When a man is ordered to pay child support, is he also given rights in the child’s life - visitation, adoption consent, the woman not being allowed to move the child away without discussing it with him, etc? If she wants him to pay like a father, she should be prepared to allow him to take a fathering role. I realize a lot of guys couldn’t care less if they act like a father, but at least it would equal things out a little bit for them so they wouldn’t feel completely powerless.
I agree with RnGy9 to a degree; the “keep it in your pants” arguments are doing very little to address these incredibly complex situations. They don’t address the fact that humans act irresponsibly, rashly, and not in their own best interests ALL THE TIME. It sounds sort of like the arguments people give for not allowing birth control or sex ed classes in schools; “Kids shouldn’t be having sex.” Saying that people shouldn’t do things means just about nothing when faced with the fact that they are doing these things.
One point of order, RnGy9 - being a newbie you may not appreciate this, but there is no reason to assume that anything Courier said was truthful. So I wouldn’t use as an example anything from the OP.
If he is a fit parent and requests visitation, joint custody, or full custody, the court will consider that request and rule appropriately. If you don’t ask, you don’t get. Custody and support are separate considerations. One does not flow from the other.
What part of THE FATHER MUST CONSENT TO ANY ADOPTION are you people not understanding?
I swear, the way some posters are talking about this, you’d think that some loving husband and father could just come home from work one day to learn that his wife has given the kids up for adoption. Can’t happen, folks. Why not? Say it with me, “The father must consent to any adoption.” There, don’t you feel better now?
What are the terms of the custody and visitation arrangements? If he has visitation or custody, those rights can be enforced by court order no matter where mommy moves. If he hasn’t asked for visitation or custody, tough noogies.
And he can do that whether or not she wants him to pay child support. All he has to do is ask the court for custody, visitation, guardianship, etc.
Fortunately, that’s already precisely what the legal system does.
Yes featherlou, but if a “human act[s] irresponsibly, rashly, and not in their own best interests” and another life is the result, then who should pay for it?
I can’t help feeling that to the extent that the “irresponsibly and rashly acting” human can afford to pay, they should. This isn’t out of any kind of feeling of justice or ::shudder:: vengance on my part. It’s just practical - a child has been born and needs basic fundamentals. Those directly responsible should be the first port of call when it comes to anteing up.
Don’t pay too much attention to our “newbie”, lads and lasses.
Jesus Christ. If you hit a dog twenty times, it’ll learn to stay the hell away.
Apparently, this sound logic doesn’t apply to deranged Florida based single guys with a preference for 60’s automobiles, non-fat women that don’t give you lip, smoking tobacco whenever and wherever they like it, and raving on about sexual encounters that -if they actually occured, which is doubtful- happened in the 70’s.
Sheeyit Coldie - I had an e-mail all typed out and ready to go on the guy, but thought at the last minute that it was just paranoia on my part! So I didn’t send it and wrote that reply above instead. More fool me - where Serlin is concerned apparently one can never be too paranoid!
[sub]::mumble mumble found that one too honest::[/sub]
Uh, Minty? Let’s say in the given example (whether it is real or not- I’m not here to debate that), that the mother had, in those intervening five years, decided to give the child up for adoption. Sure, it may be illegal- but all she’d have to say is, “I don’t know where the father is, sorry- and I’m not sure who he was, anyway”, and she’d have no trouble whatsoever putting the sprog up for adoption- father be damned.
Saying “The father must consent to any adoption” doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Sorry, Lightnin’, but the father must still consent, either explicitly or constructively, to any adoption. That’s a straightforward matter of due process under the U.S. Constitution. Adoption agencies recognize this, and they pressure the hell out of birth mothers to give up the name of the father so that his consent can be obtained for the adoption. This is definitely in their interests, since it doesn’t look good for the agency to have a child taken away from the adoptive parents when a pissed of daddy who never gave consent shows up.
In those circumstances where the father has never established any ties to the child, the courts will easily find that he has constructively (as opposed to explicitly) given up his parental rights, which allows an adoption to proceed. So if daddy hasn’t been around for five years and mommy gives the kid up for adoption, daddy can’t complain much because he’s sat on his rights. Actually, even that’s not quite true. If daddy contests the termination of rights quickly enough, and moves to establish parental ties to the kid, he can indeed put the kibosh on any adoption.
It’s been a few years, but around ten years ago there were several very prominent cases of fathers regaining custody of their children when the mother put the baby up for adoption and the father was not given an opportunity to assert his own rights. The cases (“Baby M” was one of them, IIRC) dragged on for quite a while, but the fathers won because they did not sit on their rights.
In the infamous Baby Jessica case, the child had been adopted and was taken away from the only parents she knew in order to be given back to the biological father, (who had by then married the mom, but that wasn’t relevant to the court).
I couldn’t disagree more. I think you’re branching off into the realm of a different Great Debate, but essentially I think nobody is ever responsible for paying into a child’s upkeep other than parent, parents, or other interested parties whether they be individuals, private organizations, or religious organizations. Just because a mother decides against abortion or giving it away for adoption should not obligate a Government into paying a portion of the child’s upkeep. Would this mean some kids could live in starvation situations? Absolutely. There is no obligation to feed a starving child other than individual morality and conscience. Tax payers need never help.
It seems like you’re saying that the woman holds all the cards in the pregnancy gambit. If she says “I’m having the baby and the man is paying for it” then she has it and the man pay with or without his input and/or objections. I didn’t think this is particularly equitable since both parties entered into a sexual relationship as equally willing participants. Assuming this is your position: What gives the woman the right to basically veto the man? If the child is half his: Does he have no recourse when his decision differs from the woman’s?
I know of nowhere in this county where a woman is forced into giving birth and keeping the child. Friends, family, and religion may impel certain actions concerning pregnancy and children, but they do not compel.
It’s her womb. Think of it as a property right, if that helps you out.
Nope. It’s one of those double-key nuclear launch system things; unless they both turn their keys, both parents will be financially responsible for the kid after it’s born.
And remember, the father has precisely the same right to withhold consent for adoption that the mother has. If mom doesn’t want the kid and dad does, mom will be required to pay child support. And if mom runs off and leaves the kid behind after giving birth, the courts can and will terminate her parental rights in the same way they would for a father who has never established any parental ties.
Damn, there’s equity all over the place, isn’t there? Come on, guys, gimme a hard one.
wring:In the infamous Baby Jessica case, the child had been adopted and was taken away from the only parents she knew in order to be given back to the biological father, (who had by then married the mom, but that wasn’t relevant to the court).
Sorry, wring o’ my heart, that is indeed widely believed but it doesn’t seem to be the Straight Dope. Baby Jessica’s adoption was apparently legally irregular—the birth mother’s release of her parental rights did not conform to statute, and moreover she named the wrong person as the child’s father. Within a couple of weeks, she named the true father, who had not consented to the adoption, and they both decided to try to reverse the termination of their parental rights. As this source notes,
Now while it is definitely a wrenching thing for would-be adoptive parents when birth parents change their minds about adoption shortly after the child’s born (I know a couple that that happened to, they were all ready to go get their new daughter when the birth mother decided she just couldn’t give her up. Ouch), it does happen and they should take the possibility into consideration. I do feel sorry for the couple who tried to adopt Baby Jessica, but the fact that they lost custody of her after more than two years rather than within a month of her birth was entirely their own fault. Her being “taken away from the only parents she knew” after living with them for a long time as their child happened only because that couple felt justified in ignoring the clearly-expressed wishes and rights of the birth parents and attempting to thwart them in a long-drawn-out court battle.
Back to the OP: I too have sympathies on both sides of the fence on this one, agreeing that the support of the child is the most important thing but also feeling that it seems fair for a man to have at least a limited-time chance to choose whether or not to accept parental responsibility for an unwanted child, similar to a woman’s limited-time chance to choose an abortion. (Btw, I seem to be the only person in these discussions who says hell yes, the taxpayers should step up to bat to help provide for the children in our society that their biological parents can’t or won’t take responsibility for. I support tax funding of abortions for the same reason.)
But since I know that view is widely detested and I expect to get spat on again just for bringing it up, allow me to suggest another potential solution. Isn’t it possible for a man who doesn’t want kids to make a legally binding contract (similar to the ones sperm donors sign) to that effect with his sexual partner(s), in which she officially declares her awareness of his aversion to fatherhood and formally accepts that any parental rights and responsibilities if he impregnates her will be exclusively hers? Lawyers, please rally round and tell me if such an idea is legally feasible. If so, all you guys who worry about being tricked into fatherhood have no more cause for complaint: all you have to do is make sure that the signatures are on the dotted line before you begin the beguine, and you’re in the clear. (Any sexual opportunities missed thereby, as a result of the lady in question concluding that anyone who would demand such a legal absolution from responsibility for his actions must be a fourteen-carat rat, are simply part of the price you pay.)
And it’s his sperm. Think of THAT as a property right.
Except mom has the ability to relenquish her financial responsibilities after conception (before birth and afterwards), while dad does not. No amount of arguing will get you around this fact.
If he’s told about the pregnancy! Baby M or Jessica aside- if the father is never told about the pregnancy, he doesn’t get any rights. If the mom’s willing to lie to the dad, she’ll be willing to lie to the adoption agency.
…most of the time…
And if both parents want the child, the mother will receive custody, and the father will pay. You can’t say there’s equity in custody and support awards.
Look, I’ve been through a much-similar case. My ex got pregnant, and we decided to marry. We both decided to place the child up for adoption- note: we both decided this. A month further into the pregnancy, her family convinced her to keep the child. I had no choice in the matter. I grew to love my son- I have no regrets about his birth. He’s great.
But when his mom and I got divorced, she got custody. I got every other weekend and a child support bill. Her new husband spends more time with my son than I do. That’s a pain I don’t wish on anyone.
I guess my point was that as evidenced by that case, the fact that the real father hadn’t signed off was the significant issue, the timing was, of course the fault of the birth mom and the adoptive parents etc. But, minty’s point was that the birth father’s consent had been required, and did seem to be accurate. The adoption was declared null because birth mom had fabricated the info, and the father had not signed off.
That kid who’s growing up starving is your responsibility. And mine. And everyone else’s. I’m not overjoyed at supporting other people’s children–but I really don’t want another uneducated crackhead on the streets if there’s anything I can do to help it. If you do not see my point, perhaps we should start another thread.
I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure that the mother cannot sign away the (potential) child’s rights in this situation. Remember that support checks are supposed to be spent on the child, and rarely, if ever, cover the total costs of supporting the child.
Abandoned property is free for the taking. Don’t abandon the little guys and you won’t have to worry about any of this.
No financial responsibilities are incurred until birth. Prior to birth, it’s her damn womb. Reconcile yourself to this fact of law and biology or we’re getting nowhere. Neither the law nor the biology is likely to change anytime soon.
And once again, mom cannot relinquish her financial responsibilities after birth unless dad either consents to adoption or doesn’t care enough about where his sperm ended up to check on their recipient. Let this be your mantra: “Express or implied consent is required of the father. Express or implied consent is required of the father. . . .”
Which, in the aftermath of Babies M and Jessica, are far less willing to place a child for adoption without a waiver. And again, since the point of this thread is “It’s unfair for me to pay child support! Wah!” where’s your beef with two procedures–abortion and adoption–that 100% guarantee daddy will not have to pay child support?
No, all of the time. If dad has custody and mom has income, she WILL be required to pay child support if dad requests it from the court. Unequal treatment in this regard would certainly violate the 14th Amendment.
Mothers more often receive primary custody of their children in a child custody suit. The vast majority of the time, it is because the father does not want primary custody himself. It is also partly a result of the fact that the mother has far more often the primary caregiver prior to the custody dispute, and courts do not wish to radically alter the way that the child has been raised. In a Mr. Mom kind of situation, I would be very, very surprised if a court messed with that situation by giving primary custody to the mother.
And yes, if it’s your kid, you WILL pay child support. Financial support is a right of the child. Whether you’re there for that kid or not, even if you’re not there because a court has awarded sole custody to the other parent, that kid needs and is entitled to the support of both parents. Period.
Kinstu: ENugent is quite right about your contractual idea. Child support is a right of the child, not the parent. Only you, not somebody else, can waive a right that is personal to you.
First you say it her womb and has, in essence, property rights to the contents within and can veto the man whatever he may say or want. I think this gives her the upper hand and everything is not quite equal. Could the father prevent the woman from getting an abortion if she wanted to get rid of it and he wanted to keep it? I’m sure there is a case where this has happened, but don’t know the specifics or the outcome. If the father could stop the abortion then the contents of her womb must be joint property.
:rolleyes: Does this only apply to starving kids in the US or the whole world? Why should the hungry kid in New York be any better than the hungry kid in India? Provinding food for every mouth in the world isn’t practical. Just don’t starting singing “Feed the World.” Okay? If you want to feed a hungry kid, I’m not going to say you can’t on your time and your dime but not with mine. If you’re going to force to pay into the hungry kid fund as a human responsibility, then as part of the same responsibility I’m going to send poor pregnant women to the family clinic and force them into having an abortion.
