Just trying to figure out why you think it’s okay for this guy to be forced to pay child support when the kid isn’t his, wring.
try a different thread WV and answer a few of the responses already made to you here.
Uh. “He hos around, marries a woman he knows isn’t the mother, bilks her, and SHE’S the bad girl because she doesn’t want to pay for a kid that isn’t hers?” That doesn’t parse. “Marries a woman he knows isn’t the mother”? Where the hell did the baby come from, then? There is no provision in law for establishing maternity (although surrogacy is starting to change this).
A putative father who fails to timely raise the question of the paternity of his putative child loses the right to challenge it. This is not a matter of fairness; it’s a matter of judicial efficiency and judicial finality. Those goals are often at odds with fairness, and the compromise between the two sometimes lead to unfair results. In any case drawing the balance between fairness and efficiency is a matter of balancing best done by the legislature.
Wtf?
While some of the shoddier courts may make it a matter of ‘efficiency’, fairness is a key principle of our legal system.
And sticking some poor fellow with child-support payments, for a kid he later finds out is not his, is not fair. To hell with efficiency and finality. Why should someone be legally punished for a slut spouse?
Honey chile, all American courts consider the interests of judicial efficiency to be a key principle of our legal system.
Including the Supreme Court, (hopefully) not one of our shoddier courts. A sampling of Supreme Court cases where judicial efficiency concerns affected the outcome.
VW_Woman, let’s turn this around for a second. Should the man have the right to force the woman to have an abortion?
Of course not. I can think of no principle of equity or ethics that would allow for such a result.
But, that means that we have already established the the man’s interest in the pregnancy is subordinate to that of the woman’s - the woman’s interests trumps that of the man’s.
So, the man cannot force the woman to carry to term.
And what we are left with are honest arguments for and against abortion. Have at them.
Me, I’ll be off kicking some puppies.
Sua
Because the alternative is to punish the child for the mother’s infidelity, which is, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid. Once a man has taken on the affirmative duty of raising a child and providing for its care, the child’s interests are what is important. Somebody has to pay for the child’s care, and it’s either going to be the parents, or it’s going to be the taxpayers. What’s your preference?
If the biological father can be identified, great, let’s get him into court and start ordering child support payments. But until that happens, centuries of common law require that the person who the child calls “daddy” is responsible for care?
And what kind of scumbag just cuts off support for a child he’s raised for any period of time just because he discovers his wife or ex-wife was unfaithful? It’s not the child’s fault. I especially loved this bit from one of those poor beleagured men in WV_Woman’s link:
Sorry, pal, but support is never contingent on visitation, ever, nor should it be. Again, what kind of asshole punishes the child for something his ex-wife does?
(And I find it somewhat amazing to see two heavy-duty conservatives arguing in favor of a system which would, let’s face it, place more women and children on welfare.)
Why is there no legal responsibility on the part of the woman in that case? She gets a free-ticket to trick some fellow into caring for her illegitamate child, no strings attached?
It is easy to foist the problem off onto the nearest man with a heartbeat and a wallet. In these cases, it seems best to put the child into the custody of the state, since obviously the mother has some rather serious problems.
I do not buy that bad parents are better then no parents.
It’s entirely possible that the woman doesn’t know who the father is. If she’s having a sexual relationship with both the husband and someone else, there is (barring any other information) an equally likely chance that either is the father, and common law assumes that any children born within a marriage are the father’s until proven otherwise.
If the woman and the husband are not having a sexual relationship at all, I would imagine he’d know rather quickly that any pregnancies were not his.
I disagree strenuously that infidelity on the part of a parent is grounds for removing a child from that parent’s custody.
While this argument has a nice logical feel to it, I think it jumps the gun a bit in step 2 when it goes from “the man has no right to force a woman to have an abortion” to “the man’s interest in the pregnancy is subordinate to that of the woman’s”. All we can conclude, if we accept the first premise (that a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion) is that the man’s interest in terminating the pregnancy is subordinate to the woman’s interest in not having it terminated. In my opinion, the generalization reached in the next phase of the argument above (while probably true) needs more support. Why can’t the man’s interest in continuing the pregnancy be superior to the woman’s interest in terminating it? Can we have that and still preserve the superiority of the woman’s interest in not terminating it? Is the woman’s interest in not terminating the pregnancy a true interest in the pregnancy, or merely an consequence of her interest in her bodily integrity? If the latter, how does the father exercising his interest in not terminating the pregnancy violate her interest in bodily integrity?
Indeed, I should know better than to get into abortion threads.
Uh, yeah, right.
A mere allegation of past infidelity on the part of a parent does not make one unfit. Nor does expecting a man who accepted a child as his own and offered to support it at the time it was born to continue to support it after he finds out that he was mistaken.
Seeking to ensure that you have the financial needs to support your children should not be seen as unfitness. It boggles the mind that someone would suggest otherwise. Such a proposal is vindictive and vengeful to the point that it would irreparably harm an innocent child, merely to punish one of its parents. In my opinion. anyone who would propose such a regime is unfit to be a parent.
