[hijack]Technically, Lloyd’s won’t insure anything.
http://www.lloyds.com/index.asp?ItemId=2605
Members of syndicates within the Lloyd’s market might (and in the case of some ill-advised asbestos syndicates, did) insure just about any dubious proposition. Lloyd’s response was that, as they had since Mr. Lloyd opened his coffeehouse to shipowners, Lloyd’s itself was just a forum (“we serve the coffee and sweep the floors.”).
[/hijack]
I wasn’t attacking you, sailor. Next time you want to flame someone, try reading their post first. I was merely making a couple of observations about your idea. You ask where you said the child’s rights would be curtailed. But I never suggested you had. Nonetheless, an unscrupulous father might make the argument that such a contract let him off the hook, and as I stated in words I had believed were easy to understand, it doesn’t. I must confess myself surprised you took offense to this – considering the fact that you appear to agree with it.
You ask why adding another party to those who might be responsible for a child’s support would be contrary to public policy. I did answer this in part already – it’s unseemly. You may not think that’s a particularly good reason, and I don’t really either. Unfortunately (AFAIK) neither of us are state court judges, and they get to make the rules – and they do indeed invalidate contracts all the time merely because they think they’re icky. More concretely, a court might find it inappropriate to have a child’s welfare depend on an entity driven by the profit motive, and not paternal affection. Again, you may disagree, but I don’t think the judges who are actually deciding would care that much.
As to your bizarre invocation of a car accident in my last paragraph, I fail to see the relevance. In a typical auto accident case, the court is not empowered to consider ability to pay when assessing liability – you’re liable (and, if insured, your insurance company is on the hook for that) if and only if you were negligent. As I noted above, in a child-support case, the ability to pay is part of the calculus when setting the support order. Any insurance company who entered into an agreement as you propose would open themselves up to great liability based on their ability to pay it – and most insurers can probably pay quite a lot.
Finally, you accuse me of answering things that were never asked. First of all, it’s not true. In your original presentation of this idea you asked “how about this scenario”. I (and other posters as well) explained why such a scenario is infeasible. I think that’s a pretty direct answer to the undefined question you asked. But regardless, you’re not paying me, and this isn’t your house. I’m allowed to say anything I want about your idea and make any observations as to its feasibility as I wish; if it’s that bothersome to you, you don’t have to read it.
–Cliffy