There Are Rare Circumstances in Which Using Daycare Is The Best Choice

People shouldn't have children unless they are prepared to raise them. Raising them means having them with a parent until they go to Kindergarten at age five or six, then having with a parent before and after school. School doesn't end at 6pm. Dumping a kid in daycare is almost always a result of choices.

A good daycare is, of course, better than being with an abusive parent, but even then, it would be better for the kid to be with grandparents or aunts and uncles.

Let's consider the other rare circumstances in which daycare is the best choice.

 

A) The other parent killed themselves, or abandoned the family (and there were no signs either of those was a likely possibility before making the children) and they're not paying enough support to allow the other parent to be with the kids; B) and there wasn't enough in funds or other assets and no way/time to work to avoid having to leave the children for work; C) and there's nobody else, like good, reliable grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc., to care for the child while the remaining parent is at work.

For 99 percent of the kids dumped in daycare, the circumstances weren't anything like that.

Unfortunately, there's no way to be certain the other parent is going to be around, present, and either able to care for the children well or provide enough income, for the duration of raising the children. People can try to set things up that way. They can try to choose wisely, treat kindly, and all of that, and have things like life insurance. They can try to only make children with someone who is already wealthy and set things up so the children will always be taken care of regardless of whether there is a death or the relationship ends. But most people aren't that wealthy, certainly not when they are 40 or younger, and there's no fail-safe way of ensuring things will work out. It's always somewhat of a gamble to have children, even for someone who tries to make the odds be in their favor as much as possible.

You can have a great life insurance policy on your income-earning spouse, and if they commit suicide you're SOL. Maybe there was no sign they'd do that when you had kids with them, but they suffered a trauma after you had the kids and eventually they did themselves in. Or maybe the trauma leads to them abandoning the family to live on the streets, jobless.

So, there can be circumstances in which daycare is unavoidable.

But "We want to live here, in this house, with these investments" or "I deserve my career" aren't those circumstances.

If you don't have children yet, think about these things very carefully.

A Tale of Two Dear Abby Letters

Two recent letters to Dear Abby provide lessons for men, especially when taken together.
 
PUT-UPON MOM IN GEORGIA wrote:

My 50-year-old daughter divorced her husband 15 years ago because she thought she could do better.

Unless it would truly be better for her to be alone, you already know that was a stupid move. Did she talk with any other women around that age about how hard it is to find good men?

From what I could see, he was a good husband. She didn't work and lived a comfortable lifestyle with two small children.

How much in assets did that guy lose? How much money went to lawyers? How much alimony did he have to pay? How much time with his kids got taken away from him? How much child support did he have to pay?

Since the divorce, that lifestyle has gone steadily downhill.

Of course!

She can't hold a job because she always finds some way to be offended, and quits.

What must it have been like to live with her?

She had a house my husband and I paid the down payment on, but lost it by making the ownership joint with her abusive second husband.

So she exposed her kids to an abuser?

She no longer receives child support because her children are grown, so her finances are worse than ever. We bought her a car last year because she had no transportation.

All that money should have gone in to trying to get custody of the kids, or helping their first ex son-in-law so do. And isn't child support supposed to be for the children? Why did it stopping hurt her finances if she no longer had to support children? Hmmm...

My question is this: How much should we continue to financially support her?

NO MORE!

Yet again, guys, we see that you should avoid signing a terrible state contract with a woman.

In another letter, PROCEEDING WITH CAUTION wrote:

I'm a 32-year-old woman. My 20s were spent in a serious long-term relationship. It was a lot of firsts for me. After we split, I took a couple of years to sow my wild oats and find out who I am as an individual.

Guys, you want to meet up with women when they are doing that.

I'm now looking for something more than "friends with benefits."

"I've had my fun."

However, the last few men I've met and gone on dates with, as wholesome as they seemed on dating sites (which have been my main source of meeting men), were really just looking for hookups. I want to find a life partner.

