dayokanu:

For him to be paying Child support of $1000 per month shows he cares

$1000 is what some people make in a whole month anyone who doles that amount of money out is still interested in their welfare. He can as well quit working.

WHy do you think some Akata men dont work? Because of overwhelming Child support

1k is calculated based on his salary plus minus other factors. It's not just something he chose to send his cheating wife monthly. Again he has been ordered by court to pay it. Until he refiles in court based on whatever next move he takes, he is obligated by law to pay it. You guys believe the wife is purely out to ruin him, what makes you think she would go after his blood if the checks simply stop coming?

ileobatojo:
We really could do this all day. I'm going to stop replying you now. Apparently what baby said about you is true.

hahahahaha, do i smell a cop out?
ileobatojo - when it's not gynaecology or witchdoctoring, you are not really in your comfort zone. present your evidence this man does not intend to bond with his kids and you are referring to baby-123. baby-123 is a fantasist, the play is on you!

coogar:

hahahahaha, do i smell a cop out?
ileobatojo - when it's not gynaecology or witchdoctoring, you are not really in your comfort zone. present your evidence this man does not intend to bond with his kids and you are referring to baby-123. baby-123 is a fantasist, the play is on you!

Cop wetin? He has been acting like a toddler throwing a tantrum all over this thread. I'm tired of talking to a child. Let the adults continue the conversation abeg.


Present your evidence that the man plans to come back when he mentioned no such thing to the OP.

ileobatojo:
Cop wetin? He has been acting like a toddler throwing a tantrum all over this thread. I'm tired of talking to a child. Let the adults continue the conversation abeg.

on the contrary, he has simply asked you to produce evidence the man has absconded with no intention of never returning to his kids. i don't think that amounts to tantrum-throwing. it's a big indictment for you to even think the man might not want to see his kids ever again. so what makes you so sure this man would do a runner if you are not errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr a misandrist. after all, according to you, God had a better idea after creating a man. better idea?

ileobatojo:
Present your evidence that the man plans to come back when he mentioned no such thing to the OP.

sending $12,000 per annum to an ingrate of a wife is enough evidence. i doubt he needs that much to relocate to ontario and start a new life, don't you think?

Woged2005:
I asked her husband last week why he doesn’t make any effort to see his kids. He said his wife was the one that lied and filed for full custody of the kids, that she coached the kids to lie in court in order to get child support, that she was using the kids to draw her into a costly custody battle, which he won’t succumb to. Therefore, she should keep the kids. I begged and he hung up. I wept!

There's my evidence by the way.

ileobatojo:

We really could do this all day. I'm going to stop replying you now. Apparently what baby said about you is true.

Coogar was right. when faced with the how harebrained your statements are you take the easy way out.

First of all, for someone talking about "tantrums"... pls see the threads on this section littered with your foul responses to others who do not agree with your points of view.

Secondly, you really have no basis for your comments... facts apparently dont mean much to you.

third, its the same nonsense... people making noise about "adults" as if they hold the copyrights to maturity. Feel free to quit the thread if it disturbs you. Its the WWW not your personal weblog.

Fourth and back to the point... yup we really could do this all day because you BLUNTLY REFUSE to admit you are in the wrong. I understand, its the naija mentality... the type where drivers who bash you from behind get out of their cars to heap curses on you despite being at fault. What a surprise.

I asked you a simple question - are you just making stuff up along the way? That was based on the fact that none of your arguments have any anchor in the facts laid bare on this thread. You can shed crocodile tears all you want. The truth is the truth.

ileobatojo:
There's my evidence by the way.

this however, is not a strong evidence that he doesn't want to see his kids ever again. he has just explained why he has not been seeing them as of yet.

coogar:

this however, is not a strong evidence that he doesn't want to see his kids ever again. he has just explained why he has not been seeing them as of yet.

Oh please! Just admit that you are all penciling in 'till sometime later when I will come back for them' on your own accord. Because the man never said so himself, not according to the OP.

And for the record I have no problem with the assumption. my problem is in the denying it is an assumption. While expecting everything else to be taken at face value. How hypocritical.

ileobatojo:

1k is calculated based on his salary plus minus other factors. It's not just something he chose to send his cheating wife monthly. Again he has been ordered by court to pay it. Until he refiles in court based on whatever next move he takes, he is obligated by law to pay it. You guys believe the wife is purely out to ruin him, what makes you think she would go after his blood if the checks simply stop coming?

