I would like to respond to the the responses I got the post I sent about child support/visitation.<BR>1. What I said was MORE IMPORTANT than child support is empotional support. I did not say that you all not being pushed to pay for children you didn't have a say in your husband having. What I was trying to say is that we as a society, individually and collectivelly need to put more time, energy, and love into our children. Both the Other Child and the Children of the marriage are innocent and more susceptable to the pain than any one else involved. I feel this way because of my experience with many foster children who are neglected, abused, and abandoned. They not only had no choice but no part of any cheating. I am not saying the betrayed wife has fault or even much of a part, but once a betrayed wife accepts an apology, if she so decides, then i think she needs to accept the other child. <P>2. Some of the posts implied that it was ok for a father to abandon his child, that it was ALL the womans fault because she didn't use birth control, she lied, she didn't abort, she didn't give the child up for adoption. You all may hate me for saying this but that is a BUNCH OF CROCK. The husbands didn't use birth control and they were DUMB for believing the "I am on the pill" line. Even if the child was given up for adoption, many would come back in 18 years full of anger and hate at both parents. I don't think the answer is to just pass our responsibilites on to other adults. As for as the abortion idea goes, that is murder, period. <P>3. As far as whom I am, as i said I am a foster parent and my ex husband cheated on me numerous times. At one point a year or two into our marriage a woman called saying she had my husbands daughter. Not only did I insist on finding out if it were true, I insisted if it was he pay child support and seek visitation. Because when he chose to be a cheater he chose to have to take responsibility for all the CONSEQUENCES of his so called mistake. Which i don't like calling it a mistake. It was a CHOICE!<P>4. Regarding my father, no he was not in my life, and no he was not married, accept to my mother. When they broke up he just abandoned me. I just feel that men are aloud to screw up to much. And the steeper the consequences the better. If they have to get a second or third job to pay that child support great. I don't think it should come from the family money.<P>5. And If the father would be the better parent, so be it, go for custody. Like i said in my original post, I think probably the best parent for many of these children would be the betrayed wife, she is the only one who wasn't ethically and morally screwed up! <P>I am sorry so many of you took my post wrong, I just get concerned and wonder how so many people in our society could not see the importance of making OUR children number 1. <P>Best wishes to you all.

just wondering why you chose this place to lurk? You obviously have absolutely no idea about what it feels like to be in this position, why not go lurk somewhere else! see ya!

Dear lurking woman,<BR>I am indeed honored to meet someone so completely without sin that she feels that she can throw stones at those in pain.<P>cd

(formerly IN THE SOUTH)<P>To LW:<BR>If the money is comming from the husband, is that not taking it from the wife and children, no matter how many jobs he has. The spouse and children are suffering and will continue to suffer for the sins of a wayward spouse and an adultrous woman.<BR>We are saying that it should be 50/50.<BR>I want my husband to take responsible and to have vistation, because the boys needs their father in their lives and if the OW can not handle me in her sons life and doing for them---then that's her problem.<BR>Like I told my husband, I could be the best thing that ever happen to those boys if the MOTHER give us (me and husband) a chance.<BR>Let me ask you this: How many cases you have seen where the mother abandon the child, would rather put the child in foster care before she give the father a chance to take the child. How many have called the father and said, " I can't take care of the child anylonger, please come get him/her, I would rather you have him/her then a stranger?<BR>Glory&praise

Lurking woman,<BR>In all seriousness, it appears to me that you are here because you want to do something to benefit illegitimate children. If that is the case, you are "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Attacking women for their choices will only put them on the defensive and make them more firmly entrenched in their position. To be quite honest, your total "concern" for the oc made me second-guess MY decisions - and I am one who DOES choose to accept the oc. Basically, your argument that we should put the needs of the oc first is like saying to a person whose daughter has been raped, "I know that man raped your daughter, but you shouldn't push to prosecute him because if he goes to jail his children will suffer."<P>If you really want to do something about these poor, sad, misbegotten children, you need to go directly to the source. Become active in areas that will prevent children from being born into such circumstances. Write to your legislators about increasing funds for birth control education, vote for people who support traditional family values. If the United States as a whole would enact laws that make it more difficult for men and women to reproduce outside the sanctity of marriage, you will undoubtably see a sharp decrease in the number of children that need your concern.<P>We are not the source, we are merely the symptoms of the disease. You need to fight the disease. <P>cd

