Single dad slams 'deadbeat' ex for not wanting custody of their child. The internet takes her side.
via Shutterstock

A single dad who was overwhelmed with raising a child on his own took to reddit to whine about how he is stuck taking care of his kid after the court gave him full custody.

The twist? His wife wanted to have an abortion, he wouldn't let her, and once the child was born she agreed to give him full custody and pay child support. This dad somehow still managed to go on an internet rant about her alleged shortcomings, going as far as referring to her as a "deadbeat mom." Cool, dude.

I got a girl pregnant and she wanted to get an abortion but I didn't want that. She ended up not getting one but now she is not involved at all.

We weren't in a serious relationship when she got pregnant. She has never met our son. Even after the birth she had no desire to see him. We went to court to figure custody and support could be figured out and I have 100% full legal and physical custody. Her name is on the birth certificate but she has no custody and no right to visitation or to make things like medical or education decisions. She didn't want any of that. Every month she pays 125% of the court ordered child support. She says that if I ever marry someone who wants to adopt him she will agree but until then she'll pay support. It's been this way since our son was born.

"I'm raising our son all on my own. He is 18 months old now and he has never met her and I don't even have any photos of her even. I am burned out and hate being a single parent. I love my son but I resent him. My family tries to help when they can but I do it most of the time. I would never hurt or neglect him but I am exhausted all the time. I tried to go to court to give her split custody but because she wanted an abortion and I didn't and she made it clear she would never be involved after the birth, and because we went to court when he was 6 months old but because we already went after he was born and agreed on things and now she pays more support than is court ordered the judge said he can't force her to look after him. I haven't seen her in almost a year and the last I heard she has a tummy tuck and laser stretch marks treatment and is working at a gym. She also told her friends and family she is an egg donor and not a mother. She is a deadbeat mom and the court won't do anything and is forcing me to struggle as a single parent. Do I have any legal remedies here? "

He essentially mapped out all the ways in which this woman did what was agreed upon, and yet seems to be looking for sympathy here. Because the internet sometimes isn't an explosive trash fire, sympathy is not what he got.


People were quick to point out how these daddy issues are a result of his own making, not his ex's. As the kids say, the internet clapped back.

Reddit user Byte73 was quick to point out the father's blatant hypocrisy.

"I'd say she's a good mom. She was clear what her terms were for having the child that she didn't want. You agreed to those terms. She's paying child support and by what you're saying, she is paying more than she has to. Out of the two of you, she is the one who has the kid's best interests at heart. You either need to do your part like you agreed on or give the kid up for adoption and put all three of you out of your misery. Because she wanted to abort the child, only kept it because of your insistence andis doing the share of the work that was agreed on, I really don't think that you have a leg to stand on, legally speaking. I'm sorry that you're not finding parenthood to be the fairytale dreamland that you thought it would be, but it was your choice and you have to live with it."

Damn, nothing like ending your clapback with, "live with it."

Zarbi92 did NOT hold back when it came to shutting down the OP.

So let me get this straight. You resent the child you forced someone else to bring in to the world under the condition that you be the sole caregiver? You want to force someone who DOES NOT WANT anything to do with this child to share caretaking? First off, why would you want to damage your child like that by forcing them to spend time with someone who wants nothing to do with them. That doesn't make you a very good father at all. Second, why are you calling her a deadbeat? How can you call someone you forced to give birth, under the condition that she has nothing to do with the child, a deadbeat when she pays MORE than the required child support? And third, no. The courts will not force someone who wants nothing to do with a child to take care of them other than financially, because that could endanger the child."

Be right back, starting a campaign to raise money for t-shirts that say "And third of all, no" on them.

evilbunnyofdeath took the high road by commending the mom on how she's handled this.

"Good on her for getting out of such an abusive relationship! I'm also impressed that she seems to be working hard on herself by hitting up the gym."

This person raised a great point by calling him out for trying throw shade at his ex for working on her health and physical appearance. This dude is clearly salty about how the woman who never agreed to raise a child with him is now... not raising a child with him, and doing so while looking like a snack. Sorry, bro.

The moral of the story here is to remember what you signed up for. Seems obvious, but some people have a harder time with this than others. Also, if you are going to be bitter about sleeping in the bed you made, maybe don't post about it online. You will likely get your ass handed to you, just like this "poor" guy did.

This article was originally published by our partners at someecards and was written by Irene Fagan Merrow.

True
Firefox

With the COVID-19 Pandemic, Black Lives Matter protests nationwide, and the countdown to the 2020 Presidential election, there has been a flurry of online activity.

We're tweeting about these events, we're sharing news articles about them on Facebook, and we're uploading live videos as events happen during protests. These platforms are being used to communicate, to express outrage, to share what we're witnessing on the streets, to debate ideas, and to campaign for candidates.

This isn't new, of course. Social media has long been a way to get information out quickly.

"When the plane landed on the Hudson, that was one of the first events that was social media first," says Kate Starbird, associate professor in the Department of Human Centered Design and Engineering at the University of Washington. "The news went out via social media first because it was faster. People could actually see what was going on long before people could write a story about it or put it on the news."

Social media has also been lauded as a way for people to get information from a variety of perspectives — everybody can share what they see.

But, she adds, "the problem is that there is some inherent risk and vulnerabilities in getting things at that speed because speed can drive misinformation and mistakes." It's also incredibly difficult to know if all of these voices on social media are real. Some of those accounts might be deliberately trying to spread disinformation.

Disinformation spreads quickly during and after natural disasters, mass shootings, and other dangerous events.

Wade Austin Ellis on Unsplash

In fact, for more than a decade, Starbird has been researching how misinformation and disinformation spread online during these kinds of crises.

During a crisis, there's a lot of uncertainty and fear, so we start theorizing — or rumoring — on what to do and that rumoring can create misinformation. Then, political actors can either create additional misinformation or amplify existing rumors to spread false information for political reasons. "When there's fear and anxiety, we're acutely vulnerable to politicization, misinformation, and disinformation," she says.

For example, climate science denialists can use natural disasters — such as hurricanes or winter storms — to amplify false information that supports their cause.

Keep Reading Show less
Lauren-Ashley Howard/Twitter, Wikimedia Commons

The lengths people will go to discredit a political figure—especially a Black female politician—is pretty astounding. Since Kamala Harris was announced as Joe Biden's running mate, we've seen "birther" claims that she wasn't really born in the U.S. (she was), alternating claims that she's too moderate or too radical (which can't both be true), and a claim apparently designed to be a "gotcha"—that her ancestor in Jamaica was a slave owner.

According to Politifact, the claim that Harris descends from a slave owners is likely true. In their rather lengthy fact check on her lineage, which has not revealed any definitive answers, they conclude, "It seems possible that Kamala Harris is as likely a descendant of a slave-owner as she is an enslaved person." But that doesn't mean what the folks who are using that potential descencency as a weapon seem to think it means.

Keep Reading Show less
Mozilla
True
Firefox

When I found out I was pregnant in October 2018, I had planned to keep the news a secret from family for a little while — but my phone seemed to have other ideas.

Within just a few hours of finding out the news, I was being bombarded with ads for baby gear, baby clothes and diapers on Facebook, Instagram and pretty much any other site I visited — be it my phone or on my computer.

Good thing my family wasn't looking over my shoulder while I was on my phone or my secret would have been ruined.

I'm certainly not alone in feeling like online ads can read your mind.

When I started asking around, it seemed like everyone had their own similar story: Brian Kelleher told me that when he and his wife met, they started getting ads for wedding rings and bridal shops within just a few weeks. Tech blogger Snezhina Piskov told me that she started getting ads for pocket projectors after discussing them in Messenger with her colleagues. Meanwhile Lauren Foley, a writer, told me she started getting ads for Happy Socks after seeing one of their shops when she got off the bus one day.

When online advertising seems to know us this well, it begs the question: are our phones listening to us?

Keep Reading Show less
True
Firefox

UPDATE/EDITOR'S NOTE: This article was successfully removed from Facebook thanks in part to this article from Annie Reneau and also thanks to readers like you who took action and demanded accountability from Facebook. We're sharing it again as an example of how we can all be part of positive and constructive change on social media. Don't let the trolls win!

Original story begins below:

---

As we say in the viral stories world, there's viral and then there's viral. A post with 100K shares in a month would be considered super viral. A post with a millions shares—even over a long period of time—is nearly unheard of.

So the fact that a post about Irish slaves has been shared nearly a million times in just nine days is incredibly disheartening. Why? Because it's fake, fake, fake. And not in an "I don't like what this says so I'm going to call it fake" kind of way, but in a non-factual, already-debunked-by-real-historians kind of way.

As someone with a crapton of Irish ancestry, I find the perpetuation of the Irish slaves myth utterly embarrassing—especially since it's most often shared in an attempt to downplay the history of Black slavery in the U.S. If it were true, that kind of deflection would still be annoying. But pushing false history narratives to deny the reality of the impact of institutionalized, race-based chattel slavery is just gross.

And to be sure, this is false history. To begin with, the photo isn't even of Irish people at all. It's a photo of Belgian miners crammed into a mining elevator around the year 1900.

Keep Reading Show less
Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

Sometimes a boycott succeeds when it fails.

Although the general aim of a boycott is to hurt profits, there are times when the symbolism of a boycott gives birth to a constant, overt and irreversible new optic for a company to nurse.

When the boycott of Facebook began in June and reached its peak in July, it gathered thousands of brands who vocalized their dissatisfaction with the platform.

The boycott, under the hashtag #StopHateForProfit, was launched by civil rights groups. By July brands were fully behind removing their ad spending - resulting in a small financial dent for the social media juggernaut, but a forceful bludgeoning in the press.


Keep Reading Show less