Child Support Liability

[Curious George]

Even that is unacceptable. The father has to jump through hoops to prove he is fit while the mother is automatically assumed fit until she proves otherwise.

No, you misunderstand. There is not a presumption that he is unfit unless allegations have been made.

 

[freethinker44]

No, you misunderstand. There is not a presumption that he is unfit unless allegations have been made.

If they are married, sure. But if they are unwed, he can't just show up to an adoption hearing and stop it simply because he is the father. If he hasn't filled out all the paperwork and registered as the father, he has to prove he is fit to adopt his own child. At least that's how it sounded to me when I read it, I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong.

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually, I feel that formally adopting one's own child should be the standard procedure.

Why presume or imply something that is so darned important, when far less crucial matters have to be explicitly declared?

If nothing else, that might give them a moment of reflection about the seriousness of the matter and make some of the bureaucratic and legal measures a bit simpler when they become a necessity.

Oh, and in case this wasn't made clear: adoption should be formal, not automatic. We really should let go of the assumption that biological parents must be considered parents no matter what. Quite often they simply are not, will never be, and do not want to attempt to be the true parents, and it is about time we acknowledge that for good and without so much drama and pretense.

Parenthood is a very demanding activity, and many - perhaps even most - who attempt it fail, sometimes quite dramatically. We do not like to say so clearly, but that is the truth.

If the health of families is to be taken seriously, we must let go of the pretense that most couples are somehow fit for parenthood despite what they actually show in their behavior and personalities. More realistic, more responsible and less artificially standardized family models must be adopted.

 

[freethinker44]

Actually, I feel that formally adopting one's own child should be the standard procedure.

Why presume or imply something that is so darned important, when far less crucial matters have to be explicitly declared?

If nothing else, that might give them a moment of reflection about the seriousness of the matter and make some of the bureaucratic and legal measures a bit simpler when they become a necessity.

Oh, and in case this wasn't made clear: adoption should be formal, not automatic. We really should let go of the assumption that biological parents must be considered parents no matter what. Quite often they simply are not, will never be, and do not want to attempt to be the true parents, and it is about time we acknowledge that for good and without so much drama and pretense.

Parenthood is a very demanding activity, and many - perhaps even most - who attempt it fail, sometimes quite dramatically. We do not like to say so clearly, but that is the truth.

If the health of families is to be taken seriously, we must let go of the pretense that most couples are somehow fit for parenthood despite what they actually show in their behavior and personalities. More realistic, more responsible and less artificially standardized family models must be adopted.

This is a really extreme position to take. I am only assuming you feel mothers should prove their parental fitness as well. I can see this being used as a means to further oppress the poor as they will be the ones primarily effected by this, but that's another discussion.

 

[Alceste]

No. The burden on the mother is not the same. If she doesn't want a child she can have an abortion or put it up for adoption. The father just has to accept whatever decision she makes.

That's because it's not a child, it's a pregnancy, and the father isn't pregnant. The father and mother aren't parents until the baby is born, so they have no parental rights or obligations to wrangle over.

 

[Draka]

AFAIK, in order for an adoption to be legal there must be a father of record and he must sign off as well on the adoption. A formal signing over of parental rights to the baby. There could be a lot of legal backlash should this not be done as if an adoption were to go through without the father signing off on it then there is nothing to prevent him from coming along and negating the adoption proceedings after the baby has been placed. then you also have cases where some poor guy was never even told he was a father, doesn't find out until much later, only to find out his baby was adopted out. Imagine the mess he could stir up if he really tried.

 

[Alceste]

AFAIK, in order for an adoption to be legal there must be a father of record and he must sign off as well on the adoption. A formal signing over of parental rights to the baby. There could be a lot of legal backlash should this not be done as if an adoption were to go through without the father signing off on it then there is nothing to prevent him from coming along and negating the adoption proceedings after the baby has been placed. then you also have cases where some poor guy was never even told he was a father, doesn't find out until much later, only to find out his baby was adopted out. Imagine the mess he could stir up if he really tried.

Heck, anybody can stir up a mess. My friends lost their three year old fully adopted son to an uncle who was related by blood who decided he wanted the kid.

That's why I say, if you sign away your kid, that should be it. No returnsies. Anybody who thought tearing that poor kid away from his family was in his best interest is a freaking lunatic.

