The subjects of visitation and custody fascinate and scare me. It's intriguing to see which things people take into consideration when complete strangers are legally allowed to determine what's best for another human being's offspring. Sometimes I side with the mother, sometimes I side with the father. Some instances are so completely mind boggling that I feel sorry for the judge, which is rare. 

    Recently I  read an article by Glenn Sacks and Mike McCormick on newswithviews.com. The bios describe them this way: "Glenn Sacks is a men's and fathers' issues columnist and radio talk show host. His columns have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. His radio show, His Side with Glenn Sacks, can be heard every Sunday in Los Angeles and Seattle. Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, the world’s largest shared parenting organization. "  I only know of the authors through the articles at this website.

    The authors were commenting on a new bill in Colorado which allows fathers to terminate child support payments if DNA evidence proves that the child is not his. Their article was arguing with a newspaper editorial that was against the bill. Sacks and McCormick argue that the bill gives men "bargaining power" to "preserve relationships" with these children that are not theirs. So money is a bargaining tool.

   So in cases like these,  the child is clearly not the man's child. But these guys want to use money to bargain for some time with this kid anyway. But you can't. It's not fundamentally possible. The ONLY possible next step would be to turn this into an adoption case. But no one is mentioning adoption. They haven't even suggested that the men ask the mother and biological father, if they can find him, if they can become legally responsible for this child. No, the authors want these men to have visitation because they've PAID for it.

    I've seen this before and encountered it personally. These are the types of guys that ask a woman out, buy her flowers, buy her dinner and a movie then stand there with their hands, and pants, open. "I paid money. I spent time. I invested in this date. YOU OWE ME", they think. They complain that after all the money they spent, they should at the very least get laid. But these guys don't want responsibility. It's a one night stand. They want the fun without the responsibility of a relationship. And here they are now: "I bought the kid a bike, I took him to the game, I paid for his medical bills, YOU OWE ME." After all the money they spent, they should at the very least get time with the kids. 

    If the mother and the biologial father do not agree to the adoption, then the guy is screwed. Sorry, it's a cruel world. You are not the child's father, you are not responsible, you don't get see him and you, natually, are not responsible for child support. These guys say, "what if we voluntarily pay child support? Can we demand visitation"? No, it's not even conected. You paid when the kid was yours. You saw the kid because he was yours. He's not yours, you have no right to see him. Now, one would think the adults could work it out and that the kid could be with whomever he prefers. But the nonbiological, non adoptive "father" has no rights to the child. 

   Money does not equal responsibility and child support does not equal visitation. Genes and adoption make a man responsible for the child and thus able to enjoy parental rights and visitation. Other wise, you are having a one night stand with someone elses' child (no pedophilic connection intended).