affairs/ divorce/ fake marriages and kids

[whichwayisup]

We all go through crazy, irresponsible times in our life, the trick is not to become, as a matter of course, cruel and neglectful.

 

And, even if a father is not living with his children, he can still put them first.

 

NID great post #20. It's so true.

[bonehead]

The main reason I started this thread was to avoid a jacking a thread.

 

 

In another post I said that a MM who says he is staying for the kids is FOS. Another poster replied agreeing with that but then went on to include staying and spending time with the whole family including spouse.

 

So it doesnt matter that he isnt happy in the marriage, as long as there are children involved he has to remain the " happy little family man".

 

I would really like to see ( to bad it will never happen ) a study of men involved in affairs who have said the are staying for the kids to be presented with an unconditional joint custody agreement and see how many take it.

 

while yes men do use the staying for the kids line quite often, how many woman have told a spouse who wanted to leave that he should stay for the kids? How many woman have used the kids to guilt a spouse into staying?

 

We need to stop using our children as a power tool.

[bonehead]

The test is to remain a good father once you cease being a good husband or a husband at all. Many men fail that test. These family self-exiles move away, start new families or carry on a "Peter Pan" player existence--all the while ignoring their children. For many men, out of sight means out of mind as far as their children are concerned. That's very wrong. It's one thing to hurt your wife--whether through infidelity and/or desertion--quite another to hurt your children.

 

Men are almost encouraged to fail that test. Most courts only look at a father as a source of income, though this is changing in alot of places.

 

While the mother is looked at as the natural choice for full custody with the father being demoted to a 4-6 day a month dad. I really think if men were encouraged to be more active with their children after a divorce they would be.

[serial muse]

I see a fair amount of gender paranoia by guys on these boards. It's silly. Especially when its usually the men who benefit sexually and materially by leaving the wife and kids.

 

I'm realistic: not all marriages last forever. Mine didn't. But a man, to the best of his ability, should always love, support, nourish and care for his children even when he stops sharing a roof with them.

 

We all go through crazy, irresponsible times in our life, the trick is not to become, as a matter of course, cruel and neglectful.

 

Thank you, Herzen. This entire post is terrific, and the part in bold should be pinned, IMO. That is something that every single person who comes to LS to deal with their pain, doubts and fears should try to remember.

[Jinxx]

I guess it comes down to what children learn from their parents. I would think it would be far better lesson in life to have a parent who leaves a marriage and divorces to find happiness with someone else than it would to have a parent who stays married and cheats.

 

I have been sitting trying to find the right words to respond to this thread and what you posted is exactly right on.

[frannie]

I have been sitting trying to find the right words to respond to this thread and what you posted is exactly right on.

 

Well yes, I agree with LB about setting a role model as someone who was able to leave a bad situation... etc etc. But kids also want their parents around. Both of them (ok not if there's out and out fighting that's another matter... but just the misery of day to day life... so what?)... and what's more father's don't GET to have the same rights as mothers on divorce, and that's what they want. As Bonehead said... unconditional joint custody. But it doesn't happen and neither will it. Men want to spend time, real time, in THE HOME (not macdonalds, not some other place at weekends), but THE home.

 

Hence... affairs. Like it or lump it, that's really the case.

[NoIDidn't]

Men are almost encouraged to fail that test. Most courts only look at a father as a source of income, though this is changing in alot of places.

 

While the mother is looked at as the natural choice for full custody with the father being demoted to a 4-6 day a month dad. I really think if men were encouraged to be more active with their children after a divorce they would be.

 

 

BH

The problem I have with what you are saying is that now you are blaming the courts. The courts don't force men to neglect their kids, they seem to do that fine by themselves. So what mom is given most of the custody. Just like the OW is told when a man loves her, he will move heaven and earth to be with her. The same goes for a father with his kids. Anything short of moving heaven and earth or blaming court decisions is a COP-OUT.

 

Fathers can't have it both ways. Either they will be there for their kids and they will do whatever it takes to make that happen. Or they will find the next most convenient thing to blame for why they aren't there for them.

 

Believe me, the kids will not hold the court accountable for what dad did or didn't do. The court decides what it thinks is best based on a formula. Its up to the dads to show their kids that they are a priority regardless of how custody decisions or child support decisions play themselves out.

