Father's rights (playing, classes, learn, adoptions)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In situations with 50/50 joint custody like yours, why is it automatically assumed children should attend school where the mother lives? Why is the father the one who gets the reduced time? I've seen this exact thing happen even when the father lives in a better, safer school district.
It shouldn't automatically be assumed that they go to school where the mother lives (I know it often is, but it ought not to be that way) but its always that the kids go to school where the primary caregiver lives and that usually is the mother. I assume its the same over there as it is here that even with 50/50 custody the child can only have one address and that is the address of the primary caregiver so that is where the child must attend school.
You're out of control. Even though my overblown suggestions were extreme, they still allowed choices.
A choice of a forced abortion? Having to have her baby killed because the dad doesn't want to help provide financial support doesn't sound like a choice. Nor does forced adoption sound like a choice -- that would be just the father having a choice.
He can choose to keep his pants zipped, and mothers are also obligated to pay child support.
The problem is those dysfunctional relationships usually bleed out to affect the child as well. In that case I think it's better that one of the parties just vacate themselves from the relationship with the child. I don't care who does it, just someone needs to to ensure the child doesn't grow up as a pawn between parental battles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Only married fathers or those in a relationship that is similar to being married should have the same rights a mother has. There are simply too many situations of 'disappearing fathers" and fathers who won't work and support their children. Women get stuck with parenting by virtue of their biology. The system should haven't to babysit unmarried fathers. If they want parental rights, its appropriate that they should have to affirmatively step forward, acknowledge their children and--at a minimum--pay regular monetary support. I would construe the failure to pay such support as abandonment of their child. The only exception would be a truly disabled father.
So at what point then does a relationship between parents (who are not even living together) become "dysfunctional" enough to warrant cheating the child out of having one of their parents in their lives? And who decides that? How is mother, annoyed at the (non-abusive and actively involved) father and deciding that he should just "walk away" so that she doesn't have the hassel of dealing with him any longer, best for the child? Please explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natsku
It shouldn't be thought of in terms of father's rights (or mother's rights) but the child's rights - children have a right to both parents, in terms of financial support and being raised by, and spending time with, both parents so unless there are safety issues (such as abuse) the child shouldn't be kept away from the non-custodial parent.
.
Yes, I agree with this. It is up to the adults to get along, for the best interests of the baby. Sometimes, that means one adult has to "man up" and be the better person. Over the course of the child's life, which parent that is may very well vary from time to time.
You're out of control. Even though my overblown suggestions were extreme, they still allowed choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
A choice of a forced abortion? Having to have her baby killed because the dad doesn't want to help provide financial support doesn't sound like a choice. Nor does forced adoption sound like a choice -- that would be just the father having a choice.
He can choose to keep his pants zipped, and mothers are also obligated to pay child support.
Yep, choices aren't on the table with this particular scenario. The choices happen before conception, not after.
I agree that it can get complicated but it goes back to the child. 99% of the time children are better off if they are raised by both of their parents. That is true even if the parents are unmarried and do not live together. I don't think one parent should be able to relocate the child away from the other parent without consent. It is not usually in the best interest of a child to have a parent ripped from their life. It goes to priorities.
When a child comes into the picture the child should be the number one priority of both parents. Maintaining a healthy relationship between the child and each parent is quite simply more important than a better job or one parent being able to return to their parents home. My statements are not gender based.
The father could also relocate.
For example -- a woman's family is 2000 miles away but the couple is not making it on his insufficient income, they are having problems, maybe he's got a new girlfriend, the mother cannot afford day care to work and he's not going to adjust his schedule to make it possible for her to work, his family is dysfunctional and are not capable of helping with the children enough for her to earn an income.
She could work if she has the support of her own family -- they are in a better financial position and better position to care for the kids --- why should the mother be forever stuck in a bad situation?
Of course if she moves, the father might not save money to have the kids travel to see him, he's a marginally good dad and likes spending a couple hours here and there with the child or children but if she moves and maybe he's started up another family he's not supporting very well either. She moves to where her family can help her, she can get on her feet financially, have a decent future.
And I agree with markg91359, if the couple was never married, never committed to each other, there is less reason for the mother to have to deal with him and his issues or give up all chances for herself to have a life. A one-night-stand certainly should not be able to tell her she can never move out of the state to a better job.
Yep, choices aren't on the table with this particular scenario. The choices happen before conception, not after.
Yes -- a man -- or woman who doesn't want to be obligated with a child can easily be surgically sterilized. A vasectomy is a very simple quick procedure -- snip-snip and he never has to worry about child support. The idea that only a man ever pays any financial support is silly -- the single mother would have to also work to provide for the child -- and he is just as obligated.
I think in many cases, the custody might not be fair -- maybe the mother is the one more interested in having new men or in partying and the child would be better off with the father -- but then she needs to contribute with child support payments.
It shouldn't automatically be assumed that they go to school where the mother lives (I know it often is, but it ought not to be that way) but its always that the kids go to school where the primary caregiver lives and that usually is the mother. I assume its the same over there as it is here that even with 50/50 custody the child can only have one address and that is the address of the primary caregiver so that is where the child must attend school.
When parents share joint legal custody and 50/50 joint physical custody in the United States, there isn't a primary caregiver here. Both parents are equal caregivers. There isn't just one address. From the perspective of the school districts, children can go to school wherever either parent lives since both parents are paying school taxes in their respective district. However, the mother usually gets preference from a court perspective when it comes to reducing the time of one parent for the children to attend school.
i agree with this, but i think the state should go one step further and prevent both from conceiving again.
The state? I don't want to live in any state that would mandate such a thing. This is horrible thinking. Horrible. Seriously - you can't be serious.
Look, in a free country you're going to get the consequences of such. The state should not be involved in family matters unless it's the utmost last resort and the child is in danger, or unless the only way people can figure stuff out is through use of the Civil Justice System. The state has no place here. We are in control of our own actions. It is up to us to ensure that we rise to the occasion and do our best as far as our kids are concerned, no matter how they get here.
A choice of a forced abortion? Having to have her baby killed because the dad doesn't want to help provide financial support doesn't sound like a choice. Nor does forced adoption sound like a choice -- that would be just the father having a choice.
He can choose to keep his pants zipped, and mothers are also obligated to pay child support.
There's no comparing forced sterilization to the choices of abortion, adoption, or financially providing for a child.
That's the last place I want them too. I experienced it. My baby went into fetal distress and the doctor was postponing the emergency C-section to find the father to sign permission. Can you imagine letting a baby stay in fetal distress for a moment longer over something like that?
I'm purposely being shocking in hopes people will at least think about how unfair the system is to men. This thread is about father's rights, and the reality is they don't have equal rights. Too many people seem to be okay with that. I realize it's a complicated issue, but there has to be a better way.
They are not fathers until a child is born. Anything being discussed about what happens before that is NOT fathers rights at all but men's rights over women's bodies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
