A friend recently gave me two bits of information:
1) Her newly married son and his wife are five weeks pregant; and
2) They are in an open marriage, which the wife made use of about five or six weeks ago with her husband's best friend. (Which, oddly, coincides with their wedding date.)
Setting aside the moral issues regarding open marriages, how will this work regarding paternity if sometime down the road this marriage falls apart (and really, why would it?)?
What do you mean?
A friend? :hmm:
Quote from: Syt on May 02, 2013, 11:56:47 AM
A friend? :hmm:
Family member, actually, but that didn't seem important.
I would never do that to a friend. Unless he travelled a lot.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 11:57:42 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 02, 2013, 11:56:47 AM
A friend? :hmm:
Family member, actually, but that didn't seem important.
Wait she had sex with a family member now?
I guess it comes down to who, if either of the two guys, sign the birth certificate. If the husband signs it, then he's probably on the hook. If neither sign it, he's on the hook unless he gets a DNA test post haste.
To each his own, but the arrangement sounds creepy to me (surprise, surprise).
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 11:53:35 AM
A friend recently gave me two bits of information:
1) Her newly married son and his wife are five weeks pregant; and
2) They are in an open marriage, which the wife made use of about five or six weeks ago with her husband's best friend. (Which, oddly, coincides with their wedding date.)
Setting aside the moral issues regarding open marriages, how will this work regarding paternity if sometime down the road this marriage falls apart (and really, why would it?)?
He should get a paternity test.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 02, 2013, 12:00:34 PM
He should get a paternity test.
They should just be done as a matter of course. There's no reason every couple can't leave the hospital every time knowing the paternity of their child. It's 2013 ffs.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 12:09:01 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 02, 2013, 12:00:34 PM
He should get a paternity test.
They should just be done as a matter of course. There's no reason every couple can't leave the hospital every time knowing the paternity of their child. It's 2013 ffs.
I was able to just look at my kids. They look a lot like me. Poor kids :(
Neither of them bear any resemblance to my wife at all, but Lola seems to be imitating her facial expressions-- and Latina temper. A redhead with a Latina temper :ph34r:
I don't think that anyone is going to ask for a paternity test, and I'm fairly certain that the husband will be listed on the birth certificate.
If later, they should split up and it gets ugly, if they find out that the child isn't his biological child, what happens?
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2013, 12:16:06 PM
I was able to just look at my kids. They look a lot like me. Poor kids :(
Neither of them bear any resemblance to my wife at all, but Lola seems to be imitating her facial expressions-- and Latina temper. A redhead with a Latina temper :ph34r:
I've read that that's an evolutionairy thing. Babies tend to look just like their fathers until around their fourth or fifth birthday, at which time they start to look more like their mom. That way, the father is less likely to walk away, leaving Mom and Baby to die.
If he's on the birth certificate, he'll still get fucked over by the court for support. If there's any chance at all he's not the father he should not put his name on the certificate.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 12:21:06 PM
I don't think that anyone is going to ask for a paternity test, and I'm fairly certain that the husband will be listed on the birth certificate.
If later, they should split up and it gets ugly, if they find out that the child isn't his biological child, what happens?
Depends on state law, but there's a very good chance that hubby will be stuck with paternity. Even if later on he can get a DNA test that proves he is not the father. Best thing he can do to protect himself would be to not list himself on the birth cert and get a prompt DNA test.
Being listed on the birth certificate does not matter.
As a matter of law, if you're legally married you are presumed to be the father (or, if you have been living common law for one year).
In the particular scenario that Meri has, where the couple live together, start raising the child, then split, the husband will be in loco parentis (in place of the parent), even if he is not bio dad. As such he will be forced to pay for child support.
If the husband wanted to avoid paying child support he would need to separate from his wife, and ultimately get a divorce. Because if they stay together he will be treated as the father.
The state of the law on this point drove Drakken into a furious rage the last time it came up in Languish...
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 12:34:54 PM
Being listed on the birth certificate does not matter.
As a matter of law, if you're legally married you are presumed to be the father (or, if you have been living common law for one year).
In the particular scenario that Meri has, where the couple live together, start raising the child, then split, the husband will be in loco parentis (in place of the parent), even if he is not bio dad. As such he will be forced to pay for child support.
If the husband wanted to avoid paying child support he would need to separate from his wife, and ultimately get a divorce. Because if they stay together he will be treated as the father.
Yeah, same here, the chode's on the hook even if the kid is not his.
Isn't the real issue whether hubby *wants* to be the baby's daddy right now? If so, and he's going into the deal knowing full well that as a result of the open marriage he may not be bio-dad, why should he take any measures to "protect himself"?
Seems he has a choice - decide he doesn't like this whole open marriage business and doesn't want to be a dad if he's not the bio-dad, get a divorce and a paternity test before the birth certificate is issued; or become the dad fully for all purposes, knowing full well the possibility exists he's not bio-dad, sign the certificate, and be on the hook if they split.
The only complication would be if the other guy wants, if he's the bio-dad, to have paternal rights. No idea what happens then.
Can't they both sign?
Gross
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 12:44:19 PM
The only complication would be if the other guy wants, if he's the bio-dad, to have paternal rights. No idea what happens then.
That does get more tricky. It's been almost a decade since I did family law so I'm rusty on how that would work out. Bio dad could probably apply and get some limited visitation rights. But of course if he wants visitation rights that opens himself up to a request for child support. A child can't get child support twice, but if there's a problem with the husband then they could seek it.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 12:34:54 PM
Being listed on the birth certificate does not matter.
As a matter of law, if you're legally married you are presumed to be the father (or, if you have been living common law for one year).
In the particular scenario that Meri has, where the couple live together, start raising the child, then split, the husband will be in loco parentis (in place of the parent), even if he is not bio dad. As such he will be forced to pay for child support.
If the husband wanted to avoid paying child support he would need to separate from his wife, and ultimately get a divorce. Because if they stay together he will be treated as the father.
The state of the law on this point drove Drakken into a furious rage the last time it came up in Languish...
You sure it's the same under US law? I'm pretty sure different states have different laws on this.
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2013, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 12:34:54 PM
Being listed on the birth certificate does not matter.
As a matter of law, if you're legally married you are presumed to be the father (or, if you have been living common law for one year).
In the particular scenario that Meri has, where the couple live together, start raising the child, then split, the husband will be in loco parentis (in place of the parent), even if he is not bio dad. As such he will be forced to pay for child support.
If the husband wanted to avoid paying child support he would need to separate from his wife, and ultimately get a divorce. Because if they stay together he will be treated as the father.
The state of the law on this point drove Drakken into a furious rage the last time it came up in Languish...
You sure it's the same under US law? I'm pretty sure different states have different laws on this.
Certainly not 100% sure - it does depend on individual state law. But I believe I have the situation correct (though maybe the part about the birth certificate not mattering is different in the US).
in loco parentis is a very old concept so I feel quite confident that no matter the jurisdiction, if the husband starts raising the kid as his own if they subsequently separate he's on the hook for child support.
That previous thread actually raised a more contentious issue, because in that thread, the factual assumpton was that the "dad" didn't know he wasn't the biological father.
In this case, the "dad" knows that it's a possibility from the start. So if he goes ahead and raises the kid as his anyway, there isn't any particular unfairness to him if he's later held to be, legally, the father.
Yea it makes a lot more sense for the guy who chooses to become the parent to be held responsible than the guy who has no say in the birth or raising of the child. Biology shouldn't enter into it.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 12:55:15 PM
Certainly not 100% sure - it does depend on individual state law. But I believe I have the situation correct (though maybe the part about the birth certificate not mattering is different in the US).
in loco parentis is a very old concept so I feel quite confident that no matter the jurisdiction, if the husband starts raising the kid as his own if they subsequently separate he's on the hook for child support.
Yeah. In most places here, the non-father, if listed on the birth certificate, can be denied a paternity challenge if he's been acting as the father or if the court decides it's not in the child's best interest. There are some statute of limitations I think. Like you have to challenge within a couple years of the birth. But the process of putting him on the certificate includes a legal acceptance of paternity on his part that carries with it those obligations and rights of the parent.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 12:44:19 PM
Isn't the real issue whether hubby *wants* to be the baby's daddy right now? If so, and he's going into the deal knowing full well that as a result of the open marriage he may not be bio-dad, why should he take any measures to "protect himself"?
Seems he has a choice - decide he doesn't like this whole open marriage business and doesn't want to be a dad if he's not the bio-dad, get a divorce and a paternity test before the birth certificate is issued; or become the dad fully for all purposes, knowing full well the possibility exists he's not bio-dad, sign the certificate, and be on the hook if they split.
The only complication would be if the other guy wants, if he's the bio-dad, to have paternal rights. No idea what happens then.
This is exactly right. The question isn't if he'll be "on the hook". The question is what rights will he have regarding the child if it's found out later that he's not the biological dad?
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 01:30:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 12:44:19 PM
Isn't the real issue whether hubby *wants* to be the baby's daddy right now? If so, and he's going into the deal knowing full well that as a result of the open marriage he may not be bio-dad, why should he take any measures to "protect himself"?
Seems he has a choice - decide he doesn't like this whole open marriage business and doesn't want to be a dad if he's not the bio-dad, get a divorce and a paternity test before the birth certificate is issued; or become the dad fully for all purposes, knowing full well the possibility exists he's not bio-dad, sign the certificate, and be on the hook if they split.
The only complication would be if the other guy wants, if he's the bio-dad, to have paternal rights. No idea what happens then.
This is exactly right. The question isn't if he'll be "on the hook". The question is what rights will he have regarding the child if it's found out later that he's not the biological dad?
I suspect that if he's acted as the father for any substantial length of time, his rights (and responsibilities) would be the same as any other father regardless of biology - though of course, that may vary by jurisdiction, and it may get complicated if the bio-dad attempts to obtain some sort of rights (assuming he isn't the bio-dad).
If this is true, best strategy for securing rights is to do nothing and simply assume the father's role. Though if he's worried about it, it would be wise to consult a family lawyer in his state.
Quote from: Maximus on May 02, 2013, 01:19:13 PM
Yea it makes a lot more sense for the guy who chooses to become the parent to be held responsible than the guy who has no say in the birth or raising of the child. Biology shouldn't enter into it.
How do you prove that you did not choose to act as the parent?
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 01:37:13 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 01:30:51 PM
This is exactly right. The question isn't if he'll be "on the hook". The question is what rights will he have regarding the child if it's found out later that he's not the biological dad?
I suspect that if he's acted as the father for any substantial length of time, his rights (and responsibilities) would be the same as any other father regardless of biology - though of course, that may vary by jurisdiction, and it may get complicated if the bio-dad attempts to obtain some sort of rights (assuming he isn't the bio-dad).
If this is true, best strategy for securing rights is to do nothing and simply assume the father's role. Though if he's worried about it, it would be wise to consult a family lawyer in his state.
If he signs the paternity acceptance and then vanishes, there can be problems later for the mom. She would not be able to change the kid's name or get the kid a passport without his permission.
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2013, 01:38:17 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 02, 2013, 01:19:13 PM
Yea it makes a lot more sense for the guy who chooses to become the parent to be held responsible than the guy who has no say in the birth or raising of the child. Biology shouldn't enter into it.
How do you prove that you did not choose to act as the parent?
By not acting as the parent, in a situation in which you know or ought to know that the kid may not be yours.
My suggestion: get a divorce and a paternity test (if you choose not to be the parent of your wife's child). That would be pretty convincing.
I doubt one could successfully pull off "yeah, we are married and living in the same house,
but I decided not to be a parent to my wife's kid". A court is likely to look somewhat askance at that.
I do find it telling that every single one of you guys immediately jumped on the "he's going to get screwed by child support" bit without ever thinking "he gets to maintain contact with the child" if it goes sour.
I find that a sad commentary on the male perception of parenting post-divorce. :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 01:41:42 PM
If he signs the paternity acceptance and then vanishes, there can be problems later for the mom. She would not be able to change the kid's name or get the kid a passport without his permission.
Mom can petition to end parental rights of the dad after a certain length of time due to abandonment.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 01:43:32 PM
I do find it telling that every single one of you guys immediately jumped on the "he's going to get screwed by child support" bit without ever thinking "he gets to maintain contact with the child" if it goes sour.