c.d.,<BR>Is the disease you are refering to the one we talked about eairler was it not called slutinitous maybe you should describe all the signs of this disease so the ow like this one will know what shes fighting. I dont think I spelled it right but I am sure you will remember. with love flowerseed <p>[This message has been edited by flowerseed (edited April 13, 2001).]

I think some of you really do understand the importance of considering the children. And yes in many cases the fathers aren't there, by choice of the mother when a child is put in foster care. However if the state can locate a father they are given an opportunity. <P>Regarding the comment about if i girl was raped would I not want the rapist prosecuted, for the child sake. NO. And I never stated a thing like that. BUT your husbands WERE NOT raped! They willingly CHOSE their actions. And I think it is time they had to pay the consequences. <P>I understand some of the defensiveness here, but I don't get it all. I lurk becuase I have been in similar circumstance. I do have opinions, right or wrong as they may be. I think it is sad that some of you get soooo offended when a person states something you appose. <P>And finally, I am not saying that every situation is the same. There are differences is in all. I just hope that some of you can really think about all involved, including the children.<P>I hope that things look up for you all.

I was not talking about h being raped, i was referring to me and my children being harmed in a dreadful manner by the ow's actions and choices.<P>For ow to fail to have any consequences as the result of her actions is reprehensible.<P>My late pappy used to say, "everyone is entitled to an opinion, regardless of how ridiculous it may be." therefore, I guess you are entitled to yours.<P><BR>cd<BR>

Lurking Woman,<BR>Your self righteous pompous attitude is getting on my last nerve. As everyone else has said how can you judge when you have NO CLUE not one about how this feels. You don't know what its like to have to deal with chickens who do not know the blessings of being a mother but rather use their children as pawns to make our lives miserable.<P>Lurking woman, I don't believe your intent or concern is to the children of the world. This is a forum of women in great pain and turmoil and who are trying to keep their families intact. Who, in many cases, are working to make sure that these nasty OW are not taking from their very own children's mouths. The first human instinct is self-perservation. We are perserving and protecting what is ours, our marriages, our families and our children. There is no sin in that. On this forum there are different degrees of involvement and that is a personal decision between these marriages. Lurking woman get the hell out please you are not trying to help us but are trying to add salt to our wounds and you should be ashamed.<P>I am in a horrible mood today and came to get some comfort but I read your sanctimonious post and thought "damn it isn't even safe to come here". Keep your judgements to yourself and if your motive were really to help the children of the world then I agree with CD go to the source, to these women who decide to sleep with married men and to then subject their children to lives without their fathers. Life is all about choice you are right about that and the men did have choices and they made horrible ones. But as a woman you have the choice to respect yourself and keep your legs closed.<P>Blessings to all my girls. Have a great Easter/Passover.

