Log in

View Full Version : When Oral Sex Results in a Pregnancy



Pages : 1 [2]

Deogol
02-08-2008, 06:35 AM
So is Anheuser-Busch. Actually, I believe that "extracting money" is the aim of any businessperson. Why do YOU go to work?

Yes, I agree.

I am not saying it is bad. I'm just saying that's how it is.

I go to work for the personal satisfaction and the challenge of problems. At least that is what I tell the HR types. :)

Deogol
02-08-2008, 06:46 AM
Okay. Reasonable point. Some taxes are punitive. I was thinking of fairly specific tax regimes when I wrote that as, of course, was the person to whom I was replying. So, fortunately, this does not actually change anything in my post at all.

Seriously Deogol. Reading your posts has gone from irritating, to ridiculous to funny to just sheerly embarrassing. I'm even more embarrassed for you because you don't realize that you should be embarrassed. Like right now I honestly just feel incredibly bad for you.

I feel the exact same way for you! You poor thing. :)

I just wish you would up and up admit:

Women can choose to not have a child.
Men cannot choose to not have a child.

It is so simple and so obvious I cannot believe you cannot understand it.

Here is the corollary:

Men cannot force a child onto a woman.
Women can force a child onto a man.

All I am saying, is if a woman can have a choice about not having a child, then a man should have the same legal right to not have a child.

Whether she wants to be or not wants to be pregnant is not at issue. She already has her rights and choices about becoming a parent or not.

This is all about what is fair for the guy. He has no rights and no choices about becoming a parent should a pregnancy occur.

Then throw in the mix the unfairness of having to support a child that isn't even yours as some men have been forced to do!

And the original premise of being forced to support a child by complete deception!

It is very simple, Jenny. I really don't understand why you don't get it.

Deogol
02-08-2008, 06:54 AM
You ARE aware most sugar daddy scenarios are approved of my both male and female parties (including my situations)? It is almost always expressed in these relationships that I get things/money, you get sex/companionship/whateverthedealis. Perhaps if I were lying, then yeah, I'd be scheming... but I don't see how I or any other sugarbaby is scheming when the men we meet have full knowledge in why we're with them.

In my opinion, a sugardaddy relationship is the most pure with least drama - everyone knows what they're there for, they know the rules, if someone fucks up, stuff the whole thing and move on. There is no game, no scheme.

Well, I read a whole lot about how the sugardaddy is going to expect a certain sometin sometin and we all know the sugardaddy is going to expect a little sometim sometin and the whole idea is figure out how to drag out the purchases until he finally gives up (or in your terms, he fucks up by voicing his expectations of a little sometin sometin - so of course every ending of such a relationship is the mans fault.) Sounds like scheming to me. ;D

(And yes, I read posts on here from other women who say "nah huh, don't do it baby, it always ends up badly.")

For the most part, I stand by my statement for the collective mentality on this forum. I am not saying it is bad. I am merely saying that is how it is.

Lysondra
02-08-2008, 08:42 AM
See, depending on my sugar daddy and my relationship with them, I might actually f*** them. But that's because I don't get daddies I don't think I could f*** at some time. But I don't keep it up unless they keep up with THEIR sumin sumin. It works for us.

I guess I'm a whore. Just a really damn fucking expensive one. :P

Yekhefah
02-08-2008, 10:18 AM
Deogol, we can talk about what's "fair" when men get pregnant. As long as women are the only ones getting pregnant, life just ain't fair. Sorry.

The one who is pregnant and facing a serious risk to her life or health either way, she gets an extra step in the decision making. But once there is a child, BOTH parents are obligated to support it. That's as fair as possible.

xdamage
02-08-2008, 07:29 PM
The one who is pregnant and facing a serious risk to her life or health either way, she gets an extra step in the decision making.

As a guy, I also think there is an apparent blind spot in this discussion, and it is a simple one, at least it is for us guys.

Men understand that pregnancy presents additional risk to the woman. Likewise so does abortion. Therefore it is valid that the woman have the final say regarding an abortion, or to say NO to pregnancy in the first place, because of the risks to them, but...

That is not what the OP's linked article is about. The OPs linked article is about a man who claims that a woman used his sperm, against his will, to impregnate herself. Her right to say no to pregnancy, or right to say no to abortion, because of the risks to her, just don't apply. She wasn't exercising her right to say no to a risk. In fact quite the opposite, she choose to take a risk that no body forced on her but herself (assuming of course that the man's claim is true, and not just made up to avoid paternal responsibilities).

The secondary problem is what to do about children that are had via deception, should the biological parents always be responsible equally, OR is there room for a law and punishment which, in the case of deception, allows the courts to put more of the financial responsibility on the person who made a choice to impregnate? A tough question that is not entirely clear in my mind. One possible solution is for the court to say no, the parental responsibility is equal, however allow the deceived to collect a substantial civil reward from the deceiving parent, thereby greatly having the same effect as having only one parent pay the child rearing costs.

The problem is that without penalties, there is no incentive for would-be deceivers to curb their behavior, and frankly the thought of what happened to that guy gives any of us males chills... it is like a rape, except even though we are not physically attacked, our choice in the matter is torn from us, and we are penalized for another person's decision for 18+ years. We really do think we have the right to decide what to do with our sperm, and I think 100% of guys would agree with that.

Yekhefah
02-08-2008, 11:16 PM
Sure, but it would set a dangerous precedent if men could get out of paying child support by whining that they didn't mean to get her pregnant. And I don't buy that goofy "she did it with semen from the condom" story in the OP. It's retarded. Even if it did happen by some weird fucked-up chance, that's not a reason to put children on the dole.

Life's not fair. Period.

xdamage
02-08-2008, 11:30 PM
Well there is no denying it is hard to prove, and I admit too, I could see a guy lying to avoid paying child support. Your right that whatever the resolution, the children aren't at fault and shouldn't suffer.

Yekhefah
02-08-2008, 11:36 PM
Exactly. I think too many fathers are focusing excessive energy on how they're being "punished" and whether it's "fair," when they should be concerned about providing for their children, who are here regardless.

VenusGoddess
02-08-2008, 11:45 PM
So what about the man who wants a woman to have a child and she decides not to?

This is always a touchy subject. But, there are a lot of changes that need to happen.

1) if a man is financially responsible for a child, and finds out 10 years later that the child is not his...he should not be responsible for the child support. He should have the CHOICE of whether or not to keep paying for supporting that child. That does not mean that he does not have the parental figure role, but he certainly should not have to pay for a child that is not his. Although, I do know a guy who this happened to and he chose to keep paying for the child as he considered the child his regardless. That is not always the case.

2) If the court is going to demand that the father pay child support, then that father should also have the opportunity to visit with the child/ren. I also have friends who pay out the ass in child support, but have been denied visitation rights due to "abandonment" (considered so because the woman had the child without saying anything to the guy...and after the child is born, she files a paternity suit...and then refuses to let the guy see the child).

Parenthood is a fact for women. For men, it's an act of faith. A woman KNOWS a child is hers...a man believes it is his. The woman should not be allowed to collect child support unless the man is served with paternity papers within x amount of days/weeks/months after the child's birth. But for a woman to go after a man for support YEARS later and the man gets hit with support costs (that usually make him having to live poor or what not) and late fees, etc. It's just not right.

If a woman has sex with a man who does not want a child and becomes pregnant, then she should have to expect that that man is not willing to support the child and make her plans accordingly. But, to have sex with someone (willingly) who does not want a child and then hitting them with a paternity suit...sorry, that's just wrong.

The whole, "it won't be fair until men can have children" is bullshit. If a woman can choose whether or not to become a parent regardless of what the man wants, then a man should be able to choose whether or not to become a parent regardless of what the woman wants.

Maybe then, people will think before they get themselves into these situations. When I first became preggers with Makayla, I was prepared to raise her on my own. Fortunately, I didn't have to. I know a couple of men who are paying for children they didn't want as I know of a few women who have aborted children that the men did want.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't hold all the cards all the time and that is exactly what is happening in this case.

