Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1  
Old 12-08-2007, 07:03 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Fathers have no rights if one night stand

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Odd that we have no rights, but we do have the obligation to pay child support.
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2  
Old 12-08-2007, 07:42 AM
ScriptMan's Avatar
ScriptMan ScriptMan is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 13,557
iTrader: 4 / 100%
I strongly agree with the sentiment in your post above.

However I believe this ruling is a good and just one. A woman who opts for adoption over a quick an easy abortion should be supported to the maximum degree. The best interests of the child and potentially many other children, were well served with this ruling.
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-08-2007, 07:42 AM
chicgeek's Avatar
chicgeek chicgeek is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 08-19-04
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 14,188
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Fixed punctuation in title.
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-08-2007, 08:26 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,770
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Throughout Canada, the US and many other places that pretend not to practice sexism, this situation is really apparent when you look at child custody cases during divorce.
All things being equal, a father has almost no chance of getting sole custody of his children.
Further, it doesn't take much more than an allegation of wrong doing or the vocalization of an irrational fear to completely squeeze the father out of consideration and relegate him to a position of being damned thankful for any time he gets to spend with his children, even if it is supervised.

I have a friend who is currently going through a divorce. He's a great father. In fact, he cares more for his children than his wife does. She sees them as a nuisance most of the time. But, she's smart enough to know that, with the court's help, she can use them to make his life miserable.
So, she has automatic custody of the kids while they decide who will eventually get them and for how long and how often. She decided she wanted to put the screws to my friend so she told the courts that she was worried he might try to remove the children from Canada. Both parents are originally from Russia. BOTH parents! Based on her words alone, the court ruled that he could not see his children (even supervised) until this issue was resolved. She didn't have to provide a single document to prove her "theory". The end result was that he didn't see his children from the moment he left their matrimonial home until approximately 7 weeks later, when she admitted to the courts that she might have "over reacted" and that there was no danger of removal from the country. In fact, she only admitted this because that was the deadline given to her to produce some kind of evidence that the children were in immediate danger of being removed from Canada. Of course, when you lie, it's difficult to provide proof of it, so the order preventing him from seeing his children (even supervised) was finally removed. She was not penalized in any way for this manoeuver. Only the children and the father were.
During that 7 weeks, the matrimonial home fell into complete disarray. The children were removed from school and daycare by the mother, for fear that he would come and see them and spend some time with them. When he finally was allowed to see them, they missed him so much that they didn't want him to go when it was time. They wouldn't stop crying or let go of him.
Since the mother has now admitted that she over reacted and that there is no danger of removal, he is now "allowed" to see his children once every two weeks for the weekend until the custody can be worked out.
He has done nothing wrong. He would love to have his kids with him half of the time and he is going for shared custody. He is only allowed to have them for a weekend, every other week because that's the way that she wants it.
Now, if fathers have rights, how is this situation (and, I'm sure, millions of others just like it) allowed to continue for even one more day?


<rant over>
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-08-2007, 09:03 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
http://www.intellectualconservative....topping-abuse/
Quote:
In the United States, one million restraining orders are issued each year without even an allegation of violence
Almost entirely by women against men as a tactic to get custody of children.

The restraining orders are not only issued without threat of violence, they are maintained even after evidence if presented which shows there to be no threat of violence.

It's an insane America.

Japan, on the other hand, if very fair. If Japan can run a fair system, why can't Western nations?
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-08-2007, 09:21 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
He's a great father. In fact, he cares more for his children than his wife does. She sees them as a nuisance most of the time. But, she's smart enough to know that, with the court's help, she can use them to make his life miserable.
What's worse is that they take them for the child support, which they don't use for child support.
Quote:
when she admitted to the courts that she might have "over reacted" and that there was no danger of removal from the country
Well at least kudos to her for making the admission. I know a woman who put a No Contact order on her ex because she didn't want him around. Her reason was that her new boyfriend didn't like having to see the ex when he came to pick up the kids.

That was years ago, and he hasn't seen the kids since.
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-08-2007, 09:33 AM
Julie's Avatar
Julie Julie is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 02-23-04
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,127
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I think fathers should have just as much rights to the kids as the mothers. Afterall, without the sperm, there'd be no baby, and vice versa.

But, I can't help but wonder if the fathers who don't give a damn about their kids, who happily give up their rights... if they have helped to make it harder on the rest who might still like to have a relationship with their kids.

And, btw, I am not defending women who employ the dirty tactics you have already mentioned. I think it's appalling.
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-08-2007, 09:44 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
I can't help but wonder if the fathers who don't give a damn about their kids, who happily give up their rights.
I can't recall a single father at the moment who happily gave up his rights. I know plenty who were stripped of their rights.
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-08-2007, 09:45 AM
Julie's Avatar
Julie Julie is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 02-23-04
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,127
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
I can't recall a single father at the moment who happily gave up his rights. I know plenty who were stripped of their rights.
Um, I personally know one. My father.
 
