Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Child Support and the Forced Father
The Opinion ^ | 20 Jan 03 | Angelica Haycook

Posted on 02/03/2003 11:48:56 AM PST by Mr. Silverback

It goes now, and always has gone, that the father of a child (if absent from the child's life) is to pay child support in order for the mother to better care for the child conceived by the two people. This is a good idea, for many women have a hard time holding down a full-time job that pays well, while taking care of a child. Also, the father should have a responsibility towards the child they conceived together.

However, some cases have come to my attention in a personal incident, and I cannot help but think that the legal system is overlooking something important. There are women, who are in a relationship with a man, who have promised the man that she is on some form of birth control. Then the man comes to find that she is not, in fact, on birth control or, the woman stops taking her birth control without informing her partner.

The man, being in a relationship, feels that he can trust his partner and then finds that he has been deceived. The woman has become pregnant without his knowledge or consent, therefore inflicting the responsibility of a child upon herself. The man, feeling hurt and angered by her deception, leaves the relationship and later receives papers for child support.

The courts overlook the fact that the man had no knowledge of the woman's failure to continue the said birth control she was supposedly taking. He has been forced to be a father without his consent. They just look at the fact that he had unprotected sex with her and force him to pay child support. They forget that he was deceived and, if one cannot trust a person with whom they are in a long-term relationship, who can they trust?

Should this child truly be his responsibility or should the mother, who inflicted the pregnancy upon herself, without her partner's consent, have to take on the responsibility of raising the child on her own based upon the fact that she wanted the child in the first place and the man did not? In saying that she was on birth control and never telling the man that she had discontinued such medication, she has essentially promised him that he will not be having any unwanted children. So, any children that result from her negligence to take the birth control she informed him she was taking, should be solely her responsibility.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: safesex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150 next last
My take? I'm going to bypass some of the legal issues regarding proving she was lying, etc. Bottom line, if you don't want to be held responsible for the support of a child, avoid those activities that produce children.

Comment/discussion app is here.
Author's profile is here.

1 posted on 02/03/2003 11:48:56 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama; A2J; aposiopetic; attagirl; axel f; Balto_Boy; bulldogs; Charlie OK; ...
ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

2 posted on 02/03/2003 11:49:56 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (The surly bonds of Earth have been slipped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

Go cry us a river. If a man sleeps with a woman and impregnates her, then the responsibility is his to live up to.

3 posted on 02/03/2003 11:52:51 AM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
should the mother, who inflicted the pregnancy upon herself

Well, now, THAT's a neat trick.

4 posted on 02/03/2003 11:52:58 AM PST by Wolfie (Wolfie's Law: Don't Bang If You Can't Hang)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Bottom line, if you don't want to be held responsible for the support of a child, avoid those activities that produce children.

Bingo.

5 posted on 02/03/2003 11:53:20 AM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Oh, the old "she got herself pregnant" trick? I thought that was what Clonaid was all about.
6 posted on 02/03/2003 11:54:56 AM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Mr. Silverback
If the woman can choose then the man should be able to choose as well.
8 posted on 02/03/2003 11:59:07 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Nothing against child support for a man who is the father. I just wish there was a way to track the money so that the father could be sure ALL the money was indeed going to the child's support and not to buy moms lipstick and gifts for her newest boyfriend.

One thing, it ain't goin' away.
9 posted on 02/03/2003 12:03:55 PM PST by Arizona Pard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
Yes, the man can choose. He can not have sex, protected or unprotected, unless he's absolutely certain he wants to conceive a child with this woman. Without his sperm and her egg, there isn't any baby.
10 posted on 02/03/2003 12:05:59 PM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear
I know someone who had to prove to her husband that the child she gave birth to was his. He had a vasectomy a few years before, and they thought she was infertile by then. ha ha

Wouldn't you be suspicious, too?

11 posted on 02/03/2003 12:07:50 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Well, now, THAT's a neat trick.

Ain't it, though? Even the Virgin Mary had help getting pregnant, a true do-it-yourself pregnancy is a certified act of magic.

As your tagline states in different language, you play, you pay.

12 posted on 02/03/2003 12:08:50 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (The surly bonds of Earth have been slipped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear
NO method? I'll give you two: hysterectomy and castration.
13 posted on 02/03/2003 12:09:06 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
But the woman can abort her responsibilities, so why shouldn't the man be given a choice too? It's sex discrimination.
14 posted on 02/03/2003 12:09:59 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Depends on what kind of castration. You'd have to go for the beans as well as the frank.
15 posted on 02/03/2003 12:11:13 PM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
Here it is at its sinplest: if he doesn't want children, don't have sex.

If he decides to have sex and impregnates a woman, are you saying that his choice would be, for example, being able to force her into having an abortion?

