Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I would gladly give you a reverse role perception/ opinion if
    like.  Main tip of advice .....think.....think....think...future,
    don't close your eyes with only dealing with today.
    
    
    

    Hi, Debbie,
    
    I would strongly recommend that you contact the Legal Aid Society,
    as well as the local office of the WICS (Women and Infants Care
    ???) program, which is associated with Social Services.  They can
    help you go after John (which he strongly deserves), and provide
    you with financial assistance in raising your daughter (which YOU 
    greatly deserve!)
            
    As far as John's visitation rights, I wouldn't press for him to
    be in contact with your daughter.  As you stated, he is just not
    cut out to be a parent.  But that does NOT relieve him of his financial
    responsibility to his children.
    
    I sincerely hope that things improve for you.
    
    Jack
    
    BTW, I am a divorced father of 3, and do whatever I can to support
    them and maintain a good relationship with them.  And I don't consider
    that to be anything special.        

    Hi Deb,
    
        Get this guy!!! Any man who cannot support his own children
    should be sued for all he is worth. You are at least the 2nd in
    what my be a long line of abandoned families. This should never
    happen. I pay $75/wk for 2 children and have yet to miss a payment
    after 5 years. I am counting the days until they turn 18 and have
    put my life pretty much on hold until then. They are worth it.
    I will admit that I have missed a week occasionly but I have always
    doubled up the following week. I  maintain a good relationship with
    my kids. I call or they call every day. We see each other at least
    once a week. They live about 2.5 miles away. I don't drive but I
    do walk to see them or they are dropped off at my house and picked
    up. They are both teenagers and don't want to come over as often
    anymore. Their mother and I make them without any real  coercion
    and they still do enjoy it. 
    
         Sorry about the tangent but if I was to spout off about this
    guy and what I think of neglectful fathers or mothers I am afraid
    the moderator would probably delete or hide this note do to language.
    
         Let me just say that any man who is a man wouldn't do this.
    If he is unemployed tempoarily then he should be able to defray
    costs until he finds a job. But he should make it up afterwards.
    If he is physically disabled then I could see not paying but he
    should if able, be a real father. Sorry but that's how I feel.
    
                               Phil

    First of all, contact your EAP person.  They can get you in contact
    with a lawyer that you CAN afford.  
    
    Also.  I have probably been right in your shoes.. I think I know
    this guys twin.  Don't sign anything from him, nor agree to anything
    until you have legal representation.
    
    Good Luck, and may you be granted the strength you are going to
    need.  If you'd like to talk, or want the name of my lawyer, who
    charges on a sliding fee, I'll be back on the net after the first
    of the year (I'm going on vaca in the morning), feel free to send
    me some mail...
    
    Gale

    Gidday Deb, I'm new to this 'conference' as well as this company....
    
    Life MUST go on my dear....
    
    

Reply 643.3

I agree totally - get this guy.  My husband left me in the first week of
August and left me with all the bills mortgage etc...and NO child support -
finally he gave me 50.00 a week and I know he is working part time under the
table for his girlfriend and another place and that really wasn't enough to
help me out  cause of all the bills he left me with - he left me too with no
furnace for the winter which my dad lent me later on - finally we got to court
in November and I am finally getting 95.00 a week from him thanks to the court
which is still leaving me scraping but making ends meet.  He has a full time
job too with DEC so he could of contributed more to the monthly expenses.
Needless to say, I have a lot of financial catching up to do thanks to him. If
I were you - I'd take him to court and get whatever you can NOW.  My ex
doesn't have to pay me anything retroactivly  from the time he left so NOW is
when you need to act on this.  Things that would really bother me is I would
see him out with his girlfriend at a resturant and he would be crying poverty
- well how can he afford to take her out to dinner if he can't pay what he
should for his son's support? I don't know - One thing is for sure, I've got
my guard up now.....Go for it NOW - good luck... 

First off, I must tell you that I am a father who has had to fight hard to
continue to to be a father to his children...  I have had to fight the court
system, the children's mother, and myself.  Don't take it for granted "what a
father should do" for his children.  Being a separated parent is a situation
where it is very hard to continue being a parent.  Yet, at the same time, it is
*the* most important thing in your child's life that they have *two* parents. 

Yes, folks, it's even more important then the child support.  Ask any child...
ask any family therapist. 

I can sympathize very well with John's situation.  To him, it seems like a no
win situation.  He is losing his children for the second time, and he's going to
be bled dry for the next two decades.  That's what it feels like.  It's worse
because he's gone through it before, and I am sure that he thinks that this time
it will be the same.  He most likely believes that he cannot be an involved
father in this situation, except as paying $$$.  He may have grown up with a
father who was mostly absent in one way or another.  It was pretty much
standard in the last generation that fathers were not very involved with their
children.  He probably cannot imagine how to translate what he knows as
fatherhood into the situation of being a separated parent.  It is very easy to
for there to be hurt on all sides, which will create distance between the people
involved, which will create more hurt, which will create a vicious circle. 

I am very glad to hear that things have gotten better, that his attitude has
changed.  Hopefully he has realized that he *does* have alternatives, that he
can be a father even though the situation is difficult!  Always be prepared to
make the most of such windfalls to encourage the relationship between your
daughter and her father, and make them permanent.  If there are problems, find
solutions that will make the problem temporary.  Even in the worst of
situations, change for the positive is always possible.  Don't shut out the
possibility that a change for the better can occur.  

This is especially important in the worst situations.  If a parent has not been
seeing their children, and suddenly decides to renew their relationship, make
the most of it, don't resent it!  In your situation, John has decided to start
paying support, and seeing his daughter.  Make the most of it! Tell him that you
are glad that he is taking an interest, and suggest things he and her might be
able to do together (note: not what you'd like them to do).  Don't off by
saying, 'You dirty so and so...'.  Nothing positive will come of that!  

Bring up past due support only if you really need to, and present it as things
the child needs, rather then 'you owe *me*!'.  Otherwise it may be better to
wait a while to bring that up as a matter which should be taken care of between
two people who want to treat each other fairly.  If he won't own up to it, but
he keeps seeing his daughter, I think that you are best to forget about it. It's
always possible to get it through the court at some point in time in the future
at last resort. 

It is important for you to realize, though, that the way that you approach the
situation can either ruin his chances of having a good relationship with the
child, or you can encourage and help get your life, your child's life, and his
life off to a good future. 

The court... does not care...  All "The system" wants is to not have to deal
with you; to take care of your case, and close the book on it.  Toward that end,
they want to exact the maximum necessary child support, ensure that it is taken
away from the father, (notice I didn't say make sure you get it! :-(), and give
a bunch of lip service to him seeing the child.  The child support is what they
can easily control, and that is mostly what they will be concerned about. They
can't make him see the child, they can't make the child see him, and they can't
really make sure you let them see each other.   And they really don't care...
"they" just want your case out the door. 

Actually, it's worse then that...  The court will be resistant to many things
which would make the situation easier to deal with, such as a liberal
'visitation' schedule, or reduced child support.  The court will set child
support with the assumption that the father will not be involved with the
children, and will not recognize that it costs more to continue to be a parent
to your children. 

The court will be quite happy to help you abuse the situation as much as you
want if you work at it.  You can get more child support then necessary, and keep
thinking up reasons to get it increased.  You can arrange to allow very
restrictive "visitation", and demote John from being a parent to a mere
'visitor'; not even a relative :-(.  You can stage fights and get visitation
disallowed altogether for long periods.

While the court gives you, the custodial parent all the cards at the bargaining
table.  It is important to realize that regardless of what the court says, this
is *not* (as the court says) "in the best interests of the children".  It's very
easy for the other parent, who has no control in the situation, to detach from
the situation entirely, resulting in destroying any possible relationship with
the children.  To them it is a game which they cannot win, or even break even,
so why play at all?  It is much easier for them to disappear entirely. This is
what was happening when John said he was moving out of state, and quitting DEC.

You must be prepared to negotiate from an equal basis with John, who will have
custody of your (plural) child when, and what support is necessary.  Even though
you can exert control over the entire situation, you must give up that control
over John, so that the two of you can discuss, and freely agree on what fashion
your two lives can best revolve around sharing parenthood of your daughter. 

All this assumes that there is some chance of establishing a good relationship
between the parent and child.  There are of course cases where the parent has no
intention of doing anything other then seeing how much they can get away with,
or has no interest at all in sharing any part of the responsibilities or the
pleasures of being a parent.  I feel that in the majority of these cases the
reason for this is that they do not know that being a parent can be a positive
experience, possibly from their own experience of their parents. 

In any case it does much more good to assume that a positive relationship can
result, then to assume the worst.  Assuming that a father will not be involved
will seriously hurt any chance of a good relationship with his daughter, and
arranging amiable support for the child. 

There are, of course always the last resort of the courts to collect child
support from parents who just plain will not pay.  But there is always the
possibility of a change of heart in the future.  If that happens, make the
most of it.

With regard to your particular situation... since John's previous child was
taken away from him (or some such, who knows the actual situation?), I don't
think it's quite fair to hold it against him that he doesn't see the child or
doesn't support her.  I feel that it is very unfair for any child to be taken
from any parent unless the child is being abused.  

If the mother has cut off the father from the child, I would not feel obligated
to pay support, since that is obviously how the mother wishes it to be.  I think
that it is very sad, and I feel sorry for the child, and the missing parent, but
it would take a lot of grief to try to reconnect with the child, and the mother
can still ruin any relationship. 

Also, you need to differentiate between your relationship with John, and your
daughter's relationship with John.  The fact that you and John fight when you
take the child to see him is not evidence that he does not want to be a father.
I am sure that there is some anger between you and John, but you must not let
that interfere with your relationships with your daughter. 

So much for the philosophy monologue :-}  Thank you for bearing with me. I hope
it does you as much good to read it, as it did for me to write it. :-) 

Your note is a little vague in describing the current situation.  I have been
involved with all of the legal work of my own divorce, custody, and support
case, so I can tell you that it is possible to 'do it yourself'. My experiences
are in dealing with the Boston probate court.  If you are in another area, some
details may differ.  If you need any further help, feel free to reply, send
mail, or give me a call.  If you want help in getting all the proper forms,
filling them out, and arranging a hearing, you will probably have to call me.

I will assume that you haven't done anything. 

The first thing that you will have to do is get separate living quarters, or be
prepared to give two different addresses to the court.  The court will not want
to process a divorce until you are physically separated.

The first involvement of the court will be in setting what the 'temporary'
custody, support and visitation will be while the divorce is being processed.
Although this is called 'only temporary' the court will usually *not* change the
temporary custody/support/visitation in the final divorce settlement, so be
careful of getting tricked and trapped.

The according to MA law, the court must set child support for one or two
children at 30% of the noncustodial parent's GROSS income +- 2%, UNLESS the two
of you agree to a difference amount.  You have to realize that this leaves the
noncustodial parent paying 1/3 of his paycheck in taxes, 1/3 in support, leaving
him with 1/3 to live on.  That hurts, let me tell you! 

