Need some perspectives on a family situation

metaoblivia

This is kind of complicated, so I'm going to try and make it as clear as possible.
My brother is twice divorced. He had one child with his first ex-wife and one child with his second ex-wife. He pays child support for both children and has access to them, etc.
The situation concerns the second wife (we'll call her Sarah) and her first child (a son, we'll call him John) from a previous relationship. John was just a few months old when his mother and my brother began their relationship. John's biological dad decided that fatherhood wasn't for him when he found out about the baby and signed legal papers giving up his parental rights. But my brother took John in and treated him as his own. He and Sarah married and had a child together. But their marriage was very rocky and after a few years and several separations they divorced.
During the marriage, my brother had filed paperwork to legally adopt John since his biological father had legally given up his parental rights. However, he never completed the paperwork because things started to go very sour and they separated for the last time and eventually divorced.
After the divorce, my brother paid Sarah child support for both John and their biological child, and he had access to them both. Since John was so young when their relationship first began, my brother is the only father he knows, and John called and continues to call him Daddy.

Recently, however, my brother has decided to stop paying child support for John. I think that's understandable as John is not his child, and the rest of my family agrees. In response, Sarah no longer allows him to see John. Again, I think that's understandable as John is not his child and he is not longer paying child support. The rest of the family does not agree with me, though. They see it as a great miscarriage of justice and a scheme on the part of his ex wife to get money from him. They also cite the fact that my brother is the only father John knows as another reason for their outrage. They think Sarah is being selfish and not acting in John's best interest. That may be true. However, my train of thought is, why should my brother have access to John? He's not his father, he's not longer married to John's mother, and he's not paying child support. I know he's very attached to John and John's attached to him, but that's the risk you take when you marry someone with a child from a previous relationship. I think he should be able to see John some, but expecting the same amount of access that he has with his own son is maybe asking too much.
It's a really emotional and tough situation, and my mother and I argued about it a little bit the other day on the phone. So I was just wondering what others thought?

Leitrim lass

I agree with you, although I'm surprised that if he really saw this child as his own then why wouldn't he continue paying child support and continue being able to have access to him.
I know that he has no legal right to see him but it seems as if he is cutting off child support to spite the mother and the only one who is really losing out is this boy.

username123

I think he either wants to be a father to John or he doesnt. If he does he should pay child support and gain access. I think it would be extremely unfair of him not to pay child support and seek access if John views him as Daddy and he has a relationship with John and he was on the point of legally adopting him.

It would seem to me the real loser here is John. I can understand Sarahs viewpoint on not allowing access - but I disagree with it. I believe fathers should be allowed access regardless of if they make a financial contribution - for the sake of the child. But given your brother is not Johns biological father she has actually turned her son into part of a transaction, pay and you see him, dont and you dont - which is not a nice way to behave.

SarahSassy

Does his biological Dad pay maintenance?

metaoblivia

No. His biological father signed away his parental rights and disappeared.

dixiefly

Financial constraints are probably a major part of why he gave up paying for John.

Would it be possible for him to resume paying and , say, pay 50% of what he was paying before?

metaoblivia

Leitrim lass wrote: »

I agree with you, although I'm surprised that if he really saw this child as his own then why wouldn't he continue paying child support and continue being able to have access to him.
I know that he has no legal right to see him but it seems as if he is cutting off child support to spite the mother and the only one who is really losing out is this boy.

Financial constraints are an issue. My brother is a firefighter and a paramedic, which is good work, but he's not bringing in tons of money each week.
And like I said, I don't disagree with him cutting off child support - John isn't his. In a way, I think my brother is also trying to protect himself because he has no legal rights to this child and he's trying to establish parameters. Whether he pays or not, it's still up to Sarah whether or not he can see John. And she won't allow either child over when my brother's daughter is over( My brother's daughter is still in primary school, and she's as sweet as can be and loves her half brother and step brother and they love her. The issue is solely Sarah's - she had this jealously thing with the daughter from the beginning and even though she cheated on my brother numerous times, and even set their apartment on fire during an argument, it was ultimately her issues with his daughter that split them up). I think my brother plans on seeing a solicitor about this situation - not allowing two blood siblings to see each other - and that may be another reason why he's establishing parameters, and saying this child isn't mine and I have no say in when Sarah allows him to visit, but this one is mine and he has a right to see his half sister.
I just think the rest of my family is a bit out of line in expecting that he should still have the same access to John if he's not paying. I don't know if he could pay 50% or not or if he's even willing to. They just make me feel like I'm betraying the family when I voice my opinion on it. Also, just to note - the main people complaining about not seeing John are my parents, not my brother.

