Child Support Liability

[Revoltingest]

There is an intersection of rights which always struck me as thorny.

Hypothetical situation:
Bob & Sally are dating.
Sally becomes pregnant, with Bob as the father, & they both know this.
Sally wants to carry the child (Pat) to term.
Bob does not want to be a father.
Sally likes long walks along the beach at sunset, while Bob likes working on his 57 Chevy.

Background:
Sally has the right to abort the fetus.
Sally has the right to bear Pat.
Bob cannot prevent Sally from either aborting or bearing Pat.
Sally may have Bob legally compelled to support Pat.
If Bob & Sally do not marry, Sally has automatic custody of Pat, even after Pat is weened.
It is in the public interest to see that children, like Pat, are supported.

Questions:
- Is it ethical to force Bob to support Pat when he has no authority in Sally's decision about the existence of Pat?
- Would it be better public policy to let Bob off the hook for Pat's support, & have the state step up in his place?
(Of course, this would be great for Bob, but less so for the taxpayer.)

Btw, I don't have an answer. Discuss!

 

[Alceste]

I think either parent should be able to relinquish all parental rights and responsibilities to the other, or to somebody else. No returnsies though. If you give up your own kid, you don't get to change your mind later. That's it. The new parent's rights trump yours, forever.

I think the subject of abortion is not relevant and has no place in a discussion of parental responsibility.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the subject of abortion is not relevant and has no place in a discussion of parental responsibility.

Abortion rights are irrelevant, yet you don't object to this.....

Sally likes long walks along the beach at sunset, while Bob likes working on his 57 Chevy.

 

[Awoon]

You have babies you pay. DNA testing should done on every birth to prove paternity. The State gives out birth certificates and marriage licenses ...The State owns us.

 

[Alceste]

Abortion rights are irrelevant, yet you don't object to this.....

Well how are on earth are they gonna get Pat to the beach if the Chevy breaks down?

 

[dawny0826]

There is an intersection of rights which always struck me as thorny.

Hypothetical situation:
Bob & Sally are dating.
Sally becomes pregnant, with Bob as the father, & they both know this.
Sally wants to carry the child (Pat) to term.
Bob does not want to be a father.
Sally likes long walks along the beach at sunset, while Bob likes working on his 57 Chevy.

Background:
Sally has the right to abort the fetus.
Sally has the right to bear Pat.
Bob cannot prevent Sally from either aborting or bearing Pat.
Sally may have Bob legally compelled to support Pat.
If Bob & Sally do not marry, Sally has automatic custody of Pat, even after Pat is weened.
It is in the public interest to see that children, like Pat, are supported.

Questions:
- Is it ethical to force Bob to support Pat when he has no authority in Sally's decision about the existence of Pat?
- Would it be better public policy to let Bob off the hook for Pat's support, & have the state step up in his place?
(Of course, this would be great for Bob, but less so for the taxpayer.)

Btw, I don't have an answer. Discuss!

This is just how I think it should work.

Bob and Sally had the responsibility to make good decisions prior to conception. If Bob didn't want a baby, he had the resonsibility to ensure that adequate contraception was being utilized to avoid said pregnancy. He's screwed himself. Poor Bob.

As Bob and Sally are not married or engaged in a domestic partnership, Bob should have no legal rights regarding the pregnancy, until the fetus become viable in the womb.

Yes, Bob should be expected to fianancially support Pat, as should Sally, unless both come to a mutual agreement which is agreed to by a judge, that Bob can be absolved from all parental rights and responsibilities.

 

[Awoon]

All Sally wants to do is be with some beach. She never goes swimming.

 

[Titanic]

Growing up without a father is not always a good thing.

 

[Revoltingest]

New information about our responsible couple:
Bob & Sally both took precautions (both pill & condom).

Note:
For simplicity's sake, I'm not introducing Bob's limited rights to adopt Pat the mother gives up Pat.
It's legally complex. But if someone has researched this, finds it relevant, & wants to introduce it,
then please do so.

 

[Awoon]

New information about our responsible couple:
Bob & Sally both took precautions (both pill & condom).

Note:
For simplicity's sake, I'm not introducing Bob's limited rights to adopt Pat the mother gives up Pat.
It's legally complex. But if someone has researched this, finds it relevant, & wants to introduce it,
then please do so.

Both took precautions? AHHHH HA HA HA LOL LOL:run:

 

[dawny0826]

New information about our responsible couple:
Bob & Sally both took precautions (both pill & condom).

Note:
For simplicity's sake, I'm not introducing Bob's limited rights to adopt Pat the mother gives up Pat.
It's legally complex. But if someone has researched this, finds it relevant, & wants to introduce it,
then please do so.

Dang...he should have withdrawn too.

If the mother gives up Pat, Bob should be off the hook, unless he WANTS the baby. Legally, I think he should be able to state his intent and request a paternity test, once the fetus becomes viable.

As he doesn't want the baby, and Pat's giving baby up, Bob should be a happy camper.

 

[Draka]

Perhaps upon the marriage of either parent to another partner there should always be the legal "out" option. That is, say, if Sally were to marry another man, this automatically triggers an option for Bob to relinquish parental rights to Pat and the new husband to legally adopt should both men be willing.

