If a couple have casual sex, and the guy is lied to about the woman using the pill, and she gets pregnant and he does not want kids or, at least, kids with her, should he be responsible for being in the child’s life? I watch Judge Mathis every now and then, and it seems that every time some couple shows up, fighting over an accidental or deliberately accidental kid, she admonishes the father that he must be in the child’s life, just before she slams financial responsibility on him. Quite a few of the women involved are really obnoxious, mouthy and seem just plain mean and, to me anyhow, butt ugly.
I think I can guess why the guys involved do not want to be around them.
I don’t want children of my own and, to me, one of the worst things I can think of is to be forced to participate in the life of a child I do not want connected to a woman I despise. I use all sorts of protection on my occasional sexual contacts, from condoms and spermicidal jelly to making as sure as I can that the woman is on the pill, so I’m triple protected. I’m happiest if she has had her tubes tied. I do not want accidental kids.
Would not a guy forced to visit a kid he doesn’t want, doesn’t care for, whose mother he hates actually be worse for the child than just not seeing it? He could pay child support and help in bills and maybe send gifts, but if he really doesn’t want a child in his life, it seems to me that the resentment would pour over to the kid.
Since no method of birth control is 100% foolproof, every time you have sex you are risking the possibility (however small) of having a child. It’s that simple. Even is she is on the pill, pregnancy is possible. Even if you wear a condom, pregnancy is possible. Therefore, if you have sex, you have to take responsibility for whatever will come of it, intended or not.
There are two questions here, and they need to be serperated right at first so that we don’t get alot of confusion.
1)What ought a man do?
and
2)What ought the law compell a man to do?
IMHO, the answer to (1) is that a man ought to participate as much as possible in the rearing of his child, however distasteful the mother. (and I would retract the ugly statement really fast. As an ugly woman, I find the insinuation that that would make being around me a chore on par with being “obnoxious, mouthy and . . . just plain mean.” to be distasteful, to say the least. You will be raked over the coals six ways to Sunday over that one, trust me.)
As far as question (2), I think that the law ought to compell a man to contribute materially to the support of his offspring, but that it really can’t compell a man to contribute emotionally and that it should not even try to do so. I do think that a great deal of social pressure should be brought to bear on absentee parents, but not legal pressure.
I think the OP’s question is whether that responsibility must include visitation. Personally, I would want visitation, as this would be my child too, and if the mother was a truly reprehensible person, I would even sue for sole custody of a child I hadn’t planed on creating. The child exists, I am one half of the two responsible, and I will do everything in my power to see that child is raised to be the happiest, most wonderful, person they can be.
But, like Manda Jo said, I do not think that a father should be forced to have visitation if their feelings on this matter do not match mine. They are responsible for financial support, but forced visitation would not be good for the child.
Of course Wring’s got a darn good point about TV Court shows vs the real thing.
Does anyone know of instances of this being handed down by a real court of law?
IANAL, but I don’t think visitation can be forced on anyone. There is a right of free association in this country. You cannot be made to hang around with someone whom you don’t want to associate with. That being said, however, even though he cannot be legally forced to see the child (even if he can be held financially responsible), it is only right and proper to be a part of the child’s life. After all, why should the child suffer by being deprived of a father.
So, in summary, should he be forced to be a part of his kid’s life? No. Should he be treated like dirt if he refuses? Yes.
I vaguely recall a case in Texas (where else?[sup]1[/sup])where mandatory visitation was imposed by the court. It struck me as extremely weird, and I don’t remember any of the circumstances or whether it was appealed.
Zev, I don’t think this is a free association issue, as I don’t think it applies between parent and child. For example, you don’t have the right to abandon your child because you don’t want to “associate” with your child at that time.
I think a better way of looking at it is twofold. First, it’s not in the best interests of the child to be required to spend time with a parent who doesn’t want to be there. Second, forced visitation seemed to imply that you can never give up some or all of your parental rights, and the whole system of adoption belies that.
Neither of those points, of course, have any effect on the responsibility to support the child.
