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.

Thanks! I say woohoo for Kentucky!

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.

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?

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.

This is what is concerning to me - This is a quote from one of the dissenting judges:



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.

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.

All a DNA test will prove is the truth.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think Kentucky has it right. The paternity presumption is just that "a presumption". The husband and wife, in this case, has the right to deny the "father" from interferring further with their family. It doesn't force the husband to accept paternity if he doesn't want it. If the BH wants to divorce and deny paternity, he still can and HE does have the right to do DNA testing to exclude himself as the father.

OM could have worn a condom. He left his seed behind in a spoken for fertile womb. Nobody held a gun to his head and made him insert his adulterous tool there. His mistake. His gift. To bad for him. This ruling should be a warning to all OM's in KY, take her to another state if you want to father a child.

This opinion will not be reversed by the US Supreme Court. They have no jurisdiction. However, the Kentucky State Legislature or the people of Kentucky could change the law themselves at any time. As I recall, approx 13 states by law or by court opinion (actually Kentucky may NOW with this case be the 14th) follow the same or similiar paternity presumption in favor of the BH.

As far as the truth goes, that Kentucky childs PARENTS (the WW and the BH) can decide what's best for their child. Like any adoptive parents, they will likely lovingly inform such child of the truth in an age appropriate manner based upon the facts and circumstances relevant to their lives. It's parents went to the KY Supreme Court so it's not likely to remain a secret. OM can butt the heck out. He's nothing more than a FREE sperm donor trying to reneg on his gift and interject himself in a MARRIAGE.

I will concede that this presumption may not, er, is not, going to be 100% perfect. There will be situations where anyone would wish for a different outcome. However, on the whole, THIS is the proper decision and a hard and fast LAW/OPINION, to me, affords the best outcome for FAMILIES, MARRIAGE and OC's in the vast majority of situations. The fight this KY family made when I'm certain they could have settled numerous times over the YEARS this case continued is just a testament to the resolve a repentent FWW and BH will go to preserve their family and keep the serpent away.

BTW, I am, for the most part, fully supportive of father's rights. In this case...it's the injured, abused and innocent BH's father's rights that I'm most concerned with. IF he, the BH wants to father the child in his wife's womb and he doesn't deny the child within a 2 year window the state affords him too...then, by God, HE is the father whose rights I support.

Mr. Wondering

It's a double standard. Your thinking of the bs's feelings here whem in deed the ws wondered with her fertilte womb and brouht a 3rd party who is indeed entitled to his child. Just when an ow gets pregnant and the mm can choose or no choose to be a parent.......for what is best for him at that moment.....then so can the om choose if he wants to be or does not want to be. As the law as I have understood it is, the child is presumed to be the husbands of a marriage but if paternity is asked of another man then he has that window of time to come forward.

Just as the ow has to suck it up......unless abuse of some sort is established the bio father has the right to his child.

Just as in a legal adoption, both bio parents have to sign off on that child and the courts go to great lenghths to find both parents to sign off before an adoption can done.

Yes it's sad but the ww let this other person intrude in the marriage. When a child is brought into the mix emotions are higher and deeper. Just because it's not a perfect stitch or conveient for the marraige......it is what it is.

I would dare someone to try and keep me away from any of my children. A person can make bad judgement calls, but that does not mean they are not capable of being a good parent and putting there child's needs or best interest first.

Thankfully the vast majority of states do not see it this way. The WW was the main cause of this mess and she gets to profit from her sin....no matter if she is a piece of [censored] or not. As in all other custody issues, the best interests of the child should be taken into account...they were not in this case.

Actually...it is not the vast majority of states. The number 13 (or 14) was not an indication that the other 36 or 37 have opposite laws protecting bio-OM's in this situation. Many other states have no rules at all or have a paternity presumptions which differs only slightly from the KY ruling. For example, some states give OM's 2 years to contest and others require some relationship with the OC before standing is given. It does appear that KY had previously no controlling opinion on the subject hence they ARE the 14th state to take the extreme position that the OM has no legal standing to contest paternity. (I am NOT positive of the number 14).

Here is a chart which may be useful for those that come here to determine whether their state recognizes Paternity Presumption with the relevant cases footnoted for further research.

Paternity Presumption STATE by STATE

It should also be stated that even if an OM wiggles his way into establishing paternity, such paternity, by itself, does not insure rights to custody or visitation. Merely paternity. Now he's the bio-dad. Custody is a separate determination that I guess then falls to a best interests of the child test which I hope most judges would fall heavily upon allowing the FWW and her WH to raise THEIR child with limited interference from interlopping sperm donor dad. Perhaps, in addition to child support, such Bio-dad should also be subject to the possibility of having to pay father-support DIRECTLY to the BH, say in the amount of 10% of the child support, as payment to such BH for impregnating BH's wife and presumably making him an unwilling father...but father none-the-less. Such Father support award would be made upon a facts and circumstances basis but would further deter a OM from interrering (by lawsuit and demanding custody rights) with a marriage just to keep contact with the FWW somehow. He'll really have to PAY to lay claim to his supposed biological rights as a demonstration that such claim is based upon really wanting access to the child and not just the FWW. Plus...the court would have the opportunity to financially compensate the BH for such wrong. Little consolation but a penalty nonetheless as these situations are often a battle between the bulls for the cow and the interloper would want nothing to do with PAYING the BH. If he's willing...just maybe I'll be ok with a one week visitation in the summers, strictly monitored and while maintaining NO CONTACT between the affair partners.

Again...OM had the choice not to leave his seed in the womb. Sure they both jumped into the bed together but when they left the bed she took her womb and his seed with her. He should have been more reponsible with his property. If he wanted rights to his seed, he should have gotten married or at least had unprotected sex with a single woman.

Mr. Wondering

p.s.- I also believe that many of the states that changed their laws from the common law presumption did so to give BH's the opportunity to DENY paternity. It was seen as unjust for a WW to defraud her husband and make him financially responsible for a child not biological his. I read an Oklahoma case where a BH had to pay $650 per month to his Ex-wife AND OM for 6 year old twins they had just determined weren't the former BH's. The reason most of these presumptions are being altered is to set the hard and fast rules for allowing the cuckholded BH's to get OUT of the obligation. OM's generally don't pursue such responsibility and when they do...it's overwhelmingly to interject themselves into the marriage because they "feel" jilted.

this is absurd. She spread her legs and got knocked up. What the heck difference does it make that she is the one that walked away with a child in her. A child is NOT property...is it? Frankly, this is archaic thinking. With your way of thinking...a woman could get pregnant from an affair partner that didn't even know she was married....she could be a crack addict ho that abuses her child...and you say the real dad should have no rights.

In all cases the best interest of the child should prevail and that is NOT always with the WW and her BH. The AP is no more at fault here...and even less so in my opinion..than a WW. Any WW that gets pregnant has responsibilities that far outweigh anything to do with her marriage.

You are also making an assumption about protection. Children are born every single day from "protected" sex.

Perhaps if the law was fair, women would be a little less likely to spread their legs knowing that couldn't pass of the child as their husbands...which happens A LOT!

This law is nothing more than a slap in the face of father's rights.

mk,

Most women don't have to pay child support because they are the custodial parent because they spend more time with the child. The few women who are ordered to pay child support are an extremely unusual (and small) group of women. Most of them were probably unfit parents or had drug or alcohol problems - IOW, not the average woman.

Your situation is extremely unusual - and not because of the courts but because most men are not interested in full custody. Most men do not fight for custody. You did, but that puts you in a VERY small minority so you can't extrapolate from that.

But if you insist on taking one case and generalizing, I do know one man who fought for and got full custody of his kids only to turn around a year later and give them back voluntarily because he couldn't hack it as a single parent.

I think you are a liar...or there's a lot more to the story.


Where are you getting your stats from?


And this little factoid comes from where?

Your standard for who should get custody sucks. What does it matter who spent more time with the child??? My dad didn't spend nearly as much time with us as my mother...WHY??? He was working to allow her to be a stay at home mom. If they got divorced..using your ridiculous logic, I should go with mom??? Dad gets penalized for doing his job...while the kids get stuck with the least fit parent. It happens every single day...

The ONLY standard that should be used is the best interest of the child with NO preference for gender.

Mr. Wondering: That is totally a double standard.......NOw what should the WW pay the om for taking his child away from him? What should the ww pay to the bh for bringing this child with om into this world? After all if the WW went to a fertilty clinic and took the seed home with her she would be paying THOUSANDS of dollars for that seed to inpregnanting her......I know......I've BTDT (not the seed, but the clinic, I know what it costs).

What about all the MM's out there that go for joint custody? By the standards I'm hearing in past posts that is okay.......but it's NOT okay for an OM to go after custody or joint custody of his child with ww? It's a double standard only to protect the bs......only......not the child. Sorry......IMHO your reasons come across as a person who hates someone for getting his wife pregnant (understanably) and therefore owes the bh and does not hold the ww accountable at all. When it comes to an oc you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you accept the way it is and suck it up or do as a few others have done and don't tell and stay away and hope and pray for the best that om does not come around within that window or find out. The bs does have choices, but the oc has none?

As far as most men won't fight for custody I don't buy that either. I know tooooooo many that have it that were just and not just for there reasons to get custody. I have met so many men in the past 5 years that have full and or joint (actual 50% of the time if not more) custody with there x's. In fact more Judges are ruling in that favor on behalf of the kids. At least in my state it is that way.

Now my X, I have handed him joint custody on a silver platter and his only reason was to lower his cs and once I gave it to him, he no longer wanted them 50% of the time, only on paper to lower his cs. I'm lucky if he sees his kids 15% of the month.......Which is sad........he started something for his own selfish reasons and then turned his back as soon as he got what he wanted. He hurt my kids in doing this. Not me.......I get my kids the majority of the time which makes me happy and screw the cs.........I have my kids where they want to be at home.....but that too was his doing.

So to say most men won't fight for custody or joint custody for there kids........oh yeah there are some dead beats out there, but everyday you are seeing more and more fathers stepping up to the plate not just with paying cs, but actually parenting there children the majority of the time.

If a MM has the right to choose if he wants his blood child in his life....so should a OM. It sucks to have that intruder in your life and that reminder, but thank the ws for inviting him/her. It does take two to tangle, Unless of course she was raped then all bets are off!

I am a man who has full custody of his two children and I take offense to the idea that most men do not want full custody. I think many men are realists, and understand that the courts are stacked against them and thus do not fight for full custody. But to say most do not want it is incorrect in my opinion.

I can tell you, if I fathered a child, no matter the circumstance, I would find a way to be in my childs life. This ruling is wrong. No, DNA alone does not make someone a father. But neither does marriage.

If a married couple is in the best interests of the child, why not take children away from single OW and give them to the MM and his wife?

Further, I don't think this ruling does anything to protect the sanctity of marriage. I think it tells any man in an affair with a married woman to have at it, don't worry about protection. If she get's pregnant, it's not your problem.

Great points MID.

I have had foster children that were taken from two parent households and put in my care(a single man with a son)....why...because not every person should be raising children.

Best interests of the children should be the ONLY standard.

YES!

This post caught my eye, for several reasons. I'm a paralegal and was already aware of this case and legal issues surrounding it. I live about 40 minutes away from the couple (no, I don't know them personally, but I do know the husband/stepdad by reputation). I am also a parent.

Want some more info? Check out the active blog. It's gut-wrenching...answers questions...and sparks even more questions.

[color:#FF0000][b]BIO-DADDY'S BLOG[/b][/color]

The Times article is a good piece.


For a court system that has already stripped a dad of any say in the slaughter of his children (abortion) this is just another attempt to undermine the role of fathers. Thankfully, as the article points out, 33 states are no longer living in the dark ages.

Thank you for sharing that link.

The OM is pyschotic. His total lack of sympathy and empathy for the abuse he has rendered upon the "bitter" bh is disgusting. This unrepentent boy-man shouldn't be allowed within 1 mile of that boy or his mother and father.

Here's a link to a comment debate on the issue involving the sperm donor father whinning and complaining about being put in his place by the Kentucky Supreme Court.

[trying to fix link...but I can't find it again...i'll look tomorrow at my office]


For the record, my wife did not get pregnant and we don't have any issues involving an OC. I'm just an attorney interested in the subject and legal debate. I am more pro-marriage than pro-father's rights. If men want to guarantee their reproductive rights to any and all their babies they sire THEY SHOULD GET MARRIED. I am all for the best interests test being applied gender nuetral; but, only when it pertains to actual fathers, including single fathers of UNWED mothers as well as BH's that CHOOSE to stay with their then FWW in a recovering marriage and FATHER such children.

Donating sperm ALONE does not a father make.

IMO, this ruling creates the proper SOCIAL norm and respects the relationship of the BH as the actual societal father instead of merely allowing a scientific truth to interfere. Even the states that have the UPA only allow a OM 2 years to claim fatherhood and that's just to get the right to be called the father. The liklihood of an OM getting any substantial custody is remote when you consider applying any rational persons "best interest test". This guy in KY, were he to have prevailed, obviously shouldn't get more than supervised visitation, at best. I guess, at least, such OM's in UPA states get a shot at something more than I'd be willing to give an interloping sperm donor such as this moron from KY.

Mr. Wondering

Mr.W - That link doesn't work for me. Can you check it? Thanks.

Mr. Wondering, don't you feel that your opinion is based more on feelings than law. just because you are an attorney it does not change the fact that you've been cheated on and have reconciled. I'm sure the thought with reading about this man and this stitch had to bring up what if and what you would want to do if it were you. Seriously, and I can understand that. But as you can tell there is a huge difference here where the WW has brought this OM into the picture not only to plant the seed but to be a father to her child. She allowed this man to bond with this child and it is clear by all the pictures that are posted. There is a huge differnce if she would have never broght him into that child's life at all and never did DNA.

Your wife had an affair and that does not make her a bad person. You have forgiven her and moved on to a great life with her. In fact I bet your wife is a great person. She made a horrific mistake in your marriage. What's to say this man is not a good man too? It took both the WW and om to have that affair not just the OM. I saw those letters she wrote him. He was not in this by himself.

I have not read the blog you posted will, but surely after the WW brought this man into the picture to BOND with his child and got the child ripped away from him like that I'd be whinning too. I'd be kicking and screaming.

Again this is a double standard. A MM can come into the picture of an oc and considered a hero......if he chooses to go NC he is considered a hero......and understandable. This man is steppin up to the plate and considered a wacko.

I could truely understand this rulling more if this man was never in the child's life and had no bond with his son. It's not right.

I don't know if you have kids, but consider your wife ripping your kids away from you and you did not do anything crimnal to deserve it, but she wanted to have a carefree life with her next husband.........how would that make you feel? Would you sit back and let her do it? Okay WW was married to someone else and a OM got her pregnant, but again SHE brought him into all this by allowing him to be this child's father.

Well, that is a bit harsh. A rational person IMHO would see that the father deserves to be in the childs life every bit as much as the wife that invited him to rut with her.

You say the OM is psychotic...I see the WW as the nut job. She is the one that cultivated this relatiosnhip and then rips it away.

This man is no more of a sperm donor than any other father out there...you and me included. He made the same mistake as 1/2 the people on these boards...yet you suggest forgiving them. He is a MAN that is stepping up trying to see his son.

Thanks Lucks...I've found a new one I hadn't found before. I'll post a link to follow but here's the CRAZIEST quote I discoverd on it:

OM Sperm donor said: "I do want to have Julian's last name changed to mine (I actually offered for it to be hyphenated Rhoades-Ricketts for as longs as Julia remains married to Jonathan)."

OMG...no... OMG

How gracious of this OM to "offer" the Fww and her BH to settle on a hyphenated last name. That's REALLY thinking about the kid isn't it???

Can you imagine?

So Julian, why is YOUR name hyphenated and your brother's aren't?

Further...look how confident his foggy butt is that their marriage is going to end. As though HE had nothing to do with it.

This idiot is NOT the father in any way shape or form. Jon IS. Jon didn't even know his wife was having an affair until the child was several months old. Jon became a father as HE held that baby in the hospital, drove Julian back to HIS marital home, fed and clothed the child, etc. The 2 or 3 hours OM had with his progeny in an adulterous hotel room does NOT compare.

and I'm sorry, but THIS guy is supposed to be the poster child for OM's everywhere that want to lay claim to their bio-children. This guy is the test case of the father's rights industry that so wants to bring all of us out of our 1000 years of tried and true, slowly changing common law and into the 21st century.

Unfortunately, I think this guy is the best OM they could ever come up with. He didn't and doesn't deserve to win and the courts don't need to torture one more recovering legitimate marriage in KY or any other state so some interloping idiot like this OR WORSE can have his day in court. It's a waste of time.

The law is NOT archiac...they just reflect a traditional family values notion not as acceptable in the post modern, "New Earth", God-less times we currently (but, I pray, not permanently) live in. As Mrs. W's mama always says, (the same mother that was instrumental in ending my FORMER wayward wife's affair)...."times change...morals never do."

Mr. Wondering

Here's a link to the quoted blog

Mary,

My wife is REPENTENT.

IF sperm donor boy WERE repentent he would be apologizing to Julian's father, the BH, the man who he abused, pursued his wife, impregnated his wife, encouraged her to keep the affair a secret while Jon bonded with his son. He should be begging Jon, for his forgiveness and praying for God to have mercy upon his soul. He should be offering to step back and walk away if Jon wishes. He COULD, respectively and with contrition, request that he be given some opportunity to actually be a part of his bio childs life but only upon the terms and conditions which Jon, Julian's true FATHER, by law, dictates and WHEN he dictates it, if ever.

IF he had taken THAT route perhaps, in time, Jon would have had a Christian forgiving heart and seen to it that sperm donor did get a little time with his bio-son or not. But he could have faith that one day, when bio-son was 18, he could and would contact his ADULT bio-son and restore a relationship with him.

But no...this guy puts the whole inciduous affair on a website for the world to see. He tugs on peoples heartstrings with his notion of a romantic love affair. He makes accusations about the BH being a abusive, sick, hurtful, evil, untruthful man. He pursues his child through legal court cases exposing his bio-son and his other victim, the BH to public scrutiny and he does this all unabashedly and without apology. He berates the decent and honorable court system of KY even though they gave him more than his day in court.

What this man has done to Jon is a crime. In fact, it IS a crime in many states and he wants sympathy.

It is all just so tragic.

I do realize it's easy to read OM's story and get sucked into feeling sympathetic. But he is and was an adult and HE should have known better. FWW should have known better too...but the CHILD and the BH are the innocent VICTIMS here, NOT OM, in any way shape or form.

Mr. Wondering

p.s.- Mary...btw, bias CAN take you off course but it can also give one insight otherwise unavailable. For example, I can see that this OM is unrepentent because I know what repentence looks like. I have been reading here for years and become acutely aware of just how evil OM's are; however, my wife's OM is completely irrelevant to me so, IMO, such "awareness" can't be conveniently brushed off as "bitterness". Dr. Harely's never been cheated on but I suspect he'd agree with such strict paternity presumption laws were he here. I've read his book on adultery laws and feel this parrellel's his thinking on this issue. I have no bitterness or anything as my wife and I are happily recovered. I have read extensively on the subject, read many underlying legal cases and briefs. I've seen the statistics demonstrating the tendency of countries such as Iceland and others where men are given substantial rights to their bio-children regardless of marital status to have FAR more illigitimate children than other western cultures where marriage is encouraged by laws that support a societal norm of men obtaining such rights via mairrage. I acknowledge that my position will not ALWAYS be fair or the right call in every situation (neither will the alternative given the crap shoot judicial system); however, this KY ruling, is IMO, the way to go and achieve's a greater societal good for families, marriages AND children such as Julian everywhere, than any alternative.

BTW...What's your bias?

Mr. Wondering: thank you for taking the time to reply.....first let me start off by saying my daughter's name is hypenated. She has my name and her father's name. what she chooses to do with that at 18 is her choice soley. But she has the option because we never know what tomorrow may bring.

My bias: I'm a FOW with an oc. Before I was an fow I was a BW twice. Well I found out last year my xh cheated on me too so 3 times. I know that pain. BTDT and could not believe I went on the other side when I did but I did. Let me tell you why I feel the way I feel and for the record which everyone who knows me knows this........I believe in alot of Dr. harely's beliefs but when it comes to a child any child I am 100% against what he is for. I even wrote him and told him so and my reasons. Otherwise I do believe Dr. Harely is pretty right on and have even referred a few friends in trouble with there marriage to this site and his books.

IMHO you are making this WW to much of victum. She is not a victum in anyway shape or form just as the om is not. I was never a victum in my case. She could have told that OM at anytime to have nc even before her husband found out. I am assuming because you have read more than me, as my time has been limited this week but by what you said she led her husband onto believe this child was his as she is sneaking around with this child to see OM? Correct? That is On the WW no OM. They are both in the wrong, but if she had every intention of staying with her husbad she should have made that right before that child was born and given her husband a chance to decide what he could do or not do. She should have told the OM that she was going to raise that child with her husband. She should have never taken that child and involved him in that affair.

Every child deserves to know there bio parent and evey bio parent because it's there dna/seed/egg deserves to be that parent. Unless there is abuse (and I mean crimnal abuse) a parent has that right.

We all make choices in our lives. Some are great ones some are awful ones that affect us the rest of our lives. Some are great ones that affect us for the rest of our lives. When I got pregnant with oc I had a choice my child or MM........I choice my child! It was a no brainer.

My child has no father and her father chose that. That is his cross to bear. In fact I can tell you that history totally repeated itself with my childs father because what he did to my daughter the same thing happened to him. The only difference was his mother made it go away and put him up for adoption. I would not do that. He has issues with it to this day over his birth mother giving him up. He knows he does as well.

So he has chosen the same path for our daughter, except I will do everything in my power to ensure she does not have those issues. But she has every right as a child to know her father.

If he chooses to bring her into his family I would allow that with open arms. And that is where the double standard comes in and I don't agree with this....

you say if the WW is pregnant the OM stays out of his child's life to preserve the BH........but if a MM chooses not to have contact he is a hero and if he does he is still a hero. So MM can come in and out of his child's life like a puppet for when it suits his family and it' the child that pays for that crap. It's the mother who has to clean it all up.

I made my bed..... I paid for what I did and then some. I accepted the fact that her bio dad is not in her life regardless if I think it's right or not. But it is accepted. I did not fight him or start a web page in fact when we went to court I made sure the case was sealed to protect my daughter. Although I guess it protected him as well and his good standing in the communty still stood.........He was willing to help financially for her until he told his wife....and then it cost me 16 grand to get cs for her and I settled. It's nothing to him what he pays, lunch money......it could have been a lot worse with everything I had as evidence, but enough was enough.....

The fact of the matter is my daughter should know her father. he's not a bad person. He would have been decent to her.

So when I see a Man steppin up to the plate I applaud him with my hand in the air. Any man regardless of title.

I have a xh who wanted to have joint custody and so I give it to him thinking he finally was stepping up to the plate with his kids only to find out after the judge signed it he sees them maybe 15% of the month........it was all about money, and I also have a xmm who wants nothing to do with his child...so I have 3 kids 2 of the marriage and one oc that barely and don't have there dad in there lives. It's just a shame. i don't care the reasons it took two!

ETA: I have a couple of ww friends w/oc an one has contact and the other does not.........the difference with the one that does not have the contact she never gave her om that chance and prayed that entire 2 years he would not come around and she fessed up to her husband and broke off all conact to rebuild her marriage. Her son only knows one man as his father...if her om came around I would have totally different feelings about that case. Our children are our future and we are given them for a reason. God does not make mistakes.......only humans do.

You are so right, Mary.

My fwh and OW messed up big time.

I fully believe that the OCs were meant to be a wake up for ALL the adults in this mess to cherish the GOOD and the blessings of life and not to squander and piddle away one's life.

Through all of this, even when my fwh was at his worst both those children were a light and a joy to me. They were and are proof that God can take our mistakes and make the best of them. Besides, who am I to say "no thanks, I don't want any blessings now," to God? Who am I to pick and choose which blessings I'll accept?

If I was the BH in this case I could never let my WW have direct contact with the OM if we were staying married. The logistics of parenting would be a full time job in it's self. Neutral parties would have to handle communication and OC exchanges would have to be at a neutral place. NC must be 100% with the OM and us.

Everyone talks about the rights of the BH, WW, and OM. They are valid because of just the way they feel. What they perceive as just and safe.

The most important rights to be protected are the rights of the OC.

In a case where the WW refuses to allow the OC to have contact with the DNA dad is essentially forcing the DNA D to give up his son for a 1/2 of an adoption.

When have you not heard where the child upon learning they were adopted then goes on a life long quest to find their birth parent. They feel robbed. A sadness of years that never can be relived. A loss of connection.

You can site all the laws that you want. This case should and will be overturned because these laws were based when paternity could not be proved.

Science now can. A society can not ignore the truth.

This is a very interesting debate. And a debate is all it is. Every person here has a story that leans their thinking one way or another.

All I can think of while reading this thread is that if selfish people STOP having unprotected sex (how about sex at all!) with people who are not their spouses or with people who already HAVE spouses, this would not be a problem. No debate on who has the most rights and whose well being is the most important. It just isn't an issue. Pie in the sky thinking, I know, but common sense says there is an easy answer to the problem.

But in reality, there is NO good answer in this debate for this scenario. None. Someone's rights and well-being is compromised by the choices of others and the legal outcomes. It is an ugly, demeaning and hurtful situation in the long-term for just about everyone involved...BS, OC, COM, WWS. No one comes out unscathed.

Each story is different and the well-being of the innocent parties (OC AND BS) is difficult to legislate into a single law. One size does not fit all.

Why don't people just stop doing this? I know the answer, but wouldn't it be great?

Awh yes they were. The love you feel for those babies is overwhelming Kimmy

Mary

Have you apologized to your MM's wife??

Mr. W

And the KY decision and other states that maintain the paternity presumption protect the BH (a father that IS stepping up in this situation) by allowing him/them to make this call.

Interestingly, within the OM website is a mediated settlement agreement that he turned down over a year ago. Such agreement would have acknowledged his paternity, given him bi-weekly journals of Julian's development, supervised visitation before trial and an agreement to agree on parental visitation thereafter by agreement of ALL parties with the advice of nuetral counselors. He objected to agreeing to wait for an appropriate age to tell Julian the circumstances and submitting himself to counselling. Jon and Julia WERE willing to work with him but he felt ENTITLED to more (insane stuff like insisting Julian having his last name or a hyphenated last name). He even altered his petition to requesting FULL custody himself.

Mr. Wondering

I think both of those things are perfectly sane.

You can discuss rights of the BH, WW, OM, and OC.

But you should look to possible motives. Are the adults putting the OC's interests first?

Is the WW willing to go along with BH request to deny DNA D access to his son to keep BH and her comfortable life style, and as well for the two COM?

Is the BH wanting to deny visitation to get back at the OM? Recovering with the WW to deny WW and OC to the OM?

Is the OM fighting for the right to be a father to his OC, or trying to place a road block to the WW and BH recovery. So OM can continue with the WW?

After you address these questions does everything work down to this?

Knowing that the law regarding paternity, and who does not know this for it is very common knowledge that when a WW conceives a child as a result of an affair the OC by law is considered to be a part of the marriage and the BH is the legal dad.