I find that a sad commentary on the male perception of parenting post-divorce. :(
There are so many horror stories about it floating around out there. It's hard to escape it.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 01:43:32 PM
I do find it telling that every single one of you guys immediately jumped on the "he's going to get screwed by child support" bit without ever thinking "he gets to maintain contact with the child" if it goes sour.
I find that a sad commentary on the male perception of parenting post-divorce. :(
Ahem! :contract:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 01:45:44 PM
There are so many horror stories about it floating around out there. It's hard to escape it.
There are horror stories about men losing visitation rights and connections with their children, too, but it was the money you guys thought about.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 01:46:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 01:43:32 PM
I do find it telling that every single one of you guys immediately jumped on the "he's going to get screwed by child support" bit without ever thinking "he gets to maintain contact with the child" if it goes sour.
I find that a sad commentary on the male perception of parenting post-divorce. :(
Ahem! :contract:
I stand corrected. There were one or two of you that mentioned this. Kudos to you guys. :hug:
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 01:43:32 PM
I do find it telling that every single one of you guys immediately jumped on the "he's going to get screwed by child support" bit without ever thinking "he gets to maintain contact with the child" if it goes sour.
I find that a sad commentary on the male perception of parenting post-divorce. :(
I thought that's what you were asking about.
I never used the word "screwed" though, because the scenario seems perfectly fair to me.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 01:55:50 PM
I thought that's what you were asking about.
I never used the word "screwed" though, because the scenario seems perfectly fair to me.
I never said one way or another. I just asked what the ramifications would be. It wasn't a test; I just didn't mention it. But the responses were... sad.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 01:46:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 01:43:32 PM
I do find it telling that every single one of you guys immediately jumped on the "he's going to get screwed by child support" bit without ever thinking "he gets to maintain contact with the child" if it goes sour.
I find that a sad commentary on the male perception of parenting post-divorce. :(
Ahem! :contract:
I stand corrected. There were one or two of you that mentioned this. Kudos to you guys. :hug:
Heh, no problem.
I do tend to find many 'men's rights' type conversations have an edge of pettiness to them - not outright
saying paying child support was some horribly unfair burden, to be shirked at all costs, but you get the impression many guys
think it.
To be fair, though, men who
want parental responsibility tend on average to get a raw deal at the hands of courts. It is one of only two issues I know of where men get a substantially rawer deal than women on average (the other is primary school education).
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 12:21:06 PM
If later, they should split up and it gets ugly, if they find out that the child isn't his biological child, what happens?
What happens is he'll still be considered the father, he'll still have to pay for the kid, and that will happen even if the wife claims it's not his child and he therefore has no parental rights.
There should be a parental test done now.
Quote from: viper37 on May 02, 2013, 02:01:17 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 12:21:06 PM
If later, they should split up and it gets ugly, if they find out that the child isn't his biological child, what happens?
What happens is he'll still be considered the father, he'll still have to pay for the kid, and that will happen even if the wife claims it's not his child and he therefore has no parental rights.
There should be a parental test done now.
I'm fairly sure that you're mistaken. If he pays child support, then the courts consider him the father, and he will have parental rights. What those rights will be, however, depends entirely on the judge a couple gets. (Not even the jurisdiction, but the actual judge, sadly.)
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 01:57:09 PM
I never said one way or another. I just asked what the ramifications would be. It wasn't a test; I just didn't mention it. But the responses were... sad.
Are any of us actually divorced dads with kids? Why would our opinions make you sad? :P
Of course being an amateur genealogist I immediately starting fretting about the family tree ramifications :blush:
It depends Meri. If this couple splits when the child is still an infant, the husband may well not wish to be involved in the child's life. Being involved brings complications. It means constant contact with the woman you no longer love.
But if I discovered Timmy wasn't my child, after almost 3 years there's no way I'd just cut him out of my life.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 01:43:32 PM
I do find it telling that every single one of you guys immediately jumped on the "he's going to get screwed by child support" bit without ever thinking "he gets to maintain contact with the child" if it goes sour.
I find that a sad commentary on the male perception of parenting post-divorce. :(
Paying for the kid and getting to maintain contact with the child are two different things.
There was a case in Quebec, exactly like that (save for the open marriage thing). The guy alwasy had a doubt, but treated the kid as if it was his own. Some years later, he asked for a paternity test. He wasn't the father. He kept paying for the kid, but the ex-wife said he wasn't the father so he had no right to see the kid.
He went to court, trying to stop paying for the kid and the ex-wife. Court slammed him down, saying he had a responsibility to pay for the child's care until she turned 18 and the fact he wasn't seeing her changed nothing.
And this isn't a unique case either. One of my employee was in the same situation.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2013, 02:04:59 PM
Are any of us actually divorced dads with kids? Why would our opinions make you sad? :P
Because it's a sad commentary on society? :unsure:
QuoteOf course being an amateur genealogist I immediately starting fretting about the family tree ramifications :blush:
Would you do the same if a child were adopted?
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 02:05:30 PM
It depends Meri. If this couple splits when the child is still an infant, the husband may well not wish to be involved in the child's life. Being involved brings complications. It means constant contact with the woman you no longer love.
But if I discovered Timmy wasn't my child, after almost 3 years there's no way I'd just cut him out of my life.
The father wants children. To him, regardless of whose sperm made it, the child is already his. For some, time isn't what creates the bond so much as the desire for children. My cousin's son is one such guy.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:06:46 PM
QuoteOf course being an amateur genealogist I immediately starting fretting about the family tree ramifications :blush:
Would you do the same if a child were adopted?
I'd be like sorry, you've got no family tree.
Quote from: viper37 on May 02, 2013, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 01:43:32 PM
I do find it telling that every single one of you guys immediately jumped on the "he's going to get screwed by child support" bit without ever thinking "he gets to maintain contact with the child" if it goes sour.
I find that a sad commentary on the male perception of parenting post-divorce. :(
Paying for the kid and getting to maintain contact with the child are two different things.
There was a case in Quebec, exactly like that (save for the open marriage thing). The guy alwasy had a doubt, but treated the kid as if it was his own. Some years later, he asked for a paternity test. He wasn't the father. He kept paying for the kid, but the ex-wife said he wasn't the father so he had no right to see the kid.
He went to court, trying to stop paying for the kid and the ex-wife. Court slammed him down, saying he had a responsibility to pay for the child's care until she turned 18 and the fact he wasn't seeing her changed nothing.
And this isn't a unique case either. One of my employee was in the same situation.
In either case, the court was also saying the not-dad had no visitation rights?
Quote from: viper37 on May 02, 2013, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 01:43:32 PM
I do find it telling that every single one of you guys immediately jumped on the "he's going to get screwed by child support" bit without ever thinking "he gets to maintain contact with the child" if it goes sour.
I find that a sad commentary on the male perception of parenting post-divorce. :(
Paying for the kid and getting to maintain contact with the child are two different things.
There was a case in Quebec, exactly like that (save for the open marriage thing). The guy alwasy had a doubt, but treated the kid as if it was his own. Some years later, he asked for a paternity test. He wasn't the father. He kept paying for the kid, but the ex-wife said he wasn't the father so he had no right to see the kid.
He went to court, trying to stop paying for the kid and the ex-wife. Court slammed him down, saying he had a responsibility to pay for the child's care until she turned 18 and the fact he wasn't seeing her changed nothing.
And this isn't a unique case either. One of my employee was in the same situation.
Did the court say he didn't have visitation rights because he wasn't the bio-father?
Quote from: viper37 on May 02, 2013, 02:05:43 PM
Paying for the kid and getting to maintain contact with the child are two different things.
There was a case in Quebec, exactly like that (save for the open marriage thing). The guy alwasy had a doubt, but treated the kid as if it was his own. Some years later, he asked for a paternity test. He wasn't the father. He kept paying for the kid, but the ex-wife said he wasn't the father so he had no right to see the kid.
He went to court, trying to stop paying for the kid and the ex-wife. Court slammed him down, saying he had a responsibility to pay for the child's care until she turned 18 and the fact he wasn't seeing her changed nothing.
And this isn't a unique case either. One of my employee was in the same situation.
It sounds to me like he was trying to get out of being a father, and therefore tried to divorce himself financially from the child. Nowhere in this do you mention that he wanted or fought for more time with the child, only that he fought to avoid paying for her.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:08:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 02:05:30 PM
It depends Meri. If this couple splits when the child is still an infant, the husband may well not wish to be involved in the child's life. Being involved brings complications. It means constant contact with the woman you no longer love.
But if I discovered Timmy wasn't my child, after almost 3 years there's no way I'd just cut him out of my life.
The father wants children. To him, regardless of whose sperm made it, the child is already his. For some, time isn't what creates the bond so much as the desire for children. My cousin's son is one such guy.
I think time might play a factor though in whether or not you'd want the child if you had to keep contact with someone you now hate*.
*So like child born on day 0, day 1 relationship with mother harmed irreparably and you know kid isn't biologically yours. Has enough time elapsed that you'd consider kid yours and fight to stay in contact?
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 01:43:09 PM
My suggestion: get a divorce and a paternity test (if you choose not to be the parent of your wife's child). That would be pretty convincing.
Why not get the paternity test first and then go from there?
Quote from: garbon on May 02, 2013, 02:11:16 PM
I think time might play a factor though in whether or not you'd want the child if you had to keep contact with someone you now hate*.
*So like child born on day 0, day 1 relationship with mother harmed irreparably and you know kid isn't biologically yours. Has enough time elapsed that you'd consider kid yours and fight to stay in contact?
I don't see biology as that important, so I just can't answer that. To me, whether the child is my blood or not, if I think of him/her as mine, he/she is mine, and therefore worth fighting over if need be. It seems that men - or at least many Languish men - feel differently.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:04:31 PM
I'm fairly sure that you're mistaken. If he pays child support, then the courts consider him the father, and he will have parental rights. What those rights will be, however, depends entirely on the judge a couple gets. (Not even the jurisdiction, but the actual judge, sadly.)
I'm sure about Quebec. Not so sure about other jurisdictions.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 02, 2013, 02:11:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 01:43:09 PM
My suggestion: get a divorce and a paternity test (if you choose not to be the parent of your wife's child). That would be pretty convincing.
Why not get the paternity test first and then go from there?
Sure, whatever order you want ... but at the end of the day, if you are still married to this woman and living in the same residence as her and the kid, it's going to be hard to argue that you did not choose to be the father.
I say a divorce and a paternity test (in that order) for the simple reason that, if your marriage hinges on a paternity test, seems to me the actual relationship is over - I can't imagine any woman accepting "let's get a paternity test and if the kid passes, we stay married; if not, I hit the road".
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:10:44 PM
It sounds to me like he was trying to get out of being a father, and therefore tried to divorce himself financially from the child. Nowhere in this do you mention that he wanted or fought for more time with the child, only that he fought to avoid paying for her.
He wanted to be with the child, but the mother would not let him saying he was not the father and no rights.
So, in frustration, he decided not to pay for the kid's education.
She brought him to court, he lost. He still can't see the child, but he has to pay.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:06:46 PM
Because it's a sad commentary on society? :unsure:
People generally do not like being forced to pay money to support other people's kids. If Jerry had a bunch of kids with other women on the side back when you were married would you have been cool with paying child support for them? Granted this particular situation is completely different since the person in question made this situation an agreed upon possibility by going the open marriage route.
QuoteWould you do the same if a child were adopted?
It is the ambiguity not knowing who the biological parent is that would make me fret :lol:. Generally when kids are adopted we know the adopters are not the biological parents, and we may even know who one or both of the biological parents actually are (and in fact most cases I see are adoptions inside the family...you know the crackhead daughter keeps popping out kids so the family snags them up).
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:13:27 PMI don't see biology as that important, so I just can't answer that. To me, whether the child is my blood or not, if I think of him/her as mine, he/she is mine, and therefore worth fighting over if need be. It seems that men - or at least many Languish men - feel differently.
We can't all be glowing balls of enlightenment like you Meri.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:10:44 PM
It sounds to me like he was trying to get out of being a father, and therefore tried to divorce himself financially from the child. Nowhere in this do you mention that he wanted or fought for more time with the child, only that he fought to avoid paying for her.
