Will - excluding a child

DUTR

nobodyspecial wrote: »

It's late and I've had a drink or three, but your last post makes me think you may be female * shrugs*

Whatever, I think that to be prepared to screw up an innocent child you have to be some b@stard. To be happy to let someone carry your baggage through their life........ I'm speechless. Whatever happened to personal responsibility ????? Oh forgot, it's every git for themselves and devil take the hindmost. Bet the biggest abusers are the loudest complainers once the pigeons come home to roost.

One thing from my posts I have been honest, and don't just say things because everybody says it, having children was not the pinnacle of my life, and whether it be friends, colleagues family, aquantancies, the internet, not yet has one person given me a good reason why I should do things any differently. Some people manage to grow up balanced even without the presence of one or two parents

nobodyspecial

DUTR wrote: »

One thing from my posts I have been honest, and don't just say things because everybody says it, having children was not the pinnacle of my life, and whether it be friends, colleagues family, aquantancies, the internet, not yet has one person given me a good reason why I should do things any differently. Some people manage to grow up balanced even without the presence of one or two parents

True. But what of the people screwed up because the realisation that nobody wanted them?? My own relative suffered because of the double rejection by her biological mother. Fortunately her biological father was delighted to meet her, and they now have a good relationship. That anyone should so dismiss a human life as to be so worthless, I find incomprehensible.

gravitytolls

OP was correct, unpopular and a real can of worms opening up.

I agree with Pauletruth (I think), the lack of contact with child from first marriage is irrelevent, the child was made, the father pays maintenance, it doesn't seem right to exclude the child because the new wife brought money with her.

I have step sisters. My mother would dearly like only me to inherit, I believe there are three children in this family and we should all have equal recognition of this. I have not met one of the SS, she is a grown woman with a child of her own, but it wasn't her fault that her parents split up and she didn't see much of her father again.

Anyhoo, tis a crying shame, i can totally understand the new wife wanting her own child to inherit, but I also feel that if she knew that her husband had a child prior to marriage, she should perhaps have not married at all, thus protecting her child's interests without raising legal and more pertinently, moral questions.

Oh, and yes, I do indeed believe that when people copulate, they do so in the full knowledge that aside from sterilisation, there is no risk free contraception, and therefore you must be prepared to accept any consequences, or choose to self administer relief.

zcrat41

oldtractor wrote: »

re farming. my husband was left nothing when his parents died. the whole of the farm [value about 1 and 1/2 million] went to his brother. it was about keeping the farm intact. Sadly he'd done lots of work for 30 years or more at the farm to help his parents out and was even persuaded ,as a teenager, to put a small inheritance from a grandparent into the farm to update a building. He got nothing,all that work for all those years for nothing. Its wierds how some people think.

Nightmare Old Tractor. I know of numerous families that have been split apart this way. In fact, I think its a situation waiting to happen in my OH family (although not for a good few years). His sisters were almost disappointed at our wedding; means their kids are unlikely to inherit any part of the farm the way their family runs.

I'm the youngest daughter and work in a family farm; I've tried to make sure that I'll be fairly recompensed and parents agree. Although that is verbal - I have no proof, they could leave it all to a cats home if they so desired.

I guess you're still involved in farming somehow so I do hope it worked out for you in the end.

blue_monkey_2

nobodyspecial wrote: »

No DUTR, no time to run and hide You explain exactly why any bloke should have unprotected sex without any consequences, because blokes are too stupid to understand the consequences.Or we could enter the real world, where real blokes accept the consequences of unprotected sex without whining "she trapped me" or "I'm so stooooopid, I didn't realise she could get pregnant if I ejaculated inside her" Poor blokes, never had a biology lesson, there, there xxx

And the blokes that DO use contraception - which in turn has been damaged by some maniac woman who wants a baby despite being in a relationship....

Or the woman who, despite being in a relationship with someone who trusts and loves her and they have a no kids agreement, still goes ahead and gets pregnant by whatever means necessary.....

