If the worst were to happen...

[SC7]

Blue Meanie said:

And people have said. The only way you would get that chance is if the biological father allowed you to adopt him. Frnkly I'm amazed that you ink you are on at least an even level with the father.

Frankly I'm amazed that you think I'm not.

Aside from the legal aspect, what makes you think I'm any less of a father to him?

[Blue Meanie]

SC7 said:

Blue Meanie said:

And people have said. The only way you would get that chance is if the biological father allowed you to adopt him. Frnkly I'm amazed that you ink you are on at least an even level with the father.

Frankly I'm amazed that you think I'm not.

Aside from the legal aspect, what makes you think I'm any less of a father to him?

I never said you were less of a father. I said you are not on an even keel with the father. You have not adopted the child, and the father is on good enough relations to see the boy every week. Why do you think you trump the biological father despite these things?

[clarkmagpie]

as above, that is all.
He is NOT yours no matter how much you wish he was.

[SC7]

Blue Meanie said:

I never said you were less of a father. I said you are not on an even keel with the father. You have not adopted the child, and the father is on good enough relations to see the boy every week. Why do you think you trump the biological father despite these things?

There are many reasons I believe I 'trump' him - reasons I am not willing to go into here.

Please accept I'm not trying to be pig-headed about what you're telling me. I now fully appreciate that in a court of law I would have little or no say in my son's future.

The point I am trying to convey is that just because it is legal, that does not mean it is morally or ethically right.

Just believe me when I say his father is not all he's cracked up to be.

Maybe I can't expect his father to just let me "take him away". But from my point of view, I have to wonder why I have to accept it that he can be taken away from me.

Edited by SC7 on Sunday 17th October 00:51

[Cas_P]

A lot of women with children are seperated and have new partners who live with them and their child, does that mean that when you move in with someone with a child you automatically gain the same rights as the father and because you are living with the child mean you should keep the child there and have custody, so the child is in the same place, even if the real father plays an active part in the childs life?

Really?

How ridiculous, and if it did happen and then you're there dictating to the father when he can have access to his OWN son. I wouldn't expect a happy ending for you, and I wouldn't blame the father.

Oh and I love how suddenly he's 'not all he's cracked up to be'. Earlier you said he did a good job, he sees his son every weekend, you also said he has a decent job so if he works during the week he forfeits his 'free' time (weekend) to spend with his son. But you also called him a 'sperm donor', why? he's still around, giving a st, maybe you should meet a real 'sperm donor' there's plenty about! Then you say "just because he slept with my girlfriend doesn't mean he's a good father'. Making out like it was a drunken one night stand, but he cheated on her so I'm assuming they were once in a relationship. Your posts don't really add up.

Edited by Cas_P on Sunday 17th October 00:56

[SC7]

Cas_P said:

A lot of women with children are seperated and have new partners who live with them and their child, does that mean that when you move in with someone with a child you automatically gain the same rights as the father and because you are living with the child mean you should keep the child there and have custody, so the child is in the same place, even if the real father plays an active part in the childs life?

Really?

No, not at all. But I would expect each situation to be judged on its individual merits rather than the blanket ruling of "Biology wins".

Surely you can see that?

[Blue Meanie]

SC7 said:

Blue Meanie said:

I never said you were less of a father. I said you are not on an even keel with the father. You have not adopted the child, and the father is on good enough relations to see the boy every week. Why do you think you trump the biological father despite these things?

There are many reasons I believe I 'trump' him - reasons I am not willing to go into here.

Please accept I'm not trying to be pig-headed about what you're telling me. I now fully appreciate that in a court of law I would have little or no say in my son's future.

The point I am trying to convey is that just because it is legal, that does not mean it is morally or ethically right.

Just believe me when I say his father is not all he's cracked up to be.

Maybe I can't expect his father to just let me "take him away". But from my point of view, I have to wonder why I have to accept it that he can be taken away from me.

Edited by SC7 on Sunday 17th October 00:51

Well, we can only go by what you say, and we can't take into consideration things you are not telling us. We also do not have his side of the story.

You can expect to have him taken away from you because you are not his legal guardian, father, or whatever. You happen to be living with his mum.

[Sheets Tabuer]

Face it, you're just shagging his mum, you're not his dad.

He is not "your son"

[SC7]

Blue Meanie said:

You can expect to have him taken away from you because you are not his legal guardian, father, or whatever. You happen to be living with his mum.

And therein lies the answer to my OP.

Not what I wanted to hear at all, and certainly not fair in my opinion - But if that's what the law says then that's the way it goes.

That still doesn't mean it's right though, which is the point I am trying to make.

[SC7]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Face it, you're just shagging his mum, you're not his dad.

He is not "your son"

Thanks for your carefully considered, mature input.

[Blue Meanie]

Well, I'm sorry but it is right. Why should you have more right than the father of the boy? He is, after all, HIS son, not yours.

[Sheets Tabuer]

SC7 said:

Sheets Tabuer said:

Face it, you're just shagging his mum, you're not his dad.

He is not "your son"

Thanks for your carefully considered, mature input.

Oh behave, you stamped your feet with the my son comment, if you don't like opinions don't fking post.

[Cas_P]

SC7 said:

Cas_P said:

A lot of women with children are seperated and have new partners who live with them and their child, does that mean that when you move in with someone with a child you automatically gain the same rights as the father and because you are living with the child mean you should keep the child there and have custody, so the child is in the same place, even if the real father plays an active part in the childs life?

Really?

No, not at all. But I would expect each situation to be judged on its individual merits rather than the blanket ruling of "Biology wins".

Surely you can see that?

