posted
It's a step in the right direction, IMO. A friend of mine pays child support every month for a child he did not want to father. His ex (who wanted the child) assured him she was taking birth control when she wasn't and asked him to stop using condoms because they "felt uncomfortable." She deliberately lied to him in order to get pregnant, and now she gets $700 of his money every month because of it.
These scenarios are becoming more and more common. I think it's a huge double standard, that a woman has the right to stop supporting a child whenever she wants (via abortion or adoption), but a man is forced to support a child against his will.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that it really is a circle that's impossible to square.
If you give men the power to absolve themselves of child support duties, then men who start off wanting a child and then leave when the kid turns one can get off. At some point there's a line where kids will suffer for their parents bad choices. Right now the system is designed to protect kids by default. Men get screwed in the deal, but the hope is that kids get protected.
The flip side is that women can effectively ruin a man's life by tricking or trapping him.
But how do you design a system that protects the rights of both parents and doesn't disadvantage the child?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fairness is a few steps behind other concerns. If those other concerns get fixed, then...fine, let's talk about whether men are treated fairly. Until then, I get kind of impatient with this stuff.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
But how do you design a system that protects the rights of both parents and doesn't disadvantage the child?
Given the size of this society, plus the often poor quality of the relationship between the genders in this society, I seriously doubt it's possible. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the frustration, but it's really more of a case by case problem than an institutional one.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A friend of mine pays child support every month for a child he did not want to father. His ex (who wanted the child) assured him she was taking birth control when she wasn't and asked him to stop using condoms because they "felt uncomfortable." She deliberately lied to him in order to get pregnant, and now she gets $700 of his money every month because of it.
What's her version of events? The problem with this kind of thing is that it's just as likely to be a fake excuse as to be an example of a girl tricking the guy into not being careful.
I think this is a good example of why you should always be careful and take full responsibility not to cause pregnancy if you're not okay with getting someone pregnant.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn: I think the very latest a father could disavow support would be at birth.
Scifibum: While I never talked to her about the details of her sex life, I know she was well aware of his desire not to have children, as he expressed it in front of both of us. He had a job. She did not (still doesn't). He paid for her birth control, she took it for a while, then stopped and let him believe she was still taking it.
Your whole "just be more careful" argument seems similar to arguments of why abortion should never be legal, but aside from that, it's a little absurd. If you're in a long term sexual relationshipare you going to make your wife take a birth control pill in front of you every morning? Are you going to keep using condoms when she assures you that she's taking birth control? That level of distrust would cause a very unhealthy relationship, at best. Your advice would make more sense in the case of one night stands, but would you tell a girl who got pregnant from a one night stand and takes the morning after pill or has an abortion "hey, tough luck, you should have made sure you had your own protection"?
I guess I dislike the fact that women always have a legal recourse to terminate responsibility for a pregnancy, and men almost never do.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I'm advocating that you should not trust someone else with the responsibility to prevent a pregnancy if you're not okay with the possibility of conceiving a child with that person. By relying on condoms or birth control in the first place, you are already accepting that possibility, you are just reducing the size of it.
"That level of distrust would cause a very unhealthy relationship, at best."
Nah. Just say "I am *really* not ready for kids, and I need to keep the odds as low as possible. A one to five percent chance of pregnancy is too high for me." Or, alternatively, accept and take responsibility for the increased chances of a pregnancy.
None of this "she tricked me" nonsense. What if she forgets a pill? If you're taking the chance, you're taking the chance.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: I have no doubt men have been tricked, by scheming ungood women, into impregnating them. That is a possibility. The impact this can have on their lives is unfair.
That being said, there is no remedy for the unfairness. The only remedy is prophylactic. Yes, I realize this sounds prudish. But if you think you can have entirely safe sex, you're fooling yourself. Even vasectomies sometimes spontaneously heal. So when you have sex, there's a chance somebody gets pregnant and what the other person does next is not something you can control.