Knowing this the OM prior to impregnating the WW would not be the legal dad to the OC and would never have any rights to the OC, chose to ignore the law and ride the WW bare back for the gratification that not only was he getting SF from some BH's wife but that he could knock her up and their was nothing the BH could do to stop him.

OM chose immense ego gratification over the chance that he may not get to raise his own son.

Then based on that he chose to ignore the law prior to getting the WW pregnant. The OM can not claim the law is unjust. OM chose to place his sperm where the law was never going to grant him protection.

Not that it matters much, but in this case I believe I read the actual conception took place somewhere outside of KY. I think my wife said she saw Florida as the hotel room the child was conceived in.

Second, I believe prior to this case, KY had no controlling law on the subject. It was a gray area state. At least NOW OM's in KY should beware.

Finally, OM WAS offered a mediated settlement agreement that he foolishly turned down.

Mr. Wondering

p.s.- How in the world is OM's demand to have his last name on Jon and Julia's son in Julian's best interest. I guess it's not insane to request, as I can see him wishing it could happen, but a truly repentent OM that was concerned for the child and not his selfish wishes would determine that's a stupid request/demand. Entitlement is not practical. The OC shouldn't carry around a scarlet letter name with him the rest of his life. It serves NO purpose whatsoever other than to appease OM's ego.

Mr. W...it is what YOU consider selfish. Others do not see it that way. I think the position that he is selfish and entitled and not looking to just have a relationship with his son is dead wrong.


I don't see him this way at all. I think the other side of this coin is the one lacking reason and intelligence.



What scarlet letter? How does this equate to a scarlet letter?


You seem VERY emotionally invested here. Did you have to deal with anything similar??? I am not used to you throwing around such disrespectful words.

Yes twice. 1st time when she first found out and it was too early for her......then about 2 years later giving her some time to heal and again it was not taken.

Instead I was told I would never be forgiven and I should have all my children taken away from me.

I never brought my children anyway near the affair and I was not with my husband. I had kicked my husband out 6 months prior to the affair as it was my last option with him. It was over and in the middle of a divorce with him. By the time the 2nd year came around for her, I was a good 4 years out and divorced from my husband.

I think xmm told his wife that xh was still in the picture do to a few comments she made and I corrected those statements (she was emailing me pretending to be him over a child issues) and just the whole thing was bewildering to me and confussed me and so I bascially still acted like it was him and said xmm what are you talking about? xh and I were not together and getting a divorce. You knew that. He was with someone from the time he left and you knew that too.

I honestly do not believe that xmm has been completly honest with his wife about the whole ordeal. In fact he denied that oc could even be his child at all until dna results came in. He wanted Dna done before she was born and since I was so high risk (and my age ) they wanted to do an amino anyway so I agreed but he did a no show to two appointments that were made for his swabs. When he no showed for the 2nd appointment was when I hired an attorney. I had her set up the dna testing through the courts......had all the paperwork done so when oc was born it could be filed and dna established and get over it already.

But really what he did tell her or did not tell her is no concern of mine and has nothing to do with me. He waited till one month before I had oc to tell her. To many holidays and b-days etc. I basically gave him no choice but to tell her so he finally did. It was not pretty. Understandably so. He downplayed his time with me, and had her convienced oc was not his and she basically threatened me to leave him out of it. Even his attorney tried to conveince my attorney to stop the proceedings as his client swore to him the child could not be his,but in the end dna proved to be his.

but to answer your question yes I did twice.

These are all very good questons.


Most people unless put in these situations do not even know these laws exsists. Think about it.....who would think of that?

How do we NOT know that the WW was not telling him he'd have full access to oc?

Us OP's can really believe every word the WS says to us and everyone else is wrong. Until the bomb hits and reality hits and it's like.........wow he/she lied to me......imagine that

Although the law states about the legal husband I also know to many cases where paternity was established regardless.

In my state the law states that "at time of conceiption" unless otherwise proven. I did not want my stbxh responsabile for a child that was not his and had my attorney file paperwork and we went to court to tell the judge that stbxh was NOT the father of the child I was pregnant with.

No, nothing remotely similiar in my situation although, perhaps, as a BH I CAN more readily put myself in Jon the BH's position and be able to read through all the emotional propaganda OM has posted and see his still sick and twisted wayward mindset. Remember, I have seen both a wayward and a repentent wayward. I KNOW what the repentence looks like and OM's lawsuit and public "outcry" isn't it. He has NO shame...YET (he will one day, or else???)

I AM merely emotionally invested in the preservation and protection of marriage.

I am also interested to see how people here can somehow walk the line between supporting marriage, disparaging wayward mindsets but yet think this KY ruling is unjust. IMO, it's a case of "father's rights" blinding those to what is right, the obvious glaring defects in this OM's character and the BH's Father's Rights.

Did you notice that there was additional case attached to this appeal to the Supreme Court of KY wherein, I recall, the court affirmed a lower courts decision to give primary custody of a 13 year old to the non-biological father that raised her believing she was his daughter up until his now ex-wife filed for divorce and tried to deny him custody and visitation with DNA evidence that such "father" wasn't the biological father? (the child may have been a "he" and may have been 11, sorry)? What do you think on that one?

Still love ya, MDEC. I enjoy the debate. No one in KY related to this case is here and I do respect your opinions as I know you respect mine. We just disagree as to who the proper "father standing up for his rights" is in these particular difficult situations.

Mr. Wondering

Of course Dear, you really should learn his proper acronym, which is MEDC, barring that, you could just call him "Batman"!

Sorry...Thought this thread could use some comic relief!

Carry on...

Mrs. W

P.S. I agree with everything that smart Mr. W says!

Honey, you rock.

I think the mother should be in jail! I think the bio dad should be notified and the father she has known forever should always retain some custody.



I do NOT think a marriage is the most important thing. I think children, personal safety and self respect come before marriage.

As always, you and Mrs. W remain two of my favorite people.

Batman

Mr. Wondering: It is remotely simular to you as you were a BH. As well you have the strong dislike to any and all of the Om's motives. When I read letters she wrote to the OM and saw the pics of him/her and oc and indeed saw a DNA test that is where my motives for what I feel abgout this is. It's also something I've always felt before oc and before I had my twins that bio parents have a right to there kids. Unless she paid him for his sperm and or legally he gave all his rights away to his child he is the father. What is sad is the whole thing. Two men love this child and have been brought into this child's life and I don't see you have anything but pity on this WW like the OM did this to her. I guess that is what I don't understand.

I explained the double standard point twice on this thread and not once did you address it. I had valued points with that.

IMHO because you are the BH it is how you feel. Because of how you placed blame yourself perhaps? How do we NOT know that in the beginning he did not apoligize to her husband? Maybe her husband is like my xmm's wife and would not accept it. Because there was no acceptance does that mean I am not remorsful?

If xmm tried to take my child away from me and used the "married card" to his offensive I would be shouting from the roofs and taking it to every court house and newspaper I could. At that point all bets are off including how resmorsful I felt over my actions in the affair.

My children will and always have come first. Even if it means I live the rest of my adult life alone until they are grown.

Marysway

You were an OW, and your OM was married. I assumed OM did not want the OC's. That was great for you. Because in your situation there is no problem recognizing the bio parents. Thus if the OM wanted to fight for custody he could. Their case the OM has no legal standing. He knew this before he got into this.

"legally he gave all his rights away to his child he is the father"

I am not a lawyer. Do not know state to state law variations. The point is this. It is common knowledge that if a married woman has an affair. Then she gets pregnant the law assumes that the OC is presumed to be the child of the husband.

Knowing this the OM ( your champion by the way you defend him ) still went ahead and had unprotected sex. He chose to ignore that he would have no legal standing if he knocked up the WW.

Now as the spoiled OM little me first kid cries foul:

How much does he really want the OC verses the opportunity to stick it to the BH's marriage now that he can't get to stick it to the WW any more?

Another example of how the me first OM. OM chooses to ignore how he is hurting the WW, the woman who he has an undying love for. His actions show no concern over the pain he is causing her and others. Who? How about the COM. They have been damaged by his actions. What happens if these actions cause their parents marriage to break up and they now have to come from a broken home?

OM chose to ignore that when you have an affair with a married woman there is no guarantee she will leave her BH. No guarantee that WW will marry OM. No guarantee that OM will get to parent the OC.

Now the OM as any spoiled child is now having a temper tantrum. Is it not nice that it's all about him?

Road I don't see it that way and i don't see that way becasue I am the fow. I see it only because she brought him into that child's life as the father knowing he was the father knowing that she was leading two men on being the father.

I understand the keeping the marriage together and all. First of all her kids will know regardless and how the parents damage control has a lot with how this can be fixed.

There are assumptions that he is only doing this because of the BH to "get back at him". How do you know this? Because that is how most ow/om are?

I finally getting a clearer picture of this by reading most of what is being posted (the links) Mr W I'm getting to yours. I'm reading between clients and work so it is taking me awhile it's a lot......but even reading her depo she continued to deceive them both. She even sent the om a email stateing she would give him the child to raise in Fl. When asked about it in her depo her answer was in order for her NOT to get CAUGHT.

Ya know what I wish.........I wish she would have never brought the om into that childs life. If she did had no intentions of him being the "father" then she should have cut off the contact and came clean with her husband and never told the om she was pregnant than there would NOT be this battle for this little boy more than likely.

This something I would always disagree on unless I saw that he was criminal or abusive. Even with him being an OM. More and more states are recognizing that bio fathers should have there rights and that is good thing. What we as adults do we need to take the conqueses for them. People are going to get hurt with this, but also think that with the right attitude and possible counsel to guide us we can do damage control to better help he innocents in all this.

Along with haveing visation with his son comes other resposnbilties as well. He should be helping to support the boy and helping with his needs.

Again where is the blame to this WW for any of this? By what I read her whole thing was afraid of being caught, and only being caught.

Mary you claimed that the OM did not "legally he gave all his rights away to his child he is the father"

You wrote a response but did not address this point in my previous post:

"I am not a lawyer. Do not know state to state law variations. The point is this. It is common knowledge that if a married woman has an affair. Then she gets pregnant the law assumes that the OC is presumed to be the child of the husband. Knowing this the OM
( your champion by the way you defend him ) still went ahead and had unprotected sex. He chose to ignore that he would have no legal standing if he knocked up the WW."

Why do you choose to ignore OM's disregard for the law when it did not suit him and now that he wants the law to protect him now.

OM has to realize that you can not pick and choose to obey the laws that you want.

Then you change the subject about the WW not getting any blame she was wrong. But the point is this is a legal matter.

Is this because you can not rebut these points.

"I understand the keeping the marriage together and all. First of all her kids will know regardless and how the parents damage control has a lot with how this can be fixed."

How do you defend the OM's position that if his push for custody causes the WW's marriage to end up in divorce and the COM now are raised in a broken home? Shuttling between two homes. The hate that they will have for the OM. Problems and conflicts with potential step parents.

I think for you to condemn the OM you would have to condemn yourself and your choice to be selfish single parent on purpose. Unfortunately parents die young. But to deliberately deny a child the experience of growing up without both parents in the same home is extremely selfish.

Laws change by challenge. Thankfully. Some of them are pitiful and archaic.

Road,

I saw this written in one of the comments blogs off OM's website where someone said:

It's like OM was playing in BH's backyard, struck gold and now wants to call the "find" his.

Thought that was apropos.

Another difference.

I think you and I both look at OM's website and are disturbed by the overriding evil context of the items whereas Mary seemingly can ignore the fact that all those pictures and videos comprised only HOURS of bonding with OM and took place within the context of an adulterous sick hotel room. She can, as she said, read the letters and buy into the "feelings" that OM HOPES to pull on the unknowing public at large in order to win his case.

I was really trying to find the right analogy. All I could come up with is.

To me, OM's website is akin to a man putting videos of himself having sex with prostitutes on the internet and attempting to utilize such videos to convince the public that he's a kind and gentle lover.

You see...those videos, pictures, letters, emails are all EXHIBIT A to what I believe to be the WORST behavior this man, hopefully, has ever done in his life. They are not appropriate to put out there as EXAMPLES of his worthiness as any other than a man deserving of condemnation and judgement.

This man has absolutely NO SHAME.

Road..you see it. Others don't, and that's disturbing to me.

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - Mary, I'm working on a response to you.

mkevery

Laws change and they should. Is your position that the OM gets to choose and pick which laws he gets to have inforced?

Your response to me implies so.

actually my reply speaks to challenging unjust laws. There are A LOT of them on the books. My reply to you did not imply what you took from it.

Mary,

It's interesting when people use "bias" to attempt to undermine someones opinion as not only is "bias" a weak argument (as every perspective adds to the conversation...not that every perspective is always valid) but you'll typically find that the person pointing the "bias" finger has three "bias" fingers pointing back at them.

Your last post finally made that clear to me. You fear my argument places more emphasis on the marriage (and argument inconceivable to you whereupon your MM and his BW could potentially try to use a "married [trump] card" against you to take your OC away from you) than on any "best interests test" which you feel you would certainly win considering your MM has abandoned your child.

Such "fear" isn't misplaced. IF I were a judge (I could run for judge any day now), given your words in this thread and the facts as presented herein, I very likely would give much preference to your former MARRIED man and his BW if they petitioned for primary custody of your child in my hypothetical courtroom TODAY. His marriage comes before your child in God's eyes. He is demonstrating repentence every day that he honors his wife and original family and cuts you out of his life. It is not more than 50% HIS actions that have denied his bio-child a father. You could have and should have adopted your baby out to a loving married family that could have raised that child in a traditional nuclear family ABSENT of this mess where your child began. Children THRIVE best in married families.

I am not saying that to hurt you. It's just my opinion, like I said. There are certainly more things than just what I read here to be considered. I, like most judges, would PROPERLY have some bias towards the mother. But comparitively (to the judges in most courts today) it would be very little. I merely consider the 10 months of gestation to be counted towards the mother's developement of a bond with the child thus, most newborn's should be with and stay with the mother (beside the fact they breast feed anyway). However, I wouldn't hold your MM's lack of involvement with your child as a negative necessarily. He IS stepping up and doing right by his wife...which is his FIRST priority and then for him AND his BW to both step up to seek custody of your child would be huge. I would seriously judge the BW's motives, words, actions to determine her reasoning but SHE (as YOUR and MM's victim) would be the most trusted person of the THREE of you in court. On the other hand, one big reason I may rule for a mother in such position is that I would want to protect the BW from the obligation and responsibility of raising your OC and continued contact with her abuser. It would take a HUGE heart for some woman to do that AND maintain her marriage.

Such potential custody award to your MM would include strict visitation guidelines which insure NO CONTACT between you and MM. BW would be the only avenue of visitations and I wouldn't obligate her to EVERY wednesday evening and EVERY other weekend. I'd likely limit it to every other weekend and lots of holidays and a longer than typical summer visitation such that exchanges and contact with you by BW would be as limited as possible to keep you away from their marriage.

Enough of that. It's all just speculation anyway. I have no idea what kind of mother you are or what kind of parents they are. I do sense you have hostility towards the BW. I sense you feel SHE is the reason your childs father isn't involved. I sense you feel entitled to forgiveness and are frustrated that she won't accept your apology. I sense you still buy and value the "love" you and MM shared as real and likewise you still buy the bullcrap he likely fed you about his evil, manipulative, neglectful wife (he was lying by the way). What I don't know is what that apology looked like and whether you are truly repentent to your victim and God...THAT would be VERY important to me as a judge and since you are actually here listening to me it's important to me as a MB poster and compassionate person.

Thus, lets move to address what I think you should do rather than hypothetically ripping on you. You are a friend of Kimmy's and any friend of hers is a friend of ours. You asked my opinion and I gave it to you. I am truly sorry if my opinion offends.

I think you should TRY again to apologize to your MM's wife only do it better. I presume what you want more than anything is a father for your child...ANY father is better than what you have today. The only proper way for you to get that for your child is via the BW. However, this time draft an email and post it here for input. Such email should be an act of contrition. You need to lay yourself at her feet in total surrender to her, begging for her forgiveness and in the alternative begging for her to allow her husband to be a father to your child for the childs sake only. It should express that you will allow her and her only to determine the visitation schedule and arrangements. That you will not seek nor speak to her husband ever again...EVERYTHING will go through her and her only. Offer her a week or two every summer, offer her holidays, offer her WHATEVER reasonable time she wants and YOU will be more than willing to accomodate HER. In fact, if she herself never wants to see YOU, you offer to accomodate that too and have an independent third party facilitate the transfers of custody. You also tell her you aren't worthy of her forgiveness and aren't entitled to it. That this email or letter isn't about you at all...but you apologize once again nonetheless.

We can help you write this. You MAY just get your childs father back in his life. THAT would be wonderful, wouldn't it???

Respectfully,

Mr. Wondering

p.s.- I almost forgot. You MUST offer the BW to remove the MM's last name from your child. I don't know what you were thinking but if she wants HER last name removed from your child than so be it. (I don't know why but I suspect you did this as a slap towards HER and/or MM either way...that's how BW feels about it).

p.p.s. - I considered telling you to offer to forego the child support as that is money that is rightfully the BW's families money; however, perhaps that's your MM's consequences and rightful responsibility. mmmmm.

p.p.p.s. - Still worried about my double standard???

***CRUD...I was logged in as Mr. W, but this is Mrs. W!


Understood MEDC, but what about the sanity of this?

From pg. 50 of the sworn deposition of Julia N. Ricketts...April 6, 2007...

Full Deposition HERE.


That sounds extremely creepy to me...

Mrs. W

Greepy is an understatement. That is perverted. I have never heard of a man whether the farther or not try to do something as that.

I do not think that any one will be made whole from this problem.
There is no judge smart enough for this challenge.

The COM will be hurt when they learn their B is an OC because their mom cheated on their dad.

The OC will be hurt because people tried to keep him from his DNA D.

The marriage will never heal fully with the OM involved with joint custody.

Joint custody will only serve to rub the affair in the BH's face for the rest of his marriage.

The OC will financially take away from the COM.

Did the OM pay for the prenatal care, delivery? Any of the material or doctor visits associated with a pregnancy? Did the OM take care of the maternity wardrobe?

Has the OM offered to pay or put money into an escrow account for the OC's upbringing?

As low as the OM is he will always mourn the lose of his OC.

But was the OM's intent to ride the WW bareback and get WW pregnant his underhanded way to force the WW to divorce the BH. Let WW risk loosing custody of her COM. Only for the OM to win sole possession of the WW. That is my take on the OM's motives.

Then my position would be if the OM was willing for WW to risk losing her COM only so WW gets a divorce from the BH does not deserve to have his feelings considered that he is losing the OC.

MR W

I agree with your position that mary's motives are biased.

All the more confusing because she said she was a BW twice. You'd think someone who *knows* would have no desire to visit that on anyone else.

Mr W: You said a mouth full and I did not even finish reading it. Let me start off by saying to you that when MM and I went to court we had one of the most conservative judges in this town. In fact due to the circumstances of Mm and I, I asked my attorney to change judges but she talked me into giving him a chance that the law was he law and then see what happens. When MM's attorney told the Judge he wanted no legal rights to his child, the judge shook his head at him in shame for abondanding his child and told him that if he later changed his mind it would only be under the mother's supervision and strick guidelines would be forced on him.

As for his wife. You could not be further from the truth. If she chooses not to forgive me that is her choice. I had to forgive MM and I did. I left them alone completly. I accepted what he wanted and even if he did it for his wife who cares? The bottom line is it is what it is correct? It's his actions not anybody else's. She is not my child's father it is him. I don't care if she took a gun to his privates and threatened him the fact is it was him not her or anyone else that has to answer for his own actions. Just as it's ONLY me who can answer for my actions. No one else.

Maybe I sound calus because I'm too far out from it. A better word would be "indifferent". You don't know me and you don't how I felt. For you to presume what you are presuming is wrong and judgamental and IMHO you should repent for that as that is a sin too. Am I right? I don't blame his wife for anything other than what she personally did to my child or towards my child. She really does not play a role in how I feel about xmm with all that happened. I blame xmm for everything he did and again I have forgiven him. I took ALL the blame for what happened. He blamed his wife for the affair and blamed me for the child. He "was innocent" in the whole darn thing. I did not make any effort to change his story or make sure she knew "my truth". I left them alone. See you don't know me at all. Anyone that knows me knows I'm as strong as a person can be and I will take care of anything that comes my way that I have to take care. I don't claim nor have I ever claimed I was a victum to the affair with xmm. I know full well my end of it. I PAID my dues for that. Just as I'm sure your wife did.

As far as my defending this OM in the KY case again it goes with everything I feel about "parents" rights and knowing too many men that are great fathers who have gotten custody of there kids for various reasons and to those who should have. It also goes with the fact that this OM dd not act alone. He had a culprit the WW. The wondering wife went off birth control 3 weeks before they had sex that got her pregnant. They are both equally to blame for this little boys exsistants. I also see it as just because the WW is married does not give her a ticket to choose who her kids father is when she feels like it. Her husband is a victum. I agree. Her COM are also. But unlike this little boy he chose to work it out with her. Knowing full well that the child would be in this Om's life. I could totally understand if he could not handle that. It would be diffucult but I've seen a few BH that wanted there marriage and shared custody with the OM. Pops is a prime example. I tipped my hat off to that man.

Now as far as me being a single mother statement. OMG! Please Please don't tell me that you are so shallow towards single parents. It is not always best to keep children in a toxic "intact" home for the sake of them. Again you know nothing about my xh or what happened in my marriage.

I work my butt off for my family and also provide a stable and happy home for them. I have made sacarices with my own career and needs and wants to esure the stabilty of my children. Even my COM only have ME to rely on and know that they will be taken care of. My xh is a disney land dad even when we lived under the same roof.

I have straight A students who excel in there eduction, and they are both well balanced, well behaved, respectful to all people no matter what. I have taught them to forgive people as no one is perfect but you work on doing what the wrong was to correct it, and not to judge someone because it might not fit with what our lives are like because you never know what has happened to someone to put them where they are at. Including there father as he has hurt them more times than I can count on my hands and feet.

I had a choice to make when I divorced my xh. A stabilty home for my kids, or an extra income. I choice the stabilty for my kids well being.

Through this entire debate with you I have not judge you but have tried to understand you and why you feel the way you do. I have been around enough bw's to know why they feel the way they do. You can probaly say I have met and become friends with more bw's than ow's.

One more thing than I am going to let this post go.......as far as giving up my child to a two parent home. When I became pregnant I considered it. I even went and talked to a counseler at a adoption agency not to mention the counseler I was already in therapy with and my minister. Again you don't know my past. You don't know what I've been through that made me make the decissions I did regarding my oc.

I know there are going to be challenges and to be honest they have already started, but I take them one at a time and handle them. At some point she will know the entire truth through the guide of a counsler. I won't lie to her. My older children already know thanks to my xh's girlfriend....so I had to explain to them before I felt they were actually ready but that is done. As luck would have it, my kids know me and know that I typically don't make the same mistake twice.

I can not imagine our life without my oc. When she looks at me and smiles and tells me how much she loves me I know I made the right decission. Just as MM had a choice to abandon her, I had the choice not to kill her or give her up. In the end we both have to pay for our decissions in life.

Mr. W: My xmm's marriage may or maynot be all that you just said. It's non of my business. Everyone has there reasons for staying and leaving a marraige. It's not my place to judge those reasons, only accept it.

I agree, but I do so hoping that that is the reason she came her (or was referred here).

That is why I spent the time to offer her A PLAN OF ACTION to help clear the fog.

I wouldn't have wasted my time otherwise.

Mr. Wondering

p.s.- I believe it's very difficult to clear fog in these situations as, IMO, OW mothers with OC's seemingly have a difficult time conceiving of the notion they have to regret the entire circumstances within which they conceived and bore this beautiful and innocent child. Not only are they strongly invested in the notion their child was born of LOVE, to them, to regret it, they perhaps feel is to spit in the face of God whom has provided them this wonderful baby. Maybe they just feel to do so would be like saying "I regret having this baby" which seems like something only a bad mother would say. Maybe it's the burden of seemingly unmitigatable constant unbearable guilt. There is no escaping it when a infant/toddler is around you all the time...so denial and blame shifting is the order of the day. However, I believe you CAN regret your affair AND the OC completely. You CAN own it, offer and make amends and still love your child and appreciate separately all that is wonderful about such child. Unfortunately, when you add in entitlement for child (typical parental instinct to stand up for their children magnified by the perceived stigma of a adulterous pregnancy/child) to entitlement for wayward self and you've got quite a foggy mixture....IMO. BUT...I am ever hopeful. Nothing God can't handle.

Awh i missed that one.......Luckily for me It won't. Unless I am a criminal or a drugie I am in a great standing. I have had full custody since the day my child was born. As my attorney stated even if I die this man won't get custody of my daughter unless comes forward and starts being a father to his daughter. I have already appointed gaurdianship with an attorney to stop the probate her father is willing to put her in because he does not like the way it looks on paper (eye rolling). She is all mine.

NOW if he were to ever step up to the plate and want to be in her lif ON THE UP AND UP including his wife I'll be more than happy to incorporate her in that. She deserves her dad just as much as the next kid out there.

Now that is funny. You really don't know me. Kimmy would you like to elaborate on this? Mr. W I came out of the fog the NIGHT I found out I was pregnant before I EVEN told xmm the next day. IT opened my eyes wide up in that short one second of looking at that pregnancy test!

Mary...respectfully,

Fog clearing is a process no one, not even BS's, accomplish in one night or many people, a lifetime.

Perhaps you considered yourself "fog-free" to soon and just stopped processing??

Regardless...I presume you are here to grow. I acknowledge again I don't know all your circumstances. You are new here and merely revealled some of your situation and I have compared such information to what I've seen in other similiar situations. Perhaps such was unjustified.

I apologize.

Perhaps, if you are trusting enough (I mean you no harm - ask Kimmy), you could explain the way you went about apologizing to the BW the two times you attempted it so we can glean the reason why she won't accept it. Of course, she doesn't have to but my assumption was your apology was likely wholly inadequate...I am more than willing to be wrong.

I guess asking you if you even value her forgiveness is more the starting point. If it's not something you care about, why should I/we bother.

Mr. Wondering

Nope...not right...It is NOT wrong for Christians to JUDGE, it's wrong to CONDEMN...BIG DIFFERENCE...

If we don't "judge", then how are we to tell the difference between right and wrong, Mary?

Anyone that JUDGED my actions to be to wrong as a WW, were EXACTLY RIGHT...Was I supposed to say to them, "You can't judge me!"? Ummmm, noooooooooo...People with an intact moral compass most certainly should be able to tell right from wrong...ie JUDGE...

You do realize that you are not meeting your very own standard, right? You calling Mr. W judgemental IS a judgement...You can't have it both ways Mary...

Mrs. W

P.S. I do find it funny that Mr. W TOLD you in his post that he was being a HYPOTHETICAL JUDGE...So, of COURSE, he was JUDGING...Was he supposed to be a judge that didn't judge???

P.P.S. And Mary, you admitted that you didn't even read his entire post...It was a good post, and you should read it...I promise you that Mr. W is one of the kindest men and posters around here...His intent was pure...

