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 discussion 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 1 of 15 1 2 3 14 15
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 426
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 426
I thought this decision might be helpful to some of you. I imagine it will probably go to the US Supreme Court.

Sorry, I forgot to post the link:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200804250430/NEWS01/804250419



God bless all who are suffering from the aftermaths of affairs.

Last edited by Sherrilynn; 04/25/08 08:08 AM.
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,539
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,539
Thanks! I say woohoo for Kentucky!


Faith

me: FWW/BS 52 H: FWH/BS 49
DS 30
DD 21
DS 15
OCDS 8
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 389
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 389
I disagree with this ruling. Why? I think this ruling assumes the husband wants to be the father. What if that is not the case? Suppose you have a situation where the husband knows the child is not "his" and decides he does not want to be the father and divorces the wayward wife. You have now legally bound this man to paying child support for the next 18 years for a child he did not father.

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 13
F
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
F
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 13
MichaelnDallas, u are so right. I have two problems with this ruling. First, it does not address the reverse situation. If an unmarried woman has an affair with a married man, the courts still consider the man the father. The married man is still legally and financially responsible for the child he created with a woman he was not married to. What happens to the "circle of marriage" then?

Secondly, the father is held to be the father of a child created from his wife's affair. That means he is responsible financially and legally. I know a woman who was separated from her husband for 10 years. During that 10 year period, she had two children by a man (not her husband). The woman broke up with the man and applied for public assistance. When the government came knocking to be refunded for the woman's public assistance, they did not knock on the door of the father of the two children. They knocked on her estranged husband's door. He had been living in another state for the 10 years period. The government began garnishing his check for child support of the two children. The woman told the Child Support Enforcement office that the children were not her husband's. They did not care. The husband was forced to pay until he could obtain a parternity test proving that he was not the father of the children).

Does anyone else see how the man can get royally screwed with this ruling? Let's be honest. In how many instances would this ruling work in the man's favor?

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,539
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,539
What this does is keep interlopers out of the marriage. IF the husband does not want to be a parent or be responsible for the OC then the HUSBAND can ask for DNA. It just keeps the OP from requesting DNA testing.


Faith

me: FWW/BS 52 H: FWH/BS 49
DS 30
DD 21
DS 15
OCDS 8
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
This is what is concerning to me - This is a quote from one of the dissenting judges:

Quote
She said there could be both medical and psychological consequences for the child if he didn't know the truth about his genetic background.


If this ruling means keeping the truth from the child, then it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! There are ways to protect the boundaries of the marriage, such as court appointed mediators, without lying to the child and keeping that child from his biological father. The court has the power to prevent the wife from having any contact with the former OM while still allowing the child access to his biological father. There are many ways this could be done. Lying to the child about his true parentage is wrong and has no basis in law. Most likely this verdict will be overturned.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
I think this is a horrible ruling and yet another blow to father's rights. Why does the adultress get to raise the child? The OM should have as fair a chance to raise the child as the WW. But once again, slap a pair of boobs on a person and immediately they are considered the better parent. Barf.

I sincerely hope this is over turned.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
It just keeps the OP from requesting DNA testing.

All a DNA test will prove is the truth.

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,539
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,539
Well MEDC I agree with you in principle. IT does not make the MW a better parent. What it DOES do is ensure an intact two parent family for the child without an OP interfering in the security of that marriage. WHY should the OM be rewarded for boinking an MW? I would have no objection to the MW giving the child to OM to raise either. As long as the OP is not interfering in the recovery of the marriage, either way works for me.

There are a couple M's here that they opened the door to the OM to have visitation. Those marriages have not fared as well as the ones that the BH is raising the child as his own.

Last edited by faithful follower; 05/10/08 10:55 AM.

Faith

me: FWW/BS 52 H: FWH/BS 49
DS 30
DD 21
DS 15
OCDS 8
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
I agree...but what should happen is, the courts should take an honest look at the situation and decide what is in the child's best interest. The slant towards women in the courts is horrible and a grave error that hurts the kids.

I don't think the OM should be rewarded...but honestly, neither should the WS. She is every bit the dirt bag that he is....maybe worse since she is the one that can get pregnant, you would think she would be doubly sure to protect against that. With great power (the ability to carry a child) comes great responsibility.

Either way, I think the ruling sucks for the sole reason that it once again places a biological father in a lesser position than the bio mom.


Quote
Our world is full of inconvenient truths," Abramson wrote. "We accomplish nothing for families, the broader community and our justice system when we deny those truths."