It's best to minimize those chances and maximize your acceptance of the possibility and plan accordingly. You can take whatever gamble you want. I'm not going to tell you not to trust your girlfriend if that what seems best to you. However, if you later complain that you were tricked and it was unfair, because she could have had an abortion but you had no such option, I'm going to remind you that you decided it was a good gamble and that the child support payments for 18 years are the cost of a bad bet.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, why do you think it's acceptable or good to give women the option to terminate responsibility for a child at any time and yet not give men that same option? Why? I know damn well what the consequences are, I'm asking you why you think it's good that women are allowed to avoid those consequences and men are not. Why?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
For that matter, if a man poked holes in his condoms with a pin needle and had sex with a girl who fully believed they were functional condoms, would you seriously advocate forcing her to carry the baby to term and then spend the next 18 years paying $700 a month, regardless of whether or not she even sees the baby? Even the most staunch pro lifers advocate adoption at birth, yet men are stuck with the bill for 18 years, regardless of whether or not they even see the child? Again, how is that good? How is that fair? How do you justify that?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:By relying on condoms or birth control in the first place, you are already accepting that possibility, you are just reducing the size of it.
I think this confuses the descriptive and the normative; errors of judgment with deliberate crimes.
If I leave a door unlocked, you may feel free to call me an idiot, but any burglar that comes in will still be a burglar and committing a crime. It may be my fault descriptively that I was burglared, but the moral fault is the burglar's.
quote:That being said, there is no remedy for the unfairness.
There's no easy remedy for the unfairness of deceitful pregnancy, because it can't be easily proven it was deceitful rather than just "accidental" (if the deceit can be proven, just punish the fraudster same as you would any other fraud) -- but there's an easy remedy for the unfairness of mandating child-support on top of that.
Simply give unmarried biological fathers a one-time choice between providing child-support on the one hand and completely rejecting parental rights over the child on the other. (For purposes of stability this could be made a one-time choice and irrevocable, same as with giving up a child for adoption)
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, why do you think it's acceptable or good to give women the option to terminate responsibility for a child at any time and yet not give men that same option? Why? I know damn well what the consequences are, I'm asking you why you think it's good that women are allowed to avoid those consequences and men are not. Why?
There is a substantial nugget of unfairness here, it's true. That said, though, do the problems posed by different biology have no relevance either? And before we get entirely swept away by male unfairness, shouldn't we remember that while women do (sometimes) have a substantial edge in this (one) set of issues over men...there's still things like pay differences, domestic violence, sexual assault, political representation, and that perhaps us dudes ought to remember that as well to say nothing of some historical context?
This isn't to say 'forced' fatherhood isn't a problem. It's a tricky scenario with lots of bad resolutions, no doubt. Like scifibum, I'm skeptical that there is a good solution out of it.
Oh, and one other thing-for basically all of human history up to the present, it's generally men who are telling women what they may and may not do with their bodies...and what particular men may do to those bodies, in fact. It's an incredibly recent, incomplete (gender disparity in politics) trend that women have had much broad, cultural say in matter at all. Sorry, Lyrhawn, it's just that the whole 'stronger lobby' bit rubbed me a bit wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Simply give unmarried biological fathers a one-time choice between providing child-support on the one hand and completely rejecting parental rights over the child on the other. (For purposes of stability this could be made a one-time choice and irrevocable, same as with giving up a child for adoption)
So, wait, the solution to 'fraudulent' pregnancy is to completely reverse the trend and yields every iota of power back to the men in the situation? That doesn't have, you know, very serious, bad implications for all of those scenarios in which the pregnancy isn't at all deceptive, and the dad is a deadbeat? A not-inconsiderable problem already?
This is the sort of thing that frustrates me and I think perhaps scifibum as well. God forbid a man somewhere doesn't have 100% choosing power at all times in all places, and if they don't we need to make sure they do.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, wait, the solution to 'fraudulent' pregnancy is to completely reverse the trend and yields every iota of power back to the men in the situation?
How does it "yield every iota of power" back to the men? The woman is still free to give up both rights and control by putting up the child for adoption. The men aren't given the right to take away the child against the mother's wish. They aren't given the right to have the child aborted against the mother's wish. They aren't even given the right to change their minds (and thus threaten or blackmail the woman over a long period of time), since I explicitly specified it to be a one-time decision.