[cbl]

i happen to live in a country where people don't normally go through divorce procedures at the court. there are more cases than one can imagine, where moms give up custody of kids to the fathers. when child support is not forced in my country, women can barely raise the kids alone.

 

i have two divorced female friends who got out of their marriages without their kids. only one's xH had an affair and she admitted that she was partially responsible for that as she withheld sex with him after childbirth. and i am now seeing a man who left an unhappy marriage and became a single father.

 

my xMM is a serial cheater. but he never detached himself from his kids, emotionally, physically or financially. his family lives in three different countries but he sees his kids more often than his wife does.

 

i just don't see why an unfaithful husband must be an irresponsible father.

[NoIDidn't]

Because there is nothing responsible about being unfaithful.

[cbl]

NID i always like your comments, but who's to decide a husband having an affair is less responsible to the family than a wife who spent all the family monthly expenses on her own luxury, for example?

[NoIDidn't]

Neither is a responsible action, but two wrongs have never added up to one right.

 

Both actions threaten the security of the children. Both are proof of serious moral misgivings.

 

But lets not change the subject. This thread is about fathers abandoning kids, not about spendthrift Ws.

[herenow]

There is a difference between a man who has an affair and leaves his family and a man who gets a divorce because the marriage is no longer working and moves on with his life.

 

I think unfaithful men are looked upon as leaving their family because of their irresponsible actions and cruelty towards the family by committing adultery. I think the way the man leaves has more to do with how he is perceived that the fact that he left.

 

If a couple decides to get divorced before either of them move on to a new relationship and makes it clear that the problems had nothing to do with the kids, then I don't feel either one of them is blamed for leaving the kids.

 

BH, I have read your posts and this seems to be a "bone" of contention with you. Is there someone that you care about that is blaming you for leaving your kids? Or is it just that you think society always blames the father when couples separate? I think that most people look at how the marriage ended before they make their assumptions. An affair can be looked at as the cause kids or no kids. The truth is, if the MM or MW had either worked on his or her marriage or ended it before having sex with another person, society would certainly view the situation differently.

[bonehead]

The problem I have with what you are saying is that now you are blaming the courts. The courts don't force men to neglect their kids, they seem to do that fine by themselves. So what mom is given most of the custody. Just like the OW is told when a man loves her, he will move heaven and earth to be with her. The same goes for a father with his kids. Anything short of moving heaven and earth or blaming court decisions is a COP-OUT.

 

No the courts do not force men to neglect their kids. But nor do they encourage equal interaction.

 

A man misses child support payments and he has a warrent for his arrest, a mother with holds visitation and the father has to go through a long process of getting a hearing.

 

A woman can safely assume she will get full custody and a man will be demoted to a every other weekend dad. For a man to get joint physical custody is a fight and a half and it shouldnt be.

 

We need to hold men to a higher standard then we do. They shouldnt feel like all they are is a paycheck and a babysitter.

 

After what I went through I can understand why men say they are staying for the kids. But I also know and have shown that if you are willing to fight the fight men can get treated equal.

 

As fathers we need to stand up and show our children that no matter what we will fight for them. The days of the every other weekend dad need to end.

[bonehead]

BH, I have read your posts and this seems to be a "bone" of contention with you. Is there someone that you care about that is blaming you for leaving your kids? Or is it just that you think society always blames the father when couples separate?

 

lol

 

Actually people have blamed me for leaving my kid. When we first seperated I had alot of people ask me how I could walk away from my kids.

 

Joke was on them. My kids are and have lived mostly with me. I think thats one reason this gets to me so much. I know it doesnt have to be this way, but society expects it.

 

 

My biggest thing is I HATE to see kids used as an excuse to hold togeather a dead marriage. I also do not like seeing children used as a tool in divorce. It should be two totally seperate issues but it isnt treated as such.

 

MP saying they are staying for the kids, BP asking the WP to stay for the kids. Its all a line in my mind.

[NoIDidn't]

Then we agree. Using the courts is a COP OUT as you say a father needs to FIGHT. Its not the courts job to encourage equal interaction, its the parents' job to do that regardless of what the court decides.

 

A man missing child support payments is not meeting his obligations per the court or his kids, so he deserves what he gets. Don't blame the court for that, pay the support that the children are due. He would do it for his own home and mortgage, so why not for them?

