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

[Derec]

What I am certain of is that if the mother wishes to give up the baby for adoption, the father can claim custody and can also go after the mother for child support.

Citation needed.

While I think it should be the case that if the bio father raped the mother that the rapist bio father would have neither claim to the child nor claim to any support or visitation or any rights whatsoever aside from the usual rights afforded inmates in correctional institutions, I am not at all certain this is how it works in all states.

What evidence of this alleged "rape" should be required in your opinion? Because feminists who want to impose these "rape visitation restrictions" want them to kick in well short of an actual conviction (and in many states they do). Also they are only concerned with male offenders and never talk of women who not only get full custody but also have their victims pay them child support.

 

[Toni]

Citation needed.

While I think it should be the case that if the bio father raped the mother that the rapist bio father would have neither claim to the child nor claim to any support or visitation or any rights whatsoever aside from the usual rights afforded inmates in correctional institutions, I am not at all certain this is how it works in all states.

What evidence of this alleged "rape" should be required in your opinion? Because feminists who want to impose these "rape visitation restrictions" want them to kick in well short of an actual conviction (and in many states they do). Also they are only concerned with male offenders and never talk of women who not only get full custody but also have their victims pay them child support.

Citation needed.

 

[Derec]

Citation needed.

I did provide a link which is more than can be said for your claim.

 

[Toni]

Citation needed.

I did provide a link which is more than can be said for your claim.

You mean the link which outlined how rapists sometimes sue for custody as a tactic to get their victims to drop rape charges? THAT link? It doesn't show what you think it does.

I think you can google for yourself the individual state laws regarding custody, like I did. The bio father has to establish paternity, usually within a limited time window. BTW, this is not done for the benefit of the woman but of the child.

 

[Derec]

You mean the link which outlined how rapists sometimes sue for custody as a tactic to get their victims to drop rape charges? THAT link? It doesn't show what you think it does.

It shows that feminists (like those at MJ) advocate for barring accused male rapists from even having visitation rights without a conviction. It also shows that many states already allow women to bar fathers from visitation even when there is no conviction. Of course, that is ripe for abuse - don't want baby daddy to have visitation rights? Accuse him of rape.

BTW, this is not done for the benefit of the woman but of the child.

That's the claim but the theoretical "benefit of the child" usually coincides with a very concrete and monetary "benefit of the woman". Giving the ex-wife the big-ass house but requiring the ex-husband to pay the mortgage? "Benefit of the child", allegedly. In reality BS that merely allows the woman to rob her ex blind.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm not an expert in DNA or anything like that but how does one prove that the person that signed the release is actually the father? "Hey wino (outside the courthouse), here's twenty bucks to sign a document."

It's the other way around, signing the document means you certify you think you are the father. I'm pretty sure such a document could be used to prove acceptance of fatherhood from the part of the man, if the woman decided not to go through with the abortion. This only has to happen once, and afterwards very few men would sign such a document. It's a plot to essentially outlaw abortions.

 

[Derec]

It's the other way around, signing the document means you certify you think you are the father. I'm pretty sure such a document could be used to prove acceptance of fatherhood from the part of the man, if the woman decided not to go through with the abortion. This only has to happen once, and afterwards very few men would sign such a document. It's a plot to essentially outlaw abortions.

Given that husbands of cheating wives are being forced to pay child support even when DNA tests prove their innocence that is unfortunately not so far-fetched.

 

[Barbarian]

It's the other way around, signing the document means you certify you think you are the father. I'm pretty sure such a document could be used to prove acceptance of fatherhood from the part of the man, if the woman decided not to go through with the abortion. This only has to happen once, and afterwards very few men would sign such a document. It's a plot to essentially outlaw abortions.

Given that husbands of cheating wives are being forced to pay child support even when DNA tests prove their innocence that is unfortunately not so far-fetched.

Except in this case it's not about trapping the father, it's about preventing abortions and thus - hopefully, from their PoV - restricting everyone's access to free sex, because if their own sexuality is fubar by their religion/culture/ideology, then no one should enjoy it.

 

[Toni]

It shows that feminists (like those at MJ) advocate for barring accused male rapists from even having visitation rights without a conviction. It also shows that many states already allow women to bar fathers from visitation even when there is no conviction. Of course, that is ripe for abuse - don't want baby daddy to have visitation rights? Accuse him of rape.

So you can show that women accuse men of rape to keep them from having visitation? Or is this just something from your overactive imagination. The article you linked shows men using threats of suing for custody as a way to squelch legal charges against them.

BTW, I loooooove the way you overgeneralize from 'feminists like those at Mother Jones' to all feminists. Particularly since your example doesn't show what you claim it does about even writers for MJ.

BTW, this is not done for the benefit of the woman but of the child.

That's the claim but the theoretical "benefit of the child" usually coincides with a very concrete and monetary "benefit of the woman". Giving the ex-wife the big-ass house but requiring the ex-husband to pay the mortgage? "Benefit of the child", allegedly. In reality BS that merely allows the woman to rob her ex blind.

Yep, still have zero idea about what the laws regarding division of marital property, child support and other issues in family court mean. Ah, Consistency! Thy name is Derec!

 

[Derec]

So you can show that women accuse men of rape to keep them from having visitation?

