[manni28]

I agree with the above posters BUT, if a women tells a man that she is on birth control and she's not then she SHOULD be responsible; after all, she is deceiving him! Also, as I stated before, there have been cases where the woman past the child off as her husband or boyfriend's child when it wasn't. Again, do I think that the husband/boyfriend should be responsible for another man's responsibility-no, but the law says they are

[ddhuab]

Manni,

It is wrong for a woman to be deceptive, but paternity tests can assure a man if he is the father and has to pay child support. Also, as a woman, I know I would not stop using birth control just because a man told me he had a vasectomy or was sterile, and I don't think a man should take a woman's word that she is on the pill (because even if she IS on the pill, there are lots of factors that can reduce its effectiveness -- such as not taking it at the same time each day, being on antibiotics, etc.). I would also use condoms REGARDLESS of other b.c. methods if I were a single person in a sexual relationship.

Therefore, I do not think that "she said she was on birth control" is a valid excuse to get out of paying child support.

D.

[NJNative]

"The way I see it, if a woman tells a man she's on the pill and she knows she's not, then she ALONE should be financially held responsible for the child, because she’s deceiving someone."

I agree, although I think if a man is convinced he does not want a child, he should also use a condom just in case. If a couple is going to be sexually active together, they need to discuss these things. If the woman says she's on birth control, he should also take precautions. If a pregnancy still happens by accident, then both are responsible.

But there are women who will deliberately get pregnant knowing the man involved does not want, and doesn't want to support, a child. Kind of harsh to make a man spend the next 18 years supporting a child if he truly never expected there to be one.

But then as I tell my 15 yo, if you really, really don't want a child -- don't have sex! But if you DO have sex, wear a condom and know that no matter how careful you are, accidents happen! Both of my nieces were OOPS babies -- though their parents were married and wanted them, their arrivals were unexpected to say the least.

Robin

[manni28]

It is wrong for a woman to be deceptive, but paternity tests can assure a man if he is the father and has to pay child support.

\

I have a problem with this. A woman deceives a man and he MUST pay child support and college education until the child is on his/her own? I think we can agree to disagree

[MkMw]

This actually made the news today.

And, actually, lots of men are, without court intervention uninvolved in anyway including financially in their children's lives. I know MANY women who intentionally don't go after child support because they no longer have a relationship with the father and don't want him in THEIR lives, and involvement with the child they would be there.


Now, if a woman who chooses this route, is capable of provide adequate safe, housing, food, education (wether on her own, or with assistance from her family)- and the man is happy not seeing his child. Then as parents it is their choice to make. However, if the woman is NOT able to provide the same withouth government assistance, then I have a problem. This is supposed to be about the child and it's welfare - not hers (the mother) not his (the father), our welfare system is stretched to the limits as it is, having fathers who could help just "cop out" because they feel like it will only make it worse.

And, how would he ever PROVE that she wasn't on the pill? Checking her medical records? Big deal, you want a baby, buy the pills, don't take 'em.
As far as decieving people - people (women) will go to great lengths to so - I have a friend who years ago wanted to get pregnant, her BF knew it and set his watch alarm each night so he could watch her take her BC pill (yeah, loads of trust in that relationship). She managed somehow to not take it a couple of times and sure enough (she later told me she did it on purpose, then clapped her hand over her mouth and said - don't tell anyone - I assured we all knew right from the beginning, but baby was on the way no point in discussing). She had support of her family, and bioDad has never seen, spoken to, or supported his now adult son. She was on gov't assistance for a little while - and knows my views (see above) because I told her she had to demand child support for B if she couldn't support him herself.

I guess similarly to what someone said, and, in many ways in our "enlightened" society even with access to B/C and paternity testing what my mother told me when I started dating (at 14) is still true...... "paternity is a matter of opinion, maternity is a matter of fact".

[ddhuab]

Actually, the part of my excerpt you quoted was in reference to your point about men paying child support for a child that was not theirs...

But, yes, we can agree to disagree.

D.

[MkMw]

oh, I don't think men should have to pay child support for a child that is not theirs - unless they want to.

Paternity testing serves 2 purposes IMHO - 1) to determine paternity and provide child support for a child that is that mans, and 2) to provide a man the opportunity to prove a child is not his.

AND I think that if the man says it's not is and it is - he should have to pay for the test. And, if a woman says it's his and it is not, then she should.

[mimc]

Originally Posted by MkMw

oh, I don't think men should have to pay child support for a child that is not theirs - unless they want to.

Paternity testing serves 2 purposes IMHO - 1) to determine paternity and provide child support for a child that is that mans, and 2) to provide a man the opportunity to prove a child is not his.

AND I think that if the man says it's not is and it is - he should have to pay for the test. And, if a woman says it's his and it is not, then she should.

If a man is married to a woman at the time the child is born, REGARDLESS of who the bio father is, most states consider him to be the LEGAL father of the child, and therefore legally responsible for child support. I've also read of cases where a man initially believed he WAS the father and paid child support only to later find out the child wasn't his... but because he'd previously held the child out to be his, the judge required that he continue to pay child support. Crazy, huh?

So I don't think paternity testing is the fix-all that we'd like it to be.

[mimc]

Originally Posted by ddhuab

I just don't see how it would work, at least not until the baby was born and paternity could be established. Yes, a woman has a right to have an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. There is no doubt that she is the mother of the child. That choice is irreversable.

With men, you would have to wait until the child was born (or at least, very late in the pregnancy, I think) to establish paternity. So at that point, the mother's choices, too, are limited.

Question: If such a law passed, would young men under 18 be allowed to sign away their rights and responsibilities? This seems very dangerous to me.

