Do we have a problem with father's rights in the U.S.?

[Teller]

A couple of things have gotten me thinking recently about a subject that's near and dear to my heart: father's rights. (Or at least the concept of father's rights, I'm not sure they actually exist in practice.)

No matter what family subject you want to look at, whether it's custody, child support, abortion, whatever, it seems like we dads get the short end of the stick.

Think about it. At virtually any point she chooses during a pregnancy, our wives or girlfriends can choose to have OUR children terminated. And though we have 1/2 of the vested interest in that new little life, she can do it with or without our permission; and with or without our knowledge.

But say our wife/girlfriend gets knocked up and we don't want the child? What's our recourse? That's right fellas, there isn't one. She owns you for at least 18 years.

Want to talk child custody? Why is it that in divorce cases, mom gets the kids unless it can be unequivocally proven that she's a clinically insane, drug-dealing axe murderer? Is that equal treatment under the law? Shouldn't each parent have to prove his/her worthiness as a parent, and THEN have the judge make a decision?

Why is it that even though your average child-support-paying non-custodial father provides AT LEAST 1/2 of his childrens' support, he gets NONE of the tax credit for doing so?

Quite honestly, this thread absolutely IS started with a lot of sour grapes. But I'd like to try to set my frustration aside and have a legitimate discussion on this. Do we give father's ample rights in this country? Do we give the proper respect, and place the proper amount of importance on father's roles in our kids lives? And if we don't, what is the solution?

[ACW]

It sure seems that way to me :2cents:

[Teller]

It sure seems that way to me :2cents:

Maybe a better question for me to have asked would be, "And if all this is true, why does no one seem to care?"

Is it just because we're men, and traditionally we've "gotten our way" so to speak? I mean we've always held the political positions of power. And until the 1970s, we held all the positions of power in the workplace too. Is this some sort of national "make up call?" Is it just being overlooked?

Why does no one care?

[TMK9973]

H_H - While I agree with you about Fathers rights challenges, I don't think your examples are good one.

Tax Credit - That's is hardly a given. In my agreement, I get 100% of the tax credit for the kids. Most guys I know that pay child support get a portion of the tax credit, or they factored it into the child support numbers.

Abortion - Well- I actually agree with it being a women's choice. At the end of the day, it is her body. You can't MAKE her go through with a pregnancy. Now, I do know a guy who the girl lied to get pregnant (Said she was on the pill). He, of course, was screwed, but when it did go to court, he had to pay only a small portion of the child support

(That was a tough deal all around. It wasn't the kids fault the mom was a crazy women).

Custody is a issue. That I'm fully on board. I was lucky and my Ex was working very well with me (Mostly because I'm paying about about 33% more then I need to). But I do know friends that have gotten screwed in their custody.

[GibbsFactor]

Tell me how this works.

How can a female take a child away from a father, move to another state and the father still has to pay support.

Doesn't seem fair does it.

[Thiebear]

It's a Christian society that puts more onus on the woman. Whether or not the women leaves or the man leaves it is still ingrained that the woman is better off with the children.

It's a womens body so they get to chose to have an abortion without consulting the father, but if she decides to have the baby and Not marry the man he pays for 18yrs.

Then there are normally all kinds of restrictions applied as if the entire thing was his fault.

I got lucky and was married and got 50/50 with no primary custody. But Christ you have to give up Everything to ensure you don't go to court, because once there its over. You are at the whims of one of the 1000's of personalities behind the gavel.

A real man will make sure he's as involved as the women if that's his real goal.

Child support is not based on fair to either parent... Only to the children.

*****Disclaimer: Child support should be on a credit card that is audited so as to ensure it goes where it should *****

[Burgold]

I think it's still an artifact from the days where men were the breadwinners and women were the nurturers. I don't think that is as true anymore. Yet the courts still live in the mindset of the 1950's and Leave It to Beaver. Now, before the birth I do think that the woman deserves more rights. The man can walk, deny paternity, and make life difficult. After birth, dependent on what happens, that percentage should move towards equality and may even flip to men having more rights dependent on the actions taken during the child's life.

But we presume that the mother is the caregiver and that she's more stay at home. Even though, these days many women work just as hard and long outside of the home as do men.

Women get the glass ceiling. Men face off against the concrete play pen.

