Denying a father to parent his child

[TheRealJuliane]

Actually, I really have no idea why you would think what he said was ridiculous. It sounded spot on to me.

He asked a ridiculous question,

“Should widows and widowers give up their children too?”

Has no relation to the question at hand, only serves to try and change the argument and distract.

 

[thewanderer]

He asked a ridiculous question,

“Should widows and widowers give up their children too?”

Has no relation to the question at hand, only serves to try and change the argument and distract.

No, its actually extremely relevant, I almost asked it myself. Most people would agree that such a question is ridiculous and that of course you shouldn’t try and make a widow put her child up for adoption. The thing is though, if they, at the same time, wish to argue that other single mothers ought to give their children up for adoption “for the good of the child”, then they are not being consistant. Either they are claiming that somehow when it comes to widows you don’t need to do what is best for the child or else they are admitting that their claim that single mothers should give their children up for adoption because its best for the child is actually false. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Nimzovik]

I actually have a horse in this race and can speak deeply into this issue out of real experience. Before I do, there are a few things that I want to get out there first.

A father’s rights are inherent, given by God, and should only be removed if he is unfit, period.

A mother’s rights are inherent, given by God, and should only be removed if she is unfit, period.

Now, there is an absolute cloud over the major issue in this whole debate, and that is divorce in general and the reasons people list as the reasons. Irreconcilable differences is far and away the number one reason listed on divorce petitions, but such a large margin, it undermines the more serious reasons. People can’t get along or agree on things is the primary reason children are taken away from one of their parents.

There is also an absolute bias in preference of the mother. Make no mistake, it is a bias, and it is prevalent in every level of societal views on family rights. It is present in the abortion practice, birth certificates, custody, parenting time, and financial assets. The rights of the father in all of these instances is a back burner issue.

Societal view has relegated men, in the view of the courts, to sperm donors and financial contributors. It is the default position, and the burden of proof to the contrary is on the man’s shoulders, both legally and in the court of opinion. Where did this view come from? Is it based on any real evidence, facts, or study? Or is it based in the ideology of a movement with an agenda? I will not force my view down your throat, but the evidence is out there for anyone to find, do your own research.

In my divorce, I was not the petitioner. We both worked in stable jobs and were good parents. I was at home with my son during the daytime, and worked third shift to make sure he wasn’t in someones care other than his parents. That’s right I was there from the time he woke up until 9pm at night. My wife got home at 7pm every night and spent a few hours with him before bedtime.

When we separated, she asked me to move out and get my own place while we worked on things, which I did. I still spent the same time with my son, picking him up before she went to work. I still paid a large portion of her household bills and my own. I was, and remain a good father. There was no abuse, infidelity, or in-propriety of any kind…at least on my part.

The court gave primary custody to my wife, citing that because she was not unfit, the courts deference was to the mother. My son is 14 now, and has grown up with a part time dad. I have never missed a child support payment. I paid for braces because she could not afford it. I provide insurance, medical, dental, life. They live in a brand new 3 bedroom home, that I paid for (at least its a good place for my son), and I live in an apartment. I have been unable to claim him on my income taxes since the divorce, even thought I provide for at least half his needs. I have money set aside to help with his future education.
I do all of this because I love my son, and would have done it inside the marriage as well, not because the court said I should (incidentally, the support is the only thing court ordered in all of this).

There is no legitimate reason for the outcome, but there is a biased reason for it. And who really loses here? My son.

Yes. Thankyou for this. It is refreshing to hear the voice of reason.

My daughter loves to see me and my wife hug. It is the right and just way it was meant to be. It is unfortunate that men are now considered not only as a non existent, second class citizen see here: youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A and disposable see here: youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA (warning with this link, Strong language is used) but we are also** interchangeable!** We are replaceable dads.

The bond between a Father and his* as well *child is not duplicateable. Any substitute is just that - a substitute. Barring pathology of course. Those that think a child does not experience deep level psychological trauma from the ‘Replaceable Dad Syndrome,’ I would ask them to do the research and think again.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Oh good grief! Seriously? You would deny Fathers their very own children because a woman might do something? Might get an abortion? How** misandric** is that?

What you suggest puts society in the role of ‘enabler of misbehavior.’ Women need to learn to take responsibility for their behavior. This is what abortion does too.

In essence Abortion encourages women to have the all the indicriminate sex they want, and if one gets pregnant, hey! Don’t sweat it! Planned Parenthood to the rescue!! No. There are consequences and results to every behavior and women (men too) need to learn this.

I reiterate. Good grief.

By analogy, that is like saying we better give every citizen whatever they want in terms of Gov’t. entitlements or they just might rob a bank!

I beg you to reconsider.

