Do you need an abortion? Did you bring a note?

[Derec]

This post is nonsense. Please show me a verifiable case wherein the woman claimed rape in order to prevent visitation. Just one.

Difficult to have a verifiable case when the authorities are so reluctant to go after false accusers.

As far as the "house" garbage you're spewing. A house is joint property - all thing equal a judge must decide "who gets the house".

The house could be sold and proceeds divided evenly. Giving the whole house to the mother belies the claim of it being "joint property". It ends up being her property and hers alone.

Forcing a child to move from their home out of spite is not something most judges will do, even if you don't like it.

How is giving the woman the entire house plus forcing the man to pay the woman enough alimony so she can afford to live in the house in any way just? The man then doesn't have a place to live nor does he have much money left over to live on after having to pay alimony and child support. Therefore you have all those divorced men living in tiny cheap apartments while their exes are living it up in the house living on his money.

Oh and if the man has primary custody, he typically gets the house.

That happens very rarely.

 

[Toni]

Difficult to have a verifiable case when the authorities are so reluctant to go after false accusers.

Especially if they don't exist. Any idea how often rape victims conceive and decide to carry the pregnancy?

As far as the "house" garbage you're spewing. A house is joint property - all thing equal a judge must decide "who gets the house".

The house could be sold and proceeds divided evenly. Giving the whole house to the mother belies the claim of it being "joint property". It ends up being her property and hers alone.

Talk about rare.

Forcing a child to move from their home out of spite is not something most judges will do, even if you don't like it.

How is giving the woman the entire house plus forcing the man to pay the woman enough alimony so she can afford to live in the house in any way just? The man then doesn't have a place to live nor does he have much money left over to live on after having to pay alimony and child support. Therefore you have all those divorced men living in tiny cheap apartments while their exes are living it up in the house living on his money.

Now you are entering into fantasy land. Btw, your concern for children is so touching. How compassionate to be more concerned about revenge against the mother!

 

[bilby]

Wrong. I said alimony, which doesn't even have the pretense that it's about the child. In fact, women can get alimony even if there is no child involved.

Of course, as a minor, it is administered by his primary caregiver; But it is unreasonable to characterise this as the father's assets or income being 'given to the mother'; those assets are given to the child's primary caregiver, for the purpose of providing for the child.

Again, I said alimony which is different from child support. I recognize the necessity of child support, unlike alimony, but I think child support needs a fundamental overhaul as well.

This system is, of course, open to abuse; but if a father believes that the mother of his child is abusing their child by withholding the necessities of life from him, then he can apply for custody himself.

Yeah, good luck with that.

It is rare for a woman to abuse her child in this way; so monies paid by the father to the mother for the care of their child are usually going to be spent to the benefit of the child, not the mother.

Except that the father has no say in how his money is spent. And if the child spends half the time with him he incurs half of the costs of caring for the child directly - why should he have to pay child support on top of that as well?

Of course, this reality doesn't suit your preferred narrative; but it is true nonetheless - raising a child is expensive, in both time and money; A parent who withdraws from expending time on their child can reasonably be required to subsidise that child financially. A child-care professional expects to be paid for their time, and expects the parents to pay for the food, board, clothing, education etc., etc., required. When the child is being cared for by one parent, it is perfectly reasonable for the other parent to pay for the service provided.

Again, I think alimony is ridiculous for most marriages and should be used very sparingly and be very limited in time. Child support is quite another matter. It is necessary to support the child but needs reform.

In no way is it reasonable to describe such payments as 'the woman can get ... the guy's assets plus monthly alimony'; You might as well say that your chauffeur 'can get my car, plus a monthly paycheck', and whine that if you refuse to pay him for his work, you could go to jail.

Amazing. You managed to quote the sentence where I wrote the word "alimony" and you still somehow managed to misunderstand it.

The only difference is that by fathering a child, you create a contract you can't back out of for 18 to 21 years, whereas hiring a chauffeur you might be able to fire him at only a few week's notice (or in the insane US employment system, at will). You still have to pay him for the work already done though.

To get back to alimony, it's like when you have a chauffeur and he quits but you still have to pay him for the rest of your life even though he refuses to drive you around any more. Or alternatively, you find a better chauffeur and you want to fire the old one but you still have to pay him.

