Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: <None>
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:46:49 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep14.122832.5349@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
> In article <VIXIE.92Sep12222324@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>> It turns my stomach to see how many fathers there are who stick the mother
>>> with the child(ren) [...]
>>
>>It sickens me, as well, to have seen so many immature male "adults" here,
>>and elsewhere, who claim (honestly, so far as I can tell) that they have
>>no responsibility to children whom they helped create.  The usual refrain
>>is "but I told [the mother] before we had sex that I didn't want to be a
>>father, and she said she would have an abortion if pregnancy occurred, but
>>then it did and she didn't even though I offered to pay for it."
>>
>>These immature male "adults" do not and will never see that the child does
>>not care what promises were made and should never be required to face such
>>facts or their consequences.  Only real, actual adults will ever understand
>>that nothing about child support is or can ever be "about" the parents.
> 
>>Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
>>Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
>><vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
>><paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me
> 
> 	The thing that Paul and others like him fail to realize is
> 	that there are two scenario's possible.  One involves a
> 	man/parent who has a bond with a child, and the second one
> 	is where the man doesn't.
> 
> 	Why has it historically been that parents have taken care of
> 	their offspring, and why has it been that women have both
> 	tended to bond with their kids and been branded as the automatic
> 	default parent?  Because they love the kids.  Why do women
> 	almost without exception "love their kids"?  Because they are
> 	bonded to them.  They are bonded via 9 months of pregnancy
> 	like something out of the movie "Alien", followed by a rather
> 	interesting event called "childbirth".
> 
> 	A man also would tend to bond with the child brought forth
> 	by love, which he has been near.  But through association.
> 	And if that association has never taken place, that bond
> 	never occurs.

This is a very good description as to why there are so many children abandoned
by their parents.  Drug councilers say thamothers who are on crack are not
able to bond with their children.  Evidently the drug tends to destroy or
prevent the formation of the mother-child bond.

> 
> 	It is easy to see how people and many of the men on this net
> 	view this bond to their children as self evident.  It's a little
> 	like sex.  Before you had it, you didn't know what it was like.
> 	And after the first time, you FOREVER know what it's like and
> 	forget what it's like to not know.
> 
> 	I was once pretty much like Mr. EuStress.  I had a son to whom
> 	I had never bonded to.  And I had never bonded with any offspring.
> 	Now, having bonded with my daughter, I can see how strong a bond
> 	it is, and because of this I can understand why people are
> 	intolerant of "deadbeat fathers", because the bond is so intimate.
> 
> 	But the majority of people like this have never experienced the
> 	other side.  Having an offspring that you never bonded to.
> 	Understanding the sterile side of the issue.  Understanding that
> 	it *is* possible to have an offspring that means nothing to you.
> 

The one thing that bothers me about this is the number of men I know who
have lived with a woman and their children for several years, then is able
to completely walk away from them, never seeing them again.  I work with 
many divorced people.  Several of the women have ex-s who have just totally
walked out of their children's lives.  One woman told me in bewildered tones
that she never really understood how her ex-husband (who had been heavily
involved in their children's lives, Little League, football, etc.) could,
as soon as the divorce decree was final, suddenly show absolutely no further
interest in the children at all.  Even though he still lives in the same
city he just never wanted to see them or take any of his visitations.  She
said as far as she was concerned it was a fairly amicable divorce, he wanted
out because he had found someone else and she didn't want to make the children
hate him so she didn't fight the divorce at all.  He also never paid any
child support and she didn't push it, she said she was able to manage since
her oldest (twins) were also working part time and helped with expenses.

> 	If any can relate to my side of this "two way mirror", then
> 	it should at least be possible to understand that there is
> 	a side that most have never lived. I am an example of one person
> 	who can see both sides of the issue.  Yes, both are possible.
> 	And very probable.  Given the correct life circumstance.
> 
> -- 
> 	Alan Yasutovich
> 	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
> 	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
> 	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......

I'm trying not to sound biased but since I am older than the majority of
this group and have seen quite a bit more divorces both inside and outside
of my family, I know several divorces where the father has just walked out
and never looked back and NONE where the mother has done so.  And, yes,
I do know of several divorces where the father got custody.  Unfortunately
in a few of those cases, the father managed to pick a second wife who did
NOT want his kids and did everything possible to run them off.  

The two girls for whom I am volunteer court advocate are both from a home
where the father had custody, then took on a girl friend who tossed the 
girls (literally) out on the street with no place to go at all.

Sue
Newsgroups: alt.child-support