Yekhefah
02-08-2008, 11:58 PM
If you're talking about ethics, I agree. If you're talking about law, I don't.

Jenny
02-09-2008, 07:33 AM
The whole, "it won't be fair until men can have children" is bullshit. If a woman can choose whether or not to become a parent regardless of what the man wants, then a man should be able to choose whether or not to become a parent regardless of what the woman wants.[/quote]
Again - you are taking two separate legal issues and mashing them together. There is no equality claim here because there is no comparable circumstance. You - and Deogol and CO and whoever else - are taking a situation in which a woman can choose to terminate a pregnancy and comparing it with the abandonment of an actual child. Of course, as you know, men can claim support from women on live children that they have shared or full custody of. You know your comparison is suspicious when the parties share the exact situation a few months following. A woman holding a baby and a woman who is three months pregnant are in two completely different legal situations. Your complaint is that she gets to choose to terminate the pregnancy; yes - that is because it is a part of her body. If she were, say, paying a surrogate and then decided she didn't want the baby - she couldn't terminate that. And her husband or partner could claim support - now granted this is purely hypothetical, because when would that ever happen? But it meets my point about pregnancy--children. I appreciate that this apparently seems like a technical difference. But what is under discussion is a legal regime, so you have to look at/understand the legal construction. If you want to claim inequality, you have to be able to accurately contrast the groups. Otherwise I could look at any person who is in a better situation or has choices I don't and claim inequality. Like it is very sexist that men can choose to sell their donated sperm and I can't. That is unequal. It is offering men a choice I don't have. And the fact that I don't have sperm, (like that men cannot get pregnant) is not the point. Like - of course that is an issue. There is no viable comparison between my non-existent sperm and some guy's actual sperm. And when you have a live baby the parties are in similar positions; at least they are here (there is no more "tender years" doctrine or anything like that). So comparing the father of a live child to a woman three months pregnant is kind of ridiculous when you compare him to a woman with a live child and find no discernible legal difference.
That said, I think there should be policy exceptions in circumstances in which paternity in any form would be violative of the father's personal security - for example in cases of sexual assault (in which the father is sexually assaulted).

If we don't care about legal constructs, and are just dealing in "social reality" (whatever that is), then let's acknowledge a few facts:
Most pregnancy happens from carelessness; the pregnancy that occurs from failed birth control, used correctly is so insignificant. Men have complete control of condoms. If they don't know how to put one on (the reason for most breakage) they should learn (they should really teach this in school). Most, most often it is "heat of the moment" carelessness. And if you wander around having reproductive sex, sometimes pregnancy will happen.
Another "social type reality" - men, in fact, have no LEGAL say over abortion. The reality is that they have a lot of influence. If the father presses for an abortion, the chances are excellent it will happen.

Casual Observer
02-09-2008, 09:01 AM
Making it a law to reveal your entire sexual history will... be problematic. I question the constitutionality of such a law; anything else will have very, very limited application.The law isn't about your entire sexual history--only the history involving the individual target of child support. If the DNA doesn't fit, you must acquit.


Because I haven't nurtured a relationship of dependency with a child. If I raised a child as my own for a number of years, and acted as a parent, I may incur the responsibilities of a parent. I don't see this as a problem.But if you did so under false pretenses, would you still be fine and dandy? Would you knowingly support a child that was not your own if you had that knowledge prior to providing support? Outside of adoption scenarios, precious few would do so willingly, but thousands of men are compelled to do exactly that--support children that are not their own.


On any other level... well, you've provided no model on why that should be outside of the fact that we could then regress as a society to a point in which men could once again choose which children to legitimate - and that is not really legal reasoning. As well, may I point out; if you have studied family law you should know perfectly well that child support - or for that matter spousal support - is not punitive. It does not exist to "penalize the father" (by which I assume you meant non-custodial parent) for anything, much less for having unsafe sex. You cannot approach it that way and expect to make sense of it.It is indeed punitive if in fact, the child is not that of the man paying the child support but another man entirely. It's not about society choosing to legitimize paternity--either a child is or is not the genetic product of the man in question. Your "nearly-grown child" argument for child support is no more valid than judges demanding child support for children newly born as the product of affairs (which I linked earlier in the thread (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0209/p01s01-usju.html?page=1)).



FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. - Sixteen months after his divorce, Richard Parker made a devastating discovery. A DNA test revealed that his 3-year-old son had been fathered by someone else.

Mr. Parker immediately filed a lawsuit claiming fraud by his apparently unfaithful ex-wife. He took his case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.

Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.

"We find that the balance of policy considerations favors protecting the best interests of the child over protecting the interests of one parent defrauded by the other parent in the midst of a divorce proceeding," writes Justice Kenneth Bell for the court.

"We recognize that the former husband in this case may feel victimized," he writes. He then quotes a scholar to explain the ruling: "While some individuals are innocent victims of deceptive partners, adults are aware of the high incidence of infidelity and only they, not the children, are able to act to ensure that the biological ties they may deem essential are present."

In effect, the high court is saying it's partly Parker's fault for trusting his wife.Where is the justice in this example--one that is repeated thousands of times a year--for the Richard Parkers in our society? Either justice matters in paternity or it doesn't. Like I said, it's a child support lottery for many people.


Exactly. I think too many fathers are focusing excessive energy on how they're being "punished" and whether it's "fair," when they should be concerned about providing for their children, who are here regardless.If they are, in fact, their children. That's the crux of the matter. If paternity fraud is the case--either via affairs or carelessness on the part of either person--it is indeed punitive to force a man to pay for a child that is not biologically his own. Despite current legal trends and case law demonstrating the new reality of paternity law, Jenny thinks this doesn't happen, of course, and that women can't know who the father is (what, the motherfucking stork came and gave them babies while they were sleeping?) and that any fraud is purely accidental, anecdotal and isolated, when in reality, there is nothing more empirical than DNA.



Parenthood is a fact for women. For men, it's an act of faith. A woman KNOWS a child is hers...a man believes it is his. The woman should not be allowed to collect child support unless the man is served with paternity papers within x amount of days/weeks/months after the child's birth. But for a woman to go after a man for support YEARS later and the man gets hit with support costs (that usually make him having to live poor or what not) and late fees, etc. It's just not right.Great point, VG.

What's so unreasonable about that? That a woman take some responsibility on her own with regard to partner selection? Why does she suddenly become a hapless victim of her biology? Where is the empowerment crowd now? Why is it always the man that has to, "Step up and do the right thing?"

VenusGoddess
02-09-2008, 10:09 AM
If it came up that a man is not the biological father of a child, the courts should give him the CHOICE of continuing to support this child or not. What does it say about our society that men should "assume that there is a chance that the child is not theirs"? If you are married to someone and have a child with them, the man should be safe to assume that the child is his. The timeline to file for fraud or deceit, etc to be relinquished of the demand to pay child support should start the moment he finds out that the child is not his. Not 1 year from birth. The courts grant divorce and custody and insuing financial awards if a spouse has been unfaithful. But, if that affair that lead to the divorce resulted in the birth of a child...why should the man (usually) be responsible for the financial aspects of the child? This can be accomplished by allowing the man to choose to be in the child's life...but making the biological father actually have to pay for the child...or the woman will just have to learn how to support her child on her own.

There is a man in TX who was raising 3-4 kids with his wife when one child came down with Cystic Fibrosis. Through all kinds of testing, he found out that the youngest child (with CF) was not his...and then had all the kids tested to find out that those children were not his, either. He was their dad, but not their father. And the mother successfully won her child support under the claim that he actively raised the children with her and so he should have to support them because he is the only father they know.

That, in my mind, is bullshit. If they are going to hold men completely responsible for the support of a child, then paternity tests should be standard (completely across the board) for every child that is born. If you are going to hold men responsible for paying for children that aren't theirs, then you should give them the means with which to make that decision.

There are cases in which men cannot have children and so their wives are artificially inseminated by another man's sperm. Chances are, he will raise/support the child. However, a man who has a child with a woman who is cheating on him (and he is not aware of this) should not be forced to pay for a child that is not his. The support of the child should fall upon the man who is the father of the child.

If the woman does not know who the father is...tough shit. But, to make her partner--who believed the child was his--be financially responsible for a child that is not his is wrong.

Morally, and it should be legally.

But, this has kind of spun away from the original topic.

I still believe that if a man is going to be held responsible for the financial upbringing of the child, it should be the woman's responsibility to notify that man of the child's birth/paternity within x amount of time after the birth.

Yekhefah
02-09-2008, 10:41 AM
I guess I don't think that genes are what make a child "yours." If you're the one who raised the child, changed her diapers, taught her to say daddy, took her to the zoo, etc. then you are her father. I just can't envision a mindset that would allow a DNA test to change all that. Like seriously, what kind of guy can look at a piece of paper and just say, "Oh, nevermind, you're not mine after all, have a nice life"? That's pretty vile.

Sure, I can see how he'd be pissed at the mother, and rightly so if she deliberately defrauded him (but it's also possible she just didn't know either). But he's still the child's daddy and I can't believe there are that many guys who would really just throw their child to the wind and move on when they find out there's not a genetic match. What a sad thought.

I'm talking about ethics here, BTW. Not necessarily law.

Jenny
02-09-2008, 11:28 AM
If it came up that a man is not the biological father of a child, the courts should give him the CHOICE of continuing to support this child or not. What does it say about our society that men should "assume that there is a chance that the child is not theirs"?
About society? I don't think it says anything. What do you think it says about "society" that a man is willing to cut off, financially and emotionally, a child he has fathered for ten years over a DNA test? Again, nothing (although the fact that you guys find that to be so morally acceptable sort of disturbs the hell out of me). It may speak to that particular guy's character and ability to form relationships.


If you are married to someone and have a child with them, the man should be safe to assume that the child is his.
Well, ideally nobody would ever be unfaithful and the consequences for men's infidelity would be the same. But such is life; and at some point the child should be able to rely on people who call themselves her parents.


The timeline to file for fraud or deceit, etc to be relinquished of the demand to pay child support should start the moment he finds out that the child is not his. Not 1 year from birth. The courts grant divorce and custody and insuing financial awards if a spouse has been unfaithful. But, if that affair that lead to the divorce resulted in the birth of a child...why should the man (usually) be responsible for the financial aspects of the child?
I think it depends on the context. If the divorce happens 3 days after the birth of the child - no. If it happens 10 years after the birth of the child - yes (that is what I mean by "decided on the facts"). And I cannot agree on the idea that that it should be from the date the man find out; like I said, I think at a certain point that the child should be able to rely on her father. You also made the point earlier that women should not be able to "squat on her rights" and file a claim for support years after the fact; but you think men SHOULD be able to? You and CO are negotiating this as an issue between a man and woman, and to be honest, you are really focused on "bad women" and entirely forgetting about the child - and you need to keep in mind that the child is sort of the point. This is just a difference of opinion. I think the child and her reliance interest is an important consideration that needs to be accounted for.

Keep in mind that because a woman has had another man's child does not mean that she knows she had another man's child (hence the absence of fraud). Indeed, if the imputed father believes it is possible that he is the father... it clearly is. She likely believes it too; she certainly at least believes it is possible.


This can be accomplished by allowing the man to choose to be in the child's life...but making the biological father actually have to pay for the child...
What is the rationale for this? A child is not a puppy. You can't say "I want to play with it, but not pay for its food."


That, in my mind, is bullshit. If they are going to hold men completely responsible for the support of a child, then paternity tests should be standard (completely across the board) for every child that is born.
I don't see why. Such tests are available to people who want them. And the government has this idea that performing medical tests against someone's will is pretty invasive.


If you are going to hold men responsible for paying for children that aren't theirs, then you should give them the means with which to make that decision.
They have that chance. They are just not forced to take advantage of it.


There are cases in which men cannot have children and so their wives are artificially inseminated by another man's sperm. Chances are, he will raise/support the child.
Well, what if he doesn't want to? What if, upon divorce he says that he never really wanted a child? That it was all his wife's idea?


Morally, and it should be legally.
How would you frame that law? Like if a woman has an affair and subsequently has a baby without a DNA test, she goes to jail? I don't think that will fly.


I still believe that if a man is going to be held responsible for the financial upbringing of the child, it should be the woman's responsibility to notify that man of the child's birth/paternity within x amount of time after the birth.
This is a reasonable point - and it actually makes sense because in general you are not just allowed to squat like that. There are a couple of hurdles here. What if she just can't find him? This is the most frequent reason for delayed claims. 2) - the big one. Child support is for the child. At what point does the child lose the right to be supported by both of her parents? Like I said, you and CO treat this matter as one that excludes children, whereas children are actually pretty central. So at what point does the child start "squatting" as opposed to being unable to make a claim?

xdamage
02-09-2008, 08:34 PM
That, in my mind, is bullshit. If they are going to hold men completely responsible for the support of a child, then paternity tests should be standard (completely across the board) for every child that is born. If you are going to hold men responsible for paying for children that aren't theirs, then you should give them the means with which to make that decision.


This discussion is a tough one because of the needs of the children, but I do want to thank you for seeing a lot of this from a point of view that I think many men share, at least in part.

What I wanted to add is this...

It may well be possible that in the future that a paternity test becomes very inexpensive, and very practical, so that all children born (in this country at least) are required to have a paternity test at birth, before men have had a chance to form strong emotional attachments to a child.

That would avoid various cases later in life of men finding out about children that are not their own, but come at the cost that women would need to be increasingly responsible about who impregnates them. Something they should do, but human nature being what it is, humans are more likely to take responsibility when there is a very clear and sure consequences if they don't.

It is hard for me to say if the end result would be better or worse off for children as a whole in our society. In theory some would be worse off because they wouldn't have a father (a man who might otherwise raise them believing them to be his), but also perhaps less children would be born by illegitimate fathers too.

cameron_keys
02-09-2008, 08:52 PM
^^I would think it would be better to not have a father to begin with,then to have one they bond to and love that abandons them when they fond there is no genetic match

xdamage
02-09-2008, 09:18 PM
^^I would think it would be better to not have a father to begin with,then to have one they bond to and love that abandons them when they fond there is no genetic match

I think so too.

p.s., I'm not saying it is right for a man to abandon his children either, but I don't know if there is any analogous situation for women. A similar situation would be cases where children are switched in hospitals, mothers later finding out that a child is not theirs, but even that situation doesn't have the component of deceit that a man feels when it turns out his child is not his, and the woman that he thought he loved, knowingly deceived him about it. It is by no means a small lie (I am aware not all cases are outright lies, but likely more often then not a woman knows if another man could be the father, and hiding that from a man is a very significant deception). And even mothers who have had their children swapped at birth in a hospital are likely to feel they have been wronged, and try to seek retribution from the hospital that made a "honest" mistake. It is really not surprising to me that man would feel a need to seek retribution over an intentional deceit of that magnitude.

Lola Rose
02-10-2008, 02:30 PM
it's been said over and over that a man has no choice in parenthood. But they do have choices.

vasectomy, jacking off, and absinance all come to mind.

a condom is so much less then foolproof, so are birth control pills.

by taking part in the sex act, the man is saying he's willing to take that risk. If you want a guarentee of not having children, you do have options.

of course, once you give up the right to protect yourself from parenthood, you can't get that option back.

VenusGoddess
02-10-2008, 03:48 PM
I think it depends on the context. If the divorce happens 3 days after the birth of the child - no. If it happens 10 years after the birth of the child - yes (that is what I mean by "decided on the facts"). And I cannot agree on the idea that that it should be from the date the man find out; like I said, I think at a certain point that the child should be able to rely on her father. You also made the point earlier that women should not be able to "squat on her rights" and file a claim for support years after the fact; but you think men SHOULD be able to? You and CO are negotiating this as an issue between a man and woman, and to be honest, you are really focused on "bad women" and entirely forgetting about the child - and you need to keep in mind that the child is sort of the point. This is just a difference of opinion. I think the child and her reliance interest is an important consideration that needs to be accounted for.

