Oregon officials say man called 'Daddy' isn't biological father, can't see kids

[n2doc]

By Michelle Cole, The Oregonian


He cut their umbilical cords, saw their first smiles, bought their first bikes and helped make their first snowballs. So, naturally, when the boys learned to talk, they called Jesse Tarter "Daddy."

It wasn't all Hallmark moments. Life seldom is. Tarter cared for the boys when their mother struggled with her drug addiction and then again when she went into treatment.

Still, the state of Oregon has not allowed Tarter to see the two youngsters, now 4 and 5, since early March. There have been no phone calls and no way for the man who meant so much to explain why he suddenly disappeared.

Tarter didn't do anything wrong. Everyone seems to agree about that. In fact, a state child welfare caseworker wrote in a file: "It was clear Jesse cared deeply for the boys." But she also noted the hard truth: "Jesse has no legal rights because he wasn't the biological father."

This is a story about how the tidy, black and white letters that make up government law and policy -- no matter how well-intended -- don't always fit the messy reality that sometimes defines a family.

more

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/oregon_officials_say_man_calle.html

[rfranklin]

1. Yet other "fathers" are forced to support children who they did not father...

makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

[woodsprite]

4. Sometimes I think 'the pursuit of happiness' is their biggest axe to grind.

They do everything they can so the 99% cannot pursue happiness -- in our relationship with government, our jobs/incomes, retirement, healthcare, homes, in some cases our family makeup, sex (because they want to be in our bedrooms with us telling us how to do it, when we can do it, and with whom), or they try to slither and crawl back up in our wombs.

[Yupster]

7. In the cases when men must pay child support for kids

that they later find out are not theirs, the rule is that making them pay is for the best interests of the child.

In this case you would think letting them see this guy would certainly be what's in the best interest of the child too, but I think the best interests of the child rule is only invoked to take money out of someone's pocket so it doesn't apply here.

[seabeyond]

10. my first thought. and sittin in my brain all while i read this. yes, what sense does this make.

the only situation i know like this, the mother wants the "adopted" father to continue to see the daughter that is not his biologically. he is good to her, and loves her and vice versa. the mother didnt pull child away.

but reading of a nonbiological father forced to pay child support, then this....

not good at all.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. OTOH if the facts were different, e.g., the mother and Jesse Tartar divorced

and he had financially supported those children, the court could award child support.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Sad story. Kids lost the only father figure they knew from birth, and their mother

has given up legal rights to them. She sounds like a real winner, still having babies despite being messed up on drugs. In the end, the kids will be taken care of, so he needs to move on.

[redqueen]

5. She doesn't sound like a real winner to me.

She sounds like someone with serious problems. But hey, she's the 'villain' in this story, so mock on.

He doesn't need to move on. The state needs to recognize what's best for the children. And that isn't forcing them to live with strangers because he wasn't the sperm donor.

[TwilightGardener]

8. Well, having multiple children with multiple fathers, all while messed up

on drugs, and then losing rights to her kids, and then having more kids, is not what I'd call responsible behavior. She got this kind young man mixed up in her mess, and now he has no claim to the kids he's attached to. It's sad, but in the end, they are not his. The new family should request that he be allowed to visit, however. It's selfish of them to simply cut him out of these kids' lives--if only because the kids were very attached to him and it must be traumatic for them to never see him again with no explanation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. She's failed in her responsibility to her kids. She's a deadbeat mom.

I see no compelling reason to make excuses for her.

[Quantess]

6. Check out the comments section

I love how they're blaming this all on "Leftists".
From my perspective, this is not a left or right issue at all. I don't know, but I say it isn't political.

[n2doc]

9. Yeah. If anything, it is the RW who always insist on 'family first'

And who would be first to cut off his access to the kids in favor of one of their cousins.