Hypothetical Regarding Child Support

[Alex_G]

At the risk of re-opening a can-o-worms, i thought I'd start this thread.
My issue with a blanket rule for enforced child support is that its possible for some to be taken advantage of, especially when they have no real opportunity to voice their objections, leading me to think such a subject can only be justly dealt with on a case by case basis.

What does everyone make of this hypothetical?

Bill is a decent and good guy. He loves his job working with endangered animals, where he travels to foreign countries for most of the year fighting against poaching and animal black market dealing. His job does not make him much money at all. When back in the UK one time, he meets someone when out having some drinks with his old mates. They end up having sex, in very casual circumstances for pleasure only. He doesn’t usually do this sort of thing, but does feel that he should let his hair down occasionally and have some fun.


They both were using contraception, him a condom, and she said she was on the pill as ‘she definitely wouldn’t want to get pregnant, and do anything to avoid it’.


As far as Bill was concerned it seemed clear that neither wanted a pregnancy, especially evident from the implementation of contraceptive measures.


Never the less, approx. a week or so later, after adding her to Facebook as you tend to do with everyone you meet, he finds out that she is pregnant and is keeping the baby. On further investigating it turns out to be his.
She isn’t interested in any kind of relationship with Bill at all. She is quite well off, and has lots of family support. Bill is soon leaving the country again for his job. He was never consulted on the decision to keep this child, or what it might mean for him.


Bill is forced to pay child support until the child grows up. The amount substantial enough to impact his job’s travelling costs, which he must save up for every trip abroad he takes. As a result he cannot do what he loves as often as he otherwise could.


Does this seem fair or unfair on Bill?

 

[Mathematician]

I think my opinion is clear from the other thread, but no, I don't believe he should be accountable to child support, especially since she vocalized her desire to avoid raising a child at any cost. Any change in opinion while pregnant is hers and she should own up to it. Just as a man shouldn't say he wants a kid and then bail. Fair is fair.

 

[Draka]

I'd call BS on the whole she-bang. There's no way in hell that she could find out she was pregnant within a week of having sex with him and it turn out to be his child. Especially with double contraception. She's pulling a scam. That "investigating" had better be DNA test.

 

[freethinker44]

This is a complicated, and sensitive topic, but I voted unfair in this particular situation. Neither wanted children, both took precautions against having children, it happened anyways and now because one decides to keep the child, the other should pay?

I don't think a "blanket rule" is fair. Each situation is different and simply saying "it takes two to tango" is unfair. As a general rule of thumb, I will say that if each parent agrees to keep the child, then one parent should be forced to pay child support if they are separated. Same thing if they have sex with the intent of becoming pregnant but then later one parent decides not to keep the child or separates from the other parent. If one or both parents did not intend to become pregnant or decides not to keep the child after they learn of the pregnancy, then child support should not be forced. However, once they decide to keep the child, they become subject to child support if separated.

 

[freethinker44]

I'd call BS on the whole she-bang. There's no way in hell that she could find out she was pregnant within a week of having sex with him and it turn out to be his child. Especially with double contraception. She's pulling a scam. That "investigating" had better be DNA test.

The key word is hypothetical.

 

[Alex_G]

This is a complicated, and sensitive topic, but I voted unfair in this particular situation. Neither wanted children, both took precautions against having children, it happened anyways and now because one decides to keep the child, the other should pay?

I don't think a "blanket rule" is fair. Each situation is different and simply saying "it takes two to tango" is unfair. As a general rule of thumb, I will say that if each parent agrees to keep the child, then one parent should be forced to pay child support if they are separated. Same thing if they have sex with the intent of becoming pregnant but then later one parent decides not to keep the child or separates from the other parent. If one or both parents did not intend to become pregnant or decides not to keep the child after they learn of the pregnancy, then child support should not be forced. However, once they decide to keep the child, they become subject to child support if separated.

Yeah, i agree with you. Sensible post. Its very different if they already have a child and decide to then separate. They both have already agreed to having a child which includes the adoption of a responsibility to care for it through to adulthood. What’s unfair is one person making that decision for the other at the beginning without them having freedom to choose for themselves.

 

[Skwim]

Why is the "Bill story" related in a color that's more difficult to read?

There's a good reason almost all printed work is done in black.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

At the risk of re-opening a can-o-worms, i thought I'd start this thread.
My issue with a blanket rule for enforced child support is that its possible for some to be taken advantage of, especially when they have no real opportunity to voice their objections, leading me to think such a subject can only be justly dealt with on a case by case basis.

What does everyone make of this hypothetical?

Bill is a decent and good guy. He loves his job working with endangered animals, where he travels to foreign countries for most of the year fighting against poaching and animal black market dealing. His job does not make him much money at all. When back in the UK one time, he meets someone when out having some drinks with his old mates. They end up having sex, in very casual circumstances for pleasure only. He doesn’t usually do this sort of thing, but does feel that he should let his hair down occasionally and have some fun.


They both were using contraception, him a condom, and she said she was on the pill as ‘she definitely wouldn’t want to get pregnant, and do anything to avoid it’.


As far as Bill was concerned it seemed clear that neither wanted a pregnancy, especially evident from the implementation of contraceptive measures.


Never the less, approx. a week or so later, after adding her to Facebook as you tend to do with everyone you meet, he finds out that she is pregnant and is keeping the baby. On further investigating it turns out to be his.
She isn’t interested in any kind of relationship with Bill at all. She is quite well off, and has lots of family support. Bill is soon leaving the country again for his job. He was never consulted on the decision to keep this child, or what it might mean for him.


Bill is forced to pay child support until the child grows up. The amount substantial enough to impact his job’s travelling costs, which he must save up for every trip abroad he takes. As a result he cannot do what he loves as often as he otherwise could.


Does this seem fair or unfair on Bill?

First, verbal agreements are not legally binding. People without having a written agreement - ideally with representation to prevent coercion - have nothing to renegotiate with when circumstances or perspectives change.

And people change their minds all the time. It's what gives women the right to HAVE an abortion if/when they see things changing for them and they're faced with their own circumstances.

Second, I'm of the belief that a man or woman should have the right to legally relinquish parental rights and duties with proper representation and process. But, I'm also of the belief that the man or women should have a very very good reason for completely relinquishing their rights and duties when it comes to the welfare of another human being with their DNA.

I also believe that the parent relinquishing the parental rights ought to help find another support system in his or her place.

Finally, with the giving up of parental rights, be prepared to find on your doorstep some day a young man or woman who has found you to be his or her birth parent asking why you decided to abandon them if you weren't in any debilitating condition mentally or physically, but that you just didn't want to be a parent. I say that to both a man OR a woman who wants to give up their parental rights after the child is born.

Be prepared with an explanation.

 

[Alex_G]

Why is the "Bill story" related in a color that's more difficult to read?

There's a good reason almost all printed work is done in black.

I just wanted to break it up, and make the story highlighted as apart from the other text. It seemed easily readable on my screen, but i apologise if its difficult, i can easily rectify that.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This is a complicated, and sensitive topic, but I voted unfair in this particular situation. Neither wanted children, both took precautions against having children, it happened anyways and now because one decides to keep the child, the other should pay?

I don't think a "blanket rule" is fair. Each situation is different and simply saying "it takes two to tango" is unfair. As a general rule of thumb, I will say that if each parent agrees to keep the child, then one parent should be forced to pay child support if they are separated. Same thing if they have sex with the intent of becoming pregnant but then later one parent decides not to keep the child or separates from the other parent. If one or both parents did not intend to become pregnant or decides not to keep the child after they learn of the pregnancy, then child support should not be forced. However, once they decide to keep the child, they become subject to child support if separated.

To be clear, nobody OWNS a child. A child is in the custody of one or both parents unless there are legalities that either prevent or cause the custody arrangements to be changed.

So, when people say that the mother wants to "keep" the baby - and she uses that language too, so I get the confusion - she is not owning the baby. She is deciding to maintain custody of the child. The state sees the child that is born as automatically under the custody of the birth parents until the arrangement is changed.

The notion that if a baby is born, and that the father is automatically responsible for that child as being "unfair" is woefully inaccurate given that the child that is born is a functioning but dependent human being in need of under the care and custody of at least one adult. The child after birth with his or her own birth certificate is not an object, but a dependent.

The mother and the father at that point are considered the caregivers unless otherwise specified. They need to come to terms with the reality of the situation and then decide together, and perhaps with the help of a circuit court, what the best situation is in the best interest of the child.

 

[Skwim]

I just wanted to break it up, and make the story highlighted as apart from the other text. It seemed easily readable on my screen, but i apologise if its difficult, i can easily rectify that.

Thanks. On my screen it is difficult to read.

 

[Alex_G]

First, verbal agreements are not legally binding. People without having a written agreement - ideally with representation to prevent coercion - have nothing to renegotiate with when circumstances or perspectives change.

And people change their minds all the time. It's what gives women the right to HAVE an abortion if/when they see things changing for them and they're faced with their own circumstances.

Second, I'm of the belief that a man or woman should have the right to legally relinquish parental rights and duties with proper representation and process. But, I'm also of the belief that the man or women should have a very very good reason for completely relinquishing their rights and duties when it comes to the welfare of another human being with their DNA.

I also believe that the parent relinquishing the parental rights ought to help find another support system in his or her place.

Finally, with the giving up of parental rights, be prepared to find on your doorstep some day a young man or woman who has found you to be his or her birth parent asking why you decided to abandon them if you weren't in any debilitating condition mentally or physically, but that you just didn't want to be a parent. I say that to both a man OR a woman who wants to give up their parental rights after the child is born.

Be prepared with an explanation.

I think verbal agreements are worth something, perhaps not as strong and ones written down, but that doesn’t mean their meaningless.

What do you make of this quote from a former President of the National Organisation for Women:

"if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support...autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

Shouldn’t a woman deciding to keep a child make such a decision independent of the male? You say he should find another support system, which sometimes if not often is very appropriate, but what if he was in no position of support to begin with? Like in this hypothetical? What exactly is he replacing when its difficult to argue what he agreed responsibility for in the first place?

Also your last paragraph was an interesting point; i mean that is a real issue that can occur. For me it simply further highlights the unfortunate situation that a man has very little say in this matter. Perhaps poor old Bill really does want kids, and a family to love, but doesn’t want it to happen as occurred in the hypothetical. Its a tough position for him to be put into, unfortunate and not ideal.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Let's turn this around and have Bill, who grew up with a crappy mother, decided to leave when growing up and never come back to her. Over the years, they never have any contact, nor does Bill have any desire to find out how his mother is doing.

Then one day, he gets a phone call saying that his mother who had been suffering from dementia and had been under the care of her husband has been widowed. With the death of her husband, her next of kin has been identified as Bill, and she is now in his custody. He must decide what to do with her, but in the meantime, he is completely responsible for her care and well-being.

He didn't want to have anything to do with her. In fact, he made it very clear that he wanted her out of his life. But now since she is unable to care for herself, and he is identified as the next of kin, like it or not he is responsible for her care. He must decide what he is going to do.

Is this unfair?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think verbal agreements are worth something, perhaps not as strong and ones written down, but that doesn’t mean their meaningless.

I disagree. Verbal agreements are bunk. How many people decide to change careers even though they told their parents they'd go into one field? How many people decide to stay in the town they're living in even though they promised their significant other they'd move with them to a new city, or country?

These decisions are made all the time. Are they annoying? YES. Are they legally binding? Absolutely not. In the end, when it comes to a verbal agreement over the governmental position child custody, the agreement amounts to nothing.

Does Bill repay his parents for all the college money they paid when they put him through school to be a doctor or an attorney, and he turns around and changes his mind to become a missionary? They invested perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in his education, and he changes his mind. He has free agency to change his mind without repurcussion. So does the woman when deciding how to handle a pregnancy and the birth of the child.

What do you make of this quote from a former President of the National Organisation for Women:

"if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support...autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

Shouldn’t a woman deciding to keep a child make such a decision independent of the male? You say he should find another support system, which sometimes if not often is very appropriate, but what if he was in no position of support to begin with? Like in this hypothetical? What exactly is he replacing when its difficult to argue what he agreed responsibility for in the first place?

Also your last paragraph was an interesting point; i mean that is a real issue that can occur. For me it simply further highlights the unfortunate situation that a man has very little say in this matter. Perhaps poor old Bill really does want kids, and a family to love, but doesn’t want it to happen as occurred in the hypothetical. Its a tough position for him to be put into, unfortunate and not ideal.

I gave the most ideal, imo, position regarding Bill's circumstances. But look at it this way. Bill never had to go through bodily changes, physical risks, or complications like the woman went through. Nature has it that women carry the baby in utero while the man is free of any physical pain or complications from a pregnancy.

Yes, that's unfair, too. Women have periods, pregnancy, and menopause and men have nothing like that. But that's life.