Whatever “rights” a man may wish to claim under such circumstances, the child first and foremost should have a right to life. This is the first time ever I recall being called “mysandric” over expressing my concerns for the safety of a child within his or her mother’s womb! My advice to use caution is gender neutral– I am concerned for the safety of the baby, whether male or female.

I’m not condoning abortion but merely acknowleging that it’s legal and out-of-wedlock pregnancies where the father and mother of the unborn child are arguing may place the child at a higher risk for it. Therefore, once a man has made the “mistake” (aka serious sin) that lead him to impregnate a woman out of wedlock in the first place, he should use caution as the child’s very life may depend on his ability to get along with the child’s mother.

 

[Nimzovik]

Abortion may pose a serious threat to a child’s life if the unwed mother doesn’t want to be further involved with her unborn baby’s father. For that reason, I would advise the young man in question to be very cautious when pushing for any of his “paternal rights”.

First -Abortion should be out lawed. However, under current heinous circumstances, Methinks that to ensure a Man’s as well child is not killed indiscriminately, the next best thing to outlawing Abortions is to enact legislation that allows the Father to obtain an injunction against the potential abortion, Also a law should be passed that mandates that the female assures the Father be notified of the existence of his offspring.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

No, its actually extremely relevant, I almost asked it myself. Most people would agree that such a question is ridiculous and that of course you shouldn’t try and make a widow put her child up for adoption. The thing is though, if they, at the same time, wish to argue that other single mothers ought to give their children up for adoption “for the good of the child”, then they are not being consistant. Either they are claiming that somehow when it comes to widows you don’t need to do what is best for the child or else they are admitting that their claim that single mothers should give their children up for adoption because its best for the child is actually false. You can’t have it both ways.

No, it is not the same thing at all. A widow/widower has lost a spouse and parent who was THERE, a presence in the child’s life. It is an intact family that, by no fault of their own, is no longer intact. But it was formed with the intention of being a permanent arrangement. The influence of the parent who passed away depends upon when the loss happened. But there are also grandparents who are involved, other extended family and friends who know the child/children and will continue to love and care for them, in the absence of that deceased parent.

In the case of an unmarried mother, especially the most common “style” where the father is totally uninvolved, the child will never have an intact family or one side of his/her heritage. Yet that person has not died, and could conceivably turn up at some point and demand visitation. Or, the missing parent might turn up from time to time and ask for time with the child. The grandparents might be contentious, or totally uninvolved.

Adoption is a viable option when a young mother will be raising a baby all on her own, and the father will not be involved. It used to be a viable option, and it still would be, had it not been for abortion being legalized. It’s rather difficult to convince an abortion-minded woman to continue the pregnancy, and then give up the baby for adoption - she’d rather not have to go through all of that and if those 2 options are her only options, she’ll probably pick abortion so she doesn’t have to continue with the pregnancy.

 

[thewanderer]

No, it is not the same thing at all. A widow/widower has lost a spouse and parent who was THERE, a presence in the child’s life. It is an intact family that, by no fault of their own, is no longer intact. But it was formed with the intention of being a permanent arrangement. The influence of the parent who passed away depends upon when the loss happened. But there are also grandparents who are involved, other extended family and friends who know the child/children and will continue to love and care for them, in the absence of that deceased parent.

In the case of an unmarried mother, especially the most common “style” where the father is totally uninvolved, the child will never have an intact family or one side of his/her heritage. Yet that person has not died, and could conceivably turn up at some point and demand visitation. Or, the missing parent might turn up from time to time and ask for time with the child. The grandparents might be contentious, or totally uninvolved.

Adoption is a viable option when a young mother will be raising a baby all on her own, and the father will not be involved. It used to be a viable option, and it still would be, had it not been for abortion being legalized. It’s rather difficult to convince an abortion-minded woman to continue the pregnancy, and then give up the baby for adoption - she’d rather not have to go through all of that and if those 2 options are her only options, she’ll probably pick abortion so she doesn’t have to continue with the pregnancy.

Of course there are differences between the situations, but it is not as much of a given as you seem to think. There is no gaurantee that a widow will have any support from her family. And there is nothing that says other single mothers will not have familial support. What really should determine whether or not the child is given up for adoption is not whether or not their mother was married but rather whether or not their mother has a good support system and how well she will be able to raise them. That is what counts, not her marital status.

 

[Nimzovik]

Single parenting is extremely difficult. Ideally the Birth Parent/child bond should be kept intact at all costs.** Forget** adoption!

This is the type of situation that a really good, on fire for the Lord, **Catholicism **should be picking up the slack and perform some Corporal and Spiritual works of mercy.

