I think that’s probably correct.
Besides, the idea that a husband is conclusively presumed to be the father of his wife’s children comes from a time when there was no DNA testing; much less in the way of social welfare; much fewer opportunities for women to work; and far greater punishment for adultery.
For the law it is a financial decision. They get the kid off the public dole. It is good for their budget. They do not care about his rights.
Then why not just pick a man out at random and assign him responsibility for making child support payments?
But is the child really best served by having a parent who despises them? Who every time they look at the child sees their rapist or the other man who screwed his wife? I personally cannot find a man or woman in that case reprehensible. Yes it stinks for the child who has no fault in any of it and is only a victim. Not sure what can be done.
Sure you can provide the base necessities of life for the child (food, clothing, etc.) but the child really requires and deserves more. If the woman or man cannot bring themselves to provide the emotional support and instead hate this thing they are saddled with I suspect the child is not better off with them.
If a child doesn’t have half of my DNA, he is not my child. He can’t pass on my genes after I die, he is not the part of me that’ll remain after I am worm food. The love between the farther and the child is based mostly on those things being true, the children are the successors, they are the only thing that will verifiably continue to exist after a man dies. Another mans progeny = another mans responsibility. The laws around here piss me off to no end :mad:.
Jeebus, those of you having children so that the world won’t have to suffer for loss of your DNA, just skip it. We’ll manage.
I agree. But it has nothing to do with my point. I find it to be a personal flaw if a person cannot find it within themselves to provide emotional or financial support for a child merely because their spouse cheated on them. I’m sure it’s painful, I’m sure it sucks, and I’m sure it’s not fair. But it’s also not the child’s fault.
I’m amazed at how many guys apparently see their children as nothing but extensions of their own DNA. Do you love them at all? Do you care about their feelings even a little bit? Could you really look them in the eye and tell them you don’t care about them anymore?
I cannot relate to that mentality whatsoever.
[total tangent]There was a fascinating story on “This American Life” a few months ago about infants accidentally switched at birth in 1951. One of the mothers figured it out right away, but never said anything until both women were adults. The consequences across both families were significant. [/total tangent]
I read this differently than you. Women are allowed to use the courts as a bludgeon to extort money from entirely blameless people.
You don’t say.
And, again, it is called CHILD support. Not “That filthy whore who cheated on me Support”.
And the women who are walking around with their legs wide open, hoping some decent provider will stuff money inside, we can do without them too.
Then get the money from the damn father.
Isn’t this illegal?
Well, in this jurisdiction at least, there are three forms of court-ordered payments a person may be called upon to make on divorce, depending on circumstances:
Equalization of family property;
Spousal support; and
Child support.
The fact that one spouse has been an adulterer currently doesn’t change these payments at all.
Assuming for the moment that it should (a position I myself do not hold) … I’d argue that the appropriate place for “punishment” should be in category 2 - spousal support. The argument there being that the adulterous spouse ought to be financially penalized for their wrong-doing.
There is no reason to apply “punishment” to category 3 - as the kids have done nothing to deserve any.
To my mind however there are just some “wrongs” which cannot be treated by law. Adultery is one of 'em. The courts should not be in the business of judging such wrongs, or imposing financial penalties for 'em, either way.
Wow. I can tell from this post, that I’m wasting my time with you.
There is a small difference there. The hospital made a mistake. The wife betrayed.
However, in that situation, I would seek my biological child out and seek to gain custody. If I recall, similar cases have ended with the child ending up in the care of the parents that took it home. I’d still try. I’d be willing to continue raising the other child, but would also be willing to hand them over if the other set of parents wished. And I’d be lying if I said that such a discovery wouldn’t alter my relationship with the child.
The wife, on the other hand, made her choice to live with the consequences of betrayal. The children are part of those consequences. It may not be the child’s fault. But it’s also not mine. I’m sure it will be bad for them. But that’s often the case when parents divorce. Sometimes the children suffer. Let their mother protect them. She made her choice to do that when she slept with someone else.
That’s the whole point.
There are in effect two ways a man can be a “father”.
First, the biological - the kid is produced by a sperm originating from that man.
Second, the social - the man evidences a settled intent that the child be considered “his child”.
Both carry obligations.
The argument seems to be that those dads who find themselves in category 2 but not category 1 should be allowed, as it were, to “undecide” to be dad, consequence-free, if they (subjectively) do not feel that obligation any more when they discover they are not “bio-dad”.
I’d love to, but that feels an awful lot like suicide to me. For all I know the brain causes consciousness, once the brain stops working, consciousness ends. I am having a very difficult time accepting the fact that I’ll be completely and irreversibly gone, so I really want some of me to still be around after I die. That is why I am willing to go through the whole family and kids ordeal, with all the expenses and hardships and sacrifices. If I couldn’t leave something behind after I die, I’d just get wasted every day until my liver failed, as there would really be no point to doing anything else.
No, it’s not “child support”, despite being called that. It’s a payoff to the mother; she doesn’t need to spend it on the kids, or even treat them very well. It’s not about “making sure the child is taken care of”; it’s about extracting money from a man, and giving it to a woman, and to hell with the kid’s welfare.
No, it’s about men in catagory 3, who are neither the biological father or regard themselves as the social father ( or who aren’t ALLOWED to be one ) being forced to pay money to the mother of unrelated children ( who quite possibly don’t regard him as their father either ). Without her even being required to spend it on them.