Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our guidance forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 13 of 15 1 2 11 12 13 14 15
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
It's easy to bash, and say things as pop is more convincing without backing up your statements.

First off...it isn't bashing you to respond to your comments to Pop suggesting his words are hollow and letting you know I find a more convincing argument coming from him and his experience than you and yours. Your continued reliance on the same, tired...it's the law cry is where you lose me. Laws are adapted every day. If it is illegal in your state to engage in SF with your wife in other than the missionary position are you going to follow that law...or challenge it if the need arises? Laws change every day. Thank God for that. People should challenge any law that they feel infringes upon their rights...some succeed, some do not.


Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
I contend, based upon such analysis they should give the OM very, very, very little to no visitation in nearly every situation.

IF the presumption were to change the best interests of the child would frequently (approaching 50%) be better served going to the father. A woman does not make a better parent...it should be determined on best interests alone...and any contention that the dad should rarely get custody is colored with sexism and an inability to be objective based on experience as a BS. The OM is no more at fault for the affair than the WW...and frankly, given that some are single and made no vows that were broken...the WW would be at fault more frequently. Mr. W with the above statement seeks to punish the OM in a manner that is inconsistent with the treatment of the WW. Lady Justice is peeking out of her blindfold!

Last edited by mkeverydaycnt; 06/03/08 10:09 PM.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
"""""""i knew that i didn't want to spend the rest of my life with her so we split up."""""""'

please note that i said "we split up". she did not want to spend the rest of her life with me either.

and just to clear the air. i NEVER cheated on my w. when i said i was in rhodes shoes many, many years back. i meant i was in an A with a married woman when i was in my early 20's. there was no resulting preg.

and again i never said that rhodes need not follow the law. my point was that i disagree with the law. thus the support for rhodes or anyone else who wants to challenge it.



me-59 ww-55
married 1979 - together since 1974
6 kids together 15,19,21,23,29,30
my oldest son 37
d-day (confession day) memorial day 2001
oc born 12/20/01
now 8 grandchildren
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
Pops,

I am not hammering you on this long ago serious transgression. I am merely trying to determine the facts and see where my inference meets your implications.

Your signature line says your wife and you were together since 1974, though you married in 1979. You have an OC that's 30 years old now, that was born during the time you say you were together with your wife (approximately 1978).

Further, in 1974, based upon my estimation you were only 20...so an affair with a married woman that you didn't get pregnant is another relationship you had between 1974, when your signature line says your relationship with your wife began and 1979 when you got married at age 25.

Thus, my presumption you cheated on your wife, once, if not twice.

Regardless...do you have any notion that your experience as a OM influenced your decisions and beliefs when you much later became a victim of infidelity yourself??? Perhaps a notion that you had that consequence coming??? Don't get me wrong, I was promiscuous too in my 20's (though, fortunately, never an OM) and have only come to understand how wrong and destructive such behavior was TO ME and my thinking. I never truly repented for such behavior until now. Chalked it up to what I thought was typical youthful overindulgence hormonal behavior instead of the really corrupt WRONG sinful behavior I have now come to understand it actually was. There was an evil in my life, as measured by an absence of God and I HAVE suffered consequences for such. How have you handled or thought through such???

On the upside, it DOES perhaps make recovery easier, when you can see clearly your own mistakes, er, corruption, it makes it easier to accept and/or overcome the same or similiar actions of another. To judge them is to judge yourself. That's hard to do for most. To maturely look back on one's sin and repent instead of excuse. Unfortunately, sin, unlike "Karma" doesn't balance itself out and make it all good. I had (and still need to) own my sins. To accept, recognize and acknowledge it as evil, repent of it and make amends. It's a process. I need to be mindful not to allow myself to rationalize and justify MY OWN PAST transgression, no matter how old, or however I feel I've overcome them with good deeds or what I feel is a good heart lest history repeat itself. Evil in deed and thought, no matter how old, needs expunging.

It's a struggle for me. You???