What does "life partner" mean? Dose it involve someone doing free work for you? Paying your way through life?

Most men want hookups. Some are willing do more because they think they have to. But most men, especially if they know what they're doing can get hookups. That's the competition you're facing.

I have been chatting with a potentially great guy I met online, and we have a date scheduled. But I'm nervous that when we meet that he'll expect more than a date. I'm over that. Like I said, I want an actual relationship.

You're over that? So you don't like sex?

Can you give me some advice on what to do and say, or not, on a first or second date to help move it in the right direction without scaring the guy away?

That depends if you're going to hold out or not. If you're not going to hold out, don't bother with the speech. If you are going to hold out, be blunt about that, and tell him it's not an invitation for him to try to persuade you differently.

If he sticks around, consider he might be desperate, have little drive, be gay, or otherwise in little interest in grown women. Or, he might be very religious. Are you willing to be with a man who is very religious, and everything that entails?

Pay attention, men.

What a Woman Can Do With Your DNA

There are some simple facts of biology. Men usually produce millions of viable sperm cells on an ongoing basis. A man is able to do so starting in puberty and lasting most of the rest of his life. Sperm cells can leave his body while he's asleep. He doesn't have to have an orgasm to expel sperm cells.  New human life takes place inside women. Women get pregnant, men do not.

There are some basic realities of current law. Once a woman has possession of a man's sperm cells, he has lost any control, legally, he has over them.

When a sperm cell leaves a man's body, he loses all control of his own DNA.

Here are the things a woman can do with YOUR sperm cells, men:

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 15

Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here and Part 3 here and Part 4 here and Part 5 here and Part 6 here and Part 7 here and Part 8 here and Part 9 here and Part 10 here. and Part 11 here and Part 12 here and Part 13 here and Part 14 here.


Alimony is rare and/or limited now, and child custody is default 50/50 which means no child support.

A family law attorney publicly asserted this to me. Now why would someone with a financial incentive in people getting married say that?!?

Guess what? Don't enter into a terrible state contract and the risk of alimony is ZERO.

What matters is what the laws say. And the laws allow the higher earning spouse (usually the man), to get screwed over.

I'm glad if the terrible state contract is being enforced to the full extent less often these days, but nobody should ever sign a terrible contract on the chance that it wouldn't actually be enforced against them in a devastating way.

Guys, don't fall for "Trust me!" from someone who has a financial incentive in you making a stupid decision. Don't let misleading weasel words fool you. Don't enable the state to come further into your life and your finances. The terrible state contract isn't necessary.

You can get tagged for child support even if you didn't want children and even if the child was conceived by her having an affair!

Every time she wants to ask for more alimony, every time she wants to change the custody agreement, every time she wants more child support, you're going to have to pay legal costs, and maybe spend time in court.

Today, right now, there are seemingly endless lines of men who are coming out of family courts with terrible outcomes. They are losing their children, homes, possessions, and money.

The best way to win is to not play.

Did One Fly Out of the Cuckold's Nest?

We can read about a small, perhaps even temporary victory for victims of paternity fraud, in this ABC News report from Christina Ng.

A man who discovered that the daughter he raised was not really his can sue the biological father for $190,000 -the estimated cost of raising her for 15 years - the Connecticut State Supreme Court has ruled.

Good for the court!

Eric Fischer saw the red flags. When his youngest daughter was born, his wife Pamela Tournier's close friend and business partner Richard Zollino rode home in the limo with the new parents. For the next 15 years, Zollino was omnipresent at the girl's musical recitals as well as her eighth grade graduation. And his youngest daughter did not look like his other two daughters, including one from a previous marriage.

Fischer decided to confirm what he already suspected. He "surreptitiously obtained" a hair sample from his daughter and sent it to lab with his own DNA sample and in October 2006, he received the results that "excluded the possibility that he was the younger daughter's father," according to a court document.