So what the **** "power" is exactly given back? Just the right to NOT be involved with their biological offspring, financially or otherwise? And you call that "every iota"? It's the same right a woman has when she puts up a child for adoption, for chrissakes!
So, YEAH, if they've not made a contract (like e.g. marriage) to be so involved, I don't see why sperm donors should be forced to be involved.
quote:That doesn't have, you know, very serious, bad implications for all of those scenarios in which the pregnancy isn't at all deceptive, and the dad is a deadbeat?
Name three.
I imagine its major implication would be a positive one: it would encourage women to seek out non-deadbeat males which might coincidentally also provide a better role model as father, NOT just some money.
And if a father doesn't *want* to pay for his child, then I think it's better all around that he be completely cut out of his child's life altogether, rather than be forced to just pay a check under penalty of the law.
Have the state provide the equal amount of money, and give the deadbeat dad a restraining order against even approaching the family. And in that manner fathers who do pay, and fathers who stay involved, will be fathers that are known to have indeed cared.
quote:God forbid a man somewhere doesn't have 100% choosing power at all times in all places, and if they don't we need to make sure they do.
You can misrepresent my words as something that they're obviously not, but it's not very charitable of you and it doesn't make me think well of you when you insult me in this manner.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And btw, I don't mean it as just a solution to fraudulent pregnancy. I think it might well be the correct policy (to not treat sexual activity as obliging you to parenting obligations) even if no incidents of fraudulent pregnancy existed at all.
posted
I feel forfeiting one's parental rights should be an irreversible decision, and one that must be made prior to the birth of the child. It would remove any legal connection between you as a father and the child - including visitation rights, any say in it's upbringing, etc. It'd basically be the male version of adoption. If a man changed his mind and wanted to become involved afterall, it'd have to be with the written consent of the mother (and be entirely her decision), and at that point he'd have to begin child support payments if the child remains in her custody. At that point, since the child is already born, he could never again forfeit parental rights except via adoption.
I don't feel like this would become ubiquitous - much like how women with unwanted pregnancies will often carry the baby to term anyway, many men will either be unwilling to give up being involved in the child's life or be too cowed by social pressure/ his own morals to give the child up. I love children, and if (God forbid) I knocked a girl up I would gladly offer to support and raise the child as much as possible. It would simply provide an option for men who do not want to be fathers, especially in the case of one night stands or being tricked, where they have no relationship with the mother or where that relationship is toxic. It means they can make a mistake and choose not to spend 18 years paying for it, much like women can choose to do so.
Unless explicitly otherwise specified in a prenup, marraige would automatically be treated as a commitment to help raise one's partner's children, and there would be no legal way out of that.
From the feminist/sexist angle: forced fathership is a relic of an era before women were allowed to choose to terminate their own pregnancies. I feel the current system, much like chivalry and other misguided ideals which are supposedly "good for women" have extremely negative implications: that men are somehow mote responsible (or ought to be more responsible) for their actions than woman, and deserve to be punished for having sex, while women are not held to the same standard. As long as that inequality exists, it will have a negative impact on both men and women, and I view it to be no more justified than any other well meaning form of discrimination. It's still wrong.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the statistical studies of these things, the other way around is actually about twice as common, percentage-wise:
quote: Surveying 641 women who received routine ob-gyn care at Providence’s Women and Infants Hospital, Clark found that 16 percent had received unwelcome pressure to get pregnant. Their boyfriends and partners made it hard for them to use birth control — poking holes in condoms or hiding their pills — or threatened to leave or harm them if they didn’t get pregnant.
It's all about power and control for the men who do this. Although it's just beginning to be studied, the first figures put it at about 16% of women coerced into pregnancy, and about 8% of men coerced into fatherhood.
The moral of this story is, male or female, if you don't want kids, it's your responsibility to protect yourself. (Also, I would suggest that if your partner has a problem with your birth control choices, GTFO.)
Making a baby should be a shared choice, but the law should always (and I hope always will) err on the side of a child in need of financial support.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet: thanks for the article! I agree with you whole heartedly that coerced pregnancy is a very real and terrible problem.
