or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › voluntary termination of parental rights
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

voluntary termination of parental rights - Page 2

post #21 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AttunedMama View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by minitruckrazy View Post

He is simply looking into what his options are. 

 

No, YOU are looking into what his 'options' are. I like men and think they are worth supporting, but that's not this. This is...something else. I don't think this thread should stay here, It's not about 'single parenting' IMO.

  


 



I feel this is not about "single parenting" as well. Any chance the moderators can move it on over to PaP or some other more appropriate area?

post #22 of 190

 

OP, I'm finding this thread a little confusing, as I think there are a bunch of posts missing at the beginning? But I get the general gist of your question.

 

ANYHOW. I am in the extreme minority on the board in believing that children born to unmarried women should have ONE legal parent, and that men who impregnate women other than their wives are not entitled to paternal rights and should not have paternal responsibilities. That's my strong opinion on the subject. 

 

But the current legal reality is that the guy who contributes the sperm is the father, and it doesn't matter what the mother did or didn't do in the course of the conception. If your fiance's ex has taken state aid, then they will attempt to track him down and make him pay even if she begs them not to. What happens next really, truly, has nothing to do with this woman or her behavior. It doesn't matter if she's Mother Theresa or Heidi Fleiss. Your fiance is going to have to pay back his share of the debt she has incurred in supporting their child. (If she was NOT ever on state aid, or if she had not named him as the father, then yes, there would be a possibility that he would never have to pay support. She could choose not to pursue him. But this is not the situation you are dealing with.)

 

In your shoes, I would not tie myself to a man who owed an unspecified amount in back child support. You do not want to see money that you can't do without leaving your household every month to support another woman's child. You don't have to decide today - you can hang around and see how the court case shakes out and what the actual monetary commitment is going to be - but for the love of Bob, don't get pg with or married to a man whose resources are already committed elsewhere until you know the exact amount of the commitment and he has a plan for meeting it while also being a provider in YOUR home. 

post #23 of 190

That's weird, the OP is missing.

post #24 of 190

Can you explain further? What helped you to form this opinion? I can't see this as anything but some sort of "punishment" on a single woman who dared to have sex, but really it's the child and the taxpayers who are punished.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post


ANYHOW. I am in the extreme minority on the board in believing that children born to unmarried women should have ONE legal parent, and that men who impregnate women other than their wives are not entitled to paternal rights and should not have paternal responsibilities. That's my strong opinion on the subject. 

post #25 of 190

 

Three reasons:

 

1. In our society, women are the ones who decide whether or not a pregnancy results in a baby. Since we're not content with less than 100% of the power in that choice, then we need to be willing to shoulder 100% of the responsibility unless there is a legally binding contract with a man who wants to be the father of our children. Tab A into Slot B in the parking lot of a K$sha concert should not constitute a contract. (And for all those babies conceived NOT by casual sex, but but sex in the context of a relationship - well, babies don't show up overnight. People have time to get their acts together and decide to form a family, or decide to part ways if parenthood is not desired by both.) 

 

2. I really, truly believe that a deadbeat dad is worse than no dad, that visitation with a parent who wishes you'd never been born is a cruel thing to put a child through, and that society better serves the children of single parents by assisting with their bills, rather than tracking down losers and reminding/notifying them of the existence of kids who carry their genes. A guy who maintains from the get-go that he doesn't want to be a father is a guy who SHOULD NOT BE A FATHER. 

 

3. I really, truly believe that the identity of a single woman's previous sexual partners is private information, to divulge or not divulge at her discretion. A pregnant woman who realizes that babydaddy is bad news should have the right to extract herself from the situation and be the sole legal parent. The way it works now, poor women have a hard time maintaining their privacy because the state is looking for paychecks to garnish, but women who can support themselves can and do walk away from relationship situations that they don't want a child born into. Every woman should have that right.  

post #26 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

 

Three reasons:

 

1. In our society, women are the ones who decide whether or not a pregnancy results in a baby. Since we're not content with less than 100% of the power in that choice, then we need to be willing to shoulder 100% of the responsibility unless there is a legally binding contract with a man who wants to be the father of our children. Tab A into Slot B in the parking lot of a K$sha concert should not constitute a contract. (And for all those babies conceived NOT by casual sex, but but sex in the context of a relationship - well, babies don't show up overnight. People have time to get their acts together and decide to form a family, or decide to part ways if parenthood is not desired by both.) 

 

But both people are responsible for that baby actually being in the woman's womb.  And with the republicans chipping away at the right to an abortion every day they are harder to access (unless a woman has the means).  This right being chipped away at means that its the womans, and the legislatures choice - women shouldn't be held captive by the legislature.  And men should be responsible for the things they create.  You could say that men are on constructive notice that any sperm they shoot into someone may result in a huge financial obligation in the future.  And lets not forget that with responsibility comes rights - parental rights are strong, and hard to get rid of.