Fischer confronted his wife and they divorced in 2007.

The couple's separation agreement only listed the couple's elder daughter as issue of the marriage and Tournier testified that she believed the agreement was fair and that "she believed [Zollino] was the younger daughter's father and that he had provided the younger daughter with support since and would continue to do so," according to the court document.

I have to wonder how the marriage was otherwise?

Zollino submitted a DNA sample and it was confirmed that he was the girl's father.

He was the sperm donor. Her father is the man who raised her.

In 2008, Fischer filed a lawsuit against [Zollino] seeking damages on claims of nondisclosure, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

A lower court ruled against Fischer, saying that he "had held himself out to be the younger daughter's father, that he had caused her to rely on him to meet her financial and emotional needs, and that revealing her true parentage after she had been led to believe for her whole life that [Fisher] was her father, would be detrimental to her emotional well-being."

Well hey, that happened anyway, didn’t it? Why can’t the courts quietly and secretly award damages along with an order that the truth not be told to the child under penalty of violating the court order? He held himself out to be the girl's father because he was defrauded. A fraud victim does not lose his or her right to seek recourse just because they were duped. They have to be duped in the first place for the fraud to take place.

Adoption is a Beautiful Thing

Do you know where your children are?

DEADLOCKED IN NEW JERSEY wrote in to Dear Abby:

My husband and I have been married 11 years.

So far, so good.

We went through eight years of fertility treatments before having our twins.

Hmmm.

When they were a year old, we discovered I was pregnant with our third child.

Surprise!

We have two embryos left and need to decide what to do. We either use them or destroy them.

Those embryos are human beings. Think about it this way: "We have two toddlers left. Do we raise them, or do we destroy them?" Fortunately, adoption is a more realistic option when it comes to children who are still embryos.

I think we need to give the embryos the chance they were meant to have. However, my husband is concerned only with the financial side of it as we have been living on one salary and things are tight.

Gee, better hope you don't get sick, if your husband puts money ahead of human life.

My heart aches over this.

If only there was some way people having trouble conceiving becoming parents that didn't involve creating more embryos than they were both willing to give a reasonable chance at living.

Do I do what I believe is right and stand by my religious and moral beliefs, and take the chance my husband will resent me for the rest of our marriage?

Guys, think about this. She can go ahead and have those children implanted whether he likes it (or knows about it) or not, and he can be held financially responsible for them. She can adopt them out, and he can still end up financially responsible for them. I say men should not donate sperm and should be very cautious about banking it for themselves, and that applies here as well. He needed to give his sperm (unless they used donor sperm) for this to happen. Which also brings up the point that even if they did use donated sperm (or some creep at the lab decided to secretly use his own sperm) and her husband doesn't want more children, he can still be held financially accountable by a court. All it takes is one judge.

But I digressed. What she is apparently talking about is going ahead and having them implanted over his objections. She should not do that. What she should do is donate them. I was happy to see Dear Abby give information about doing just that:

Your embryos could be donated for embryo adoption by a couple who have been unable to conceive, and who would love to raise them. For more information, you should contact an attorney who specializes in family formation, or contact the Snowflakes Frozen Embryo Adoption and Donation Program. Its phone number is 714-693-5437 and its website is www.nightlight.org.

Thank you, Dear Abby!

Unfortunately, it seems that some people in the fertility/reproductive assistance business want to increase their "success" rates, and so they will create more children than will be given a reasonable chance at life, pick the most promising embryos (discarding or experimenting on the others - killing them either way), implant multiple embryos, and selectively kill any that make it to the fetal stage that might have a medical problem or are the weakest if "too many" of them have made it to that stage. Too many parents don't need much arm twisting to go along with any of that. The result? Innocent human beings are being killed by other human beings, and even those who aren't killed are being treated like commodities.