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-08-2007, 09:56 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,770
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
Well at least kudos to her for making the admission.
No kudos are deserved, believe me. The only reason she admitted she "might have over reacted" was because she wanted to save her own ass. She got an emergency order, barring him from even seeing his kids. Part of the order was that she had a date by which to provide proof to justify the order. After successfully moving the date further away by 3 weeks (another of her dirty tactics), the day finally came and if she didn't provide some kind of proof to justify the order, then it became null and void, thereby allowing him to see his children. She knew this would happen when she got the order in the first place. Her admission was just a ploy to steer the judge's attitude towards "maybe she was really worried and felt he would take them out of the country" and away from "she produced no evidence, therefore she lied".

The whole thing makes me sick. The odd thing is that we used to live down the street from that couple. That's how we met and became friends. But, the whole time, it was really my wife who was friends with his wife. When they separated, I was sure that he would disappear, leaving only her as our friend. But, they both remained in contact with us from the start. It wasn't long before we realized that his top priority was the children and her top priority was making him suffer. She has even done some pretty stupid things to her own finances and future financial well being, just because it afforded her an opportunity to hurt him now. Now, we see him all the time. Her, never.
 
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-08-2007, 10:10 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,770
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
I know a woman who put a No Contact order on her ex because she didn't want him around. Her reason was that her new boyfriend didn't like having to see the ex when he came to pick up the kids.

That was years ago, and he hasn't seen the kids since.
That's crazy. She was actually allowed to use that as an excuse, or did she make one up?
 
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-08-2007, 10:17 AM
spacefem spacefem is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 01-01-04
Location: Kansas, America!
Posts: 145
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Odd that we have no rights, but we do have the obligation to pay child support.
sounds like the father in that article will not be paying child support. what's the complaint again?
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-08-2007, 10:29 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie View Post
Um, I personally know one. My father.
How exactly does one go about giving up their rights?
 
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-08-2007, 10:31 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacefem View Post
sounds like the father in that article will not be paying child support. what's the complaint again?
Let's put it this way.

Let's say you and I have a child together. One day while you are at work I go and terminate your parental rights and give the kid up for adoption.

If morality and feminism really that mutually exclusive?
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-08-2007, 10:32 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
That's crazy. She was actually allowed to use that as an excuse, or did she make one up?
She just told the court that she was "afraid", even though these people were very good friends of the family and she admitted to my sister that he didn't have a violent bone in his body.
 
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-08-2007, 10:49 AM
Julie's Avatar
Julie Julie is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 02-23-04
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,127
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
How exactly does one go about giving up their rights?
You sign legal documents. Well, both the mother and father have to agree to it. It allows someone else, such as a stepparent, take over all their parental obligations. By law I was not permitted to see my biological father until I was 18, and by that time, I had no desire to.
 
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-08-2007, 10:51 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julie View Post
You sign legal documents. Well, both the mother and father have to agree to it. By law I was not permitted to see my biological father until I was 18, and by that time, I had no desire to.
So you are saying that you father disliked you so much that one day, out of the blue, he decided to terminate his own parental rights, and he forced your mother to agree to that? And on top of that he placed a no contact order on himself.

Wow, that guy belongs in a mental institution.
 
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-08-2007, 11:01 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,770
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
She just told the court that she was "afraid", even though these people were very good friends of the family and she admitted to my sister that he didn't have a violent bone in his body.
Awfully reminiscent of the witch burning days.

No proof, just accusations, quite often based on personal gain, rather than concern for human beings, all rubber stamped by the "justice" system.
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-08-2007, 11:04 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
Awfully reminiscent of the witch burning days.

No proof, just accusations, quite often based on personal gain, rather than concern for human beings, all rubber stamped by the "justice" system.
There really is no justification for it. If the person had a history of domestic violence, I would support it. But he never, ever did anything. And the woman didn't even say that he had. She just said she was "afraid". Well, maybe I'm afraid of people who wear cowboy hats, but I doubt they would give me a TRO for that.
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-08-2007, 11:12 AM
Julie's Avatar
Julie Julie is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 02-23-04
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,127
iTrader: 0 / 0%
No, it was suggested by my mother as my father consistently failed to show up when it was his turn to have us. This was 2 years after their divorce. I remember sitting there waiting for him time and time again, and he'd never show up. He had made it already abundantly clear that he had no real desire to be a father to us in doing that, as well as failing to pay his child support. There were three of us kids at that time, my sister who is 1 year younger, and my brother who is 3 years younger. Anyways, he was happy to sign the papers. He was off playing house with his new girlfriend and her kids, with no time for baggage like us.

And now, the only way you'd know he was my father, is if somehow you got the courts to unseal some documents, which I hear is pretty hard. He's not even shown on my birth certificate anymore.. how messed up is that? It shows my stepfather, who subsequently assumed legal responsibility as my father. And my name was legally changed also... well, my last name was.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If you are a moron please stand! ;) Sheen91 Forum Lobby 16 09-16-2007 04:17 AM
Nurse lists 20 doctors as potential fathers to baby Ferre Forum Lobby 13 02-02-2007 12:53 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:06 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC