In a recent thread about abortion,somebody brought up the idea that if a man doesn’t want to worry about 18 years of child support, he should make a contract with the woman that says the man would not have to pay child support in the event the woman got pregnant and had a child.
Would a contract such as this be legally binding? If the woman changed her mind in 5 years, could I point to The Contract and say “nope, I don’t have to pay”?
Oops. Title should have been:
“Question about the validity of contracts”
IANAL, but such a contract sounds against public policy and AFAIK such contracts are not legally binding.
Absolutely not. Child support is (in theory) for the benefit of the child – I can’t see any court letting mom waive the child’s rights like this.
As I understand things, even more reasonable agreements in this area are subject to court revision. For example, a prenuptial agreement might provide that in the event of divorce, the wife gets $x/month in alimony and $y/month in child support. But a court is free to step in and say that y is too low and make it higher.
**
Hehe you can say whatever you want, but a judge is gonna point at you and say “yes you have to pay.”
As has been said, a contract absolving a man from his paternal obligations will most likely not be held valid by the courts as contrary to public policy BUT how about this scenario:
I, a man with no desire to bear the burden for the expenses of raising a human being, contract with an insurer that in consideration for the payment of a premium, in the event that a woman would become pregnant by me the insurer will pay any child support payments due subject to whatever limitations are agreed to (deductible, etc). Now, I am still responsible but another party has agreed to become responsible too in exchange for my premiums. This contract would most likely be held valid and the uinsurer would have to pay.
Now: what if the insurer is the woman herself? She can sue me for child support and I can sue her right back for payment of the insured event. We’d both be right and we’d both win. Whoever hides their assets best wins in fact as the other cannot collect.
Also, interesting: I can offer to have sex and pay money, not for the sex, but for insuring the event of a pregnancy and technically I would not be violating prostitution laws.
Even if the contract is signed and notarized? 
>> Even if the contract is signed and notarized?
What difference does that make? A contract against public policy is unenforceable whether it si notarized or blessed by the Pope himself. It is not a matter of form but of content.
hmm… any lawyers here know whether that could work?
You can not act as an insurer unless licensed to do so. (I saw that on one of those court shows last week.)
If, as a man, you have no desire to ever create children, have a vasectomy and forget the contract bullshit. Or, use your hand and leave the ladies alone.
Ok, let’s say I got a vasectomy, but just to be extra safe I go to a licensed insurer with an unusual request to get insured in the highly unlikely event the vasectomy fails. How feasible would that be?
I had not thought of that but it makes sense because if not I could say my car is insured with my friend Bob, here. Still, I wonder if an insurance contract would still be enforceable between private parties.
That commnt is uncalled for and contributes nothing to the matter being discussed.
I wonder what premiums I’d have to pay for “Child Insurance”, assuming I had a vasectomy. What would the actuarial tables look like? 
As noted, insurance is a highly regulated industry, with companies requiring licenses, minimum reserves, etc, etc, etc. A private, unlicensed individual writing an insurance contract would be breaking the law. (What is or is not insurance can, of course, be a tricky question, but I think in the hypothetical as presented the answer is clearly affirmative).
And good luck getting a company to write that policy. Insurance is based in large part on the law of large numbers – that out of a wide pool of premium-paying insureds, only a smaller subset will have actual claims. I doubt there would be enough people willing to buy these policies so as to adquately spread the risk of loss. Condoms are a lot cheaper than an insurance premium.
You could probably talk Lloyds of London (who will insure almost anything) into insuring the integrity of your vasectomy, but not into taking financial responsibility for any progeny that might result from its failure.
IANAL, but I believe that the reason you can’t have a contract that prohibits child support is that child support is based on the rights of the child, not the mother, and that the mother couldn’t then sign a contract that abridged the rights of the child- something along those lines. But again, IANAL, so this is just a lay opinion
Insuring the integrity of the vasectomy? Well wouldn’t that mean paying me for the negative consequences if that vasectomy fails? I.E, 18 years worth of child support.
Such a contract – even were an insurance company willing to offer it – would not be valid to the extent that it operated to deprive the child of support (such as if the insurer had gone bankrupt in the interim), as it’s an agreement between two parties about the rights of a third person (the child), not a party to the agreement, and neither party is authorized to waive the child’s rights in this matter.
Would the contract be acceptable as long as the insurer is in clover and can make the payments? It’s awfully unseemly; I’d wager that more than a couple states would consider it unenforceable as against public policy, but given a sympathetic factual situation there are probably other states that would allow it.
Another reason that an insurance company would be unwilling to take on such a contract is that when judges decide issues of child support, they are typically empowered to look at the provider’s ability to pay. Remember, child support orders are less about “justice” and more about providing the child with the most secure and supportive economic situation possible. Therefore an insurer might be afraid (and reasonably so, I think) that by assuming a duty to support a child it is opening itself up to payment obligations due to its secure financial footing that the father himself never would have had were he responsible for the child’s support himself.
–Cliffy
**
Don’t be sad - if courts enforced all signed, notarized contracts no matter how unfair, life would be pretty miserable.
With respect to the insurance issue, IMHO it’s worth keeping in mind that many obligations are non-delegable. In other words, you cannot absolve yourself of a duty by agreeing with a third party that he or she will perform. So for example, if I pay Alan $1000 to paint my house, and Alan then pays Bob $800 to paint my house, and Bob skips town, I’m entitled to be made whole by Alan – he cannot simply point the finger at Bob.
Here’s another hypothetical: Trust Fund Suzy asks Poor John to father her child. Trust Fund Suzy agrees in writing to take full responsibility for the child’s expenses. It seems to me that a court might very well enforce such an agreement - until Suzy falls upon hard times! (And unless there’s some statute that mandates child support payments no matter what.)
You seem to be contradicting something that I never said or implied which is that the father was off the hook. Please read carefully and understand what I mean before you respond
I never said or implied the rights of the child would be curtailed. In fact, they are enhanced as now there are two parties financially responsible instead of one. The act adds one more party.
Why exactly is adding one more party to those who are liable to pay for the child “contrary to public policy”? If I get life insurance and name beneficiaries any children I may have it has the same effect: the insurance company is obligated to pay my child money if I die. It doe not relieve me of any of my (or my estate’s) obligations.
[quote]
Another reason that an insurance company would be unwilling to take on such a contract is that when judges decide issues of child support, they are typically empowered to look at the provider’s ability to pay.
[quote]
You continue to not understand anything. The judge may rule you are liable for causing a car accident and inddeed you are but that does not diminish the fact that the insurance company is obligated to reimburse you.
You are mixing different things which are totally unrelated. Others seem to understand the reasoning so please try to understand it yourself and do not answer to things that were neve said.
What would happen if we turn the situation around? The father is willing to pay child support, but the mother refuses to take it?