Ladies, if you spend your twenties and early thirties partying and having sex with bad boys you wouldn't want to be the (financial) father of your children, or you spend that time getting graduate degrees and climbing the corporate ladder... rather than learning what kind of man would make a good husband and dating and then marrying such a man... so that you find yourself marrying in your mid or late thirties, expect that your're going to have trouble conceiving.

I realize it is emotionally easy for me to discourage or be cautious about fertility treatments, IVF, third-party reproduction, etc., since my wife and I conceived the children we wanted to have, without aid, in two months and in three months, and those children have survived. But that it is easy for me to write does not make what I write false or wrong. I value human life. I also appreciate that I was conceived in a loving act of passion rather than in lab equipment and stuck in a freezer. Even if a child was conceived in rape, it is better for an adoptive set of parents to give someone else's biological offspring a good life rather than killing their own biological children in an attempt to have a biological connection to the children they end up raising.

A Reminder: Don't Donate Sperm

For various reasons, I say men should not donate sperm. In no particular order, here are some reasons why:

1. If someone wants to raise a child, they can adopt. If someone wants the experience of pregnancy, they can adopt a very young child ("extra" frozen embryo).

2. If donating to someone you know, you’re going to feel some sort of "ownership" of that child, which will cause parenting conflicts.

3. Human life should not be treated like a commodity.

4. You should have more influence over and responsibility for someone created with your generic material. You know what it is like to grow up with your genes already.

5. If you bump into your offspring or your offspring bump into each other many years down the line, there is no small chance there will be an intense physical attraction of the sexual sort. Pregnancies can result long before the biological relation is known.

6. Your sperm may be used to make human beings for the purpose of killing them.

7. In man cases, donated sperm is used to condemn a child to a fatherless life, either to be raise by a woman who doesn't have enough time or social skills to do it the natural way, or two women (or perhaps four or more, should the original two split up) – none of these people recognizing the importance of fathers, and perhaps men in general.

8. You may end up on the hook for child support. Yes, it has happened.

9. Resulting children could show up later to wreak havoc in your life.

There's more corroboration of points 5, 8, and 9 in this recent article.

Donor anonymity is given to encourage men to make donations, says Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Sperm banks fear potential donors will get cold feet if they think they may be held financially or legally responsible for the children they help produce, he says. But donors need to understand that "anonymity cannot be enforced," Caplan adds. "When children, for emotional or health reasons, want to find their 'biological' parents, records are unsealed and they do." Kids trump parents, Caplan concludes, and their need to know is more important: "Courts will go this way, as they do in adoption."

Guys, don't do it. Just say no.

My sister-in-law has donated scores of eggs in multiple sessions. She's done doing that due to newly found moral reasons (thankfully). But what complications will she have down the line as a result? Will she, her future children, or my own kids bump into her kids? How many embryos (human beings) were created only to be destroyed or later selectively aborted (murdered)?

Donations Are Good When Cash, Clothes, or Food

I have said it before and I will say it again. Men should never donate sperm. Never, never, never.

Nobody you know needs your sperm. You shouldn't underestimate how you're going to feel when you see "your" child being treated a way you don't like.

Nobody you don't know needs your sperm. It really isn't a good idea to have children that are genetically yours running around out there without you being able to keep tabs on them. Want to know what can happen? Check out this site. (One of my wife's sister's has donated eggs multiple times in recent years, unfortunately.) Plus, I think you are somewhat responsible if someone uses your sperm to intentionally set up a situation where a child will be raised without a mother or without a father.

Let people adopt, or let someone else be the idiot donor.

Yeah, you think it is an ego boost to "spread your seed" or you like the idea of getting paid to masturbate, but you don't need the complication of children you didn't raise coming into and disrupting your life later, or being tagged for child support. Oh yes, that can happen. The state doesn't want to be on the hook when the custodial parent needs aid, so you might end up paying.

Banking your own sperm for your own use may be a good idea in some cases (like illness), as long as you can be sure that it wouldn't be switched, or used by your wife or anyone else against your wishes.

Here's another example of why I have this rule. David Crary of the Associated Press reports about people like Katrina Clark and Lindsay Greenawalt, who were conceived by sperm donors, and now want more info.

Greenawalt, who lives near Cleveland, and Clark, a college student in Washington, D.C., are part of an increasingly outspoken generation of donor offspring. They want to transform the dynamics of sperm donation so the children's interests are given more weight and it becomes easier to learn about their biological fathers.

$$$

A new film, "The Kids Are All Right," depicts two teenage siblings who track down their sperm-donor father and introduce him to their lesbian moms. Complications ensue, but the teens' yearning to meet their dad is portrayed empathetically.

The film opened just weeks after the release of a provocative study by the Commission on Parenthood's Future, titled "My Daddy's Name is Donor." It surveyed 485 donor offspring, concluded they were more troubled and depression-prone than other young adults in comparison groups, and recommended an end to anonymous sperm donation.

I like the idea that I was conceived in an act of mutual, passionate, marital lovemaking - fresh, never frozen.

More Fun With Advice Columns

Time to check in on a two of my favorite advice columns. I look at some recent Dear Abby columns and a recent Dear Margo column.

GROWN-UP GIRL IN KENTUCKY wrote in to Dear Abby:

I'm a 21-year-old woman who just moved back home after two years of living and learning on my own.

That doesn't sound very grown up to me.

My family has been wonderful to accept me back into their home until I finish my studies in a few months, after which I assume I'll be getting a job and my own place.

I have an amazing boyfriend, "Jordan," with whom I would love to spend some nights. I'm afraid if I do I would be disrespecting my parents' wishes -- my father is a preacher -- but at the same time I feel restricted because I got used to being on my own and doing what I wanted.

Well, too bad. Part of the trade off of living in someone else's home is abiding by their rules. You're not being held hostage. You can leave.

Dear Abby responded:

Have your parents met Jordan? Do they like him? If they have and they do, it would make things easier on you.

Unless he is a eunuch, I don’t see how any of that matters.

You should definitely respect your father's position and sensitivities.

That's all she should have written.

A more acceptable compromise than spending "nights out" might be for you and Jordan to arrange some weekend getaways together.

Uh, no.

Of this I am certain: Young love will find a way.

Love is one thing. Lust is another. Look, I'm no prude. Well, at least not according to this definition. I know saving sex for marriage is not what most people do. But an adult should not treat her parents' place like a hotel.

COLORADO TEEN wrote:

I'm a 16-year-old guy who has hit a road bump in life. My parents divorced when I was 12 and are still fighting.

That's a lot of fun, isn’t it? Somehow, they got along well enough to make you, but then they act like this. That's quite a way to make a life for their child.

I get involved in their fights because I feel I have to, but it stresses me out.

Not good. That shouldn't be his deal. He should be focusing on his studies, his hobbies, enjoying his youth.

I live full-time with Mom because Dad and I fight too much. Mom and I are also at odds nonstop. She has had several different boyfriends since the divorce. Three of them have moved into our house.

In four years? Ugh. She needs to wait two years or one and a half or however long until you are 18. She's put you at risk, and set a horrible example.

Mom and I have different opinions about her present boyfriend, who she calls her "fiance." He's the biggest reason we fight. Mom has told me her kids come first and if I really don't like him she'll ask him to leave, but I don't want her to do it if she's truly happy with him.

No kid should be put in this position. How awful.

Dear Abby told him to get counseling.

ONLINE MOMMY IN THE NORTHWEST wrote:

A few months ago, my friend and neighbor, "Jill," told me how much she enjoyed an online mothers group she participated in, so I joined. Last week, Jill announced on the Web site that she's pregnant with her second child. I congratulated her online, then congratulated her husband in person when I ran into him in the neighborhood later that day. He was flabbergasted. Apparently, Jill hadn't told him about the baby!