Do you think if such a law passed it would decrease the amount of teen and/or unmarried births? Do you thinks teens would avoid unprotected sex if such a law were established?

D.

I think if you allowed men to terminate their parental rights even if the mother kept hers, the man would have to wait until the child is born to do so. It would put a woman in an interesting position then - she would have to decide whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term not knowing if she would be able to get child support from her former partner.

As for men under 18, they are allowed to sign away their rights and responsibilities NOW aren't they, if the baby is being placed for adoption?

I don't know that such a change in law would affect teen births/pregnancies all that much. Most teens aren't really thinking about the consequences of unprotected sex when they have it, kwim?

[mimc]

Originally Posted by MkMw

This actually made the news today.

And, actually, lots of men are, without court intervention uninvolved in anyway including financially in their children's lives. I know MANY women who intentionally don't go after child support because they no longer have a relationship with the father and don't want him in THEIR lives, and involvement with the child they would be there.

Now, if a woman who chooses this route, is capable of provide adequate safe, housing, food, education (wether on her own, or with assistance from her family)- and the man is happy not seeing his child. Then as parents it is their choice to make. However, if the woman is NOT able to provide the same withouth government assistance, then I have a problem. This is supposed to be about the child and it's welfare - not hers (the mother) not his (the father), our welfare system is stretched to the limits as it is, having fathers who could help just "cop out" because they feel like it will only make it worse.

If you, as adoptive parents, fall on hard times, the court can't go back and demand that the birth parents pay child support to you. Their rights were terminated. Period. If you were going to allow men to legally terminate their parental rights when the mother keeps hers, then it wouldn't be something that you could just undo if the mother loses her job or what have you.

There are also plenty of cases where the mother is not on government assistance and may not even be hurting financially, but because the father makes a good living, she sues for more child support. You see this a lot with musicians, atheletes, etc. who come into a lot of money. Suddenly the mother of his child is back in court insisting that she deserves $10,000 a month in child support.

[manni28]

If a man is married to a woman at the time the child is born, REGARDLESS of who the bio father is, most states consider him to be the LEGAL father of the child, and therefore legally responsible for child support. I've also read of cases where a man initially believed he WAS the father and paid child support only to later find out the child wasn't his... but because he'd previously held the child out to be his, the judge required that he continue to pay child support. Crazy, huh?

Crazy indeed! I'm a woman but I think they do need to change the above mention law and consider what constitutes parental responsibility if it could be shown that deceit was involved.

[ginadc]

Redribbonrose, I heart you.

I am totally opposed to this for two reasons. First and foremost--as Crina said so well and succinctly, it's all about the best interests of the child, not about what's "fair" to either of the two grownups involved. The adults can care for themselves, the child cannot. I don't care who lied to whom, once there is a baby involved, their needs trump punishing someone for lying about using birth control (or whatever the situation).

Second, I get my hackles up when I hear that it's "just not fair" that women can choose abortion and men have no say, or be deceitful about pregnancy/birth control, but men have no such options.

No, it's not "fair." But as my dad used to say, "Life's not fair." It's also not "fair" that women carry the entire physical burden of pregnancy and labor, but that's the way it is. Biology dictates that pregnancy affects the woman's body and the woman's body alone, and as long as that is the case, then she will have "unfair" decision-making rights that go along with the additional physical burden she bears. (Yes, pregnancy is a joy as well as a burden, but let's face it, it isn't a cakewalk.)

So the "it's unfair" violins really don't carry any weight with me.

[numbr1dbcksfan]

Well first of all the deception thing doesnt hold up. It is heresay... all a person would have to do -- on EITHER side is to say he or she said... How many times do you see stories where the MAN wants a child and "says" he is sterile? It goes both ways.

If he does not WANT to create a child, the bottom line is that he SHOULDNT. If he did.. well then something else was more important than that lack of want.

Men dont have an option in abortion, because as someone said, there is no way to prove who's child it is... the only absolute is that it IS the mother's.

In adoption... both parents have a say, and yes, she would have to pay support.... so that is just not even a part of it.

So finally there is parenting. If she chooses to parent... he CAN choose to not parent.. but it doesnt change the fact that he is STILL responsible for his child. Whether she said she was on the pill or not is really inconsequential -- the pregnancy did NOT result from immaculate conception. There WAS a deposit of genetic material... so he must not have been too stoic in his lack of interest in a child. At the very least he could pull out... or deposit it elsewhere... (LOL)

This whole thing is just silly. Women do not just go around producing children without fathers.

[Bassette]

I think removing a father's responsibilty to provide support is punishing the child. That is just another injustice with an innocent victim.

In domestic adoption doesn't the biological father have to sign for a child to be adopted? I was also under the impression that a biological father could choose to parent if the biological mother wanted to place the child with an adoptive family. I'm confused as to why that is part of his argument. I would appreciate it much if someone would clarify that issue. Thanks.

[numbr1dbcksfan]

OH -- forgot about the marriage thing.

First of all... State's right. (salute!)

If a man and a woman are married.. they vow.. better or worse, richer poorer.. blah blah blah. So with that comes the assumption that he is the father. Agree or Dont either way is ok. IMO it SHOULD be assumes and the burden of proof should be on the actual father to bring suit... only because the court should assume that whatever happens within a marriage is between the hubby and wife... and if the hubby doesnt ask for a DNA test, then neither should the court.

In that event... if the marriage falls apart later... and the child is older.. HE SHOULD be responsible because her accepted for better or worse and did not ask for that test.

MHO - DNA tests should not be mandatory. BUT should be an offering on the paperwork and be included in the insurance package if asked for.