[Cooked Crack]

There's one thing I have a big problem with. I've read a couple stories about how men find out their child isn't theirs but still have to continue paying child support. Sounds like total BS to me. Nothing happens to the female for basically lying for years. That's why whenever I have kids I'm going to get a DNA test with the quickness.

[Redskins Diehard]

I think you start with a false, or at least debatable, premise that it is a 50-50 vested interest.

Abortion without consent/knowledge...yeah it sucks. Guys if you want to be in control then exercise some control. You have some say into whether or not she gets pregnant in the first place.

Child custody...never been in that position. Seen plenty that have been. Our society views mothers as the nurturer, the "child raiser". That is beared out in nature as well. I think it is reasonable that one would have to prove that not to be the case. I don't know if to the extremes that you listed.

Child support deductions...seems like you should get to deduct part of the deduction on your taxes. I don't even know what a child is worth as far as deductions go but seems like you should get a part of it. As long as children from broken harms are not worth more than children from uhhhh non-broken homes then I think a split should be worked out.

[Teller]

Tell me how this works.

How can a female take a child away from a father, move to another state and the father still has to pay support.

Doesn't seem fair does it.

Not at all.

It's a Christian society that puts more onus on the woman. Whether or not the women leaves or the man leaves it is still ingrained that the woman is better off with the children.

Society doesn't make the decision. Courts do. And if courts are making their decisions based on religious beliefs, we have a bigger issue than I thought.

It's a womens body so they get to chose to have an abortion without consulting the father, but if she decides to have the baby and Not marry the man he pays for 18yrs.

Then there are normally all kinds of restrictions applied as if the entire thing was his fault.

I know that technically you're correct, Thiebear. But I'll tell you this. Once I heard my daughter's heartbeats, if my ex had terminated those pregnancies, I don't know what I would've done. At that point, it might be your body, but you're also stopping MY child's heart. Needless to say, anyone else who would do that to them would suffer the same fate, at my hands.

I got lucky and was married and got 50/50 with no primary custody. But Christ you have to give up Everything to ensure you don't go to court, because once there its over. You are at the whims of one of the 1000's of personalities behind the gavel.

I gave up everything, still ended up in court, and still got hosed. I'm scheduled to have a whole 12 hours a week with my kids, but my ex doesn't even provide that. And because one of my two paychecks every month goes directly to child support, I can't afford to take her back to court.

A real man will make sure he's as involved as the women if that's his real goal.

I know you weren't directing that toward anyone, but that's simply not true in all cases.

Child support is not based on fair to either parent... Only to the children.

*****Disclaimer: Child support should be on a credit card that is audited so as to ensure it goes where it should *****

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's a Christian society that puts more onus on the woman. Whether or not the women leaves or the man leaves it is still ingrained that the woman is better off with the children.

A Christian society does this? Are you kidding me? On what basis do you claim that this is the "Christian" way of doing things?

[Teller]

I think you start with a false, or at least debatable, premise that it is a 50-50 vested interest.

I anticipated, care for, and love my children just as much as my ex. That's what I meant by "vested interest."

Abortion without consent/knowledge...yeah it sucks. Guys if you want to be in control then exercise some control. You have some say into whether or not she gets pregnant in the first place.

So does she. But again, she's the only one with an "out" for a boneheaded decision.

Child custody...never been in that position. Seen plenty that have been. Our society views mothers as the nurturer, the "child raiser". That is beared out in nature as well. I think it is reasonable that one would have to prove that not to be the case. I don't know if to the extremes that you listed.

So we presume women are better caregivers by nature. If that's the case, let's also presume that men are naturally smarter. (Obviously, I'm exaggerating to make a point. But I think inherently assigning superiority based on sex is a HORRIBLE idea. Same with race, ethnicity, etc.)

Child support deductions...seems like you should get to deduct part of the deduction on your taxes. I don't even know what a child is worth as far as deductions go but seems like you should get a part of it. As long as children from broken harms are not worth more than children from uhhhh non-broken homes then I think a split should be worked out.

Broken harms. A freudian slip, but accurate as all get out.

[Prosperity]

So we presume women are better caregivers by nature. If that's the case, let's also presume that men are naturally smarter. (Obviously, I'm exaggerating to make a point. But I think inherently assigning superiority based on sex is a HORRIBLE idea. Same with race, ethnicity, etc.)

dude, do you really think that race and ethnicity, which are social constructions are the "same" as biological difference? That's just ignorant. Women and men think differently. Women make their decisions more so on relationship ties, care, emotion, and identity. Men make their decisions based more on rules and autonomy. The complexity of the calculations isn't any more evident in men, so saying men are smarter is also ignorant. Saying women are more caring is probably true on a population level, on an individual level it's more up to chance. The point is that there are real biologically driven differences between the sexes and none of them make one superior to the other, just different.

As for child custody cases, don't know too much about them, but I'd venture to guess that they can be unfair. But if that's your argument don't dress it up in tangential whiny claims. I mean you really think that the investment of a pregnant women is the same as the father of the soon to be baby? That's absurd, at least on the simple biological level, I don't even want to think about what all those hormones do. In no case whatsoever would I think it to be just for a man to tell a woman he got pregnant that she has to go through the entire pregnancy instead of getting an early abortion. No doubt the father has some stake, but never will it reach equality with the woman just because of the biological investment.

[Teller]

dude, do you really think that race and ethnicity, which are social constructions are the "same" as biological difference? That's just ignorant. Women and men think differently. Women make their decisions more so on relationship ties, care, emotion, and identity. Men make their decisions based more on rules and autonomy. The complexity of the calculations isn't any more evident in men, so saying men are smarter is also ignorant. Saying women are more caring is probably true on a population level, on an individual level it's more up to chance. The point is that there are real biologically driven differences between the sexes and none of them make one superior to the other, just different.

Look at the face of someone who is Japanese. Look at mine. We're biologically different, if only physically.

And of course there are biological differences between the sexes (thank God). But is the ability to nurture and care for children exclusive to that second X chromosome? I don't think so.

All I'm saying is that it's dangerous and foolish to make presumptions in legal cases based on sex, race, whatever. And it is. It's also illegal. (Or at least it's supposed to be.)

[Teller]

That's absurd, at least on the simple biological level, I don't even want to think about what all those hormones do.

On second thought, you're right. Having to deal with her hormonal changes gave me more of a vested interest.

[Thiebear]

A Christian society does this? Are you kidding me? On what basis do you claim that this is the "Christian" way of doing things?

If 85% of the Country is religious then 85% of the Judges are religious so they "lean" a certain way based on their upbringing.

Show me a person that can suppress their beliefs day in and day out and i'll show you a psychopath.

I'm an atheist and i have christian leanings based on my upbringing... its only natural.

[Redskins Diehard]

I anticipated, care for, and love my children just as much as my ex. That's what I meant by "vested interest."

I really don't know that you, or anyone else, can make this claim. There is a biological difference in my opinion between the mother-child relationship...and the father-child relationship. We don't carry them around in our bodies. They don't receive their nurishment from us. We don't feel them moving around. (We also don't gain weight, get sick, and have to give birth). There is no doubt in my mind that you loved your children more than anything else in the world. And I know even less about their mother than I do about you. But I do think there is a fundamental difference between the two relationships.

So does she. But again, she's the only one with an "out" for a boneheaded decision.

"Fair" does not always equal "same".

So we presume women are better caregivers by nature. If that's the case, let's also presume that men are naturally smarter. (Obviously, I'm exaggerating to make a point. But I think inherently assigning superiority based on sex is a HORRIBLE idea. Same with race, ethnicity, etc.)

I don't know why we would have to presume anything about intelligence. God/nature gave one sex the abilty to carry a child and to nurture the child(even if you have a set of moobs you aren't feeding anything).

Broken harms. A freudian slip, but accurate as all get out.

But to answer your question...I think we do have a problem with father's rights...actually I would say we have a problem with "failed marriage procedures" in general.

[twa]

I think Burgold nailed it,in that it is much like affirmative action and based on historical models rather than todays world.

Speaking up and about it,bringing your grievances to your legislators is the best solution.

Many of you are paying for the sins of the past generations,but that's life.

Saw a study the other day where males greatly outnumber females in the new unemployment numbers,while the percentage of females in the job market rises.

They are also getting higher education in larger numbers.

Suck it up,and work at correcting the imbalances.

Being a father is neither fair nor easy,and you ain't gonna get much sympathy along the way.

