to pay for the doctor appointment to do the amnio and the procedure itself. Which will not be covered by insurance because it will be considered an elective procedure. The $445 is also only for personal DNA, it's $595 for legal. And the mom's OB must consent to taking the sample.
  • Jul 28, 2007, 10:36 PM
    GV70
    The main problem is not the prenatal testing... The main problem is that nowadays there is
    growing number of women which moral values decrease . I love reading explanations as "I had sex with John once,Peter and I had sex three times,I had sex with Joseph two times,I had sex with Bill four times, I had also sex with an unknown man once ...I am not sure but I could have been ovulating more likely by Bill but I am not sure...By the way I will name Steven as the father because his income is bigger than others and I will be able to get much child support."

    It is related to Seek and You Shall Find's post,"So what happens when the baby is born and DNA proves you aren't the father? You just say oops sorry for making you have a child you don't want and sorry to the child for forcing it to be born and live the next "torturous 50 years" to parents who don't want it?"
  • Jul 28, 2007, 10:38 PM
    tawnynkids
    Just one more thought here... don't you think all the organizations that have spent years and years trying to make abortions illegal have already presented this reasoning to the courts and been denied? Until the law on abortion itself changes this unfortunately is probably going to be the way it is.
  • Jul 28, 2007, 10:58 PM
    tawnynkids
    And the morals of those men who slept with that woman? Because I am willing to bet a lot of money that none of them could say "I thought we were in a committed relationship, before we had sex we talked about it and decided that if it somehow resulted in a pregnancy we would both be okay with that." Come on, men are not less blameless. If you don't want any chance of a pregnant woman don't have sex with her! She can't get pregnant on her own.

    My point in this is only that you can not make blanket statements about these situations. Not every woman who is unsure of the paternity is some evil whore and not every man is a victim. But it is never acceptable for a woman to use her pregnancy or the threat to terminate it against a man. I agree with that totally.
  • Jul 29, 2007, 01:00 AM
    GV70
    Blanket statements-:eek: :eek: :eek:
    Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.30% of those named as fathers bilked of child support unjustly

    Source: WorldNetDaily: Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.
  • Jul 29, 2007, 02:03 AM
    tawnynkids
    You said it is the main problem so, yes, I say blanket statement. (But it isn't just women's morals who have decreased) Hypothetically, there is a married couple who have been in a very rocky relationship but still having sex, one day the husband tells the wife he has decided he is done with her and is getting a divorce, the devastated wife seeks comfort from a long standing male friend and in a moment of weakness and desperation ends up in bed with him. Some time later she comes to find out she is pregnant and realizes she is unsure of which one may be the father. Is she a moral less whore? I wouldn't consider her that. Stupid maybe but not moral less. Someone who doesn't sleep around , values marriage and monogamy but someone who in a moment of utter pain sought to ease that pain in another's arms. Not brilliant but it happens.

    My point is just that not every woman who is unsure of the paternity sleeps with this one, and that one oh and a couple more just for good measure. And not every woman who is unsure of paternity is someone whose morals have decreased. She can be someone who has just made a huge mistake that is very out of character for her.

    And paternity fraud for the purposes of bilking someone of child support wasn't the issue. Or whether her morals that got her pregnant in the first place are at issue. We are talking about proposing a law where a putative father will have a right to keep a woman from having an abortion. My point was that in th eyes of the law he is a putative father because unless it is proven by way of DNA he is only that, a possible not proven legal father. In order to have a right to the unborn child he would need to first establish his legal right to that child by proving his paternity. So, my question is valid. My argument is not that she is someone who sleeps around and doesn't know who the father is. My argument is that if the state were to allow this to become law they would then have to ask what happens if... by some chance the putative father we gave rights to turns out to not be the father? As long as abortion is legal the state will realize they have just made abortion illegal without changing the original law and have made it possible for any man to claim to be the putative father in order to stop a woman from having an abortion that she would otherwise have a legal right to have.
    What would compel the state to justify enacting a law in which would provide for a man to take away the right of a woman to have an abortion where there is no legal proof he is the father thereby giving him equal rights to the unborn child?
    I think you just have to be prepared to argue all the possible rebuttals.
  • Jul 30, 2007, 05:42 PM
    s_cianci
    Once again Xeno, I'm inclined to agree with you. But I bet I get chewed up and spit out for this one! Family law adheres to some of the most blatant double standards in our legal system.
  • Jul 30, 2007, 06:15 PM
    froggy7
    What I find distressing is that Xeno feels that his wife is being highly unfair to him, and his response is to try and change things so that other kids in the future will be even worse off than they are under the current system. It doesn't really sound like he cares about his kid and what her future is going to be like at all. Or at least not enough to fight to make it better.

    I mean, I could see trying to make changes that would make fathers getting custody easier, but these amendments really do seem oriented to getting fathers off the hook, and nothing else.
  • Jul 30, 2007, 07:01 PM
    XenoSapien
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by froggy7
    What I find distressing is that Xeno feels that his wife is being highly unfair to him, and his response is to try and change things so that other kids in the future will be even worse off than they are under the current system. It doesn't really sound like he cares about his kid and what her future is going to be like at all. Or at least not enough to fight to make it better.

    I mean, I could see trying to make changes that would make fathers getting custody easier, but these amendments really do seem oriented to getting fathers off the hook, and nothing else.

    Wrong point #1: I never married the psycho. Wrong point #2, I'm am fighting a front that is a concept called, 'the wounded healer', and out to help the future from not only making my mistake, but should they make it, they can have more rights. I made a mistake giving that woman (girl) five seconds of my time. I compounded the mistake because my other brain did all the thinking (best of my life EVER). Now, after a year relationship, I got the psycho pregnant and she gave birth to the only child I will ever have (I've since been neutered).

    So now I am being punished for my mistake, as I have done all to work WITH the mother on this, but she has only delivered threats and lies. There is some other reading on my position that is apparent that you haven't seen. This is again why I said before that I probably shouldn't have placed these amendments here, because there is too much to explain. But my friend Froggy, you're close, but not yet there...

    XenoSapien

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 PM.