Does a father have a legal obligation if not his?

[Pegg]

Came across this gem of feminist rhetoric:

Who



I don't think anything has to be said about how callous and ignorant this author sounds, but my question is perhaps more controversial than her inbred hatred of men. Does a man in any situation have a legal obligation to a child if it's not his? For example, you care for a child for 3 years, only to discover he or she is not yours.

My answer is no, the "father" has no obligation. In fact if I were in that situation I'd promptly file for a divorce and cut off all financial ties, including kicking the mother out of the house. I would probably provide a home for the child until the mother found a place of her own, but that's my sentimental side being expressed.

I'd like to see mandatory paternity testing.

personally, i think that if a man wants to sleep with a woman, he is obligating himself to her no matter who's child she is carrying. And if that sort of responsibility is not for you, then sleep alone.


and to even consider 'kicking the mother out' ....effectively throwing her away, shows an extremely vile attitude.

 

[Mathematician]

It is definitely worth the consideration. It isn't in the best interest of the child to continue being supported by a man who that child has never met nor has absolutely no interest in meeting that child.

IMO, once that child is born, as a dependent human being the law must consider what is in the child's best interest.

Okay, so let's run with this idea. Why not designate a child to every single person who is 18+ instead of leaving them in the foster program?

In fact, let's also have the government dictate what percentage of your income must go towards providing for the child.

 

[Mathematician]

and to even consider 'kicking the mother out' ....effectively throwing her away, shows an extremely vile attitude.

I had a problem in past relationships with cheaters and letting them back in my life. Then one day I said not anymore. I needed to respect myself. The last woman who cheated on me - she gave me her sob story on a Friday night, expecting me to forgive her, but I promptly cut off all ties with her and her family. She was relying on me to drive her and her little sister from Houston to Austin that day for a wedding. I just ignored all of her phone calls.

I'm a biased source, but I think the legal precedence here is pretty clear-cut.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

We agree about the article not being to good, eh? It saddens me to see more and more people become remorseful about feminism because of the impressions people get about it from sampled article.

100% agreed. The article is bad. It does NOT represent feminism nor any respected feminist thought.

I agree, but the state can't force a child upon someone to who is not responsible for the thing's existence. Unless, of course, some guardian had already made a legal agreement about it.

Nope. They can't. It's up to the biological father to financially support the child. I'm criticizing the sentiments expressed in the OP toward the idea of kicking a child he's raised for 3 years out because he cares little for "heartstrings" toward a child.

Okay, so let's run with this idea. Why not designate a child to every single person who is 18+ instead of leaving them in the foster program?

Gene, once again you're reading WAY too much into what I said. The law must care for the best interest of the child. Not to enforce misdemeanor charges against a woman who wronged you by straying.

In fact, let's also have the government dictate what percentage of your income must go towards providing for the child.

They already do that with the biological parents. I support that. You've argued in the past that a man shouldn't have to if he doesn't want to. I support a biological mother to do the same if she is not granted custody of the child.

I had a problem in past relationships with cheaters and letting them back in my life. Then one day I said not anymore. I needed to respect myself. The last woman who cheated on me - she gave me her sob story on a Friday night, expecting me to forgive her, but I promptly cut off all ties with her and her family. She was relying on me to drive her and her little sister from Houston to Austin that day for a wedding. I just ignored all of her phone calls.

I'm a biased source, but I think the legal precedence here is pretty clear-cut.

No, there is no legal precendence for enforcing misdemeanor charges.

IMO, you're just bitter and biased. I'd been cheated on, too, by my first husband in fact for four years, AND with women who had had STD's (I found out later). You would do much better if you moved on and let it go and stop trying to look for ways to punish women whenever you see a chance.

 

[Mathematician]

I'm not seeking to punish women; I'm seeking true equality and justice.

 

[Falvlun]

Are we sure the article isn't a Poe? Because it sure the heck reads like one. In its over-the-top promotion of this twisted version of "feminism", it, of course, shoots feminism in the foot by "proving" that all feminism is crack-pot women-hating-men sort of thing.

But the OP really isn't much better, in its promotion of mandatory paternity testing and desire to punish women. If men want a paternity test, they are free to get one. No one's stopping them. But no one should force them to get one either. And, of course, paternity testing doesn't give you the moral right to be a jerk.

 

[Falvlun]

It saves on future legal and medical costs.

So would vasectomies. Should they be mandatory too?

 

[Falvlun]

A lot of emotional appeals in this thread to make men look like selfish buffoons if they decide to remove themselves from the situation entirely.

It's not an emotional appeal. It's reality. If you've raised a kid for 3 years, you're likely to have formed an attachment to the kid. And the kid's attached to you. Simply disappearing from that kid's life is a pretty jerk move. Is it your right? Sure. But that doesn't make that sort of person any less of a dick.

You have many rights in this world. To not have your actions judged is not one of them.

 

[NIX]

I don't understand how you could care for a child for 3 years and not be attached to him/her. Legally I don't think you should be responsible but I think you would be acting a bit like a dick in most circumstances.

The real travesty in such a case, would be if the mother suddenly had the right to seperate the child from the man who is 'Daddy' to them, and the man from the child who is as his own after so many years of love, bonding and support- both financial and otherwise- all because of a DNA test done years later. This should not be allowed by law. I certainly hope that it isn't. I suppose if the man's name is on the birth certificate as father that secures his rights.

 

[NIX]

Honestly, any man so callous and heartless and unloving as to kick a child who know and loves him as "Daddy" to the curb like that, should (in a perfect reality) have no right to father ANY child. ever.

 

[Falvlun]

The real travesty in such a case, would be if the mother suddenly had the right to seperate the child from the man who is 'Daddy' to them, and the man from the child who is as his own after so many years of love, bonding and support- both financial and otherwise- all because of a DNA test done years later. This should not be allowed by law. I certainly hope that it isn't. I suppose if the man's name is on the birth certificate as father that secures his rights.

I agree. You hear of cases every now and then of a family who has adopted or fostered a child, for years, only to have that child reclaimed by a biological parent. That just ain't right.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm not seeking to punish women; I'm seeking true equality and justice.

Sure, sure. And I have some beachfront property to sell you in Montana.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think anybody highly preoccupied or worried about such a scenario probably shouldn't be having children at all.

 

[dust1n]

100% agreed. The article is bad. It does NOT represent feminism nor any respected feminist thought.

I wouldn't say so neither. It saddens me that it is equated with such and, I guess, discredits feminism in the eyes of people.

Nope. They can't. It's up to the biological father to financially support the child. I'm criticizing the sentiments expressed in the OP toward the idea of kicking a child he's raised for 3 years out because he cares little for "heartstrings" toward a child.

I just agree in a legal sense. But that situation seems implausible to me, at least, in comparison to the examples used in the article.

I think the more common situation might be that the non-father might want to leave the mother, and that leaving said child might be an inevitable occurrence do to a necessary departure. Maybe a long and expensive custody battle might garner some results?

 

[Mathematician]

Sure, sure. And I have some beachfront property to sell you in Montana.

Well personally I think a lot of female members here are displaying their sexism, so it's probably equally received.

 

[Falvlun]

Well personally I think a lot of female members here are displaying their sexism, so it's probably equally received.

The male posters here are saying the same things as the female ones.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not seeking to punish women; I'm seeking true equality and justice.

If you just intend to argue for "justice" against the woman (and I don't think that what you've proposed in this thread would be just on the woman either), then I still think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and ignoring the child's interests. What would the child do if his/her mother was "thrown out" as you are suggesting should happen in such a scenario?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I just agree in a legal sense. But that situation seems implausible to me, at least, in comparison to the examples used in the article.

I think the more common situation might be that the non-father might want to leave the mother, and that leaving said child might be an inevitable occurrence do to a necessary departure. Maybe a long and expensive custody battle might garner some results?