16 posted on 02/03/2003 12:11:42 PM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback; dd5339
My take? Don't screw around out of wedlock. And if you're married to someone you don't trust, wear a condom. After all, even faithfully taken oral contraceptives have a 1-2% failure rate.
17 posted on 02/03/2003 12:13:43 PM PST by Vic3O3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Not at all. I am saying: To be fair, if the government gives the woman the option of abortion, then they should give the man the option of no responsibility. He should be able to say, "I am not ready to be a father" and relinquish his rights and responsibilities to the child.
18 posted on 02/03/2003 12:15:01 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Should it be just as simple for the woman? If she doesn't want children she shouldn't have sex? I could go for that. But if she can opt out then it is only fair that he be given the same choice.
19 posted on 02/03/2003 12:16:29 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: RAT Patrol
There are very few fathers who would terminate his parental rights--if the state would allow it. Usually, it's the case of not wanting to pay child support for the child, yet wanting to spend time with the child. Quite simply, they want it both ways--not pay for the support of the child they created, yet wanting--and in some cases, demanding--that they have time with the child.

But the fact is if a man doesn't want to become a father, don't have sex.

21 posted on 02/03/2003 12:18:40 PM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
You bet it should be as simple for the woman. It should be a warning to all those who decide to have sex, protected or unprotected. If the man or woman does not want a child, they shouldn't have sex. In the context of this thread, it's the man not wanting to support the child because she got herself pregnant (a medical miracle if you ask me).
22 posted on 02/03/2003 12:20:15 PM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
I know someone who had to prove to her husband that the child she gave birth to was his. He had a vasectomy a few years before, and they thought she was infertile by then. ha ha

Wouldn't you be suspicious, too?

The key word here is husband!

23 posted on 02/03/2003 12:26:24 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear
Well, okay. But they ARE goof proof!
24 posted on 02/03/2003 12:28:37 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Come on guys, this is a no brainer.
The kid is your child. Your child deserves your help.

There are too many cases where men are paying child support for children they did not sire and have never known. In these cases the courts have decided that the needs of the child come first even though the man in question is not the father. This is wrong.

Turning your back on your own child makes you nothing more than a souless humping machine.
25 posted on 02/03/2003 12:29:09 PM PST by radioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
Why is that the key word? If my wife came up pregnant after I had had a vasectomy, I would be suspicious and get a test to determine if I was shooting blanks or live ammo.
26 posted on 02/03/2003 12:30:30 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
...To be fair, if the government gives the woman the option of abortion, then they should give the man the option of no responsibility. He should be able to say, "I am not ready to be a father" and relinquish his rights and responsibilities to the child.

Much as I hate to say it, you do have a point here. As long as women are allowed to KILL the baby in the womb, a man should have the same option. Much like child support however, it's the old family court rule, she has rights, and he has responsibilities.

27 posted on 02/03/2003 12:35:00 PM PST by YankeeReb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback; Cultural Jihad
My take? I'm going to bypass some of the legal issues regarding proving she was lying, etc. Bottom line, if you don't want to be held responsible for the support of a child, avoid those activities that produce children.

I agree with the above, BUT... There have been cases where no intercourse took place & women ended up pregnant because of 'funny business' (e.g., involving a used condom). This is difficult to prove, but if mom admits it (it has been admitted before) then I don't think dad should be held responsible.

28 posted on 02/03/2003 12:35:45 PM PST by BearCub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
I feel that the man should still be responsible for providing for his child...however...Perhaps he should be able to file suit against her for the deception...as a seperate piece of litigation.
29 posted on 02/03/2003 12:36:31 PM PST by NeonKnight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
They USUALLY test RIGHT after a vasectomy for that, don't they....to make sure there are no SURPRISES.
30 posted on 02/03/2003 12:37:57 PM PST by goodnesswins (Thank the Military for your freedom and security....and thank a Rich person for jobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
I'm not saying that the man shouldn't be suspicious, just that in the context of a marriage, he'll likely stick around long enough to learn the truth, than deal with it from there. My point was nobody was just screwing around and having one-night-stands.
31 posted on 02/03/2003 12:41:10 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
I know that they test right after the vasectomy. But what about years later?
32 posted on 02/03/2003 12:43:46 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
Agreed.
33 posted on 02/03/2003 12:44:47 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
"Quite simply, they want it both ways--not pay for the support of the child they created, yet wanting--and in some cases, demanding--that they have time with the child. "

IMO, time with the child and money for support should be two separate issues, and lumping them together causes more grief than anything.

Any parent who would deny a child access to their mother/father soley based on finances should be horsewhipped and castigated from society. (I know, wishful thinking.)
34 posted on 02/03/2003 12:51:08 PM PST by Rebelbase (Rock with Celtic roots at http://www.sevennations.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
Keep it in your pants. Simple.
35 posted on 02/03/2003 12:51:37 PM PST by borkrules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: borkrules
But that is sex discrimination. If the woman can have her fun and destroy the evidence, then the man should at least be able to forfeit his responsibility. If women can choose then men should choose too.
36 posted on 02/03/2003 12:55:38 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
But that is sex discrimination.

Nope. That's "nature".

Just because a woman can kill her unborn child is no excuse to lower ourselves to the same level as the animals that do this as a form of "birth control".

