Hypothetical Regarding Child Support

[Alceste]

I voted that it's unfair. Further to that, life's not fair.

Like the majority of men who get surprise children and do their best to be fathers to them anyway, I'm a pragmatist. Very little of value in this world has ever been attained by whinging and running away.

 

[Alceste]

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.

I agree. The facebook thing is tacky and inconsiderate. Some people are tacky and inconsiderate. Best not to screw those ones.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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.

I agree. The facebook thing is tacky and inconsiderate. Some people are tacky and inconsiderate. Best not to screw those ones.

I fully agree that it was tacky and unnecessary.

My point was that if you do the sex, you deal with the consequences, one of which might be children.
If you're not prepared to deal with the consequences, don't do the sex.
And for the love of everything nice and fluffy, stop having (unprotected?) sex with morons and ***********, and then complain about it.

People really need to start taking responsibility for their lives and their actions and stop whining.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

Agreed.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

For all the people here who think that it is unfair, what is your solution?

Or should I join in the chorus of calling Bill a whiner?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think that Bill would be extremely irresponsible to have casual sex the way he does in the hypothetical knowing that a pregnancy could entail. What he 'wants' or verbally agrees/disagrees to doesn't change that in any way.

As I have already said in a few threads regarding similar issues, no, I don't think such a situation would be unfair to him. He had casual sex and knew what risks that carried — which include the possibility of the woman changing her mind — so pulling out of paying child support would be rather irresponsible in this case, as far as I'm concerned.

Also, neither of them wanted a pregnancy prior to having sex, but since the woman had supposedly already gotten pregnant when she made her decision to keep the baby, it becomes a different situation: it's no longer only on paper; she's actually pregnant with the baby.

I see this from the viewpoint that both of them chose to have casual sex. As such, both of them have to deal with any potential consequences, which definitely include the woman wanting to keep the baby.

But as I said in the beginning of the post, the idea of having sex so casually and with such potential consequences being involved strikes me as utterly irresponsible and thoughtless.

 

[McBell]

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

The biggest problem with verbal agreements is that they almost always boil down to a "he said, she said" argument with neither side able to verify what was actually agreed upon.

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

I have to disagree.
I received full care, control, custody, and concern of my daughter from get go.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think that Bill would be extremely irresponsible to have casual sex the way he does in the hypothetical knowing what a pregnancy could entail. What he 'wants' or verbally agrees/disagrees to doesn't change that in any way.

As I have already said in a few threads regarding similar issues, no, I don't think such a situation would be unfair to him. He had casual sex and knew what risks that carried — which includes the possibility of the woman changing her mind — so pulling out of paying child support would be rather irresponsible in this case, as far as I'm concerned.

Also, neither of them wanted a pregnancy prior to having sex, but since the woman had supposedly already gotten pregnant when she made her decision to keep the baby, it becomes a different situation: it's no longer only on paper; she's actually pregnant with the baby.

I see this from the viewpoint that both of them chose to have casual sex. As such, both of them have to deal with any potential consequences, which definitely include the woman wanting to keep the baby.

But as I said in the beginning of the post, the idea of having sex so casually and with such potential consequences being involved strikes me as utterly irresponsible and thoughtless.

Bingo.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The biggest problem with verbal agreements is that they almost always boil down to a "he said, she said" argument with neither side able to verify what was actually agreed upon.

Hence, my argument that verbal agreements legally are bunk. He could take her to court and say she promised she'd get an abortion, and she could always say she didn't.

How would they prove her lying in court based on a single night of drinking and and a one night stand?

I have to disagree.
I received full care, control, custody, and concern of my daughter from get go.

And I applaud you, sir. :clap

I'd like a show of hands of the men who believe Bill is being put in an unfair situation: Who has actually been in a situation where you have fathered a child unintentionally?

It's very easy to assume what Bill would do, say, think, when you have never been in that situation. And it's no fault of your own, guys......we've ALL been there assuming what we'd do when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

 

[Kathryn]

Have sex with someone of the opposite sex - pregnancy may be the result. You have to know that going in, regardless of what precautions you think you or the other person is using. Condoms break, people forget to take their birth control pills, sex can be messy.

Sex isn't always free - often it's not. Sometimes it has very long term consequences. Good reasons for it not to be undertaken casually or with people you don't know well, or can't imagine being a parent to your child.

He took the risk, he needs to pay child support.

My advice would be to keep his pants zipped around strangers.

 

[NIX]

Is it fair that some people are born into rich families and nice homes and others aren't?

Is it fair that some kids are raised by guardians who support them in their own personal dreams, and others aren't?

Is it fair that some people have wonderful health, never get in any accidents and have no medical debt, and others do?

Is it fair that some people have happy dynamic prosperous life partnerships and others don't?

Is it fair that some couples can have children of their own and others can't?

Is it fair that some people who want children of their own don't get them, and some people who don't want children do?

Is it fair that unexpected turns destroy people economically, physically, mentally?

Is it fair that people with different needs and desires get in each other's way?


We all do have a right to make the best decisions we can for ourselves in any given situation.


if something-anything- is VERY important to you- do what you can, and get the rest in legal writing.
Protect yourself the very best you can. The rest you NEVER can control.

It's not fair. I know.

 

[Kathryn]

Life's not fair.

And as my mama always said, "Everybody's chickens come home to roost some day."

You can take that one to the bank.

 

[NIX]

What about a married guy in the same situation. The marriage partnership was clearly based around OTHER things - careers, time for charities/trips/hobbies/endeavors - and the very clear agreement from the beginning was - No children. But then some time in, there is an accidental pregnancy, and the wife finds her heartstrings attached, and just can't go through with the abortion.

As well, what about a marriage situation where a clear maximum of 2 children was agreed upon, and where the birth of another unplanned baby would turn everyone's lives upsidedown. What if this new unplanned baby would cause the husband to not be able to make a very important life change for himself that was clearly agreed upon years earlier? Perhaps the other two children were teens- and the birth of a baby - economically and other wise- would make the previous life plan/agreement impossible.

If these men leave the marriage (ie. divorce) as a result of the wife changing the game plan without his agreement, should he have to pay child support for the new baby?

In such cases one night stands can be no different from long term marriage agreements.

 

[Willamena]

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?

As a "parent," he is obligated to pay child support. There are legal avenues that can release him from that obligation (by making him no longer of parent or guardian status, or by contractual arrangement with the mother, etc).

If all parties are reasonable, it is fair, mostly to the child. That's to whom it really has to be fair.

 

[McBell]

Hence, my argument that verbal agreements legally are bunk. He could take her to court and say she promised she'd get an abortion, and she could always say she didn't.

How would they prove her lying in court based on a single night of drinking and and a one night stand?

Not to mention that some agreements are not legally enforceable, be them verbal OR written.

I'd like a show of hands of the men who believe Bill is being put in an unfair situation: Who has actually been in a situation where you have fathered a child unintentionally?

I have four children.
I have full care, control, custody, and concern of my 16 year old.
I have a set of 14 year old twins who I pay Child support on.
I have an 11 year old whose mother I am still married to.

It's very easy to assume what Bill would do, say, think, when you have never been in that situation. And it's no fault of your own, guys......we've ALL been there assuming what we'd do when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

And some of us do not have to make any assumptions of what we would do simply because we have already been there and done that.

 

[jazzymom]

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?

It is fair, they both had casual sex and pregnancy can happen because contraception can fail.

He should not pay until he has a dna test but if the baby is his then he is a parent along with the woman and both are responsible.

If he did not want to take the chance he should not have had casual sex.

 

[Willamena]

If he did not want to take the chance he should not have had casual sex.

Coulda-shoulda-woulda isn't a resolution to the scenario, though.

 

[NIX]

Maybe only people with money to burn should be allowed to engage in heterosexual sex. This way if a child is conceived and birthed, there will be economic coverage with no strife.

I know. This really would not be fair to those of us without sufficient funding.

 

[NIX]

Coulda-shoulda-woulda isn't a resolution to the scenario, though.

And as I pointed out before, the very same scenario can arise within a marriage.

If he did not want to take the chance he should not have had casual sex.

I suppose for the married guy we can just take out the word casual.

'If he did not want to take the chance he should not have had sex'.

or add the word 'marital', in place of 'casual'.

'If he did not want to take the chance he should not have had marital sex'.

In the end it all amounts to the same thing. A change in an agreement that the man had no say in.

 

[McBell]

And as I pointed out before, the very same scenario can arise within a marriage.

And?

Unless they are going to go their separate ways, child support is not even an issue.
If they are going to go their separate ways, then they are stuck with what the courts decide.