It is heartbreaking...Pretty upsetting.

I cannot find an excuse for anyone who is keeping his/her child a secret from the world (not 1800s anymore). It is a tough situation but it is perfectly fine to say that you have a son just not seeing him too often due to geographical distance. I would not marry a man who keeps his child a secret, no way (I would worry what else he lies about).

I don't care how old he was when he got a woman pregnant.

Life is about choices. It is nice he pays CS, but now time to stop keeping secrets.

just read some more form the link.

first people were livid about this story. then of course "new" facts came around, kind of like on this forum. LOL

apparently they went to court 40 times to fight for visitations yet not a single person knows that he has a child. doesn't add up..40 times?

and why couldn't he get visitations, everyone could get visitations. 40 times in court and judge would not do anything about visitations. Hmmm yeah

What a crock of melodrama!

This woman needs my grandmother's cure for breath-holding & other manifestations of self-absorption:

a glass of cold water in the face.

I didn't read the husband's story past the part where he said his wife was misunderstood.

All the whining about 'a woman's right' *unfairly* trumping a man's right leaves me cold:

Men & "boys" who are old enough to have sex are old enough to know the consequences;
they just don't think they should ever ever ever have to face those consequences.

It's always the woman's fault (she *said* she was on the pill, she tricked me, it was just a fling).

Men & boys do have a choice, & it's a simple one:
take precautions or take responsibility
(or, as an old boyfriend reported his father's advice, "keep it in your pants or get a job to pay for your child's needs").

That poor boy is the only innocent victim I see here.

sylvia, if you read his part of story... this guy provides long list of things he did to be able to see a child(he and his wife wouldn't even acknowledge him! yet they somehow fight for him LOL)that's where he said they went 40 times to court to fight for visitations.

and her story completely changed form one post to another. boy's grandmother did not acknowledge him and publicly called him "friend's child". And dad did nothing about it!!! unbelievable.

poor child who had to pretend he is "friend's child" in front of other people. such trauma for a child. I am not surprised mom is apprehensive about letting dad seeing a child. Dad is a liar and subjects child to emotional trauma. His siblings don't even know about him.

i am glad this boy has a mom and a stepfather who do nto hide him from the world.

It's a difficult situation --

Unlike FD, I didn't find the second article unbelieveable. I don't know that I swallow it 100%, but it's certainly plausible that the father made a sincere effort to become involved in his child's life, but that the mother made it virtually impossible. We certainly hear plenty of that here... And if that's the situation, and you live on the other coast, how would that logically make you feel? And if so, then what would you do about it? And how would that make you feel? Meh - Doesn't sound unbelieveable to me.

It's certainly sad for the child. And 'Grandma's' denial was cruel and hurtful.

==================

On the one hand, I agree with Sylvia that "Men & "boys" who are old enough to have sex are old enough to know the consequences; they just don't think they should ever ever ever have to face those consequences."

But if they USE birth control -- those 'consequences' aren't supposed to happen.
(Though we all know they sometimes do.)

"Men & boys do have a choice, & it's a simple one:
take precautions or take responsibility
(or, as an old boyfriend reported his father's advice, "keep it in your pants or get a job to pay for your child's needs"). "

Yeah - But even if you DO take precautions, accidental pregnancies still happen.
And when they do, it's 100% the woman's decision whether or not an abortion happens. The man has NO say. (Not that I have a better solution...)

=====================

I wonder --
If the woman decides to give up her child for adoption, and the bio father says No, he want's to keep it. Does that mean the woman can be forced to pay child support? And that the father would have the same ability to withhold custody that many mothers exercise? (Ability, not right)

====================

Enough rambling...

I wonder --
If the woman decides to give up her child for adoption, and the bio father says No, he want's to keep it. Does that mean the woman can be forced to pay child support? And that the father would have the same ability to withhold custody that many mothers exercise? (Ability, not right)

that is a really good thought. probably not. as with most things dealing with child custody, it is very one sided

I found it believable. I've known women who delight in keeping their children from their fathers.

Sweeby, that's an incredible question. If a person creates/makes another person and decides they don't want that child are they still responsible?

Because that happens with men all the time. A woman is impregnated and the man wants nothing to do with the child but is forced to pay for 18 years.