37 posted on 02/03/2003 12:59:00 PM PST by borkrules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: borkrules
I'm not saying the man should kill the kid. But he should be able to decide he is not ready to be a father. It would drive the feminists insane and it is completely just.
38 posted on 02/03/2003 1:01:20 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Keeping the pants Zipped works.... Proven 100% effective.
39 posted on 02/03/2003 1:06:34 PM PST by PetroniDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Vic3O3
My take? Don't screw around out of wedlock

that's nice. and what about the guys who are married. One third of american women divorce their husband before the kids get to be teenagers, then the law aids them in kicking the husband out of the house, then the law aids them in taking money from the husband until the kids are 21 or so. If the man can't pay he goes to jail. Many men are forcefully taken away from their children and then threatened with jail if they don't pay a certain fee every month. What smart comments do you have about all of this? Are you going to tell us to not get married if we don't like it?

40 posted on 02/03/2003 1:08:53 PM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
There is a contract for the support in the common law. This contract was legal in all fifty states until 1973, when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.

It was known as marriage.

41 posted on 02/03/2003 1:10:28 PM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
There is a contract for the support in the common law. This contract was legal in all fifty states until 1973, when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.

It was known as marriage.

42 posted on 02/03/2003 1:11:09 PM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE
You've heard that aspirin is an effective method of birth control, haven't you?

.....if the woman holds one firmly between her knees :-)
43 posted on 02/03/2003 1:13:00 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Let me share my story.

My wife and I are divorcing. This was not my choice. My wife was having an affair, and she left. Even with that, I was willing to attempt a reconciliation, and was rebuffed. My wife was not an abused woman. Her grounds for divorce is simply that she wants one.

In Texas she is entitled to 20% of my net income in support, up to $2500 per month. Additionally, the IRS assumes that, as the "custodial" parent, she will bear reponsibility for more than half the child's upkeep, so she gets the tax credit and the deduction for a dependant.

Here's the rub. I have calculated my wife's expenses for our child. If I add his schooling to 1/2 of all of her expenses (rent, utilities) AND assume she spends $150/month feeding him AND $150/month clothing him, I am paying for 67% of his upbringing.

Now, let's remember that I have custody of him 37% of the time. We haven't added in any expenses I incur while he's with me. Not only do I also have to feed him, I need to buy extra clothes because the law requires that anything he comes to my house with goes home with him. In essence, he has to have 2 complete wardrobes. We also have not deducted from any of her expenses for the 37% of the time she doesn't have him.

No matter how we look at it, I'm bearing the brunt of the expenses.

If we want to get totally accurate, we need to remember that the rent she pays for him is not half, but the difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. She would have to pay some rent even if there were no child. She also receives subsidized rent because she has a child and is a single parent. If she spends $300/month on food, I would bet he eats less than $75 of it. With the exception of a small part of the gas, water and electric, utility expenses are unchanged by her having my son. And $150/month on clothes? Not even close. She has always been a frugal shopper. A complete outfit for him is less than $10.

Now, lets remember that she gets $600 in tax credits, plus, she is now eligible for the EITC, so her tax expenses are reduced by roughly $3,000 per year.

I have no problem paying for my son's upkeep. I have a huge problem with the assumptions that are automatically made that I am not paying my fair share of his upkeep, and that the "custodial" parent is being unfairly burdeoned. We are forced to bear the majority of the expenses, and are treated as if we are absentee parents and less responsible and loving than our former spouses.

Child support has become a way for parents to get alimony in situations where they wouldn't be entitled to any. The formulas are concrete, and there is no appeal.
44 posted on 02/03/2003 1:13:43 PM PST by sharktrager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Their responsibility. He should be able to sign away all rights and walk away. At least while abortion is legal.
45 posted on 02/03/2003 1:14:46 PM PST by AppyPappy (Will Code COBOL For Food)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
Never heard of that one.

As a single male approaching 40 (subject to recount) I often get pestered about "when am I going to get married and have grand-children". My typical response in a joking manner is "I don't have to get married to give you grand-children, if you want them that badly".

Usually good for a laugh.

46 posted on 02/03/2003 1:19:11 PM PST by PetroniDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager
Are you SURE the child is yours ???
47 posted on 02/03/2003 1:21:28 PM PST by PetroniDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager
$2,500.00 per month is astronomically high, but it's because your income is high.

The court is, essentially, assumming that because of your income, this is about what you would have spent on the child if there had been no divorce.
48 posted on 02/03/2003 1:21:55 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager
I got divorced in VA and due to faulty calculation by the court, I was ordered to pay more than my takehome pay which by the time it was resolved, resulted in me being $13,00o in arrears. I had to pay it all back even though she wasn't entitled to it. On top of that, she spent not a single penny on the kids and everytime I had visitation I would have to buy them new clothes, school supplies, etc. I later found out that she spent $5000 of my child support for a vacation and a wedding to her second husband. If I have an obligation to pay, shouldn't she have to prove it went to the kids? Damn those feminists!
49 posted on 02/03/2003 1:24:41 PM PST by 44magnum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
This problem of society sheds light on the fact that you cannot exclude the possibility of human life from the marital embrace, and that all sexual relations should be open to life.

We have created a psyche of lying, where men do not trust women, and women do not trust men, and the children are the ones that get hurt the most.
50 posted on 02/03/2003 1:24:47 PM PST by matthew_the_brain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson