Dear Prudence

[Dusty]

Dear Prudence: Being a dad more than child support


Dear Prudence: My son's biological father ended our relationship when I
asked him to pull his financial weight with our son. This man played Daddy
for two years and then left the state, saying he had a trip out of town.
Actually, he moved out of the state. He ended up with another woman in a
state that is close to where we are, yet he never bothered coming back to
say goodbye to us.

I found out from a mutual friend that he then got a job overseas, so I sent
him an e-mail message letting him know that I'd found him. I have no doubt
he was hiding out to avoid having to pay child support, although the Child
Support Services Division took care of that for me, fortunately.

He again cut off contact for another five months because he was angry about
the amount of child support the state calculated. This man has no legal
rights (visitation or custody) although, by law, he is required to pay child
support. I consider him a pathological liar, a spineless coward and a
horrible role model. My son has forgotten who he is, and I consider my child
better off without him.

My problem is that this sperm donor now claims he wants to be a part of my
son's life. Given all that he's put us through, I believe he has no right to
be, especially considering he has not changed at all. He still lies to me
and treats me with a great amount of disrespect, yelling at me on the phone,
hanging up, etc. What do you think, Prudie?
No More Chances


Dear No: Your signature nicely sums up Prudie's opinion . . . arrived at
because you say he's behaved like a swine, fled like a rat, and isn't Prudie
just losing her mind here with similes? The most important consideration,
however, is that your son feels no connection to him. This man clearly has
not cleaned up his act, and your son may well be a pawn in his game to wind
you up. There is, of course, no quid pro quo between child support
obligations and access to the child. Continue to do what is best for you and
your son.

[CC]

I think in a case where a biological Father creates a child that if he
is man enough to dip his wick without contraception he should be man
enough to take care of the childs interests (as a woman should be woman
enough to do the same). In particular, I believe he should be there for
his child on a day to day basis preferably with the Mother, in an ideal
world. I think there is too much selfishness promoted in society today
to both genders. That everyone should be able to do their own thing at
the expense of others. By walking out on the child without so much as a
goodbye he will have truly messed the kids head. I have known many
families where this has happened. The man has disappeared for a couple
of years with nary a phonecall then comes back demanding Fathership
rights with no great thought as to the impact on the child. In one case
I have known the Dad fought and fought for access then when he was
granted the access he turned up a couple of times then started phoning
with excuses. The kid ended up having emotional issues and was very
miserable. I know this is anecdotal but it is the sort of thing which a
mother in this circumstance would fear happening and may try to prevent
by denying access in the first place. I do think a father should
financially support his progeny even if he does not see them, for one it
shows commitment in the childs and mothers eyes and is one less thing to
be used against a man in such circumstance (and if he cares he should).
In this particular Prudie case I think the Father should be given some
limited parental rights initially to check his commitment to the child.
He could attend supervised visits with a third party every couple of
weeks and if he successfully attended with NO EXCUSES or TROUBLE for a
year then he could be granted greater access. If he turned out to be
deadbeat then I wouldn't give him a second chance unless the child
requested it or until much older.

[teachrmama]

I have no idea what post you are ersponding to, but let me ask you some
questions:

"CC" > wrote in message
...
>I think in a case where a biological Father creates a child that if he is
>man enough to dip his wick without contraception he should be man enough to
>take care of the childs interests (as a woman should be woman enough to do
>the same). In particular, I believe he should be there for his child on a
>day to day basis preferably with the Mother, in an ideal world. I think
>there is too much selfishness promoted in society today to both genders.
>That everyone should be able to do their own thing at the expense of
>others.

What if the man does not know there is a child? Who do you hold responsible
in that case?

By walking out on the child without so much as a
> goodbye he will have truly messed the kids head.

What if the woman walks away? What if she a) does not tell the man she is
pregnant or b) does not know who the father is, or c) wants nothing to do
with the man and doesn't inform him of his impending fatherhood. Could that
also "mess with the kid's head?"

I have known many
> families where this has happened. The man has disappeared for a couple of
> years with nary a phonecall then comes back demanding Fathership rights
> with no great thought as to the impact on the child.