Jill is now furious with me because I "spoiled her surprise" by revealing something that was supposed to be a secret.

I’m not really concerned with the relationship between the women, or what DA's response is. What concerns me more is that this is an example of a violation of intimacy between husband and wife. A woman's husband should be told these things before just about anyone else. The baby is his, too. Unless the person is completely anonymous to the rest of the group (and the world) and is fishing for cute ways to tell the spouse, this was just plain wrong.

Ladies, if you want your female friends, even the ones you've never actually met, to be that close to you... then don't bother being married. Don't say that your husband is your best friend, or you want him to be your best friend, if you are keeping secrets from him that you are telling others (except, perhaps, clergy or a shrink), or if you're badmouthing him all of the time to other women. Because, in that case, your best friend is not your husband – it is the person to whom you are telling all of his shortcomings.

Stressed Out in a Small Town wrote in to Dear Margo:

I have been divorced from my first husband, "Lionel," for 13 years. He was an abusive alcoholic who (thankfully) skipped the state eight years ago to avoid paying child support for our children, "Eloise," now 21, and "Laura," 18.

Sounds like a great guy to marry and with whom make two babies. Are you sure that's the reason he left? From what I understand, states work together on this.

At last count, Lionel owes more than $60,000 in back child support and only recently re-established contact with the girls.

From what I can tell, this is irrelevant to the letter, and she includes it merely as a dig, as if he were writing in to say, "and her ass is saggy."

Laura is graduating high school this year and asked her father to attend the ceremony. He said he couldn’t because he didn’t want to drive 500 miles over Memorial Day weekend, but that he would attend her celebration party three weeks later.

A real prize.

My current husband is furious. He's been a big part of the girls' lives for 10 years, and together we've raised two healthy, well-adjusted young ladies.

Hold it! You said your ex skipped town eight years ago. So maybe your ex figured you and the new stud had it all covered? Why hasn't your husband adopted your girls and made child support from your ex unnecessary?

He absolutely doesn't want Lionel at the party, and frankly, neither do I — he’s extremely rude, obnoxious and inappropriate even while sober.

It is at your home. Surely to could bar him if you want.

If he shows up, my husband would like to have him arrested, since he has several outstanding warrants in our state.

Are any of them not child support based?

What a mess. What guy in his right mind wants to deal with this? This guy she's now married to couldn't find someone without so much baggage? Or did he have a "rescue" complex?

Don't get me wrong – unless someone signs away their parental rights, they should support their children financially, even if they aren't going to be there physically or emotionally.

Dear Margo had a decent response.

Parents With Minor Children Should Not Date

I know the divorce rate is high, even among groups that consider marriage to be sacred lifelong commitments. I know there are many people who’ve become parents out of wedlock. And I also realize that most people continually seek companionship in the romantic sense, so I know that my position that people with minor children should be focusing on them instead of dating/marrying a new person isn’t a popular one. Yes, there are some great stepparents out there.

But I think it is impossible to really separate your marriage from your children. If your children are from a previous marriage, they may think of a re-marriage as a rejection of them, despite what you tell them, especially if their other parent it still around. They may also feel this way if it has just been you and kid(s) for a while. Is it good for kids to have a role-model from the other gender around? Yes, it is. But that can be somewhat fulfilled with other relationships - your siblings, your parents, a coach, etc.

A new spouse will mean that less of your time and energy can go to your kids. If that spouse has children of their own already, it is unlikely that all of the children are going to be treated equally. If you have more children with that new spouse, it becomes even more of an issue with uneven treatment, jealousy, rejection, and competition. You can’t expect your minor children to handle these things like adults. They aren’t adults, and growing up is hard enough without added chaos.

Second marriages after divorce are even more likely than first marriages to end in divorce, and third marriages… well you get the idea. That brings more drama and turmoil to the children. If the person you made the child with was a bad partner or parent, you may be bad at picking partners. It’s somewhat different in the case of most widows and widowers, provided the deceased wasn’t self-destructive.