 

[freethinker44]

That's because it's not a child, it's a pregnancy, and the father isn't pregnant. The father and mother aren't parents until the baby is born, so they have no parental rights or obligations to wrangle over.

I'm not really sure what that has to do with what I said. Does it change anything?

 

[Pegg]

There is an intersection of rights which always struck me as thorny.

Hypothetical situation:
Bob & Sally are dating.
Sally becomes pregnant, with Bob as the father, & they both know this.
Sally wants to carry the child (Pat) to term.
Bob does not want to be a father.
Sally likes long walks along the beach at sunset, while Bob likes working on his 57 Chevy.

Background:
Sally has the right to abort the fetus.
Sally has the right to bear Pat.
Bob cannot prevent Sally from either aborting or bearing Pat.
Sally may have Bob legally compelled to support Pat.
If Bob & Sally do not marry, Sally has automatic custody of Pat, even after Pat is weened.
It is in the public interest to see that children, like Pat, are supported.

Questions:
- Is it ethical to force Bob to support Pat when he has no authority in Sally's decision about the existence of Pat?
- Would it be better public policy to let Bob off the hook for Pat's support, & have the state step up in his place?
(Of course, this would be great for Bob, but less so for the taxpayer.)

Btw, I don't have an answer. Discuss!

this is precisely why sex should be avoided before marriage.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not really sure what that has to do with what I said. Does it change anything?

You implied the mother has extra parental decision making power that the father doesn't have. What the mother has is a pregnancy. There are no extra custodial or child support decisions she gets to make that the father doesn't because there is no child.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When a man ejaculates inside a woman's birth canal, he has accepted responsbility for the possibility of having to monetarily provide for his offspring until they are 18. If I don't want to accept responsibility for that possibility, then I don't ejactulate inside a woman's birth canal. Likewise, even if a woman wants me to impregnant her, she cannot force me to ejaculate inside her if I choose not to. Of course, this mileage may vary from male to male. The point being, that, ultimately, a man's part in the decision of having a baby or not rests with his decision to ejaculate inside a woman's birth canal or not.

 

[Qhost]

she cannot force me to ejaculate inside her if I choose not to.

If I recall, involuntary orgasms during rape are a real thing for both sexes. In fact I think I remember a news story where this happened and he had to then pay child support for his rapist's baby, if I come across it again I shall link you to it.

 

[freethinker44]

There are no extra custodial or child support decisions she gets to make that the father doesn't because there is no child.

But there is. The father has no say in whether or not she keeps the child. She alone decides a major life event for the father.

 

[Me Myself]

Actually, I feel that formally adopting one's own child should be the standard procedure.

Why presume or imply something that is so darned important, when far less crucial matters have to be explicitly declared?

If nothing else, that might give them a moment of reflection about the seriousness of the matter and make some of the bureaucratic and legal measures a bit simpler when they become a necessity.

Oh, and in case this wasn't made clear: adoption should be formal, not automatic. We really should let go of the assumption that biological parents must be considered parents no matter what. Quite often they simply are not, will never be, and do not want to attempt to be the true parents, and it is about time we acknowledge that for good and without so much drama and pretense.

Parenthood is a very demanding activity, and many - perhaps even most - who attempt it fail, sometimes quite dramatically. We do not like to say so clearly, but that is the truth.

If the health of families is to be taken seriously, we must let go of the pretense that most couples are somehow fit for parenthood despite what they actually show in their behavior and personalities. More realistic, more responsible and less artificially standardized family models must be adopted.

I think e biological parents must both be deemed fit and equally fit unless proven to contrary.

 

[Me Myself]

That's why I say, if you sign away your kid, that should be it. No returnsies. Anybody who thought tearing that poor kid away from his family was in his best interest is a freaking lunatic.

I agre pe that IF you sign away your kid, there shouldnt be any serious posibility for legal fight to get her back, unless say it is evidenced you signed such a thing while being drunk or some other thing that would show the signature to be null.

That said, a father who found out he was a father AFTER e boy was put out for adoption never signed him off.

This circumstance would be delicate, but I dont find it reasonable either that the parent takes away the child that is having a fit family nor that the father is denied information about the family and the right to see a kid he never signed out.

None of those alternatives seem reasonable to me.

