Interesting? How does this appear to be a "pro-BH" issue? My pro-BH position would be to divorce the wife and take physical custody of the biological children, and make sure that wife pays child support.

That's the extreme pro-BH position.

As a BH, I could complain about the drain on financial resources that this third child brings. The investment of time. The prolonging of being a parent in the pre-college stages by four years. In fact---the affair was a contributing factor to my wife's emotional state---she's been "incapable" of making love, so I've done without for 10 years.

Yup---I'm an insenstive, uncaring ba$[censored].

In addition, if the OM showed up wanting to meet this child---we would deal with it. Together. In a way that builds the marriage. And (most likely) in a way that gives the OM some access to the child as well, if it is in the child's best interest. Why? Because I can see all sides. And I have healed, and our marriage is (mostly) healed.


Name calling is rarely effective. Especially to someone who is in McB's state. It's mean.


Dr. Phil is in a better state than McB, but you're right with regards to name calling. I didn't call you a father's right terrorist---I said you were coming across as such. Remember too that this board exists as a support for Marriage Building. At no point has Dr. Harley ever advocated what you are suggesting for rebuilding a marriage. He would suggest a divorce for Mr. McB if this was the first child of a young marriage.


There is no automatic "wrong" in this, and we do work with assumptions. But a rocky marriage under these circumstances doesn't necessarily doom a child's best interest. The best thing that can be done is to help the marriage succeed. I didn't see any evidence that you were concerned with that. Just with "father's rights", which in this case is a legal misnomer.

There's been this DJ floated around here that just because I stand up for the rights of a father to see his son/daughter that I do not stand up for marriage. I think it is possible to do both. I think that there are ways that the father can see his child and that the M can survive and even flourish. I think that is is ridiculous for people to assume that if the OM hires an attorney to fight for his rights... that would mean he is serious and wants to be a good dad. In my way of thinking, leaving the lawyers on the sidelines and trying to work out an amicable solution is always the best thing to do. If that doesn't work then lawyers and courts are always an option. And no disrespect meant to any lawyers here... but we really have been litigious children in this country.
Hopefully this works out for all parties and the M survives, the baby sees her dad and NC remains in effect.

>I think it is possible to do both.

YES YES YES!!!!!!!!

Then obviously you have a problem with reading comprehension. I suggest you either go back and read my posts. Either way, I do not need to defend my views to you. YOu have your opinions which I think are off... you are entitled to feel the same about mine.

Feel better now?

Mr. W:

You're welcome. I don't find that it takes more than God's grace to raise this third child. He's been a delight, and I have always thought of him as an opportunity to practice what I "preach"---pro-life (in a graceful way), the sanctity of marriage, the importance of family.

We consulted a lawyer in our state when the child was still in utero and he basically said the child would be presumed ours. There was the outside possibility that a lawsuit by OM could make things difficult for some time, but he suggested a passive approach as opposed to going and actively establishing paternity and then asking for him to relinquish it, and then for me to adopt (he said he'd be happy to take our money for all that... but he didn't think it would be necessary). As you've illustrated in the rest of your post---the law favors the family unit, and it does so for a reason.

So in reality, the best thing to do IMO (and most other knowledgeble experts) is to recover the marriage and to provide a loving family environment. If the OM shows up and attempts a legal battle---you're fighting together and that can build more love in the marriage. If the OM succeeds, or if you're in a position where you want to allow contact---things can work out. But you really need to be at that place in your marriage, and then contact should go only through the husband or a designated intermediary.

This doesn't really boil down to "fathers vs marriage" or "mothers vs marriage". It boils down to the importance of marriage. Its the most important sociological relationship that humans have---it ensures the raising of our children and our survival as a species. It's a cornerstone of most major religions as well. Having a happy, successful marriage is a benefit to everyone.

If that is eroded, it's paramount to fix it. Once it's destroyed, the "mother/father/OM" rights issues are just poorer second options.

MEDC,

All things being equal, Becca's cuckolded BH is the one you need to convert to your side. Not anyone here.

According to Becca, he has stated he wants out if OM has any contact with the child.

OM + father = end of M + two other children without a full time father.

Like most things in this imperfect world there are costs and there are benefits to either choice.