 

[Alex_G]

I disagree. Verbal agreements are bunk. How many people decide to change careers even though they told their parents they'd go into one field? How many people decide to stay in the town they're living in even though they promised their significant other they'd move with them to a new city, or country?

These decisions are made all the time. Are they annoying? YES. Are they legally binding? Absolutely not. In the end, when it comes to a verbal agreement over the governmental position child custody, the agreement amounts to nothing.

Does Bill repay his parents for all the college money they paid when they put him through school to be a doctor or an attorney, and he turns around and changes his mind to become a missionary? They invested perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in his education, and he changes his mind. He has free agency to change his mind without repurcussion. So does the woman when deciding how to handle a pregnancy and the birth of the child.

What about every time you go to the grocery store? They're all verbal agreements or verbal contracts, and they stand for something.

As a rule and as far as my understanding goes, contracts require the following; an agreement which includes an offer and acceptance, consideration - which refers to the exchange of things of tangible value and capacity.

Its quite irrelevant whether its verbal or in writing or what not. Something can be a valid contract even if it consists of a few spoken words and conversely you could have some 20 page deal between two corporations filled with jargon be not a legitimate contract after all.

Regardless, coming back to the main issue, how does this point that verbal agreements 'are bunk' support a position that somehow Bill legitimately agreed to support a child the woman decided of her own volition to keep, in so far as it becomes justified to enforce it?

I gave the most ideal, imo, position regarding Bill's circumstances. But look at it this way. Bill never had to go through bodily changes, physical risks, or complications like the woman went through. Nature has it that women carry the baby in utero while the man is free of any physical pain or complications from a pregnancy.

But didnt the woman choose to continue with the pregnancy of her own volition? A free choice on her part? She could have decided against it if she wanted assuming there were no circumstantial reasons to think she didn’t have such a free choice. Wouldn’t a consideration for the complications and difficulties be part of her decision to keep in the first place?
I mean in the whole scheme of things it is unfair that women must go through child birth and men don’t, but as you say that’s an unchangeable fact of nature. Why should that fact necessarily bind Bill to years of child support in this instance?

 

[Mathematician]

Let's turn this around and have Bill, who grew up with a crappy mother, decided to leave when growing up and never come back to her. Over the years, they never have any contact, nor does Bill have any desire to find out how his mother is doing.

Then one day, he gets a phone call saying that his mother who had been suffering from dementia and had been under the care of her husband has been widowed. With the death of her husband, her next of kin has been identified as Bill, and she is now in his custody. He must decide what to do with her, but in the meantime, he is completely responsible for her care and well-being.

He didn't want to have anything to do with her. In fact, he made it very clear that he wanted her out of his life. But now since she is unable to care for herself, and he is identified as the next of kin, like it or not he is responsible for her care. He must decide what he is going to do.

Is this unfair?

Yes, it is unfair. That's why you always designate more than one person in your living will.

Neither parent nor child is responsible for the welfare of the other once the child is 18, by the way. You can't automatically be assigned care.

 

[jarofthoughts]

*Shrug*
My take on it; if you have sex with someone of the opposite sex, pregnancy is always a risk.
No type of contraceptive is 100% secure, although you can get rather close to that number.
But, the bottom line is, you have the sex, you take the responsibility.
If a child is the result, then you man up and pay your dues.
Simple.

The moral?
Take responsibility for your actions.

Or maybe I'm just that kind of guy...

 

[Mathematician]

If a man were to get a woman into a contractual agreement with an attesting witness present that verified both parties agreed to not pursue child support in case of a pregnancy, some people would still call the guy a dead-beat if he didn't try to parent a resulting child.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

I disagree with Mystic. In civil court verbal agreements are legally binding however I am not sure with courts dealing with custody battles.

However the courts are generally unfair and the cards are always against the father.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

*Shrug*
My take on it; if you have sex with someone of the opposite sex, pregnancy is always a risk.
No type of contraceptive is 100% secure, although you can get rather close to that number.
But, the bottom line is, you have the sex, you take the responsibility.
If a child is the result, then you man up and pay your dues.
Simple.

The moral?
Take responsibility for your actions.

Or maybe I'm just that kind of guy...

I like it when folks say "man up" in this scenario who is not taking up responsibility? If you ask me a man deserves the right to know prior to finding out on facebook.