No contradiction involved, Pyrrhonist. The cold, hard fact of property rights is that if you want the rights, you gotta have the property. If you want equality (which is not the same thing as equity) in this regard, I heartily encourage you to go out and get a uterus of your own.
One of the recurring themes in this thread is, “He put it in, it doesn’t matter that he didn’t know she had stopped using birth control.”
I guess in that case, everyone who unknowingly contracted HIV or AIDS from sex with someone that SAID they didn’t have HIV should be denied treatment because they knew the risks?
where do you get that? the concept is ‘put it in, you may have consequences that you should be prepared to accept’. having HIV would be a consequence under that scenario.
Then perhaps someone should start proceedings:
http://www.census.gov/ftp/pub/socdemo/www/chldsupp.html
Well, the law’s certainly not going to change, with that attitude. You’ve recognized the unfairness of the law, but you certainly seem willing to say, “well, that’s just the way it is.”
Biology, on the other hand… yeah, that’s not going to change. Maybe the law NEEDS to be changed, to recognize the fact that the two partners are NOT equal.
Look. I’m NOT saying that the father should be able to force the mother to abort, or put the child up for adoption. What I am saying, though, is that the mother can force the father to accept either- adoption after the fact (if dad’s not told about it), or abortion before (do abortion clinics check up on their patients to make absolutely sure they aren’t married, and that dad doesn’t want the kid?). My ex had two abortions- I wasn’t notified of either by the clinic.
Where’s my beef with adoption and abortion? The fact that both rely entirely upon the largess of the mother. Dad cannot instigate either one, while mom can have both. It’s far easier for women to lie about the other partner than it is for men. You seem to be conveniently ignoring the “dad doesn’t know about the issue” issue. Are you saying that I should track down every woman I ever slept with (even though safe sex was practiced) to make sure that no issue resulted, otherwise I haven’t maintained my rights? Shouldn’t that be HER responsibility? After all, she knows for a fact that she’s got a kid.
This situation happened to my cousin- a woman he’d had sex with once became pregnant- but didn’t tell him about it until four years had passed. He had no reason to suspect that she’d gotten pregnant- they’d been careful, and he has a low sperm count anyway. How is this fair?
What about in situations where both parents work? Who’s the primary caregiver? The courts, by default, assume it’s the mother.
And in my case, I WAS a “Mr. Mom”. I was advised- by my lawyer- that since the judges rarely award custody to men, I’d just be throwing my money away and hurting whatever relationship was left with my ex, if I pursued custody. I’ve heard of quite a few other men that were told the same thing. (I’m trying to find some cites for that- unfortunately, most of them appear to be on “father’s rights” webpages, and I don’t think you’ll accept those. Here’s one such:
http://www.custodyrights.com/custody.htm )
Custody fights are never pretty- to win, you must prove that the other parent is completely unfit to be a parent. This is all the more true for men seeking custody.
*note- SDMB is being painfully slow, yet again. I ain’t waitin’ ten minutes to preview, then another ten to post. I’m postin’ on a wing and a prayer here, folks.
You seem to be saying that the woman does have rights above and beyond the mans in regards to her womb. I won’t disagree with that, but the man needs to be informed early on about the woman’s decision. She shouldn’t come back five years later and say, “Oh, now you owe me child support.”
One of the rights a father should possess is the right to say, “Get an abortion” then ensure the financial obligations for that procedure are covered. The woman isn’t required to take the father’s recommendation. If she doesn’t, then she takes sole financial responsibility for the child. What is wrong with that? It preserves that rights of two.
Lightnin’: First off, I’m sorry you had a crappy lawyer. I’m also sorry you listened to him and decided not to fight for custody. Bad decisions all around.
I’m not impressed by your census statistics. The fact that mothers receive (on behalf of their children) far more child supoprt payments than fathers do is a reflection of who gets primary custody, as well as which gender makes more money in this country. My point on the equality of the situation is that IF mom doesn’t want the kid AND dad gets custody, mom WILL pay child support. The fact that this situation doesn’t occur all that often does nothing to change the law or the equity. If you want to discuss who gets custody, that’s a whole different thread.
