By bluewatersify - 18/01/2010 14:23 - Australia
Add a comment - Reply to : #
"Welcome to the 21st Century"?! The the biggest load of bullshit I've heard #7!! This woman chose to squeeze these two kids out of her uterus, therefore she is just as responsible for raising and supporting them as the father. And I guarantee that if it was the father who was stiffing them on child support and ignoring their existence, you'd be calling him a deadbeat father. OP, you're better off without her in your life.
While I agree that children should respect their parents, I believe that the parents have to deserve it. $10 for 16 years? Bullshit. And apparently Mom thinks thats too much to pay to feed and clothe the children that she brought into this world. What part of that is deserving of respect? FML OP. (the poster I was replying to deleted..)
@ #7 it has nothing to do with who gave birth. The point is the mother should at least pay if she doesn't have custody. Fathers who don't pay child support are known as dead beats and ass holes. It shouldn't be any different for dead beat mothers she isn't taking care of her children financially or other wise so what respect should she have for her mother? her mother has never been there for her. Just because she gave birth doesn't mean anything hr father has been taking care of them for years so when does a few labor pains amount up to the time and care the father has out into these children lives. And F.Y.I. before anyone assumes i am a man. i am a women and 21st century women should be able to pay child support the same as men do.
#7 you do realize that whether or not she gave birth to them, it's still her responcibility to care for them if they are still dependent on her for money. She gave birth they are HER responcibility as much as the fathers. In fact in most situations the father is the one that pays. Stop being naive and idiotic.
Or the children chose to live with someone else because they obviously are not fond of their mother? My friend and his 2 brothers were all raised by their dad after the divorce because their mother was trying to get them all into AA because she thinks "everyone has an addiction". She's pretty nuts but she's not a murderer. Nobody HAS to go with their mother if their father or another relative is happy to care for them.
You shouldn't call people names when you are not sure you are correct, #9. Of course, you probably always assume you are right. The OP DID write that incorrectly (not that it really matters). He would have said "...for my brother" if he meant just his brother and "...for me" if he meant just himself. Therefore, when referring to both himself and his brother, it would have been correct to say "... for my brother and me." It doesn't really make a difference to the story, and I mean you no offense, OP, but I hate jerks who assume they know everything when they are nothing but idiots. EDIT: What the heck? Number Nine had been some idiot saying Number Six was an idiot. I was responding to his comment, which was apparently deleted. I mean the current Number Nine no disrespect.
Unless of course the mother didn't want anything to do with her kids, which seems like the case because she hasn't taken any responsibility in the last 16 years. She probably signed custody over to op's dad or even grandparents or aunt or something. Anyway, fyl op..
your dad should have went through the courts, and you should be more pissed about her not being there not the money