Along those lines, I am reminded of something I briefly saw on tv the other day. Didn't really watch it, but saw this one woman saying something about how she was pregnant and wanted to give the child up for adoption but that the father wouldn't release parental rights and that she would be forced to raise the child. I thought...how would she be forced to raise the child? Obviously, if he is refusing to sign over rights it's because he wants the child, so she could give him custody. Here was kind of a reverse situation as to who wanted the child. Seemed unfair to me that she was expecting to have final say over adopting the baby out when he obviously wanted it. Even thinking that if she couldn't adopt the baby out she would have to raise it herself. Still no thought to him having the child.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps upon the marriage of either parent to another partner there should always be the legal "out" option. That is, say, if Sally were to marry another man, this automatically triggers an option for Bob to relinquish parental rights to Pat and the new husband to legally adopt should both men be willing.

Along those lines, I am reminded of something I briefly saw on tv the other day. Didn't really watch it, but saw this one woman saying something about how she was pregnant and wanted to give the child up for adoption but that the father wouldn't release parental rights and that she would be forced to raise the child. I thought...how would she be forced to raise the child? Obviously, if he is refusing to sign over rights it's because he wants the child, so she could give him custody. Here was kind of a reverse situation as to who wanted the child. Seemed unfair to me that she was expecting to have final say over adopting the baby out when he obviously wanted it. Even thinking that if she couldn't adopt the baby out she would have to raise it herself. Still no thought to him having the child.

What you suggest is reasonable, but I'm concerned that mothers will avoid loss of support payments by simply not marrying a new husband. It would be a wrong incentive.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

I'm going to go through this step by step

There is an intersection of rights which always struck me as thorny.

Hypothetical situation:
Bob & Sally are dating.

Irrelevant.

Sally becomes pregnant, with Bob as the father, & they both know this.
Sally wants to carry the child (Pat) to term.

As far as parental responsibility, this is all that matters.

Bob does not want to be a father.
Sally likes long walks along the beach at sunset, while Bob likes working on his 57 Chevy.

Background:
Sally has the right to abort the fetus.
Sally has the right to bear Pat.
Bob cannot prevent Sally from either aborting or bearing Pat.
Sally may have Bob legally compelled to support Pat.
If Bob & Sally do not marry, Sally has automatic custody of Pat, even after Pat is weened.
It is in the public interest to see that children, like Pat, are supported.

Questions:
- Is it ethical to force Bob to support Pat when he has no authority in Sally's decision about the existence of Pat?

It is ethical, considering the child's existence is a consequence of the father's actions.

- Would it be better public policy to let Bob off the hook for Pat's support, & have the state step up in his place?

Unless Sally agrees to allow Bob to sign away parental rights in front of a judge, it isn't happening. Maybe it would be better, but under the current system, Bob is responsible until a judge rules otherwise.

(Of course, this would be great for Bob, but less so for the taxpayer.)

Btw, I don't have an answer. Discuss!

 

[Draka]

Unless Sally agrees to allow Bob to sign away parental rights in front of a judge, it isn't happening. Maybe it would be better, but under the current system, Bob is responsible until a judge rules otherwise.

Even with that, with the judge and all, that usually isn't going to be allowed to happen unless it can be proven as to why it is actually a good thing to let this person completely "off the hook" and out of the life of the child.

When I was able to get it done with my ex it was well established that he was a danger and had "issues" I won't even get into here (some here have already heard them and might recall them). The judge, having seen plenty of proof to this effect, thus had no qualms with granting MY request to have HIM sign over parental rights. Had my ex requested it to get out of child support alone it might not have gone over, but it was MY request to simply get him completely out of our lives...child support be damned.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Draka,
Essentially, the man is trapped.

 

[Revoltingest]

I must say what a fine start this new forum is off too.
We have civil opinion without a single accusation of poopie headedness.
Kudos to all of you! (So far.)

 

[Curious George]

There is an intersection of rights which always struck me as thorny.

Hypothetical situation:
Bob & Sally are dating.
Sally becomes pregnant, with Bob as the father, & they both know this.
Sally wants to carry the child (Pat) to term.
Bob does not want to be a father.
Sally likes long walks along the beach at sunset, while Bob likes working on his 57 Chevy.

Background:
Sally has the right to abort the fetus.
Sally has the right to bear Pat.
Bob cannot prevent Sally from either aborting or bearing Pat.
Sally may have Bob legally compelled to support Pat.
If Bob & Sally do not marry, Sally has automatic custody of Pat, even after Pat is weened.
It is in the public interest to see that children, like Pat, are supported.

Questions:
- Is it ethical to force Bob to support Pat when he has no authority in Sally's decision about the existence of Pat?
- Would it be better public policy to let Bob off the hook for Pat's support, & have the state step up in his place?
(Of course, this would be great for Bob, but less so for the taxpayer.)

Btw, I don't have an answer. Discuss!

can you explain "automatic custody."

Yes, I think it is ethical for bob to pay child support, when he had no decision about sally's medical procedure. Think of it like this, imagine bob and sally bought a lotto ticket on the premise that they would split the proceeds (written contract), Bob then let sally keep the ticket and in the contract there was a clause which stated that the keeper of the ticket cannot be penalized for losing the ticket, in fact the keeper of the ticket owes no duty to the other party to protect the ticket (thus the ticket keeper could intentionally throw away the ticket and face no penalty). Now, if sally does not throw away the ticket and the ticket wins is bob entitled to his share?

Or from a lability perspective if they bob Co-signs a loan for a car and then wants sally to sell the car should he be able to get out from under the loan? We often engage in behavior wherein we forfeit our rights to another, sex is one such behavior.

 

[Secret Chief]

Sally becomes pregnant, with Bob as the father

-


Bob does not want to be a father.


Discuss!

I'm guessing that this is apparently complex in the US.

 

[Curious George]

I'm guessing that this is apparently complex in the US.

Well, over here Bob 's not your uncle... He's your dad!