Mr W: I don't want to quote again and have this long post again, but yes I do see it as a double standard. Very much so...on one hand you are still saying if a WW gets pregnant the om has no rights as a bio parent, but if the MM gets someone pregnant he is in his right to go in and out of the life of this child on what suits him and/or his family. Big time.

Nope won't forgo the child support. He helped concieve her and therefore we both get to pay that price. Trust me I was very gentle with him on the Cs end. I was very kind! My daughter has a right to that child support and every dime is used on her not to mention what I spend out of my own pocket as well which is the way it should be.

As far as her last name.......that would be a NO too. She has a right to both of our names. When she turns 18 she can choose to drop it or use one or the other or both. She may not have the right to see her father........but she is entilted to some rights. I won't take it all away from her. I know you will never see the logic of that and I'm sorry but you are not walking in he shoe either.

It has nothing to do with "fog", but the rights of my child. Do you really think I enjoy her having his last name as well as mine? OH NO.

Let me ask you in order to prove I'm "repentful" I should give up cs and drop his last name? I have proven I'm repentful and remorseful. That does not mean however that I would put my child's need behind his or mine. I could have kept the affair going if I would have aborted........I chose my daughter xmm.

Mrs. W you abosolutly right....I judged. And after I hit submit I thought of that. But did not have the time to go in and edit. So for that I have it coming.....

As far as the Judging end......Mrs. W you are speaking to the choir. I was raised in a very strict So. Baptist home. One of the biggest problems I have is judging. not judging but seeing people judge. No I don't agree with that statement. You can be a very good christain and NOT judge. I will admit it is a natural thing to do in our society though. I work very hard at not judging. I know right from wrong. How I try to handle my judging is this way........I don't agree with what I see or hear and I have the right to say how I feel, but I have no idea what that person has gone through. I don't know if that person is or is not of my belief's. How that person was raised. I am not perfect myself and in God's eyes my sin is no less or better than the next. It's up to me to rectify my actions.

My dad has a saying that I try and use daily. Love the person, hate the sin. At least in my christain faith church my minister teaches us not to judge. Although i don't know you I am to love you.

Maybe my defination of Judging is different than yours? I will read the entire post to me, but I will be honest, the parts I saw were give up child, single parent bad, loose the last name......(and paraphrasing here) your daughter has no rights. Then a few other things. Even if I were not a FOW w/oc and just a single mother for whatever reason, to say that about single parents is absurb. It's an insult to parents who have successfully raised upstanding successful children. There is no gaurntee intact family or not that your doing what is always best for your kids. Most single parents sacrafice a lot to protect there kids and give them as much as if they were married.

It's not always possible to keep the marriage and sometimes (sad but true) it's best to disolve the marraige when it's very toxic.

Mr. W: Actually I am not new here. I regristered under the same screen name but had not been here in awhile.

You are right the process takes longer than a night. It took me about 2 years to get past it. My wake up call was that positive line. Does that make more sense?

I will come back later after I feed my daughter and post how I apoligized both times. I will also give some background.

Kinda off the current topic but I'd like to come back to an issue troubling me about the Ky case.

Not only do I think James should have to repent and seek any potential visitation in the manner I suggested to Mary above (through contrite repentence to his victim Jon. basically laying himself at Jon's feet and accepting whatever Jon deems in Anthony's best interest); James is going to have to one day repent and seek his own biological son, Anthony's forgiveness.

I can envision the following letter;

Dear Anthony;

Please forgive me for I have sinned and failed you and your parents, particularly your father, on so many levels. I never should have brought such shame and disgrace upon your family. I never should have posted the sick, sad and twisted pictures, emails and videos of you all over the internet for the world to see and judge.

I never meant to hurt you but I was blinded by my own sin and my pursuit of what I thought was the "truth" and what I thought was right. I was deeply mistaken. My selfishness blinded me to my own misguided sense of entitlement.

The truth is, that although I am your biological father (as you are aware because your loving parents told you long ago about me) I was no where near the capable man you needed to raise, guide, instruct and support you properly. The Ky Supreme Court, through their infinite wisdom saw fit to protect you from me and they were right.

I am trying to be a better man today and pray that we can soon or one day establish a friendship. Now that you are an adult you have the right to make that decision. I will forever be grateful to your father for raising, from what I've been told, a kind, thoughtful, and intelligent son. I so wanted to try or at least be involved; but, I now know I would not have done such a masterful job as I was gripped with evil at the time of your childhood. I behaved selfishly and failed to see that you too had rights, the right to privacy and the right to be raised in a stable home without the interference of a truly evil outsider such as myself.

I have done much soul searching and regretfully it took me years to develope a repentent heart. As you are likely aware, I have finally properly apologized to your father, Jon and he has graciously accepted my apology upon the rightful condition that I remove myself from further disturbing your childhood. I have dutifully fulfilled and respected such promise to him and hold no animosity towards your mother nor father. They did what they had to do to protect you from me. Above and beyond that I have repaid your father, Jon, over $30,000 over the last few years as further attempt to compensate him for the pain, suffering and legal costs I selfishly bestowed upon him and your grandfather, Charles.

I hope you will forgive me too. I had no business interferring in your parents marriage and have recently finally owned my mistakes. I'd love to move forward with establishing a relationship with you as your biological father, not as a replacement to your real father, Jon. You are under no compulsion to accept this apology. I don't deserve it but I have suffered and endured many consequences and awaited this opportunity for many years. Nothing would please me more than to get to know you.

With humility,

James

I don't think so Mr. W. I think it is mommy dearest that will owe the apology.

I actually find you writing that letter to be a bit "off".

She'll need to apologize too, particularly for exposing her son to this man and allowing him to suckle Anthony to his breast among the obvious other things. They've made quite a mess of things and fortunately Julia's got a heroic husband who has stood by her side and undertaken to set this situation right for all of them. If you read her depositions, she has strong indications of a repentent heart and she is standing by her Godly husband while he cleans up the mess and rightfully FATHERS his wife's baby.

The TRUTH is Jon IS the legal father because that is fortunately how the people of Kentucky have chosen to define it. You and others that would seek to deny Jon his FATHER'S RIGHTS and little Anthony's rights to ONE father, his mother's husband are the mistaken ones. It is what it is. Life has consequences and life isn't always fair. There will be no successful appeal, the US Supreme Court has already fully endorsed Kentucky's right to disregard James' petition. They won't review it. It's over.

God bless Jon and Julia.

Mr. Wondering

This is your opinion. You are talking like the absolute authority on this subject. Reasonable and caring people do disagree with your point of view.

It might be over. You are probably right. But that doesn't mean it is right in everyone's eyes.

Actually if you kept reading in reaity I was a bw 3 times. And in a perfect world you'd think uh?

OK, I don't have time to read or respond to how big this thread has become! I did read the OM's blog and again, I think the judges did the right thing. Protecting marriage is protecting the children as well. We do have a couple of FWW's with OC that post here and their decisions to raise the child as the BH's was the right thing to do for the entire family. Who cares what OM wants? He was an interloper in that marriage.

Anyway, I just logged on (my computer died) to say to Mr.W and MEDC that mary is a favorite among the BW's on these boards. She is repentent. She has taken responsibility for her decisions and she has raised her OC on her own without interfering in the xMM's marriage. Your perceptions seem to be based on her newbie status. She is no newbie. I know she has been around at least as long as I have.

Ok, back to it and have fun folks. This board has not seen this much action or controversy since the arrive of TroubledH. LOL

I had almost my entire post written out and I accidently hit a button and its all gone .

Mr W: in order for you to get the full picture of my apoligies to xmm's wife you need to know the pregnancy story as well. So do you want me to lead you up to it or do you want to speculate and just get to the point?

Ditto. Just because I was a Ow does not mean I don't have ethics and morals. Just as a MM or WW that has made this same mistake can turn that huge mistake around and learn from it. and have sane ideas and opinions that have nothing to do with what they did.

Okay i did too find this a bit odd. BUT because I have been involved in so many infertilty groups that include adoptive parents I learned (and found it odd then, but understood? what there purpose was) that alot of adoptive parents including the husband to bond with the child breast feed the child. They buy or rent this machine that pumps out formula and they attach it to themselves. Again odd......imho but I've met some that have done it. Personally I did not brest feed my twins so it was odd to me because I boded quit nicely with them without brest feeding...but everyone has there own way I guess.

Many people defend mary here as a poor repent BW.

But did she not sleep with and get knocked up by a MM?

However you want to label mary, her words, the words mary choose's to defend the OM shows that she has a bias towards the OM.

She has chosen to defend a person that feels no remorse for injecting him self into someone elses marriage.

Her hidden agenda seems to support any OP that wants to use the birth of an OC to keep themselves involved in a marriage that they had no right to enter in the first place.

She is happy to raise her OC alone. Does not feel bad or guilt for deliberately raising her OC without a dad. Would let her OM get involved tomorrow, but it's the fault of OMW.



I also think that Mr W's letter is not a little off but to say "are you crazy" off.



I read this joke at least thirty five years ago. There was a picture of a 12 year old boy that just recently inherited the throne. He sat there on his throne unhappy that his wish even though he was the king could not be granted.


Under the picture the caption read: His mentor leaned in and said to the boy: Sire once you say off with his head you can not say put it back on the next day.


This affair as any other can not be undone. None of it, extramarital sex, pregnancy, birth of OC.

The OC will eventually want and need to know his DNA dad, DNA grand parents.
This could be the DNA GP's only GC. How can they be denied access?

The OM dos not deserve to have his feeling considered as far as I am concerned because he should of never made himself the third person in a marriage. No one forced him to gamble that he may never get to see his OC. He had free will. OM used it poorly.

The WW, she may of misled and lied to the OM only to keep the affair going. No excuse for the OM though because how can you believe a person willing to lie and cheat.

The BH concerns are that the OC will need to eventually connect with the DNA dad and if it is BH's position to deny this it will only cause long term hard feelings between BH and the OC.

The COM if their family can survive this they should be able to adapt to the CO.

If the through the appeal process and the OM gets joint custody all three parents are most likely have to co parent without direct contact. Will the courts be wise enough to realize this?

If I was the BH I would never want to see the OM for any reason. Or would I allow my wife to have any contact as well.

A never ending mess. who goes to the OC's graduations, marriage, birth of OC's children?

Road do you just read into things that you want too? First of all I beieve that any ANY bio parent unless they have abuse or murder etc in them has a right to there children. There is no hidden adgenda there. I could NOT make myself any more clear. Bottom line.

As far as my oc goes I have no choice but raise her alone. I had to accept that fact and move on with my life and make the best possible life for her and her sisters. Why should I drown in something that is not going to happen and NOT be the best parent? I dare you to say that to the other single parents on this board. It is what it is.

As far as if xmm wanting contact again although under strick supervision until proven stable I again HAVE NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER and WHY WOULD I WITHHOLD MY DAUGHTER FROM HER BIO FATHER? Seriously Road......with you I'm d*amned if I do and D*mned if I don't.
Delibertly raising my child alone? I can tell right now it does not matter what I say or do you will find fault in it. As far as xmm's wife......Where SHOW me where I blamed my xmm's wife. Talk about pharaphrasing........you are pharaphrasing things that were not even written or said or implied. You just want to assume because in YOUR eyes all ow's are the same. I am assuming you forgave your husband? Correct? Was he a good person before? How about after? How about Mrs. W what is your opinion of her? Was she worthy of forgiveness? Or is it because her husband forgave her? Tell me Road.....what consitutes your opinion of all the fow's and fom of the world?

Do you find it hard to "understand" how some bw's w/oc's can find me friendly and have some sort of a relationship with me? Is that just to much for you to comprehend? Maybe there is still some growth needed with you as well?

She is no better or worse than ANY FWS. Yours included.

Mary you had a choice. Not to have SF with a MM.

Everyone wants SF. Sometimes even though precautions are taken to prevent pregnancy it is the end result. So why risk having SF with someone that can never be a dad to your child?

A person that does that has to be selfish me first I don't care that my child will be raised in a one parent home on purpose. Our does not believe that it is best for a child to be raised by two parents.

Back to the original case in KY.

The WW was selfish. Her affair brought about this whole problem.
She gambled the way many WS's and OP's do.

Your right I chose to have sf (what does that stand for anyway...I am assuming sex but what excatly does it stand for?)with a mm. I never said I was proud of it, and I had to suffer the aftermath of it all as well. I've paid my dues Road. I owned it and I took it.

I don't consider myself selfish for not giving my child up. Again you don't know my background and it was just not an option for me. If I would have given up my oc than eveything I went through to have my twins would have been in vein. I was not going to pick and choose what kids to keep or get rid of. It's not me........and she has a good life. Yes there will be obsticles but we will overcome those. My have a very stable & loving home. In fact she has more of a stable home than some of my two parent friends have for there kids. Not all, but a few. I'm not ashamed of her, or her exsistant as she is also from my blood. Every body I know (and I know alot of very married as much as 40 years) christain couples as well as my family fully supported my decission to bring her into this world as my child and that know of how she was conceived.

Do not want you or expect you to give up your child.

I'm glad that she has a stable home.

Why are you refusing to admit that it would be better for your child to grow up with both of her parents instead of only one.

Road I am confussed. I am sorry. But are you asking me or saying to me she had both her dad and myself as her parents even under the circumstances? Or what?

I never said otherwise that it would be a bad thing if her dad was in her life. In fact in a lot of ways it would be great even under the circumstances of it all. As long as it was on the up and up. no sneaking around. But it's not and my whole point was I was not going to give her up just because he did not want to be in her life and the circumstances of her conceiption.

Can we try to keep "on topic" here?

This thread is not about marysway or critiquing her situation. marysway has been a MB member for a long time and has proven to be a valuable helpful member. She has earned her "F" status and posts to BW's, FWH's, FWW's and FOW equally with sound advice and empathy.

Topic is The Kentucky Court Ruling.........

Thanks all!!

Thanks Justuss!

Ditto

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[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.

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.

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

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

I concur.

I edited accordingly.

Thanks...

Mr. W

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.

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.

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.

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.

"and her HUSBAND" is the key.

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.


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.

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.

I didn't see this part before my last reply... sorry.

It is only sexism, if you assume I think this was a good decision because she's the woman/mother.

It is only sexism, if you assume the KY supreme court made this decision because she's the woman/mother.

I'm saying it went much deeper than that.

She was not presumed the better parent because of her gender.

They decided this child's best interests would be best served within this family and marriage.

Didn't KY already have the law on the books that a child born within a M is presumed to be a product of the M? I'm not sure if that's the law in KY, but if it is, then the court ruled within the law.