People just post like the rest of us live in a hole.

The 1k is calculated based on his salary BECAUSE he chose to present that evidence in court! The court can subpoena his tax filings but that is a lengthy process that his lawyer can delay till kingdom come. He could just as easily quit his job tomorrow, go back to court to declare he has no income and he would be off child support requirements easily. He made a voluntary choice to remain at his job and allow the government to take $1000 out of his paycheck to a wife who clearly does not deserve it. He has bought a phone for his kids to contact him and his wife destroyed it... he has gone out of his way to see his kids while risking a violation of a standing restraining order... tried to be there for his kids in the midst of being charged with false allegations....

and somehow you are the one in the right and everyone else is just talking from their pieholes? Give me a freaking break pls... you want to be addressed as an adult then act like one.

Reading from debrief was a breath of fresh air... now that is an adult i can respect... not all these sniveling folks crying respect me respect me everywhere while acting like school yard bullies.

ileobatojo:
Oh please! Just admit that you are all penciling in 'till sometime later when I will come back for them' on your own accord. Because the man never said so himself, not according to the OP.

but that assumption is more likely than yours. he is paralysed by the law to see the kids. he cannot even reach them on the phone so what's he meant to do - see the kids in their dreams?

And for the record I have no problem with the assumption. my problem is in the denying it is an assumption. While expecting everything else to be taken at face value. How hypocritical.

it's an assumption with 99% likelihood. the only reason this man has not been in contact with his kids is because of the restraining order. what else could it be? there must be a reason for the wife to have gotten the order in the first place, isn't it? the wife is the bitch in this matter and you guys are trying to make the man the bad guy - it's so unfair!

Have we so soon forgotten the story of International Monetary Fund (IMF) chief Dominique Straus-Kahn? The lady was a West African immigrant who cleans hotels for a living. She wasn't even beautiful but she claimed raype. Luckily the case was thrown out, but damage had already been done to DSK.

You mean to tell me one of the most powerful men in the world couldn't get pvzzy in New York city and had to raype an old washed out overweight b1tch?

Abrantie: Have we so soon forgotten the story of International Monetary Fund (IMF) chief Dominique Straus-Kahn? The lady was a West African immigrant who cleans hotels for a living. She wasn't even beautiful but she claimed rape. Luckily the case was thrown out, but damage had already been done to DSK.

Abi oo But we can see the damamge already done to Strauss Kahn based on lies.

Abrantie: Have we so soon forgotten the story of International Monetary Fund (IMF) chief Dominique Straus-Kahn? The lady was a West African immigrant who cleans hotels for a living. She wasn't even beautiful but she claimed raype. Luckily the case was thrown out, but damage had already been done to DSK.

You mean to tell me one of the most powerful men in the world couldn't get pvzzy in New York city and had to raype an old washed out overwight b1tch?

Haba... our resident agony aunts here will tell us to "hear both sides of the story" while heaping abuse on the poor dude.
The other told us yesterday no one loses their jobs over false allegations. Poor dude lost his chance to run for president of France on the back of a lie told by a NY hotel cleaner.

coogar:

but that assumption is more likely than yours. he is paralysed by the law to see the kids. he cannot even reach them on the phone so what's he meant to do - see the kids in their dreams?



it's an assumption with 99% likelihood. the only reason this man has not been in contact with his kids is because of the restraining order. what else could it be? there must be a reason for the wife to have gotten the order in the first place, isn't it? the wife is the bitch in this matter and you guys are trying to make the man the bad guy - it's so unfair!

First of all, I'm not trying to make the man the bad guy. From the OP's scenario, I absolutely don't blame the man for how he has decided to go. Men and women do not respond the same when it comes to matters regarding children. I can see things from his point of view. I would not do the same but maybe it's my estrogen talking. I recognize the law is unfair to father's and there are law firms springing up that specialize in father's rights during divorce. So in the midst of all the arguing I have never really had a different view thanost of you guys. Also I can assure you that none of you can produce one post of mine that contradicts what I just said. I have questioned some things that did not make sense to me that's it.

Secondly, a restraining order affecting the woman alone and not the children does not preclude him from seeing the kids. It makes it less convenient for all involved but not nearly impossible.

I disagree that paying child support automatically means he plans to see his children. These are two separate issues as far as I'm concerned.