Some of these men never knew they had children. They get a notice in the mail after many years with a HUGE dollar amount saying, "By the way, you have a child and you are now liable for all of these fees, penalties, and we're taking 40% of your paycheck to cover all of this. Too fucking bad if it puts you in the poor house, now." THAT'S unacceptable. I have a friend who was in this situation. She didn't tell the father that she was preggers, it was just an occasional fling, he moved out of state...she had the baby and then she decided after 5 years to go after him for child support. Not only did he get hit with a hefty sum for child support, they made him pay for child support from the day the baby was born. They ended up taking almost 40% of his monthly pay for back child support. I'm sorry...that's just wrong. There's no way that it takes 40% of one parent's paycheck to raise a child. I have 2 children and it doesn't $1400 every month to raise one child (based on a $3000/month earnings). I don't spend that much money on BOTH of my kids. He paid "child support" at the peril of his own family, at this point. His wife (who was a SAHM) had to go get a job to help cover the loss of the child support. Had he known (now 8 years ago) that this woman had a child, things could have worked out differently. But it didn't and I think that's wrong.

Which brings up another point. $1400 a month (in this case) paid way more than child support. It paid for the mom to "live better". She bought an $800/month car...which she used the support money for. So, it really wasn't child support. She took him back to court to try and get more money out of him to put the child into "private school". Well, if she wasn't using that $800 a month to pay for her car, she would be able to afford to send the child to private school.

The sums they come up with for child support are just atrocious. Last I heard, he wanted to visit with the child and she refused. He was out visiting family and kept trying to make a "date" to visit with the kid and she was always busy...and finally said, "Well, if you want to give me a few hundred to spend at the boats while you two visit, then we'll work something out."

It's not an easy situation, but for the most part...men get dragged through the dirt. I had another friend (who started a support group for dads who are going through this) who fought for 5 years to get custody of his son. After paying a shit load of money a month in child support and lawyer fees, he finally got custody. Until that point, he saw his kid 3 times in 5 years. Why? Because his ex didn't think he paid enough in child support.


Keep in mind that because a woman has had another man's child does not mean that she knows she had another man's child (hence the absence of fraud). Indeed, if the imputed father believes it is possible that he is the father... it clearly is. She likely believes it too; she certainly at least believes it is possible.

Well, again...If she's fucking another man...she knows there is a 50/50 chance that the kid is not her husband's. If she were to say, "honey, I'm screwing around on you and I'm pregnant. The baby may or may not be yours." and he decided to raise the kid...then fine. But, chances are she didn't say anything, leading him to believe that this child is FOR SURE his. Big difference.



What is the rationale for this? A child is not a puppy. You can't say "I want to play with it, but not pay for its food."

Paying for something that is not yours? You are ok with this? You can love the child and still be there for the child without being made to financially support a child that is not yours. Especially if you did all this under the lie that your wife was being faithful and this child was born between the two of you. Not everyone raises a child that is a "blood" child, but adoption/artificial insemination notwithstanding...most men will not agree to raise a child that is not theirs. How is it different if he finds out and leaves the woman before the baby is born? Is he MORE liable 10 years into her lie than he would be 5 months into it?



I don't see why. Such tests are available to people who want them. And the government has this idea that performing medical tests against someone's will is pretty invasive.

Ok...so if not mandatory, then offer it at each birth. But, according to you, once a baby is born, whoever the woman is shacking up with at the time should be financially supporting the child. Don't YOU think that the man deserves to know for sure if the kid is his?


They have that chance. They are just not forced to take advantage of it.

But, how many people who are married with kids say, "I'm not sure if the kid is mine...50/50 chance...but who cares?" Most people I know think, "My wife got preggers and I know this kid has to be mine." Most people don't really think that they would be unwittingly raising a child that is not theirs. If you were to say to them, "If you get a divorce in 5 years for whatever reason and do not take this paternity test now, no matter what the outcome is in 5 years--or whenever--you will have full financial responsibility for this child should it prove that the child is yours or not."


Well, what if he doesn't want to? What if, upon divorce he says that he never really wanted a child? That it was all his wife's idea?

This is possible, but unlikely. The dynamics here are completely different. This man isn't being lied to about the paternity of the child. Big difference.



How would you frame that law? Like if a woman has an affair and subsequently has a baby without a DNA test, she goes to jail? I don't think that will fly.

If the woman has a baby outside of the relationship she's in...and does not show proof of paternity/claim child support within x days/weeks/months of the birth of the child, then she loses all claim to child support for that child. As it is now, you can start the child support claim whenever. That, to me, is just not right. A man should be responsible for the child, however, there has to be some kind of cut-off. None of this, "I decided 5-8 years later that I want child support."

But, here's the kicker...when I had Makayla (before Joe and I were married), he had to sign a "paternity responsibility" statement. Stating that, to his knowledge, the child was his and that he would take full financial responsibility for that child. The phrase "to his knowledge" is what should be making or breaking that deal. If, to his knowledge this was his child...then why is a man being held responsible if it turns out that the child is not his? Wouldn't the "common sense" part be like, "Well, if he agreed to support this child because he thought it was his...then he should he be held liable for the support when he finds out that it isn't."? He didn't actually agree to financially support a child that was not his. He agreed to financially support a child that he BELIEVED was his.



This is a reasonable point - and it actually makes sense because in general you are not just allowed to squat like that. There are a couple of hurdles here. What if she just can't find him? This is the most frequent reason for delayed claims. 2) - the big one. Child support is for the child. At what point does the child lose the right to be supported by both of her parents? Like I said, you and CO treat this matter as one that excludes children, whereas children are actually pretty central. So at what point does the child start "squatting" as opposed to being unable to make a claim?

1) If the child support is delayed because they cannot find the birth father, that is one thing. However, there are just as many cases of the mother waiting years, sometimes, before filing. On the birth certificate, you have to list the father's name. MOST women list "unknown" because they do not want to lose legal rights to the child. How, then, can they come back and demand child support? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the father is not around to sign the "paternity responsibility" statement, then it should be said that the woman has x amount of time to file for child support, otherwise she will not get anything.

2) Child support is one thing. In the vast majority of the cases I've seen, it turns into the father supporting the full household of the mother and the child. Every raise that the father gets, the mother can still go to court and ask for more money. The laws regarding child support are mainly to punish the father (or in some cases, punish the parent who is not raising the child).

I've got to take off, so I didn't have time to proof what I wrote. If need be, I'll do it later. I'm trying to type all of this while getting the kids ready and breaking up their fights (who knew it would start already??? ;) ).

Bridgette
02-10-2008, 04:47 PM
If men were suddenly allowed "off the hook" just because they claim they didn't want the child in the first place, we'd have a WHOLE lot of fatherless children running around and mothers making due without any kind of child support. If males don't want to risk pregnancy and all the consequences that follow, they should abstain or practice birth control. Enough said.


And OF COURSE that dipshit fucked the woman. He's just being a colossal jerk and trying to get out of paying child support.

Jenny
02-10-2008, 05:46 PM
Some of these men never knew they had children.
Okay - this is a bit of a different issue than what I was responding to in that quote; I was talking about instances you brought up in which men were in parental relationships for many years; not instances in which they weren't. This is what I mean when I say you can't just mush everything together.


There's no way that it takes 40% of one parent's paycheck to raise a child. I have 2 children and it doesn't $1400 every month to raise one child (based on a $3000/month earnings). I don't spend that much money on BOTH of my kids.
Okay - up here they have a system in which they have, more or less, a chart with the parent's earnings and a correlating amount of child support. The judge has fairly limited agency. The appropriate amount to pay for your children is a given amount of your paycheck.


Which brings up another point. $1400 a month (in this case) paid way more than child support.
Raising a child takes a whole household, Venus. It doesn't exist in a cardboard box.