Mr. Wondering



FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering)
DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered

"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,860
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,860
Typical Rhodes supporter response. Was my challange for your to refute the points, in the post I asked mary, line by line to hard for you?

And as you would do, I'll answer for you ( the way you do for me ). Yes it's to hard for me!

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,860
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,860
Pops

same request that I made from mary if you please.

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
mrw ,,, i must appoligize for not updating my sig line. it has been well over 2 years since i have done that or even posted on mb for that matter.

i am not that computer savy so although i know i can figure out how to update the line it will take me more time then is currently available to be on the computer. so i will give you the skinny here.

i was born 52 and 1 am 56 now, w is 52, dated gf regularly thru hs, she became preg in early 74, we split in around feb, met my current w in may 74, she has been with me thru all the hoops my sons mom had ne jump through, son was born in dec 74 (he is now 33), married my w in dec 79, had 6 kids, they are now 13d,16d,18s,20s,26s,27d. and of course 33s. w had brief A in early 2001, oc born dec 01, is now 6. w was 45 and i was 49 at the time of the A

hopefully that gets the time line straight for you. and in no way do i take any of your assumptions personal. it is no big deal. i am quilty here of assuming that everyone on earth knows who i am. LOL

"""""Regardless...do you have any notion that your experience as a OM influenced your decisions and beliefs when you much later became a victim of infidelity yourself??? Perhaps a notion that you had that consequence coming???

......i don't think that my previoous actions necessarily influenced my opinions but i do feel they gave me the ability to see things from different perspectives. so if that is influenced by your definition then yes they did.

as far as the consequences i have always accepted them for my actions. that is not to say that if the then mw's h had caught me and beat the crap out of me i would have thought that it out in advance. but i surely would have understood his position while my nose was being broke.

""""""""Chalked it up to what I thought was typical youthful overindulgence hormonal behavior instead of the really corrupt WRONG sinful behavior I have now come to understand it actually was. There was an evil in my life, as measured by an absence of God

........i think my own indiscretions helped me to see that i was doing the same things my father tried to warn me of and pass them on to my own kids. i also think that it is very typical for teens and young adults to stray fron God at this time of their lives. i don't necessarily believe that they abandon the Lord but they just find their own way of rationalizing their actions.

it made recovery easier because i was able to reflect back on the places i had been and feel like i had some form of understanding why things happened the way they did.

roads, please understand me on this. i am NOT a rhodes supporter. i am only concerned about rulings that take away certain rights.

this issue has been clouded, IMHO, by facts that have no bearing on the true issue. THE RIGHT OF A BIOLOGICAL PARENT. IMHO, i don't care if their was a mm/w, single m/w, man with a lisp, woman with a hair lip. i couldn't care less. it is mearly and simply about the RIGHTS OF THE BIOLOGICAL PARENT. PERIOD.

listen dude, this thread has 25 pages. you have not wavered and those on the other side have not wavered. debates have time limits. does it need to go 55 pages.

i don't feel that i have to disprove your statements. i felt i simply had to provide a better position. some say i did some say i didn't. some still agree with you some don't. no big deal.

i think that mkevrydycnt had a very good point on just because it is law doesn't mean we can not attempt to improve or change it. as he said there are some pretty lame laws still on the books.

no big deal, for me that issue is dead. let's have a drink and think of another topic to debate.




me-59 ww-55
married 1979 - together since 1974
6 kids together 15,19,21,23,29,30
my oldest son 37
d-day (confession day) memorial day 2001
oc born 12/20/01
now 8 grandchildren
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
TR, you really are an annoying little soul. I am not a Rhoades supporter. Frankly, I could give a rats butt about him. All I am interested in is men being given a fair shake in court...that did not happen in this case.

As far as going line by line...there is no need to do so since as I pointed out your foundation is faulty, so why bother dissecting the rest of your posts.

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,860
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,860
pops

I'm glad that you posted how you almost lost you paternal rights when XGF got married. For your of lost them would of been wrong.