I suppose my main issue with all of this is that women who are coerced into pregnancy have legal options: they can have an abortion, they can put the child up for adoption. And while people recognize impregnating a woman against her will to be a huge problem, forced fatherhood is often dismissed with a shrug and a "sucks for him", and the father is forced to pay well over $100,000 in child support for being "dumb enough to fall for it." Again, this is a huge double standard because it assumes men are somehow more culpable than women when it comes to responsibility for their sexuality. It also implies that a woman who is tricked by a man is a victim, whereas a man who is tricked by a woman is merely stupid, and should pay for that stupidity. Again, the subtext is that men are smarter and more responsible than women, and should be held to a higher standard. I think it's abhorrent.
I should note that this is a *huge* problem in military towns. You have a lot of ignorant young men with steady paychecks, and an employer who will literally force them to pay child support. It's bad enough to the point where our 1stSgt gives a speech every Friday about why you should use protection no matter what she says, and medical gives out free condoms. There are still dozens of new fathers every year.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference is one of biology. There is a bright line difference between having to support a child with money and having to carry one in your actual body. The question is not whether the child is owed support by both parents (it is); it is one of whether a woman has a right to her own body or not. The answer to this has been (and mostly remains) "not" for a large part of the world - and pro-life advocates. I have no problem forcing men and women to give up part of their paycheck. I do have a problem forcing a human being to grow something in their body.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, let's remove abortion from the picture for a second.
Women have the right to relinquish financial responsibility for their child by putting it up for adoption. Men have no such right - at most, they're allowed to claim custody of the child if the mother puts it up for adoption (after which she pays no child support in most states) but the father is not allowed to relinquish financial responsibility *until* he has sole custody and can put the child up for adoption himself. If the mother retains custody, he has no legal means of relinquishing responsibility. She always does.
So you can either A) force the mother to pay child support for 18 years to the adoptive parents or B) give men the same right to relinquish financial responsibility. (by, say, signing away his rights as a parent or simply having the same right as the mother to put the child up for adoption without her consent - leaving her the option of either keeping the child without child support or letting it get adopted)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Again, why do you think it's acceptable or good to give women the option to terminate responsibility for a child at any time and yet not give men that same option? Why? I know damn well what the consequences are, I'm asking you why you think it's good that women are allowed to avoid those consequences and men are not. Why?
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Ok, let's remove abortion from the picture for a second.
Women have the right to relinquish financial responsibility for their child by putting it up for adoption. Men have no such right - at most, they're allowed to claim custody of the child if the mother puts it up for adoption (after which she pays no child support in most states) but the father is not allowed to relinquish financial responsibility *until* he has sole custody and can put the child up for adoption himself. If the mother retains custody, he has no legal means of relinquishing responsibility. She always does.
So you can either A) force the mother to pay child support for 18 years to the adoptive parents or B) give men the same right to relinquish financial responsibility. (by, say, signing away his rights as a parent or simply having the same right as the mother to put the child up for adoption without her consent - leaving her the option of either keeping the child without child support or letting it get adopted)
Dogbreath,
I think the biological father normally has rights that can't be unilaterally given away by the mother. Adoption would have to be agreed on by both parents, although some adoptions proceed without the father's involvement, but not normally when the father can be identified and located.
The father has essentially the same right to give up the baby for adoption as the mother...I'm not sure what disparity you're talking about. If the baby can be adopted then the father won't be held liable for child support.
I think the mother normally has the same child support obligations as the father. Unless the child is adopted, both parents would be liable for support.
Once you remove abortion from the debate, there's not such a huge difference. And as kmbboots notes, there's a very straightforward reason why women have the option to abort and men don't have an equivalent option.
I realize that in some states there are laws that permit a newborn baby to be given away (I think these are called infant safe haven laws). I am pretty sure that option is available to both parents, though. Is there a state where the mother can unilaterally give away a newborn baby with no further obligation, but the father is still held liable for child support?