I believe that while this amount may be appropriate to a person who does not
wish to be a parent in the full sense of the word, it is quite high for support
for a parent who wants to be involved with their children, and makes shared
custody where each parent has most of the expenses of a household impossible.
Support should only be for half of the child related expenses that both parents
do not otherwise pay for.  The biggie is child day care.  

Then there's the fact that pay is not the same thing as necessary child
expenses. What's necessary?  Which expenses are for children, and which are for
the custodial parent??  Why should someone have to pay more if they work harder
or get a raise? Maybe they'd like to spend the money on their children
THEMSELVES! Wow! What a concept!  Ordinary parents do it every day... But having
child support *taken* from you distances you from your children.  You don't get
the feeling of *giving* to your children, and the children don't get the feeling
of recieving from you.  The feeling comes up that if everything you are supposed
to pay for is included in the child support, then by God, I'm not going to spend
one red cent more! It's much better to have child support include only the
necessary regular expenses, and spend the other money on the children directly. 


Now I realize that this is hard on custodial parents, especially in the
high-cost of living areas, like MA.  But that high cost of living hits the
noncustodial parents just as hard.  I also realize that some women do not make
as much as some men, and therefore the women want the men to pay more then half
of the expenses.  But that doesn't square with men taking on more of the
responsibility for parenting, which they should be able to do.  The guideline
should be equal custody, equal support, unless otherwise agreed upon.  Remember
that there are nonmonetary gains for yourself and your children in shared
parenting instead of being a single parent. 

This brings us to the other big issue, custody...  Who should get the children
when?  This is an area where the two parents have to decide for themselves what
schedule they can provide the best parenting for their children.  A week at each
parents?  A month?  Weekdays with one, Weekends with the other? Only you (and
your children if they are old enough) know what your situation is like, and
decide.  And it may take trying a couple of different situations to find out
what works best for you. 

In your case, you want to start out with "visits" at your house, and hopefully
progress from there.  Perhaps that is best...  But I can tell you that it is
*damned* galling to be told that I have to "prove myself" a fit parent before I
can have my own children.  John deserves the same chances to make mistakes as
any other first time mother might make.  John may not be a perfect parent, but
no parent is, and an imperfect parent is much better then a parent who is kept
at a distance, or a parent who gives up being a parent.  

Encourage him to ask questions about how to take care of his daughter, and make
it clear that past ignorance or mistakes are not going to be held against him.
For divorced fathers there is a *huge* fear that we have to be *"perfect"*
parents, or we will have our children taken away. We don't deserve that. 

You will have to ask yourself...  how far am I willing to go in sharing my
daughter with him?  Do I want him to always just be a visitor?  Will I be
willing to let him have her overnight eventually?  Will you ever have enough
confidence in his caretaking abilities that he will be able to have her for days
at a time?  It seems to me that you are not out to take all the child support
that you can get, and it doesn't seem like you want to deny him his daughter,
but how much are you willing and able to share your daughter? 

You have to make in clear that the future does hold the possibility of becoming
better. That he will be able to have his daughter more as things work out. He
may thing that he is a perfectly good parent, and is just being discriminated
against because he is the wrong sex.  Ask him to humor your insecurities, which
are just as much a part of the problem as his lacking parenting skills.

Please keep in mind that any court decision is temporary, and can be changed at
a later date.  It is vastly easier to get more support and less visitation then
it is to get less support and more visitation.  This temporaryness can make John
very insecure because you or the court can pull the rug out from under him at
any point in the future.  It's hard to work on a relationship, even with your
own child, when you know they can be taken away from you at any point in time.
How many people can willingly face that pain?  You will have to reassure in word
and action that you will continue to treat him fairly, and negotiate any
problems on an equal basis, and not give him the "axe" some time in the future.

... Ordinarily a couple of months would go by to work out the divorce agreement
and then you would go back to court and the court would settle any differences,
and two months later it would be final.  In your case it may be quicker, since
you don't have a "divorce to go through. I think that you will have to tell me
more details about your legal situation before I can help much more.

The first thing that you should do is go to your lawyer's office, and get copies
of all your legal papers.  You have a right to them, you paid for them. Ironicly
enough, once you have a lawyer, you may not be able to get rid of them.  The
court like people to be "properly represented" so that they don't have to deal
with us moron laypersons. :-) They may not let you start representing yourself,
or even get a different lawyer without getting the ok from the first lawyer.
Quite a trick, eh? 

A lot of what I've written is getting way ahead of you, but I hope that it is
usefull to you some time in the future.  As you can tell, this is a subject
which is very important to me.  Print this, and show it to John...  Have
him MAIL me, or call me if he wants...

I feel that a lot of the previous replies come down pretty harshly on John,
especially since they don't know the situation exactly.  I've been where John's
been, and it wasn't because I didn't want to be a father, or I wasn't "man
enough to support my own children".  It's because the system sucks, and gives
most of the control of the situation to one side in a situation where there is
sure to be strong feelings and anger on one side or the other.  If their
situation wasn't as bad, I hope that they Thank God, and appreciate that their
ex was reasonable, because "There, but for the Grace of God, go I." 

wishing the best for you and yours,
Jim Baranski

I suggest that you get a copy of the book: 

"Human Be-ing: How to Have a Relationship Instead of a Power Struggle"

It will help you immensely in dealing with your ex.

Jim.

    Debby,
    
    I have been in a situation similar to yours, with a newborn and
    a 2 yr old.  I do recommend legal aid.  I hired a lawyer, and it
    ended up costing much more than I had, and fortunately I was able
    to borrow the money I needed.  I empathize with you; I used to force
    my ex into visitation, until one day he said"Dont bring Shane (the
    baby) here next time he's a pain in the a--".  I figured if thats
    how he felt, then my children were not going to be treated right,
    and asked myself how I would feel spending 8 hours a week where
    I was not welcome.  I told him if he was interested in visitation,
    he could arrange to come see them himself.  Well, needless to say,
    he saw one of the children once in a year...
    
    Well, its a long story, eventually he gave up his parental rights
    voluntarily.  There are many aspects to a story such as this, if
    you ever want to talk, send mail, I will be glad to share with you.
    
    Take care, and good luck!
    
    Kim

Regarding .7 and the writer's spirited defense of fathers who seem not to live
up to their parental responsibilities after the divorce:

I'd like to remind people that having children in a marriage is not the same as
taking on a mortgage or car payment. An ex-husband can perhaps get away with
saying, "Well, she lives in the house--I don't--so let her make the payment." 

But children are LIVING humans that you can't sell to other people. The bank
won't take them back. You have to make the payments for children for about 18
years, sometimes more. And there's no guarantee that the child won't be a
lemon. And if the marriage was exceptionally crummy, or the wife is
exceptionally hostile, you may never even see this thing you're paying for. But
that doesn't stop your financial responsibility toward it.

I wish some men would have half as much responsibility toward their children as
they do to their scuba gear, or hunting rifles, or motorcycles.

    Re: .10 (DABBLE::MEAGHER)
    
    > I wish some men would have half as much responsibility toward their
    > children as they do to their scuba gear, or hunting rifles, or
    > motorcycles.
    
    Some men do.  Some men take FULL responsibility for their children.
    Some have the responsibility wrested away from them despite their
    wishes.  Many are held "responsible" for cash, and prevented from
    being responsible for anything else.
    
    What I got out of Jim's long and impassioned plea was a request to
    not treat the father as an adversary but as a partner.  Give him the
    opportunity to cooperate and participate.  You may be pleasantly
    surprised.  (Yes, you may be unpleasantly surprised too, but that can
    be handled on its own merits.)
    
    		Steve (single and responsible father)

    Steve,
    
    She was referring *quite* expliticly to those men who currently
    DO feel more responsibility to their scuba gear, hunting rifles
    ior motorcycles than to their children.  They are *not* the men
    YOU are referring to.  Essentially, she is voicing the same desire
    that you and Jim are voicing.
    
    And I'm find these constant attempts at redirection from this-group-
    a'here to that-group-o'r-there very annoying.  Why shouldn't people
    say uncomplimentary things about the two-thirds of ex-husbands who
    do nothing for their children instead of only singing the praises
    of the one-third who do at least *something* for them?
    
    						Ann B.

Re: .12

Ann, I didn't read what you did into .10.  I don't see any explicit reference
to a specific set of men, but rather a broad generalization that there don't
exist any men who care more for their children than their hobbies and toys.

In a sense, I WAS trying to redirect - not to draw attention away from one
group to another, but to urge a different viewpoint that did not assume
antagonism and abandonment from the start.  Unfortunately, most women going
into a situation like this are pressured to accept this negative view
by lawyers, "friends" and society in general.

I cannot dispute that a large number of divorced fathers are negligent towards
their children.  I feel that the causes of this are deeply rooted in our
society, and it will not change overnight.  But it will never get any better
if the men who DO want to be responsible are shut out from doing so.

			Steve

    Steve,
    
    How could you quote "I wish some men would..." without seeing
    the word "some"?  Did you read it as "all"?  Heck, she didn't
    even use "most" or even "a lot more".
    
    						Ann B.

    Ann, I really don't want to get into an elaborate set theory argument
    here, or else I'd hear from someone who knows a lot more about it than
    I do, but...

    If I see someone say "I wish some A would do B", that, to me, is an
    implicit statement that "No A does B", since if there WERE some A that
    did B, there would be no need to wish it.

    Now if the statement had been instead "I wish there weren't some men
    who care more about their scuba gear, etc., than their children", I
    would agree 100%.
    
    It is possible that there was meant to be an implied qualification
    in the original statement, and I agree with the probable intent
    of the author, but I did feel that the obvious interpretation
    (obvious to me, anyway) was a disservice to single fathers.
    
			Steve

    
    
    Hello Everyone,
    
    Wow --  I got quite a response to my base note.  I have a few things
    to add here, and I don't want anyone to get offended.
    
    First of all, in my base note, I mentioned that I was never married
    to "John".  For those of you who never married the father or mother
    of your children, you know that this situation is extremely different
    than a "divorce"-type situation.  When a father does not marry a
    mother, the father has no rights to his children.  The father does,
    however, have an obligation to pay child support.  Now, I know this
    will make some of you mad, especially the single fathers reading
    this note.  I didn't make this rule up, my lawyer told me this.
     
    Now, if most of you really read what I said in my base note, you
    will know that I am not trying to keep my child from her father.
    Hell, I'd be more than happy to see that he would take an interest
    in his daughter.  I would love it if he truly wanted to take part
    in her life, take her on weekends, vacations, etc.  I feel that
    it is extremely important for a child to have a father --- a GOOD
    one.  Unfortunately "John" never had much interest in his daughter.
    