She said there could be both medical and psychological consequences for the child if he didn't know the truth about his genetic background. She also wrote that giving men a legal right to claim a place in the child's life would strengthen marriage by discouraging women from straying.


Last edited by mkeverydaycnt; 05/10/08 11:09 AM.
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 725
Quote
The slant towards women in the courts is horrible and a grave error that hurts the kids.

I disagree. I don't know any single, never-married parents who are male because men normally don't want children if they don't love the mother - and even if they do love the mother they still want the mother to do most of the work. Mothers, on the other hand, still want to raise their kids regardless of who the father is. Until I start seeing never married men actually taking care of their kids, or more divorced dads taking equally responsibility, or for that matter, more married men taking equal responsibility for their kids, I think the courts are fully justified in assuming that the mother is more interested in taking the lion's share of childcare duties. Experience has proven that this is the case, time and time again. It is VERY difficult to get a man to be interested in childcare. It's even more difficult than getting an unmarried man to pay child support. Most married women think their husbands are not pulling their weight where the kids are concerned and they are usually right from what I've seen. I personally do not know even one father that is as good a parent as the average mother.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
well, nice to meet you. I was NOT married to my sons mom...I am the full time parent. She is the one with zero parental rights. Perhaps you need to look into this as there are a lot of men out there that very much wish to take care of their kids and are dealing with nothing but obstacles from angry entitled women.

Your slant against men is obvious from your post...and your words are not founded in reality.

Quote
It's even more difficult than getting an unmarried man to pay child support.

this is laughable. Men are much more likely to live up to the child support obligation defined by the courts than a woman. Women are notoriously poor at paying CS.

frankly, your whole post is ridiculous and lacks credibility due to its sexist nature.

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,539
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,539
Quote
Women are notoriously poor at paying CS.
This is true. I agree the slant of the courts is too much toward women, but MEDC my point is the preservation of a family unit. A preservation of a marriage. What will it help the child to be shuttled back and forth between two families when a man will take that child fully as his.


Faith

me: FWW/BS 52 H: FWH/BS 49
DS 30
DD 21
DS 15
OCDS 8
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
I bet my last dollar this ruling gets overturned. It's not even a legal ruling, but more so on the mental thinking of the Judges own opinion.

Unless there is some major criminal behavior every biological parent that does not give up there rights to parent deserves to be a parent. No matter what the circumstances. The ow/ww or mm/ow brought on this stitch and they both have the right as it's there sprem and egg that made this child. Just as the CHILD has every right (and is no where to blame) to know both bio parents. Our children don't choose there parents we choose that for them by there dna. Just as there are woman and men that won't be a parent to there child and again the child has nothing to do with that........it's not there choice but we as adults make these choices. Just as it's the bs choice to stay or not stay. Again adult decissions.

I think our courts are getting wiser when it comes to fathers rights and have seen where a child has been taken out of the mothers custody and given to the father, I've seen several men that are raising there kids alone without there bio mother in the picture and doing a great job. I also see the courts getting down on woman more regarding cs issues as it is ONLY FAIR that a woman pays cs to the cusidial father just as the father had too.

Has been suggested on this site about POJA regarding contact or no contact with an oc......where it's the MM who has the choice to have or not have but a WW maynot have that luxury and may have to suck it up and share the child with whom she had an affair with. Almost a double standard IMHO.

It's not just oc's that can make a marriage harder to deal with, but also step kids and xw's. BTDT. It's all in how it's handled. Maybe yes stepkids you knew going into it, but even with an oc we all have choices to make as well and have to live with our choices.

I can't imagine that if an emergercy with medical arises this family has to keep quiet about where they are going for the blood or whatever else they would not hesitate to ask the om for to save the child's life. Nor could I imagine a man having to pay cs for a child that is not his, when it's all said and done they just could not make it work or his wife did not learn her lesson the first time.

IMHO it was a sad and wrong ruling.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
What will it help the child to be shuttled back and forth between two families

I am not necessarily arguing for this...although I think a child has a right to know BOTH his bio parents. What I am arguing for is a man being given an EQUAL shot at raising the child as the mother...that SHE not be afforded the right to keep the child just because she has boobs.

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by mkeverydaycnt
Quote
What will it help the child to be shuttled back and forth between two families

I am not necessarily arguing for this...although I think a child has a right to know BOTH his bio parents. What I am arguing for is a man being given an EQUAL shot at raising the child as the mother...that SHE not be afforded the right to keep the child just because she has boobs.

