When its not just about you and her

[BillyB]

Try and do it legally.

Paying off the father is legal. Unless a court strips a father of his rights, he has rights and if he wishes to sell them, that is the father's choice. We can debate if he's immoral or unethical but the bottom line here is Charles and other men facing the same dilemma need to consider all options if they want to be with their sweetheart because most of the time the sweetheart will choose being with their child over being with a man. If a RW goes to court to strip her ex of his fatherly rights and loses, I bet the father will have more leverage and ask for a considerable amount more money for the hassle you just put him through. After losing court the only options is to pay him off, hire corrupt people to persuade him to sign the documents,  leave the child with the father, or with Charles's options, live in Moldova.

[facetrock]

 I dont agree SMS, The courts in the FSU might be as corrupt as the dead beat dad. You can go to court and there is no gaurantee you will win and it will most likely cost you more than paying the father off. This is not the same judicial system we have here. A women taking her kid out of the country for a better life in America might not get much sympathy from the courts there, unless of course you want to bribe them too. And if the woman loses in court that kid becomes worth alot more money to the father. Most women I have talked to already have complete custody of their children from fathers who have basically abandoned them. They dont have to ask permission from them to leave.
  I would pay the father and get it over quickly.

SMS60. Have you ever been to the FSU yet. Your profile says no, is that true?

[GQBlues]

Running in tandem to this topic and maybe the women on this site can answer this question...

If the father of a child (children) had never been interested, supported, had never seen, never participated in any of their lives, etc...why does a woman not take care of getting the natural father signed off from any parental right to the child/children, especially PRIOR to making herself available for international marriage?

This always seem rather silly to me to say the least. Or maybe there's a reason why they don't do it.

Waiting until involvement to a foreign man and then making 'him' get involved in a personal affair between family members seem rather selfish, assuming, and, excuse me for saying this, 'very freaking stupid' to me.

These women have all the reason in the world to sever their ties with the child/children's dead beat Dads, so why don't they make sure it's done. Saves a lot of grief, trouble, and time...

[SMS60]

Facetroc, did you read my post? Apparently not. Is that so?

I said Charles should not be involved with any kind of bribing or dealing with the father. I said allow the mother to do it.

I would like to watch this deal go down if Charles was involved. Not that Charles is clueless. Its just the dynamics involved.

I could not imagine walking into a cafe and sitting down with a complete stranger and offering him money to allow his child to travel with me to another country. Its pretty heady if you think about it. Especially if the guy has an ax to grind with someone.

Allow the mom to do all the negotiating while Charles is still here in the states. He does not need or should not be involved with something as touchy as this. If he wants to give money to the mom for a bargaining chip that his decision.

[Gator]

These women have all the reason in the world to sever their ties with the child/children's dead beat Dads, so why don't they make sure it's done. Saves a lot of grief, trouble, and time...

All single moms realize that a child would benefit from a good relationship with the father even if the marriage is broken.  So most of these women hold to some hope that the father will renew the relationship with his child. 

[Gator]

CharlesR,

Let your fiancee handle everything.  Do not get personally involved.  Just pay the bills.

My wife successfully petitioned the Russian courts to gain sole custody of her children.  The father did not object because he had been missing for years (probably been buried for years in a hastily dug shallow grave in the forest, interred there by the "business people" to whom he owed money).  Nevertheless, it still took almost a year and nearly a $1000 in legal fees.

[apple47]

      My wife got sole custody of her daughters in the courts and full rights to the house she owned with her ex.   Cost us $2000 and a Lada in good running condition.   The parental rights had a 2 year expiration for some reason ,but,she left Almaty before the time was up.      Figure it was a well spent $2K when considered against the possible BS that could have transpired.
             Also spent $800 on an agent that handled all the "in country" paperwork and bribes.  Being former KGB ,he was helpful in ways I hadn't considered and may have been a help in the negotiations with my wife's ex.  I haven't asked and will probably never know.
            I would recommend having your wife do the negotiations and also have her find an "in country" agent that handles the legalities of a foreign marriage.  But probably, NOT a marriage agency.
                                                                        ...Larry
        

[mies]

Uhhh?? You probably didn't mean this?