What about the women who don't want their children? Does this go both ways?

I agree that it is understandable that dad sees him infrequently since he lives far away. i don't have any issue with dad not seeing his son enough, under the cicumstances it could be understandable but but what's up with the lying? lying to your other children? your own parents? your friends? this is just plain ridiclous, who lies nowadays about having children? what are his excuses?

I find it strange that he went 40 times to court and judge did not grant any visitations. i am wondering if that guy hides something. as always there is more to the story.

as about geographical distance plenty of people live far way from their children, don't remember it being a reason for denying being a parent.

"If the woman decides to give up her child for adoption, and the bio father says No, he want's to keep it. Does that mean the woman can be forced to pay child support?"

people can give up their parental rights if they don't want to be parents. They can either give kids for adoption or just give up parental rights. Most uninvolved or dead beat parents don't want to give up their rights yet refuse to be parents.

FD - If I recall, the judge DID grant visitation, but the mother made it next to impossible for the Dad to exercise his rights.

As to relinquishing parental rights -- I could be mistaken, but I don't think uninvolved fathers can get out of paying child support simply by relinquishing their parental rights if the mother objects. My hypothetical situation (mother wants to give child up for adoption but father objects) is the same situation but with the genders reversed.

In other words, if the mother wants to give the child up for adoption, can SHE still be held liable for child support if the father chooses to raise the baby?

We all know that if the father wants to give the child up for adoption that HE can absolutely be held liable for child support if the mother chooses to raise the baby.

I think the answer is yes, if the Dad doesn't agree that she can terminate child support.

Basically a person can give up their rights, but a judge can still order them to pay child support. Same with adoption. Just because you give your child up for adoption does not mean you will not have to pay child support. The judge decides what is in the best interest of the child. And, unless the other parent agrees to let you out of your financial obligation you cannot opt out of "parent status" and not have to pay support.

I feel sorry for the little guy too. How can parents/grandparents deny their child, esp. when he's standing RIGHT THERE??!! But I don't think the BM and SFather are that great either. Doing what is best for the child would mean facilitating his relationships with his family members, IMO.

"A woman is impregnated"

LOL, that's one step away from "she got herself pregnant".

I repeat, guys know how babies get here, & they make their choice:
keep it zipped, or use protection, or be prepared to pay for the next 18 years.

I don't believe this sterling couple tried even once to get visitation;
they don't even want that little boy to exist.

& it does seem like I've heard of situations where mothers have to pay child support if fathers keep the child, whether the couple has been married or not.

I agree with Sylvia. "I repeat, guys know how babies get here, & they make their choice:
keep it zipped, or use protection, or be prepared to pay for the next 18 years.

I don't believe this sterling couple tried even once to get visitation;
they don't even want that little boy to exist. "

Yes, women could be ordered to pay child support if the father kept the baby.

"Doing what is best for the child would mean facilitating his relationships with his family members, IMO." That's nice in theory, but if Dads Mother (Grandma) invalidates the childs existence to others and does it not just in front of the child, but the childs brothers and sisters also....I don't see how this would be the best interest of the child at all. If Dad cannot control his own family (wife, mother, children) and he allows them to abuse his child, then it's not in the best interest. I'm sure there's more of where that came from with the letter writer and family.

And yes, people are still responsible for the children they create. Because they can't control whether the child is adopted or how much custody they get or have to pay and it's not always exactly "fair" to the adults, it doesn't take away that childs rights to have responsible parents.

Child's father never acknowledged to the world that he has a child. Let's agree these are not normal circumstances.

If my daughter's father lied to the world about her existence I am not sure how i would want her to go places with him and pretend she is his friend's child. It is too damaging.

This is not a story about evil mother but rather about a person embarrassed that he has illegitimate child and hiding it from the world.

i don't entirely understand how is this man "a family member", he never acknowledged his son and lies to everyone about his existence. She has to facilitate child's relationship with someone who denies that same child's existence?

it is also possible the whole story is made up, sounds too unreal. just too sick.

"I'm sure there's more of where that came from with the letter writer and family."

I think mom addressed it in court and that's maybe why he got no visitations or visitations are not enforced. I also wonder that the reason this guy is not insisting on visitations is that he is afraid mom will tell everyone about the child.