I see how what happened in you life would cause you to support a father's rights.

You used your paternal rights struggle to support Rhodes position. You sited how you both went through the same thing.

I had showed how your story and Rhodes story were similar though not the same.

I did not use what happened in your life to defend Rhodes you chose to make a connection. A connection that is not there.

I asked you to show how I am wrong. You do not have to do any thing. You made a point based on what you went through with your WGF. It was your choice to do so. It is your fact presented as evidence to support you argument here.

Is it my fault that you brought into this debate that you can't defend. I never said what you and the OM went through were the same. You did.

We are on different sides of this issue. We will most likely never change each other's opinions.

My goal from the time that you used the "same story defence" is to challagne you to show me how what you and Rhodes did was the same.

You have avoided to do so. Which is your right. I think you have avoided to do so because you can't.

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,383
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,383
Originally Posted by mkeverydaycnt
All I am interested in is men being given a fair shake in court...that did not happen in this case.

But there wasn't just one man in this case. There were two men-- one, the biological father, and one, the legal father. One was bound to feel he didn't get a fair shake.

I know there's so many issues involved here, but I think the crux of this whole debate is how much emphasis we each put on DNA.

There's no perfect solution for everyone involved, just the best solution for the most amount of people involved.

No one will ever convince me that the best solution is to please only one person-- tops-- two.

Remember, besides the two men/fathers, and one child... there are also com to be considered. Oc going from home to home doesn't affect just the oc.



Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by MrWondering
Quote from Pops on 6/1/2008 at 8:12 pm.

Quote
and although i agree that people like rhoades are low lifes. and i to was in his shoes many, many yrs back except with no resultant preg. he was just the guy in the wrong place at the right time.

I can only assume taht you were showing me where he said it. HE did not SAY he cheated on his wife. I think (not positive) he was talking that he was a bit wild in his early days just as you had admitted too. NOW I am assuming. I don't ever recall Pops saying he cheated. I know he NEVER cheated on his wife.

If you want to base that statement on his chartater than maybe you need to hop off that glass house you are on and sit next to the rest of us that have made mistakes young or old? JMMHO.

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
ok i will give one more situation and please show me the difference other then one op is male and one is female. and please DO NOT throw the well she is the mother arguement in here.

let's look at the basic facts as i understand them in rhodes vs ricketts.

maried couple

single man

ww gets preg by single man

baby has the dna from 1/2 the married couple

single man has no paternal rights to the child due to their marriage

correct?

and say we all agree that this is the right answer

OK let's turn things around a bit

married couple

single woman

wh get single woman preg

now tell me why this single woman has the right to keep the baby with half the dna from the married couple

is it because the single woman was not in the marriage? how can that be different from the single man?

was it because the single woman had the baby outside of the marriage? what if the married couple invited her to live with them during the preg?

or is that the married man and the single woman were not supposed to have a baby?

well was the single man and the married woman supposed to have a baby?

and remember don't give me the she's the mom arguement.

you see as in many situations in the court room the basic issue is being blurred by outside circumstances and facts. married vs single. man vs woman. the true issue is still the basic right of a biological parent

and if dna is not important then why in most marriage vows do they say "let no man put asunder what God has joined"

didn't God create man thus creating dna. man simply created the marriage certificate.

Last edited by pops; 06/04/08 12:51 PM.

me-59 ww-55
married 1979 - together since 1974
6 kids together 15,19,21,23,29,30
my oldest son 37
d-day (confession day) memorial day 2001
oc born 12/20/01
now 8 grandchildren
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
and i never "almost lost my parental rights". i simply had to go to court and preserve them

to say

""""""We are on different sides of this issue. We will most likely never change each other's opinions.

and then follow with


"""""""I think you have avoided to do so because you can't.

is just pompous and arrogant . why would my lack of being able to sway your opinion to my point of view be any different then you not being able to sway my opinion to your point of view.

and if your use your 1st line as your defense. don't. that's no more of a defense then the guy that shakes your right hand and stabs you in the back with his left. then says hey i shock his hand in friendship.


me-59 ww-55
married 1979 - together since 1974
6 kids together 15,19,21,23,29,30
my oldest son 37
d-day (confession day) memorial day 2001
oc born 12/20/01
now 8 grandchildren
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
Roads, I still have not gone through the post you have asked me too. Frankly I don't think I'll see it as you do.

