Brief hijack but you’re mistaken. As Cecil himself explicitly states in this entry from 2000, spousal abuse has never been legal in the US.
Thanks Aesiron I didn’t realize the book I had “Strange Laws Still on the Books” was LYING…
grrrrrrr
Thanks again
Not that the treatment then, and even as recent as the 70s was all that much better.
While we’re on the subject…
This site gives a history on the inaccuracy of the alleged origin of the phrase “rule of thumb”.
And from the Oxford English Dictionary:
So which states still had this law on their books? Because I’m dying to find out.
Robin
Well, it was. Sorry.
That would be in reply to CanvasShoes’ post about her book, obviously.
I’ll trust Cecil and the OED over a Wacky Laws book anyday.
The ones you’d expect, if my memory serves:D
Georgia, Missippi, Alabama and there was actually a weird one, like Colorado, or Connecticut, that wasn’t “bible belt” type. Funny, when I had remembered the rule of thumb, I could have sworn it had to do with measurements like hands for horses, not beatings, but that was even longer ago than the “Strange Laws” book. So that has likely sunk into the swamps of old age as well.
Anyway, thanks again…and GRRRRR again, that’s what I get for believing something called “Strange Laws” 
To clarify:
If I’ve read that link correctly, 42 states have safe haven laws.
Georgia and Indiana specify the mother.
Maryland and Minnesota specify the mother or anyone the mother designates.
DE, MA, NM, and NY say that any person can drop off a baby.
Idaho specifies the custodial parent.
And the remaining 33 states (including Pennsylvania) specify parent.
The way Diogenes phrased it, it seemed that he was asserting someone had suggested a mother doing both - milking for child support, and simultaneously dropping off the baby at a Safe Haven - which is a ridiculous hypothetical, with both conditions. The two conditions by themselves, however, are not.
I never said anything about “milking for child support.” I was ridiculing hypotheticals suggesting any woman would secretly get pregnant, move across the country and use a safe haven without ever telling the guy he was a father. I was asking what the motive would be because both catsix and Treis seem to think that’s some sort of real possibility. Treis even wants to browbeat women in labor and throw them in jail if they won’t talk.
Yeah, I had to read a while to catch up on all that… I think that Treis’s plan goes to far. The mother, as the child’s bearer, has the right to not inform the father of the child. But the law should be structured in such a way that if she doesn’t, any legal obligation he has to provide support is negated.
I agree. I said in this thread that if the father isn’t informed in a reasonable amount of time (I suggested a year after birth) then he should be off the hook.
According to an article in yesterday’s Record newspaper: New Jersey’s Safe Haven Law allows a baby, 30 days old or younger and with no signs of abuse, to be left at any police station or emergency room, no questions asked. The person dropping off the baby doesn’t even have to identify himself (sic).
I also recall hearing that churches, synagogs and mosques fall under this law.
I’ve thought about my idea some more, and I think I should restructure it a bit. It’s sort of like an extension of the adoption system, rather than a male equivalent of abortion. It could be arranged to allow either parent, within a certain window of the gestation period, to “forfeit” rights and responsibilities for the child. If both do that, the child, when born, goes up for adoption. If the mother wants the child, but the father doesn’t, she can modify her decision based on her circumstances. (Can I raise the child myself? Should I place it for adoption?) If the father wants the child, but the mother doesn’t - well, same situation, provided the mother doesn’t choose an abortion.
While such a structure would cause some men to be more promiscuous, I think it’d also encourage some women to be more careful, and sort of even itself out.
That justs lets men off the hook. Bad idea.
WHAT?!? I was right, you ARE insane.
With over 10,000 child/spousal abuse arrests in the city of Los Angeles alone this year to date, “vanishingly rare” is dead wrong. http://www.lapdonline.org/general_information/crime_statistics/2004_crime_summary.htm
Justice’s site is down so I don’t have the state and federal stats yet.
I swear you guys, if we keep feeding it, it will weigh 1000 pounds.
Well, not to be overly flip, but “Says you.”
I’m Libertarian-leaning - I think the government has no place forcing compliance with any system of morality; their business in making laws is to make society function. So, murder is illegal so people don’t live in fear of being killed.
I’m not convinced that mandating that the father be “on the hook” is in society’s interests.
Then if the father’s off the hook, then society’s on it. Either way someone’s going to pay. If I have pony up extra taxes, I rather pony it up, mandating that the actual persons involved in creating that burden; are the one actually paying for it’s upkeep.
Hard to reconcile with your notion of massive state-run orphanges.
One, I never suggested a system of massive state-run orphanages. That is an obvious way to deal with the problem of a vast number of unwanted children - a problem which we may not even have under this suggestion, since both potential parents will be forced to exercise judgment instead of just the father, under the current system.
Two, I’m Libertarian-leaning, not a Libertarian. I believe that the government should provide for some social services.
Okay, I made it through the whole thread! Now I feel I can comment.
In Washington State, hospitals do try to establish paternity when the child is born. They explain the benefits of establishing paternity both parents if they are both there, to the mother if the father isn’t around. They even have a video they show. It’s been found that establishing paternity right away, while the father is still all excited about what a man he is for fathering a child, works out pretty well. My daughter and her SO went through the paternity establishment routine at the hospital just a couple of months ago and she said it was just like her (step-)dad told her it would be (mr.strech is a support enforcement officer).
Establishing paternity has benefits beyond the ability to assign child support obligations. For instance, your children are entitled to social security benefits in the event of your death–even if you haven’t been paying child support.
Treis, if a law requiring a mother to divulge the father is put into place, the mother will do just exactly what she does now if she doesn’t want to tell who the father is–she’ll lie or cover up for the dad. She’ll say she doesn’t remember because she was drunk. She’ll say she’s afraid for her life (and sometimes she is). She’ll say she slept with x, y, z; now the state requires paternity tests for x, y, and z so this dodge isn’t as effective as it used to be.
When mr.strech does outreach at the local schools explaining child support, he oftens explains to the guys who are thinking about skipping out the benefits they will be missing by not being involved in the kid’s life. He explains to them that as a non-custodial parent paying child support, he had paid about $80K in support over the last 10 years. And he’d pay it all again for the opportunity to have a relationship with his son. Mr.stretch is a fabulous father and it bothers him no end having to deal with deadbeat parents of either gender. People who call up and say that their $25/month support is too much (the minimum monthly support amount in WA). And yes, deadbeat mothers are pursued just as aggressively as deadbeat fathers.
CandidGamera, I’ve read your posts and while I like your ideas, they still do too much to let prospective fathers off the hook and then the mother’s decision has to take into account what the dad wants to do. Mr.strech and I have had many, many conversations about child support law and the various inequities. Even dealing with it every day we haven’t come up with any great solutions. There is no way to make it completely fair–just like everything in life.