Oh! By the way, I haven't read a word that scarf tying, estrogen laden, tantrum throwing infant has said since I notified him I won't be replying to his posts anymore. Zipped right past them. In case anyone is wondering.

ileobatojo:
Oh! By the way, I haven't read a word that scarf tying, estrogen laden, tantrum throwing infant has said some I notified him I won't be replying to his posts anymore. Zipped right past them. In case anyone is wondering.

lol lol some women have issues. They step up to you with fanciful ideas of "independence"... when you respond they start crying "he hit me" like little babies.

These are probably the type who abuse their husbands at home then come here to feign happy marriage. The "akata" type men who want a peaceful life are best avoiding... cantankerous, loud and generally lacking in any form of civility.

My dear waka for front... i too would rather not respond to you.

ileobatojo:


First of all, I'm not trying to make the man the bad guy. From the OP's scenario, I absolutely don't blame the man for how he has decided to go. Men and women do not respond the same when it comes to matters regarding children. I can see things from his point of view. I would not do the same but maybe it's my estrogen talking. I recognize the law is unfair to father's and there are law firms springing up that specialize in father's rights during divorce. So in the midst of all the arguing I have never really had a different view thanost of you guys. Also I can assure you that none of you can produce one post of mine that contradicts what I just said. I have questioned some things that did not make sense to me that's it.

Secondly, a restraining order affecting the woman alone and not the children does not preclude him from seeing the kids. It makes it less convenient for all involved but not nearly impossible.

I disagree that paying child support automatically means he plans to see his children. These are two separate issues as far as I'm concerned.

Oh! By the way, I haven't read a word that scarf tying, estrogen laden, tantrum throwing infant has said some I notified him I won't be replying to his posts anymore. Zipped right past them. In case anyone is wondering.

Okay, he doesn't want to see his kids and his ex-wife doesn't want him to see his kids either.

What's your point?

Abrantie:

Okay, he doesn't want to see his kids and his ex-wife doesn't want him to see his kids either.

What's your point?

Its a general formular for many of the noise makers here:

Women = good; men = bad. Story over.

Only a tiny few like chaircover, Debrief, JK, Osisi... are worth reading. The rest, may God save us.

Abrantie:

Okay, he doesn't want to see his kids and his ex-wife doesn't want him to see his kids either.

What's your point?

You'll probably find my points on page 10 or so. What's your point?

ileobatojo:

You'll probably find my points on page 10 or so. What's your point?

No, you have no point.

You are arguing for argument's sake.

In your tiny brain, this man should be fighting a useless court battle based on his sense of morality. Rubbish? Doesn't he have bills to pay? Doesn't he have to take care of himself in order to be around long enough to see his kids? Will his ex-wife or the kids he never gets to see pay his hospital bills when he falls sick?

coogar:

hahahahaha, do i smell a cop out?
ileobatojo - when it's not gynaecology or witchdoctoring, you are not really in your comfort zone. present your evidence this man does not intend to bond with his kids and you are referring to baby-123. baby-123 is a fantasist, the play is on you!

If you have a point state it. Don't pull me into your argument and try to call me names to down play my point. I am sure we all have the ability to think, reason, argue and present our points independently. Don't try to insult me if you don't want to be insulted. Am sure we discussed like regular human beings already. So respect yourself.mtescheew. Must everyone follow you or your line of thought?

Abrantie:

No, you have no point.

You are arguing for argument's sake.

In your tiny brain, this man should be fighting a useless court battle based on his sense of morality. Rubbish? Doesn't he have bills to pay? Doesn't he have to take care of himself in order to be around long enough to see his kids? Will his ex-wife or the kids he never gets to see pay his hospital bills when he falls sick?

Oh boy! Who is this one? Can he read?

Let me humor you, it is the clowns who jumped on my posts that are arguing for arguments sake. Go back and read the last few pages. Hope you have enough functioning little grey cells in your big, spacious brain to be able to process what you read.

ileobatojo:

Oh boy! Who is this one? Can he read?

Let me humor you, it is the clowns who jumped on my posts that are arguing for arguments sake. Go back and read the last few pages. Hope you have enough functioning little grey cells in your big, spacious brain to be able to process what you read.

Looool, really you have time with all these pointless back and forths. Let the OP come back and answer some questions. Otherwise, its just a waste of time. Humour them and ignore am sure they will go away. Cannot argue without insults and they wonder why their brothers are languishing in jail. Can you imagine what they will do if the argument was face to face? Sorry bunch of toddlers not in charge of their emotions. Only Dayo was even on point, the rest just go off tangent and throw their toys when it doesn't favor them. *signing off to go relate with normal people*

baby_123:

Looool, really you have time with all these pointless back and forths. Let the OP come back and answer some questions. Otherwise, its just a waste of time. Humour them and ignore am sure they will go away. Cannot argue without insults and they wonder why their brothers are languishing in jail. Can you imagine what they will do if the argument was face to face? Sorry bunch of toddlers not in charge of their emotions. Only Dayo was even on point, the rest just go off tangent and throw their toys when it doesn't favor them. *signing off to go relate with normal people*

Imagine? The one in particular is a real market woman. Not impressive at all.

baby_123:
If you have a point state it. Don't pull me into your argument and try to call me names to down play my point. I am sure we all have the ability to think, reason, argue and present our points independently. Don't try to insult me if you don't want to be insulted. Am sure we discussed like regular human beings already. So respect yourself.mtescheew. Must everyone follow you or your line of thought?

you amuse me....
where did i insult you or try to pull you into any argument? if you are looking for a fight, go to WWE, abeg!

ileobatojo:
First of all, I'm not trying to make the man the bad guy. From the OP's scenario, I absolutely don't blame the man for how he has decided to go. Men and women do not respond the same when it comes to matters regarding children. I can see things from his point of view. I would not do the same but maybe it's my estrogen talking. I recognize the law is unfair to father's and there are law firms springing up that specialize in father's rights during divorce. So in the midst of all the arguing I have never really had a different view thanost of you guys. Also I can assure you that none of you can produce one post of mine that contradicts what I just said. I have questioned some things that did not make sense to me that's it.

fair enough!

Secondly, a restraining order affecting the woman alone and not the children does not preclude him from seeing the kids. It makes it less convenient for all involved but not nearly impossible.

where would he find the kids without their mum? you are suggesting he should visit them during school hours and risk being accused of attempted kidnapping? ileobatojo - you are one problem solver - i bet your IQ is 320.

I disagree that paying child support automatically means he plans to see his children. These are two separate issues as far as I'm concerned.
Oh! By the way, I haven't read a word that scarf tying, estrogen laden, tantrum throwing infant has said some I notified him I won't be replying to his posts anymore. Zipped right past them. In case anyone is wondering.

why invest in the lives of kids one does not intend to see ever again? think about it.......this man can easily relocate and start a new life. he's a man and he's not weighed down by any biological clock. ileobatojo - ileobato - ileoba(how many times did i call you?) stop winding me up!

coogar:

where would he find the kids without their mum? you are suggesting he should visit them during school hours and risk being accused of attempted kidnapping? ileobatojo - you are one problem solver - i bet your IQ is 320.

You know it!

They use these third party places. I can't recall the names now but I have met people who use them. Child is dropped there by one parent and picked up by the other. That's one way I know of, I know social workers drop off children sometimes. The guy recently (in the news) that stabbed his two kids and blew up the home locked the social worker out as soon as the kids ran into his home screaming 'daddy' in excitement. Social worker was still trying to lock the car and come in after the kids for their supervised visit apparently. So I know it can be done!

coogar:

why invest in the lives of kids one does not intend to see ever again? think about it.......this man can easily relocate and start a new life. he's a man and he's not weighed down by any biological clock. ileobatojo - ileobato - ileoba(how many times did i call you?) stop winding me up!

You see it as investing in their lives, I see it as obeying a court order. I trust the man will calculate (if he hasnt't already) which option works best for him and will take it. I don't believe for a second that the man is being left with little after paying the child support but decides to just keep paying it just to invest in his kids lives. How does he know the money is going to his kids instead of to Gucci and Prada accessories? These people are not on good terms, she can probably take care of the kids financially on her own, so what then is this holy crusade he's voluntarily taking on? Please.

@ ileobatojo, sometimes I don't know whether you are arguing FOR the man or AGAINST him.

The guy has made his choice, so what's your beef?

I guess the beef is we havent all lined up behind her to say "yes ma" to the "wisdom" of her words.

Na wa oh. ...When did "Don't allow the woman to get away with ruining his relationship with his children" become taking the woman's side?!!

From my understanding of the posts. ...Most were about the children having their dad in their lives and attempting to show there still ways to fight for his rights. No one denied the wife is being a bitch, heck it is because she is a bitch it's important for him not to fold. She's feeding the children lies about him and the only way he can disprove those lies is by being in their lives and the only he can be in their lives is by fighting back. Again how is this taking the woman's side?

This was not a supposed to be a man vs woman thing but about the children and a father not allowing himself to be kicked out of his children's lives.

In nature, there's a behavior called Self-Preservation. It is almost universal among living organism. Pain and fear are parts of this mechanism. Pain motivates an organism to withdraw from damaging situations in order to protect its damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future.

There's no sense of right or wrong during self preservation. The organism doesn't think like, "Hmm.. If I hide in that hole, my cousin Joe will suffer so let me just stand out here and get eaten by the lion". It's an instinct whose only goal is to survive for another day, and with the least amount of energy or resources.

This concept has been introduced into technology, where machines shut down their non-critical systems but still remain "alive". When your laptop hibernates, that's a simplistic example of self-preservation.

On a lighter.....ironic note, If we replace CUSTODY with DIVORCE. ...those arguing for the dad to fight are using the same arguments the DIVORCE NOT AN OPTION people use. Don't give up, do everything to keep your home (children), stay for the children etc while the people arguing that dad cut his losses....self preservation, are using the same argument those who oppose the DIVORCE IS NOT AN OPTION PEOPLE.

What do you guys suppose it all mean?

Sisi_Kill: Na wa oh. ...When did "Don't allow the woman to get away with ruining his relationship with his children" become taking the woman's side?!!

From my understanding of the posts. ...Most were about the children having their dad in their lives and attempting to show there still ways to fight for his rights. No one denied the wife is being a bitch, heck it is because she is a bitch it's important for him not to fold. She's feeding the children lies about him and the only way he can disprove those lies is by being in their lives and the only he can be in their lives is by fighting back. Again how is this taking the woman's side?

This was not a supposed to be a man vs woman thing but about the children and a father not allowing himself to be kicked out of his children's lives.

your points are well noted. The problem is this is a no-win situation for him. If he attempts to force his way into his kids lives these are the likely consequences:

1. He violates a restraining order or one of the false charges stick and he gets the slammer (note that should an abuse charge be leveled against him, he automatically loses any rights to see those kids until the case is either proven or disproven).

2. It turns into a nasty long drawn-out custody case that puts the poor kids in an even worse situation... having to constantly listen to BOTH dad and mom destroy each other verbally and be forced to take sides

3. A long drawn out court case is a no-win for both sides, money that could have been saved up for the case gets eaten up by lawyers who want nothing but keep the case in court as long as possible to their own pecuniary benefits

I dont know which of the above scenarios is really beneficial to the kids. What is the point fighting when it only serves to hurt the kids even more? A public drawn out mom vs. dad battle is no good for any child regardless of the selfless motive.
A man i am fairly close with is STILL BITTER more than 15 yrs after a 9-yr divorce and custody battle with his wife that landed him in bankruptcy. These are REAL issues, sometimes you need to walk in the shoes of families who have gone through this to realize how DAMAGING it is to the psyche of a child. He eventually had to give his wife half his assets, give up rights to the kids (while remaining on the hook for hefty child support and alimony payments)... today the kids want nothing to do with mom and the son manages the company the man managed to rebuild over the years from scratch.

Its not so easy to just assume that the man wants nothing to do with his kids because he is a bad man.

1. A bad guy wont be paying child support when there are 1001 ways to avoid paying. Why would he go the extra mile to still maintain visitation despite the hurtful attempts of his wife to land him in jail? why would he get the kids a phone to contact him (that madam destroyed by the way)?

2. What exactly is he to do now? we have so much pontification on the morality of being in the lives of your daughters but NO ONE is coming up with serious options the dude can consider besides "go and fight in court". Really?

Sisi_Kill: On a lighter.....ironic note, If we replace CUSTODY with DIVORCE. ...those arguing for the dad to fight are using the same arguments the DIVORCE NOT AN OPTION people use. Don't give up, do everything to keep your home (children), stay for the children etc while the people arguing that dad cut his losses....self preservation, are using the same argument those who oppose the DIVORCE IS NOT AN OPTION PEOPLE.

What do you guys suppose it all mean?

Ironic yeah lol. But its good to evaluate things on a case by case basis. I am a part of the divorce is not an option crew - but only on a personal basis. I dont advice that others remain in pointless harmful marriages. If it would be better to you physically and mentally to quit a marriage, please by all means do so... the Lord help you.