Child Support and the Forced Father

The Opinion ^ | 20 Jan 03 | Angelica Haycook

[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.

[Catspaw]

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.

[Catspaw]

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).

[T Minus Four]

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!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Well, okay. But they ARE goof proof!

[radioman]

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.

[Blood of Tyrants]

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.

[YankeeReb]

...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.

[BearCub]

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.

[NeonKnight]

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.

[goodnesswins]

They USUALLY test RIGHT after a vasectomy for that, don't they....to make sure there are no SURPRISES.

[T Minus Four]

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.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I know that they test right after the vasectomy. But what about years later?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Agreed.

[Rebelbase]

"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.)

[borkrules]

Keep it in your pants. Simple.

[RAT Patrol]

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.

[borkrules]

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".

[RAT Patrol]

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.

[PetroniDE]

Keeping the pants Zipped works.... Proven 100% effective.

[Red Jones]

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?