<BR>LW,<P>I am quite uncertain why you are here. The philosophies you espouse are internally inconsistent, as I'll discuss below.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>1. What I said was MORE IMPORTANT than child support is empotional support...Both the Other Child and the Children of the marriage are innocent and more susceptable to the pain than any one else involved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have already pointed out that "child support" schedules are roughly TWICE as high as they should be. The simple reality is that the [censored] child provides the OW a form of hidden alimony every month, an amount that in some cases truly shocks the conscience. It is simply not sufficient to argue that emotional support is more important than financial support without recognizing that custody (and its ensuing emotional support) are closely intertwined with finances. Yet even on a custody plane, your argument fails. Here's why.<P>The difficulty that men face is the following: Women win custody almost all of the time. And while our society has enacted rather brutal laws enforcing child support payment compliance, we turn a blind eye towards enforcing men's access to the children. Its quite silly to claim that "emotional support" is more important than financial support without recognizing that women who violate custody judgments face no real consequences. If you're truly operating in the childrens' best interests, you'd have to agree that wrist-slapping access interference is a genuine problem.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I am not saying the betrayed wife has fault or even much of a part, but once a betrayed wife accepts an apology, if she so decides, then i think she needs to accept the other child.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think you are projecting your own lack of a father into things. While I dislike zero-sum games, the fact of the matter is that the father has only so many hours in a day. Can you explain why a "part time" daddy to a [censored] is better than an OW finding a single man, marrying the single man, and having the single man adopt the child? At least recognize that the wife could deeply resent the loss of fathering time to the children of the marriage. After all, for someone claiming that "emotional support" is so important, you'll have to explain why the children of the marriage suddenly have to lose time with their father. And if you want to argue that the [censored] should be treated equally, you'll see the same argument thrown back in your face when it comes to finances.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Some of the posts implied that it was ok for a father to abandon his child, that it was ALL the womans fault because she didn't use birth control, she lied, she didn't abort, she didn't give the child up for adoption. You all may hate me for saying this but that is a BUNCH OF CROCK. The husbands didn't use birth control and they were DUMB for believing the "I am on the pill" line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>At this point in the debate, things usually descend into a discussion about when men should have choice in the matter of parenthood. Some will argue, as you do, that men's choice ends at conception, although men continue to bear full responsibility for the woman's decision to carry the child to term. Morally, I don't personally find such a view defensible, although I recognize that changing laws to give men post-conception choice is unlikely anytime soon.<P>Anyhow, I'll even accept your view for the sake of argument. So men much accept their share of responsibility for the child. In trade, it is entirely legitimate for men to DEMAND half of the rights. And, of course, that would mean men should have a default of 50% joint physical custody with little or no "child support" changing hands. <BR>Let me ask, is this what you had in mind? And what would you do to punish a woman who wouldn't give the child to the father for his 50% time? Would you throw her in jail, the way we do with so-called "deadbeat dads?"<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Not only did I insist on finding out if it were true, I insisted if it was he pay child support and seek visitation. Because when he chose to be a cheater he chose to have to take responsibility for all the CONSEQUENCES of his so called mistake. Which i don't like calling it a mistake. It was a CHOICE!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This is simply untrue. His choice was to have sex, not necessarily to become a father. And while the family courts can hold such men financially accountable for "child support" and the hidden alimony therein, it does NOT mean that such men CHOSE to become fathers.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Regarding my father, no he was not in my life, and no he was not married, accept to my mother. When they broke up he just abandoned me. I just feel that men are aloud to screw up to much. And the steeper the consequences the better. If they have to get a second or third job to pay that child support great. I don't think it should come from the family money.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, well. I think we've finally stumbled upon the real reason you're here. It appears that you're angry at men, or at least men who abandon children. But tell me, how are men allowed to screw up too much? I mean, after all, a woman can bring a paternity action against a man at any time prior to the child's 18th birthday (I note that a man who is deceived by his wife about paternity has only until age two to rebut paternity, in yet another case where men get a raw deal). And once the woman enters a paternity action, the man must pay her "child support" or face prison. Hey, LW, there are posters in this very forum whose husbands have faced hearings to determine whether they should be incarcerated for non-payment of CS. The threat about which I speak is very real for men - but note not a single OW faces prison for interfering with a man's custody. So much for "emotional support," eh?<P>Your anger at abandoning men really manifests in your claim that men should pay steep consequences, "the steeper the better." Well, frankly, child support isn't supposed to contain hidden alimony, but it SURELY isn't supposed to be be a punishment. And for someone claiming that "emotional support" is so important, exactly how much "emotional support" can a man working 70 hour workweeks give the hypothetical little [censored] child to whom you are so enamoured?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>And If the father would be the better parent, so be it, go for custody.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>How quaint. Most men do not even *try* to get custody because they stand no real chance of winning. Your solution to the problem of access interference is prima facie bogus, LW. Women win contested custody 80-85% of the time. The cases in which men win custody involve comparatively wealthier men (i.e., able to afford a lawyer) in which the woman was demonstrably a bad parent (i.e., a drug addict). In bascially all other cases, women win.<P>The solution to this problem is to create a rebuttable presumption of 50% joint physical custody, with very little actual cash changing hands via "child support." A parent who interferes with the other parent's parenting time should lose the 50% custody and be forced to pay cost-shares child support. Because of the currently illegitimate means of computing "child support," men bear an unfairly heavy burden to pay for their children, yet they have far less than equal rights. Solve these problems and the cash incentive for OWs to have children will go away - and suddenly those OCs will be much less frequent.<P>Bystander

