I have had all day to think about this and to discuss the events of yesterday with my IC and some friends.
It is interesting that when hearing the facts of the situation discussed yesterday, not one person thought that the father should be denied access. Not one. Sometimes the MB kool aid gets a little thick around here.... but I think there are some people that really showed themselves to be hypocritical when it comes to how I chose to stand up for what I believe. There is a coordinated and planned assault on matters that are deemed appropriate by some members here. They hold on to things for months on end... and I do too... but I guarantee you one thing... what I say and feel is right... will always be out there front and center for all to see. If I have a problem with something I will express it... and I did so very agressively yesterday because I feel very, very strongly about what I considered to be terrible advice being given someone. No one had to agree with my point of view...but that does not mean it should have been kept to myself because some people did and some people did not get it. I haven't seen anyone that feels strongly about it... me included... back off of Suzet's views on certain things... and there are others. But heaven forbid when the view is contrary to what some people feel is in the best interests of a child or M. Watch out.
So, as upfront as I can be here, I was asked to join the other board which I believe serves a very good purpose... for both this forum and for the members over there. I asked to have my membership to that board terminated yesterday based on what I see as hypocritical actions by some members over there. Any level of intervention is okay in their eyes so long as they agree with what is being said. But get on the opposite side of the fence and watch out.
If it is truly my belief that the woman in question yesterday was doing a great disservice to her child... I believe I should stand up and say what needs to be said over and over. There was an extreme manipulation of what I said yesterday and I believe it was intentional to distract from the real issues at hand. I am very disappointed in the way things were handled yesterday. And it started right from the beginning of the thread... just because I had a much different view than some others. And at any time Mrs. McB asked me to stop posting I would have done so. Never happened.
MEDC

Holy cow, MEDC!!! It took you a while to work that out. Not fun is it.

And this.....


MEDC, during the time in April, you know when I mean, you were very vocal about how you saw my behaviour. It hurt (mainly because it was true) but you were always honest and upfront about how you felt. I respected that even though it was hard to hear. I never felt you were part of a "gang", you were just someone who wanted to see the right thing done.

When you found out about my drinking you were gracious and respectful. I've never forgotten that.

MEDC,

I thought it was an interesting debate and I thank you for promting me personally to explore the issue. I learned a lot.

It's very interesting to me that I ended up on the more conservative side of this argument. This is rare for me. I must be growing up.

I personally think telling a foggy WW, considering becoming a FWW, that the best, most moral choice is to give the baby to OM and stay with her husband is a bit destructive (if you look at it from our (the "W"'s) position for a second you may see that). I think the same thing about trying to glean the character defects of a BH albeit from a foggy WW, considering being a FWW, in an effort to bolster a position in what is essentially political debate as a bit over the top as well. My posts probably weren't helpful either (when and if I were to look at them from your position). The debate probably should have been taken to another thread and not personified to a newbie seeking marriage building advice herein. Strongly held positions/beliefs aside.

I love ya MEDC and wish you only the best. It was a lot more convoluted argument than I thought. Did you see my posts this morning on the other thread discussing this issue? The public policy behind it?

Mr. Wondering

Well you know for a fact that MY posts that opposed yours were my own passionate beliefs. It was not an orchestrated attack to difuse the issue.

at times, I think you argue against positions that others do not actually profess

my position is this

legal access should not be denied OM

IF HE DOES IT legally and NOT in ways that UNDERMINE the marriage

like sending emails to a WW who is still struggling with her feelings ... what an underhanded sneaky and not kosher way to behave! appalling!

let OM persue this legally if he's actually interested in becoming a dad

if OM was actually interested in becoming Daddy, he'd get his legal ducks lined up and clean up his act & NOT ever again bother a legally married man and woman and their children

so

without those adult, responsible behaviors showing honorable intent ... OM remains suspiciously amoral and showing an attitude of ~~~> "I want what I want and I will break up a marriage to get it"

and that is not pretty
and that does not show promise of a mature man ready to make the sacrifices required of a good parent

this entire MB discussion would have been avoided had OM NOT emailed a married woman behind her husband's back ~~~> but instead had his attorney take the legal steps to make this happen aboveboard

he remains a sneaky man today
and thus
is not "Daddy-material" ... in my eyes

my opinion would change on a dime if/when OM does things in a way that do not undermine and attempt to destroy a FAMILY with CHILDREN .... and when he shows the maturity to do things the RIGHT WAY instead of the WRONG WAY ... because the WRONG WAY looks easier and the RIGHT WAY looks like too much trouble

Pep

Pep, I couldn't agree with you more.