How would you ever prove that? But since the mechanism is there, there will be some who unscrupulously take advantage of it. Especially if she lives in the state where mere "preponderance of evidence" is required to strip him of parental rights and she faces no consequences if she lies.

Or is this just something from your overactive imagination. The article you linked shows men using threats of suing for custody as a way to squelch legal charges against them.

If the woman was really raped she should pursue criminal charges against her assailant. Demanding that states strip him of all parental rights without him being found guilty of rape is beyond the pale.

Yep, still have zero idea about what the laws regarding division of marital property, child support and other issues in family court mean. Ah, Consistency! Thy name is Derec!

I know that the woman can get at least 50% of the guy's assets plus monthly alimony, in some states forever. And if a man can't pay, he goes to jail.
\

 

[Playball40]

It shows that feminists (like those at MJ) advocate for barring accused male rapists from even having visitation rights without a conviction. It also shows that many states already allow women to bar fathers from visitation even when there is no conviction. Of course, that is ripe for abuse - don't want baby daddy to have visitation rights? Accuse him of rape.

BTW, this is not done for the benefit of the woman but of the child.

That's the claim but the theoretical "benefit of the child" usually coincides with a very concrete and monetary "benefit of the woman". Giving the ex-wife the big-ass house but requiring the ex-husband to pay the mortgage? "Benefit of the child", allegedly. In reality BS that merely allows the woman to rob her ex blind.

This post is nonsense. Please show me a verifiable case wherein the woman claimed rape in order to prevent visitation. Just one. 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". 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. Oh and if the man has primary custody, he typically gets the house.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And if this is done, can she give it up to the state and thereby end any financial obligation for support? If not, why not? And if so, why can't the father?

Actually, I am not certain that Playball40 is correct about it being sufficient to post in the newspaper before relinquishing baby for adoption.

What I am certain of is that if the mother wishes to give up the baby for adoption, the father can claim custody and can also go after the mother for child support. While I think it should be the case that if the bio father raped the mother that the rapist bio father would have neither claim to the child nor claim to any support or visitation or any rights whatsoever aside from the usual rights afforded inmates in correctional institutions, I am not at all certain this is how it works in all states.

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.

 

[bilby]

How would you ever prove that? But since the mechanism is there, there will be some who unscrupulously take advantage of it. Especially if she lives in the state where mere "preponderance of evidence" is required to strip him of parental rights and she faces no consequences if she lies.

Or is this just something from your overactive imagination. The article you linked shows men using threats of suing for custody as a way to squelch legal charges against them.

If the woman was really raped she should pursue criminal charges against her assailant. Demanding that states strip him of all parental rights without him being found guilty of rape is beyond the pale.

Yep, still have zero idea about what the laws regarding division of marital property, child support and other issues in family court mean. Ah, Consistency! Thy name is Derec!

I know that the woman can get at least 50% of the guy's assets plus monthly alimony, in some states forever. And if a man can't pay, he goes to jail.
\

The child gets that stuff.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Emily Lake]

I know that the woman can get at least 50% of the guy's assets plus monthly alimony, in some states forever. And if a man can't pay, he goes to jail.

Derec, you should read the whole article before you link to it as evidence. That article is referencing a guy who has gone to jail for failure to pay his alimony... but it's pointing out how outdated the rules are for those cases, and highlighting new laws that are being proposed so that cases like that don't happen. Lawmakers recognize that it's not justice... but it IS the law.

In states such as New Jersey, Connecticut and Florida where divorce laws are based on century-old notions of what an ex-spouse deserves, laws are being proposed to limit alimony in recognition of wives’ earning power and the changed economic circumstances husbands can face.

 

[Derec]

Derec, you should read the whole article before you link to it as evidence. That article is referencing a guy who has gone to jail for failure to pay his alimony... but it's pointing out how outdated the rules are for those cases, and highlighting new laws that are being proposed so that cases like that don't happen. Lawmakers recognize that it's not justice... but it IS the law.

And it's the feminists like Wendy Murphy who are fighting against reforming these laws.

 

[Toni]

Actually, I am not certain that Playball40 is correct about it being sufficient to post in the newspaper before relinquishing baby for adoption.

What I am certain of is that if the mother wishes to give up the baby for adoption, the father can claim custody and can also go after the mother for child support. While I think it should be the case that if the bio father raped the mother that the rapist bio father would have neither claim to the child nor claim to any support or visitation or any rights whatsoever aside from the usual rights afforded inmates in correctional institutions, I am not at all certain this is how it works in all states.

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.

 

[Emily Lake]

Derec, you should read the whole article before you link to it as evidence. That article is referencing a guy who has gone to jail for failure to pay his alimony... but it's pointing out how outdated the rules are for those cases, and highlighting new laws that are being proposed so that cases like that don't happen. Lawmakers recognize that it's not justice... but it IS the law.

And it's the feminists like Wendy Murphy who are fighting against reforming these laws.

Regardless, your evidence wasn't very good evidence of the pint you were attempting to make.

 

[Derec]

Regardless, your evidence wasn't very good evidence of the pint you were attempting to make.

It was an example of draconian alimony laws.

 

[Toni]

And it's the feminists like Wendy Murphy who are fighting against reforming these laws.

Regardless, your evidence wasn't very good evidence of the pint you were attempting to make.

No it's not.

 

[Derec]

The child gets that stuff.

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.