Unfortunately, way too many of us would rather be entertained than be a St. Francis or Elizabeth Ann Seaton. Mea Culpa as well.

Let us pray for more workers in the the Lord’s vineyard!

 

[severus68]

I actually have a horse in this race and can speak deeply into this issue out of real experience. Before I do, there are a few things that I want to get out there first.

A father’s rights are inherent, given by God, and should only be removed if he is unfit, period.

A mother’s rights are inherent, given by God, and should only be removed if she is unfit, period.

Now, there is an absolute cloud over the major issue in this whole debate, and that is divorce in general and the reasons people list as the reasons. Irreconcilable differences is far and away the number one reason listed on divorce petitions, but such a large margin, it undermines the more serious reasons. People can’t get along or agree on things is the primary reason children are taken away from one of their parents.

There is also an absolute bias in preference of the mother. Make no mistake, it is a bias, and it is prevalent in every level of societal views on family rights. It is present in the abortion practice, birth certificates, custody, parenting time, and financial assets. The rights of the father in all of these instances is a back burner issue.

Societal view has relegated men, in the view of the courts, to sperm donors and financial contributors. It is the default position, and the burden of proof to the contrary is on the man’s shoulders, both legally and in the court of opinion. Where did this view come from? Is it based on any real evidence, facts, or study? Or is it based in the ideology of a movement with an agenda? I will not force my view down your throat, but the evidence is out there for anyone to find, do your own research.

In my divorce, I was not the petitioner. We both worked in stable jobs and were good parents. I was at home with my son during the daytime, and worked third shift to make sure he wasn’t in someones care other than his parents. That’s right I was there from the time he woke up until 9pm at night. My wife got home at 7pm every night and spent a few hours with him before bedtime.

When we separated, she asked me to move out and get my own place while we worked on things, which I did. I still spent the same time with my son, picking him up before she went to work. I still paid a large portion of her household bills and my own. I was, and remain a good father. There was no abuse, infidelity, or in-propriety of any kind…at least on my part.

The court gave primary custody to my wife, citing that because she was not unfit, the courts deference was to the mother. My son is 14 now, and has grown up with a part time dad. I have never missed a child support payment. I paid for braces because she could not afford it. I provide insurance, medical, dental, life. They live in a brand new 3 bedroom home, that I paid for (at least its a good place for my son), and I live in an apartment. I have been unable to claim him on my income taxes since the divorce, even thought I provide for at least half his needs. I have money set aside to help with his future education.
I do all of this because I love my son, and would have done it inside the marriage as well, not because the court said I should (incidentally, the support is the only thing court ordered in all of this).

There is no legitimate reason for the outcome, but there is a biased reason for it. And who really loses here? My son.

Maybe you are not quite objective? Is this a view of the US or a world view?

 

[severus68]

First -Abortion should be out lawed. However, under current heinous circumstances, Methinks that to ensure a Man’s as well child is not killed indiscriminately, the next best thing to outlawing Abortions is to enact legislation that allows the Father to obtain an injunction against the potential abortion, Also a law should be passed that mandates that the female assures the Father be notified of the existence of his offspring.

Yes, the father should be informed if he wants to be a good father, contributing in everyway to the child’s welfare and education. A man who looks at a woman as just a vessel, a means to have a child, or looks at the child as something to own, should not have any rights. There are men as well as women who use their children as a weapon, or in spite. Further, if the man did not want any relationship with a woman and just used her for sex, why on earth should he have rights over a child she may have?

 

[The_Bucket]

Further, if the man did not want any relationship with a woman and just used her for sex, why on earth should he have rights over a child she may have?

Because it’s his child too. I certainly do not condone the actions of a man who uses a woman for sex, but when there is a child involved, the man has both obligations AND rights.

 

[Nimzovik]

Yes, the father should be informed if he wants to be a good father, contributing in everyway to the child’s welfare and education. A man who looks at a woman as just a vessel, a means to have a child, or looks at the child as something to own, should not have any rights. There are men as well as women who use their children as a weapon, or in spite. Further, if the man did not want any relationship with a woman and just used her for sex, why on earth should he have rights over a child she may have?

Bolding Mine:

A fair point in regard to the bolding. However, trying to be an optimist here, I would hope that such a man would mature… God, as they say, can draw straight with crooked lines. However in terms of the legal system, I think it may be difficult to distinguish good man from bad man.

If the man refuses to have anything to do with the child then yes he should loose all rights.

And of course if a male or female is pathological then the rights issue should be investigated.

 

[Nimzovik]

Maybe you are not quite objective? Is this a view of the US or a world view?

I would assert it is a *factual *view. I could spew numerous links to buttress his assertions. Of course, however, people believe whatever they wish to beleive, and no amount of evidence will change that.