Post Reply
1 of 1
Flummoxed
2,329 Views |
16 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by Bearitto
Why not share an opinion about what you read in the article, or summarize it, or even cut and paste the whole thing, instead of starting threads by posting only a link? That's lame.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Why not share an opinion about what you read in the article, or summarize it, or even cut and paste the whole thing, instead of starting threads by posting only a link? That's lame.
You don't know how to click on a link?
So, not only might a man be forced to pay child support if he can prove he is not the biological father of a woman's child, but now it might occur that he may not get custody if his child (over a live-in boyfriend) if he is the biological father AND ruled a fit parent by the courts?
Family courts appear to treat men like diseased ATMs; good for getting cash out of but something children shouldn't be near.
Family courts appear to treat men like diseased ATMs; good for getting cash out of but something children shouldn't be near.
If it has been established that the biological father is a fit parent, how the Hell does this case not get thrown out and make it all the way to the Texas Supreme Court? Common sense appears to be nearing extinction.
"Stand with anyone when he is right; Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong." - Abraham Lincoln
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
If it has been established that the biological father is a fit parent, how the Hell does this case not get thrown out and make it all the way to the Texas Supreme Court? Common sense appears to be nearing extinction.
The goal of the DNC is depicted in the movie Idiocracy
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
If it has been established that the biological father is a fit parent, how the Hell does this case not get thrown out and make it all the way to the Texas Supreme Court? Common sense appears to be nearing extinction.
I am sure that had the mother and boyfriend broken up in year 2, there'd not be a case where the mother would have to share 1/2 her time.
Boyfriend should be ashamed for bringing the case and the court for considering it. He was not married to the mother.
It's a tough case. I have a couple of friends that have gone through divorce and have similar time setups with their ex. In some of those circumstances, the parents have moved on and remarried or have serious relationships. The courts are supposed to decide what is best for the child when these circumstances come up. If the boyfriend spent significant time with the child and is a fit parent, he should have some rights to see the child as well. If the child had a bond with the boyfriend, it isn't fair to the child to lose both his mother and a father figure that was in the child's life. The biological father absolutely should have primary custody, but the boyfriend should have some visitation rights as well. Of course if the boyfriend is going to pursue having those rights, he will need to assist in the time and costs of raising the child.
If the non-father were granted rights, could the court order the non-father to provide child support?
If the mother had not been killed and she and non-father split, could the court order the non-father to provide child support?
If the mother had not been killed and she and non-father split, could the court order the non-father to provide child support?
contrario said:
It's a tough case. I have a couple of friends that have gone through divorce and have similar time setups with their ex. In some of those circumstances, the parents have moved on and remarried or have serious relationships. The courts are supposed to decide what is best for the child when these circumstances come up. If the boyfriend spent significant time with the child and is a fit parent, he should have some rights to see the child as well. If the child had a bond with the boyfriend, it isn't fair to the child to lose both his mother and a father figure that was in the child's life. The biological father absolutely should have primary custody, but the boyfriend should have some visitation rights as well. Of course if the boyfriend is going to pursue having those rights, he will need to assist in the time and costs of raising the child.
I'd agree if he were a "step" parent. He was a boyfriend. The article say they lived together 11 months. If I assumed they dated before that (the kid was 4), i see at best a 1 1/2 year relationship.
I'm struggling to see significance.
If the father were a bum, we'd be on the same page. If they were married? Sure. Boyfriends come and go.
Can you see this case in court had the father died and. His girlfriend sued the surviving parent?
57Bear said:
If the non-father were granted rights, could the court order the non-father to provide child support?
If the mother had not been killed and she and non-father split, could the court order the non-father to provide child support?
Had they split, the non father would just be an Ex.
I know these aren't the circumstances of the article, but what if he had been a boyfriend for 5 years? 10 years? And he was actively involved in raising the child during that time. Should the child suffer losing a father figure just because the mom and boyfriend decided not to get married?tommie said:contrario said:
It's a tough case. I have a couple of friends that have gone through divorce and have similar time setups with their ex. In some of those circumstances, the parents have moved on and remarried or have serious relationships. The courts are supposed to decide what is best for the child when these circumstances come up. If the boyfriend spent significant time with the child and is a fit parent, he should have some rights to see the child as well. If the child had a bond with the boyfriend, it isn't fair to the child to lose both his mother and a father figure that was in the child's life. The biological father absolutely should have primary custody, but the boyfriend should have some visitation rights as well. Of course if the boyfriend is going to pursue having those rights, he will need to assist in the time and costs of raising the child.
I'd agree if he were a "step" parent. He was a boyfriend. The article say they lived together 11 months. If I assumed they dated before that (the kid was 4), i see at best a 1 1/2 year relationship.
I'm struggling to see significance.
If the father were a bum, we'd be on the same page. If they were married? Sure. Boyfriends come and go.
contrario said:I know these aren't the circumstances of the article, but what if he had been a boyfriend for 5 years? 10 years? And he was actively involved in raising the child during that time. Should the child suffer losing a father figure just because the mom and boyfriend decided not to get married?tommie said:contrario said:
It's a tough case. I have a couple of friends that have gone through divorce and have similar time setups with their ex. In some of those circumstances, the parents have moved on and remarried or have serious relationships. The courts are supposed to decide what is best for the child when these circumstances come up. If the boyfriend spent significant time with the child and is a fit parent, he should have some rights to see the child as well. If the child had a bond with the boyfriend, it isn't fair to the child to lose both his mother and a father figure that was in the child's life. The biological father absolutely should have primary custody, but the boyfriend should have some visitation rights as well. Of course if the boyfriend is going to pursue having those rights, he will need to assist in the time and costs of raising the child.