---
I think there is probably more real, addressable unfairness in the general presumption that kids are better off in the custody of their mother than their father.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris, the problem with your solution is that it doesn't seem to penalize wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them. Without any penalty, the burden on the rest of society to care for unsupported children would increase. I don't think that's acceptable.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The difference is one of biology. There is a bright line difference between having to support a child with money and having to carry one in your actual body. The question is not whether the child is owed support by both parents (it is); it is one of whether a woman has a right to her own body or not. The answer to this has been (and mostly remains) "not" for a large part of the world - and pro-life advocates. I have no problem forcing men and women to give up part of their paycheck. I do have a problem forcing a human being to grow something in their body.
That's why abortion was invented.
So that's pretty much a non-issue in this discussion.
It would be an issue if abortion would be illegal. But it's not.
I haven't really ever before even considered the main issue of this thread, but I have to say that those supporting the father's rights are making a lot more consistent and logical arguments.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Aris, the problem with your solution is that it doesn't seem to penalize wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them. Without any penalty, the burden on the rest of society to care for unsupported children would increase. I don't think that's acceptable.
Women are not penalized for wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them.
So there is no reason to penalize men for it, either.
As for excess burden this could potentially give to society: If a woman knows she won't get any support money from a potential father, she is less likely to have the child. She has to more seriously consider her economic situation. Does she want to have a child, that the father explicitly doesn't want?
Yes, this would most likely lead to more abortions. But since abortions are legal, this is not a problem. It would mean less women having children, more women working actively, and paying more taxes. The excess money that fathers would have from *not* paying child support would be money they would spend elsewhere. It's VERY hard to determine how all this would impact economy, but we can't say with certainty that this would all become an extra-burden for the society.
This all this would also lead to less single-parent families.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The father has essentially the same right to give up the baby for adoption as the mother...I'm not sure what disparity you're talking about. If the baby can be adopted then the father won't be held liable for child support.
posted
I guess I should say what my beliefs on the matter are if it helps you understand my arguments better:
Morally speaking, I believe both parents should take responsibility for and care for their child. Children with two supportive parents are much better equipped and are far more likely to succeed than single-parent children. If I ever fathered a child, I would do whatever possible to be a good father to it.
That being said, there are cases where it's mutually benefitial for both the birth parents and the child for the child *not* to be the responsibility of the birth parents. A classic example would be an 18 year old girl who puts her baby up for adoption, because she wants to go to college and persue a career, and because she isn't well equipped to raise a child, and because doing so would cripple her financially. I fully support this, for her sake as well as the baby's.
What I dislike is that this option (to not support the child) is neverprovided to the father. And I have seen many 18, 19, 20 year old boyd who made no more mistakes or bad choices than said girl and are no more or less culpable for the child, who have been financially destroyed by child support, and will continue to have their lives quite negatively impacted until they're nearly 40 because of it. They have no way out, no possibility of adoption (so long as the mother keeps the child), no way to choose not to be fathers.
I think this quite frankly does more damage to our society than good. I know guys back home who still work at Jiffy Lube or McDonalds because they had to work so much to pay for their children they never got the chance to go to college and better themselves. And they'll probably be stuck doing menial labor for the rest of their lives. (Man, this would make a great condom ad...)
Overall, I think the current system is sexist, destructive, and promotes mysogyny and inequality.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Aris, the problem with your solution is that it doesn't seem to penalize wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them. Without any penalty, the burden on the rest of society to care for unsupported children would increase. I don't think that's acceptable.
Women are not penalized for wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them.
So there is no reason to penalize men for it, either.
You're ignoring that aside from safe haven laws (which appear to let the fathers off the hook just as much as the mothers) there's not really a way for a mother to have children and not be liable for their support in the same way as the father. If the kid is adopted, then neither one has to pay support.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scifibum: it really depends on the state. I unfortunately lived in one that was pretty backwards in those regards - it took a friend of mine 2 years to get custody of his son from his abusive mother (after which she paid *no* child support, despite him asking the court to order her to do so and her making more money than him), and another is fighting a custody battle for his daughter inTexas. Child support is ordered on a case by case basis, and more often than not women are not ordered to pay when they don't have custody.
