[gogeo]

One common pattern on this thread is a fixation with the misconduct of the mother, though it is peripheral to how an adult male should carry his continuing relationship with children who recognize him as dad. That relationship is valid no matter how poorly the man's wife behaved - it really doesn't have much to do with the relationship at all...

Actually, no...the overriding theme of this thread is that circumstances are irrelevant to the need of any given man to be "responsible." It's one thing to assert a moral imperative (which which I disagree) but it's something fully different to assert a legal obligation is just. It exists, but it's not right or just. That is the charge of a legal system...not to do what is "right," but to do that which is just.

One person's need cannot create a moral claim on another. Any moral ( just) claim on my life, any consequences I rightfully bear, are the result of my actions. That is why I fully support enforcement of child support for any childen I actually fathered.

That is why I reject this bastardized definition of manhood, a requirement that any man should be a chump, that the actions of others are irrelevant to the question of his obligations. This mentality is at the root of our family and cultural breakdown.

If one wanted to destroy the family, one couldn't design a better system to do so. That's why I reject your little equation..."either the child or an adult will take the hit..." Using that logic, as one poster noted, it's in every child's interests to be declared the child of Donald Trump.

Asking that all of society assume the burden of support is just in these cases.

No, I'm not a lawyer...I've just been on the receiving end of the family court system for the last 15 years.

I understand there's a cost to not saddling non-biological parents with a financial obligation. I've heard no discussion, however, of the costs of doing so. That's what's missing.

[thinking]

That is why I reject this bastardized definition of manhood, a requirement that any man should be a chump, that the actions of others are irrelevant to the question of his obligations. This mentality is at the root of our family and cultural breakdown.......

I have harbored the following thought for many years...it goes like this...from what I have observed in the courts, yes, I have been there....it appears to me, that there is sadistic delight, prevalent with the males of the court, when they whip the offending male with divorce legalese....it is as if almost they are saying, well if you(the offending male) were a REAL man, you would not have all these matrimony problems, so, we, the court males despise you, and you are going to suffer, where it hurts a male the most, in the wallet....when I was before the courts, my lawyer said to me....you are a man, so you should expect to take a big hit....