My step-daughter, who is not of any religious faith, has a 5-year-old whose father is LDS. He last paid child support about 2 years ago. He calls to speak to his daughter about every 2-3 months. He has told my step-daughter that he maintains contact in order to fulfill his obligations to the Church, but has told her he would attempt to gain custody should anything happen to her. Is there any way to resolve him of responsibility for his daughter, so he can be "right" with the Church, but discontinue this charade?
posted
Well, to fulfill his responsibilities, I would think that he'd need to be paying his child support, which he obviously hasn't done. Does your step-daughter just want him out of their lives altogether or just pay up?
I think that wanting to remain an active part in his daughter's life is a good thing, but he should also be paying his child support (which he's both legally and morally obligated to do).
posted
I've never had to deal with this personally, but I think that there is a requirement that a man fully support all of his children if he intends to remain a member in good standing. It sounds, though, like this particular guy is doing a particularly half-arsed job of it.
Is your ideal outcome for the guy to help more, or to get lost altogether?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: He last paid child support about 2 years ago. He calls to speak to his daughter about every 2-3 months. He has told my step-daughter that he maintains contact in order to fulfill his obligations to the Church, but has told her he would attempt to gain custody should anything happen to her.
Time for poop in the shoes.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What my step-daughter wants is to give him permission to not consider his daughter an obligation. If he had a sincere desire to be part of her life, that might be different, but he only sees her as an obligation. And that obligation is to his Church, not his child.
She doesn't want another cent out of him, particularly.
Posts: 230 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There isn't any way that your step-daughter can relieve him of that obligation, I think, because it isn't to her. He can't relieve himself of it, and as long as the daughter is his, she's still part of him and is his obligation.
Added: If he's behind on child support, then he's not fulfilling of his obligations.
posted
I think its a terrible way to view your own kid, but isn't that one of the level of the hierarchy of morality? Obedience because of a feeling of duty or obligation is above acting out of fear of punishment but below acting out of a sincere desire to do the right thing. (I apologize for the blatant paraphrasing.)
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
1. Your daughter can take him to court and have his legal rights as a parent terminated. This relieves him of his financial obligations of child support, etc. If your daughter dies before the child reaches maturity, then custodianship of the child could not be claimed by him.
2. If he is behind in his child support, he is not allowed to hold a temple recommend within the LDS church. Your daughter can contact his bishop (ecclesiastical leader) and inform him that he is not paying his child support. SOmetimes this embarrasment motivate people to meet their responsibilities.
3, In some states (such as Texas), you can have your driver's license taken away for non-payment of child support.
I am a custodial father and have gone through similar problems with a deadbeat mother. I say that the offspring are not "obligations" (your word) or "inconveniences" (my ex's word), they are children.
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, folks, I apologize for my ignorance of the tenets of the LDS faith and I sincerely hope I don't offend anyone with an inappropriate question. What I understand is that children (as many as possible) is the best outcome for a family. This man has used the excuse of his religion to father 6 children by 3 women, and is currently collecting food stamps/welfare. He is honestly in no position to do anything for this child.
As to the word obligation, that was certainly not my word, it was his. My word for that child is Peach, my most excellent grandbaby, who deserves the world's best. At this time, my step-daughter and her children are moving from Florida to Colorado to live with us, so we can be sure she and the kids get the best support they can. One of our concerns is that the father will attempt to take her away under the guise of a parental visit.
Thanks all for your suggestions and clarifications. Any ideas you have are most welcome. I'm thinking the avenue of talking to his bishop would be more productive than legal avenues. He was never put on the birth certificate, and didn't put in an appearance until she was two years old.
Posts: 230 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that having six children by three different women you are not married to falls anywhere within the ideal Mormon lifestyle. If this guy is using his religion as an excuse to behave this way, that's all it is — an excuse. His religion doesn't condone anything he's doing.
If anything, you can probably get confirmation from his bishop that he's an idiot and that you shouldn't listen to him
[ May 27, 2004, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The guy we're talking about was apparently raised in a splinter group which, to my understanding, is far outside the mainstream LDS Church. In fact, while they were together, she says they used her name whenever they went to the Temple, because his family had been excommunicated. After they split, he found his way back to the mainstream. I just question his real dedication. Did he repent because of his new wife? Or was it a true repentance?
