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.