Jeeze, I was only asking, because I don't know, and thought maybe you did.

~~~~~

They may've set a precedent, but that doesn't mean it's a set in stone ruling for every single similar hearing in the future. Of course, I think it happens to be a wise precedent. I stand by my belief that far more children will benefit from it.

They did NOT make a decision that results in a case by case review....so, it isn't THIS CHILD...it is EVERY CHILD born in similar situations.

Most likely KY did have a law for that...heck, some states have laws that forbid oral sex. This law should be changed to look at every case and determine what is in the best interest of the child. There should be no assumed parent....the best interest of the child should be the ONLY determining factor.

I was not at the offering of visitation agreements.
I was not at the trial.

What I do know from when I was growing up us guys were always ready make out with a pretty girl. But we always warned each other with these following things. Stay away from jail bait. Be careful about STD's. Don't get a girl pregnant that you would not want to marry because you will wind up having to pay child support for eighteen years. If you messed around with a married woman you run the risk of getting your [censored] kicked.

Last but not least if you knocked up a married woman the courts were going to assume the OC is child of the marriage and you will have no rights concerning you desire to be a dad to the OC.

The OM in this case is old enough so I am sure the OM had to of heard this from his peers stating these facts of life.

I have posted these facts before but those that support the OM here also choose to ignore that he had no rights before he had the affair, no rights after he knocked up the WW, and the courts have confirmed that he had no rights then.

Mr Wondering:

"he's been reading here for days and emailing me"

Have you had the opportunity to address his lack of legal rights before during and after the affair? If so how did the OM justify that he is special enough that the law should not apply to him?

Wow, as teenagers you were all lawyers in training. I NEVER heard anything like that growing up and suspect you didn't either. The others, yep...I agree...but not this one.

Wishing or wanting for a law to be changed is not a reason to justify ignoring the laws one does not agree with or effect us in a way one does not like.

Want to see a law changed, good. Want to work to change a law, even better. Ignore laws you do not like, great, that is until you get caught.

TR...how are laws changed?

They are frequently changed by those challenging them.


Example...blacks ride on the back of the bus. No, wait...Rosa Parks challenged that by her defiance of the law. She gets arrested and history is made.

That is how laws change.

I do not make up things just to post here.

This KY case is nothing new. I have heard of cases like this before were the courts have ruled against the OM for the same reason.

As for the usual response when you can not argue the point you then attack the person.

I've argued the point very well.

As for my attacking you..I can just picture a bunch of teenagers sitting around discussing the merits of the law that disallows an affair partner from being a parent to a child.

And BTW TR...It was YOU that was attacking another poster on this thread...so much so, that a mod had to step in an refocus the thread.

TR, these were your words earlier in the thread. You now seem to be arguing for the reverse.

If the judges only took into consideration, the exact law, (child born during M is assumed product of M), and/or that the mother should be the assumed parent--- it would've only taken a split second to make this decision, but it did not. I believe they weighed several factors.

Uh oh, I agree with medc.

My H and I, as adults NEVER knew this. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing my om did not either.

In fact I was so ignorant of the laws, that it took 'K' to assure me that my H didn't need to adopt my oc, because he was already the father.

However, ignorance of the law does not mean you don't have to live with the consequences of the law. That goes for om, ww, and many times, sad to say, the bh too-- depending on bh's perspective. For my bh, the law provided relief instead of a consequence, as I'm sure it did for the bh in the KY case.

***edit bc quote didn't work.

IF what you are saying was correct...and it isn't...then the judges would have ruled that the best interests of the child is the law of Kentucky. They DID NOT do that. They ruled that there is a presumptive father...they did NOT rule that the cases will be decided on the best interest of the child.

A broad sweeping decision like this means that in the future, absent abuse, the WW and her BH will keep the child...even though the OM and his BW might be better parents.

That is the crux of the decision. I don't know how else to explain it you.

If they said case by case...I would be all for it....they didn't.

Look at the Supremem Court of the US. They KNOW the law...yet it takes them months to make a decision...why...because of challenges to the law. Same with KY.

Aren't the two bolded statements, the same?

The bh is the presumptive parent in the KY law.

Ok, I can kind of get on board with you, in situations where the om is married, and the bw and he would like to raise the child. Then we're a little closer to comparing apples to apples, but from what I've seen and heard over the last 5+ years-- in most cases, the LAST thing a mm & his bw want, is to have contact with the oc. They usually run, and run fast! Some might be willing to raise the oc, as long as ow is out of the picture. I actually asked this as a hypothetical question on this forum years ago. There were some who didn't want to raise the oc, even if they were assured the ow would be out of the picture.

Of course, there are exceptions, and Kimmy comes to mind as one, but honestly, it just is not the case in the majority, (I admit my frame of reference is limited). In fact, if we could find some hard statistics, I bet it's extremely rare that a single om wants anything to do with his oc. I bet most, like my om are only too happy that there's an upstanding man, (bh), who is more than willing to father om's offspring!

no, the statements are directly opposed.

I think you get me now. Now obviously if the OM does not want to be involved, the best interests of the child are to be with the WW and the Bh ...or adoption. But in cases where the child is better off with the OM and his BW, I just want the law to give it a fair look...and NOT what they do by declaring a presumptive parent.

Thanks for taking the time to read and follow me. And yes, Kimmy is a great example.

Below is a quote I found on a Lexington, Kentucky attorney's website discussing the case. It perhaps more eloquently sums up my feelings about the case. I disagree with him with regards to THIS case, as I don't think the Ricketts would be wise to allow James anywhere around their son, Anthony, for quite some time as his ACTIONS are demonstrative of a still very sick and abusive man that I can't believe you (MEDC) would encourage to carry onward with his "fight" instead of bending his knee and repenting. The website alone where he embraces his evil behavior, puts it on display for the world to see, filming "his" baby on an obviously used adulterous hotel room bed (wonder what his first priority was), where he attacks the childs parents Julia and, with vigor, Jon, where he discloses, unrefuted, that he tried to suckle the child on his own breast.

By the way, the court only interpreted a presumtion LAW. This wasn't a case of Judicial activism. They merely deemed the legislative intent was to deny this OM (and OM's like him) the opportunity to petition themselves for paternity of a child in a marital relationship. The correctly upheld and applied such law. The courts didn't entertain the "best interests" question because OM had no standing to even get to the question. The legislature apparently follows the doctrine of clean hands which holds that the plaintiff in an equity claim should be innocent of any wrongdoing or risk dismissal of the case. Sure this doctrine could be applied in many ways inequitably, but HERE, in Kentucky, it's limited to denying OM's the opportunity to claim paternity on their own.

Anyway...here's the quote:

"As for me, the one thing I am confident of is that our judicial system should not be morally mute and that there is basic right and wrong outside of the confines of our laws (there are varying degrees of judicial activism and I believe it should be constrained to areas where statutory laws are silent). I also tend toward the Sanctity of Marriage camp and believe that the marital union, which remains a spiritual union and not merely a civil matter in my mind, trumps biology. My hope for Mr. Rhoades is that he recognizes and atones for the damage he did by participating in an extramarital affair. My hope for baby JAR’s parents is that they are convicted that JAR’s interests are paramount and wrestle with whether denying him his biological father serves those interests best. I doubt that would be the wisest course of action, but the burden is upon them to arrive at the decision. I have these hopes because even though I believe that courts have moral authority where statutory law is silent, the most just results are often found outside the courtroom and they often come out of humility rather than force." [emphasis mine]

-Greg A. Napier, Attorney at Law (Kentucky) Link to Website

I think I was saying something very close to this.

The KY court didn't rule hard and fast on the black and white of the law.

You're welcome.

In law school we are taught to argue in this order.

1. The law (statutes and codes)

2. The Common Law (Judicial Precedent)

a. Binding decisions in that jurisdiction
b. Unbinding decision from other jurisdictions

3. Public Policy

Here's what Greg Napier said about the decision and the chances of Mr. Rhoades succesful appeal:

"As a father, I know I would not want to be denied contact with a child I fathered. As a husband, I understand protecting my family from those outside. This is why the SCOKY decision ultimately rests on the wording of a statute. Those of that opinion pulled into the safe harbor of avoiding the appearance of judicial activism by focusing on the exact language of the relevant laws. By doing so, they essentially said, this is a matter to be decided by the people through their representatives in the Kentucky General Assembly. That is where this debate really belongs.

Mr. Rhoades plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but I will be surprised if he wins. This is because the Kentucky decision is about subject matter jurisdiction and not about whether Mr. Rhoades is the biological father or not and the U.S. Supreme Court will most likely defer to the power of the State to determine such things. So, only the General Assembly can change the outcome for future Mr. Rhoades."

- Greg A. Napier, (KY) Atttorney at Law


I concur. Again, IF Mr. Rhoades desires any contact with his bio-son before Anthony reaches the age of 18, he better start behaving like a repentent person and bending his knee to God for direction. A change in tactics Mr. Rhoades seems incapable of undertaking, but I remain hopeful. It really is his only hope....AS IT SHOULD BE.

Mr. Wondering

I get this.

Thank you for explaining it so well.

I do believe though, that the presumption law, and the best interests of the child are not mutually exclusive. I believe they go hand in hand.

So, they may not have ruled, based on or even taken into consideration, the 'best interests', but the ruling was in the best interest of the child, imo.

Oh wait... or were you talking about the best interests of the om? lol.....

I pray he does...and not for his sake...but for the reason that the children would be better off having their best interests guarded...and not some archaic presumptive law that will automatically see children given to the BH and WW.

BTW, Mr. W..I see this stance on this as harmful to families. I believe that if women were aware that they could be challenged in court...and even potentially lose their child, they would be a little more likely to keep their knees together (or at the very least, use protection during their affair).

And the last I checked, there are a lot of lawyers that disagree with the decision as well. Being a lawyer does not automatically afford one good judgement(you are excluded obviously).

The law of presumption was written when science had yet to provide the DNA tools to determine paternity without a doubt.

If the legislatures were moved to address presumption today. I think it would not be a slam dunk decision for any view point. I have tried to look at this from all view points.

In this case if it was decided that DNA trumps all the OM and maybe the OC would benefit. That's one to maybe two people that benefit from the change in the law. The WW, BH, their two COM and maybe the OC are harmed. That's four to five people harmed and possibly a marriage damaged beyond repair. Broken marriages place extra burdens and strain on our society.

If after the legislature debates and the law is not changed because DNA does not trump. Because the legislature when examining the situation realizes that the affair and it's results can not be undone. So they base their decision on how to do the least harm. That means OM and maybe the OC would be harmed. Potential is for One to two people that are harmed.

1 What is not harmed is the sanctity of marriage.
2 & 3 WW and BH can put the affair behind them and heal.
4 & 5 The COM do not have to come from a broken home.
6 The OC will have the stability of one home one family.

How would a legislature justify enacting a law that puts the needs of so few verses the needs of many?

I can not see how when ever an OM puts himself as a third person into another's marriage that his interests, the interests of one come ahead of a whole family.

This falls in line with what I've said so many times concerning my situation, and others similar to it....

There is no PERFECT solution, (that will not hurt), EVERY person affected when a ww gives birth to an oc, but there is a BEST solution for the MOST amount of people affected by it.

TheRoad

Very good post. They have protected this M and the children involved, all of them. Instead of allowing a sperm donor to destroy the family. If only it could also work the other way. The OW is completely allowed to destroy the sanctity and welfare of the M of the MM involved in A resulting in OC, even when the OW is also M'ed. They shouldn't be there but when they are there are no winners, and the prevention of the destruction of the lives of the innocent COM should come before the 100% OC first stance the courts currently take. The courts are not interested in a man's freedom of reproductive choice like a woman's. But they sure will jump right in to punish him and make sure that he can not let the child be adopted. This view of the courts is also very damaging to the M's that try to recover.

FTS

Thanks or recognizing that. I do have big shoulders but AM working on getting those smaller only in staute not strength

Now back to reading........as it's been busy today.

I don't neccesarally agree with that. The older I get the more I am seeing the MAN regardless of single or married and not necessarly talking about MM with that statement comeing up and stepping up to the plate when it comes to there children. I wish i could see more serioulsy as both parents play such an important role...........but my hair dresser told me a story of one of her x-freinds child. I can it is increasing with MM to be a part of there child's life but yeah they mainly run as fast as they can. I have a friend here in town that her husband cheated has an oc and they have joint custody and no it's not easy on her, but with time it's gotten easier and she loves that little girl as her own.

My hairdresser is young so the friend is YOUNG too. Ealy 20's. This girl basically was sleeping with too many men and doing some major drugs. Once she found out she did stop the drugs. Thank goodness. But the baby was born with adisorder (i can't remember the name of it) that affected her motor skills but not hr mental skills. It was a genitic thing and not from the drugs. Well this girl after having the baby went back on drugs and welware. Our state does not play around with wanting to play and this is no lie the girl went through 5 paternity tests and not one was the father. By now the girl is about 3 or 4. the condition is worsening. She finally remembers she had sex with one other person ONE time. They find him do the dna and yes he is the father. He took resposnbility for that child right away, and ended up taking full custody away from this girl. he is doing a great job raising her and helping her deal with her condition. And this is a young man.

With what mkeverydaycnt points out I agree with but also, the other point is the WW put the OM in a position of bonding and being a father. Most WW that don't want the om apart of it don't even go there. Or don't put a bond there in the first place. He bonded with that child and I don't for one moment believe that she had no choice. We all have choices and when it comes to our child's safety if I had to choose telling my husband over putting my child is harms way I choose telling my husband.

I see it has the WW put the om there in her marriage and had so many opportunities to tell her husband before she got pulled in further by creating a bond between the bio father and son.

I can't imagine loosing a child when I've created a bond to them knowing they are here on in the world, and I have no more rights to my child.

As I see it again a double standard. The ow alone did not destroy the family. she had help with the MM. Yes the ow can choose to have her child and or not have it, put it up for adoption with the consent of mm or keep it, and have then do dna proving the MM indeed is the father. But is that NOT what the WW is doing to the OM in this case? She went off birth control 3 weeks before she had sex. Had sex with both the om and the bh. She knows that this child is probally the om's before she leaves the hospital and CHOOSES to bring the OM into that child's life, do a DNA test with him, and allows him to babysit this child and it goes on and on. At the same time playing daddy with her husband. The WW in this case was playing both with a child involved. Then chooses to take that child away from him.

A MM is resposnbile for his actions just as much as the ow is. The MM may have to pay cs, but he is also given the choice to walk away from any type of bonding, love connection, that he wants. He can also choose to walk right back into that childs life as he sees fit.

The bottom line is there are no winners here. I don't see the om as being selfish. I see him as wanting what was given to him from the WW offering him bonding and everything else then changing her mind and taking away a child that is his. Her husband had no idea until she told him. he too was bonding with this child.

By her own words she the Om offered to stay out of the way. SHE brought him back into it.

mary

Would you please tell me where you saw this information. I did not see it in the OM's blog. Thank you.

"She went off birth control 3 weeks before she had sex"

This, to me, is the most important factor in this case. We are not talking about a WW who gets pregnant from OM, never tells OM, has the baby and then raises that baby strictly as a COM.

What we have here is a WW who knowingly had SF with OM while off birth control (by the way, did she tell OM she was off the pill?), OM knows it's his baby, WW allows the OM to be a part of the OCs life, and then she changes her mind and takes the baby away from him.

Had she never allowed the OM any contact and had done anything in her power to prevent him from knowing about the baby or being a part of the babies life, I could maybe agree with this decision. But that is not the case here.

Let's also look at it in a terms of a theoretical argument. Suppose this marriage cannot withstand the stress of all this. They get divorced. She ends up back with OM. She and OM get married. Now you have the mother and biological father raising the child, and the xBH has to pay child support? From a legal standpoint, this could happen. Does this seem right to anyone?

I read it last week sometime so I "think" it was in her depo. I'm like 99%. Somewhere in there she is asked about it and she tells when she went off the birth Control and then about sleeping with both her husband and the om.

Excatly!

I found it before you got back to me, but thank you.

After reading it in the deposition it makes me wonder why the OM's lawyer did not also ask if her husband and if the OM new she was went off of the pill.

Maybe it is because as a lawyer you are taught to never ask the question that you do not know what the answer is going to be.

1 Why did you WW, go off the pill?

2 Did WW make the decision with her BH?

3 Did WW make this decision on her own?

4 Did WW make the decision on her own and kept it quiet and why?

5 Did WW not care who got her pregnant?

6 Did WW tell the OM she was no longer using protection and why?

7 OM, knowing that the WW was no longer using protection, was OM willing to get WW pregnant?

8 OM, being in his late thirties, did hear about paternity lawsuits, and the law of presumption, would OM want to get the WW pregnant when the law most likely would not grant his paternity rights?

Unfortunately we will never get the truth to these questions for the WW and OM are trying to win a case in court not at being honest.

I read in her deposition the WW claimed that during their trysts the OM only O'd three times during her 18 month affair and did not expect him to O inside of her after she went off the pill. Why would the OM or any man want to have SF for 18 months where he never O's? Hard to believe WW.

At one time did WW want to have her affair OC, but got cold feet? We will never know the truth.

If she wanted the to have OM's OC did she keep this choice from the OM? We will never know the truth.

Did the OM want to get the WW knocked up hoping it cause the WW to get divorced and be free for him, and without concern that the two COM would now come from a broken home? If yes this show's OM's sterling character.

Did the OM feel the ends justified the means in that if he got the WW knocked up he was willing to make take long shot gamble that he could beat the laws of presumption, regardless of the amount of destruction that his actions had on the BH and COM?

The WW and the OM wronged the BH and the COM.

The WW and the OM wronged the OC.

The WW and the OM hurt the sanctity of marriage.

I think that the courts have moved to protect those that have done no wrong.

The WW has been punished even if the OM can not see the OC until he is eighteen.
She has to live with what she has done and face her family with the effects of this for the rest of her life. WW will have to tell her children how she messed up. She will have to say to her children do as I say not as I do.

The OM claims that he should not be punished. The most he can be punished is for 18 years. He chose to have an affair with a married woman. A woman that is part of a family unit that is protected by the law from interlopers as is this OM. He had no moral or legal rights to this woman or the children that she gives birth to.

My best guess at why the WW went off the pill 3 weeks before getting pregnant is because she wanted to lose weight and look her best for OM and was dieting for 3 weeks before OM came to town.

You can find it on page 3 of the Infidelity Diet.

IMO, despite appearances, it's highly likely Julia had no intention of getting pregnant whereas considering the abusive nature exhibited by OM, he likely, IMO, left it in and risked it somewhat consciously as a animalistic baseless instinct to POSSESS this woman and her womb. Classic (adultery) abuser mentality (exhibited by most wayward men on some level).

BTW, their "intent" was completely irrelevant to the case as they denied OM's standing to even make a claim for paternity.

Another note regarding this case in KY.

Upon further reading I will state the obvious. The courts today ARE biased towards women, but not as much as men presume. Most men settle out of fear whereas women rarely settle without primary custody. Men can only typically win primary or full custody by getting the courts to like them and prompting them to want to give the man something. This OM in Ky from the get-go failed to recognize that. The courts are FULL of men DEMANDING their rights. Demands don't work. They are ignored at best and otherwise imply an unnurturing unreasonable abusive nature. Not someone the court trusts, likes or WANTS to give custody of small children to. Even though I like the decision the KY court made in this case part of the reason I like it IS because James' makes for an unempathetic case to me (and I know, the judges). Judges can make any ruling they want to achieve the predetermined desired outcome. That's right, they often decide on impressions. It's what they often do absent specific legislation tying their hands. James' blew it and blew it big time. His lawyer blew it also. It's a matter of misbehaving and then DEMANDING rights that frustrates judges to no end. Humbly requesting rights and demonstrating humbleness and repentence for one's actions WAS the only way Jame's would have won anything. His public outcry, reaching out for public support, criticizing the court system and specific judges along the way, criticism of the BH, criticism of the mother (then possessively defending her), calling the BH a step father, titling himself the "real father", etc was his undoing. He failed and now KY has precedent which actual (unlikely) good guys will find themselves up against from here on out (absent legislative directive). It's likely that this is how the recent case law precedent came about in other jurisdictions including the Supreme Court as well. When you walk into court with unclean hands you better be contrite and have frustrated EVERY effort at coming to a resolution beforehand. He didn't...he lost.

It's not that men don't have rights, they do (though not equal in nearly every courtroom in America especially with relation to infant custody), it's just a man's nature to fail to recognize how to go about obtaining their rights.

IMO, James has NO ONE to blame but himself (and his attorney) for losing this otherwise winnable case and the sooner he starts repenting and making amends and dropping this thing completely the sooner he MAY exact a peace offering enabling him some gratuitous contact with his bio-son.

Mr. W

MR. W:
Are you saying that Om could have won this case?? That HE could have had his rights as Bio Father of this child?

Yes,

But if he had come to me he would have not liked my advice. He would likely have gone out to find himself a pitbull attorney that would have been MAD and taken on OM's cause with spite and vigor.

I would have referred him to a church.

I would have had him counsel with Steve Harley (who does have some interesting opinions about bio-parents)

I would have had him exhaust every non-legal course of action to ad nauseum.

If after a year or so the Ricketts still denied him any visitation and, if they sought legal protection from my repentent, always apologizing and contrite client in the form of restraining orders forbidding him to contact them begging anymore....Then and Then only would I have considered legal action.

Such legal action I would have encouraged him to bring to force the Ricketts to the table to negotiate a settlement and nothing more.

I'd encourage a mature extra-judicial remedy to the situation with gag orders and third party professionals involved to maintain the peace and help all of them see to the best interests of the child.

IF after all that the Ricketts still refused to offer any visitation and stood fast in their resistance to my fully repentent and contrite reasonable client, then and only then would I recommend vigorously pursueing the legal cause of action (and bringing in a professional compassionate litigator). At that point, my client would have obtained the higher ground and the Ricketts would have lost much sympathy. They would have seemed the unreasonable party. Hopefully, then the courts would want to step in and help my client after he exhausted all possible avenues to a peaceful non-litigous resolution to the matter.

He HAD to shed the "interloper" lable as clearly stated by the US Supreme Court in the Michael H case before testing the yet untested Kentucky paternity presumption statute.

And we would have won in court because the court would have no longer seen James as an interloper but as a worthy strugling human being wanting some/any rights to his biological offspring. The added bonus, that James and his attorney's lost sight of, is that even had they won and got the right to prove paternity, he STILL would have had to win visitation rights using a best interests of the child test. Using my strategy, he would have had a much better chance at obtaiing a more liberal visitation schedule because the court would have desired that result.

He should sue his attorney for malpractice or, at least, demand a refund. I'm not even a litigator and I think I could have won his case. Besides pit bulls are expensive to feed (with money) and worthless in father's rights cases. I would have been substantially more effective and less expensive.

It's too late now. He's lost and he'll have zero success on appeal. He's back to hoping and begging the Ricketts which after the ordeal he's put them through they are unlikely to capitulate to him ever (not that I think they should at all unless and until he gets seriously repentent).

Mr. Wondering

If in the future James becomes repentant (doesn't appear in his character so far to do so - but he could, at some point in the future realize the error of his ways), there may come a time when the child - as an adult seeks him out.

But - if the paper trail of press clippings continues with his current character/personality running the show, that child, if raised with any kind of moral compass will run from any overtures.

This I know as a child that was conceived during an affair. I went through three years of therapy to deal with my hatred of the interloper and my feelings of being rejected by my father (purely imaginary, but very painful for a time)...

And the OM in my mother's life did nothing to the measure that James has done - his actions, had they been comparable would have been perceived as pure evil attacks against my father...

James needs to consider that he's sowing a lot of bad seeds right now that will sprout and backfire on him in his relationship with the child - whether that comes during the child's childhood or as an adult. There's no way this can be kept from the child - the publicity is far too extensive. But it's ALL THERE - All of James' selfishness, the mother's deceit - all of it. The only one looking good is the man James seeks to remove from the picture of the child's life and the illusion of a happy family....

Mr. W:

What changed your mind?

May I add I agree with you on his attorney. My impression of him was not that great to be in the posistion he was in. I know from personal exerpience going up against a bull dog attorney and still winning. May I add that in 3/4 into my case I got into a fight with my lousy attonrey who was basiclly useless and took the bulldog on myself and won.


I also want to add this about the OM in this case. He has not had time to sink all of this in yet. He has gone from being in an affair being in love, to fighting his butt off for his son. He has not had the normal time it takes and stages that the om/ww/ow/mm has to go through to get to the place of remorse for there actions of this as well.

I can only assume that his mindset was/is the woman he thought loved him, that he loved that he had this child with that he bonded with and got to know was snatched from him.

Then because of everything IMHO This is heart wrenching again, IMHO.

K: I am so sorry for what you've gone through. I was trying to explain to someone I know why I can't lie to my kids about this especially my oc. She totally did not get it and even got really mad at me and said I'm heading my oc for therapy because I won't lie to her when the time comes that I do explain it al to her. At some point the lies have to stop. They stopped for me when I got pregnant. If things are handled correctly and ready to do the damage control and you have shown a good moral life since the mistake I think you have a better chance of raising a child that does not grow up with the mental baggage that COULD come with this.

Some adult OC's are perfectly fine. Some are not and have real issues with it all. It shows me even more that it's all in how we handle it to begin with. We can turn back the clocks to change it, but we sure the heck and change ourselves and live a better life for those affected.

Mr. W:

The stargery that I see you using if he "would" have come to you I understan it. As my NEW attorney w/xh for our children has done simular with me to use with my xh (although I did not cheat on him or do anything wrong) to get my xh to basically fall himself. It's been the hardest thing for me to do,as patience is not one of my virtue........but it's working. My attorney has yelled at me, and he has talked to me, then yelled at me to sit back and let him fall. He's tied his own nuse bascially and he has done it all on his own as his interest are not that of his kids, but his own agdena, which is sad because my kids know there dad as a liar now and broken promises althoug they love him very much still.

I'd love to have more time to myself..........so it's not my agenda to take my kids away from there dad. It's my agenda for him to step up to the plate.

Mr Wondering

Morally Right Verses Legally Right.

Tobacco companies are legally allowed to sell products that are addictive and kill. The law has still protected tobacco companies after they designed their products to be more addictive. The law has still protected tobacco companies after they designed products that became more lethal due to the additives that they put into their products.

Can anyone explain how this is morally right?

Have we not all heard the phrase: there ought to be a law. When ever there was a situation that was morally wrong but the offending party was never stopped or punished because it was not illegal.

Your advice for the OM seems logical. So it seems as it would of had a good chance to work legally. But I would not hope so for a judgment for the OM would hurt the innocents here. The BH and the COM. A decision that would hurt them would be legally right but not morally right.

Why do the supporters of the OM here never address the rights of the BH and the COM?

Would it add too many shades of gray to this argument for the OM's supporters? No longer making it only an issue of the OM's rights to be a father would then make defending OM's position vastly harder.

First of all, I am a BH, so supporting the OMs position here is not easy for me. However, I am also a father, a father who fought for and got custody of my children.

Second, let me say the person who first and foremost should have thought about the rights of the BH and the COM was the WW. Should the OM have thought about that....absolutely. But to ask more of him than we would ask of the WW is not fair, IMHO.

Third, I am not saying the OM should be allowed to interfere with the marriage, the BH, or the COM. However, I do think he has rights as the father of this child. He should be allowed visitation, even if supervised, and even if a method has to be set up so the BH and WW never have to interact with the OM. However, he is the father of this child.

No, DNA alone does not make someone a father. But this man has been involved with this child from the start, has wanted to be involved in the future, and should not be denied now because the WW cut him off.

I honestly believe this child would be better off knowing the truth, from the start, about his parents and his situation. Do you really think the child will never find out? How much damage will be done later in life when he finds out the truth?

So, just because this guy had a few moments(in comparison to what the BH had from the moment the baby was born till D-day so we are comparing apples to apples here) to bond with this baby we should allow him to force his way into this recovering M?? The BH has been there from the birth of this child. Day in and day out. He has chosen NOT to contest paternity, which means he thinks of this child as HIS. SO, we are to just throw away the BH's wishes and bow to the demands(because that's what this OM is doing, because someone has taken his favorite play toy away) of this OM to allow visitation. If I'm not mistaken, the OM lives in FL, and the BH and WW live in KY? How often does visitation truly work in a situation where the OM lives in the same city, let alone the same state. This guy has state borders to cross, and a hotel room to pay for. Where is this child going to play?

From everything I've heard, this guy sounds much like the xom in my sitch, who was VERY violent and even stalked us till he left our area! THAT was frightening! So, would you say a man, who shows MANY of the same tendencies I saw in my own sitch BEFORE xom showed his true colors, should be allowed just because the DNA matches? I am telling you that this guy is just a time bomb waiting to go off, and it's going to hurt SO many more people than are already involved. I say the courts did the right thing, and if you think the WW is getting off scott free, well you are completely WRONG there! I deal with what I've done EVERY DAY! It's called consequences. They may not be visible to the outside world, but they are there never the less.

This M is MUCH better off with how the KY court ruled. I also agree with Mr. W, that if this OM is truly remorseful and truly begs forgiveness, then maybe, just maybe he may have a shot at getting to know this little guy before he turns 18. But, with everything he's done so far, that's going to be a very difficult thing to do. Making this SO public is the biggest issue that this family in KY is going to have to get over if the OM ever expects a chance, and that's not going to be easy.

JMHO

MichaelinDallas,

Your response to my post was to blame the WW and still remain silent on the rights of the BH and the COM.