The sums they come up with for child support are just atrocious. Last I heard, he wanted to visit with the child and she refused. He was out visiting family and kept trying to make a "date" to visit with the kid and she was always busy...and finally said, "Well, if you want to give me a few hundred to spend at the boats while you two visit, then we'll work something out."
Well - this is why visitation, custody and access is decided separately from child support. So the custodial parent can't unreasonably withhold visits with the children trying to extort and the non-custodial parent can't say "I pay for it; what I say goes." Remember before when you were trying to draw a connection between child support and visitation? Exactly why it's bad.


It's not an easy situation, but for the most part...men get dragged through the dirt.
This is just not something I agree with. It is not something I see reflected in the day to day.


I had another friend (who started a support group for dads who are going through this) who fought for 5 years to get custody of his son. After paying a shit load of money a month in child support and lawyer fees, he finally got custody. Until that point, he saw his kid 3 times in 5 years. Why? Because his ex didn't think he paid enough in child support.
Again - you see why access and support should be on different tracks?


Well, again...If she's fucking another man...she knows there is a 50/50 chance that the kid is not her husband's.
That's actually not true. There is a whackload of variables that go into that, and most of the time she is probably moderately sure that it is her husband's.


Paying for something that is not yours? You are ok with this? You can love the child and still be there for the child without being made to financially support a child that is not yours.
No. I'm sorry. I disagree. You are either a parent, with rights and responsibilities or you are not. I believe - and the law in many places believes with me - that after a certain amount of time you are a parent. You may not think it is ideal - but you must see the rationale and see that reasonable people could take that position.


How is it different if he finds out and leaves the woman before the baby is born? Is he MORE liable 10 years into her lie than he would be 5 months into it?
Yes. I would say 5 months into it he has not yet built that degree of dependency that will be built after ten years; the child is not as entitled to depend on him after five months as after ten years. I think the hard part is determining when, between 5 month and ten years, he has had ample time to gather the information if he wanted it; not determining that you have different responsibilities after 5 months and ten years.


But, according to you, once a baby is born, whoever the woman is shacking up with at the time should be financially supporting the child.
Um. This is not really according to me. This set of facts actually doesn't reflect anything I've said. I'm a little bit mystified about what you're talking about right now.


Most people don't really think that they would be unwittingly raising a child that is not theirs.
I would say ultimately, at this point in time, the information costs on discovering your paternity is very, very low. Low enough that the state does not really need to start subsidizing it or giving out free legal advice.


This is possible, but unlikely. The dynamics here are completely different. This man isn't being lied to about the paternity of the child. Big difference.
See? The difference here is not the man's relationship to the child, but the man's relationship to the child's mother. This should maybe give you something to consider.


If the woman has a baby outside of the relationship she's in...and does not show proof of paternity/claim child support within x days/weeks/months of the birth of the child, then she loses all claim to child support for that child.
Again - this is completely mysterious reasoning to me. What you are arguing is that she should have extremely high responsibility for exercising her rights immediately; regardless of the very obvious obstacles such as the guy's absence, but that the father should be able to squat on his for ten years just because it might not occur to him to find shit out? I just don't see parity there. Not to mention there are less infringing ways to deal with some of the "friends" you mention; for example you could put a cap on back support from late filed claims. I'm suspecting there is a reason that solution doesn't occur to you.


But, here's the kicker...when I had Makayla (before Joe and I were married), he had to sign a "paternity responsibility" statement. Stating that, to his knowledge, the child was his and that he would take full financial responsibility for that child. The phrase "to his knowledge" is what should be making or breaking that deal. If, to his knowledge this was his child...then why is a man being held responsible if it turns out that the child is not his? Wouldn't the "common sense" part be like, "Well, if he agreed to support this child because he thought it was his...then he should he be held liable for the support when he finds out that it isn't."? He didn't actually agree to financially support a child that was not his. He agreed to financially support a child that he BELIEVED was his.
Again - the information costs to Joe in that situation are pretty low; low enough that displacing them seems kind of inappropriate.

Jay Zeno
02-10-2008, 08:33 PM
If, at the time of the kids' births, I had wanted to nail down their parentage, the global costs would've been much, much higher than the cost of a blood test. Hoo-boy. That would've gone over like a fart in church.

Jenny
02-10-2008, 09:05 PM
Sure, but I definitely don't think that we should be implementing mandatory medical procedures so that your wife won't get mad at you. That is a personal cost - a cost of being in a relationship - that nobody can take on but you.

Jay Zeno
02-10-2008, 09:10 PM
Such was not my suggestion, express or implied. Just trying to humorously note that it's not a "low" cost at all. :)

salsa4ever
02-11-2008, 03:29 AM
this thread has moved quickly and there's quite a few interesting points here...

1) first I want to ask about the legal situation in the United States. VG has mentioned that as the income of the males rose, so did their child support liability. Does the US have a cap for the maximum amount of child support payable, and if so what is it?

In Australia, the maximum income used for the calculation of child support is capped at $110,000. This means the maximum child support payable for one child is $17700 per year or AUD $1475 per month. Is this still too much? Well, this is still hard to say. I mean, on both an ideological and practical level we should determine how much support is the ideal or "fair" amount for one child. Well, lets consider how much a homestay normally costs. According to my uni friends, it costs about $500 a month to live in a homestay, get fed 3 meals a day, and all bills paid. So lets put in some luxuries / dance lessons and I think each non-custodial parent should be liable to pay no more than $600, and should pay the $600 unless that would cause undue stress and hardship on the payer (i.e. he should pay no more than say 25% of his income). Otherwise, it starts becoming a de facto form of spousal support when you just take a certain % of the payer's income and give it to the woman. I know that $600/month is not enough to feed a household, but ideologically the man shouldn't be supporting the whole household, just the incremental expense of the additional child! Taking care of herself is still the woman's responsibility, and as a backup, the state's.

2) In Australia there is now a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility (ESPR), and a requirement for courts to consider an equal time arrangement (assuming that the father actually wants this). This basically puts a built in mechanism to counteract the reality that mothers win custody battles most of the time. Now it's presumed to be half and half, unless we're looking at cases of child abuse or family violence or one party doesn't want equal time.

Lets just assume joint custody and equal time *was* awarded. How should this impact child support? At the moment in Australia, where the child's care is "shared" meaning the child spends 146-219 nights at each parent's residence, the payer is required to pay 2/3rds of the child support amount that would otherwise be payable if the mother had sole custody.

What happens is that each parent is supposed to pay each other child support in this case. Let's take an example

father earns $200,000 p/a
mother earns $20,000 p/a
child spends half time with mother, half time with father
exempt income as at 2008 is $17948

CHILD SUPPORT PAYABLE BY FATHER = {(Payers CAP Income - Exempt Income) x Child Support Percentage} - {(Payees Income - Exempt Income) x Child Support Percentage}

= {(113,763 - 17,948) x 12%} - {(20,000 - 17,948) x 12%}

= $11,252 Per Year, or $216 a week.


3) Well, lets consider is this a fair result.
Intuitively, it seems that if the child is to be "supported" and we're looking a formal equality then there's a strong argument that the father should pay anything to the mother. He's done *his* half of the caring for the child. Why should he pay another cent to the mother?

The counterargument is that his child still needs to eat when it's at mother's. If mother can't make money (for laziness or misfortune) the father should foot the bill. But then, if we're talking parental responsibility here, the father's "done his bit". If anything, it's the state's job now! Stepping in to fill the void because the mother doesn't earn enough money is clearly within the domain of social security.
It does reek of spousal support in this context. We're taking money from the father and giving it to the mother because of the income disparity between the two, when they both take care of the child for equal time (say 1 week each).

4) Now if someone wants to argue that in the case of broken up families the person making more money *should* have an obligation to continue taking care of the less well off one, then sure we can discuss this. But my point is that what's being touted as child support works in operation a lot like a spousal support system.

I guess the question flows back to what is the purpose of the child support system? Is it a statement by society that each parent is "responsible" for the children they make? In this case, the half care is clearly sufficient. The father has "done his bit", and now it's up to the mother, and if she's not up to the job, then the state as backstop.

The way child support actually seems to work is it puts the high earning parent in the position of the state to be the "backstop" when the low earning parent can't do their part. Is this desirable? I don't think so. I think it must be the job of the state to support the child (and mother) if dad's already done his half. They can't (well shouldn't) just shift this job to one of the parents.