There should be an equivalence to the laws though. If the parent is required to support the child (regardless of parentage) they should have visitation rights (regardless of parentage).
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:13:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 02, 2013, 02:11:16 PM
I think time might play a factor though in whether or not you'd want the child if you had to keep contact with someone you now hate*.
*So like child born on day 0, day 1 relationship with mother harmed irreparably and you know kid isn't biologically yours. Has enough time elapsed that you'd consider kid yours and fight to stay in contact?
I don't see biology as that important, so I just can't answer that. To me, whether the child is my blood or not, if I think of him/her as mine, he/she is mine, and therefore worth fighting over if need be. It seems that men - or at least many Languish men - feel differently.
I wouldn't say biology would be that important to me (in part, of course, because of my position) but I can see that attachment wouldn't necessarily stem from day 0 and so length of time would play a factor if the relationship with mother/spouse tanked.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:13:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 02, 2013, 02:11:16 PM
I think time might play a factor though in whether or not you'd want the child if you had to keep contact with someone you now hate*.
*So like child born on day 0, day 1 relationship with mother harmed irreparably and you know kid isn't biologically yours. Has enough time elapsed that you'd consider kid yours and fight to stay in contact?
I don't see biology as that important, so I just can't answer that. To me, whether the child is my blood or not, if I think of him/her as mine, he/she is mine, and therefore worth fighting over if need be. It seems that men - or at least many Languish men - feel differently.
I hear where you are comming from, but there must be more to it than a purely subjective test. I agree biology isn't determinative, but it must be based on something more than 'I have decided this child I have never seen and who is not related to me is mine'.
Quote from: viper37 on May 02, 2013, 02:16:21 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:10:44 PM
It sounds to me like he was trying to get out of being a father, and therefore tried to divorce himself financially from the child. Nowhere in this do you mention that he wanted or fought for more time with the child, only that he fought to avoid paying for her.
He wanted to be with the child, but the mother would not let him saying he was not the father and no rights.
So, in frustration, he decided not to pay for the kid's education.
She brought him to court, he lost. He still can't see the child, but he has to pay.
Family law courts order access to children from parents who don't want to grant it all the time.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:13:27 PM
I don't see biology as that important, so I just can't answer that. To me, whether the child is my blood or not, if I think of him/her as mine, he/she is mine, and therefore worth fighting over if need be. It seems that men - or at least many Languish men - feel differently.
So again if Jerry had a bunch of babies with other women and just brought them home and said 'well you are the momma now' that would not be different at all than if they were yours? Not even a little bit?
Because that is the situation where biology is important. If I already know the kid and think of him/her as mine than yeah biology is not that important.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 02:15:54 PM
Sure, whatever order you want ... but at the end of the day, if you are still married to this woman and living in the same residence as her and the kid, it's going to be hard to argue that you did not choose to be the father.
I say a divorce and a paternity test (in that order) for the simple reason that, if your marriage hinges on a paternity test, seems to me the actual relationship is over - I can't imagine any woman accepting "let's get a paternity test and if the kid passes, we stay married; if not, I hit the road".
Well, if the problem is with the kid and not with the sleeping around(what with the open marriage at all), it seems a pertinent consideration. And of course the guy doesn't have to get a divorce if he's not the dad and may still decide at some point to get one if he is. Divorce is a big decision while knowledge of a child's paternity is, as MIM said, something that should be automatic.
Quote from: frunk on May 02, 2013, 02:19:26 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:10:44 PM
It sounds to me like he was trying to get out of being a father, and therefore tried to divorce himself financially from the child. Nowhere in this do you mention that he wanted or fought for more time with the child, only that he fought to avoid paying for her.
There should be an equivalence to the laws though. If the parent is required to support the child (regardless of parentage) they should have visitation rights (regardless of parentage).
Agreed. That's why I initially asked the question. I wanted to know if he would legally still have visitation rights to the child even if later they found out that he wasn't the biological father.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:29:04 PM
Agreed. That's why I initially asked the question. I wanted to know if he would legally still have visitation rights to the child even if later they found out that he wasn't the biological father.
Are they going to stay married? If this was Texas he will have full parental rights biology or no if they do. It would only get weird if, you know, the other guy tries something.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 02:20:23 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:13:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 02, 2013, 02:11:16 PM
I think time might play a factor though in whether or not you'd want the child if you had to keep contact with someone you now hate*.
*So like child born on day 0, day 1 relationship with mother harmed irreparably and you know kid isn't biologically yours. Has enough time elapsed that you'd consider kid yours and fight to stay in contact?
I don't see biology as that important, so I just can't answer that. To me, whether the child is my blood or not, if I think of him/her as mine, he/she is mine, and therefore worth fighting over if need be. It seems that men - or at least many Languish men - feel differently.
I hear where you are comming from, but there must be more to it than a purely subjective test. I agree biology isn't determinative, but it must be based on something more than 'I have decided this child I have never seen and who is not related to me is mine'.
Well, when did you think of your child as yours? How long after she found out she was pregnant? Or did it take seeing him? Or was it when he first said your name?
For those without children, I can see how this can be sketchy, but for those with, I don't understand it.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2013, 02:21:52 PM
So again if Jerry had a bunch of babies with other women and just brought them home and said 'well you are the momma now' that would not be different at all than if they were yours? Not even a little bit?
Because that is the situation where biology is important. If I already know the kid and think of him/her as mine than yeah biology is not that important.
If Max had an affair that resulted in a child and he brought that child home to be loved and raised by us as a family, that child would be mine. I would accept it just as I accepted any of my other children, and if we split up, I would fight for the right to continue to be that child's mother.
The difference is that I would have to legally fight to make that child mine, whereas a man just has to be married to gain that right/responsibility. ;)
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 11:53:35 AM
A friend recently gave me two bits of information:
1) Her newly married son and his wife are five weeks pregant; and
2) They are in an open marriage, which the wife made use of about five or six weeks ago with her husband's best friend. (Which, oddly, coincides with their wedding date.)
Setting aside the moral issues regarding open marriages, how will this work regarding paternity if sometime down the road this marriage falls apart (and really, why would it?)?
What a train wreck in slow-mo.
The husband is clearly a victim, the wife due to insensitivity with his best friendly, seems entirely self-absorbed and so the marriage is doomed to fail.
The one I feel sorry for is the poor child.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2013, 02:30:52 PM
Are they going to stay married? If this was Texas he will have full parental rights biology or no if they do. It would only get weird if, you know, the other guy tries something.
So far as I know, they're happily married and thrilled about the upcoming arrival.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:33:49 PM
If Max had an affair that resulted in a child and he brought that child home to be loved and raised by us as a family, that child would be mine. I would accept it just as I accepted any of my other children, and if we split up, I would fight for the right to continue to be that child's mother.
Seriously? Even though it was not your choice at all to have this baby and all your kids have almost left home and you would be starting over again at your age from a newborn it would be exactly the same than if you had decided this by your own free will? That is a pretty big commitment that just got made for you.
Now I can see myself deciding to go ahead and do what you say you would do but I would want all the information available and I would have a choice to make. Now I would, of course, have made that decision considerably sooner than the child's actual birth but I would still want to know. It seems that makes me a terrible parent and a blight on society for some reason.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:36:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2013, 02:30:52 PM
Are they going to stay married? If this was Texas he will have full parental rights biology or no if they do. It would only get weird if, you know, the other guy tries something.
So far as I know, they're happily married and thrilled about the upcoming arrival.
Well then he would be golden if this was Texas.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2013, 02:38:19 PM
Seriously? Even though it was not your choice at all to have this baby and all your kids have almost left home and you would be starting over again at your age from a newborn it would be exactly the same than if you had decided this by your own free will?
:mellow:
Yes, seriously. I'm on record as saying that I would have a dozen more kids if I could. Why does this surprise you?
QuoteNow I can see myself deciding to go ahead and do what you say you would do but I would want all the information available and I would have a choice to make. It seems that makes me a terrible parent and a blight on society for some reason.
Where did anyone say that? :huh:
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:39:58 PM
:mellow:
Yes, seriously. I'm on record as saying that I would have a dozen more kids if I could. Why does this surprise you?
Ah I missed that. May you have a dozen grandchildren then :hug:
Still that is your choice and that is awesome. I would just want a choice and know the situation.
QuoteWhere did anyone say that?
The only reason I jumped into this is because you lamented us Languish men for being a sad statement about society. And then you said
QuoteFor those without children, I can see how this can be sketchy, but for those with, I don't understand it.
So I was trying, obviously ineffectually, to try to get you to have a little compassion and understanding for where we are coming from and not be too disgusted.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:39:58 PM
:mellow:
Yes, seriously. I'm on record as saying that I would have a dozen more kids if I could. Why does this surprise you?
I want to expand on this, because it's not really about my wanting more children or not. If Max brought a child home, I would fall in love with that child. It's not a question of if. Not because the child was Max's, but because it's a child that needs love. I'm equipped to give that love, so I would. And once given, I can't take it back. It doesn't work like that.
Once I accepted the child as "mine", it would be mine, end of story. No matter what happens down the line, no matter if the mother comes to ask for her, no matter if Max leaves me, no matter if the child decides at 15 that I'm not her "real mom", that child would be mine in my heart. That's just how it works for me.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:10:44 PM
tried to divorce himself financially from the child.
Like Ed if his marriage goes sour.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2013, 02:44:35 PM
The only reason I jumped into this is because you lamented us Languish men for being a sad statement about society. And then you said
QuoteFor those without children, I can see how this can be sketchy, but for those with, I don't understand it.
So I was trying, obviously ineffectually, to try to get you to have a little compassion and understanding for where we are coming from and not be too disgusted.
That was in response to garbon's comment that there would be a timeframe for him, day 0 vs day 1, etc. And the assumption is that you would have a choice. My cousin's son has a choice, after all. He knows what the score is, and he's made his decision with all of the facts. No one at any point said that you couldn't make a decision. The point was more that once you've made that decision, you really can't go back. And you really can't not make the decision, either.
For instance, if you found out tomorrow that your wife was pregnant and there was a question of whether or not the one-night-stand she had three months ago during a really ugly period in your relationship was the father or you were, you'd have to decide what to do. Once you decided, however, then that's it. There's no going back. You don't get to decide one thing today and come back in a month and say, "Yeah, this isn't going to work for me." That's just not how it works when you're a parent.
But it seems that a number of guys here are okay with, within a certain timeframe, saying, "Yeah, I've changed my mind." That's what I don't understand.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:49:35 PM
That was in response to garbon's comment that there would be a timeframe for him, day 0 vs day 1, etc. And the assumption is that you would have a choice. My cousin's son has a choice, after all. He knows what the score is, and he's made his decision with all of the facts. No one at any point said that you couldn't make a decision. The point was more that once you've made that decision, you really can't go back. And you really can't not make the decision, either.
Yeah I agree with that. Once you commit one way or the other you are in it for the longhaul, presuming you know the score.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 02:21:30 PM
Family law courts order access to children from parents who don't want to grant it all the time.
But he's not the parent... the paternity test shows he's not the parent and the mother does not consent to visitation rights.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:49:35 PM
That was in response to garbon's comment that there would be a timeframe for him, day 0 vs day 1, etc. And the assumption is that you would have a choice. My cousin's son has a choice, after all. He knows what the score is, and he's made his decision with all of the facts. No one at any point said that you couldn't make a decision. The point was more that once you've made that decision, you really can't go back. And you really can't not make the decision, either.
For instance, if you found out tomorrow that your wife was pregnant and there was a question of whether or not the one-night-stand she had three months ago during a really ugly period in your relationship was the father or you were, you'd have to decide what to do. Once you decided, however, then that's it. There's no going back. You don't get to decide one thing today and come back in a month and say, "Yeah, this isn't going to work for me." That's just not how it works when you're a parent.
But it seems that a number of guys here are okay with, within a certain timeframe, saying, "Yeah, I've changed my mind." That's what I don't understand.
Well you're right I didn't consider the pregnancy period. I think there is probably enough time to consider a kid your during that period.
