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