    Let me give you a few sad examples ---  1)  When our daughter was
    first born, I was still obligated to do the household chores which
    included grocery shopping.  I would feed my daughter before I left
    (I was breastfeeding) and I would put her in her swing.  When I
    left the apartment, she seemed happy.  I would come back from shopping
    to find her screaming in her swing, and "John" would be yelling
    at me for not leaving any food for her --- Get this -- he would
    not pick her up and take her out of her swing -- he would just leave
    her there to cry!!!  Can you believe it.  And what was he doing
    while I was at the store -- Getting stoned -- Yes, guys, he was
    smoking pot in front of his infant daughter because he couldn't
    handle her screaming.  She did not have colic, and she was an extremely
    happy child - she just wanted to be picked up.
    
    Yes, I know, I should have left him then and there, but at that
    time in my life, I felt like I had no where to go - What a mistake.
    
    #2)  He only changed her diaper 3 times during the whole time I
    lived with him.  #3)  He never, ever, got up in the middle of the
    night when he heard her crying.  Even when he was awake watching
    t.v.  I would wake up and he would be on the couch watching t.v.,
    but he couldn't be bothered to get up and see why she was crying
    (that was my job).  #4)  He never, ever, got up in the morning with
    her/us.  He would sleep until noon or when ever he felt rested,
    and then he would get up, smoke some pot, sit on the couch, and
    veg out for the rest of the day.  #5)  Two months before I left
    "John", he offered to watch our daughter while I went grocery shopping
    (needless to say, I was "shocked").  I was gone for about an hour,
    when I came back from the store, I thought I heard my daughter crying
    in the apartment (we lived on the first floor), I rang the buzzer
    and "John" did not buzz me into the apartment, so I took out my
    key and when I stepped into the apartment, I found "John" asleep
    on the couch with our daughter screaming and wandering around the
    apartment.  When I awoke John and asked him what was going on he
    said that our daughter was screaming because she wanted attention.
    Well, it wasn't that she wanted attention, she had a diaper rash
    and she had a little "surprise" in her diaper and of course it hurt.
    Well, John did not want to change her diaper, so he let her scream.
    Also, she was only 1 1/2 years old at the time, wandering around
    the apartment with no supervision, so she got into photo albums,
    etc, and the place was a mess.
    
    So needless to say, after the above incident, I decided to leave
    "John".  The main reason was because he could not be a good father,
    and I figured since I was raising her without his help and living
    with him, I could raise her without his help and not live with him.
    I was also supporting her by myself, "John" had most of his paycheck
    deducted for loan payments (he HAD to by a $16,000 motorcycle even
    though we couldn't afford it), so he was just paying 1/3 of the
    rent (which included heat) and he paid the utility bills.  I paid
    2/3 of the rent, all child care expenses, I bought all the diapers
    and all my daughters clothes.  
    
    Believe me, I did not know that he was like this before I got pregnant.
    And while we are on the subject, the pregnancy was not planned.
    I wish to god, "John" had been a good father, but like someone said
    earlier, you cannot force a man into being a good father.  Like
    I also said earlier, I am NOT trying to take my daughter away from
    her father.  In the base note I mentioned how I bent over backwards
    for "John" to see his daughter - there were approximately 8-10
    incidents when "John" failed to show up.  It was AFTER the 10th
    time that I told "John" that he would have to get a judge to order
    visitation, because I was not going to let him see her.  Another
    thing, like I said earlier, "John" had not rights to his child -
    I didn't HAVE to let him see his daughter - I WANTED him to see
    her, I WANT her to have a good relationship with her father, I DON"T
    WANT to deny her a father.
    
    Now, I know there a alot of single fathers out there who want to
    see their children, and are denied; and there are alot of you who
    want to participate in your childrens' lives.  I think you guys
    are fantastic!!  I wish my daughter's father was more like you.
    I would have no problem having joint custody with men like you,
    but unfortunately my "ex" is not like you, he is quite different,
    and he is not someone I would call a "Man", there are other words
    for guys like him.
    
    I also know that there are NOT alot of men out there like "John",
    but unfortunately, the good ones are extremely hard to find ---
    I know, I've been searching for a good one.  The good ones are either
    married, or they have been through a bad relationship and are
    stereotyping us women, just like some women stereotype men.  
    
    Sorry for getting a little out of hand and long winded.  What I
    mainly want to say is Thank you all for your advice, I am going
    to seek the advice of a lawyer and get this all legalized, so that
    I am not in a bind in the future due to non-payment.
    
    Thanks Again!!
    
    Debby
      

    RE .10
    
    Now hold on here.  I have not read further than .10, so if someone
    has already discussed your reply, I apologize for rehashing old
    ground.
    
    The way I read your reply, you said that regardless of whether the
    man was allowed to visit and have a relationship with the children
    or not, he had to pay the bills.  That is the kind of attitude that
    hurts everyone.  Visitation and Support are 2 different issues that
    should be treated differently.  Unfortunately, most custodial parents
    (read mothers a large percentage of the time) see visitation as
    a weapon to get the support.
    
    If I have misread your intent, I am sorry.  However, if I have read
    it correctly, then I believe that you are being very unreasonable
    when you casually talk about the father not being allowed to visit
    with the children but still being financially responsible.
    
    By the way, the terms custodial and non-custodial parent should
    have been used rather than mother and father in your reply, since
    the tables could be in either direction these days.
    
    Ed
    

    
    re.17
    
    >The way I read your reply, you said that regardless of whether
    >the man was allowed to visit and have a relationship with the child
    >or not, he had to pay the bills.
    
    I did not interpret 10 the same way as you.  I beleive she said
    that regardless of his visitation situation, he still had a
    responsibility to help support his child.  She did not demand
    that he "pay the bills".  
    
    >That is the kind of attitude that hurts everyone.
    
    Could you clarify the attitude you speak of?  
    
    >Visitation and Support are 2 different issues that should be treated
    >differently.
    
    In the Massachusetts court system they are treated as two entirely
    different issues.  My boyfriend has been involved in a custody fight
    for his daughter for the past year.  The parents were never married
    so divorce laws do not apply to this situation.  Legally, the mother
    has 100% custody in the eyes of the law.  But they both want joint
    custody for the child's sake.  However, it was the support payments
    that were the first thing to be decided upon in court not custody.
    They have been in and out of court trying to get the custody
    arrangement finalized.  They go back Jan 9 and hopefully this will
    all be set then.  
    
    No where in the support agreement does it mention visitation or
    custody.  Likewise no where in the visitation/custody agreement
    does it mention support.  The support agreement does include a
    plan if support payments are not met.  However, there is no such
    plan in the custody/visitation agreement if either one of them
    decides to block the other from the child.
    
    >Unfortunately most custodial parents (read mothers are a large
    >percentage of the time) see visitation as a weapon to get the support.
    
    On the other hand, you could say that most non-custodial parents
    (read fathers are a large percentage of the time)see support
    as a weapon to get visitation.  It can go both ways.  
    I can remember times when single fathers I know have decided to
    withhold support payments because they wanted more time with their
    kids. Some see this as a bold move, others see it as being stupid.
    Either way the kids are the ones ultimately who suffer.  If support
    is withheld the kids standard of living declines.  If visitation
    is interfered with the kids loose interaction with a parent.
    Wouldn't it be wonderful if adult parents could act like adults
    instead of children.  The children are our future, we should treat
    them the best way we can even if it includes making sacrifices.
    

"I'd like to remind people that having children in a marriage is not the same as
taking on a mortgage or car payment. An ex-husband can perhaps get away with
saying, "Well, she lives in the house--I don't--so let her make the payment.""

That is certainly true that children are not the same as inanimate objects.
Children *feel* hurt.  Children grow up and have a tendancy to perpetrate what
they have experienced on other people, on their children.

Yes, parents have the responsibility for their children.  Yet, having children
is not always a choice, like buying a car is.  You can't pick the color, model
and options.  Children are an *immense* responsibility.  Think of a mortgage of
a million dollars that has to be repaid in twenty years for each of your
children.  That is a staggering load!

I wish that no one had to be a parent unwillingly.  It is a very staggering load
to carry unwillingly.  In this way, I can sympathize with people have abortions
even though I believe abortion is wrong.  I wish that every child had two
willing parents who loved them.   And I believe that that is possible through
adoption and other methods.  

If a parent does not wish to be a parent, and they are not needed...  Good luck
to all concerned if someone else is willing to take on that responsibility. But
there is no way to "escape" being the person resonsible for a child. 

We can force payment of $$$, but we can't force a person to succeed in life to
support their children, and we can't force a person to be a parent except
through $$$. 

"And if the marriage was exceptionally crummy, or the wife is exceptionally
hostile, you may never even see this thing you're paying for. But that doesn't
stop your financial responsibility toward it."

If one parent prevents the other parent from fullfilling their role as a parent,
they are in effect forcefully taking the other parents rights as a parent away
from them.  In my mind, they also take on the responsibilities of being a parent
which they are preventing the other parent from fullfilling. 

"What I got out of Jim's long and impassioned plea was a request to not treat
the father as an adversary but as a partner.  Give him the opportunity to
cooperate and participate.  You may be pleasantly surprised.  (Yes, you may be
unpleasantly surprised too, but that can be handled on its own merits.)"

Not only that, but change is always possible.  Even if a parent is not involved
in the past or the present, we can always hope for, and be prepared to make the
most of any change for the better instead of 'locking them out'.

"Why shouldn't people say uncomplimentary things about the two-thirds of
ex-husbands who do nothing for their children instead of only singing the
praises of the one-third who do at least *something* for them?"

I believe that a good half of 'the two-thirds of ex-husbands who do nothing for
their children' would, in better circumstances be decent parents.  If they were
still married, or If they didn't have problems with the other parent in trying
to be a parent, etc... If they were *encouraged* to be parents. 

But even the 'traditional' role of a father discourages close contact with their
children.

"When a father does not marry a mother, the father has no rights to his
children.  The father does, however, have an obligation to pay child support."

I believe that the system does give some lip service to a father having some
rights, but mostly it is a farce.  The statement above is often true in reality,
and it is a *crime*.  How would you feel if you were John, and had no rights,
but only responsibilities?  I would find it very hard to have a positive
attitude in that situation.  Many seperated father's have this problem. It is
not possible to co-parent children when the two parents are not peers on equal
footing. 

Your lawyer may have told you that this was true.  And true you can make this
happen, but that does not make it right or just.  And only you can make this a
reality, regardless of what your lawyer says.  I hope that you take the exact
opposite tack from what your lawyer says. 

"Hell, I'd be more than happy to see that he would take an interest in his
daughter."

Many mothers are willing to make that '"concession"'.  Many mothers wish their
children's fathers would take "an interest".  The question is are you willing to
work to encourage him to take an interest, and make it clear that the choice to
be a happily invovled parent is one that is open to him? Are you willing to give
him the space to freely develop a relationship with his child? 

I feel that it is difficult to judge either you or John from the few necessarily
one sided examples that can be conveyed through NOTES.  I believe that only God,
who knows everything about the situation is competent to judge anyone.  I only
hope that you, and John will be prepared to make the best of any possibilities
in the future.

"It was AFTER the 10th time that I told "John" that he would have to get a judge
to order visitation, because I was not going to let him see her."

Why did you feel it was necessary to say that to him?  No matter what, I would
not ever say that to a seperated parent.

