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 6 of 15 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 14 15
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083
Hey everyone - how about letting an OC speak for this situation with Kentucky bio-dad, aka sperm donor? (oh yeah - I definitely have a bias)

To this day, I believe the man who raised me is my father in every way. IF OM is the bio-dad in my case, he's an intruder in my family and he needed to go away and leave my family alone.

This Kentucky OM is nothing but selfish. A child needs ONE father - the same father his siblings has. But Bio dad wants HIS child - for his own selfish reasons, not for the good of the child.

When I found out there was a possibility that the man I remembered cheating with my mother was my father, I went into full rejection mode. Deep, dark depression. Keep in mind, my father (the man who raised me) was no saint, and many times as a child I fantasized about someone else being my father.

As an adult, knowing what I know, and having a strong moral compass developed through faith and action, I would have very few kind words to say to this Kentucky OM who wants to impose himself on an intact family that has received harm from within and without - a direct assault from HIM. And he wants license to continue to assault them.

The courts made the right decision. Putting your sperm in another man's bed allows for that man to take your child!! This man is not qualified to do the right thing for the child.

Let his OC seek him out later as an adult. I know I didn't want to. He committed a crime against my family and against my father.


Cafe Plan B link http://forum.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2182650&page=1

The ? that made recovery possible: "Which lovebuster do I do the most that hurts the worst"?

The statement that signaled my personal recovery and the turning point in our marriage recovery: "I don't need to be married that badly!"

If you're interested in saving your relationship, you'll work on it when it's convenient. If you're committed, you'll accept no excuses.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
This man is not qualified to do the right thing for the child.

The point is, he is as qualified as the WW is. The WW is every bit as much at fault here and MAY NOT BE A GOOD MOM. The courts should decide the best interest for the child and not assume that it is the WW and her husband.

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
Kay it certainly sounds like more issues for any child to deal with in your stitch I'm sorry for that. I don't even want to imagaine. :-( But with what I have seen in oc stitch's where there is contact if done right and the adults are adults and the OM does not have to intrude on there marriage for the sake of being in that child's life it can work out. I've talked to so many adult oc's and I have heard more than one way of thinking of how they felt about what happened to them as a direct result of being an oc.

Goes back to how the adults handle this. Again, the WW allowed the om into her life and also had both men playing dad to this child.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083
Children are better suited to be raised with one set of parents. The OM brings another discipline - set of values to confuse and create chaos for the child.l

Imagine - go read on the divorced/divorcing thread anna's x is all for appeasing the child (16 yr old soon-to-be-highschool dropout, thanks to dear-ole'dad's enabling).

The fact of the matter is that the one who is behaving honorably in the Kentucky situation is the man who the OM would force out of the child's life. The one with a strong enough moral compass to do the right thing for the child.

Two families - two confusions. That's why divorce is so harmful for children. And that's why OM is harmful to child, even if he is the bio dad.


Cafe Plan B link http://forum.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2182650&page=1

The ? that made recovery possible: "Which lovebuster do I do the most that hurts the worst"?

The statement that signaled my personal recovery and the turning point in our marriage recovery: "I don't need to be married that badly!"

If you're interested in saving your relationship, you'll work on it when it's convenient. If you're committed, you'll accept no excuses.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
Children are better suited to be raised with one set of parents.

And this could also be the OM and his wife. The WW should NOT be assumed to be the best parent.

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 104
I too have seen this happen with some of my divorced friends. The problem lies with th adults when they can't come together and make simulars for the kids in the two house holds. when one parent tries to be "the friend" instead of the parent that can happen. Her xh is probaly trying to compete with his xw for this child or is very insecure and going about his parenting wrong.

You can't be a friend first especially with a teenager or soon to be teenager than a parent. You have to be a parent first then incorporate trust of a friend with the boundries and rules still in place.

There are no gaurntees in life with your kids married or not. Sad but true there are millions of children from broken homes and surely all those kids are not drop out drugie kids.