Please read what these people wrote again. i read it again and that what it says.

1. mother never denied the father seeing his son.

2. dad went to court and got supervised visitations only, mom did not deny those.

3. he eventually got unsupervised visitaions but they weren't long enough, 8 hours, mom did not deny those either but dad became too frustrated to continue. huh?

4. apparently when he applied for more visitations (even though he did not want to keep the ones he had) courts lost his files and court session was rescheduled.

5. then he decided to just lie. it is easier. LOL

The reason I wrote "impregnated" is because that's what happened. You can re-define it to mean she used a turkey baster or it was a virgin birth if you want. It's easy to say "men know what they're doing, they should use protection if they don't want to get a girl pregnant... but so should women!!) My DH used protection and BM said she was on birth-control. How did it happen? He thinks she did it on purpose. We'll never know. I know a woman in my mother's social circle who has said she took the condom off her BF and used it. Many women trap men into having children they don't want. And many men neglect their parenting duties. It's a horrible situation either way. My DH considered paternity testing but he loves his daughter and wants her to be "his" no matter what. I think that's pretty honorable. I think men, sometimes, get the short end of the stick. Women KNOW if a baby is theirs. It's pretty obvious, lol.

My point is not to gross anyone out, but "putting a bag on it" doesn't always work. I think the lesson should be never to have intercourse with anyone with whom you are not prepared to have a child, right?

Since over 30% of men (1.6 million at last count) pay child support for children who are not theirs, it's obvious many women lie. I'm not discounting or trivializing the fact that many many men do not pay for children that are theirs... just looking at both sides of the picture. And courts often require men to keep paying, even once discovered they have no biological ties to the child.

Is this fair?

"My point is not to gross anyone out, but "putting a bag on it" doesn't always work. I think the lesson should be never to have intercourse with anyone with whom you are not prepared to have a child, right?"

That's exactly what I told my son --
And even if the man walks away and doesn't get hit with child support, his child is out there being raised by someone he didn't consider mother-of-his-child material.

I think that if an unmarried woman gets pregnant, either she or the man should have the right to opt out of being a parent, provided that decision is made in the first year or so. If that is the case, then ALL parental rights should be terminated at that time, forever. Unfortunately there are a number of women who deliberately "forget" to use birth control in the knowledge that they'll be getting child support for the next 18 years. At the same time, women who really do accidentally get pregnant can either give the child up for adoption (yay! more newborns to adopt!) or they (or the fathers) could support the child themselves or with the help of their families or friends.

At the same time, parents who decide to walk away from their children after a few years should really be gone after for child support more strictly than they often are; there are way too many deadbeat mothers and fathers who seemingly view their kids as some kind of toy to pick up and play with at whim then throw back into a corner for a few months.

As for the linked story, all adults in it disgust me. That poor child. The quote "He is a reminder of my husbands sex life before me, of the women he did not respect but slept with anyway, of a mistake a person can make at age 22 that can haunt him and me well into his 40s." A mistake? She has called her step-son a mistake - who haunts them. That sounds more like a stalker than a son! Frankly I am appalled by the fact that they would hide this child's existence rather than, what? Admit that the husband had ever had premarital sex?

I agree Mattie, all adults are disgusting. If she wanted what she considered to be the picture perfect life she should have married a virgin.

I agree with Mattie, all of the adults in the story are disgusting. Starting with the mother who didn't let her partner, the now husband, know they had a child for two years. Or until she decided she wanted financial support.

Followed by the father, who sounds like he made some attempt to be with the child, but not a consistent or concerted one due to his grad school, new wife, distaste for the mother and so on. He tried, yeah, but his life that he wanted called to him louder than that child.

Lastly by the wife/SM/author. She is supporting his decision to hide the child because it makes her family life smoother. She is arguably in the toughest and easiest postion of all of the adults. This child was conceived before her marriage. Completely the responsibility of the husband and his ex GF/lover/whatever. I wouldn't want to participate in any lies about the child but by the same token I wouldn't feel responsible either. However, I would lose a lot of respect for my husband if he couldn't do more than what we read in that sorry tale.