If there’s something wrong with biology, I submit that the law is not the appropriate way to deal with it. Get yourself a uterus. Or, more realistically, a vasectomy.
I think “Those lying bitches!” was the troll’s argument. Personally, I think it’s a bad idea to give fathers get-out-of-paternity-free cards merely because the mothers might lie about who daddy is so that the kid can be placed for adoption. In fact, my sense is that it’s pretty rare these for a child to be placed for adoption without the father’s express consent. Adoption agencies simply don’t want to muck about with any more Baby M’s.
And incidentally, would you please answer my oft-repeated question? What do you care if mom lies so the kid can be adopted without dad’s express consent, when the result of that is that is precisely what you’re demanding anyway: that dad’s off the financial hook?
My, you got a big opinion of yourself, ain’tcha? 
But yes, that’s precisely what I’m telling you. If you don’t care enough to learn whether she got pregnant–and really, we’re only talking about a few months before that ought to be obvious, not forever–then the obvious conclusion is that you don’t care. At that point, my sympathy for losing out on your paternal rights is over.
You spooje, you lose. How is it not fair . . . to the child?
Mom. that’s one.
Dad. that’s two.
Child… oops.
see, there’s three people’s rights here. And neither mom nor dad have the right to sign away ‘right of support’ on behalf of the child.
of course, that already was posted.
Yep. Just like I got rights over and above you in my house.
Totally agree. The only question is what happens when that situation does occur? What makes you figure the father’s interests outweigh those of the child? The kid didn’t do anything to put himself in this situation. The dad did. When I weigh those two considerations, I figure the kid wins every time, despite the fact that dad’s getting screwed over by mom.
Pshaw. You have no more right to command a woman what to do with her womb than you do to command me what to do with my home. You don’t have any reason to expect your own obligations to a third party (the child) to be erased based on any decision the mother makes about her womb.
What’s wrong with that is that it does nothing to preserve the rights of the child. Child support is a duty owed by each parent to the child. You can talk about the parents until you’re blue in the face, but you will never change the fact that the child is entitled to financial support from both of her parents, no matter how bitchy and unfair the parents are to each other.
minty green, I asked a valid question, because I didn’t know the answer, I was curious, and I felt it was germane to the ongoing discussion. Your attitude in answering my question was not appreciated.
I was a little frustrated with having to point out the same principle of adoption law so many times, in this thread and the previous one, 'lou. Sorry you took offense.
You know, Minty? I’m thinkin’ that you and I are going to just have to agree to disagree. We obviously live on the same planet- but occupy different worlds.
Your response to “Dads need more rights” always seems to be “it’s all for the CHILD!”. That sort of attitude is exactly why child support laws are becoming more draconian every day- and why nobody’s trying to reverse the trend.
You ask, “I What do you care if mom lies so the kid can be adopted without dad’s express consent, when the result of that is that is precisely what you’re demanding anyway: that dad’s off the financial hook?”
I answer: because that just underscores the inequity between mothers and fathers. I’m not asking for a cessation of child support- I have no problem with providing my son with the best life I can. The problem I do have, though, is that I had no choice in the matter- I’d done nothing wrong, yet I’m now considered not-quite-a-criminal. You disagree? Then why are my wages garnished? Why, if I were to seek custody, would I have to secure a lawyer and pay for all legal expenses- while my ex is provided one, free of charge? Why do I have no say in how my son is raised?
Look. If custody and child support awards were fifty-fifty, I wouldn’t have a problem. The problem is that they aren’t- and this is obvious to anyone who’s been in a divorce where kids are involved. I’m not the only father who was advised to not seek custody, you know. That census statistic that you’ve discarded is completely relevant- in cases where the father gets custody, he is less likely to receive a child-support award- and the reward will be smaller- than his female counterpart.
Again, I repeat. How is that situation I described- my cousin’s situation- fair? You’ve thrown in “to the child” to the question I asked. That wasn’t what I asked, and I request that you not amend my questions.
Understand this- I have NO INTENTION of taking anything away from the child. I, myself, am a child of divorce. My father didn’t pay child support, and I only saw him once or twice. I know what it’s like to be the child in that situtation, so please don’t assume that what I want is to deprive children. I simply want the overwhelming rights of the mother to be made more in balance with the father’s.