Welcome to the REAL world. It's not all about having unprotected sex, it's about a woman who will do ANYTHING to get pregnant whether they have a partner or not.

And believe it or not, most of these men never know until the woman decides she wants some £££ and the CSA letter pops onto the doormat. This is more rife now the CSA exists because the women know how easy it is to get on the phone and say 'I've had a baby, he is the father and I need money'. The first the man knows is when he opens his mail a year later. Disgusting behaviour from someone who has absolutely NO morals or self respect whatsoever.

Marisco

nobodyspecial wrote: »

A relative of mine was given for adoption, on adulthood traced her mother, was rejected again. How do you think she feels?

Then she should never have attempted a trace without being prepared for rejection. Anyone who traces birth parents have to go into it fully prepared that the birth parents don't want to know. Thinking they are going to be welcomed with open arms is just asking for trouble!

princessdreamer

Why is everyone banging on about one night stands, for all we know the first child could have been conceived during a ten year marriage after IVF. He might have been seven or eight when the bloke ran off for his mistress we simply don't know.

As for DUTR despite his protests I believe if his child contacted him, he would form a relationship with them but thats just an opinion.

Zoetoes

From the wife's point of view - it's mainly her money, so, if it was me would I want all my hard earned money that I worked for, for my kids futures and their inheritance to go to my husband's child that I'd never met? Nope.

But on the other hand I wouldn't marry a bloke that didn't fight to see his child (if he was denied access at all).

ses6jwg

Zoetoes wrote: »

From the wife's point of view - it's mainly her money, so, if it was me would I want all my hard earned money that I worked for, for my kids futures and their inheritance to go to my husband's child that I'd never met? Nope.

But on the other hand I wouldn't marry a bloke that didn't fight to see his child (if he was denied access at all).

But how do you know he didn't fight?

All too often on here women go on about how a bloke who doesn't "fight" to see his child is just as bad the women who is denying him access.

It costs thousands of pounds to go through the family courts and get a contact order.

I had a friend who spent these thousands and then just at the end of the proceedings his ex rolled out the standard "he used to hit me" card and the judge offered him 2 hours per month in a contact centre.

Even when a contact order is secured, the PWC can just continue to ignore them without any fear of reprisal. This means the NRP has to spend more money going back to court - knowing that the court won't do the correct thing which is to fine the PWC or chuck them in jail for a week if they're a repeat offender.

Failing that, the PWC can just move 500 miles to the other end of the country, making it extremely difficult for the NRP to have any kind of meaningful relationship with their child at all.

To top it all off, the PWC can be very successful at filling their childs head with so much garbage that when they get to an age to make their own mind up, the image that has been painted of the NRP is so warped that it makes any attempt at contact a pointless one.

Zoetoes

ses6jwg wrote: »

But how do you know he didn't fight?

All too often on here women go on about how a bloke who doesn't "fight" to see his child is just as bad the women who is denying him access.

It costs thousands of pounds to go through the family courts and get a contact order.

I had a friend who spent these thousands and then just at the end of the proceedings his ex rolled out the standard "he used to hit me" card and the judge offered him 2 hours per month in a contact centre.

Even when a contact order is secured, the PWC can just continue to ignore them without any fear of reprisal. This means the NRP has to spend more money going back to court - knowing that the court won't do the correct thing which is to fine the PWC or chuck them in jail for a week if they're a repeat offender.

Failing that, the PWC can just move 500 miles to the other end of the country, making it extremely difficult for the NRP to have any kind of meaningful relationship with their child at all.

To top it all off, the PWC can be very successful at filling their childs head with so much garbage that when they get to an age to make their own mind up, the image that has been painted of the NRP is so warped that it makes any attempt at contact a pointless one.

I don't know, but I would think that a parent who fights to see their child must love them? So wouldn't be fighting equally hard to make sure they got nothing if the parent died.