4) VG notes that the money is often "enjoyed" by the mother. Well, here I agree. This is why I advocate putting a cap on the amount of child support that should be paid. The hard part is calculating what's a reasonable amount for the child's use. If someone wants to argue the $600 figure I pulled out, we'll debate it. It's pretty obvious that reasonable people can disagree on the actual figure.

I think one possible compromise is to give the carer some control over how the child support money is expended, if they are paying an amount that's greater than the "obvious" needs of the child. I mean if they're paying $50 a week, then clearly that's not enough to cover the child's needs. I've estimated basic expenses (stuff that's just too difficult to account for like food, utilities, board, commute etc.) at $100 per week. So if the payer is giving $200 a week, then there should be some control over the $100 - it paid into a trust account or something and spent on things other than food/utilities/board/commute. So for this additional money, require the mother to come up with receipts for uniforms, books, dance lessons, etc. and if the money is not spent, it stays in the trust fund for the child's college education.

5) the "I thought the child was mine, but now we're getting divorced and I've done a paternity test and the child isn't mine" situation...

I don't think we should do compulsory DNA testing here. I agree with Jenny, invasive and in no need of state subsidy. I mean, it's not that hard to get some of your baby's DNA while you're partner isn't looking and test it! However, I *do* think that fathers should be warned that if they don't test in a timely fashion and end up taking the child on as their own, then they will not be able to rebut this when it's divorce time! Like give the father a pamphlet at the hospital or something. I don't think it's common knowledge.

As for the thornier question of whether the coverage of child support should extend beyond biological parents to what is pretty much an "adoptive" parent, I don't have a strong opinion yet. I'll have to think about it some more. But my intuition says that the male didn't have the opportunity to make an informed decision. He didn't find out until it was legally "too late". If we're going to say it's "his fault" for not finding out, then we really need to advise fathers of this at the hospital bed. It does give the state the responsibility of giving legal advice - "if you chose not to check paternity now, you take the risk that the child isn't yours, but you'll have to continue supporting it anyway" - but in this case I don't see the problem with it. A lot of reasonable fathers don't know there's basically an estoppel working against them if they don't check paternity until divorce.

salsa4ever
02-11-2008, 03:42 AM
For some reason I can't edit. I just want to add in determining whatever amount of child support one considers "fair" we shouldn't expect the child support payer to be footing *all* of the bill for the child. After all, the mother/custodial parent ought to take some financial responsibility for raising the child too.

Jay Zeno
02-11-2008, 06:54 AM
Does the US have a cap for the maximum amount of child support payable, and if so what is it?It's determined by each state, and practices differ. Some states wll have a formula to plug in, leaving very little discretion to the judiciary. I believe that has been the trend. Other states may leave it entirely to the judiciary to determine an equitable amount.

I think Venus' starting point was assessing back payments against a father who never knew he had a child and, indeed, was never put on notice. Suddenly, he's put on notice that he's been pushed out of the nurturing years and 40% of his income is now forfeit for back payments, regardless of the other good faith financial commitments he has in his life. That particular instance, as set forth, doesn't exactly have a ring of fairness to it.

I personally have no problem with having someone call me "dad" for years, having me call them my kid, and then when divorce happens, continuing to support them even though it turns out that they don't have my DNA. Regardless of DNA, we have a parent/child bond, and the child's best interests take over.

I would have problems if we split, turns out she was knocked up, and she then wants support from me for a kid that she's harvested outside of my field. Somewhere between those extremes is a dividing line, but I sure can't tell you where.

Jenny
02-11-2008, 06:55 AM
So lets put in some luxuries / dance lessons and I think each non-custodial parent should be liable to pay no more than $600, and should pay the $600 unless that would cause undue stress and hardship on the payer (i.e. he should pay no more than say 25% of his income). Otherwise, it starts becoming a de facto form of spousal support when you just take a certain % of the payer's income and give it to the woman. I know that $600/month is not enough to feed a household, but ideologically the man shouldn't be supporting the whole household, just the incremental expense of the additional child! Taking care of herself is still the woman's responsibility, and as a backup, the state's.
Okay. I disagree. I think the child has some degree of right to be supported in a manner reasonably correlating to her parents means. If those means are the means of Bill Gates, they will be different than the means of, say, a bus driver. Saying that they should each pay $600 a month seems absurd.


Lets just assume joint custody and equal time *was* awarded. How should this impact child support? At the moment in Australia, where the child's care is "shared" meaning the child spends 146-219 nights at each parent's residence, the payer is required to pay 2/3rds of the child support amount that would otherwise be payable if the mother had sole custody.
If there is a serious income disparity, the parent that makes more money (which is usually, but not always the male parent) still has a responsibility to offset. However, you might legitimately argue that in that situation there are more things to consider.


3) Well, lets consider is this a fair result.
Intuitively, it seems that if the child is to be "supported" and we're looking a formal equality then there's a strong argument that the father should pay anything to the mother. He's done *his* half of the caring for the child. Why should he pay another cent to the mother?
Because the issue is the child, not the mother? And we feel that the child has an interest in maintaining a standard of living that both her parents could reasonably provide her?


If anything, it's the state's job now! Stepping in to fill the void because the mother doesn't earn enough money is clearly within the domain of social security.
Only if you excise the child from the equation; this child is still alive and functioning even when it is not at his house.


4) Now if someone wants to argue that in the case of broken up families the person making more money *should* have an obligation to continue taking care of the less well off one, then sure we can discuss this. But my point is that what's being touted as child support works in operation a lot like a spousal support system.
Not here. The spousal support system is separate and very time limited and is designed to deal with a cultivated relationship of dependency between a man and a woman (or, woman and woman) as opposed to a parent and child


I guess the question flows back to what is the purpose of the child support system? Is it a statement by society that each parent is "responsible" for the children they make? In this case, the half care is clearly sufficient. The father has "done his bit", and now it's up to the mother, and if she's not up to the job, then the state as backstop.
That is only the case if you think that the child is only interested/entitled in the bare minimum. This is not the case. The child has an interest in a standard of living determined by ... both her parents. You cant just divide custody and then forget about the child and work it out between the parents. Seriously - your ideas of family law date are like a throwback to the 50's and then the 80s - all this fault based, economics driven law. It's like replaying the worst of Lord Denning and Judge Posner.


I think one possible compromise is to give the carer some control over how the child support money is expended, if they are paying an amount that's greater than the "obvious" needs of the child. I mean if they're paying $50 a week, then clearly that's not enough to cover the child's needs. I've estimated basic expenses (stuff that's just too difficult to account for like food, utilities, board, commute etc.) at $100 per week. So if the payer is giving $200 a week, then there should be some control over the $100 - it paid into a trust account or something and spent on things other than food/utilities/board/commute. So for this additional money, require the mother to come up with receipts for uniforms, books, dance lessons, etc. and if the money is not spent, it stays in the trust fund for the child's college education.
Unfortunately child support is intended to pay for the child welfare in the here and now - not for her college education or life as an adult when nobody owes her anything at all. As for receipts - I've heard this before. I think from you. It would be a pointless regime for many reasons that I've outlined in the past, not the least of which it is would be ridiculously easy to fudge.


If we're going to say it's "his fault" for not finding outWell, a) I would suggest that the state doesn't generally provide that kind of legal advice, unsolicited, when forming a new relationship that may result in dependency. B) I think you are still looking at this wrong. It is not an issue of "fault". We actually generally try to excise "fault" from family law - it is generally accepted that the law is not in the best position to determine "fault" in relationship breakdown and formation and that generally it cannot be easily ascribed to any one party anyway. The issue is whether the non-custodial parent should be able to disturb the reliance of the child; not whether he or she is "at fault".

salsa4ever
02-11-2008, 07:54 AM
^^^

I just thought i'd check the forums before I went to bed in case Jenny had made a response, and she did not disappoint!


I'll respond tomorrow, but just a couple of quick comments:


1) I do think, that the way we have it in Australia is a lot fairer than it used to be, with the presumption of equal parental responsibility and equal time.