And I'm not saying that it wouldn't cause anguish in my day 0 vs. day 1 example but rather I guess if there would be enough anguish that you'd be willing to put up with the continual slogfest that it would be between you and your ex. I don't think it is a sad commentary on society of people feel they don't have the stamina for that.
Quote from: garbon on May 02, 2013, 02:54:48 PM
Well you're right I didn't consider the pregnancy period. I think there is probably enough time to consider a kid your during that period.
And I'm not saying that it wouldn't cause anguish in my day 0 vs. day 1 example but rather I guess if there would be enough anguish that you'd be willing to put up with the continual slogfest that it would be between you and your ex. I don't think it is a sad commentary on society of people feel they don't have the stamina for that.
Oh, I agree. The sad commentary was that so many men immediately went to the money instead of the relationship with the child.
Money doesn't shit and puke all over the place.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:31:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 02:20:23 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:13:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 02, 2013, 02:11:16 PM
I think time might play a factor though in whether or not you'd want the child if you had to keep contact with someone you now hate*.
*So like child born on day 0, day 1 relationship with mother harmed irreparably and you know kid isn't biologically yours. Has enough time elapsed that you'd consider kid yours and fight to stay in contact?
I don't see biology as that important, so I just can't answer that. To me, whether the child is my blood or not, if I think of him/her as mine, he/she is mine, and therefore worth fighting over if need be. It seems that men - or at least many Languish men - feel differently.
I hear where you are comming from, but there must be more to it than a purely subjective test. I agree biology isn't determinative, but it must be based on something more than 'I have decided this child I have never seen and who is not related to me is mine'.
Well, when did you think of your child as yours? How long after she found out she was pregnant? Or did it take seeing him? Or was it when he first said your name?
For those without children, I can see how this can be sketchy, but for those with, I don't understand it.
My child is my biological child, so there was an instant assumption that it was "mine" from the monent she found out she was pregnant. This was based on two factors:
(1) The fact that the child was biologically mine; and
(2) the strength of my relationship with my wife, which is a relationship based, in part, on sexual exclusivity.
It would be odd indeed if I simply decided that some kid borne by a woman I did not have such a relationship with and which was not biologically "mine" was nonetheless "mine" - based on what? My decision, as in adoption? That implies I could decide otherwise, no?
Seems to me you are confusing the notion that a person who adopts is "just as much" a parent as a bio-parent (which I agree with) and that a person who adopts is in the same situation as a bio-parent (they are not). A bio-parent is a parent by default. An adoptive parent is a parent by choice. That choice may be formally made by signing some legal mumbo-jumbo, or arise because someone is acting like a parent over time (BB's
in loco parentis or some such latin legal mumbo-jumbo).
But choice implies a choice not to do something, and that choice isn't as readily available to biological parents.
Quote from: viper37 on May 02, 2013, 02:52:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 02:21:30 PM
Family law courts order access to children from parents who don't want to grant it all the time.
But he's not the parent... the paternity test shows he's not the parent and the mother does not consent to visitation rights.
If he's acted as the parent, he's the parent.
Quote from: The Brain on May 02, 2013, 02:48:47 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:10:44 PM
tried to divorce himself financially from the child.
Like Ed if his marriage goes sour.
Bitch will never find me.
Quote from: Maximus on May 02, 2013, 01:19:13 PM
Yea it makes a lot more sense for the guy who chooses to become the parent to be held responsible than the guy who has no say in the birth or raising of the child. Biology shouldn't enter into it.
Precisely.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:31:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 02:20:23 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:13:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 02, 2013, 02:11:16 PM
I think time might play a factor though in whether or not you'd want the child if you had to keep contact with someone you now hate*.
*So like child born on day 0, day 1 relationship with mother harmed irreparably and you know kid isn't biologically yours. Has enough time elapsed that you'd consider kid yours and fight to stay in contact?
I don't see biology as that important, so I just can't answer that. To me, whether the child is my blood or not, if I think of him/her as mine, he/she is mine, and therefore worth fighting over if need be. It seems that men - or at least many Languish men - feel differently.
I hear where you are comming from, but there must be more to it than a purely subjective test. I agree biology isn't determinative, but it must be based on something more than 'I have decided this child I have never seen and who is not related to me is mine'.
Well, when did you think of your child as yours? How long after she found out she was pregnant? Or did it take seeing him? Or was it when he first said your name?
For those without children, I can see how this can be sketchy, but for those with, I don't understand it.
Babies... aren't terribly interesting. They eat and sleep. It's pretty damn hard to form much of a connection with one absent that biological connection.
I was noting that about Andrew the other day. He's 10 months old, and he's finally getting to the age where he's interesting and fun to play with. :)
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 02:33:49 PMIf Max had an affair that resulted in a child and he brought that child home to be loved and raised by us as a family, that child would be mine.
Or you wouldn't know how to love it, and as a result your real kids would end up being crippled, or lost, or dead, and you would end up as a zombie and there would be a severe climate change. Things like this has happened.
Quote from: Martinus on May 02, 2013, 03:05:57 PM
Or you wouldn't know how to love it, and as a result your real kids would end up being crippled, or lost, or dead, and you would end up as a zombie and there would be a severe climate change. Things like this has happened.
Huh?
Oh Game of THrones. :lol: Nice
You know nothing Max Snow.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2013, 03:08:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 02, 2013, 03:05:57 PM
Or you wouldn't know how to love it, and as a result your real kids would end up being crippled, or lost, or dead, and you would end up as a zombie and there would be a severe climate change. Things like this has happened.
Huh?
Think popular books/TV show. :secret:
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 03:03:23 PM
Babies... aren't terribly interesting. They eat and sleep. It's pretty damn hard to form much of a connection with one absent that biological connection.
I was noting that about Andrew the other day. He's 10 months old, and he's finally getting to the age where he's interesting and fun to play with. :)
Yeah I didn't want to go there.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 02:59:02 PM
My child is my biological child, so there was an instant assumption that it was "mine" from the monent she found out she was pregnant. This was based on two factors:
(1) The fact that the child was biologically mine; and
(2) the strength of my relationship with my wife, which is a relationship based, in part, on sexual exclusivity.
It would be odd indeed if I simply decided that some kid borne by a woman I did not have such a relationship with and which was not biologically "mine" was nonetheless "mine" - based on what? My decision, as in adoption? That implies I could decide otherwise, no?
Seems to me you are confusing the notion that a person who adopts is "just as much" a parent as a bio-parent (which I agree with) and that a person who adopts is in the same situation as a bio-parent (they are not). A bio-parent is a parent by default. An adoptive parent is a parent by choice. That choice may be formally made by signing some legal mumbo-jumbo, or arise because someone is acting like a parent over time (BB's in loco parentis or some such latin legal mumbo-jumbo).
But choice implies a choice not to do something, and that choice isn't as readily available to biological parents.
I keep looking for somewhere that I said that you didn't have a choice, or that you had to go into this blindly.
My point was that to me, biology isn't the determining factor that it seems to be for you guys AS YOU STATED IN THIS POST. I don't need that biological tie to feel a connection, which seems to be the case for you and several others. I was asking at what point you could decide that it's not worth raising this child that you've accepted as yours if things go south with the mother.
Let me, once again, say that once I've made the choice, then my heart belongs to the child. Period. End of story. There's no going back in a month or a week or a day and saying, "Yeah, I'm sorry, but I really don't care for you anymore, so I want nothing more to do with that child." It just doesn't work that way for me, so it's very strange to me to hear that some of you could do that. It's not a value judgment; it's just surprise.
By taking care of non-bio kids you make a mockery of evolution. I think this is enough of an argument.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 03:03:23 PM
Babies... aren't terribly interesting. They eat and sleep. It's pretty damn hard to form much of a connection with one absent that biological connection.
I was noting that about Andrew the other day. He's 10 months old, and he's finally getting to the age where he's interesting and fun to play with. :)
So you didn't fall in love with him until he was... how old? At what point did you feel a connection with either of your boys?
I would honestly not want to raise somebody else's kid. I don't have any good reason why I feel that way. My stepdad did it happily. I don't want to adopt either. Again, no good reason why. I would do it if placed in that situation and it was the right thing to do though.
Funny, I have some nephews that get most of their male role-modely stuff from me and that doesn't bother me. I guess I'm conflicted.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 03:15:12 PM
So you didn't fall in love with him until he was... how old? At what point did you feel a connection with either of your boys?
NOt sure. You warm up slowly. It was different than how my wife experienced it. SOme men feel guilty that they do not feel as connected as they should at first, I knew this would be the case so I was patient.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 03:13:42 PM
Let me, once again, say that once I've made the choice, then my heart belongs to the child. Period. End of story. There's no going back in a month or a week or a day and saying, "Yeah, I'm sorry, but I really don't care for you anymore, so I want nothing more to do with that child." It just doesn't work that way for me, so it's very strange to me to hear that some of you could do that. It's not a value judgment; it's just surprise.
Definitely agreed. That's why it's a good idea to know everything up-front and not find out years later. People just need to be honest with each other to avoid the damage. I think your cousin, even though he seems to be happy with the situation, should still know up front what the facts are. It might matter some time in the future.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Definitely agreed. That's why it's a good idea to know everything up-front and not find out years later. People just need to be honest with each other to avoid the damage. I think your cousin, even though he seems to be happy with the situation, should still know up front what the facts are. It might matter some time in the future.
The bolded part makes me think that you don't understand at all.
Hey people change. The other possible father might try to take the kid away or something.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2013, 03:17:41 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 03:15:12 PM
So you didn't fall in love with him until he was... how old? At what point did you feel a connection with either of your boys?
NOt sure. You warm up slowly. It was different than how my wife experienced it. SOme men feel guilty that they do not feel as connected as they should at first, I knew this would be the case so I was patient.
Actually, I didn't fall in love with my twins right away. I was still too young and too selfish. I mean, I cared for them, but that feeling of "my heart walking around outside me" didn't happen until they were almost two weeks old, and they nearly died. THAT'S when I realized just as important to me they were.
Once that happened the first time, though, I've pretty much fallen in love with the rest of my children the moment that I knew that I was pregnant. It's what made losing Ian so hard.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 03:15:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 03:03:23 PM
Babies... aren't terribly interesting. They eat and sleep. It's pretty damn hard to form much of a connection with one absent that biological connection.
I was noting that about Andrew the other day. He's 10 months old, and he's finally getting to the age where he's interesting and fun to play with. :)
So you didn't fall in love with him until he was... how old? At what point did you feel a connection with either of your boys?
I dunno - it's a growing phenomenon. It's not s if I wouldn't have done anything and everything for either boy since the day they were born, but that's more about responsibility.
Emotional love just came with time.
"Open marriage" means the guy is gay. Do we want gays to raise children?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:23:02 PM
Hey people change.
That's my point. I don't understand the idea that a person can stop being in love with their child... no matter what blood runs through their veins. The idea that "people change" can affect that is alien to me.
QuoteThe other possible father might try to take the kid away or something.
And if he did, one would think that the father who raised the kid would fight for him. At least, I would do so, and I don't understand not doing so.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 03:24:37 PM
I dunno - it's a growing phenomenon. It's not s if I wouldn't have done anything and everything for either boy since the day they were born, but that's more about responsibility.
Emotional love just came with time.
This seems to be the bigger difference (in general) between men and women. (I say in general because I know both men and women who have fallen in love right away, and have taken time to fall in love, with their children. There are always exceptions to the rule.)
Again, this is not a value judgment. I'm learning, that's all. I've never had this explained to me.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 02:59:02 PM
My child is my biological child, so there was an instant assumption that it was "mine" from the monent she found out she was pregnant. This was based on two factors:
(1) The fact that the child was biologically mine; and
(2) the strength of my relationship with my wife, which is a relationship based, in part, on sexual exclusivity.
It would be odd indeed if I simply decided that some kid borne by a woman I did not have such a relationship with and which was not biologically "mine" was nonetheless "mine" - based on what? My decision, as in adoption? That implies I could decide otherwise, no?
Seems to me you are confusing the notion that a person who adopts is "just as much" a parent as a bio-parent (which I agree with) and that a person who adopts is in the same situation as a bio-parent (they are not). A bio-parent is a parent by default. An adoptive parent is a parent by choice. That choice may be formally made by signing some legal mumbo-jumbo, or arise because someone is acting like a parent over time (BB's in loco parentis or some such latin legal mumbo-jumbo).
