Will - excluding a child

Sugardonut

EllaBeagle wrote: »

The child the OP is talking about is obviously still young to be receiving maintenance, so what could an innocent child have possibly done to make him treat them like this?

It seems a lot of men are "tricked" into having children and that entitles these sperm donors to walk away with a clear conscience :eek::eek:

DUTR

Sugardonut wrote: »

It seems a lot of men are "tricked" into having children and that entitles these sperm donors to walk away with a clear conscience :eek::eek:

The introduction of CSA allows us to walk away with a clear conscience , who wants to hang out in an enviroment which lacks love?
Who wants to leave their estate to strangers?

Sugardonut

DUTR wrote: »

The introduction of CSA allows us to walk away with a clear conscience , who wants to hang out in an enviroment which lacks love?
Who wants to leave their estate to strangers?

If you can't do the time don't do the crime springs to mind. It's not rocket science to use a condom if you really can't resist.

DUTR

Sugardonut wrote: »

If you can't do the time don't do the crime springs to mind. It's not rocket science to use a condom if you really can't resist.

It's not the same and no one is complaining or accusing of being tricked into parenthood, this thread is about who you can bequieth any estate to, in fairness it does seem those that oppose that this should be allowed are those that have no control over the law, see some can dictate PR or contact etc, and you won't see them complaining about that, but the issue as per topic is not controllable by those same people

Marisco

EllaBeagle wrote: »

If my kids lived with their father, I couldn't go a day without seeing them.

If the father behaved like some mothers do, you'd have no choice!!!

trolleyrun

Several points from me now.

OP can leave whatever money to whoever they want. That's not for us to judge. S/he needs to see a solicitor to get a proper "watertight" will written up.

To those posters on here going on about fathers not doing their duty, they should put a condom on, be around for the (possibly unwanted) child and so on and soforth, here are a few things to think about:

• Women are just as responsible for contraception as a man. Women are even allowed to buy condoms, shock horror. Or you can get them free at the FPC. There are no excuses for women either.
• There are some nasty women out there who pierce condoms/claim to be on the pill/have a coil etc in a blatant effort to get pregnant. I know several women like this - despicable behaviour as far as I'm concerned.
• I have some male friends who would love to know their surprise child, but are not allowed. Not named on BC, mother moved as far away as possible, refuse contact between father and child. Father can't afford to go through courts and not entitled to legal aid. It pains them greatly, all they're hoping for is that the child will come looking for them when they're older.

Having said all that, yes, there are rather too many men who can't seem to take on any form of responsibility and won't wear a condom and won't step up when needed. I think women need to have more self-respect and refuse sex if condoms (or other contraception if in a LTR) aren't on the menu. Pregnancy is one of the "nicer" things to catch, although expensive, but STIs are nasty and some are non-curable.

I'll get off my soap box now :cool: but I do get frustrated with people assuming that all blokes are the same or all women the same.

Oh, and for the record, I'm a woman

Back on topic, OP - good luck, I hope you get it sorted.

neverdespairgirl

Purbeck wrote: »

Ah, it seems my comment offended? It was not meant to at all. I spoke generally given a number of years genealogy research both for myself and numerous others. For example my gt gt uncle's youngest child was 'adopted' by his aunt on the death in childbirth of his mother, my gt gt grandfather (young widower after only a couple of years marriage ) married a widow who already had 3 children...then had 4 more.

Not offended, no. But although it happened a lot (and being left as a widow / widower with young children happened a lot more than it does now) it wasn't invariable.

My Granny's father pushed off when she was a baby, came back long enough to conceive her younger sister, then pushed off for good. Her mother didn't remarry until after his death, and she therefore gained a stepfather when he was already married.

neverdespairgirl

Callie22 wrote: »

I must have crawled from an absolute cess-pit of depravity then Going back half a dozen generations we've got illegitimacy, numerous divorces, children who were brought up by different fathers - in fact what family tree we do have is only a very rough guide as it's an open secret that half of the fathers on there weren't the biological parents. It makes for some interesting research but life must have been hellish for some of my ancestors.

My family tree has illegitimacy on it, too. But no step-fathers!

neverdespairgirl

WhiteHorse wrote: »

There's nothing like the smell of an inheritance to show people in their true colours.

Where there's a will, there's a relative

Welshwoofs

EllaBeagle wrote: »

A REAL father, no matter what their child had done, no matter what the childs mother had done, would do anything possible to make sure that child is loved and cared for.

Whoa - bitter and twisted much?