Okay then, we disagree, Lightnin’. I have no problem with expanding fathers’ rights–unless and until they impact on the financial reqirements of the child. Sorry, but as far as I’m concerned, the kid is gonna trump either or both parents, no matter what.
I don’t even disagree with you that fathers ordered to pay child support are treated somewhat like criminals, what with the sometimes mandatory garnishment and other inconveniences. (Of course, once somebody’s fallen behind on payments, garnishment is not only fair, but a darned good idea.) I certainly support efforts to achieve fully equal treatment for fathers and mothers in custody disputes. Yes, I do recognize pro-mother biases still exist in courts and juries, though not nearly to the extent many divorced fathers make it out to be.
I am, for instance, confused at the statement that your ex-wife gets a free lawyer and you don’t. On what basis did she qualify for free representation while you do not? You leave me with the impression that women get free lawyers and men have to pay, which is surely false. Is it rather that she qualified for free representation due to low income, while you had the resources to pay for counsel? If so, what giving her a free lawyer accomplished is putting the two of you on equal legal footing, not putting you at a strategic disadvantage.
But when it comes down to the basic questions of this thread, I have no problem whatsoever imposing requirements of financial support on people who create children. If a guy decides to have intercourse with a woman, they’ve both assumed the risk of pregnancy, even if they underestimate the size of that risk. When a child is born as a result of that intercourse, I see no reason at all to adopt any policy to benefit a “defrauded” father at the expense of the child he created.
Exactly. So its ok to completly screw the vocally unwilling father, but not the HIV patient?
If you take the mindstate of “pays your money, takes your chances” then you can’t justify treatment for anyone with an STD since they “took the risk.”
Understandable, minty. This seems to be a cause that is important to you.
Ah, but when the primary concern is, as it must be, the child, that is the correct answer. It’s a crappy situation to the defrauded father, no question about it. But your solution would enable the father to avoid all support for the kid that he helped create, merely by objecting to the circumstances of its conception.
By consenting to sex, you consent to a child, no matter how much you complain about it.
Incidentally, if I was faced with a situation like your cousin’s, I would look into the possibility of filing a tort suit against the mother for something like interference with the parent-child relationship. The mother has essentially defrauded the father out of any relationship with the father’s child for the first few years of its life. Although courts might be reluctant to take away money that would otherwise go for support of the child, my impression is that interference with parent-child relationships is often a compensable injury.
You are indeed a gentleman, featherlou.
I think. 
I give up. What are you trying to say? I have no problem justifying treatment of std’s AND holding both parents financially responsable for the child/ren they create. Where do you see a problem?
I’d say the judgment that the kid wins every time is overly sentimental. Children’s interests do not outweigh those of adults—which is what you’re ultimately saying with the kid wins every time. The mother missed her chance years ago to lay claim on the father’s resources. Saying that the kid is the loser does not justify the action of garnishing the father. At some point the father needs exoneration when the mother has been negligent. If this means that the child will be the ultimate suffer, then so be it.
If I enter you home I can’t tell you what to do, but likewise you don’t have full rights to tell me what to do either. I have the right to leave. If I choose to stay, then I abide by your house rules. Otherwise, sayonara, I’m out of there. Unless, of course, by entering your home your believe I own you eighteen years of rent—whether I stay there or not.
At the point in the game we’re talking about, there is no legal entity that could be called a child, there is only a fetus, and a fetus is not entitled to financial support. If there is no child then their can be no duty towards it. If the mother chooses not to have the abortion, then she does so at her own free will, and man suggested a reasonable and responsible alternative to the accident rather than allowing the pregnancy to carry to term. The man should not be held accountable for the woman’s exercise of her free will.
If I were in your house and spilled a bottle of milk, then offered to clean up the mess but you refused to let me, then my responsibility to you is done. You can’t come back a month later claiming your house smells like rotten milk and demanding that I pay for a remodeling job to eliminate the stench.
Is family law regulated at state or Federal level in the US?
No one, male or female, should be compelled to become a parent against their will. Boyfriend#1 made it clear that he did not want to become a father.
–Nut