|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025 |
Of course we're cool R
Going to bed.
This argument is a little OT right now and I hope McBecca will not see it at all as justification to resume her affair or maintain contact with OM by whatever means possible (her addiction dream...keep both Mr. McBecca and OM is not workable).
She and her husband likely already know the state law as I now understand the baby is already born (so says Mrs. W).
I wish her and her husband well in recovery and implore her to discuss today's contact by OM with her husband so they TOGETHER can come to a resolution on implementing firm "no contact". If OM sues, Mr. McBecca and their attorney's can handle it.
Mr. Wondering
FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering)
DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered
"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
MEDC are you suggesting it's best that she divorce and leave the family she already has, and go with OM. Not at all. I don't want to see them divorce. Never said I did. In a country where 53% of women would not choose not to tell their partner if someone else fathered a child he believed was his, these views do not surprise me. Dr. H say that he knows of many couples where the H is unknowingly raising a child that is not his. I guess this is best for the family too huh??? I do see that is can be in the child's best interest to have two families so long as everyone acts like caring adults. Again, I am all for one family if he or she chooses to relinquish custody... but it should be a choice. She can decide to give him the child... heck, he may have the most wonderful extended family... Becca could be a raging lunatic... you guys are making a lot of assumptions with very little knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,512
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,512 |
Biology does not a fit father make either.
I am shocked too.
Everyone who talks a women into stepping out on her husband should have fathers righs to any children concieved just because he is the bio father?
I think not, I hope not, I pray not.
MEDC, I don't understand you at all on this one. NOt at all.
SS
I think sometimes about all the pain in the world. I hope we can ease that here, even if only a little bit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
Do you recognize that you are arguing from the position of an OM just as McBecca asked? She will be glad for your input on this one...I have to be honest and tell you that I am shocked by your point of view here...I'm really struggling to see where your coming from on this one... I am equally as shocked by some things I am reading here. I come from a position as a father that needed to fight in court... in three states... to see my child. And now, she has been proven an unfit mother.. and I have full custody. But that did not stop her from using the courts for 17 months to keep my son from me. My child resents her actions beyond words. And as far as you saying I am arguing from the OM standpoint... I disagree... I am arguing this from a fathers point of view. It is not always a mother that is in the best interests of a child. She is a known cheater and liar. She is a person that has shown that when push comes to shove, she would not put her family first.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
Everyone who talks a women into stepping out on her husband should have fathers righs to any children concieved just because he is the bio father? well, this statement says it all about how you feel.... a woman is talked into the affair by the big bad wolf OM. Hmmm, except, nobody forces a woman to drop her panties, do they... words do not remove underwear. So, she is talked into stepping out on her H... sounds like a way to escape any responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
I see that it differs from state to state... but what I am coming across so far seems to be this...
" Never married fathers have an entirely different set of rights than divorced fathers. First, there is the legal presumption that any child born during the course of a marriage is the child of the marriage. This presumption can have harsh results for the biological father if the child is a result of an extra marital affair with a married woman. If a child is born to a married woman, the legal presumption is that the child is the biological son or daughter of the husband. If that is not true, the biological father must immediately take steps to establish himself as the legal father or forfeit any legal right to participate in the life of his child."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,316
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,316 |
She is a known cheater and liar. This just in from the OBVIOUS DEPARTMENT... OM IS ALSO A KNOWN CHEATER AND LIAR!Mrs. W P.S. FWIW, MEDC, your arguments here are VERY HARMFUL to McBecca's current frame of mind...Which means that you are necessarily harming Mr. McBecca...
FWW ~ 47 ~ MeFBH ~ 50 ~ MrWonderingDD ~ 17 Dday ~ 2005 ~ Recovered
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083 |
And very harmful to baby McBecca - the baby does not need two daddies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nuff said!
Cafe Plan B link http://forum.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2182650&page=1 The ? that made recovery possible: "Which lovebuster do I do the most that hurts the worst"? The statement that signaled my personal recovery and the turning point in our marriage recovery: "I don't need to be married that badly!" If you're interested in saving your relationship, you'll work on it when it's convenient. If you're committed, you'll accept no excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
"[i]t may serve no good purpose and may not be in the best interest of the child to create what in essence is a fictional family. Here we have a married couple apparently pretending that a child is their offspring. . . . But it may also be beneficial for this child to have a relationship with her biological father with whom she has blood and genetic ties. [W]here all the parties know who is the biological father, there is no reason to assume integrity of the ‘family’ will be in jeopardy if visitation is allowed." Rodney F. v. Karen M., (2nd Dist. 1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 233,242.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
with all due respect Mrs. W, I think it is your positions that are in fact harmful to this family. Should I stop posting because you disagree with my position?
Is the OM a cheater and liar? Or was he lied to about the state of her relationship???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083 |
OM is not a victim! The baby is about to be if McBecca allows an intruder into this baby's family.
OM gets to experience the choice of falling for a woman who was not emotionally available - and all of the consequences that go with it - as does McBecca - but the baby deserves a chance at a family without an intruder.
Are you hearing me MEDC? I speak as a child of such a relationship - I'm well into my adult life. I have experienced even the slightest intrusion by OM in my life to be painful! Don't you get that?