What outweighs what here?

Me, I would choose no contact between the OM and the child of any kind. Because, I think the existing family out-weighs any and every desire of OM. In this case.

But what do I know.


K,

You wrote: “…she's been "incapable" of making love, so I've done without for 10 years.”

Don’t feel too unique. During the VLTA, and since, I am in the same club. I wish there was a more private area we could discuss this.

With prayers,

Is anyone not clear on my position on things???
Please read the threads and if I have not made how I feel very clear, feel free to pose a question to me if you really care about my thoughts.
Otherwise, I really don't feel the need to continue addressing this issue with anyone other than the McB's at this point.
I know where you guys are coming from... I just disagree. My position will not change.. it is well thought on my part.
I have been saying that I know we will need to agree to disagree....yet for some reason this continues to be a topic. Mrs. McB is a big girl... she can choose to either listen to or dismiss my advice which again, I think repects their M and all of their children.

Aphelion and K, may I just say that you are both very special men. There must be a place reserved in Heaven for both of you. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

WOW!

I see K already more than adequately responded to this ridiculous statement.

But I have to say, that's the most laughable thing I think I've ever read here. Yeah... the BH raising OC from his WW's A has really got it made. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

medc~ I think you are only seeing this issue as one where the OM/bio-father is being punished. That's not what this is about.

I get that. Thanks for sharing your well thought out response.

I just don't see how you can claim it's "well thought out". Are you having trouble putting it in words? Seems your argument is a bio-father is a father is a father. I've clearly stated the public policy behind the "paternity presumption" and have awaited a rebuttal. While it's true you don't have to support your reasoning for your opinion I'd certainly appreciate hearing and trying to understand it. That goes for others too. To come in and say I agree with MEDC is pretty weak. This is a discussion board not a voting booth. WHY?

Why do you think the law should be changed?

What do you think the law should say?

Are there a few alternatives you've considered?

Why should it say that?

Don't you think a law change will result in more litigation not less where this issue is concerned?

Do you agree that liberalizing such laws will result in more out-of-wedlock fertility?

Though for the worst case scenario a judges discretion and ascertation of the best interests of the child may be better, considering the uncertainty of such determination doesn't a hard and fast rule help facilitate a peaceable and less litigious solution (where the WW and BH are in the driver's seat) in nearly all cases?

What about the unknowing BH that unwittingly raises and supports and "fathers" a child he is unaware is not his bio-child then 2 years later WW files divorce and tries to deny the BH custody of the child he has completely bonded with because such child is not his bio-child?

When you leave things to judicial discretion you end up with way more litigation than you ever thought possible. Everything becomes a grey area. How does a judge ascertain the "best interests" of an infant? If he is to weigh the bio-mom and bio-father equally what factors should he consider? How many BH's are going to willingly subject themselves to such public scrunity? For how long should the "window" be open BY LAW?

You discussed paternal consent for abortion. Whose consent should the WW have to get her husbands, OM's or both?

Then consider this: Courts are public institutions that WE the people pay for and support with our tax dollars. I personally don't want to support a system that gives OM's everywhere a backside protection when they simply CHOOSE to leave their sperm behind when engaging in adulterous copulation. To me, them the consequences OM. Better kiss butt to BH and hope the BH (and FWW) can come to a reasonable conclusion if the BH WANTS to accept the child as his own.

I agree with K. Several years later the situation can be looked at rationally by all the parties. Thats where the couples on Dr. Phil were despite the law (where you'll notice all 4 were there seeking a solution). Having the bio-father included to some extent in the life of OC and having the marriage recovered IS possible. I actually think your goals of bio-father inclusion IS more likely to happen with the law the way it currently exists. BH is protected by the law and without BH on board the whole process breaks down. Uncertainty will result in MORE divorce. Self negotiated agreements between all the parties are always going to be better than judge imposed decisions. The courts are not the solution, recovering the marriage, paternity certainty and then reasonableness can result. It's not perfect, but I don't see a better alternative, legally speaking...Respectfully, Do you?

Mr. Wondering

Because I value a bio dads role more than you do.




I think the law should allow for a man having a say in all aspects of reproductive decisions. From abortion to custody of their biological children. How the law would be written is not a concern to me... just that it affords protections for everyone involved.




