pravnik, you need to look up what is called a ‘safe harbor’ law which allows a woman to permanently give up a baby no questions asked at various locations such as hospitals. Fifteen states currently have such laws, Texas being the first in 1999.
Twenty four other states are considering enacting similar laws. Source: Daily Illini
If I found out that I was pregnant today, I’d have already made an appointment to abort, because the other options are to me so vile that any form of escape would be attractive. An abortion wouldn’t wreck my life and my finances and my health and my family and my career, but staying pregnant would.
By comparision to the awfulness of the other options, abortion is the attractive option should my birth control ever fail.
catsix: Believe it or not, I’m actually quite familar with Safe Haven laws, as well as few others. If you think that Safe Haven laws allow a mother to give a child up for adoption against a father’s wishes, you’re incorrect. Except for adoption by a stepparent, a child may only be adopted if the parent-child relationship as to each living parent has been terminated.
Safe Haven laws allows a parent to abandon a children at a safe locations in exchange for immunity from (or an affirmative defense to) prosecution for child endangerment or abandonment. They don’t change the standards for adoption or termination of the parent-child relationship at all, except that abandonment provides grounds for involutary termination of the abandoning parent’s relationship. The father’s parent-child relationship must still be terminated, same as the mother’s.
pravnik: If a woman says “Gee, I don’t know who the father is, I had sex with him at a bus station and never saw him again,” how are the authorities going to prove otherwise?
If he doesn’t turn up pretty soon, they aren’t going to be particularly interested in doing so. Hopefully, if he starts wondering why he hasn’t seen his kid in two months and can’t contact the mother, he will have contacted the authorities if he wishes to prevent his parent-child relationship from being terminated. In many states, he can also file a formal notice of intent to claim paternity with the “paternity registry” in the states’ bureau of vital statistics to prevent his rights from being terminated without his knowledge or consent. In reality, though, most of the time if the mother is dropping the child off at the fire station just so she can’t be prosecuted for putting it in the garbage, the father generally isn’t going to turn up to claim his parental rights. Nevertheless, until they’re terminated, he has them.
The vast majority of adoptions occur by the more conventional means, and require notice to the father. The fathers rights are equated to the mothers, and he has standing to challenge the adoption if he wishes.
Better yet, have her ask me if I care to support any offspring she CHOOSES to bring into the world. I assume you don’t believe that the woman is incapable of showing some control over the situation…
Cavalier: *She can’t give up the child for adoption without the consent of the father, unless she doesn’t tell him about the kid at all. She can easily claim not to even know who the father is, if she want the child gone, or name him if she wants money. Thus she has all the options, none of the responsibility. *
This is a good example of what a lot of people seem to be doing in this thread (and what a few, like pravnik, are valiantly trying to correct): namely, mixing up what a woman can get away with doing with what she’s legally allowed to do.
As pravnik points out, a woman is not allowed to give up a child for adoption against the father’s wishes, any more than a man is allowed to move away and change his name in order to avoid child support payments. The fact that in both cases many people often get away with doing such things doesn’t give them the status of legitimate “options”.
Legally, the actual options and obligations are almost exactly symmetrical:
Before pregnancy: the man and woman are equally entitled to choose to have sex or not.
During the first part of pregnancy: the woman is entitled to choose to terminate pregnancy, the man is not. (Likewise, woman is legally responsible for the medical costs of her pregnancy and delivery, the man is not.)
Once the child is born: the man and woman can mutually consent to put the child up for adoption, or either or both of them can decide to keep the child. If one of them wants to keep it and the other doesn’t want to, the non-custodial parent is obligated to help support the child financially.
The only official and legal asymmetry in there is in the right to choose an abortion in early pregnancy, which is based on the biological fact that pregnancy happens in the woman’s body and not in the man’s.
The rest of the system, viewed as it actually stands and not clouded up with resentment about what women can illegally get away with, is in fact quite fair.
If there are any legal experts out there, can you confirm whether I’m right about the following example?
Jane and Jack have sex, and Jane gets pregnant. Due to personal beliefs, Jane is opposed to abortion, yet she does not want the child. She carries it to term, delivers the baby, and attempts to put it up for adoption.
Jack, however, DOES want the child, and takes custody of the baby. In this situation, wouldn’t Jane be responsible for child support, because both parents did not terminate rights, thus enabling an adoption?
If I’m right, and Jane owes 18 years of child support to Jack, the custodial parent, how is this different than what many of you are opposed to - the parent who doesn’t want the child being forced to pay child support?
This is technically true, but misleading. The fact that women can choose whether the pregnancy will result in a baby means that women are never forced to support a child they don’t want. They are treated the same as men in a certain situation, but only men are ever put in that situation against their will.
