17
   

Child Support as Politics.

 
 
boomerang
 
  4  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 10:20 am
@BillRM,
Because he has acted as the father. Like I said, if you assume the role as parent the law sees you as the parent. And, like I said, those are the laws that would have allowed you to adopt your step children if they indeed had no contact with their father and they considered you to be their father.

Maybe they should test all kids at birth. I really don't care.

What about couples that use sperm donors? Should that father later be allowed to opt out of his responsibility to the child?

Who do you expect to pay for these children if not the person who has parented them?
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 10:34 am
@boomerang,
Yes, however if he had acted as the father because his wife had lied to him concerning his fatherhood then she get rewarded for successfully defrauding him.

Off hand that is the only example of the courts and the law rewarding and backing up anyone for defrauding another person that I can off hand think of.

Making it a requirement that DNA testing is done after birth of all children would end that fraud in it track.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 10:41 am
@boomerang,
Oh if a wife used the service of a sperm bank without her husband knowledge to get pregnant then it is the same as if she had gone to the neighborhood bar and picked someone up for a one night stand.

Sorry but we are not talking about a couple who both parties are aware of the situation and sign on for using a sperm bank.

Women as it now stand are rewarded by the law when they successfully lied to their husband or sexual partners over fatherhood.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 10:50 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
Because he has acted as the father. Like I said, if you assume the role as parent the law sees you as the parent. And, like I said, those are the laws that would have allowed you to adopt your step children if they indeed had no contact with their father and they considered you to be their father.

I'm not sure that makes sense. If a man marries to a woman with children and does his best by them but the couple divorces, are you saying the man is now on the hook for financial support to the children until they are 18? It seems like that is a deterent to forming meaningful step families. How long does one have to "parent" before absorbing this liability? It seems to me that you should have to adopt before assuming liability.

boomerang wrote:

Who do you expect to pay for these children if not the person who has parented them?

The person who fathered them and in that respect DNA testing seems to make sense. You'd have to develop a set of laws governing what happens in case the test shows the man is not the biological parent, but that's not all that hard.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 10:54 am
@engineer,
That is an interesting point and the law as such normally does not placed that kind of a burden on a step parent for the very reason that few men would likely be willing to assume that responsibility and therefore widows with children would be far less likely to find a new husband.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 10:57 am
@engineer,
I think in most step parent relationships that the child continues to get child support from the biological parent unless the step parent adopts them. So no, if the couple divorces he's off the hook -- unless he wants to maintain a relationship with the child and then he might want to help with the financial end of raising them. He's not obligated to do so.

They don't absorb this responsibility unless they choose to do so.

I've known step parents that stayed very involved in the children's lives even when they divorced.

I agree that it wouldn't be that hard to get the laws in place.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 11:08 am
@boomerang,
If I follow Bill's intent, at birth DNA testing would be done and if both parents are clear, then fine. If the man turns out not to be the father, then the laws kick in. In this scenario, I see up to two men making a claim, one the biological father and the other the husband/partner. If only one makes a claim (as in the sperm donor case) there is no issue. If no one makes a claim, then the case would have to be handled like they are currently where the missing father is pursued for support. If both men make claims then I guess you get a guest spot on Jerry Springer and the "winner" assumes both financial obligations and visitation rights. Is that where you are going Bill?

Of course I don't think hospitals want the kind of drama this might instigate.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 11:10 am
@boomerang,
Cute answer however the step father have no more limitability under the law if the biology father is alive or long dead.

Women would have one hell of a time finding new husbands otherwise.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 11:19 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

boomerang wrote:
Because he has acted as the father. Like I said, if you assume the role as parent the law sees you as the parent. And, like I said, those are the laws that would have allowed you to adopt your step children if they indeed had no contact with their father and they considered you to be their father.

I'm not sure that makes sense. If a man marries to a woman with children and does his best by them but the couple divorces, are you saying the man is now on the hook for financial support to the children until they are 18? It seems like that is a deterent to forming meaningful step families. How long does one have to "parent" before absorbing this liability? It seems to me that you should have to adopt before assuming liability.


It looks like there is some confusion resulting from a couple of situations being tossed together. Step dad is not on the hook unless he has formally adopted the child(ren). If he is married to the mother when the kids are born, he is called Daddy, regardless of DNA evidence. Should the guy happen to marry a pregnant woman, he is assumed to be the father and could end up paying child support. Might not be fair; nobody said life is fair.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 11:29 am
@roger,
Then I see Bill's point. Once upon a time there was no way to confirm paternity so that system made sense. Now that there is a way to confirm paternity with an extremely high degree of reliability and a reasonable cost, why wouldn't we change the system? One reason may be social strife, another the abortion debate. I can see that if mothers were concerned that a paternity test could wreck their marriages over a one time indiscretion they would be very tempted to abort a pregnancy rather than coming to term not knowing who the father was. I could also see a number of marriages coming apart in the delivery room.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 12:01 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
I don't think men are idiots. They know if they impregnate a woman that there are consequences that they can't control

http://rlv.zcache.com/citation_needed_bumper_sticker-p128912061722662976trl0_400.jpg
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 12:14 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

I am sorry, mysteryman, but birth control is just as much the responsibility for a man as it is for a woman. If he doesn't want to be a father than he better use his brain instead of his penis.
and while youi want to make the man half responsible for putting the bun in the oven you are not willing to give the man half the control over whether to carry to term, are you......
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 12:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
So they can carry out half an abortion.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 12:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
you are not willing to give the man half the control over whether to carry to term, are you......


Nor are you suggesting giving a woman half the control over whether the man should have a heart transplant, an appendectomy or a sex change operation.

You are cold, cruel and ruthless, CJ.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 12:55 pm
@engineer,
I can also see married women being far more faithful to their husbands if they know ahead of time that they can no longer pawn off a lover child as the husband.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 12:59 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
a lover child as the husband.


That can't be done now, Bill. That's child molestation.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 01:04 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
woman half the control over whether the man should have a heart transplant, an appendectomy or a sex change operation.


If the cost of a medical procedure for the husband is coming out of the wife or ex-wife pocket I can see nothing wrong in giving her a say in whether he can have or not have that procedure.

That goes double if she will be lock up for not coming up with the funds.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 01:16 pm
@engineer,
Of course we could change the system in view of the technology available, and maybe we should. I think the principle is that every child will have two responsible parents, and the easiest one to find is IT.

As an aside, I have been asked by two different employers to explain the reasoning behind certain tax regulations. Best answer is "I don't know." Any thing else gets into those "Yes, but. . . ." discussions that resemble trying to reason with a drunk. There just ain't no cheese down that hole.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 01:25 pm
@roger,
Sorry but just pointing at random at some male and saying you are it concerning taking care of a child is wrong and in cases where it is proven that a man is not the father and never intended to take care of someone else child that is about the degree of nonsense we are looking at.

Frankly the state could feed and house me for life if the other choice is that I would be paying to raised some other man child against my wishes.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 01:49 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Nor are you suggesting giving a woman half the control over whether the man should have a heart transplant, an appendectomy or a sex change operation
I am suggesting that if the bio dad did not sign off on carrying the baby to term then he should not be liable for any child support. If the woman wants to have the baby and the daddy does not then then she is free to do that but SHE rightfully should pay all of the freight......
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/07/2020 at 08:26:40