"However, it was the support payments that were the first thing to be decided
upon in court not custody."

This is nonsense.  As usual, custody is decided before there is even a case,
with the custody going to the mother.  Then of course, the father is the one
stuck paying the support.

Jim.

    That sounds a lot like my ex, who is an alcoholic.  Anyway, here
    in Colorado you can go after child support through the District
    Attourney's office - $20 application fee.  I don't know how procedures
    in this state differ from where you are; you might want to call
    your local DA's office.
    
    Good luck!
    
    Paula

    
    
    RE 19
    
    
    >"However, it was the support payments that were the first thing
    >to be decided upon in court not custody."
    
    >"This is nonsense.  As ususal, custody is decided before there
    >is ever a case, with the custody going to the mother.  Then of
    >course the father is the one stuck paying support."
    
    Jim I suggest you read more carefully before you decide what is
    nonsense.  In the case I was referring to the parents were never
    married.  According to Mass state law in such a case the mother
    has 100% legal and physical custody of the child.  In said case,
    support payments WERE the first thing to be decided upon because
    the custody was already taken care of by the law.  I was there when
    it happened, and I am just telling what I saw.  
    
    You apparently were married when your case happened.  The rules
    are very different when a marriage is concerned.  In Debby's case
    she too was never married to the father so this will not be treated
    as a divorce-type custody/support situation.  She legally has 100%
    legal and physical custody of her child according to Mass. laws.
    So custody again is not an issue here.  If in the future she and
    her ex would like to arrange a different custody schedule then they
    will have to go to court to settle that.  But as in the case I was
    involved in support is the first thing to be settled in court.
    
    Most single mothers are forced to due economic necessity to fight
    for support payments.  In the majority of single mother situations
    the fathers are not a part of their children's lives.  So custody
    really does not become an issue until the mothers ask for the support
    that the children are entitled to.  It is at that time when the
    fathers decide that if they have to pay then they want to see the
    kids.  Single, never-married fathers are a totally different breed
    of men.  You can not compare them to men who have been married.
    The biggest difference is that with married men they make the
    commitment to a wife and both are involved in making the decisions
    when it involves the children.  Whereas single, never-married fathers
    don't make that commitment to the mother and when a pregnancy occurs
    it is usually not planned by both parents.  Another big difference
    is that with married couples the children are usually planned vs.
    an unplanned child with an unmarried coulple.  Besides it is much
    easier for a single person to walk away from a relationship and
    its responsibilities than it is for a married person.  
    
    This is not to say that every single father runs away from his kids.
    I know of several who are fighting to be a part of their children's
    lives.  I admire these men and wish that there were more like them.
    Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be yet.  But with more and more
    women deciding to have children out of wedlock(which by the way
    I think is terribly unfair to the child) hopefully they will realize
    that a father is an important part of a child's life who should
    be involved with the child from conception until the child outlives
    the parents. 
    
    Michele

"According to Mass state law in such a case the mother has 100% legal and
physical custody of the child.  In said case, support payments WERE the first
thing to be decided upon because the custody was already taken care of by the
law."

That's my point.  Custody is decided before there is even a case.  Just because
it's "the law" doesn't mean that it's right.  In this instance it's pure sh!t!

In current MA law, support is also decided "by law".  Pretty soon there will be
no case at all, just an unfair system that cannot be fought except by illegal
means.

But I don't want to disgress from the topic of this note...  whatever it is... 
Is it Support?  Is it Custody?

"Most single mothers are forced to due economic necessity to fight for support
payments.  In the majority of single mother situations the fathers are not a
part of their children's lives.  So custody really does not become an issue
until the mothers ask for the support that the children are entitled to."

"Single, never-married fathers are a totally different breed of men.  You can
not compare them to men who have been married."

Do you really believe these generalizations?  There are all kinds of unmarried
fathers. There are unmarried fathers who would *love* to have their children,
but unfortunately they have no rights to their children.  Sometimes they never
even are told that they are fathers, and their children are aborted.

My point is that "the system" discourages seperated fathers, married or
unmarried from being a part of their children's lives.  They have little or no
rights to their children, only responsibilities.  They are told that "of course"
they can't possibly care for the children.  If you want more father's to be a
part of their children's lives, CHANGE THAT.  I am surprised with anyone who
sets themselves up for that kind of hurt. 

Jim.

    
    Re. 22
    
    Jim
    
    I am not going to argue opinions with you.  Everyone is entitled
    to think their own way.  I do agree with your statement that the
    system does discourage fathers from being with their children.
    As far as changing it, I am a member of Fair with some pretty strong
    views on parenting.  I grew up without a father so I know what it
    does to the kids.  I would love to change the system, and that is
    slowly beginning to happen.  There are more fathers who are getting
    custody of their kids.  But before the system can be changed attitudes
    have to be changed.  This has to be done in such a manner that it
    really works.  The hostility that most men feel regarding this
    subject (and rightly so) gets in the way alot of times.  Afterall
    nothing can be accomplished until a peaceful arangement is made.
    
    Yes the laws should be changed.  But I still have yet to see a report
    on tv of a group of fathers picketing outside the statehouse for
    their rights as fathers.  Change will never come without action.
    If you feel so strongly then do something about it. But it has
    to be something visible.  Most folks are not touched by this issue
    so they really arent aware of the laws on the books.  Regardless
    of whether they are right or wrong, they still are the laws which
    have to be followed.  Instead of just writing about your situation
    get out there and let people know.  Let the people who right the
    laws know.  Let the media know.  Make such a stink that people will
    have to listen to you.
    
    I know it is easier to say these things than it is to do them. 
    Please dont come back at me on that.  You have to be realistic
    about this.  Mothers are not going to push to change the laws
    that are in their favor.  That would be stupid.  So unfortunately
    it has to be the fathers who need to push for change.  I know it
    is outrageously frustrating to deal with the system.  But it wont
    change by itself. 
    
    

    
    This note is to Jim.  Jim, I do not want to argue with your opinions
    either, but I must tell you something -- you do not know "John"
    so don't tell me that he would be an involved parent if he was given
    the chance.  I GAVE HIM THAT CHANCE!!!!  I stayed with the **BLEEP**
    for almost 3 years, while he decided that his dope habit and his
    motorcycles were more important to him than his child.
    
    He had plenty of opportunities to CHANGE!!! And I tried to change
    him, encourage him, etc.  and I still do, but to do avail.  He won't
    change, he is too stubborn, and he basically does not want anything
    to do with his child --  He had told me that.  He has said "She
    is better off not knowing me".  I've got to go now, but you are
    different than John and you do not know John, so please don't tell
    me what he is like.
    
    Debby
    

I don't wish to argue either... yet...

I was not suggesting that you 'stay with him' any longer to 'give him a chance'.
I am saying that it is possible that in the future, things will change. If that
happens, I hope that you would be able encourage a relationship between parent
and child.  Right now he obviously feels, "She is better off not knowing me".
Hopefully at some time in the future that may change.  Don't make that an
impossibility, and if it does happen, make the most of it.

Jim. 

    
    	RE: .-1
    
    	Jim,  so what are you saying, that if "John" decides after
    	18 years to bop into his daughters life again that Debby
    	should encourage this?  I'd say that says it's fine for him
    	to have none of the resposibilities (ie raising the child),
    	yet should get a share of the love of that child when the
    	child is grown.
    
    	G_B

"I'd say that says it's fine for him to have none of the resposibilities (ie
raising the child), yet should get a share of the love of that child when the
child is grown."

Not so.

What makes you think that he will get out of the relationship anymore then he
puts into it?  Do you think that his daughter will love him instantly when he
says 'hello, I'm your father'?  Don't you think his daughter will know who was
there, and who wasn't?  Hardly. I expect that in any case he will have to work
for whatever he gets out of the relationship.  I'm not asking that he get more
out of a relationship then what he puts into it.

I'm simply asking that you be open to him *starting* to put into a relationship
with his daughter at whatever point in the future he can, instead of slamming
the door in his face. 

Jim.

    
    	Jim,
    
	 What can I say, to me (single father with custody) any man
    	that walks out on his kids when they are young SHOULD have
    	the door slammed shut!! I know of just too many so called
    	men that have done this, wanted no part in the kids upbringing,
    	but when the kids were grown wanted to have them include good
    	old dad in their life. Sorry, I can't buy this crap!!
    
    	I'm all for any man staying in their childs life, after all
    	the kids are a part of them. However, I draw the line on a
    	person that can walk away from young kids and reappear once
    	they are grown and want to be a part of their life. Once you
    	walk away from them that should be it, stay away for the childs
    	sake. After all, if you can walk away, can you really say that
    	person has any love for the child. I don't think so.
    
    	G_B

"What can I say, to me (single father with custody) any man that walks out on
his kids when they are young SHOULD have the door slammed shut!!"

What I hear is that you are going through hell fullfilling your
responsibilities, and you can't bear the thought that someone else is skipping
out on their responsibilities. IMHO.  Tell me how this attitude benifits the
children? 

I believe that the decision should be an individual one between the parent
involved and the child.  The situation should be explained to the child, and
both options should be left open. 

I've given a lot of thought to this topic, and to the 'adopted children
searching for birth parents' topic.  I've compared the situations of a father
disappearing with a mother giving a child up for adoption or having an abortion,
and I have not been able to find much difference between the situations.

I'm convinced that there is a very deep double standard in play here.  Women
have several options for not having to raise children.  Men do not have these
same options.  This, I believe is why some men disappear.  In my mind these men
correspond to the women who have abortions, or give their children up for
adoption.  And you think these men are the slime of the earth, eh?  What do you
think of these women?  The same?  Probably not. 

Why then do adopted children want to find out about their birth parents? Or is
it that they only want to find out about their mothers?  Why not their fathers
as well? 

I don't believe in abortion, but adoption seems to me appropriate in some
situations.  Yet, men cannot give their children up for adoption, or even
prevent their children from being given up for adoption. 

I hate the thought of anyone having to be a parent unwillingly, but children
*need* parents.

To get rid of this double standard it would be necessary to require either
notification and consent or both parents for adoption or abortion, or allow
either parent to unilaterally divorce themselves from the rights and
responsibilities of being a parent.  Are feminists likely to agree to this? Not
bloody well likely. 

Even if this were possible, it doesn't seem to be exactly the right tact. It
seems to me to be pulling everyone down to the lowest common denominator. It
seems much more positive to provide the support necessary for parents to carry
out their responsibility to be parents.  This is also much harder. 

Again, I am reminded about John saying, 'She's better off not knowing me'. It's
not that he doesn't want to be a parent.  He thinks his daughter is better off
without a parent; better off without him. 

Jim.

    
    
    Jim
    
    How in God's name can you possibly compare a woman who goes through
    hell making a decision about whether or not she should abort her
    child to a man who runs away from his child.  Unless you have been
    a pregnant woman who is faced with a decision whether or not to
    abort or give up for adoption her child, you will never know what
    it feels like or the reasons why the decision was made.  And you
    will never be in that situation because you are male.
    