"first and foremost should have thought about the rights of the BH and the COM was the WW"

That is a biased statement.

The WW and the OM were wrong to have an affair.

The OM was wrong to ignore the presumption law. Why does he place himself above the law?

"I am not saying the OM should be allowed to interfere with the marriage, the BH, or the COM"

But you then chose to ignore the negative impacts on them.

It has been proven that marriages can not heal when there is contact with the OM.

How is preventing this marriage from healing not going to hurt the BH?

How is preventing this marriage from healing not going to hurt the COM?

How is the OC having to live in two homes with two different sets of rules to follow good for the OC?

How is the OC to learn the values? Respect the sanctity of marriage?

What happens when the OC say's I OM does not make me do it, and refuses to follow the BH's and WW rules for the COM when in their home?

What happens when the OM works to undermine the family values of the WW and BH are teaching all of the childen?

The OM and the WW are being punished.

The BH is being punished with his wife having an affair, his wife having an OC, his marriage being harmed by the OM, having his private life dragged through the courts, newspapers, TV, the internet. Having his children's life turned up side down.

The OM's torture of this BH should stop.





Unfortunately children are adopted. Even though they were loved by their adoptive parents some have chosen to find their DNA parents.

General wisdom now holds that when an adopted child is old enough to learn that they were adopted that they should be told so.

Courts have now been letting records be opened to help reunite these parties.



This KY case is apples to oranges.



There will most likely a desire by the OC to eventually want to connect with the DNA dad. When the OC is old enough to learn about the OM he should be told. If the OC desires to be reunited with the DNA dad. But it most likely will have to be when the OC is a self supporting adult that can come and go as he pleases. This way the WW and BH can maintain NC forever.

At this point the OC should learn that his mothers marriage and family would of not been able to heal from his mothers affair with the OM present. That his mother had to make this decision to balance and meet the most amount of needs for all involved. She could not meet everyone's needs. The family had to come first before any particular individual. She did not make any decision to punish anyone but she recognizes that there was hurt felt as a result of her decisions'. But her decisions were based to cause the lowest overall level of pain. There were no decisions that could be made that would of been able to spare every one from pain.

Now as an adult he is capable to see who he wants on his own.

I notice you selectively read my post without regard to the whole thing. I am done arguing on this issue other than to say I disagree with you and think the biological father has rights.

I wish you would of addressed my questions and points that I have made but respect your right to not do so. I am content to let this matter rest between us.

This one is easy, far less damage will be done to the OC for not knowing his biological father, growing up in a unified recovered family. The COM not being thrown to the dogs for the sake of the OC. The recovery of the M and healing of the BH.

Many people are adopted and grow up well adjusted for not having to know their biological parents, biology is the smallest part of parenting. The benefit, if any the OC would gain from knowing the biological parent is far less than the damage done to all for forcing the knowledge and the never ending contact with the OM.


Thank God the OW took her child and leaves us alone. She can raise her child and God willing develop a real relationship with a man who wants to parent with her. And leave my M to heal and keep the nightmare away from my COM.

If you haven't had this in your life and M then you really don't understand. It will truly twist all the moralistic views you have ever felt.

The kicker here SHE the WW had two men knowing this child from birth and playing daddy until she got the BH had to be told. Her actions as a WW brought more into this than should have been or could have been. IF she would have just stopped the affair with om and went to her husband with this and NOT involved him from pregnancy and even worse after the baby was born she would have every right to choose NOT to let the om be a father.

Road or Fled, not sure which one of you to answer your question I can do that.....My children are from a divorced set of parents. They are well ajusted kids. Most of our rules are the same as they are common sense, but NOT all. They know that they have some different rules at there dads house and they know what the rules are here. They are not confussed over them nor have they EVER come to one of us and said "well dad lets me do this, or mom lets me do this". They know better.

Have they ever tried to play us against each other, you bet they have but we go to each other and say hey this is going on. But they did that before we ever split up.

Both my kids get straight A's & B's. They know they have to respect there alder's or there will be a price to pay. My x's gf can't stand me and the kids know this. I never understood it as I was happy that he had found someone and all........then when I put two and two together I figured out she was the Ow my husband was with before we split up. So it all made sense. I did not share that with my kids. I still make them respect her as there father shares a house with her. They don't have to like her but the do have to respect her in her house while they are there.

Yes my kids have had some problems with there dad and I splitting up, but It was handled and done in a correct inviroment that was best for my kids. So it does not have to be all gloom. I would have much rather stayed with my husband till death do us part, but that was not an option as both partners need to be in the marriage for it to work.

If xh is not willing to partipate in things like education or otherwise that then is his problem and I just take the lead and do it myself....so far it's worked out great. Otherwise I'd not have the great kids I have so far.

There are ways to work around contact when you have a stitch of an oc. All parties get to compromise. You say the bs should no have too correct? Well in reality you're right. But that is not always an option. The bs is an adult and can make decissions as an adult, the oc and the com can't. Or the OP's children can't either.

Yes, the marriage does need to heal from this and I know with enough people I've met through the years that it is much easier when an OC is not involved innocent as the oc is......it's just a fact. But when you bring another person (oc) into the mix it's not always black and white.

I have a feeling that because this has gone public the KY law may change as so many other states are doing for "parents" rights. You maynot see it as right, because you are looking at it through your pain as well. I understand that. I really do.

As a fow/oc if xmm were ever going to come around for his daughter he put me in a position of dening him or allowing it. That is not always the case though and how is it fair that a MM can go in and out of a child's life as he chooses but and when h's ready with with his wife then if it does not work out leave again, then when he feels they are ready again come back in. I've seen that too. Is that fair? But as a parent which is sad to a point, we have more rights than our children do. We can choose what we want to do. Then change our minds.

Now let me ask you how fair would it be of ME as a fow w/oc that if her father came into her life and intruded on MY life to NOT let him have his parental rights? I would be blasted all over this board and told that was the chance I took for sleeping with a MM. This is no different. The bh had a choice to make and that law JUST might not stay the same. The legisltors meet all the time to change laws. What happens NOW when that law gets changed and he wins in court?

Should there NOT have been a compromise (good for all 3 parties) versus what has happened?

This ones an easy one:

Jon and Julia will move to a another presumption state the second it appears any bill to change the Kentucky law is set to pass and be signed by the Governor.

Laws take time. Perhaps you remember the Schoolhouse Rock short about "I'm just a bill, yes, I'm only a bill and I'm sitting here on Capital Hill". Bills get introduced...debated....public comment...then IF it passes in one chamber then it has to do the same in the other chamber. Then the 2 chambers have to do a Joint Committee and sort it all out before a final vote on the bill. THEN the Governor has to sign it.

The Ricketts will be safely in Pennsyvania, Michigan, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida or one of the other "safe" states thus escaping application of the new law to them.

That's also presuming the new law forces them to move. Most new laws have no retroactive application. The day Anthony was born he was, by the then current law, as interpreted by the Ky Supreme Court, PRESUMED to be Jon's son. The Kentucky legislature very likely can't or won't open that can of worms retroactively so the new law will specifically state it's effective date as only for newborns born after such and such date.



Yes there should but it's difficult negotiating with a terrorist. The Ricketts did offer a fairly reasonable settlement that Mr. Rhoades, though he likely won't admit it, would/should GLADLY accept today, if offered. The only reason he wasn't able to compel them to make a more substantial offer of settlement with him (which you can bet all the publicity and public outcry motivated them to pursue) was because Jon and his father were attorney's capable of affording to fight OM. Imagine if this weren't the case?. How much money Jon would have had to spend to defend his family from this mercinary marital gigolo??? You can bet MOST of these type cases settle because the poorer litigant HAS TO. There are still numerous states that this issue remains unsettled because the argument has NEVER been presented to the higher courts. Wonder why?? Probably becuase IF the OM wants to be in the kids life...and he's got money...he can make a claim and EXTORT his way into the family. They'll settle, more likely than not.

I doubt the Ricketts have any desire to "settle" anymore. Mr. Rhoades did WAY more than attempt to assert his rights. He's got this family posted all over the internet and he's stolen two years of their lives fighting for something he ultimately had no legal right to fight for in Kentucky. Just the other day he "claimed" he's going to be posting MORE incendiary pictures on his website. I can't imagine he actually held back some pictures he believes are worse than what's there. What's he got...more pictures of Julia breastfeeding or him breastfeeding???

Anyway...I'm hopeful a settlement could be reached someday. I WOULD be sympathetic to James were he to truly demonstate and BE repentent.

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - I didn't change my mind about the case. As an attorney I can argue either side of the case. My earlier posts were merely an indication of where I believed James' attorney blew it. His attorney doesn't really care, though I can bet his attorney's rates went up and he's quite proud of having had HIS case go all the way to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. His lawyer lost his case for him but, I've seen it before, the opposing attorney's all go out for drinks after the long case is over with. All Mr. Rhoades gets is a legal bill, a beef and, maybe, a tshirt.

I noticed the a-la-Demi Moore pic he has posted of Julia. Reprehensible. I rather doubt Julia gave her permission for that pic to be posted. To me, this is an example of James' vengeful nature. Destroys any compassion I felt for him in this situation.

I just saw this. My question is why on earth would she poss for such a picture with her affair partner knowing that she had no intentions of (by her own words (not actions)after the fact) him being her child's father. In this picture she does NOt seem as if she was forced into it, but rather possed for it.

IMHO it goes to show we need to think before we do as it may come back to haunt us in the end. But it is even more proof IMHO that she was leading this man on regarding this child.

Mr. W: the compromise they offered him by what I read included a therapist that was very involved in the Ricketts life. I am sure that James felt ambushed by this. I would have. A theripst not involved in the Ricketss Marriatal sessions, but someone that was third party unbias to all three adults would have been a much better choice for there "offer" to maybe go over better.

Although NOT with om, but with xh when things were getting really bad I went to him about putting my the kids in counseling for a bit and so we did.........then my xh and his girlfriend decided to start seeing the same counsler for ther own personal problems. When this was found out by me, I went to the counseler and told her I felt it was a conflict of interest and I was taking the kids out of her care and into someone else's care. My kids no longer felt safe to talk to her about things because they were seeing her too. There problems were with there father and the girlfriend and There problem (or the gf's problem) was with me. I felt it was a conflict of interest. Surprising enough I took them somewhere else and they were no conflicts and after about a month they were able to understand that the gf's attitude was not towards them but me and get over the whole hurt of it.

My point is they needed to trust without myself or my xh and his gf using them for our personal use. Maybe that is how james felt and you can't really blame him for that if that occurred to him.

Right. Like James' choice to post that pic.


So you believe evidence of force is required to nix exposure? I was commenting on another (rash) decision in the chain of events. Of course she shouldn't have posed for that pic, for James. She shouldn't have been having an affair with him in the first place. He shouldn't have been in an affair with her. On and on.


Oh I completely disagree that it is "even more proof" that she was leading him on. As in, slanting the error scale heavier on her.

I'm pretty sure this convo did NOT happen:

"James, get the camera, I'm ready and posing. I definitely want this pic on a blog, for my H and the world to share!"

"Oh no, honey, it would be highly inappropriate for me to snap that pic. You're a married woman! And, after I DO, please don't make me post it! I mean it, I'm drawing the line there...."

This is one "shouldn't" that can be easily rectified. James, remove that pic from your blog. I believe you're attempting to intentionally hurt Jon with that pic, and rub salt in the open wounds of a recovering marriage. You can do that one little thing. Matter of fact, destroying all pics of Julia might help you get on with your own life. I don't see how you could ever have a healthy relationship with a woman until you put "the obsession of Julia" to rest. And I don't see how that pic in particular gets you any closer to visitation with your son. Isn't that your goal? Maybe not....

Laura: that is not what I was implying. Not at all! I don't agree with posting that picture either. Not that I would have, but if I found a pic of me somewhere on the net I'd go blastic!

When you posted that the pic was up there I went and looked to see what you were talking about. I also read a HER emails to him and "I" can't get past the part that she was playing both of these men! Plain and simple.

I agree with you James needs to move on from JULIA. I am 100% in agreement with that.

I could be way off here and I'm not saying it's right, but his whole point of posting that picture as well as the emails is to show he had a realtionship with Julia and was "daddy" up until Julia chooses for him not to be. That is all I'm saying. I am in NO way defending his actions for posting that picture.

As well as trying to get into James head I try and understand Julia as well. Espcially as a mother. I can understand that she wants her husband to be the baby's father as she has choosen to stay with her husband. But I also see that she handled this all wrong! She was playing house with two men. In a sense if a child was NOT involved I see where most affairs happen that way, but a child was INVOLVED.

As screwed up as I WAS over it all, I had enough sense to choose my child over xmm. There was NO thought process in that. There was NO going back and forth on that decission. I did not have to sit there and think about it. SO as a mother wanting to keep her family intact her actions were less than horable for any of her kids. Until she got caught. I am assuming that she was put in the positon that she HAD no other choice but to come clean with her husband.

Just like I did and every other person who has gone through this "we have to reap what we sow".

As for her husband, I'd be blastic as well seeing that picture and with him being an attorney I'm sure he will have it down soon enough.

James is smack in the middle of this. the Rickets are smack in the middle of this. I read Mr. Ricketts depo. I can hear his confussion in his depo on his feelings. James is NOT going to see this yet. I don't think James is a dumb man and will see more clearly sooner I hope than later. Most of everyone's actions right now on based on anger. All three of them. Mr. ricketts did say in his depo that he feels there is room for James in Julian's life........but where I see the mistake is, is using there therpists for the go between. I honestly feel that non bias third party professional is best in this case. Not one of James's friends, or the ricketts either. It will only put all three on edge going either way of the above that I mentioned.

I just have a hard time with the fact that Julia played both of these men with a innocent child that will surely pay the price for all this. That makes me sad.

Julia can be truely sorry that she handled it the way she did but the fact remains we can not turn back time. It happened and now consquenes have to be paid for these actions. (I know I've been there).

Can we agree that I am not condoning James's actions only maybe seeing where his head is at?

James still blames the BH. That is a normal stage. Anyone going through this knows this. He sees Julia I'm sure as a confussed woman scared to death. I'm sure she is scared to death but not confussed. I KNOW that feeling. I had to realize trough counseling and learning about affairs that all actions are not towards the bs, but the op. No matter what reasons the bs might give the op or what the reason is the op has. The bottom line is the decissions the op makes. He/she sure the heck made the decission to cheat and is surely capable of making other decissions for him/herself.

James just wants to have a relationship with his son...and is angry. He is blaming the person HE feels in stopping that. In time he will see the whole picture.

As much as the bs does not want to hear this, I can only talk from experience (and again I am not saying this is right) you believe every word the op says. Just like the bs does. Sometimes a light bulb goes sooner than later and it all starts coming together of "what have I done and why was I apart of this" "What the heck was I thinking".

I hope that a settlement can be reached soon on this as that way all parties can move on and heal.

Ps.......luara I love your signiture line.

Marysway,

One thing that being still does is it stops the damage. James is not being still. He is thrashing about.

I'm certain of one thing in all this - the wayward woman in this had a moment of clarity a lot sooner than the other man. She stopped thrashing back and forth between her "romantic" notion that James could be involved in this child's life and her children of marriage and betrayed husband could not be harmed by that. It's not a reality. James has made the pain much worse.

The reality is this child is going to know the nature of his origins. The family will not be able to hide from it. But James is not healthy and should not be involved in his child's life - because he has not learned to be still and recognize the bigger picture. He wants his way and harm will come when he doesn't get his way. Does that sound like a man who is in any way fit to make decisions regarding the life of SOMEONE ELSE? That's what mothers and fathers have to do - set aside their selfish wants for the needs of their children. James is not doing that.

The fact that you have compassion for him speaks to your generous spirit - not his worthiness.

Kay, thank you for the complment. I just find it hard to UNDERSTAND that a man who is bio father and in that child's life is totally discredited because he made a mistake with the WW. I see all the blame put on the OM and the WW is a saint. I don't see it that way.

When you are married and have childrena and a life it's hard to thow it all away. It would have been easier the first 5 years of divorced life to stay with my husband for various reasons. But it was soooooooooo toxic and only I knew we were married. I am not just talking about his affair (cause I did not have real proof only gut until a few years after we split up). So I KNOW how that feels.

I'm sure her clairity did come to light. But I also feel that her actions before that clarity needed to be taken into consideration.

I think this man could calm down if he was just shown no other respect except for the respect of being this boy's father. If I am wrong.........I'll be the first one to come here and eat crow and accepting my lashings from everyone.

Just as I can see some of Mr. W's ideas, I also see it as the rights only of the bh. He is an adult. He did not deserve this by anymeans. Even if he is the devil himself and beat this woman to a pulp. She too would have choices. But no means does he deserve this.

James is hurt and mad. Right or wrong. I have kids from a brokn marriage and has some believe that it is all gloom and devasting for the kids of this, I don't believe this unless the toxic is carried to them. You deal with it that is in the best interest for them under the circumstances and put there needs first to deal with the circumstances.

Do I agree that some of the pictures he has posted should be removed. Yes I do. Very much so. Do I believe that he is unworthy of being a father because of it. NO. I've also read HER emails to him. Things she said in the depo and just going through an affair myself with a MM the feelings you can get and the bs that is told to you.

My first husband was a seriel cheater. He still is. I was engaged to man who cheated on me and thank goodness I found out sooner than later and called of the engagment. My 2nd husband cheated on me and was also emotionally unavilable to anyone but himself. It pretty safe to say there will not be a 3rd husband. But in all of it I blame my husband the man I was to marry. I'm sure I played parts in myself as it happened over and over and over. then I go and have this LTA w/a Mm. Yes I've done alot of counseling since then and know much more about myself thank goodness, but we all handle things differently. Just because he posted these pics does not mean he is unworthy of being a father.

Kay again thank you for the compliment. maybe it's the Libra in me????

Mary

Your case was not the same as Julia's. You were not married when you had an OC and would of let the OM be a father if he had wanted to. Every mother normally wants their child to interact with their dad.


"Now let me ask you how fair would it be of ME as a fow w/oc that if her father came into her life and intruded on MY life to NOT let him have his parental rights? I would be blasted all over this board and told that was the chance I took for sleeping with a MM. This is no different."


Where is your BH's position on the OM wanting his rights as a DNA dad?

Oh! That's right you were not married when you had a affair with OM and he got you pregnant.

There was no marriage to recover.

Your children saw you pregnant then they had a new sibling. Your family was not broken apart but added to.




"I just saw this. My question is why on earth would she pose for such a picture with her affair partner knowing that she had no intentions of (by her own words (not actions)after the fact) him being her child's father. In this picture she does Not seem as if she was forced into it, but rather posed for it."

I saw that photo and Julia did not appear to be as at ease as in the other photos.

What man if he loved a woman would post her naked photo on the internet? Why embarrass the mother of his child? Why post it without Julia's permission? Why embarrass his son? Why make a decision that forces his son to face ridicule from his classmate and other peers by having his mother's naked photo on public display?

As to why did Julia posed for this photo. I have read many a time when a WS is having an affair they will do what ever they need to get their fix. WW's give up SF to get their missing needs met. WH's meet OW's needs to get SF. People involved in affairs are addicts willing to do almost anything to get their fix.

Adults having SF without safe sex. Worse than having nude photos taken. OM played with fire got burnt, now wants the public's sympathy and support as he sues the match company.

Road if you would have read my post to Laura you will see my answer to that without repeating myself.

As to your question about If I were married. I would have two choices. I could have taken the "safer road" as a few other posters did and wake the heck up when I saw that pregnancy test to perserve my marriage or hope too........but if I would have taken he road that Juila took I would have brought it on myself th fight that the om is putting up to her.

I don't condone either parties actons but rather see "why". I also truely believe in "parents" rights. I've watched to many men get screwed. I've seen more get more rights as I've gotten older, and a few of those men have had to fight nail and tooth when the writing was on the wall.

I have no doubt that Mr. ricketts loves this little boy. If I read HIS depo correctly I even believe that althouh he is fighting this, he is also preparing himelf that he may have to share this child with James. If I read this correctly.

It's hard enough dealing with x's new bf/gf/new wife/husbands at times and I know how much harder it is to deal when an affair is involved. But as adults even when not fair we are legally able to make choises in our life.

Just because I did not have to deal with a husband does not mean it was a "walk in the park" for me. OH NO. I was Legally married still although seperated. My stbxh took this personally in more ways than one. I HAD TO TELL HIM I was pregnant before I told my kids. His very first words out of his mouth was "and I tried all those years to get pregnant" My first thought was "who was getting all those shots twice a day for 4 1/2 years? Who had all those miscarriages and your reply was "oh well, maybe next time". who had all the infertiltly problems? Not him ME. He was dating someone but still took it personally and I pid dearly for it. DEARLY. Not to mention having to explain No, it's not stxh's to all my co-workers and friends that dd not know about the affair. It was not as easy as you might think. Even if I wanted to try and push this child off as my twins full sibling it would have never flied as her father is 1/2 Asain and I am not. So I've got a child who is only 1/4 Asian but looks every bit Asain. Them are some strong genes I'll tell you and my twins are blond and light brown hair. Light skin.

I don't hang out with a lot of just swinging type of people. Most of my friends are Christain woman and high moral people. So no it was not a walk in the park, but I sucked it up and did what I felt was best that I could handle.

In short (long) If I would have handled it the way Julia did, I as a mother knowing the love I have for my children would have to do the right thing and take that chance as much as it would have killed me. I would have done that to myself by letting this man be father along with my husband at the same time. It would have Been the right thing to do. IMHO

I acknowledge you went through a lot of pain.

But Julia's BH wanted to recover and raise her OC as his.

Your BH/WH? Both? Do not which, but your H did not want to raise the OC or recover the marriage. You had to face the music. You man'd up and did what had to be done. But you were not faced with what Julia had to do. Some what similar but different.

You and your H went your separate ways. Julia is trying to recover her marriage. Every one that reads MB knows that it is near impossible to recover a marriage without NC from the OM.


Why should the law now protect the OM when he was morally wrong and his actions and result had no prior protection from the law?

"If I would have handled it the way Julia did, I as a mother knowing the love I have for my children would have to do the right thing and take that chance as much as it would have killed me. I would have done that to myself by letting this man be father along with my husband at the same time."

What would you of done if your husband was willing to raise the OC as his but could not recover your marriage with sharing custody with your OM? Your husband could not handle you having contact with OM for any reason?

Mary, what do you think about what I said about posting Julia's nude photo?

I saw that photo and Julia did not appear to be as at ease as in the other photos.
What man if he loved a woman would post her naked photo on the internet?
Why embarrass the mother of his child?
Why post it without Julia's permission?
Why embarrass his son?
Why make a decision that forces his son to face ridicule from his classmate and other peers by having his mother's naked photo on public display?

Road:

First to clear up something. My husband was by NO means ever a BH. I begged him to leave six months before I had anything "affair" wise to do with xmm". He was dating before he left (although I at the time thought was Just after). He was NEVER a bh by me.

I am going to explain something to you that I don't share very often as it's something that my siblings and I have all had a hard time dealing with...all of us, then I'm going to answer this question to you. As well answer your question about my xh.

You said:

I was raised in a very strict So Baptist family. My dad retired Minister. With my parents it was the church then them and/which had anything to do with the church then somewhere down the line if it would fit into the schedule then there was US. We were not allowed to be involved in any outside activiites (baseball, dance classes, soccor, basketball) unless it was strickly for the church. I could not even run for student body as it might disrupt my church activities or interfer. ONE time (and only one time) I asked my parents if my friend from school could spend the night and they said yes. Her parents chathlic and very involved in there faith. My parents asked her if she was a christain and she said yes then preceeded to tell them what church she belonged to then they blasted her. I was never so embrassed in my life. I never again asked if any friend could spend he night.

It took me 10 years except for weddings or funerals to ever walk into a church again. That is how all of my siblings are. I love the "christain" church I am in and I do believe in marraige has to come first in order to raise your kids and teach your kids in most areas. BUT if I had to choose my kids welfare over my marriage I would do it in a heartbeat. And I did. I don't believe if I WERE to ever marry again (and that is a huge if since I clearly have bad judgment with men) I would ever marry a man that is NOT a christian. My xh clearly was not. I thought I could fix him.

SO if I was married still to xh and DID as Julia did handled it, I would have no choice for the welbeing (long picture here) to stop the lying and reap what I sow from my actions even if that meant my husband could not handle it and he left. I would most defeintly clean up MY mess and try and do what it took to keep my husband by showing him ways to get around contact with xmm and that he could one day feel safe again, but I just could not allow a bio father especially bio father that I played daddy with not have contact or rights to his child.

I am not belittling how you and others feel Road. It is afterall your convictions and opinions. There are reasons we all feel the way we feel. I made a promise to myself before I gave birth to my twins that I would never put my needs/wants before my kids. They would come first when it comes to "the big picture".

It would have been easier for me to stay with my xh for financial reasons. Two incomes are better than one. I was use to a certain lifestyle and was able to work from home for the most part and still make a income...

I've already stated my thoughts on that nude picture of Julia. I'd be blastic. I believe James is in Angry stage and that is why he did it as to prove his point of timelines and there relationships. Not making excuses for him. Just trying to see where his head is at. He needs to get to a point where he feeling "indifferent".

There are ways to handle contact without seeing him. At some point the parents do need to talk, but there are also ways of doing that.

In my court papers with xmm HIS attorney stated that all communications will go through him and I only that his wife is NOT to be involved (sadly she P*ssed his attorney off). I know that she writes on behalf of him. I know this for things that are written and the style it is written. The difference I don't care. I'm indifferent about it all. It's not funny, it's not sad........it's nothing. When she tries to get into a B*tch fest with me, I don't reply. It's not worth it nor do I feel I need to use up my time fighting over something that will go nowhere and get no where. I'm indifferent. 4 years ago you bet I'd be right there in it.

I'm hoping that something between the three of them can be resolved so that all three parties can get to that point of "indifference" and all move on from this.

Mary, I'd like to ask a question, but first I'd like to say this isn't an inquisition...just trying to understand your point of view. You say your H was not a BH. But may we get technical for a moment - did your affair with xmm begin while you were still legally married? If so, then yes, your H was a BH. And you were a WW. I understand what you're saying, that he was dating before he left, so you may be kinda saying that it all canceled out "in the wash,"....but I don't think it does. Cancel out, that is. Things are what they are, no matter how convoluted the situation is. Seeing exactly what happened helps us grow. No rationalizations. No excuses. What our own part was...accept...and grow. Wouldn't you agree?

Laura to answer your question in the sense that you are putting it yes I was a WW/BW and He too was a WH/BH all wrapped up. Legal seperation was done on my part but not all the way divorced.

Divorce did not actually take place for nearly 4 years after I kicked him out. In fact because we were still legally married although seperated for 2 plus years I went to court with my attorney to assure my husband would not be responsible for another man's child to protect stbxh. So tech., yes I understand your point.

Mary,

Sorry if you thought I was personally attacking you.

My previous post was to point out when you support OM/Rhodes position you make comparisons between what happened in your case and the Ricketts family.

To me you are comparing apples and oranges to make a point. You have in your life gone through a lot. Sorry you had to.

Road I in no way thought you were attacking me. Thank you though. Again, I think this is something that we just disagree on. I understand that your thinking it as this where I am thinking of it as that.

I also believe that for the "most" part we have our belief's from our personal experiences.

mary,

It is hard to get people to agree on what is right.

Is it right for a pregnant woman to get an abortion when the dad wants his child?

Julia could of done so and no court would of protected Rhodes right to be a dad.

Is it right that after two years, which I think most states allow a BH to prove that a child is not his, still has to pay child support when the BH finds out after the dead line?
Why does there have to be a dead line for the truth?

Fraud was committed on the BH by the WW and OM why are they not going to jail as other's that commit fraud?

Why does the state not force the WW to submit OM name(s) to be tested for paternity and make the OM financially responsible to support the OC when the BH does not want to be the dad?

Why does the state not force the OM to pay back the BH for all OC costs that BH had to pay?

I agree with you. Ya know although abortion is something I could never do, I also felt if the government took it away we would have backyard abortions as we did before it was legal and so many woman dying from it......and I also use to think that the man had no choice as it was not his body but since all this "OC" has come into play I think differently.

I got a lot of critisiam for this statement I about to once again say, but with everything I've gone through and what I believe in, I do feel that a man has the choice to say to a woman i want that child you can't abort it. And the woman should pay cs to that man just as the woman has that right to collect cs for the child. It's a double standard in terms to rights. I fully believe that. NOW if proven the woman will die or the man was a rapist that is a different story.

I do hope that James is putting money away for his son and that when the time comes he pays the cs. I think (I mean any person would think) that by asking for his rights he is also expecting to pay cs.

On the two year limit for someone to come forward......its tricky in my eyes,....(I'm a libra so I look at both sides most of the time). On one hand if the op did not know then found out 5 or 10 years down the line than a part of me says yes he should be able to go and claim his rights..........if the OP (or any man under this stitch) KNEW and chose NOT to do anything, then he made his choice. He had every opportunity to do something and did not.

