An excerpt from Amy Alkon’s piece at PJMedia:
Jennifer Spenner for the Saginaw News and Kathy Barks Hoffman for the AP wrote about a Michigan man who recently challenged being forced to pay child support for his girlfriend’s baby  despite what he alleges were her assurances that she couldn’t get pregnant because of a medical condition, and her knowledge that he didn’t want a child.
He made the point to the court that if a woman can choose whether to abort, adopt out, or raise the child, a man should have the same right, and argued that Michigan’s paternity law violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Matt Dubay lost the case, which he previously acknowledged was a long shot  but should it have been?As I wrote in my syndicated advice column, in no other arena is a swindler rewarded with a court-ordered monthly cash settlement paid to them by the person they bilked. In an especially sick miscarriage of justice, even a man who says he was sexually victimized by an older woman from the time he was 14, has been forced to pay support for the child that resulted from underage sex with her.
While the law allows women to turn casual sex into cash flow sex, Penelope Leach, in her book Children First , poses an essential question: “Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so?â€Â
(h/t Glenn Reynolds)
Also, Sister Toldjah has lots more thoughts about the teenager driven to hang herself by a “friend” and her “friend’s” mother, who used MySpace to humiliate her.
I am not very sympathetic to this individual suing for “wrongful paternity”.
The premise of this situation is that one should be able to have sex without consequence. In my view (in light of my belief that the child in question is an innocent in need of both love and support without regard to the circumstance of her birth) Having children is the inevitable possibility of sex and grownups need to recognize that.
Sex is risky behavior. Within a marriage, you can get an unexpected “surprise”. Outside of marriage, the risks and costs go up. That hottie may be what she appears – a babe who is looking to have a little fun, or a nutcase looking to snag a man. It’s like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. You can do it, but don’t bitch about the tubes up your nose if you gamble and lose.
This suicide story has been big news around St. Louis (of which St. Charles is an exurb). There’s a wave of revulsion that’s palpable here. To think that a parent would even permit something like this to go on, much less particpate and instigate it boggles the mind. While I tend to agree that criminal charges are not warranted, the feeling that the moral cretins that spurred on this vile enterprise need to be shunned, shamed and ridden out of town on a rail. Not every sanction society has goes through official government channels, nor should it. Ostracizing those who think this sort of visciousness is acceptable is a step in the right direction toward a more civil society.
“Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so?â€Â
Here’s an even shakier moral quagmire to cross: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158783,00.html
Jeffersonian, I read that one and it’s incredibly repulsive. While they might not be able to file criminal charges the lawyer for Ron Goldman in the OJ case or the lawyer that tagged the Westboro church have shown that civil charges might work just fine.
Although I have no doubt that there are plenty of instances in which individual women have employed deceit in order to get with child, I think that, on the whole, the picture painted in this article is more than a little slanted toward a male perspective. The reality is, men in general will do or say just about anything to get laid. The typical guy who receives unwanted news on the fatherhood front did not inform his partner that he didn’t want to be a father, and that, if she became preggers she was on her own (which tends to be a bit of a mood killer), but rather, is more likely, on the evening of conception, to have told the young lady in question how “special” she was, and, to have done so without a single thought as to the consequences.
Conservatives and libertarians have rightly opposed feminist campaigns to absolve women from individual accountability for their actions – as in various attempts to push for absurdly expanded definitions of rape. But individual accountability works both ways; there’s simply no right to consequence-free recreational sex – no matter what representations are made by either party prior to conception. So, if the unstable girl you’ve been banging when you’re in the mood has just informed you that she’s going to be a mommy, it’s probably time to ask yourself how your actions contributed to the situation – rather than playing the victim.
I’m even thinking that money isn’t the right answer, Rob. Sue them, win and they (or their insurance company) pay you a bundle and they think, “okay, we’re even.” Of course, you’re not even. Twelve people you don’t know and don’t care about told you to do it, and it’s over once the trial is over and the money paid. Compare that to scores of people you know, people you’ve gone to ballgames with, people you’ve had over to your place for dinner thinking you’re scum not worth saying hello to. That’s a verdict that lasts as long as the harm you’ve done.
It still really really bothers me that the press is witholding the identity of this vile person. It is hard to ostracize someone when they are being shielded by the press.
The problem here is with the “sweet mystery of life†clause of the Constitution, ahem, Casey v. Planned Parenthood iteration of Roe.
Very clearly, there is a bifurcated notion of “reproductive rights†and “reproductive choice†for men and women. While ostensibly one could read Casey to say that men and women deserve the right to make the choice as to whether and when to become a parent even after conception, only a case brought by a woman under color of abortion or contraception will receive review under the Roe and Casey doctrines. Men are on the hook because support and paternity are traditionally state issues, and the procedural labyrinth to test Casey’s airy-fairy language is an impossible task.
Let us recall – even men who have learned after the fact that they were not the biological fathers of their wives’ children have been forced to pay support under the commonlaw doctrine that presumes the paternity of the husband of a woman who gives birth. (a doctrine developed when the best available paternity test was “gee, well he looks like youâ€Â) I cannot find a single instance of Appellate review of such an order terminating support obligations.
There are better examples of forced fatherhood, but I do not have the cites handy. There was one gentleman that was ordered to pay child support for someone else’s child, even after paternity testing proved it was not his.
That the system is tilted against the father is a given.
“That the system is tilted against the father is a given.”
Or, in some cases, the nearest walking male with a pocket to be raided.
No, there are no inequities visited by the feminazis . . . none at all . . .
Jeffersonian, that attitude about civil litigation has always puzzled me. A lawful, public parting of a named bad actor, from his/her fortune and reputation, publicly rebuked by society, seems an appropriate remedy for this kind of tort. Their deed will always be a matter of public record. Society has formally found them to blame – and in the instant case, would probably assess punitive damages because the conduct was so shocks the conscience. To say it would make it “about money” diminishes the purpose of the civil courts. It’s also about keeping the peace and a standard of civil behaviour.
I bet though if we pan the Springer audience we’ll see people are mostly sympathetic to the guy.
“Sex is risky behavior.”
So is buying a used car. But if a used car salesmen fucks me over, I don’t have to pay him even more money.
Although I have no doubt that there are plenty of instances in which individual women have employed deceit in order to get with child, I think that, on the whole, the picture painted in this article is more than a little slanted toward a male perspective.
Well then, let’s limit ourselves to discussing those instances in which individual women have employed deceit in order to get with child, because the fact that you guys are pigs (I keed! I keed!) doesn’t mean that I’m one, and I’m not terribly happy accepting that I have to suffer for the sins of others in my identity group.
A common argument around here is that we’re responsible for our own actions, and that membership in a particular demographic group of secondary consideration. So, in those cases (however small a proportion you believe them to be) where the man was specifically deceived about the infertility of his partner, should he have any rights at all? As the article stated: name me another scam where the con artist gets to take her mark’s money under threat of State-sanctioned violence? Does fraud relieve a man of “contractual responsiblity,” or is it simply okay that he’s forced into servitude just because he stuck his prick in the wrong place?
And though I hesitate to mention it — at what point is it easier to just kill the con artist? Do we really want to set up a system in which guys are tempted to make it look like an accident, or just got carried away in a heated argument? What’s a manslaughter conviction compared to forced paternity?
Not really Squid. Mostly this is probably a class issue for real. If the guy really didn’t want kids he could have gotten that taken care of, but he didn’t, and now he’s left a white trashy legal record for his kid to find later. It’s just all so tacky.
The issue in the Dubay case is really the unequal treatment. I think this guy is a self-serving litigious scumball (he really ought to go to law school), but the point is well-taken. Why the disparity? What makes it OK for them?
The answer is feminism, and all the horrors that has visited upon society. Stupid Victorians, trusting women with their own chastity! We see what they’ve done with it: rampant promiscuity, out-of wedlock births, millions of cases of infanticide, and somehow, it’s all not just excusable, but actually a good thing! Except when they try to blame it on men (even though slutting it up is feminism’s ultimate expression of sticking it to the patriarchy).
And that’s just us married guys!
Yep. Pretty sure there’s a washcloth around here that would agree too.
Well, there are those little pregnancy and childbearing details. Never tried it myself but it sounds inconvenient and painful. I think I’d demand serious drugs.
Okay, don’t mean to make light of this, there certainly are inequalities involved. Still, if the bottom line is the welfare of the child, I can see where any court would be reluctant to let the biological father off the hook just because he didn’t want to be a daddy. You play the game, you take your chances.
I mean, take my own dad. He always maintained that I looked a lot like the mailman, but he still did all those fatherly things, even taught me to swim. Hardest part was getting out of the sack..
“The reality is, men in general will do or say just about anything to get laid”
Though I have used it, “I want to give you a baby” isn’t the most common pick-up line.
What it is is that except for some places in the south know one really knows what it means to have grace anymore. You have to realize that life fundamentally sucks, and that that’s perfectly normal. I blame tv really.
no one is what that should say
So is buying a used car. But if a used car salesmen fucks me over, I don’t have to pay him even more money.
If you buy it as is, you get to keep making payments even if the stupid thing throws a rod. This sort of thing falls on the fringe of caveat emptor. I hate to be the guy at the toga party taking away car keys, but the inescapable reality is that sex is how we get babies, and babies need diapers, and the sperm donor is going to be held responsible.
To be clear, the victims of statutory rape, or the man who demonstrates that the child is not his ought not be held accountable like the actual father, but the wise man does not rail against biology and society – he honors the gravity of the act and acts accordingly.
If a child were not an innocent party that was created, through no choice of their own then you would be right. But to compare this to a scam or a lemon car is not really addressing the issue. The child is the one who needs the support, not the mother. That is why this is a tricky situation. If you somehow could take the child support out of the mother’s (or scam artist’s) hands it would still be needed for the child. So, while I agree the mother perhaps unfairly gets to decide whether the child makes it to birth, once born there is a legitmate need for the support. Maybe we should try to limit what the child support can be used for – but I think that is the best we could do.
You fuck it, you bought it? Feminism’s so liberating.
Yeah, but only so long as he is tearing some fat chick’s cloths off. Funny how that always happens on the Springer show.
No, you pay that to the mechanic.
I believe the common name for that scam is “government”.
Okay, sorry, I’m in a particularly squirrelly mood today. ‘feet is right though, if the guy really didn’t want to have kids he could have taken care of that. Problem is, there is no surefire birth control. “I’m on the pill”, “I had a vasectomy”, “I’ve got a rubber”, they’re all famous last words. Accidents happen, else half of us wouldn’t be here.
Susan; you make a good point, except for the fact that the system makes one side out to be the reasonable, responsible party, and the other to be no-good, irresponsible, wastrel idiots who have little or no rights in the situation at all. I’ll leave it up to you to determine which gender is which…
I know personally many men who, while they are the responsible ones, have little to no contact with their children, and still pay their full share (and then some) of child support to their ex’s, only to see the personal shopping spree results, when the ex’s come around with brand new clothes and shoes, suspiciously close to child support time. In the meantime, on the few weekends that they do get to spend time with their children, they have to spend most of their time and money buying the necssities that their children seem not to have, even though their mothers seem to have plenty for themselves.
In a criminal court this would be called comingling of funds, and it would be an idictable offense.
Absolutely. And call me selfish, but I’d rather the didntwannabeadaddy paid that support than the rest of us poor schmucks who didn’t even get the fleeting pleasure of siring the brat. An unwanted pregnancy pretty much sux no matter who doesn’t want it. That the mother wants it and the father doesn’t, or vice versa, makes it even more difficult, but when we ask the courts to make the decision in such situations I think it’s a good thing that they come down on the side of the child, who’s the only one who really didn’t have any control or get any say in the matter.
Actually, I think that’s been the policy pretty much all along. In the good old days it used to be enforced with a shotgun by the prospective father-in-law and there was no need for an actual pregnancy. Or even any actual fucking if daddy’s little girl could tell a convincing story. Methinks we should count our blessings (such as they are).
Haven’t made a child support payment in years, never see their kids, and don’t even send a Christmas present. Some people are just bastards and their sex doesn’t seem to matter.
“Jennifer Spenner for the Saginaw News and Kathy Barks Hoffman for the AP wrote about a Michigan man who recently challenged being forced to pay child support for his girlfriend’s baby  despite what he alleges were her assurances that she couldn’t get pregnant because of a medical condition, and her knowledge that he didn’t want a child.”
Hrm. It doesn’t say whether he alleges that she was lying about her medical condition.
“Very clearly, there is a bifurcated notion of “reproductive rights†and “reproductive choice†for men and women.”
As far as Casey is concerned, its about controlling your body. So if your reproductive contribution takes about 47 seconds of your body, thats the extent of your control. If it takes 9 months, then you get a bit more. As unfair as mother nature made it.
“So is buying a used car. But if a used car salesmen fucks me over, I don’t have to pay him even more money.”
So just sell the kid out of a strip mall parking lot.
“And though I hesitate to mention it  at what point is it easier to just kill the con artist? Do we really want to set up a system in which guys are tempted to make it look like an accident, or just got carried away in a heated argument?”
Womens better watch they don’t get too uppity. Ask for too much, they get smacked around.
“If a child were not an innocent party that was created, through no choice of their own then you would be right. But to compare this to a scam or a lemon car is not really addressing the issue. The child is the one who needs the support, not the mother. That is why this is a tricky situation. If you somehow could take the child support out of the mother’s (or scam artist’s) hands it would still be needed for the child.”
Fine. In this case the mother intentionally lied to get pregnant, so she could force the father to support HER and the child. Do you really think she is going to have the child’s best interest in mind? You think this woman is going to be a good mother? You think the father has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting custody himself? Caveat Emptor be damned, she lied to the dude with the intention to extort an income. And the government is perfectly willing to play the goon.
“So just sell the kid out of a strip mall parking lot.”
Because that are the only two choices, give the mother custody and force the father to support them both, or sell the child in a parking lot. You really are a fucking disingenuous little simpleton, aren’t you?
“You really are a fucking disingenuous little simpleton, aren’t you?”
Hey i’m not the one comparing the kid to a used car. Tsk tsk. What would jesus say?
I have several friends I went to college with who don’t want kids or a wife. They manage to stay in long term relationships but have no intention of marrying the girl. And the girls know this. However, without exception, they have all ended thus: Him “I don’t want kids or a wife” her “that’s fine by me. Let’s move in together” him “Effin’ sweet” (time moves forward 2 – 5 years) her “When are you going to be ready to commit?” him “What?” her “I want a ring. I want babies” him “What?” her “You have a choice to make: marry me or lose me” him “I sure am going to miss you” her “YOU BASTARD!”, and the beat goes on. I think our society has created a generation of men who want their money and their pooty and see no reason to settle down. I don’t think this attitude is beneficial to our society in any way. In fact, just the opposite.
Me, I have 4 kids (she can’t keep her hands off of me)and they all look just like me.
You’re welcome.
I suspect, were he not such a caring, understanding, benevolent man, that Jesus would think you are a disingenuous little simpleton as well. But, he is too nice to say such a thing. Thankfully, most of us fail to live up to those honorable standards.
“What would jesus say?”
He was comparing the mother to a used car salesman, you blithering idiot. Go outside and play with the other kids and quit bothering the grownups before I remind your Mother about the sparing the rod bit.
“He was comparing the mother to a used car salesman, you blithering idiot”
Hey, compare her to ken lay for all i care. But the comparison only goes so far once you realize we’re not dealing with cars or 401K’s, but a life.
God bless that child.
andy – Where is your concern for that child when the father wishes to raise it, and the mother wishes to abort it?
“God bless that child.”
You concern would be touching if you would show just a shred of honesty. How about addressing my concern for the child expressed in 29, rather than playing with an analogy like a retard with a hair braid.
And though I hesitate to mention it  at what point is it easier to just kill the con artist?
Uh, the most common cause of death for a pregnant woman is homicide. So we’ve already reached and passed that point.
Maybe if you can show that the mother deceived the father and that she’s a lying skank, the court can order that the child be given up for adoption  in the best interests of the child, of course. There are thousands of couples willing to adopt a healthy infant.
Andy is a lost cause.
“andy – Where is your concern for that child when the father wishes to raise it, and the mother wishes to abort it?”
As Casey says, that ends where the concern for how someone runs their own body takes over.
That’s interesting because bad state policy called it into being. Kindly allow me to explain.
This topic in general usually devolves into wildly subjective explorations of sexism, the inequality of the pains of birth, just-put-your-dick-away-you-male-cretin-ism, and the inevitable cost-to-society bullshit.
Oh, those plus the make-him-pay instinct from otherwise conservative minds. This one really gets me.
The problem is not adequately defining how to assign responsibility, and from there, that we’re precisely lowering the social responsibility for women by proportionally raising it for fathers. Then we get into positive social feedback when the system starts into runaway mode, the kind of which directly refashions society. And not in favor of the responsible.
Read: “Responsibility” as the child support regime and its advocates — at least half of whom I’d guess are self-styled conservatives — define it precisely and inevitably destroys responsibility, and it does so more for men than women.
To wit: this case.
Let’s take the basics first: This gal committed a moral fraud so as to have a child. She was aware of the fiscal value of the kid, that value extending for at least eighteen years. (That the child ultimately may cost more than the support income is irrelevant because she clearly made the decision that that support income would comfortably supplement her existing income enough to tip her toward motherhood. She factored it, added it to her existing income, and made the decision to bilk this idiot out of that very substantial sum, which with appreciation under inflationary adjustments, amounts to some quarter-million dollars over those eighteen years.)
This then is the case of an otherwise far less financially viable situation that at some point should have slipped well below the threshold for desirability for many women, if not this gal herself, should that “child support” incentive be removed.
Let’s turn next to the State. Title IV-D was created largely by unthinking conservatives under Clinton as a reform measure for welfares unacceptably high expenditures. It makes sense of a sort: Make these dads pay and you decrease welfare costs.
But, just as welfare inculcates and guarantees poverty, as government schooling cannot educate, and as insecure as Social Security was always destined to become, “child support” is anything but child support when perpetuated by a federal program. Especially when that program encourages single parenting to the degree it now clearly does.
Rather, the overall child support system is now reputed to be one hundred billion dollar industry comprising perhaps hundreds of thousands of professional dependents. The overarching DHHS that incorporates Title IV-D is itself known and documented to be a $700,000,000,000,000 entity (do I have that decimal right, it’s $700,000 million dollars.)
That’s a hundred billion dollars in costs to society, not revenue, because a great portion of those costs are federalized into kickbacks to the states to, in effect, foment single parenting such as this case’s. Those matching funds under Title IV-D have constituted as much as $0.66 for every child support dollar collected in the entire country.
We call it child support but it is decidedly not supporting children — not at even a grand a month paid without any accountability whatsoever to any child-bearing female as her tidy, untaxed windfall for having a kid. By her sole decision, as it turns out many times.)
So. “Child support” absolutely does not support children in any reliable way. Child support does indeed perpetuate a culture of irresponsibility where dropping kids comes with the now-common wisdom that you’ll never have to worry about at least (1) seven or eight hundred bucks a month a kid if dad makes in the median income range plus (2) whatever WIC, welfare, or other assistance you can configure for yourself.
Three kids plus dole equals no need whatsoever to have a man around the house. Gender feminists especially love that fish/bicycle part.
There you have it: What looks like a conservative bright idea is actually lobbied with a vengeance 24/7 by gender feminists and trial lawyers to maintain that hundred billion dollar industry that’s once-unintended consequence is now a Very Big Business making as many single moms as humanly possible.