MEDC, I actually agree with you in principle. More than sort of, too.

But you need to give people who disagree with you proper credit. I see no hypocrisy in this instance. After all, this is a marriage building site. And the OM in question has been and still is actively undermining a marriage.

You are arguing with people who putt the M first. You are arguing with people who put the BH first. OM is way down on their priority list, that’s all I see.

Timing is everything.

And it's all a ruse by the WS in this case to stay in contact anyway. She doesn't care about his rights whatsoever. She only cares, at this point in time, about her withdrawal pangs.

With prayers,

To all of you and no one in particular..... thanks for the replies.

I still could not disagree more about this topic. However, I have always respected our ability to agree to disagree.
When words like "perverse" were throw around yesterday that did not refute my postion... but my character, I finally decided that enough was enough.

I may not always come across as the most sensitive person, and I have learned to accept that about myself.. people always know that I speak from the heart about my genuine beliefs.... I just say what needs to be said (in my eyes).

I still feel that you all were offering advice that I saw as harmful... but that we are all voices in the same choir...I do not question your motives or heart...that was done to me repeatedly yesterday.

Thanks again for the kind words. My feelings for each of you has not changed.

medc,

I sure know how you feel chere. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> Yes, sometimes it does seem like a co-ordinated attack....and in the past....it kinda looked like you were right in the thick of it. It's definitely not fun....but I've always felt that if things ever got to the point where I was really upset in my real life....that it would be time to stop posting. Please remember....you are who you are....and you don't NEED external reinforcement to know what you believe.

Just so you know where I stand on this issue.....well as usual, I tend to look at a balanced view....and it's looking like that won't be too dissimilar to Pep's view on her last post. If the OM truly wants to be a daddy to this child.....and I'm not a person to separate a child from their daddy....then he needs to demonstrate in a responsible way....through legal recourse, and a willingness to pay child support....that he's serious about making a true commitment to his child without attempting to harm the marriage or the home of the other children involved.

You loved your son enough to fight for him in three states....and you're assuming this OM feels like you do....maybe he does....and maybe he doesn't. So far he hasn't demonstrated enough of his intent to know...but he has chosen an unethical way to approach this issue initially. Time will tell.


The reasonable person to contact if he truly wants to exercise his rights as a parent....is not his married affair partner....but a legal representative that can be a safe mediator for this process. Once he's demonstrated that he's more interested in "parenting" than in "homewrecking"....then and only then....does he truly deserve to wear the name "dad" and take that role.

That is the kind of advice that is compassionate for everyone involved. Biology alone is not enough to warrant full rights....not for mothers or fathers. And in order to protect the marriage....the parenting situation needs to be separated from the affair situation....otherwise....there's no way to really know if this man wants to be father or just wants another man's wife. KWIM?

No matter what medc....don't let what happens "here" permeate your life outside of this board. Loyalty and real friendship are not a certainty here. That doesn't meant there aren't great people....there sure are....but be willing to not only hold strong beliefs, but DEFEND them as well with the same confidence as you would if the whole board agreed with you.....or no one did. That's the only way that MB is healthy for you as a person.

Hang in there buddy....it's okay for folks to vehemently disagree....doesn't mean they don't like ya.

Anyway....I like ya. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Thank you. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Hmm MEDC, for the record I like you too. I see you got pissed because I used the word "perverse". I dd not say **YOU** were perverse MEDC and what I DID say was not intended as a slight on your character. I am sorry you took it as such. I considered your actions to be beating on a woman who was falling apart, struggling with NC and trying to make her marriage work and not at all helpful to her at this point. If her marriage doesn't survive, her whole life and the lives of all her children not just OC will be at risk. My first priority for this woman is her marriage.

**I** feel VERY strongly about that MEDC. Not a group effort or otherwise. I feel strongly.

Again I apologise for upsetting you. Not my intention.

Pissed would not be the right word.
We disagree about what is best for the woman and I am sorry but I do not think that I was suggesting their M should not work out... but honestly, it was not my only concern. The more I hear about the H and the OM in this case, the more I feel that my thoughts are correct. That is just an opinion... and I did not feel that you were being perverse for stating yours because YOU felt you were being helpful in having her see what you think is right. I felt that the advice being given her was terrible for her family and the babies dad. But I know what your motivations are and have never thought that you have gotten a pleasure out of beating anyone down because you voiced your view.
Things got out of hand yesterday BK on all sides... and for my part I apologize for any words between us. I would just ask you to understand in the future that my ways of handling things may be different than yours... but I still care. It just happened to offend some of you yesterday that I also happen to care for the dad in this case (as well as the FWH & FWW.. Mr. & Mrs McB).