In the real world, Dads actually do want to see their kids, support their kids, and actually be a parent. The new legislation will let them do this. And for someone making $50,000 a year while the other partner makes $0, on a shared time basis, would pay $320 a month. So $160 a week while the child is at the other parent. Basically reasonable, I suppose.


2) You might think it's absurd that my ideas of family law are like the 50s and 80s but I'm happy to have Denning and Posner in my corner. Is it so absurd that in a 30 year cycle, my viewpoint might become fashionable again in the 2010s?


3) I thought a few posts ago you were arguing that the male should go and test every child himself as it's relatively inexpensive, and if he fails to do so, then tough luck for him if he finds out after 5 years. I'm basically sharing the same position, I just think if we're going to take that harsh position, then fairness requires they be informed. If that means the state makes a rare foray into legal advice, I don't really see the problem with it.

xdamage
02-11-2008, 08:30 AM
If, at the time of the kids' births, I had wanted to nail down their parentage, the global costs would've been much, much higher than the cost of a blood test. Hoo-boy. That would've gone over like a fart in church.

Currently as far as I understand it the DNA test itself still remains very time consuming, and so the test is expensive and impractical to administer to everyone. Collecting DNA is cheap. DNA can be collected via swabs of the mouth or other cells from the body so no need even for a blood test. A DNA test is nearly risk free as compared with having sex resulting in pregnancy, giving birth, being born, but of course your point remains...

The social cost is another matter. This generation would object strongly, but future generations? Hard to say. I think if it was to become mandatory, it would have to be on the grounds that it benefits the children, that children born in the USA have a right to to know who their biological parents are, something like that. And I can imagine future generations of men becoming increasingly comfortable with a mandatory DNA test. I can't speak for the women though.

xdamage
02-11-2008, 08:55 AM
The way child support actually seems to work is it puts the high earning parent in the position of the state to be the "backstop" when the low earning parent can't do their part. Is this desirable? I don't think so. I think it must be the job of the state to support the child (and mother) if dad's already done his half. They can't (well shouldn't) just shift this job to one of the parents.


The problem with that is the "state" ultimately means that the rest of the society ends up paying for the child, which means money is needed, which means taxes, and the reality is that as much as we talk about children's rights, most people really don't want to be responsible directly or even indirectly via taxes, for other people's children. We do that to some degree with taxes that pay for children's education and welfare, but consciously or sub-consciously, we really don't want other people having children and then leaving us to foot the bill for their choices and lack of responsibility.

People create laws, and the laws they create in this regard are, in part, biased towards protecting society from paying for other people's children. It is unfortunate that a man can end up having to pay for a child he did not father (in some societies anyway), but not particularly hard to understand why such laws exist. The majority of people don't care because they are not personally affected, nor are they left paying for someone else's child, so in that sense they benefit, and even approve of having a man who is not the biological father pay. Plus because it is done for "the children", no matter how wrong it is, people sleep well at night believing it is for the greater good. Some women may not object because it is law and reasoning that could benefit them if they found themselves in the position of having another man's baby (and human nature being what it is, people tend to be in favor of laws that benefit them, and vice versa, against laws that don't benefit them). But most men probably would object because it is very clear, it should be their choice to have to pay for another man's child, not a requirement.

hockeybobby
02-11-2008, 09:13 AM
Indirectly every dollar you spend whether for a cup of coffee at Tim Hortons, or a lap dance with your favourite supports every single living person on the planet, nolens volens. It's like the six degrees of seperation phenomena.
hb

Jenny
02-11-2008, 09:17 AM
1) I do think, that the way we have it in Australia is a lot fairer than it used to be, with the presumption of equal parental responsibility and equal time.
I do too. I would never advocate a return to a "tender years" doctrine or using children to punish "bad" husbands or wives.


In the real world, Dads actually do want to see their kids, support their kids, and actually be a parent.
True. It is sometimes important to remind ourselves that most parents are actually biological parents to their children. And that of those few parents who are not, very few want to cut them out for it. Most parents have attachment to their children and actually want what is best for them.



2) You might think it's absurd that my ideas of family law are like the 50s and 80s but I'm happy to have Denning and Posner in my corner. Is it so absurd that in a 30 year cycle, my viewpoint might become fashionable again in the 2010s?
No. Because they were wrong. The fact that they are brilliant doesn't mean that they are always right; indeed, the reason those two leapt to mind is because their high intelligence led to to altitudes of theory that were purely ridiculous - and are generally acknowledged as such (like I'm not being an upstart in criticizing here). Like I said - the worst elements of Posner and Denning; not the best, most reasonable or moderately reasonable. And the least reasonable of Denning and Posner is, like, unusually unreasonable. Family law is founded on basic premises of no-fault - a return to fault will not be upcoming soon and the best interests of the child. Expecting a return to the days in which it was worked out as an issue between "good spouses" and "bad spouses" and the children were used as pawns in that determination is... well, let's just say a vain expectation.



3) I thought a few posts ago you were arguing that the male should go and test every child himself as it's relatively inexpensive, and if he fails to do so, then tough luck for him if he finds out after 5 years.
Not exactly; I said the costs were low enough that the government should not be making it mandatory and subsidizing it. Medical procedure - privacy and all that. The costs of doing it voluntarily are not such that it should be superceding that. And again "tough luck" is the wrong way to approach it; it is more - you have cultivated a relationship of dependence for five years, in which this information was readily available. Like - VG said that women should not be able to squat on rights and information she knows she has - I see no reason why you should allow men to.


I'm basically sharing the same position, I just think if we're going to take that harsh position, then fairness requires they be informed. If that means the state makes a rare foray into legal advice, I don't really see the problem with it.
Again - keeping in mind that this is not really generally an issue, and assuming that men actually want to provide for children they have been fathering, you might reconsider how "harsh" it really is; again consider the corollary; the legal assumption that men will, essentially, stop loving (in the manner of a parent) a child they have parented for years. Isn't that position equally harsh? Perhaps more so than the assumption that they will?

threlayer
02-11-2008, 02:26 PM
Gosh, this is a long interesting thread, with many good points and a lot of arguments. I thought one thing important may not have been said clearly enough. Of course I may have missed it; it would take me all afternoon to read this thoroughly.

The man must accept some risk of pregnancy if he uses a condom, and even if the woman used pills too, if he ejaculates into her vagina. Here intent is overcome by 'reduced' risk. But according to the story, he didn't ejaculate there, it was into her mouth. She then surreptitiously captured his semen and stored it for later use. That sets up an unusual situation.

(I'm leaving out some logic here due to my schedule today.)

But I think that puts the situation in the same category as if a woman went to a fertility clinic, obtained some semen, and then found out the donor and then tried to sue him for child support. It's just that the legal system hasn't covered the first situation yet. This should go to a Supreme Court, maybe all the way up. But probably someone will settle and it will happen again.

A guy could decide never to ejaculate again in the presence of a woman he doesn't want to have kids with. That could put a damper on things for sure.

I can see it now, a street whore does that, gets the guys license number, does he same thing, and now can get off welfare if the guy has enough money. See, it's an important legal question for the courts. Seems to me....

Jenny
02-11-2008, 02:50 PM
The man must accept some risk of pregnancy if he uses a condom, and even if the woman used pills too, if he ejaculates into her vagina. Here intent is overcome by 'reduced' risk. But according to the story, he didn't ejaculate there, it was into her mouth. She then surreptitiously captured his semen and stored it for later use. That sets up an unusual situation.
Okay; this is an "unusual" situation; I'm not sure if you looked; but I found nothing on this after he was given leave to bring a case. That is - I never found any details about the actual case. Because he would never be able to prove that on the facts. It is a very, very unlikely story. Very unlikely. I think everyone here is working off the assumption that he is lying, which is how the conversation moved on. But - that case did show that he has a cause of action if he could show on the facts that it really happened. Seriously, though - think about it for a second.