bystander,Again very well said. This one proves that she knows not what she is saying (I know this is a lot to bear when your going through all this, but please think of the child). I dont think there is a person here that one day has been able to go by, that they have been able not to think of the child. Its almost funny. We are one of the familys that oc will never ever be involved in our family and the more I hear from the ow like this one the more I see that we made the right choice. I am thinking about the child the one that is most important in this world to us and that is the child me and my h wanted and brought into this world. flowerseed<P><p>[This message has been edited by flowerseed (edited April 13, 2001).]

Oh brother, here we go again. Bystander and the other said it best so I won't repeat it. Lurking Woman, you should have remained in the shadows lurking. I once had a shirt that said "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool then to speak up and remove all doubt"....know what? it's true! LMAO!<P>------------------<BR>Remember the sunshine when the storm seems unending...

'nuff said

I am not going to go into a big explanation because it has all been said too many times....Everyone on this forum is different, their situations, families, and pain are all handled differently. There are no right or wrong answers. In our situation as I have explained before we have been trying to do right for the oc and the mother is being difficult, but she does not find it difficult to cash her cs checks. My h sees the child a mere 3 hours a week and that costed us 2,000.00 to get. Now he wants more time which is only in the best interest of the oc as he wants more time with my h and mother says no. So back to court we go. $ talks bullsh## walks. LW go walk away from here!!!!!!!!Gabi1116

Hi guys,<P> I have a problem with LW's statement "the children come first." This seems to be the conventional wisdom, but I just don't agree. The marriage comes first!!! The marriage is the foundation. It is (supposedly) the lucid, logical, well examined decision of two mature individuals to build a partnership, a bond, a life together. Everything else comes from this unity of two souls, including children. The marriage must come first.<P> I also think the marriage just happens to be what is best for the children, for many reasons; parental role modelling, spousal role modelling, providing a stable, secure, loving family unit. The marriage is the neucleus.<P><BR> I think "doing what's best for the children" is too often an excuse for "doing what's best for me!"<P> Then again, I could be full of dookie!<P><BR> God bless you all,<P>------------------<BR>Gregg

Gregg,<P>This really has nothing to do with the topic on this thread. I just had to comment on your last comment, particularly your use of "dookie". See, when I first met Sailorman in high school, he was in the habit of using that exact word whenever he felt like saying those famous 4 letter words! We were both reading your post, and were in awe, for lack of a better word, with what you had to say. It really did hit home. But, then we read your last statement about being full of "dookie" and cracked up!!! It brought back some fond memories. Thank you for that little light of happiness.<P>Tigger & Sailorman

As I said earlier, if you truly responded to any of the heartfelt posts you got, then we could talk, but you don't--you cannot acknowledge the pain, unfairness and insane reality many of us deal with, just stick to your pie-in-the-sky principals. <P>Further, when YOU shell out 20-25% of YOUR income to an XOW/OC and still say it's "irresponsible", I'll be more inclined... Go Ahead! Get out your calculator! Enjoy what riches you'd have left!

Hey Tigger,<P> I grew up in a Catholic household, so I had to say "dookie" instead of "the brown word!"<P><BR> God bless you,<P>------------------<BR>Gregg