My step-daughter was in a car wreck 2 years ago, and has suffered some pretty severe neurological trouble. The added stress of this person's influence in her life is not good.
Y'all are great, and we really do appreciate the insight.
Posts: 230 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say, given the way you've described this guy, I doubt that a judge would be inclined to give him legal custody of your grand-daughter in the even of anything happening to your step-daughter. When you say that he would "attempt to gain custody", do you mean through legal channels, or through kidnapping?
quote:I don't think that having six children by three different women you are not married to falls anywhere within the ideal Mormon lifestyle.
You think?
What if he was going to eat the babies rather than raising them, though? That would square up with LDS beliefs, right?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm getting more confused. You said they used her name when they went to the Temple? Nonmembers and members without temple recommends can't enter the Temple.
The guy sounds pretty sleazy, to be honest, and definitely not a worthy member of the LDS church.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have anything to say about the religious side of this, but I can't believe no one has made this loser serve some jail time yet for not paying his support. I also would not worry too much about him ever gaining custody, in any event. If your step-daughter does not have a will, she needs one that states whom she would like to raise her child in the event of her death. It wouldn't be too difficult to prove that the father getting custody would be psychologically damaging to the child.
posted
I was discussing the will thing with her yesterday. That will be taken care of before they move out here.
Our main concern was that the father would ask for a weekend visit, and instead of heading back to the hotel, would just take off and head west. I cannot imagine a judge who'd give him custody, but as some of you may recall, for non-religious reasons, I am 1/3 of a committed group family unit. We try to be very low-key, but it would be something that would likely come up if a custody battle got going.
Again, I got the information about visiting the Temple second-hand, so I don't know quite how they finagled that, but my daughter did say they had used her name to get in.
Folks, as a result of my job (until last week), I got to spend a bunch of time in Provo and SLC. I think it's a beautiful place and would love if someone would offer a suggestion as to a good, interesting history of the LDS. Having flown and driven over the Wasatch several times, I cannot imagine guiding a wagon or even a couple of horses over those hills.
Posts: 230 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I vaguely remember that the first LDS settlers didn't have horses or wagons, only hand carts. But someone who actually is LDS or from Utah might know more.
posted
The very first ones did have wagons (and horses). It was the later groups, in the years prior to the transcontinental railroad, who often had to make the trip using only handcarts.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think that the first settlers had oxen and wagons, and many later settlers only had handcarts. But still, I'm glad that it was my ancestors and not me.
Edit: Yeah, what Lawguy said.
[ May 28, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:my daughter did say they had used her name to get in.
This is weird.
In order to be admitted into the temple, a Mormon must have his/her own personal temple recommend card. My card gets me in, but nobody else.
The way the temple recommend process works is that you go for an "interview" with your bishop, who will issue you a special little card (the "temple recommend") with your name on it. There is no way that I know of that my bishop would give me a recommend under any name OTHER than that on my official Church membership record. These membership records are kept in Salt Lake City.
So the only way this guy could get his own temple recommend, but with his wife's name on it, would be to forge it.
This guy is a good Mormon the same way that Michael Corleone is a good Catholic. Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of temples, this guy would in no way be able to attend until he made his Child Support payments. One of the specific questions asked to see if one is worthy to attend the temple is, "Are you up to date in all your family obligations?" and asks *specifically* about child support payments. A Latter-Day Saint who has not made all his child-support payments cannot, by definition, be a member in good standing.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok Folks... I am the step-daughter in question. I can probably clear up a couple of questions... Thank you "1/3 DocCoyote" for helping me get this info.!