I too am not saying and have repeatedly said I don't agree with everything that Rhoades has done in this case, but understand that he wants a relationship with his son and is fighting for that right.

I personaly think the law is flawed. I personaly think that if Julia would have NEVER brought Rhodes into it he would have less rights (as far as emotionaly) than I feel he has now.

Children are not like animals..........okay here's your puppy and oh no......puppy won't potty train or oh no......child is alergic to puppy so lets give it away.

I don't care who we are and I won't change my mind on this, but every single one of us have our own opinions and mainly off of our life experiences.

Mr. W you keep on bringing up how Rhodes wanted to brest feed the child (if true) and how he posted that pic of Julia. I KNOW you read the depos and the emails just as I did. Your an attorney after all and just the legal battle alone probaly was a huge interest to you. I told my attorney about it the other day and he went directly to it because it was of interest to him in legal mind of his.

What about the emails FROM Julia admitting she was drinking while brestfeeding? In my eyes that is huge no no. Hey I'm the biggest caffine addict and smoker you can meet. But I did not drink any caffen while pregnant or brest feeding nor did I smoke while pregnant and brest feeding. I don't smoke around my kids unless I'm outside and even then I make them go on the other side of my back yard and play. I would have never thought of drinking wine while brest feeding or popping a pill either. I'm not going to pass that on to my kids. In her own words she told Rhodes this.

I could imagine the stress she was under over all this, but was she putting her son first? NO.

I'm not sitting here although it looks as if I am saying rhodes has done everything right. I'm not. I bet if I put myself in his shoes though and someone was trying to take my kids away I'd be pretty mad and hurt.

Through the 5 years of going through this I've seen a lot of different senerios. some I may not agree with, but Understand it and support. Some I think are down right evil and uncalled for.

Two ladies on this board one does not really like me one does that both had affairs and kept it from the OM. The way they handled it was much better suited to win a case if something like that would have happened. They fessed up they went to there husbands and I can bet my last dollar it was the hardest thing they had ever done but did it. Made decissions with there husbands before any real damage was done and NOT "sharing baby with two daddy's" and don't have om in there child's life. I think one om does not know and I think one om does but stayed away before even the baby was born. If these two woman came on here under all there cirucmstances especially the one that the OM did know but did nothing for a year or two years on his own accord I'd be right there supporting there decissions knowing the background and circumstances to keep om out of child's life.

This is different. My frustration is this with Rhodes and Ricketts. The other side is not really placing any blame on Julia. You are condoning her actions because the "intruder" Rhodes had no right to lay down with her. What makes me so mad over this case is that Julia (your victim) continued her affair with rhodes and those pictures are showing a happy person people! she then had taht baby called him from the hospital and put this man in that child's life as the baby's father!

Not for a day or a week, but for quite a few months.

After reading more of his blog and other news that has posted about it, I learned that Mr. Ricketts found out because Mr. Rhodes went to Julia and said he wanted an open relationship with his son. Julia said no, so Rhodes sent the dna results to Rhodes. So Julia got caught plain and simple.

Do I feel bad for Mr. Ricketts. In so many ways yes. But I also feel that he used his connections and HIS father's connections (which by the way FIL was asked to sit on the bench of that high court at one point) to push Rhodes out. It boils down to who had the best attorney's and connections. NOT that is sad.........but we all know that has a great deal to do with how some cases are settled.

Do I also feel bad for Mr. Rhodes. Yes. he is that boys father. He had a relationship with him and JULIA gave it to him. JULIA put herself in that position.