Yep, biological dad buggers off, doesn't want anything to do with kid. New man on the scene from a young age, more than enough rights to take that place as 'dad' if he so wishes.

Biological father on the scene, seeing child every week, does a good job with said child, loves said child. Another man comes on the scene, no rights at all to take the place of dad, and should'nt even try if he had an ounce of decency. Should care for the child and play a role, but in no way try and replace his REAL father.

[SC7]

Sheets Tabuer said:

SC7 said:

Sheets Tabuer said:

Face it, you're just shagging his mum, you're not his dad.

He is not "your son"

Thanks for your carefully considered, mature input.

Oh behave, you stamped your feet with the my son comment, if you don't like opinions don't fking post.

How did I "stamp my feet"?

Is there a law against me calling him my son? Maybe I should explain that to him.

[Blue Meanie]

Cas_P said:

SC7 said:

Cas_P said:

A lot of women with children are seperated and have new partners who live with them and their child, does that mean that when you move in with someone with a child you automatically gain the same rights as the father and because you are living with the child mean you should keep the child there and have custody, so the child is in the same place, even if the real father plays an active part in the childs life?

Really?

No, not at all. But I would expect each situation to be judged on its individual merits rather than the blanket ruling of "Biology wins".

Surely you can see that?

Yep, biological dad buggers off, doesn't want anything to do with kid. New man on the scene from a young age, more than enough rights to take that place as 'dad' if he so wishes.

Biological father on the scene, seeing child every week, does a good job with said child, loves said child. Another man comes on the scene, no rights at all to take the place of dad, and should'nt even try if he had an ounce of decency. Should care for the child and play a role, but in no way try and replace his REAL father.

As much I hate to use it, I'll give you a +1

[Sheets Tabuer]

I can see albeit from text only that you are stamping your feet with the my son comment, and your reply to other posts.

he is not your son, I can understand your position etc but at the end of the day he has a DNA link to a man who is in his life.

[SC7]

Blue Meanie said:

Cas_P said:

SC7 said:

Cas_P said:

A lot of women with children are seperated and have new partners who live with them and their child, does that mean that when you move in with someone with a child you automatically gain the same rights as the father and because you are living with the child mean you should keep the child there and have custody, so the child is in the same place, even if the real father plays an active part in the childs life?

Really?

No, not at all. But I would expect each situation to be judged on its individual merits rather than the blanket ruling of "Biology wins".

Surely you can see that?

Yep, biological dad buggers off, doesn't want anything to do with kid. New man on the scene from a young age, more than enough rights to take that place as 'dad' if he so wishes.

Biological father on the scene, seeing child every week, does a good job with said child, loves said child. Another man comes on the scene, no rights at all to take the place of dad, and should'nt even try if he had an ounce of decency. Should care for the child and play a role, but in no way try and replace his REAL father.

As much I hate to use it, I'll give you a +1

I agree with it the way you have worded it, but it's not that clear cut unfortunately.

In fact, he spent the first 12 months of the child's life being (seemingly) as much of a as was humanly possible (and wouldn't have him at all). The next 12 months were spent trying to make our lives as difficult as possible (making it difficult for me and the child's mother to get on with our lives). He now has the boy every weekend, 90% of which is seemingly spent in a pub.

[SC7]

Sheets Tabuer said:

I can see albeit from text only that you are stamping your feet with the my son comment, and your reply to other posts.

he is not your son, I can understand your position etc but at the end of the day he has a DNA link to a man who is in his life.

So you think that warranted a "You're not his Dad, you're just fking his Mum" post?

A little disrespectful, no?

I'll debate and fight my corner all day long, but I don't come on here to ask advice on a sensitive subject only to be spoken to like a .

Edited by SC7 on Sunday 17th October 01:07

[Blue Meanie]

I'm not sure why you posed the question, to be honest. You don't seem to take kindly to the responses you are getting.

[Cas_P]

SC7 said:

Blue Meanie said:

Cas_P said:

SC7 said:

Cas_P said:

A lot of women with children are seperated and have new partners who live with them and their child, does that mean that when you move in with someone with a child you automatically gain the same rights as the father and because you are living with the child mean you should keep the child there and have custody, so the child is in the same place, even if the real father plays an active part in the childs life?

Really?

No, not at all. But I would expect each situation to be judged on its individual merits rather than the blanket ruling of "Biology wins".

Surely you can see that?

Yep, biological dad buggers off, doesn't want anything to do with kid. New man on the scene from a young age, more than enough rights to take that place as 'dad' if he so wishes.

Biological father on the scene, seeing child every week, does a good job with said child, loves said child. Another man comes on the scene, no rights at all to take the place of dad, and should'nt even try if he had an ounce of decency. Should care for the child and play a role, but in no way try and replace his REAL father.

As much I hate to use it, I'll give you a +1

I agree with it the way you have worded it, but it's not that clear cut unfortunately.

In fact, he spent the first 12 months of the child's life being (seemingly) as much of a as was humanly possible (and wouldn't have him at all). The next 12 months were spent trying to make our lives as difficult as possible (making it difficult for me and the child's mother to get on with our lives). He now has the boy every weekend, 90% of which is seemingly spent in a pub.

It's gone from he does a good job, to he's awful and spends most of his time with the child in a pub.

I'm sorry but I call bullst to try and get people 'on side'. I do wish the father was on here to give his side. And tbh if you're this fking deluded then I don't blame him for possibly making things difficult for him, it's quite clear you would happily disregard a real fathers rights and make things hard for him yourself.

It is that clear cut, HE is the childs father NOT you, he is in his life on a weekly basis and clearly loves the child. You really need to get this into your head.

Edited by Cas_P on Sunday 17th October 01:09