I'd agree if he were a "step" parent. He was a boyfriend. The article say they lived together 11 months. If I assumed they dated before that (the kid was 4), i see at best a 1 1/2 year relationship.
I'm struggling to see significance.
If the father were a bum, we'd be on the same page. If they were married? Sure. Boyfriends come and go.
I'll go with your expanded time period. Yes, the child should lose the figure IF the father says so.
The best interest of the child falls onto the surviving parent.
What stands out to me in the article is the father has been sued by both the maternal grandparents and the boyfriend. Just so he can be the kids dad. This was a conflicted family relationship already.
The only thing missing from this story is that the boyfriend is a gay illegal transgender of mixed race.contrario said:
It's a tough case. I have a couple of friends that have gone through divorce and have similar time setups with their ex. In some of those circumstances, the parents have moved on and remarried or have serious relationships. The courts are supposed to decide what is best for the child when these circumstances come up. If the boyfriend spent significant time with the child and is a fit parent, he should have some rights to see the child as well. If the child had a bond with the boyfriend, it isn't fair to the child to lose both his mother and a father figure that was in the child's life. The biological father absolutely should have primary custody, but the boyfriend should have some visitation rights as well. Of course if the boyfriend is going to pursue having those rights, he will need to assist in the time and costs of raising the child.
contrario said:
It's a tough case. I have a couple of friends that have gone through divorce and have similar time setups with their ex. In some of those circumstances, the parents have moved on and remarried or have serious relationships. The courts are supposed to decide what is best for the child when these circumstances come up. If the boyfriend spent significant time with the child and is a fit parent, he should have some rights to see the child as well. If the child had a bond with the boyfriend, it isn't fair to the child to lose both his mother and a father figure that was in the child's life. The biological father absolutely should have primary custody, but the boyfriend should have some visitation rights as well. Of course if the boyfriend is going to pursue having those rights, he will need to assist in the time and costs of raising the child.
This has nothing to do with the child's welfare. It's to do with a man wanting the right to parent a child who isn't his, when the child's father is there, ready, willing and able and fit. This is a very dangerous precedent to set. Imagine you are the father. Imagine your ex's boyfriend being allowed to teach your child his values or his religion, perhaps sending g your child in a direction you believe is dangerous or self destructive and you having no recourse because the court magically made him a 'parent'.
This is wrong at the most fundamental of levels. I question the mental capacity of the judge here.
I already said I have some friends that are in similar situations. I know how they feel about it and I know how I would feel about it. It's about what is best for the child. 11 months isn't a very long time, but it is enough to establish a relationship between the mother's boyfriend and the child. There are so many bad parents out there that want nothing to do with their biological children, this guy isn't related to the child and still wants to be in the child's life. This isn't a bad thing.Bearitto said:contrario said:
It's a tough case. I have a couple of friends that have gone through divorce and have similar time setups with their ex. In some of those circumstances, the parents have moved on and remarried or have serious relationships. The courts are supposed to decide what is best for the child when these circumstances come up. If the boyfriend spent significant time with the child and is a fit parent, he should have some rights to see the child as well. If the child had a bond with the boyfriend, it isn't fair to the child to lose both his mother and a father figure that was in the child's life. The biological father absolutely should have primary custody, but the boyfriend should have some visitation rights as well. Of course if the boyfriend is going to pursue having those rights, he will need to assist in the time and costs of raising the child.
This has nothing to do with the child's welfare. It's to do with a man wanting the right to parent a child who isn't his, when the child's father is there, ready, willing and able and fit. This is a very dangerous precedent to set. Imagine you are the father. Imagine your ex's boyfriend being allowed to teach your child his values or his religion, perhaps sending g your child in a direction you believe is dangerous or self destructive and you having no recourse because the court magically made him a 'parent'.
This is wrong at the most fundamental of levels. I question the mental capacity of the judge here.
contrario said:I already said I have some friends that are in similar situations. I know how they feel about it and I know how I would feel about it. It's about what is best for the child. 11 months isn't a very long time, but it is enough to establish a relationship between the mother's boyfriend and the child. There are so many bad parents out there that want nothing to do with their biological children, this guy isn't related to the child and still wants to be in the child's life. This isn't a bad thing.Bearitto said:contrario said:
It's a tough case. I have a couple of friends that have gone through divorce and have similar time setups with their ex. In some of those circumstances, the parents have moved on and remarried or have serious relationships. The courts are supposed to decide what is best for the child when these circumstances come up. If the boyfriend spent significant time with the child and is a fit parent, he should have some rights to see the child as well. If the child had a bond with the boyfriend, it isn't fair to the child to lose both his mother and a father figure that was in the child's life. The biological father absolutely should have primary custody, but the boyfriend should have some visitation rights as well. Of course if the boyfriend is going to pursue having those rights, he will need to assist in the time and costs of raising the child.
This has nothing to do with the child's welfare. It's to do with a man wanting the right to parent a child who isn't his, when the child's father is there, ready, willing and able and fit. This is a very dangerous precedent to set. Imagine you are the father. Imagine your ex's boyfriend being allowed to teach your child his values or his religion, perhaps sending g your child in a direction you believe is dangerous or self destructive and you having no recourse because the court magically made him a 'parent'.
This is wrong at the most fundamental of levels. I question the mental capacity of the judge here.
This has nothing to do with what is best for the child. It has to do with what makes an ex boyfriend feel special. To him, this is like arguing over who gets the labradoodle after the split. After all, he walked it after work 3 days a week. Splitting that child's life up (yet again) so life consists of bouncing from house to house, with different sets of rules and standards is damaging. Anyone who has seen divorce sees this.
On to your attempt at justification. You are saying that you believe there are bad parents and since there are bad parents, the government should carelessly redistribute the parental rights of good, fit parents. You are advocating further destroying the nuclear family by inserting more government control into it.