The fact of the matter is he is the bio father and deserves the chance.


Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 7,298
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 7,298


[color:#FF0000]YouTube - Bio-Dad with Baby[/color]

There are a couple more videos that will come up as suggestions when viewing that one....

I think that under the law, the KY Supreme Court ruled appropriately. I think with what we learn here at MB, what is best for the child (and family) is that the Ricketts continue their recovery after the affair.

Thinking those things best, it's still gut-wrenching. I feel for them all.

frown


Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have in trying to change others.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,884
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,884
I finally spent a little bit of time actually reading some of the discussion on this OM's blog. I find it interesting how many times he quotes scripture, yet then says that the M should never come before the children!!!! If he truly read the bible, or even attended a Christian wedding, he would know the part that states, "What GOD has joined together, let no man tear assunder"!!!! Adultery is a sin, and sins all have consequences. I see that the xWW in this situation is dealing with her consequences, but this OM is still being nothing but selfish! This couple is trying to save their M, and this interloper has stated, many times, that M isn't important to him! No wonder the BH doesn't want to hear anything from this joker! I would post to his blog, but from other comments, he wouldn't "approve" it and therefore, not post it for others to read. He is totally self absorbed, and is throwing a tempertantrum because the didn't get what he wanted. And, IMHO, that has never been his son. He is upset that his plan to destroy this M failed and NOW he is calling "foul"!

In the video, I recognized something I haven't seen in many years. That's the look in the xWW's eyes. I would see that same look in my own eyes many times before D-day! She wanted out, but couldn't figure out how.



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: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
Completely agree tigger.

Just so you know...you don't have to post to his blog to send him a message, he's been reading here for days and emailing me.

He told me to back off Mary as though Mary needs his protection. She's been more than capable to CIVILLY discuss things with me all by herself without James Rhoades protection.

He makes himself out to be a saint. All of the sudden this degenerate is the protector of all that is pure, the truth and the light. It's like Osama Bin Laden arguing that his legal rights were violated after he attempted and was denied the opportunity to bid to have his families construction company clean up the World Trade Center site.

He now is taken the position that he is a martyr for the "the truth" as if Jon and Julia won't ever tell their son, Anthony, the truth about their abusive and interloping bio-dad (something tells me they won't get the chance to tell Anthony the truth in their own appropriate time and manner as this OM will force his "truth" somehow upon such child however he chooses unless, of course, they get a restraining order against James and eventually have him locked up if he doesn't respect it).

I think bio-dads position and statements that the BH, Jon, will never amount to anything more than a step-father is an affront to every adoptive parent out there and I'm surprised he hasn't been taken to task for it (though he's editing his website comments so maybe they have).

MDEC called it an "assumption" that the mother would be better for the child and I, rather consider it merely a "presumption". States regularly take children away from their parents and eventually sever their parental rights in situations of abuse and neglect. NOTHING, [except extreme physical abuse and sexual abuse] is more abusive than adultery and, if and when, the state legislature chooses, by and through the people, to enact laws that PRESUME the paternity of babies born in marriage are the husbands....such legislature is PRESUMING that OM's in these situations are PER SE ABUSIVE and PER SE severing thier rights, IN LAW ONLY, to interfere with the marriage (they COULD do the reverse and say the same thing about OW's but that's not my call). So the argument that this is a 1/2 adoption is a little off...it's a PRESUMED PER SE 1/2 finding of ABUSE and PREEMPTIVE severing of parental rights without having to waste a dime of taxpayer's money and court time as well as protecting recovering marriages from the outlandish and expensive attacks of interlopers.

Kentucky got it right. Despite the lack of a judicial remedy, these situations ARE NOT unresolvable by the "adults". All this law does is preclude James from a force legal remedy and leaves the parties free to negotiate and resolve things on their own and in their own time. Jon and Julia HAVE offered settlement agreements, Charles was just too foolish to accept them. I predict James will attempt to extort another settlement agreeement one day based upon the promise that he will take down his disgusting website. I'd strongly advise them not to bargain with a terrorist, and make OM take it down for 6 months or even 1 year before I would ever negotiate with him. He needs to demonstrate with actions his willingness to behave like an adult and consider only Anthony's best interests.