Let me also state something else that irritates me to no end. During the course of that affair she brought also her kids into it. There is a picture that her son took of James and julia. There are pictures of the kids playing in the park with them. Rhodes should have told her no don't bring them and she should have never even had that thought of bringing them.

Just because I had an affair has no relfections of why I feel Rhodes should have visation with his son. It has do with everything surrounded by it, and how the law can manulate other cases simular on either side of the line that is not fair to men in general.

Road you asked me I think awhile back if I think that dna should be taken for all children at birth.......maybe so with the way sociiety is turning out. Very sad. But maybe so.

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by pops
and i never "almost lost my parental rights". i simply had to go to court and preserve them

to say

""""""We are on different sides of this issue. We will most likely never change each other's opinions.

and then follow with


"""""""I think you have avoided to do so because you can't.

is just pompous and arrogant . why would my lack of being able to sway your opinion to my point of view be any different then you not being able to sway my opinion to your point of view.

and if your use your 1st line as your defense. don't. that's no more of a defense then the guy that shakes your right hand and stabs you in the back with his left. then says hey i shock his hand in friendship.

Amen

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
had i known all the details of the rhodes vs ricketts case i would have been even more driven to argue this issue.


"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""I personaly think the law is flawed. I personaly think that if Julia would have NEVER brought Rhodes into it he would have less rights (as far as emotionaly) than I feel he has now.

Children are not like animals..........okay here's your puppy and oh no......puppy won't potty train or oh no......child is alergic to puppy so lets give it away.

I don't care who we are and I won't change my mind on this, but every single one of us have our own opinions and mainly off of our life experiences.

Mr. W you keep on bringing up how Rhodes wanted to brest feed the child (if true) and how he posted that pic of Julia. I KNOW you read the depos and the emails just as I did. Your an attorney after all and just the legal battle alone probaly was a huge interest to you. I told my attorney about it the other day and he went directly to it because it was of interest to him in legal mind of his.

What about the emails FROM Julia admitting she was drinking while brestfeeding? In my eyes that is huge no no. Hey I'm the biggest caffine addict and smoker you can meet. But I did not drink any caffen while pregnant or brest feeding nor did I smoke while pregnant and brest feeding. I don't smoke around my kids unless I'm outside and even then I make them go on the other side of my back yard and play. I would have never thought of drinking wine while brest feeding or popping a pill either. I'm not going to pass that on to my kids. In her own words she told Rhodes this.

I could imagine the stress she was under over all this, but was she putting her son first? NO.

I'm not sitting here although it looks as if I am saying rhodes has done everything right. I'm not. I bet if I put myself in his shoes though and someone was trying to take my kids away I'd be pretty mad and hurt.

Through the 5 years of going through this I've seen a lot of different senerios. some I may not agree with, but Understand it and support. Some I think are down right evil and uncalled for.

Two ladies on this board one does not really like me one does that both had affairs and kept it from the OM. The way they handled it was much better suited to win a case if something like that would have happened. They fessed up they went to there husbands and I can bet my last dollar it was the hardest thing they had ever done but did it. Made decissions with there husbands before any real damage was done and NOT "sharing baby with two daddy's" and don't have om in there child's life. I think one om does not know and I think one om does but stayed away before even the baby was born. If these two woman came on here under all there cirucmstances especially the one that the OM did know but did nothing for a year or two years on his own accord I'd be right there supporting there decissions knowing the background and circumstances to keep om out of child's life.

This is different. My frustration is this with Rhodes and Ricketts. The other side is not really placing any blame on Julia. You are condoning her actions because the "intruder" Rhodes had no right to lay down with her. What makes me so mad over this case is that Julia (your victim) continued her affair with rhodes and those pictures are showing a happy person people! she then had taht baby called him from the hospital and put this man in that child's life as the baby's father!

Not for a day or a week, but for quite a few months.