But choice implies a choice not to do something, and that choice isn't as readily available to biological parents.
I keep looking for somewhere that I said that you didn't have a choice, or that you had to go into this blindly.
My point was that to me, biology isn't the determining factor that it seems to be for you guys AS YOU STATED IN THIS POST. I don't need that biological tie to feel a connection, which seems to be the case for you and several others. I was asking at what point you could decide that it's not worth raising this child that you've accepted as yours if things go south with the mother.
Let me, once again, say that once I've made the choice, then my heart belongs to the child. Period. End of story. There's no going back in a month or a week or a day and saying, "Yeah, I'm sorry, but I really don't care for you anymore, so I want nothing more to do with that child." It just doesn't work that way for me, so it's very strange to me to hear that some of you could do that. It's not a value judgment; it's just surprise.
Huh? You are willfully misreading my posts.
My point (I'll put this simply):
once the choice is made by a non-bio-parent, that choice is "just as good as" the bond of a bio-parent.
However, bio-parents are different from non-bio-parents, in that the
default position is that they are parents. Non-bio-parents have to go through more "effort" to get into the position where that choice is made - either by an act of will as in adoption, or by the passage of time as in loco parentis.
In
either case, biological or not, once the determination is made that one is a parent, there is no "going back".
Your position, if I understand it, is that you make that choice (or would make it) instantly, based on what I don't know, to a kid you have never seen and who is not related to you. Moreover, that you would not care if other people have legitimate ties to that child.
That's fine, as long as it doesn't land you in legal trouble, but it is hardly a "surprise" that others don't share your POV.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 03:26:26 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:23:02 PM
Hey people change.
That's my point. I don't understand the idea that a person can stop being in love with their child... no matter what blood runs through their veins. The idea that "people change" can affect that is alien to me.
QuoteThe other possible father might try to take the kid away or something.
And if he did, one would think that the father who raised the kid would fight for him. At least, I would do so, and I don't understand not doing so.
Yep. That's what I mean. If your cousin and other guy both don't know which is the father and don't currently care, that's fine. But if the mom were to die or something then somebody's gonna get that kid.
If your cousin wants to keep him/her, it's a good idea to find out the paternity from the get-go. If the kid is his, he'll get the rights. If the kid is not his, he can choose to stay with the kid. He can't control other guy though. If other guy is the father and decides to leave with the kid, your cousin might not be able to do anything. Or if other guy is the father and decides to leave without the kid, your cousin might not be able to get support if no paternity had been established.
Quote from: The Brain on May 02, 2013, 03:24:42 PM
"Open marriage" means the guy is gay. Do we want gays to raise children?
Hey now, he could just be a loser.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 03:26:26 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:23:02 PM
Hey people change.
That's my point. I don't understand the idea that a person can stop being in love with their child... no matter what blood runs through their veins. The idea that "people change" can affect that is alien to me.
QuoteThe other possible father might try to take the kid away or something.
And if he did, one would think that the father who raised the kid would fight for him. At least, I would do so, and I don't understand not doing so.
Yep. That's what I mean. If your cousin and other guy both don't know which is the father and don't currently care, that's fine. But if the mom were to die or something then somebody's gonna get that kid.
If your cousin wants to keep him/her, it's a good idea to find out the paternity from the get-go. If the kid is his, he'll get the rights. If the kid is not his, he can choose to stay with the kid. He can't control other guy though. If other guy is the father and decides to leave with the kid, your cousin might not be able to do anything. Or if other guy is the father and decides to leave without the kid, your cousin might not be able to get support if no paternity had been established.
I see only a downside risk to getting a paternity test if the guy wants to be dad.
As it stands, it may not be easy or even possible for the other guy to get a paternity test done. If the wife dies, what proof has he that he's the dad, other than his say-so that they had sex? Would a court order such a test based on that evidence?
The dad enjoys the status quo that he's married to the mom. Ordering the test creates evidence that may prove otherwise.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 03:28:59 PM
Huh? You are willfully misreading my posts.
No. I misunderstood your point. I'm sorry for that.
QuoteMy point (I'll put this simply): once the choice is made by a non-bio-parent, that choice is "just as good as" the bond of a bio-parent.
However, bio-parents are different from non-bio-parents, in that the default position is that they are parents. Non-bio-parents have to go through more "effort" to get into the position where that choice is made - either by an act of will as in adoption, or by the passage of time as in loco parentis.
In either case, biological or not, once the determination is made that one is a parent, there is no "going back".
Your position, if I understand it, is that you make that choice (or would make it) instantly, based on what I don't know, to a kid you have never seen and who is not related to you. Moreover, that you would not care if other people have legitimate ties to that child.
That's fine, as long as it doesn't land you in legal trouble, but it is hardly a "surprise" that others don't share your POV.
I see where you're coming from, and it's not quite right, so let me try to clarify.
If Max came home with a child that was his, then the assumption is that the child would be mine to raise as well (unless this was his twisted way to ask for a divorce). Based on that, it wouldn't take long for me to fall in love with it. Probably, a minute and a half. Maybe two minutes, tops. (Though I'd probably take a little longer to get over being angry with Max for the infidelity and lack of communication during the woman's pregnancy.)
The bolded part above is where the confusion stems from. "The passage of time" doesn't give much information, but based on this thread, I'd guess that that length of time would be much longer for many of you than it would be for me. It would require the decision to allow myself to love the child, and then it would be done. That decision would be based on the chance that the child would be taken away more than anything to do with the child itself. Would it be safe to give the child my heart because it's going to be raised as my child? If so, then it's given.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:33:06 PM
Yep. That's what I mean. If your cousin and other guy both don't know which is the father and don't currently care, that's fine. But if the mom were to die or something then somebody's gonna get that kid.
If your cousin wants to keep him/her, it's a good idea to find out the paternity from the get-go. If the kid is his, he'll get the rights. If the kid is not his, he can choose to stay with the kid. He can't control other guy though. If other guy is the father and decides to leave with the kid, your cousin might not be able to do anything. Or if other guy is the father and decides to leave without the kid, your cousin might not be able to get support if no paternity had been established.
Right. That's why I asked. I wondered what would happen.
The law-talkers are saying that by being the father for the duration and being married to the mother at the time of the child's birth, he is establishing paternity.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 03:38:12 PM
I see only a downside risk to getting a paternity test if the guy wants to be dad.
As it stands, it may not be easy or even possible for the other guy to get a paternity test done. If the wife dies, what proof has he that he's the dad, other than his say-so that they had sex? Would a court order such a test based on that evidence?
The dad enjoys the status quo that he's married to the mom. Ordering the test creates evidence that may prove otherwise.
I don't understand that thinking. Getting a paternity test shouldn't automatically bring an assumption that he doesn't want to be a father to the kid.
It's a piece of information. How can there be a benefit to leaving a piece of information not-known?
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 03:42:13 PM
Right. That's why I asked. I wondered what would happen.
The law-talkers are saying that by being the father for the duration and being married to the mother at the time of the child's birth, he is establishing paternity.
In this case, there's another dad in the mix though. Does it still work that way? Maybe it does, I dunno. If both dads live with the kid all that time, can they be legally required to maintain joint custody between them after mom is gone?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:42:25 PM
I don't understand that thinking. Getting a paternity test shouldn't automatically bring an assumption that he doesn't want to be a father to the kid.
It's a piece of information. How can there be a benefit to leaving a piece of information not-known?
A paternity test establishes "true" paternity, in which case it can be used against the husband should the wife die. Without it, the best friend has zero claim, regardless of whether he is the "true" father or not.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:43:55 PM
In this case, there's another dad in the mix though. Does it still work that way? Maybe it does, I dunno. If both dads live with the kid all that time, can they be legally required to maintain joint custody between them after mom is gone?
There's another penis in the mix, not necessarily another dad. :contract:
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 03:39:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 03:28:59 PM
Huh? You are willfully misreading my posts.
No. I misunderstood your point. I'm sorry for that.
QuoteMy point (I'll put this simply): once the choice is made by a non-bio-parent, that choice is "just as good as" the bond of a bio-parent.
However, bio-parents are different from non-bio-parents, in that the default position is that they are parents. Non-bio-parents have to go through more "effort" to get into the position where that choice is made - either by an act of will as in adoption, or by the passage of time as in loco parentis.
In either case, biological or not, once the determination is made that one is a parent, there is no "going back".
Your position, if I understand it, is that you make that choice (or would make it) instantly, based on what I don't know, to a kid you have never seen and who is not related to you. Moreover, that you would not care if other people have legitimate ties to that child.
That's fine, as long as it doesn't land you in legal trouble, but it is hardly a "surprise" that others don't share your POV.
I see where you're coming from, and it's not quite right, so let me try to clarify.
If Max came home with a child that was his, then the assumption is that the child would be mine to raise as well (unless this was his twisted way to ask for a divorce). Based on that, it wouldn't take long for me to fall in love with it. Probably, a minute and a half. Maybe two minutes, tops. (Though I'd probably take a little longer to get over being angry with Max for the infidelity and lack of communication during the woman's pregnancy.)
The bolded part above is where the confusion stems from. "The passage of time" doesn't give much information, but based on this thread, I'd guess that that length of time would be much longer for many of you than it would be for me. It would require the decision to allow myself to love the child, and then it would be done. That decision would be based on the chance that the child would be taken away more than anything to do with the child itself. Would it be safe to give the child my heart because it's going to be raised as my child? If so, then it's given.
Seems to me "act of will" covers it.
You would make the choice as an act of will - same as a parent who fills out the paperwork to adopt a kid they have never seen and are not related to from an agency.
For others, who have not made such an act of will, it takes time to get to know the kid and form a bond.
In either case, the bond is not made until it is made, and is not really revocable once made.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:43:55 PM
In this case, there's another dad in the mix though. Does it still work that way? Maybe it does, I dunno. If both dads live with the kid all that time, can they be legally required to maintain joint custody between them after mom is gone?
There's another penis in the mix, not necessarily another dad. :contract:
I feel like I have to explain that all the time!
Another question for the lawyers: If the bio dad vanishes, and the dad-by-choice stays, then mom dies, can bio-dad take the kid away from dad-by-choice? They both fit the definition of parent as Malthus stated it, right?
What about cases of surrogate mothers trying to get the kid later?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:42:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 03:38:12 PM
I see only a downside risk to getting a paternity test if the guy wants to be dad.
As it stands, it may not be easy or even possible for the other guy to get a paternity test done. If the wife dies, what proof has he that he's the dad, other than his say-so that they had sex? Would a court order such a test based on that evidence?
The dad enjoys the status quo that he's married to the mom. Ordering the test creates evidence that may prove otherwise.
I don't understand that thinking. Getting a paternity test shouldn't automatically bring an assumption that he doesn't want to be a father to the kid.
It's a piece of information. How can there be a benefit to leaving a piece of information not-known?
Think like a lawyer here, not like an engineer.
Without the test, the would-be bio-dad has no case. He is unlikely even to have a case enough to get a court to order the test.
So why would existing-dad order the test? He's already in the best position - he's the legally-recognized dad. The results of the test can only weaken his position.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:42:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 03:38:12 PM
I see only a downside risk to getting a paternity test if the guy wants to be dad.
As it stands, it may not be easy or even possible for the other guy to get a paternity test done. If the wife dies, what proof has he that he's the dad, other than his say-so that they had sex? Would a court order such a test based on that evidence?
The dad enjoys the status quo that he's married to the mom. Ordering the test creates evidence that may prove otherwise.
I don't understand that thinking. Getting a paternity test shouldn't automatically bring an assumption that he doesn't want to be a father to the kid.
It's a piece of information. How can there be a benefit to leaving a piece of information not-known?
There are plenty of times when, dealing with genetic information, you don't want to know.
My wife's cousin has a 50% chance of getting Huntington's disease, and if he has it, he has a 50% chance of passing it on to their kids. They have a test for the Huntington's gene, but he has not taken it. Getting a positive result would impact so many things for them, including their decision to have kids (they have 2, with 1 more on the way).