As the fraud comment.......well there are two kinds of fraud. Legal fraud and mental fraud. Should I sue my husband for telling me what a great husband he was going to be to me and how much he wanted us to be "THE TEAM" and as soon as the ink was dried he went to his seperate corner to live for what he wanted and take no one else's needs or wants into consderation? Promising me he'd be the man of the house and leader of our family? I'd get laughed out of court. Those were choices he made and as an adult I had the freedom to make my choices.

Should I sue my old boss that when I was hired told me without a doubt (but not written) that after 3 months I'd get a 2.00 and hour raise? He lied to me plain and simple. To me though I took it as he made a fraud statement to me. He mentally told me what I wanted to hear to hire me. Knowing my skills and my worth from my previous employer. As an adult I had the choice to stay or leave. So I can see that both ways as well.

I thought the state did do dna on the om? No? maybe because dna was done by him already and they wanted to make sure the husband was not indeed the father? I don't know.

When I went to court they Did not make my legal husband take the dna test, only the xmm.

I ment DNA tests in general not Rhodes. Also apply to married and unmarried couples, affairs or not.

Also I liked the point you made that the woman should have to pay CS. How about when the parents are not married and have to split the CS costs 50/50.

Elborate a bit for me on that last question. Before I answer I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. LOL. Sorry. I could take this two ways.

it's been a long time since i have been here but can i give 2 examples and allow you all to voice your opinions with regard to this ruling

1 - not married, my dd had her dd. the courts ruled that the father was not allowed to see the child as he had been convicted twice (now 4 times) on Felony domestic abuse.

does the biological father still have parental rights?

2 - after 20 yrs of M my W get preg from an A. om wants to walk away, W wants to allow him to walk away, but for many various reasons i think he should pay cs and be involved in the childs life IF he wants to have that relationship.

should the courts have had the FINAL say and forced me to just accept the child and all that goes with that just because i wanted to try and repair our marriage?

you see i haven't heard the arguement of "what about the child?"

it seems the courts are more in favor of protecting the marriage then the child with such a ruling.

FTR i believe that there are few reasons from keeping a child from knowing their bio parents.

i also don't see where any such ruling or court decision will ever discourage adultery or all maried couples from having an A with either another married person or a single one. the last thing someone who falls into the arms of another while in the midst of an A is having a preg. IMHO

Pops,

In KY and the other states that have the paternity presumption, the HUSBAND and the WIFE both have standing to contest the "presumed" paternity of any child. In your situation, you would have been the presumed father, but YOU could challenge it, force OM to undergo DNA testing and have him declared the father, make him pay child support and still saved your marriage. YOU would have called the shots and controlled your own destiny based upon what YOU, the abused victim and only innocent party in this whole ordeal, chose to do.

What if the father in your example number 1, was the father and you were aware of his history??? Doubtful you'll squeeze much alimony out of him (as your daughter can attest to). Would you have used the "paternal presumption" to preempt him seeking to have involvement in your OC's life if you could??? Why bother allowing him "father's rights" only to have to turn around and seek a court order taking away his father's rights thereafter??

I see Jim Rhodes as your former son-in-law. He hasn't been "convicted" of abuse but he is an self-admitted and proud adulterer. Just as your SIL, he is per-se abusive and he exhibited and continues to exhibit his abusive inclination on the internet for all to see. IMO, he's probably WORSE than your SIL because he embraces it whereas SIL has likely done his time, can't change and stays away, I HOPE.

Surely your former son-in-law is evil and the Courts have correctly severed his rights FOREVER. Even were he to repent, which MAY move your daughters heart and make her and HER alone decide that she'll give her child SOME access to his bio-dad...she is NOT legally obligated to do so, EVER. The Ricketts now have that authority also...to one day, if and when Jim Rhodes is no longer an evil man they CAN choose to allow him access. Until then...his "bio" rights are severed FOREVER, in law and out.

How does this help marriages???

It allows the betrayed husband in these situations to call the shots (presuming his wife is repentent and wants to stay with him...if SHE wants OM to be the father...she can put him on the birth certificate, divorce and not cause any more problems for the BH with regards to OC). With such power comes the ability for the BH to regain control of HIS life and family. With control...recovery can more effectively occur and the BH doesn't need to look over his shoulder for 2 years or more to see if and when the OM will rear up and try to step in and disturb his family. The OC benefits as well. Consider how Mr. Rhodes was insisting that HIS last name be given to Anthony. How would you have felt about that, Pops? How would the child feel about that as they got older and had a different last name than their "dad" and their siblings? Maybe you did raise your OC with a different last name...but did you decide to do that yourself? Or did OM make you?? How would you feel about OM trying to call the shots?? You had one eager to hit the exits, thus, in the time prior to seeking child support from him you KNEW he wasn't going to be around and welcomed some limited biodad role but what if the situation was reversed and, like Mr. Rhodes, OM was seeking primary custody and making demands???

Interesting stuff.

Mr. Wondering

MrW,,,, in the ky case with mr rhoades i did not know he was abusive. in such cases like with my dd i agree that parental rights should be taken away.

but in situations like my own where om was not a violent person then i am not sure it should be a legal precidence.

i understand that in cases where both h & w are committed to rebuilding m it will be much easier to move forward. but does that mean we have the right to refuse contact with a bio dad? remember that bio dad is not abusive or violent.

in my particular case om does have visitation and pays cs. once the cs order was handed down he tried for nearly 4 years to get custody or joint custody. because of his past history, not making any effort to see for the first 2 years of her life. he was only interested in more time after the court ordered cs to lower his $ amount, the courts simply awarded him visitation.

as far as the name goes. yes child has my last name. since om was no where to be found my w was free to choose whatever she felt proper. she decided that she wanted the child to have the same last name that everyone else in our house had. we did however leave the name on the bc blank.

in the original court documents om was given the right to have his name added to the bc and to change the childs middle name to his last name. it has been over 4 years and he still hasn't done it.

again i personally still don't see how this ruling helps the marriage. like i said i do see how it would give the bh a sense of control over his life again.

exchanges can be set up thru the courts so that there is no contact between om and ww.

in my situation i handled that until i felt confident that my w was truly finished. it went on for about 6 months. also i realized that if i had to keep watch over her that way it wasn't the kind of relationship i wanted. sooner or later i had to start trusting her again.

again in our situation grace said to me this morning "i miss 1/2 bro and 1/2 sis". (she used their names) and by the way this was supposed to be her bio's this weekend. he brought her back after about 4 hours last night because she was sick. he doesn't do sick. funny i was home to take care of her yet he couldn't.

point being that she is loved completely by 2 familys.

so my question stands. how does this ruling benefit the child and not the adults in this situation?

Pops, Mr W is using the word abusive in a different sense than your son in law. Mr. Rhodes has not been abusive to the Ricketts. Mr. W is saying that because he (mr. rhodes) has posted a blog site on the internet and posted pictures letteres emails and every court hearing and depo that he is abusive.

As we all know attorney's will go for a bigger judgement in order to try and get the judgement they want. I believe that mr. rhodes went for primary custody in hopes to get visation with his son and be warded the right of being his father.

If you go on his blog there is a link to it and see what Mr. W and Myself are both saying. We just see his blog totally different.

I am a firm believer in MB concepts.

What is best for a child is a strong, happy marriage. The Ky Supreme Court ruled that this child is a child of the marriage, that the BH is his legal father. MB concepts urge that in an affair situation, it is imperative that the affair contact cease, forever, in order to give the marriage the best chance for recovery.

As others have said, in the future the Ricketts could decide to give Rhoades visitation. Wouldn't that be a nice resolution...for perhaps everyone, but definitely for Rhoades. I highly doubt that little boy will "lack" for anything, with or without Rhoades in his life. Ultimately, I believe if the Ricketts DO allow visitation, the benefit is really to Rhoades...not necessarily what is best for the child. Best? That's a tough call. Maybe Rhoades would become a wonderful addition to the child's life, another person who loves and cares for him. More extended family. That would be awesome. Two dads, both pulling for the greater good of a beautiful child, having laid to rest all past lies, deception, pain. But if all it boiled down to was trying it only to meet up with Rhoade's sense of entitlement as most important....bickering over visitation arrangements, late returns, any exchanges whatsoever between Julia and James that are intentionally improper or could be the least bit misconstrued, heated exchanges between Jon and James in a masculine dance of jealous possessiveness or Type-A oneupmanship, I simply cannot see how that would be "best" for the child. Marriage recovery would be compromised.

I think Rhoades has a LONG way to go to instill the Ricketts' trust that he is a positive addition to Julian's life. I think he needs to stay blocked until what IS in the best interests of that baby is more important than his own sense of entitlement, his anger, his feelings of betrayal...that blog is a glaring reminder of what is most important to him. HIS wants. Back to my horror over him posting the "Demi" pic....come on, that isn't remotely in the best interests of his son. Removing it would be one gesture of light dawning in yonder BRAIN. Keep hurting the Ricketts by such in-your-face possession of that pic? Yeah boy, a real smart decision. It is wise at this point for the Ricketts to remain in the fort while they can hear the war calls. Posting "evidence" that even Julia says he's the daddy? There's no need for that, it's all been proven in court. He IS the bio-dad, I really think continuing to shout it shows just why he needs to remain blocked. Rhoades could further his cause a LOT if he straightened up. Sigh. Does that make sense to anyone else?

You are right Mary and I owe Pops Son in law an apology. Mr. Rhodes is far more abusive than Pop's son-in-law and so WERE you Mary, at one time. From what others have said about you, you've apparently turned away from such abusiveness, offered apologies, accepted resposibility, etc. Mr. Rhodes has not. He remains as abusive today as he was during the affair.




OMG. How can you claim you aren't foggy? Affairs ARE abusive by definition. Many on MB equate being cheated on as more painful than the loss of a child or death of a friend/parent. Some view it as MORE painful. It is often the most painful thing a betrayed spouse will ever endure. In fact, in biblical times, it was considered so aggregious and so wrong, that Mr. Rhodes could have been stoned to death (Mrs. Ricketts too).



NO again. I'm saying he was abusive by undertaking an insiduous secret "love" affair with Mr. Ricketts wife and JUDGING him by his continuing actions, the blog, emails and public statements, he STILL embraces such abusive evil nature and thus, remain ABUSIVE, today. Even the email he sent me he mocked me saying something to the effect that he'll soon be holding his son in his arms and telling him how much his one and only daddy loves him followed by a "chew on that for a while!!!!". Mr. Rhodes has no intention of CO-PARENTING Anthony with the Ricketts (particularly Mr. Ricketts), he intends to usurp them and completely confuse THE CHILD, and to destroy their marriage.

Clearly destroying the marriage continues to be an intended goal for Mr. Rhodes because he feels it bolters his legal and public case. If he can just split up the Rickettes he MAY get more opportunities to take over the roll of full time Dad. Remember, Julia and Jon DO have standing to contest paternity and have James named the father.



And that "strategy" backfired on him as it made him seem spitful and vindictive. His lawyer screwed up.




Yes we do. I think somehow you see Mr. Rhodes as yourself, a likeable, decent person who has somehow got himself stuck in a difficult situation. That his continuing evil actions are somehow justified. You said this on your other thread:


God was not present when you committed adultery with a MM. It was an absence of God (i.e.-evil) thing you two did. It may have worked out for YOU...but I doubt, to this day, the MM's wife, YOUR VICTIM, would say "everything worked out well" while her husband continues to pay child support to you and rob HER family and children of what she considers THEIR money.

I understand your reasoning (I see it in many FWW's with OC's) and you are entitled to your opinion, Mary; but, I'll never agree that Mr. Rhodes, TODAY, is other than an abusive evil infested person hell bent on destroying the Ricketts family and the OC if the courts and the Ricketts weren't protecting Anothony from him.

Unrepentent adulterers are DANGEROUS SICK persons.

Mr. Wondering

Mr. W, both Pops and Mary are talking about violent domestic abuse...you know, criminal assault. I think you are aware of that and are twisting their words to suggest some things they never said.

I am sure that both of them would agree that an affair is mentally abusive.

Those supporters of Rhodes only site his rights.

Lucks I agree with:

"What is best for a child is a strong, happy marriage. The Ky Supreme Court ruled that this child is a child of the marriage, that the BH is his legal father. MB concepts urge that in an affair situation, it is imperative that the affair contact cease, forever, in order to give the marriage the best chance for recovery"

Why should the BH and COM suffer they did not have an affair. They did not have fun at Affair Fantasy Land.

They choose to ignore as Rhodes, that he had a relationship with a woman that was not free to do so.

They choose to ignore as Rhodes, that Julia Ricketts was not free to have a child, where the paternity because of presumption could be no one but that of her husband.

Mary

"but I doubt, to this day, the MM's wife, YOUR VICTIM, would say "everything worked out well" while her husband continues to pay child support to you and rob HER family and children of what she considers THEIR money"

Mary do you know how many times a BW is advised to file a legal separation and for the court's to set child support when they learn that their WH knocked up his OW. Or the OW just gave birth to the WH's OC? Even if they think they may want to recover.

Do you know why?

Because if the OW files for Child Support first for the OC. The courts have on most occasions have set CS for the OC based on the WH salary and what it takes to raise a child in that jurisdiction. Not on the WH's other expenses.

If the WH is bringing home 2000 a month and the judge thinks that 1000 a month will be needed to raise the OC. That's what the judge will set CS at, 1000 a month.

The judges do not take the COM into consideration. So the WH, BW, and the COM now have to get by on 1000 a month. If the BW stay's married.

Otherwise if the WH and BW spilt then they only get to split what was left.

Now the xBW has to support her COM on what ever a judge say's she should get out of the 1000 left over after the OW gets her money.

If the husband falls behind, the courts go after the WH's money and assets to take care of the OC first. What is left over if there is any then goes to the COM.

Because the OW filed first.

Mary have you ever been aware of this or tried to think this through?

Your OM is paying for his OC's. How do you think this has effected the OMW and the COM?

What will they have they have to do without financially because of the affair?

How will this be made up to the OMW and COM? You were half the blame. So should you give back half of what you took?

The OMW and COM have been hurt by your affair.
There is nothing that I think you can do. What you did can not be undone.

Julia Ricketts can not undo her affair. What she did can not be undone.

Rhodes has no sympathy for the Rickett's COM. Does anyone not think that this publicity has reached them in school, on the play ground? Is this dad material to hurt innocent children?

i also believe in the mb principles. but with that they also have to be adapted some to fit all the different situations individual quirks. sure poja and complete honesty are mandatory.

yes mrw i am talking about true violent physical abuse and even mental cruelity. which imho are not covered by the definitions of an A. i agree that there is pain, hurt, trama, etc. but i don't feel it is considered abuse.

if i were to classify it as abuse it would be abuse by the ws not necessarily the op. just mho.

let me offer these scenerios. and let us assume that none of the parties are abusive in a way that would be punishable by the courts

h & w divorce, 1 child. w remarrys. should exh be allowed in the childs life?......yes no

bf/gf, gf has baby, they split up. should exbf be allowed in the childs life?......yes no

mm/mw, separate marriages, mm gets mw pg, he is ordered cs. should he be allowed to be in childs life?......yes no

single man/mw, separate marriages, man is willing to pay cs and have relationship with child? should he be allowed to be in childs life?......yes no

you see i can't find the differences in the man's role in any of these situations and quite frankly i feel that it is again where the bh gets the shaft.

when the ww decided to bed the om. it was another failure on her part to consider the overall consequences her bh would face if in fact she became pg. that ruling doesn't protect marriage. in my view it only helps the bh.

again taking my dd as an example. the abusive ex also uses the mail system (no computer because he is in jail for FELONY domestic abuse, and just to clear that up it was because he beat his gf's so severly that they were hospitalized) to send letters to his bio d professing his love and how Jesus has changed him, and how he will be the one raising her and holding her one day. so is he still being abusive to his dd or just making empty promises.

when a father promises disneyland to his child and gets fired so he can't afford it and the trip gets cancelled. is he abusive?

and not trying to down play the emotional trama caused by A's but one thing that helped me put things in perspective after my w's A was the 3000 + people who lost there lives shortly after on 9/11. the family's that were destroyed forever.

oh yeah i forgot to tell you.. i have no idea how to access a blog, myspace, etc as i am technologically challenged.

bf/gf, they have a child and there is no doubt to paternity and they split up. Should xbf be allowed in the childs life?

Yes he will always be the child's dad and have to pay CS whether or not he wants to be in the child's life.

h & w divorce, does not matter how many children. No doubt about paternity. Both parents should be allowed in the child's life. Remarriage for either spouse does not change pre existing parentage. Both parents should be and should have to contribute to CS. Let the buyer beware. Divorced parents with children present their challenges. If you can't handle it then don't buy in. The step parent does not change prexisting parentage. This scenario is so cut and dry it should of not of been included in your "what ifs".


mm/mw have an affair, mm gets mw pg, he is ordered cs. should he be allowed to be in childs life? Loaded question for two reasons. 1 You are trying to open a door to lead people to say well Rhodes wants to pay CS so how can we keep Rhodes away from the OC. 2 If tell us or expect us to ask why the court ordered CS.

Why was he odered to pay CS? Did the WW and BH sue OM in court for CS?

Was it for revenge by the BH?

No matter what the reason a WW and BH if they want to recover their marriage are not wise to keep the OM involved in their marriage. To do so would invite the OM back into the marriage which is not wise by MB standards.

THEY SHOULD NEVER UNDERTAKE ANY ACTION THAT WOULD BRING THE OM INTO THEIR FAMILIES LIFE.

IT WOULD BE STUPID TO BRING THE OM INTO COURT. TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR THE OM TO INTRUDE. HOW CRAZY.

I would suggest that they hire a lawyer to fight the court to force the OM to not pay CS. The law recognize's the BH as the dad and as the OC's dad the BH does not want the OM or his money involved in his marriage.

single man/mw, WW gets kncked up, man is willing to pay cs and have relationship with child should he be allowed to be in childs life?

NO!

The child is a product of the marriage the BH accepts the child as his own. The law of presumption is their to protect the family. Which is in the best interest of the child.

You slammed Julia for having an affair refusing to acknowledge the possible pregnancy and it's baggage.

Why do you not slam Rhodes for having an affair an refusing to acknowledge that a pregnancy could result where he would have no rights under the law to be a dad to that child?

How does not having the OM in contact when NC is mandatory to save a marriage not helpful to the marriage.

Pro Rhodes people always ignore this when these things when they champion his cause.

No Contact is only good when it suits you.

To ignore the law at the time is ok because it suits you.

To ignore the rights of the BH is ok because it suits you.

To ignore the rights of the COM is ok because it suits you.

To ignore the rights of Julia to admit the affair was a mistake and move on because it suits you.

To ignore the rights of a WS and BH to act accordingly to recover their marriage because it suits you.

To ignore the rights of the OC to grow up in ONE stable home with his siblings because it suits you.

To ignore the rights of the parents to seek professional counseling as to best tell how and when of the OC's DNA parentage as you would with a child that was adopted because it suits you.

Just go on the first page of this thread and click on the link or copy the link put in the address bar (paste it) and hit enter.

I do have a reply to the rest but domestic duties call.......grocery store and laundry so I shall return promise

p.s. As far as an affair being worse than death? I highly doubt it. I would much rather walk in on my husband groaping the ow 100 times over than when I watched my big brother die a long painful death! My brothers death was the worst and I mean worst experience of my life! I watched him die and even though I KNEW he was better off dead due to his killer brain tumor that put so much torture and pain in his life for 14 months, I'd give anything in this world to have my "healthy" brother back! Remember I was a BW too and death of a family member and what it did to my family and my father even worse to this day will always be more painful and than anything else in my life that I've gone through.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME? Seriously? Pops stated excatly the type of abusive this man was doing to his daughter and you are saying that having an affair is far worse than beating anohter human being to a pulp and almost killing them physcally? That is twisted.

It took Mr. W Two people to do what was done to Mr. Ricketts. NOt the OM. The BW Mrs. Ricketts was plesantly in that affair with the om. It has NOTHING to do with my status of 5 years ago and then having a child. Maybe Mrs. Ricketts should have thought about that picture being posted on the internet before she TOOK it herself and then EMAILING IT TO HIM? Oh but again Mr. W this is still all the OM's fault? It just goes to show me that blame is placed on "your intruder". Not on both people the person who INVITED the intruder as well as the intruder.

As blastic as I would be, I still would never be stupid enough to email a picture of myself in that manner to anyone!

There are NO seperate rules for the roles. A MM/Ow/OM/WW. Thre are no seperate rules. You can't pick and choose for the stitch you seem to fit your life the best. It is what it is.

He has a right to his son. Regardless if Julia's husband is married to her or not. Pops has the right idea in his post.

MR W. you mentioned an eariler post that james should pay Mr. Ricketts to raise his bio son........that is Child support! If he should pay Mr. Ricketts he should also have the right to his son. He did not abuse Julia, he did not abuse his son.

You can tell me all you want how you think I'm in the fog. I don't really care because I know me, and I know how much support I've given to people on all sides of this with an oc.

I honestly believe that if Rhodes had more money and resources he'd have won. Plain and simple. The Ricketss had more money and resources.


Think what you want Mr. W. I don't need your approval on where I am thinking and why I am thinking this. Your opinion of abusiveness versus mine are two totally different things. When husband #1 cheated on me, I blamed HIM. When the man I was going to marry cheated on me I blamed HIM. When he beat me to pulp and broke my jaw when I confronted him, I blamed him....

In bibical times it was also okay to drink wine and dance. My parents believe both actions are sins against God.

In Bibical times men also married more than one wife had children with them all.........does that make it okay now or with what is going on in Tx in th news? No it does not.

mary, pops, anyone

Would you care to respond to all of the points I made in my last post on this thread?

Not one person has ignored that fact. Nor have ignored the fact that Julia too was involved. What is that saying? You can't rape the willing?


I robbed no body of nothing. My daughter robs nobody of nothing. It's her LEGAL right to have both her parents support her regardless if one wants to or not. It's MM's legal and moral obligation to support her finacially regardless if he wanted to or not....it's my legal and moral obligation to support her if want to or not if he had custody of her. His wife chose to stay married to him knowing that if she did this was what was going to happen. Trust me, it's pocket change and I was MORE than fair with him and even with our strick cs laws here that do take both his and my income and expenese into account he got off real easy. Trust me her expenses are far than 500% more than he pays.

I am pretty much 100% in agreement with you that she feels that way, but just as HIS attorney told him while I sat there signing the paperwork (with him on the phone)....it's very fair in your favor take it.


OH YES I do know about this. Do you Road, know how illegal it is to defraud a family court? It is fraud plain and simple.

A former MB BW took the advise that was given to her. It backfired in there face and her husband was called on it. They got caught. She was also on another board that I was on and it devasted her family more than just sucking it up and doing what was needed to be done.

but at the same token I don't condone an ow scheming to get MORE child support than what is deserved by law. Where is you would and maybe a few others tell me if it got out that (just as you have told me) bw needs to protect her kids so she must do that. Then say I did something to make my income less as the mm's do I'd be called every name in the book for doing excatly as the mm did. I don't condone it for either side. I will however be more than happy to help out either side with legal information and education to help them, but won't endorse or say I am in agreement of any fraud towards any child. If xmm came to me today to help him screw his other kids over........i'd be more than happy to help his wife not get screwed for those kids. Kids don't deserve it no matter where or how they got here.



That is NOT how child support works Road. Not even close. In MOST states the com of the marriage are considered as well as there legit expenses, and the time spent with the child in question. Both incomes come into affect (mm & ow) not just mm's. there are very few states anymore that don't take the ow's income into account. My state as well as a cap. In my case because xmm has a much higher income than me if I would have had the judge order my cs instead of settleling......I would have gotten the cap plus 1/2 daycare and him paying her medical premiums. Even then as our cap is raised, still not like CA or some other states, it would not have hurt them one bit finacally. I could have had the judge order it with all the documents of fraud, but I also took the chance of him being thrown in jail....now what good would that have done for his com or oc? The Judge had already warned him.


Although ck is made out to ow, it is for a child. so to say when ow gets her money......is not a true statement. I'm sure some of the divorced people here who receive child support can tell you how expensive it is to raise a child and how much of that child support and beyond is used for the child.


That would happen regardless of who got the support first. But I'm sure a judge would wonder why one child support was being met when another is not???



It has not affected them finacially at all. He's done very well for himself and again I was more than fair with the man.


I'm sure MM has made up for it 100% times fold. I leave them alone and stay out of there life. There is nothing more for me to do. My oc did nothing to her. So therefore my oc owes his family nothing. Harsh I'm sure you are thinking. But she too had no choices. So she owes nobody nothing.

yes I agree and I did apoligize sincerly for my part in this. Again my daughter owes her and her family nothing. Again my daughter deserves and has a legal right to be supported by both parents. I can gaurntee that if he tried to be in her life and somehow found me unfit to care for her and was able to take her from me, he would be having a court order for child support and enforcing it. Righfully so!

I also remember a gal here who her wh made the same amount of money as ow. He was ordered to pay like less than 200 a month. then she found a job out of state and they sued for custody. They won and the ow was ordered to pay over 1000.00 a month cs. Please tell me the fairness in that or how the principle of protecting anyone worked there? Tell me this had everything to do with money and nothing else towards the ow? I also remember how all the bw's in this forum right here all were joyous with her in there victory. Was that NOT a double standard that took place? Was it really about the child?


I agree with you. But I also know right or wrong if I were in his shoes and someone was trying to take my children I'd fight fire with fire. Mess with me all you want, but don't mess with my children. Directly or indirectly.

mary

In pops post he slammed Julia for having an affair. In that same sentence or the sentence before or after to be fair he should of have slammed Rhodes for having an affair.

Do not play favorites. Attack one but not the other is not fair.

YOUR daughter derserves to have CS paid by the OM.

The point I was hoping for you to touch on was because of your and the OM's actions money that is going to you is now not going to the BW and her COM.

You may think it the amount you receive does not matter. I have yet to hear any body turning down a raise. No thanks my income is already way high.

If you are such a champion for you OC why did you except way less than what you were entitled to?

You made the decision for your OC to not have the material things that she is intitled to because her dad/OM can afford them.

What would you of done if the OM was not well of finacially?
If he had a low paying job. He was barely supporting his family?

What did you think of pops questions on who should have to pay CS, custody rights.

Thank you for being brave enough to argue with me, sincerely.

roads ,,, the cut and dry scenereo as with all of the analogies was to simply point out that there is NO difference to any BIO PARENTS rights.

the next scenereo to which you asked "why was cs ordered?" obviously it would have been because dna testing ahd proven him the father as was the case in the rhoades vs ricketts. i seem to remember reading that dna had been established and the ricketts did not rebute that fact.

please tell me what is the quarantee that should the ricketts win this ruling that their marriage will be assured a full recovery. so what happens when 6 - 10 yrs down the road they end up divorced? no wmr ricketts is paying cs for a child that is not his. not by his choice but because the courts said bio father had no rights initially.

i did not slam julia for having an A but you put forth the assumption that she was raped and had no part in the undertaking. remember it took 2 to tango here.

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.

again imho had rhoades been on th emoon at that time, julia ricketts would have had an A with someone else. and this is not in defense of him.

also the ricketts did not disclaim that julia allowed visitation for a short while until her and rhoades went separate ways.

i will say this one time only. in mho both party's were equally at fault in this and all A's.

i am NOT championing rhoades cause.

i am simply saying that to ignore a bio parent his right to be a part of his childs life on the grounds that it is detremental to a marriage, or a bs is to deny a person his rights.

again the bh has a choice to make when his w becomes preg by another man. stay or d. if he chooses to stay that should be with the assumption that om may in fact be part of his life.

this is just my opinion and it seems that neither of us will persuade the other to change theirs. so for now we will have to agree to disagree.

surely this will end up in the supreme court and when that ruling is handed down we will see how it was related to the constitution of the good ole USA. until then we are on opposite sides of the fence.

Your welcome sincerly. Not sure if it's bravery or stupidity......LOL....but I'd rather say how I feel than sit in the corner with nothing to say.

okay.......


There are several reasons. When I was pregnant with oc I was in a car accident. At the point I had settled oc was already 1 1/2 years old. Because I was pregnant they could not touch xrays ro anything until after I had oc and I'm sure my pregnancy carring a baby was not helpful with the disks in my back but I was getting worse not better with treatment.....I had to deal with that. I had two other kids that I was taking away from them in order to fight this man and that was not fair either.

I was mentally and physcally drainned from it all. I was doing a good job on my own with his bull dog attorney but I knew if I kept it going they would just because. I was getting threating emails all the time from them and drive by's from them both (in different cars by themselves) I was afraid to have my kids outside. I wanted it over. it was something I could live with to help with her expenses and I was DONE. 1 1/2 years is a long time. I suppose they were fighting for there family and I was too.

The only thing I had asked of xmm with settleing was to have his attorney draw up a paper that stated that if he was not in oc's life and I died that he would not fight the gaurdenship of oc and not allow it go into probrate as he did not want her anyway. He refused because of how it "made him look". I just accepted that have assigned her a gaurdain with an attornry who will protect her from anything like probate and make sure it does not affect her if I die. He admited he would not take her if I die, but had no problem letting her be a ward of the court and go through probate which his attorney told him would happen to her.

His attorney told me it was a very selfish act on his end and would not blame me if I did not settle. But I was done. I have took care of her if something happens to me and already paid for the services......if it never happens that money is sitting in a trust at my attorney's office.

Of course everyone wants a raise, but at what cost to you? I had two major surgeries looking at me straight in the face. I could not have this hanging, I had to be done with it and have everything in place. It was not worth taking it back to court as I was just DONE. Being IN IT also made it hard to move on.....it was time to move on as well.


If xmm had a low paying job it would have been over with before it was and it would have been what it was. Seriously, the state I live in is very frugal with Child support. Lots of variables go into place as well.

If any person having to pay cs here can't meet the minium required the judge will tell them to get a second job. I think the very min., is like 150.00.

The bottom line is helpped create her. Neither one of us looking for it, but it happened.

He asked me once if I were to ever get pregnant would I abort or put up for adoption. There was no dilly dally answer to it, or questioning my answer it was straight up NO.


I'm not sure what you mean by what I think. I've made that pretty clear. I don't care who has custody of the children. The other parent needs to help support that child.