MEDC, I don’t understand why you’ve said the above… I did feel strong about this issue (I’ve actually posted about it twice and gave an example of a Dr Phil show to support my views on this) and on your other thread I’ve also told you that I 100% agree with your views on this specific topic... So I don’t understand why you’ve said you backed off from my views? Or were you talking about other topics we disagreed on in the past?

MEDC,

I've stayed out of this fray for now, but while there's no doubt that you were pounced on, you also invited it. You were namecalling, you were suggesting that the mother was "unfit"---it basically sounds like you were projecting from your personal situation fighting for your custody to this particular one. In fact you yourself said that you were "too close" to this to see it subjectively.

I have been through this "exact" scenario---the third child born of my wife's affair with OM. And I can easily project EXACTLY what is the right prescription for success---cutting the OM off. If my wife had come here at a similar time to McB (with regard to the affair---although the child was unborn), she would have said the same about the OM. He was a good father (of his own children). He wanted to be involved... etc. The fact of the matter was that he threatened to go "militant" (similar to what your suggesting), and there's no fury on the planet as a mother who is having her children threatened. It was the best script for ending an affair. It also (IMO) helped to seal the fact that the OM would NOT be 'given' access to this child. The OM has never contacted us (now that child is nearly 8).

The best advice that you can give, if you're truly concerned for "children" and father's rights (both the OM and Mr. McB) is this:

1. Heal the marriage. That means no contact. It also means using the POJA to make decisions regarding visitation. Right now, you should expect that those decisions end up with a resounding NO.

2. Don't assume that the OM is a great father. Don't assume he's a lousy father. If he's a great father---he'll want to work through the court system to try to gain access to the child. My real issue for this is that because he is young and unmarried (and without previous children)---if he was 'real' father material he might understand that his child would be well taken care of with Mr. McB and wife, and he would be able to see that as "best". With my wife's OM---I don't necessarily view the guy as a lazy scumbag. I don't view him as a hallowed saint who gave up his rights either. All I know is that raising a child is an awesome responsibility, and that I'll do it to the best of my ability.

3. After the marriage is healed---(a year or two, likely), this visitation thing can be viewed more rationally. It is hard however---you'll notice that (I believe) EVERYONE in this situation who posted generally suggested "no contact". There's a reason. Adults often don't act like it...

4. Ignore Dr. Phil. He's a moron.

My problem with your posts MEDC, is that you're coming off as an extremest---a father's rights "terrorist", if you will (yeah, I know what day it is). If you're going to be an effective advocate for this, you'll need to look inside yourself and find compassion, and then try to balance your own experience with those of others to give advice.

Suzet, I was talking about other stuff.

That may be the best advice you can give considering your beliefs.
I consider your position to be extreme also. It all depends on which side of the fence you fall. Your position, to me, comes across as uncaring to everyone involved except for the BH. And BTW, I never advocated that NC be broken.

As far as name calling...I was only painting the WW with the same brush strokes that others were choosing to do to the OM in this case. I was making a point... some got that point, you didn't. We will need to disagree on this.

I am happy to hear your opinion on Dr. Phil. Watch the name calling.

A fathers rights terrorist... very funny...very insensitive name calling. I feel strongly about my beliefs. I guess using your logic you would be a marriage terrorist!

And as far as who would be the best parents... you are making assumptions too... I do not think that the WW & FWH who have had a rocky M are necessarily the best option here... and regardless, I responded to people saying that the OM was automatically the wrong option.

Sorry, but I just think your position is wrong. We will need to disagree.

MEDC I meant to post to you on the original thread but didn't get around to it.

Thanks for taking a stand for fathers' rights.

you're welcome.

Thank you K for standing up for marriage on MB and much more so, in real life. It takes amazing grace to raise an OC completely as your own. I'd be interested in the legalities of your situation and in your state. I don't know if I could do what you did. Without the control that the paternal presumption affords me I'm sure it would make that decision even tougher. Just the threat that OM could forceably interject himself into my family for say the next 4 years would be chilling. Though it's typically unlikely. Not many OM's sue for the right to pay child support with severly resticted visitation (which says a lot about the ones that do I guess).

Guess this issue boils down to

Fathers VS Marriage.

I DO agree to disagree. I can't for the life of me understand the other side of this issue. I'm frustrated that I can't change minds with the logic of my position cause I think you've got it all wrong. Even Cinderella seemed to state that BH should be nice to OM and maybe OM will allow BH to adopt the OC. Thank God for the paternal presumption so BH's everywhere don't have to seek out rights to their WW's baby from OM of all places. Interesting note, I discussed this with several friends in my real life that all strangely agreed with me...I didn't even have to give them the MB kool aide. Anyway, I understand now you all likely feel just as frustrated by my opinion...this is just one of the issues.

