|
I find it interesting all these assumptions that just because he's divorced he was not involved in his daughter's life before this. Maybe I missed something, but I don't think he said that. Not to mention, if that was the case, who's to say it was of his own doing?
From my point of view, damaging the guy's life has nothing to do with it. The father was refusing the legally admit paternity which would make it so that, in the future, he would not be obligated to pay child support. That doesn't strike me the least bit as someone who is 1) emotionally bound to her and 2) planning on taking responsibility for his kid.
Again, ANYONE who is not mature enough to be able to avoid getting pregnant and capable enough to handle the consequences is not mature enough or capable enough to be choosing to have sex. The very fact that she had a child at 16 is proof alone that she did not comprehend her actions in an adult manner. This is why legal ages of consent exist.
From what I've read, there were two options:
1) Let the guy avoid being recognized legally as the father thus allowing him a way out of EVER paying for the child's life. In X years, when they're no longer together (and they WON'T be, just like 99% of the cases like this - congratulations if you're one of the lucky few), he will have no legal obligation to be paying child support and victor's daughter will be living off of welfare (still) and relying on her parent's money to survive. She will have even LESS of an ability to ever get a college education (not that she has much of a chance as it is being a 16 your old mother) and she will pretty much permanently be living in lower-class status.
or 2) The father of the child is forced to be legally recognized and, thus, locked into paying child support. This helps to at least soften the issues that are already certain to arise by the simple fact she is a teen mother and clearly not making good decisions in her life hanging out with gangbangers, etc. Perhaps since the father is paying shild support she will be able to put the rest of her money towards something like a college education of some sort, allowing her to have a shot at getting a decent job with decent pay. She will hopefully not be living off welfare for a significant period of time, and she won't be relying on her parents to support her until she's 35.
I don't see where the debate is between the two. Now, the question is how one should handle the situation AFTER paternity is legally declared. In regards to that I think victor is on the right track. The security blanket is in place for his daughter, so nothing more needs to be done at this point. He's done the "parental" thing, and now is the time to mend the wounds. It'll take a lot of time and a lot of hard work, but it can be done. The fact of the matter is though, she won't understand any of this in a mature way until she's in her mid-20s or so. But, that doesn't mean to wait until then. The only way she'll ever understand that this was done for her and her child's financial protection is to SHOW her that continuously from this point on by NOT doing anything else since it has been accomplished. Continue to try and see her and her child, continue to call and write her letters, telling her how you love her and care for her and are sorry that this caused her pain etc. One can only hope that one day, after this guy does whatever he'll eventually do to end up leaving her and she's left without his moral support, but still his financial support at least, she'll realize WHY it was so important that he be legally recognized as the father.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout
"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
|