Pops it did go to the supreme court. He lost. I don't think his attorney did him justice though. I think there is one more court he can go too. As well by what I understand if the legislator changes that law I'm pretty sure if it's sooner than later he can take this back to court. Mr. W disagrees with me on that and he is an attorney so should know better than me.

KY is a (ducking now) backwards state. My xh is indirectly from there and his parents are from there and if you knew his family is all I can say!

It went to KY highest court. It has yet to make it to the nations Supreme Court.

Uh, yes. That is correct. My bad. Thank you for the correction.

mary

My post was to see if it would cause you to sympathize with the OMW. Not to get you to site your case. Which you were free to do.

To see if you would say that if you had to do it again would you.

Pops you wrote:

"when the ww decided to bed the om. it was another failure on her part to consider the overall consequences her bh would face if in fact she became pg. that ruling doesn't protect marriage. in my view it only helps the bh."

Then in response to me saying that statement only attacked Julia which was not fair. You then respond with the following which made no sense.

"i did not slam julia for having an A but you put forth the assumption that she was raped and had no part in the undertaking. remember it took 2 to tango here."

When the WW decided.... Were did you say Rhodes was equally wrong? She chose to risk getting pregnant. Could of chosen if not outed to never admit to the affair. She possibliy could of had her cake and eaten it to. Not that it would make it right.

You have always chose to talk about Rhodes rights.

You have not clearly addressed how Rhodes should have rights when he chose to have SF with a married woman. Where the law if presumption would give paternity rights to the husband of the married woman he was banging. I guess in KY or where you live you do not have to follow laws you do not like.

You did not ask me that. I answered what you asked how you asked.

Would I do what again? The affair or have xmm pay cs? I'll answer that now

Would I have the affair again. NO.

Would I want xmm and take him to court for cs that his child deserves? Yes. Its her right.


Are you talking to me or Pops? If you are talking to me. Of course I follow the laws where I live. I have also paid the piper for a few traffic tickets I've gotten.

There also laws that were written years and years ago that due to society have changed or will be changed. I believe this law will be changing soon. Just as in my state the law states that "my husband is presumed the father of my child if married when "concieved" unless dna is challenged. It was challenged and my husband never took dna test. I knew he was not the father of the child. SO should my husband should have paid me child support for a baby he had no bio relations with because we were still married although seperated at the time and then MM's life would have been never damaged over this? A innocent man pays the rest of his life for my actions? When we were legally married but seperated for 2 plus years at the time?

So also if we are talking about laws.......the law states that the bio parents are financially responsbile for there children. Both of them.

But because this is going to hurt the bs and com the xmm should not have to pay child support to his bio child? NOW that is what I am saying "picking what laws to follow".

Which also goes back to you telling me why the bw has to file for legal seperation to ensure her kids it first. That to is follow the laws as needed and not needed.

I think this has been covered before by several including me, but I seriously don't think that when a person is having sf with a married woman they are thinking of that law. I mean seriously....why would he?

Rhodes and Ricketts (that is Mrs.) joined in that adventure together. Rhodes did not rape her. There is equal blame for that. Again I don't think anyone would be considering that law at all unless they had already been there done that and I would hope that we (that have engaged) in that have learned our lesson the hard way.

Mary - Pops

What neither of you have addressed - and what James Rhodes fails to address as well is while you think he should have rights what is in the best interest of the child?

Given what Mr Rhoades wants, the child would have a different last name than his siblings. The child would have two daddies, two conflicting parenting styles - obviously at odds with Mr. Ricketts because James can't seem to hold himself back with any maturity in the case at all. He's demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court that in this case, the best interests of the child are to be raised by the man who did no wrong in this case. James has demonstrated to the world's overall satisfaction (excepting those who have a "father's rights, at all costs posture) that he cannot and will not co-parent with Mr. Ricketts - or Julia - as he has posted a picture of her where in years to come, will be to her permanent shame.

A man who wants to do the right thing by the child would behave differently than Mr. Rhoades has behaved in this case. The courts did not mandate anything but on Mr. Rhoades lack of ability to co-parent.

Kay, with do respect it has been addressed several times. My twins have two mothers so to speak. I'm not thrilled with that fact but it is what it is. they are not harmed in it by any means. Two woman that love them so therefore they have an additional mother figure that I know will be there to take care of them every other weekend and 1 afternoon a month and 2 weeks out of the summer. She can't stand me but I know she takes care of my girls. She does not have to like me but she does need to respect that I am "there mother" first and formost. She has crossed the line with me and as my children's mother I have put her back in line and now she leaves me alone.

My point to that last sentence is maybe if this was handled differently Mr. Rhodes would not be trying to tatics he is trying.

Xh's gf put a notion in xh's head that she could parent my children better so he tried to take my kids away from me and not only did it backfire in his face in court, she also got a taste of a momma bear protecting her cubs. I blame my xh for actually trying something so stupid as he barley saw his kids on his own accord not mine, but I blame his gf being a mother herself and grandmother thinking her plan to have my xh not having to pay cs at the expense of my children would fly and waste the energy and tears that it brought to my kids not to mention the wasted money that could have been spent on our kids.

So let's see.........two loving fathers.......who will work at being the best possible fathers while the oc in there care and work for simular. Yes I do think it could work and the child will be okay.

My xh has some differnt rules at his house than I do. Always has. Since day one. There have been times that my kids have tried to use it against each other.....they are kids....but they know better as well. They know as the major rules are the same with each of us. The minor rules may vary but there is no confussion nor is there "hang-ups" over this. One time my kids got mad at me and told me they wanted to go live with there dad. I told them to go pack there bags. In fact I handed them the suitcases. I started packing for them. They backed down so quick and never used that again.

It can work and there are ways to ensure the stabilty of all kids involved. This is not something that is rare. Sad to say, but it's not.

There are also ways to ensure the stabilty of the marriage as well. I've seen couples doing it and it may not be easy, but it's working.

That picture of Julia is continuly brought up. I've admisted it's not the smartest move at all and I'd be blastic, but surley even that picture was a agreed upon thing between them. She posed for it.

I'm sure she never expected it to be posted on the internet but it goes back to our choices we make. She posed for it. With her om. Or for her om. Whichever she posed for it.

I suggested a nuetural 3rd party counseler not one that is counseling them...to intervein for the contact with the oc. Maybe mr. rhodes would not have had a problem with that? The compromises that were made were to the ricketts comfort level only...all three have to have a comfort level in this and even though the court did not feel mr. rhodes had any rights, he does as the father of that child to feel comfortable too. if the adults are comfortable......the oc will be more able to ajust and be loved by all. Accept the love from all.

Kayla, I do not have a "fathers rights" at all cost posture...neither does Pops. Both of us feel there are situations where a dad should relinguish his rights. Frankly, as far as demonstrating it to the "world"...that's far from the case. I know a lot of people that feel he should be given access. I am not certain I am one of them...I just do not like the broad injustice that the KY court ruling inflicts on bio dads for no reason other than gender.


far from the truth. They do so very much more.

Mary, you judge situations based, it would seem, (entirely) on your own experiences. I urge you to think outside the box and consider how others may feel who have very different lives.

Those who have suffered an affair experience.

And, who live in Kentucky, or anywhere else you choose to deride. Although I will say, many of us EVEN in Kentucky are embarrassed by some examples of Kentuckians. Any tv show that has a hick-idiot on it, I cringe waiting to see if he's going to announce he's from Kentucky....if he says Tennessee I breathe a sigh of relief (then think how unfair that is to other Tennessee folks).

Mary, your position here has merit...without these types of statements. There are many, many people that consider infidelity worse than death. I think it is wrong to judge this based on your experience. I certainly can understand why infidelity is THAT hard for people. Death is a natural consequence of disease and injury. It is horrible to say the least....but we will all get there eventually. Infidelity on the other hand is an assault by the one you should be able to count on the most. It tears a person to their core.
If your experience was different, BE THANKFUL...but be careful in expressing derision for those that see it differently.

We ALL judge by our life experiences. To compare a death to an affair.....I've been through both...no comparisions. Devasting yes. Otherwise we would have nothing to base anything on.

There IS no doubt that an affair hurts to the core of your soul. I just can't compare it to the pain I felt watching my brother suffer and die. never having the chance to share or love him or laugh with him or even fight (debate) with him again. Then I watch him die. Take his last breath. I know as I get older I will see more of that, but I can't even describe that.

as far as thinking outside the box.....if I could not think outside of the box I would surley not have as many people on all sides of this trainagle that I respect as well as they repsect me.

JMHO again life experience. XH showed some true colors that came from his parents with whom are from KY. Granted rural areas but the man who swore he was not racist or other things that were important for him NOT to be....all came out after the dotted line was signed.

I will admit it was a statement I should not have said. I do apology and do take it back. As much as been thrown at me towards this I figure one blow from my side would have been fair game, but I will take the KY remark back.

Mary - James has demonstrated to the court's satisfaction that he cannot and will not co-parent; rather, he is there to deny the other father any rights at all. His posture is that he is the one and only one who can love Anthony.

His blog demonstrates mental problems that cannot be fixed by a neutral 3rd party.

The court had no choice but to exclude him based on his own behavior.

I said, "Mary, you judge situations based, it would seem, (entirely) on your own experiences."

Yes, we all start forming our opinions based on our life experiences. However, I cannot judge for everyone solely on my life experiences. If you feel your experiences have been vast and wise enough to judge what is best for everyone, a bestselling book might be in order.

I've been through a devastating affair. And I've lost loved ones under terrible circumstances. I wouldn't presume that you would feel the same way I do. Are you presuming you know better what I'm supposed to be feeling? I think that is what is conveyed by blanket statements.

mary

"when a person is having sf with a married woman they are thinking of that law. I mean seriously....why would he"

As with anything in life you are not allowed to complain when you choose to act irresponsible.

You drive drunk and crash. You make a bad decision. What ever happens as a result you have to pay the price. Crash total your car you walk away. Crash kill someone, jail, lawsuits. Nothing happened you didn't get caught.

Rhodes chose to ignore the consequences. Egotistical enough to think he will get what he wants with no consequences.

My next point is Rhodes backers say it's a bad law so he should not have to follow it.

Anyone can think that a law should be changed.

But how come Rhodes backers can not say they don't like the law of presumption but not that Rhodes has to follow the law?

Thus he has no legal standing to the OC. Wanting and legal are not the same.

Not one Rhodes supporter has been able to defend that Rhodes does not have to follow the law.

In America everyone has the right to fight for reforms. People here though seem that the right to fight for change is a guarantee to get change.

Rhodes got a woman pregnant when the law would never recognize his right to parent.

Rhodes gambled. Just the way a drunk driver gambles. When you gamble do not cry that you lost.

road,,

you seem an intellegent person. yet you continually try and twist the subject. are you an attorney by any chance?

1st i NEVER said that mr rhoades does not have to follow the law. i would never enter a debate over such a obsurd topic. my arguement is only whether i feel the kentucky ruling is moral or right.

2nd i am far from a fathers rights fanantic. i feel that a bio father OR mother has certain responsibilities to a child but that is different from his/her rights.

let me tell you a little more about me. dude i've been on all sides of this fathers rights issue

many years back (as some would put it) i knocked up a gf. actually she simply became pg due to OUR constant (again as some would put it) banging.

i knew that i didn't want to spend the rest of my life with her so we split up.

my thought was that she would meet someone else and the 3 of them would live happily ever after.

wrong. after about a year and a half i get court papers for cs. courts orders cs and typical visitation for the time, every other weekend, period.

so things are going along this way for a year or so and then she remarries. BAM. now she wants me to have nothing else to do with my son because she has her new little family. so i have to fight to keep visitation.

before you say anything, yes i know that the boy was not born to a married couple. the point i am making is that julia had already allowed visitation and then changed her mind as did my exgf. just as my exgf couldn't have it both ways neither (imo) can julia.

now fast forward 20 some years. my w gets pg from om. he will walk away.

do i want him in my life? NO.

does he have certain responsibilities to his child? YES

do i want to stay in my marriage? YES

would the baby be considered a product of my marriage? YES

do i view om paying cs will be my revenge? HARDLY. maybe yes if he were a doctor, lawyer, bill gates, etc. but not from a school bus driver. anything they would have him pay would not be enough for me to call it revenge.

does om have rights to see child? YES, IF he chooses to use them.

you see my problem with this ruling is that it only protects those who want to use it. i.e. the ricketts.

rhoades or no rhoades in their life does not change th efact that julia had an A. mr ricketts still has to live with that fact. whether they rebuild or D mr ricketts has to deal with that reality.

what if julia had kept it a secret that rhoades was the father. she stays in her marriage and her h never questions a thing.

10 years go by and they D. both parties have bad words, something slips out and mr ricketts demands dna tests and finds he was dupped.

now because julia used this ruling to keep rhoades at bay her now exh is is paying cs because julia committed fraud.

you say that i have not given any reason to back my position. yet you have not given any arguement other then the law should be followed. and that it is to protect the sanctidy of marriage.

well the sanctidy of marriage was when dear julia stepped outside of hers.

i mean tell me do you really think that she had this A with rhoades because he was such an animal magnet. no way . she was unhappy in her marital relationship and he paid her some attention. if it wasn't him it would have been the next nice guy down the street.

this in no way takes any responsibility off rhoades for not having the sense and character to stay away from a marries woman.

so don't waste our time going there

i just don't agree with a blanket ruling that will only protect those wanting to stand behind it.

again we will have to see what happens in the (i'll get it this time) NATIONAL supreme court

Pops,

The US Supreme Court will not be reviewing this decision.

Guaranteed.

They already decided the issue 20 years ago in Michael H v. Gerard. It WAS a split decision but the court is even MORE conservative now and, thus, much more unlikely to undertake expanding the Due Process Rights under the 14th Amendment of bio-fathers given them a "liberty" interest to parenting their off-spring. Rather the court seated today desires to interpret the term "liberty" more narrowly than previous courts.

Here's a brief summary of the case which the US Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Courts denial of standing to Michael H, the interloper and biofather. If you read Jim Rhodes website you'll see that the facts are nearly identical to the Rhodes v. Ricketts Kentucky case:


Here is a link to the actual courts decision.

Link to Michael H v. Gerard

It is my professional estimation that Mr. Rhodes has a better chance of winning the power ball lottery than getting the US Supreme Court to hear his case, let alone winning such case. This matter is OVER. He'd be best served by taking down his website, repenting and attempting to make amends to the Ricketts (particularly Mr. Ricketts) in hopes that they MAY allow him some visitation or something with his bio-child, Anthony. Less fighting, more contrite butt-kissing is in order for him to have any hope of EVER having a relationship with his child. IF he keeps attacking the Ricketts he MAY end up being hated by his own bio-child, Anthony, and even when Anthony turns 18 he'll want NOTHING to do with him.

Mr. Wondering

Lucks I will reply tomorrow. Just reading today. Got a bug from one of the kids and not really here yet.

Mr. W: So much has happened in America in 20 years. I can't elborate right now.

I see a MUCH BIGGER chance that he will hate his mother and pseudo father for keeping the bio dad out of his life. I think he is likely to see the website and other actions for what they truly are...an attempt to see his son against all odds. I strongly think the ones that should be concerned about their child hating them is the Ricketts. You continue to act as the champion for Mr. Ricketts and frankly he is not the main concern here.

If I were that child...and I suspect most people outside the little world of MB would feel likewise...I would like the chnace to know my bio dad...and the ONLY people preventing that right now are the Ricketts.

"RIGHT NOW" the Ricketts SHOULD be protecting their child, Anthony, from this unrepentent interloper (he may try to breastfeed Anthony again or, perhaps, take even MORE pictures and post them on the internet). They can change their mind and the ONLY person preventing that right now is James Rhodes. Of course, it could be too late for him. The Ricketts may have such distaste for him as a result of this whole process and the website thing that they NEVER change their mind, but that would, of course, be Jim's consequences for his continued sinful mindset and, ill-advised, ill-conceived and ill-timed legal prosecution.


AS for the resulting child, here's what one OC said on this very thread. Please note that KaylaAndy's posts reflects her feelings way before MB.




Mr. W

I KNOW what KA said. As you pointed out, she is one person. I do not think for a second that her reaction would be the norm...time will tell. Based on comments I have read about this case from numerous sites...I imagine a lot of people...including some that were OC feel entirely differently.

Mr. W...you have the lawyer thing down pretty pat with this guy...it is twist and smear as far as Rhodes goes.

then i guess this topic has nothing more for me to ramble on about

pops

"yet you continually try and twist the subject"

I feel the same way about you.

"are you an attorney by any chance"

No. I try to look at all sides. Legal, moral, right, wrong, least future damage, and to the OM, WW, BH, COM, and the COM.

You, to me only look towards what's best for the OM.

"1st i NEVER said that mr rhoades does not have to follow the law. i would never enter a debate over such a obsurd topic."

When ever the point has been raised that Rhodes had SF with a woman that was not free to be his wife. That if he was to get her pregnant, the law of presumption would not recognize his paternity claims, You and other Rhodes followers have remained silent.

You bring up every thing you can to support Rhodes but you never offer a counter view of when it's pointed out Rhodes and his disregard of the law.

"(as some would put it) i knocked up a gf"

For a person that said they hate the phrase KNOCKED UP. I think it's hypocritical then to go and use it. Especially when you have made your objections known to my use of it in the past.

Classic example of when one is debating and has a weak case. That is to attack the person you are debating because you can not attack his points.



FINALLY, I KNOW WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM!


"my thought was that she would meet someone else and the 3 of them would live happily ever after.
wrong. after about a year and a half i get court papers for cs. courts orders cs and typical visitation for the time, every other weekend, period.
so things are going along this way for a year or so and then she remarries. BAM. now she wants me to have nothing else to do with my son because she has her new little family. so i have to fight to keep visitation.

before you say anything, yes i know that the boy was not born to a married couple. the point i am making is that julia had already allowed visitation and then changed her mind as did my exgf. just as my exgf couldn't have it both ways neither (imo) can julia."

You are still comparing apples to oranges.

Julia was and still is married to her BH.

Your girl friend was not married to any one. There was no law of presumption to deal with. No BH. Your paternity and rights to be the dad, share custody and pay CS are 100%.

Again you choose to ignore that Julia was married. Is still married to the BH. That Julia was not free to be Rhodes wife. That the fruit of her womb ( knocked up ) by the law of presumption will not allow any one other than Julia's husband to be the dad. As it should be. The family unit needs to be protected.

Your personal case would of and should of yielded the same results even if you where married to someone else or had married XGF. A XGF/XW and her new husband can not cut out the dad ( you ). There is no grounds to deny you your rights as the dad. The law of presumption deals with paternity during the marriage. Not before a marriage or after a marriage is over.


WHY DID YOUR XGF MOVE TO END YOUR RIGHTS TO YOUR CHILD?

It was wrong for your XGF to bring you in then move to cut you out.

Why did you think she did this?

Her new husband had to feel threatened that his wife's XBF being involved in his marriage.

How many times are BS's here told they must get their WS's to have NC. That marriages can not recover with 3 people involved. The countless times where affairs have restarted because there still was contact.

In your case if the new man can not handle the baggage when they are to marry a single mom/divorced woman. Especially with children. You do not marry them.

If your XGF's husband could't handle having you in the picture then he should not of married her. He gets the package deal, her, step child, and you.



"10 years go by and they D. both parties have bad words, something slips out and mr ricketts demands dna tests and finds he was dupped.

now because julia used this ruling to keep rhoades at bay her now exh is is paying cs because julia committed fraud."

Based on the law the BH got screwed over and will continue to get screwed over with continued CS for the OC.

This is an area where the laws need to be changed for there is know marriage to be saved. WW should be criminally prosecuted for fraud. Sued for taking money under false pretenses. The OM can claim he never new he was the dad until now still should have to be forced by the courts to repay every cost associated with the OC. From maternity clothes, hospital delivery, everything to the time the fraud was determined. Then be responsible for the rest of the OC's life until his 18th birthday.


"you say that i have not given any reason to back my position. yet you have not given any arguement other then the law should be followed. and that it is to protect the sanctidy of marriage."

I have stated the rights for Julia to realize her affair was a mistake and to recover her marriage.

The Rights of the BH to not have a third party involved in his marriage. Which is following the Harley's position.

The rights of the COM to have their family restored and protected. I have mentioned these thing many times but you as usual chose to ignore what you can not find a way to challenge.

I do not care why Julia had an affair. You bring it up that she was unhappy was the reason and there by justify it. There is no reason to justify an affair.

Yeah, more conservative now... today.

Not so much, if President Obama were to appoint, say-- 3 judges.

....AD you are funny. I could not pass that one up. Love you AD! Muah!

""If your XGF's husband could't handle having you in the picture then he should not of married her. He gets the package deal, her, step child, and you.""

this is the same position that julia's h (or anyone else) should be following. if they want to stay in the picture (marriage) he should have to accept the WHOLE package, himself, julia, her baby and the baby's bio father. there is no law on the books forcing him to stay in the marriage.

there are many, many bw's out there who have done just that. accepted the whole deal.

""WHY DID YOUR XGF MOVE TO END YOUR RIGHTS TO YOUR CHILD?

It was wrong for your XGF to bring you in then move to cut you out.

Why did you think she did this?

Her new husband had to feel threatened that his wife's XBF being involved in his marriage."'

she wanted to do this for the same reason that julia wants to do it. to protect her h now that she has AGAIN changed her mind as to whom she wants to spend her life with.

and i am sure that julia's h feels threatened also.

""The Rights of the BH to not have a third party involved in his marriage. Which is following the Harley's position""

now i have said that i agree with the Harley's priciple's. which is true. they have done excellent work and put together some terrific programs to survive an A.

BUT they are not the judicial system. their ideas no matter how great and successfull are certainly looked on by some thru a negative light. there are still many that buy into the idea that once a cheater always a cheater so when caught a ws should be kicked to the curb for life.

your argueing and trying to support a judicial ruling because the Harley's say it is right holds no weight with me.

""No. I try to look at all sides. Legal, moral, right, wrong, least future damage, and to the OM, WW, BH, COM, and the COM.

You, to me only look towards what's best for the OM.""

""

i am glad you try and see things from all perspectives. as do i. i have lived on practically all sides of this agruement.

to assume that i only argue what is best for the om because i disagree with a blanket ruling (again IMHO) is ludicrous. i am a bh and quite frankly have no use for those who KNOWINGLY enter a relationship with a married person

agian it has been an interesting discission but from by standpoint it is over. feel free to engage anyone else who may want to continue.

and with my last sentence, i am in no way, shape, or form insinuating that you need my permission.

Pops

"""If your XGF's husband could't handle having you in the picture then he should not of married her. He gets the package deal, her, step child, and you.""

this is the same position that julia's h (or anyone else) should be following. if they want to stay in the picture (marriage) he should have to accept the WHOLE package, himself, julia, her baby and the baby's bio father. there is no law on the books forcing him to stay in the marriage.

there are many, many bw's out there who have done just that. accepted the whole deal."""

Again you compare apples to oranges.

Julia's husband is protected by the law ( presumption ) he does not have to include the Rhodes/OM.

Mr Ricketts is not marrying a woman that has a preexisting child as it was in your case.

In your case your XGF was not married, your right to your child is protected by the law.

Pop's, what you, your XGF, and her husband have gone through is not the same as Julia, her BH and Rhodes.

Similar because both husbands don't want the XM/OM involved in their marriage.

Similar is not the same!

Mr Ricketts paternity rights are protected by the law.

Pop's your paternity rights are protected by the law.

Similar but not the same!

Mr Ricketts has the law of presumption.

Your paternity was established by the courts prior to your XGF's marriage.

Then about your most absurd point is the one where there are BW's out there that have accepted the whole deal.

This topic is about a dads paternal rights. I never heard of a woman that had SF and got pregnant that had to prove she is the mother.

These cases you mention are where there is no question of paternity. It's do we recover? Then do we share custody of the OC? When the OW is single then the law of presumption does not into play. If there is a BH, then it is position to use the law of presumption or waive it.

Again you sited examples that do not match the Rickett's/Rhodes case. Your arguments' continue to hold no water due to your faulty assumptions.

I support the legal postion of the case not because the Harley's view point on NC, but because of the law itself.

actually TR, I find Pop a bit more convincing than you...you main cry is the law, the law...so..if the law changed tomorrow, your opinion would???

My thoughts about right versus wrong are not rooted in laws that can change on a moments notice.

Road, I think Pops said he was done, so I'll answser for him. That happened to him years ago.

Pops wife had an affair which resulted in an oc that the bio father (who is also married) has shared visation and pays cs to Pops oc. So Pops IS in alot of ways just like Mr. Ricketts.

However, he's not.

I do not believe Mr. Ricketts has any other children not his wife's nor is it alleged Mr. Ricketts was ever a WH in his past. I would think/hope Mr. Ricketts worldviews about family differ greatly from Pops. Not that Pops is a bad guy, TODAY. I commend him for overcoming his wife's adulterous affair (and her his) and pregnancy and he didn't deserve to be cheated on just because he cheated on her first but comparing Pops to Mr. Ricketts (granted we don't know everything about Mr. Ricketts) is on it's face, unwarranted.

I also doubt Pops OC's bio-father tried to breastfeed his child, he didn't sue Pops to take the OC away and he didn't put pictures of Pops, his wife, the adulterous affair and the OC all over the internet for everyone in the world to view and comment upon.

Mr. Wondering

Where did you see that pops said he cheated on his wife?

Mr. W I commend you for your beliefs and forgiveness to your wife, but it's like you are a reformed smoker. The judgment you are passing on people for not believing as YOU believe is not right. Nor are all your facts.

You assume and judge as if you are "god" and have that right to judge. It's not becoming of 'anybody"! that includes you. Please show me where you saw that Pops cheated on his wife.



Since you are in contact w/Mr. Rhodes ask him about that comment. I am interested and if you don't...I will. Just because she said it does not mean it's true.....After all if we can't trust one adultious person why should we trust either one of them to say the truth?

mary

Pops was referring to when he got his girl friend pregnant. Then left her. This happened before Pops got married.

He used that example of how he got paternal rights and the XGF's new husband wanted to cut off Pops from the XGF and Pops child. The courts supported Pops right to continue shared custody.

Pops tried to use his case as the basis for supporting Rhodes.

I then went point by point showing how I thought Pops was wrong. That his comparisons where faulted.

Now that you know I was not talking about Pops or his wife's affair would you please go to Pops 06/02/08 05:09 PM post and my post 06/03/08 05:51 PM.

Mary, please take the time to compare my post to pops line for line point for point. Do not cherry pick.

Then show me how my logic was wrong. How Pops was right.

As usual when I make a bunch of factual points the Rhodes camp never contests them. I think it is because they can't. Can you. I anxiously await your response to our debate. Thank you.

Road, I was talking to Mr. W where he said that Pops cheated first.

I will re-read the post you were talking about but can not do so right now. It will be later on this eveing.

My last post above was directed to Mr. W. As it was the quotes I quoted of Mr. W.

Quote from Pops on 6/1/2008 at 8:12 pm.

MEDC

It's easy to bash, and say things as pop is more convincing without backing up your statements.

I extend the same request that asked of mary. Show how pops words support that what he went through and Rhodes did are the same. For this is how pops supports Rhodes.

If paternity laws on presumption were to change in favor of Rhodes then the courts would give Rhodes some level of custody based on what is done now. Based on what is the best interests of the child and the mother and DNA dads ability to best provide for the child.

Actually, if the paternity presumption laws were to change and Bio-dads could sue to establish paternity to a married couples child and succeed then the courts would then have to do a best interests of the child analysis and, I contend, based upon such analysis they should give the OM very, very, very little to no visitation in nearly every situation. Visitation is not a guaranteed right as Pop's former SIL can attest to.

I think the opposing viewpoint to the paternity presumption has merit, but in practice, I feel the paternity presumption merely shields a recovering marriage from having to deal with the OM at all, if they choose, and permits them to avoid completely a "best interests of the child analysis" that the OM should lose anyway. The presumption merely handles this nicely, preemptively.

I also don't like the idea of my/our tax dollars paying for the courts to open their doors to persons like Mr. Rhodes and grant him recourse. As Justice Scalia said in Michael H. v Gerard: "The courts do not have a history of assisting interlopers [paraphrased]". These matters should be handled extrajudicially by adults and I prefer the BH to have the upperhand, legally, in such negotiations which may be with a marital terrorist such as Mr. Rhodes.

Absent the presumption imagine how disgusting a "best interests" fight with Mr. Rhodes would have been for Mr. Ricketts. Imagine the humiliation and absurdness of Mr. Ricketts having to argue in depositions, interrogatories and court that he, the innocent betrayed husband, is the more fit parent. Remember, he believed the child was his for quite some time. Further, it's very difficult to prove a negative and Mr. Rhodes would have come in armed with all of Julia's revisionist wayward history. Some of it documented in letters and emails. There is a taste of it on Mr. Rhodes website. He still believes the fog-crap Julia told him about her husband.

Now...at least in Ky and some other wise states, BH's don't have to deal with that. THEY, with their FWW's can decide what's in the OC's best interest, which, I submit, if the OM is such a great guy...THEY, without court intervention, should come around and do right by the child and permit some visitation. I certainly trust the betrayed husbands in these situations to consider the OC before the OM's or even the WW's. I think we ALL can agree (and, perhaps, because I'm a lawyer I understand this better) that the court is not necessarily always the best arbitrator of what actually is in the child's best interest anyway.

Let parents parent, not courts.

Mr. W

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.

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!

"""""""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.

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

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!

Pops

same request that I made from mary if you please.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Amen

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

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.

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

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.

mary
oh boy here we go

"He has all the rights of man of a marriage"

NO he does not. He is not married to the OW.

"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. "

NO because if that woman is married the law of presumption recognizes the BH as the dad. The law does not recognize the OM as the dad.

"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."

Your statement would never happen because the OW is not married so there is no BH. So the law of presumption does not apply. Their is nothing to block the WH from being declared the dad. Except if our OW in this case was sleeping with more than one. Then it is DNA test time.

