Does HE have to pay for UNWANTED kid?

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Pyrrhonist *
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.

Ah, but as has been stated numerous times, the mother is not laying claim to the father’s resources. Legally speaking, the child is laying claim to his/her father’s financial support. I am, however, glad that are honest enough to admit the child gets screwed in your system.

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.

The analogy fails, for one simple reason: both you and I are able on our own to clean up the milk. But as a man, you are not capable of terminating “your” pregnancy. Unless it’s your womb, you have no moral right to claim the financial benefits of another person’s abortion.

reprise: Both. The details of family law are largely up to the individual states, but many broad principles are also controlled by the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

NutWrench:

Originally posted by NutWrench
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.

Actions speak louder than words.

[minty_green]

And I take it back, featherlou. You’re not a gentleman at all. But you are exceedingly polite where I was snotty, so I still think you’re pretty cool.

[BlackKnight]

The following is my opinion. Feel free to disagree (as I’m sure most people will), but please disagree in as friendly a manner as possible.

A woman has the choice of whether to have a child or not. A man does not have any (legal) say in the matter of whether a woman he impregnated gives birth. She has all the choice.

The birth of the child is her decision, and her decision alone. Therefore, the child that results directly from her choice is her responsibility. A man should have no legal responsibility for that child, unless he signed some form of contract.

A woman is the one who gets pregnant, and assuming she’s not completely ignorant she knows that sex can lead to pregnancy. She knows the possible results of her actions, and so she should take responsibility for them. Yes, in one sense it is unfair that a woman can get pregnant and a man cannot. But, as andros said earlier: “Biology. :shrug: It sucks. Cope.”

I would also like to address the idea that the child’s rights trump the father’s rights. First off, I do not see what is so impossible about financially supporting a child on a single income. Difficult, yes. Secondly, I don’t see how you can avoid the slippery slope: if a child’s life is better by having a college education, are parents obligated to pay for it? If a child’s life is better by traveling the world and experiencing myriad cultures, are parents obligated to fund this expedition? If a child’s life is improved by owning their own computer, must all parents purchase computers for their children? My point: Just because something would improve the life of a child does not mean that the parents of that child are obligated to do that something. Only when the lack of that something would directly harm the child would I say the child’s guardians have an obligation to do that something.

So I guess the question is, can a single non-Bill-Gates-like income adequately support a child? I think the answer in most cases is yes. This leads me to believe that not paying child support usually has the effect of simply “not helping” the child, not the effect of “hurting” the child.

Alright, I’ve rambled on long enough for one late night.

[deepbluesea]

*Originally posted by BlackKnight *
** A woman has the choice of whether to have a child or not. A man does not have any (legal) say in the matter of whether a woman he impregnated gives birth. She has all the choice.

The birth of the child is her decision, and her decision alone. Therefore, the child that results directly from her choice is her responsibility. A man should have no legal responsibility for that child, unless he signed some form of contract.**

A man can prevent said pregnancy simply and easily. (Vasectomy. No sex.) When he chooses not to - i.e., when he engages in intercourse despite the fact that he is not sterile (and especially if he isn’t taking any precautions like condoms) - he accepts responsibility for the outcome. In other words, he accepts that a) pregnancy may result from his actions and b) he will be responsible for any child resulting from that pregnancy.

He has one chance to “terminate” the pregnancy - by not contributing his semen. She has two chances to terminate the pregnancy - she can either not contribute an ovum, or she can not contribute womb space. Is this unequal? Yes, in the sense that she has two chances to his one. Yes also, in the sense that she must accept the physical and emotional hardship of either carrying the pregnancy to term or aborting it. Neither one is even remotely fun or easy for most women; most would gladly trade in their second chance for relief from said responsibility. So while things are definitely not equal, it’s hard to say with any surety which side has the better deal - reflect, though, guys: if you want that second chance, would you really be willing to go through pregnancy and delivery or else abortion?

Once the pregnancy reaches its conclusion, three states can prevail:

1. The fetus has been aborted. In this case, the non-parents are back in equilibrium - except, of course, that the woman has had a medical procedure that is not no-risk, that has physical and emotional consequences, and will carry burden of same. The man will have suffered no physical consequences, though he may experience some emotional ones.

2. The baby has been born, and given up for adoption. In this case, both birth parents have flatly equal rights - either one can stop the adoption, both must consent for it to go through. But wait, you cry! The mother can give the baby up for adoption without telling the father! Well, if the father is so careless that he doesn’t know when the mother is pregnant, then he’s given up his own rights. (And, btw, it isn’t as easy as all that. Most adoption agencies just won’t handle cases where the father has not explicitly consented to adoption.) The mother, of course, will not be allowed the luxury of potential ignorance of the pregnancy, since it’s in her uterus.

3. The baby has been born, and one or both parents has decided to raise it. Now, both have a responsibility to the child. It supercedes any rights of theirs, or should; after all, of the three parties involved, only the child had no choice or chance to change the circumstances. But, of course, things will not be equal in all cases; if, for example, the mother keeps the child and the father does not want to have anything to do with it, he will only be required to pay a portion of his income. She will be required not only to pay a portion of her income - if you think child support covers everything, you are quite quite mistaken - but also to contribute huge chunks of her life, her time, and her non-monetary resources to childrearing. Same is true in reverse if the father decides he wants it and the mother wants nothing to do with it - he will pay (in every sense) far more, but she will pay something. Why is this unfair?

(Note: I am not talking about custody situations here. That’s a whole other ball o’ wax.)

A woman is the one who gets pregnant, and assuming she’s not completely ignorant she knows that sex can lead to pregnancy. She knows the possible results of her actions, and so she should take responsibility for them. Yes, in one sense it is unfair that a woman can get pregnant and a man cannot. But, as andros said earlier: "Biology. :shrug: It sucks. Cope."

A man is the one who gets the woman pregnant, and assuming he’s not completely ignorant he knows that sex can lead to pregnancy. He knows the possible results of his actions, and so he should take responsibility for them. Or are you saying that only the woman should be responsible? That a guy should bear no responsibility for anything he does with his penis, simply because he cannot get pregnant? If you’re saying that, you’re beyond hope. If not, then surely you can see that when two competent (in the legal/medical sense) adults do anything together, they bear equal responsibility for the results, be it predicting and averting them or paying the price of not doing so.

**I would also like to address the idea that the child’s rights trump the father’s rights.

<snip>

So I guess the question is, can a single non-Bill-Gates-like income adequately support a child? I think the answer in most cases is yes. This leads me to believe that not paying child support usually has the effect of simply “not helping” the child, not the effect of “hurting” the child.**

The child’s rights trump the father’s rights legally because, at least nominally - though IANAL - that is how our family law system is designed: to protect the interests of children, who are dependent upon their parents. The child’s rights trump the father’s rights morally, IMO, because the father did something that resulted in the child’s existence; in so doing, he implicitly accepted responsibility for the consequences.

It has nothing to do with whether a single income can adequately support a child; it has to do with whether or not the father takes responsibility for his actions. He is obligated to help support the child - to the extent that a court determines is appropriate, given his income - because of that responsibility.

[Gary_Kumquat]

Ah good, some comedy moments…

Originally posted by Pyrrhonist ***
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.*

Pyrronhist, I hate to tell you before your parents think the time is right but if she’s pregant the man has definitely had some input.

Lightnin’**
And it’s his sperm. Think of THAT as a property right.**

True, but he did give it to her. Or do you ask for receipts at that moment? But to return to the debate

*Originally posted by Pyrrhonist *
Assuming this is your position: What gives the woman the right to basically veto the man?

Because she has the womb. End of story. Yes it would be lovely if the system for reproduction was a bit more fair - maybe one gender carried for the first stage, then they swapped over. Well, tough - it doesn’t work that way. The woman carries the child. You want a system where a man can tell a woman she must go through a pregnancy she doesn’t want? Or worse, abort a child that she does?

Now no doubt you’re going to repeat the “well if she choosed to go ahead, she should pay for it” argument. Oh hang on, you did

*Originally posted by Pyrrhonist *
Assuming this is your position: What gives the woman the right to basically veto the man?

Nice easy cop out for the men there, isn’t it. “Hell honey, I offered to pay for the abortion, what more do you want”. Abortion and adoption - the easy routes for the gender that doesn’t carry the infant, or have all manner of biological, emotional and ethical ties to the fetus/baby. Can you really not understand that these may not be viable options for women. That does not make the pregnancy their entire responsibility though. It was created by two people.

There is one rule here - accept responsibility for your actions. You choose to do something - be an adult, and deal with the consequences. So, when people say

*Originally posted by Lightnin’ *
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?

Not at all. But, should one of them turn up and say “Meet Junior”, then don’t complain about how it wasn’t your fault and shouldn’t be your responsibility. There is no such thing as absolutely safe sex. We all do it, we all take our chances - but if you get unlucky, then tough.
And as for

*Originally posted by Pyrrhonist *
I’d say the judgment that the kid wins every time is overly sentimental. Children’s interests do not outweigh those of adults

Look, we’ll do this slowly. You helped to create a kid. You have responsibilities to that kid. If you think otherwise, fair enough, but the courts of the land disagree - and I can see why. You’re an adult, supposedly responsible for your actions. Those actions create a kid - then you’re responsible. Is it that hard to follow? And when people start to compare a pregnancy to spilt milk, words fail me.

[Badtz_Maru]

What if the guy was drunk when he had sex with the woman? He couldn’t have given informed consent if he was under the influence, so how can he be held responsible?

[deepbluesea]

*Originally posted by Badtz Maru *
**What if the guy was drunk when he had sex with the woman? He couldn’t have given informed consent if he was under the influence, so how can he be held responsible? **

A rape victim shouldn’t be held responsible for a kid resulting from that rape. But drunken sex does not necessarily equal rape - I speak here as one who has had consensual sex while drunk - and intoxication in itself is not, IMO, sufficient to excuse either party from responsibility.

[Badtz_Maru]

*Originally posted by deepbluesea *
**

*Originally posted by Badtz Maru *
**What if the guy was drunk when he had sex with the woman? He couldn’t have given informed consent if he was under the influence, so how can he be held responsible? **

A rape victim shouldn’t be held responsible for a kid resulting from that rape. But drunken sex does not necessarily equal rape - I speak here as one who has had consensual sex while drunk - and intoxication in itself is not, IMO, sufficient to excuse either party from responsibility. **

Yeah, I don’t really feel that way either, but a lot of people do. One time I mentioned in a debate on what constituted rape that I had sex with a woman while drunk and regretted it later, and was told that I should have reported it to the authorities! Hah!

I just accept that, if I drink, I may do stupid things, and I take responsibility for those stupid things. I’ve done far more regrettable things while drunk than have sex with someone I wouldn’t have normally - though I might recategorize that if it had lead to a pregnancy and I was paying child support for it…

[Pyrrhonist]

Originally posted by minty green *
**
Ah, but as has been stated numerous times, the mother is not laying claim to the father’s resources. Legally speaking, the child is laying claim to his/her father’s financial support.*

Again, I think you’re playing the heartstrings by saying it is really the child laying claims. The mother may be legally acting as the child’s proxy, but all decisions are coming from the mother. It is the mother who gets the financial support and the mother who chooses how to spend the financial support.

*Originally posted by minty green *

The analogy fails, for one simple reason: both you and I are able on our own to clean up the milk. But as a man, you are not capable of terminating “your” pregnancy. Unless it’s your womb, you have no moral right to claim the financial benefits of another person’s abortion.

I think you’re overanalyzing the analogy. If person A is half the cause of an accident to person B’s property and A offers to fix the problem by returning B’s property to its original state plus compensation for any collateral or emotional damage, then A is acting responsible way. If B rejects a reasonable offer from A, then A should be discharged of accountability.

This is in no way telling a woman what she can or can not do with her womb, but it does place limitations on what she can accept to be given for the product of her womb.

*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat *

The woman carries the child. You want a system where a man can tell a woman she must go through a pregnancy she doesn’t want? Or worse, abort a child that she does?

Nope, that is not what I said. I’m sorry if I asked a rhetorical question in a way that mislead you. A man can’t force a woman to go through a pregnancy she doesn’t want and a man can’t force to abort a child she wants. I think we can agree here. But the opinion you’re favoring says the woman can force the man to pay for a child he doesn’t want. As I said earlier, not very equal IMHO.

• Originally posted by Gary Kumquat *
  **
  Abortion and adoption - the easy routes for the gender that doesn’t carry the infant, or have all manner of biological, emotional and ethical ties to the fetus/baby. Can you really not understand that these may not be viable options for women.**

Abortion and adoption are definitely viable options for each and every woman in this country per none, but individual women may have beliefs that lead her to not to choose those options. Her beliefs are her own and nobody forces her to believe in one thing or another. How or way she makes decisions from the options available are nobody’s business but her own. Just because an individual woman may reject the options of abortion or adoption does not mean she gets any other option she wants. Options are often limited in some situations, get over it.

• Originally posted by Gary Kumquat *
  **
  There is one rule here - accept responsibility for your actions. You choose to do something - be an adult, and deal with the consequences.**

Offering to pay for an abortion is dealing with the consequences for your actions. You may personally feel its crass or the easy-out, and you’re free to feel anyway you want, but it does provide an immediate solution. Person A washalf the cause of an accident and now offers to fix it. How is that not responsible?

• Originally posted by Gary Kumquat *
  **
  Look, we’ll do this slowly. You helped to create a kid. You have responsibilities to that kid. If you think otherwise, fair enough, but the courts of the land disagree - and I can see why. You’re an adult, supposedly responsible for your actions. Those actions create a kid - then you’re responsible. Is it that hard to follow? **

In the case of the OP, kid was only brought forward after five years. As someone else said, by that point the man had become only a sperm donor. The mother was negligent in her responsibility to duly notify that man about the kid. The fault was hers. Just because the man was the biological cause for the kid should not always in all circumstance mean the man is always liable for child support. Each case needs careful review, but in this one it seems clear to me that mother gave up the right to claim child support by purposefully not notifying the father in a timely manner. Is that hard to follow? Just because the courts say so does not make it just and good.

[minty_green]

But again, Pyrrhonist, you can clean up spilled milk. You cannot have an abortion. As a matter of biology, law, and ethics, the decision whether or not to have an abortion belongs entirely to the mother. The father’s power of veto in the matter of whether a child will be born ends at ejaculation. You think otherwise. <shrug> I’m just glad it ain’t changing anytime in the foreseeable future.

[minty_green]

Incidentally, I think this take on the abortion/child supoprt problem is rather simplistic:

Offering to pay for an abortion is dealing with the consequences for your actions. You may personally feel its crass or the easy-out, and you’re free to feel anyway you want, but it does provide an immediate solution. Person A was half the cause of an accident and now offers to fix it. How is that not responsible?

Merely because a woman is legally entitled to make a choice does not mean that she is personally free to select either option. For example, suppose a guy has intercourse with a woman who believes, honestly and absolutely, that abortion is murder. Thus, she could never even consider an abortion. Are you telling me that if the man impregnates the woman, he can make everything better by offering to split the cost of an abortion? “Sorry 'bout that, hon, but it’s either murder that unborn baby or let me off the hook for my actions.” Neither option has the remotest possibility of making such a woman whole again.

Or let’s make this even more complicated. Say a woman gets pregnant, and the father is happy. Yipee, gonna be a daddy! But a few months later, prenatal testing shows the kid is going to be severely handicapped. Can the father now make that abortion offer and walk away scot free?

[Myron_Van_Horowitzski]

Okay, so we may agree that upon occasion, a supposedly innocent man may get screwed by a supposedly conniving bitch.

What I wanna know is, how does that number compare to the number of men who, if the law were changed so they could “opt out” as it were, would happily take advantage of it to become conniving bastards that screw their resulting offspring?

These laws are not there to make sure an occasional guy gets screwed. They are there to protect a lot of women and children who would get screwed if a lot of men were allowed to get away with it.

I mean, talk about throwing the baby out with the… oh never mind.

ps - I mean financially screwed, you perverts!

[ENugent]

*Originally posted by Pyrrhonist *
Again, I think you’re playing the heartstrings by saying it is really the child laying claims. The mother may be legally acting as the child’s proxy, but all decisions are coming from the mother. It is the mother who gets the financial support and the mother who chooses how to spend the financial support.

All true. But in most states, I believe the noncustodial parent has a right to an accounting of how the money is spent (at least if there’s some credible accusation that it’s not being spent on the child). If the custodial parent is blowing it in a way not for the welfare of the child (or at least for the welfare of the whole family), then s/he’s liable to the child for not acting in his or her best interests.

A man can’t force a woman to go through a pregnancy she doesn’t want and a man can’t force to abort a child she wants. I think we can agree here. But the opinion you’re favoring says the woman can force the man to pay for a child he doesn’t want. As I said earlier, not very equal IMHO.

Do you really think that forcing someone to go through an invasive medical procedure (and one that offends the beliefs of many at that) and forcing someone to pay money are equivalent? It seems to me that these are very different things, and it is not unreasonable for the law to require one but not the other.

The bottom line in this situation is that any solution is going to seem unfair to someone. Legislators have made the moral judgment that, if someone’s going to get screwed no matter what, it doesn’t seem right that it ought to be the child, who is clearly the most innocent of the parties involved.

I am very sympathetic to the problems of fathers in our society. But I don’t think the laws on the books are the problem - it’s the presumptions of judges that mothers have a greater right to custody than fathers, and the sometimes excessive formulae for determining the correct amount of child support to be paid.

[andros]

Pyrrhonist, there’s no sense in continuing any hijacks–you’re welcome to start another thread about societal obligation if you wish. But I certainly hope you don’t encounter a hungry, uneducated crackhead with a cheap gun anytime soon.

[Pyrrhonist]

Originally posted by minty green

You cannot have an abortion. As a matter of biology, law, and ethics, the decision whether or not to have an abortion belongs entirely to the mother. The father’s power of veto in the matter of whether a child will be born ends at ejaculation.

It is absolutely true that men cannot have an abortion, but a man also cannot surprise a woman by telling her she had a baby against her knowledge five years ago and is now liable for child support. The woman will always know when she had a baby. Is it unreasonable to hold the woman accountable to notify the father in a timely manor in order to be eligible to collect child support?

Originally posted by minty green

Merely because a woman is legally entitled to make a choice does not mean that she is personally free to select either option.

Whither the woman likes the available options are not does not negate her free will. If a woman truly believe that abortion is murder she does so by her own free will; even she is a member of a religion that say abortion is murder is a member of that religion by her own free will. There is no Spanish Inquisition that will put her on the rack for not accepting the Faith. People are always free to select any option available to them; sometimes they will be confronted with option that can shake the core of what they believe, but the ability to choose what was once unthinkable and unimaginable will always be there.

If the woman strongly objects to abortion, I have no problems with the man being responsible the costs associated with pregnancy and adoption.

Originally posted by minty green
**
Or let’s make this even more complicated. Say a woman gets pregnant, and the father is happy. Yipee, gonna be a daddy! But a few months later, prenatal testing shows the kid is going to be severely handicapped. Can the father now make that abortion offer and walk away scot free?**

When a woman tells a man she is pregnant there is probably an assumption that she will have a normal child. He bases his happiness of pending fatherhood on it. If that assumption is later proved false, then he should be granted the option to reconsider whiter this is truly a happy thing or not.

*Originally posted by Myron Van Horowitzski *

**What I wanna know is, how does that number compare to the number of men who, if the law were changed so they could “opt out” as it were, would happily take advantage of it to become conniving bastards that screw their resulting offspring?

I mean, talk about throwing the baby out with the… oh never mind.**

Baby? What baby? At the point when there should be an “opt out” for the man there is no baby yet, only a zygote or fetus, so would be no offspring to financially screw. If this were to become law, then most men would probably “opt out” and the result would, hopefully, be more women without the means to raise a child choosing abortion or adoption. I happen to think this would also benefit society in the long run by helping reduce the number or fractured families and reducing overpopulation.