 

A man going through the courts to get equal access to his kids is to be commended. It should not be considered drugery if it for the sake of doing what is right by your kids. A man/father should do all that he can to maintain his R with his kids. Its nobody else's job but his. Its his fight. Fatherhood is not a job for cowards.

 

See, my dad told a court that he couldn't afford to pay his childsupport for me because he had recently married a woman with four kids (the newest his). And had his support reduced. He never did a thing for those kids. He didn't go back to the court to report that he had kicked them all out (within 3 months of that ruling, except his) and sent them to live with their own fathers either. Now he blames my mother that I don't respect him.

[bonehead]

A man missing child support payments is not meeting his obligations per the court or his kids, so he deserves what he gets. Don't blame the court for that, pay the support that the children are due. He would do it for his own home and mortgage, so why not for them?

 

A man going through the courts to get equal access to his kids is to be commended. It should not be considered drugery if it for the sake of doing what is right by your kids. A man/father should do all that he can to maintain his R with his kids. Its nobody else's job but his. Its his fight. Fatherhood is not a job for cowards.

 

I agree, what I dont agree with is the different treatment men get in the courts.

[TheDiva]

I don't think the courts are exactly preferential for women. Certainly there have been cases of this but I don't think its the rule.

 

IME, my cheating father begged my mother not to divorce him. He didn't even want to be married to her! and yes he did try the ' stay married for the children' routine with both mom and his OW. His OW was married as well and not going to divorce.

 

Was my mother given full custody of us kids? Yes.

Was my father ordered to pay support? Yes, 200 a month. (2 kids)

Did my father ever pay it? hmmm, maybe 4 months worth total in 13 years...

Did my father have visitation? Yes.

 

My mother even invited him to school events, over for dinner, to outings she had planned with us, called him first if she needed someone to stay with the kids while she did something etc... Did he ever accept those invites? NO, he didn't even show for his regularly scheduled visits/weekends.

 

This was not the courts fault, this was totally his fault. He punished his kids because my mother went through with the divorce that he didn't want.

 

A man can be a great dad without being married to the mother, and if I were to D for any reason, I wouldn't keep our children away from their dad.

 

He already has an exW that does that. She threatens to keep him away from his son if he gets behind on CS. My husband has to bend over backwards to please her, and she moved their child across the country from our home state to make it even harder on H to see and speak to child. She won't allow his teen to call him and half the time she won't let them speak on the phone when H calls. On top of that they are supposed to have 'joint custody' (I have seen the divorce papers)

 

Is this the courts fault? No, I don't think so not completely anyway. Even though they certainly didn't care to help when he filled the complaint to keep his child closer to him. No she didn't have to move for a job or anything, it was for her BF. My H has to make all the arrangement and pay for all transport in getting visits. (Summers/some holidays) Bites his tongue when he wishes to speak ill of her in front of teen, though she is generous in her slander of BOTH of us and our children, even though she hasn't yet met me(or kids) in person.

 

So to sum it up, I think it's more the people involved than the court system.

 

 

H and myself were not in an A situation. He was D years before I met him. Just wanted to clarify.

[puddleofmud]

I feel this is not the fault of the "court" because the lower court only follows the law of the land: the Supreme Court as in where the supreme laws are decided.

Laws have been made via historical court based legacy: as in the Supreme Court, either state or federal. Federal law does not supercede State Law and state law just follows the course.

Cases before either have made the laws as currently based about the best interests of the child: historically these laws have been upon inumerous cases derived where fathers who left their children with mothers who earned 1/8th or less of the common male salary. This left intact Mother-Children on the welfare roles for which states and federal wished to be relieved.

Being that there were literally millions of fathers who had been enabled to escape fair child support--the Supreme Court decided a common parental "contempt" law. However, the same applies to mothers who also must pay support. One is automatically via federal law to pay child support, period, MOTHER OR FATHER, based on a fair calculated income.

Second: rare courts allow actual joint custody, but prefer only ONE custodial parent and the other as "visitor".

This is well supported, as it has been proven that it is not in the better interest of the child to have it's life broken into two signifcant homes. Such as living w/ one parent for three days and another for four out of the week. Most children do no do well as children need consistency and for the most part divorced parents are more at odds with each other and not based on their mutual child rearing tactics. A child needs one home, one bedroom, one closet, etc. It's a tad difficult for a child to remember where his shoes are much less their homework.

