QUOTE(Bee @ Feb 21 2007, 02:23 PM) [snapback]285130[/snapback]
#1 *What we
have become? Hmmm. Bay, let me ask you a question. Does being married shield a man from having to support children that HE fathered with someone OTHER than his wife? Does his wife also have to "support" those children, at least nominally, as their household finances are impacted by supporting a child/children that aren't hers??
#2 *suppose the wife would be able to divorce her husband for infidelity, right? Now suppose that, as is more and more common, she's the primary wage earner, and has to pay the ex-husband alimony?
#3 *Sounds unfair to me, but I submit that if marriage vows do NOT protect HER from having to support children that aren't hers in the marriage, that there is no reason that the same wouldn't be true the other way around. Indeed, as the laws stand, it isn't.
#4 *Fair? I suppose not to the parents as individuals, but in any case, it's certainly nothing
new. In this case, it's not about what is fair, but about what is legal. Technically, if she was married in a communal property state, she'd have to hand over 50% of her assets to the husband, no matter if he fathered 1 child or 20 outside of their marriage. There is no law that I know of that could give her the authority to dictate what the husband used his 50% for. She could not legally prevent him from spending his half of thier estate on these children. Indeed, the laws as they stand would REQUIRE him to do so.
#5 *Now, I don't approve of either having children with anyone other than their spouse when they are married to eachother, but verily, which scenario do you think is the more common? Seems to me that having other families that the "legally married" wife wasn't aware of until after the husband has passed away isn't exactly
uncommon. Women have had to deal with the "deterent" of "obvious paternity" always. I think it would be terrific if men had to have the same type of deterent. By all means, do DNA testing at very birth. I'm quite sure that due to that fact, marriage laws will change.
#6 *Is Mary entitled to 100% of their common estate because she was his "wife?" Or are those children entitled to part of Wendell and Mary's common estate? What do you think the law would say to Mary if she argued that his children weren't entitled to any of their estate because they were illigitimate? Mary not only would get laughed out of court, she'd be viewed as selfish and heartless.
#7 *Yet, it seems to me you are arguing the same thing. You are saying that Mary is not entitled to
any of the common estate due to
her infidelity. I'm afraid that's just not how the legal system is set up. I am certainlly not opposed to changing it, but if you take away the responsibility to support a child based on that, the consequences could well be pretty ugly. The system, such as it is, may not be completely "fair" to the adults in marriage, but if you made it "fair" to the adults, where does that leave the children? Wards of the state?
Opening Statement:. I grew up in what was (according to Charles Dickens ) “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”. 99% of the people I knew lived their entire married life with the one mate they married. I’m not real sure what my mother would have done if she had found Dad “playing around” but I am terribly certain it would not have been pretty. They were a team. In spite of the hardships the Great Depression brought - the stability and love and caring of my parents for each other and us kids waaayyy out weighed the negatives.
Until decades later this was the only way I thought of marriage. One man, one woman, faithful to one another until death do them part. I still think that is the ultimate. Now, obviously that doesn’t always work as far as the “until death do them part”. No one understands that better than me.
However I still maintain that being faithful should go with the wedding vows. When one can’t – or don’t want to – remain faithful then pack up them bags and call that lawyer. Again, grown people can do what they want as long as they don’t break laws or hurt other people. So if they want to make a side agreement – he or she can be unfaithful and that is agreeable to the other spouse, that’s up to them. I wouldn’t touch that with a ten foot pole however.
#1. In my perfect world, nothing shields a man from having to support his biological child/or children, except death, jail, or disability to work. And if he can’t, that is not a reason for courts to saddle some other poor chump with the support. And yes, whatever money the courts decreed would have to come out of the family budget. However, imho a judge should never consider wages or assets of the current wife in any settlement a biological father owes for children that are not biologically hers..
#2 In my perfect world everyone is responsible for ones self. I think alimony is silly and should go the way of the horse and buggy. No alimony for anyone – ever.
#3 In my perfect world her wages or assets would not be considered in any child care settlement where she was not the biological mother. The fact that wages of her current husband will have to be used for child care for a child that is not biologically hers is tough luck.
#4 I would think there would be a lot of circumstances to consider. Was there a prenuptial agreement? I can speak only for myself, but if I were married to a man who took money I worked for to spend on some other woman’s child I would be packing my bags, and looking for a lawyer.
(packing my bags and looking for a lawyer - surely there's a song there.)
#5 I think DNA testing at birth is something that should absolutely be written into law.
#6 In my perfect world if I were a judge deciding an estate settlement I would try to establish what portion each spouse contributed during the marriage. Obviously if one spouse was staying at home to raise a family one might consider splitting the income of the working mate during that time and dividing the contribution evenly.
Illegitimacy would not be a factor. I would take the income and assets acquired by the husband/father during the marriage and divide it by the number of biological children plus one. (assuming there was no will). Each child and the current wife would get equal parts of HIS estate. (Her estate would be the income and assets SHE had acquired and no child who was not biologically hers would have a claim on those assets.) A half century or so ago, that is the way they divided estates (at least in my state). Each child held an equal amount as their mother held, if there was no will. The only hang up I could see in this scenario might be the ages of the children and a need for support. If his children (but not of the current wife) were all legal age and he had dependent children from his current wife, it would seem she could argue that he had already supported those children and she needed additional monies to raise hers.
In my life time I have seen the shakers and the doers – and also the whiners and the slackers. My opinions come from a life time of observation of what I consider fair and just. My basic rule is: unless a person is mentally or physically disabled to the point of not being able to care for themselves then they should be accountable and responsible for themselves and anyone else they bring into the world. Why wouldn’t that be so??
It seems to me that instead of holding responsible those people who screw up, and rewarding those who excel, we want to make everyone the same.
In bay’s perfect world, women would be afforded the same opportunities as men and the same responsibilities. There would be no such thing as an illegitimate child. The child has a father and a mother – he’s legitimate. If every man and every woman knew and understood they would be financially responsible for any child they conceive I truly think there would be more discussion before the fact and a lot more stable families.
In bay’s perfect world……..
Hello Viagara. Gee, maybe since women want so much and don't want to take any responsibility for their kids ever, they'll start covering birth control as well as viagara. Ya think? 