Sua
Sua
[sup]1 Cheap shot against Texas, I know. Ya want really bizarre court decisions, you should look at Pennsylvania, which daily strikes a blow against the concept of elected judges. :))[/sup]
But that’s because I currently am entrusted with the physical welfare of my children. If I did not have custody, however, I don’t think I could be forced to see them if I did not want to.
**
I agree with you there. Who knows what the “father” would do to the kid.
Well, is visitation a parental right or a parental responsibility? That’s what this then boils down to. We agree that the “father” cannot get out of his responsibility to financially support the child unless the mother agrees to allow him/her to be adopted by someone else. If visitation is a responsibility then I don’t see why this should be any different.
I just thought of another way to look at this. First. near as I can tell most family law today boils down to “what are the rights of the child?”–so the questoin should be framed “does the child have the right to be visited by both parents?” I think the answer to this is clearly no. For example: If a wealthy, jet-set couple were to put their child in boarding school and leave them with nannies and at camp during the summer, they could quite concievably never see their children, yet could not be charged with neglect or abandonment. (Though they would be subject to heavy social pressure, which I think we all agree is appropriate.)If married parents have no legal obligation to spend time with their children, I can’t imagene why divorced parents would.
Most everyone knows that having sex, no matter how well-protected, may still produce a child.
My advice would be to only have sex with people you like.
No person should be forced to visit a child. Some people have to be forced to provide financial support for their child. Some people are not able to separate their feelings for the other adult in a financial and custody arrangement, forgetting the child’s needs. Pouring resentment onto a child for having the bad luck of being the byproduct of two adults’ bad choice is contemptable. An adult has responsibility and choices and control. The child has none and is blameless.
Okay here is what I suggest on this one. Before you have sex with a women take a good long thought… would I really want to have this women being a part of my life for the next 20 years (or more)
At the same time a women should be doing the same thing. As much as it tends to kill “the mood” such issues should be discused before sex.
That is the only way you can really be sure to be “safe”
Don’t have sex with women you despise. Period. Your life will probably improve if you take this bit of advice, unless you’re such a loser that you can’t get sex any other way.
Since you don’t want kids, period, get a vasectomy. It’s a bit of pain, but not much, and it’s fairly cheap. It’s nearly 100% effective, too.
I work in the support part of a Family Court in New York State. It is not at all uncommon for a woman to offer to forego child support in return for the father surrendering his parental rights because she is so eager to have him out of their child’s life, nor is is unheard of for a father to spontaneously volunteer to surrender his right to ever see his child again in order to be released from paying child support. (As an aside, in N.Y. State parental rights can’t be surrendered in this manner unless there is someone to surrender them to, i.e. a stepparent waiting in the wings to adopt the child.) To a certain extent, these people can be accomodated. The ones who CAN’T be helped are those women who come in and beg the court to force the father to visit – including some who say that they would be willing to tolerate missed payments in return for active participation by the father. It just can’t be done, at least in my experience.
Family law theoretically works from, “What are the best interests of the child?” and carries the assumption that children aren’t fully aware of their long-term interests.
In the aftermath of a breakup parents often lose sight of those interests too. Hence family court.
The the post that starts this thread is a good example. It almost treats a tiny human being as an unwanted commodity to be paid for like a accidentally broken vase at an antique store.
Suppose a woman took the same perspective. “Look, I use contraceptives but I really don’t want children and I don’t like to deal with some ugly guy I picked up in a bar. Here’s the kid and a check. Have a nice life!”
There was an interesting article in Salon.com recently arguing that since a woman has the right to abort a child she doesn’t want, a man should have the right not to support a child he doesn’t want. I’m not 100% sure I’m convinced by it but it is interesting.
In my view, it’s a legal right, but a moral responsibility. If someone (however despicably) chooses to waive that right, it can’t be forced on him any more than he could be forced to vote. I can’t conceive of not wanting to spend time with your child, but someone who feels like that probably wouldn’t have much to offer anyway.
Just one sidebar: I wish the word “visitation” would be stricken from the vocabulary. “Father’s time” or “mother’s time” or just about anything else would be better.