LOL this is very true. And no it's not the first idea to shuffle kids between two families but it's not the worse thing either. Sometimes it is what it is. My COM are much better off with being "shuffled" between dad's and mom's then having us fight and argue and not show any love to each other. They go to dads house and spend a few days and love it. Then they come home and spend all week and a weekend and love it. The only time it bothered them and one of th twins asked if we would get back together was when there dads gf was involving herself to much into things. Stirring up problems between there dad and I. Don't get me wrong.......I expect my kids to respect her and obey her at there house. They also love her, but they picked up on the control she was trying to take and we had about 2 years of them not wanting to go over ther longer than a day (I made them stay there time with him he deserved to be with them). Once she figured out she could still love them and allow them to love me as there mother and a few other things it got so much better and they once again love going over there. So seriously if adults can be adults and you teach your children to respect and love there is no reason for the "shuffling" to be that hard on the kids. AND I agree 1000% that both parents should have the same rights. What is sad is when only one parent puts his kids needs before his own (using "his" in genereal for her/him). I do see more courts though (at least in my state) giving fathers more equal rights.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,717
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,717
Pardon the intrusion on the Pregnancy board. I don't typically post on this board.

It's evident that this decision was made with tunnel vision for this particular couple and did not consider every scenario.

The court is denying the paternal rights of the biological father and the rights of the child to be associated with BOTH biological parents not to mention the financial aspects of this decision.

The fact that this decision was handed down by the state's Supreme Court is saddening, to say the least. That is where local decisions like this are supposed to be overturned.

Parental and childrens rights groups will hopefully pursue it to the next level.

There are indeed, "inconvenient truths" in life. To simply turn a blind eye to them does not benefit the marriage, the bio parents or the child and certainly does not benefit our legal system.



ba109
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,884
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,884
For us, we looked into family law in the state we were in when OC was born. It clearly stated that the child would be assumed my H's unless the xom filed for paternity w/in 90 days of suspected due date. It stated clearly that ANY person's engaging in sex should realize that a child COULD result, and it was up to the "OM" to file any suits. Our sitch was such that we felt in dangered by the xom, as he threatened my H's life, not caring that my child(com) was watching out the front window. In fact, xom was arrested for assault on my H on D-day. Do I feel that I have harmed my child in any way, no, and I never will. Do I feel that xom has a right to know about this child, no, and he never will. And, for those who would bring up the medical angle, well, there is so much that is available these days, you don't HAVE to have the biological connection. We have never done a DNA test, and now things are so far past any deadlines that we don't even worry about it any more. I say that if the sitch is such as mine and the one in KY, if the H knows how this child was created, and they, as the married couple, choose to not have DNA determined, then that's that. I have more to say, but there is now a major storm above my home and I don't wish to fry my new computer.


Tigger
me~BS & WS~38~~h~BS & WS~37 my d-days~7/92, 1/96, 7/00, 9/07
h's d-days~7/11/00 & 2 weeks later 3 COM, 1 OC(mine)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 690
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 690
having lived in KY when my FWH's OC was conceived I agree with the ruling that A partner's should have no right to interfere with the recovery of a M following an A if the BS and FWS have decided to work out their M and raise their child as their own. Biology doesn't mean diddly. It's extremely rare for the "Medical necessity" to ever become an issue. The A partner has done enough damage and needs to leave it alone. If the FWS decides or the Bs decides to have DNA testing, and it is determined that the child is an OC and not a COM then it is the BS's decision to determine to raise the child as their own or not. Just as in an adoption. The child does not need to know in the early years anything about the misbehavior of the WS. When the parents determine that the child is old enough and/or needs to know is soon enough, just as in adoption.


Keep the A partner out of the M and let then have a chance to rebuild their M. The child doesn't lose anything by being raised by two parents in a M treating the child as their own.

jmho

Fled

MEDC: could you please stop throwing around your boob phrase, it's offense and the only people who really care that I have them are the men that can't keep their eyes in their own head.


Me BS
D Day 4-2-2005
OC born 12-2004
DS 21, DS 12
Married 1993

May the love hidden deep inside your heart find the love waiting in your dreams. May the laughter that you find in your tomorrow wipe away the pain you find in your yesterdays.

Recovering....it's a long road, even with a dedicated FWH
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
I also think the child should be raised by an intact family. I just don't think that the Female affair partner should automatically be given the child because she has the privilege of carrying it.

Sorry for offending you...but it is a valid point.

Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 14 15

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 24 guests, and 56 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
MikaylaVaux, I.P., Alex82, Dezzeiemm, love spells
71,725 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,545
Posts2,322,787
Members71,726
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2020, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.  |  Web Development by SunStar Media.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5