# Paternal Responsibility **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708 "2012-03-24T20:24:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/21 "2012-03-24T21:41:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > IANAL, but I believe legally John is presumed to be the father if he is married to Jill, no matter who the genetic father is. > > Lawyers, correct me if I am wrong. > > Regards, > Shodan The husband can have paternity challenged, you lose your legal right to visitation and custody though so many men would shy away from doing so just to avoid child support. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/22 "2012-03-24T21:43:19Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > 1. > > Why is only ONE of them - Peter or Paul, depending on the DNA test - responsible for the child? Why does DNA play such a huge role in paternal responsibility? DNA has only played a role in paternal responsibility in recent years. It plays such a huge role because it’s such a reliable method of determining who a parent is. I will address why one of them must be responsible below. > [@](#): > > 1. > > Let’s say NEITHER Peter nor Paul wanted the baby - and were misled to believe that Mary was on birth control and did not want a baby either. Why should 1 of them - or either of the men at all - be responsible for the child? The long and the short of it is that unwanted children are a burden on society. Might as well shift the responsibility to the people who made the child. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/23 "2012-03-24T21:43:32Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The husband can have paternity challenged, you lose your legal right to visitation and custody though so many men would shy away from doing so just to avoid child support. Visitation? I think you’re talking about divorced couples. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/24 "2012-03-24T21:47:34Z")
What would the purpose of legally challenging the paternity of a child of a woman you were still married to, legally your assets and debts are shared. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/25 "2012-03-24T21:52:08Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > What would the purpose of legally challenging the paternity of a child of a woman you were still married to, legally your assets and debts are shared. I was just verifying that you were talking about a divorced couple, since you were replying to someone who was talking about married couples. And if you could challenge paternity, while married, to move the burden onto the other man, then the fact that your assets are shared with your wife is inconsequential. The other man would be paying for _that_ child. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/26 "2012-03-24T21:53:58Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t seem to answer the question of: If ONE single person independently decides to have a child, how can TWO people be responsible for it? That doesn’t seem logical nor reasonable. One single person can’t independently have a child. Both parents decided to have the child when they committed the act that produced the child. The fact that the father didn’t anticipate that that would be the result of his action doesn’t change the fact that it still resulted from his action. That makes him partly responsible. ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/27 "2012-03-24T22:00:10Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > One single person can’t independently have a child. Both parents decided to have the child when they committed the act that produced the child. The fact that the father didn’t anticipate that that would be the result of his action doesn’t change the fact that it still resulted from his action. That makes him partly responsible. Merely having sex is not the same as deciding to have a child. People have sex for reasons that go beyond biological reproduction. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/28 "2012-03-24T22:01:51Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I was just verifying that you were talking about a divorced couple, since you were replying to someone who was talking about married couples. > > And if you could challenge paternity, while married, to move the burden onto the other man, then the fact that your assets are shared with your wife is inconsequential. The other man would be paying for _that_ child. True, I am thinking of the practical bit of it though, you would still lose your legal right to custody so if your wife died and or left you would have no legal claim to the child unless you officially adopted them. Adoption would remove the financial responsibly of the biological parent removing any advantage gained by the original legal challenge. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/29 "2012-03-24T22:04:50Z")
Also the biological father could file for custody which is a huge risk assuming you love and want to raise a child. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/30 "2012-03-24T22:09:17Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > Merely having sex is not the same as deciding to have a child. People have sex for reasons that go beyond biological reproduction. There is a risk sex will produce a child, by having sex you are accepting that risk. The child is the one with no choice in the matter, the courts are interested in the child. This is why any “agreement” you have with a partner is moot, the responsibility is to the child and they were not party to your umm…party. ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/31 "2012-03-24T22:17:28Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > There is a risk sex will produce a child, by having sex you are accepting that risk. By having sex, are you really accepting that risk though? Can you not put the baby up for adoption, or have an abortion? Also is the responsibility for that risk equally shared between men and women? I don’t believe it is. It would seem that the woman has a greater responsibility for pregnancy-prevention than the man. > [@](#): > > The child is the one with no choice in the matter, the courts are interested in the child. How is this relevant? Are you suggesting that single-parenthood be illegal, for example? > [@](#): > > This is why any “agreement” you have with a partner is moot, the responsibility is to the child and they were not party to your umm…party. Like I said, you could put the baby up for adoption or have an abortion, and so that responsibility is rather “flexible”, and not really binding. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/32 "2012-03-24T22:37:25Z")
I made no claims about the choice to abort, because it is 100% irrelevant. I am only talking about responsibility to a born child, any agreement you have with your partner is moot, the child was not party to that agreement. You accept the risk when you have sex, you accept the financial risk of a crash when you get in your car and drive too. If you rear end someone you can’t say “well I didn’t mean to crash and so I’m not paying a dime” I’ll ignore your silly strawman arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/33 "2012-03-24T22:53:11Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > I made no claims about the choice to abort, because it is 100% irrelevant. > > I am only talking about responsibility to a born child, any agreement you have with your partner is moot, the child was not party to that agreement. > > You accept the risk when you have sex, you accept the financial risk of a crash when you get in your car and drive too. > > If you rear end someone you can’t say “well I didn’t mean to crash and so I’m not paying a dime” > > I’ll ignore your silly strawman arguments. So you’re suggesting that _after a child is born_, both parents should be held legally and financially responsible? Interesting. But I’m still a little confused though. 1. If both parents should be legally and financially responsible, why do we allow adoptions and single-parenthood? Why are there exemptions to the responsibility? 2. Do you believe that the man and the woman are equally responsible for the child that they brought into the world (even if it was unplanned)? ---
**Author:** ![not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_what_you_d_expect/32/3246_2.png) [@not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_what_you_d_expect)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/34 "2012-03-24T22:56:26Z")
Get yourself fixed so you can’t impregnate anyone. It’s the only way to be sure. FWIW, I don’t approve of women getting pregnant under false pretenses, but it’s the child that matters in the end. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/35 "2012-03-24T23:08:13Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > So you’re suggesting that _after a child is born_, both parents should be held legally and financially responsible? > > Interesting. But I’m still a little confused though. > > 1. If both parents should be legally and financially responsible, why do we allow adoptions and single-parenthood? Why are there exemptions to the responsibility? > > 2. Do you believe that the man and the woman are equally responsible for the child that they brought into the world (even if it was unplanned)? Just because a single parent fails to peruse financial support from the other parent does not mean there is not the right, nor does it mean I want to “outlaw single parents” that is a strawman, go look it up. If that single parent uses states services the state will often step up and peruse financial support. The child typically does not exercise this right by them self. Both parents are legally obligated to provide financial support as the question was originally framed, the right of support is a right of the child, the individual parents are irrelevant outside of the reality that if separated one of the natural parents typically has custody. With exception for straw-man arguments this discussion has become circular, I will bow out now. ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2012, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/36 "2012-03-24T23:30:18Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Just because a single parent fails to peruse financial support from the other parent does not mean there is not the right, nor does it mean I want to “outlaw single parents” that is a strawman, go look it up. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to use a strawman argument, I’m just trying to understand your logic and reasoning. Are you implying that a child has a \*right \*to support from both parents? If so, then why doesn’t the state make it mandatory and enforce those rights on behalf of the child? Currently, it seems to be the right of the _single parent_ to pursue child support and not the right of the child necessarily. But that doesn’t really support your argument… and that’s why I brought it up. > [@](#): > > If that single parent uses states services the state will often step up and peruse financial support. The child typically does not exercise this right by them self. But it’s still fully, and effectively, under the single-parent’s control as to whether the 2nd parent is coerced into paying child support. > [@](#): > > Both parents are legally obligated to provide financial support as the question was originally framed, the right of support is a right of the child, the individual parents are irrelevant outside of the reality that if separated one of the natural parents typically has custody. This is something I don’t really understand. If neither parent wants responsibility, then the state will take the child away (if the woman chose not to have an abortion, and the child is already born). Yet if ONE of the parents wants responsibility, the state then forces the SECOND parent to also have financial responsibility (often against their will). This is where I fail to see the reasoning behind the way things work. It just seems very logically inconsistent, and hence my questioning. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/37 "2012-03-25T01:22:38Z")
Let me pose this question to the OP. Peter is having unprotected sex with Mary. Paul is having unprotected sex with Alice. Mary gets pregnant. Peter is the father. Would you argue that Paul is partly responsible for Mary’s child? Paul never had sex with Mary but he was having unprotected sex so theoretically he could have caused a pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Niply\_Elder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8e8cbc/32.png) [@The\_Niply\_Elder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Niply_Elder)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/38 "2012-03-25T02:29:54Z")
Is this one of those adaptive questions, such as formulated by the GREs, GMATs, etc? If so then the SD is sliding back on that whole fighting ignorance mandate… ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/39 "2012-03-25T03:48:41Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > Are you implying that a child has a \*right \*to support from both parents? If so, then why doesn’t the state make it mandatory and enforce those rights on behalf of the child? > > Currently, it seems to be the right of the _single parent_ to pursue child support and not the right of the child necessarily. But that doesn’t really support your argument… and that’s why I brought it up. In US law, the child has the right to support from his parents until he turns 18 or emancipates himself. That right is the child’s, not the custodial parent. For example, South Dakota law says: "The parents of a child are jointly and severally obligated for the necessary maintenance, education, and support of the child in accordance with their respective means. " And as the FAQ on the Texas Attorney General’s Child Support and custody webpage says: > [@](#): > > What if the pregnancy was unplanned? > > Texas law says that both parents are responsible for supporting their children. Just as the mother is responsible for the child even if the pregnancy was not planned, so is the father. This means that once the court determines the identity of the biological father, the man must help support his child. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2012, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708/40 "2012-03-25T03:51:05Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > Are you implying that a child has a \*right \*to support from both parents? They do. That is the law in all fifty states. > [@](#): > > If so, then why doesn’t the state make it mandatory and enforce those rights on behalf of the child? They do. > [@](#): > > Currently, it seems to be the right of the _single parent_ to pursue child support and not the right of the child necessarily. But that doesn’t really support your argument… and that’s why I brought it up. No, it is the OBLIGATION of the custodial parent – IF the other parent does not voluntarily support the child – to pursue that support ON BEHALF of the child. > [@](#): > > But it’s still fully, and effectively, under the single-parent’s control as to whether the 2nd parent is coerced into paying child support. No, if the custodial parent fails to seek support, and the child suffers for it, the state can, and will, remove that child from the parent’s custody. Absent such dire straits, however, the state does not intervene in a parent’s choices about how to bring up a child. > [@](#): > > This is something I don’t really understand. Almost obstinately so. > [@](#): > > If neither parent wants responsibility, then the state will take the child away (if the woman chose not to have an abortion, and the child is already born). Yet if ONE of the parents wants responsibility, the state then forces the SECOND parent to also have financial responsibility (often against their will). This is where I fail to see the reasoning behind the way things work. It is impossible to coerce people into acting responsibly. Removing the child is the best option when neither parent will do so. As long as one parent is willing to do the work, then the state has ample means of making the other parent pay. That is the least a parent owes a child, and it’s the most the state can do. > [@](#): > > It just seems very logically inconsistent, and hence my questioning. It’s perfectly logical. Children have rights, parents have rights, and adults have rights separate from the role of parent. All of these rights must be balanced when the state acts. Such actions are undertaken by human beings who get emotional, make mistakes, and have prejudices, but the theory is simple and sound. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paternal-responsibility/616708.md?page=3)