[quote]
*Originally posted ENugent *

Do you really think that forcing someone to go through an invasive medical procedure (and one that offends the beliefs of many at that) and forcing someone to pay money are equivalent?

You seem to be disrespecting a person’s belief and value in personal finances as somehow inferior to the procreation beliefs of others. Why?

*Originally posted ENugent *

The bottom line in this situation is that any solution is going to seem unfair to someone. Legislators have made the moral judgment that, if someone’s going to get screwed no matter what, it doesn’t seem right that it ought to be the child, who is clearly the most innocent of the parties involved.

Let’s step into an alternate reality for a moment. Just for the sake of argument let’s pretend I was in a sexual relationship with a woman, call her Bea, six years ago, used birth control, and eventually broke off the relationship. Bea was pregnant but didn’t tell me. A year afterwards I meet another woman who was to become Mrs. Pyrrhonist. I never mention having any kids because as far as I know there are none. Fast forward five years. Mrs. Pyrrhonist and I are a happy dink couple, sharing our financial dream of early retirement. Then along comes Bea, “Hey, Pyrrhonist you’ve got a five year old kid and I want ¼ of your income.” Court rules in Bea’s favor and… poof… there goes the early retirement, my hopes and dreams of the good life down the toilet. Mrs. Pyrrhonist gets victimized by the loss of my income and she is completely innocent too. Is the child innocence somehow better or more deserving than the innocence of Mrs. Pyrrhonist? If Bea had been forthcoming with her pregnancy from the beginning, I would have told Mrs. Pyrrhonist that I was a financially obligated father and then she may have made the decision not to marry me.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Pyrrhonist *
Is it unreasonable to hold the woman accountable to notify the father in a timely manor in order to be eligible to collect child support?

Not at all. It is, however, absolutely and totally unreasonable to deny a child the necessity of financial support because mom’s a bitch. Child support is for the kid, remember? As ENugent pointed out, the custodial parent is required by law to devote that cash to the child, not her BMW or new boyfriend.

When a woman tells a man she is pregnant there is probably an assumption that she will have a normal child. He bases his happiness of pending fatherhood on it. If that assumption is later proved false, then he should be granted the option to reconsider whiter this is truly a happy thing or not.

So now it’s not just a question of whether the father wants a kid, he also gets to choose what kind of kid he’ll accept. What’s next? “Sorry, hon, but I wanted a boy. You must now either abort that girl or raise her on your own.”

If this were to become law, then most men would probably “opt out” and the result would, hopefully, be more women without the means to raise a child choosing abortion or adoption. I happen to think this would also benefit society in the long run by helping reduce the number or fractured families and reducing overpopulation.

So what it really comes down to, then, is an argument that women should be 100% financially responsible for any children they give birth to?

Is the child innocence somehow better or more deserving than the innocence of Mrs. Pyrrhonist?

Yes. Mrs. P can get a better job or otherwise improve her situation. Little P’s got 13 years to go before he can even begin to think about supersizing fries at McDonald’s.

If Bea had been forthcoming with her pregnancy from the beginning, I would have told Mrs. Pyrrhonist that I was a financially obligated father and then she may have made the decision not to marry me.

And if she’s really so much more devoted to your retirement fund than she is to you, there’s this procedure called “divorce” that’ll take care of her problem right quick. But Little P still needs financial support, thanks to your voluntary act of bringing him into existence, and I’m quite happy that the legal system will compel you to contribute to Little P’s diaper fund.

[Myron_Van_Horowitzski]

Baby? What baby? At the point when there should be an “opt out” for the man there is no baby yet, only a zygote or fetus, so would be no offspring to financially screw.

Pyrrhonist, I still don’t get it. So it’s okay if you blow off your kid before it’s born instead of after? What difference does that make?