God bless that child? Maybe you’re onto something there: Society just shit on it.
For those of you looking for a way out, it’s relatively simple (which is why the opposing feminist/lawyer lobby oppose it like rabid dogs): A simple presumption that every child born has the right to be equally-parented. From there, if support legislation follows even a degree of that fairness, the financial incentive goes away and so do probably millions of kids whelped for all the wrong reasons.
Sound hard? You’re free to compose another take on it, but you cannot change the underlying terms, conditions, and incentives. To say this wreck of a policy is changing the very face of society is surely not putting too fine a point on it.
“Fine. In this case the mother intentionally lied to get pregnant, so she could force the father to support HER and the child. Do you really think she is going to have the child’s best interest in mind? You think this woman is going to be a good mother? ”
I agree with you BMoe, she will probably be a bad mom if she did lie to extort money. But the facts are that dad doesn’t seem to be a great guy either. And kids cost money. Don’t kid yourself – the custodial parent (in most cases) is going to pay a great deal more, in money, in time, etc. I don’t think any chick sleeps with a regular joe and to get pregnant so she can be on easy street. It isn’t worth the effor for $400 a month. Now if it were Puff Daddy (or whatever his name is now) I could see it how it is worth it.
Oh, shorter JHoward: The big “cost to society” of single parenting, aside from the vast social remolding, is not letting dad “off the child support hook”. It’s putting him on the hook.
We instinctively insist drive-by dads pay. And in so doing, actually cost ourselves more.
“Very clearly, there is a bifurcated notion of “reproductive rights†and “reproductive choice†for men and women.â€Â
“As far as Casey is concerned, its about controlling your body. So if your reproductive contribution takes about 47 seconds of your body, thats the extent of your control. If it takes 9 months, then you get a bit more. As unfair as mother nature made it.”
Um, no. Read the opinion before you post, douchenozzle. Marcotte is not a source of reliable Constitutional commentary.
And if you want to live by the dictates of nature, so be it, but feminists would pretty well be put out of business, no?
If kids cost money, susan, then why have them? Why reward fraud? Especially when the honest pay for it through taxes?
Kids are expensive-ass little monkeys. Wtf?
I think we pay for fraud through taxes too.
This particular case just is not the one that pushes my buttons about the men getting the shaft in the family law system. If this guy did not want children, he should have slipped a jimmy coat over his willy, or left a wet spot on the pillow.
Oh. The english part in the words was wrong. I think I meant more like…
I think we already pay plenty for fraud through taxes.
How do you feel about how we’re dramatically changing social makeup thorough the federal government inducing unnatural selection, happyfeet?
He could have wet the washcloth to his heart’s content. He could have dropped his load on her back, or stomach. That he had sex in such a way as to potentially get somebody pregnant, and then gets somebody pregnant, does not seem all that wise to me. That does not mean she was not a manipulative, lying little twat, but at the same time, he cannot absolve himself of his responsibilities. Collectively, they are unfit to raise a child, and this child would likely be better served if it was raised by a pack of drunk and uneducated armadillos that put meth on their cornflakes for breakfast, have their afternoon Thai stick, and dabble in the white lady so they can make it through the night.
Why have kids? I don’t know, people seem to like them. I don’t think that to the vast majority of women out there they are a “meal ticket” People want to have kids for a ton of reasons. Is the child support system broken? Yes. Does it reward fraud? Maybe in this case – I don’t think we know for sure – maybe she really thought she was sterile – Drs are wrong sometimes. Unwanted kids are not usually the result of fraud. And – If you really really don’t want the kid, don’t give out the sperm.
If your point is that he’s personally responsible, JD, you’re right. But if this case has to do with plugging him into the involuntary system that wrecks stuff (“against a verbal contract” or whatever you want to insert here) you’re mistaken.
He’s responsible for the child. He’s not responsible to the State.
So susan, do you have a “right” to have kids without restraint? I mean, we all like them, right? I actually love mine…
What other non-criminal rights do we have as private citizens? The right to be free from poverty? The right to be free from pain? Free medicine? Guaranteed jobs? Freedom from social pressure like racism, hate speech, sexism, etc.?
Where would we draw the line as we considered making others pay for our children? Just curious.
JHoward,
See but here is the problem. Against a verbal contract to not have a kid? Fine, but there is a kid now. That kid is a person who needs support regarless of what its mother did.
JHoward – I speak only of the individual’s responsibility. He has a responsibility to that child. He may have thought he had the greatest gal on the planet. They could fuck like ice weasels and never have to wear a raincoat and never have to worry about any little rug rats running around. Turns out she lied, or was misinformed. Either way, he chose to spit his goo without regard for the potential consequences.
“Broken system”
Seems to me if its mother had the kid as a means of picking the guy’s wallet, love ain’t something she’s brimming over with. The best interest of the child might be served by putting it up for adoption.
Shouldn’t be quotes around Broken system
1) There are cases where boys were literally raped by older women, and then forced to pay child support for the resulting child.
Is this just?
2) There is at least one documented case where a woman preserved the results of oral sex, and later used them to impregnate herself. The man was later forced to pay child support.
Is this just?
3) There are millions of cases of men being forced to support the offspring of their wife’s adultry.
Is this just?
4) Men have reproductive responsibilities with no rights, women have reproductive rights with no responsibilities.
Is this just?
I really don’t see how this has anything to do with freedom from povery, or pain or social pressure. I say you live with the consequenses of your decisions. No one should pay for you. So should this man pay for his child? yes. Should other fathers pay for their children? yes. If the child support system is not working – fix it. The freedom to have consequence free sex is not a right either.
“I don’t think that to the vast majority of women out there they are a “meal ticket—
Perhaps not, but when and if a woman answers her biological imperative – as is now the fashion without first committing, getting married, buying the house, and so forth – she may need a walking wallet (any will do) to fund her quasi-single mommyhood.
It worked for my sister in law.
“In this case the mother intentionally lied to get pregnant,”
I went to the website of the dudes filing the lawsuit, and nothing there claims that she lied. She assured him of a medical condition, but nothing says it was an intentional lie.
“Read the opinion before you post, douchenozzle. ”
Here you go:
“And if you want to live by the dictates of nature, so be it, but feminists would pretty well be put out of business, no?”
Not at all. Feminists I’m sure agree with lots of protections for those that nature has deemed worthy of, or cursed with, pregnancy.
“Seems to me if its mother had the kid as a means of picking the guy’s wallet, love ain’t something she’s brimming over with. The best interest of the child might be served by putting it up for adoption”
Fine with me. They both sound like assholes.
Gahrie,
You had me until number 4.
Women have no responsibilities? Are you freaking kidding? You know I could give you a million counterexamples of deadbeat dads with no responsibility for their kids. There are a lot of people in this world who arent good.
Sure there are bizarre cases out there. The courts should use common sense. In this case? He should pay.
JHoward – I get your point, but I’m torn. I think it’s cool that people from traditional families have a competitive advantage.
Also, why is there no mention of good faith in this thread – I think it makes all the difference in terms of assigning just outcomes.
In the case of a good faith accident, or failure of birth control, surely the father must bear the financial costs of providing for the child.
In the case of a woman who acts in bad faith and deliberately becomes pregnant while representing to her partner that she has no intention of having a child – I cannot say it is just in the culture in which we live to force that situation upon a man.
susan, you keep calling for “support”. How? By what logic? By what justification? To what end? By what enforceable gain for the actual child? In the face of what responsibility standard not to have kids that require “support” in the current sense of that word?
How will support include equal parenting rights? How will the true support, that of emotional and spiritual import to the child, be allocated and guaranteed? How will support include actual co-equal benefit across all available domains to the child?
You need to stop defining “support” in the present context as supportive. It is certainly not. In fact, it is precisely the opposite of supporting in the full analysis. “Child support, as a federal program, creates poverty, dysfunction, misery, failure.
Reconcile those disparities, please.
“Unwanted kids are not usually the result of fraud.”
“I went to the website of the dudes filing the lawsuit, and nothing there claims that she lied. She assured him of a medical condition, but nothing says it was an intentional lie.”
Is abstract thought completely impossible for some people?
I know you could not, for that is only a common myth (albeit a cornerstone of feminist propaganda aimed at keeping the status quo.) So-called and willful “dead-beat” dads have been shown to consist of a tiny percent of all support-paying dads. The rest, a far larger percentage but still in the very great statistical minority, simply cannot pay. They’re poverty cases, many of whom are sitting in jail not earning dime one of those precious “support” dollars.
Remember that not paying support almost immediately puts one in the state-coffer crosshairs. Do that long and go to jail.
“You need to stop defining “support†in the present context as supportive. It is certainly not. In fact, it is precisely the opposite of supporting in the full analysis. “Child support, as a federal program, creates poverty, dysfunction, misery, failure.”
Imagine how much richer its life would be if it had no resources!
Try and not be an idiot, andy. The child support system creates children with no chance. Which is why they need “support” and why they don’t get it, not as any normal person with ethics would define it, anyway, from government. You?
See, it’s called i-n-c-e-n-t-i-v-e.
Of course, I went through all that but you decided to ignore it.
Choice, andy. It’s the topic de jour. And you chose to be ignorant and then uppity about it. Given that chronic demeanor, ange, what are you good for, logic and reason eternally evading you?
Do you enjoy birthing America millions of kids into fatherlessness, andy? The fatherless constitute about ten times, on average, more social dysfunctionalities, including crime, dropping out, drug abuse, and teen pregnancy you know.
Are you projecting or something?
““Read the opinion before you post, douchenozzle. â€Â
Here you go:
The mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear. That these sacrifices have from the beginning of the human race been endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of others and gives to the infant a bond of love cannot alone be grounds for the State to insist she make the sacrifice. Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman’s role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.”
1) your cite is dicta
2) it does not support your silliness.