"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?"

You are not making sense. The MM's paternity is recognized. There was nothing to prevent it from happening. Because the mom was single.

OM as Rhodes are out of luck because their AP was a WW. Whose husband has the law of presumption backing him up.

"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. "

Pops raised that as a possible scenario.

I did not make that point. Sorry if I got you confused. Both the OW and the WH in pops scenario have paternal rights. Due to their being no BH. The OW was single.

The WHW has no paternal rights. The law of presumption does not work for BW's.

Last time I heard the only proof a woman needed for her paternal rights was to give birth.
Which the single OW did in pops scenario.

Pops wants to twist the law of presumption into something that it's not to make a point.
The law of presumption was I am sure there had to be many reasons for it being past. The one we have to agree on is that in the past male paternity could only be guessed.

For some reason determining female paternity was never a problem so the law of presumption never applied to them.

Comparing apples to watermelons.

pops

so you are tired of the law

there are 6 people involved

Rhodes

julia

BH

2 COM

OC

To make a moral decision you have to make a what's best for all decision. They can not be mutually exclusive.

Society for centuries has deem it best to protect the marriage and family first. It still is the best course of action to take today.

Society still holds affairs as wrong.

Rhodes went against society, against the norm, where it was clear understood by him that he would not be supported for his actions by society if things went bad for him.

Thus he has no claim against any one. He chose to have SF with a woman that was not free to be his wife. He chose to get a woman pregnant that the law would never recognize the child as his.

But you would not accept this before. Why do I repeat myself.

I hear the fat lady singing.

Wow,

This has certainly been an interesting discussion. I was struck by comments of bias and unfairness.

It seems to me that the issue of children even having them is one of bias and unfairness. With that thought in mind I thought I would remind people of a few things.

1. There was a time roughly a century ago, when the H almost universally got custody of the children. he could afford them, the W could not. My how things then turned. Now they are turning again, which to my mind is good.

2. The issue of a "woman's right to choose" is patently biased and unfair. Gestation takes 9 months, rearing a child takes a minimum of 18 years. Who gets the bill for that?? Yup Dad does. But he does not have any recourse with regard whether a child is born or not. There is no balance in the courts with regard to custody. Someone mentioned way back that men don't want custody, but the reality is even with the swing toward 50/50 custody a man has an uphill fight to have even 50/50. Full custody is rare although MEDC and at least one other poster have managed it.

3. There is the issue of the COM. If OM is brought back into the situation as he seeks and especially with his attitude, the COM will likely be children of divorce, with the BH getting much less than 50/50, the statistics reflect that reality. No one is worrying about the COM in this discussion, but if one is to worry about OC, the COM clearly have every right to be considered.

4. The WW was a particularly wicked woman and the OM is a a scumbag. How is that for direct and to the point? Frankly, if I were considering what was best for all of those kids, neither of them would be high on my list for parents. I apologize for those I offend, but WW played OM like a violin, and she played her H for a sap. OM shows no remorse for what he has done. But, the reality is the woman has a preferred position in these situations and those are the facts that prevail.

5. Yes, Mary the system is biased. Yes, Pop's the system is baised. But the reality is that the system does not reflect modern reality in my mind. It is estimate that 10% to 20% of children born are not children of the man that thinks he is the father. It has been proposed that all children be given DNA tests so that proper paternity and YES CHILD SUPPORT can be accorded the children. So far it has been shot down and the people who support shooting it down are women (NOW to be specific).

As someone pointed out in the old day all anyone knew for certain was the woman giving birth to the child was the mother. All else was up to the fates if it was to be determined. Today, we can know more, but with that knowledge comes major moral issues with regard to support, choices, rearing, etc. of children. Actually, now that I think of it we don't even know that the woman giving birth is the biological mother, with surragate motherhood on the rise.

So how does one sit in judgement of a case like this and make an all encompassing law??? It seems to me it must be based on old law, but with knowledge and acceptance of new technology and a weakening of the family unit as surpreme. (You don't know how much it pains me to say that last thing, but it is true.)

What I do know is the law as it is enforced in many states including mine CA is wacked out. A couple of years ago a 15 year old boy was ordered to pay child support to a 20-30 something year old teacher who became pregnant while she was having sex with the then 14 year old boy. She was found guilty of statatory (sp) rape, yet he had to pay. Does this make sense?

Nope, but how do you make sense of things if the ONLY view is what is best for the child in question and not the other children in the situation? I don't know.

I am sure I have not ended the debate and frankly I will read it with great interest because many good points pro and con are being brought up. It shows me how difficult it would be to make new laws that reflect the reality of today.

Have at it folks, I am finding this very interesting.

JL

Yes, a huge issue. I've been worrying about that, the interplay of raising the children if OM is allowed visitation with Anthony.

Awhile back (threadwise), I was going to suggest that OM could style his parenting like all 3 children are used to. By this I mean keep his discipline system similar, rewards and things like tooth fairy visits similar (not a quarter versus $100 per tooth), so as not to create jealousy or such blatant differences that it causes problems amongst the kids.

In my previous marriage, our stepkid situation sometimes created problems, with either the girls getting to do something special that my stepson wasn't invited to, or stepson's report card rewards from extended family that weakened what we as a stepfamily were trying to create and instill (big cash rewards for grades anyway, but particularly for C's and even D's wasn't my idea of a good thing). ANYway, to make it as painless as possible for kids, Rhoades oughta voluntarily style his parenting around what is already goin' on.

I didn't suggest that earlier. To some extent, that is unfair. To Rhoades' side of the family. And, as in divorce situations, we often discuss on the board how we sometimes have to resort to "Well, these are the house rules here, and we expect you to follow them while you are HERE...."

But it would certainly be important, I think, to safeguard uniformity. That's best for ALL the children.

It doesn't seem Rhoades would be willing to seriously consider that. Not that he'll get the chance to.

JL, you definitely laid the situation out. Oh my. And yep, you're right.

Hey there JL!

Hate to differ with you, but I have mentioned the com and said they need to be considered, at least twice, as well as others, like KaylaAndy, TheRoad, and maybe MrW.

In my own situation, in terms of the people involved-- our com's wellbeing carried the most amount of weight in our decisions.

roads my good man,,,,,,,

"""""""I hear the fat lady singing.

i hear her loud and clear and it is certainly nice to see you have finally accepted by point of view.

please show me where i said that the law does not need to be followed. you also accused me of picking and choosing the laws to follow. are you trying to tell me that you have never broken a speed limit? have you never driven 50 on a 40 mph street? have you not just picked which law you would follow because you were say late for the movie?

"""""""It still is the best course of action to take today.

OBJECTION, OBJECTION YOUR HONOR,,, purely speculation, councel is trying to lead the witness,,,,, sustained

although i will agree that protection of the marriage and family is best. it is still just my, your, jl, mary, etc opinion. and definately what you or i determine to be the family is not the same as what all deem the family unit. take a look at a middleeastern man with his herem or simply what is happening in texas. bigomy as we call it is still accepted in many parts of the world

i am actually quite disappointed in you. not only does your openning statement reflect back on the "law" issue but you see only 6 people affected by this. this does NOT simply affect 6 people. it effects hundreds or who knows how many because it is a ruling/"law" that will set precedence if future cases.

there have been many archaic laws on the books for many years. some have been amended and some stricken because they are meant to protect and serve EVERYONE EQUALLY. not just a select few.

someone already alluded to the fact that some states still have a "law" against any other sexual position then the missionary one. so if that was the case in your state, your w could never assume the dominate position. I actually like it when my w takes an active roll in our intimacy.

should you/i be put in jail? no the "law" should be stricken or amended to support our right to privacy.

not long ago in terms of society. if you had an exceptional sense of intuition you most likely would have been burned at the stake for being a witch. was it right? no. did it take away individual libertys? yes. fortunately is was stricken from all judicial papers that i know of. (not necessarily a whole bunch)

you say that because the child "was born of the marriage". ok let's disect that a bit. a marriage is when a man and a woman promise there undieing love to each other.

so, and i am assuming here, if, in the rhodes/ricketts situation. julia and rhodes told each other they love one another then they were in turn married at the time. i know, i know not in the eyes of the "law".

again i know i am stretching with that one

jl pointed out, and i agree it is very sad to see, that the traditional family unit is disappearing in this country. and very rapididly i might add. so maybe it is time to adapt our "laws" to reflect our social structure.

we all can agree that it takes a male AND a female to create a child. but why does it impose the fact that because a woman has a marriage certificate to another. she is deemed to have more rights to a child then the bio father. oh i forgot,, the "law".

so you are saying that because God gave a woman the ability to carry a child AND obtain a marriage certificate from someone she willingly goes out and betrays, her paternal rights are more important then a mans.

this may have been true 100 yrs ago before pampers and formula.

you see that although there are many people affected by this type of situation there are really only 3 people involved where PARENATL rights are concerned. the child, bio mother AND BIO FATHER.

and on the subject of abuse. since when are the facts and the truth abusive. so rhodes did put pictures on the internet. so what. did julia not pose for the pics? has he not been proven through dna testing to be the biologocal father of the child?

now i haven't seen the pictures but what is to say that he is not just a proud father showing off his son or a broken hearted lover showing that he and julia were once truly happy together.

and if pictures on the internet are abusive is it not abuse of her parents for a beautiful young woman to post nude photos of herself. when the parents are strickly against such actions.

no this one has not entered my life that i know of,,,,,,YET

you see old chap it seems that your whole arguement (not that it doesn't have some merit) is the "law" and the protection of the "family" unit (which by the way was comprimised by julia not rhodes, IMHO).

i think you have already been shown 2 things.

1- that "laws" need amending and removal in many cases.

2- that the family unit has many varying shapes and sizes.

so the challenge i am making of you is to give me something more.

if you are going to revert to the "product of a marriage". don't. i HAVE heard your arguement on that. i do get what you are saying but feel that position is simply clouding the issue. it is IMHO irrelevent to the true issue which is the basic paternal rights of a bio mother and bio father. no more, no less.

so if you have nothing else then....laa, lalala.

ok i'm the fat man singing

i actually thought you might go to the fact that in the last say 80 - 90 yrs the male has typically been the one to desert the family. thus leading the courts to swing in the sexually biased position of giving a woman more parental rights then a man. thus creating "laws" or rulings to support the ricketts position.

Lucks I actually agree with you on the rule thing.....and the part about one child getting this or that. I have run into that as the 4 year old does not notice really but the older ones do. Espeically being twins. Just the other day I bought the 4 year a couple of outfits and soon as the twins came home from there dads they notice cause the 4 year could not wait to show them. NOw they were not expenisve clothes and only a couple of outfits but they got mad at me.

I had to explain to them that throughout the school year because they are in school I buy them clothes every season. Oc gets some too but not like them and gets a lot of there handydowns.

I personally don't have to worry about toothfairy's as xh sends the child home with the tooth......etc. He really just does not participate in that stuff now, but a gf of mine had that same example as you said. She gave a 1.00 her xh gave him 50.00 (who give that much to a child for a tooth?)So I DO agree with you on that type of situations.

Children are more accepting if showed how to accept than adults are. The younger the better though.

I am in the oppisite of this stitch where the twins go see there dad every other weekend and the oc does not. I will be honest it took some adjustment on her end. He only (xh) started truely taking them every other weekend when he moved in with his gf so from birth to 2 1/2 the twins were always with her.

She would throw a tamtrum so loud and big I always dreeded the time he'd get them. But she has finally accepted it and she gets special time with me and we go and do at least one thing together park, movies or something special and she gets to talk to them daily when they are there and she is okay with it now. It was a very hard thing to go through but I had no choice in the matter. Therefore neither did she so I could either help her accept it and have a great attidute myself about it or dwel on her tantrums and not help her accept it but use it to keep her bitter over it.

hi autumn,,

i most definately agree with you. jl & lucks that the com should be considered

it is one of the most important issues a couple has to make in their decision on how they intend to rebuild their marriage thru these situations

i don't however think that judicial rulings or laws should be decided on that fact.

the reason is that there are so many different variables to that particular issue. take for example yours autumn, tigger, gemeni, K, dealean (sorry if i misspelled that), faith, if you can remember way back when i 1st came here there was a momof5 (i believe) and of course my own sit just to name a few that have all handled things differently

I agree with. Although the com have to be considered I do agree with the above statement. That is also why I explained how I feel the children are more accepting than adults in this thing. How we as adults set the tone for the kids. And that goes for the entire triangle.

ETA: I think it was JL that commented on how hard it is to even get 50/50 custody even today. I'm on the west coast and I know that the courts perfer it here. They want both parents equally involed and will give it more freely. NOW if my xh he on his on accord did not want it at first and when he went back for full custody when he moved in w/gf the judge said she was not changing a thing. I gave him the olive branch and gave it to him, and as soon as he lost in court he sees them about 10% of the month only.

Hey AD,

How are you doing? Sorry, I must have slid by your post, as I was trying to catch up.

You know what really annoys me, is that the W had the OM in the children's life, AND she had OM in the OC's life. She clearly had no remorse for what she was doing or had done, then she is (3 months later after both men have bonded with the baby) suddenly a devoted W.

What is clear to me neither she nor OM really have the children's best interests at heart. Oh, and since OM lives in Fla and they live in Ky, I guess that means that the baby gets shipped back and forth right?

Man what a mess. I will say if the baby is to be around messed up people it ought to be only ONE messed up person. But, then I think the wisdom of Soloman to sort this one out.

I'm look forward to more thoughts on this.

JL

Hey Pops,
In your above list the names mentioned did pretty much the same by leaving op out of the marriage. As much as possible for us dealing w/cs, we leave oc/ow out of our lives and for most who have, things improve rapidly.
Now I'm not sure about MO5, I think she divorced. She and her H included everyone and it was a problem.

Hey, how much is om still involved in Graces life?

Though the law in this case (Kentucky) seems unfair, it can save a lot of problems for remorseful op's who want to start over w/o interference. Also oc can look up bio when old enough I suppose if oc is told the truth. I don't really know what the heck is right, but this law seems to keep op at arms length. Wish we could have had that option .

Hi Autumn and JL~ You too Mary~

BTW Pops thanks for prayers.....

Earlier in the thread, Pops questioned exactly how the paternity presumption supports marriage.

I thought such purpose may need additional explanation.

The basic premise is that mothers are vested with parental rights and fathers obtain such rights...primarily through marriage.

Changes in family law granting unmarried fathers custodial rights of children diminish the value of marriage, at the outset, resulting in expotentially MORE out-of-wedlock fertility.

Wedlock fetility is the preferred method of procreation which should be supported and encouraged by the institutions of government. At the very least, government should not encourage out of wedlock fertility.

Husbands grant access to their economic resources and inheritance and, in return, get easier access to sex AND para-contractual rights to all of their wife's children, no matter how conceived.

Countries that have changed such basic marriage economics have done so at a huge cost. Take the examples of Germany and Iceland for instance:


Anyway, thought this article may provide some history of marriage as an exchange and further insight into the societal cost of changing family law in this country to accomodate interlopers.

http://www.olin.wustl.edu/fs/acadseminars/downloadPDF.cfm?recNum=41027.

Mr. Wondering

Very interesting, indeed.



Maybe we are thinking of 2 different cases, I thought this was in Oregon (?).
A minor point, but if you are sure it was CA, do you remember any details so I could look it up?

Thanks

This point of view makes sense to me now, but would not have made sense to me when I was younger and had far less respect for the institution of marriage as a stabilizing force in a society. (when I was a hippie)

Pep

pepper, i remember the case that jl was refering to as being in ca. that is not to say that a similar situation did not happen in oregon. the way things are in todays society it could have happened in all 50 for that matter.

in the ca case if memory serves me correctly (far and few times between) the teacher was actually place in jail and upon her release she reestablished the relationship with the boy, who was still under age if i am correct.

they ended up taking up residence together but i don't know if it lasted.

are we talking about Mary Kay Letourneau?

She was originally from CA, but committed child rape (as a teacher) in Washington State (not Oregon like I remembered)

google her and see if she is the sterling example of womanhood to whom you are referring

(ugh)

gem,,,,,,, om here is still involved as much as the courts have allowed. he has every wed evenning from 4 - 8 and every other weekend from fri 4 pm - sun 6 pm. he pays his cs thru the courts.it goes into fh's account and barely pays for graces daycare. he sets up his own parent conferences with the schools and we go to ours. we both attend her soccer games on occasion but it is usually the parent with the wekend visit time that takes her unless there is a special game. everyone keeps things busniess like respectful.

the problems we have had is that om exw was truly a [censored]. and i am not blaming her for being pissed at the situation. most bs's blame op for everything, i did also for awhile. but she was a real piece of work. still is even tho they are D.

also om kept taking fh back to court trying to lower his cs payment. it had fh so uptight that i finally told her she was free to offer him to sign his rights away and pay nothing if that is what he wanted. he denied and she told him that we never want to here him [censored] about money again. so far so good.

there is very little interaction with the 2 familys. she does most of the communication now and i try and stay out of it as much as possible. everytime she has any form of communication with his, which is mostly thru text mess, she tells me immediately. on her own not because i made it a stipulation. i am not worried about the A rekindling.

Glad to know all is pretty well with everything~ Awww Pops I'm happy for you and Fullhouse.
BTW, her name says it all because you guys sure have a 'full house'!
Glad I stopped by.
As far as om's former w, we all contribute to an affair in some way, guess they never worked things out. Just a guess, maybe she couldn't deal w/Grace, who knows?
Nice to hear from you again.

Minor t/j...hi gemini!

As a BW of a FWH with an OC, protecting my COM was my utmost concern. xOW was so intent on my H being a full time daddy to her OC that the decision to be NC was relatively easy. Some of you know the difficulties we went through. It would not be good for our M (and therefor COM) to have C. Maybe some day, FWH will want C. At that point we will re-evaluate the effect on the entire family before deciding. I used to be riddled with guilt that this OC did not have a father in his life. It is not my responsibility. His sperm and egg donors made decisions that will affect OC for his life. THEY are the ones that have to live with that.

pops, I am surprised with all the problems contact with OM has caused FH that you are not supportive of this law. Protecting marriage is protecting the FAMILY. I too don't see full consideration of the COM and the BS when the interloper is allowed to continue to interfere in the marriage. In my case, NC was the ONLY way to ensure xOW stopped interfering in our marriage.

Hey there Faith!
I agree w/the points you made (and others) about that new law.

We all mostly remember what H and I went through for years and that law wouldn't work for us. But if can help out anyones' marriage and they use that new law it will help 1/2 the couples to keep ow away.

Ow recently reopened cs and is in the process of wanting more $.
Although otherwise she hasn't done a thing since my FIL passed last year.
Lawyer said she won't give up till oc is 18.
I'll let Pops answer you, but I know they wanted cs because of Pops age and needing help to raise Grace.
TTYL all.

faith yes fh has had some problems dealing with exom in our life. mainly with his w who was a real pain in the butt.

not that she omw didn't have the right to be angry but she also accused me of having fh get preg so i could get a new truck and buy my house. she was very bitter about the cs. and i am not blaming her as i know how (for lack of a better word) unfair the courts can be with lack of consideration for the existing family. she also blamed fh for the entire A and her ex cheating sob h was innocent.

in fact even tho they are D now they still both showed up and left the court laughing when the last cs amount was handed down. his cs was drpped to less then $200mnth. then when the DA called them back in the room because she noticed the om had INTENTIONALLY left his income line blank. after the judge reassessed the papers and gave another $ amount (this time $600 plus 25% of day care) they actually attacked fh IN THE COURTROOM verbally. the bailiff had to jump in betweeen them and remove them from the room and they escorted fh to her car.

and it was them that took fh back to court. we would never had gone back had he not filed. this is when i had fh offer him to sign away his rights and he would not have to pay a dime and he refused.

and on eof the biggest reasons i wanted fh to seek cs was exactly as gemini said. we already had 7 kids, both my mom and dad had passed on. mom at 40 dad at 77. i was at 50 and had recieved warnings about my health from the dr that i may end up like my dad. he had 4 heart attacks at 52 yo. he did very well to survive 25 more yrs. but if i had one there was no telling whether i would survive it or not. if you remember i did in fact have one in 2003 and if the clot had been less then 1/4 " further down the artery i would have died. so i felt that fh would need all the financial help she could get if something were to happen to me.

you see i am against this law not because of the effect on the com or the bh. i just think that a bio parent should be responsible and have the right to choose whether they want a relationship or not.

also if a woman's egg is considered to be a marrital asset then a man's sperm should have the same distinction.

so if a mw gets preg and the baby is a product of the marriage then when a mm's sperm inpregnates a woman other then his w that baby should be considered part of his marriage.

unfortunately there are so many variables that one law cannot be used to cover all situations.

that is why i support all decisions that people who find themselves in this particular situation choose. i feel like i have many friends here and consider all their choices correct although we all have taken different paths to move forward.

i just don't think this law works for me. and especially in the Rhodes vs ricketts situation where the bio mom brought the bio dad into the baby's life then decided to cut him out.

we all have choices to make and we all have our own boundaries and priorities. for example had your h had a priority to have c then YOU would have been faced with a different choices.

but had your ow been married and your h had wanted c then i don't think that there should be a law that keeps him from that.

and please forgive if i have forgotten the specifics of your individual sit. to many cell phone hours are rotting my brain.

does that make any sense?

gem sorry to here you are going back to court. that is something fh would never do. om has taken her back to court 3 times in an effort to lower his cs. it has backfired each time with them raising it on him. i wonder if he has learned his lesson?

Pep,

For whatever reason I could not find the article I read. Probably poor Google skills. But, here is an article that might help someone like Mr. W find the correct citations.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville2.html

I am not sure of this guy, but I think what he says could probably traced given what he says.

But, it was not Mary L. This was a local, CA, teacher who is serving time for statutory rape of this child, was pregnant and the state of CA came forced the kid to pay child support.

Hope this helps with the search. There are many articles on men's rights if you just google, Minor child forced to pay child support. Most of them would not be of interest to you probably. I tried the local papers, one doesn't seem to have a search function for old (more than a year or two) and the other one seems about as effective as the MB search function.

Hope this helps.

JL

JL interesting article! UGH~~~~
Pops we pay more than the amount FH gets. We live in OHIO and pay full coverage HealthI, something h and i now raised deductable to ten thous per person on ours all self pay.We are older and premiums are killing us financially I want to drop it!

And oc is self pay w/huge premium, huge and we pay everything after that first 100.00 ow pays. Dental and all. And he had baby teeth extracted by ow H's relative and we paid dearly. I worked for dentist and know they don't always have to be extracted in surgery,,,, long story.

We are quickly sinking as H had a few 'no-pays'w/work and paid for mechanics leins,,,Not worth it.

I do not care if we lose our home due to ow wanting more, I simply think its all in Gods plan.
Not to mention I cannot spoil GrDau bcuz I never have any money extra and it hurts my heart(for my H) oc gets the biggest nut of income.
I am happy, H is miserable as to 'what he has done to our family'
Money isn't everything. Money isn't everything.
Pops I remember omw saying those things... so how's the ole truck running these days lol!!!!!

It is what it is and ain't gonna change in my lifetime!

Gem

I hope it works out in your favor. I have been waiting for this to happen in our world as well. OW took a reduced amount of CS because she was still boinking my H and thought she would "win" the prize. Too my utter surprise we are 1.5 years out from the official end of the A and not a word from her. I wonder if she is afraid we will go for visitation if she reopens the case. I hope so cuz we really can't afford to pay her much more than we already do.

HI Gem!

Long time no see girl. How have you been besides that? Should probally start a new thread uh?

Just in case anyone stumbles over this thread while investigating paternity presumption laws...particularly in the state of Kentucky then you should be aware that the Supreme Court of Kentucky, in May, 2011, reversed it's decision.

Adulterers can sue for Paternity in Kentucky


Kentucky Supreme Court Recognizes Paternity Claim from Adulterous Affair



Now this doesn't mean that the OM that this thread discussed years ago gets access to his child and he's now the winner of his case. It just means that this Chris Egan (the OM in this new case) won and can assert himself into a marriage against the will of a husband and wife.

It's an unfortunate decision. It was close. Mr. Rhodes (the OM discussed on this thread) lost his case by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision and now the OM Egan won by a 5-4 decision.

Therefore, if you are a married couple in Kentucky trying to protect yourself for another one of these predatory OM's, you have two options to protect yourself.

1. DON'T discuss or show OM any dna test results. Don't give him any proof whatsoever of having had sexual relations with the wayward wife and leave him to his proofs. You see...the majority opinion requires a prospective father attempting to assert paternity rights and forcing paternity testing to have evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" (typically a criminal standard not often used in family courts), that OM is the prospective father BEFORE the court will give the OM standing to challenge paternity. If you are fortunate to research the issue BEFORE getting a test and communicating the results to OM than you may yet be able to protect your family. Don't talk, email and/or text OM. NO CONTACT.

2. MOVE. There are still states that still honor and protect marriages from these shameless predator OM's. I won't list them right now because I realize (now) these threads/discussions exist into perpetuity and laws change. It may be tricky getting out of town and perhaps OM can still sue where you left within a certain amount of time but you can try to leave and go to a state that respects your marriage and rights to all children born of that marriage.

I may be following up on this post as I read more about this case. Upon first reading, I was shocked to read that the idiot district court judge that first said it was OK for Mr. Egan to pursue a paternity claim against the wayward wife and her betrayed husband was because she (the judge) considered the marriage over when the wayward wife began her affair and thus the child was deemed by paternity presumption to be the fathers. The things district court judges do are just shocking sometimes.

Mr. Wondering

I think this should of had it's own thread.

Or added to the end of the rhodes vs rickett's thread.

Which state was the rhodes rickett's case?

But glad it got posted.

What happens next with this lastest case?

Ummm...isn't this the end of the rhoades vs rickett's thread???


Here's a decent article about the newest case and it's impact. I'm still shocked that the wayward wife and her betrayed husband had to sit in a trial court having a hearing completely about how much sex they (the married couple) had during the 10 months prior to the baby being born only to have the trial circuit court activist judge rule:


In law...what exactly does "as a practical matter" mean???? This judge, against all the testimony offered in court that day in an effort to establish whether or not the husband could have been the father ...decided to completely ignore the evidence presented and just judicially deem their marriage over "for practical" purposes when the ww had an affair (which evidence should have been inadmissible as it was completely irrelevant to the point of the hearing).


Anyway...the story goes on to discuss Rhoades case. The Ricketts lawyer's don't think it means anything. They believe their case is settled. Conversely, as expected, Rhoades attorney's think their case has new life. The article states that Rhoades wants to settle the matter with the Ricketts privately. I hope that can be accomplished and that Rhoades has abandoned his entitled attitude that he once had. He emailed me a few times years ago as this thread progressed and I suggested he take a much more contrite and repentant approach. We'll see if that wins the day for him and he gets to perhaps see his son under supervised visitation procedures for a few years. The boy (Anthony if I remember correctly) is over 5 years old now....I wish he was older before being forced into this, most likely, corrupt relationship. But maybe James Rhoades has grown up. He used to have a website with all sorts of pictures, emails, letters and even videos on it "exposing" the affair and the fact that Anthony was most likely his illegitimate bio-child. It was really vulgar and...PERHAPS, as I told him back then, the Rickettes will KNOW his repentant heart and allow him some time with his bio-son.


Mr. Wondering



oooopps- here's the link Ky court says bio-father

This all happened again in Kentucky. The earlier 5-4 decision was reversed as their was a new judge on the court that decided families don't matter.


What happens next is that Christopher Egan (the OM) gets to prove he's the father back in the Circuit Court and the activist judge I mentioned in my last posts likely will get to make a determination of child custody and support. I don't anticipate that judge going out of her way to protect the child from Mr. Egan as she (the judge) went so far out of her way to help Mr. Egan before.



[sidenote: you see...I could understand if the trial circuit court ruled against Mr. Egan and his paternity claim and HE appealed to the matter all the way to the Supreme Court of Kentucky....however, that wouldn't have worked. The circuit court judge (Judge Bushelman) KNEW that the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court was the one that wrote the opinion in 2008 denying Mr. Rhoades paternity claims and as Chief Judge he most likely had some control or influence over allowing another paternity claim to be heard by the full court again just 3 years later (I'm presuming the chief judge controls what cases get heard in Kentucky to some extent)...so what's a lower court judge to do but find some other way to get what she believes are Mr. Egan's rights before the court. She ruled for Mr. Egan completely against the evidence and the law so that the wayward wife and betrayed husband would have to be the one's appealing and the Chief Justice would have to hear the case (or just allow Mr. Egan to win). This was a complete run around perhaps hoping that the new guy on the Supreme Court would be able to change this decision. "They" (the anti-family agenda in Kentucky) were unable to pass a law through legislature so they had to go a different route.]


So...continuing. Either Julie Stephens and her husband, Randy come to some settlement agreement regarding custody and visitation or this circuit court (Judge Bushelmen most likely) will impose one. IMO, Mr. Egan shouldn't get more than very limited supervised visitation but that's likely a huge stretch to expect in front of this judge. I just hope common sense prevails and the judge doesn't give him 50-50 custody. Hopefully, the Stephen's get primary and, if I were advising them, I'd suggest they later petition the court for a modification and move far away from the interloping meddling Mr. Egan such that he only gets a few weeks in the summer and some holidays with his bio-child that he pays for the trips and he stays far away from the FORMER wayward wife.

I also counsel them to try to get a different circuit court judge somehow. Perhaps by moving to a different county or something. Judge Bushelmen may have had an agenda from the get go and even if she didn't, judges don't like their orders getting challenged and tested very much. Judge Bushelmen was likely very pleased to have her result upheld (in law) by the Supreme Court even though they ignored her legal basis.

Mr. W

I was suffering poster fog.
Thought this was a new thread for some reason.

Thanks for explaining the obvious.

Also that lower level judge playing games with the law is upsetting. It appears that the end ALWAYS justifies the means. When you do things to get your way.