[Pyrrhonist]

Originally posted by Myron Van Horowitzski *
**
Pyrrhonist, I still don’t get it. So it’s okay if you blow off your kid before it’s born instead of after? What difference does that make?*

I hope you’re sitting down for this one MVH, it might come as a shocker. Some people believe that the zygote or fetus is a kid, baby, or even human. In other words, it isn’t a kid yet. It is just a thing in the mother’s womb.
minty green, I wonder if you’re earnest when agreeing that the woman should be held accountable. What should a judge do her? What kind of penalty can the judge decree that does not adversely effect the kid? A tongue lashing and judicial admonishment would be tantamount to letting her off scott free. I’d like to know what you think should happen to the woman who lets five years go by before tell the man he is a father and demanding child support.

*Originally posted by minty green *
**And if she’s really so much more devoted to your retirement fund than she is to you, there’s this procedure called “divorce” that’ll take care of her problem right quick. But Little P still needs financial support, thanks to your voluntary act of bringing him into existence, and I’m quite happy that the legal system will compel you to contribute to Little P’s diaper fund. **

Good god, buy stock in Jim Beam. Pyrrhonist’s going to become an alcoholic and hit skid row. Poor little P won’t get that financial support after all.

I glad the little story of Bea and little P made you so gleeful in the anticipation of an unhappy life for Pyrrhonist. But you can stop drooling, there is no reality in there other than Mr. & Mrs. P retiring early. It does show, however, that you have little concern over a third party being harmed and only really worry about a kid being harmed.

[ENugent]

*Originally posted by Pyrrhonist *
It does show, however, that you have little concern over a third party being harmed and only really worry about a kid being harmed.

This is just a refinement of what I posted earlier. OK, so now you have two innocent people involved, and you have to be “unfair” to one of them. Should you choose the child who has no other recourse for money, or Mrs. P. who is presumably an able-bodied adult who can go out and get a job? (And if she’s not, the judge takes that into account in setting your child support amount, BTW. If the circumstances are as you’ve described above, and you need to support another dependent adult, I doubt very much that you’d get hit with much of a child-support payment).

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Pyrrhonist *
minty green, I wonder if you’re earnest when agreeing that the woman should be held accountable. What should a judge do her? What kind of penalty can the judge decree that does not adversely effect the kid?

No problem. Just to make sure, we’re talking about the very, very rare situation in which a woman conceals a pregancy from the father, retains custody of the child after birth, then seeks child support years later, right?

First off, I would very much hold the deception against her in any subsequent custody or visitation procedings. Anybody who wilfully denies a fit parent the opportunity to establish a relationship with his or her child is presumptively unworthy of primary custody, in my book.

Second, I would largely do away with retroactive child support. Whatever support junior needed before dad new junior existed is ancient history. In my mind, you’re not entitled to anything until you ask for it, even if it’s mom who passed on the opportunity to do the asking on junior’s behalf. Note that this does not impair junior’s entitlement to financial support once the request has been made on his behalf.

Third, I would certainly allow a tort suit against the mother for interference in the parent-child relationship, as I discussed above. I would not allow the father to collect damages that would harm the kid in any way, but dad could collect if mom has sufficient property or such high income that she can afford to compensate him for the “injury” he suffered by being denied the right to establish a relationship with the kid. Of course, if dad doesn’t want anything to do with junior, then he’s suffered no injury and is out of luck.

What I would NOT do is allow the father the skip out on the moral and legal obligations of fatherhood merely because junior shows up needing help years after he was born. That’s your argument, not mine.

I glad the little story of Bea and little P made you so gleeful in the anticipation of an unhappy life for Pyrrhonist. But you can stop drooling, there is no reality in there other than Mr. & Mrs. P retiring early. It does show, however, that you have little concern over a third party being harmed and only really worry about a kid being harmed.

Relax, nothing personal. All I was doing was building on the hypothetical that you started. Besides, it’s not that I have “little concern” for your hypothetical Mrs. P, or Mr. P for that matter. They’ve clearly been dealt a crummy hand. It’s just that I have more concern for the child who is incapable of doing anything himself that would improve his situation, whereas Mr. and Mrs. P are up to their necks in options. Yeah, life won’t be as easy as they might have liked it, but it’s not like we’re sending them to prison or letting them starve to death. That was your argument, not mine.