You say that once the child is born, both parents are equally obligated to support it financially; but like an insurance policy that covers vasectomy (for both sexes) but not oral contraception (for either sex), the result is skewed even though the rules are superficially equal.
It isn’t different. The parent who wants the child should be the one to pay for it.
Mr2001:The fact that women can choose whether the pregnancy will result in a baby means that women are never forced to support a child they don’t want.
In practical terms, of course, they often are. If a woman isn’t able to get an abortion in the brief window when it’s legal, or if she changes her mind later in the pregnancy, or if she thought the child would be put up for adoption but then the father changes his mind and wants to keep it—then mommy’s on the hook for child support.
Theoretically, if all women had reliable access to abortions early in pregnancy, and no women ever changed their minds about wanting a baby, and no fathers ever changed their minds about relinquishing children for adoption, then you’d be right that “women are never forced to support a child they don’t want”.
Likewise, theoretically, if all men always made sure that their sex partners were ethical and honorable and wouldn’t demand child support from them in case of an unwanted pregnancy, and if no women ever changed their minds about choosing abortions or relinquishing children for adoption, then it would be equally true that men would never be forced to support a child they don’t want, either.
In the real world, though, both sexes do often end up with parental obligations that they don’t want. The only practical safeguard against that is to make sure that 1) you are using the most reliable possible birth control and 2) you are having sex only with honorable people who will not try to take advantage of you and entrap you into unwanted obligations.
She’s really only on the hook for child support if the father wants the child, though. If he doesn’t, she can put it up for adoption, regardless of whether she was able or willing to have an abortion while it was legal.
The solution to that, as I see it, is to require the father to support the child himself if he’s the only one who wants it - the same requirement I would place on the mother.
If the woman states she has no idea who the father may be how do they handle it then? I know several, actually was 3, women that gave their children up for adoption. And the child was adopted in utero i think the term is. None of them had to get the permission of the father. One was in NC, 1 in IL and 1 in OH. Two of them were neices of mine. The other was a good friend.
In the instance where no definable or sustained relationship exists between the birth-mother and the biological father, it can reasonably be assumed that the biological father would not object to an adoption.
On the other hand, should a “relationship” exist, the consent of the biological father should be required.
The question that is posed by the OP is, “With legal abortion, should men have to pay child support?” The answer should be dependent upon the “relationship” of the birth-mother and biological father.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinions concerning the issue of abortion, it has to be acknowledged that a Supreme Court ruling has certain legal ramifications. As a result of the Roe vs. Wade decision, a woman’s pregnancy was determined to be autonomous and protected by a constitutional “right to privacy”. The Supreme Court ruled that it is solely a woman’s personal “choice” to either bring a child into the world, or to terminate a pregnancy without any regard for the wishes of the man involved.
Therefore, for child support laws to be consistent with the application of law that our system of jurisprudence demands, a certain relationship must exist between a birth mother and a biological father.
If the birth mother has the legal means of a “contract” of marriage or an “implied contract” of a sustained relationship with the biological father of her child, only then should the law be applied to require that man to provide support for a child that is the result of that relationship. If a birth mother does not have the obligatory contract with the biological father, then that man should not be required to support a child that the birth mother unilaterally chooses to bring into the world. The only other scenario that would justify the application of child support law is if an adult male impregnates a girl under the age of consent.
For the State to require an individual, not bound by contract, to be financially responsible for a “private” matter of a second party, not only violates the rule of law, it violates the very essence of freedom, liberty, and justice that America stands for.
Rs:For the State to require an individual, not bound by contract, to be financially responsible for a “private” matter of a second party, not only violates the rule of law, it violates the very essence of freedom, liberty, and justice that America stands for.
But I think the legal rationale is that to participate in (potentially) procreative sex (yipes, got enough "p"s there? :)) is to engage in an implied contract involving financial responsibility.
That is, the existence of one’s biological child legally obligates one for the financial support of that child, unless someone else takes on the full responsibility of support. (That obligation is considered to begin at birth, which is why the father isn’t legally responsible for the costs of pregnancy.)
So, the act of sex that resulted in conception constituted the implied contract, which—unless the pregnancy is terminated or both parents agree to relinquish parental rights and give the child up for adoption—is binding upon both parents. Warning: IANAL, but that’s the way I’ve heard the reasoning described.
In the instance where no definable or sustained relationship exists between the birth-mother and the biological father, it can reasonably be assumed that the biological father would not object to an adoption.
I don’t think the law agrees with you on that one. AFAIK, the biological father’s consent is required to legalize an adoption, irrespective of what kind of relationship he and the biological mother have.