SarahSassy

Ok I was worried she was getting double payments there....

I think he needs to move on and he can explain to John when he is older... Is she a bit of a sponge?

kraggy

OP I disagree with you.

What is there to gain for John not getting to see the person he sees as his father? John will suffer and needlessly so. John is not a toy that is to be played with. So to ask, why should your brother get to spend the same amount of time with John as with his own son is a pointless question. What is the point in depriving the two of them of seeing each other when doing that provides gain for nobody? Not even John's mother can gain from them not seeing each other as often.

Too many times children are used as pawns in sick, bitter and twisted relationships and people forget that when all is said and done, it is the child who suffers most in the end. And for what purpose? Either spite, or money, or both.

I really don't see your reasoning. Your family are right.

jimmycrackcorm

He shouldn't have to financially support the child as he isn't his but he should be allowed see him because it's right for the child. To prevent him seeing the child is simply detrimental only to the child who should be paramount from a moral perspective.

The Sweeper

He's either in it or he's not. It's highly unfortunate for the child to lose his father figure, but it makes little sense for your brother to just 'play' dad. The child doesn't just require his emotional input, though it is very important. He's the one who loses out.

LegacyUser

Hi OP,

God tricky case, I feel so sorry for John because he is being rejected again by a second male, the mother bares a lot of responsibility here, and it is a lesson learnt to not allow the real father to get away with being responsible for his child in the first place, is there no way johns father can be tracked down if your adoption papers are not signed then surely the real father is still responsible, if she can get maintenance off him she may then ease up a bit.


It is not your brothers financial responsibility but it was badly done, teasing a little boy that he was going to be adopted and then not is a tough blow when he learns this as he gets older. Your brother should have not jumped in so quickly.

Reflector

your brother should continue child support. If it was me I'd do the same as the mother and not let him see him. In fact if it was his biological child I'd do the same. He took on the responsibility of that childs welfare and just because he didn't dot a few i's he's shirking his responsibilty.
I don't know where the rest of your family are coming from, if your brother pretty much wants to treat the child like it's not his why should he have the rights to see him.

Xiney

Your brother has no legal responsibility to pay child support for John.

However, he also has no legal right to see John.

What would be best for John? It would be for both your brother to continue to pay child support (since he was just a bit of legality away from having to do so anyway) and for Sarah to continue to allow John to see your brother, who is, for all intents and purposes, his father.


Neither your brother nor his ex-wife are acting in John's best interest. Although, at the risk of sounding petty, your brother started it.

MariMel

my fiance has 2 girls...one biologically his, the other who was 10 months old when he first came into her life.
He split with their mother after 8 years, which was 9yrs ago.
To him he has two daughters, to both those girls he is their dad.
He pays maintenance for both of them......he says of the older one, that he rasied her as his daughter, she thinks of him as her father so he will never treat her as any different to his biological child. He pays half her school books/uniform....gives her pocketmoney every week, is funding her debs in a few weeks and is the one who sees her every weekend without fail.
The older daughters biological father lives abroad and doesnt pay maintence, he does however send presents at xmas and birthdays, and she is off to visit him now for 2 weeks on her annual trip. But he is to her....the man who is only biologically her father and calls him by his christain name. My fiance is her dad.

To raise a child as your own for a number of years and that child look upon you as their dad then to decide on a technicality that you no longer want to support them is imo not right.

To me its like saying to my son, that when myself and my fiance get married in a few months.....that he wont help pay for things he needs...cos after all he isnt his biological child and for me to dig my heels in and say that my fiance no longer supports his older daughter.

OP, your brother is John's father in every way apart from legally.......who's interest is it in that he no longer fiancially contributes? definitely not john's.

LegacyUser

What age is John, how long was your brother paying for him before he decided to stop?