    I get the feeling that you think that women who abort or give up
    for adoption are doing so to just get rid of a problem.  Well that
    is wrong.  Sure there are some women who do abort or adopt because
    that is how they choose to get rid of their problem.  The reasons
    for abortion and giving a child up for adoption are varied and each
    case is different.  But most pregnant women do it because it is
    in the best interest of the child.  It is horribly unfair to force
    a pregnant women to bear her child and have to give it to someone
    else.  What do you think that they just dont feel anything for the
    child?  Remember this child was growing inside the mother for a
    long time.
    
    It takes alot of love to make either decision.  Now some people
    would argue that on the issue of abortion, but I have been there
    and I loved my unborn child.  I wanted to give him/her the best
    and given the situation at the time I knew that would not be possible.
    I also did not want the child to grow up without a father and that
    would have happened.  And I could never give a child up for adoption.
    I could never have a life growing inside of me to give it away when
    it was ready to be a part of the real world.
    
    I know quite a few single fathers.  Some have stayed and some have
    ran.  But the ones who ran did it out of fear of responsibility
    NOT out of love for their child.  That is a crock to think that
    they loved the child.  And any father who leaves and all of a sudden
    decides that he wants to be a part of the childs life is not only
    setting themselves up for serious heartache, but they are throwing
    a major curve into a child's established life.  I don't see where
    love for the child is presented in that case.  What do these fathers
    think is going to happen, that the kids are going to take them back
    with open arms and tell them how much they have missed them?  BE
    REAL.  Most kids whose fathers have left are mad as hell at them.
    And most don't want anything to do with the fathers that have left.
    
    Mind you the fathers I am refering to here are those that make a
    conscious decision to run, not the ones who are pushed out due
    to divorce or the nevermarried fathers who are never told they have
    a child and find out later that they do.  These are totaly different
    situations.
    
    Unless you have been in the situation growing up without a father
    you will never know what feelings the children have towards the
    father.  I grew up without a father so I know what feels like and
    yes I was mad as hell at my dad until the day he died.  
    
    But please clarify why you are comparing the two.
    
    Michele

    RE: .30 - Michele, although I agree with much of what you say, and
    I did not personally experience going through life without a father,
    I disagree on some points.
    
    My father never took an interest in me.  In a way, he also ran away
    from his child.  I chose to thumb my nose at him, and go on and
    live a rather happy life (to date - I ain't finished yet!  ;^) 
    But I was a fortunate one.  There are many who go through life
    believing that there is something inherently wrong *with THEM* because
    their fathers [sic] have abandoned them.  If only they Could hate
    their fathers instead of themselves.
                                        
    I doubt that anyone with a spark of intelligence believes that
    abortion is a black or white issue (even our president-elect!) 
    But I also believe, IMHO, that in many situations the children ARE
    better off having no contact with a father who might be abusive,
    or who is a very poor role model, or who spends all his time
    bad-mouthing their mother, or ????  I am divorced, and happen to
    have an excellent relationship with my three teenaged children.
    But I know I am one of the fortunate ones (and yes, I know it is
    not luck, but hard work.)
    
    I hope things go well for you, Michele.  I can only guess how difficult
    it is for a woman to decide whether to keep the child, give it up
    for adoption, or abort.  Ultimately, birth control is the answer.
    But if it is too late for that option, I believe women should have
    *all* the other options.
    
    Jack                         

    
    
    JACK
    
    I agree with you on the issues of abusive fathers and I also agree
    that women should have the right to make their own choices.
    My pregnancy occured a couple of years ago.  The killer was
    that I was on birth control at the time I got pregnant.  SO
    I was being a responsible adult, but I happened to be on
    a drug which reduced the effectiveness of the Pill.  However,
    the doctor who prescribed the drug failed to inform me of
    its interactions with other medications.  The thing that hurts
    is that he knew I was on the Pill and he didnt tell me.
    But I came through it ok and am a much stronger and wiser person
    for it.  Thanks for your concern.
    
    Live and learn
    
    michele

"How in God's name can you possibly compare a woman who goes through hell making
a decision about whether or not she should abort her child to a man who runs
away from his child."

Easily...  I don't see much difference between them.  Obviously you don't think
the man "goes through hell".  I can guarantee that he does, one way or the
other. 

"Unless you have been a pregnant woman who is faced with a decision whether or
not to abort or give up for adoption her child, you will never know what it
feels like or the reasons why the decision was made."

I could say the same thing about separated fathers.  I could say that you will
never know what that feels like.  Which is true?  I don't believe either
statement is true, and I think that 'you can't possibly know how 'I' feel' is a
cop-out to short circuit discussion.  I've been telling you how this side feels.
Tell me how the other side feel. 

All I know about both sides tells me that the two situations are quite similar,
except that the women's way of avoiding having responsibility for children is
more or less accepted, but men have no such way of avoiding responsibility
except to run, which is not at all accepted. (not that I think it should be!)

BTW I think that it is ironic that if you are an abusive parent, you can have
your children taken away, and not have any responsibility for them, but if you
are merely 'unwilling or unable' you are still expected to provide support and
parenting. 

"I get the feeling that you think that women who abort or give up for adoption
are doing so to just get rid of a problem."

I do feel that women who have abortions do it just to get rid of a problem. I
feel that women who give their children up for adoption do it probably for equal
parts being unwilling to take care of them and being unable to take care of
them. Please explain to me how this is different from the situation of a man who
is 'unwilling or unable' to be a father? 

"But most pregnant women do it because it is in the best interest of the child."

See above...

"It is horribly unfair to force a pregnant women to bear her child and have to
give it to someone else.  What do you think that they just dont feel anything
for the child?  Remember this child was growing inside the mother for a long
time."

Oh, I see...  You can kill 'it' before you get attached to 'it', but you can't
force yourself it give 'it' up?  That's the twisted argument for abortion that I
hate the most.  You can kill a child for it's own good, but you can't give the
child up once it's born for it's own good?  I can't believe that this attitude
is as you say, acting 'for the good of the child'. 

But I don't wish to get into the rathole of abortion...

Remind me to tell you about the atrocities that are done to separated fathers
'for the good of the child' some time...

"But the ones who ran did it out of fear of responsibility NOT out of love for
their child."

How can you know this more surely then I know what mothers going through
abortion or adoption go through?  How can you, who can never be a father, know
what a father goes though?  Your argument works (or doesn't work) both ways. 

"And any father who leaves and all of a sudden decides that he wants to be a
part of the childs life is not only setting themselves up for serious heartache,
but they are throwing a major curve into a child's established life."

Tell me how this heartache is any different from the other heartaches in life
which happen, but which cannot be avoided without giving up truly *Living*. You
can't go through life with the goal of avoiding heartache, and truly be alive.
In any case, why are you listing reasons for a father to not want to become
reinvolved with his children (either he handles the problems and wants to, or he
doesn't), as reasons for the child to shut out thier father? 

How do you feel that this "major curve" is a change for the worse, and not a
change for the better?

I feel that if a parent can become reinvolved, there is the potential for a lot
of healing to take place. 

"What do these fathers think is going to happen, that the kids are going to take
them back with open arms and tell them how much they have missed them?  BE REAL.
Most kids whose fathers have left are mad as hell at them. And most don't want
anything to do with the fathers that have left."

I don't think anyone expects it to be easy.  It will certainly be harder to
develop the relationship then it would be if they had been there in the first
place.  But it should be a possibility open to both children and parents. Most
children, even if they are angry at being left, would rather that the parent had
stayed, most children would like to have two parents.  Why pass up a chance to
heal that hurt, and perpetuate it instead?

Let's turn the situation around for a moment.  How about the old "Prodigal Son"
parable.  What if a child disowned their parents for their own reasons, and then
came back one day, and wanted to renew that relationship?  Should the parents
say 'no way'?  Does this apply any less the other way around?  I think it is
equally aplicable. 

I feel that in locking the door behind a parent (or child) when they leave is a
little like expecting them to be perfect.  If a parent leaves because they
cannot fulfill being a parent, and later finds that they now can take on a part
of that role, would would you want to throw that away? 

My God, how much better it would have been if in the first place the parent
wasn't expected to be a perfect martyr, and got the message instead, 'it's ok, I
know it's rough, but do the best that you can, and I will accept that.' Maybe
this is a little mature to expect from children, but someone, especially the
other parent, should be saying this. 

But, now, separated fathers are expected to be perfect martyrs.  They have their
finances taken from them.  They cannot care for their children themselves. They
have their children taken away from them. They are distanced from their
children.  They are expected to fight through that agony and carry on a
fulfilling relationship with their children.  Fat Chance.  

If you have an abortion or give your child up for adoption, you can at least
attempt to get it over with and get on with your life.  A separated father
trying to fulfill his role has to *LIVE* with it.  Do you know how much harder
that is?  I'm not at all surprised that some of them fail, and fail miserably.
I'm still surprised at the numbers of people who do manage to carry on
relationships with their children. 

I'd die for my children, but there are definitely situations where I couldn't
live for them.  I can't live as a slave for them and their mother and still be
expected to be their father.  The only way to get it over with and try to get on
with living is to 'die' to it, and disappear.  And I am sure that I would still
be haunted by it, as I am sure many absent fathers are.

FYI, in a study done by FAIR last year, 47% of fathers in cases of unpaid child
support gave "visitational interference" as the cause.  That indicates to me
that a substantial number of absent fathers are in the same boat.  And the thing
is it doesn't even have to happen to *you*(a separated father); all you have to
do to fail is just 'know', to feel that it is going to happen to you and your
children.  Asking them to continue being fathers is like asking a mother to bear
her child until birth, and then give it up until adoption.  And yes, I expect
both sexes to fulfill those obligations. 

"I grew up without a father so I know what feels like and yes I was mad as hell
at my dad until the day he died."

But do you *"KNOW"* what he felt like?  I am sure that one way of the other...
he paid for it, even if neither you or him realized it.

I still would like to know why women have options for avoiding the
responsibility of raising children, but men don't.  The question of differing
motives does not make the lack of opportunity any less real.  I believe that the
differing motives are a *result* of the double standard.  If men had the same
options that women had, the motives involved would be the same. If women had the
same options (none) that men had, they too would be abandoning an impossible
situation just as some men do.

I feel that the only real difference between children hating fathers who left,
and searching for mothers who gave them up for adoption is the double standard
involved.  All the other differences if feelings and emotions stem from that
double standard. 

Jim.

    I just finished reading the previous reply (.33) and am struck with
    just how much I agree with what was said.  I kept thinking to myself
    before I read that reply that there was a major double-standard
    being perpetuated here.  That women were allowed to abort the child
    if they wanted to, or put it up for adoption, but the man did not
    have these options.
    
    I never knew that the father (married or not) could not stop an
    adoption proceeding.  If a single father did not want an adoption
    to proceed, would he not be given custody of the child?  Extremely
    unfair if this is not so.
    
    I am not advocating men walking away from their children, any more
    than women - and by the way let's remember that women DO walk away
    from their children like men do.  Women are NOT perfect.
    