[Prosperity]

Look at the face of someone who is Japanese. Look at mine. We're biologically different, if only physically.

no you really aren't you look different, but you also look different than Redskins Diehard (not that I know what either of you look like). But the point is that those aren't substantial differences people look different and those superficial differences got built up into the social construction of race. But the biological difference between a black male and a white male is obviously insignificant compared to a male and female of the same race.

And of course there are biological differences between the sexes (thank God). But is the ability to nurture and care for children exclusive to that second X chromosome? I don't think so.

not exclusive, comparatively more developed on a population level

All I'm saying is that it's dangerous and foolish to make presumptions in legal cases based on sex, race, whatever. And it is. It's also illegal. (Or at least it's supposed to be.)

On the issue of pregnancy?

there is absolutely a difference and that difference should be (and IS) recognized

child custody law may have it's issues (and I think you have real grievances here), but you don't need to bring up whiny arguments based on nothing but some ideal equal world were there is no difference between the sexes.

[Teller]

I really don't know that you, or anyone else, can make this claim. There is a biological difference in my opinion between the mother-child relationship...and the father-child relationship. We don't carry them around in our bodies. They don't receive their nurishment from us. We don't feel them moving around. (We also don't gain weight, get sick, and have to give birth). There is no doubt in my mind that you loved your children more than anything else in the world. And I know even less about their mother than I do about you. But I do think there is a fundamental difference between the two relationships.

Obviously, physically, she had far more invested than I did. No question. That's why I tried to clarify, but we're still talking past each other I think.

"Fair" does not always equal "same".

I fail to see how either applies in this case. "Fair" would be giving men the right to sign away their parental rights AND responsibilities; a "men's abortion" if you will. (I could never do that, but I think it would be "fair.")

I don't know why we would have to presume anything about intelligence. God/nature gave one sex the abilty to carry a child and to nurture the child(even if you have a set of moobs you aren't feeding anything).

I think you're hung up on the physical aspect of bearing children. Once that's over, the responsibilities and benefits of having children are (or should be) equal.

But to answer your question...I think we do have a problem with father's rights...actually I would say we have a problem with "failed marriage procedures" in general.

Yeah, and I fully admit I only truly understand half the picture. It's a horrible system for everyone -- especially the kids. I wish I could do something to be part of the fix.

[DeanCollins]

I totally agree H_H. I experienced both issues with the same x-wife. Before we separated for the last time, she was preg with child number 2. I was very happy that my 1.5 year old son was going to have a sibling close in age to go through life with. Wife's mother threatened to stop providing day care for our son and paying for wife's college courses. I was working two jobs to support us. I told wife to forget about her mothers threats and the we could get by without her help. I tried for 2 months to convince wife to have the child and she went and aborted our child.

I was able to obtain "joint custody" of our son, which was instrumental in another battle with the mother in law over her desire to have my son put on medication for ADD. :doh: When I threatened to sue the Dr. that was trying to put him on meds, he backed off.

After paying over $75,000 (not including med bills, clothes, toys, travel expenses... x-wife never drove 1 mile to meet me on my 11 hour rt for visitation) over 11 years. My son choose to live with me at age 13.

During that 5 years, the x-wife paid nothing and wanted me to let her continue to claim him for the $2,000 (in her pocket) unearned income tax credit :doh:, while her worthless biker husband did not work.

While she was no steller mother, the only serious situations that came up were both her and her stupid husband are chain smokers and caused my son to have respiratory problems, and him trying to physically disapline my son. The later I was able to prevent but the smoking, I'm sure, caused long term problems for my son.

[Teller]

nm.....sorry........

[Thiebear]

Well Liberty is 21 now and has all the male/female and husband/wife issues down to a science.

[Teller]

Well Liberty is 21 now and has all the male/female and husband/wife issues down to a science.

Right?

Doesn't help that this is such an emotional issue for those of us in the heat of it either. Sorry for my jackass remark.

[Prosperity]

Well Liberty is 21 now and has all the male/female and husband/wife issues down to a science.

uhh what?

You can deal with the husband/wife issues but my background is better suited to the male/female biological differences. I'm sorry you think that because you are older you somehow more competent in every area. I don't care how many kids or how many wives you've had, I know something about the biological differences in the processes. Ok smart guy?

bunch of whiners