My husband and I never went to the temple, but to an LDS library and a couple of other places in SLC where you had to sign in. We used my name because my ex-father-in-law had stolen documents from the chruch and the last name would have caused a rucus. We never would have made it anywhere near the temple! There is no legal agreement of any kind with regard to custody or support for my daughter. There have been no repercussions for his lack of support because I don't want it, have never asked for it, and have never even had paternity established. My husband was, and some of his family still is, one of the many "Mormon Fundamentalist" groups that are out there. We had a very short marriage, I left UT when I was pregnant despite numerous threats from the group and accusations that I was "kid-napping" one of the "prophet's" descendants. I have kept my daughter's father at as much of a distance as possible, while still not refusing his right to see her, but now that he is part of the mainstream LDS church he wants to be able to get a temple recommend. I don't want my daughter to be any part of that process for him. He and I were not legally married, and she is not legally his daughter. How does the church view a situation like that? I wish I could believe that he has no intentions of taking my daughter and that she is safe with him, but I never will. I wish that his "place in heaven" had absolutely nothing to do with her, but in the LDS faith it does. Thank you all for your comments so far! I know it is an unusual situation, to say the least!
Posts: 1 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yikes! Quite a little drama here! Sorry this has been so messy for you.
Edit: When you say that he was "Mormon Fundamentalist" and that you were never legally married, it sounds like you were a polygamous wife. Is that true? I wonder if he could explain to his bishop and stake president (the two involved in approving a temple recommend) that the obligation to child support is unwanted. I don't know how strict those rules are because I have never had to deal with them nor have I spoken to anyone who has in much detail. Certainly these are unusual circumstances. Does he know how you feel about this?
2nd Edit: I may be interpreting this wrong, but it sounds like Doc Coyote is also part of a polyamorous unit and does not want that to be dragged into the limelight so-to-speak if this went legal.
posted
How is he not legally the father? Has he signed away his parental rights? IANAL, but unless he does that, I believe that he has some rights as the biological father.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I know of no way that he can absolve himself of the responsability of his child, at least not from the standpoint of the church, and definitely not from God's standpoint. (Sorry to speak for the Man, but Mormons are well known for their God-by-proxy playacting. )
I think it's still legal for women to kidnap (read: move away with no forwarding address) their own children, so that's an option. If he can't find you, he can't be held responsible for his child's welfare.
Absolving him of his legal responsabilities as a parent does not satisfy (IMO) his spiritual responsabilities. But if he's a danger to the child, I suggest you speak with a lawyer to get the process started anyway.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for clearing up, and it's only 8 more days 'til you're out here. I'm getting ready to head for work, so will talk to you later!
Beverly, Step's mom and dad and I have been in a polyfidelitous union for 8 years. We are generally not vocal, nor particularly quiet about this, but need to be careful because I have a nearly 7-year-old, and would not appreciate some well-meaning person deciding my child would be better off away from this situation. School adminstrators spring to mind. For the same reason, I don't feel it would be even remotely out of the realm of possibility that should something happen to Step, her daughter's father might be hypocritical enough to use our lifestyle as a reason to say we weren't a good choice to raise her, even though his own parents are polygamists.
Also, thanks to all for info and suggestions about the westward migration. I have a dream one day of writing a book about the paths west, not just to SLC, but all the trails.
I'll let Step take over on the religious and legal ramifications of the other issue, so it's not secondhand.
Posts: 230 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the child's father know where you the grandfather live? If he does not know where you are and can't look you up easily, I say don't notify the bum where your daughter is moving to. If he is not on the birth certificate I believe the burden of proof rests with him to prove he is the father. I really have no idea and your daughter should consult an attorney, but she should just move and not contact him anymore. Don't give him the new number. There is no paper recording the marriage, there is no paper recording the fact that he is the father. If there was no formal agreement for custody and support then all you legally have is a guy giving an ex girlfriend some money from time to time. Again though, the courts no longer always act reasonably so I would suggest calling a lawyer.
As far as the LDS worthiness issue...I would consult with this man's bishop if possible and apprise him of the situation. Or don't if you are trying to cut off all contact. He is not fufilling his obligations from a religious standpoint right now and to want to fufill them just for the sake of religious standing is hypocritical and not fufilling them anyway....
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, stable polyandry! You sure don't see that very often. If it weren't for all those bigoted people out there you three could all be married. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Correct me if I am wrong, but your ex seems to be laboring under the notion that he has to become super daddy (or at least be somehow involved with your daughter) in order to be absolved by the Lord and the church. Well, he needs to disillusion himself about that and get on with his life.