If you don't want to pay, don't enter the contract in the first place.

I honestly do not know why men risk marriage given the state of the laws. Even prenups are not sacrosanct, i.e. a judge can simply invalidate it for dubious reasons.

My apologies; I thought from your rants that your problem was with women getting money and assets from men; but it appears that your real beef is with the archaic and stupid laws in your local jurisdiction.

There is no such thing as 'Alimony' here as you understand the word - when a couple separate, they can simply agree on a division of assets and both walk away, unless there are children involved, so the only payments from one party to the other in this jurisdiction are directly related to caring for the children.

Sucks to be living in a pseudo-theocracy with 19th century laws, I guess.

 

[Toni]

Wrong. I said alimony, which doesn't even have the pretense that it's about the child. In fact, women can get alimony even if there is no child involved.

Again, I said alimony which is different from child support. I recognize the necessity of child support, unlike alimony, but I think child support needs a fundamental overhaul as well.

This system is, of course, open to abuse; but if a father believes that the mother of his child is abusing their child by withholding the necessities of life from him, then he can apply for custody himself.

Yeah, good luck with that.

It is rare for a woman to abuse her child in this way; so monies paid by the father to the mother for the care of their child are usually going to be spent to the benefit of the child, not the mother.

Except that the father has no say in how his money is spent. And if the child spends half the time with him he incurs half of the costs of caring for the child directly - why should he have to pay child support on top of that as well?

Of course, this reality doesn't suit your preferred narrative; but it is true nonetheless - raising a child is expensive, in both time and money; A parent who withdraws from expending time on their child can reasonably be required to subsidise that child financially. A child-care professional expects to be paid for their time, and expects the parents to pay for the food, board, clothing, education etc., etc., required. When the child is being cared for by one parent, it is perfectly reasonable for the other parent to pay for the service provided.

Again, I think alimony is ridiculous for most marriages and should be used very sparingly and be very limited in time. Child support is quite another matter. It is necessary to support the child but needs reform.

In no way is it reasonable to describe such payments as 'the woman can get ... the guy's assets plus monthly alimony'; You might as well say that your chauffeur 'can get my car, plus a monthly paycheck', and whine that if you refuse to pay him for his work, you could go to jail.

Amazing. You managed to quote the sentence where I wrote the word "alimony" and you still somehow managed to misunderstand it.

The only difference is that by fathering a child, you create a contract you can't back out of for 18 to 21 years, whereas hiring a chauffeur you might be able to fire him at only a few week's notice (or in the insane US employment system, at will). You still have to pay him for the work already done though.

To get back to alimony, it's like when you have a chauffeur and he quits but you still have to pay him for the rest of your life even though he refuses to drive you around any more. Or alternatively, you find a better chauffeur and you want to fire the old one but you still have to pay him.

If you don't want to pay, don't enter the contract in the first place.

I honestly do not know why men risk marriage given the state of the laws. Even prenups are not sacrosanct, i.e. a judge can simply invalidate it for dubious reasons.

My apologies; I thought from your rants that your problem was with women getting money and assets from men; but it appears that your real beef is with the archaic and stupid laws in your local jurisdiction.

There is no such thing as 'Alimony' here as you understand the word - when a couple separate, they can simply agree on a division of assets and both walk away, unless there are children involved, so the only payments from one party to the other in this jurisdiction are directly related to caring for the children.

Sucks to be living in a pseudo-theocracy with 19th century laws, I guess.

Please don't be misled: alimony is rarely awarded and only under certain circumstances. Further, it is almost always for a defined, short period of time to allow a spouse who was economically dependent on the other to have a reasonable opportunity to get training or education to become economically self sufficient.

Despite what Derec claims, judges cannot throw out prenups for no reason or capriciously. He has an ax to grind and seems to believe we still live in the 1950's on the set of an MGM movie.

Theocracy-- which we do not have in the US-- has nothing to do with it. Derec does seem to cling to 19th century ideas about women, though.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hmm.. would seem to make no sense that if both parents wish to avoid raising the child, they can relinquish to the state, but if one of them wants to raise the child, they can force parental obligations on the other. Hope that isn't the case.

No worries: reluctant parents are often quite adept at avoiding actual financial responsibility for an unwanted child, particularly if they wish to punish the other parent. I believe the last time I looked it up, only about 40% of court ordered child support was actually paid.