Don't know if you all read this so I copied and pasted it here from the 2nd or 3rd thread on this issue:

[color:"red"] Here is an interesting phrase I discovered when googling "paternal presumption" & "public policy":

"MOTHERS ARE VESTED WITH PARENTAL RIGHTS - FATHERS OBTAIN THEM"

Marriage, historically, is the one way fathers obtain, in advance, paternal and custodial rights to children of the marriage however conceived. It is one of biggest motivators of the instituition of marriage for men. In fact, with the nearing or closing gap in wages in the workforce it is one of the few pieces of "consideration" remaining in the marital contract period besides just someone to divide the labor with.

If, when and AS the laws change in response to a greater acceptance of non-marital cohabitation, fertility and the rights of unmarried men. Such changes misguidingly and unknowingly increase the prevalence of the same by severly reducing the value of the such marital contract/institution.

Look at this example of extremes:


[color:"red"] The "mens" rights many have been advocating the last few days, to me, seem to imply that copulating unmarried men have some property rights to their left behind (and in my opinion "gifted") sperm. That someone like McBecca's OM gained some property rights to Mrs.McBecca's uterus. That he has or should have a legal right to the child, in utero and beyond.

IMO and historical under 100+ year old common law...the only person with any legitimate claim to Mrs. McBecca's uterus and the production of ANY fetus therein is Mrs. McBecca AND the man that married her. As pointed out above, when you change the laws to accomodate the OM and his bio-father rights and/or to protect this child from some imagined harm from being kept from his bio-dad and place such concerns OVER marriage...even if you think it's FAIR or the right thing to do in a particular fact scenario, you end up encouraging, accomodating and enabling the very immoral behavior we all dislike...unmarried fertility. Liberalism. When you narrow the difference between married and unmarried parenthood in law...you end up with MORE of the later.

Times change, morals never do.

The institution of marriage is still our soceities preferred method of raising children and I presume it is this websites preference as well.

Thus a public policy announcement:

"Men beware, don't have unmarried sex, with a married woman especially. If you do, don't leave your seed behind...wear a dang condom. Though you may both be equally caupable for the resulting consequences, and you may be potentially the greatest father in the world, be fully aware that the law and public policy will most likely and undoubtedly shaft you in the end (pun intended), rightfully or unrightfully so"

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - Thank you MEDC and others. This has been a very interesting debate and exercise. I've learned more about this subject in two days and more convicted of my opinion then I was before. I personally like the "paternity presumption" under the Uniform Parentage Act. It's not perfect but the policy is sound. In the case of Mr. McBecca it works. OM has no legal rights. IF he is to get any access to his bio-child he'll need to rely and beg compassion from his victim. That is not impossible. Unlikely for a bit; but, not impossible. I think Mr.McBecca (and Mrs. McB when she's a FWW) is/are best capable to assess the best interests of HIS/THEIR child and whether OM is and will be a continuing and valuable presence in HIS/THEIR childs life. [/color]

p.p.s. - Read the Michael H v. Gerald, U.S. Supreme Court case on this issue. You want a sympathetic bio-OM to hang your hat on he's it. The conservative justices screwed him of any paternal rights even though the child lived with him and his married girlfried for like 3 years and the child always knew him and called him "Daddy". Even his sympathetic case was not persuasive enough to overcome the LAW.

I was going to let your insult toward me go unchallenged (mostly because it is laughable) .... until I read this

I did not call you any names ... not ever that I can recall

yet you said this to me

Quote

It is just your negative view of men that is shining through right now.

in fact ... just re-reading it, it is laughable to me because it is so obviously false but intended (by you) as a sincere insult to MY character, when did I say anything about you/your character ?

I kept our discussion topical, not personal.

I disagreed with you and wrote my arguements about THE SUBJECT at hand ... and you out of nowhere decided I have a "negative view of men" ????

I have a negative view of adulterous men who keep calling/emailing a WW who is trying to cope with the post adultery pain & repair her life! ! I admit that negative bias!

I think (surmise) that your comment was because I called OM a "sperm donor" ... well, he has done nothing to put himself into a Daddy-role other than donating sperm so far ... and if he steps up to the plate & legally approaches this awesome responsibility as a responsibility and not ~only~ as his "right" ... he will no longer be a "sperm donor" ... he will be a man of character ... until he does that, he is/remains, a sperm donor as far as caring for that BABY is concerned

Pep <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />