What the hell? "The kids" are suddenly now "his kids"? And the woman is described as "his girlfriend", meaning they weren't married, meaning even if he's the biological father, he has no rights to them. If he's not going to take on the responsibilities of getting married, he's in no position to complain when she leaves!

-- Anyway, I didn't say his used of "bitch" proved anything. But I've seen enough people in abusive relationships to know that it's a clue. The fact that he would illegally (and surely, contrary to company policy) abuse his position as an AT&T employee to stalk her further clarifies the picture.

There is no legal requirement to be married in order for the father to have rights to his children.

If he even cared a tiny bit about his kids, then he would treat their mother with respect.

In the real world, where there is no shortage of shitty people, not all mothers are deserving of respect.

Hindsight being 20/20, not much he can do now after the fact. Respect will do little when a relationship gets to such a point.

The use of 'his' here is pretty suspicious. The original story says 'the' kids. We don't know whether they're her kids from another relationship, kids they had together, or his kids from a previous relationship. They could be adopted.

But NATURALLY, they're his kids because it was unspecified and you identify with the father, and because them being his kids makes her a bitch. Now it's internally consistent!

You're nitpicking.

Like everyone else in this thread...