Still, you would be designating somebody as a criminal based entirely on the choice of somebody else, for doing something that would otherwise be completely legal.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Please everyone do keep in mind, most divorce, while not happy affairs, never have raised issues like children conceived in rape and custody being sought by the rapist, nor even the practice of alimony. Arguing an anomaly to prove a generalization is a distraction.

that is all.

 

[Toni]

No worries: reluctant parents are often quite adept at avoiding actual financial responsibility for an unwanted child, particularly if they wish to punish the other parent. I believe the last time I looked it up, only about 40% of court ordered child support was actually paid.

Still, you would be designating somebody as a criminal based entirely on the choice of somebody else, for doing something that would otherwise be completely legal.

Well sure: there would be no rape victims if they would just cooperate and do as they were told! There would be no rapists if victims would just go along. There would also be no rapists if would be rapists could take no for an answer, could find willing partners who are sober and competent, or found other outlets.

There would also be no robberies if people would just be generous enough to give others whatever they asked for.

But for heaven's sake: just because Derec says so, don't take it as fact that all a woman would have to do is to name X as her rapist. That is not the case.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Still, you would be designating somebody as a criminal based entirely on the choice of somebody else, for doing something that would otherwise be completely legal.

Well sure: there would be no rape victims if they would just cooperate and do as they were told!

Not at all the same. In the one case you have somebody doing something (rape) victimizing another. In the other case you've got no action being taken by the guy against anyone, and just a decision being made after the fact declaring the man a criminal. That being said, I don't know if you can or can't relinquish your rights to a child to the state and thereby your obligations. I am just curious if that is so, if it is applied fairly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Please everyone do keep in mind, most divorce, while not happy affairs, never have raised issues like children conceived in rape and custody being sought by the rapist, nor even the practice of alimony. Arguing an anomaly to prove a generalization is a distraction.

that is all.

A law that breaks badly in edge cases is a bad law.

The child support system works pretty well when both parties play nice. It's quite abusable, though. I have heard of some pretty bad problems with alimony, the heart of the problem being the notion that the person who gave up their career is entitled to their current standard of living rather than entitled to what they would have had had they not given up their career.

 

[Toni]

Well sure: there would be no rape victims if they would just cooperate and do as they were told!

Not at all the same. In the one case you have somebody doing something (rape) victimizing another. In the other case you've got no action being taken by the guy against anyone, and just a decision being made after the fact declaring the man a criminal. That being said, I don't know if you can or can't relinquish your rights to a child to the state and thereby your obligations. I am just curious if that is so, if it is applied fairly.

Ah, I see: you are assuming that women just decide to claim that they were raped in order to be able to get an abortion and are willing to name someone as their rapist and even press charges in order to terminate the pregnancy.



As for whether or not the ability to relinquish your rights to a child is fairly applied is a matter of opinion. It is fairly straightforward for a woman to say she wants to give a child up for adoption. For men, it may be more difficulties in locating the bio father, getting him to acknowledge paternity (in some states he might be liable for some support of the mother during pregnancy) or to make a decision. I realize men sometimes have no idea that they are about to become a bio parent and unlike women who have some months to process that information, it can be harder for a man to figure out what he wants to do.

I think there considerable cultural bias that assumes that a bio father who is not in the life of the pregnant woman is uninterested in the child or the child's welfare. While this is often the case, it is certainly not always the case. Some men simply have no idea or the mother effectively kicks them out of her life.


A number of states have registries which men can register their belief that they may be the father of a child by some named woman and therefore are supposed to be notified if the woman wishes to give up a child for adoption. I know that is cumbersome for the father. I am not sure how to get around that issue, actually. The truth is that men often do impregnate women with no intention of causing the pregnancy or being in any way involved with any resulting child. This leaves a woman in limbo if she seeks to terminate and must have the father's permission, to the extent that it is quite possibly medically compromising her own health and well being if there is a delay in obtaining such permission. If the father cannot be located or refuses to either agree to terminate his rights, assume custody and care and responsibility of the child (with the financial aid of the mother) or relinquish parental rights so the child can be adopted and cared for by parents who love him or her, then the child is bearing an unreasonable and unfair burden.

