Skip to comments.
Man Sues After Finding Girl Not His Daughter
Yahoo News ^
| 11/01/02
Posted on 11/02/2002 4:34:20 AM PST by Libloather
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 381-382 next last
To: Mark17
LOL, maybe you should do like I did, and go OCS for a woman. I didn't have to, actually. I love my wife very much, and she's not bitter like some. Of course, her parents are still together (37 years), which was a major factor in deciding to marry her.
161
posted on
11/02/2002 8:58:11 AM PST
by
adx
To: infowarrior
Thank you, I do consider the child a victim.
Let me be clear though, that I consider her a victim of her mother, and that anything this man does to seek redress should not be weighed against any potential impact on the child. If the child is hurt, blame the mom.
To: Demidog
It is the kid who will suffer. I wonder if the boyfriend who isn't the father would have visitation rights if the mother wouldn't want him to have them. Even in marriage what happens to a step-father who loves his step kids if the mother divorces him? Even in marriage a biological father can lose kids he loves and is willing to support.
163
posted on
11/02/2002 9:00:15 AM PST
by
FITZ
To: fooman
The truth hurts but lying hurts a lot worse. As far as I'm concerned, all's well that ends well. It was the lies that almost destroyed this girl. She was stubborn, into drugs and the full nine yards. Now, she attends church with her children, the same church where she met her husband. Had she been told the truth as a child, I'm sure her life would have been different. The father that raised her, loved her but evidently didn't bond with her and it showed. I used to think he was a cad but I was wrong.
164
posted on
11/02/2002 9:03:48 AM PST
by
Jaidyn
To: adx
a male version of The Pill that's undergoing clinical trials. Supposedly it could hit the market in the next few years. How much you wanna bet that every single male making more than minimum wage will be on it when it becomes available? I bet they won't all be on it. Even now there are condoms they could use but won't. The man here is lucky that a child isn't the only thing his girlfriend "gave" him, she was sleeping with other men and could have given him any kind of disease instead. He wasn't in a marriage, neither one apparently wants committment.
165
posted on
11/02/2002 9:05:16 AM PST
by
FITZ
To: RichardW
The child is INNOCENT. So what?
Would you let a crook off when he coned you out of thousands of dollars because his child benefited from it? And don't tell it's not the same thing. It is exactly the same. A deceitful woman (crook) coned (lied to him aobut the child being his) an innocent man, causing him to pay thousands of dollars and the only reason he should suck it up is because a child (not his, just like the crook's child would not be your's) benefited and would be hurt if he demanded justice.
To: BuddhaBoy
I think it would tough to find any freeper who did NOT feel sorry for the little and the man should be cordial to the girl and not be MEAN and take away the toys.
But the FRAUDulent women and man should have to pay triple damages in my opinion.
The father should care for her and that should be the focus of our ire.
Men are waiting to married later and later and if we do not deal fairly with the consequences of the family breaking , smart men will live by the pagan rules.
167
posted on
11/02/2002 9:10:08 AM PST
by
fooman
To: adx
I didn't have to, actually. I love my wife very much, and she's not bitter like some. Of course, her parents are still together (37 years), which was a major factor in deciding to marry her. Good for you. You are most fortunate. Me? I went OCS.
168
posted on
11/02/2002 9:10:34 AM PST
by
Mark17
To: All
I want to explain the premise of my argument here.
For years now, we conservatives have been the victim of every form of legal extortion from liberals in the form of every increasing taxation and regulation. Every argument against this growing intrusion in our lives has been met with one argument:
"IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN"
Someone tell me when it became settled law that the rights of children trump the rights of every other citizen? Why are my rights less worthy of protection because I am 36 instead of 6 years old?
Children get hurt, and so do adults, so what is the difference? I almost weep out loud whenever I pay taxes, so where are those rushing to comfort me? I am serious!
Children are just young people, NOT special people. Maybe if we reminded the young ones of that fact more often, we wouldnt be so worried about the future of the country.