Try:
“Further, when the State restricts a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, it deprives a woman of the right to make her own decision about reproduction and family planning – critical life choices that this Court long has deemed central to the right to privacy. The decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy has no less an impact on a woman’s life than decisions about contraception or marriage. 410 U.S., [505 U.S. 833, 928] at 153. Because motherhood has a dramatic impact on a woman’s educational prospects, employment opportunities, and self-determination, restrictive abortion laws deprive her of basic control over her life. For these reasons, “the decision whether or not to beget or bear a child” lies at “the very heart of this cluster of constitutionally protected choices.” Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 685 (1977).
A State’s restrictions on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy also implicate constitutional guarantees of gender equality.
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. [505 U.S. 833, 852] ”
Its not simply about a woman’s body anymore, fuckwit. Abortion is a right because men never have to carry babies, so women are at a competitive disadvantage with men without abortion.
And so, turnabout not being fair play, a man can now be compelled to become a father by any woman with open knees – his own notions regarding the “mystery of human life” can be rolled up in a support order and shoved up his ass. Ever hear of “imputed income?” Guess not.
Obviously, the support I am referring to is monetary. By what justification? Common Law. To what end? To allow the child to benefit from the money his father makes. By what enforceable gain for the child? I guess it would have to be in the child support agreement based on the ablilty of the father. Often, health insurance and tuition and such are provided for.
I didn’t choose the name of child support – I am merely using the word that Americans use for the payment that a father provides to his child.
How do we ensure that a child is supported? We NEVER can. Even if the child has 2 parents. That is not an issue with “child support”. We cannot be sure that true emotional or spiritual support will be provided or equal access to a child ever occurs. None of that changes the situation here. This child of his will cost money. He needs to pay some of that money.
How about this? If our current child support system creates all the things you say – what should be in its place? If a woman has a child, even when married, the dad can take off at any time. Should we just rely on the dads to do the right thing?
You know I could give you a million counterexamples of deadbeat dads with no responsibility for their kids.
I know you could not, for that is only a common myth (albeit a cornerstone of feminist propaganda aimed at keeping the status quo.) So-called and willful “dead-beat†dads have been shown to consist of a tiny percent of all support-paying dads. The rest, a far larger percentage but still in the very great statistical minority, simply cannot pay. They’re poverty cases, many of whom are sitting in jail not earning dime one of those precious “support†dollars.
Remember that not paying support almost immediately puts one in the state-coffer crosshairs. Do that long and go to jail.
Ok, so there aren’t that many deadbeat dads because the money is taken from their check directly. How many would not pay if not forced?
And yes, Bmoe, I am capable of abstract thought. Thanks for asking!!!
“If a woman has a child, even when married, the dad can take off at any time. Should we just rely on the dads to do the right thing?”
71 freekin’ posts, and this is what your grasp of the argument is? How about we put the child with a family that loves and wants it and make his biological father and mother BOTH pay child support, that would be my solution.
That’s interesting susan, but I asked those questions to see if you’d finally make a distinction between Child Support and supporting one’s children. The latter is a literal term for functional, ethical, responsible, private action; the former is its actual antithesis (as andy just blundered into, deaf and blind assumptions blazing away.)
Whether or not this will reform your thinking on statist Child Support Programs, the kind of which create children in need of support they’ll as likely as not never get — not in any way that real humans find just, loving, supportive, and honorable, that is — tomorrow morning at 8am local time and for evermore is the next question.
It is everything I say it is. The data is out there.
I just think it’s neat how people with traditional values end up also being the elite if you follow this system to its logical conclusion. That’s probably wrong of me, but I haven’t waded into this area very much.
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
“Its not simply about a woman’s body anymore, fuckwit. ”
There are lots of reasons to have abortion. These interests are at their peak when its about controlling one’s body, one’s reproductive decisions. As to the mystery of human life, men’s contribution is his 47 seconds doin the deed. Thank you sir. Enjoy your symptom.
“Ever hear of “imputed income?†Guess not.”
Certainly. Dirty nasty business what people try to get away with.
I have this friend who called the other night cause he had gotten intervened on for the substance abuse thing. Part of the deal is that his – you know – the girl he’s with – they’re engaged or whatever – she wants a baby. This stresses him out cause he’s done the father thing already and is about done with that really, sort of. Mostly just check-writing and checking on grades and going to their weddings is all that’s left. But the funny thing I pointed out to him was that she was part of the intervention and she still wants the baby. Like now. She wants the substance abuse guy to be her baby daddy. I asked him if he thought that was a bit odd.
He’s rich, you see.
I never said child support was the same as supporting a child. Or as important.
I never said that the current system is working.
I would be awesome if people didn’t have kids that they couldn’t support in the true sense. But we live in a world of idiots who don’t think past what they will have for lunch.
And, BMoe, I did say REPEATEDLY that the parents sound like assholes. And I said adoption sounds good to me. Read the thread. I was responding to JHoward who doesnt like our child support system.
Non sequitor. Again, (1) the Child Support System is a federal construct that creates by incentive unsupported children who then get to rely only on the remaining, skeletal elements of developmental life plus the entirely arbitrary financial terms of their single parents that data prove have issues with parenting (with the family).
Is. This. Case. A. Clue?
(2) Ethically, it’s not your business unless you are private charity and you have the parent’s invitation.
(3) Constitutionally it’s not the state’s business if and when the State has to violate dad’s rights up one side and down the other just to enact it.
(4) Cost-to-society is a damnable myth — the very OPPOSITE is true.
(5) Dads, contrary to the associated, “deadbeat dad” myth, love their kids. The soft sexism of this issue is that mom needs child support because dad is not there, doesn’t love the kids, ran off with his secretary, etc. The overwhelming reality, again supported by the freaking data, susan, is that dad is merely disenfranchised.
So, happyfeet, tell him to use a condom. She must be a golddigger. Or maybe she is stupid-in-love.
Or what is the thing about the wash cloth?
The problem is that until today, you probably never said Child Support wasn’t the same as supporting a child. Or that is was in the broader perspective, entirely counterproductive to children.
Gaging by your tone, tomorrow morning at 8am you’re not going to take anything away from this conversation except that dads need to pay. Period.
susan, do you know of any federal domestic social program that ever once eliminated or even largely mitigated the problem it was ostensibly created to? Or…do you know of one that reflects an actual enumerated constitutional right? While absolutely guaranteeing said rights for all the actors it unavoidably and involuntarily incorporates into that program? Under pain of imprisonment in a land where debtor prison is itself illegal?
One?
Oh – susan – he’s really rich, so it’s sort of not really like that exactly – everyone’s a golddigger when you’re that rich – but I was looking more specifically at her character with respect to how she is implicitly valuing the father’s role here. She really loves him I think, but I don’t think she has her head at all around the idea that her first priority should be making sure her baby’s dad is up to the task she’s proposing, if she loves the kid she wants. That’s how I think about it anyway.
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.â€Â
You know, that is a really fucking ironic little statement, right there.
Point is, it’s an exact parallel. “Resources” are seen, completely unconsciously I think, as being the sole determinant of whether or not to spawn. Not much reflection on the role of Dad apart from that. JHoward is right, is what this is to say.
happyfeet, yes exaclty, women get really caught up in the baby/marriage thing. And the rich is certainly the best criteria for fatherhood or marriage. neither is “but I really love him.”
And JHoward, I think you underestimate me. I am not some socialist who thinks the government solves problems. I think it creates them mostly. And I know that dads get screwed. I work with almost all men. It is sad that they get put in the position of “second parent” even if they don’t want to be. I do still think that a man is resonsible for his children, financially and otherwise. And I never argued with you about our current system being bad. I need you to tell me what is better, though.
“There are lots of reasons to have abortion. These interests are at their peak when its about controlling one’s body, one’s reproductive decisions. As to the mystery of human life, men’s contribution is his 47 seconds doin the deed. Thank you sir. Enjoy your symptom.”
Listen son, I’m going to say this once.
Casey expanded Roe. That was the point that I, and all of the adults here were getting on about.
If you had – READ THE OPINION – you would have understood that “equality of educational and occupational decisons” is not so equal under Casey in the circumstances being discussed.
“Because motherhood has a dramatic impact on a woman’s educational prospects, employment opportunities, and self-determination . . . [and] implicate constitutional guarantees of gender equality.”
Fatherhood, apparently, may be imposed, compelled and enforced with no regard for “gender equality.”
Now go back to fudging with Jeff Fecke.
Thanks for the conversations, gentlemen. I have never really commented here though you guys have been cracking me up for years.
I am gonna go have a beer. ta ta!
I already did, susan: A simple presumption of joint custody. It makes the child support lobby go white so you know it works. And what motivates them.
ttfn
Susan: Re comment #63
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. The woman has the absolute right to choose whether or not to assume the responsibilities of parenthood, while the man has no choice.
If she wants the child, but the father doesn’t, she can give birth and force him to support the child. If she doen’t want the child but he does, she can abort, and he has no right to interfer. She can choose to have the kid, and then put it up for adoption, and he doesn’t have a presumptive right to adopt said child.
“Fatherhood, apparently, may be imposed, compelled and enforced with no regard for “gender equality.”
And like I said: the fatherhood imposition was during mr lovebodys 47 trip to heaven.
“Fatherhood, apparently, may be imposed, compelled and enforced with no regard for “gender equality.”
And like I said: the fatherhood imposition was during mr loverman’s 47 trip to heaven.
JHoward
Marriage is nothing if not a contract by which any children born are protected. If the state is not allowed to enforce that contract … ie children are entitled to support of both parents until they reach majority, then why should we insist the state enforce ANY contract law?
MY contract with my (now ex) husband was to have kids and be a full time SAHM and corporate wife. After 16 years he decided that he enjoyed the bottle more than the family and after he beat me one night in a drunken rage I decided that was the contract breaker.