 

2. I really, truly believe that a deadbeat dad is worse than no dad, that visitation with a parent who wishes you'd never been born is a cruel thing to put a child through, and that society better serves the children of single parents by assisting with their bills, rather than tracking down losers and reminding/notifying them of the existence of kids who carry their genes. A guy who maintains from the get-go that he doesn't want to be a father is a guy who SHOULD NOT BE A FATHER. 

 

Dad's are not forced to take visitation.  They don't have to have visitation - if they want it they can get it unless there are major major reasons not to give it.  But a dad who sincerely hates his child does not have to see them - even if he is required to pay for them.  I agree that the system should help single mothers with paying their bills and whatnot, but when a state goes after child support they don't kick the woman off state assistance if they can't find the father.  The mother is also not compelled to file her own claim - the state does it for her, and I'm not even sure her whereabouts are disclosed.  In regards to the last sentence, a man who doesn't want to be a father shouldn't have sex with random women, or with anyone whose fertile for that matter.

 

3. I really, truly believe that the identity of a single woman's previous sexual partners is private information, to divulge or not divulge at her discretion. A pregnant woman who realizes that babydaddy is bad news should have the right to extract herself from the situation and be the sole legal parent. The way it works now, poor women have a hard time maintaining their privacy because the state is looking for paychecks to garnish, but women who can support themselves can and do walk away from relationship situations that they don't want a child born into. Every woman should have that right.  


Yes, it is mostly a burden on poor women.  However, just b/c a rich woman, or well off woman doesn't want her child to have anything to do with the father doesn't mean that happens - men can sue for paternity as well and if a man wants a paternity test they can go to court and have one ordered.  The woman would have to comply (or face consequences of being in contempt of court), and if the paternity test showed paternity, the man would be able to seek visitation and a relationship. 

 

I also disagree that women should be able to just "walk away" - women should also be held responsible for choices that they make, just like men.  In the end, none of this is about the man, or the woman, its about the CHILD.  Legally, the child is entitled to being supported by BOTH the mother and the father.

 

I also tend to think that not allowing women to seek child support in an out of wedlock situation (which is what you are saying would be preferable) ALSO penalizes the poor.  Child care is expensive.  There is a gap between who qualifies for public assistance, and who doesn't, and that who also cannot afford childcare without support.  One way of getting that support is by being able to file for child support.  BOTH parties should be held responsible for their actions - neither should get off just b/c the other party didn't do what they wanted them to.

post #27 of 190

I would say to see a lawyer, there are groups that offer significant discounts to low or moderate income people if you qualify. That being said, I highly doubt that one could avoid paying child support without the other parent's consent. I would also say that terminating parental rights is a pretty serious thing to do, and one that I would think has a high probability of being regretted down the road in this case. If the mother seemed like a great person, or if the baby was being adopted by a nice, stable family that would be one thing. This woman sounds deranged. Is your fiance really absolutely positive that down the road he won't hear that things are really awful for this child and want to intervene? It's a tough call, I hope you and he can find some peace with the whole situation.

post #28 of 190

 

I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. I don't think that the role of an unmarried man and woman in the creation of a child is remotely comparable, so I don't think they should have equal rights to or responsibilities for any children born to the woman. That's the fundamental premise that I start from, and I realize that it's an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. 

post #29 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post

 

I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. I don't think that the role of an unmarried man and woman in the creation of a child is remotely comparable, so I don't think they should have equal rights to or responsibilities for any children born to the woman. That's the fundamental premise that I start from, and I realize that it's an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. 


Then we disagree on this too.  I don't think its remotely reasonable to tell men that they should be able to have sex with as many women as they want, and not have to deal with any of the responsibilities of what comes of having sex (children, mostly).

post #30 of 190

Just to make certain this is what you mean, Smithie, as a woman who got pregnant and whose boyfriend took off after I moved out from his apartment, it was his right to choose to walk away and leave me to figure out how to support our son?  It has been his right to not pay any child support for 15 years by working under the table and moving constantly? 

 

Do your thoughts on this change when it was him who lied and told me he had been tested and he was shooting blanks so there was no way I could get pregnant (yes, I was naive but I had minimal sex education and no parental involvement in my life)?

 

How about if I tell you that he was abusive?

 

How about if I tell you I was 16 and he was 29? 

 

In what instance do you say that a man should take responsibility for a child he created, even if it is outside of the institution of marriage?

 

As a 16 year old, I was unable to pay for an abortion by myself.  I had no insurance, I had no job skills, I had no diploma or GED, I had no place to live for much of my pregnancy.  Adoption wasn't an option for me as I knew my family would step in and try to raise the child which would have been a horrible thing for the child.  So, options were scarce.  Yes, in an ideal society there would have been help for me and I wouldn't have needed his assistance but we do not live in an ideal society.

 

And all of this was my responsibility to deal with but not his simply because he is male?

 

In addition, what about the instances where the male holds all the power in the relationship?  What about when you are in a relationship with a male who promises to love and support you and then decides after the baby is born that he really doesn't want to be a father?  You would really argue that it is therefor a woman's responsibility?

post #31 of 190

A child is 50% their mother and 50% their father, without both parties they would cease to exist.