Adoption laws are even more rediculous. Typically, if the mother files without the father's consent, the father can take custody, butthe mother is almost never ordered to pay child support afterwards. Sometimes, the father isn't even allowed to take custody, or has to spend years fighting for it. (if the mother made arrangements with adoptive parents without his consent, for example)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Aris, the problem with your solution is that it doesn't seem to penalize wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them. Without any penalty, the burden on the rest of society to care for unsupported children would increase. I don't think that's acceptable.
Women are not penalized for wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them.
So there is no reason to penalize men for it, either.
You're ignoring that aside from safe haven laws (which appear to let the fathers off the hook just as much as the mothers) there's not really a way for a mother to have children and not be liable for their support in the same way as the father. If the kid is adopted, then neither one has to pay support.
It would be the same thing for men: There would be no way for a father to have children, without being liable for their support. Others already gave good examples of how this would work. If you want to have rights as a father, you pay.
So both would be in identical situation.
If it were the father who would raise the child alone (With mother's consent and official agreement), then the mother would have to pay child support for the father, to retain her rights as a mother.
BTW, I added some more text to my previous post while you were quoting it. Not that it would be relevant to this particular point you gave, but regardless, I answered to your statement about the extra burden on society.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if the father decides not to agree to adoption, there is no way out for the mother. The same option and the same veto power is, in theory*, given to both parents, except for abortion.
Sadly, not always in practice but we could improve on that. Women should be held more accountable when it comes to informing men that they are potentially fathers and men should be more pro-active about knowing and asserting their rights (to veto adoption, not abortion) and aware of who they might have knocked up.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And if the father decides not to agree to adoption, there is no way out for the mother. The same option and the same veto power is, in theory*, given to both parents, except for abortion.
Sadly, not always in practice but we could improve on that. Women should be held more accountable when it comes to informing men that they are potentially fathers and men should be more pro-active about knowing and asserting their rights (to veto adoption, not abortion) and aware of who they might have knocked up.
I don't how the law goes currently, but logically speaking:
The right to give to adoption should be on the mother who is alone raising the child. If the father disagrees with adoption, then *he* should take the child and raise it. He doesn't want the adoption, so he must carry the responsibility for that decision, not the mother.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Logically speaking, that is the way it should be with the addition that, if the father decides to raise the child, the mother should pay child support just as he would have had to should the mother decide to raise the child.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I dislike is that this option (to not support the child) is neverprovided to the father. And I have seen many 18, 19, 20 year old boyd who made no more mistakes or bad choices than said girl and are no more or less culpable for the child, who have been financially destroyed by child support, and will continue to have their lives quite negatively impacted until they're nearly 40 because of it. They have no way out, no possibility of adoption (so long as the mother keeps the child), no way to choose not to be fathers.
I think this quite frankly does more damage to our society than good. I know guys back home who still work at Jiffy Lube or McDonalds because they had to work so much to pay for their children they never got the chance to go to college and better themselves. And they'll probably be stuck doing menial labor for the rest of their lives. (Man, this would make a great condom ad...)
Overall, I think the current system is sexist, destructive, and promotes mysogyny and inequality.
I think a real flaw in your perspective here is that you seem to give absolutely no thought to the idea that child support is primarily about supporting a child.
With adoption, the child is being transferred into the care of people who are now liable for his support. With abortion, there is no need for support.
With your option, the child still needs this support, he just doesn't get it. Without (as you seem to be) completely ignoring the child, I don't see how you can talk about this being the fair solution.
Also, (in most cases and certainly in the ideal one) if the biological father chooses to raise the child, the mother is liable for child support. I don't see a disparity here. I think it may rise from some people's perspective that no man would willingly choose to do this; that raising a child is women's work.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Logically speaking, that is the way it should be with the addition that, if the father decides to raise the child, the mother should pay child support just as he would have had to should the mother decide to raise the child.
If she wants to retain her rights as a mother, absolutely.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, she pays child support because the child needs that support. It's not about the parent, either father or mother. It's about the child.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No, she pays child support because the child needs that support. It's not about the parent, either father or mother. It's about the child.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And if the father decides not to agree to adoption, there is no way out for the mother. The same option and the same veto power is, in theory*, given to both parents, except for abortion.