They deserve no more or less than we would want for every other person on earth.
We have had that "for the children" phrase used against conservatives for decades now, and when conservatives start arguing under the same premise, it really makes me sick.
Fraud is fraud. Thanks for listening.
To: Pippin
She only knows she is being rejected for no reason at all in her mind or she's thinking maybe she's done something wrong to make her "daddy" stop loving her.That's the thing, Pippin. The child is left with a lying piece of trash for a mother and the former "Daddy" is rightfully outraged. It was the child that was most grievously harmed in this and the fault lies on the mother's doorstep. One can only hope that "Daddy" will still take an interest in the little girl, so long as the mother doesn't benefit financially from it.
170
posted on
11/02/2002 9:11:33 AM PST
by
xJones
To: BuddhaBoy
Children are being raised by stepfathers all across this nation. In many cases, those stepfathers are the fathers who are most responsible for guiding the child's life. The real biological father was nothing more than a sperm donor in this case. If he wants to be introduced to the child, that may be fine. But this child considers the guy suing to be her father. After several years, is he just going to walk away and say see ya later kid? A child doesn't understand that. Perhaps he is entitled to money, but the best thing for the child is to maintain a relationship.
To: Jaidyn
I agree. Not to mention the *apparent* from the other siblings in this matter.
172
posted on
11/02/2002 9:11:50 AM PST
by
fooman
To: Jaidyn
I'm surprised not more of these kids ended up marrying half-siblings since having children without both parents available is rampant. That is a good point. I'd not thought of that. The reason siblings are prohibited by law and custom from having children is because of the genetic crippling of the kids produced (one need only look at the families of the old Russian czars). That is harming an innocent child and a direct result of this kind of deceit.
To: Victoria Delsoul
This is a most interesting thread.
To: William Terrell
I am afraid that your perfect logic is going to go unanswered. Kudos for the attempt, but I dont see anyone here willing to address your basic (and correct) point.
Too bad.
To: doug from upland
but the best thing for the child is to maintain a relationship. Who says he cant do that? Even if this man were someone who never wanted a child, but did the right thing upon (falsely)finding out that he was a father.
Someone on this thread addressed "a man's right to choose", I think this is something that should become part of the discussion. If women can legally opt out, why cant a man?
You want to see a HUGE change in behavior? Just give men the right to say no to parentage, and you will hear legs snapping shut all over the world.
To: DainBramage
You would think that after spending five years with her and watching her grow, that there would be some feelings to not hurt "the kid". This guy can literally count the times he took the little girl someplace special in one hand: Once to the skating rink and four times to an amusement park.
I have a feeling that Mom used him as a source of money and threw him a day-long visitation bone once a year while maintaining sole custody of the child. The guy obviously never bonded with the little girl.
That being said, this guy's name needs to be kept sealed by the Court so that the child never finds out that he wanted his Barbie doll money back. You don't hurt kid's feelings that way even if they are total strangers.
To: BuddhaBoy
You are correct but it is up to adults to protect the children who cannot protect themselves. They only have a few years of total dependence on another being and that is the time we shape them into productive adults. If we abandon them, whether we are their parents or not, they will grow wild as an illkept garden. Look around you and notice all the kids who have four or more sets of fathers in one household and none of the fathers present.
178
posted on
11/02/2002 9:18:33 AM PST
by
Jaidyn
To: Mamzelle
Sheesh! And this is a conservative forum! My, I have had my own delusions taken from me. You're confused. The ideas you write are liberal basics, and the very antithesis of conservative values which are founded on the taking responsibility for one's free choices and actions. This woman in the story is acting decidedly against those principles, and you are supporting her.
To: muir_redwoods
I've raised three daughters and nothing could make me behave like these clods. Biology is important but not paramount. Somebody needs to do some serious growing up.I agree with you, but your opinions (and mine) aren't terribly popular on these threads. It's all about the money, dontcha know...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 381-382 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson