Well said.
As I mentioned to villa, how does adoption play into this?
If the child’s rights are “financial support from both biological parents”, then I assume that the kid can sue his/her bio parents for money, even if they get support from the adoptive parents.
If the kid can’t sue the bio parents for money if the adoptive parents are already providing for him/her, then I don’t see how the scenario discussed above is any different.
Adoption is a legally approved process for the severing of parental rights and responsibilities. A private contract is not. I don’t know how to answer it further than that.
I don’t have any case law on this handy, but I can take a look when I get a chance (and free Lexis/Westlaw time).
Again with the semantics. No, she isn’t. The money isn’t for her. It’s for the child, but if she has primary custody she handles the money to care for the child.
Your assertion was that she is being compensated for the decision to keep the child. She isn’t. She is simply sharing the financial burden with the father for the child care.
What you seem to be suggesting is that them child be denied what the father is capable of giving and rely solely on the mother.
It doesn’t make the situation more equitable to provide males an easy escape hatch because biology dictates the mother carries the child. It simply shifts in a negative way, where the inequity is.
Ok villa, imagine Dad is nowhere to be found. If the mother cannot support the child, is the child compensated via the mother by way of the State?
com·pen·sate (kmpn-st)
v. com·pen·sat·ed, com·pen·sat·ing, com·pen·sates
v.tr.
- To offset; counterbalance.
- To make satisfactory payment or reparation to; recompense or reimburse: Management compensated us for the time we worked.
- To stabilize the purchasing power of (a monetary unit) by changing the gold content in order to counterbalance price variations.
v.intr.
To serve as or provide a substitute or counterbalance.
Neither you, nor Kearsen, appear to understand how the law works. The law gives parents a right to terminate parental rights through a particular process. Just because this right exists, it doesn’t mean a parent is allowed to turn around and say - “well, I can privately contract to this.”
According to biology if she attempted a self-abortion her chances would not be very successfull and probably cause a great deal of harm if not permanent damage or death to her. Her right to choose an abortion is not granted by biology but by technology and laws that protect medical personnel in safely using that technology. What is needed now is equitable laws to protect the rights of men to be free from compulsary parenthood.
You are the one using compensate. I’m not.
As it turns out, I think child support should include an element of compensation for the mother. But that doesn’t mean I think you are using the word correctly - in fact I know you aren’t.
Whether you call it a private contract or a “legally approved process”, the fact remains that there is a legal way for parents to “sign away” the kid’s legal right to demand financial support from them.
Why can’t this “legally approved process” be extended to a scenario where one bio parent severs parental rights and responsibilities by having the other bio parent adopt the child as a single parent, with consent from both bio parents?
And if this is possible, then how is this that different than one parent stating, before the child is born, that they will be 100% responsible for the child.
Why are you focusing on the “private contract” aspect?
Why can’t society have a legal framework for this to happen, just as it does for adoption?
That’s an interesting point.
I’d say by giving a child up for adoption a parent or parents are looking out for the child’s interests and welfare by acknowledging they are financially or emotionally unable to care for the child.
OTOH, a father saying “Hey I don’t want that” isn’t the same is it?
A woman can decide she doesn’t want child support and many do to avoid hassling with some jerk, but that doesn’t prevent the child from going after them later if they choose to.
What you seem to be suggesting is that the mother decide before birth whether she will ever ask for support and make that legally binding. I don’t know the legalities but I can see that people might change their mind in time based on that child’s needs and the child should not be denied.
It should be noted that step parents can adopt a child and assume all obligations as well but that considers the wishes of all parties and the welfare of the child.
Obviously it could if we decided it was just. If the welfare of the child is paramount, how does it become just?
Now you are changing it. You discussed the contractual side. Society could have a legal framework to do this. It could have a legal framework to do anything. We have chosen not to. We have chosen to grant a child the right to be supported by both its parents.
On balance, that seems to provide for a system where children are best taken care of. I can see how your system would be beneficial to men wanting zero consequence sex. We can build legal constructs that further benefit men in that position. However, the current system seems to be more beneficial than yours to the child produced.
No matter how you word it , the realities of biology dictates that it cannot be equitable since the process itself is not shared equitably. You cannot make it more equitable for the man involved without making it far less equatable for the woman and/or the child.
Men already have the ability to be free from compulsory parenthood. If they choose to risk parenthood they need to be responsible for that choice and how it affects others , the mother and their child.
Why is she receiving money from the state? It’s because of the child right? It’s about the care and welfare of the child.
Newsflash. I don’t think the welfare of the child should be paramount. I think it creates generations of spoiled brats and potential sociopaths. Fairness between the adults should be paramount.
That can happen, more or less, just not by mutual agreement prior to the child’s birth. Those proceedings have to take place in court.
An agreement or contract not to seek child support for children not yet born is generally void as to public policy, but parents can agree to terminate the parental rights of one party after the child is born. It’s not termed as one parent “adopting” as a single parent (can’t really adopt your own child), but it is possible to terminate one parent by mutual assent, typically the father. Biological fathers who don’t want to be fathers generally jump at the chance, as you might expect, and mothers who don’t want the biological fathers involved in the child’s life are frequently willing to forego the child support payments. If they’re both on the same page in this regard, it’s a win-win for the two of them.
The catch is that the agreement alone isn’t enough - just as in an adoption, only a court can terminate a parental rights, and the parent’s agreement is given a good deal of weight but isn’t the deciding factor. The court ultimately has to find that terminating is in the best interest of the child, and court doesn’t have to authorize a termination if it thinks that the mother needs to have the option to come back for child support later if she doesn’t have lot of resources to rely on if her circumstances change. It’s easier to convince the court if she has a good job, or a helpful and involved family, or an SO willing to adopt in the biological father’s place. Even though the court doesn’t have to authorize terminations like these, they very frequently do, probably more often than not. So yes, the biological father can definitely get off the hook if all parties and the court agree that that’s what’s best for the child.
From the evidence, I think something else must cause sociopathy.
To shamelessly plagiarize another poster, there’s a technical term for this argument: horse dookey.
This is just another justification to stick it to the males of the species. Once again another way to treat them as disposable assets and kick toys out of some misguided desire for some kind of revenge against malekind.
Of course, “I messed around on your ‘dad’ and lied to you and said your ‘dad’ was your father, when in fact he’s really not” certainly won’t do anything to the kid’s self esteem. Nosiree.
The woman gets away with this betrayal scot-free. Why is it that every time there’s a discussion about gender you guys always look for the “logic” that makes the woman the big winner in the deal?
WTF…
Right On!! There’s nothing like a reasonable expectation of food , shelter, clothing, education and medical care, to create spoiled brats and sociopaths. Obviously Dad might need a new four wheeler ATV, sporty car, or bass boat, and shouldn’t be denied those things by his selfish offspring.