Kipperhell

I am surprised at how many people believe the brother is some sort of monster for stopping payments. Firstly it seems apparent the plan was to create a new family unit with adoption in the plans. Now that didn't happen as the relationship didn't gel. Now the time they were together resources were shared between their joint commitments. Further plans to bond the commitment with adoption were planned but didn't happen as the relationship disbanded.
So commitments and shared assists were split again as both parties took what they had before the relationship in this case one party took their own child and shared child. For what ever reason the brother generously supported the child from another relationship and now finds he can't or thinks his generosity has run its course.
He still wants to keep the emotional connection to the child he has helped raise which is very commendable.

The mother feels he made a commitment and should stick with it even though the commitment was dissolved by both parties. She is now using blackmail both emotional and financial in order to retain income regardless of the child's well being.

It could be seen as the brother is disregarding the child's well being by not making payments but even considering that just because you care for somebody's well being it doesn't mean you pay for them.

I am disgusted at the concept that child support payments are some kind of paid time with children akin to pimping without sex.

The best solution is maybe talk to the first wife and agree a reduced payment schedule leading to no payments for her to be able to adjust. It would be a compromise on both sides.

The clear loser will be John but if it goes on it will be worse. Can you imagine how two siblings will be towards each other if one has kept his dad while the other one is just not allowed see him? If it was only once it would be bad enough but over a prolonged period!

It seems strange that the mother would let the actual father shirk his obligations and then hold another man responsible because she married him.

Now if the biological father gave up the rights just for the adoption then it is a little different as then the plan had a point where rights were given away specifically based on a commitment. That would effectively make the moral responsibility the brother's and he really should continue to pay. The devil is in the detail. If the rights were given away just to get the biological father out of the picture that is different and means she decided that regardless of commitment.

metaoblivia

Unregistered wrote: »

What age is John, how long was your brother paying for him before he decided to stop?

John is 9 years old. My brother and his mother started seeing each other when he was about a year old, and married when he was 4. They divorced when he was 7, so he had been paying child support for about a year and a half to two years.

And in regards to the bio father, he was out of the picture before John was born and signed away parental rights shortly after. Why Sarah didn't go after him, I don't know. She had John at a very young age - 16 or 17 - and had to drop out of school, etc., so her youth may be one explanation.

gillo_100

What has to be seen as the main issue is what is good for John.

I think your brother needs to sit down and discuss this with Sarah, it shouldn't be about your brother having access(this term makes the child sound like a piece of property) to John. It should be that Sarah sees that the best thing for her child is to keep having access to a father figure regardless of any monetary returns this relationship would be good for John.

Kipperhell

metaoblivia wrote: »

And in regards to the bio father, he was out of the picture before John was born and signed away parental rights shortly after. Why Sarah didn't go after him, I don't know. She had John at a very young age - 16 or 17 - and had to drop out of school, etc., so her youth may be one explanation.

Well that is it really she had a financial obligation prior to the marriage and when that dissolved the financial obligation was returned to her. The idea that he should pay for the next 9 years for a child that isn't his due to a 3 year marriage is absurd . The fact he wishes to stay in his life is a really good thing.

Legally nothing can be done by either side who ever gave Sarah legal advise most likely explained the ramifications but was ignored. Her mistake. I think it is horrible to use the child like this

starchild

Thats just so horrible for the child, i would imagine that he considers your brother his father given your brother was in his life from age 1-7 and the fact that the biological father is gone.

perhaps they might find some solution through a professional mediator, is it financial strain that is stopping your brother paying or is it both him and his ex playing silly games with each other. Im assuming its purely financial and i can understand that. he needs a life too.

On the subject of the access I think Sarah needs to look at the bigger picture and not deny the child access to your brother. Its horrendous that she is doing so, he must be devasted seeing his sibling going off to see him and he is not allowed. If i was in her position i would allow him access whether he ever donated a penny.

However full access for your brother should come with some responsibilities too and he needs to face up to them . If he wants to play dad then do for him the same as he would do for the biological child.

Victor

Xiney wrote: »

Your brother has no legal responsibility to pay child support for John.

Actually, I've heard of a different situation in the USA - if you play dad, you are dad and need to pay up. Getting proper legal advice for your brother may be in order.

gillo_100

Victor wrote: »

in the USA

Different country, different laws. In some states there are laws which can lead to a different man to the biological father being officially recognized as the father of the child. Not sure the full rules but say for example if they were married to the mother and took an interest in the child they could be the official father without having to adopt.

I've never heard of anything similar here, and am nearly sure an official adoption would have to take place for brother to be recognized as father and so be responsible for child.