However, I do agree that often these historically based court decisions are not particurlarly "father based".

BUT, there is good reason why these laws exist: at the time women were mostly stay at home and men were employed. As welll the stats were that men left and women had no choices, after all what jobs could they find to support them?

Even today, women still make well less than half of male salaries and still millions of fathers don't pay any child support at all.

That is sad for the men who do wish to care for their children but unfortunately does not negate male societal historical precedent.

[Trialbyfire]

I think part of the "I don't want to leave because of the kids" should be changed to "I don't want to leave my comfortable lifestyle and have to raise my kids by myself, when it's my turn to have them in a joint custody situation."

[bonehead]

I feel this is not the fault of the "court" because the lower court only follows the law of the land: the Supreme Court as in where the supreme laws are decided.

Laws have been made via historical court based legacy: as in the Supreme Court, either state or federal. Federal law does not supercede State Law and state law just follows the course.

Cases before either have made the laws as currently based about the best interests of the child: historically these laws have been upon inumerous cases derived where fathers who left their children with mothers who earned 1/8th or less of the common male salary. This left intact Mother-Children on the welfare roles for which states and federal wished to be relieved.

Being that there were literally millions of fathers who had been enabled to escape fair child support--the Supreme Court decided a common parental "contempt" law. However, the same applies to mothers who also must pay support. One is automatically via federal law to pay child support, period, MOTHER OR FATHER, based on a fair calculated income.

Second: rare courts allow actual joint custody, but prefer only ONE custodial parent and the other as "visitor".

This is well supported, as it has been proven that it is not in the better interest of the child to have it's life broken into two signifcant homes. Such as living w/ one parent for three days and another for four out of the week. Most children do no do well as children need consistency and for the most part divorced parents are more at odds with each other and not based on their mutual child rearing tactics. A child needs one home, one bedroom, one closet, etc. It's a tad difficult for a child to remember where his shoes are much less their homework.

However, I do agree that often these historically based court decisions are not particurlarly "father based".

BUT, there is good reason why these laws exist: at the time women were mostly stay at home and men were employed. As welll the stats were that men left and women had no choices, after all what jobs could they find to support them?

Even today, women still make well less than half of male salaries and still millions of fathers don't pay any child support at all.

That is sad for the men who do wish to care for their children but unfortunately does not negate male societal historical precedent.

 

Even in a situation where the woman would be ordered to pay child support it isnt looked at the same as a man.

 

When my ex and I split I had full custody but at the time our plan was a joint custody arraingment. Even though she could not tell the courts WHEN she would be able to do joint custody they defered child support until she could have joint custody. I was told " oh well, deal with it. "

[NoIDidn't]

Even in a situation where the woman would be ordered to pay child support it isnt looked at the same as a man.

 

When my ex and I split I had full custody but at the time our plan was a joint custody arraingment. Even though she could not tell the courts WHEN she would be able to do joint custody they defered child support until she could have joint custody. I was told " oh well, deal with it. "

 

BH

 

I know it isn't fair, but women aren't looked at as providers. Women are expected to be nurturers, not providers.

 

You do still have the option of going back to court. You don't have to "deal with it" if you feel you have been wronged (or taken advantage of).

[bonehead]

BH

 

I know it isn't fair, but women aren't looked at as providers. Women are expected to be nurturers, not providers.

 

You do still have the option of going back to court. You don't have to "deal with it" if you feel you have been wronged (or taken advantage of).

 

We really need a gender blind court system.

 

When I got full custody the child support issue got taken care of.

 

what my point is, is that so often men and women are treated so different when it comes to custody issues and they shouldnt be.

[NoIDidn't]

We really need a gender blind court system.

 

When I got full custody the child support issue got taken care of.

 

what my point is, is that so often men and women are treated so different when it comes to custody issues and they shouldnt be.

 

BH

 

I remember you saying you did get full custody. Sorry for forgetting that.

 

I don't think we will ever get a gender blind judiciary (sp?). Men and women are the ones on the Bench, and even the most liberal ones are going to have their sticking issues.

 

The system was skewed to protect women and children from abandoners, but took it too far. What is needed now is more men like you that are willing to fight to have things more equalized.

 

Complaining before a judge is a lot more effective.