I can see it now, a street whore does that, gets the guys license number, does he same thing, and now can get off welfare if the guy has enough money. See, it's an important legal question for the courts. Seems to me....
Whoa. Could we maybe limit our use of pejorative words for sex workers while we are on stripperweb? I mean first thing. Second thing - seriously. VERY unlikely. That sex worker would be waiting a while before it worked. And really - the built in bureaucracy is really an adequate incentive to not take that risk with a baby.

Casual Observer
02-11-2008, 04:33 PM
And really - the built in bureaucracy is really an adequate incentive to not take that risk with a baby.

No, that's the point, Jenny; the 1994 Welfare Reform Act made it such that the only information a woman need provide with regard to a father of a child is his name and last known address; it doesn't have to be the actual guy--she could not even know him and use the address. She just has to put something down on paper. If the guy fails to respond to the mailings, they just garnish his wages--again, even if it's not his kid biologically.

Bureaucracy has provided the incentive to take that chance.

Jenny
02-11-2008, 04:54 PM
^^^
Let me put it to you this way: up here the bureaucracy provides a good incentive to not get it.

Anyway - I need more - maybe the state of the act? So CO - you are contending that the law is encouraging women to suck off a guy, spit the semen into a receptacle and later inseminate herself? Well let's see. Has this problem really manifested itself in whatever state this is?

threlayer
02-11-2008, 06:06 PM
^^ I am discussing the big picture here, not the details of this case, since the proof is not apparent to us. I agree that if the situation was as he described, it may be unlikely but not impossible (to someone with intent and prior actions). so the burden of proof is on him, not just on his word. Second, I meant to use those particular words, 'street whore', since I am talking about a very undesirable and illegal situation. I could have said 'crack whore,' which is often more realistic, but I didn't. If you would prefer to use more genteel or politically correct words in your comments, be my guest. Anyway I am not talking about strippers in clubs.

salsa4ever
02-11-2008, 06:17 PM
1) I don't think I was using notions of "fault" in my analysis. I do agree, that we shouldn't be awarding children and child support to punish bad behaviour between the spouses. If anything, we can, and do, incorporate some notions of fault in adjustments at the property division stage. From reading the reported cases, it is plainly clear that the courts are a lot more generous to a party that is clearly "wronged". Where we have cheating spouses, the "adjustment" to the innocent party is generally hidden underneath the judicial discretion.

Where we have family violence, the courts have reasoned that "where there has been a course of violent conduct by one party towards the other during the marriage, which is demonstrated to have had a 'significant adverse impact' upon that party's contribution to the marriage, ie; made those contributions more onerous, this is a factor which attracts additional weight". Basically, courts *can* adjust property explicitly based on family violence. It's couched in legal babble thta it's because the homemaker wife had to "work harder" cos of the violence, but we know it's because on some instinctive level we believe that a wife who's constantly getting beaten up deserves something extra and a wife beater should be punished. At least that's what I think the judiciary is thinking. You?

2) In terms of my actual advocated position, I'm not suggesting we go back to assigning fault and using children and child support as pawns. I agree that's just dumb. What I'm saying is that regardless of fault, the man *and the woman* should both be financially responsible! Especially where the actual care of the child is shared between the parents.

3) something I haven't addressed is that we have massive disincentives in play here. assuming shared care, the woman will lose an additional 12 cents in a dollar (assuming one child, 20 cents if 2 children) for each $1 she makes beyond $18,000. I have calculated the effective marginal tax rates at around the $22000-$30000 mark to be like 75% already. Each $1 a person makes, they will lose $0.60 of social security, pay $0.15 in taxes. Taking the two child case, each dollar earned will only make the payee better off by $0.05! If she's getting some other miscellaneous government benefits she could well be worse off by working more!

I'm not saying we should use family law to provide economic incentives to people. Clearly, that's not its purpose. But we have to be aware of unintended consequences.

4) Child support is nominally at least a transfer of wealth from one spouse to the other. It's a zero sum game. Make more, transfer some of your wealth to the other. Make less, get money from spouse. I know it's not spousal support, but it's for this reason that I said the system *works like* a spousal support. We're redistributing income between two former spouses based on income disparity.

5) I can't resist bringing up a "fault" point in relation to the non-biological parent issue. Shouldn't we be chasing the biological parent here? I mean, the wife knows if a child *might not* be fathered by her current partner. Shouldn't there be some kind of onus on her to reveal this, then the tests can be done, and if neccessary, pursue the biological dad for support? I mean, the child benefits from this too, presumably - it ought to know who 'real' dad is.

Where the wife has hidden the knowledge of this possibility, and the 5 years later it comes out... and we can't find biological dad to ask him for support (not back support, cos non-biological dad took care of that already - just support going forwards)... who's fault was this? Assuming no malicious intent in the mother (like she thought the child probably was her partner's) the mother took the 'convenient' option, and so shouldn't she live with some of the consequences? Well clearly yes, but to what degree is the question in my mind. There is an innocent child in play here.

The question is, do we place the burden on mom to test if she knows she's been fooling around. Or do we place the burden on dad to test every child just in case? Now, DNA is not prohibitively expensive, but it doesn't make sense to slap the responsibility on dad. From an economic standpoint, it's clearly better to place the onus on mom. She knows when there is a possible need for DNA testing. Much more efficient than asking dad to test every child.

I'm arguing fault. I know. But I'm having a hard time swallowing the pill that mom gets away with the 'cover-up' scot free and dad pays for non-biological child, and real dad is god knows where cos the discovery is so untimely. As I said before, despite the rhetoric it is clear if you've read enough cases that fault still plays a tacet role in family law (for better or worse), and in rarer situations, explicitly. Should we make a carve-out to the fault principle, or just lump this scenario with the "well, that's the price of a no fault system"?

6) Interestingly, there was an Australian case. I'll dig up the citation if someone actually wants to read it. A women made an advertisement in the newspaper wanting a sperm "donor" to have sex with her, and impregnate her. This was done at the woman's house, with her sister on the premises, in the living room, as arranged by the woman because she felt that would be safer. The 'donation' is successful, and she becomes pregnant. The parties signed a contract saying that the woman would not pursue the man for child support. These facts are agreed to by the parties. The court nevertheless held that the contract is void, and the man is required to pay child support. The court held that where insemination is by "natural" means, there is no exception to the statutory definition of "biological parent" (there is a carve-out for conventional sperm donation), and parents cannot defeat child support by contractual means.

This case is distinguishable from the OP (assuming it's true) because there is no deception here. And is taking sperm out of the condom "natural" or "artificial"? This I don't know. But I think it's an interesting thought exercise.

xdamage
02-11-2008, 06:31 PM
I am discussing the big picture here, not the details of this case, since the proof is not apparent to us. I agree that if the situation was as he described, it may be unlikely but not impossible (to someone with intent and prior actions). so the burden of proof is on him, not just on his word.

It is very true that men dodge paternal responsibilities often, and so it is impossible to know if his story is true, but likewise it is not possible to know if his story is false either.

Women are also capable of deceptions. One form of deception is deceiving a male about his fatherhood (sometimes she is not even sure herself). Another form of deception is the woman who wants a child badly, and "forgets" her birth control or otherwise deceives her partner in order to become pregnant. While these acts may be rarer then males who try to dodge paternal responsibility (guessing), I think we'd have to be naive to believe that they are so exceedingly rare that the behavior can be entirely dismissed as to be a non concerned. By some estimates, men are deceived about fatherhood at very high frequencies (I've read estimates of 10% or even as high as 25-30% are possible for lower class males in some European countries; see Sperm Wars, by Robin Baker for example stats). The problem is when it comes to matters of deception, it is very hard to gather reliable data because the witnesses aren't talking.

sexy_celeste
02-13-2008, 05:52 AM
Just as men cannot force women to bear children if the woman doesn't want them, men cannot refuse to support children if they don't want to have them



I believe that Men should have the right to sign a legal document stating that they want the woman to have an abortion, and that they no longer have any legal or financial responsibility over the child.

Cos a woman can just go a have an abortion, regardless of the mans wishes, and I think BOTH parties should be involved, if they can both be held accountable in the birth of a child.