Sure, and I have mentioned a few. One is to let the bio dad raise the child. Another is if the bio dad or mom WILLINGLY relinquishes their rights as a parent I would be okay with that too.




Anything that involves lawyers will result in more litigation... as the old saying goes...
"One lawyer in a town will starve... add a second and both will make a very good living!"




I do not agree with your characterization that this would be liberalizing the law. I actually think allowing a father to see his children and affording them a more even playing field in the reproduction process is a conservative idea. But in answer to your question, yes... because less children will be slaughtered as most A pregancies end in abortion.




Yes, I think a hard and fast rule would be a benefit... we just disagree on what the rule should say.



What about it? I don't see a question here. I don't think that is right for her to deceive him in any way.



Agreed. There are a lot of factors to be considered when determining the care of a child. The judges right now do a terrible job with that and it is skewed towards a mother even when it is not in the childs best interest.

I don't believe in abortion. It is murder. I think it is ridiculous to be able to kill my child without my consent just because the warped laws says it is okay.

Several years later is too long. Let the BH/WW work on their M and then see her child after their M is healed. Mr. W... what % of A marriages that result in a woman getting pregnant end in divorce??? What happens two years down the road when Mr. McB leaves because he can't handle it anymore? He has already shown that he is lacking good M skills... he had an A, wouldn't go to counseling and wouldn't talk about his A to his W. What happens to the child that is then without a father?
Do you know the percentage of marriages that survive this stuff? Do you think Mr. McB might be staying around just to see that his W doesn't leave or to punish the OM??

I do not see your solution as being reasonable. I know you do. But if you had the same view of a bio dads role as I do, you would get it... just like I would get your points if I looked at him as a sperm donor. I won't. Your positions, while stated respectfully, do not sway my thinking even one inch. Nothing you say will make me feel that a bio dad has no right to his child. The law is a living thing and it evolves... it will do so in these types of cases also. It's just a matter of time.

And yes, you have made this clear... but what is law and what is right are not always the same.

Abortion....segregation...womens right to vote...etc...

they were all viewed differently in the past. Even the courts and states are split over this issue right now. Perhaps some of those close decisions will change sooner rather than later.

And Mr. W... frankly it is time you and I stop this debate. We get each others position. You can give all the legal mumbo jumbo and I can give all the moral mumbo jumbo I want about this. We are not going to agree.

I concede that you are wrong and the sooner you agree.. we can just get n with stuff. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I won't try to speak for MrW and guess what he was asking. But *my* question is... what about a BH faced with the situation MrW brought up... How would you like to see the court rule in such a situation?

Should the unaware BH who has raised the OC as his own for two years be denied C with the OC simply because his W now wants a D and reveals the child isn't his? What if he WAS aware the entire time, but after 2yrs his W wants a D... should he be denied C since the child isn't his biologically?

Also, I'd be curoius to know what you think of this type of situation: Say the OM/bio-father expresses NO interest in having C with OC, but comes back later and says, "wait a minute, now I DO want C". At what if any point in time to you think it's too late for the OM/bio to be able to make such a decision?

I agree with this

and, for me, what is equally crappy

a minor child does not need parental consent for an abortion ... but they do need parental consent for an aspirin or tylenol to be given at school

crazy!

Pep

Look at Amiok's thread... if you have any questions about how I view a non bio parent after reading that, please ask.

I think the position you have brought up is terrible though. I think the mother, not the laws would be responsible for any hurt inflicted on her H. It may be that the courts would have to consider a visitation for her H. Morally, it is perplexing due to her actions. I have NEVER argued that the H should not have any rights... what I have said is that the bio dad should also have them.

yep, that is nuts!!!!!!

If YOU were the courts/judge... how would you rule in such a situation? Would you give visitation to the H? What if the xom/bio father shows up at the same time and wants C... should H AND xom both be allowed C? Meaning 3 parents have shared C? If it's determined the mother needs CS for the child... who should be made to pay... BH, bio, or both?

What's the title of Amiok's thread?

AD, nothing personal... but I am not here to be quizzed by you.
Her thread is on the first page of GQII...

MEDC,

Have you been married?