The reason I say that is because our church teaches that, ideally, part of the repentance process is to make restitution for our actions. But there is the caveat: “restitution where possible.” There are some sins (or actions if you prefer that term) for which it is impossible to make restitution. But a person can still be forgiven. In the Atonement, Christ suffered for and paid for the pains and anguish of all sins. (And, I might add, he suffered not only for the sins of mankind but also for all the sicknesses and injustices that happen to us through no fault of our own - even for stupid mistakes which can’t necessarily be classed as “sin.”)
Because of the Atonement, then, Christ can forgive anyone. He can also offer solace to anyone who has been wronged. (Ah, but how to get that solace? But that’s a subject for a different discussion.)
But what this all means for this discussion is that your ex can still be forgiven, get a temple recommend, and eventually be saved without getting any further involved with you or your daughter. Especially since you and your family don’t want him involved. I would even go so far as to say that he would be making matters worse for himself and everyone else if he keeps persisting. And certainly no Bishop or Stake President worthy of the title is going to encourage him to go against your wishes in the matter nor any court orders you might get imposed. If they were to do so they would be in violation of Church policy. And they are especially not going to condone kidnapping.
The short version is that restitution is well nigh impossible in this case, so your ex can get himself “right” with the Lord and the church without dragging you and your daughter into the process. He needs to let it go, get over it, and get on with his life. And you have every right to keep him away if that’s what you want.
It reminds me a little bit of the story of the boy who wanted to do a good deed. So he helped a little old lady to cross the street only to discover that she hadn’t wanted to go.
One other point about our doctrines of repentance and forgiveness that may have some relevance to your ex’s situation: Some actions result in life-long consequences. And, although a person can be forgiven, he may still end up suffering the natural consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. Some things can never be made totally right. Sometimes we are punished BY our mistakes as much as FOR our mistakes. So if your ex is saddened by having no contact with his daughter for the rest of his life, tough bean. No one said repentance was going to be painless.
The idea of your talking to his bishop has been mentioned several times here. I think that is a good idea. His bishop needs to know what your desires are in the matter and also any legal actions you might take. Who knows what tales he has been telling his bishop? But if you find it difficult to find out who the bishop is, you might consider discussing it with a bishop or stake president in your area. It should be a lot easier for him to locate your ex’s bishop, and the local leader might even be of some help to you if your ex shows up and gives you any trouble. At the very least you might end up with enough information about our policies so you can tell your ex to stop giving you that song and dance he’s been giving you.
It occurs to me that it might not be too easy to find the phone number for a bishop. The phone book lists the bishops’ offices in the meeting houses and numbers of other organizations, but not the leaders. So you might have to make a few calls until you find someone who can tell you. (The bishops are regular working guys and don’t spend all day in their offices.) Or if you know a member of the church, they generally know the bishops in the area. You can also locate meeting houses through the Church’s web site below.
Step, I hope this all works out well for you and your family.
Scott R, I’ve been away a long time, and it’s good to see some old familiar names still around. About your “playacting” comment, I’ve never heard it put quite that way before. I would hope that it is equally well known that we believe that no matter how many good things we try to do, as we bumble through life, there is going to be a lot of stuff the Lord will have to sort out later – in His infinite wisdom.
[ May 29, 2004, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Samuel Bush ]
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be highly suspicious of your ex's claims that he has rejoined the mainstream LDS church and is trying to get a temple recommend. Given that he has been a member of a polygamist cult and has fathered 6 children by three different "wives", that would be next to impossible. There is no way he could be receive a temple recommend without direct permission from the first presidency and given what you have told us about him I think that is less likely than a Blizzard in Miami in July.
Your question shouldn't be about how to obsolve this AH of his obligation towards his daughter, but to find out why his has concocted this excuse for maintaining contact with her. I would try to contact his Bishop simply to try to find out what is really going on. If you know his address you can get the address and phone number for his ward at this site.