Frankly I believe that the child's needs and rights should supersede the rights and wishes of the parents. It's the duty and responsibility of the bio parents to provide a safe, secure and loving home to the child, even if that means relinquishing parental rights.

In the case of rape, the rapist should have no say, no rights to or over child or mother, no contact. Period. The fact is that most rape cases are not reported to the police and most which are are not prosecuted. There is often heavy pressure on a victim to simply 'let herself/himself heal' instead of 'going through all of that.' I don't think that custody rights should be stripped on one person's say so only but I also think that a guilty verdict should not be required.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Not at all the same. In the one case you have somebody doing something (rape) victimizing another. In the other case you've got no action being taken by the guy against anyone, and just a decision being made after the fact declaring the man a criminal. That being said, I don't know if you can or can't relinquish your rights to a child to the state and thereby your obligations. I am just curious if that is so, if it is applied fairly.

Ah, I see: you are assuming that women just decide to claim that they were raped in order to be able to get an abortion and are willing to name someone as their rapist and even press charges in order to terminate the pregnancy.

Why are you introducing rape into this? You brought up that analogy, and I am telling you it isn't a good one. I was asking nothing about rape scenarios. I am talking about completely consensual sex resulting in a baby.

I think there considerable cultural bias that assumes that a bio father who is not in the life of the pregnant woman is uninterested in the child or the child's welfare. While this is often the case, it is certainly not always the case. Some men simply have no idea or the mother effectively kicks them out of her life.

How does he benefit from the child if he does not have custody or access to the child? I would suggest he does not benefit any more from the child than the rest of society does, and so I see no reason why he should be forced to pay support for the child any more than the rest of us. Perhaps I could be convinced with a good argument for it.

Frankly I believe that the child's needs and rights should supersede the rights and wishes of the parents. It's the duty and responsibility of the bio parents to provide a safe, secure and loving home to the child, even if that means relinquishing parental rights.

And if they relinquish parental rights, can they relinquish parental financial responsibility along with it? That was my question. Can they jointly decide to do so, and walk away together, with no responsibility to the child or access to the child? And if the father tells the mother upon finding out she is pregnant, can he relinquish his rights at that point, and if the mother still has the child, knowing this, then she is solely responsible for the child financially (or with community support)?

 

[Toni]

Ah, I see: you are assuming that women just decide to claim that they were raped in order to be able to get an abortion and are willing to name someone as their rapist and even press charges in order to terminate the pregnancy.

Why are you introducing rape into this? You brought up that analogy, and I am telling you it isn't a good one. I was asking nothing about rape scenarios. I am talking about completely consensual sex resulting in a baby.

I misunderstood. This thread is about requiring permission from the father to get an abortion and the difficulties which might arise if the pregnancy arose from a case of rape.

I think there considerable cultural bias that assumes that a bio father who is not in the life of the pregnant woman is uninterested in the child or the child's welfare. While this is often the case, it is certainly not always the case. Some men simply have no idea or the mother effectively kicks them out of her life.

How does he benefit from the child if he does not have custody or access to the child? I would suggest he does not benefit any more from the child than the rest of society does, and so I see no reason why he should be forced to pay support for the child any more than the rest of us. Perhaps I could be convinced with a good argument for it.

It has nothing to do with how the father or how the mother benefits. It's about how the child benefits. I don't really understand the point of view that a man should only have to pay for a child if he uses the child. A child is not a rental car.

Frankly I believe that the child's needs and rights should supersede the rights and wishes of the parents. It's the duty and responsibility of the bio parents to provide a safe, secure and loving home to the child, even if that means relinquishing parental rights.

And if they relinquish parental rights, can they relinquish parental financial responsibility along with it? That was my question. Can they jointly decide to do so, and walk away together, with no responsibility to the child or access to the child? And if the father tells the mother upon finding out she is pregnant, can he relinquish his rights at that point, and if the mother still has the child, knowing this, then she is solely responsible for the child financially (or with community support)?

At birth or shortly after, it is relatively easy to relinquish parental rights and place a child for adoption. Both parents must agree, in most cases. Parental rights are terminated and neither parent is legally or financially responsible for the child.

For an older child, the situation is much more complicated. Suppose parents decide that their two year old isn't cute anymore. It's not like a puppy: you can't just drop the kid off at a shelter and walk away. Relinquishing parental rights must be approved by courts who aren't usually in any big hurry to do so because it is seen as being against the best interests of the child.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What if he's in his thirties and still living in their basement? That's not cute.