    My brother fathered a child out of wedlock.  He tried to carry on
    visitation with the child.  However, the mother was so arrogant
    and ignorant that she set extremely restrictive ground rules.  She
    was really trying to force my brother to marry her.  The result
    is that he no longer gets to see his son because he does not want
    to hassle with the mother.  But the courts have seen fit to garnish
    his wages each and every week for the support money.  Now, I defy
    any of you moral people to tell me that my brother is one of these
    worthless bums you so richly want to deny access to their children
    in later years.  I hope that my brother's son wants to see him when
    he gets older.  I doubt this will be mainly because the mother has
    been drilling him with dirt about his father.  Definitely one-sided
    here.
    
    If I sound angry, I apologize for anything I may have said to hurt
    or anger others.  I just get so sick of hearing how worthless people
    are because they will not bow down to the woman's every wish or
    demand.  And for the record, my brother now has been married to
    a nice girl and they have a baby girl (my godchild).  He has taken
    on the responsibility, also, of helping to raise his new wife's
    3 children.  So I am firmly convinced that had this other woman
    not been such a jerk and pushed my brother out of his son's life,
    he would have made that boy a nice father.
    
    Ed..
        

    Once the child is born, in or out of wedlock, I think either parent
    should be able to stop the adoption procedure and take custody of
    the child.  Out of wedlock, I would advocate this  *ONLY IF THEY
    LET THE OTHER PARENT OFF THE HOOK FOREVER*.  I see marriage, or
    an equivalent agreement, as an agreement to support potential
    children.  I don't see shacking for a night as such an agreement.
    Especially since currently the decision to keep the kid and dun
    the father, abort the kid, or give the kid up for adoption is
    100% the mothers unless there is marriage involved.  I'm sure I'll
    get some fire for this, but I don't think it's fair the way it is.
    Let the fire rage! perhaps we'll come up with a better solution
    than the current one.
    
    Before the child is born, you're talking about a much more complex
    issue.  You're talking about a person's right to control her body
    for the next 8-9 months.  And your talking about moral beliefs that
    may differ greatly.  I don't think this one will be solved until
    the medical labs perfect in-vitro growth and birth!  Then we will
    be able to say "Ok, you can have your kid, and mom is off the hook"
    to the father, or the hundreds of prospective parents waiting for
    an "acceptable" child (read 100% healthy and WHITE child, read some
    sadness here, since there are a lot of children waiting for parents
    but they're not white and/or not 100% healthy and therefore aren't
    "acceptable" to many prospective parents...but that's another note.)
    
    --Louise

    
    
    re: .0
    yes, you can defend yourself in court without the "benefit?"
    (definitely the wrong word) of lawyers....
    
    it would help if you were somewhat versed in the language and in
    the proper use of the appropriate forms...
    and it seems as though judges will take points away from you and
    your case making it harder to win,, regardless of the facts..

    i know of many people (after paying $$$ for lawyers who insisted
    that they utilize their law talents to *nail* the oposition) decided
    to come to their own agreement, present it the judge, and have it
    accepted.
    
    	now....for my story...(quick!...hit next unseen!)
    when i was 20 i had a kid...
    but i wasn't married.
    so i lived with the mother of the child and helped maintain support
    for her and the child.  she didn't work.  after the child was about
    6 months old she (the mother), recognizing how much i loved the
    baby, established an ultimatum.....
    	"marry me or i'll go away and you'll never see your daughter
    again!"
    	i replied...."but..i don't love you...and you don't love me...
    and we both love the child....why don't we just keep living together
    and raise the child as 2 friendly parents?"
    	"no way" was her never waverying reply......
    	eventually i was forced into it.....
    	so we got married, though i knew it was only for awhile....
    	the week we got married she slept with one of my best friends...
    (but rik!  how can he be on eof your best friends if he slept with
    your wife?)
    	answer: because he knew the truth about our lack of love and
    we were all pretty liberal and, though i wasn't happy about it
    considering it was HER idea to get married....i decided that she
    wasn't worth worrying about and he, as my friend, was....
    	eventually an another child came along and, later still, another
    woman came along (yes, i know you find it difficult to believe that
    anyone in their right mind would like me, let alone love me, but
    it happened...3 or 4 times....)....(maybe they were NOT in their
    right minds?..:-)....
    	with the onset of *true love* that lasted for 3.5 wonderful
    years that i will always remember and treasure and still have the
    pictures of i decided to end the marriage....
    	within 6 months i had both kids living with me and she was long
    gone...
    	it took 6 years to finally get a court to grant me custody...
    	courts give custody to women without the man being present but
    the reverse seems hard for them to fathom....
    	now i've had both daughters for 12.5 years and we haven't seen
    their mother in about 7 years..
    	she never gave me a dime for support....
    
    	note: i am not, nor was i ever, angry at her....
    just wished she had been a little more responsible in visiting the
    kids....
    
    so ....not all men run away from their responsibilities...
    
    good luck
    rik
    

    re: .36
    
    hi Rik,
    
    Let me start by saying that I think you are terrifac!!  The way
    your story seems to me is that you had the best interest of your
    child in mind when you married her mother.  I really admire that.
    I also admire the fact that you have been raising your children
    without their mother -- that takes alot of patience, understanding,
    resposibility and guts.  
    
    It is too bad that their mother is missing out on something wonderful
    -- seeing her two daughters grow up, but luckily you are the one
    who gets to benefit from this ( although you are probably going
    through the toughest years as far as your daughters are concerned).
    
    I have one question for you, how did you explain to your daughters
    what happened to their mother without making them feel unloved by
    their mother??  Do you understand what I am trying to say???  I
    am trying to figure out how to tell my daughter that her father
    does not want anything to do with her, but I don't want her feeling
    like her father didn't love her (especially when I can't understand
    how he could love her and then block her out of his life completely).
    
    It is a really tough situation, because eventually she is going
    to ask about her father, and I don't want to say anything bad about
    him, but I want her to know the truth.  OH- another question, when
    would be a good age to tell her so that she would understand?? 
    She is only 2 now (I'm the author of the base note), and she has
    asked once in a great while where her father is, and I just say
    that he doesn't live with us, and she will drop the subject.
    
    BTW --- for the rest of you wondering what happened with my support
    case -- I dropped it.  "John" decided that he wanted to fight
    everything afterall.  He was still agreeing with the $75/week, but
    he does not want to have to pay for her dental insurance, 50% of
    her tuition costs if she decides to go to college (what's more
    important, his daughters education or his drug habit?), he doesn't
    want to keep supporting her if she does go to college, he want support
    to end at age 18 no matter what, and (get this) he wants more
    visitation.  The way I had it written up was that for the first
    3 months he could see her in my home every weekend for 4 hours (not
    much, but you must understand that he hasn't bothered to come visit
    her in almost one year, and she does not know him), then after 3
    months he could take her for 12 hours every weekend, then when she
    turned 4 (in a little more than a year) he could take her from Saturday
    to Sunday night every other weekend, and he could get her for 2
    weeks per year for vacation.  Now I know some of you dads out there
    might not think that this is much, but you must understand that
    "John" never took any interest in his daughter when we lived with
    him ---  If he showed me that he would spend quality time with her
    then would have no problem with giving him more time with her --
    I am just worried about my daughters best interest.  Anyway, "John"
    wants to be able to take her (after the 3 month "introductory" period)
    from Friday night to Sunday night every other weekend.  I would
    have no problem with this if, as I said earlier, he had shown some
    interest in his daughter when we lived together, and if he hadn't
    told me that he was going to take her away so that I could never
    see her again.  So I dropped the case, I figure my daughter's welfare
    is more important to me than a measly $75/week -- I can live without
    the money, I can't live without my daugther.
    
    Gotta go   . . . 
    
    Debby
    

    Debby,
    
    Uh, huh.  Yes, that's how the "John"s of this world do it:  They
    ask for custody.
    
    If the Debby wants a 50:50 split of the assets, the John agrees --
    but only if he gets custody.  So the Debby tones down her request.
    The John agrees -- but only if he gets custody.  It goes on and
    on, with the Debby settling for less and less, until the Debby
    makes a deal that's cheap enough for the John, and he agrees to
    it.  Does the John want custody?  No.  He wants to get out of
    paying money, or giving up anything, and the Debby's love for
    her child is his weapon of choice.
    
    So please think out your decision again -- AFTER you get a lawyer's
    opinion on the chances of John being able to get overnight custody.
    (You're right; the child's wellbeing does come 'way before the
    money.)
    
    							Ann B.

RE: .37

I hate to come right out and say it, but your notes make me think that something
is not quite right here...

"I am trying to figure out how to tell my daughter that her father does not want
anything to do with her, but I don't want her feeling like her father didn't
love her (especially when I can't understand how he could love her and then
block her out of his life completely)."

In the first place this statement is no longer true in the present tense. He
***does*** want to be involved with her.  Whether he did or does love her is an
assumption I certainly don't know enough to make, and I strongly suggest that
you certainly don't either.  

It is quite common for the mother of the children to equate the father
abandoning her with the father abandoning the children. There may also be many
other issues in the divorce and child custody and support that have kept him
away from his daughter.  The important thing is that he is here *now*. 

John's behavior may not match how you think he should behave, but there are many
other factors in this situation then you saddling John with your expectations.
It is very important, if John is to have a relationship with his daughter that
he not have to live up to your perhaps restrictive and arbitrary expectations.

I'm not suggesting that it is not important that the daughter not be adequately
taken care of, properly feed, clothed, washed, given attention, disciplined and
loved.  But there are many ways where you and John may differ in opinion on
details of how your (plural) daughter should be brought up.  There will also be
times when his parenting is not quite up to your standards.  In most cases,
unless the child is going to actually suffer, you must keep your hands off.
That it is not quite up to your standards is not as important as the fact that
your child has a relationship with both parents. 

Underlying all this, you must give your support and encouragement to John in
seeing his daughter, taking care of his daughter, and learning how to care for
her better, and having a better relationship with her.  But your role in their
relationship is only to encourage and support.  

It is not your place to make the decisions.  If John is to parent, he must make
those decisions, or be deprived of his ability to parent.  You can bring things
to his attention which you think could be done differently.  You can suggest
alternatives and give advise as to which solution might be better.  John,
however, must make the decisions. He must have the same right to make mistakes
as any other first time parent would have.

Also, you have to make it clear to John that he is not expected to be a
"perfect" parent, and that any mistakes he makes will not be held against him;
that you are not going to use his daughter as a chain to jerk him around on,
with his mistakes as your excuse. He has to know that he can ask your advise (or
other people's) when a situation comes up that he is unsure how to handle. 

"She is only 2 now (I'm the author of the base note), and she has asked once in
a great while where her father is, and I just say that he doesn't live with us,
and she will drop the subject."

She is most likely getting for you that the subject is forbidden.  What I might
say (although I have no idea about the particulars of your situation) is
something like: 'Your father and I (the mother, not the child) no longer can
live together.  However, he is still your father, and although he has not been
able to be with you much in the past, he would like to have you with him more
often in the future.'. 