After getting pregnant a woman has the choice wether to become a mother or not. A man however, has no choice. The women chooses wether he will be a father or not. He cannot save his child if the mother chooses to terminate the pregnancy and he is legally bound to pay for his child even if he does not want it. 

Personally I don't find this fair.

However, once the child is born whats in the best interest of the child must be done. I believe child support is in the best interest of the child and that the father has a right to be a part of his child life. 

 

I dont think we can place blame solely on careless men. I have two friends who told the men they slept with that they were on birth control when one had skipped it for the past week and the other had started it that day, they both ended up pregnant. Both my friends chose to become mothers. 

One father pays child support and is part of his childs life.

My other friend had the father sign over parental rights. She is a single mother with sole legal rights and no child support.

post #32 of 190


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianneW View Post

 

I have two friends who told the men they slept with that they were on birth control when one had skipped it for the past week and the other had started it that day, they both ended up pregnant. 

 

Why does that make his sperm NOT responsible for the creation of the baby? If he told me he'd love me forever and then didn't, does that make the baby not come out of my vagina? I will never understand this whole 'free pass' out of responsibility that dudes want to take..."She said she was on birth control". It makes me sick

 

post #33 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AttunedMama View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianneW View Post

 

I have two friends who told the men they slept with that they were on birth control when one had skipped it for the past week and the other had started it that day, they both ended up pregnant. 

 

Why does that make his sperm NOT responsible for the creation of the baby? If he told me he'd love me forever and then didn't, does that make the baby not come out of my vagina? I will never understand this whole 'free pass' out of responsibility that dudes want to take..."She said she was on birth control". It makes me sick

 


BC is not, and has never, been 100% effective - ALL MEN KNOW THIS.  If they don't, well, they're not people I'd want to be having sex with.  The ONLY proven method of BC that is 100% effective is abstinence.

 

Vasectomies reverse, BC fails, condoms break, etc.  I guess a hysterectomy would be 100% effective, but, uh, the man better be looking for a cervix if he's going to believe that one.

post #34 of 190

I never said he wanted a free pass. He wanted his child and was scared to death that she would decide to terminate the pregnancy. 

My point was that women get to choose wether a man becomes a father. She could have decided to terminate the pregnancy and he would have had no say in the matter even though he helped create the child and wanted it.

post #35 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianneW View Post

I never said he wanted a free pass. He wanted his child and was scared to death that she would decide to terminate the pregnancy. 

My point was that women get to choose wether a man becomes a father. She could have decided to terminate the pregnancy and he would have had no say in the matter even though he helped create the child and wanted it.



If men don't want to be fathers they shouldn't have sex, until and unless they know that they are shooting blanks.

 

Basically I disagree with Smithie b/c it seems she wants to punish women who have sex before marriage, but thinks that men should be able to with no repercussions whatsoever.  The double standard is nauseating.

post #36 of 190

 

"In what instance do you say that a man should take responsibility for a child he created, even if it is outside of the institution of marriage?"

 

There is no instance in which I believe that a man should have legal rights to or responsibilities for a child conceived by a woman other than his wife. He's not a family member. He's not a father. He's a guy who ejaculated, under what circumstances I do not know and do not care, except to want to prosecute rapists. There is, alas, no effective way to prosecute liars and manipulators of either sex. 

 

Again, I understand this is a point of profound disagreement among thoughtful, pro-woman, pro-child folks, and I have no desire to fight about it. It's like fighting about abortion - there are some fundamental issues on which good people are destined to always disagree, and it's more productive to find ways of helping vulnerable families that both sides can wholeheartedly endorse. So, how's that universal health care coming along? thumb.gif

 

post #37 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianneW View Post

My other friend had the father sign over parental rights. She is a single mother with sole legal rights and no child support.



Also, in most states, unless there is another person who wants to adopt the child, a man cannot sign over his rights.  He can say he doesn't want custody or visitation, and she can decide not to pursue support, but if she ever goes on welfare, the state can go knocking on his door.

post #38 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smithie View Post


Again, I understand this is a point of profound disagreement among thoughtful, pro-woman, pro-child folks, and I have no desire to fight about it. It's like fighting about abortion - there are some fundamental issues on which good people are destined to always disagree, and it's more productive to find ways of helping vulnerable families that both sides can wholeheartedly endorse. So, how's that universal health care coming along? thumb.gif

 



Making it impossible for a woman to support her family after a man decides he doesn't want to take responsibility, IS NOT pro-woman.  Period.  Nor is it Pro-Child.  Period.

post #39 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianneW View Post

I never said he wanted a free pass. He wanted his child and was scared to death that she would decide to terminate the pregnancy. 

My point was that women get to choose wether a man becomes a father. She could have decided to terminate the pregnancy and he would have had no say in the matter even though he helped create the child and wanted it.


His role in choosing is in regards to where he puts his sperm. That is when he has choice. Tons and tons and tons of choice.

post #40 of 190

 

You are entitled to your opinion. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › voluntary termination of parental rights