I can see the same situation here. If the guy is planning on raising the kid he is saying it doesn't matter whether he is bio-dad or not. Getting a paternity test would show that it DOES matter to him. Once you know "you are NOT the father" (to quote Maury) that knowledge will always impact your relationship with that child.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2013, 03:47:26 PM
Seems to me "act of will" covers it.
You would make the choice as an act of will - same as a parent who fills out the paperwork to adopt a kid they have never seen and are not related to from an agency.
For others, who have not made such an act of will, it takes time to get to know the kid and form a bond.
In either case, the bond is not made until it is made, and is not really revocable once made.
Right. Makes sense. My surprise stems only from the length of time it seems that would apply here to many of you guys (or at least the appearance of that length of time). Also, that some seem to think that it is, actually, revocable, if things go south with Mom, though that's a select few.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:50:26 PM
Another question for the lawyers: If the bio dad vanishes, and the dad-by-choice stays, then mom dies, can bio-dad take the kid away from dad-by-choice? They both fit the definition of parent as Malthus stated it, right?
What about cases of surrogate mothers trying to get the kid later?
My understanding (based on jurisdiction, etc.) is that, if dad-by-choice has had the kid long enough to form a paternal bond in the eyes of a court, he wins. It would be (legally) messy if (say) mom died in childbirth.
Again, bio-dad has to have some evidence he really is bio-dad to even raise the issue.
Quote from: Legbiter on May 02, 2013, 03:35:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 02, 2013, 03:24:42 PM
"Open marriage" means the guy is gay. Do we want gays to raise children?
Hey now, he could just be a loser.
Yeah, that's my reading too.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:50:26 PM
Another question for the lawyers: If the bio dad vanishes, and the dad-by-choice stays, then mom dies, can bio-dad take the kid away from dad-by-choice? They both fit the definition of parent as Malthus stated it, right?
What about cases of surrogate mothers trying to get the kid later?
It is likely going to depend on the particular laws of the area, and of course on the particular factual situation.
Bio dad may have difficulty even gaining standing. You can't just go around to people and say "Hey I slept with your kids mom and I want a paternity test to prove it". Even if genetic paternity is proven, bio dad may still not have standing (I did represent a dad who had a short fling with a girl who got pregnant and did want to be involved with the baby, but because they had never lived together standing was an issue).
Even once bio dad gets standing, the general presumption is going to be that they don't want to take kids away from the home they are in if the kid is flourishing. But if bio dad can show he would provide a better environment, then maybe he can get custody of the kid.
I'm not sure what happens with surrogate mothers (who carry the baby, but not use her egg). With adoptions I think there is a short window where the adopted mother can change her mind, but once the kid has been with the adoptive parents for a short period of time you can't go back.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 03:21:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Definitely agreed. That's why it's a good idea to know everything up-front and not find out years later. People just need to be honest with each other to avoid the damage. I think your cousin, even though he seems to be happy with the situation, should still know up front what the facts are. It might matter some time in the future.
The bolded part makes me think that you don't understand at all.
So, according to you, one cannot stop loving someone, ever? If it turns out something was the wrong choice, it is not allowed to be changed?
Quote from: Solmyr on May 02, 2013, 04:01:32 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 03:21:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Definitely agreed. That's why it's a good idea to know everything up-front and not find out years later. People just need to be honest with each other to avoid the damage. I think your cousin, even though he seems to be happy with the situation, should still know up front what the facts are. It might matter some time in the future.
The bolded part makes me think that you don't understand at all.
So, according to you, one cannot stop loving someone, ever? If it turns out something was the wrong choice, it is not allowed to be changed?
Not when that someone is a child that you've accepted as your own, no. :mellow:
Quote from: Solmyr on May 02, 2013, 04:01:32 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 03:21:31 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Definitely agreed. That's why it's a good idea to know everything up-front and not find out years later. People just need to be honest with each other to avoid the damage. I think your cousin, even though he seems to be happy with the situation, should still know up front what the facts are. It might matter some time in the future.
The bolded part makes me think that you don't understand at all.
So, according to you, one cannot stop loving someone, ever? If it turns out something was the wrong choice, it is not allowed to be changed?
I think she misunderstood me to mean stop loving the kids. I would have had the same reaction. By people changing I meant stuff that might cause a divorce like abuse or some other change in the circumstances of the marriage.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 04:09:02 PM
I think she misunderstood me to mean stop loving the kids. I would have had the same reaction. By people changing I meant stuff that might cause a divorce like abuse or some other change in the circumstances of the marriage.
That makes more sense. :)
I'm more interested in the motivation of the mother in the OP to give Meri a couple of pieces of gossip.
Was she saying, hey, my son and wife are so modern and progressive. Or implying, man what a cuckold my son has turned into. Or yet something else ?
Quote from: mongers on May 02, 2013, 04:29:47 PM
I'm more interested in the motivation of the mother in the OP to give Meri a couple of pieces of gossip.
Was she saying, hey, my son and wife are so modern and progressive. Or implying, man what a cuckold my son has turned into. Or yet something else ?
It's my cousin, whom I'm very close to. She was concerned about her son and needed to talk about what was going on. She's not at all pleased with the couple's relationship, and given that she makes derspiess seem like a Democrat, that's not all that surprising. "New" and "modern" ways of looking at life are not exactly her style. She knows that I'm a little bit more open-minded to these things, and she needed that balance.
(Open-minded as in I'm okay that others do this stuff, not open-minded as in I'm okay with this kind of relationship for myself.)
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 04:37:09 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 02, 2013, 04:29:47 PM
I'm more interested in the motivation of the mother in the OP to give Meri a couple of pieces of gossip.
Was she saying, hey, my son and wife are so modern and progressive. Or implying, man what a cuckold my son has turned into. Or yet something else ?
It's my cousin, whom I'm very close to. She was concerned about her son and needed to talk about what was going on. She's not at all pleased with the couple's relationship, and given that she makes derspiess seem like a Democrat, that's not all that surprising. "New" and "modern" ways of looking at life are not exactly her style. She knows that I'm a little bit more open-minded to these things, and she needed that balance.
(Open-minded as in I'm okay that others do this stuff, not open-minded as in I'm okay with this kind of relationship for myself.)
Oh I see, yes, she's right to be worried. The wife concerned seems like a nightmare, pulling this stunt within weeks of marriage, though in large part it's his fault for marrying her and enabling the stupidity.
My own view, Meri you should go full-bore judgemental on this. :cool:
It seems incredibly selfish of the wife...First she was exposing her husband to the risk of disease. Second, possibly getting pregnant by another man opens up a bunch of complications (legal and otherwise) that are unnecessary.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 03:51:54 PM
Getting a paternity test would show that it DOES matter to him. Once you know "you are NOT the father" (to quote Maury) that knowledge will always impact your relationship with that child.
It matters to him whether he shows it or not. Knowing for sure would likely help his relationship with the kid if it is his, and if it's not the kid might have more to do with bio-dad.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2013, 04:54:54 PM
It seems incredibly selfish of the wife...First she was exposing her husband to the risk of disease. Second, possibly getting pregnant by another man opens up a bunch of complications (legal and otherwise) that are unnecessary.
This. There's a difference between an "open relationship" and refusing to close your legs.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 02, 2013, 05:10:45 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2013, 04:54:54 PM
It seems incredibly selfish of the wife...First she was exposing her husband to the risk of disease. Second, possibly getting pregnant by another man opens up a bunch of complications (legal and otherwise) that are unnecessary.
This. There's a difference between an "open relationship" and refusing to close your legs.
It's more of a mind-fuck than that, as she choose to do it with his 'best-friend', maybe it wasn't intentional, but she must be aware of the impact that'll have on the mens friendship.
Then again I doubt the guy was really a best-friend' if he agree to go along with this, unless the woman is some unstopable force of nature.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 02, 2013, 05:10:45 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2013, 04:54:54 PM
It seems incredibly selfish of the wife...First she was exposing her husband to the risk of disease. Second, possibly getting pregnant by another man opens up a bunch of complications (legal and otherwise) that are unnecessary.
This. There's a difference between an "open relationship" and refusing to close your legs.
+1 says it all right there.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2013, 04:54:54 PM
It seems incredibly selfish of the wife...First she was exposing her husband to the risk of disease. Second, possibly getting pregnant by another man opens up a bunch of complications (legal and otherwise) that are unnecessary.
You know, why didn't I think of that. I'm a married man in a monogomous relationship. We don't use birth control, and haven't for years.
But if you're going to be in an "open" relationship, then why the hell isn't she using a condom??? That's just plain stupid.
Did somebody say "open marriage"?
/giggity
Quote from: mongers on May 02, 2013, 05:16:33 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 02, 2013, 05:10:45 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2013, 04:54:54 PM
It seems incredibly selfish of the wife...First she was exposing her husband to the risk of disease. Second, possibly getting pregnant by another man opens up a bunch of complications (legal and otherwise) that are unnecessary.
This. There's a difference between an "open relationship" and refusing to close your legs.
It's more of a mind-fuck than that, as she choose to do it with his 'best-friend', maybe it wasn't intentional, but she must be aware of the impact that'll have on the mens friendship.
Then again I doubt the guy was really a best-friend' if he agree to go along with this, unless the woman is some unstopable force of nature.
Yeah. I don't think much of the concept of "open marriage" to begin with (no surprise), but even then, certain people should be off-limits.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 04:37:09 PM
It's my cousin, whom I'm very close to. She was concerned about her son and needed to talk about what was going on. She's not at all pleased with the couple's relationship, and given that she makes derspiess seem like a Democrat, that's not all that surprising. "New" and "modern" ways of looking at life are not exactly her style. She knows that I'm a little bit more open-minded to these things, and she needed that balance.
So the question here is not what may be right in the abstract but what is best for this person.
The question that would pop into mind is realistically how likely is it this marriage will last and how long. Cousin's Son may be perfectly fine with this arrangement now but may not always feel that way. It might be relevant to know how old/mature Counsin's Son is and how experienced he is with relationships.
As the thread makes clear, decisions he is going to make in the next year may have very significant, long-term, and irrevocable consequences for this person. Whatever you may think about what he should do (or what you would think in his place), that may not be what is best for him.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2013, 06:29:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 04:37:09 PM
It's my cousin, whom I'm very close to. She was concerned about her son and needed to talk about what was going on. She's not at all pleased with the couple's relationship, and given that she makes derspiess seem like a Democrat, that's not all that surprising. "New" and "modern" ways of looking at life are not exactly her style. She knows that I'm a little bit more open-minded to these things, and she needed that balance.
So the question here is not what may be right in the abstract but what is best for this person.
The question that would pop into mind is realistically how likely is it this marriage will last and how long. Cousin's Son may be perfectly fine with this arrangement now but may not always feel that way. It might be relevant to know how old/mature Counsin's Son is and how experienced he is with relationships.
As the thread makes clear, decisions he is going to make in the next year may have very significant, long-term, and irrevocable consequences for this person. Whatever you may think about what he should do (or what you would think in his place), that may not be what is best for him.
Yes, interesting that Languish should concentrate on certain legal technicality or at issues, whereas the larger issue is the people involve and it's effects on them.
Quote from: mongers on May 02, 2013, 06:41:05 PM
Yes, interesting that Languish should concentrate on certain legal technicality or at issues, whereas the larger issue is the people involve and it's effects on them.
Why is that interesting? We don't know the people involved and can only speculate. The legal/biological/social implications of the situation in general we can discuss with more knowledge.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 02, 2013, 05:29:08 PM
Did somebody say "open marriage"?
/giggity
Short people need not apply :contract:
Quote from: mongers on May 02, 2013, 06:41:05 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2013, 06:29:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 04:37:09 PM
It's my cousin, whom I'm very close to. She was concerned about her son and needed to talk about what was going on. She's not at all pleased with the couple's relationship, and given that she makes derspiess seem like a Democrat, that's not all that surprising. "New" and "modern" ways of looking at life are not exactly her style. She knows that I'm a little bit more open-minded to these things, and she needed that balance.
So the question here is not what may be right in the abstract but what is best for this person.
The question that would pop into mind is realistically how likely is it this marriage will last and how long. Cousin's Son may be perfectly fine with this arrangement now but may not always feel that way. It might be relevant to know how old/mature Counsin's Son is and how experienced he is with relationships.
