If a woman I'd been involved with had a baby, I'd want to be in that baby's life. It would really bother me to have a child out in the world who I'm not there for. It has nothing to do with a baby being a status symbol and everything to do with how important family is to me.
If family were important to you, maybe you shouldn't be sleeping around and then taking off.
Sleeping with somebody automatically makes them family?
wow, did you ever miss the point of that.
And I stand by my earlier statement. Making the decision to grow a baby neccessarily gives you more right to handle its life than ejaculating and leaving.
Sure but separating the concept from the particular circumstances of this specific instance makes room for the question of whether or not making the decision to actually personally carry a child takes away all the father's rights to decisions regarding its care. This concerns me because lawyers are very clever and leaving off context when citing precedent doesn't seem like an unreasonable stretch to see in future cases that aren't quite so clear-cut. What I'm saying is that there's kind of more room for discussion on the subject of whether or not the mother of a child gets the only and final say as to whether it is put up for adoption regardless of circumstances than on whether or not this particular guy was a worthless prick playing childish games with a human life. And I say this at least in part because I wouldn't be at all surprised to see people attempt to use this case that way in court in the future.
Because, if so, then the case might not have been in the child's best interest, but we'll never know because the courts shut the father down. I'm a little edgy that the father's right to know the child, and to help raise it, is being so quashed. I mean, if we want to have a truly equal society, he should have had equal say in what decision was made, but this decision inherently places a double-standard on childcare, and brings back the old "social spheres". I mean, unless the adoptive parents were exponentially better than Mr. I-got-lucky-but-thenn-got-really-unlucky, I see no reason he shouldn't get at least joint-custody.
It's also kinda disgusting that he was left entirely out of the loop until so late. I mean, if he was able to find out about it, then he must have been at least somewhat close to the mother, and if there is any emotional connection she should have told him. But people are greedy and manipulative, so whatever.
Because, if so, then the case might not have been in the child's best interest, but we'll never know because the courts shut the father down. I'm a little edgy that the father's right to know the child, and to help raise it, is being so quashed. I mean, if we want to have a truly equal society, he should have had equal say in what decision was made, but this decision inherently places a double-standard on childcare, and brings back the old "social spheres". I mean, unless the adoptive parents were exponentially better than Mr. I-got-lucky-but-thenn-got-really-unlucky, I see no reason he shouldn't get at least joint-custody.
It's also kinda disgusting that he was left entirely out of the loop until so late. I mean, if he was able to find out about it, then he must have been at least somewhat close to the mother, and if there is any emotional connection she should have told him. But people are greedy and manipulative, so whatever.
I think, based on the circumstances, the adoptive parents are probably far better qualified to take care of the child than the biological father.
And I stand by my earlier statement. Making the decision to grow a baby neccessarily gives you more right to handle its life than ejaculating and leaving.
It gives you the right to do whatever?
You tihnk this father has no rights to the baby, but he has an obligation?
Where is the logic?
I don't think he has an obligation, but the fact is that he put his hand up, knowing the current laws make you pay if you admit paternity. He could have just stayed quiet. God knows I would've :P
But ignoring the law, do you think that is fair?
And why should he have stayed quiet when his child was givven away without his say?
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
This guy still gets visitation rights after a year. That's court-recognized parental rights, which comes with it court-mandated parental responsibilities.
From a practical point of view, this is an upstanding wealthy suburban family, and a year from now an alcoholic abusive loser is going to start showing up every other week and calling himself "Daddy." That's not what they signed on for in adopting. If I were that family, I'd do everything in my power to stop it. I'm guessing they figure that if they can get child support, the guy will give up visitation so he doesn't have to pay. I say more power to them.
And I stand by my earlier statement. Making the decision to grow a baby neccessarily gives you more right to handle its life than ejaculating and leaving.
It gives you the right to do whatever?
You tihnk this father has no rights to the baby, but he has an obligation?
Where is the logic?
I don't think he has an obligation, but the fact is that he put his hand up, knowing the current laws make you pay if you admit paternity. He could have just stayed quiet. God knows I would've :P
But ignoring the law, do you think that is fair?
And why should he have stayed quiet when his child was givven away without his say?
hey, this is still going. righto.
Look, I'm not talking about what should happen, but what apparently does under current Canadian law, where as far as I can tell, paternity = pay if you don't get custody. Whether its right or not is irrelevant to my point, which is that the dude should have paid attention to his legal surroundings before getting all possessive.
Otherwise, what Yar said, with the additional comment that it would be interesting to find out how much the guy actually pays. If the law says CS is mandatory no matter what and sets a fairly low minimum payment, the judge may have had no legal choice but to set up a payment obligation. However, if the minimums are low, he could be forking over as little as $6 a month (that's the minimum payment here, and a large percentage of payments are for exactly that much per child, making the notion of absentee parental support a fucking joke).
And I stand by my earlier statement. Making the decision to grow a baby neccessarily gives you more right to handle its life than ejaculating and leaving.
Posts
Because, if so, then the case might not have been in the child's best interest, but we'll never know because the courts shut the father down. I'm a little edgy that the father's right to know the child, and to help raise it, is being so quashed. I mean, if we want to have a truly equal society, he should have had equal say in what decision was made, but this decision inherently places a double-standard on childcare, and brings back the old "social spheres". I mean, unless the adoptive parents were exponentially better than Mr. I-got-lucky-but-thenn-got-really-unlucky, I see no reason he shouldn't get at least joint-custody.
It's also kinda disgusting that he was left entirely out of the loop until so late. I mean, if he was able to find out about it, then he must have been at least somewhat close to the mother, and if there is any emotional connection she should have told him. But people are greedy and manipulative, so whatever.
I think, based on the circumstances, the adoptive parents are probably far better qualified to take care of the child than the biological father.
But ignoring the law, do you think that is fair?
And why should he have stayed quiet when his child was givven away without his say?
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
This guy still gets visitation rights after a year. That's court-recognized parental rights, which comes with it court-mandated parental responsibilities.
From a practical point of view, this is an upstanding wealthy suburban family, and a year from now an alcoholic abusive loser is going to start showing up every other week and calling himself "Daddy." That's not what they signed on for in adopting. If I were that family, I'd do everything in my power to stop it. I'm guessing they figure that if they can get child support, the guy will give up visitation so he doesn't have to pay. I say more power to them.
hey, this is still going. righto.
Look, I'm not talking about what should happen, but what apparently does under current Canadian law, where as far as I can tell, paternity = pay if you don't get custody. Whether its right or not is irrelevant to my point, which is that the dude should have paid attention to his legal surroundings before getting all possessive.
Otherwise, what Yar said, with the additional comment that it would be interesting to find out how much the guy actually pays. If the law says CS is mandatory no matter what and sets a fairly low minimum payment, the judge may have had no legal choice but to set up a payment obligation. However, if the minimums are low, he could be forking over as little as $6 a month (that's the minimum payment here, and a large percentage of payments are for exactly that much per child, making the notion of absentee parental support a fucking joke).
I sooo want to make a joke about this. So so bad.