 

[Alceste]

But there is. The father has no say in whether or not she keeps the child. She alone decides a major life event for the father.

She alone decides what to do about an issue relating to her own personal health. Assuming the pregnancy is accidental, it was as much of a surprise to her as it was to him.

You have different birth control options depending on your gender. It is not our custom or culture to give one's partner the authority to make decisions for us as to which we will choose. I don't get to decide whether you have a vasectomy and you don't get to decide whether I have a tubal ligation, take the pill, get the patch, use an IUD, diaphragm or cervical cap, or have an abortion. Ideally, a couple would discuss these issues and decide together how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy, and it would be nice if there were more options for men to proactively avoid accidental parenthood, but it is what it is.

But none of this is relevant to the subject of custody or child support, though, because there is no child.

 

[freethinker44]

She alone decides what to do about an issue relating to her own personal health. Assuming the pregnancy is accidental, it was as much of a surprise to her as it was to him.

You have different birth control options depending on your gender. It is not our custom or culture to give one's partner the authority to make decisions for us as to which we will choose. I don't get to decide whether you have a vasectomy and you don't get to decide whether I have a tubal ligation, take the pill, get the patch, use an IUD, diaphragm or cervical cap, or have an abortion. Ideally, a couple would discuss these issues and decide together how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy, and it would be nice if there were more options for men to proactively avoid accidental parenthood, but it is what it is.

But none of this is relevant to the subject of custody or child support, though, because there is no child.

It is relevant to custody or child support. The woman decides a major life decision for both herself and the man. Both of them make a mistake or the protection fails, and the woman gets sole discretion on whether or not that mistake or accident effects them for the rest of their lives.

 

[Alceste]

I agre pe that IF you sign away your kid, there shouldnt be any serious posibility for legal fight to get her back, unless say it is evidenced you signed such a thing while being drunk or some other thing that would show the signature to be null.

That said, a father who found out he was a father AFTER e boy was put out for adoption never signed him off.

This circumstance would be delicate, but I dont find it reasonable either that the parent takes away the child that is having a fit family nor that the father is denied information about the family and the right to see a kid he never signed out.

None of those alternatives seem reasonable to me.

In the case of my friends who lost their son, they were willing to offer visitation rights to the uncle so the child could have a relationship with his biological family, but he sued for full custody and won. Now they are completely shut out.

I think we put far too much emphasis on bloodlines and far too little on actually being capable of and willing to look after children.

That's why I say, the first priority should always be the child's present primary caregiver, assuming they are competent, regardless of gender or blood relation, and either parent should be allowed to pass that responsibility to another competent adult. But if they change their minds the present primary caregiver should be given preferential consideration, not the blood relative.

 

[Alceste]

It is relevant to custody or child support. The woman decides a major life decision for both herself and the man. Both of them make a mistake or the protection fails, and the woman gets sole discretion on whether or not that mistake or accident effects them for the rest of their lives.

As I say, there are different birth control options for women and men. That's just how it is. Once you've used up all of yours, you don't get to start encroaching on the more expansive options of women to make things more "fair". Hopefully there will be more options for men in the future. The pill was hugely liberating for us. A male version would be great.

Surely child support and custody is only an issue when there is actually a child. Right? So why not start there?

 

[Me Myself]

It is relevant to custody or child support. The woman decides a major life decision for both herself and the man. Both of them make a mistake or the protection fails, and the woman gets sole discretion on whether or not that mistake or accident effects them for the rest of their lives.

This is true.

If I decided that the unborn child is not a person (and I would argue from that point here, given this is just not the place for such a debate, it would be completely besides the point) then the woman cannot be taken away the right to choose what to do with it as it is part of her body.

That I agree. She must be able to choose on her own body 100% given no person is being affected.

In the same way you wouldn't say the woman made her choice when she had sex with him to have the baby if she did, you cant say the man made his choice to be a father if a baby was born. It is not justice to make both equally responsible for an event in which one of them had 9 months to prevent from happening and had the opportunity to not make it happen.

Now one way to make this to be "equal" would be that the parent has the same 9 months to resign his parenting rights if he chose, but is would not be practical as some times the woman finds out in later months or the man finds out after the baby is born some times years after.

Given this, the most fair way to go would be make both equally capable of resigning rights and put the children on foster systems at any point they choose. (Or give the child entirely to one of both parts)