I think a lot of problems would be solved if men and women were required to carry that document and sign it before having sex.
It doesn’t sound like the document is necessary if you insist the man isn’t responsible even if she refuses to sign. Lot’s of women raise kids without support for a variety of reasons. The question IMO is what kind of moral precedent are we setting up by allowing males an easy way to avoid parental responsibilities. Then you have simply shifted even more of the burden onto females rather than made it more fair.
You’re essentially saying that because women carry the child in their and have an abortion option, {that not all morally agree with btw, so it’s really not an option for a lot of women} then men should be given the ability to have sex as much as they like and never bare the responsibility of fathered children if they choose not to. Doesn’t sound more fair to me.
No she isn’t. The purpose of the child support is to support the child. That requires a custodial parent to support that child. Being a single custodial parent significantly reduces ones earning potential. Allowing a single custodial mother, for example, to purchase a car, benefits the child.
I do think that the law would be fairer if the legal decisions and ramifications (implicit or explicit) happened after the pregnancy has occurred, and before the fetus is a legal entity.
However, even though it would be fairer, it likely would result in a lower overall well-being of society (especially the kids) and so what we have today may be the best compromise.
Legally speaking, I wonder if anyone crazy enough to do something like that, would it override current child support laws?
You’re playing with semantics. Yes, we’ve decided it’s only her right because biology dictates that it’s only her body that carries the child. Unless you think men should have the right to legally compel a woman to have an abortion I don’t get what you’re arguing about.
My personal comments to you have been addressed via a written apology I do believe.
I’m not walking away from anything, I just don’t plan on repeating ad nausea what we have already covered.
We have discussed the choice a multitude of times in a multitude of ways, the bottom line is that the states have decided to infer upon the woman a choice solely dependent on her biology which does in fact take a choice from the man (for the welfare of this not yet legal entity known as a child).
We grant the woman the same choice as the man (in willfully engaging in sex), and then we grant the woman a second choice in whether or not to accept the consequences of the first decision (which we don’t give to the man)
Right or wrong, those are the facts. We disagree, you don’t like my interpretation.
I , like Polerius, agree that this is a compromise but I am left wondering if it’s the best compromise.
They are not signing away the rights of the child. They are saying that they, “Mary Jones” will be responsible for the financial support of the child.
The child does not have a “right to financial support from both parents”
If anything, it has a “right to financial support”.
If the mother signs the above agreement, she is just stating that she will be providing that financial support, and is therefore not taking away any rights from the kid.
Even if the woman is on welfare the child support paid by the father, {which is what we’re talking about} is not compensating her. It’s still for the child.
I expect that child support is considered as income when a mother is applying for welfare. That’s why states that provide assistance go after the Dads.
Are there acceptations to the rule and people who abuse then system. Sure, but that’s not the point. In general, child support is NOT compensation for the mother so that concept needs to vanish from judgment of fairness.
Actually the child does have a right to financial support from both parents. “Mary Jones” cannot sign away the kid’s claim on the father, before the kid even exists. The right isn’t to $x per month, it is to support from both. I’ve said this in previous threads, that the only way I can see one of these working is for the mother to sign a contract pledging to personally reimburse the father for any child support payments ordered. However, the father would still have to make the payments, and I am 99.9% certain a court would refuse to enforce it anyway.
Yet you continue to repeat ad nauseam what you have already said. And while you apologized, well, to me once you make personal remarks regarding someone else’s family a “whoops, I’m sorry, never mind” doesn’t make everything perfect again, and give you some kind of imagined moral highground.
Semantics, someone on the end of the person who has custody of the child is getting compensation. Whether you want to call it ‘her’ or not, legally she is responsible for that child.
And a mother that gets a spa treatment and a makeover because she has a job interview might benefit the child. In fact, outside of illicit drug use, it is difficult to come up with any expenditure that couldn’t in some tangentially related way benefit the child. That’s why I would call for more oversight.
I don’t imagine I have some moral high ground. I have stated repeatedly, we disagree. I have laid out the facts as I perceive them (in regards to the states involvement in child support issues) and you continue to fight that.
Good on you. If you continue to be derogatory towards me though, I will follow suit.
Legally both are. THat’s the point. SHE IS NOT the person being compensated since she is also financially responsible for the child. Child support is for the care of the child not to compensate the mother.
The amount is usually figured on income. The law feels the child should be able to expect a certain amount of benefit based on the income of both parents. That’s why it’s not a flat fee.
No, because the mother doesn’t have the right to override her child’s rights.
Imagine someone said, “Religion in the US causes so much drama. If we just had a state requirement that there be no religion, things would go better. Here, sign this paper and it will revoke your unborn child’s right to freedom of religion.”
Could be. Do you have a cite for that? (i.e. a law that says that the kid, even if it is receiving lots of money from the mother or father, can still sue the other parent for some more money?)
Also, how does that fit in with adoption? When the parents both decide to give up the kid for adoption, can the kid then sue his biological parents for financial support?
If an adopted kid can’t sue his biological parents for financial support, because the new parents have assumed financial responsibility for him/her, how is that different than one biological parent assuming financial responsibility for the child and whether that child can sue the other parent for financial support?