For $1000 a month, he should be seeing his child, introducing the boy to his 1/2 sibs (they can all get on a plane) or drag the mother back to court and basically say, to heck with this. I want access to my child or I'm keeping my money. Yes, yes, I know it's not about money but for whatever reason in this story the money for CS, travel, attorneys has taken on a big role.

so if a man does not want to be involved father he should just demand paternity test. subject child to a drama.

I think lovehadley SS's BM wanted her DH to have paternity test because she dislikes haivng a stepchild. nice. I think he refused, good for him.

i wonder why men who want patrenity tests complain they don't get to see their children that much? You hope they are not your children, yet want to see them more. Like love is about blood relations. pretty gross in my books. cannot imagine DD's father wanting paternity test, wow.

I remember reading something years ago about a woman whose husband had an affair and fathered a child during it. Obviously the wife was distraught but they went to counseling and were working on their marriage. The husband demanded, and got, visitation with the child to the other woman, and the child was spending every other weekend with the family. The wife was saying how she was a sweet little girl and how she (the wife) was doing fairly well at separating her feelings about the affair from her feelings about the innocent child, but was having a bit of difficulty because the child was introduced as her husband's child, and they already had older children of their own - so it was fairly obvious to everyone what had happened and that bothered her.

I could not help but contrast that story; of a woman who was trying so hard to do what was best for an innocent child, even though it pained and humiliated her (no one would want the world at large to know that their husband cheated on them), to the linked story where the father and step-mother seem to wish that the son would just go away and not exist.

I don't think paternity tests are necessarily subjecting a child to more drama than a parent who really doesn't want to be there. If done right, the child would never have to know, unless the guy really ISN'T their dad, and that would be important for genetics, etc.

I think having a paternity test is a good idea if there is any doubt. I think it's a man's right to have one done, if that's what he wants. It's not always about "hoping" the child isn't theirs. I think it would be important if there were any question, for the child's sake.

It's not a child's fault who their birth parents were, children should be loved and protected from adult's bad choices (cheating, etc). But women do work the system, they do point fingers at the wrong men, and for a man to have to pay through the nose for a child that is not his, and build a relationship with a child that is built on lies is damaging to everyone.

Oh come on! It's not like a woman can point at any man and just demand support at whatever price she chooses. The man has many options when he's been "fingered" lmao. He can contest, ask for a dna test. The only way these non fathers are getting suckered into support is just how Mom2's sisters boyfriend did it. He KNOWINGLY signed the childs birth certificate claiming he was the father. Or they are signing paperwork claiming they are the father without a dna test. What are they, children? If they can't figure out they are legally declaring themselves as the childs father, what are they doing living on their own? They should be in a half way house with someone monitoring their daily activities and making sure they are showering and brushing their teeth.

Once you sign those parents and make yourself a legal parent, you're just that -- legally responsible for that child.

"I don't think paternity tests are necessarily subjecting a child to more drama than a parent who really doesn't want to be there."

it is a contradictory statement. fathers, who don't want to be there, are the ones who want paternity test. fathers who truly want to be there wouldn't even think of paternity tests, what for?

sounds like you've met plenty of awful men and women, point fingers at wrong men? work the system, pay though the nose, what the heck, who are all these evil people you are talking about.

agree with nivea. it is ridiculous. how is it Ok first sign birth certificate, then say "oopsie just realized have to pay CS, oopsie that's a lot of money, oopsie have to travel to see kids, oopsie it is too much work, oopsie ex is not cooperating, oh wait what if she is not mine! oh let's do paternity test!!!" How stupid.

and now women go around and claim random men to be fathers of their children. LOL

"They should be in a half way house with someone monitoring their daily activities and making sure they are showering and brushing their teeth."

hahahahah you are hilarious, you made me laugh so loud, maybe they have reading deficits and could not understand what they are signing or maybe didn't realize how much CS they have to pay, if not halfway house then maybe going back to school, learn some basic skills.

and if they think she is a cheater why having unprotected sex, haven't heard of HIV? yeah, certainly go back to school and then half-way house.

Yeah, I can never understand it. And it's always the girlfriend or wife posting about how they think the kids not their husbands. They just look like a loon to me, what does it matter at this point, for one thing. Another thing, so your husband is not a responsible person and cannot read? And this is the prize your marrying or married to?