After reading more of his blog and other news that has posted about it, I learned that Mr. Ricketts found out because Mr. Rhodes went to Julia and said he wanted an open relationship with his son. Julia said no, so Rhodes sent the dna results to Rhodes. So Julia got caught plain and simple.

Do I feel bad for Mr. Ricketts. In so many ways yes. But I also feel that he used his connections and HIS father's connections (which by the way FIL was asked to sit on the bench of that high court at one point) to push Rhodes out. It boils down to who had the best attorney's and connections. NOT that is sad.........but we all know that has a great deal to do with how some cases are settled.

Do I also feel bad for Mr. Rhodes. Yes. he is that boys father. He had a relationship with him and JULIA gave it to him. JULIA put herself in that position.

Let me also state something else that irritates me to no end. During the course of that affair she brought also her kids into it. There is a picture that her son took of James and julia. There are pictures of the kids playing in the park with them. Rhodes should have told her no don't bring them and she should have never even had that thought of bringing them.

Just because I had an affair has no relfections of why I feel Rhodes should have visation with his son. It has do with everything surrounded by it, and how the law can manulate other cases simular on either side of the line that is not fair to men in general.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

EXACTLY,,,,, yeah BOYYYYYYYYY


me-59 ww-55
married 1979 - together since 1974
6 kids together 15,19,21,23,29,30
my oldest son 37
d-day (confession day) memorial day 2001
oc born 12/20/01
now 8 grandchildren
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,860
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,860
Pops you are the king of comparing apples to oranges. I humbly bow before you.

""DO NOT throw the well she is the mother arguement in here.""

Why not, it belongs here.

""let's look at the basic facts as i understand them in rhodes vs ricketts.
maried couple
single man
ww gets preg by single man
baby has the dna from 1/2 the married couple
single man has no paternal rights to the child due to their marriage
correct? and say we all agree that this is the right answer""

I prefer that you point out the DNA is from the WW and the OM.
The law of presumption does not recognize the DNA contribution from the OM.


""OK let's turn things around a bit
married couple
single woman
wh get single woman preg
now tell me why this single woman has the right to keep the baby with half the dna from the married couple""

In example one: there was never a question as to who the mother was. Whether a woman is or is not married when she gives birth she is the mom.

In example two: a woman that gives birth to a child is the mother. Whether she is married or not. The WH is the dad because the OW has no BH. Without a BH the law of presumption does not come into play.

The WH's BW has no paternal rights to the child. The law has assigned them to the OW and WH.

Instead of explaining why your last post was valid. Your continue to make new points that are still not based on logic.

Oh. and god did not create planes so we should fly birds.

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by TheRoad
Pops you are the king of comparing apples to oranges. I humbly bow before you.

""DO NOT throw the well she is the mother arguement in here.""

Why not, it belongs here.

""let's look at the basic facts as i understand them in rhodes vs ricketts.
maried couple
single man
ww gets preg by single man
baby has the dna from 1/2 the married couple
single man has no paternal rights to the child due to their marriage
correct? and say we all agree that this is the right answer""

I prefer that you point out the DNA is from the WW and the OM.
The law of presumption does not recognize the DNA contribution from the OM.


""OK let's turn things around a bit
married couple
single woman
wh get single woman preg
now tell me why this single woman has the right to keep the baby with half the dna from the married couple""

In example one: there was never a question as to who the mother was. Whether a woman is or is not married when she gives birth she is the mom.

In example two: a woman that gives birth to a child is the mother. Whether she is married or not. The WH is the dad because the OW has no BH. Without a BH the law of presumption does not come into play.

The WH's BW has no paternal rights to the child. The law has assigned them to the OW and WH.

Instead of explaining why your last post was valid. Your continue to make new points that are still not based on logic.

Oh. and god did not create planes so we should fly birds.


Oh Oh OH (raising hand) I know I know...........this is so SIMPLE. I aced this test 4 years ago!

Road part of your example I'm turning on you so beware..........