And if the mother is the one that caused the child's fatherlessness, do you
think that the child should be told that it was Mom's choice that he be
fatherless? Or should he be led to believe that it was all Dad's fault?

In one case
> I have known the Dad fought and fought for access then when he was granted
> the access he turned up a couple of times then started phoning with
> excuses. The kid ended up having emotional issues and was very miserable.
> I know this is anecdotal but it is the sort of thing which a mother in
> this circumstance would fear happening and may try to prevent by denying
> access in the first place.

Do you think that a woman should have a right to deny access to the father?
(Except in cases of abuse, drugs, etc.) And, if mom is permitted to deny
access, do you think she should still have the right to demand money?

I do think a father should
> financially support his progeny even if he does not see them, for one it
> shows commitment in the childs and mothers eyes and is one less thing to
> be used against a man in such circumstance (and if he cares he should).

Do you really believe that having money taken from his paycheck denotes any
sort of commitment to the child? I cannot that a child would consider a man
as a father if he they never had an opportunity to interact with each other.

> In this particular Prudie case I think the Father should be given some
> limited parental rights initially to check his commitment to the child.

And do you also feel that, if a mother never gave the man an opportunity to
be a father, thus denying the child a right to two parents, she should have
her parental rights limited for a year to check on her commitment to the
child?

> He could attend supervised visits with a third party every couple of weeks
> and if he successfully attended with NO EXCUSES or TROUBLE for a year then
> he could be granted greater access. If he turned out to be deadbeat then I
> wouldn't give him a second chance unless the child requested it or until
> much older.

And if mom turned out to be a "visitation deadbeat," continually denying
access, should she also not be given a second chance until the child is much
older?

[Cate]

I have no idea what post you are ersponding to, but let me ask you some
questions:

"CC" > wrote in message
...

>>I think in a case where a biological Father creates a child that if
he is
>>man enough to dip his wick without contraception he should be man
enough to
>>take care of the childs interests (as a woman should be woman enough
to do
>>the same). In particular, I believe he should be there for his child
on a
>>day to day basis preferably with the Mother, in an ideal world. I think
>>there is too much selfishness promoted in society today to both genders.
>>That everyone should be able to do their own thing at the expense of
>>others.


What if the man does not know there is a child? Who do you hold
responsible
in that case?


//I still think that the father is responsible for his children as is
the mother. I find any woman who withholds the information that a man is
a father irresponsible and disgusting. Exempting cases were he turns out
to be a paedophile etc.//

>>By walking out on the child without so much as a

>> goodbye he will have truly messed the kids head.


What if the woman walks away? What if she a) does not tell the man she is
pregnant or b) does not know who the father is, or c) wants nothing to do
with the man and doesn't inform him of his impending fatherhood. Could
that
also "mess with the kid's head?"


// If the woman walks away then ditto. Either way it messes the kids
head. Case a)when she has told him he is the father he is responsible
from thenceforward but no back maintenance money can be requested.
Case b) DNA testing if she has an idea but if she doesn't know then she
is solely responsible and the child effectively has one parent
unfortunately.
Case c) If he doesn't know there is nothing he can do and he is not at
fault. Any mother who would put her feelings toward a man before the
needs of her children is reprehensible.
Yes these things could mess with a kids head but i was addressing in
particular the posting "Dear Prudence".

>>I have known many

>> families where this has happened. The man has disappeared for a
couple of
>> years with nary a phonecall then comes back demanding Fathership rights
>> with no great thought as to the impact on the child.


And if the mother is the one that caused the child's fatherlessness, do you
think that the child should be told that it was Mom's choice that he be
fatherless? Or should he be led to believe that it was all Dad's fault?

// I think in either case the child should be told the truth in as
gentle and open a way as possible but with respect for their feelings.
For example Your Dad/Mum and me don't live together anymore because we
are no longer in a healthy relationship but we still love you.
There is no need to state Dad/Mum left because that is apparent in
either case as someone is not there. I think blame should be left out of
it because it will damage the child. People should bite their tongues.
Personally I would only state solid facts about the leaver and leave out
opinion.//



>>In one case

>> I have known the Dad fought and fought for access then when he was
granted
>> the access he turned up a couple of times then started phoning with
>> excuses. The kid ended up having emotional issues and was very
miserable.
>> I know this is anecdotal but it is the sort of thing which a mother in
>> this circumstance would fear happening and may try to prevent by
denying
>> access in the first place.