I definitely agree that the mother- and father-to-be should share equal rights on deciding whether to keep the baby. HOwever, it should be done fairly.
Men and women should have equal responsibility in bringing the fetus to term. Perhaps men could bear the fetus in odd-numbered weeks, while women bear it in even-number weeks. During labor, I’d suggest switching off responsibilities equally.
The father, of course, can decide not to carry the fetus during his weeks, in which case the mother has the right to assume his burden. Similarly, the mother can decide not to carry the fetus during her weeks, in which case the father can take over the entire pregnancy. Only if neither parent agrees to carry the fetus during a particular week will the pregnancy be terminated.
Right now, our system is doubly-unfair: the man doesn’t get to determine whether the fetus is aborted or not, and the woman doesn’t get to surrender half of the pregnancy-duty to the man. Fortunately, the unfairness targets both the man and the woman. Both unfairnesses should be corrected; however, correcting one without correcting the other will only worsen the situation.
WV, know any good mad scientists?
Daniel
Technology marches on, we aren’t very far away from the invention of a practical artificial womb. In a world where they exist I could easily see it breaking down into something like this.
Father wants Child, Mother wants child. Child is carried naturally and raised however parents see fit. Both parents have financial responsibility for care of the child.
Mother wants Child, Father does not. Father signs away parental rights and obligations. Mother can carry child to term and raise child in whatever manner she chooses. Father has no financial obligation or rights to the child whatsoever.
Father wants Child, Mother does not. Mother signs away parental rights and obligations. Mother undergoes procedure to remove fetus from her body and it is placed in artificial womb for gestation. Father may raise child and Mother has no financial obligations or rights to the child whatsoever.
Father and Mother do not want Child. This is where it gets murky. You could either abort or remove the fetus for gestationand donate for adoption to couple willing to pay for procedure.
Anybody want to shoot holes in this scenario? I’m assuming that the procedure to remove the child is no more risky or invasive than an abortion.
lokij: The state will object because any procedure that lets the biological parent avoid the duty to support increases the risk that the child will end up unsupported. Since the state has to pay for the support of unsupported children, this objection is reasonable, and since the state makes the laws, it will be upheld.
I do not, at least until we advance to the point of universal basic support, envision any way for either parent, voluntarily and under normal circumstances, escape the obligation of support.
you betcha - signing away of parental rights w/o another parent stepping up to the plate isn’t currently allowed now - except under very specific circumstances. Mom signs away rights + dad signs away rights and/or is unnamed = child can be adopted.
Mom retains rights, new husband adopts child, dad signs away rights also happens (and I suppose that mom could sign away rights w/dad and new spouse taking up the slack too).
BUt generally, signing away rights in order to skip c/s payments isn’t done (don’t want to increase the liklihood of another child being supported by tax payers).
KellyM, my position actually takes a step back. It starts with the premise that someone has to control the pregnancy. And the fact that the male cannot order an abortion demonstrates that he is not the person who can control the pregnancy.
Sua
SuaSponte: “Control” is such a broad word. There are many facets to “control” and while it is convenient and nice from a simplicity standpoint for those facets to be undivided, the law often does subdivide “control” into different aspects and give authority over those aspects to different individuals. Right now, for example, a parent has “control” over the medical care provided to his or her minor child, but this control does not reach to certain things such as sterlization (which has to be approved by a court). You haven’t made a strong case why control over the pregnancy cannot (or should not) be partitioned in this manner.
Wait a minute. First you said that the fetus was not a separate human being. To defend that claim, you are now talking about its (current) legal rights. It seems to me that those are two entirely different claims.
In fact, since abortion is illegal in some countries, should we conclude that their “separateness” is dependent on their geographical location? What about fetuses concieved prior to Roe v. Wade? Are they “separate,” whereas subsequent concepti are not?
No, they’re “adults.”
Don’t be so ignorant. DNA testing is hardly ‘a mere allegation’. It is hard evidence of her infidelity.
And infidelity that leads a women to not know who the father of her child is, most definitely makes her incompetent. (How many men did she sleep with that she can’t remember who the dad is?)
The foolish course of action that you suggest is that any man who is suckered into believing a child is his (and I imagine most men suspect the chidl is their own, when it is the man’s wife who is pregnant. A reasonable assumption for the man to make) should have to pay for it for the next 18+ years of his life.
Bullshit. Utter and total garbage.
A) The woman in question is obviously an unfit mother. The child (or children) should be remanded to state custody immediately.
B) Fraud charges should be brought against the woman. If she even has reason to suspect the child might not be her husbands, the only reasonable course of action is to get a test and inform her husband of the outcome.
The man in this situation must have the information to make a decision as to whether or not he wants to raise a child that is not his. We are not talking adoption here, we are talking the consquences of having a slut wife.
C) You seem so worried about the child. (I wonder what your views on abortion are?). Only a total fool would think that a mother who doesn’t even know who the father is would be a good mother. What sort of life is it for the child to grow up, and ask mom who their father is? What will the mom say? “Gee, it was a pretty wild party, I don’t know”?
Parenting takes morality, which women in this situation do not have.