As the thread makes clear, decisions he is going to make in the next year may have very significant, long-term, and irrevocable consequences for this person. Whatever you may think about what he should do (or what you would think in his place), that may not be what is best for him.
Yes, interesting that Languish should concentrate on certain legal technicality or at issues, whereas the larger issue is the people involve and it's effects on them.
To be fair, the initial question was:
QuoteSetting aside the moral issues regarding open marriages, how will this work regarding paternity if sometime down the road this marriage falls apart (and really, why would it?)?
It isn't explicitly stated, but my read is that is framed as a legal question. There are some tricky legal issues to be discussed, but with the implication that the marriage will probably fall apart at some point, the personal issues are not uncommon at all (single parent situation, custody problems, paternity doubts).
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2013, 08:00:22 PM
It isn't explicitly stated, but my read is that is framed as a legal question. There are some tricky legal issues to be discussed, but with the implication that the marriage will probably fall apart at some point, the personal issues are not uncommon at all (single parent situation, custody problems, paternity doubts).
I agree, but this being Languish we always go off topic, so why not discuss the moral or human interest angles ?
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2013, 07:46:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 02, 2013, 05:29:08 PM
Did somebody say "open marriage"?
/giggity
Short people need not apply :contract:
Tonitrus can't get the low camera shots like I can.
What if it was a threesome and/or the guy is into cuckolding? He may simply now be too embarrassed to admit and they are making up this story instead.
I love the villification of the wife without even one of you guys asking if he's also sleeping with anyone outside the marriage, too. :lol:
I don't know the specifics, and neither does my cousin. Her son, while mostly drunk, let spill to his cousin that he and his wife have an open relationship, who promptly ran to tell his sister, who then ran to tell his mother. Included in the gossip mill was the information about the best friend.
NO ONE knows if his best friend wore a condom or not (except presumably the three of them). NO ONE knows if the son is also sleeping around (though HER best friend is coming to live with them in the next few weeks). At no time has either the son or his wife said that there's a question of who's child it is; that's all presumption on his mother's part.
Minsky, you asked good questions, all of which are pertinent. I know my cousin's son fairly well, and no, I don't think this is a good relationship for him. I don't think he's been talked into it by his wife, however. Instead, I think that the idea - in concept - appealed to them both so they went with it. The problem is that he is too tender-hearted and needs the commitment of a monogamous relationship, even if he doesn't realize it himself yet. Both he and his wife are 21, which is far too young to fully understand what they're getting into with this arrangement, and I foresee ugliness ahead.
However, one of the reasons that my cousin's kids talk to me is because I don't judge them. If they ask my advice, I offer it, but mostly, my job is to be their sounding board. They vent, complain, cry, scream, and whimper to me, and I offer them my shoulder without a lecture. That's not my place in their world, and I'm okay with that. In fact, I prefer it. My cousin is pretty hard on them (and the choices they make), and they need to know that there's one place they can go to be themselves, even if that "self" isn't maybe the best they can be. I never lecture, and I never say "I told you so" to them.
He hasn't come to me about any of this yet, but I have a feeling that he will eventually. When he does, I'll listen, offer my advice (protect your future interests, know that this has the potential to go really, really wrong, and remember that no matter what your mother says or does she loves you), and let him know that if he needs help, I'm just a phone call away.
And no, mongers, I won't judge him. That's just not my place. :)
QuoteNO ONE knows if his best friend wore a condom or not (except presumably the three of them). NO ONE knows if the son is also sleeping around (though HER best friend is coming to live with them in the next few weeks). At no time has either the son or his wife said that there's a question of who's child it is; that's all presumption on his mother's part.
LOL wait we are taking Ms. Makes-Spicey-Look-Like-A-Democrat's views on this as gospel? She is probably projecting her fears on this.
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2013, 08:07:14 AM
QuoteNO ONE knows if his best friend wore a condom or not (except presumably the three of them). NO ONE knows if the son is also sleeping around (though HER best friend is coming to live with them in the next few weeks). At no time has either the son or his wife said that there's a question of who's child it is; that's all presumption on his mother's part.
LOL wait we are taking Ms. Makes-Spicey-Look-Like-A-Democrat's views on this as gospel? She is probably projecting her fears on this.
Yep. :D
The projection in this thread has been priceless, especially with the assumption that the wife was the only one taking advantage of their marital agreement with nothing to indicate that this is the case. I know you guys joke about how misogynistic Languish is, and this thread shows just how much truth there is in that.
HAIL THE PATARICHY
Quote from: merithyn on May 03, 2013, 08:23:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2013, 08:07:14 AM
QuoteNO ONE knows if his best friend wore a condom or not (except presumably the three of them). NO ONE knows if the son is also sleeping around (though HER best friend is coming to live with them in the next few weeks). At no time has either the son or his wife said that there's a question of who's child it is; that's all presumption on his mother's part.
LOL wait we are taking Ms. Makes-Spicey-Look-Like-A-Democrat's views on this as gospel? She is probably projecting her fears on this.
Yep. :D
The projection in this thread has been priceless, especially with the assumption that the wife was the only one taking advantage of their marital agreement with nothing to indicate that this is the case. I know you guys joke about how misogynistic Languish is, and this thread shows just how much truth there is in that.
To be fair, Beebs just followed along with the line that AR spun.
Reading between the lines, he was ready for commitment and she wasn't, so they made what could turn into a very messy compromise.
Quote from: Brazen on May 03, 2013, 08:35:59 AM
Reading between the lines, he was ready for commitment and she wasn't, so they made what could turn into a very messy compromise.
Quite possibly. I could also see him doing this as sort of a thumb to his nose at the conservatism that he grew up in.
Quote from: merithyn on May 03, 2013, 08:23:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2013, 08:07:14 AM
QuoteNO ONE knows if his best friend wore a condom or not (except presumably the three of them). NO ONE knows if the son is also sleeping around (though HER best friend is coming to live with them in the next few weeks). At no time has either the son or his wife said that there's a question of who's child it is; that's all presumption on his mother's part.
LOL wait we are taking Ms. Makes-Spicey-Look-Like-A-Democrat's views on this as gospel? She is probably projecting her fears on this.
Yep. :D
The projection in this thread has been priceless, especially with the assumption that the wife was the only one taking advantage of their marital agreement with nothing to indicate that this is the case. I know you guys joke about how misogynistic Languish is, and this thread shows just how much truth there is in that.
People are commenting on what they "know", not what they don't know, and all that they "know" comes from you. The story *as presented by you* makes the situation sound like the "open marriage" is one-sided, even if that it totally not the case.
It is hardly an example of the patriarchy in action that people are leaping to such a conclusion, even if it is totally unfounded. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on May 03, 2013, 08:45:42 AM
People are commenting on what they "know", not what they don't know, and all that they "know" comes from you. The story *as presented by you* makes the situation sound like the "open marriage" is one-sided, even if that it totally not the case.
It is hardly an example of the patriarchy in action that people are leaping to such a conclusion, even if it is totally unfounded. :lol:
Right, because on Languish everyone sticks to exactly what's said and never go beyond that. :rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on May 03, 2013, 08:53:08 AM
Right, because on Languish everyone sticks to exactly what's said and never go beyond that. :rolleyes:
It is like a small town, people hear the gossip and start projecting and pretty soon a rather harmless story has people forming up gangs with torches and pitchforks :P
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2013, 08:34:14 AM
To be fair, Beebs just followed along with the line that AR spun.
Well that is the other thing. We jump right in the middle of threads so whatever tangent the first guy went off on we all follow.
Quote from: merithyn on May 03, 2013, 06:40:58 AM
Minsky, you asked good questions, all of which are pertinent. I know my cousin's son fairly well, and no, I don't think this is a good relationship for him. I don't think he's been talked into it by his wife, however. Instead, I think that the idea - in concept - appealed to them both so they went with it. The problem is that he is too tender-hearted and needs the commitment of a monogamous relationship, even if he doesn't realize it himself yet. Both he and his wife are 21, which is far too young to fully understand what they're getting into with this arrangement, and I foresee ugliness ahead.
21 is usually too young to have children even under the most stable of circumstances, and reading between the lines of your character assessment, I get the impression that he in particular is not ready for it.
EDIT: I don't see any point in critiquing the marriage arrangement itself, b/c aside from lacking many of the peritent facts, it's the kind of thing that at that age can be easily fixed if it goes wrong without much expense, complexity or long-term emotional entaglement. But adding a child to the equation radically ups the stakes.
Quote from: merithyn on May 03, 2013, 08:53:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 03, 2013, 08:45:42 AM
People are commenting on what they "know", not what they don't know, and all that they "know" comes from you. The story *as presented by you* makes the situation sound like the "open marriage" is one-sided, even if that it totally not the case.
It is hardly an example of the patriarchy in action that people are leaping to such a conclusion, even if it is totally unfounded. :lol:
Right, because on Languish everyone sticks to exactly what's said and never go beyond that. :rolleyes:
Well, this is what you said:
Quote1) Her newly married son and his wife are five weeks pregant; and
2) They are in an open marriage, which the wife made use of about five or six weeks ago with her husband's best friend. (Which, oddly, coincides with their wedding date.)
Setting aside the moral issues regarding open marriages, how will this work regarding paternity if sometime down the road this marriage falls apart (and really, why would it?)?
Fair reading: that
you are of the opinion that the marriage is doomed [really, why would it?? - indicates sarcasm] and that
you are of the opinion that the "open marriage" is a bit of a sham - given that "oddly", she "made use of it" it have sex with the guy's "best friend" on their "wedding date".
It may well be dumb to not see beyond the scenario you yourself outlined and say "wait a minute, Meri may be an
unreliable narrator here - all she has said, she is getting from the
mother; maybe the son's having sex with *his wife's* best friend on their wedding date *as well*!!!!"
But it is hardly a stupidity that is caused by the patriarchy.
I enjoy how defensive Meri gets. :)
Quote from: merithyn on May 03, 2013, 08:23:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2013, 08:07:14 AM
QuoteNO ONE knows if his best friend wore a condom or not (except presumably the three of them). NO ONE knows if the son is also sleeping around (though HER best friend is coming to live with them in the next few weeks). At no time has either the son or his wife said that there's a question of who's child it is; that's all presumption on his mother's part.
LOL wait we are taking Ms. Makes-Spicey-Look-Like-A-Democrat's views on this as gospel? She is probably projecting her fears on this.
Yep. :D
The projection in this thread has been priceless, especially with the assumption that the wife was the only one taking advantage of their marital agreement with nothing to indicate that this is the case. I know you guys joke about how misogynistic Languish is, and this thread shows just how much truth there is in that.
You frame a situation and ask what seems to be a legally oriented question, make the marriage sound very unstable if not one sided, and imply questions of paternity (and thus no condom). People respond to what you posted in that light, and then you attack them for being misogynistic in part because apparently they didn't challenge the reliability of the narrative that you provided.
This whole thread seems like an Orwellian trap.
:lol: I love Meri threads.
Quote from: merithyn on May 03, 2013, 08:23:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2013, 08:07:14 AM
QuoteNO ONE knows if his best friend wore a condom or not (except presumably the three of them). NO ONE knows if the son is also sleeping around (though HER best friend is coming to live with them in the next few weeks). At no time has either the son or his wife said that there's a question of who's child it is; that's all presumption on his mother's part.
LOL wait we are taking Ms. Makes-Spicey-Look-Like-A-Democrat's views on this as gospel? She is probably projecting her fears on this.
Yep. :D
The projection in this thread has been priceless, especially with the assumption that the wife was the only one taking advantage of their marital agreement with nothing to indicate that this is the case. I know you guys joke about how misogynistic Languish is, and this thread shows just how much truth there is in that.
:huh:
I always assumed the guy was also "taking advantage of the marital agreement".
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2013, 09:28:30 AM
:huh:
I always assumed the guy was also "taking advantage of the marital agreement".
Meri may be projecting here.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2013, 09:28:30 AM
I always assumed the guy was also "taking advantage of the marital agreement".
I certainly didn't. I have yet to see an "open" marriage, relationship, or whatever, that wasn't one party basically settling for someone good enough to pay the bills while searching for someone better. Maybe this one is that special snowflake.