I think your concerns that this guy might try to kidnap his daughter or something crazy are very justified. At the very least, don't let him know your new address. If he doesn't already know you are moving to Colorado, don't tell him where you are going. Consider getting a restraining order preventing him from having contact with you and his daughter. There is an organization of ex-wives of polygamists, Tapestry against Polygamy, that offers legal and other forms of support for women who have left polygamist churches. They can certainly offer you advice and possibly legal help if it becomes necessary.
The bottom line is that this guys story is highly suspicious and very likely fraudulent. Don't trust him.
[ May 29, 2004, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, if he's divorced in a marriage with children, he hasn't fulfilled one of the obligations for LDS men.
Well, at the very least, a 'spirit of the law' sort of situation.
Second, if he's not paying child support, the ship has sailed on his obligations to his children. I would bluntly tell him as much.
He can't have it both ways, a theme prevalent in many religions, including LDS.
-------
Katie,
quote:I think its a terrible way to view your own kid, but isn't that one of the level of the hierarchy of morality? Obedience because of a feeling of duty or obligation is above acting out of fear of punishment but below acting out of a sincere desire to do the right thing. (I apologize for the blatant paraphrasing.)
I don't think this guy fits into even that category-obedience due solely to obligation-because if he did, he would've paid child support. This is (probably) hypocrisy, pure and simple. He wants to be able to say (to himself, at the very least), "I may be divorced, but I'm still her father," sort of thing.
I would advise recording all future correspondance with this sperm donor (which is my contemptful term for fathers who don't meet their obligations). Also recording correspondance with the Church's leadership, and then taking all of it to a judge. It sounds like terminating his rights as a father (which he obviously wants without any of the responsibilities) is open-and-shut. I'd also recommend getting that dones as quickly as possible-hope for the best, prepare for the worst, after all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, here's another suggestion. If you're concerned about him taking the child for a visitation and running off w/ her, why not just go to court and get supervised visitation? This way he can see his child, but can only do so in a neutral place that is staffed by counselors. It should be pretty easy to prove that it is needed.
posted
fallow, was that really necessary? Go be a jerk in threads that AREN'T already highly charged and personal to other people.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
To answer your question, polyfidelity has nothing to do with swinging, although I guess there are as many poly folks who are into that as man-woman partnerships. Fidelity is a requirement, not just an idea. Many people who are into swinging use the term "polyamory," which may be the cause for some of the confusion.
In a polyfidelitous arrangement, at least the way we practice it, we have decided that we are happier as a family of three adults, instead of two. We don't look for partners outside our group, and are committed emotionally, socially and financially to our family. In today's world, it is darned difficult for two parents to make ends meet, and what usually suffers is the child-care. When my son was born, I was able to stay home for almost two years because there were two other wage earners. When I went back to work, B was able to stay home and take charge of child-care. My son has only spent a total of 3 months in pre-school, and at all other times has had a full-time parent available.
I apologize to everyone for the occasional confusion created by the screen name. David created the screen name, but has always been a lurker. I am not capable of keeping silent and listening, so I took over. As our profile is completely non-specific, I guess it's just the expectation that anyone who goes by Doc would be a man.
As to this becoming asinine, my apologies. I'm just trying to get through the day the same as everyone else, and trying to help someone I love deal with a difficult situation. I appreciate the resource this forum represents, and felt safe putting it out there. Treating each other with respect is a pretty important concept to me, and flames where they're neither humorous or warranted don't show the common decency everyone deserves. If you're getting bored by the direction a thread is taking, don't bother to click on it.
Okay, rant finished. Sorry to drag it out, but I just finished 11 hours of work at a job I don't love, and don't have the courage to quit, because we need the money.
posted
Sorry about the assumptions. Someone had referred to you as the "grandfather" and I assumed they knew your gender. I didn't mean to draw conclusions based on your Hatrack name.
Though I definitely do draw conclusions because I find it unsettling to interact with someone without having some idea of their gender. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Also recording correspondance with the Church's leadership, and then taking all of it to a judge."
Aint going to happen. Such discussions are considered, like ones to other religious leaders and a psyciatrist, legally confidential. Secretly recording such is usually un-permissable in a Court of Law.
Frankly, this whole discussion is confusing. Partly because I am only hearing (reading) one side of the argument. Secondly, because I am not sure what the relationship is between people exactly in all the confusion of legalities and questions of LDS "rules and regulations" happening here.