James has a long way to go to repentence. I am working with him to achieve it and forever hopeful for him.

Mr. Wondering

Last edited by MrWondering; 05/20/08 09:12 AM. Reason: bitbucket's suggestion

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: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,164
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,164
Quote
NOTHING is more abusive than adultery

I disagree. CSA or physical abuse is worse. But I'll give you that adultery is in the top 3.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
I concur.

I edited accordingly.

Thanks...

Mr. W

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
he's been reading here for days and emailing me.

If he is reading here, I hope he knows that there are some that understand his plight. What he did was terrible...sleeping with another mans wife...but that should NOT automatically remove you as a parent to the child. The courts should determine what is in the child's best interest rather than just making the assumption that the wayward wife should have custody.

Hang in there and fight.


Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,383
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,383
Originally Posted by mkeverydaycnt
The courts should determine what is in the child's best interest rather than just making the assumption that the wayward wife should have custody.

That's exactly what they did.


Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
That's exactly what they did.

no, they went far beyond that. They did NOT set a precedent that puts the best interest of children at the forefront. It may work out being the best in this case but this winds up setting rules that will eventually harm other children.

Last edited by mkeverydaycnt; 05/20/08 10:53 AM.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,383
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,383
Originally Posted by mkeverydaycnt
no, they went far beyond that. They did NOT set a precedent that puts the best interest of children at the forefront. It may work out being the best in this case but this winds up setting rules that will eventually harm other children.

Perhaps, in very few cases, but I have a feeling this will protect FAR more children than harm.

Besides, what I was responding to, was the fact you seem to think the courts made their decision by just automatically assuming the ww, because she's a woman/mother should have sole custody. I think the fact she's the woman/mother, played a very small role in their decision. I think the best interest of the child played a significant role, as did the protection of the marriage and family.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
I think the fact she's the woman/mother, played a very small role in their decision.

Well, actually it played a HUGE role. They did NOT look at the merits of the parents here. The determined that the WW and her husband are the parents of this child. IF they had looked at each individual and made a determination of their parenting qualifications, that would be a different story. That did not happen here and the result is that a WW that gets pregnant will ALWAYS get custody absent some abusive situation.

The protection of the marriage is for the H & W to worry about. The WW handed over those protections the minute she rutted with the OM. Thankfully, more and more states are recognizing the sexist nature of these archaic laws. KY is not exactly the lead dog when it comes to forward thinking in the court room.

Last edited by mkeverydaycnt; 05/20/08 11:00 AM.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,383
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,383
Originally Posted by mkeverydaycnt
The determined that the WW and her husband are the parents of this child.


"and her HUSBAND" is the key.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
How does the fact that she is married to her BH make her a better option for raising this child? Who is to say that the OM in any given case and his wife wouldn't be 100X better parents?

THAT IS THE KEY.

Quote
Perhaps, in very few cases, but I have a feeling this will protect FAR more children than harm.

This is sexism wrapped neatly. Children will do best with the better parent....not the presumed better parent. I would say that 50% of the kids here will suffer because they are left with the "lesser" parent. This ruling is a slam against father's...it is NOT a protection of marriage, children or families.

Last edited by mkeverydaycnt; 05/20/08 11:08 AM.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,383
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,383
Is the om in this case M?

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Quote
Is the om in this case M?

I don't know and don't care. It is about the precedent that this case sets. EVERY CHILD of an adulterous affair will now go to the WW and her BH absent any abusive situation. That is the problem with this ruling...not that this particular child winds up in the wrong household.

Last edited by mkeverydaycnt; 05/20/08 11:13 AM.
Page 6 of 15 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 14 15

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 39 guests, and 52 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