Cafe Plan B link http://forum.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2182650&page=1 The ? that made recovery possible: "Which lovebuster do I do the most that hurts the worst"? The statement that signaled my personal recovery and the turning point in our marriage recovery: "I don't need to be married that badly!" If you're interested in saving your relationship, you'll work on it when it's convenient. If you're committed, you'll accept no excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
I hear you just fine... I don't agree with you... do you hear me??? Do you get that?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,316
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,316 |
with all due respect Mrs. W, I think it is your positions that are in fact harmful to this family. Should I stop posting because you disagree with my position?
Is the OM a cheater and liar? Or was he lied to about the state of her relationship??? It was a 2 YEAR AFFAIR if I'm not mistaken MEDC, so my guess is the OM knew where he stood...Obviously you are free to post as you wish, I did say "FWIW"... Mrs. W
FWW ~ 47 ~ MeFBH ~ 50 ~ MrWonderingDD ~ 17 Dday ~ 2005 ~ Recovered
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083 |
Well then you don't have the best interests of the child at heart! You're thinking as a man who was cut off from his LEGITIMATE children and transferring that emotional pain onto this man who is NOT a LEGITIMATE father in this relationship; he's an intruder and would rather disrupt and bust apart this child's LEGAL family to satisfy his fathering urges than seek the best interests of the child.
I'm sorry to see that because I held you in much greater regard than this!
Cafe Plan B link http://forum.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2182650&page=1 The ? that made recovery possible: "Which lovebuster do I do the most that hurts the worst"? The statement that signaled my personal recovery and the turning point in our marriage recovery: "I don't need to be married that badly!" If you're interested in saving your relationship, you'll work on it when it's convenient. If you're committed, you'll accept no excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
Oh, and how about this... in all but 6 states... a man that finds out his child is not really his, by DNA, after divorce is still required to pay child suppport.
Or if you are unmarried and find out after 4 years that you are not the father, you have to continue child suppport until age 18.
Or how about this little tid bit... a woman ordered to pay child supprt is 7 times more likely to be in arrears than a man.
Think things are a bit skewed against men in family court?
As far as what the OM knew... I would doubt he knew where he stood. Her H didn't and she lived with him!
Mrs. W... Mr. W and others, have a good nights sleep. I am outto here for the night.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
Well then you don't have the best interests of the child at heart! I do, we just disagree as to what the best interests are. I think his best interests would be served knowing his bio dad. Am I not entitled to that opinion? You're thinking as a man who was cut off from his LEGITIMATE children and transferring that emotional pain onto this man who is NOT a LEGITIMATE father in this relationship; he's an intruder and would rather disrupt and bust apart this child's LEGAL family to satisfy his fathering urges than seek the best interests of the child. No, i am thinking as man that believes it is in the childs best interest to know his father. I do not see your argument as being in his best interests... yet I am not attacking your character.
Last edited by mkeverydaycnt; 09/07/06 12:39 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083 |
Of course you're entitled to any opinion you wish to hold - however, since you are not a product of such a relationship you cannot speak from an informed place as to the personal harm such contact holds for the child.
Cafe Plan B link http://forum.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2182650&page=1 The ? that made recovery possible: "Which lovebuster do I do the most that hurts the worst"? The statement that signaled my personal recovery and the turning point in our marriage recovery: "I don't need to be married that badly!" If you're interested in saving your relationship, you'll work on it when it's convenient. If you're committed, you'll accept no excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
True, I do not know your pain. I do however know my sons. I do know the plight of many fathers since I have alligned myself with a group that fights for the rights of fathers and their children. And anyone here that knows me and the harsh stance that I take against A's and continued contact, must surely know that I come at this from a place of deep and sincere beliefs and NEVER would stir the pot to aid any harm to a BS.
My beliefs are sincere and deep rooted in what I believe is in the best interest of the child.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,083 |
But there is a difference here MEDC - they are YOUR sons - brought into this world in a legitimate marriage. Your wife disrupted that family AFTER they were bonded to you.
This child is not bonded to OM. the child is bonded to the father of that family. Disrupting that bond is not to be taken lightely.
Stand for fathers rights, Please! My brother was chased away from his legally given rights to visitation at gunpoint by his ex father in law, while the son screamed don't hurt my daddy! I know the pain of his children as they reconnect to their daddy. Please - carry on that legitimate fight.
But do not fight for the rights of a marital intruder who happened to create a child biologically while he DID the wife of another man! It demeans the legitimacy of your argument for father's rights!
Cafe Plan B link http://forum.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2182650&page=1 The ? that made recovery possible: "Which lovebuster do I do the most that hurts the worst"? The statement that signaled my personal recovery and the turning point in our marriage recovery: "I don't need to be married that badly!" If you're interested in saving your relationship, you'll work on it when it's convenient. If you're committed, you'll accept no excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
no, you are wrong... she disrupted it before they were bonded to me! I saw my child twice... and then was denied access for 17 months! So, that bond was denied my son and I early on.
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
117
guests, and
69
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums67
Topics133,621
Posts2,323,490
Members71,963
| |
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
|
|
|
|