Sadly, not always in practice but we could improve on that. Women should be held more accountable when it comes to informing men that they are potentially fathers and men should be more pro-active about knowing and asserting their rights (to veto adoption, not abortion) and aware of who they might have knocked up.
Not even in theory, in many places sadly. If the father vetos, the result is he recieves custody of the child, but the mother is almost never ordered to pay child support. OTOH, if the mother doesn't want an adoption, it's not even a possibility, and it never gets the father out of paying.
*There are obvious exceptions re: mothers who are mentally incompetant or abusive.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I noted, the mother should be required to pay child support. I realize that all is not as it should be.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky: Either you haven't read anything I've written, or you're being incredibly dishonest with your "woman's work" comment. I know plenty of single dads (my sister dated one for a while). None of them got a dime of child support.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I dislike is that this option (to not support the child) is neverprovided to the father. And I have seen many 18, 19, 20 year old boyd who made no more mistakes or bad choices than said girl and are no more or less culpable for the child, who have been financially destroyed by child support, and will continue to have their lives quite negatively impacted until they're nearly 40 because of it. They have no way out, no possibility of adoption (so long as the mother keeps the child), no way to choose not to be fathers.
I think this quite frankly does more damage to our society than good. I know guys back home who still work at Jiffy Lube or McDonalds because they had to work so much to pay for their children they never got the chance to go to college and better themselves. And they'll probably be stuck doing menial labor for the rest of their lives. (Man, this would make a great condom ad...)
Overall, I think the current system is sexist, destructive, and promotes mysogyny and inequality.
I think a real flaw in your perspective here is that you seem to give absolutely no thought to the idea that child support is primarily about supporting a child.
With adoption, the child is being transferred into the care of people who are now liable for his support. With abortion, there is no need for support.
With your option, the child still needs this support, he just doesn't get it. Without (as you seem to be) completely ignoring the child, I don't see how you can talk about this being the fair solution.
Also, (in most cases and certainly in the ideal one) if the biological father chooses to raise the child, the mother is liable for child support. I don't see a disparity here. I think it may rise from some people's perspective that no man would willingly choose to do this; that raising a child is women's work.
This is a good point.
It could be said that maybe the root argument is:
If two people have sex, they have both willingly accepted the chance, that they *might* have a child, no matter how small that chance is.
When the child is born, is society in any way responsible for the choice they made?
If not, and there is no mandatory child support from the father, then the child might not have the economic resources to have a proper upbringing. A single mother who has no *time* to have a job - At least before the daycare and school years - will struggle to provide.
So yes, this is about protecting the financial security of the child.
An easy solution is that mothers (or fathers) who get no child support from the other parent, will automatically receive a set amount from the government, to raise the child. Everyone gets the exact same amount. Maybe more, when there is a special needs child who is more expensive to maintain.
Is everyone who doesn't want mandatory child support from the parent, agreeing that government should pay the bill?
Personally I have no problem with this. It simply means I pay a little bit more taxes (Not much), and my own ass is covered if I ever get a child I don't want to pay child support to (Personally I would do it, thought).
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
I think this quite frankly does more damage to our society than good. I know guys back home who still work at Jiffy Lube or McDonalds because they had to work so much to pay for their children they never got the chance to go to college and better themselves. And they'll probably be stuck doing menial labor for the rest of their lives. (Man, this would make a great condom ad...)
Do you honestly think single mothers have the time, energy or money to better themselves if they have a kid and get child support?
I'm never going to find the link, but there was a European country (I think it was Sweden) that tracked life outcomes of nearly the entire country after teen pregnancy. The short answer, is very very few women completed their education.
This is a good time as any to remind folks that many states have only one abortion provider IN THE ENTIRE STATE.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^54.9% vs 30.4% ordered is a pretty huge difference, and that's not taking into consideration the amount ordered, amount paid, and differences in enforcement methods.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This problem is clearly ripe for a technological, not legal, fix. Male oral contraceptive, done.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
