Grief-stricken mom picks up son’s body from morgue after balcony collapse

[Tony125]

21 hours ago, sweatalot said:

Why is the father's part not mentioned?

He is suffering.

And the mother seems to be a <deleted>.

 

Maybe you should read post #7 (both links) The dad doesn't seem to be a great guy and in a post from him earlier he stated his wife hadn't let him see the kids in 4 years since the divorce and she owed him 20,000 baht he lent her . Realy?  Guess he figures if he can't see the kids won't send any money for their support.

How many times do we see those that professed to have loved each other and had kids later after breaking up used the kids  simply as bargaining chips or a way to get back /hurt the other with no real concern for the child/children.

[MaeJoMTB]

5 minutes ago, Tony125 said:

How many times do we see those that professed to have loved each other and had kids later after breaking up used the kids  simply as bargaining chips or a way to get back /hurt the other with no real concern for the child/children.

Almost every woman I've ever known or hear about.

I certainly never contributed any more money for the upbringing of children my former wife didn't allow me to see (apart from my house, all my savings and half my pension in the divorce settlement which amounted to around $1M).

Edited May 5, 2018 by MaeJoMTB

[SupermarineS6B]

Terrible....... RIP little fellah....

[Tony125]

1 minute ago, MaeJoMTB said:

Almost every woman I've ever known or hear about.

I certainly never contributed any more money for the upbringing of children my former wife didn't allow me to see (apart from my house, all my savings and half my pension in the divorce settlement).

Are you dense?  The home , your savings and half your pension provided for  your kids. This guy allegedly has sent them nothing , they have no home and he's complaining about 20,000 baht she "borrowed" 4 years ago to buy things for the kids. Kinda fits a profile of a deadbeat dad.

[MaeJoMTB]

17 minutes ago, Tony125 said:

Are you dense?  The home , your savings and half your pension provided for  your kids. This guy allegedly has sent them nothing , they have no home and he's complaining about 20,000 baht she "borrowed" 4 years ago to buy things for the kids. Kinda fits a profile of a deadbeat dad.

And yet, in the UK I am considered a 'deadbeat dad', not fit to see my own children.

As far as I can see most women care nothing for the welfare of their children, and just use them as bargaining chips to try and extract money (or vengeance) upon men they previously claimed to have loved.

If it were different, they wouldn't deprive their children of a father, no matter how poorly behaved he was considered to be.

 

In Thailand, I'm considered such a good father, random mothers want to give me their children.

I've just accepted another 8 year old daughter from a Thai mom who didn't want her.

Edited May 5, 2018 by MaeJoMTB

[wazzupnow]

some people should not have kids ever 

thai bimbo with useless parents,

it must be in the genes?

[kcpattaya]

15 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

She also said she would use some of the money to help her get a new job as she never wanted to leave the children home alone again. 

She is going to bar-fine herself?

[Jack P]

A horrible fate for these children. Neither their mother or grandparents had a sense or care to be present and look after their children properly, looks like selfishness is the family pattern.

 

Yet the father who is obviously deeply emotionally engaged to his children was alienated. This disgusting pattern of mummy first family law seems common to both Thailand and the UK.

[Nip]

2 minutes ago, Jack P said:

A horrible fate for these children. Neither their mother or grandparents had a sense or care to be present and look after their children properly, looks like selfishness is the family pattern.

 

Yet the father who is obviously deeply emotionally engaged to his children was alienated. This disgusting pattern of mummy first family law seems common to both Thailand and the UK.

The father is being economical with the truth. He in my opinion from experience does not have sole custody and walked away from his children and responsibilities. The law in Thailand with regards to children is biased but considers the welfare of the children first. We may not like it but it's a fact. 

[harleyd61]

R I P Little man

[WHYWHY]

Very sad rest in peace little Man.

 

Why is Mum getting donations ?

[MaeJoMTB]

48 minutes ago, Nip said:

The law in Thailand with regards to children is biased but considers the welfare of the children first. We may not like it but it's a fact. 

Every court in the world says that, but they don't actually do that.

So the end result is the woman (no money) nearly always gets custody, then denies the father (plenty of money) access.

This is the way the modern world works (outside of Islam which reverses these rules).

 

If the welfare of the children were truly put first, all children would be living with the parent who could afford to look after them, without preventing the other parent reasonable assess (nearly always the father).

If the children were 'living in poverty' then they shouldn't have been living with that parent.

Edited May 5, 2018 by MaeJoMTB

[atyclb]

5 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Why that mother refused for 4 years the father to have normal access to his children thats very inhuman!

 one possible theory is she used the children as a way to make profit via money sent by the father and perhaps in her mind he wasn't sending enough so she used withholding access as a tactic to get more cash? sure wouldn't be the first time

[atyclb]

1 hour ago, wazzupnow said:

some people should not have kids ever 

thai bimbo with useless parents,

it must be in the genes?

 

grandparents locked the kids in a room. what if they needed toilet or a drink or a snack?

 

this way of non thinking is the "norm" in thailand so most of the society wont even raise an eyebrow.

 

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Jack P said:

A horrible fate for these children. Neither their mother or grandparents had a sense or care to be present and look after their children properly, looks like selfishness is the family pattern.

 

Yet the father who is obviously deeply emotionally engaged to his children was alienated. This disgusting pattern of mummy first family law seems common to both Thailand and the UK.

Agreed..... yet disturbingly for others who may face similar family issues, the grandfather is vowing to defy a court custody order (which seems to have been ignored for a while) in public, and nobody seems to care.

 

the grandfather appears of the opinion that the children’s welfare is better managed by them..... not that the facts seem to bear that out.

 

attacking the father at this point, is unwarranted, as we haven’t heard much from him, beyond that he wants the children, is the rightful custodian of the children, but that he’s denied that privilege by the family group responsible for this tragedy.... with assumedly no support from the authorities who recognize that he should have custody. (So speculation here is based on vitriol coming from extremely biased sources)

 

 

[farcanell]

5 hours ago, theguyfromanotherforum said:

 

Is he correct or not?

 

I am not a native English speaker.

Lol.... no.

 

the use of “wrenching” in describing emotions is commonly used in reference to feelings of the heart, whilst “ rending” has a more physical connotation, referencing being torn apart ( rendered meat )

 

I also see someone has claimed that the English language is dying, which always amuses, as it is actually a modern and evolving language,   adapting rather well to become the universal language of choice.

 

lol.... but then, pendantics grammar nazis might disagree. ???

 

[Nip]

1 hour ago, MaeJoMTB said:

Every court in the world says that, but they don't actually do that.

So the end result is the woman (no money) nearly always gets custody, then denies the father (plenty of money) access.

This is the way the modern world works (outside of Islam which reverses these rules).

 

If the welfare of the children were truly put first, all children would be living with the parent who could afford to look after them, without preventing the other parent reasonable assess (nearly always the father).

If the children were 'living in poverty' then they shouldn't have been living with that parent.

In this case I'm of the opinion that the father was not supporting his children financially or emotionally and that's the reason why they were living like this. I could be wrong but if the situation was they were being left unsupervised while the mother was working it would be grounds for a court order especially if as he claims has sole custody. Under Thai Law he could even file a complaint with the social services and the Governor. Nah nothing sits right. 

[lucjoker]

the father is the next to fall from the same balcony...........give it a few days.

[hanuman2543]

3 hours ago, Nip said:

The father is being economical with the truth. He in my opinion from experience does not have sole custody and walked away from his children and responsibilities. The law in Thailand with regards to children is biased but considers the welfare of the children first. We may not like it but it's a fact. 

If there really is a court ruling then there are 2 possibilities:

Shared custody :

This means the father has the right to spend time with his children on a regular basis.

If the parents can't agree on a schedule the court will issue one eg. Mother from Mon till Thursday, Father the rest. Cost of upbringing will be shared equally. 

If one has sole custody the other has to pay child support. If not the other parent can approach the Family court.

Denying a parent who has parental rights access to the children is a criminal offence in Thailand. 

If the father really has a court ruling in his favour especially sole custody then it is really shameful and disgusting that the relevant authorities didn't help him at all and start with arresting the grandparents. 

Edited May 5, 2018 by hanuman2543

[mogandave]

It seems to be the general consensus here that a guy should be able to play house for a few years, have four children with a woman, leave the children to live in poverty for years, and then when an accident occurs as a result of poor living standard, the “father” should be able to take the children away from the mother because he has more money than she.

 

Is that about it? 

 

Father claims he hadn’t seen his boy’s face for years. Did not seem to care enough to even drive by and look at them? 

 

 

[metisdead]

Posts and replies containing off topic trolling comments about Trump have been removed. 

[Grusa]

Crocodile tears.

[gerritkaew]

Nice to get some privacy whit your child...

I can image how he feel, losing one off your kids..

[lamyai3]

On 5/5/2018 at 9:20 AM, theguyfromanotherforum said:

 

Is he correct or not?

 

I am not a native English speaker.

Not really. A quick google search shows both heart-rending and heart-wrenching (sometimes unhyphenated) are in common usage. Certainly an appropriate expression in this sad story. 

[ubonr1971]

i would not allow the media to attend

[HLover]

15 minutes ago, ubonr1971 said:

i would not allow the media to attend

Is this modern age of self promotion and social media addiction, inviting the media may create those all-important Facebook page hits.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 8:42 PM, Here It Is said:

Let's hope they reunite in the best interests of their remaining children.  Very sad.

Why?

This was reportedly also his first time seeing the boy’s face in nearly four years.

They hadn't been together at least 4 years and she wouldn't let his own father see him. Doesn't sound like there is anything worth salvaging from that ex marriage.

However, he should at least be allowed to be part of his remaining children's lives.