Do you think that a woman should have a right to deny access to the father?
(Except in cases of abuse, drugs, etc.) And, if mom is permitted to deny
access, do you think she should still have the right to demand money?


//No, not unless he has a very unreliable pattern of visitation which is
having a detrimental affect. I think all fathers ideally should have
access to their kids except as you say in abuse or drugs etc. I think
all these things unless amicable should be decided by a court and if a
woman reneges on a fathers visitation then to me she is in violation of
a court order and should be liable in some way. Preferably through
community service or some such.//


>>I do think a father should

>> financially support his progeny even if he does not see them, for
one it
>> shows commitment in the childs and mothers eyes and is one less
thing to
>> be used against a man in such circumstance (and if he cares he should).


Do you really believe that having money taken from his paycheck denotes any
sort of commitment to the child? I cannot that a child would consider a
man
as a father if he they never had an opportunity to interact with each other.


// It might not endear the child to the Father at a distance but it
serves other purposes also. It ensures the child has enough provisions
assuming a reasonable mother. It gives the courts a record of the
Fathers reliability and Love of his children in any hearings. When the
child becomes older and seeks out the father there can be records of the
fathers interest in and love for the child. It is hard proof which can
beat the nastiest mothers lies.//


>> In this particular Prudie case I think the Father should be given some
>> limited parental rights initially to check his commitment to the child.


And do you also feel that, if a mother never gave the man an opportunity to
be a father, thus denying the child a right to two parents, she should have
her parental rights limited for a year to check on her commitment to the
child?

//I don't see how that would prove her commitment or help the child who
is used to the existing parent. I think any woman who does that is truly
disgusting and unworthy of children though.//



>> He could attend supervised visits with a third party every couple of
weeks
>> and if he successfully attended with NO EXCUSES or TROUBLE for a
year then
>> he could be granted greater access. If he turned out to be deadbeat
then I
>> wouldn't give him a second chance unless the child requested it or
until
>> much older.


And if mom turned out to be a "visitation deadbeat," continually denying
access, should she also not be given a second chance until the child is
much
older?

//A woman who is a "visitation deadbeat" should be taken to court and
given a warning that if she does it again she will be prosecuted for
defying the law assuming that the visitation was on a court order. If
the visitation was by agreement then the man should fight for
visitation. I also think public records of this should be kept so it
cannot be debated. //

[Rambler]

One word.

Paragraphs.

Rambler

CC wrote:

> I think in a case where a biological Father creates a child that if he
> is man enough to dip his wick without contraception he should be man
> enough to take care of the childs interests (as a woman should be woman
> enough to do the same). In particular, I believe he should be there for
> his child on a day to day basis preferably with the Mother, in an ideal
> world. I think there is too much selfishness promoted in society today
> to both genders. That everyone should be able to do their own thing at
> the expense of others. By walking out on the child without so much as a
> goodbye he will have truly messed the kids head. I have known many
> families where this has happened. The man has disappeared for a couple
> of years with nary a phonecall then comes back demanding Fathership
> rights with no great thought as to the impact on the child. In one case
> I have known the Dad fought and fought for access then when he was
> granted the access he turned up a couple of times then started phoning
> with excuses. The kid ended up having emotional issues and was very
> miserable. I know this is anecdotal but it is the sort of thing which a
> mother in this circumstance would fear happening and may try to prevent
> by denying access in the first place. I do think a father should
> financially support his progeny even if he does not see them, for one it
> shows commitment in the childs and mothers eyes and is one less thing to
> be used against a man in such circumstance (and if he cares he should).
> In this particular Prudie case I think the Father should be given some
> limited parental rights initially to check his commitment to the child.
> He could attend supervised visits with a third party every couple of
> weeks and if he successfully attended with NO EXCUSES or TROUBLE for a
> year then he could be granted greater access. If he turned out to be
> deadbeat then I wouldn't give him a second chance unless the child
> requested it or until much older.
>