This is terrible advice. If there is any negotiating it should be done by the mother and not Charles. He should not have his finger prints on anything like this. It could backfire big time. This is a slippery slope you dont want to go down.

This is on the same level as human trafficking. You are paying money for the right to take a child out of their country. If the guy is a snake he could do a lot of damage.

Try and do it legally.

Boethius is right. SMS60 - I am not quite sure you know what you are talking about and what "legally" actually means.

The money may be offered to genetic/legal father in order to make him sign off his parental rights, and obtain the respective court decision. The court will state that ex is no longer the "father" in legal terms - therefore ex will not have any right to participate in the life of child, or in the life of the woman and her new husband.

If only paying but not having the court order - ex may request ransom again and again. I agree to be corrected by someone who has first-hand experience in FSU in this matter.  

[GQBlues]

All single moms realize that a child would benefit from a good relationship with the father even if the marriage is broken.  So most of these women hold to some hope that the father will renew the relationship with his child.  

Of course, dual parenting is optimal. Especially if they are the natural parents. But realistically, this isn't always the case for many. Like the OP's girlfriend.

I can understand if there's any semblance of hope one ought to withold any termination of custodial ties. But then, that would contradict the sentiment if she in fact opened herself up for international marriage.

If these fathers have not lent support, neither expressed a desire or interest in yearning the child, let alone not been heard from for years; then I am mystified what's there to hope for?

All I'm saying is, if fathers are unwilling to partake in the welfare of their offspring, then women need to accept that fact and all the more reason they should terminate custodial rights of these fathers. Especially if and when they make themselves available to international marriage/s. It just doesn't seem right to have, or to expect, WMs get involved in these affairs at this juncture. Falling in love with a woman does not give him (WM) the right to partake in what is otherwise someone else's domestic affairs.

[facetrock]

    Your right GQ. Almost all women I have talked to had complete custody or their children. Its one of the first questions I ask when getting to know them. If they dont there is most likely a reason such as the man actually does visit and does pay some support. Not all the men are dead beats over there.
   If I was ever in the position where I had to "buy" the permission from the father to let the child leave the country I would meet him and negotiate. Some of you here would not but to each his own. You pussy foot around men over there and they will make your life miserable.
   As far as what " LEGALLY" means over there it usually means who has the most connections or the most money. Going to court in the FSU is nothing like going to court in Western Europe or the USA.
   A few people here seem to have a hard time grasping that concept.

[apple47]

   If I was ever in the position where I had to "buy" the permission from the father to let the child leave the country I would meet him and negotiate. Some of you here would not but to each his own. You pussy foot around men over there and they will make your life miserable.
  

                    Considering a future wife would know her ex much better than you  ever will ,I feel she should have the first shot at it.  Coming after her ex with a "not pussy footing around"attitude could cause even more problems.   Once it's screwed up it will take much more to get it where you need it to be.  One step at a time,thought out before hand and the wife goes first.  Unless you're using hired muscle that he isn't able to counter.
                   

                                                                    ...Larry

                                                 

[Faux Pas]

All I'm saying is, if fathers are unwilling to partake in the welfare of their offspring, then women need to accept that fact and all the more reason they should terminate custodial rights of these fathers. Especially if and when they make themselves available to international marriage/s. It just doesn't seem right to have, or to expect, WMs get involved in these affairs at this juncture. Falling in love with a woman does not give him (WM) the right to partake in what is otherwise someone else's domestic affairs.