The implication was that she was impregnated by another man, coincidentally the hubby's best friend. I stand by my statements, and would respond the same way if he had fathered a child with her best friend.
Quote from: ulmont on May 03, 2013, 09:38:11 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2013, 09:28:30 AM
I always assumed the guy was also "taking advantage of the marital agreement".
I certainly didn't. I have yet to see an "open" marriage, relationship, or whatever, that wasn't one party basically settling for someone good enough to pay the bills while searching for someone better. Maybe this one is that special snowflake.
Oh, this relationship is most definitely not a "special snowflake", at least on the face of it. I have very little faith that it will last two years, open relationship not withstanding. The pity is the child will bear the brunt of the insanity.
That being said, I have seen open relationships that have lasted for a decade or longer and where both people were happy to play, as it were. Of course, those couples were older (40+), in second (or third) marriages, and basically, didn't want to be alone but didn't want to be monogamous. They went in knowing what they were doing, and it worked because they were best friends more than they were married couples.
Personally, I couldn't do it, but I have no problem with those who can. These guys, mostly likely, cannot.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 03, 2013, 09:07:06 AM
You frame a situation and ask what seems to be a legally oriented question, make the marriage sound very unstable if not one sided, and imply questions of paternity (and thus no condom). People respond to what you posted in that light, and then you attack them for being misogynistic in part because apparently they didn't challenge the reliability of the narrative that you provided.
This whole thread seems like an Orwellian trap.
No, I was seriously trying to find out what would happen regarding the child, should paternity turn out to be in question. I only gave generalities at first because I was at work and couldn't spend the time fleshing the situation out.
It wasn't until I started reading some of the responses that I realized that the amount of information I gave probably led to some odd conclusions, and that was born out as the thread continued. What struck me, however, was a) how at first it was all about how the husband was going to be "on the hook" for child support and no one considered his relationship with the child, and b) how the wife was a total slut who should "keep her legs closed" but no one considered (or at least brought up) that the husband might have been a "slut", too.
Aside from all of that, you guys make good points. I was harsh to say misogynistic, and for that, I'm sorry. I was, again, just surprised at the way the thread went, though I shouldn't have been based on the information that I provided.
Anyway, yeah, there's no real way to know what will happen with these guys, but I can hope that when it comes to the kid, they manage to keep it together.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 03:03:23 PM
Babies... aren't terribly interesting. They eat and sleep. It's pretty damn hard to form much of a connection with one absent that biological connection.
:huh:
Thats a pretty odd viewpoint. I blame you Jetboyism for your loose grip with reality.
He's right, though. I've noticed with my nieces and nephews that the ones who can talk are WAY more interesting than the newborns.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2013, 11:36:59 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2013, 03:03:23 PM
Babies... aren't terribly interesting. They eat and sleep. It's pretty damn hard to form much of a connection with one absent that biological connection.
:huh:
Thats a pretty odd viewpoint. I blame you Jetboyism for your loose grip with reality.
Your baby years were quite some time ago. Time does funny things to your memory.
Either that, or those years of exposure to basketball have warped your mind.
To be fair, I think most of us were approaching the question from the standpoint of wanting to protect our friend's kin, who happens to be the guy in the relationship. We can only see the situation through Meri's eyes, and that seems to be the most likely interest she's got in the game, assuming she takes any interest at all.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 03, 2013, 11:40:30 AM
He's right, though. I've noticed with my nieces and nephews that the ones who can talk are WAY more interesting than the newborns.
Yeah, the part I thought was entirely warped was the notion that unless one has a biological connection it is "pretty damn hard to form much of a connection" with that baby.
That is fucking retarded as any parent of an adopted baby will tell you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2013, 11:59:36 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 03, 2013, 11:40:30 AM
He's right, though. I've noticed with my nieces and nephews that the ones who can talk are WAY more interesting than the newborns.
Yeah, the part I thought was entirely warped was the notion that unless one has a biological connection it is "pretty damn hard to form much of a connection" with that baby.
That is fucking retarded as any parent of an adopted baby will tell you.
I dunno about that - I've read memoirs of people who adopted babies and their initial reaction, once the excitement wore away, was "uh oh, I've got this little thing that does nothing but eat and sleep, and I'm not sure I love it. Have I made a terrible mistake?"
Children, like marriage, is something we've mythologized so much that we never admit the truth - both are hard work with lots of moments of doubt.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2013, 12:02:57 PM
I dunno about that - I've read memoirs of people who adopted babies and their initial reaction, once the excitement wore away, was "uh oh, I've got this little thing that does nothing but eat and sleep, and I'm not sure I love it. Have I made a terrible mistake?"
Children, like marriage, is something we've mythologized so much that we never admit the truth - both are hard work with lots of moments of doubt.
I've known biological parents who feel that way when the baby comes. It's natural, but never spoken of because people are afraid that they're bad parents if they don't instantly love their child.
The biological connection was very strong for me from day 1. It's only now when I survey the damage my 2 year old and 5 year old do to a clean orderly house that I shake my head and ask myself why I had kids :P
The biological connection is a huge factor for me, to the point where I wonder how good of an adoptive parent I'd be. It's not that I'd be negligent, just that I'd probably have to fake it a bit and pretend not to favor my biological kids.
Semi-related, I definitely see a big difference in how my wife, I, and most people we know act towards nieces & nephews that are and are not blood relations.
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2013, 12:02:57 PM
I dunno about that - I've read memoirs of people who adopted babies and their initial reaction, once the excitement wore away, was "uh oh, I've got this little thing that does nothing but eat and sleep, and I'm not sure I love it. Have I made a terrible mistake?"
That can happen with any parent regardless of whether there is a biological bond of some sort. We are hard wired to find babies adorable. That is how they survive and we survive as a species. It is ridiculous to suppose that there must be a biological connection before that occurs.
Quote from: derspiess on May 03, 2013, 12:21:15 PM
Semi-related, I definitely see a big difference in how my wife, I, and most people we know act towards nieces & nephews that are and are not blood relations.
:huh:
I don't find that at all.
Quote from: derspiess on May 03, 2013, 12:21:15 PM
The biological connection is a huge factor for me, to the point where I wonder how good of an adoptive parent I'd be. It's not that I'd be negligent, just that I'd probably have to fake it a bit and pretend not to favor my biological kids.
And if you learned that the kids were not actually yours would you suddenly rethink the strong connection you had? It wasnt a biological link you felt. It was the fact that they were babies in your care that created the bond.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2013, 12:21:56 PM
That can happen with any parent regardless of whether there is a biological bond of some sort. We are hard wired to find babies adorable. That is how they survive and we survive as a species. It is ridiculous to suppose that there must be a biological connection before that occurs.
Maybe I'm an outlier, but I've never had a particular affinity for babies outside of my brother's kids and my own when they were babies.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2013, 12:23:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 03, 2013, 12:21:15 PM
The biological connection is a huge factor for me, to the point where I wonder how good of an adoptive parent I'd be. It's not that I'd be negligent, just that I'd probably have to fake it a bit and pretend not to favor my biological kids.
And if you learned that the kids were not actually yours would you suddenly rethink the strong connection you had? It wasnt a biological link you felt. It was the fact that they were babies in your care that created the bond.
It'd be tough. Thankfully as I mentioned they look so much like me that it's not too likely.
Quote from: derspiess on May 03, 2013, 12:25:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2013, 12:23:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 03, 2013, 12:21:15 PM
The biological connection is a huge factor for me, to the point where I wonder how good of an adoptive parent I'd be. It's not that I'd be negligent, just that I'd probably have to fake it a bit and pretend not to favor my biological kids.
And if you learned that the kids were not actually yours would you suddenly rethink the strong connection you had? It wasnt a biological link you felt. It was the fact that they were babies in your care that created the bond.
Thankfully as I mentioned they look so much like me that it's not too likely.
Famous last words of a lot of dads who thought they were also the biological dad ;)
Having had my own baby, I now like all babies more than I ever did before.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2013, 12:26:28 PM
Famous last words of a lot of dads who thought they were also the biological dad ;)
If you saw pictures you'd be convinced.
Quote from: derspiess on May 03, 2013, 12:27:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2013, 12:26:28 PM
Famous last words of a lot of dads who thought they were also the biological dad ;)
If you saw pictures you'd be convinced.
Just so long as you are convinced. I am a bit concerned about what would happen to the kids if anything undermined your confidence in being the biological father.
Quote from: Malthus on May 03, 2013, 12:27:14 PM
Having had my own baby, I now like all babies more than I ever did before.
This is true. In particular since I know I can hold them then hand them off to their parents to do all the hard work. :)
Quote from: Malthus on May 03, 2013, 12:27:14 PM
Having had my own baby, I now like all babies more than I ever did before.
Yeah, the same happened to me. As I said, when my first two were born, I didn't immediately fall in love, and I was convinced something was horribly wrong with me. I'd thought babies were kind of cute, but my goodness these two were ... a handful. Then they got sick and suddenly, my world was turned upside down.
Now, every baby I see I risk losing my heart to. Hell, every small child, for that matter.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 03, 2013, 11:55:59 AM
To be fair, I think most of us were approaching the question from the standpoint of wanting to protect our friend's kin, who happens to be the guy in the relationship. We can only see the situation through Meri's eyes, and that seems to be the most likely interest she's got in the game, assuming she takes any interest at all.
You don't know her very well if you think that's the most likely interest she has in the game.
Quote from: Maximus on May 03, 2013, 12:34:19 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 03, 2013, 11:55:59 AM
To be fair, I think most of us were approaching the question from the standpoint of wanting to protect our friend's kin, who happens to be the guy in the relationship. We can only see the situation through Meri's eyes, and that seems to be the most likely interest she's got in the game, assuming she takes any interest at all.
You don't know her very well if you think that's the most likely interest she has in the game.
:blush:
Quote from: Maximus on May 03, 2013, 12:34:19 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 03, 2013, 11:55:59 AM
To be fair, I think most of us were approaching the question from the standpoint of wanting to protect our friend's kin, who happens to be the guy in the relationship. We can only see the situation through Meri's eyes, and that seems to be the most likely interest she's got in the game, assuming she takes any interest at all.
You don't know her very well if you think that's the most likely interest she has in the game.
Max, just remember you can say "no" if Meri asks you about trying new things in your marriage...
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2013, 12:38:51 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 03, 2013, 12:34:19 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 03, 2013, 11:55:59 AM
To be fair, I think most of us were approaching the question from the standpoint of wanting to protect our friend's kin, who happens to be the guy in the relationship. We can only see the situation through Meri's eyes, and that seems to be the most likely interest she's got in the game, assuming she takes any interest at all.
You don't know her very well if you think that's the most likely interest she has in the game.
Max, just remember you can say "no" if Meri asks you about trying new things in your marriage...
:lol:
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2013, 12:31:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 03, 2013, 12:27:14 PM
Having had my own baby, I now like all babies more than I ever did before.
This is true. In particular since I know I can hold them then hand them off to their parents to do all the hard work. :)
A/K/A "the grandparent effect". :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2013, 12:23:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 03, 2013, 12:21:15 PM
Semi-related, I definitely see a big difference in how my wife, I, and most people we know act towards nieces & nephews that are and are not blood relations.
:huh:
I don't find that at all.
I'm much closer to aa's sister's kids than I am to my brother's kid. Though that's probably because we lived next door to aa's sister and her husband and are around their kids a lot, whereas I've only seen my brother's son a couple of times.
Well, but then there's that awkwardness that comes if one day you stop being their uncle. That never happens for the blood relatives.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 12:21:06 PM
If later, they should split up and it gets ugly, if they find out that the child isn't his biological child, what happens?
IIRC in Spain acting
in loco parentis makes you responsible for that child regardless of biological paternity. So if they split, he's fucked.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2013, 01:46:46 PM
There are horror stories about men losing visitation rights and connections with their children, too, but it was the money you guys thought about.
It's not just the money. Here the children also get to stay in the house, usually with their mother as they normally win custody rights. So the ex-hubby gets to move back home with his parents - being unable to get a place of his own since housing prices are nuts and he still has to pay the mortgage of the place where his wife and kids live.