A "timeline" of events could help some of this confusion. As it it, I don't know if the party in question is misinterpreting what is going on or if the guy in question is a real jerk.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi all. This is "B", Step's bio mom. Frankly, I am totally unconcerned with what Deadbeat Dad is doing or what he would like. Raised the way he was he lacks incentive to overcome simple obstacles such as finding us if we neglect to tell him where we are exactly and fail to provide a telephone number. There are amazing gaps in his education (didn't know who Hemingway was for Pete's sake!) I think as long as my daughter has a notarized document stating her intention that her children be in our care should she die or be incapacitated for reason that we are the relatives they know, love, are comfortable with, have a good history with, and most importantly - are loved by, we would be in position to have a judge award us custody should it be necessary. I want that document in hand and otherwise want to ignore the questionable father and let him resolve his own problems. Do any of you see a problem with that? Am I being too simplistic? I think speaking to a bishop would only raise their awareness and obligate them to try to fix him up. Sometimes the less said the better. B
Posts: 230 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
So he wants to know his child. This is a good thing that should be encouraged.
Just because you and the mom may not like him is beside the point. A father has a right to his children, provided he is willing and able to accept responsability for them.
I get sickened to hear of children being denied access to their biological fathers for no reason other than the mom has a mad-on against her ex-boyfriend.
Again, this may not apply. But we're lambasting a guy whom we don't know (like we know YOU ), over things he has no chance to defend himself against. Somebody's gotta speak up for the father-in-absentia.
If he's looking to reestablish ties with his child, and he's not a danger (in the legal sense) to the child, you have no right to try and stop him.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree w/ Scott, which is why I suggested supervised visitation if you think the father is a danger. Whether this guy is an idiot or not, at some point the child will want to know him. I speak from experience here - my mother denied me contact with my father until I was old enough to seek him out myself. It's difficult to explain, but I needed that missing piece filled in my life. We did not end up having a relationship, but I was glad that I met him. I never resented him - I always resented my mother, and still do.
posted
To the whole doc family, keep in mind that all opinions on church policy here are just that- opinions. I don't think communications with LDS church are confidential in the way that the Catholic confessional is. Also, it's entirely possible that folks deserving the title "bishop" would see things different from me, him, or other "bishops".
Doc B (biomom) I think that a legal will would be the way to go, and in the process of preparing that I'd be surprised if a lawyer didn't encourage you all to terminate his legal rights.
The only speculation I might raise is that the father of Peach might present himself as a "survivor" of polygamy and use this very fact against you all. What may sound hypocritical from one aspect can be made to sound heroic by a clever lawyer.
Finally, this is not a question of Mormon Doctrine. This is a legal question and I think most the advice you've gotten from here is irrelevant, however heartfelt. At least have a legal, notarized will made up- which does not require a lawyer- but if it were me I would have the will made up by an experienced family law attorney.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, statements made about what is and isn't 'right' apply only if the situation is accurately presented. I mean, it's possible (simply because I don't know anyone directly or even indirectly involved personally) that things are opposite or different, or something. That (should) go without saying.
But...
Scott,
quote:So he wants to know his child. This is a good thing that should be encouraged.
Just because you and the mom may not like him is beside the point. A father has a right to his children, provided he is willing and able to accept responsability for them.
If it's a simple issue of like or dislike, I agree, it is beside the point. However, you're contradicting yourself (well, you would be if this was addressed to this specific situation), because the sperm-donor isn't willing to accept responsibility for the child. He isn't paying child support.
Among the first steps for a father (or mother) wishing to be involved in their child's life in a seperate custody situation would be to pay child support on time, completely, and continuously. This man is not doing that, therefore your post does not apply to this situation at all.
On an unrelated note, I'm going to quibble about a choice of words. "...accept responsibility..." I expect you'll agree with me, Scott, so it's not addressed to you. But 'accepting' means the man has some choice as to whether or not he owns the responsibility (or woman), and that isn't the case. The best (I think) way to put it would be the parent has a choice whether to abandon their responsiblity or not. No matter what happens, it is still their responsibility.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