He later decided to punish me via the kids and first cut off all monies, cost me my home of 15 years, and when I finally got a child support order (where I had to listen to a judge admonish me in open court – admonishment required by law – that the alimony portion was only for a limited time as “rehabilitation” as if I had been eatting bonbons and been lazy cunt for 16 years) ex-hubby of the 90K/yr salary (1997) promptly quit his job.
Quit paying child support and go to jail? Don’t make me laugh.
I’m not saying there aren’t some “deadbeat moms”… more than likely in equal portions to “deadbeat dads”
Children even for MARRIED COUPLES are a financial burden, and when the couple splits and has to maintain two homes it impoverishes both. But regardless of it all, there is a child who is legally entitled to support from both and the state is there to enforce contract law.
The system needs rework…. just like Social Security, tort reform and border security. All broken to one degree or another, but it doesn’t mean that they aren’t under the province of the legislature.
gahrie
The woman has the absolute right to choose whether or not to assume the responsibilities of parenthood, while the man has no choice.
I did a vulva diary post on this subject when that assinine “Roe v Wade for Men” lawsuit was first raised.
Pre-gestation the male has all control over his sperm. Post-gestation
Does a married man who divorces his wife get to say “I don’t want to be a father” and just opt out of supporting his kids? No? The in unmarried cases you want to strip those children of the father’s support? Yes? Then you are willing to go back to the olden days and create a class of people called “bastards”? Legit kids get support and illegit kids get none?
Of course, I have a rather radical proposal
#5 J. Brenner
There are if you’re a woman. It’s called abortion. A matter of choice, as you may recall. The plaintiff here is simply seeking equality of choice.
Come on, Darleen, the State enforcing contracts protective of the genuine interests of children of parents it motivates to be single? Protecting the marriage contract in no-faultland where you already know nearly all single parenting is unilateral, designed/approved by the court as such, and thereby virtually completely unstoppable? Where some eight out of ten splits result in primary custodians and the meager rest in shared parenting?
Rubbish. You had me until just past “marriage is nothing.”
The State isn’t enforcing any such thing. At best it’s enforcing special-interest legislation aimed at nothing more than the notion that it can force society to act sane without any negative impact from such blind idealism. At best. At worst it’s running debtor prisons and what legally amount to pronouncement courts.
IOW, that its honoring marriage contracts is fantasy. There is no marriage contract the state gives a shit about. They only get interested while they’re dividing the proceeds.
Your own experience proves family law’s primary motivation, Darleen. It’s not to enforce your marriage contract. That “contract” had not a word in it about child support and it surely had not a word in it about the real societal costs of that “support”.
If on the other hand you can describe the entire scope of the “contractual protection” the State has such an interest in, and then why it has that interest, such as it may be, and when you can point to the proof of that legislative wisdom (especially in light of who lobbies against parenting and why they do so) and when you explain away those wasted billions, remedy all the man-years lost behind bars for non-payment, adhere it all to the limited, divided, constitutional, private, rights-first, due-process nature of our system of self-governance, rectify the millions of latchkey kids made that way by plan and windfall and by special interest and designed acrimony, and somehow scrub all of that bogus nannyism and greed from history, then I’ll take more interest.
Of course, then you’ll be writing fiction too.
Swen Swenson,
And yet, Mommy has the newfangled right to kill it, if she chooses to do so. She can opt right out, without so much as a “Sorry, sucker.” to the father.
“The plaintiff here is simply seeking equality of choice.”
Not so simply, as its not a simple equality.
Veiled classist envy, Darleen. An assumption that you can equalize society when history tells you otherwise. Denial of the very reality of the legacy of the single-parent culture and why it exists. And how bad legislation and federal programs perpetuate it.
That reason, applied to, say, public education already gave us generational decay; that’s obvious. Ditto the welfare system. The finest way for Washington DC to make everything perfect and equal is for it to make nothing a priority by making everything a priority. Is that it? In that vein, welcome to No Child Left Behind, as fitting a bullshit name as Social Security is for financial insecurity, and as Welfare is for creating dependency, poverty, and misery.
With a track record like that, is there, seriously, a means whereby Child Support could actually support children? Or is it really about the industry behind it all?
What you need, Darleen, is the family law equivalent of a Bill Cosby talking about the myth of the government’s plan to really, really fix the black community. Think, girl.
#50, JD
But she can absolve herself and him of all responsibility, whether he likes it or not. Which is to say that she can absolve him of his child, because, you know, choice! Of which he gets none.
#54 Susan,
Unless what she did was decide to kill it. Then, support really isn’t an issue.
#60 Susan,
It is if you’re a woman. Just ask Amanda or Hillary.
Pablo @ 101 – I agree. It is not fair. Patently unfair, as are many of the absurd rulings that I believe gahrie pointed out. I am not disputing that. All I was saying is this guy is a dick. He is attempting to abdicate a responsibility.
Like I said, this is one case where the child would be better served being raised by the ‘dillo.
JHoward
What do you mean the marriage contract does not mention children?
What do you think marriage contract is all about??
What the hell?
Darleen & JHoward – Haven’t we had this discussion before? It feels like deja vu, but I am often wrong. I seem to recall that each of you had quite personal and deep convictions about this topic. Just wondering.
#72 Susan
But let’s try it anyway, though indentured servitude via sexism! That ought to work.
Pablo
in SD women don’t have the right to consequence-free sex. Will that make men more responsible? Less? What do to about bastard children?
Agreed. But that’s not an option, is it?
BTW – I saw (and listened to) the sonogram today. She was sucking her thumb. I predicted from Day 1 that it would be a girl(s). God has a wicked cruel sense of humor.
JD
Yes, it’s one of those things that periodically comes around. I believe marriage contracts are like other contracts and are as enforceable as landlord/tenent or purchase contracts.
Pablo – I wish there was a way in our system to make things right. Right is so often overlooked. This mother, if she in fact tricked this man into this pregnancy, should not be raising a child. Hell, don’t look at me, forced sterilization of men and women does not sound like a horrible idea to me at times. Watching some of the nasty divorces, I wish judges would remove the child from the toxic environments at home. But, what to do then?
Are we talking San Diego? Because I once drove my then sister-in-law to Planned Parenthood there to dispose of her child conceived in an adulterous affair, at the urging of my then wife. Her vasectimized husband, who was out to sea at the time, probably would have created some consequences. But there were none. because, you know, choice!
JD,
Instill responsibility and equity across the board or not at all. It really is that simple.
JD!!!
Oh congrats. Please keep us up-to-date.
We had a baby shower at work today for one of my co-workers due in January … one of my attorney’s is due in March, and two other attorneys have wives who are expecting. My cousin is due in April (I just finished crocheting a baby blanket for them)
Must be something in the water, eh?
Pablo
South Dakota banned abortions in early 2006 (was later rejected in late 2006)
so how would that effect the “equity”?
If women can choose abortion, does equity mean men can choose to make a woman have an abortion?
Thanks, Darleen. It was originally twins, but only the one made it past the first trimester. She is really small, about 4 weeks behind, in size, of where they would expect her to be. The official due date is mid-April, but the doctor believes that with the better half’s history (Kaitlin was a preemie) that this gal will never go to term. So, probably right in the middle of the first weekend of the NCAA basketball tournament. I am such a guy, I know.
We are thinking either Madeline, or Grace. I like Maddy, and the better half likes Grace, so it will probably be Grace. Those are my great-grandmother’s names.
Does someone need to say it? There can never be real equity in this. We are different. Very different. We can try to deal with the outcomes and the results in a far better manner, but equality in regards to this issue. Nope. Ain’t never gonna happen.
Should it? That seems a bit harsh. But barring that, should it at least assure a similar right to opt out, which is exactly what this case was about?
Pablo
No-fault dissolves the marriage at that time, it does not dissolve the legitimate obligations that may survive that contract.
Surely you’re aware if your medical insurance is cancelled (say by being laid-off a job) that if you are under treatment for a particular condition that the insurance company MUST continue to cover you?
Change no-fault if you like. I think in many respects that would be a good move.
But just because the marriage ends doesn’t turn the kids into legal bastards.
BTW, the court doesn’t make the welfare of the child the priority. If they did they would force equal representation on behalf of children in all divorce and family procedings not just the ones where Anna Nicole’s baby is concerned. As a rule, unless you show the mother to be an actively incapable there is a 99% chance that she’ll get the kids while the guy will get a monthly tab. The kids are rarely consulted in the whole matter as several million visitation battles attest to.
Make no mistake, the only time the kids don’t lose is when they have two parents that love them and when the parents seperate, despite what the court says, all the courts are doing is dividing time and assets between adults, with a marginal regard for the kids.
I know it sounds jaded but i’ve been there, done that and lived with it as a kid, as too many other people have as well.
That’s not the question I was responding to. In your #111 you said that marriage contracts were enforceable. They are not, due to no-fault.
Rob B, speaking of that, did you notice the amount of shit Larry Birkhead had to go through to see access his kid that the mother decided to rob him of, even after she was dead?
But barring that, should it at least assure a similar right to opt out, which is exactly what this case was about?
Reality is that there is no gestation equity. One gestates the other does not. You can, once a child is born, do everything possible to craft law that creates equity on how the child relates to both parents … including custody and support. IMO shared custody/support should be the default position that cannot be abandoned unless very very good cause is shown.
JD
I remember about the twins and I was sad to hear when you both lost one. I rejoice that Madeline Grace is hanging in there.
I agree completely. But that isn’t how it generally works now, between the Title IV-D driven support regime and the ability of the mother to kill the kid unilaterally, all of which the guy is supposed to shut up and take because, well, he could have not been one part of two party sex.
all of which the guy is supposed to shut up and take because, well, he could have not been one part of two party sex.
Why doesn’t he sue for custody is she is such a witch? Men who actually sue for custody (IIRC, been a while since I researched the stats) win better than half the time.
A good deal of men do NOT want fulltime custody of minor children… and even with halftime they turn over the wash/feed/wipe nose childcare to grandma or girlfriend.
I’d love to see those stats because, IIRC, 85% of contested custody cases are decided in favor of the woman. Mine was one of those.
Madeline Grace has a nice ring to it, no?
Pablo
I don’t dispute that the divorce system is broken. And I also don’t dispute that all it takes is one angry ex to use whatever power they have to “punish” the other. If the woman is the custodial parent and is angry she’ll use the kids as power over the man, and if the man is angry he’ll use money (ie withhold support) as power over the woman.
Unfortunately, the courts have not been consistent in handling this.
I certainly want to go forward, not backwards to a time when childen and wives were considered property so a divorced woman never got her kids.
JD
yes it does…kinda jumped out at me so I mirrored it back at you.
Nicely musical with a great deal of class. You and your lovely wife have very good taste.
[very very large grin]
Pablo
I’m still looking…. amazing how I keep seeing “women get custody 90%” of the time being tossed about… however I found this a little more reasonable.
Not in my neighborhood, Miss.
“I keep seeing “women get custody 90%†of the time being tossed about… however I found this a little more reasonable.”
Darleen – there is no distinction break out of physical and legal custody in these numbers.
“Joint legal custody” for a man means your ex can unilaterally move the kids from Long Island to California and you have to be consulted before one has an operation. Mommy still gets to say when and where they go and what they do . . .
“Reality is that there is no gestation equity. One gestates the other does not.”
But the point is that gestation has become an affirmative choice – as the reasoning in Casey goes, in order to allocate “equality” in educational and career opportunities to women, and to give them the opportunity to decide when and whether to beget a child. This choice can be made over the course of several months, after deliberation and counsel, and outside the heat of passion.
But so has it become an affirmative choice to compel a man to beget a child – the affirmative choice of the woman, with no regard for a man’s life plans in terms of education and career or marriage and family with another woman.
In short, my point is that Casey moved the ball all the way to “abortion is necessary for gender equality” but has affected a severe gender iniquity. It should be all or nothing.
“Comment by andy on 11/14 @ 10:37 pm
“The plaintiff here is simply seeking equality of choice.â€Â
Not so simply, as its not a simple equality.”
So enlighten us, is it a seperate but equal kind of thing, or more some are more equal than others?
Darleen,
The outcomes as listed in contested cases:
Sole possession to mother 44%
Sole possession to father 11%
Joint possession 40%
I used to be one of those ‘joint possession’ cases too. That amounted to me having 14% of the time, despite my having been my daughter’s primary caregiver in the marriage. And that lasted until it became convenient for my ex to move thousands of miles away and take my daughter with her.
The 11% custody to Dad figure (in contested cases) speaks for itself.
“That’s not the question I was responding to. In your #111 you said that marriage contracts were enforceable. They are not, due to no-fault.”
What part of the marriage “contract” is enforceable without no-fault? The part where you have to stay married?
The problem is that the contract analogy is flawed. Its not a contract, its simply a status. A contract one negotiates. One can breach by paying damages, etc… In marriage, you don’t negotiate, you take it or leave it. Now, your wife and you may “negotiate” that she will work, that you will have a book-writing job and raise the kids, etc… But that is never legally enforceable.
Even the duty to support children isn’t part of the marriage.
The only thing left enforceable is the division of income/property when the marriage dissolves. And that you CAN make contracts on. Pre-nups.
“So enlighten us, is it a seperate but equal kind of thing, or more some are more equal than others?”
In the sense that the woman’s decision to abort is not equal to the man’s decision to not give child support. Because they do not have the same result.
Oh, shut up, actus.
In CT, where I live, I move that the word “divorce” should be replaced with the word “ManRape” – because that’s exactly what it is. It’s hard to get a fair hearing when the court arbitrars(?) are two bulldykes who obviously hate anything with a penis – no matter what the reality of the situation is.
In ten minutes, I was transformed from middle class to street bum.
As an aside, is it my computer, this site, or am I still drunk? The left margin is eating the first letters of my post, making them even more unintelligible than usual..
#136 Alec
Again the conflation of gestation with post-birth.
Is this where you want to give man the right to force abortion on a woman?
Even if society puts more restrictions on abortion, how does that affect the decision of a male to ignore contraception — is he going to feel any less “cheated” when his hookup turns up preggers and still has a child that needs to be raised?
Pablo
As you may have noticed, the majority of custody arrangements are stipulated before the couples even get to court.
I’m fully aware that many times custody isn’t equal for a wide variety of reasons, including power issues (as I’ve previously noted)
My ex used money as a tool to punish me because I decided to divorce him after he beat me. So, I shouldn’t have had the legal means to enforce support? After a family intervention we did on him to try to get him into recovery (I actually helped PAY for it along with his then girlfriend) he was so enraged he refused to see his children for SIX years … but was telling his family and friends that I was the bitch that was poisoning the girls. He even used to call me drunk at night to taunt me that he had gone to some Father’s Rights advocates and he was going to “make me pay” by getting full custody of the girls if I didn’t stop trying to get child support.
The system needs to be overhauled … but kids should not be punished by completely dissolving the system and telling everyone Hey, you’re on your own! Kids need BOTH their parents … custody and support. That’s what we need to work forwards to and to try and remove as much emotion/revenge/power issues out of the equation as possible.
It’s not that males necessarily ignore contraception, it’s that their options are extremely limited while women have a variety of methods available to them that aren’t permanent and don’t interfere with the act itself. I don’t have the numbers, but I’d imagine that in couples who are actively and agreeably practicing birth control they’re doing it with female contraception methods. This opens the door to situations like this case, and if one is to believe the rumors, the Tom Brady/Bridgette Moynihan situation. A male pill would be a wonderful thing.
As for the feeling cheated, some sort of equity in personal decision making would go a long way. What of the feelings of the guy who’s thrilled at the idea of being a Dad only to stand by helplessly while his child is killed? Why is it that it’s OK for the guy to get screwed any way the mother chooses after conception, while having no ability whatsoever to make his own determinations?
Ditto that. But we’re not even close to doing that and there are enormous interests out there that vehemently resist such reforms for reasons political and financial.
Again the conflation of gestation with post-birth.
Is this where you want to give man the right to force abortion on a woman?
Even if society puts more restrictions on abortion, how does that affect the decision of a male to ignore contraception  is he going to feel any less “cheated†when his hookup turns up preggers and still has a child that needs to be raised?â€Â
Darleen,
I don’t know where or how you draw this “conflation of gestation with post-birth†thing.
I’m not saying that anyone should be able to force an abortion on a woman – quite actually, my views are in direct opposition.
What I am saying is that the legal regime now in place permits a woman – any and every time she is pregnant – to make the decision that she doesn’t want to be a mother, doesn’t want to support a child, doesn’t want to foreclose her educational or career options, doesn’t want the general public to know that she ever was pregnant and had a relationship with a certain man, and on and on.
The reasoning is that “compelling†her to become a mother and setting her life on a different trajectory than she wants is an unconscionable deprivation of liberty and autonomy. I actually disagree with this notion, in part because I do not agree that the unavailability of abortion constitutes “compulsion.â€Â
But if abortion must be available because we don’t want to “punish†women for having sex, and we hold “gender equality†in such high regard, then I ask why is it permissible to “punish†men for having sex by setting their lives off on different trajectories than they would have planned? Why is it permissible to tell a man that, because someone willfully became pregnant with his child while assuring him that she had no such intention, he must continue in his current occupation and not explore other opportunities, because a child needs monetary support? How is it just, under this conception of “gender†symmetry, to allow a 20 year old woman a “do over†but not a 20 year old man?
I would assert that there is a matrix in most people’s minds – if a pregnancy is truly an accident in good faith, then yes, I would say that both parties bear that risk. But if it is the case that the woman misrepresented her intentions and willfully became pregnant, then in the world as it now is I cannot say that it is just to force him to participate.
I think that these matters highlight the fact that throwing out the old mores wholesale was a really bad idea. I doubt that we would have very many of these contentious situations if, at the very least, men and women exercised a mush greater degree of discretion in the number and choice of paramour in their physical relationships, and I am not even addressing the old paradigm of courting and marriage, and notions of “suitability†for marriage.
It also allows her to do this post partum. She can drop the kid off a any hospital, police or fire station and just walk away. She can offer it up for adoption and just say she doesn’t know who the father is, and walk away. Men have none of these options, none of these rights. Only responsibilities.
About Darleen’s #105.
Spare me. You said the State had a role enforcing the marriage contract. Now it’s the State has an interest, of one form or another, doing something about kids.
Perhaps I haven’t been clear (although I have been quite clear.) Here it is again: In no-fault, divorce/custody/support court, and it’s tidy little divorce regime, the State produces a social order that ruins kids. It’s the simple fraud of family law — the one that violates actor’s legal rights as a matter of course as well as any reasonable interpretation of natural law — whereafter single-parented kids make up some tenfold higher numbers of all juvenile dysfunctionalities.
IOW, define your terms or forget it please.
Pablo
Are you aware of the “baby Richard” case?
This is why I’m inclined to make marriage a bright line. Get preggers outside of marriage … the man doesn’t exist and the woman has no right to any of his money and he has no right to any say about the child. Within marriage then either party has right to make sure the child is born.
Within marriage then either party has right to make sure the child is born.
This is problematic in that you would need to be willing to punish a woman who broke the rule, or else be willing to use force or threat of force to ensure she stays pregnant. Since the second option is out the window for obvious reasons, what would an appropriate punishment be for intentional failure to remain pregnant?
About Darleen in #121:
Define “legitimate obligations”. Of course parents have legitimate obligations to raise children responsibly. However, I fail to see the logic of (if this is what you’re suggesting) the State encouraging a social order that denies that responsibility by way of its family law! Maybe that’s where you’re hung up.
From there both the terms “marriage contract” and “legitimate obligations” diverge dramatically depending on the environment in which such would take place.
Should the State enforce it’s status quo, neither marriage contract nor legitimate obligations means a damn functional thing — quite the opposite, per the facts, data, and sheer blinding reality of post no-fault, postmodern values acted out in family court. It’s sanctioned chaos there, Darleen, and it is by design. Do we really need to trot out that data again?
Oh, come you now, but precisely because of that state of affairs do we the State to enforce not a shred of reasonable child-whelping, but all the myriad subtleties of imposing this draconian, right-free nightmare of encouraged, federally-dependent, government-aided anti-fatherhood.
From which comes the inevitable loss of responsibility, of acrimony, of vast loss, sexism, unconstitutionality, etc. I can’t believe it’s even debatable, Darleen.
Again, define terms. Child Support has no more to do with supporting children than Welfare has to do with the welfare of the generational poverty it creates. Please don’t make me say it again.
JH
Oh for pity’s sake, lower your hackles. Oooo “the State wants to ruin kids lives!!”. What is that, the Troother equivalent conspiracy of family law??
Why did Ronald Reagan sign one of the first no-fault divorce laws in the country? Because he wanted to f**k over kids???
Yes yes, unintended consequences. Let’s fix ’em. But you don’t do yourself any favors by telling me that moms like me should have NO LEGAL RECOURSE to collect support and our use of the system is eeeevvvillll. Fuck that noise.
This andy guy – he’s not very intellectually honest, is he?
Welfare has to do with the welfare of the generational poverty it creates.
General poverty is a small percentage of total welfare recipients. Bad as that is, welfare (TANFF/food stamps/WIC et al) works as it was designed TEMPORARY support/safety net for people who need it to get over a bad patch. Evidenced shows that the last welfare reform has mitigated much of the gaming that was going on.
So why not reform the child support system rather than banning it?
and I’ve stated clearly that includes both custody and monetary issues.
That case is an excellent example of the problem, though it was ultimately resolved correctly. The problem with it is that it took 3 years to get that done, as the lower courts completely disregarded both Kirchners’ right to their father-child relationship. that should have been a no-brainer on day one, and it should require the father’s consent for the adoption to proceed, not some arbitrary time frame in which he doesn’t necessarily know the clock is ticking.
There’s another shocking, telling case, and I can’t find it at the moment, and I’m running short on time this morning, but it’s documented in the upcoming film Support? System Down, which I had a chance to preview in DC a couple of months ago.
In short, the guy is a sailor stationed in San Diego. The mother is a dirtbag who knows full well that the child she named him the father of is not his, and admits on camera that she knows this, but she really wants the payday she gets having named him as the father, so, fuck him and I gotta get paid. But because he didn’t contest paternity within a similarly ill conceived window, he’s on the hook and unless something has changed, he’s still paying this piece of shit and living on next to nothing. For The Child(ren)&trade:! Apparently, the real father’s income is not sufficiently attractive, or she doesn’t know who he is.
Damn the lousy HTML. &trade: = ™, but you knew that.
BTW, in CA child abduction is handled by the criminal courts, we even have a special unit to pursue abducters (majority are parents). Failure to provide support never leaves family court. Indeed, even the worst of the non-providers is rarely prosecuted.
“this andy guy – he’s not very intellectually honest, is he?â€Â
He’s a self styled Colbert/Franken/Stewart type. When he has no answer, he makes a joke out of the whole matter.
Pablo
Uh, the baby Richard case was a travesty. The sperm donor never wanted the kid until later. He destroyed Richard, his parents (Richards “real” parents were his adoptive ones) and Richards brother. The man was/is a scumbag.
Pablo
You also know in CA there had to be a special law enacted to keep rapists from demanding “father’s rights” to the children that resulted from their crime?
Perfect illustration of loop-holes/unintended consequences of every law. Someone unsavory is out there to exploit it.
So FIX THE LOOPHOLE.
actard pipes up again:
Typically convoluted but I’ll take a swing at it. The part of the “marriage contract” this discussion seems to be addressing is merely that the State has an interest — I’ll call it cost-containment — borne out of wanting, ostensibly, to lower the cost of single mother welfare by making dads pay through the nose.
Having said “making dads pay through the nose” then creates of me and my like-minded Neanderthals shirkers; “deadbeat dad” wannebee. And off to the races we go, with Darleen highlighting an anecdotal example of how the child support system saves bacon and gets justice from the legions of hateful dads roaming the streets. God save the King.
What’s missed is that the child support system naturally creates huge incentive to break up families, an incentive now shared by the quaint combination of a ton of bad, irresponsible moms, the perpetual he-didn’t-make-me-feel-appreciated vapid social ladder-climbers, gender feminists (Limbaugh’s NOW nags) and the divorce regime, it being now a multi-billion dollar industry dedicated to gaming statehouses and ripping ex-dads in half financially and otherwise.
BECAUSE OF THE GENDER EQUALITY!
What these assholes have created for themselves is this nice little rigged system wherein we can, under the guise of The Children, create for-profit single parenting, a solid, foundational, wholesome American value, that. The case in question highlights the tip of that iceberg. Sally here set Billy up, whelped the kid, gets the loot, and has not a dime’s worth of “marriage contract” to deal with. ‘Course, had they been actually married, the outcome would have been virtually identical (at least it is for close to 90% of moms who bother to tie the knot before flaking out, that is.)
Them come the liberals praising the shining feminism and free choice of such things, all the while citing bogus and sexist myth about everything from domestic violence to the suddenly benefactory State’s Obligation To Children. Too come the myopic rightists, angrily demanding somebody do something about all the drive-by dads in the ghetto. Make em pay, goes the mantra, and state’s legal resources immediately go to persecuting dad by roundups, pizza-box campaigns designed to alienate their kids, (which is illegal) and incarceration without trial or right.
Oh, and they get up to two-thirds of the “child support” dollars back from DC. “Welfare reform.” Because of the “marriage contract”. Because of the children.
As far as the part where you have to stay married, no actuse, we all get that you don’t have to stay married, that being the very freaking point. Actard, please allow me to be a little more succinct, just for you.
The system we’re currently saddled with was demolished by the Soviets in the Thirties. It was deemed too destructive to the social order and national fabric. It was a cancer eating away at society.
Even that now-obsolete regime recognized the inherent folly of making the State “enforce marriage contracts”. Meanwhile, normal folks realize that the only thing standing between us and chaos ourselves is the honor of the respective players. The State has no bearing on that societal health, in fact, it has nothing but harm to bring to it when it is brought to bear. The notion that the State is serving mankind by forcing it’s “marriage contracts” is utter folly.
Are we finished now?
That one is simple: a rebuttable presumption of equality in parenting, with the rebuttable part being proven unfitness. You know Mary Winkler is working her way back to custody of her children after murdering their father while he slept, right?
Says who?
Jaysus H Christ “pay through the nose” yeah right that’s the ticket.
What’s the average nose worth these days, JH? About the same as a nice car payment?
Hmmm… make a car payment, let my kid have food and clothes
such hard hard decisions.
Re: social values …. isn’t this the egg/chicken argument? Did hooking up and eschewing marriage come before family law or after it?
Pablo
The testimony by the bio mom (who subsequently remarried lovely the sperm donor) was that he was full aware of her pregancy (they had been living together sans marriage) but he didn’t care enough after their breakup to followup on her delivery.
I’m glad that Richard/Danny seems to have weathered this, but his own statement that his adoptive parents “stole him” is chilling.
He had a home and parents … his bio parents should have never gotten him back.
What are you, the Courtney Love of DA’s? You really want to start that with me again, you arrogant, misrepresenting little emo? I’ve been civil and respectful concerning your hallowed, sacred, and often touted role in society while you still barge around out here hiding behind those quasi-experential robes? Good one. Really hits home.
I didn’t say the State wants to ruin kids lives. I said the divorce regime wants to make money.
Undoubtedly.
Because, you obscene little enraged child, we all thought no-fault worked when we signed it into law. !!!11iii!
Fine. Then take what you get. And when in the final analysis it all falls down, pat yourself on the back. You did good, you and all the vagina warriors.
Darleen, your filters are raised so high you can’t see. Like I say, spare me. As far as “fixing” anything, you’ll need a clue first. Your platitudes to your feminized domestic neoconservatism have always amused me. Do enjoy.
BTW JH
Rather than disdaim my experience as anecdotal, how about addressing it. Should the law just ignore me and my kids? Exactly what would you have had the law do differently in my case? I’m certainly by no means the only married mom who was forced into a divorce.
You really want to start that with me again, you arrogant, misrepresenting little emo? I’ve been civil and respectful
BWHHAHAHAHAHAH
Gawd I love it …. *I*m a “vagina warrior” , *I*m a feminazi, *I*m a …fill in the blank … because I want legal means to enforce child support rather than… rather than
geez, I haven’t seen any viable suggestions, JH. In place of family law what do you want to make sure children have support of BOTH parents even if the parents divorce?
MY suggestion: approach family law the way we approach tort reform. Eliminate as much of the power inequities as possible, de-incentivize frivilous lawsuits, mandate arbritration, consider custody/support issues of equal value (ie treat non-support and custody interference equally)
The majority of custody/support issues are stipulated to by the parties. Where there is conflict, there needs to be an legal arena in which to get the conflic settled. Family law should be little different that any other civil suit. There exists contracts and responsibilities and obligations under those contracts. There should be consequences for fraud (as Pablo’s example demonstrates).
Bottom line is that one is left with minor children who don’t get to pick who they are born to. But parents have the legal, moral, ethical responsibility to care/raise/support them.
You want a viable suggestion, you little dependent emo?
Tell me, what exactly would you do with it aside from replacing it with those little rhetorical quips that go forgotten in ten minutes about “fixing” stuff?
But I do have one. Again. A presumption of joint custody. What pablo alluded to seven or ten posts back. Wake up. DA.