Maybe it's a bigger problem for men that I've run across. Ok, but it's that guys problem. What's the rest of the world supposed to do if he can't read and comprehend on an adult level? I just don't get it lol

Nivea, some people sleep around a lot. And their partners are sleeping around a lot. Quite often people do not know if they are the parent. With DNA testing there are hundreds of thousands of men, who *assumed* and were *told* they are the father and later on discovered they weren't.

It happens. I just am of the opinion that if there is any doubt it is healthier for everyone involved to have the test right away rather than waiting. That's all. And I think, if a man has any doubt, it's his right.

I think your statement that wanting a test means he doesn't want to be there for his child is silly. How would you feel, with it in the back of your head that it might not be your child? If anything DNA testing would make a man support the kid more, both emotionally and financially, and the availability of the test means the men who choose not to have the test are there for the child, bio or not.

"sounds like you've met plenty of awful men and women, point fingers at wrong men? work the system, pay though the nose, what the heck, who are all these evil people you are talking about. "

"so your husband is not a responsible person and cannot read? "

Um... not quite sure how to react to your snide tone... but here's a little info for you...

Fathers have never had to sign the birth certificate. Only in 2008 did the laws change. Prior to that a mother could have put anyone she wanted on the certificate, or left it blank. When people are married, the name of the father is automatically entered, otherwise it was solely up to the woman to put the name of the man she *thought* was the father. Those women don't name random guys, they name guys who could possibly be the father. Oftentimes, they're wrong. Not evil, just a little lax in who they have sex with, and maybe with a bit of a memory problem.

In that case, obviously the man should have chosen his partner a little better. Someone, maybe, who didn't sleep with the entire lacrosse team at the same time. But should he have to pay for this for the rest of his life even if he was not the one who got her pregnant? Should the child be deprived of knowing their true bio dad just because mom didn't guess right?

"And it's always the girlfriend or wife posting about how they think the kids not their husbands."

so true nivea

all of this sounds like Jerry Springer show to me

"I think your statement that wanting a test means he doesn't want to be there for his child is silly. How would you feel, with it in the back of your head that it might not be your child? If anything DNA testing would make a man support the kid more, both emotionally and financially, and the availability of the test means the men who choose not to have the test are there for the child, bio or not."

Whoa, where in the heck did you get I said that? I'm saying that it is irresponsible to sign a birth certificate or legitimization papers without a DNA test. It is irresponsible to come back years later to say now, you want one. It is further even more irresponsible for a new girlfriend to try to interfere in the mans relationship with his child, years after the fact he signed legally acknowledging paternity. If you somehow think that it is ok to request a DNA test years later, we can agree to disagree.

About the birth certificate, for one the laws depend on the state. Maybe it's the norm in other states but just a cursory glance say it's pretty much all the same, father has to be present and no one can force him to acknowledge paternity. As of 2003, DD's father had to be there to sign. I don't know where you got your info from but maybe it's some state, it's not the majority. Was that too snide? lol

it is a shame if a man wants to contest his fatherhood YEARS after a child was born and years after he acknowledges his parenthood and all because he does not want to deal with CS, fatherhood or hates his ex. and those same men complain how their exes withhold their children from them. ha.

Agreed FD.

@ Nivea:
"it is irresponsible to sign a birth certificate or legitimization papers without a DNA test. It is irresponsible to come back years later to say now, you want one. It is further even more irresponsible for a new girlfriend to try to interfere in the mans relationship with his child, years after the fact he signed legally acknowledging paternity. "

I agree.

As of 2002, in my state, no one asked about dad whatsover. I had to list his name, even though we were married.

Nationwide, it became an issue in 2008, legally.

Hmmm. DD was born in 2002 and I was not allowed to put her bio-father's name on the birth cert. because he was NOT PRESENT to sign. I was FINE with that, anyway, but even if I had WANTED to put his name down, I could not have without him signing an "affidavit of paternity."

My SS was also born in 2002 and DH and BM were not married. Likewise, DH had to sign an affidavit of paternity at the hospital in order to have his name on the birth certificate, which he readily did.

I do know that if parents are MARRIED, the husband's name automatically goes on the birth certificate.

But perhaps different states have different laws.

These articles were interesting for me to read.