Razorsharp, in your opinion, what constitutes a “sustained relationship” for the purposes of acknowledging an implied contract? Dating for two months? Two years? Living together? Appearing in public as a couple? The man claiming, prior to sex, that the he will support the woman if an accidental pregnancy occurs (even if he changes his mind when it actually happens)? The woman claiming, prior to sex, that she will get an abortion (even if she changes her mind when it actually happens)?
How does the “intensity” of the relationship fit in, and even more importantly, how can it be proven? Does a man who declared his undying love for the women after a whirlwind month of romance have more responsibility than a man who has been casually dating a woman for five years, but never “officially” becomes committed, or dates around, or whatever?
It seems that the only thing you’re really doing is ruling out the “one-night-stand with a stranger” occasion. Otherwise, all you’re doing is attempting to decipher the legitimacy of an unmarried couple’s relationship, which seems shaky at best, or to determine what promises and commitments were made based on words exchanged in the bedroom.
In your mind, who has the burden of proof? The man, who must prove that he made it clear prior to the act of intercourse that he had no desire for a child, or the woman, who must prove that the man implied/promised prior to the act of intercourse that he would support the woman/child regardless of her choice. What if no discussion at all takes place prior to the act of intercourse? What is the “default” judgement in this case?
Can you clarify, if you have time? Personally, I have no problems with agreements/contracts made before the act of intercourse takes place (although claims made after the fact are problematic IMO), so I’m just wondering where your idea fits into this, and the workability of “implied” contracts.
Rather than trying to determine what constitutes a relationship, it would be much easier to determine what doen not fall within the definition of a “relationship”.
For instance, waking up one morning and remembering that your “date” paid the bar tab with a “Gold Card” does not a relationship make. So, as you can see, I believe that the overwhelming majority of cases would require the biological father to provide support for his children. But then, I also say that there are some instances in which men should also be privileged to the concept of “freedom of choice”. What is almost comical, are these so-called advocates of “freedom of choice”, that, through what appears to be nothins less than an aire of vindictivness, absolutly refuse to even entertain the thought.
As for who would have the burden of proof, as in all cases, the burden of proof would fall on the plaintiff.
I’m sure that you do “think” that, but the only problem with that “thinking”, is that it only applies to one party within the “contract”.
That would be one-sided, arbitrary and falls outside any recognizable definition of a “contract”.
Thanks for the clarification. It sounds like this plan exempts the one-night stands, but leaves, as you say, a large majority of biological fathers still responsible for their undesired children.
While a step in the right direction perhaps, I doubt that most “father’s rights” advocates would be in agreement with you. A couple of points:
I suspect that, for most FR (father’s rights) advocates, they don’t want an out in a only a tiny percentage of cases. I suspect that they want to be able to “opt out” of any and all situations where an abortion/adoption does not occur, yet they have no desire for the child. IOW, they want the exact same freedom of choice that they feel the mother has, only at a different stage in the process. (Please correct me, anybody, if I’m wrong.)
It still doesn’t seem to answer the question of intent. Is there any difference between a one-night-stand-man who never wants to have offspring, or a three-year-relationship-committed man who never wants to have offspring?
IOW, how or why does whether or not one has a relationship with the biological mother change whether or not a man has any desire or intent whatsoever to father and support a child?
I’m not challenging you (in fact, morally and realistically I’m in complete agreement; I would not want an uninterested one-night-stand to be forced to pay child support, as I would not want a resentful bio-father to have any rights to my child. I realize this has nothing to do with legality, just my personal thoughts); rather, even if the one-night stand instance were specifically conceded by all parties, I doubt that anyone here would consider the problem solved.
Rs:I’m sure that you do “think” that, but the only problem with that “thinking”, is that it only applies to one party within the “contract”.
How you figure? The legal obligation to support the child doesn’t exist until the child is born, but once that happens, the obligation is binding on both parents.
No, that too, is arbitrarily decided by the birth-mother. See, if the birth-mother wishes, she can assume all responsibilities by raising “her” child by herself. Some women make that “choice” so as to be unencumbered with the presense of the “biological father”. There is no law that requires a birth-mother to identify the biological father of a child. The state shows no concern for the biological father’s “rights”, nor the childs “need” for its biological father.
Now, here is where the disingenuousness of the state rears its hypocritical head. The ONLY time the state recognizes the child’s “right” to support, or a biological fathers “obligation”, is when the birth-mother wants financial assistance with the “choice” that she unilaterally made. Then, all of a sudden, the state sees the parent/child relationship as sacrosanct.
Sorry, I can see thru that, and I beleive you can too.
**
[/QUOTE]
Then the issue would rest upon whether the birth-mother had a reasonable expectation of support from the man. Being that a “three-year-relationship” did exist, I would suspect that a Judge would rule in favor of an implied duty of support.