Encourage her to think of him. Talk with her about him if you can in a positive
manner.  Don't make him a nonperson by avoiding the subject.  John, also
should make it clear that her does want to be involved with her.

"BTW --- for the rest of you wondering what happened with my support case -- I
dropped it.  "John" decided that he wanted to fight everything afterall." 

How does this match with John not wanting to have anything to do with his
daughter?  It is not uncommon for a separated parent at times to decide that it
is hopeless; that they cannot be a parent, or that they are never going to be
allowed to be a parent.  I am glad that John made the decision to fight now
instead of several years down the road, which is also a common occurrence.

"The way I had it written up was that for the first 3 months he could see her in
my home every weekend for 4 hours (not much, but you must understand that he
hasn't bothered to come visit her in almost one year, and she does not know
him), then after 3 months he could take her for 12 hours every weekend, then
when she turned 4 (in a little more than a year) he could take her from Saturday
to Sunday night every other weekend, and he could get her for 2 weeks per year
for vacation."

I understand that to you it seems like a very reasonable progression of events.
Any court, or rational person would agree, and fight against giving any more
visitation. I hope that you can also believe me when I tell you that to a
separated parent it is INTOLERABLE.  

Especially with a young child, because each moment that you don't send with them
is *GONE* forever, and it will never be the same. 

Also, for a separated parent, tomorrow never comes.  John doesn't *know* that he
will eventually get more, and he may very well believe that it will never
happen.  He will probably think that it is just a delaying tactic until you can
prove that he is not a "perfect" parent, and have his daughter taken away
permanently. 

Imagine a mother being told after her baby is born that she must follow the
above schedule before she can have her baby; that she has to "prove herself"
first.  Sounds ludicrous, right?  That's how is sounds to a separated parent
also.  Especially when the child in question

You state as a reason for slow visitation, your opinion that John has not been
concerned with his daughter up until now.  This is largely irrelevant. There
may be many other reasons for him not to have her until which are not relevant
to having slow visitation. 

Really, slow visitation, is mostly a way for you to stay in control.  Control
which you must give up if John is to be allowed to be a parent himself. In
trying to prevent harm, this method also prevents some much needed love and
bonding.  Very sad... 

"I am just worried about my daughters best interest."

Exactly *what* is it that is in your daughter's best interest is it that you are
worried about?  You mention that he threatened to take your daughter away; well
if making that threat were punished as a crime, 4/5ths of the parents in the US
would be in jail.  My children's mother made that threat repeatedly. Fortunately
it did not happen.  Can you be sure that it is not really your own interests
that you are looking out for?  This is the sort of rationalization is whose name
many wrongs are done. 

There are a great many similiarities in this case with my own experience. 

I was told that I didn't care about my children because I felt that because I
worked and the mother stayed home that it was her job to take care of the
children.  I was told that I couldn't possibly take care of two young boys. 

I was told that I should stay home when I had the boys, even though both them
and I enjoy going places and doing things together.  I was told that I cared
more for my pleasures that I did for my children.

I'd like to be able to say that I felt like both the mother and the father in
this topic. 643.0 would eventually come around, and the daughter would grow
up happy, having two parents. 

But I don't have that feeling.  I have the feeling that rather then being
positive and encouraging, .0 is making the past into the future, and is not able
to seperate issues with John involving herself from those involving the
daughter.  I get the feeling that rather go through the struggle and the work
that is necessary to resolve differences amiably and with a positive note, .0
has chosen to give up, and not get involved. 

Many insignificant details in the previous notes give me that impression. I
could easily be wrong... but I don't feel hopefull. 

I'll stop here, even though I've left a lot unsaid, because I have no doubt
already said too much.  Feel free to ask about anything which is unclear...

Jim.

BTW Ann, I consider -.1 to be a cheap shot, a generalization which could easily
have been applied to me at the time, and was!  You leave no room to
differentiate between those fathers who want thier children and the means to
have them, and those who do not care.  This attitude is exactly one of the
attitudes which results in fathers and children becoming estranged. 

    
    Jim
    
    I understand your intentions in trying to get Deb to see things
    from a father's point of view.  But in acuality, this man does
    not and has never acted as a responsible father. This man also
    has a daughter from a previous marriage with whom he has no contact.
    
    You keep trying to get everyone to think that this man is acutally
    a good father who is being prevented from seeing his child as 
    you were.  This is not the case.  He was and still is given
    chances to take part in his daughter's life.  However, he does
    not take advantage of this.  
    
    Deb has dropped the court case, but the father has not done anything
    legally to get custody or visitation with his daughter.  So it seems
    that when he is forced with having to pay for her he wants to have
    time with her, but when he no longer is forced to pay for her he
    no longer wants to see her.  It makes no sense.
    
    You keep implying that Deb's anger at "john" is getting in the way
    of things.  That is an unfair statement to make.  In the first place
    it was Deb who left not him.  So he was the person to get angry.
    She is not angry at him for hurting her.  She put her daughter before
    herself when she left him.  She left because she felt it was the
    best thing for her daughter.  So anger is not a factor.  If there
    is any anger still present it is with the father when he is asked
    to be a responsible father and help support his child.  He got angry
    at her for even asking him for support never mind bringing it into
    court.
    
    It is easy to try to relate your experiences with this situation.
    But beleive me they are two very different situations.  I think
    you were in love with your wife when you both got married.  And
    you both made a conscious decision to have children.  Deb on the
    other hand was not married.  And the baby was not a conscious
    decision.  This child was brought into the world in a very different
    atmosphere than your children were.  If this man and Deb truly loved
    each other than marriage probably would have followed the birth
    of their child.  However, quite the opposite happened.  
    
    As you know a child changes ones life.  And this man was not ready
    to accept the changes.  He was still looking out for number one
    which was himself.  If he honestly did love his child he would have
    bent over backwards to be involved with her.  He would have held
    her when she cried, he would have changed her diaper when she needed
    a changing, and he would have fought like hell to remain a part
    of his child's life.  According to Deb, he did none of these things.
    Please don't tell me that he chose not to fight because he knew
    he couldn't win.  He never even took that chance.
    
    You are correct when you say that there is something not quite right
    here.  And that is the fact that this father, who has been given
    every oppurtunity to be an active part of his daughter's life, has
    made a decision to not be a part of his daughter's life.  That is
    not right!
    
    Michele

    Dear Deb,
    
    I see it as blackmail also.  John knew how to make you back down--
    simply threaten to take away the baby.  This happens a lot, and
    unfortunately, it works.
    
    I would suggest that before you drop the suit, first figure out
    if he indeed can get custody.  On what grounds?  If the answer
    is No, then continue to fight for more money.  I know from
    personal experience how hard it is to raise a kid on one paycheck.
    Now that my daughter is 18 I am so sorry that I didn't insist on
    more.  My ex only paid $25 a week, no medical, no college fund,
    nothing.  And now that she wants to go to college, I find myself
    in a real financial mess, but worst of all, *her* future and her
    plans are jeopardized by his selfishness and also by my failure
    to look ahead and plan for a better future for her.  At the
    time, I simply wanted OUT; now I see that what I lost then (house,
    future financial security); I cannot retrieve now, now that we
    really need them.
    
    Of course if you think there's a chance that he could win custody,
    then it's different--I agree, your child's welfare is the most 
    important (of course right now that means she must continue living
    with you--but in 15 years or so, her welfare will include money,
    college, etc.)
    
    I think your visitation plan was a good one.  It's obvious that
    you care a lot for your baby--of course, you can't let her father
    simply take her whenever he wants to--especially if she doesn't
    know who he is yet.  This would cause terrible abandonment anxiety
    for her.
    
    Good luck, take care.
    Maria
    

"You keep trying to get everyone to think that this man is actually a good
father who is being prevented from seeing his child as you were.  This is not
the case.  He was and still is given chances to take part in his daughter's
life.  However, he does not take advantage of this."

I could care less if he has been a good father in the past, or the present. My
only concern is, Can he become a good father in the future.  That is the
question that really matters with the father and daughter.

As I have said, from .0's writing, I sense (IMHO) many things that would harm
the chances of John (or me, were I in his position) becoming a better father.
Sometimes it seems to me that you don't really want John to become a better
father.  It seems to me that if you *really* did, you would be helping him
become a better father.  Instead, I see you intent on keeping things more or
less status quo. 

"Deb has dropped the court case, but the father has not done anything legally to
get custody or visitation with his daughter.  So it seems that when he is forced
with having to pay for her he wants to have time with her, but when he no longer
is forced to pay for her he no longer wants to see her.  It makes no sense."

It doesn't have make sense.  If it doesn't make sense to you, one of your
premises is wrong.  Why should the father go to court if he knows that he is
going to lose?

It is true that it would be easier to give up entirely and forget about his
daughter if he did not have to support her, but that's irrelevant.  Many
separated parents go through a period where they would just like to forget about
the child or the other parent.  Many of them get over it.  No matter what
reasons they involve themselves with their children initially, a lasting bond
and positive relationship can develop.  The reasons that he sees her now are
irrelevant.  What matters is what becomes of it.
    
"You keep implying that Deb's anger at "John" is getting in the way of things."

I never said that.  It could just as easily be John's anger at Deb.

"He got angry at her for even asking him for support never mind bringing it into
court."

I don't doubt that he did!  I would (and did) get angry at being forced to be a
slave to my sons' mother, and being considered merely a paycheck and a wallet
for her to dip into for the least reason.  And that is what happens at court. 

"It is easy to try to relate your experiences with this situation. But believe
me they are two very different situations."

How little you know.

"And you both made a conscious decision to have children."

Far from it.  Both of my children were conceived by gross neglect (or worse,
wishfull thinking!) on the part of their mother.  The second time was the last
straw to my marriage.  I did not want to have children.  I resented the hell out
of them.  I started off not too far from where John may be.

"If this man and Deb truly loved each other than marriage probably would have
followed the birth of their child."

Somehow I don't follow that logic.  If John didn't love Deb, but would have
taken the baby (as opposed to abortion), he should have married *Deb*??? What
you are saying is that this is a package deal, right, huh?   'Take me, or you
don't you don't get the kid, and you'll pay for the next twenty years.'. Even if
you don't quite mean that, the attitude is there.  And you expect any man to put
up with that and be happy with it??? 

"If he honestly did love his child he would have bent over backwards to be
involved with her.  He would have held her when she cried, he would have changed
her diaper when she needed a changing, and he would have fought like hell to
remain a part of his child's life."

The same could have, and was said about me.  It has absolutely nothing to do
with me relationship between my children and me.  The fact was that my view was
that my job was going to work to support my family, and my wife's job was taking
care of the children.  (I no longer believe that, and even then, would have
gladly switched roles)  I was not about to do my job, and hers when she failed
to do more then the bare minimum. 

"Please don't tell me that he chose not to fight because he knew he couldn't
win.  He never even took that chance."