My DD does not have a relationship with her bio-dad. He has seen her twice, when she was 6 months and then again at about 8 months old.

He talked to her on the phone a few times about 3 years ago, and then dropped her on her @$$. He called maybe 3-4 times and I let her speak to him and he referred to himself as DADDY and then after the 3rd or 4th conversation, he never called again. I had her call him and leave him a voicemail and he never responded.

This was back when she was 5 and she will be 8 in a few weeks.

So--needless to say--THAT really ticked me off. Thankfully, she has not brought him up or asked any questions about him ever since. I am kind of concerned because I think on some level she *forgets* that MY DH is not her dad. She calls him daddy and refers to herself as his daughter. I think it's GREAT but I also wonder at what point will she recognize within herself that he isn't bio-dad?

I almost liken it to an adoption at this point. It's not that dissimilar than a child who has been given up for adoption, one who knows he/she has birth-parents out there but views his/her adoptive parents as MOM and DAD. And they ARE MOM and DAD. A birth parent can hold a special place in an adopted child's heart, but if you ask any adopted person who their REAL PARENTS are, it is the ones who raised them.

Anyway, I don't know what DD's bio-dad is up to these days. He does have an older DD who is 10 and I know he sees her regularly. But she is in the same city as him, whereas my DD and I live 2000 miles away. The distance would make it difficult under the best of circumstances.

YES I believe if he'd wanted to have a relationship with DD, he could have, despite the distance. But he was immature and liked to drink/party and I think for him, it was always an "out of sight, out of mind" thing.

When I took him to court to establish paternity when DD was 1 year old, the judge was THIS CLOSE to setting a default judgement. The reason was that bio-dad would NOT communicate with his attorney. Time after time, we had a hearing date and his attorney would show up and say "your Honor, my client has not been in communication with me, so I have to ask for a continuance." After the third time that happened, the judge said if you haven't heard from him by the next court date, I am entering a default judgement in favor of the plaintiff.

In the end, I got everything I wanted, anyway: SOLE PHYSICAL AND LEGAL CUSTODY. Bio-dad did not want anything. The judge still gave him visitation in MY state, provided he gave me 3 weeks notice. He also gave him liberal access to DD via telephone.

He never has used any of it, and I doubt he ever will. My guess is DD will be the one to initiate contact with HIM at some point but whether that is when she's 12 or 18, I don't know. I think the fact that she has my DH as her dad has done a lot to fill that void. I imagine she will not express curiosity in her bio-dad until she is older.

I can kind of relate to the SM in this situation. I imagine it would feel very strange for your DH to have a child out there whom he doesn't see; and sometimes situations play out a certain way, and it IS in the best interest of the child to have things remain status quo. This boy might have a loving stepfather whom he views as dad. And I DO see this woman's point of view when she says limited visits might cause more damage than none.

It sounds like a situation where the dad definitely made mistakes and didn't do everything he could have, but...it is what it is at this point. The child is ten and this dad will have to answer to him at some point about his lack of involvement. The boy might be angry, but if he is growing up happy and loved, then he might not be, as well.

Just to clarify:

I believe (at least in my jurisdiction) that if the mother wants to relinquish the child for adoption, the father must have notice and he can claim his rights to the child... and yes, she would be obligated to pay support. The law does not differentiate between the genders. Both parents have a financial obligation to the child, until it is terminated by law or a court. (just as a father cannot force the mother to have an abortion.. he still has to pay support when she has the child. If the child goes to the father because the mother wishes to put the child up for adoption and the father fights it & wins custody, the mother would have to pay support. ~though I think it's more likely that if the father didn't give up his rights, the mother might rethink giving up the baby for adoption and keep the baby~ )

Secondly, a court will not terminate a parent's right/obligation unless there is another person that is going to assume that obligation. In other words... my SD's mother is a deadbeat. If she were to stop seeing SD completely (and she isn't really paying support anyways), DH could not get the court to terminate her as the parent... UNLESS someone else (like stepmom) wanted to step up and assume the legal obligation for the child because the law recognizes that a child is entitled to have TWO parents. (unless one or both are dead, the courts won't let one off the hook)

Every state may have it's own version but the basic principle is that the child has the right to both parents... not necessarily the parents having the right to the child.