And while it may be that only a small minority of stepparents are abusers, the likelihood of a child being abused is higher with a stepparent. Even more so with a “live-in” unmarried partner. Also, the process of finding that new partner exposes you to abuse, assault and infection, and your child to an increased likelihood of abuse, as we see all of the time in the news. That is time and energy you should be spending with your child anyway. Your child is living without their mother or father, at least in your home.

Men who have options and are desirable partners, men who really think through things, and who don’t have reason to believe they are sterile yet they want to be fathers, are more likely to prefer women who do not have minor children, for any number of reasons. The exception would be… pedophiles. Yes, there have been good, desirable men who fell in love with and married women with children, but most guys like that did so despite the fact that she had children, or they really didn’t think it through.

Men who are only interested in sex and do not want a serious relationship prefer their women available and cheap, and a woman with minor children is less likely to be free for sex (especially at her place - or, she shouldn't be fornicating with casual partners in front of the kids), is more likely to be looking for an emotional and financial provider, or at least will expect the man to pay for a babysitter or meals and entertainment for her child(ren) as well as her. Also, that she already has a child is taken as a sign that she will either not use contraception effectively, or will go ahead and have the child if she gets pregnant – which is not what hedonistic men want. But you may not want to date guys like that anyway.

But even desirable men looking for a wife would prefer not to have minor children of hers as part of the picture. It make a carefree “honeymoon period” less likely and it brings all sorts of complications, hassles, and expenses. It may mean dealing with the father(s) of the child(ren), constant reminders of your past loves or sex partners - and if you subscribe to the modern theories of evolution or otherwise compare man to animals, the man is likely to resent raising another male’s offspring.

So, to put it another way, men who date women with minor children tend to have one or more of the following characteristics:
--Are pedophiles or otherwise abusers.
--Have an unhealthy desire to “rescue” someone.
--Care less about the turmoil this will bring to the woman’s children or their own than they care about their own needs and wants, or don't understand child development.
--Are unable to attract and sustain a relationship with a woman who doesn’t have children.*
--Don’t think through important choices in their life.
--Are unable to father children of their own and want to raise children.

Now, the ideal would be the last one and the last one only, but that’s rare.

(* Think of it this way, ladies... if you could fall in love with and marry two men who were equal in just about every way, except that one earned less and would always earn less than the other, which one would you choose? You would choose the one who earned more... unless he didn't want you and you had no other option but the man who earned less. Well, it is the same way with men and whether or not a woman is a mother to minor children. All other things being equal, he's going to prefer a woman without the minor child... but if he can't attract her, he's going to have to settle for the one with the child.)

Much of what I wrote also applies to women dating a man with a minor child. He should be focusing on raising that child, not dating women who are likely to come in and out of the child’s life. Plus, if a man is paying child support... guess what happens when you marry him? The mother of that child can get the child support increased based on YOUR income. Basically, that will mean you have worked so that some other woman can buy more expensive shoes for herself.

Is the notion of not dating until your youngest child is 18 a fun one? No. I pray that I’m never in that situation. But that should be part of the decision you make when you go ahead and make a child with someone. And maybe, just maybe, if you stick to the idea that a divorce will mean no dating/romance until that youngest child is 18, you will stick it out in your marriage and make it work. Because your marriage isn't just about you. It is about your kids, too.

Dating while raising children exposes the children to unnecessary turmoil and abuse, when they need even more of your attention and devotion. “The Brady Bunch” was not typical of reality.

Man Bites Dog! (Woman to Pay Penalty For Marrying)

Poor Anne Heche.

Actually, I guess I could say "poor Ellen DeGeneres" and "poor Coleman Laffoon", for the fact that both of them lived with Heche, who has demonstrated mental instability. That can't be fun. DeGeneres moved on to a much hotter woman. Laffoon, having married Heche, is getting some very nice parting gifts now that there is a divorce settlement.

