Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

gojujay · 05-07-2006, 03:23 AM

It's funny that the courts would want to protect the child, in regards to keeping the kid and family "whole," when in cases of adoption where the adopted child has already bonded with a mother and father, who took the child in knowing that he/she did not share their blood, they will take custody from the adoptive parents and give it to a biological parent the child has never known. What is the courts excuse in these cases? The biological tie is most sacred. Talk about your double standards!

lindajdunn · 05-07-2006, 10:02 AM

And in another case, a woman was ordered to take her child to visit the father in jail. This, despite the fact that the father is in jail for raping the mother and that this crime produced the child.

Prior to this decision, the rapist father had never seen the child.

I'm sorry, but this seems just as wrong to me as the opposite side of the coin (a father being ordered to pay support for a child that he had never accepted as his own and which was not biologically his).

IMHO, the whole matter of what constitues legal parenthood needs to be revisited. I don't think biology alone should do it (as witness my earlier complaint). I also think they should throw out that ancient law about a child being born during the marriage belonging to the husband of that marriage. Technology exists to give a definitive answer and there's no longer a need for this antique law.

Moses · 05-07-2006, 05:27 PM

Darn, I wanted to click the first option "I am male. I think that he should not have to continue paying", but somehow accidentally selected the undecided option.

Duh-Arn.

-Da Mose

PeterGustafsson · 05-08-2006, 03:44 AM

Hi!

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

And in another case, a woman was ordered to take her child to visit the father in jail. This, despite the fact that the father is in jail for raping the mother and that this crime produced the child.

Prior to this decision, the rapist father had never seen the child.

I'm sorry, but this seems just as wrong to me as the opposite side of the coin (a father being ordered to pay support for a child that he had never accepted as his own and which was not biologically his).

While I disagree with this being the opposite of the coin (that would be a female rapist story!) I agree that it is morally wrong. Wonder what the child thinks about it, once it is old enough to be legally responsible for itself. What if the kid needs a kidney transplant, and the father is the only possible donor? What then?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

PeterGustafsson · 05-08-2006, 03:47 AM

Hi!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moses

Darn, I wanted to click the first option "I am male. I think that he should not have to continue paying", but somehow accidentally selected the undecided option.

Duh-Arn.

-Da Mose

With that in mind, the tally now stands at 16 votes for not continuing to force money out of the non-father, and 7 votes for continuing to force money out of the non-father. Small sample, but reasonably decided vote.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

lindajdunn · 05-08-2006, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!

While I disagree with this being the opposite of the coin (that would be a female rapist story!) I agree that it is morally wrong. Wonder what the child thinks about it, once it is old enough to be legally responsible for itself. What if the kid needs a kidney transplant, and the father is the only possible donor? What then?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Probably something like this
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/03/kidney.dad/index.html
In case you're unfamiliar with this news story, the father went before the judge, begging for an opportunity to finally do something for the son he hadn't cared about until now and while he was out of jail for tests, he escaped. He and his girlfriend are now in Mexico and the kid still needs a kidney transplant.

PeterGustafsson · 05-15-2006, 01:11 PM

Hi!

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

Probably something like this
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/03/kidney.dad/index.html
In case you're unfamiliar with this news story, the father went before the judge, begging for an opportunity to finally do something for the son he hadn't cared about until now and while he was out of jail for tests, he escaped. He and his girlfriend are now in Mexico and the kid still needs a kidney transplant.

Sh*tty father.

That said, this is a problem of lax prisoner guarding. He could have had those tests, and presumably the donor operation, done in a prison operation. If that was not possible, he could have been hand-cuffed to the hospital bed.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

umbrella · 06-30-2006, 08:52 PM

Yes, and there is NO EXIT!!!!!
[ha ha!!!!!!]

Okay, Yes, I think he should continue to support the kids, he raised them and formed some kind of attachment to them to break off support at such a late date isn't fair to the children if they're under 13 years old, after that they should be mature enough to understand divorce and maybe less income.

You have to consider them first. The unfortunate thing is that that horrible woman he married obviously cheated on him to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars .....it's kinda weird....but....cool!

RoninX · 07-03-2006, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by umbrella

Okay, Yes, I think he should continue to support the kids, he raised them and formed some kind of attachment to them to break off support at such a late date isn't fair to the children if they're under 13 years old, after that they should be mature enough to understand divorce and maybe less income.

So "Dad" is just sentanced to wait until the youngest is over 13, and then snap hes out of there? The woman who cheated and lied to him just had to keep up the charade for 60 days (it appears). If the "father" is permanently imbittered towards his children by the lies the mother told (though there is room for it to actually be a mistake I suppose) are they really better off being forced into contact with each other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by umbrella

You have to consider them first. The unfortunate thing is that that horrible woman he married obviously cheated on him to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars .....it's kinda weird....but....cool!

Kind of cool? In what way?

I personally am in favor of parents DNA being tested once pegnancy is known so that possible complications can be forseen and addressed. Additionally I don't see why the child's DNA should not be tested once born against these existing samples to determine paternity.

umbrella · 07-13-2006, 01:01 AM

Peter,
good answer! good answer!

The other reply was sort of 'stern' like- from a real literal translation of the newspaper or something.

"weird but cool" is a quote from a book I read, I thought maybe you had also read the book, but forgetaboutit, it's not important. The 'cheat-lie' thing is a valid arguement, but I can't get into all of that as it takes away from the problem that the kids face and since everything else seems very 'weird' out there, if we do the correct thing with small groups of people, maybe we'd fare better with larger groups of people.

A question for Peter since he's on the board: Peter, have they ever caught the person who killed the PM of Sweden? I have been thinking about that situation and we haven't seen anything in the papers. That's it from this place, and I hope your fencing days are merry and bright.