He never had a chance to take.  At least that is what I believed when I was in
his shoes, and I am sure that he believes it.  And that is the first thing that
needs to be changed.  Right now, it's very easy for him to believe that he has
no chance to have a fullfilling relationship with his daughter.  

Right now, all the choice he sees is being a slave for the next twenty years, or
abandoning his daughter.  I'll tell you right now, I couldn't live with either
one of those choices!!  I don't blame him for just giving up, and doing drugs.
Worse, yet, this situation has happened before.  He's already lost this battle
with the mother, the system, and himself once before!  Wake Up!  Can't you see
that this is killing him?  Can't you see that he's taking a slow but sure method
of suicide? 

"this father, who has been given every oppurtunity to be an active part of his
daughter's life"

DEAD WRONG.  He has not "been given every opportunity to be an active part of
his daughter's life".  In my mind, the above would be a situation where John
could see his daughter whenever he wanted, could have her as long as he wanted.
And that he has a choice either to support her himself, or paying half the
necessary costs of supporting the child.

Fat chance.  There's no way that he's going to ever be given that choice to
make.  At least that's what he's telling himself.

"has made a decision to not be a part of his daughter's life.  That is not
right!"

It's not right either that in order to be a part of his daughter's life he has
to be under the mother's thumb, either.  That's one of the real reasons more
seperated fathers don't take a bigger part of their children's lives. 

Jim.

    Re: .42
    
    >It seems to me that if you *really* did, you would be helping him
    >become a better father.
    
    "Help" implies a secondary role, assisting the primary agent.  You
    can't help with a non-existent effort.  If John wants to become
    a better father, the primary responsibility in that effort sits
    with John.  It's up to him to indicate his willingness and take
    measures toward that goal.  Asking for custody doesn't necessarily
    demonstrate anything.  A further gesture (asking for a visit or
    a chance to spend time with the child) would indicate good faith
    on John's part.  But John has to make the first move.  Otherwise,
    you're putting the onus on Debby; she'd have to keep offering,
    offering, offering until the offer is accepted.  Debby is not
    responsible for getting John to correct his failings.  No one but
    John is.

""Help" implies a secondary role, assisting the primary agent.  You can't help
with a non-existent effort.  ... Debby is not responsible for getting John to
correct his failings.  No one but John is." 

No, but you can create a situation to make the most of any effort.  I don't see
that happening. I do feel that parents of a child ARE responsible for that much.
They are responsible for their child's well being, and that includes the child's
relationship with the other parent. 

There is nothing active, or any great effort that is being asked of Deb,
merely that she give John the space to have whatever relationship he chooses
to have with his daughter.

On the other hand, yes, John has to want to have a relationship with his
daughter.  He has to make quite a bit of effort to have any relationship with
his daughter.  The custodial parent doesn't have to take the time to "visit"
thier children; they are already there all the time... 

But I am afraid that John has already lost the battle and given up...

Jim. 

    When I read the original note I tried to look at two perspectives
    that of the author and that of John.  Then I compared it to my
    situation and I thought of how I would feel.
    
    My children are grown and the hard times are over.  It was very
    tough emotionally, financially and physically.  But the end results
    are positive and I have allowed some of the pain and baggage around
    a failed relationship to be thrown out.
    
    As with John my ex used custody and my behavior to try to reduce
    his responsibility with the children.  His payments were minimal
    and he did not utilize his visitation rights.  But I left the lines
    of communication open.  As angry as I would get with my ex I always
    remembered his good qualities.  I would have to admit that I was
    a fool if I did not recognize them otherwise why would I have been
    involved.
    
    I always stressed these qualities with the children...I was honest
    about how I felt about the problems we had as well.  But I allowed
    the children to love their father.  In so doing they were very
    accepting of my short comings...if I had given the impression that
    I was perfect the results would not have been as positive.
    
    This year two of my sons were married...and I had to be in the company
    of their father and his wife.  I didn't like it.  But it seems that
    their father, in observing our family, understood finally what I
    meant about being close, loving and enjoying the children.  He had
    tears in his eyes literally.  Then the children's grandmother died
    and they all went to Virginia to be with their father.  I received
    a letter from his wife praising me for the beautiful children I
    had raised...and asking my indulgence when they referred to them
    as "our children".  
    
    Inside I wanted to say bullsh*t...but it is interesting how this
    year has helped these young people.  They *need* to love both 
    parents.  They recognize his good points and they have put away
    some of their baggage as well.
    
    $75 is not a small amount...John only owes for half of the childs
    support.  Being part of the mechanism that brings John and his daughter
    together could have some positive results.
    
    Last but not least raising a child is difficult...having responsibility
    24 hours a day...can be exhausting.  Think twice before you cut
    of your nose to spite your face!
    

    I've have spent a lot of time over the last week reading this
    particular note, and I have come to the conclusion that everybody
    is so ready to give examples and advice, but nobody is really
    considering how Debby really feels.
                                 
    Not only did she have her daughter out of wedlock, (which isn't
    a big deal now adays), but she had to put up with the behaviour
    of "John", who in my estimation had all the chances he could possibly
    want.  The last straw Debby said, was when she came home from shopping 
    and found her daughter in tears, running around with a dirty nappy (note
    the English term) and John smoking dope.  Anyone who considers smoking
    dope in front of young children, shows just how uncapable they are
    of being a proper parent.  In reply to .42, John didn't turn to
    dope because of the break up, he was already on it.           
                                                                  
    Debby, my advice to you is short, and some may not agree.  You know
    your daughter better than anyone, do you think she deserves, let   
    alone can cope, with going to see a father, who obviously doesn't
    really care whether he sees her or not, but if it stops him paying
    money who cares, who smokes dope, and is more interested in covering 
    his backside.  Is this going to create more of an upset for her, 
    I commend you for your statement in a previous note, (can't remember 
    exactly) but you said that you daughter means more to you than a
    measly $75.  Go for it Deb, you'll manage and one day you will
    probably meet a good man, (not all men are like John) who will be 
    prepared to take on your daugher, and hopefully you will have other 
    children and enjoy a normal family life, that I think you so rightly 
    deserve.                             
    
    YOU DO WHAT EVER YOU THINK BEST.  For after all once your daughter
    is older enough, she will make up her own mind whether she wants
    to see her father or not, but if and when she does, back her on
    it and explain that you never wanted to keep her from her father
    but her father just could not appreciate her well enough at the
    time.
    
    Well I've said my piece, and I hope everything goes well.
    
    Tanya
    
    p.s. what does FMHO mean??????
    
                                                             
                             
                                                       
                                                       

IMHO - In My Humble Opinion

IMO - In My Opinion (used by non humble people).

    Re: IMO and IMHO
    
    Actually, the use of these terms - whether as acronyms - or
    "real" words, is one of my pet peeves vis-a-vis redundancy.
    
    When a person is stating what he or she feels, *of course* its
    their opinion. 
    
    And anybody brave enough to write Notes sure ain't humble anyway. :-)
    
      Alan

    Re: .49
    
    >   They could be relaying fact, not opinion.
    
    You're right, Mike. 
    
    Of course, though, if one is relaying a fact such as "The Earth
    is a sphere", it's irrelevant whether it's the author's opinion
    (humble or otherwise). :-)
    
      Alan

    When a person demonstrates no interest in a child's welfare, minimal
    interest in financial support, and very inconsistent regard for
    responsibility, just for how long, and how much tolerance and understanding
    must the other parent,( who has generally carried the weight of the
    decision making and responsibility for that child) be required to
    give? 
    
    What if for years you have to explain to that child why Daddy won't
    come see him, why he comes on one birthday, but not the next, and
    suddenly, dear old Daddy calls on a random Christmas to come over
    (You have long ago remarried and struggled to create a family home
    life for your son) This Daddy who never wanted to share the struggles,
    part with a lousy 75.00 per week, and even when called and begged
    to come see his son, forget the money, just couldn't make it?
    
    there are many exceptions, MANY!  I am all for a father given his
    rights to a child, but there is a limit to how much responsibility
    one parent must bear and how much irresponsibility must be overlooked
    in an immature and selfish adult.  The child's best interests must
    come before that person's
    
    

RE: -.1

"When a person demonstrates no interest in a child's welfare...how much
tolerance and understanding must the other parent be required to give?"

I think that the more tolerance and understanding a co-parent can give, the
better.  But tolerance and understanding do not require that you not insist
on some financial support.  Not much can be done to insure interest in the
child's welfare, or responsibility; those you just have to accept what is
there.  

The tolerance and understanding that is needed is to make it clear that the
option of having a stronger relationship with the child, including direct
financial support instead of indirect financial support, free of over control by
the other parent is available.

"What if for years you have to explain to that child why Daddy won't come see
him" 

Try, 'I don't know why daddy can't come tomorrow, but I am sure that he has a
good reason'...  There are many ways to explain it...  I do know that my son
understands that I can't be with him all the time.

"This Daddy who never wanted to share the struggles, part with a lousy 75.00 per
week, and even when called and begged to come see his son, forget the money,
just couldn't make it?"

First, $75 a week is not lousy in any sense.  It's almost 6,000 a year,
including taxes.  That's a considerable dent in anybody's budget.

If you have a father who doesn't seem to want to see their children, and
it is more important to you that your child does see his father, try this:

Tell the father that he has a choice, either he will pay the maximum child
support, *or* he will take an interest in his children.  If you allow them the
freedom to do what they wish together, I don't know of anyone so badly off that
they won't take that deal.

Hopefully, the father will see that he *can* have a relationship with his
children, and that it is safe for him to love them; that he will be allowed to
be a father, that he doesn't have to be *perfect*, and the children will not be
used to try to control him.

"The child's best interests must come before that person's"

That is a very short sighted attitude.  With that attitude it is very easy to
justify all kinds of abuse of the parent and their rights, '''for the good of
the child'''.  Decisions must be made in the best interests of all people
involved, or they are garunteed to fail. 

Jim.

    Well, I know of someone so badly off they wouldn't take such a deal.
    My ex-husband.  He made a choice to terminate his parental obligation,
    legally...mostly to get off the hook on EVER having to pay ANY money
    of ANY amount.  He was offered many chances to visit without coming
    up with a DIME.  This man fathered 2 children, BTW.  He only wanted
    to see the oldest, the younger one was a "pain in the ---".
    
    Many fathers do truly care about their children, and many mothers
    use thier children as pawns in headgames against the fathers, and
    vice versa.  But I happen to believe that there are some (maybe
    only 1?) father(s) who are 100% irresponsible toward their children,
    and that exposing the child to that irresponsibility is detrimental.
    FOR THE CHILD.  
    
    Now, perhaps in the future, this man will come forward and be ready
    for parental responsibility. I have left the door open.  If that
    ever happens, I am willing to allow visitation.  But for the time
    being, this person has clearly made a choice.  
    
    I appreciate your suggestions and opinion.  Now I'm rambling, so
    on that note will close
    
    Kim

"Well, I know of someone so badly off they wouldn't take such a deal."

The situation you describe is different from what I suggested as a last resort.
The situation I described was an either/or situation.  The situation you
describe the father has no  responsiblity.

Jim.