This article in the NYTimes I think is a better and more thorough attempt at wading through the complexities of dealing with DNA testing and how it might be affecting what we think about fatherhood.

There are men out there who would walk out - and have - on their kids upon finding out they weren't theirs biologically. The impact on the kids who had this happen to them are profound (as recounted in the article).

What I can support are measures where paternity tests can help to determine various forms of custody and where support payments should be coming from. For instance, there were at the time of the writing that if a man discovers the children he is raising isn't his, that he can - and I think should - file for custody (shared/joint/sole) of the child to continue raising him or her after bonding, but that the actual biological father should pay the support to the custodial father.

The article also addresses the issue of how men who had been wronged wish punitive measures against the woman. While society can acknowledge the feelings of a man who had been burned, it's very difficult for the courts to enforce charges against a woman that will likely wind up hurting the child, too. The likeliest scenario is if a man can prove there was fraud involved.....that the women knew ahead of time that the child was not his, and tricked him into signing his name on the birth certificate as the child's father. There was one case that was cited in the article where that did happen.

 

[Mathematician]

If you just intend to argue for "justice" against the woman (and I don't think that what you've proposed in this thread would be just on the woman either), then I still think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and ignoring the child's interests. What would the child do if his/her mother was "thrown out" as you are suggesting should happen in such a scenario?

Not the psuedo-father's concern. Arguing from the child's welfare is like arguing from the fetus's defense if the woman pursues an abortion. It's secondary to the main concern of freedom. You are not obligated to be chained at the hip by deceit. The law is explicitly intended to enact justice, not to care for emotions.

Like I said earlier, if the roles were reversed and a father brought him a child from another woman, should the law force his wife to provide for this child, even in the case of divorce?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Not the psuedo-father's concern. Arguing from the child's welfare is like arguing from the fetus's defense if the woman pursues an abortion. It's secondary to the main concern of freedom. You are not obligated to be chained at the hip by deceit. The law is explicitly intended to enact justice, not to care for emotions.

You are equating a fetus to a child, but legally they aren't the same thing. Abortion - from a pro-choice argument - is about bodily security until fetal viability occurs. Not about whether or not a woman should be caring for a dependent human being.

Like I said earlier, if the roles were reversed and a father brought him a child from another woman, should the law force his wife to provide for this child, even in the case of divorce?

From what I understand, a child born into a marriage is presumed under the custody of the couple unless otherwise legally arranged. So yes, if a woman married to a man accepts caring for that child (say the child was dropped off at the doorstep), and it's discovered that the child is the man's biologically from an affair, the wife I think should have certain obligations for the welfare of the child if after 3 years the couple divorces. Most people wish to maintain a bond with a child after helping to raise that child except for a rare few (namely, apparently, you and one of the men cited in the article I linked to above).

I do recognize that abandoning children is not limited to men, and that plenty of women have abandoned them as well. I hold the same opinion of women who cut off all ties to child after establishing that bond as "mom", just because she was wronged by another adult. My point is the child should not be punished for the wrongdoings of adults.

Another thought......a scenario that might work legally and ethically is that a man can have the choice to ask for a DNA test at birth up to 2 years (before the child is completely cognizant of an attachment to a father figure). If he discovers the child is not his, he is free to divorce himself from legal obligations to the child, but if he denies any DNA testing, and willingly commits himself to raising the child after he or she is 2 years old, then he waives the right to severing support or custodial rights to the child since he has legally assumed the parental role.

Family responsibility doesn't begin and end with bloodline, otherwise we wouldn't see the success of same sex couples raising children, adoptive couples, or stepparents being thought of as "mom" or "dad" to the kids. Human beings have free agency (out of concern for the adults), but they also are not property (out of concern for underage children), and should not be considered worthy of care only if a man sired them.

It's a complex issue that SHOULD consider all adults involved, but 1) it's not comparable to bodily rights as abortion is to women, and 2) it must consider the welfare of the child first.