Anne Heche's five-year marriage to Coleman Laffoon is officially over, but not without a pinch to her pocketbook.

A judge ruled that Heche must pay $275,000 to her ex-husband, along with monthly child-support payments of $3,700 for the care of their 6-year-old son, Homer, according to court documents released Friday.

Only $275,000 for five years of marriage? Something tells me that if the sexes were reversed, that would be a much higher number. Perhaps there was some sort of agreement that the judge interpreted? On the other hand, what's with the $3,700 per month in child support? It doesn't take that much money to raise a child. Something tells me this will benefit Laffoon more than the child. Can't he support himself? Can't most women in divorce cases support themselves?

Heche will also have to pay 75 percent of Homer's private-school tuition. The couple agreed to split the cost of any "agreed upon extracurricular activities" for their son.

I can picture Laffoon saying "Hey, the kid needs a trip to Europe" and Heche disagreeing that he even needs go to the movies. So she's covering most of the tuition, and still has to pay all of that money in "child support".

Heche, 39, and Laffoon, 34, were married Sept. 1, 2001. He filed for divorce on Feb. 2, citing irreconcilable differences.

If this was in California, I don't think there is much you can cite other than "irreconcilable differences". But my interpretation of that is "My wife is nuts. Yes, I knew that before marrying her, but I finally realized I can live comfortably on her money without putting up with her!"

Heche starred in TV's "Men in Trees." She and Laffoon, a cameraman, met while working on a documentary about Ellen DeGeneres — with whom Heche was
romantically linked for three years.

It is very telling that the father is getting custody.

To me, this is another example of showing that the alimony and child support realities in our system are unfair. It just so happens that in this case, the male is benefitting financially at the expense of the female - which is rare.

In other Hollywood news, Vin Diesel and model Paloma Jimenez just had a child out of wedlock, making them illegitimate parents and setting a horrible example. At least they didn't have it sucked into a sink.

Leveling the Playing Field: Child Support

This entry is part of a series. The introduction is here. The first two suggestions are here.

Suggestions:

3. Opting out of fatherhood after intercourse. Child Support Compliance offices have been established by local governments, distinct from their District Attorney and County Counsel offices. As long as they are going to have this bureaucracy, why not allow men to publicly register with them, pre-conception, as not wanting to be fathers? Women can check the registry before they choose whether or not to risk getting pregnant by such a man. Then she will be assuming the risks of financial obligations to any child she chooses to birth and keep. Currently, the moment even a single sperm leaves a man’s body, he loses all ability to avoid the legal responsibility of being a father. Women, however, not only have many forms of contraception they can use, but pills that cause early abortions, surgical abortion, and even “safe surrender” of a newborn with no strings attached. Why shouldn’t men also have a post-ejaculation choice? If we are a pro-choice society, shouldn’t men also have a choice, just as women do? Any man who fails to register as not wanting to be a father would retain the obligation to financially support any offspring he produces.

4. Child support standardization. Speaking of child support – if it really is about meeting the child’s needs, then why isn’t it standardized based on half of the cost of raising a child? Who are we fooling when a wealthy person is paying five or six figures a month for a child’s support? No child needs that amount of money, barring some sort of unusual medical condition. That is really going to the lifestyle of the custodial parent. My father, married to my mother, used to make it clear that if he ever won the lottery, we would not be living a lavish lifestyle. No court could have forced otherwise. Yet if he had won and my mother divorced him, the court could have forced him to give me a lavish lifestyle. What kind of sense does that make? I should note, that, conversely, a man should still have to support his offspring’s needs even if he has a lower-than-average income – this standardization would work both ways. Since it is about the “needs of the child” (or so we’re told) the man's income level shouldn’t make a difference.

More suggestions in subsequent posts, as well as my advice to my fellow men given how things are now.