 

[Toni]

What if he's in his thirties and still living in their basement? That's not cute.

Yeah, that's an eviction notice. Whole different process.

 

[Jarhyn]

I never really understood the fucked up view that either parent should suffer having to 'pay for' children. It's expensive and it has only become moreso as society rightfully expects a higher standard of care than it used to. So why is it apt to force the parents to foot ever deepening expenses that society places on parents? I say it's the duty of the community at large to foot those bills. No child should be limited in their ability to thrive by their parents' limitations. This means that no, unwilling fathers shouldn't have to foot that bill all on their own. And mothers who leave the raising of a child to a willing father (however rare this is) should not be expected to foot such a bill either. That the single parent who remains from such an arrangement isn't put out by the other parent's decision.

The problem is that our society is putting upon the poor, by allowing such arrangements as child support or single parenthood to punish people for having children that they can't, won't, or shouldn't be caring for.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

^ I agree completely. Why should parents be solely responsible. I especially wonder this in the case of fathers who didn't even want to have children in the first place, don't get custody, and yet have to pay child support. Women at least have the option of abortion. But even if a woman decides to have the child and later decides she doesn't want it once it is about to be born, she should have the option as well. If we are going to force parents to pay all the costs of raising kids, I think that should at least be tied to the pleasures and emotional connections of having custody; having the children in your life, at the very least.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I never really understood the fucked up view that either parent should suffer having to 'pay for' children. It's expensive and it has only become moreso as society rightfully expects a higher standard of care than it used to. So why is it apt to force the parents to foot ever deepening expenses that society places on parents? I say it's the duty of the community at large to foot those bills. No child should be limited in their ability to thrive by their parents' limitations. This means that no, unwilling fathers shouldn't have to foot that bill all on their own. And mothers who leave the raising of a child to a willing father (however rare this is) should not be expected to foot such a bill either. That the single parent who remains from such an arrangement isn't put out by the other parent's decision.

The problem is that our society is putting upon the poor, by allowing such arrangements as child support or single parenthood to punish people for having children that they can't, won't, or shouldn't be caring for.

You cause the costs, you're responsible for them.

I don't want to be paying for the Drugger's clown car.

 

[Jarhyn]

I never really understood the fucked up view that either parent should suffer having to 'pay for' children. It's expensive and it has only become moreso as society rightfully expects a higher standard of care than it used to. So why is it apt to force the parents to foot ever deepening expenses that society places on parents? I say it's the duty of the community at large to foot those bills. No child should be limited in their ability to thrive by their parents' limitations. This means that no, unwilling fathers shouldn't have to foot that bill all on their own. And mothers who leave the raising of a child to a willing father (however rare this is) should not be expected to foot such a bill either. That the single parent who remains from such an arrangement isn't put out by the other parent's decision.

The problem is that our society is putting upon the poor, by allowing such arrangements as child support or single parenthood to punish people for having children that they can't, won't, or shouldn't be caring for.

You cause the costs, you're responsible for them.

I don't want to be paying for the Drugger's clown car.

In other words: punish the children for the sins of the parents. If you do not actually support such evil, then instead of seeking to punish kids for the poverty of their parents, we can insist that all children must be raised by people of means. And that if you have means, you must raise children. That would also be acceptable, though not as much so as the community at large paying for that support, because we could always use more minds.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You cause the costs, you're responsible for them.

I don't want to be paying for the Drugger's clown car.

In other words: punish the children for the sins of the parents. If you do not actually support such evil, then instead of seeking to punish kids for the poverty of their parents, we can insist that all children must be raised by people of means. And that if you have means, you must raise children. That would also be acceptable, though not as much so as the community at large paying for that support, because we could always use more minds.

The state should step in and help if the parents can't provide but the first source of support should be the parents.

 

[bilby]

In other words: punish the children for the sins of the parents. If you do not actually support such evil, then instead of seeking to punish kids for the poverty of their parents, we can insist that all children must be raised by people of means. And that if you have means, you must raise children. That would also be acceptable, though not as much so as the community at large paying for that support, because we could always use more minds.

The state should step in and help if the parents can't provide but the first source of support should be the parents.

Because...?