Again, more slowly…what evidence can she show that will still keep her and her child’s identity from the father? How do you provide a history of abuse without informing the father or someone who knows him? Her hospital records, if she was abused, only show that she was admitted to the hospital, not who actually hurt her.
Character witnesses will know the father, and tell him. After all, the mother can’t only provide witnesses for her side of the story. Yes, she probably can provide plenty of evidence that he shouldn’t be informed - but most of this evidence will require the father’s knowledge, therefore nullifying the entire process.
Police records showing they responded to a domestic dispute? Criminal record of the father? Did she go to a battered womens shelter? Did she tell the hospital she was abused?
Seal the records of the proceedings. If the witnesses tell the father toss their asses in jail.
No, I don’t think it is wrong, though I’m not sure if it’s technically constitutional or not.
It’s not the same thing, though. HIV notification is required because the other party could spread the virus to any number of other people. If they know they are infected, they can prevent this from happening. A man won’t sue for custody of his HIV, and a woman can’t get payment from a man who gave it to her.
I don’t understand how you are equating these two situations.
There is a medical necessity to tell someone they might have HIV. There is no neccesity at all to brutalize women into telling you who fathered their babies.
Also, if he’s a drug addict or even a dealer, there is not necessarily going to be any proof of this. If he’s never been arrested, there is NOTHING. If he’s a pedophile, but never been arrested, there is NO PROOF.
Ah, so then it’s too late. Good plan! Sealing the records do absolutely nothing if the father can very easily find out during the court proceedings.
Treis doesn’t care about babies. Everything he suggests would put them in danger. This is all just an exercise in flogging some sort of personal grievance against women.
What if the former parter is abusive? What if the former partner is an asshole? What if the former partner will harass them? etc. etc. etc.
All of the same the questions people have been bringing up apply to this law too. In fact they probably apply much more, I would be a lot more pissed off if I found out I was going to die than I had a kid. The question comes down to whether you think the end result justifies the process.
How often do we hear that a parents child is the most important thing in its life? How often do we hear that a parent would sacrifice himself rather than see the child hurt? Its obvious to me that knowing you have a child is very crucial information.
If there is nothing that can be construed as proof then I am sorry but then the father is informed. We live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty.
We don’t deny custody to a father becuase the mother thinks he might be a pedophile/drug dealer/abuser why should this be any different?
How will he find out during the proceedings? Clear the courtroom and seal the records.
Ah I see Diogenes is back to hurl insults. How does that affect your predict wring?
Then arrest the witness for revealing information from a sealed court session. This ignoring the fact that we shouldn’t assume that the father is ‘guilty’ we should assume the father is ‘innocent’ unless the mother can prove he is ‘guilty’.
Lets go back to the HIV law. Why is this law right when it provides no protection for the partner and my law is wrong when it provides protection for the mother?
My point is, she may not be able to prove anything without him finding out. Even if the witness gets arrested, the father still finds out! You can’t take that back, and it’s a huge risk.
No matter how much evidence she has that he’s unfit to find out, any of that evidence that would cause him to be informed is utterly useless to her.
This I actually don’t know the answer to - If he does have a criminal record, can that be used against him in a trial without his knowledge? Especially if it is a trial concerning him?
Ah, as we suspected all along, so the "mothers can get off scott free by simply “getting rid of’ their babies and men can’t” fallacy has been thoroughly debunked then.
Not to mention that, ONCE AGAIN, the mother, regardless of what she does AFTER the pregnancy is discovered STILL has to undergo the physical risks, procudures and pain of either abortion or carrying to full term. The man has no physical consequences (except as weirddave mentioned, afterglow).
Yes I agree it is useless for her in this situation. All this hearing does is allow the father to know that he has a child. If the father wants custody then all of this evidence can be used to deny custody. If he is denied custody then he still doesn’t know where the mother or child is and won’t be able to hurt them. If even after all of the evidence is introduced he is granted custody then we can say he is not a threat to the child.
Heck I don’t even know if we can do this without allowing him to defend himself. My argument would be that while this system isn’t perfect its much better than what we have.
CanvasShoes-
I am not interested in ‘punishing’ either party or letting one off scot free. I just want the father to know he has a kid so he can pursue custody if he wants.
What is she guilty of? I don’t advocate punishing anyone until they are proven guilty in a court of law.
