You have a guy and a girl in a relationship for a period of 6 or 8 months. He gets tired of her mouth and attitude and leaves. Less than a month later, she is sleeping with another guy. For whatever reason, she is also pregnant when she starts banging this second guy, by the first guy.
Five years later, she decides she wants the first guy to ay for junior, who she has not bothered telling him about. He has never wanted kids. She tracks him down, informs him, he takes a DNA test, which confirms that he is the Papa, and here is the problem.
They had, by mutual agreement, used birth control methods like the pill during their relationship. She had grown tired of taking them and stopped, never bothering to tell the guy. She wants kids. Now, according to the courts, since he put it in her and Junior appeared, he gets the labor of paying for the kid from time of birth in child support payments. He feels that this is grossly unfair, since had he known she had stopped the pill, he would have used other precautions. He also feels that because she knew he did not want kids, and that she ‘tricked’ him, that he should not be held responsible for any payments on the child, which he wants nothing at all to do with.
The court feels still that since he deposited the seed and it grew, he has to pay. Even though the lady waited 5 years to tell him, he has to also make up child support payments that period.
The lady comes out financially set. She has the kid she wanted, another boyfriend, and when finances became tight, she gets a windfall in the form of child support payments. The kid’s father, who wants no kids and nothing to do with her, gets screwed.
Perhaps I’ve seen it more eloquently written, but - exactly. A guy “bangs” a woman who apparently has some character issues, and now he’s whining about how it’s all not fair? (Since he was getting fed up her “mouth” and “attitude”? Why did he stick around anyway, and “bang” her anyway? Why even start sleeping with a woman with these issues?)
Well, boo hoo hoo. He should think more carefully about who he “bangs” next time, shouldn’t he? And if he has never wanted kids, he should have been FAR more careful about who he had sex with, what precautions he took, etc. Just trusting her to “take care of it” was very foolish - and he’s paying now for that, isn’t he?
And even if he had been far more careful than he was, there’s still that very slim chance that a kid could result anyway. No birth control is 100% foolproof.
I agree with the sentiment already expressed here. If you don’t want kids, you don’t have sex- period. It’s the only sure-fire way to avoid it.
My sister became pregnant by a man by stopping the pill and not telling him. He told her to basically “get bent” and refused to acknowledge her existance at the time. My mother discouraged her from seeking child support at the time because she told my sister that he would then have good grounds for a custody case against her.
Fast forward 11 years. Sister decides that she’s paid for every expense related to this child by herself for long enough. She files for child support (out the the blue- no warning to this guy or his family) and wins. He does not have to pay for the 11 years prior, but now he pays a good deal each month. The upside is that he has accepted her as his daughter and they visit regularly and go on family trips and such.
Fair? I don’t know. I have wrestled with this one for years regarding her situation. She became pregnant by using deception (in the hopes that he would accept the pregnancy as an accident and marry her), asked for no support or visitation, and for all purposes disappeard from this man’s life. 11 years later he gets a knock on the door serving him court papers.
Due to the personal experience of witnessing this very issue, I have several opinions that I battle with.
On one hand I believe that if someone can PROVE that a woman got pregnant by using deception (as in, she admitted this to friends, family etc as my sister did), they should not be responsible for financially supporting the child.
On the other hand, it is not the child’s fault that the mother is an idjit, and he or she should not be denied money that they can use for piano lessons, college, etc because of it. They should get full financial support regardless of the circumstances surrounding the conception.
On the third hand, I think that anyone who does not want to be a parent should keep their fly up. There is only one way to impregnate a woman, and if someone doesn’t take their own precautions against parenthood (condoms, abstenence), then they should have to pay the full financial responsibility of having a child.
Okay…I can appreciate not wanting children. But accidents do happen. And I must admit to being a bit appalled. He wants nothing to do with this child? How can you want nothing to do with your own child?? Even if the child started out unwanted, how can you turn your back on it? What a charming thing to say to the kid. “Sorry honey, daddy hates you and doesnt want to ever see you.” Pardon me for saying that the man in this scenario is about as low as a person can get.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by manhattan * Perfect justice to me. A father’s obligation runs to his child. No exceptions.*
Yes, there are. Take the case where the woman was married to one guy yet had a child fathered by another guy. The married guy didn’t find out for a while that the child wasn’t his. Evidently, the child had “bonded” to the father in the eyes of the court, and he was forced to pay child support for a child that wasn’t his. The other guy didn’t have to pay a nickel, and the child was biologically his.
The children’s needs must come first.
Some examples in this thread show adults behaving badly. OK, I’m sorry if that upsets other adults - but don’t take it out on the child.
And now for some Vogon poetry:
If into a female you would stick
Something as vital as your dick
Then be prepared to never be rid
Of your financial obligations (under various State and Federal laws) to any resulting (and remember we can use DNA testing) kid.
You are focusing on the wants/needs/issues of the parents here. That is not what needs to be looked at. You have to protect the kid. The KID! (Especially with these wahoos as parents. God knows they wouldn’t take a second to figure out what the kid needs)
The KID is punished enough with these self centered, careless, crazy parents. Taking away financial support as well is further, and unnessesary, punishment.
>> If you don’t want kids, you don’t have sex- period
If a man said that to a woman, he’d be toast but I guess it is OK for a woman to say that to a man.
Also, if you are a woman with a child, you have the right to relinquish your parental rights and give the child up for adoption. A man cannot do that, he is the father whether he likes it or not. It does seem to me women are more equal than men here. I would like to see a world where both men and women have the same rights and responsibilities.
I was divorced with one child, whom I supported emotionally, financially, and every other way possible. I was dating someone who told me she was on the pill when we met, but failed to tell me that she had stopped taking them soon after. She missed her period one month and I started to panic. Never in my wildest dreams did I want a kid with her, or even plan on marrying her… but I was half responsible for that kid, even if she tricked me, and would have accepted any and all responsiblity for him or her.
As it turned out, either it didn’t take or she was never really pregnant in the first place. When I found out I broke things off immediately and within a month had had a vasectomy.
From that point on it never became an issue since no matter what I wasn’t going to be the father again. How lucky was I?