First of all........WH has any and all rights to 50% custody of oc. BW is step mother just as in any case that a person is married a man/woman who has other children with someone else. Step mother/Step father.

There is NO question when you go to court. The father is given his right to be in that childs life. He gets to CHOOSE to be physcially into that child's life.

There is logic coming out his ears on what he is saying.

So ow gets pregnant by mm. He has all the rights of man of a marriage. Or for sake of logic......any man not married to the woman he bears a child with gets the rights of being a father just as the mother gets the rights of being a mother.

Now if we are going by the arguement that you are giving here as I understand it............should it be that If...........

A mm has a child with ow but because she is a intruder the judge should look at that mm in court and say "MM, you can not be father to this child because ow is a intruder to your marriage. Sorry dude........I can't let this ow intrude in your marriage.

NOW granted some MM's would start doing sumersalts in the court room, but for those MM's that want contact with ALL there children how is this any different than not allowing any OM being a father to HIS bio child that was proven with DNA?

I see it that the rules (or laws as you've put it) that you say I and a few others have fit to our liking.......it more so the other way around.

ETA: If xmm took me to court tomorrow for visation rights although it would be under strick supervision at first for his oringinal actions in court.......with in time the judge would allow him full visation with his child.

And for your comment about ow keeping oc from married couple. Legaly that can't happen. No way unless mm is unfit. It is normally the mm who runs as fast as the wind if not faster from oc than ow keeping oc from mm. Of course there is conflixs at first as emotions are raw on all sides and all sides are normally acting on those emotions. ow thinks mm and bw are unresonable and bw and mm think the same of ow. When in fact it's normally a matter of settleing those emotions down and being adults.

Last edited by marysway; 06/04/08 06:02 PM.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
roads if i am the king of comparing apples to oranges then you my good friend are the All Mighty Creator of calling the kettle black

you have neither given facts to support your position or scenereos to supoort your beliefs. all you keep saying is "the law". we have already agreed that the law should be followed. gut this is not a discussion on the "law". it is a discussion on the morality of "the law".

i challenge you to tell me of your experiences in anything even closely related.

even tell me why once a child is born that the mother has more paternal right to that child then the father,

and like i said don't go to the "because she's the mother garbage."

let me guess what you will say. because it is the "law" or "presumed by the courts".. give me a break

i dare anyone to prove that my w loves our kids and grace more then i do.

and mary that is exactly the point


me-59 ww-55
married 1979 - together since 1974
6 kids together 15,19,21,23,29,30
my oldest son 37
d-day (confession day) memorial day 2001
oc born 12/20/01
now 8 grandchildren
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 7,298
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 7,298
Quote
NOW granted some MM's would start doing sumersalts in the court room, but for those MM's that want contact with ALL there children how is this any different than not allowing any OM being a father to HIS bio child that was proven with DNA?

I might agree with that, in principle. This situation at present is not a good one to offer up to test anything further...IMO.

Just a comment - it's interesting to see how far we've come from a cultural standpoint. Not long ago at all, the norm would be a woman gets pregnant in any circumstance other than with her lawfully wedded husband, and she's out on the street to make her own way for herself and the child. There was no question who the "parent" got to be...it was the mom...and woe is be to her unless she slept with, say, the King of France and he bestowed some made-up title to his b*st*rd child while mom was still in his favor.

Back in history (and still today in affluent eastern culture?), children were in their mother's care - or a nanny's (female) - until they were about 6...at which time they were removed to begin studying, and learning manly or womanly pursuits.

Now, we have dads fighting for their equal rights as parents. Wouldn't be so hard today if generations ago more men gave a hoot and lent a hand! I know, can't go backward...just interesting.


Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have in trying to change others.
Page 13 of 15 1 2 11 12 13 14 15

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 1,352 guests, and 49 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Mike69, petercgeelan, Zorya, Reyna98, Nofoguy
71,829 Registered Users
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2019, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5