On the other hand, how about you point me to the part of the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights that makes federal government manager of anything related to the “child’s best interests”, especially by creating single parenting at the rate it has. Do it, Darleen. Cite the right to divide families with money, that despite about fifty SCOTUS rulings that parenting is an unalienable right. Are you even aware of how rights do not exist in family law?
Maybe you’re a vagina warrior because you want to make me pay to keep you and the product of your ill-considered union off the street. Oh. Was that too harsh?
Fine, just cite for me that part that makes the taxpayer responsible for your choices. Because when it’s federalized, dearie, it’s all welfare. Do you even know where Title IV-D legally lives? Where it came from?
See, you’ve got Reagan and no-fault all figured out so I really trust you. Or are you just being opportunistic?
I may think the State has a legal, moral, ethical responsibility to care/raise/support me. In a manner to which I’d like to become accustomed.
From where are either obligation derived, Darleen?
The only way to reduce the symptoms is to treat the source: Abolish Title IV-D so as to de-incentivize the divorce regime and single-parenting-for-money. Institute a presumption of joint custody so as to partly restore full, pre-existing, gender-neutral legal rights. Then abolish family court, or if that’s too sacred a thing to abolish, make it perform as a regular court, with due process, jury, and unlimited assurances of legal rights.
Can you understand why none have or will occurred? Can you comprehend why this is unattractive to special interest?
JH you want to roll divorce/custody/support into civil courts?
Ok.
So we just move enforcement of monetary support orders from one county collection agency to another county collection agency (the ones that collect restitution in injury cases, etc….) Right?
Can you understand why none have or will occurred? Can you comprehend why this is unattractive to special interest?
Is it any more or less attractive then saying “tort reform” to John Edwards?
It’s hard work.
single-parenting-for-money
Is that like “welfare queens”?
Maybe you’re a vagina warrior because you want to make me pay to keep you and the product of your ill-considered union off the street.
I’m still puzzling on that one, JH. Was it my 16 year marriage that was “ill considered” so I while I should have access to civil courts to sue a contractor who doesn’t finish fixing my house, I should not have access to civil court to sue my ex husband for refusing to help support our kids.
Access to court system isn’t welfare, JH.
Don’t like my rhetoric about your marital choice, Darleen? But it’s asking the pertinent question you decline to address, which differentiates it from what you feel is my rhetoric:
By what right will you involve me in your personal life?
Before you rush to answer, I don’t buy that your kid’s best interest is served by their dad’s choice to enter the statist support system. He had the choice to act like a man and do the right thing because private society and both families made it impossible for him not to. I don’t buy it when we multiply by all the single-parented kids in the country and why the majority are single-parented.
I especially don’t buy it when we finally accept, kicking and screaming, that irresponsibility is actually the central design parameter the divorce regime counts on. And cultivates!
We see clearly that making child support a federal business beholden to special interest — yes, it’s like a welfare queen except for when it’s not — has naturally and quite predictably ruined the desired effect by in turn ruining a substantial component of society’s personal responsibility. Apparently that personal responsibility was likewise lacking in your marriage.
So, in your view, we’ll reform personal responsibility by, well, talking about reforming collective responsibility, but not before we’ve preemptively slathered all our personal needs all over the core principle, which is that there is probably no fundamental collective right whatsoever whereby government must manage the personal needs of the individual, especially against the rights of the other parent (including by malicious design) and considering the obvious harm to the children it’s slleged to “support”. Collectively. Usually by first making them fatherless and thereby exponentially risking their bona fide best interest in all important performance categories.
If that were machinery, Rube Goldberg would have invented it. Were it logic, perhaps Hilary Clinton. Darleen’s needs outweigh those of society. And, of course, there simply is no other alternative but the State.
You can perhaps see where this fails the test of personal responsibility on the one hand, and small-government on the other. I’m unfamiliar with most readers of this blog not promoting either.
Your authorizing yourself to make shit up is interesting…
-I want to restore former parental rights under multiple SCOTUS constitutional precedents to reassert parenting and being parented as a fundamental right (and partly as a means to re-enforce individual civil responsibility.) This is a presumption of equal shared parenting.
-I want to return full, legal, prior, constitutional, due-process rights to the parties. These rights are simply void in family law.
-I want government out of the business of creating single parenting by way of paying for single parenting.
-I want to thereby defeat the special interests making gender inequality and money out of this fiasco.
You’re more than free to tell me how most wisely to accomplish this. But please bag the emoting about how you just know it won’t work if we actually do those things. Appeals to those various subjective bits of transcendent conventional wisdom are arrogant bullshit.
My My the blood doth fly!
We can reduce this to a simple statement:
Between birth control, abortion, and adoption, legal (as opposed to biological) motherhood is entirely voluntary.
Legal fatherhood, entirely involuntary.
This whole, “you fuck it, you buy it,” business comes from the days where women had few means of supporting themselves, little access to education, and often, a hard time refusing sexual advances themselves.
This is not the case today. Yet, to the law, a man is tacitly accepting the responsibility of fatherhood every time he has sex, when the same is not true for women. This holds whether or not he is in fact the biological father.
If you cannot see that this is unjust, then I submit that your notion of justice depends solely on gaining the greatest benefit for peiple who have your body parts. At this point, dialogue ends.
Now, the solution?
OGet ready, cause they all suck. The most immediately equitable thing would be to give unaspiring fathers the right to legally deny paternity, a get-out-of-jail-free. It restores the balance, makes fatherhood as well as motherhood voluntary. The problem? Duh, it encourages caddishness, to which the only female defense is virginity until marriage. Caddishness against Virginity. Might work, but shore do seem unfair.
Legalized bastardy? Seems a bit fairer, doesn’t make a man pay for his wife’s adulteries, forces her to hit up the pool boy if she expects her monthly check. Might take some of the incentives away from the easily-bored type of wife. But then, what about a man’s leetle meestakes? Are we really to return to a rich young punk leaving a poor piece of tail by the side of the road with a growth, and NO legal recourse?
OUpend Roe v. Wade and make motherhood as involuntary as fatherhood? Well, it wouldn’t be 100% involuntary (still the adoption angle), but it makes “you fuck it, you buy it” fair and just: she has to bear, he has to pay. It served humanity for millenia, and the modern version would be better, because the “deadbeat dad” would be as big a pariah as the “promiscuous tramp.” Good luck getting it to happen, though.
OOr, Or, Or, we toss the Family Law rulebook out the window and make the sexes equal when it comes to rights and responsibilities to their young ‘uns. End presumption in favor of the mother. End no-fault divorce. Make it damn clear who’s asking for the divorce and why, and it better be a damn good compelling reason (and by that I mean, the behavior of one or the other spouse has made him/her a danger to the health and safety of the remaining family. “You bore me” isn’t enough). Punish adulterers of either sex. In gneral, give the kids to the one who’s responsible, the one who didn’t cheat, didn’t lie, didn’t drink or drug themselves silly. And the other one has to pay. No matter whether their naughty bits are inside ore out.
Assail at will.
Oh, one more thing:
The end of Alimony. Period. Welcome to paying your own way. It’s just part of the Great Freedom Ride.
“The part of the “marriage contract†this discussion seems to be addressing is merely that the State has an interest  I’ll call it cost-containment  borne out of wanting, ostensibly, to lower the cost of single mother welfare by making dads pay through the nose.”
The people in this case arent, don’t want to be, and never were, married. You’ll find that they have custody issues too. So whatever this fictional “marriage contract” is, it can’t be that custody is exclusive to it.
You know what I’m doing tonight? Baking for my kids bake sale. I know something of this inequality you speak of though, because I’m “THAT” guy. When Mummy Dearest decided to bolt, I changed the locks after a month. So when she came back, I was slapped with a criminal charge of abuse. Funny thing though, on the line that said “Complaint” it simply read “No abuse alleged,mother wants custody of children”. Well folks,that charge,although vacated by a different Judge,sticks with me to this day. I did get custody after a LONG fight, but only after spending thousands and being regularly harassed by the mothers family, the legal system as a whole and some of my OWN family.Never once was I even allowed to discuss child support BY MY OWN LAWYER because as she put it (paraphrasing,been 15 years) “You won’t get the kids if you put up a stink.”…
Its amazing to see the parallel between the old “shotgun wedding” conducted by ‘Pa and “you fuck it you bought it” enforced by the gubmint.
The feminists didn’t give us a nanny state – its a daddy sans the “slut shaming.”
Darleen, hear hear. I also get JHoward’s argument that the current system perpetuates sloth and dependance. Blitz, it’s a tough system that favors moms, but that seems to be an overcorrection for past injustices. It’ll work out eventually. But that doesn’t help you.
Oh, the woman who gave his kid away said it was OK? Well, that must be factual, because women always tell the truth. Did she happen to mention whether she told him she was going to give his kid away, or ask him whether he wanted it? Or was he just a real prick for those 4 days between the birth and adoption?
One of my friends had a 38 year old girlfriend for 3 months, she said she would need to adopt to have a child and had tried with her previous husband to have a child. Because he did not just meet her at the bar, but at their work where he assumed people would be if not ethical but at least scared of consequences to deceive their co-workers. Anyway, next thing he knows she told him she is pregnant and later finds out it is twins – boy and girl. Towards the middle of her pregnancy they go to a doctor and she tells the doctor that she took fertility drugs. So the guy is in total shock and cant believe she could deceive him like that. So he is forced to pay child support and she just wants more and more money. He also thinks that she did not only use drugs but also treatments… There is forced fatherhood for you. And I understand this happens more and more…Forced fatherhood I think is the secondary issue where the first issue is women being so selfish that they do not care if they deliberately bring children in this world when they know they will not have a father after what the mother did.
Can we say meal ticket? if its casual sex, or a one night stand in my friend’s case,and a baby is the result, if that woman chooses to have that child she should know she’s going to be alone and totally responsible for it. many women like me end up with kids in a relationship then soon become single parents with no help what so ever from the other parent who consentuated with reproducing.