Whoa!! GQ for a woman to do such a thing she would have to be the eternal optimist. That action alone doesn't really reflect that type of attitude. IMO it wouldn't even be in the best interest of the child. There is always the possibility that the father could enter the kid's life somewhere down the line. It is the best interest of the kid that should have the first consideration. Seems you've taken a bizzaro position and considering the best interest of the Western hubby to be 

I do agree that it is not right to expect the hubby to be to take care of this domestic issue. If and when the mother deems it a very real possibility that she marries and moves abroad, she should take the appropriate steps. FWIW

[Vaughn]

Unless you're using hired muscle that he isn't able to counter.                                                 
                         

And the most effective muscle is that of the attorney. Just my opinion, but the lady
might be the absolute worst at negotiating termination - what with all the emotions
and bitterness (by either or both parties) that a face to face would invite.

I just labored through 200+ clauses of Moldovan Family Code as adopted in April of 2000.
The thrust of the document acts only in the child's best interest - and not either spouse.
That child's rights have been neglected without doubt - yet the success of any legal action
hinges greatly on the terms outlined in the divorce document - AND - legal representation.

My gut says the reason such laws involving alimony and other forms of support are rarely enforced
in some FSU nations is that few can afford such representation. On a per capita basis, Moldova is
the FSU's poorest new nation - with Ukraine (although double Moldova's number) is in second place.
It's no wonder the ex smells blood. With the grim prospect of a Westerner financing such a motion,
though - he might be better served by strategizing avoidance of a stiff judgment of delinquent
child support. That would likely come in the inexpensive package called compliance with the
mother's wishes.

[Vaughn]

Moldovan Family Code as adopted in April of 2000.

Sorry ~ I should have referenced that with a link, which is...

http://www.law-moldova.com/laws/rus/semeiniy_codex_ru.txt

[apple47]

And the most effective muscle is that of the attorney. Just my opinion, but the lady
might be the absolute worst at negotiating termination - what with all the emotions
and bitterness (by either or both parties) that a face to face would invite.

I just labored through 200+ clauses of Moldovan Family Code as adopted in April of 2000.
The thrust of the document acts only in the child's best interest - and not either spouse.
That child's rights have been neglected without doubt - yet the success of any legal action
hinges greatly on the terms outlined in the divorce document - AND - legal representation.

My gut says the reason such laws involving alimony and other forms of support are rarely enforced
in some FSU nations is that few can afford such representation. On a per capita basis, Moldova is
the FSU's poorest new nation - with Ukraine (although double Moldova's number) is in second place.
It's no wonder the ex smells blood. With the grim prospect of a Westerner financing such a motion,
though - he might be better served by strategizing avoidance of a stiff judgment of delinquent
child support. That would likely come in the inexpensive package called compliance with the
mother's wishes.

            I'll agree that an attorney could be the best muscle in most cases where an agreement can't be made between the involved parties .  
              I agree that some women wouldn't be able to handle the negotiations,this would have to be determined before anything is done.
              What I don't agree with is facetrock's position that he would take over the negotiations himself from the start.   The statement he made about pussy footing around with the men over there,implies that a tough attitude by him/any WM fiance with the ex would be the approach to get things done.  This has a very good chance of ending badly.  The ex could also have a "not pussy footing around" attitude as well.  Butting heads with the ex can't be a good thing.   Where would you go from there?
                  If the woman isn't capable of handling the negotiations then a lawyer maybe should  be the next step.  Can't say when the WM could be the negotiator ,especially face to face, but would say that it can't be very often.  From afar ,with someone acting as mediator ,maybe,could work.Face to face I would consider a bad move.    Putting the ex ,personally,on the defensive can't be a good thing.
              



                                                                      ...Larry

[GQBlues]

FP-

Of course there's nothing wrong with clinging to hope upon hope, but let's face it, the FSU is fairly notorious about wonton Pops, especially with these women who listed themselves on international dating/marriage agencies. Besides, the area is fairly high on the list when it comes to orphanages which can easily give anyone ideas of the dynamics in these domestic situations. Then if that isn’t enough, mortality rates for males aren’t so pretty either so the chances of Sergeis ever coming to their senses and owning up to their domestic obligations seem rather bleak. Wouldn’t you agree?

But hey, if a FSUW still want to cling to that, then more power to her, I say. Hold on to that hope tight and leave the lights on for Yuri of yore. Never say never…..

But –

If she’s on that mode, then why the heck list herself to marriage agencies with international implications? If she wants to be married again then she ought to list herself to a domestic marriage agency as it will also provide the child ‘the’ hope that maybe someday his/her Papa may come stumbling home with the cows and give fatherly love to baby Olga - and they'll still be at least in town and in country.

So, sorry, I don’t buy it. I think it’s irresponsible for anyone to put themselves in these types of ‘avoidable’ situation. It isn’t fair for the child/ren, it isn’t fair to WMs.

From the WMs side….WMs interested in women with children…at what point in your relationship with a single mother do these discussions kick in?

BOB: So, don’t mind me asking but is Olga’s Dad around much, or what is the situation with that?
NADYA: Well, I haven’t really seen or heard from him since Olga popped out of me.
BOB: So what does that mean? Is he not involved in her life at all?
NADYA: ”Well, no. But don’t worry, like I said we haven’t even seen him at all to worry about it.’
BOB: OK. But what happens when we decide to get married and have you two move to the States with me?
NADYA: Ah yes, then he’ll somehow appear and demand money from you, and you pay, yes? This is how it’s done in Russia.’
BOB: ’But what if he decides he now wants to participate raising her?
NADYA: Then you offer more money, yes?

"Ahhh! Now BOB (should) understands "hope upon hope" isn't really all what it's cracked up to be, eh?….

It's just difficult for me to believe they're that hopeful while they're uploading their pretty pictures to various international marriage agencies, you know.

I just think it's pretty irresponsible to leave this to chance and strongly believe that when a child or children are involved adults should exercise, and be expected more of, responsible actions IMHO.

[Aloe]

When you register at a dating site, nowhere does it warn you that you must have a long gone father's permission for your child to leave the country. Im sure many have no clue about it until they actually get involved with someone and get the list of documents required.

[Gator]

GQ,

IIRC, as a child you experienced something akin to this situation.  While you may still harbor some resentment, you are nevertheless a firsthand witness.  

I had no such experience, and I can not imagine my life without a caring father.  If I were in that situation I think I would have wanted my mother to try her best to keep the door open.

I have been very close to two RW in this situation.  One made sure that the family law system awarded her sole custody at the time of divorce [and I wonder why other RW do not do the same].  

She did not leave the light on for Yuri because she never wanted to be close to the man again.  However, she still wanted Yuri to spend time with his son because the young tyke was surrounded by women (mama, sister, aunts, and babushka).  The son needed a male experience.  Yuri declined.

Yuri abandoned her and his baby son when he failed at business.  It is obvious that he somehow makes money today, so one would assume that she would receive child support.  The problem:  1) his income is under the table and can not be substantiated and 2) he gave her 500 roubles on occasions and the piddling amount somehow meets his legal obligation given his  situation.

And that was one of the reasons why she became interested in the possibility of marrying a foreign man, who have a better reputation for family matters.

[mies]

There is always the possibility that the father could enter the kid's life somewhere down the line. It is the best interest of the kid that should have the first consideration.

Oh yeah? How about father entering the life of a now grown up child to demand financial support, place to live, and share/claim child's property? Because these cases are not less common in FSU than cases when father enters child's life with good intentions. So it's in child's best interest with 50% probability to be ripped off financially and exploited emotionally somewhere down the line by his "genetic" father?  

[Faux Pas]

Oh yeah? How about father entering the life of a now grown up child to demand financial support, place to live, and share/claim child's property? Because these cases are not less common in FSU than cases when father enters child's life with good intentions. So it's in child's best interest with 50% probability to be ripped off financially somewhere down the line by his "genetic" father?  

Yeah! Sounds like my statement touched off a nerve in you mies. I am a bit surprised at this response from you. I suppose you have your reasons. So you believe it is in the child's best interest to divorce the father much the same way that the mother would do? Then why don't the women take such action immediately? I would have to disagree. Even though the father may be a shiftless low life although they are not all, that bad. He may be the only male/father figure in the child's life for the duration of the entire childhood.

I grew up in a two parent home, my children did not. I raised them from toddler age into fine adults, alone. Their mother while not the worst person in the world could easily classify as the worse role model in the world. Despite that, there were still many lessons my children learned from her that did help shape them into the people they are today.

As a single mother, IMO, these women have to make a decision of what is the best interest of the child. More often than not those decisions are made to the best interest of the mother. Every situation is different with it's own nuances and should be handled appropriately. Your figure of 50% absentee fathers coming back to rip off the grown child seems more like a figure you pulled out of the air with your emotion.IMO

[BC]

As a single mother, IMO, these women have to make a decision of what is the best interest of the child. More often than not those decisions are made to the best interest of the mother. Every situation is different with it's own nuances and should be handled appropriately. Your figure of 50% absentee fathers coming back to rip off the grown child seems more like a figure you pulled out of the air with your emotion.IMO

It's quite natural for a child to seek out their natural parents later in life.  The mother can go through some emotional turmoil during these times as she likely harbors some ill feelings or maybe even feels threatened.

Having gone through this with my non genetic children it seems they will get along with bio parent for a bit then things will dwindle from there, especially if we are talking little or no contact with the genetic parent for many years.  The true parents should just keep cool and be supportive and let things go their natural way.  That's what I did and things worked out well.  Ex on the other hand went nuts - her bad.

I think kids in such situations will be just fine. After all they aren't dumb and will realize where their true roots lie.

[GQBlues]

Aloe-

Your cited sampling is undoubtedly a reality for some though I highly doubt for many, let alone 'all'. There's enough exchanges and info in this thread alone to denote what is more the societal norm in these matters. Some may not be aware, I will agree. But a great many more is fully aware of it.

Gator-

Somewhat, I suppose, but not quite. My Dad had an effect with women much the same way a queen bee does to a hive. Dad was, as evidences clearly show today, directly responsible for populating an entire city all by himself (exaggeration). But seriously, I was still at a fairly young age when he passed away. He did leave me with enough half, step, and kin brother options in case I needed a father figure, so I think I was OK in that department. 50-100 noogies per day was clearly enough for me growing up, man. Besides, Dad was anything but unloving to his litter and that's a feat in itself. While I technically grew up without a Dad, after tasting life without and actually enjoying aspects of it, it really ain't all that bad. Then of course, there was Lt. Colonel Pops, lol - bless his heart.

I wasn't trying to lay blame or fault anyone in these instances. Not especially the women. All I'm saying is, termination of custodial rights doesn't automatically mean she'll deprive the child (children) the possibility maybe someday their father may come home and play Daddy. If a woman feels a father figure is utmost to her child's growth and well-being, then all the more reason to cut a bad seed (Mr DeadBeat) and open themselves up to the good potential e.g. a willing WM (disclaimer: I am not saying all RMs are bad and all WMs are good. Example used is directly related to the topic, is all).

Having that in mind, again, does it not make better sense to terminate a dead beat Dad's custodial right from that child PRIOR to the woman listing herself in these agencies? To me, leaving this unreconciled until the very end is just plain irresponsible and insensitive to all parties involved, and is just downright selfish.

[mies]

Yeah! Sounds like my statement touched off a nerve in you mies. I am a bit surprised at this response from you. I suppose you have your reasons. So you believe it is in the child's best interest to divorce the father much the same way that the mother would do? Then why don't the women take such action immediately? I would have to disagree. Even though the father may be a shiftless low life although they are not all, that bad. He may be the only male/father figure in the child's life for the duration of the entire childhood.

I grew up in a two parent home, my children did not. I raised them from toddler age into fine adults, alone. Their mother while not the worst person in the world could easily classify as the worse role model in the world. Despite that, there were still many lessons my children learned from her that did help shape them into the people they are today.

As a single mother, IMO, these women have to make a decision of what is the best interest of the child. More often than not those decisions are made to the best interest of the mother. Every situation is different with it's own nuances and should be handled appropriately. Your figure of 50% absentee fathers coming back to rip off the grown child seems more like a figure you pulled out of the air with your emotion.IMO

Thank you for your story, Faux Pas. Of course, the 50% figure in no way is statistically based. It's my estimate, and I may be wrong. IMHO - more often there are 20%-20%-25%-25%-10% (maybe?) of those who "never come back and have new family", "have normal relationship with ex's", "use their parental rights to spoil the life of an ex wife", "came back when they smell the opportunity" - just like a man in the story did, and "come back with genuine intentions".

I cannot say that it touched my nerve - because I do not have personal experience - My parents are married for 32 years, live together, love each other and don't plan to divorce. Among my multiple relatives divorces are extremely rare.
In one case - man divorced a woman but always supported (financially and in every other way) ex-wife and two sons, and now when he is married second time - his sons (22yo and 28yo) are part of his new family too - they often visit, spend time together, and befriended the son of new father's wife. In second case - man is alcoholic, and his wife divorced him. He relocated to another city, our family pretty much has given up on him. He blew two nice big houses and big chunk of land that were common inheritance of him and his brother,  cleared all bank accounts he had access to, and trades for alcohol anything he can get/steal/find. Treatment doesn't help, the problem is out of hands. He remembers of his son only when he needs money from his ex-wife for his next binge. It helps that his ex-wife and child now live in Europe, and he can't reach them easily.  

There are many stories over the internet - from FSU public people, or usual people - about disputes over children, when the real underlying motive has nothing to do with parental love, and has all to do with malice, hatred, envy, and opportunistic behavior.

[Faux Pas]

GQ

Don't misunderstand what I am saying. I don't think that a mother shouldn't do it. Obviously, most all situations will be different. I think that a mother should keep the interest of the child on the forefront. Now, if a mother is in a foreign relationship and sees relocation as imminent, likely it would be in the best interest of the child to migrate with the mother as opposed to staying with a worthless Yuri and clinging to hope that he will change. She should take the steps to see that that happens asap.

OTOH, just because she signs up at a marriage agency with high hopes doesn't mean she is relocating abroad or getting remarried. Prince Charming may never find her. In this case she has severed the child's ties to worthless Yuri and the child has no hope of that father figure in it's widdle life. IMO that wouldn't be in the best interest of the kid but in the best interest of the mother or the elusive Prince Charming.

[mies]

BOB: So, don’t mind me asking but is Olga’s Dad around much, or what is the situation with that?
NADYA: Well, I haven’t really seen or heard from him since Olga popped out of me.
BOB: So what does that mean? Is he not involved in her life at all?
NADYA: ”Well, no. But don’t worry, like I said we haven’t even seen him at all to worry about it.’
BOB: OK. But what happens when we decide to get married and have you two move to the States with me?
NADYA: Ah yes, then he’ll somehow appear and demand money from you, and you pay, yes? This is how it’s done in Russia.’
BOB: ’But what if he decides he now wants to participate raising her?
NADYA: Then you offer more money, yes?

"Ahhh! Now BOB (should) understands "hope upon hope" isn't really all what it's cracked up to be, eh?….

I think many women want to have at least *some*, even mythical father for a child, a father who never shows up, never pays child support, and doesn't even remember the DOB and age of a kid - just because our FSU society requires for a baby to have father. Even the father who divorced mom, but a father. Kids without any father - are severely ostracized by other children, and by adult society members. If a man left woman with a child - she is guilty of course - that she wasn't good enough to keep him, but society will express at least some sympathy towards this woman and her child - because the man was also a jerk. If a woman decided to bear a child from "no one" - this is something beyond understanding or approval of most people in FSU.  
This is why woman may keep this "mythical father" until a new father comes up. She does it for her child, not for money hopes.