|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generally, my take on this type of arrangement is that it will only continue to work as long as the female want's it to.
Once she decides that she's 'entitled' to his money (because she's an 'oppressed victim'), and custody of the child fulltime, then that's what'll happen. Whatever legal arrangements they may have, that give any rights to the man, will be discarded by the courts.
This is what happens with pre-nuptual agreements. Even thought they *look* like legally binding contracts between two parties, they can be declared void for the benefit of the female. Gender trumps law. There are documented cases of this.
It seems a female is assumed to be incompetent to enter into a contract with a man, so therefore the contract is declared void if it inconveniences her. The man's legal rights, and his reasonable expectation that a contract will be honoured, are generally not considered.
So, I don't really see the above case as being all that much safer for a man than marriage or common-law. It's still going to come down to her whim as to whether it continues the way they agreed. The only advantage I can see here is that the man may be on the hook for a little less in support when she decides to 'take him to the cleaners.'
Ragtime
The Uppity Wallet
The opinions expressed above are my own,
but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ragtime is absolutely right. Agreements are great until a mother changes her mind, then the (alleged) "best interest of the child" becomes the overriding factor.
And as many of us know, "the best interest of the child" is usually just a euphemism for "whatever a mother wants".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In theory their arrangement is wonderful. The child gets exposure from both biological parents, necessary I believe, is not put into the middle, and benefits financialy as well as psychologicaly. But, I do have to agree with Ragtime, this is in a world that recognizes the rights of both men and women. We are talking about the U.S. of A. aren't we? Where men and women are pitted against each other through family courts? Where a man doesn't have any rights unless he is celibate, or gay? I thought so, beautiful in theory, but another way to screw a guy out of his dignity, and money, in reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This kind of arrangement, outside of marriage, done with an ackowledgement of paternity (*NOT* adoption) and a surrender of parental rights is going to be better than marriage. Slavery would worse than marriage because then the woman could *SELL* her rights to your labor to a third party. The inability to sell those rights is the main difference between marriage and slavery.
You want to be a father and see your children? This is a pretty good way. Except that he should get her *OUT* of the child's life forever and for good asap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is sad. This type of father is just as selfish as a mother who would do the same thing intentionally.
Also I find it sad that a person would intentionally create a child knowing they don't want to raise it or to be a "weekend parent" (whatever that means).
Sad, selfish people. Although the father probably loves his kid very much, and the mother is not a stranger, I feel both the father and the mother are misguided by their selfishness. I feel sorry for the child. This is only slightly less selfish than anonymous procreation with the intent of single parenthood.
Why couldn't he adopt a child? There are many children worldwide in need of a parent. (And yes, I would say the same thing about a woman who would intentionally co-create a child with the intent of denying the child a full-time second parent).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why couldn't he adopt a child?
Good question. Some people do seem to have a strong desire to propagate their genes, though.
Single adoption, provided he were able to do it (it's sometimes very difficult), would reduce or remove the threat of having his child taken from him by the mother. And if the child were from a bad situation, extreme poverty for instance, the child might be better off with one good, solvent parent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 23, @06:33PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
... with a capital "T".
Any way you slice it, it is rolling real big dice. The minute she wants to, the mother will squash him in court one day.
Advice: At this stage, avoid marriage and children. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
