NOTICE TO FATHER?
almach1 wrote:Here's a question among the lines of "a womans right." If a woman is gets pregnant and is not married, should she be required to tell the father of baby that he is going to be a father(given she's not getting an abortion)? Or is it a womans right to keep a child secret from his father.
If the woman seeks state welfare benefits for the child, she is required to assign her right to collect child support on behalf of the child over to the state and to disclose the name (if known) of the father. In turn, the state will commence proceedings against the father to establish paternity and to establish a child support order. The state has a compelling interest in seeking reimbursement from the father for the support it expends on behalf of the father's child.
If the state is not supporting the child, the state has NO INTEREST compelling enough to intrude into the woman's private life. If a state enacted a law that required unwed mothers to inform unwed fathers of their pregnancies, such a law would be a significant intrusion into the mother's fundamental right to privacy and probably be unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Additionally, states may presume that unwed fathers are capable of asserting and protecting their own rights with respect to their unborn children. Certainly, if a man has sex with a woman, he has ACTUAL NOTICE that a child may have been conceived through his participation in a procreative activity.
The law is not going to allow the man to simply walk away from the sexual act -- leaving him with no responsibility or concerns for the consequences of that sexual act -- and place the entire responsibility on the woman to NOTIFY the man that he impregnated her. A man is presumed to be smart enough to figure out the possible consequences of his sexual activities all on his own.
See, e.g.,
LEHR v. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S. 248 (1983):
Quote:The significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development. If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie.
In this case, we are not assessing the constitutional adequacy of New York's procedures for terminating a developed relationship. Appellant has never had any significant custodial, personal, or financial relationship with Jessica, and he did not seek to establish a legal tie until after she was two years old. We are concerned only with whether New York [463 U.S. 248, 263] has adequately protected his opportunity to form such a relationship.
A man ought to be aware, if he impregnates a woman and simply walks away and the child is not adopted, he is on the hook for child support for AT LEAST the next 18 years (in accordance with federal mandate) or longer in some states. Many men never take the responsibility to find out if their sexual encounters created a baby . . . and may not find out until YEARS later when they are hit with a paternity / child support action seeking THOUSANDS of dollars for birthing expenses and PAST support in addition to future support.
Men need to take their sexual encounters and the possibility of pregnancy more seriously . . . .
